St Paul and the Three

translation of Rufinus, who avowedly altered his original with great freedom1. Attack on ln the Homilies Simon Magus is the impersonation of the Homi- manifold heresy, and as such is refuted and condemned by St Peter. Among other false teachers, who are covertly denounced in his person, we cannot fail to recognise the lineaments of St Paul*. Thus St Peter charges his hearers,' Shun any apostle, or teacher, or prophet, who does not first compare his preaching with James called the brother of my Lord and entrusted with the care of the Church of the Hebrews in Jerusalem, and has not come to you with witnesses8; lest the wickedness, which contended with the Lord forty days and prevailed not, should afterwards fall upon the earth as lightning from heaven and send forth a preacher against you, just as he suborned Simon against us, preaching in the name of our Lord and sowing error under the pretence of truth; wherefore He that sent us said, Many shall come to me in sheep's clothing, but within they are ravening wolves (xi. 35).' The allusions here to St Paul's rejection of 'commendatory letters' (2 Cor. iii. 1) and to the scene on the way to Damascus (Acts ix. 3) are clear. In another passage St Peter, after explaining that Christ must be preceded by Antichrist, the true prophet by the false, and applying this law to the preaching of Simon and himself, adds: 'If he had been known (el iyivaxrieero) he would not have been believed, but now being not known (asyvoovfievos) he is wrongly believed.. .being death, he has been desired as if he were a saviour...and being a deceiver he is heard as if he spake the truth (ii . 17, 18).' The writer seems to be playing with St Paul's own words,'as deceivers and yet true, as unknown and yet well known, as dying and behold we live (2 Cor. vi. 8, 9).' In a third passage there is a very distinct allusion to the Apostle's account of the conflict at Antioch in the Galatian Epistle: 'If then,' says St Peter to Simon, 'our Jesus was made known to thee also and conversed with thee being seen in a vision, He was angry with thee as an adversary, and therefore He spake with thee by visions and dreams, or even by outward revelations. Can any one be made wise unto doctrine by visions? If thou sayest he can, then why did the Teacher abide and converse with us a whole year when we were awake? And how shall we ever believe thee in this, that He was seen of thee? Nay, how could He have been seen of thee, when thy thoughts are contrary to His teaching? If having been seen and instructed of Him for a single hour thou wast made an Apostle, then preach His words, expound His teaching, love His Apostles, do not fight against me His companion. For thou hast withstood and opposed me (evavrioi avBkaTrjKa<$ poi), the firm rock, the foundation of the Church. If thou hadst not been an adversary, thou wouldest not have calumniated and reviled my preaching, that I might not be believed when I

1 The only complete editions of the Homilies are those of Dressel, dementis Rvmani quae feruntur Homiliae Viginti (1853), and of Lagarde, Clementina (1865); the end of the 19th and the whole of the 20th homily having been published for the first time by Dressel. The Recognitions, which have been printed several times, may be read most conveniently in Gersdorfs edition (Lips. 1838). A Syriac Version lately published by Lagarde (Clementi* Romani Recognitiones Syriace, Lips, et Lond. 1861) is made up partly of the Recognitions (i, ii, hi, iv), and partly of the Homilies (z, xi, xii, xiii, xiv, the xth book being imperfect). The older of the two extant Ii ss of this version was actually written A.d. 411, the year after the death of Rufinua; but the errors of transcription, which it exhibits, show that it was taken from an earlier Ma We are thus carried back to a very remote date. The first part, containing the early books of the Becognitions, is extremely valuable, for it enables us to measure the liberties which Rufinus took with his original. An important instance of his arbitrary treatment will

be given below, p. 86, note 5. Two abridgments of the Homilies are extant. These have been edited by Dressel, ClementinorumEpitomaeduae (Lips. 1859), one of them for the first time. Of those monographs which I have read on the relations between the different Clementine writings, the treatise of Uhlhorn, Die ffomilien und Recognitionen etc. (Gottingen, 1854), seems to me on the whole the most satisfactory. It is dangerous to express an opinion where able critics are so divided; and the remarks in the text are not hazarded without some hesitation. Baur, Schliemann, Schwegler, and Uhlhorn, give the priority to the Homilies, Hilgenfeld and Ritschl to the Recognitions, Lehmann partly to the one and partly to the other, while Reuss and others decline to pronounce a decided opinion.

3 See on this subject Schliemann Clement, pp. 96 sq, 534 sq: comp. Stanley's Corinthians, p. 366 sq.

3 Kal neri, napripuv rpoaeXq\vBtrta.. It is needless to insert fi.ii with Schliemann and Schwegler: the negative is carried on from the former clause nj; rp/nepov dvtifidWovta.

in the Letter of Peter,

told what I had heard myself in person from the Lord, as though forsooth I were condemned (Karayv<oa-Bevros) and thou wert highly regarded1. Nay, if thou callest me condemned (/iateyvcoa-fievov), thou accusest God who revealed Christ to me and assailest Him that called me blessed in my revelation* (xvii. 19).' In this same bitter spirit the writer would rob him of all his missionary triumphs and transfer them to his supposed rival: the Apostleship of the Gentiles, according to the Homilies, belongs not to St Paul but to St Peter: Barnabas is no more the companion nor Clement the disciple of St Paul but of St Peter*.

Again, in the letter of Peter to James prefixed to the Homilies, emanating from the same school though perhaps not part of the work itself, and if so, furnishing another example of this bitterness of feeling, St Peter is made to denounce those Gentile converts who repudiate his lawful preaching, welcoming a certain lawless and foolish doctrine of the enemy (jov iftBpou av6pcoirov <li'ofiov rum Kal <p\vapw8r} BiSainiaXiav), complaining also that 'certain persons attempted by crafty interpretations to wrest his words to the abolishing of the law, pretending that this was his opinion, but that he did not openly preach it,' with more to the same effect (§ 2).

In the Recognitions, probably a later patch-work*, the harsher features of the Essene-Ebionite doctrine, as it appears in the Homilies, are softened down, and these bitter though indirect attacks on St Paul omitted; whether by the original redactor or by his translator Rufinus, it is not easy to say*.

in the Recognitions,

1 The existing text has Kal inov eiSoKinovvtos, for which some have proposed to read Kal ^ eiSoKipovvtos. It is better perhaps to substitute aov or ovSa/wu for <>o0, though neither is a neat emendation. Some change however is absolutely needed.

* Toc irl iroKo\^u naxaplaavtOS fu. The allusion is to Matt. xvi. 17, /iaxdpios et K.r.X.

* See also other references to St

Paul noted elsewhere, Galatiaiu, p. 61.

4 Not much earlier than the middle of the third century; for a portion of the treatise de Fate, written probably by a disciple of Bardesanes, is worked up in the later books; unless indeed this is itself borrowed from the Recognitions.

8 In one instance at least the change is due to Rufinus himself. His translation of Clem. Recogn. iii. 61 contains a distinct recognition of St Paul's

Thus in the portions corresponding to and probably taken from
the Homilies no traces of this hostility remain. But in one
passage adapted from another work, probably the 'Ascents of
James1,' it can still be discerned, the allusion having either
escaped notice or been spared because it was too covert to give
offence. It is there related that a certain enemy (homo quidam
inimicus) raised a tumult against the Apostles and with his
own hands assaulted James and threw him down from the steps
of the temple, ceasing then to maltreat him, only because he
believed him to be dead; and that after this the Apostles
received secret information from Gamaliel, that this enemy
(inimicus ille homo) had been sent by Caiaphas on a mission to
Damascus to persecute and slay the disciples, and more especi-
ally to take Peter, who was supposed to have fled thither
(i . 70, 71)*. The original work, from which this portion of the
Recognitions seems to have been borrowed, was much more and in the
violent and unscrupulous in its attacks on St Paul; for in the James'8 °
'Ascents of James' Epiphanius read the story, that he was of
Gentile parentage, but coming to Jerusalem and wishing to
marry the high-priest's daughter he became a proselyte and
was circumcised: then, being disappointed of his hope, he
turned round and furiously attacked the Mosaic ordinances
(Haer. xxx. 16).

Apostleship, 'Nonum (par) omnium ings, disappears,
geutium et illius qui mittetur seminare 1 Uhlhorn, p. 366. Epiphanius men-
verbum inter gentes.' (On these av$v- tions this book, avapaBnol 'I<uiii/Sov, as
yiai of the false and the true see above, being in circulation among the Ebion-
p. 85.) But the corresponding pas- ites (xxx. 16). It was so called doubt-
sage in the Syriac version (p. 115,1. 20, less as describing the ascents of James
Lagarde) is wholly different, and trans- up the temple-stairs, whence he ha-
lated back into Greek will run thus: ri rangued the people. The name and the
Si hv&ttj (av£vyla) Tov aripnaros Tw description of its contents in Epi-
fi£<wluv Kox Toc eiayyt\lov rod refiro- phanius alike favour the view that it
nivov els trutrpo<frfy>, 6to.v l*pifudg rb was the original of this portion of the
iyiov Kal els rijv ipr/jiuaaiv airrov 8-fyrovai Recognitions. But if so, the redactor
To f}Si\vyna : see Dan. ix. 27, and com- of the Recognitions must have taken
pare Clem. Hom. ii. 17 (quoted above, the same liberties with it as he has
p. 80, note 1). Thus the commenda- done with the Homilies,
tion of St Paul, which is wholly alien 9 This passage is substantially the
to the spirit of these Clementine writ- same in the Syriao.

In the earlier part of the third century these Gnostic Ebionites seem to have made some futile efforts to propagate their views. An emissary of the sect, one Alcibiades of Apamea in Syria, appeared in Rome with the pretended revelation of Elchasai, and (thinking himself the better juggler of the two, says Hippolytus) half succeeded in cajoling the pope Callistus, but was exposed and defeated by the zealous bishop of Portus who tells the story (Haer. ix. 13—17). Not many years after another emissary, if it was not this same Alcibiades, appeai-s to have visited Caesarea, where he was. confronted and denounced by Origen1.

This display of activity might lead to an exaggerated estimate of the influence of these Judaizing sects. It is not probable that they left any wide or lasting impression west of Syria. In Palestine itself they would appear to have been confined to certain localities lying for the most part about the Jordan and the Dead Sea. After the reconstitution of the mother Church at Mlia. Capitolina the Christianity of Palestine seems to have been for the most part neither Ebionite nor Nazarene. It is a significant fact, implying more than appears at first sight, that in the Paschal controversy which raged in the middle and later half of the second century the bishops of Caesarea and Jerusalem, of Tyre and Ptolemais, ranged themselves, not with the Churches of Asia Minor which regulated their Easter festival by the Jewish passover without regard to the day of the week, but with those of Rome and Alexandria and Gaul which observed another rule; thus avoiding even the semblance of Judaism5. But we have more direct testimony to the main features of Palestinian doctrine about the middle of the second century in the known opinions of two writers who lived at the time—Justin as representative of the Samaritan, and Hegesippus of the Hebrew Christianity of their day. The former of these declares himself distinctly against the two characteristic tenets of Ebionism. Against their humanitarian Justin, views he expressly argues, maintaining the divinity of Christ1. On the universal obligation of the law he declares, not only that those who maintain this opinion are wrong, but that he himself will hold no communion with them, for he doubts whether they can be saved*. If, as an apologist for the Gospel against Gentile and Jew, he is precluded by the nature of his writings from quoting St Paul8, whose name would be received by the one with indifference and by the other with hatred, he still shows by his manner of citing and applying the Old Testament that he is not unfamiliar with this Apostle's writings4. The testimony of Hegesippus is still more im- Hegesipportant, for his extant fragments prove him to have been a' thorough Hebrew in all his thoughts and feelings. This writer made a journey to Rome, calling on the way at Corinth among other places; he expresses himself entirely satisfied with the teaching of the Churches which he thus visited; 'Under each successive bishop,' he says,'and in each city it is so as the law and the prophets and the Lord preach6.' Was the doctrine of

Churches of Palestine not Ebionite.

Paschal controversy.

1 Euseb. II. E. vi. 38. This extract is taken from Origen's Homily on the R2nd Psalm, which appears to have been delivered in Cresarea about A.d.

See Redepenning Origerue n. 8 Euseb. II. E. v. 23, 24. See below,

247. p. 72,

p. 101, note 2.

1 Dial. oo. 48, 127. Hegesippus would seem to be referring

2 Dial. cc. 47, 48. to some earlier work or earlier portion

* See Westcott's argument (Canon of this work, which he now supple

p. 117 sq) drawn from the usage of ments. Possibly however the oonjec

other apologists, Tertullian for in- tural reading Jurrpi/SV irocqaiiaiv, 'I

stance, who does not quote even the continued to reside,' maybe correct:

Gospels in his Apology. but the translation of Rnfinus, 'per

4 See Gahitians, p. 60, and the notes mansi inibi (i.e. Romae) donee Aniceto on Gal. iii. 28, iv. 27. Soter et Soteri successit Eleutherus,'

5 In Euseb. 11. E. iv. 22. The ex- is of little or no weight on this side; tract ends, yevbiuvos Si iv 'Piinji SiaSo- for he constantly uses his fluency in jrty ironjadn-rp> nixpu 'akk^toi; oj 8«t- Latin to gloze over his imperfect *ewos $r 'EXn)0epos- Kal rapb. 'Arudirov knowledge of Greek, and the evasion imWxrrai Zunjp, luB' ov 'E\t66epos • iv of a real difficulty is with him the rule h&irrQ Si SiaSoxv "td iv iKifftji R6x« rather than the exception. If we reovrui t%a lis 6 vdfws Kr/pvrtfi nfoi ol tain SiaSoxfy, the words of Hegesippus rpwfTftax Kox i Krpios. If the text be would still seem to imply that he left correct, SiaSoxhv iroirio-dnriv must mean Rome during the episcopate of Anioe'I drew up a list or an account of the tus. Eusebius indeed (H. E. iv. 11) successive bishops' (see Pearson in infers, apparently from this passage, Rauth i. p. 268 sq); and in this case that he remained there till Eleutherus became bishop; and Jerome (de Vir. Zephyrinus 198 or 199, Gallistoa 217,

the whole Christian world at this time (A.D. 150) Ebionite, or was the doctrine of Hegesippus Catholic? There is no other alternative. We happen to possess information which leaves not an no doubt as to the true answer. Eusebius speaks of Hegesippus as 'having recorded the unerring tradition of the apostolic preaching' (H. E. iv. 8); and classes him with Dionysius of Corinth, Melito, Irenaeus, and others, as one of those in whose writings 'the orthodoxy of sound faith derived from the apostolic tradition had been handed down1.' In this Eusebius could not have been mistaken, for he himself states that Hegesippus 'left the fullest record of his own opinions in five books of memoirs' which were in his hands (H. E. iv. 22). It is surely a bold effort of recent criticism in the face of these plain facts to set down Hegesippus as an Ebionite and to infer thence that a great part of Christendom was Ebionite also. True, this writer gives a traditional account of St James which represents him as a severe and rigorous ascetic*; but between this stern view of life and Ebionite doctrine the interval may be wide enough; and on this showing how many fathers of the Church, Jerome and Basil for instance in the fourth century, Bernard and Dominic and Francis of Assisi in later ages, must plead guilty of Ebionism. True, he used the Hebrew Gospel; but what authority he attributed to it, or whether it was otherwise than orthodox, does not appear. True also, he appeals in a passage already quoted to the authority of 'the law and the prophets and the Lord1'; but this is a natural equivalent for 'the Old and New Testament, ' and corresponding expressions would not appear out of place even in our own age. True lastly, he condemns the use made of the text, 'Eye hath not seen nor ear heard' etc.', as contradicting our Lord's words,

III. 22), as usual, repeats Eusebius. Urbanus 222; Chron. dor Rom. Bisch.

This inference, though intelligible, p. 263. Bat there is considerable

seems hardly correct; but it shows variation in the authorities, the ac

almost conclusively that Eusebius did cession of Anicetus being placed by

not read iia7-pi/Sijy. The early Syriao somo as early as A.i>. 150; see the

translator of Eusebius (see above, p. lists in Clinton's Fasti Romani n. p.

33, note 2) certainly read SiaSoxfy. 53^ 6<1

The dates of the accession of the sue- 1 H. E. iv. 21 uy Kal eh ii/uii Tt)%

cessive bishops as determined by Lip- dr/xrroXiiriJj rapaSbeiui ij 7-7)5 uyious

sius are, Pius 141 (at the latest), vlirrius tyyptupos Karij\6ev ipBoSo(la.

Anicetus 154—156, Soter 166 or 167, * Euseb. H. E. ii. 23. See the ac

Eleutherus 174 or 175, Victor 189, count of St James below.

Matrdpioi oi i<p6a ol vnur K.t.\. It is not surprising that this writer, who lived when Gnosticism had passed out of memory, should be puzzled to 'know what had come to Hegesippus ': but modern critics ought not to have gone astray. Hegesippus can hardly be objecting to the passage itself, which is probably a quotation from Is. lxiv. 4. His objection therefore must be to some application of it. But whose application? Even had there been no direct evidence, it might have been gathered from the argument which follows that he referred to the esoteric teaching of the Gnostics; but the lately discovered treatise of Hippolytus establishes the fact that it was a favourite text of these heretios, being introduced into the form of initiation: see v. 24, 26, 27 (of Justin the Gnostic), vi. 24 (of Valentinus). This is the opinion of Leohler p. 463, Ritschl p. 267, Westcott Canon pp. 208, 284, Bunsen Hippolytus I. p. 132 (2nd ed.), and Hilgenfeld Apost. Voter p. 102, but otherwise Zeitschr.f. Wiss. Theol. 1876, p. 203 sq. Yet Baur (Chrutenthum p. 77, Paulus p. 221), and Schwegler (i. p. HiW), forcing an unnatural meaning on the words, contend that Hegesippus is directly denying St Paul's claim to a revelation and asserting that this privilege belongs only to those who have seen and heard Christ in the flesh. It is worth noticing that the same quotation, 'eye hath not seen etc.,' is found in the Epistle of Clement (c. 34) [where see note]; and this epistle was referred to by Hegesippus, as the notice of Eusebius seems to imply (H. E. iv. 22),

'Blessed are your eyes for ye see, etc.'; but he is here protesting against its perverted application by the Gnostics, who employed it of the initiated few, and whom elsewhere he severely denounces; and it is a mere accident that the words are quoted also by St Paul (1 Cor. ii. 9). Many of the facts mentioned point him out as a Hebrew, but not one brands him as an Ebionite. The decisive evidence on the other side is fatal to this inference. If Hegesippus may be taken as a type of the Hebrew Church in his day, then the doctrine of that Church was Catholic. Ebionism And if the Palestinian Churches of the second century held lent in "Catholic doctrine, we shall see little or no reason to fix the Churches c^iarge of Ebionism on other communities farther removed from the focus of Judaic influences. Here and there indeed Judaism seems to have made a desperate struggle, but only to sustain a signal defeat. At Antioch this conflict began earlier and probably continued longer than elsewhere; yet the names of her bishops Ignatius, Theophilus, and Serapion vouch for the doctrine and practice of the Antiochene Church in the second century. In Asia Minor the influence first of St Paul and then of St John must have been fatal to the ascendancy of Ebionism. A disproportionate share indeed of the faint light which glimmers over the Church of the second century is concentrated on this region: and the notices, though occasional and fragmentary, are sufficient to establish this general fact. The same is true with regard to Greece: similar influences were at work and with similar results. The Churches of Gaul took their colour from Asia Minor, which furnished their greatest teachers: Irenaeus bears witness to the Catholicity of their faith. In Alexandria, when at length the curtain rises, Christianity is seen enthroned between Greek philosophy and Gnostic speculation, while Judaism is far in the background. The infancy of the African Church is wrapt in hopeless darkness: but when she too emerges from her obscurity, she comes

with approval. This very mention of evidence that Hegesippus recognised Clement's epistle is in itself a secondary the authority of St Paul.

forward in no uncertain attitude, with no deep scars as of a recent conflict, offering neither a mutilated canon nor a dwarfed theology. The African Bible, as it appears in the old Latin version, contains all the books which were received without dispute for two centuries after. The African theology, as represented by Tertullian, in no way falls short of the standard of Catholic doctrine maintained in other parts of Christendom.

But the Church of the metropolis demands special attention. The At Rome, if anywhere, we should expect to see very distinct Rome, traces of these successive phenomena, which are supposed to have extended throughout or almost throughout the Christian Church—first, the supremacy of Ebionism—then the conflict of the Judaic with the Pauline Gospel—lastly, towards the close of the second century, the triumph of a modified Paulinism and the consequent birth of Catholic Christianity1. Yet, even if this were the history of Catholicity at Rome, it would still be an unfounded assumption to extend the phenomenon to other parts of Christendom. Rome had not yet learnt to dictate to the Church at large. At this early period she appears for the most part unstable and pliant, the easy prey of designing or enthusiastic adventurers in theology, not the originator of a policy and a creed of her own. The prerogative of Christian doctrine and practice rests hitherto with the Churches of Antioch and Asia Minor.

But the evidence lends no countenance to the idea that the tendencies of the Roman Church during this period were towards Ebionism. Her early history indeed is wrapt in Heretics obscurity. If the veil were raised, the spectacle would probably there^8* not be very edifying, but there is no reason to imagine that Judaism was her characteristic taint. As late heathen Rome

1 The episcopate ol Victor (about for his approval of this Church extends

A.d. 190—200) is fixed by the Tubin- to the episcopate of Eleutherus, the

gen critics (see Schwegler n. p. 206 sq) immediate predecessor of Victor; see

as the epoch of the antijudaic revolu- above, p. 89, note 5. They suppose

tion in the Roman Church. This date however that the current had been

follows necessarily from their assump- setting in this direction some time

tion that Hegesippus was an Ebionite; before.

Secession of Judaizers.

St Peter in Rome.

had been the sink of all Pagan superstitions, so early Christian Rome was the meeting-point of all heretical creeds and philosophies. If the presence of Simon Magus in the metropolis be not a historical fact, it is still a carrying out of the typical character with which he is invested in early tradition, as the father of heresy. Most of the great heresiarchs—among others Valentinus, Marcion, Praxeas, Theodotus, Sabellius—taught in Rome. Ebionism alone would not be idle, where all other heresies were active. But the great battle with this form of error seems to have been fought out at an early date, in the lifetime of the Apostles themselves and in the age immediately following.

The last notice of the Roman Church in the Apostolic writings seems to point to two separate communities, a Judaizing Church and a Pauline Church. The arrival of the Gentile Apostle in the metropolis, it would appear, was the signal for the separation of the Judaizers, who had hitherto associated with their Gentile brethren coldly and distrustfully. The presence of St Paul must have vastly strengthened the numbers and influence of the more liberal and Catholic party; while the Judaizers provoked by rivalry redoubled their efforts, that in making converts to the Gospel they might also gain proselytes to the law*. Thus 'in every way Christ was preached.'

If St Peter ever visited Rome, it must have been at a later date than these notices. Of this .visit, far from improbable in itself, there is fair if not conclusive evidence; and once admitted, we may reasonably assume that important consequences flowed from it. Where all is obscurity, conjecture on one side is fairly answered by conjecture on the other. We may venture therefore to suggest this, as a not unlikely result of the presence of both Apostles in Rome. As they had done before in the world at large, so they would agree to do now in

1 The inferences in the text are the circumcision) are my fellow-workdrawn from Phil. i. 15—18, compared ers etc.' with Col. iv. 11 'These only (i.e. of

the metropolis: they would exchange the right hand of fellowship, devoting themselves the one more especially to the Jewish, the other to the Gentile converts. Christian Rome was large A twofold enough to admit two communities or two sections in one community, until the time was ripe for their more complete amalgamation. Thus either as separate bodies with separate governments, or as a confederation of distinct interests represented each by their own officers in a common presbytery, we may suppose that the Jewish and Gentile brotherhoods at Rome were organized by the combined action of the two Apostles. This fact possibly underlies the tradition that St Peter and St Paul were joint founders of the Roman Church: and it may explain the discrepancies in the lists of the early bishops, which perhaps point to a double succession. At all events, the presence of the two Apostles must have tended to tone down antipathies and to draw parties closer together. The Judaizers seeing that the Apostle of the Circumcision, whose name they had venerated at a distance but whose principles they had hitherto imperfectly understood, was associating on terms of equality with the 'hated one,' the subverter of the law, would be led to follow his example slowly and suspiciously: and advances on the one side would be met eagerly by advances on the other. Hence at the close of the first century we see no united more traces of a twofold Church. The work of the Apostles, clement, now withdrawn from the scene, has passed into the hands of no unworthy disciple. The liberal and catholic spirit of Clement eminently fitted him for the task of conciliation; and he appears as the first bishop or presiding elder of the one Roman Church. This amalgamation however could not be effected without some opposition; the extreme Judaizers must necessarily have been embittered and alienated: and, if a little later we discern traces of Ebionite sectarianism in Rome, this is not only no surprise, but the most natural consequence of a severe but short-lived struggle.

The Epistle to the Corinthians written by Clement in the Clement's name of the Roman Church cannot well be placed after the p18

A.». 95? close of the first century and may possibly date some years earlier. It is not unreasonable to regard this as a typical document, reflecting the comprehensive principles and large sympathies which had been impressed upon the united Church of Rome, in great measure perhaps by the influence of the distinguished writer. There is no early Christian writing which combines more fully than this the distinctive features of all the Apostolic Epistles, now asserting the supremacy of faith with St Paul, now urging the necessity of works with St James, at one time echoing the language of St Peter, at another repeating the very words of the Epistle to the Hebrews1. Not without some show of truth, the authority of Clement was claimed in after generations for writings of very different tendencies. Belonging to no party, he seemed to belong to all. Testi- Not many years after this Epistle was written, Ignatius

Ignatius. now on his way to martyrdom addresses a letter to the Roman A.d. no? brethren. It contains no indications of any division in the Church of the metropolis or of the prevalence of Ebionite views among his readers. On the contrary, he lavishes epithets of praise on them in the opening salutation; and throughout the letter there is not the faintest shadow of blame. His only fear is that they may be too kind to him and deprive him of the honour of martyrdom by their intercessions. To the Ephesians, and even to Polycarp, he offers words of advice and warning; but to the Romans he utters only the language of joyful satisfaction*.

But in a Church thus formed we might expect to meet with

1 See Westcott History of the Canon and spirit with every commandment

p. 24 sq. of Christ, filled with the grace of God

3 This is the case, even though we inseparably, and strained clear of

should accept only the parts preserved every foreign colour (aroSiv\uri*bMi

in the Syriac as genuine; but the drA rarris aX\orplov xpii/uitos).' At

Greek (Vossian) Epistles are still more the same time the writer appears in

explicit. They distinctly acquit the other passages as a stubborn opponent

Romans of any participation in heresy; of Judaism, Magn. 8, 10, Philad. 6. speaking of them as 'united in flesh

other and narrower types of doctrine than the Epistle of Clement exhibits. Traditional principles and habits of thought would still linger on, modified indeed but not wholly transformed by the predominance of a Catholicity which comprehended all elements in due proportion. One such type is represented by an extant work which emanated from the Roman Church during the first half of the second century1.

In its general tone the Shepherd of Hermas confessedly Shepherd differs from the Epistle of Clement; but on the other hand the notEbkmwriter was certainly no Ebionite, as he has been sometimes 1' represented. If he dwells almost exclusively on works, he yet states that the 'elect of God will be saved through faith8': if O.a.d. 145. he rarely quotes the New Testament, his references to the Old Testament are still fainter and scantier: if he speaks seldom of our Lord and never mentions Him by name, he yet asserts that the Son of God was present with His Father in counsel at the founding of creation*, and holds that the world is 'sustained by Him*.' Such expressions no Ebionite could have used. Of all the New Testament writings the Shepherd most resembles in tone the Epistle of St James, whose language it sometimes reflects: but the teaching of St James appears here in an exaggerated and perverted form. The author lays great stress on works, and so far he copies his model: but his interpretation of works is often formal and ritualistic, and in one passage he even states the doctrine of supererogation8. Whether the tone of this writing is to be ascribed to the traditional

1 On the date of the Shepherd see Kriaeus airov Sia Tovto Kox raXaiis ia

Galatiane, p. 99, note 3. Tiv. 'H Si 7ti/xi; Sia rl Kaurti, fani, K6pit;

1 Vis. iii. 8: eomp. Mand. viii. "On, <prjalv, ii! iaxaruy rSm rinepuv rijs

* Sim. ix. 12. The whole passage ovvre\elai <paixpbs iyivero, Sii. Tovto

is striking: Updrov, <t"l/ii, R&vtuv, K6- Kiuctj iyiviro i] rvi, tva oi tUX\ovres

pie, Tovtb Hoi S-ij\uaov • i) rirpa Kal ij aiti^ea6oi Si avrrjs tIs rty jiaai\elav elo-

Ri!xi; rii laray; 'H rirpa, tylalv, a&nj (\Bwri Too 6eo0.

Kal ij r6\ij b Ms Tod 8«oO iarl. Ilfij, * Sim. ix. 14 T6 Svona rod vlov rov

tprifii, Kvpii, i) rirpa rd\aia Ifftiv, T) Si 8io0 nAya iarl Kal &xiipv0y Kul Toy

Tic'\ti Komhi; 'akovt, <prial, Kox aivie, Kbahov u\ov /Saordffi. On the whole

aairert. o \iiy vlbs Toc Qeov naa-qi riji subject see Dorner Lehre etc. 1. p. 186

Krlaeai airov rpoyeviarepis iariv, uare sq, Westoott Canon p. 202 sq.

aiiifiovhov airov yevia6ai rip rarpl Tiji * Sim. v. 3: comp. Mand. iv. 4.

feelings of Judaism yet lingering in the Church, or to the influence of a Judaic section still tolerated, or to the constitution of the author's own mind, it is impossible to say. The view of Christian ethics here presented deviates considerably, it is true, from St Paul's teaching; but the deviation is the same in kind and not greater in degree than marks a vast number of mediaeval writings, and may in fact be said to characterize more or less distinctly the whole mediaeval Church. Thus it affords no ground for the charge of Ebionism. Hermas speaks of law indeed, as St James speaks of it; yet by law he means not the Mosaic ordinances but the rule introduced by Christ. On the other hand his very silence is eloquent. There is not a word in favour of Judaic observances properly so called, not a word of denunciation direct or indirect against either the doctrine or the person of St Paul or his disciples. In this respect the Shepherd presents a marked contrast to the truly Ebionite work, which must be taken next in order.

The Clementine writings have been assigned with great confidence by most recent critics of ability to a Roman authorship1. Of the truth of this view I am very far from convinced. The great argument—indeed almost the only argument—in its favour is the fact that the plot of the romance turns upon the wanderings of this illustrious bishop of Rome, who is at once the narrator and the hero of the story. But the fame of Clement reached far beyond the limits of his own jurisdiction. To him, we are specially told by a contemporary writer, was assigned the task of corresponding with foreign churches*. His rank and position, his acknowledged wisdom and piety, would point him out as the best typical representative of the Gentile converts: and an Ebionite writer, designing by a religious fiction to impress his views on Gentile Christendom, would naturally single out Clement for his hero, and by his example enforce the duty of obedience to the Church of the Circumcision, as the prerogative Church and the true standard of orthodoxy. At all events it is to be noticed that, beyond the use made of Clement's name, these writings do not betray any familiarity with or make any reference to the Roman Church in particular1. On the contrary, the scenes are all laid in the East; and the supreme arbiter, the ultimate referee in all that relates to Christian doctrine and practice, is not Peter, the Clementine Apostle of the Gentiles, the reputed founder of the Roman Church, but James the Lord's brother, the bishop of bishops, the ruler of the mother Church of the Circumcision.

Roman origin of the Clementines questioned.

1 So for instance Baur, Schliemann, Ritschl, Hilgenfeld: and this view is adopted by Dean Milman Latin Chriitianity I. p. 31, who speaks of it as 'the unanimous opinion of those who in later days have critically examined the

Clementina.' Uhlhorn is almost alone among recent critics in raising his voice against this general verdict: p. 370 sq. 2 Hermas Vis. ii. 4 rinifia o'v K \ 7laii els ris {{<■> r6X«i' iKetnp yip inrirparrox.

If the Roman origin of these works is more than doubtful, the time of writing also is open to much question. The dates assigned to the Homilies by the ablest critics range over the •whole of the second century, and some place them even later. If the Roman authorship be abandoned, many reasons for a very early date will fall to the ground also. Whenever they Their imwere written, the Homilies are among the most interesting and J^,TM? important of early Christian writings; but they have no right atedto the place assigned them in the system of a modern critical school, as the missing link between the Judaism of the Christian era and the Catholicism of the close of the second century, as representing in fact the phase of Christianity taught at Rome and generally throughout the Church during the early ages. The very complexion of the writer's opinions is such, that they can hardly have been maintained by any large and important community, at least in the West. Had they presented a purer They canform of Judaism, founded on the Old Testament Scriptures, a ^nt"^TM

doctrine 1 The Epistle of Clement to James, If the Homilies had really been writprefixed to the work, is an exception; ten by a lloman Christian, the slight for it gives an elaborate account of the and incidental mention of St Peter's sowriter's appointment by St Peter as journinRome(i.l6,comp.Recogn.i.74) his successor. The pnrpose of this let- would have thrown considerable doubt ter, which is to glorify the see of Rome, on the fact. But if they emanated from shows that it was no part of and proba- the East, from Syria for instance, no bly is later than the Homilies them- explanation of this silence is needed, selves.

of the


Notioe in Hippolytus.

No Ebionite leanings in the Roman Church.

more plausible case might have been made out. But the theology of the Clementines does not lie in a direct line between the Old Testament and Catholic Christianity: it deviates equally from the one and the other. In its rejection of half the Mosaic law and much more than half of the Old Testament, and in its doctrine of successive avatars of the Christ, it must have been as repugnant to the religious sentiments of a Jew trained in the school of Hillel, as it could possibly be to a disciple of St Paul in the first century or to a Catholic Christian in the third. Moreover the tone of the writer is not at all the tone of one who addresses a sympathetic audience. His attacks on St Paul are covert and indirect; he makes St Peter complain that he has been misrepresented and libelled. Altogether there is an air of deprecation and apology in the Homilies. If they were really written by a Roman Christian, they cannot represent the main body of the Church, but must have emanated from one of the many heresies with which the metropolis swarmed in the second century, when all promulgators of new doctrine gathered there, as the largest and therefore the most favourable market for their spiritual wares.

There is another reason also for thinking that this Gnostic Ebionism cannot have obtained any wide or lasting influence in the Church of Rome. During the episcopate of Callistus (A.D. 219—223) a heretical teacher appears in the metropolis, promulgating Elchasaite doctrines substantially, though not identically, the same with the creed of the Clementines, and at first seems likely to attain some measure of success, but is denounced and foiled by Hippolytus. It is clear that this learned writer on heresies regarded the Elchasaite doctrine as a novelty, against which therefore it was the more necessary to warn the faithful Christian. If the Ebionism of the Clementines had ever prevailed at Rome, it had passed into oblivion when Hippolytus wrote.

The few notices of the Roman Church in the second century point to other than Ebionite leanings. In their ecclesiastical ordinances the Romans seem anxious to separate themselves as widely as possible from Jewish practices. Thus they extended the Friday's fast over the Saturday, showing thereby a marked disregard of the sabbatical festival1. Thus again they observed Easter on a different day from the Jewish passover; and so zealous were they in favour of their own traditional usage in this respect, that in the Paschal controversy their bishop Victor Evidence resorted to the extreme measure of renouncing communion with 0hai conthose churches which differed from it8. This controversy affords troversva valuable testimony to the Catholicity of Christianity at Rome in another way. It is clear that the churches ranged on different sides on this question of ritual are nevertheless substantially agreed on all important points of doctrine and practice. This fact appears when Anicetus of Rome permits Polycarp of Smyrna, who had visited the metropolis in order to settle some disputed points and had failed in arranging the Paschal question, to celebrate the eucharist in his stead. It is distinctly stated by Irenaeus when he remonstrates with Victor for disturbing the peace of the Church by insisting on non-essentials*. In its creed the Roman Church was one with the Gallic and Asiatic Churches; and that this creed was not Ebionite, the names of Polycarp and Irenaeus are guarantees. Nor is it only in the Paschal controversy that the Catholicity of the Romans may be inferred from their intercourse with other Christian communities.

1 Tertull. de Jejun. 14; see Neander index of Judaic or antijudaic leanings:

i'h. Hut. i. p. 410 (Bonn). bat when once attention was called to

9 On the Paschal controversy see its existence, and it became a matter of

Euseb. H. E. v. 23—25. Polycrates on controversy, the observance of the

behalf of the Asiatic Churches claimed Christian anniversary on the same day

the sanction of St John; and there with the Jewish festival would afford a

seems no reason to doubt the validity handle for the charge of Judaism; and

of this claim. On the other hand a where it was a matter of policy or of

different rule had been observed in the principle to stand clear of any sym

Koman Church at least as far back as pathy with Jewish customs (as for in

the episcopate of Xystus (about 120— stance in Palestine after the collision

129) and perhaps earlier. It seems of the Jews with the Bomans), the

probable then that the Easter festival Koman usage would be adopted in

had been established independently by preference to the Asiatic

the Romans and those who followed * In Euseb. H. E. v. 24 i) Suupuvla

the Roman practice. Thus in the first rip mjirrtlai Ttjc ifU>voiav tijt rterem

instance the difference of usage was no avrUmjatr, and the whole extract.

Other communications with foreign churches.

The remains of ecclesiastical literature, though sparse and fragmentary, are yet sufficient to reveal a wide network of intercommunication between the churches of the second century; and herein Rome naturally holds a central position. The visit of Hegesippus to the metropolis has been mentioned already. Not very long after we find Dionysius bishop of Corinth, whose 'orthodoxy' is praised by Eusebius, among other letters addressed to foreign churches, writing also to the Romans in terms of cordial sympathy and respect1. On the Catholicity of the African Church I have already remarked: and the African Church was a daughter of the Roman, from whom therefore it may be assumed she derived her doctrine*.

The gleams of light which break in upon the internal history of the Roman Church at the close of the second and beginning of the third century exhibit her assailed by rival heresies, compromised by the weakness and worldliness of her rulers, altogether distracted and unsteady, but in no way Ebionite. One bishop, whose name is not given, first dallies with the fanatical spiritualism of Montanus; then suddenly turning round, surrenders himself to the patripassian speculations of Praxeas*. Later than this two successive bishops, Zephyrinus and Callistus, are stated, by no friendly critic indeed but yet a contemporary writer, the one from stupidity and avarice, the other from craft and ambition, to have listened favourably to the heresies of Noetus and Sabellius*. It was at this point in her history that the Church of Rome was surprised by the novel doctrines of the Elchasaite teacher, whom I have already mentioned more than once. But no one would maintain that at this late date Ebionism predominated either at Rome or in Christendom generally.

Internal condition of the Roman Church.

i In Euseb. H. E. iv. 23.

* Tertull. dc Praeicr. 36. Cyprian Eput. 48 (ed. Fell) writing to Cornelius speaks of Borne as 'Eoolesiae catholioae radicem et matricem,' in reference to the African Churches.

* Tertull. adv. Prax. 1. Tertullian,
now a Montanist, writes of Praxeas
who had persuaded this nameless bishop

of Rome to revoke his concessions to
Montanism, 'Ita duo negotia diaboh
Praxeas Romae procurnvit, prophetiam
expulit et haeresim intulit, paracletum
fugavit et patrem cruoifixit.' For spe-
culations as to the name of this bishop
see Wordsworth's Hippolytn s pp. 131,
4 Hippol. Haer. ix. 7 sq.

Ebionites indeed there were at this time and very much later. 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 Ebionism their existence was not prolonged much later. About the ies ou' middle of the fifth century they had almost disappeared1. 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 equable circulation of all the apostolic writings was necessarily the work of time.

1 Theodoret, Haer. Fab. ii. 11, men- s Gal. ii. 9; see Westeott's History

tions the Ebionites and the Elchasaites of the Canon p. 78 sq.

among those of whom ovW ftxix* Sil- * Many false inferences however,

nare \etyiwov. affecting the history of the Canonical

Use of the rpHE foregoing account of the conflict of the Church with

account. Judaism 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 Paol. St Paul himself is so clearly reflected in his owd 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.

His por- Of this fact the narrative of the Acts affords many striking

Aots 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 But the character of the witness has been called in question.

ea, This narrative, it is said, is neither contemporary nor trust

worthy. 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.

writings, have been drawn from the canonical authority, and though they

silence of Eusebius, which has been allude incidentally to St Paul's labours

entirely misapprehended: see Con- (pp. 35, 61, 62), there is yet no refer

temporary Review, January, 1875, p. enoe to the epistles of this Apostle,

169 sq, Colossian s p. 52 sq. where the omission cannot have been

The phenomenon exhibited in the accidental (p. 32), and the most im

Aw'iait Syriac Documents (edited by portant churches founded by him,

Cureton, 1864) is remarkable. Though as Ephesua, Thessalonioa, Corinth,

they refer more than once to the Acts etc., are stated to have received 'the

of the Apostles (pp. 15, 27, 35) as the Apostles' Hand of Priesthood from

work of St Luke and as possessing John the Evangelist' (p. 34).

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 Tubingen school to be genuine, the but estaEpistles to the Romans, Corinthians, and Galatians1. It so his own happens that they are the most important for my purpose. Ifwn ings' 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.

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) The position of the Jews. He assigns to them the prerogative (l) Posi,-,., ... . ... /.,/-., t\oa of the

over the Gentiles; a prior right to the privileges of the Gospel, jews.

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 (2) His

for them.

1 These four epistles alone were master.' He accepts as genuine 1 Thes

accepted as genuine by Baur and salonians, Philippians, and Philemon:

Schwegler. Hilgenfeld, who may now thus substituting, as he expresses

be regarded as the chief of the Tii- it, the sacred number Seven for the

bingen school, has in this, as in many heathen Tetractys of his master: see

other points, deserted the extreme po- Zeitsch.filr wissemoh. Theol. v. p. 226

sition of Baur whom he calls the 'great (1862).

affection for his countrymen. His earnestness and depth of feeling are nowhere more striking than 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), 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 (avddefia elvai Ovto? 67a> airb Tov Xpio-rov) for my brethren, my kinsmen

(3) His according to the flesh' (Rom. ix. 1—3). (3) His practical care care for for his countrymen. The collection of alms for the poor brethren

of Judaea 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

(4) His the same interest. (4) His conformity to Jewish habits and usages. ity to their St Paul lays down this rule, to 'become all things to all men usages. 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 preached circumcision1. (5) His reverence (5) His use for the Old Testament Scriptures. This is a strongly marked Testafeature in the four epistles which I am considering. They teem mentwith quotations, while there are comparatively few in his remaining letters. For metaphor, allegory, example, argument, confirmation, he draws upon this inexhaustible 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.'

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 Difference history confessedly differs somewhat from the tone of the tween the epistles. Nor could it possibly have been otherwise. "Written g0^8,? in the heat of the conflict, written to confute 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 1 See Galatians p. 28 sq, and notes on Gal. i. 10, ii. 3, v. 2,11.

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 Carlstadt for iconoclasm writes like two different persons. He bids the timid and gentle Melanchthon 'sin and sin boldly': he would have cut his right hand off sooner than pen such words to the antinomian rioters of Munster. It is not that the man or his principles were changed: but the same words addressed to persons of opposite tempers would have conveyed a directly opposite meaning. St Paul's St Paul's language then, when in this epistle he describes

with the his relations with the Three, must be interpreted with this described c*11tio11*tnat it necessarily exhibits those relations in a partial in this aspect. The purport of this language, as I understand it, is explained in the notes: and I shall content myself here with gathering up the results.

(1) There is a general recognition of the position and authority of the elder Apostles, both in the earlier visit to Jerusalem when he seeks Peter apparently for the purpose of obtaining instruction in the facts of the Gospel, staying with him a fortnight, and in the later visit which is undertaken for the purpose, if I may use the phrase, of comparing notes with the other Apostles and obtaining their sanction for the freedom of the Gentile Churches. (2) On the other hand there is an uncompromising resistance to the extravagant and exclusive claims set up on their behalf by the Judaizers. (3) In contrast to these claims, St Paul's language leaves the impression (though the inference cannot be regarded as certain), that they had not offered a prompt resistance to the Judaizers in the first instance, hoping perhaps to conciliate them, and that the brunt

of the contest had been borne by himself and Barnabas. (4) At the same time they are distinctly separated from the policy and principles of the Judaizers, who are termed false brethren, spies in the Christian camp. (5) The Apostles of the Circumcision find no fault with St Paul's Gospel, and have nothing to add to it. (6) Their recognition of his office is most complete. The language is decisive in two respects: it represents this recognition first as thoroughly mutual, and secondly as admitting a perfect equality and independent position. (7) At the same time a separate sphere of labour is assigned to each: the one are to preach to the heathen, the other to the Circumcision. There is no implication, as some have represented, that the Gospel preached to the Gentile would differ from the Gospel preached to the Jew. Such an idea is alien to the whole spirit of the passage. Lastly, (8) Notwithstanding their distinct spheres of work, St Paul is requested by the Apostles of the Circumcision to collect the alms of the Gentiles for the poor brethren of Judaea, and to this request he responds cordially.

With the exception of the incident at Antioch, which will References be considered presently, the Epistle to the Galatians contains other epinothing more bearing directly on the relations between St sPaul and the Apostles of the Circumcision. Other special references are found in the Epistles to the Corinthians, but none elsewhere. These notices, slight though they are, accord with the view presented by the Galatian letter. St Paul indeed says more than once that he is 'not a whit behind the very chiefest Apostles' (to>i> virepXlav airoaroXtav, 2 Cor. xi. 5, xii . 11), and there is in the original a slight touch of irony which disappears in the translation: but the irony loses its point unless the exclusive preference of the elder Apostles is regarded as an exaggeration of substantial claims. Elsewhere St Paul speaks of Cephas and the Lord's brethren as exercising an apostolic privilege which belonged also to himself and Barnabas (1 Cor. ix. 5), of Cephas and James as witnesses of the Lord's resurrection like himself (1 Cor. xv. 5, 7). In the last passage he calls himself (with evident reference to the elder Apostles who are

mentioned immediately before) ' the least of the Apostles, who is not worthy to be called an Apostle.' In rebuking the dissensions at Corinth, he treats the name of Cephas with a delicate courtesy and respect which has almost escaped notice. When he comes to argue the question, he at once drops the name of St Peter; 'While one saith, I am of Paul, and another, I am of Apollos, are ye not carnal? What then is Apollos, and what is Paul?' Apollos was so closely connected with him (1 Cor. xvi. 12), that he could use his name without fear of misapprehension. But in speaking of Cephas he had to observe more caution: certain persons persisted in regarding St Peter as the head of a rival party, and therefore he is careful to avoid any seeming depreciation of his brother Apostle. No an- In all this there is nothing inconsistent with the character

between St of St Paul as drawn in the Acts, nothing certainly which th^other represents him as he was represented by extreme partisans in Apostles, ancient times, by Ebionites on the one hand and Marcionites on the other, and as he has been represented of late by a certain school of critics, in a position of antagonism to the chief Apostles of the Circumcision. I shall next examine the scriptural notices and traditional representations of these three. St Pbtbb 1. The author of the Clementine Homilies makes St Peter Ebionites'^ tne mouth-piece of his own Ebionite views. In the prefatory letter of Peter to James which, though possibly the work of another author, represents the same sentiments, the Apostle complains that he has been misrepresented as holding that the law was abolished but fearing to preach this doctrine openly. 'Far be it,' he adds,' for to act so is to oppose the law of God which was spoken by Moses and to which our Lord bare witness that it should abide for ever. For thus He said, Heaven and earth shall pass away: one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law. And this He said that all things might be fulfilled. Yet these persons professing to give my sentiments (tov ifiov vovv iirarfyeWofievoi) I know not how, attempt to interpret the words that they have heard from me more cleverly (QpovifMorepov) than myself who spoke them, telling

their pupils that this is my meaning (<f>p6vrj-fia), though it

never once entered into my mind (o eyai oiSe ive6vfiq0rjv).

But if they dare to tell such falsehoods of me while I am still

alive, how much more will those who come after me venture to

do it when I am gone (§ 2).' It has been held by some modern

critics that the words thus put into the Apostle's mouth are

quite in character; that St Peter did maintain the perpetuity

of the law; and that therefore the traditional account which

has pervaded Catholic Christendom from the writing of the

Acts to the present day gives an essentially false view of the


I think the words quoted will strike most readers as betraying

a consciousness on the part of the writer that he is treading on

hollow and dangerous ground. But without insisting on this, it

is important to observe that the sanction of this venerated &nd also • • by oppo

name was claimed by other sectarians of opposite opinions, site sects.

Basilides (about A.D. 180), the famous Gnostic teacher, announced

that he had been instructed by one Glaucias an 'interpreter' of

St Peter1. An early apocryphal writing moreover, which

should probably be assigned to the beginning of the second

century and which expressed strong antijudaic views8, was

1 Clem.Alex.Sfro7ra.vii.p.898,Potter. The identity of this work with the

2 On this work, the K^pvyna JIt- Praedicatio Pauli quoted in the trea

rpov, see Sohwegler Nachap. Zeit. u. tise De Baptismo Haereticorum printed

p. 30 sq. Its opposition to Judaism among Cyprian's works (App. p. 30,

appears in an extant fragment preserved Fell) seems to me very doubtful, though

in Clem. Alex. Strom, vi. p. 760, pi$l maintained by several able critics.

Kari 'lovSattvs aipeaBc.uate Kal u/ieis The passage there quoted is strangely

oatus Ko.1 ii*afus pavBdvoirts a rapaSL- misinterpreted by Baur (Chriatenthum

tonev vpxv <pv\&aaea6e, Kaivus rbv Qtov p. 53). I give his words, lest I should

oii Toc XpurroC aefUnevoc evpo/iev ybp have misunderstood him: 'Auch die

iy reus yoaiptus Ktl8us i HUpios \iyei' kirchliche Sage, welche die Apostel

'Uoi> vnlv *iuHjr SiaBjKriv wieder zusammenbrachte, lasst erst

K.t.\. The fragments of this work am Enrte nach einer langen Zeit

are collected by Grabe, Spicil. L p. 62 der Trennung die gegenseitige Aner

sq. It was made use of by Heracleon kennung zu Stande kommen. Post

the Valentinian, and is quoted more tanta tempora, hiess es in der Pr»

than once, apparently as genuine, by dicatio Pauli in der Stelle, welche sich

Clement of Alexandria. in der Cyprian's Werken angehangten

entitled the 'Preaching of Peter.' I do not see why these assertions have not as great a claim to a hearing as the opposite statement of the Ebionite writer. They are probably earlier; and in one case at least we have more tangible evidence than the irresponsible venture of an anonymous romance writer. The probable inference however from such conflicting statements would be, that St Peter's true position was somewhere between the two extremes.

But we are not to look for trustworthy information from such sources as these. If we wish to learn the Apostle's real attitude in the conflict between Jewish and Gentile converts, St Paul's the one fragmentary notice in the Epistle to the Galatians will the occur- reveal more than all the distorted and interested accounts of AnUoch later ages: 'But when Cephas came to Antioch I withstood him to the face, for he was condemned (his conduct condemned itself). For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles, but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those of the circumcision: and the rest of the Jews also dissembled with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their dissimulation (o-vvaTnjx^r j ainwv Tjj viroKpLa-ei). But when I saw that they walked not straight according to the truth of the Gospel, I said unto Cephas before all, If thou, being born a Jew ('IovSaw? virap^osv), livest after the manner of the Gentiles and not after the manner of the Jews, how compellest thou the Gentiles to live like the Jews? etc.' (ii. 11—14).

Schrift de rebaptismate erhalten hat (Cypr. Opp. ed. Baluz. s. 365 f.),Petrum et Paulum poat oonlationem evangelii in Jerusalem et mutuam cogitationem [?] etaltercationem et rerum agendarum dispositionem postremo in urbe, quasi tunc primum, invioem sibi esse cognitos.' Baur thus treats the comment of the writer as if it were part of the quotation. In this treatise the writer denounces the Praedicatio 1'auli as maintaining' adulterinum, imo in ternecinum baptisma'; in order to invalidate its authority, he proceeds to show its thoroughlyunhistoricalcharacter; and

among other instances he alleges the fact that it makes St Peter and St Paul meet in Rome as if for the first time, forgetting all about the congress at Jerusalem, the collision at Antioch, and so forth. Schwegler takes the correct view of the passage, II. p. 32.

Other early apocryphal works attributed to the chief Apostle of the Circumcision are the Qospel, the Acts, and the Apocalypse of Peter; bat our information respecting these is too scanty to throw much light on the present question: on the Gospel of Peter see above, p. 27.

Now the point of St Paul's rebuke is plainly this: that in sanctioning the Jewish feeling which regarded eating with the Gentiles as an unclean thing, St Peter was untrue to his principles, was acting hypocritically and from fear. In the argument which follows he assumes that it was the normal practice of Peter to live as a Gentile (iBvui&s £775 and not iBviK(0i t&<!), in other words, to mix freely with the Gentiles, to eat with them, and therefore to disregard the distinction of things clean and unclean: and he argues on the glaring inconsistency and unfairness that Cephas should claim this liberty himself though not born to it, and yet by hypocritical compliance with the Jews should practically force the ritual law on the Gentiles and deprive them of a freedom which was their natural right1.

How St Peter came to hold these liberal principles, so It accords entirely opposed to the narrow traditions of his age and country, incident is explained by an incident narrated in the Acts. He was Inlatfdtm at one time as rigid and as scrupulous as the most bigoted of his countrymen: 'nothing common or unclean had at any time entered into his mouth' (x. 14, xi. 8). Suddenly a light bursts in upon the darkness of his religious convictions. He is taught by a vision 'not to call any man common or unclean' (x. 28). His sudden change scandalizes the Jewish

1 I do not see how this conclusion and severing it from the context; bnt can be resisted. According to the Tii- even then he is obliged to acquit the bingen view of St Peter's position, his other Jewish Christians at Antioch of hypocrisy or dissimulation must have Ebionism. Hilgenfeld (Galater p. 61 consisted not in withdrawing from, but sq) discards Schwegler's interpretation in holding intercourse with the Gen- and explains iriKpiai t of the self-contiles; but this is not the view of St Paul traduction, the unconscious inoonsiston any natural interpretation of his ency of Jewish Christian or Ebionite words; and certainly the Ebionite wri- principles: but inconsistency is not (lister already quoted (p. 110) did not so simulation or hypocrisy, and this interunderstand his meaning. Schwegler (1. pretation, like the former, loses sight of p. 129) explains awvreKpWriaav iu'TM the context which denounces St Peter 'were hypocritical enough to side with for abandoning a certain line of conhim,' thus forcing the expression itself duct from timidity.

brethren: but he explains and for the moment at least convinces (xi. 18). and with And if his normal principles are explained by the narrative

racter as of the Acts, his exceptional departure from them is illustrated th^Gos- Dv ^is character as it appears in the Gospels. The occasional I*1s- timidity and weakness of St Peter will be judged most harshly

by those who have never themselves felt the agony of a great moral crisis, when not their own ease and comfort only, which is a small thing, but the spiritual welfare of others seems to clamour for a surrender of their principles. His true nobleness— his fiery zeal and overflowing love and abandoned self-devotion —will be appreciated most fully by spirits which can claim some kindred however remote with his spirit.

Thus the fragmentary notices in the Gospels, the Acts, and the Epistles of St Paul, combine to form a harmonious portrait of a character, not consistent indeed, but—to use Aristotle's significant phrase—consistently inconsistent (ofiaXw dvcofiaXov); The First and this is a much safer criterion of truth. But there is yet St Peter another source of information to be considered—his own letters. If the deficiency of external evidence forbids the use of the Second Epistle in controversy, the First labours under no such disabilities; for very few of the apostolical writings are better attested.

To this epistle indeed it has been objected that it bears too

shows the manifest traces of Pauline influence to be the genuine writing

of St Paul of St Peter. The objection however seems to overlook two

important considerations. First. If we consider the prominent

part borne by St Paul as the chief preacher of Christianity in

countries Hellenic by race or by adoption; if we remember

further that his writings were probably the first which clothed

the truths of the Gospel and the aspirations of the Church in

the language of Greece; we shall hardly hesitate to allow that

he ' had a great influence in moulding this language for Christian

purposes, and that those who afterwards trod in his footsteps

could hardly depart much from the idiom thus moulded1.'

1 Schleiermacher, Einl. ins N. T. p. 402 sq. Secondly. It is begging the whole question to assume that St Peter derived nothing from the influence of the Apostle of the Gentiles. The one was essentially a character to impress, the other to be impressed. His superior in intellectual culture, in breadth of sympathy, and in knowledge of men, his equal in love and zeal for Christ, St Paul must have made his influence felt on the frank and enthusiastic temperament of the elder Apostle. The weighty spiritual maxims thrown out during the dispute at Antioch for instance would sink deep into his heart1; and taking into account the many occasions when either by his writings or by personal intercourse St Paul's influence would be communicated, we can hardly doubt that the whole effect was great.

But after all the epistle bears the stamp of an individual but bears mind quite independent of this foreign element. The sub- vidual stratum of the thoughts is the writer's own. Its individuality stamP indeed appears more in the contemplation of the life and sufferings of Christ, in the view taken of the relations between the believer and the world around, in the realisation of the promises made to the chosen people of old, in the pervading sense of a regenerate life and the reiterated hope of a glorious advent, than in any special development of doctrine: but it would be difficult to give any reason why, prior to experience, we should have expected it to be otherwise.

Altogether the epistle is anything but Ebionite. Not only of a mind is the 'law' never once named, but there is no allusion to but not formal ordinances of any kind. The writer indeed is essentially Ebl0mtean Israelite, but he is an Israelite after a Christian type. When he speaks of the truths of the Gospel, he speaks of them through the forms of the older dispensation: he alludes again and again to the ransom of Christ's death, but the image present to his

1 See 1 Pet. ii. 24 T&s d/ux/n-faj v/iui/ doctrinal teaching (though there are

abrm &rfp>eyKev iv T<f a&ium airov M occasionally strong resemblances of

ri (i\ov, fro reus &naprtais &royevonevoi, language). With it oompare Gal. ii. 20

tjj 01KW.01TVVQ ffjo-u/iw. This is the Xpurrip jwe<rraipunai.' f<3 Si oiKiri iyii,

most striking instance-which the epistle fjj Si iv f/iol Xpurris *.r.X. exhibits of coincidence with St Paul's

mind is the paschal lamb without spot or blemish; he addresses himself to Gentile converts, but he transfers to them the cherished titles of the covenant race; they are the true 'dispersion' (i. 1); the)' are 'a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people' (ii. 9). The believer in Christ is the Israelite; the unbeliever the Gentile (ii. 12). Its rela- Corresponding to the position of St Peter as he appears in

Paul and the Apostolic history, this epistle in its language and tone St James. oCCUpies a place midway between the writings of St James and St Paul. With St James it dwells earnestly on the old: with St Paul it expands to the comprehension of the new. In its denunciation of luxurious wealth, in its commendation of the simple and homely virtues, in its fond reference to past examples in Jewish history for imitation or warning, it recalls the tone of the head of the Hebrew Church: in its conception of the grace of God, of the ransom of Christ's death, of the wide purpose of the Gospel, it approaches to the language of the Apostle of the Gentiles. Mark and With St Paul too the writer links himself by the mention


of two names, both Christians of the Circumcision, and both companions of the Gentile Apostle; Mark who, having accompanied him on his first missionary tour, after some years of alienation is found by his side once more (CoL iv. 10), and Silvanus who shared with him the labours and perils of planting the Gospel in Europe. Silvanus is the bearer or the amanuensis of St Peter's letter; Mark joins in the salutations (v. 12, 13). St Peter Thus the Churches of the next generation, which were

Paul asso- likely to be well informed, delighted to unite the names of the ciated in two le^^g Apostles as the greatest teachers of the Gospel, dition. the brightest examples of Christian life. At Rome probably, at Antioch certainly, both these Apostles were personally known. We have the witness of the one Church in Clement; of the Rome, other in Ignatius. The former classes them together as the two 'noble ensamples of his own generation,' 'the greatest and most righteous pillars' of the Church, who ' for hatred and envy Antioch. were persecuted even unto death' (§ 5). The latter will not venture to command the Christians of Rome, 'as Peter and Paul did; they were Apostles, he a convict; they were free, he a slave to that very hour1.' Clement wrote before the close of the first century, Ignatius at the beginning of the second It seems probable that both these fathers had conversed with one or other of the two Apostles. Besides Antioch and Rome, the names of St Peter and St Paul appear together also in connexion with the Church of Corinth (1 Cor. iii. 22). This Corinth, church again has not withheld her voice, though here the later date of her testimony detracts somewhat from its value2, Dionysius bishop of Corinth, writing to the Romans during the episcopate of Soter (c. 166—174), claims kindred with them on the ground that both churches alike had profited by the joint instruction of St Peter and St Paul*.

But though the essential unity of these two Apostles is thus Misreprerecognised by different branches of the Catholic Church, a 0f extreme disposition to sever them seems early to have manifested itself Partlesin some quarters. Even during their own lifetime the religious agitators at Corinth would have placed them in spite of themselves at the head of rival parties. And when death had removed all fear of contradiction, extreme partisans boldly claimed the sanction of the one or the other for their own views. The precursors of the Ebionites misrepresented the Israelite sympathies of St Peter, as if he had himself striven to put a yoke upon the neck of the Gentiles which neither their

1 Rom. 4. The words o&x <'>» IM- *«l 7fy> &M-<pu Ko2 els rtp> rinertpa.v Kirpos Kai IlaOXos 8iat<£affo/xiu vnlv gain pivBov <pon-l)aavres 17/ias ofwtus iSiSa(av, force, as addressed to the Romans, opxilus Si Kal efc ri 'Ira\lav 6n&at if we suppose both Apostles to have Sis4£avtts inaprvpriaav Karb rbv avriv preached in Rome. Kiupbv. All the Mss and the Syriac

2 The language of Clement however version here have ipvreiaavres; bat implicitly contains the testimony of this ^omjff-acrej is read by Georgius Synchurch at an earlier date: for he assumes cellus, and Rufinus has 'adventautes'; the acquiescence of the Corinthians the sense too seems to require it. In when be mentions both Apostles as of any case it is hardly a safe inference equal authority (§§ 5, 47). that Dionysius erroneously supposed

* In Euseb. 11. E. ii. 25 -rtp> dri the Churches of Rome and Corinth to TUrpov Kox Ka6\ov ipvreUi v yevtiBiiaav have been founded by both Apostles 'Vu/iatun> re Kal KopivBiuv avvexepiaare. jointly.

fathers nor they were able to bear. The precursors of Marcionism exaggerated the antagonism of St Paul to the Mosaic ritual, as if he had indeed held the law to be sin and the commandConcilia- ment neither holy nor just nor good. It seems to have been a of1ithe"11 subsidiary aim of St Luke's narrative, which must have been Acts. written not many years after the martyrdom of both Apostles, to show that this growing tendency was false, and that in their life, as in their death, they were not divided. A rough parallelism between the career of the two reveals itself in the narrative when carefully examined. Recent criticism has laid much stress on this ' conciliatory' purpose of the Acts, as if it were fatal to the credit of the narrative. But denying the inference we may concede the fact, and the very concession draws its sting. Such a purpose is at least as likely to have been entertained by a writer, if the two Apostles were essentially united, as if they were not. The truth or falsehood of the account must be determined on other grounds. St John 2. While St Peter was claimed as their leader by the

e<j Dy Judaizers, no such liberty seems to have been taken with the Ebionites. name of ST John1. Long settled in an important Gentile city, surrounded by a numerous school of disciples, still living at the dawn of the second century, he must have secured for his teaching such notoriety as protected it from gross misrepresentation. His posi- His last act recorded in St Luke's narrative is a visit to the

apostolio newly founded Churches of Samaria, in company with St Peter history. (v— j^ jje ^ins sfcampS y^fa his approval the first movement of the Church in its liberal progress. From the silence of both St Paul and St Luke it may be inferred that he took no very prominent part in the disputes about the Mosaic law. Only at the close of the conferences we find him together with St Peter and St James recognising the authority and work of St Paul, and thus giving another guarantee of his desire to advance the liberties of the Church. This is the only passage where he is mentioned in St Paul's Epistles. Yet it seems probable that though he did not actually participate in the public discussions, his unseen influence was exerted to promote the result. As in the earliest days of the Church, so now we may imagine him ever at St Peter's side, his faithful colleague and wise counsellor, not forward and demonstrative, but most powerful in private, pouring into the receptive heart of the elder Apostle the lessons of his own inward experience, drawn from close personal intercourse and constant spiritual communion with his Lord.

1 In the portion of the first book of in their writings. In another passage

the Recognitions, which seems to have Epiphanius attributes to the sons of Ze

been taken from the 'Ascents of James,' bedee the same ascetic practices which

the sons of Zebedee are introduced with distinguished James the Lord's brother

the rest of the Twelve confuting here- (Haer. 1 xxviii. 13); and this account

sies, but the sentiments attributed to he perhaps derived from some Essene

them are in no way Ebionite (i. 57). Ebionite source. But I do not know

It is this work perhaps to which Epi- that they ever claimed St John in the

phanius refers (xxx. 23), for Ms notice same way as they claimed St Peter and

does not imply anything more than a St James. casual introduction of St John's name

At length the hidden fires of his nature burst out into flame. His life in When St Peter and St Paul have ended their labours, the more his writactive career of St John is just beginning. If it had been their mgstask to organize and extend the Church, to remove her barriers and to advance her liberties, it is his special province to build up and complete her theology. The most probable chronology makes his withdrawal from Palestine to Asia Minor coincide very nearly with the martyrdom of these two Apostles, who have guided the Church through her first storms and led her to her earliest victories. This epoch divides his life into two distinct periods: hitherto he has lived as a Jew among Jews; henceforth he will be as a Gentile among Gentiles. The writings of St John in the Canon probably mark the close of each period. The Apocalypse winds up his career in the Church of the Circumcision; the Gospel and the Epistles are the crowning result of a long residence in the heart of Gentile Christendom.

Both the one and the other contrast strongly with the leading features of Ebionite doctrine; and this fact alone would deter the Judaizers from claiming the sanction of a name so revered. The Apo- of all the writings of the New Testament the Apocalypse

calypse °

Hebrew in is most thoroughly Jewish in its language and imagery. The

T#"Q ITT)ft*

gery, whole book is saturated with illustrations from the Old Testament. It speaks not the language of Paul, but of Isaiah and Ezekiel and Daniel. Its tone may be well described by an expression borrowed from the book itself; 'the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy' (xix. 10). The doctrine of Balaam, the whoredoms of Jezebel, the song of Moses, the lion of Judah, the key of David, the great river Euphrates, the great city Babylon, Sodom and Egypt, Gog and Magog, these and similar expressions are but the more striking instances of an imagery with which the Apocalypse teems. Nor are the symbols derived solely from the canonical Scriptures; in the picture of the New Jerusalem the inspired Apostle has borrowed many touches from the creations of rabbinical fancy. Up to this point the Apocalypse is completely Jewish and might have

but not been Ebionite. But the same framing serves only to bring out

in doc- more strongly the contrast between the pictures themselves.

"""'' The two distinctive features of Ebionism, its mean estimate of the person of Christ and its extravagant exaltation of the Mosaic law, are opposed alike to the spirit and language of St

The John. It might have been expected that the beloved disciple,

who had leaned on his Master's bosom, would have dwelt with fond preference on the humanity of our Lord: yet in none of the New Testament writings, not even in the Epistles of St Paul, do we find a more express recognition of His divine power and majesty. He is 'the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning (the source) of the creation of God' (iii. 14). 'Blessing, honour, glory, and power' are ascribed not'to Him that sitteth on the throne' only, but 'to the Lamb for ever and ever'(v. 13). His name is 'the Word of God' (xix. 13). Therefore He claims the titles and attributes of Deity. He declares Himself' the Alpha and Omega, the first and last, the beginning and the end' (xxii. 13; comp. i. 8). He is 'the Lord of lords and the King of kings' (xvii . 14, xix. 16). And so too the Ebionite reverence for the law as still binding has no place in the Apocalypse. The word does not occur from beginning to The law. end, nor is there a single allusion to its ceremonial as an abiding ordinance. The Paschal Lamb indeed is ever present to St John's thought; but with him it signifies not the sacrifice offered in every Jewish home year by year, but the Christ who once ' was slain, and hath redeemed us to God by His blood out of every kindred and tongue and people and nation' (v. 9). All this is very remarkable, since there is every reason to believe that up to this time St John had in practice observed the Jewish law1. To him however it was only a national custom

1 Certain traditions of St John's residence at Ephesus, illustrating his relation to the Mosaic law, deserve notice here. They are given by Polycrates who was himself bishop of Ephesus (Euseb. H. E. v. 24). Writing to pope Victor, probably in the last decade of the second century, he mentions that he 'numbers (tx<M) sixty-five years in the Lord' (whether he refers to the date of his birth or of his conversion, is uncertain, but the former seems more probable), and that he has had seven relations bishops, whose tradition he follows. We are thus carried back to a very early date. The two statements with which we are concerned are these. (1) St John celebrated the Paschal day on the 14th of the month, coinciding with the Jewish passover. It seems to me, as I have said already (see p. 101), that there is no good ground for questioning this tradition. The institution of such an annual celebration by this Apostle derives light from the many references to the Paschal Lamb in the Apocalypse; and in the first instance it would seem most natural to celebrate it on the exact anniversary of the Passover. It is more questionable whether the Roman and other Churches, whose usage has passed into the law of Chris

tendom, had really the apostolic sanction which they vaguely asserted for celebrating it always on the Friday. This usage, if not quite so obvious as the other, was not unnatural and probably was found much more convenient. (2) Polycrates says incidentally of St John that he was 'a priest wearing the mitre and a martyr and teacher (8s iyeviiBri Upiin T6 Ittio\ov rf<popexun Kal H&prvi Kal SiSdffKa\os).' The reference in the lrira\ov is doubtless to the metal plate on the high-priest's mitre, cf. Exod. xxviii. 36 rtraKov yj>vaovv Ka6apiv, comp. Protevang. c. 5 To rird\ov Tow lepius; but the meaning of Polycrates is far from clear. He has perhaps mistaken metaphor for matter of fact (see Stanley Apostolical Age p. 285); in like manner as the name Theophorus assumed by Ignatius gave rise to the later story that he was the child whom our Lord took in His arms and blessed. I think it probable however that the words as they stand in Polycrates are intended for a metaphor, since the short fragment which contains them has several figurative expressions almost, if not quite, as violent; e.g. nty&\a oroix«a KtKoinijrai (where <Troix«a means 'luminaries,' being used of the heavenly bodies); MtXfrwa tbv eivovxoy (proba

and not an universal obligation, only one of the many garbs in which religious worship might clothe itself, and not the essence of religious life. In itself circumcision is nothing, as uncircumcision also is nothing; and therefore he passes it over as if it were not. The distinction between Jew and Gentile has ceased; the middle wall of partition is broken down in Christ. If preserving the Jewish imagery which pervades the book, he records the sealing of twelve thousand from each tribe of Israel, his range of vision expands at once, and he sees before the throne 'a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations and kindreds and peoples and tongues' (vii. 9). If he denounces the errors of heathen speculation, taking up their own watchword 'knowledge (yvwo-t?)' and retorting upon them that they know only ' the depths of Satan' (ii. 24)1, on the other hand he condemns in similar language the bigotry of Jewish prejudice, denouncing the blasphemy of those 'who say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan' (ii. 9; comp. iii. 9).