writer gives literally one of the Lord's sayings as contained in the Gospel after Luke, yet that he does not record these words as having been spoken by the Lord. It is as if he had not ventured to place the record of Luke, which, as it existed, must have been known to him, on a par with the original record of Matthew; though, in one instance, his Epistle contains words which are more in harmony with the version we find in the Gospel after Luke. Nor is it less remarkable that all his quotations from and references to New Testament Scriptures seem to be derived from a source nearly identical with the Gospel after Matthew. The importance of this circumstance is all the greater, since he regards as authoritative Scripture the evangelical record to which he refers. If we bear in mind that almost every one of the numerous gospel quotations contained in the works of Justin Martyr are to be found in the Gospel after Matthew, though for the most part slightly modified, the fact gains in significance that, according to the most ancient Church-tradition on the origin of the gospels, the Apostle Matthew wrote down the sayings of the Lord. So exclusively was this record regarded as authoritative by the Jewish Christians, that Justin Martyr does not venture to cite even one of those numerous sayings of Christ which referred to apocryphal doctrines, and were therefore excluded from the first apostolic record, whilst they were recorded by the beloved disciple, and published at a late period in the Gospel after John. The writer of the Epistle of Barnabas connects one of his gospel quotations, containing words of Christ, in such a manner with the election of the twelve Apostles, as plainly to show that he was not one of their disciples. Referring to Christ, he writes: And finally teaching the people of Israel, and doing many wonders and signs among them, he preached to them, and showed the exceeding great love which he bare towards them. And 6 1 Luke vi. 30; comp Mat. v. 42, CHAP. VII. VII. CHAP. when he chose his apostles, which were afterwards to publish his gospel, he took men who had been very great sinners (or "the most lawless of men"), that thereby he might plainly show that he came not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance.' It is obvious that the writer has intentionally perverted the sense of the Lord's words, which He never addressed or referred to those whom He called the light of the world and the salt of the earth. The writer seems also, in another passage, to refer, though indirectly, to the Apostles, whom Paul calls the respected persons.' He states that Christ came not to call any with respect of persons, but whomsoever the Spirit had prepared.' Whilst not referring to the Apostles as an authority, he at least indirectly includes them in his condemnation of everything that is Jewish, or in any way connected with the Sinaitic law. Even the twelve Apostles were shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. , 2 We meet in this Epistle with no direct reference to the Gospel after Mark, which may have been written before that time, but which seems to have contained few if any sayings of Christ, except those which were derived from Matthew's record. Luke's gospel is indirectly referred to.4 John's gospel was clearly not then known, if written, nor does it seem to have transpired at this time that some of the most important sayings of Christ had been intentionally, because necessarily, suppressed by the Apostles. That the writer should directly refer to the Epistle to the Hebrews is what we should expect from a probable member of the Alexandrian church, and contemporary of Apollos. He goes beyond this Epistle by denying the two covenants, and by insisting on the personal preexistence of Christ. Unlike the writer of the above Epistle, he denies the reality of Christ's human nature, and 1 iv. 10-12. Celsus, who in the second century wrote against the Christians, made use of this passage against the Apostles (Orig. c. Cel. i. 63). 2 Gal. ii. 3 xiv. 15; comp. iii. 7. 4 Luke xxiv. 50; vi. 30. he does so without naming any authority for his assertion. CHAP. This is anti-apostolic doctrine. We shall now point out how these heretical docetic doctrines, whose germs are contained in one of the Alexandrian Epistles we have now considered, were strenuously opposed by the Roman church, at the end of the first and in the beginning of the second century. If the suppression of the authentic record of the secret sayings of Christ led to anti-Christian doceticism in some of the churches, it led to anti-Christian Judaism in others. It was by the publication of the Gospel after John, that the foundation was laid of that peace which is consistent with truth, and which therefore will ever be the essential element of true Catholicity. VII. 362 CHAPTER VIII. ORIGIN OF THE ROMAN CHURCH. INTRODUCTION-EPISTLE OF CLEMENT- SHEPHERD OF HERMAS-GNOSTICISM MARTYR-MARCION. CHAP. VIIL tion. 'Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light.'—Eph. v. 14. THE pentecostal effusion of the Holy Ghost, on the anniversary of the promulgation of the Sinaitic law, had taken Introduc- place in the presence of a motley multitude, among which there are recorded to have been 'strangers of Rome.' 1 Thus early Roman citizens were, by Divine operation, prepared for the teaching of the Spirit of God, who, by convincing the world of sin, righteousness, and judgment, was to lead the true followers of Christ into all truth. The earliest Christian church in Rome may have been originally composed of such Jews and Gentiles whose knowledge of Christianity was limited by Matthew's restricted record of the Lord's 'primitive' or elementary doctrine. The more perfect' principles of Christ's secret or hidden doctrine were probably entirely excluded from the sphere of this Church, till the first news of Paul's conversion and of his new gospel reached the eternal city.' From that time we may, perhaps, assume that the Church of Rome became a mixed church, no longer of Jews and 1 Acts ii. 10. Gentiles, but of elementary and more perfect, of Pales- CHAP. tinian and of Paulinian Christians. 6 Paul's Epistle to the Romans, written about the year 54, or ten years before his probable martyrdom, might therefore be regarded as an apology of the more perfect doctrine revealed to him individually by the risen Saviour, and which constituted his 'other' Gospel. We have sufficient reasons for assuming that, on the whole, the reception of this Epistle was at first an unfavourable one; and that when, four years later, the Apostle came to Rome, he did not succeed to remove the prejudices which the majority among the members of that Church had formed against him. His own Epistle, and the account of his visit to Rome contained in the Acts, confirm this view. He writes to the members of the Jewish or Jewish-Christian church at Rome, that their faith is spoken of throughout the whole world.' And the Acts record the fact, that by some members of this Church, who are here called 'the Jews,' Paul's doctrine was regarded as a 'sect. everywhere spoken against.' On the other hand, Paul met, on his arrival in Rome, some brethren,' probably some disciples of his, and these urged him to stay. Their appearance reassured him, a circumstance which shows that if the majority of the members of the Roman church had been of his way of thinking, he would have summoned them to his prison, instead of calling 'the chief of the Jews together.' Whether these chiefs were Jews or Jewish Christians matters not; they were not Paulinians, and they were influential enough even to prevent the Romans from liberating Paul, which the latter were quite prepared to do. Thus the Jews,' who 'spake against' this intended liberation of the Apostle were his real enemies. 6 We must bear in mind that Paul designates Peter, and those who had been sent to Antioch by James, as 'Jews;' that, at the time of Paul's imprisonment, as well as before 2 Comp. Gal. ii. 13. 1 i. 8. 3 Acts xxviii. 22, VIII. |