:^f^ :,:. MM^r

J.^lA1.^l,l.lAI.^^',^^^^l,'X!X^^^^M,M,l,l,!,^^^,^l,^l,^l,^l.^l,^1,T,I,',l.',l,'.l,'.l,'X!X!J:

YALE UNIVERSITY
librarg ofthe ©toinitg School
GIFT OF
Douglas dlgdc JWacintoBh
DWIGHT PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY
DWIGHT PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY AND
PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION
1916-1942 |
,,,l.|...ivi.|.|.|.ivi.i  iwwi...|.|.|.|.ivi.|.|.iwiu.iwi'|.|'»  gmmm 

putotm ^Religious pvoUtm$
EDITED BY
AMBROSE WHITE VERNON

THE FOUNDING OF
THE CHURCH

BY

BENJAMIN WISNER BACON, DD., LL.D
BUCKINGHAM PROFESSOR OF NEW TESTAMENT
CRITICISM AND INTERPRETATION
IN YALE UNIVERSITY

THE PILGRIM PRESS
BOSTON • NEW YORK • CHICAGO

COPYRIGHT, I9O9, BY BENJAMIN WISNER BACON
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

CONTENTS
I. When was the Church founded? i
II. Peter the Foundation Rock 25
III. The Confession of Jesus as Lord 47
IV. Baptism and the Breaking of Bread 64

THE FOUNDING OF THE
CHURCH I
WHEN WAS THE CHURCH FOUNDED?
Does Christianity consist of the gospel
preached by Jesus; or of the gospel
preached about Jesus ? The religious world
of to-day is hotly debating this question,
under such captions as "Jesus, or Paul?"
"The Gospel of Peter, or the Gospel of
Paul? " Much depends on the answer; and
a satisfying answer is not easy. Jesus
brought new light and hope to the reli
giously disinherited man by stripping re
ligion of its artificialities and non-essentials,
and reducing it to ultimate simplicity — the
filial relation toward God, the brotherly
relation toward man. This one principle

THE FOUNDING OF THE CHURCH
involved everything vital in the whole realm
of duty and destiny. Its " easy yoke " was
glad tidings to men heavy laden with the
legalism of the scribes. Its filial confidence
in a Father in heaven was " rest to the soul "
for men obsessed with priestcraft and
magic. Jesus perished as the champion of
the plain men — the wage-earners, to whose
class he belonged, the fishermen of Galilee,
the " publicans and sinners " who followed
and trusted him; of the plain man's " right
to be called a son of God." He was dubbed
by the orthodox "a friend of publicans
and sinners," and he was crucified in the
attempt to vindicate for the common peo
ple the full right of " sons " on the terms,
and only on the terms, which the Father
himself prescribes in the eternally living law
" written on fleshly tables of the heart." '
1 Matt, n : 25-30. The knowing and being known of God
as sons should be understood in the light of Paul's use of
the same phraseology, Gal. 4 : 6-9 ; I Cor. 1 : 20-21. Cf. also
II Tim. 2 : 19. 2

WHEN WAS THE CHURCH FOUNDED?
The battle was fought in the arena of
Judaism. Its issues were drawn between
the petty sects and cliques and castes of that
race, which but for its religious genius
and literature would be rated only as one of
the lesser peoples of Syria. If Jesus ever
thought of it as concerning all humanity in
its issues, save as humanity might become
a penumbra — an adjunct — of the Jewish
empire to which the nation then looked
forward, it certainly was not till after his
death that his disciples extended their view
to this broader horizon.1 Even then it was
only after a struggle that threatened to dis
rupt the brotherhood, that the last limita
tions of a nationalistic view were broken
down, and Christianity became " a world
religion." This was the work of Paul.
1 The Gospel of Matthew still remains nationalistic.
Matt. 7:6; 10 : S, 6, 23 ; 15 : 24. Its universalism (28 : 19, 20)
must be understood in consonance with these earlier pas
sages.

THE FOUNDING OF THE CHURCH
Jesus had no idea of founding a new re
ligion. The religion of his fathers, of Moses
and the prophets, was to him the absolute
religion. Only he saw in it the one deep
living principle of divine fatherhood as
that on which all the law and the prophets
depended. All which interfered with that
was " precepts and doctrines of men." He
heard the Pharisee and his " blind leader,"
the scribe, quote from their book-divinity :
" Come ye out from among them, and be
ye separate,1 and touch no unclean thing :
and I will receive you and will be to you
a Father, and ye shall be to me sons and
daughters, saith the Lord Almighty." And
over against this book-religion of precept
and ceremonial he dared to set another will
of the living God, a God accessible to the
pure in heart. He assured those who imi
tated the loving-kindness of the All-merci
ful that they should be " sons and daughters
1 The literal meaning of the word "Pharisee."

WHEN WAS THE CHURCH FOUNDED?
of the Highest." ' This was Jesus' religion,
his idea of duty and destiny. He did not
inquire whether a science of comparative
religion would trace the same deep prin
ciple in Greek poets and Oriental sages.
Those who preached his gospel to the Gen
tiles did that. He did find it at the heart of
" the law and the prophets."
Jesus' death was a catastrophe which
forced upon his followers this inevitable
alternative : either return to the synagogue
in shamed acknowledgment of defeat and
error; or else, loyal adherence to the old
Leader and to his gospel in spite of all. God
gave them power to choose right. Miracu
lously or otherwise, their eyes were opened
to see that the victory had not been with
scribes and priests, but with the champion
of the plain man. Jesus' faith in God had
proved a victory to overcome the world.
They clung to him. They believed in him,
1 With II Cor. 6 : 17-18, cf. Matt. 5:8; 43-45.
5

THE FOUNDING OF THE CHURCH
not only as the Son of God, but as the ex
pected Son of man, the Judge of the world.
Shortly after, the very leader of the reaction
against them, the organizer of persecution
against those who had dared to defy legal
ism and to proclaim forgiveness and the
rights of " sonship " in the name of Jesus,
— Saul of Tarsus, the man who represented
the very incarnation of that sophisticated
religiosity that had crucified Jesus, — was
suddenly transformed into his most ardent,
most devoted advocate. Paul took up the
cause of the Leader of the Galileans because
he had seen him in vision, a vision which
recalls the apostrophe of his victim Stephen
to the coming Judge. Paul does not seem
to have ever laid eyes upon Jesus in the
flesh; but he made Jesus' cause the cause of
humanity. A zealot for the law, he pro
claimed Jesus the champion of those with
out the law; as Judge indeed, but most of
all as God-sent Redeemer. More than that,
6

WHEN WAS THE CHURCH FOUNDED?
Paul claimed it as a new and special revela
tion to himself that this redemption applied
to " sinners of the Gentiles " as well as to
" sinners " of the sons of Abraham.
This new "gospel of the uncircumci
sion" was the immediate fruit of Paul's
own distinctive, personal experience. God
had taught him in the most heart-search
ing soul-struggle of which man can be
capable, by " manifesting his son in " him,
that the redemption of man as such, as son
of Adam, as heir to the universal strug
gle against a " law of sin and death in the
members, warring against the law of the
mind," finds its solution in Jesus' principle
of faith. The revelation of Jesus as a glori
fied second Adam, "the Lord from heaven,"
was God's own endorsement. This gospel
about Christ became to Paul "the power
of God unto salvation to every one that
trusteth, to the Jew first, but also to the
Greek." 7

THE FOUNDING OF THE CHURCH
Which, then, is " the " gospel ? Is it that
proclaimed on the Mount of Beatitudes; or
that proclaimed on Mars' Hill ? " Is it the
Way of faith which Jesus taught and ex
emplified ? Or is it an embassage of recon
ciliation from God, resting on the demon
stration of the Spirit and of power — mi
raculous or otherwise — by which God then
indorsed, and still indorses, the teaching of
his " Son " ? 2 Is it the simplicity of absolute
religion as God reveals it to " babes " which
Jesus taught and vindicated ? Or is it the
doctrine that Jesus himself has been mani
fested with power as the Son of God, by
the resurrection from the dead ? Those who
had known Christ after the flesh, of whom
Peter is the great representative, naturally
emphasized more what Jesus had done and
taught. But however self-evidencing that
1 Cf. Matt. 5 : 44, 45, with Acts 17 : 30, 31.
2 What Hegel called " the representation of the divine
idea in Jesus' life and fate." 8

WHEN WAS THE CHURCH FOUNDED?
gospel may be to us, to the Galilean
apostles, as well as to Paul, the "new
law " derived its authority from the mirac
ulous indorsement of divine power which
had accompanied it. The starting-point in
both cases was the Resurrection.1 Paul,
who, if he had " known a Christ after the
flesh, yet now would know him so no
more," centres everything on the signifi
cance of the Cross and the Resurrection.
" God commendeth his love toward us, in
that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died
for us." This drama of God's enacting,
summed up in the words, "Christ that
died, yea rather that was raised from the
dead," eclipses all else in its light. It is a
message of glad tidings to every victim of
the Adamic curse of sin and death. This
gospel about Jesus is also everlastingly
self-verifiable to every man by the simple
exercise of trust in the love which sent it.
1 I Cor. 15: 1-11.
9

THE FOUNDING OF THE CHURCH
God sends in Jesus' name to " those who
are yet weak" the Spirit, which is life,
power, adoption, sanctification. The sign
of apostleship is power.1
Surely neither gospel is complete with
out the other. Jesus taught the Way; he
was it, both by revealing the truth and by
conveying the life. But the ultimate test
question is whether men do now " cqpie to
the Father by" him. The demonstration
of the Spirit and of power, from Pentecost
to the last redeemed waif of New York's
slums, is the present-day, living gospel,
without which even the teaching of Jesus
is only a teaching of the past.
And if there are two aspects of the gos
pel, so there are also two ways of conceiv
ing the founding of the Church. "Other
foundation can no man lay than that is
laid, which is Jesus Christ." And yet it is
1 II Cor. 12 : 12 ; Gal. 2 : 7-9 ; Luke 24 : 49 ; Mark 16 :
15-18,20; Heb. 2:3,4. IO

WHEN WAS THE CHURCH FOUNDED?
certain that Jesus had no idea of founding
what we mean by the Church. He expected
the "little flock" that he had gathered
around him to endure as such, but only till
the Father's purpose "to give them the
kingdom" was fulfilled; and this he ex
pected before the passing of that generation.
He did not expect them to go out of Israel.
He expected Israel, after a period of re
jection, to yield to their plea — or else be
destroyed. Most scholars still maintain, in spite of
critical opposition, that in the last weeks
of his life, at first only to his intimates,
and under strict pledge of secrecy, Jesus
assumed the role of Messiah, " the king of
Israel."1 All, of every shade of opinion,
will admit that if the title Messiah was
assumed at all, it was in a sense which to
his contemporaries would seem figurative.
We believe it to have been assumed; but
1 John i : 49.
1 1

THE FOUNDING OF THE CHURCH
in a purely ethical -religious sense, an older
sense than the monarchical.
Israel was to be God's "son." That was
the essence of the Messianic hope, a hope
which antedates the monarchy. " Sonship "
was the ideal to which Jesus sought to lead.
If "Messiah" could be made to mean " He
who brings Israel into the relation of sons
to their father," Jesus could welcome the
title with all its dangers. As "the"1 son
he knew the Father, and could reveal him
by far better right than the most learned
scribe of unfilial spirit. On behalf of all
the disinherited he must claim to the full
the rights of a " son of the Highest." But the
only title on which he permits the claim to
be rested is ethical, — participation in the
nature and disposition of the All-merciful.
Whosoever would do the will revealed in
1 The article in Matt, n : 27 is generic, as in John 8 : 35,
" the bond servant abideth not in the house forever, but
the son abideth forever." The use of a capital S is mislead
ing. 12

WHEN WAS THE CHURCH FOUNDED?
this Father's goodness, he welcomed as a
brother, sister, mother.1
There was, then, already a brotherhood
in Jesus' time. And its " law " of mutual
service was formulated. The " bond of per
fectness " which Paul makes the basis of a
new sociology did not have to be invented
for the Churches of Asia. "Whosoever
would be greatest among you, let him be
your minister" was "the law of Christ."
" They were together and had all things
common," even before Jesus' death. Yes,
even then they had a "breaking of bread
and prayers." At the last moment, Jesus
used the existent custom of their fraternal
meal 2 as a symbol of this principle of union
1 Mark 3 : 35.
3 From Luke 24 : 35 it appears that the custom of Jesus
was known outside the circle of the Twelve. In John 6 :
52-59 the sacrament of the body is even connected with the
Galilean institution of the Agape", or church banquet,
rather than with its sequel, the " communion " of the Lord's
cup. See below, p. 81. 13

THE FOUNDING OF THE CHURCH
by mutual service, and asked to be remem
bered by it.1 He made them one body in
him. But the word " church " never occurs
in the gospels, save in two passages of
Matthew, one textually doubtful, both re
cognized by all modern students as belong
ing to that element of Matthew which is
latest and has the least claim to authenti
city.2 If Jesus used this Greek word at all,
it could only be in its Old Testament sense,
not in the sense it gained through the
Pauline propaganda. In Matthew 18: 18 we
have a mere rule of ecclesiastical proced
ure, cast in the form of a command of
Jesus. In Matthew 16: 19 we have at best a
prediction of the future, whose significance
could only transpire after Jesus' death. In
one of the oldest witnesses to the text, no
reference to "the Church" appears. There
1 I Cor. 11 : 23-26.
a On the passages Matt. 16 : 19 and 18 : 18, see chapter
ii, p. 85.

WHEN WAS THE CHURCH FOUNDED?
was, then, a " brotherhood " even in Galilee.
It had a principle of coherence. It even had
certain rites and observances. But it had no
sense of its real mission until it became con
scious of a work entrusted to it, together
with power to fulfill that mission. Then it
became the Church. Until the crucifixion,
not one of that brotherhood dreamed of any
other agency than Israel as charged with the
mission of redemption. If they conceived
Jesus in any sense or degree as the Re
deemer, it was only by virtue of being
placed at the head of this Old Testament
"church," the people of Israel.1 Not by
any possibility could the idea arise in the
disciples' minds of "founding" another
Church, until this " church" had definitively
rejected the Redeemer, and made it impos
sible to hope for the achievement of the
divine design along the lines of nationalism.
1 The Greek translators of the Pentateuch use the word
for the Mosaic commonwealth. 15

THE FOUNDING OF THE CHURCH
However strong, therefore, the disposition
to carry back the later institution into the
period of Jesus' earthly life, and find au
thority for it there in his own sayings and
example, nothing can be more certain than
that "the Church," as we understand the
word, is an outgrowth of Jesus' rejection
and crucifixion, as these were reacted
against by the faith and loyalty of his fol
lowers. In spite of the unavoidable tendency just
referred to, to carry back later beliefs and
institutions and justify them, by showing
them present, at least potentially and in
germ, in Jesus' earthly practice and teach
ing, it is remarkable to how large a degree
the New Testament sources connect the
origins of the faith with what happened
after Jesus' death.
We have noticed how the Pauline letters
— by far our earliest and most authentic
sources — make the doctrine of the risen and
16

WHEN WAS THE CHURCH FOUNDED?
spiritual Christ on principle the essence of
the gospel. Those who fail to realize that
the sign of apostleship was "power," that
the Christian missionary stood simply upon
what he could do in the name of Christ, are
astonished as they read Paul's letters to find
the almost utter absence of any allusion to
Jesus' earthly career. There is no mention
of a single mighty work. There are a bare
half-dozen references to his sayings. The
whole substance of the message is that God
commendeth his love to sinners by the
death of his Son, whom he has revealed as
such with power by the resurrection.' As
many as are led by the Spirit are also sons.
The Spirit has been given to those who
have faith in Jesus. Its presence is mani
fest now; why should they look back?
The narrative tradition is almost equally
1 Rom. 1 : 4. According to the International Critical
Commentary, ad loc, the words "with power" should be
construed with the verb " revealed/' not with the noun
" the Son." 17

THE FOUNDING OF THE CHURCH
emphatic in its testimony as to when the
Church began. Mark inserts, it is true, a
preliminary list of the Twelve Apostles, in
the story of Galilee, and the gospels based
on his follow his example. Matthew even
attaches to this account of the "sending
forth " a full prediction of the propaganda
in the world, the endowment with the Spirit,
the persecution to be endured, the "witness
[martyria] before governors and kings,"
down to the " coming of the Son of man." *
But the very extent of the anticipation
shows that the chapter on the "sending"
(Matt. 10) is not framed with a historical,
but with a practical purpose. The writer
only uses the form of narrative to exhibit
and justify the apostolate as it exists in his
own time. The Twelve are equipped .and
sent forth, but they never return. The evan
gelist leaves them still working in the world.
The fourth gospel, following perhaps a hint
1 Mark 3 : 13-19 ; 6 : 7-13 ; cf . Matt. 9 : 35-10 : 42.
18

WHEN WAS THE CHURCH FOUNDED?
of the third,1 finds a more appropriate place
for the "sending" in Jesus' farewell dis
course.* All the gospels culminate with the
great commission into all the world ; for the
purpose of their composition is to justify the
message. Matthew himself atones for his
measure of anticipation by repeating his ac
count of the " sending " at the close of his
gospel. Mark's original ending is wanting;
but its loss has been made good by appen
dices from two different sources. Both ap
pendices, the " longer " and the " shorter "
ending, concern themselves mainly or ex
clusively with the equipment of the Twelve
with power and authority, and their " send
ing." 3 John's original conclusion is the
1 Luke 22 : 35-38.
2 John 14-16.J Cf . especially John 13 : 16, 20 with Matt.
10 : 24, 40 ; John 14 : 17 with Matt. 10 : 20 ; John 15 : 20 with
Matt. 10:24; and John 15 : 26-16 : 4 with Matt. 10:16-23.
3 Mark 16 : 14-20, based on Luke. The so-called " shorter
ending " is based on Matthew. It reads as follows : " And
they [the women] briefly reported all the message to Peter
and those with him. And afterwards Jesus himself sent forth
r9

THE FOUNDING OF THE CHURCH
same equipment with authority and sending
" even as the Father sent me." ' " Luke,"
the one evangelist who has actually related
the story of the Church in its founding and
propaganda, and who rests his " former
treatise " on Mark, makes that treatise cul
minate with the command to the Twelve
to " tarry in Jerusalem until " they " be
endued with power from on high." There
after he devotes his entire second treatise
to the report of the " sending," the equip
ment with the Spirit and power, and its
results. The first item of his story is a new
list of the Twelve independent of Mark,
with the completion of the number.2
through them from the east even to the west the holy and
incorruptible proclamation of eternal salvation."
1 John 20:21-23.
2 Luke 24 : 46-49 ; Acts 1 : 1-8, 13, 21-26. The Ebionites,
or Palestinian Christians, of the second century employed
a composite gospel, made up of our Synoptics combined with
others unknown to us. It spoke in the name of the Twelve.
"There came a man, Jesus by name, . . . who chose us."
Then followed the list of names, ending, "And thee Mat-
20

WHEN WAS THE CHURCH FOUNDED?
If we ask what light on the founding of
the Church we gain from the rite of initia
tion, we find that it is not pretended by any
narrator that it was in use during Jesus'
earthly life. The direction to baptize came
to the disciples by revelation, after Jesus'
death. Externally it was admittedly a loan
from John the Baptist." Its new Christian
content, endowment with the Spirit, was a
post-resurrection experience. Paul even
went so far as to say that his " sending " by
Christ included no command to baptize.2
Our conclusion then must be that the be
ginning of the conscious life of the Church
was its endowment with power through
thew . . . I chose, and thou followedst me. You twelve
then I will to be Apostles for witness to Israel."
1 Aphraates, the ancient -Syriac homilist, gives the true
sense of John~3 : 26, when he says, " For during all the time
that he went about with his disciples, they were baptized
only with the baptism of the priestly law, with the baptism
at which John said, Repent of your sins."
2 On the origin of the institutions of the Church, see
Chapter IV. 21

THE FOUNDING OF THE CHURCH
conviction that God had raised Jesus from
the dead. The apostolate is the witness of
the resurrection. Paul's gospel and that of
the Galilean apostles were as wide apart
as contemporary gospels could possibly
be. But in one point they came together.
Whether it were he or they, thus it was
preached, and thus men believed.1 God had
given assurance unto all men of repentance
and forgiveness before the coming of Christ
as Judge, "in that he hath raised him from
the dead." 2 An unconscious life the Church
had while Jesus was with them in the flesh,
and in later days the tendency grew stronger
and stronger to carryback to the germs and
intimations of that time whatever proved to
be of divine worth in her subsequent devel
opment. "When Jesus was glorified, then
remembered they " that these things had
1 I Cor. 15: 1-11.
2 Acts 17:30-31. The accuracy of this representation
of Paul's missionary preaching is confirmed by himself,
I Thess. 1 : 9-10. 22

WHEN WAS THE CHURCH FOUNDED?
happened thus and so.1 Her life might be
called but half-conscious during all the pe
riod covered by the Book of Acts, during
which the gospel of Peter was endeavoring
to adjust itself to the larger gospel of Paul.
Perhaps it is still not fully conscious. But
there is one definite critical moment which
marks the founding of the Church, if by
that we mean the emergence of the Chris
tian brotherhood into a consciousness of its
separate existence and mission to the world.
It is the "turning again" of Simon Peter.
Down to the moment when the risen Lord
"appeared to Cephas," the cause of Jesus
never rose before the world as its day-star.
Even as Israel's, it had set in utter darkc
ness. Not a follower remained. There was
nothing whatever to justify the hope that
Jesus' words would not now "pass away"
as scribe and priest were convinced they
would — nothing but the prayer: "Simon,
1 John 12 : 16.
23

THE FOUNDING OF THE CHURCH
I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not.
And when thou art turned again, stablish
thy brethren." The rock foundation of the
Church was the faith of Simon Peter.

II
PETER THE FOUNDATION ROCK
Strange as it may seem, every direct ac
count of the first manifestation of the risen
Christ has disappeared from the records of
the Church. In the great Epistles of Paul
we are able to overleap half the chasm of
obscurity which separates the earliest of our
narratives from the actual event, and there,
in First Corinthians, the most indubit
ably established and authentic of all docu
ments in the archives of Christianity, we
find a summary of the current teaching of
the Church on the resurrection. Whatever
differences existed on other points, on the
evidences of the resurrection all were
agreed, says Paul. These evidences con
sisted of a series of manifestations of the risen
Christ, first " to Cephas," " last of all to me
25

THE FOUNDING OF THE GHURCH
also." The story of the visit of the women
to the sepulchre, the empty tomb, the vision
of angels, the manifestation of Jesus to Mary
Magdalene and ©ther women, does not ap
pear at all !
Gradually the relation is reversed. The
story as it appears twenty years later in our
earliest gospel narrative has lost already the
account of the manifestation to Peter, though
it still retains indubitable traces of having
once contained it. In Canonical Mark (an
adaptation of the original narrative) there
now remains no manifestation of the risen
Christ whatever. In place of it we are given
a story of women having found the sepulchre
empty on the third day after the crucifixion.
A " vision of angels " predicts, however, that
his disciples "and Peter" will see him in
Galilee. But the sequel which related this
momentous interview has been suppressed
in its turn. In the most authentic manuscripts
the Gospel ends with the frightened silence
26

PETER THE FOUNDATION ROCK
of the women, which accounts of course for
this late appearance of the story. The women
had been " afraid," and so " said nothing to
any man."
Second-century hands supply diverse
endings to complete this obviously mutilated
Gospel. One is based on Matthew 28: 16-
20.' The other rests on John 20: n-i8and
Luke 24: 13-53, with a brief synopsis of
Acts. Matthew enlarges still more on the story
of the empty sepulchre. It had met oppo
sition, and this must be answered. We need
not delay upon Matthew's added features
of the guard and the earthquake. We are
interested in the promised manifestation in
Galilee to " his disciples and Peter." Mat
thew tells it. He even prepares the way for
it by changing Mark's statement, about the
women's fear preventing their delivering
their message, into "And they departed
1 See above, p. 19.
27

THE FOUNDING OF THE CHURCH
quickly from the tomb with fear and great
joy, and ran to bring his disciples word."
This enables him to bring in the scene of
Jesus' appearing to the eleven disciples in
" the mountain where Jesus had appointed
them," and giving them the Apostolic Com
mission.1 But there is no more indication
in this vague and generalizing statement
that the evangelist possessed the lost story
of Jesus' appearance to "Peter and the
rest," than in the case of the second-cen
tury framers of endings for Mark. Indeed,
there is clear evidence that he did not,
but is only restoring by conjecture. After
having changed in 28:8, the last verse of
the authentic Mark as above described,
he introduces in 28:9, 10 another perfectly
independent, and now of course perfectly
superfluous, explanation of how the dis
ciples met the appointment in spite of the
women's terrified silence. "Jesus himself"
1 Matt. 28 : 16-20.
28

PETER THE FOUNDATION ROCK
appeared to the women, told them not to
be afraid, but to deliver their message, and
then reiterated it in the very words of the
angel. Matthew, we see, had a predeces
sor in the attempt to mend the rents of
Mark. But we have evidence from several in
dependent sources that the earlier form of
the tradition did not bring the scattered
disciples together by the word of the
women. That word never got to them.
Mark means it when he says, " They said
nothing to any man because they were
afraid." The recently discovered fragment
of the "Gospel of Peter" breaks off most
tantalizingly at almost the very point of the
mutilation of Mark; not, however, before
it has made it perfectly clear that the dis
ciples remained in utter ignorance of the
experiences of the women, and returned
sorrowfully, in broken groups, to their fish
ing in Galilee. 29

THE FOUNDING OF THE CHURCH
Our third Gospel is the most radical in
its method of healing the mutilation of
Mark, so as to account for the prompt
founding of the Church by the Twelve in
Jerusalem, in spite of the fact that at last
accounts they had simply scattered as sheep
when the Shepherd is smitten. Luke sim
ply denies the " scattering " in toto. They
never fled at all. They remained in Jeru
salem. The angel did not say, " He goeth
before you into Galilee, there shall ye see
him." He (or rather " they "; for Luke has
two angels) said, " Remember ye not how
he said while he was yet in Galilee, that
... he must rise again." Hence even
those of the outer penumbra of discipleship
who sought to leave Jerusalem, were turned
back. There were no manifestations in
Galilee. Jesus commissioned the eleven
disciples in Jerusalem, and bade them stay
there and make it headquarters for the
work of evangelization. This is restoration
3°

PETER THE FOUNDATION ROCK
with sweeping strokes of a large brush.
But it does not obliterate the older lines.
More of these remain, in fact, in Luke's
than in any other Gospel. He fails to explain
how Peter, who at last accounts * had lin
gered longest and fallen deepest, is all at
once the leader and master spirit of all.
Nay, Luke makes "the eleven" say in so
many words to Cleopas and his companion,
as they come in from their experience at
Emmaus, " The Lord is risen indeed, and
hath appeared unto Simon" He has
embodied a direct reference to that funda
mental first manifestation "to Cephas," and
yet has left out the story of it!
We have in Luke even distincter traces
than these. Mark made the rallying of the
disciples in Galilee a work accomplished
by Jesus' personal intervention as chief
Shepherd of the flock. Jesus promised that
after they had been "scattered" by the
1 Luke 22 : 54-62.
31

THE FOUNDING OF THE CHURCH
stroke which fell upon him, he would " go
before them into Galilee." Luke records
instead a prayer of Jesus, which would not
be recorded if at some later time it had not
been regarded as fulfilled by the event; and
this prayer commits the work of rallying
the scattered flock to the under-shepherd,
Peter.1 The counter statement to Jesus'
prediction at the Last Supper of the sifting
of Satan which Peter was to undergo is the
statement, " But I have made supplication
for thee, Simon, that thy faith fail not : and
do thou, when once thou hast turned again,
stablish thy brethren." This ancient frag
ment is all the more significant from the
cancellation, by the evangelist who em
bodies it, of the story which gave it perti
nence. The latest of all the Gospels was in its
original form the most completely diverted
from what we may designate the Galilean
' Luke 22 : 24-32.
32

PETER THE FOUNDATION ROCK
form of the tradition, the most consistently
committed to the later, Jerusalemic, form.
If we take the Gospel of John without the
appendix (ch. 21), it excludes all the
story of dispersion and return from Galilee
even more completely than Luke. It de
velops the trait of the women reporting the
empty tomb to the eleven, and Peter's veri
fication of it, at the greatest length and in
its own special interest.1 It combines with
this, in similar elaboration, the feature em
bodied by Matthew of Jesus' appearance to
the women to counteract their fear, and
upon this it brings in as culmination the
Apostolic Commission.2 On appointment
made through Mary Magdalene, Jesus
meets the disciples in Jerusalem, breathes
upon them the Spirit, clothes them with au
thority to forgive sins, and sends them forth
into the world even as the Father had sent
1 With Luke 24 : 10-12, cf. John 20 : 1-10.
2 John 20: 11-18, 19-23.
33

THE FOUNDING OF THE CHURCH
him. The ascension has preceded.1 With
the appearance, the dothing with authority
to " bind and loose," and the "sending,"
there remains no more to tell. The gospel
is complete, and receives its appropriate
envoi in verses 30-31.
It is a new writer, with a new motive and
a new conception, who adds the appendix
(ch. 21). Here the eleven are not together,
but only a group of seven, Peter in the lead.
They are not in Jerusalem, but back in
Galilee, engaged in their old occupation of
fishing. They have received no " sending,"
have not been commissioned, have heard of
no appointment through the women, are
taken with absolute surprise and awe as
1 This is implied in verse 17. We are to understand that
Mary sees Jesus at the very moment of his ascension (verse
14). Ittakesplace on the day of the resurrection as i-n.Ep.of
Barn., xv : 8, 9 and Ev. Petri, x : 38-42. We so understand
Luke 24 : 51 ; Acts 1 : 6-1 1 also. Others think there is contra
diction between Luke 24 : 51 and Acts 1 : 6-1 1. See Bacon,
" The Ascension in Luke and Acts," Expositor, March,
1909.
34

PETER THE FOUNDATION ROCK
the thought dawns upon "the disciple
whom Jesus loved," "It is the Lord." Peter
has not yet been forgiven and reinstated; he
has yet to receive a threefold warning for
his threefold denial, and then to be charged
with the care of the flock, until he be able
at last to " follow " as he had sought to do
and failed.1 This sudden reappearance of
the discarded Galilean form of the tradi
tion, after the close of the Johannine Gos
pel proper, can be accounted for in but one
way. It is a "survival." The old account
of Peter's " turning again " in Galilee and
" stablishing his brethren," the original
manifestation "to Cephas," reasserts its
rights against a too presumptuous rival.
To obtain general circulation for this late
Gospel, its final editors had to make larger
concessions than its text affords to the his
toric claims of Peter's leadership.
We have traversed the whole story of
1 John 21 : 1-14, 15-17, 18-19; cf. 13 : 36~38-
35

THE FOUNDING OF THE CHURCH
the Church's tradition in its changing forms.
We have seen how it gave account of that
great reaction which turned the tide of de
feat and disaster into the victory of faith,
beginning with Paul's account of the mani
festations. The risen Christ appeared first
"to Cephas, then to the twelve, then to
above five hundred brethren at once . . .
then to James, then to all the apostles, and
last of all to me also." We have seen the
coming in upon this primitive common
gospel of the special tradition of the wo
men's discovery of the empty tomb and
their " vision of angels." At first it is most
modest, almost apologetic. Then it devel
ops in many forms. At last it threatens to
uproot entirely the story of Peter's turning
again in Galilee and stablishing his breth
ren. Of course. What could be so grateful
to the growing desire for the concrete and
tangible as the story of an actual disap
pearance of the body ? What could be more
36

PETER THE FOUNDATION ROCK
unacceptable to the Church's growing
pride in its great apostles, than the old
story how " they all forsook him and fled,"
how they were scattered each one to his
own, how not one of them had left a spark
of hope or courage, or even bethought him
of Jesus' faith in God, until " he appeared
to Cephas."
The story of Peter's turning again has
been lost; and the loss was not accidental.
We have too many varied efforts to repair
the mutilation of the fundamental record,
too many evidences of what later hands
preferred to the ancient story, to imagine
it to have been lost by simultaneous acci
dent out of all existing records. No; the
Jerusalemic story of the empty tomb and
women's vision of angels has taken its
place. But whether we give credence to
this later tradition or not, nothing can be
more certain than that it had nothing
whatever to do with the real reaction, the
37

THE FOUNDING OF THE CHURCH
actual historic dawn of the resurrection
faith. In Paul's time it is either unknown
or purposely ignored. When it does at last
appear, it does not claim to have come to
light in time to affect in any way the ac
tual "turning again" and "stablishing of
the brethren." That was acknowledged to
have been the work of Peter. So too as to
the character of the manifestations. In
First Corinthians Paul begins the resurrec
tion record with the manifestation to Peter,
and closes it with that to himself. In Gala
tians he compares his "apostleship" with
Peter's, and declares that God who " mani
fested his Son in " him, " energizing in
him" thus "unto an apostleship of the
Gentiles," "energized in like manner in
Peter unto the apostleship of the circum
cision." "¦ To neither one was the revela
tion from " flesh and blood," but from the
Father in heaven. It was not the mere
1 Gal. 1 : 16 ; 2 : 8.
38

PETER THE FOUNDATION ROCK
" wonder " of a vacant tomb, but the ap
prehension of a living, spiritual, glorified
Lord. Fortunately these obscure references of
Paul to the revelation of God's Son to Pe
ter are not our only sources of information.
Remembering the disposition of the later
Church to carry back into the full daylight
of Jesus' earthly career all that belonged
to its established faith and institutions, we
shall find, in addition to the passages from
the Gospels already considered, more than
one clew to the nature of Peter's revela
tion, Peter's failure and turning again, Pe
ter's faith, once lost, but afterwards made
the foundation rock of the Church. These
will prove that the disappearance of the
ancient story of how " the Lord appeared
unto Simon" was a disappearance in form
rather than in substance. As to form, we
can only approximate the actual story. We
may be sure from the hints that remain that
39

THE FOUNDING OF THE CHURCH
its scene was the Sea of Galilee. Peter, with
some of his old partners, had returned to
his fishing. The3' were not looking for a re
turn of their crucified Master. They were
" weeping and lamenting and grieving," as
"each one returned to his own home " ; and
Simon and Andrew his brother " took up
their nets and went away to the sea, having
with them Levi the son of Alpheus," and
perhaps others.1 Then came the great revul
sion. Jesus had called Peter there, on that
shore, in those same surroundings, to " catch
men." One form of the story of the new call
relates that in the dusk of dawn, after a night
of fruitless toil, the disciple saw Jesus on the
shore, and the Master symbolized the new
and greater work he was now to do by a
miraculous draught of fishes.2 Luke, who,
as we saw, has cancelled all this Galilean
episode, could find no place for Peter's sec-
1 The quotations are from the fragment of the Gospel of
Peter 14 : 58-60. John 21 : 1-11.
40

PETER THE FOUNDATION ROCK
ond call, save as he carried it back in 5 :
1-11, and connected it with Mark's nar
ration of the first. The connection is lame
enough, for the pathos of Peter's repentant
cry, "Depart from me; for I am a sinful
man, O Lord," is lost. Moreover, the intro
duction of "James and John which were
partners with Simon" in verse 10, is almost
grotesque, for they have no part in the in
terview. It is only " Simon " to whom Jesus
speaks, and whom he calls and comforts.
But we may take this Lukan adaptation of
the story of Peter's restoration as typical of
many. It reveals how the substance was re
tained throughout the changes of form. We
know that the "manifestation" of the risen
Lord to Peter after he had returned in shame
and despair to his fishing was in its signifi
cance equivalent to Paul's. It had the same
relation to Peter's individual sense of sin
and despair. It was also essentially a mani
festation "in" him, whatever the extent of
4i

THE FOUNDING OF THE CHURCH
its objectivity, a vision of Jesus, shown to
be the Son of God with power by the resur
rection. This is suggested by Paul's com
parisons of it to his own.1 Finally, it was
a renewal of Peter's call. It was an apostle
ship, a "sending." Peter was to take up
again in Jesus' name the old-time message
of repentance, faith, and forgiveness — but
with what wonder and power of new mean
ing !
There is another point of attachment in
our Gospels besides that of Peter's call for
the story of the final triumph of his faith.
At Csesarea Philippi, after Jesus had been
driven out of Galilee and was setting his face
steadfastly to go up to Jerusalem to cham
pion the cause of the " little ones " at the
very seat of priestly usurpation, something
brought a great rebuke upon Peter. It was
either the suggestion of messianic aspira
tions in general, or at least the suggestion
' I Cor. 15: 5,8; Gal. 2:8.
42

PETER THE FOUNDATION ROCK
of it in too worldly a sense. Later Christian
faith, carrying back its own origin to the
earliest attainable date, laid hold of this as
its beginning. Even Mark's earlier form of
the story, which has nothing of Matthew's
development of it into a revelation of the
Messiahship, follows it nevertheless with
the account of a "vision" or "revelation,"
in which " Peter and they that were with
him " were taught by a voice from heaven
what is the true nature and calling of Jesus.
He is the glorified Lord into the likeness of
whose body of glory we all, as Paul taught,
must be " metamorphosed." ' We are not
surprised to find the evangelist connecting
the significance of this story with "the ris
ing again from the dead," nor even that,
in the recently discovered " Revelation of
Peter," the incident is placed after the resur-
1 Mark 9 : 2-10. The expression, " he was transfigured,"
is identical with that used by Paul in II Cor. 3 : 8. On the
origin and significance of the Transfiguration " vision" see
Bacon, Beginnings of Gospel Story, pp. 114 ft.
43

THE FOUNDING OF THE CHURCH
rection. It is the risen, the glorified Christ,
the Son of God with power, who is revealed
in it to " Peter and them that were with him."
The connection with the Rebuke of Peter at
Csesarea Philippi is merely editorial.1
If, then, with Matthew's version of Peter's
Confession of Jesus as the Christ at Csesarea
1 In Matt. 14: 22-33 *ne same evangelist who supple
ments Mark's Confession of Peter with an ordination of him
as the Foundation of the Church, supplements the Markan
story of the Breaking of the Bread and Walking on the Sea
with an undertaking of Peter to tread the stormy waves
with'Jesus, a failure of his faith, rescue by the personal in
tervention of the Lord, and return of Peter in company
with Jesus to the distressed disciples, who " worshipped him
saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God." For many
convergent reasons we are convinced that this story merely
reflects in symbolic form the undertaking of Peter at the
" last supper " to go with Jesus " unto prison and death,"
the subsequent failure of his faith, " when he saw that the
winds were boisterous," his restoration by the manifestation
to him of the risen Christ, and the "stablishment of his breth
ren in faith in the Son of God." We should thus have in
allegorical form a surviving narrative of the " appearance to
Peter." Space, however, is lacking for the adequate proof
ofthe theory, which'is accordingly here presented in outline
and as a possibility only, without embodying it in the text.
44

PETER THE FOUNDATION ROCK
Philippi, we find interwoven a parallel to
Paul's declaration of his apostleship, not
from " flesh and blood," but by revelation
from the Father of Christ as the Son of God;
and find together with this a declaration
that the Church is to be founded upon this
Rock, and that it shall triumph over the
gates of Hades which had closed upon the
crucified Leader; and if, further, we find
Peter now clothed with the authority to for
give sins, the apostolic power of "binding
and loosing" which shortly after appears as
a prerogative of the Church,1 and in other
sources forms the essence of the great Com
mission,2 we shall not be greatly surprised.
We shall see in Matthew's story of the
Founding of the Church simply one more
example of that carrying back of later faiths
to the earlier time of which the Gospels are
full. We shall realize that here, too, we are
1 Matt. 16 : 19 = 18 : 18.
2 John 20 : 23 ; Luke 24 : 47 ; Matt. 28 : 19 ; Mark 16 : 16.
45

THE FOUNDING OF THE CHURCH
dealing with that one great crisis out of
which our religion was born, the triumph of
that humble Galilean's faith in the Master
whose call to be a fisher of men could never
be silenced in his ears. The new faith found
embodiment when Simon Peter "turned
again and stablished his brethren."

Ill
THE CONFESSION OF JESUS AS LORD
If we follow again the regular historian's
method of judging later narratives by ear
lier and more authentic documents, we
shall resort again to the great and undis
puted Pauline Epistles in seeking to answer
the question: What was the essential con
tent of that faith in Jesus which made
Christians otherwise so diverse in training,
in knowledge, and in religious experience,
as Paul and the Galilean apostles, feel that
nevertheless they were " one body in Christ,
having one Lord, one faith, one baptism,
one Father of all," one all-pervading, all-
vivifying Spirit ? x
There are several instances in which
Paul seems to be voicing the watchword
1 Eph. 4:4-6.
47

THE FOUNDING OF THE CHURCH
of the common faith. Thus in Romans 10: 9
he summarizes "the word of faith which we
preach " as follows : " If thou shalt confess
with thy mouth Jesus as Lord, and shalt
believe in thy heart that God raised him
from the dead, thou shalt be saved." Again,
in defending the "ministry of the new
covenant," he introduces a poetically beau
tiful allusion to his own vision of the risen
Jesus, a " new creation" of the spirit, with
this explanation: " For we (ministers of the
new covenant) preach not ourselves, but
Christ Jesus as Lord, and ourselves as your
servants for Jesus' sake."1 Similarly, in
warning the Corinthians against misleading
" spirits," he lays down as a general prin
ciple of discrimination that "no man can
say, 'Jesus is Lord' but in the Holy
Spirit."2 Finally, in his swan-song of fare
well to the beloved church in Philippi,
1 II Cor. 4 : 5-6.
2 1 Cor. 12 : 3.
48

THE CONFESSION OF JESUS AS LORD
pouring out every entreaty to them to be
united in " the mind which was also in
Christ Jesus," he declares that it was be
cause of the disposition of self-denying ser
vice exemplified in Jesus' life and death,
that God " gave unto him the name which
is above every name," making even angels
and archangels " confess that he is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father." It is need
less to multiply further instances to prove
that Paul attached to this confession that
"Jesus is Lord " a fundamental significance.
One of the earliest embodiments of faith
in the risen Jesus is certainly the Danielic
title " Son of man," i. e., the Judge and ruler
of the world awaited in apocalyptic expec
tation. Certain phenomena of the Gospels
have even led scholars to declare that this
was "the favorite self-designation of Jesus."
For ourselves we cannot share this view.
It rhymes but ill with the predominantly
ethical and religious note of the Sermon on
49

THE FOUNDING- OF THE CHURCH
the Mount. While we need have no doubt
that Jesus, like John the Baptist, like his
fellow Jews, anticipated the coming of this
transcendental Being, the notion that he
looked forward to fulfilling this office in his
own person is not in line with his teachings
generally; for in these the sonship of the
many, not the Judgeship of the one, holds
the keynote. Still greater obstacles are met
in the earliest records of all. Had this title
expressed to Paul the fundamental doctrine
of Christ's person, he could have made it
intelligible to his Greek hearers. It is not
more difficult to translate from its Aramaic
form than "Messiah" or "election." The
words "abba," "amen," "maranatha," are
taken over without translation. Itis not, then,
because the expression " Son of man " was
not adaptable to Paul's work of evangeliza
tion that it never occurs in his writings or
in any New Testament author outside the
four evangelists. It is a different title which

THE CONFESSION OF JESUS AS LORD
in the epistles expresses the dignity con
ferred by God upon him whom he had
declared to be the Son of God by the resur
rection from the dead. "Jesus is Lord"
was the primitive confession. And "Lord"
was not a substitute for some other "favor
ite self-designation of Jesus " in the Ara
maic. It was itself transferred in the origi
nal tongue, ««translated, in such primeval
watchwords of the Church as M aran-atha,
"our Lord cometh." To Stephen, con
demned by unjust judges, the vision of the
risen Christ may well have been a vision
of "the heavens opened and the Son of man
standing on the right hand of God "; but to
the despairing love of repentant Peter it
will have been, as to Saul of Tarsus, the
vision of a glorified Leader and Deliverer
of lost humanity. The title which the
Church disputes in bloody conflict with
Roman emperors, with heathen demi-gods
and divinities, and with Jewish angels
51

THE FOUNDING OF THE CHURCH
and archangels, is "Lordship," not the
mere apocalyptic dignity of the Son of
man. If now we turn from the Epistles of Paul
to the narrative of Luke, we shall find deep
harmony on this fundamental point. Luke,
as we saw, has cancelled the humiliating
interlude of the flight of the apostles to
Galilee after the crucifixion. Instead of the
formal scene in the first chapter of Acts, of
Jesus' visible ascension to heaven after
having delivered the Apostolic Commission,
a scene which is immediately followed by
completion of the number of the twelve on
the Mosaic plan of casting lots, we must
accept the successive incidents enumerated
by Paul in I Corinthians 15: 5-7. After the
" turning again " of Simon came the " stab
lishing" of his "brethren." The "manifesta
tion " to Cephas was followed, still in Gal
ilee, if we may trust the remaining traces
of primitive story, by a manifestation " to
52

THE CONFESSION OF JESUS AS LORD
the twelve." Is Paul here speaking of a
group formed by Jesus during his lifetime
for missionary purposes ? Then we do need
the explanation Luke endeavors to furnish
of the filling of the traitor's place. We
should expect Paul to say, as Luke does,
"the eleven." But tradition varies widely as
to the numbers and names, and the inten
tions of Jesus in forming his inner circle of
disciples, to which we now find assigned this
symbolic number. There are phenomena
which to the historical critic suggest that
here too the specific number twelve1 is car
ried back from the later to the earlier time.
Paul means by "the twelve" the group
formed at this time out of the number of
those who had companied with Jesus, be
ginning from the baptism of John, a group
now brought together, perhaps for the first
time, under the leadership of Peter. They
1 Rev. 21 : 14 places the symbolic significance beyond
doubt. 53

THE FOUNDING OF THE CHURCH
too received a " manifestation." What steps
they took thereafter we may infer from the
numbers mentioned in the next " manifesta
tion." "More than five hundred brethren"
were gathered together at one time. The
place can scarcely have been other than
Jerusalem, where the Church felt from the
first that it must await the Lord's return.
The occasion is reasonably conjectured to
have been no other than that "Lord's day"
of Pentecost to which the origins of the
conscious life of the Church are carried
back in Acts. To the five hundred also
there was granted a " manifestation " of the
risen Lord. If it was in Jerusalem at Pen
tecost, this manifestation was accompanied
with the "outpouring of the Spirit" in phe
nomena of " tongues," " prophesying," and
other "spiritual gifts." Upon it followed
two "manifestations" to special functiona
ries in the brotherhood, " to James," the
Lord's brother, whose figure already in the
54

THE CONFESSION OF JESUS AS LORD
Pauline Epistles, begins to overtop even
that of Peter, — and " to all the apostles."
These latter in Pauline phraseology form a
much larger group than " the twelve." '
What their function was, and why it was
needful that they should have "seen the
Lord," 2 hardly requires explanation. Such
is the story of the first organization for pro
pagation of the new faith, as we restore it
from the earliest allusions.
Luke's recasting of the story to suit his
fundamental cancellation, makes wide dif
ferences in form between the Pauline re
cord and his own. The "idealization" which
it has undergone at his hands is matter of
universal admission among scholars. But
the fundamental elements of his story,
especially those which, like the speech of
Peter in Acts 2: 14-36, embody concep
tions at variance with the more elaborate,
artificial, and thaumaturgic representations
1 Rom. 16 : 7 ; I Thess. 2 : 6. * I Cor. 9:1.
55

THE FOUNDING OF THE CHURCH
of the framework,1 exhibit precisely that
elemental " gospel " which we have traced
in Paul. Just as in Ephesians 4: 4-16 the
"gifts of the Spirit" are appealed to as
proof of Jesus' ascension to a seat of supreme
and heavenly authority " at the right hand
of God," so the phenomena of " tongues,"
" prophesyings," "wonders and signs" are
appealed to in Acts 2: 14-36, to prove that
Jesus has experienced that which was writ
ten in the Psalms concerning his being
raised from the grave, and seated on the
throne of glory, "from henceforth expect
ing till his enemies be made the footstool
of his feet."2
In every one of the three quotations from
1 Notoriously the " prophesying " and " glossolaly " of
Acts 2 : 15-18, 26; 11 : 15 are the well-known psychological
phenomena so abundantly recognizable in I Cor. 14, not the
polyglot utterance understood by the compiler in vv. 4-1 1.
* The use of Ps. 1 10 : 1 in Mark 12 : 35-37 as part of Jesus'
refutation of the scribes seems to the present writer later
than that in Paul and Acts. See Beginnings of Gospel
Story, 1909, p. 175.
56

THE CONFESSION OF JESUS AS LORD
Scripture on which the reported discourse
of Peter is based, it is the Lordship given
to Jesus which forms the climax. The pro
phesyings, the wonders in heaven and signs
on earth, are tokens of the promised "Day
of the Lord." Their purpose is to lead men
near and far to " call upon the name of the
Lord," and thus be saved.1 The "glad
hearts" and "rejoicing tongues" are those
of which David spoke when he " foresaw
the Lord before his face," and spoke of
God's deliverance of the soul of his Holy
One from the corruption of the under
world. That which the people now "see and
hear" is the proof that God has raised up
Jesus to his " right hand," to be " the Lord"
of David, and that he has " received of the
Father " the promised Spirit of prophecy, the
expected "gift of God" of the messianic
* Paul employs the same Scripture (Joel 2 : 33) in Rom.
10: 13.
57

THE FOUNDING OF THE CHURCH
times.' The climax and peroration of the
speech is this: "Let all the house of Is
rael therefore know assuredly, that God
hath made him both Lord and Christ, this
Jesus whom ye crucified." The Galilean
followers of Jesus have seen him glorified,
they are experiencing the Spirit and the
gifts, and therefore know him to be that
Lord whom David foresaw at God's right
hand. Their hope is that if Israel "turns
again," their sins may be blotted out, that
so there may come seasons of refreshing
from the presence of the Lord, and that he
may send the Christ who hath been ap
pointed for them, even Jesus, whom the
heaven must receive until the time of the
restoration of all things. Such is the bear
ing of the "Petrine speeches" of Acts.
1 Joel 2 : 28 f. ; cf. Num. 11 : 29. In the Wisdom literature
the gift of God in the messianic age is " the spirit of wis
dom" (Enoch 42:2; 48: 1 ; 49: 1-3; 51 : 3 ; 61 : 7, 11). In
the legalistic literature it is the spirit of obedience to the
law. {Jubilees 1 : 24-26).
58

THE CONFESSION OF JESUS AS LORD
This, then, was the resurrection faith of
Peter. God had raised up unto Israel one
from among their brethren to be his Ser
vant, sending him to bless them in turning
every one of them away from his iniquities.
Jesus' earthly career had fulfilled the pro
phecy of Moses : " One from among your
brethren like unto me." Now the Servant
had been " made both Lord and Christ."
In the light of these data let us return
to our first question, and ask again : What
was the essential content of that faith in
Jesus which made all Christians one from
the beginning despite all differences, and
infused them with the tremendous dynamic
that made conquest of the world ? Surely we
shall not find it in the mere revivification
of an inanimate body. Mere return from
the tomb of a lost friend and leader, how
ever miraculous, however gladdening, could
not have brought this gospel of the risen
Lord. The revelation to Peter and them
59

THE FOUNDING OF THE CHURCH
that were with him was that Jesus was glo
rified. He was not in the underworld with
the rest of the dead. He was not on the
earth with the rest of the living. He was in
heaven at the right hand of God, seated on
the messianic " throne of glory," whence he
should come again after the Great Repent
ance as the promised Christ. The scriptural
proof may well be a later reenforcement,
but the faith itself came first by " manifes
tation " of the risen Jesus, and this manifes
tation was such in character as to make the
Scripture applicable : " The Lord said unto
my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand till I
make thine enemies the footstool of thy
feet." We have seen how throughout Pauline
Epistles and narrative as well this resurrec
tion faith is crystallized in the confession,
Jesus is Lord. We misconceive this primi
tive resurrection faith if we approach it
with the preconceptions begotten of cen-
60

THE CONFESSION OF JESUS AS LORD
turies of carrying back into Jesus' earthly
life of things subsequently believed. What
to us has become the period of the gospel
was to Paul, and even to the Galilean dis
ciples, the period preliminary to the gospel
— what the Germans call its Vorgeschichte.
Therefore Paul scarcely ever refers to it,
and even those who had experienced it
with Jesus never recorded it. The gospel
began with the resurrection. The revela
tion given to Peter and "the twelve" was
not that Jesus had been the Christ, or had
been the Lord. They realized now that he
had been the Son of God, as he had taught
others to be. The revelation showed that
he was now " the Lord," and the inference
from it was that he would be " the Christ,"
when he returned from " the heavens."
This faith in Jesus as Lord implied on
the one side the message of Jesus' earthly
career. Sonship was a result of being "con
formed to the image of God's Son" — a
61

THE FOUNDING OF THE CHURCH
result no otherwise to be attained than by
having within " the mind which was also in
Christ Jesus." On the other side this obtain
ing the mind of Christ was a work not of
human but of divine power. It was a " meta
morphosis " into the likeness of the glori
fied Lord, through the indwelling Spirit,
whose presence was already manifest. They
who " confessed with the mouth Jesus as
Lord," must walk by the same rule, must
assume his yoke, must learn of him, must
"become imitators of God as beloved chil
dren, even as Christ also had loved them
and given himself a sacrifice for them." '
They who "believed in their heart that
God had raised him from the dead " were
also assured that a sanctification and a glo
rification awaited his "brethren" like that
which God had given him.2 Thus the ex
emplification in Jesus' life and teaching of
1 Eph. 5: 1,2.
2 Rom. 8: 11, 29, 30; 10: 9; II Cor. 3: 18; Phil. 3: 21.
62

THE CONFESSION OF JESUS AS LORD
the principle of self-denying service, fol
lowed by the manifestation of him as Son
of God with power, when " God highly ex
alted him and gave to him the name which
is above every name," supplied a complete
gospel, a perfect revelation of human duty
and destiny. It was in the assured posses
sion of that common two-fold gospel, the
gospel of Jesus and the gospel about
Jesus, that Paul could write: "There is
one body, and one Spirit, even as also ye
were called in one hope of your calling;
one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God
and Father of all, who is over all, and
through all and in all."

IV
BAPTISM AND THE BREAKING OF BREAD
We have seen how a comparison of the
Pauline Epistles with the narrative sources
enables us to clarify our conception of the
historical process by which the first brother
hood of believers in Jesus as the Son of
God was formed ; we have also learned
something from it regarding the contents
of the primitive common faith. Our study
of the Founding of the Church will not be
complete without a review of the same
sources, after the same method, in answer
to the question: What were the primitive
institutions of the Church, and how did
they originate ?
What has been already said may suffice
regarding the very earliest development of
Church organization. God had first of all
64

BAPTISM AND BREAKING OF BREAD
" energized in Peter unto an apostolate of
the circumcision," even as in Paul "unto
an apostolate to the Gentiles." The choice
of "the twelve," however effected, the
choice of James, the choice of " all the
apostles," had been at least confirmed,
perhaps originated, by the act of God. The
risen Christ had been " manifested " to
them. In Ephesians 4: 11-16, as in all the
earlier writings, it is this divine side which
occupies the whole field of vision in the ap
pointment of every kind of church officer.
The appointments were, as church historians
say, charismatic; i. e., men were endowed
by the Spirit with the "gift" for this or
that form of service. The Holy Ghost " set
them apart for the work" whereunto He
had called them. Later the mechanism of
human forms of government comes more
and more into view. Civic methods are
imitated in the Greek churches, synagogue
methods in the Syrian. Democracy still
65

THE FOUNDING OF THE CHURCH
prevails everywhere, because brotherhood
and the rule of service were fundamental in
Christian thought; but officialism increases.
The author of Acts presents from some
ancient source in cc. 6-8 what he regards
as the origin of the diaconate, the second
ary order which Paul in Philippians i : I
associates with the " bishops," or " over
seers." In Luke's day one of the princi
pal functions of " deacons " was to " serve
tables," providing for the daily common
meal of the brotherhood, as tradition says
Judas had done for the twelve, ' and dis
tributing to the " widows." The " widows "
themselves in First Timothy 5: 3-16 have
become the almoners. Hence the represen
tations of Acts 6: 1-4. But the source em
ployed by Luke in Acts 6-8 does not think
of " the seven " as "deacons," or as " serving
tables." They are "evangelists"; such by
name in the primitive passage, Acts 21:8,
1 John 13 : 29.
66

BAPTISM AND BREAKING OF BREAD
such in practice everywhere. So in all the
matter of organization. As the growth of
the Church required it, the Spirit furnished
continually new "joints of supply." The
"ministry of the new covenant" was not
" of the letter " ; it was not bound to ancient
forms, it made itself new wine skins for
the new wine. Elders, bishops, deacons,
"widows," were instrumentalities devel
oped as needed. The earliest time knew
only "spiritual gifts" exercised for the
common good. *
But besides the common faith and the
common organization we find already in
the Pauline Epistles two institutions, both
of which are spoken of as dating from the
very beginnings, one of which is declared
to have been commanded by " the Lord "
himself. They are, of course, the institu
tions of baptism and the "breaking of
bread." Next to the " one Lord " and " one
1 1 Cor. 12-14.
67

THE FOUNDING OF THE CHURCH
faith," in Paul's psean of the unity of the
Church, comes the " one baptism." The
breaking of bread was by its very name a
"communion " of the body of Christ. How,
then, did these rites originate; and what
did the Church mean by them ?
Baptism is to Paul always symbolical of
the believer's death and resurrection with
Christ. Immersion as the usual form (per
haps not the only one) is implied by the
comparisons, " we are buried with him in
baptism," "we were baptized unto Christ
as Israel was baptized unto Moses in the
Red Sea." J That the candidates were as a
rule adults (perhaps not always) is implied
in the signification. This includes always
self-surrender, dedication. But we are ex
pressly told that Christ did not baptize. It
was a rite taken up by the Church after
1 1, e., we came under the leadership of Christ as Israel
came under the leadership of Moses in passing out through
the Red Sea from the darkness and bondage of Egypt into
the light and liberty of the desert wandering.
68

BAPTISM AND BREAKING OF BREAD
the resurrection, and to Paul was one of the
things which had been merely adopted for
their intrinsic value, not imposed by author
ity. ' When and why was it taken up ?
All forms of the Apostolic Commission
emphasize the fact that it was a sending
with authority to proclaim the forgiveness
of sins. Two of the latest attach to this
Commission, as part of the sending itself,
from Jesus' own mouth, the command to
baptize.2 We see from Paul, that it can be
called a command of Jesus only as a con
viction " borne in " upon the earliest group
of believers might be invested with the
sanction' of "the spirit of Jesus." 3 But even
these later representations suffice to show
that baptism was adopted at the very start
as the rite of initiation into the brotherhood.
'I Cor. 1:17.
"Matt. 28 : 19; Mark 16 : 16.
3 In Acts 16 : 7 we have an example of warnings through
church " prophets " (cf. 20: 23; 21: 11) being referred to
" the spirit of Jesus."
69

THE FOUNDING OF THE CHURCH
The reason lies in the very fact that what
was sought in the new faith was the for
giveness of sins.
The priority of John the Baptist in the
introduction of this rite is undisputed. The
whole movement of Jesus to gather the lost
sheep of Israel was begun "after John was
shut up in prison." Jesus himself, and prob
ably many of his disciples, had been bap
tized of John. He gave it as his authority
when challenged for his right to proclaim
"sonship" to the publicans and sinners,
gave it as a sign " from heaven," that these
had repented at "the baptism of John."
And John's rite was indeed such a reversion
to first principles of the old prophetic reli
gion : " What doth Jehovah require of thee
but to do justly and to love mercy, and to
walk humbly with thy God?" It shows its
anti-legalistic character by turning away
from the whole apparatus of temple, and syn
agogue, and law, to seek a new mode of ap-
70

BAPTISM AND BREAKING OF BREAD
proach to God in the symbolism of nature it
self. The baptism of John had been the voice
of God saying : " Wash you, make you clean,
put away the evil of your doings from be
fore mine eyes." And when the publicans
and sinners obeyed it, Jesus considered
them nearer to doing the will of the Father
than the sons who said, " I go, Sir," and
went not. ' He did not stop there. He be
lieved that the sincere and penitent accept
ance of the Father's terms implied the
bestowal to the uttermost of the Father's
blessing. Therefore when John was impris
oned, Jesus came into the thickest crowds
of half-heathen, " Galilee of the Gentiles,"
and gathered the scattered sheep. And he
not only bade them " Repent, for the king
dom of God is at hand," but when they
did repent, he added the assurance, " Son,
daughter, thy sins are forgiven "; and to
the company that followed him : " Fear not,
1 Cf. Matt. 21 : 23-32.
71

THE FOUNDING OF THE CHURCH
little flock, it is your Father's good pleasure
to give you the kingdom." This was the
work that had to recommence after the flock
had once more been scattered, and Peter
had gone back to his fishing. It was not to
be expected that Peter would begin by
baptizing all his fellow disciples who had
not happened to be at the baptism of John.
But it was natural that in choosing new
disciples it should be "from them that have
companied with us . . . from the baptism
of John," T and that when they went up
together to Jerusalem and formed a bro
therhood, they should employ baptism
" in the name of Jesus " as their rite of
initiation in token of " the forgiveness of

sins."

But baptism gained a new and unfore
seen meaning from what occurred at this
time. "When they were baptized, the Holy
Ghost came upon them and they spake with
1 Acts 1 : 21, 22.
72

BAPTISM AND BREAKING OF BREAD
tongues." This was an experience so gen
eral, so universal, that baptism was not re
garded as Christian baptism at all unless
the baptized manifested the "gifts of the
Spirit." The baptism of Jesus himself, an
incident antecedent to their definite know
ledge of him, was represented as accompa
nied by the coming of " the whole fountain
of the Holy Ghost upon him." " Mere dis
ciples who had believed and been baptized
"unto John's baptism," without "receiving
the Holy Ghost," were baptized over again
" in the name of the Lord Jesus " after due
instruction. And when Paul's hands had
been laid upon them, they "spake with
tongues and prophesied." 2 A saying of Jesus
was recalled promising a greater matter
than Jehn's immersion in the waters of re
pentance. He had declared that the time
1 The Gospel of the Nazarenes. The representation of
Mark i : ii and parallels has the same conception in less
pronounced form.
2 Acts 19 : 1-7. 73

THE FOUNDING OF THE CHURCH
would come when men would be flooded
with the Spirit of God.1
It is because of this accompanying phe
nomenon of " the Spirit " that baptism
signifies to Paul both death and resurrec
tion. The immersion beneath the water is a
"burial with Christ," because it had to be
preceded by an act of dedication, of self-
surrender, which is like Jes us' own " becom
ing obedient unto the death of the cross."
In Paul's own case this self-surrender had
been a moral death, a crucifixion to all his
former world of hope and effort. As the
believer was lifted from beneath the sur
face into the light of day, the Spirit came
upon him, and involuntarily " he spake with
tongues and prophesied." To Paul this was
resurrection to a life that was not his own,
but Christ living in him. Paul might think
1 Earliest form, Acts n : 16 ; cf. 1 : 5. Adapted in Mark 1 :
8. The original saying would be in line with current an
ticipations of the coming Kingdom (see above, p. 57) and
with Jesus' own thought, Matt. 12 ¦ 43-45 ; Luke 17:21.
74

BAPTISM AND BREAKING OF BREAD
the form, the mere material rite, a matter
of indifference; but the thing symbolized
was to him the most vital thing in Chris
tianity. "As many as were baptized into
Christ did put on Christ." Until this living
Lord, who "is the Spirit," had mastered
their lives and made them his own, men
had no hope, they were " yet in their sins."
Fortunately Paul had the wisdom, the moral
insight, to realize that the mere mastering
of bodily functions by "the Spirit," result
ing in the spectacular gifts of " tongues "
and " prophecies," were temporary and sub
ordinate. Paul himself was endowed with
these gifts to an exceptional degree;* but
his moral sobriety taught him that the gifts
which "abide" come from a divine mastery
of the inner springs of the will,2 when "the
mind which was in Christ Jesus" lays hold
upon a man's inmost soul and turns it to
" faith and hope and love." 3
1 I Cor. 14 : 18. 2 Phil. 2 : 13. ' I Cor. 13 : 13.
75

THE FOUNDING OF THE CHURCH
We have seen that' the author of Acts
connects the " outpouring of the Spirit "
with a definite day, the fiftieth day from the
" great sabbath " of Passover,1 a " first day
of the week " designated " Pentecost " for
this reason, a feast which according to
current Jewish opinion commemorated the
giving of the law from Sinai in a stream of
fire which divided "like sparks from an
anvil " into seventy voices, one in each of
the seventy tongues of the nations.2 Luke
has been much influenced by this Jewish
legend of the giving of the Law in relating
the origin of the Christian gift of " tongues";
but we have no need to question the accu
racy of his date, nor the general effect of the
occurrence. Baptism, as we saw, must have
begun at about this time as a rite of initia
tion into the brotherhood formed when

1 Lev. 23 : 16.
2 A midrash derived from Deut. 33 : 2, and traceable in
Philo and the Talmud.
76

BAPTISM AND BREAKING OF BREAD
they first met in numbers sufficient to
warrant formal organization; and this was
surely in Jerusalem, and most apt to be at
the feast of Pentecost. Moreover, we have
evidence — later, indeed, than the Pauline
Epistles, yet barely later — of the observ
ance by Christians of the " first day of the
week" as "the Lord's day," ' and this cor
roborates the idea that Pentecost does in
deed mark the first appearance of these
psychic phenomena. For, notwithstanding
the traditional opinion, based on the Markan
story of the women's discovery of the empty
sepulchre on "the first day of the week,"
that the observance of " the Lord's day "
rests on this event, the real relation is
probably the reverse. The Church had its
" Lord's day " before the story of the
women had ever come to light. Even after
that it did not always consider that the
resurrection had taken place " on the third
1 Acts 20 : 7 ; Rev. 1 : 10.
77

THE FOUNDING OF THE CHURCH
day," or "after three days." It remained
a very debatable question just when the
resurrection and when the ascension had
taken place. The resurrection_/a^ began
with the " manifestation " to Peter, perhaps
" after six days," l perhaps still longer after
the Friday of the crucifixion. It cannot have
been so early as " the third day." Paul be
lieved that the glorification of Jesus' body
had been " on the third day," but this, as
he expressly says, was an inference from
" scripture," perhaps Hosea 6 : 2, perhaps
the law of " firstfruits," with which he con
nects the resurrection in First Corinthians
15 : 20.2 If the observance of "the Lord's
day" had been as primeval as we have reason
to think, and been based upon the women's
discovery of the empty tomb, it would be
incredible that Paul in summing up the com-
1 This may be the significance of the dating of the Reve
lation to Peter, Mark 9 : 2, and parallels.
2 Cf. Lev. 23: 11.
78

BAPTISM AND BREAKING OF BREAD
mon gospel of the resurrection should make
no mention whatever of this story, or that it
should appear so late and with the varia
tions that we actually find. If the tradi
tion of " the day of the Lord " is as early
as we think, it goes back beyond that of
the women's discovery of the empty tomb,
goes back to the triumphant manifestation
to the brotherhood expectantly assembled
in Jerusalem, of Jesus as Lord, on that
great "first day of the week," fifty days
after the fateful sabbath of Passover, some
forty after the manifestations had been given
"to Cephas" and "the twelve." Then, at
Pentecost, perhaps in conjunction with the
adoption of the rite of baptism, " the Holy
Ghost came upon them, and they spake
with tongues and prophesied." Scriptural
reasons were not hard to find after this for
dating other "manifestations," including the
late-appearing story of the women's vision
of angels, on " the first day of the week."
79

THE FOUNDING OF THE CHURCH
Like baptism, the " breaking of bread "
was a rite older than the Church. In its
simplest form it was just the common meal,
at which Jesus had presided as house
father, breaking the bread with prayer, and
distributing it to his household and their
guests. As such it went back in origin to
the days of the Galilean ministry. Thus
Jesus could be " recognized in the break
ing of the bread " even by disciples who
had not been present at the last supper.
This common meal of the brotherhood, not
widely different in form and purpose from
the common meals of the " neighborhoods"
of Pharisees, or the banquets of social and
religious clubs among the Greeks, became
the so-called Agape, or " love-feast," of the
primitive Church. The name was appro
priate because it gave opportunity, when
not abused, as at Corinth, by the spirit of
clique and aristocracy,1 to help the weak,
* I Cor. n : 21.
80

BAPTISM AND BREAKING OF BREAD
feed the hungry, promote the real sense of
brotherhood. In the early days of devotion,
when the Church was first formed in Jeru
salem, this " breaking of bread " together,
in the name, and after the example, of Jesus,
was not only a " daily " lesson of the spirit
of brotherhood, but a matter of practical
sustenance to the " widows " and the poor.
We may realize something of the part it
played among the primitive disciples when
we take up the Gospels in which they have
embodied their beliefs, institutions, and
practices, and see how no less than six dif
ferent versions of the Feeding the Multitude
are incorporated, each dwelling minutely
on the whole procedure of the seating of
the assembly in orderly " eating compa
nies," the breaking and blessing of the food
by the presiding officer, the distribution of it
by his subordinates, and the " gathering of
the fragments" for subsequent distribution
to the poor. The "love-feast," rightly con-
81

THE FOUNDING OF THE CHURCH
ducted, was a worthy institution by which
to perpetuate, not in outward form alone,
but in spirit also, the brotherhood of Jesus.
But Paul's ordering of the Agape" in First
Corinthians 1 1 : 17-34 d°es not stoP wu^ *"s
rebuke of the selfishness exhibited at the
fraternal meal. He goes on to speak of a rite
explicitly declared to have been instituted by
Jesus himself on " the night in which he was
betrayed," and expressly for the purpose
of perpetuating the memory of his martyr
dom. Jesus' last parable had been an adapt
ation of the bread and wine of the meal
in which for the last time he had performed
the well-known rite,1 as tokens of his su
preme gift. Henceforth when they broke
their bread together they should take it in
memory of him, because his body was
about to be given, his blood about to be
1 Gospel criticism reveals the fact that this last meal was
not the passover, but the so-called qiddush of the night be
fore. See Beginnings of Gospel Story, pp. 195-205, and
note above (p. 13).
82

BAPTISM AND BREAKING OF BREAD
shed, for their sakes, as he now gave them
the broken bread and poured forth the
wine. Thus there was added to the existent
fraternal meal a special " memorial of the
Lord's death," a " communion of the body
and blood of the Lord." In Jesus' intention
it had been simply a " memorial " of him.
As often as they performed together the
rite of the blessing and breaking of bread
and blessing of the cup, they would remem
ber that his death had borne out the prin
ciple of his life. As he had bidden them
freely pour out all the common stock be
fore the multitude when he had made them
all his guests in Galilee, so now with his
life-blood. It was given for the " many " in
the cause of the kingdom. Paul, after his
manner, has infused the memorial with a
mystic sense derived from his own inner
experience of death and resurrection with
Christ. To Paul the " communion of the
Lord's body" is in the strict sense a "sac-
83

THE FOUNDING OF THE CHURCH
rament" in which the believer becomes
mystically united to the Lord, so that to the
worthy partaker it is almost the " medicine
of immortality " which Ignatius declares it,
and to the unworthy an actual cause of
sickness and death.1 We have no need to
pursue the development of the rite through
its later stages. It is easy to distinguish
what Paul " received of the Lord " 2 from
his personal application of it. Jesus did not
institute a sacrament. He did give his fol
lowers a " memorial " of his teaching and
example. It has become a " sacrament "
through Christian experience. Since the
time of Paul — nay, since the time, per
haps, when " the twelve " first gathered at
the astounding summons, " The Lord is
risen, and hath appeared unto Simon," and
1 1 Cor. ii : 30.
2 1 Cor. 11 : 23. The preposition is apo = " as coming
from," not para, which might apply to direct or indirect
transmission. The contents of the statement, simple matter
of historical fact, show that the reference is not to revelation.
84

BAPTISM AND BREAKING OF BREAD
they who were come together were them
selves made conscious of the presence of
the risen Jesus " in the breaking of the
bread," ' men have found this " fellowship
(communion) of his sufferings " a means
of becoming " conformed unto his death "
and thereby "attaining unto the resurrec
tion from the dead."2 The sacramental
significance of the Church's rites is an out
growth of her own experience. But already
the little brotherhood that assembled in
Jerusalem had the token, as they had also
the assurance, of the forgiveness of sins,
when they baptized " in the name of Jesus."
When they met together for " the breaking
1 This trait is seldom wanting from the older references
to the first manifestation to " the twelve " and may be au
thentic. We find it referred to in Acts 10 : 41 ; 1 : 4 (?) ; Luke
24:43; John 21 : 12-14; 20: I9(?). In the Gospel according
to the Hebrews, which makes the manifestation " to James "
the first, Jesus " called for a table and bread, and said: My
brother, eat thy bread, for the Son of man is risen from the
dead." 2 Phil. 3: 10, 11.
85

THE FOUNDING OF THE CHURCH
of bread," they had also a " communion " of
the Lord's body, a " memorial " of him who
had " suffered for them, leaving them an
example that they should follow his steps." '
We have sought to trace, simply and
briefly, but with unreserved application of
the most untrammeled criticism, the story
of the Founding of the Church, the origin
of its membership, its faith in the risen
Christ, its institutions. It will be said that
we have made it the sole work of Peter, a
Galilean fisherman, acting on the impulse of
what he was pleased to regard as a " mani
festation "to him of his old-time Leader,
as the glorified Son of God.
In a sense, that is true. Peter was the
founder of the Church, as Jesus was the
Founder of the kingdom of God. The hum
bler the originator, the more sure are we
that his work was just what it has always pur-
'IPet. 2:21.
86

BAPTISM AND BREAKING OF BREAD
ported to be : the awakening, the reincarna
tion, of the spirit of Jesus. If anything has
been made clear by our study, it is that no
thing went to the building of the Church
which was not placed there in loyal per
petuation of the teaching and example of
Jesus. Its faith, its principle of order, its in
stitutions, its work, were all from him. Even
its leaders and its members were his old-time
companions and fellow- workers in the gath
ering of the lost sheep. What else could they
do ? Other foundation could no man lay than
that was laid, which was Christ Jesus.
And what of Peter's " manifestation " ? —
Purposely we have refrained from raising the
question so often raised concerning this fun
damental starting-point of all : was it subject
ive, or objective ? Historical criticism does
not furnish the means of determining whe
ther that manifestation of Jesus as the Son
of God with power, the revelation of Peter,
was effected by the direct intervention of
87

THE FOUNDING OF THE CHURCH
the risen spirit of Jesusy surmounting all the
obstacles between that unseen world and
this in the supreme effort of redeeming love ;
or whether the influence was indirect, a
return to Peter's mind, lost in grief and
despair, of all that his companionship with
Jesus had meant of devotion and of faith in
God, a rushing back of these amid the old
scenes of his first call to be "a fisher of
men," with such power of conviction as
carried reason out of itself into the realm of
ecstasy and vision. Either is possible. There
seems no present likelihood of our ever ob
taining decisive information as to which was
the historic fact. We must go back further
yet for the ultimate basis of our faith. We
must rest it where Paul does when he places
Peter's revelation in the same category with
his own as " the inworking of God," mani
festing his Son "in" him, "declaring" Jesus
to be " the Son of God with power." Whether
by objective intervention of a personal risen
88

THE FOUNDING OF THE CHURCH
spirit of Jesus, or by indirect influence of a
past companionship, such as can be given
also to " those who have not seen and yet
have believed," this is what Jesus eternally
ts ; and as such God is continually reveal
ing him, " the power of God unto salvation
to every one that believeth, to the Jew
first, and also to the Greek."
There is then a sense in which the Church
has a greater Founder than Peter, or even
Jesus himself. It was the work of One who
" worketh all things after the counsel of his
will; to the end that we should be unto the
praise of his glory," who " were sealed in
Christ with the Holy Spirit of promise,
which is an earnest of our inheritance, unto
the redemption of God's own possession,
unto the praise of his glory."
For not like kingdoms of the world
Thy holy Church, O God !
Though earthquake shocks are threatening her,
And tempests are abroad ;
89

BAPTISM AND BREAKING OF BREAD
Unshaken as the eternal hills,
Immovable she stands,
A mountain that shall fill the earth,
A house not made by hands.

gthe Sibergibe ^re^
CAMBRIDGE . MASSACHUSETTS
U . S . A

MODERNRELIGIOUSPROBLEMS

EDITED BY
DR. AMBROSE W. VERNON

For a long time there has been an atmosphere of
uncertainty in the religious realm. TMs uncertainty
has been caused by the widespread knowledge that
modern scholarship has modified the traditional con
ceptions of the Christian religion, and particularly by
widespread ignorance of the precise modifications to
which modem scholarship has been led.
The aim of this series of books is to lay before the
great body of intelligent people in the English-speak
ing world the precise results of this scholarship, so
that men both within and without the churches may
be able to understand the conception of the Christian
religion (and of its Sacred Books) which obtains
among its leading scholars to-day, and that they may
intelligently cooperate in the great practical problems
with which the churches are now confronted.
While at many a point divergent views are cham
pioned, it has become apparent in the last few years
that it is possible to speak of a consensus of opinion
among the leading scholars of England and America,
who have, in general, adopted the modern point of
view.

The publishers and editor congratulate themselves
that this consensus of opinion may be presented to
the public not by middle-men, but by men who from
their position and attainment are recognized through
out the English Protestant world as among those best
able to speak with authority on the most important
subjects which face intelligent religious men to-day.
It is a notable sign of the times that these eminent
specialists have gladly consented to pause in their de
tailed research, in order to acquaint the religious
public with the results of their study.
Modern Religious Problems are many, but they
fall chiefly under one of the four divisions into which
this series of books is to be divided : —
I. The Old Testament.
II. The New Testament.
III. Fundamental Christian Conceptions.
IV. Practical Church Problems.
Under these four main divisions the most vital
problems will be treated in short, concise, clear vol
umes. They will leave technicalities at one side and
they will be published at a price which will put the
assured results of religious scholarship within the
reach of all.
The volumes already arranged for are the following :
I. OLD TESTAMENT
"THE ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE
LAW." By Canon S. R. DRIVER, Oxford University.
"HOW WE GOT OUR OLD TESTAMENT."
By Professor WILLIAM R. ARNOLD, Andover Semin
ary.
"THE PRIMITIVE RELIGION OF ISRAEL."
By Professor L. B. PATON, Hartford Theological Semin
ary.

II. NEW TESTAMENT
?'THE EARLIEST SOURCES FOR THE LIFE OF
JESUS." By Professor F. C. BURKITT, Cambridge Uni
versity, England. (In Press.)
"THE MIRACLES OF JESUS."
By Professor F. C. PORTER, Yale University.
"THE FOUNDING OF THE CHURCH."
By Professor B. W. BACON, Yale University. (Now
Ready.)
"HOW WE GOT OUR NEW TESTAMENT."
By Professor J. H. ROPES, Harvard University.
"PAUL AND PAULINISM."
By Rev. JAMES MOFFATT, D. D., Broughty Ferry,
Forfarshire, Scotland.
"THE HISTORICAL AND RELIGIOUS VALUE OF
THE FOURTH GOSPEL." By Professor E. F. SCOTT,
Queen's University, Kingston. (In Press.)
III. FUNDAMENTAL CHRISTIAN
CONCEPTIONS
"THE GOSPEL OF JESUS."
By Professor G. W. KNOX, Union Theological Seminary.
New York. With General Introduction to the Series. (Now
Ready.)
"THE GOD OF THE CHRISTIAN."
By Professor A. C. McGIFFERT, Union Theological Sem
inary.
"SIN AND ITS FORGIVENESS."
By President WILLIAM DeW. HYDE, Bowdoin College.
(Now Ready.)
'THE PERSON OF JESUS."
By President H. C. KING, Oberlin College.
"THE AUTHORITY OF THE SCRIPTURES."
By Professor SHAILER MATHEWS, University of Chi
cago.

IV. PRACTICAL CHURCH PROBLEMS
"THE PLACE OF THE CHURCH IN MODERN
SOCIETY." By WM. JEWETT TUCKER, Ex-Presi
dent of Dartmouth College.
"THE CHURCH AND LABOR."
By CHARLES STELZLE, Superintendent of Department
of the Church and Labor of the Presbyterian Church of the
United States.
"THE ADJUSTMENT OF THE BIBLE SCHOOLS
TO MODERN NEEDS." By Professor CHARLES F.
KENT, Yale University.
"THE CHURCH AND THE CHILD."
By Rev. HENRY SLOANE COFFIN, Madison Ave.
Presbyterian Church, New York City.
The general editor of the series, Rev. Ambrose
White Vernon, is a graduate of Princeton University
(1891) and of Union Theological Seminary (1894).
After two years more of study in Germany, on a fel
lowship, he had an experience of eight years in the
pastorate, at Hiawatha, Kansas, and East Orange,
New Jersey. From 1904 to 1907 he was professor of
Biblical literature in Dartmouth College, and then
professor of practical theology at Yale till the present
year, when he returned to the pastorate, succeeding
the late Dr. Reuen Thomas at Harvard Church,
Brookline, one of the leading churches of metropoli
tan Boston. Dartmouth College gave him the de
gree of D. D. in 1907.
Tke volumes are attractively bound in cloth. Thin
12-mo, each JO cents net. Postage J cents.
HOUGHTON MIFFLIN COMPANY
4 Park St., Boston : 85 Fifth Ave., New York

I liii!
:

¦ill

I "
Pi

-

i

,11 III I