CHUECH
CHUKCH
207
of Jerusalem left the Gentile Churches, and espe- cially the Church of Rome, without a rival, for the Jewish Church of Jerusalem sank into obscurity, and never recovered ; nor did any other community of Jewish Christians take its place. When a Christian community arose once more in the re- stored Jerusalem, it was a Gentile Church. Jewish Christianity was far on the road towards extinction. The Judaizing Christians ])ersisted in regarding Judaism as the Divinely appointed universal re- ligion, of which Christianity was only a special off- shoot endowed with new powers. The Pauline view involved the hateful admission that the OT dispensation was relative and transitory. The Judaizerscould not see that Christianity, although founded on the OT and realizing an OT ideal which had been seen but not reached by the prophets, was now independent of Judaism. Judaizing was a passing malady in the life of the Church, and had little influence on ecclesiastical development. The Judaizing Christians either gave up their Juda- ism or ceased to be Christian.
The Tubingen theory that the leading fact in the Apostolic Church was a struggle between St. Paul and the Twelve has been illuminating, but closer study of the evidence has shown that it is unten- able. Tiiere were some ditierences, bi;t there was no hostility, between St. I'aul and the Twelve. The hostility was between St. Paul and the Juda- izers, wlio claimed to represent tiie Twelve. It is possible that some of these Judaizing teachers had seen Christ during His ministry, and therefore said that they had a better riglit to the title of ' apostle ' than he liad. In the mis-called ' Apostolic Council ' at Jerusalem, which was really a conference of apostles, elder brethren, and the whole Church of Jerusalem (Ac 15®- ^^- ^^- ^^), there was no conflict be- tween the Twelve and St. Paul. St. Paul's rebuke to St. Peter at Antioch (Gal 2"-") is no evidence of a difference of principle between them. St. Peter is blamed, not for having erroneous convictions, but for being unfaithful to true ones. He and St. Paul were entirely agreed that there was no need to make Gentile converts conform to the Mosaic Law ; but St. Peter had been willing to make un- worthy concessions to the prejudices of Jewish con- verts who were fresh from headquarters, by ceasing to eat with Gentile converts. He had perhaps argued that, as it was impossible to please both parties, it w^as better, for the moment, to keep on good terms with people from Jerusalem. He tem- porized in order to please the Judaizers,
' But what it amounted to was that multitudes of baptized GentileChristians, hitherto treated on terms of perfect equality, were now to be practically exhibited as unfit company for the circumcised Apostles of the Lord who died for them. ' . . Such conduct, though in form it was not an expulsion of the Gentile converts, but only a self-withdrawal from their company, was in effect a summons to them to become Jews if they wished to remain in the fullest sense Christians. St. Paul does not tell us how the dispute ended : but he continued on excellent terms with the Jerusalem Apostles ' (F. J. A. Hort, Judaistic Chris- tianity, Cambridge, 1894, pp. 78, 79).
The leading facts in the history of the Apostolic Church are — the freedom won for Gentile converts, the consequent expansion of Christianity and Chris- tendom, and the transfer of the Christian centre from Palestine to Europe. When the Apostolic Age began, the Church was overwhelmingly Jewish ; before it ended, the Church was overwhelmingly Gentile. Owing mainly to the influence of St. Paul — 'a Hebrew of Hebrews ' — whose Jewish birth and training moulded his thoughts and language, but never induced him to sacrifice the freedom of the gospel to the bondage of the law, the break with Judaism became absolute, and, as Gentile converts increased, the restrictions of Judaism were almost forgotten. The Judaizing Christians, especi- ally after the second destruction of Jerusalem under
Hadrian, drew further and further away from the Church, and ceased to influence its development.
7. Character. — The character of the Apostolic Church is not one that can be sketched in a few strokes. Simple as it was in form, it had varied and delicate characteristics. By its foundation in Jerusalem, which even the heathen regarded as no mean city, Christianity became, what it continued to be in the main for some centuries, a city-religion, a religion nearly all the adherents of which lived in large centres of population. It was in such centres that the first missionaries worked. For eighteen years or more (Gal V^ 2^) Jerusalem con- tinued to be the headquarters of at least some of the Twelve ; but even before the conversion of St. Paul there were Christians at Samaria (Ac S'"*), Damascus (9"*), and Antioch (11-"), wiiich soon eclipsed Jerusalem as the Christian metropolis.
It has been pointed out already that the Church is necessarily social in character ; and it resembles other societies, especially those which have a poli- tical or moral aim, in requiring self-denying loyalty from its members. But it differs from other societies in claiming to be universal. The morality which it inculcates is not for any one nation or class, but for the whole of mankind. In the very small amount of legislation wiiich Christ promulgated. He made it quite clear that in the Kingdom social interests are to prevail rather than private interests ; and also that all men have a right to enter the society and ought to be invited to join it. The Ciiurch, there- fore, is a commonwealth open to all the world. Every human being may find a place in it ; and all those who belong to it will And that they have entered a vast family, in Avhich all the members are brethren and have the obligations of brethren to promote one another's well-being both of body and soul. This form of a free brotherhood was essential to a universal religion ; and the proof of its superiority to other brotherhoods lay in its being suitable to all sorts and conditions of men. It prescribed con- duct which can be recognized as binding on all ; and, far more fully th<an any other system, it sup- plied to all what the soul of each individual craved. The name ' disciples ' did not last long as a name for all Christians ; the name ' brethren ' took its place. St. Paul does not speak of Christians as ' disciples ' ; tiiat word came to be restricted to those who had been the personal disciples of Christ. He speaks of them as ' brethren,' a term in liarmony with the Christians' ' enthusiasm of humanity,' an enthusiasm which set no bounds to its att'ection, but gave to every individual, however degraded, full recognition. The mere fact of being a baptized believer gave an absolute claim to loving considera- tion from all the rest. This brotherhood of Chris- tians was easily recognized by the heathen.