passages in the Gospels which represent Jesus as contemplating a world-wide church ar later fictions; and in particular the close of Matthew's Gospel is anachronistic and untrue.

Jesus cannot hav told them to go into all nations and baptize them in the name of the Holy Trinity. Had he done so, then neither Peter's dream nor the Holy Tongues would hav been needed. Peter, when arraigned for baptizing converted Gentiles, would simply hav pleaded the solemn last commands of Jesus as his sufficient justification. Since he makes absolutely no allusion hereto, the fact (as told in the "Acts") proves that Peter had never received such commands. We also now understand somewhat better why Jesus did not take precautions that his sacred words should be accurately conveyed to the many distant nations who were to be converted. Though Matthew makes him giv definit charge to teach his discourses to foreigners, yet in fact he had neither design nor foresight that his "Gospel" would be preached to foreigners; much less that his discourses would be preserved, transmitted and translated.

The argument by which modern Christians try to evade these inferences is truly astonishing. They say, that before the Holy Spirit in tongues of fire sat upon the disciples, the apostles were so carnal and dull of mind that they could not understand the words of Jesus, even when he spoke plainly. If our books ar at all credible, his speech was notoriously often far from plain; Matthew says, was purposely obscure. Grant that this rose out of the depth of spiritual mysteries in which he dealt yet when he spoke of matters external, which a wholly unspiritual man or a child could understand, then it becomes ludicrous to impute the apostolic ignorance to dulness of mind. When Paul declared that Gentiles might enter the church without circumcision, every Jew, however carnal, understood him: yet we ar expected

to believe, that when Jesus commanded his apostles to preach to the Gentiles and baptize them, these apostles, being very carnal and dull, could not understand him; --nay, not even after they had been illuminated by the Holy Spirit did they remember his commands.--But this is to expect stupidity in us.

After the principle had been established that the uncircumcised were admissible to the Christian church, a hope arose that, from among heathen proselytes to Judaism converts might be made to Christianity. Few of these received circumcision: but they had shown independence of mind in throwing off their hereditary mythology: they were presumably devout persons, and not likely to resist innovation in religion so stiffly as born Jews. In fact the first convert, Cornelius, seems to hav been previously "a proselyte of the gate." But of necessity every Christian Jew who believed in the only natural sense of the Hebrew prophets, and had not learned the art of blurring the contrast of Jew and Gentile therein established as sharply as possible, was led even by kindness and sympathy to wish that every converted Gentile should be incorporated into the Hebrew body; so that, instead of being one of the faithful Gentile vassals and servants, bringing tribute and performing menial offices for the Holy People under Messiah's reign, he should himself become one of the sacred ruling caste. One short passage from the later Isaiah is a clue to all beside: lxi. 5, 6,--" Strangers "shall stand and feed your flocks, and the sons of the "alien shall be your plowmen and your vinedressers: "but ye shall be named the Priests of the Lord; men "shall call you the Ministers of our God. Ye shall eat "the riches of the Gentiles, and in their glory shall ye "boast yourselves." Such was the exalted rank into which Jesus, descending from heaven with a shout, with

the voice of the archangel and the trump of God, would establish his faithful Jewish disciples. While they believed this, love to Gentile converts made them long to embrace them as fully graduated Jews: and how could any of them throw off belief in that glorious later Isaiah? Nay, were they not now basing their belief in a Messiah who had to suffer before ruling in glorified Zion, mainly on the words of this very prophet?--We cannot therefor wonder,--we must almost take for granted--that a strong and powerful movement came forth from Jerusalem, urging in much love and seeking to persuade Gentile converts to adopt circumcision, the sabbath and all the peculiarities of Mosaism.

In fact, this was no question internal to Christianity. In the historian Josephus (Antiq. xx. 2 § 3--5) we hav a very interesting account concerning Izates, the young prince of Adiabêne and his mother Queen Helena. The prince, while residing abroad, was converted to Judaism. by a Hebrew merchant called Ananias. At the same time his mother remaining at home was converted by another Jew. When, by the death of the king of Adiabêne, Izates was called home to take his father's place, mother and son were alike delighted to find their mutual zeal for the pure monotheistic faith. The young man was eager to become a complete Jew by circumcision. The mother dissuaded, and appeal was made to Ananias. He also dissuaded, saying that without circumcision Izates could do what was vastly better,-revere God; and with the mother he thought it unwise to stir up violent feeling in the nation by submitting to a foreign ceremony. But after this, came a third Jew, Eleazar from Galilee, whom the historian calls most exact as to Jewish customs. This man finding the young king to be reading the books of Moses, vehemently censured him, as "learning and not obeying." Izates was ambitious of

perfection, accepted circumcision and thereby encountered much calamity, temporarily losing his throne and strangely regaining it. These events were under the empire of Claudius Cæsar. The sons and brothers of Izates were brought before Titus Cæsar after Jerusalem was captured. Thus the chronology is fixed. The three Jewish proselyters gained access to royal persons contemporaneously with the career of Paul of Tarsus. Queen Helena went on pilgrimage to the temple of Jerusalem. She arrived in the midst of a great famine, bringing with her much treasure. She at once sent to Alexandria for wheat and to Cyprus for dry figs. Her son, on hearing the news, sent large funds to the leading men in Jerusalem for public relief, and later they continued their liberalities.--Since all this was after the death of Jesus, we ar not forced to say, that these three Jewish devotees and their royal proselytes were accounted by him to be " children of hell."

Not a word has come down to us that can justly imply any sacerdotal terrors to hav been wielded by those who ar contemptuously called Judaizers: they had no power but kind argumentativ suasion. To us, of course, the suasion is empty of force. We do not believe in any secular domination promised to the Jewish race, or to others who hav accepted the Jewish ceremonial. But it is on the one hand unjust to call these Christians narrow and bigoted for desiring to hav the Gentile converts as equals and partners; on the other hand it is futile to censure them for believing the evident and plain sense of their great and magnificent prophet. This controversy concerning the value of the Jewish law, and the advantage of the Jew over the Gentile was presently to be quickened by the energies and enthusiasm of one man into a furious and deplorable heat. Here it may be added that in the book of Acts (xv.) a solitary occasion is reported, on

which certain Christians from Jerusalem taught the Gentiles, that without circumcision "they could not be saved." But the immediate result of this was (if we accept that narrativ) that the Church in Jerusalem collectivly reproved such teaching. If by "salvation" acceptance with God was meant, the doctrin was narrower than that of the Pharisees, who admitted proselytes of the gate. When the mother church so promptly disowned it, we may infer, even from the book of Acts itself, that the error was an exceptional indiscretion, and cannot hav had any deep roots or permanent strength. Yet another possibility must not be forgotten. If the Judaizers only taught that without circumcision converts could not take equal rank with Jews in Messiah's kingdom, this might be unfairly represented in the oral tradition of the Church fifty years later,--after Jerusalem had perished,—as teaching that without circumcision they could not be saved.

CHAPTER X.

PAUL AND JAMES.

THE introduction of Gentiles into the Christian faith before long broke the Church in twain: but the actual process was not one of natural development. It could not hav been pre-imagined, and it needs special and detailed narrativ. Happily we ar here landed on solid historical ground. We hold Paul's own letters, the letters of that pupil of Gamaliel who played a leading part in the first persecution of Christians. We may rest on them with the same confidence as on those of our own