按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
anifested from first to last a more than Essenian contempt for rites and ceremonies； did not come to fulfil the law of Mosaism； but to supersede it。 Nor can any inference adverse to this conclusion be drawn from the injunction to the disciples （Matt。 x。 5…7） not to preach to Gentiles and Samaritans； but only 〃to the lost sheep of the house of Israel〃； for this remark is placed before the beginning of Jesus' Messianic career； and the reason assigned for the restriction is merely that the disciples will not have time even to preach to all the Jews before the coming of the Messiah； whose approach Jesus was announcing （Matt。 x。 23）
These examples show that we must use caution in weighing the testimony even of the first gospel； and must not too hastily cite it as proof that Jesus supposed his mission to be restricted to the Jews。 When we come to consider what happened a few years after the death of Jesus； we shall be still less ready to insist upon the view defended by our anonymous author。 Paul； according to his own confession； persecuted the Christians unto death。 Now what； in the theories or in the practice of the Jewish disciples of Jesus； could have moved Paul to such fanatic behaviour？ Certainly not their spiritual interpretation of Mosaism； for Paul himself belonged to the liberal school of Gamaliel； to the views of which the teachings and practices of Peter； James； and John might easily be accommodated。 Probably not their belief in Jesus as the Messiah； for at the riot in which Stephen was murdered and all the Hellenist disciples driven from Jerusalem； the Jewish disciples were allowed to remain in the city unmolested。 （See Acts viii。 1； 14。） This marked difference of treatment indicates that Paul regarded Stephen and his friends as decidedly more heretical and obnoxious than Peter； James； and John； whom； indeed； Paul's own master Gamaliel had recently （Acts v。 34） defended before the council。 And this inference is fully confirmed by the account of Stephen's death； where his murderers charge him with maintaining that Jesus had founded a new religion which was destined entirely to supersede and replace Judaism （Acts vi。 14）。 The Petrine disciples never held this view of the mission of Jesus； and to this difference it is undoubtedly owing that Paul and his companions forbore to disturb them。 It would thus appear that even previous to Paul's conversion； within five or six years after the death of Jesus； there was a prominent party among the disciples which held that the new religion was not a modification but an abrogation of Judaism； and their name 〃Hellenists〃 sufficiently shows either that there were Gentiles among them or that they held fellowship with Gentiles。 It was this which aroused Paul to persecution； and upon his sudden conversion it was with these Hellenistic doctrines that he fraternized； taking little heed of the Petrine disciples （Galatians i。 17）； who were hardly more than a Jewish sect。
Now the existence of these Hellenists at Jerusalem so soon after the death of Jesus is clear proof that he had never distinctly and irrevocably pronounced against the admission of Gentiles to the Messianic kingdom； and it makes it very probable that the downfall of Mosaism as a result of his preaching was by no means unpremeditated。 While； on the other hand； the obstinacy of the Petrine party in adhering to Jewish customs shows equally that Jesus could not have unequivocally committed himself in favour of a new gospel for the Gentiles。 Probably Jesus was seldom brought into direct contact with others than Jews； so that the questions concerning the admission of Gentile converts did not come up during his lifetime； and thus the way was left open for the controversy which soon broke out between the Petrine party and Paul。 Nevertheless； though Jesus may never have definitely pronounced upon this point； it will hardly be denied that his teaching； even as reported in the first gospel； is in its utter condemnation of formalism far more closely allied to the Pauline than to the Petrine doctrines。 In his hands Mosaism became spiritualized until it really lost its identity； and was transformed into a code fit for the whole Roman world。 And we do not doubt that if any one had asked Jesus whether circumcision were an essential prerequisite for admission to the Messianic kingdom； he would have given the same answer which Paul afterwards gave。 We agree with Zeller and Strauss that； 〃as Luther was a more liberal spirit than the Lutheran divines of the succeeding generation； and Sokrates a more profound thinker than Xenophon or Antisthenes； so also Jesus must be credited with having raised himself far higher above the narrow prejudices of his nation than those of his disciples who could scarcely understand the spread of Christianity among the heathen when it had become an accomplished fact。〃
January； 1870。
IV。 THE CHRIST OF DOGMA。＇22＇
＇22＇ Saint…Paul； par Ernest Renan。 Paris； 1869。
Histoire du Dogme de la Divinite de Jesus…Christ； par Albert Reville。 Paris； 1869。
The End of the World and the Day of Judgment。 Two Discourses by the Rev。 W。 R。 Alger。 Boston： Roberts Brothers； 1870。
The meagreness of our information concerning the historic career of Jesus stands in striking contrast with the mass of information which lies within our reach concerning the primitive character of Christologic speculation。 First we have the four epistles of Paul； written from twenty to thirty years after the crucifixion； which； although they tell us next to nothing about what Jesus did； nevertheless give us very plain information as to the impression which he made。 Then we have the Apocalypse； written by John； A。 D。 68； which exhibits the Messianic theory entertained by the earliest disciples。 Next we have the epistles to the Hebrews； Philippians； Colossians； and Ephesians； besides the four gospels； constituting altogether a connected chain of testimony to the progress of Christian doctrine from the destruction of Jerusalem to the time of the Quartodeciman controversy （A。 D。 70…170）。 Finally； there is the vast collection of apocryphal； heretical； and patristic literature； from the writings of Justin Martyr； the pseudo…Clement； and the pseudo…Ignatius； down to the time of the Council of Nikaia； when the official theories of Christ's person assumed very nearly the shape which they have retained； within the orthodox churches of Christendom； down to the present day。 As we pointed out in the foregoing essay； while all this voluminous literature throws but an uncertain light upon the life and teachings of the founder of Christianity； it nevertheless furnishes nearly all the data which we could desire for knowing what the early Christians thought of the master of their faith。 Having given a brief account of the historic career of Jesus； so far as it can now be determined； we propose here to sketch the rise and progress of Christologic doctrine； in its most striking features； during the first three centuries。 Beginning with the apostolic view of the human Messiah sent to deliver Judaism from its spiritual torpor； and prepare it for the millennial kingdom； we shall briefly trace the progressive metamorphosis of this conception until it completely loses its identity in the Athanasian theory； according to which Jesus was God himself； the Creator of the universe； incarnate in human flesh。
The earliest dogma held by the apostles concerning Jesus was that of his resurrection from the grave after death。 It was not only the earliest； but the most essential to the success of the new religion。 Christianity might have overspread the Roman Empire； and maintained its hold upon men's faith until to…day； without the dogmas of the incarnation and the Trinity； but without the dogma of the resurrection it would probably have failed at the very outset。 Its lofty morality would not alone have sufficed to insure its success。 For what men needed then； as indeed they still need； and will always need； was not merely a rule of life and a mirror to the heart； but also a comprehensive and satisfactory theory of things； a philosophy or theosophy。 The times demanded intellectual as well as moral consolation； and the disintegration of ancient theologies needed to be repaired； that the new ethical impulse imparted by Christianity might rest upon a plausible speculative basis。 The doctrine of the resurrection was but the beginning of a series of speculative innovations which prepared the way for the new religion to emancipate itself from Judaism； and achieve the conquest of the Empire。 Even the faith of the apostles in the speedy return of their master the Messiah must have somewhat lost ground； had it not been supported by their belief in his resurrection from the grave and his consequent transfer from Sheol； the gloomy land of shadows； to the regions above the sky。
The origin of the dogma of the resurrection cannot be determined with certainty。 The question has； during the past century； been the subject of much discussion； upon which it is not necessary for us here to comment。 Such apparent evidence as there is in favour of the old theory of Jesus' natural recovery from the effects of the crucifixion may be found in Salvador's 〃Jesus…Christ et sa Doctrine〃； but； as Zell