bears no date and does not state how long Peter had been there. In Jerusalem, so far as we can learn, the apostles lived in peace with their Jewish neighbors and enjoyed "favor with all the people," as Acts says. There was none of that bitter animosity which broke out between Judaism and Christianity when the latter became a distinct religion. The followers of the twelve worshiped in the temple and observed all the sacred rites and sacred days of the old law. They had no sacred day of their own. They assumed no distinctive name. They did not formulate a new creed. As Neander says, "they remained outwardly Jews," and they adhered to "the existing religious forms," which, as they understood the teaching of Jesus, were to remain in force until the end of the world. He adds that "the establishment of a distinct mode of worship was far from entering their thoughts; they took part in the temple worship with as much interest as any devout Jew." "Daily in the temple they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ." And the narrative implies that by so doing they gave no serious offense to the priests and elders who formed the municipal council and administered the local government, with authority to enforce their customs and protect their ecclesiastical organization, subject to the provision that no capital punishment could be inflicted without the consent of the Roman Government.

SEC. 514. Peter.-In the opening chapters of Acts we find two addresses by Peter, one delivered to the disciples when an apostle to succeed Judas Iscariot was to be chosen, and the other to the Jews on the day of Pentecost. On neither occasion did the speaker mention a new religion, or a church open to Gentiles as well as to Jews, or an abandonment of the Mosaic law. If these

6

ideas had been in his mind at that time, he could not have omitted some reference to them.

That the apostles and disciples in Jerusalem continued for at least eighteen years to comply with the requirements of the Mosaic law is proved by the epistle of Paul and also by Acts. In the latter book we read that at a time not specified, probably not earlier than 40 A. D., Peter went to Joppa and there ate with Gentiles—that is, he violated the Pharisaic interpretation of one of the Mosaic ceremonial rules-and after his return to Jerusalem, he was called to account by his fellow disciples. He justified his conduct, not on the ground that Jesus had abrogated the ceremonial law of Moses, or any part of it, but that in a dream he had received a divine communication telling him that all manner of beasts, fowls, and creeping things were clean, and that it was lawful for him to keep company with Gentiles, who were "unclean" under the law of Moses. This announcement was accepted as authoritative, but with much surprise, “because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost."1

This statement of the revelation to Peter, and of its acceptance by the disciples in Jerusalem, is doubtless an invention of the author of Acts. It cannot be brought into harmony with later passages of his own book, nor with the statements of Paul, who is our only trustworthy witness in these matters. According to Acts, about 51 A. D. a council was held in Jerusalem to put an end to the dissension which had arisen in the church on the questions of circumcision and unclean meats. This council decided in favor of Paul, who was in attendance, and the decision as given in a letter addressed not to all Christians but only to "the brethren which are of the

Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia❞—where Paul had been making converts, informing them that they were not required to observe the Mosaic ceremonial law. It is quite clear that no such council would have been held if the matter had been decided ten years before, as Acts says it had been.

But this account of the council of 51 A. D. is also a fiction. About eight years later Paul went to Jerusalem again, and his appearance there provoked a riot. The mob wanted to kill him because of his hostility to the Mosaic law, and this mob included Jewish Christians as well as Jews. All the Christians in Jerusalem were zealous adherents of the Mosaic law. Some of the leading brethren, presumably apostles, advised Paul to take a false oath that he did not teach his Jewish converts to neglect the law. And, if we can believe Acts, he took that oath. This, however, did not pacify the mob, which would have put him to death if the Roman soldiers had not protected him. They took him to prison and finally to Rome.

This story in Acts implies that the apostolic church adopted one rule of discipline for the Gentile and another for the Jewish Christians; that the latter were, and that the former were not, required to comply with the Mosaic ceremonial law. This duplicity of discipline is not recorded elsewhere. It is not known to Paul; and if it had existed, he could neither have been ignorant of it nor remained silent about it. He tells us that the twelve apostles in Jerusalem, or those of them known to him, favored strict adherence to Moses; and the only way in which he could get along harmoniously with them was by promising to do no missionary work in Judea, He was to labor among the Gentiles,"

SEC. 515. Paul's Gospel.-Paul's relation to the twelve apostles was one of decided independence and even of opposition. He acknowledged no subordination to them. He addressed no doctrinal epistle to them or their churches, and received none from them. He made no reports to them. He did not correspond with them regularly. They never invited him to preach to their congregations and he never invited them to address his converts. He declared that he did not owe his conversion, his baptism, or his doctrine to the twelve, and that he never spent any long time in Jerusalem or in Judea as a Christian missionary. He claimed to be an apostle by a secret divine commission, but the twelve never admitted the validity of his claim. They never gave him the title of apostle; they never said anything indicative of willingness to admit him into their councils. Vacancies must have occurred in their number long before he went to Rome, but they never chose him to a vacant place. The following passages from his epistles are indicative of his claims to independence and originality: "I am the apostle of the Gentiles." "He [the Lord] made known the mystery that the Genin Christ." "The

unto me
tiles should be fellow-heirs

gospel which was preached of me is not after man, for I neither received it of man nor was I taught it, but by the [special] revelation of Jesus Christ." "When it pleased God . to reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen, immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood, neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me. Afterwards I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia, and was unknown by face to the churches of Judea."1

"Then fourteen years after [seventeen years after his

conversion, perhaps in 51 A. D.] I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles but privately to them which were of reputation. And when James, Cephas [Peter], and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship, that we should go unto the heathen and they unto the circumcision [the Jews].""

66

"I was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles.” “I have preached to you the gospel of God freely." "The truth of Christ is in me.” 'Though we or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.” "Be ye followers of me, even as I am of Christ." "When God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel."

993

There is no passage in Paul inconsistent with these quotations; no passage suggesting that the admission of the heathen into the Christian church was an idea of Jesus, or that it was accepted by the twelve apostles in Jerusalem before the conversion of Paul, or that he received any instruction from them or acknowledged any duty of obedience or submission to them.

This gospel which Paul preached and which, according to his boast, was original with him, included many tenets not found in the four gospels or not set forth there in unmistakable terms. By implication, it repudiated the ascetic and communistic maxims of the synoptic gospels, maxims unsuitable for the guidance of any prosperous and progressive state. On the other hand, it did teach a high conception of a spiritual and universal faith, decidedly superior to any ecclesiastical doctrine pre