the influence obtained by such peculiarities of doctrine as appear in the spurious Clementine Homilies. These exhibit a particular type of that form of Ebionism which had been shaped under the Essene influence. That these singularities of opinion ever prevailed in the Roman Church, or in the churches generally, is not only a proposition devoid of proof, but it is contradicted by clear historical testimonies. Unconscious deviations from the Pauline doctrine, and ascetic elements, that manifest themselves in the theology of the second century, imply no such ascendency of Ebionism. They are found in writers of that and the following centuries, by whom the name and works of Paul were held in the highest reverence.

1

In the decade that precedes the siege of Jerusalem by Titus, the Christians, as we learn from the account of the Neronian persecution by Tacitus, had come to be recognized among the heathen as a sect distinct from the Jews; and so in Judea itself, as we have seen, with the growth of the fanaticism that blazed out in the war against Rome, the hostility of the Jews to the Church kept pace. The tendency of this persecution must have been to build up a wall between the Jewish Christians and their hostile countrymen. It has already been suggested that the fall of the temple, with the capital, which crushed the hopes on which the Judaical spirit in the Church had fed, must have compelled many who were less obstinately wedded to the old ritual, to fall in with the more free type of Christianity which was now spreading over the Roman world. In short, while the Jewish Christian branch of the Church was shattered and divided, Gentile Christianity was taking root, and drawing multitudes within its fold. Hence, early in the second century, the churches are everywhere found to be free from bondage to Judaic observances, 1 See below p. 529.

and the Jewish type of Christianity remains only in the factions, one more tolerant, and the other rigid, which exist outside of the pale of Catholicism.

From the writings of Clement of Alexandria, Irenæus, Hippolytus, and Tertullian, we are able to gain an intelligent view of the Church Catholic as it existed towards the close of the second century. It is evident that the distinct conception of justification by faith alone, and the profound idea of faith, as these truths are set forth in the writings of Paul, are no longer vividly present in the Christian consciousness. Not that there is a conscious antagonism to this type of doctrine, but there has sprung up a certain legalism, a Christian legalism, to be sure, which involves a perceptible difference from the Pauline theology. It is a rash conclusion, however, which attributes this phase of doctrinal opinion to a Judaic influence, or to the effect of a compromise between two contrasted theologies. It must be remembered that the legal tendency may spring up, in any age, among those who accept, and sincerely profess to revere, the writings of Paul. It must not be forgotten that it is only two of the Epistles of Paul, that to the Romans and that to the Galatians, which present the doctrine of justification and of faith, with the sharp statement consequent upon the need of combating antagonistic errors; and that the other New Testament writings, besides those of Paul, were equally in the hands of the early Church. The Fathers, whom we have named,

1 The term Catholic Church († kałoλikỳ έkkλnoía) first occurs in Ignatius (ad Smyrn., viii.). It is found three times in the Martyrdom of Polycarp-first in the superscription, and then in cc. viii. and xix. In c. 1x., however, it is only to the Church of Smyrna, collectively taken, that the epithet is applied. See, also, Shepherd of Hermas, iii. 17, where the universal Church is referred to. Clement of Alexandria speaks of the "Catholic Church" as antithetical to heretical sects. Strom., VII. xvii. (ed. Potter, p. 899).

and their contemporaries, so far as their theology varied from the teaching of Paul, were led into this deviation, not by any opposition to him, whose authority they had no thought of disputing, nor by the influence of Judaism. All the evidence on the subject points to one conclusion, viz., that the old Catholic Church, as it formed itself in the second century, grew out of that common Christianity which had honored alike all of the Apostles. This Church had its centres and strongholds in the Gentile communities where Paul had been the principal teacher, and where his memory was reverently cherished.

CHAPTER XVI.

THE SPREAD OF CHRISTIANITY IN THE APOSTOLIC AGE.

Ar the outset of the history of the spread of Christianity by the labors of the Apostles, stands the event which forms at once the principal warrant and the principal element of their preaching, the Resurrection of the Lord. The mode of this event, an event that passes the bounds of ordinary human experience, and is concerned with the mystery of life and death, can never be comprehended. The fact is attested on grounds equally strong with those which support the testimony of the Apostles respecting the whole life of Jesus. There are considerations which corroborate in a remarkable manner this part of their testimony. That they, with one accord, proclaimed the fact of the Resurrection, and this from the very date of its alleged occurrence, is beyond doubt. Here, in agreement with the Gospels, Paul comes forward as an independent witness. In the year 58, he wrote from Ephesus his First Epistle to the Church at Corinth. It appears from this Letter that some Christians had called in question the doctrine of the resurrection, not the fact of the resurrection of Jesus, but the resurrection of believers generally. They may have been offended by a materialistic representation, which Paul makes it a part of his business to controvert, that the same flesh and blood that belongs to us on earth is to be revived. and restored. However this may have been, Paul lays at the foundation of his reasoning the fact of the Resurrection

1

of Jesus. He recalls the testimony which he had given them as to this central fact of the Christian faith. He sets down in order a series of interviews of the risen Jesus with the Apostles and other Disciples; and this careful statement shows the importance which he attached to the proofs in question, and how strictly he had investigated them. He says that Christ died and was buried, and that on the third day afterwards, He rose from the dead; that He was seen by Peter, then by the Twelve a general designation of the body of Apostles, although Judas was no longer of the number;-that He was then seen simultaneously by more than five hundred disciples, whether in Jerusalem or Galilee he does not say; then by James, by whom is meant, in all probability, the brother of Jesus; and again by the Apostles collectively. Last of all He was seen by Paul himself; the reference being, undoubtedly to his conversion. There is no reason to think that in either of these instances, not even in the appearance of Jesus to himself, the Apostle intends to describe a vision, in distinction from an actual bodily appearance. It is not a mental perception, but visual perception by the organ of sight, that the Apostle means to affirm. The statement that He was seen by five hundred at once is introduced as tending to show that there was no hallucination. It is safe to say that Paul learned these facts from the Apostles themselves. In A. D. 38, three years after his conversion, he had spent a fortnight with Peter at Jerusalem." Other Apostles and immediate disciples of Jesus were known to him personally. Nothing need be said on the question whether the Apostles affirmed the Resurrection of Jesus from the date of this supposed event. It is held by considerate inquirers of all schools that their faith in the Resurrec

1 1 Cor. xv. 1, 3.

་

2 Gal. i. 18.