Church, in which all traces of the former divisions were, as far as possible, obliterated or disguised. This Catholic Church called itself after both Peter and Paul, though giving the higher rank to the former. It excluded from its communion as heretics both the Jewish-Christians who persisted in reviling Paul and maintaining the Law in its integrity (Ebionites) and the Heathen-Christians who opposed the principle of the Law and rejected the authority of the Anostles of Jerusalem (Marcionites).

VII.

THE difference of principle among the earliest disciples of Jesus stamped itself more or less distinctly upon the old Christian literature, and was indeed one of the great motive powers in its production. We possess most of this literature in the New Testament, though some compositions, such as one or more letters of Paul to Corinth, a gospel of the Hebrews, and other's writings have been lost. We also possess a few more documents which may be regarded as belonging to the old Christian literature. They are generally called the writings of the Apostolic Fathers. One of them is a letter from Clement to the Corinthians, and another is a letter written under the name of Barnabas. But these are more recent than almost any of the books of the New Testament.

To the books of the New Testament, then, we must now turn our special attention. Some of them, especially the oldest, plunge us into the midst of the conflict between the two parties. Of Paul's letters to Galatia, to Corinth, and to Rome we have already spoken. One of the writings of the opposite party is the book of Revelation, which was written in A.D. 68, or January, 69, a few years after the death of Paul. It attacks his character, but still more his doctrine, and brands his followers as servants of Satan. We learn from it the exact position of the rigid Jewish-Christians at a time when the great majority of the faithful was composed of converted heathens. The Messiah and his kingdom belong to Israel, and Jerusalem will be the chief seat of the kingdom of God. The heathen, in order to participate in it, must first be incorporated into Israel, and even then they will occupy a lower position than that of the true descendants of Abraham, — just as in former times the proselytes had

never been regarded as on the same footing with the Jews themselves. The epistle of James is of later date, and though it is also from the hand of a Jewish-Christian it breathes a far gentler and freer spirit than that of Revelation. It holds that the Jewish ceremonies are annulled, and admits the heathen without conditions; but for all that it is directly and designedly aimed against the doctrine of Paul. On the other hand, certain writings intended to bring about a reconciliation were issued by the friends of Paul. Among these are the epistle to the Hebrews and the book of Acts. Others again involuntarily remind us of the divisions that had formerly prevailed or still existed, and so give us a glimpse into the state of feeling and belief in the circles from which they emanated; while the latest books transplant us into a changed condition of the community and into later ecclesiastical disputes.

In dealing with these questions we must never forget that the majority of the writings of the New Testament were not really written or published by those whose names they bear. For instance, fourteen epistles are said to be Paul's; but we must at once strike off one, namely that to the Hebrews, which does not bear his name at all, and therefore does not even profess to have come from his hand. The other thirteen are all of them intended to pass for his; but in one of them we are distinctly informed (2 Thessalonians, ii. 2) that even during his lifetime letters of which he had not written a word were published under his name. In those days people saw no harm in such literary frauds, though they would now be considered highly culpable, and even criminal. The ancient historians were much in the habit of introducing celebrated personages as actually saying what they imagined would have been appropriate for them to say under tho special circumstances; and in the same way it was considered quite permissible for a man to put out letters under the name of another, and thus to bring his own ideas before the world under the protection of an honored sponsor. Thus the two letters to Timothy, and the letter to Titus, were certainly composed long after the death of Paul, though perhaps the second to Timothy contains a few verses that are actually from the hand of the Apostle. It is more than probable that the letters to the Ephesians and Colossians are also unauthentic, and the same suspicion rests, perhaps on the first, but certainly on the second of the epistles to the Thessalonians

These remarks are equally applicable to the seven General or Catholic epistles, so called because they were accepted by the Catholic Church. The first and last, which are JewishChristian in character, are incorrectly ascribed to James and Judas, the brothers of Jesus. The first epistle of Peter was not written by the Apostle whose name it bears, but by a disciple of Paul; and the second, which is perhaps the latest book in the Bible, was not written till about the middle of the second century after Christ. The writer attempts to reason with the grievous disappointment of the Christians at the continued delay of the return of Jesus from heaven; an event which even the Apostles and their contemporaries had eagerly expected, and which the writer of the Revelation, two years before the destruction of Jerusalem, had painted in glowing colors and declared to be close at hand. Finally, of the three epistles of John the first is not an epistle at all, and does not bear any name, while the other two profess to be the work of an elder whose name is not given. All of them place us in a later age and amid other controversies than those of which we have spoken above.

But our interest is more especially excited by the five historical books of the New Testament. If we might really suppose them to have been written by the men whose names they bear, we could never be thankful enough for such precious authorities at first and second hand, and should not hesitate to accept their narratives in the main as substantially correct. For John and Matthew were Apostles of Jesus, and the former, together with his brother James and with Peter, was admitted into his Master's especial confidence. As to Mark, we are told that he lived at Jerusalem, that he was a cousin of Barnabas, a fellow-traveller and friend of Paul, and afterwards a companion and beloved disciple of Peter. Luke is supposed to have been a friend and disciple of Paul, to have accompanied him on most of his journeys, and to have been with him during his last stay at Jerusalem and his imprisonment. Who could be better informed as to the fates of Jesus and the Apostles than these eye-witnesses and their close and intimate friends?

But, alas! not one of these five books was really written by the person whose name it bears, -- though for the sake of brevity we shall still call the writers Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, and they are all of more recent date than their headings would lead us to suppose. The case is not quite

the same, however, as with the epistles sent into the world

under the names of Paul, Peter, James, and Judas. We cannot say that the Gospels and the book of Acts are unauthentic, for not one of them professes to give the name of its author. They appeared anonymously. The titles placed above them in our bibles owe their origin to a later ecclesiastical tradition which deserves no confidence whatever.

So in order to know how far we can safely rely upon their statements and what use we can make of them, we must look at the contents of the books themselves. Let us begin by examining the Acts of the Apostles. We notice at once that the name is very inappropriate, for the book does not speak of the actions of all the twelve or thirteen Apostles, or even of most of them, but is divided into two parts, the first and smaller of which is chiefly concerned with Peter and the other exclusively with Paul. But we need not insist on this. For the history of these two men, in whom we feel so deep an interest, it is almost our only authority; and of the earliest fortunes of the community of Jesus, the primitive history of the Christian Church and the whole of the apostolic age, we should know as good as nothing if we had not the book of Acts. If only we could trust the writer fully! But we soon see that the utmost caution is necessary. For we have another account of some of the things about which this writer tells us, an account written by the very man to whom they refer, the best possible authority, therefore, as to what really took place. This man is Paul himself. In the first two chapters of the epistle to the Galatians he gives us several details of his own past life; and no sooner do we place his story side by side with that of the Acts than we clearly perceive that this book contains an incorrect account, and that its inaccuracy is not the result of accident or ignorance but of a deliberate design, an attempt — conceived no doubt with the best intentions - to hide in some degree the actual course of events. In short, it attempts to conceal Paul's relations with the other Apostles and the differences of opinion that existed in the early Church. This real discovery gives us the key to the character and purpose of the whole book of Acts. For now that we have in one instance detected its tendency to represent the relations between Paul and the Twelve as more favorable than they really were, and to hide the differences of opinion among the early Christians as completely as possible, we soon perceive the same desire running through all the book. The real state of things in these early times is disguised almost past recognition. In order to reconcile.

Paul's enemies to him, and to establish peace between the two parties, the sharp corners are considerably rounded off whenever the great and striking figure of the apost'e of the heathens is introduced. At the same time, Peter and James are made more liberal. Indeed, Peter is the first to preach the gospel to the heathen, and on several occasions Paul is represented in the character of a strict Jewish-Christian. In a word, all traces of the dispute are as far as possible obliterated.

This puts us into a position to determine the origin and the historical value of the book of Acts. The writer was evidently a Heathen-Christian who revered the memory of Paul, though he never really understood his doctrine, and had surrendered most of his principles. At the same time he may be regarded as in a certain sense a forerunner (or an early representative) of the primitive Catholic Church. We know how to deal with him therefore. When, in spite of himself, he allows an involuntary betrayal of the existence of these dissensions to leak out, or when his subject is in no way connected with these quarrels, and he had means of investigating it fully, then we may not only hail him as a valuable witness, in the absence of all other informants, but may even accept his statements as deserving of all credit; not indeed as regards the speeches which he puts into the mouths of Paul and others, but as regards the events which he records. This is especially applicable to the later fortunes of Paul, as to which the writer of Acts had access to some very good authorities, the best of all being the itinerary or journal of travels composed by one of the Apostle's companions. Portions of this work he took up almost unaltered into his In this itinerary, then, we possess the records of an eye-witness. This is of incalculable value. Paul himself and this unknown companion of his journeys are the only eye-witnesses from whom we have any records in the New Testament that have not been disturbed by later traditions. And, alas! this later tradition is such a turbid fountain!

own.