dies out. Even at the close of the fourth century, they seem to have mustered in considerable numbers in the east of Palestine, and were scattered through the great cities of the empire. But their existence was Ebionism not prolonged much later. About the middle of the fifth century they had almost disappeared'. They would gradually be absorbed either into the Catholic Church or into the Jewish synagogue: into the latter probably, for their attachment to the law seems all along to have been stronger than their attachment to Christ. Thus then a comprehensive survey of the Church in the second century seems to reveal a substantial unity of doctrine and a general recognition of Jewish and Gentile Apostles alike throughout the greater part of Christendom. At the same time it could hardly happen, that the influence of both should be equally felt or the authority of both estimated alike in all branches of the Church. St Paul and the Twelve had by mutual consent occupied distinct spheres of labour; and this distribution of provinces must necessarily have produced some effect on the subsequent history of the Church. The communities founded by St Paul would collect and preserve the letters of their founder with special care; while the brotherhoods evangelized by the Apostles of the Circumcision would attribute a superior, if not an exclusive, value to the writings of these 'pillars' of the Church. It would therefore be no great surprise if we should find that in individual writers of the second century and in different parts of the early Church, the Epistles of St Paul on the one hand, the Apocalypse of St John or the letter of St James on the other, were seldom or never appealed to as authorities. The 1 Theodoret, Haer. Fab. ii. 11, mentions the Ebionites and the Elchasaites among those of whom οὐδὲ βραχὺ διέμεινε λείψανον. 2 Gal. ii. 9; see Westcott's History of the Canon p. 77 sq, ed. 4. 3 Many false inferences however, affecting the history of the Canonical writings, have been drawn from the silence of Eusebius, which has been entirely misapprehended: see Contemporary Review, January, 1875, p. 169 sq, Colossians p. 52 sq. The phenomenon exhibited in the Ancient Syriac Documents (edited by Cureton, 1864) is remarkable. Though they refer more than once to the Acts of the Apostles (pp. 15, 27, 35) as the work of St Luke and as possessing canonical authority, and though they allude incidentally to St Paul's labours (PP. 35, 61, 62), there is yet no reference to the epistles of this Apostle, where the omission cannot have been accidental (p. 32), and the most important churches founded by him, equable circulation of all the apostolic writings was necessarily the work of time. THE Use of the THE foregoing account of the conflict of the Church with Judaism foregoing account. has been necessarily imperfect, and in some points conjectural; but it will prepare the way for a more correct estimate of the relations between St Paul and the leading Apostles of the Circumcision. We shall be in a position to view these relations no longer as an isolated chapter in history, but in connexion with events before and after and we shall be furnished also with means of estimating the value of later traditional accounts of these first preachers of the Gospel. ST PAUL. His por Acts. ST PAUL himself is so clearly reflected in his own writings, that a distorted image of his life and doctrine would seem to be due only to defective vision. Yet our first impressions require to be corrected or rather supplemented by an after consideration. Seeing him chiefly as the champion of Gentile liberty, the constant antagonist of Jew and Judaizer, we are apt to forget that his character has another side also. By birth and education he was a Hebrew of the Hebrews and the traditions and feelings of his race held him in honourable captivity to the very last. Of this fact the narrative of the Acts affords many striking trait in the examples. It exhibits him associating with the Apostles of the Circumcision on terms of mutual respect and love, celebrating the festivals and observing the rites of his countrymen, everywhere giving the precedence to the Jew over the Gentile. Its truth question ed, But the character of the witness has been called in question. This narrative, it is said, is neither contemporary nor trustworthy. It was written long after the events recorded, with the definite purpose of uniting the two parties in the Church. Thus the incidents are forged or wrested to subserve the purpose of the writer. It was part of his plan to represent St Peter and St Paul as living on friendly terms, in order to reconcile the Petrine and Pauline factions. as Ephesus, Thessalonica, Corinth, etc., are stated to have received 'the Apostles' Hand of Priesthood from The Acts of the Apostles in the multiplicity and variety of its details probably affords greater means of testing its general character for truth than any other ancient narrative in existence; and in my opinion it satisfies the tests fully. But this is not the place for such an investigation. Neither shall I start from the assumption that it has any historical value. Taking common ground with those whose views I am considering, I shall draw my proofs from St Paul's Epistles alone in the first instance, nor from all of these, but from such only as are allowed even by the extreme critics of the Tübingen but established by school to be genuine, the Epistles to the Romans, Corinthians, and his own writings. Galatians'. It so happens that they are the most important for my purpose. If they contain the severest denunciations of the Judaizers, if they display the most uncompromising antagonism to Judaism, they also exhibit more strongly than any others St Paul's sympathies with his fellow-countrymen. tion of the These then are the facts for which we have St Paul's direct personal testimony in the epistles allowed by all to be genuine. (1) (1) PosiThe position of the Jews. He assigns to them the prerogative over Jews. the Gentiles; a prior right to the privileges of the Gospel, involving a prior reward if they are accepted and, according to an universal rule in things spiritual, a prior retribution if they are spurned (Rom. i. 16, ii. 9, 10). In the same spirit he declares that the advantage is on the side of the Jew, and that this advantage is 'much every way' (Rom. iii. 1, 2). (2) His affection for his countrymen. His (2) His earnestness and depth of feeling are nowhere more striking than for them. when he is speaking of the Jews: 'Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved: for I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge' (Rom. x. 1, 2). Thus in spite of their present stubborn apostasy he will not allow that they have been cast away (xi. 1), 1 These four epistles alone were accepted as genuine by Baur and Schwegler. Hilgenfeld, who may now be regarded as the chief of the Tübingen school, has in this, as in many other points, deserted the extreme position of Baur whom he calls the 'great master.' He accepts as genuine 1 Thes- affection (3) His practical care for them. (4) His conform but looks forward to the time when ‘all Israel shall be saved' (xi. 26). So strong indeed is his language in one passage, that commentators regarding the letter rather than the spirit of the Apostle's prayer, have striven to explain it away by feeble apologies and unnatural interpretations: 'I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost, that I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart: for I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ (ανάθεμα εἶναι αὐτὸς ἐγὼ ἀπὸ τοῦ Xpuroù) for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh' (Rom. ix. 1-3). (3) His practical care for his countrymen. The collection of alms for the poor brethren of Judæa occupies much of his attention and suggests messages to various churches (Rom. xv. 25, 26; 1 Cor. xvi. 1-6; 2 Cor. viii, ix; Gal. ii. 10). It is clear not only that he is very solicitous himself on behalf of the Christians of the Circumcision, but that he is anxious also to inspire his Gentile converts with the same interest. (4) His conformity to Jewish habits ity to their and usages. St Paul lays down this rule, to 'become all things to all men that he may by all means save some' (1 Cor. ix. 22). This is the key to all seeming inconsistencies in different representations of his conduct. In his epistles we see him chiefly as a Gentile among Gentiles; but this powerful moral weapon has another edge. Applying this maxim, he himself tells us emphatically that 'unto the Jews he became as a Jew, that he might gain the Jews; unto them that are under the law as under the law, that he might gain them that are under the law' (1 Cor. ix. 20). The charges of his Judaizing opponents are a witness that he did carry out his maxim in this direction, as in the other. With a semblance of truth they taunt him with inconsistency, urging that in his own practice he had virtually admitted their principles, that in fact he had himself (5) His use preached circumcision'. (5) His reverence for the Old Testament Scriptures. This is a strongly marked feature in the four epistles which I am considering. They teem with quotations, while there are comparatively few in his remaining letters. For metaphor, allegory, example, argument, confirmation, he draws upon this inex usages. of the Old Testament. 1 See above, p. 28 sq, and notes on i. 10, ii. 3, V. 2, II. haustible store. However widely he may have differed from his rabbinical teachers in other respects, he at least did not yield to them in reverence for 'the law and the prophets and the psalms.' in tone between the These facts being borne in mind (and they are indisputable) the portrait of St Paul in the Acts ought not to present any difficulties. It records no one fact of the Apostle, it attributes no sentiment to him, which is not either covered by some comprehensive maxim or supported by some practical instance in his acknowledged letters. On the other hand the tone of the history confessedly differs some- Difference what from the tone of the epistles. Nor could it possibly have been otherwise. Written in the heat of the conflict, written to confute Acts and Epistles. unscrupulous antagonists and to guard against dangerous errors, St Paul's language could not give a complete picture of his relations with the Apostles and the Church of the Circumcision. Arguments directed against men, who disparaged his authority by undue exaltation of the Twelve, offered the least favourable opportunity of expressing his sympathy with the Twelve. Denunciations of Judaizing teachers, who would force their national rites on the Gentile Churches, were no fit vehicle for acknowledging his respect for and conformity with those rites. The fairness of this line of argument will be seen by comparing the differences observable in his own epistles. His tone may be said to be graduated according to the temper and character of his hearers. The opposition of the Galatian letter to the Mosaic ritual is stern and uncompromising. It was written to correct a virulent form of Judaism. On the other hand the remonstrances in the Epistle to the Romans are much more moderate, guarded by constant explanations and counterpoised by expressions of deep sympathy. Here he was writing to a mixed church of Jews and Gentiles, where there had been no direct opposition to his authority, no violent outbreak of Judaism. If then we picture him in his intercourse with his own countrymen at Jerusalem, where the claims of his nation were paramount and where the cause of Gentile liberty could not be compromised, it seems most natural that he should have spoken and acted as he is represented in the Acts. Luther denouncing the pope for idolatry and Luther rebuking Carl |