a Grace Notes course

History of the Christian Church

By Philip Schaff

VOLUME 1. First Period – Apostolic Christianity 1

Chapter 4: St. Peter and the Conversion of the Jews

1 Editor: Warren Doud

History of the Christian Church

VOLUME 1. First Period – Apostolic Christianity

Contents

VOL 1: Chapter 4. St. Peter and the Conversion of the Jews ...... 3 1.24. The Miracle of Pentecost and the Birthday of the Christian Church. A.D. 30 ...... 3 1.25 The Church of Jerusalem and the Labors of Peter ...... 15 1.26 The Peter of History and Fiction ...... 19 1.27 James the Brother of the Lord ...... 23 1.28 Preparation for the Mission to the Gentiles ...... 31

History of the Christian Church, Philip Schaff 3 Volume 1, Chapter 4 a Grace Notes course

VOL 1: Chapter 4. St. Peter and the (IN “STUD. U. KRIT.” 1838 AND 1860), SCHENKEL (art. Conversion of the Jews Zungenreden in his “Bibel-Lex.” V. 732), VAN HENGEL (De gave der talen, Leiden, 1864), 1.24. The Miracle of Pentecost and the PLUMPTRE (art. Gift of Tongues in Smith’s, “B. D.” IV. Birthday of the Christian Church. A.D. 30 3305, Am. ed.), DELITZSCH (art. Pfingsten in Riehm’s “H. B. A.” 1880, p. 1184); K. SCHMIDT (in Herzog, 2d Καὶ ἐπλήσθησαν πάντες πνεύματος ἁγίου, καὶ ed., xvii., 570 sqq.). ἤρξαντο λαλεῖν ἑτέραις γλώσσαις, καθὼς τὸ Comp. also NEANDER (I. 1), LANGE (II. 13), EWALD πνεῦμα ἐδίδου ἀποφθέγγεσθαι αὐτοῖς—Acts (VI. 106), THIERSCH (P. 65, 3D ED.), SCHAFF (191 AND 2:4 469), Farrar (St. Paul, ch. V. vol. I. 83). “The first Pentecost which the disciples The ascension of Christ to heaven was celebrated after the ascension of our Saviour, followed ten days afterwards by the descent is, next to the appearance of the Son of God on of the Holy Spirit upon earth and the birth of earth, the most significant event. It is the the Christian Church. The Pentecostal event starting-point of the apostolic church and of was the necessary result of the Passover that new spiritual life in humanity which event. It could never have taken place without proceeded from Him, and which since has the preceding resurrection and ascension. It been spreading and working, and will was the first act of the mediatorial reign of continue to work until the whole humanity is the exalted Redeemer in heaven, and the transformed into the image of Christ.”— beginning of an unbroken series of NEANDER (Geschichte der Pflanzung und manifestations in fulfillment of his promise to Leitung der christlichen Kirche durch die be with his people “always, even unto the end Apostel., I. 3, 4). of the world.” For his ascension was only a Literature. withdrawal of his visible local presence, and I. SOURCES the beginning of his spiritual omnipresence in the church which is “his body, the fullness of Acts 2:1–47. Comp. 1 Cor. 12 and 14. See him that filleth all in all.” The Easter miracle Commentaries on the Acts by OLSHAUSEN, DE and the Pentecostal miracle are continued WETTE, MEYER, LECHLER, HACKETT, ALEXANDER, GLOAG, ALFORD, WORDSWORTH, PLUMPTRE JACOBSON, HOWSON and verified by the daily moral miracles of AND SPENCE, ETC., AND ON THE CORINTHIANS BY regeneration and sanctification throughout BILLROTH, KLING, STANLEY, HEINRICI, EDWARDS, GODET, Christendom. ELLICOTT. We have but one authentic account of that II. SPECIAL TREATISES epoch-making event, in the second chapter of Acts, but in the parting addresses of our Lord On the Pentecostal Miracle and the Gift of Tongues to his disciples the promise of the Paraclete (glossolalia) by HERDER (Die Gabe der Sprachen, Riga, 1794) HASE (IN WINER’S “ZEITSCHRIFT FÜR who should lead them into the whole truth is WISSENSCHAFTL. THEOL.” 1827), BLEEK IN “STUDIEN very prominent, and the entire history of the UND KRITIKEN” FOR 1829 AND 1830), BAUR IN THE apostolic church is illuminated and heated by “TÜBINGER ZEITSCHRIFT FÜR THEOL.” FOR 1830 AND the Pentecostal fire.2 1831, AND IN THE “STUDIEN UND KRIT.” 1838), Pentecost, i.e. the fiftieth day after the SCHNECKENBURGER (in his Beiträge zur Einleitung in Passover-Sabbath, was a feast of joy and das N. T. 1832), BÄUMLEIN (1834), DAV. SCHULZ gladness, in the loveliest season of the year, (1836), ZINSLER (1847), ZELLER (Acts of the Apostles, I. 171, of the E. translation by J. Dare), and attracted a very large number of visitors BÖHM (Irvingite, Reden mit Zungen und Weissagen, to Jerusalem from foreign lands. It was one of Berlin, 1848), ROSSTEUSCHER (Irvingite, Gabe der the three great annual festivals of the Jews in Sprachen im apost. Zeitalter, Marburg, 1855), AD. which all the males were required to appear HILGENFELD (Glossolalie, Leipz. 1850), MAIER before the Lord. Passover was the first, and (Glossolalie des apost. Zeitalters, 1855), WIESELER the feast of Tabernacles the third. Pentecost

History of the Christian Church, Philip Schaff 4 Volume 1, Chapter 4 a Grace Notes course lasted one day, but the foreign Jews, after the number, no doubt mostly Galileans, were period of the captivity, prolonged it to two assembled before the morning devotions of days. It was the “feast of harvest,” or “of the the festal day, and were waiting in prayer for first fruits,” and also (according to rabbinical the fulfillment of the promise, the exalted tradition) the anniversary celebration of the Saviour sent from his heavenly throne the Sinaitic legislation, which is supposed to have Holy Spirit upon them, and founded his taken place on the fiftieth day after the church upon earth. Exodus from the land of bondage.2 The Sinaitic legislation was accompanied by This festival was admirably adapted for the “thunder and lightning, and a thick cloud opening event in the history of the apostolic upon the mount, and the voice of the trumpet church. It pointed typically to the first exceeding loud, and all the people that was in Christian harvest, and the establishment of the camp trembled.” The church of the new the new theocracy in Christ; as the sacrifice of covenant was ushered into existence with the paschal lamb and the exodus from Egypt startling signs which filled the spectators foreshadowed the redemption of the world with wonder and fear. It is quite natural, as by the crucifixion of the Lamb of God. On no Neander remarks, that “the greatest miracle other day could the effusion of the Spirit of in the inner life of mankind should have been the exalted Redeemer produce such rich accompanied by extraordinary outward results and become at once so widely known. phenomena as sensible indications of its We may trace to this day not only the origin presence.” of the mother church at Jerusalem, but also A supernatural sound resembling that of a the conversion of visitors from other cities, as rushing mighty wind,2 came down from Damascus, Antioch, Alexandria, and Rome, heaven and filled the whole house in which who on their return would carry the glad they were assembled; and tongues like flames tidings to their distant homes. For the of fire, distributed themselves among them, strangers enumerated by Luke as witnesses alighting for a while on each head. It is not of the great event, represented nearly all the said that these phenomena were really wind countries in which Christianity was planted and fire, they are only compared to these by the labors of the apostles. elements, as the form which the Holy Spirit The Pentecost in the year of the Resurrection assumed at the baptism of Christ is compared was the last Jewish (i.e. typical) and the first to a dove. The tongues of flame were Christian Pentecost. It became the spiritual gleaming, but neither burning nor consuming; harvest feast of redemption from sin, and the they appeared and disappeared like electric birthday of the visible kingdom of Christ on sparks or meteoric flashes. But these audible earth. It marks the beginning of the and visible signs were appropriate symbols of dispensation of the Spirit, the third era in the the purifying, enlightening, and quickening history of the revelation of the triune God. On power of the Divine Spirit, and announced a this day the Holy Spirit, who had hitherto new spiritual creation. The form of tongues wrought only sporadically and transiently, referred to the glossolalia, and the apostolic took up his permanent abode in mankind as eloquence as a gift of inspiration. the Spirit of truth and holiness, with the “AND THEY WERE ALL FILLED WITH THE HOLY fullness of saving grace, to apply that grace SPIRIT.” This is the real inward miracle, the thenceforth to believers, and to reveal and main fact, the central idea of the Pentecostal glorify Christ in their hearts, as Christ had narrative. To the apostles it was their revealed and glorified the Father. baptism, confirmation, and ordination, all in While the apostles and disciples, about one one, for they received no other. To them it hundred and twenty (ten times twelve) in was the great inspiration which enabled them

History of the Christian Church, Philip Schaff 5 Volume 1, Chapter 4 a Grace Notes course hereafter to be authoritative teachers of the all are one, whether Jew or Greek, bond or gospel by tongue and pen. Not that it free, male or female. superseded subsequent growth in knowledge, This new spiritual life, illuminated, or special revelations on particular points (as controlled, and directed by the Holy Spirit, Peter received at Joppa, and Paul on several manifested itself first in the speaking with occasions); but they were endowed with such tongues towards God, and then in the an understanding of Christ’s words and plan prophetic testimony towards the people. The of salvation as they never had before. What former consisted of rapturous prayers and was dark and mysterious became now clear anthems of praise, the latter of sober teaching and full of meaning to them. and exhortation. From the Mount of The Spirit revealed to them the person and Transfiguration the disciples, like their work of the Redeemer in the light of his Master, descended to the valley below to heal resurrection and exaltation, and took full the sick and to call sinners to repentance. possession of their mind and heart. They The mysterious gift of tongues, or glossolalia, were raised, as it were, to the mount of appears here for the first time, but became, transfiguration, and saw Moses and Elijah and with other extraordinary gifts of the Spirit, a Jesus above them, face to face, swimming in frequent phenomenon in the apostolic heavenly light. They had now but one desire churches, especially at Corinth, and is fully to gratify, but one object to live for, namely, to described by Paul. The distribution of the be witnesses of Christ and instruments of the flaming tongues to each of the disciples salvation of their fellow-men, that they too caused the speaking with tongues. A new might become partakers of their “inheritance experience expresses itself always in incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth appropriate language. not away, reserved in heaven.” The supernatural experience of the disciples But the communication of the Holy Spirit was broke through the confines of ordinary not confined to the Twelve. It extended to the speech and burst out in ecstatic language of brethren of the Lord, the mother of Jesus, the praise and thanksgiving to God for the great pious women who had attended his ministry, works he did among them. It was the Spirit and the whole brotherhood of a hundred and himself who gave them utterance and played twenty souls who were assembled in that on their tongues, as on new tuned harps, chamber. They were “all” filled with the unearthly melodies of praise. The glossolalia Spirit, and all spoke with tongues; and Peter was here, as in all cases where it is saw in the event the promised outpouring of mentioned, an act of worship and adoration, the Spirit upon “all flesh,” sons and daughters, not an act of teaching and instruction, which young men and old men, servants and followed afterwards in the sermon of Peter. It handmaidens. was the first Te Deum of the new-born church. It is characteristic that in this spring season of It expressed itself in unusual, poetic, the church the women were sitting with the dithyrambic style and with a peculiar musical men, not in a separate court as in the temple, intonation. It was intelligible only to those nor divided by a partition as in the synagogue who were in sympathy with the speaker; and the decayed churches of the East to this while unbelievers scoffingly ascribed it to day, but in the same room as equal sharers in madness or excess of wine. Nevertheless it the spiritual blessings. The beginning was a served as a significant sign to all and arrested prophetic anticipation of the end, and a their attention to the presence of a manifestation of the universal priesthood and supernatural power. brotherhood of believers in Christ, in whom So far we may say that the Pentecostal glossolalia was the same as that in the

History of the Christian Church, Philip Schaff 6 Volume 1, Chapter 4 a Grace Notes course household of Cornelius in Caesarea after his men in audible speech, in Jerusalem by conversion, which may be called a Gentile the Holy Spirit in inward illumination and Pentecost, as that of the twelve disciples of application. John the Baptist at Ephesus, where it appears 4. The Holy Spirit was certainly at work in connection with prophesying,3 and as that among the hearers as well as the in the Christian congregation at Corinth. speakers, and brought about the But at its first appearance the speaking with conversion of three thousand on that tongues differed in its effect upon the hearers memorable day. If he applied and made by coming home to them at once in their own effective the sermon of Peter, why not mother-tongues; while in Corinth it required also the preceding doxologies and an interpretation to be understood. The benedictions? foreign spectators, at least a number of them, 5. Peter makes no allusion to foreign believed that the unlettered Galileans spoke languages, nor does the prophecy of Joel intelligibly in the different dialects which he quotes. represented on the occasion. We must 6. This view best explains the opposite therefore suppose either that the speakers effect upon the spectators. They did by no themselves, were endowed, at least means all understand the miracle, but the temporarily, and for the particular purpose of mockers, like those at Corinth, thought proving their divine mission, with the gift of the disciples were out of their right mind foreign languages not learned by them before, and talked not intelligible words in their or that the Holy Spirit who distributed the native dialects, but unintelligible tongues acted also as interpreter of the nonsense. The speaking in a foreign tongues, and applied the utterances of the language could not have been a proof of speakers to the susceptible among the drunkenness. It may be objected to this hearers. view that it implies a mistake on the part of the hearers who traced the use of their The former is the most natural interpretation mother-tongues directly to the speakers; of Luke’s language. Nevertheless I suggest the but the mistake referred not to the fact other alternative as preferable, for the itself, but only to the mode. It was the following reasons: same Spirit who inspired the tongues of 1. The temporary endowment with a the speakers and the hearts of the supernatural knowledge of foreign susceptible hearers, and raised both languages involves nearly all the above the ordinary level of consciousness. difficulties of a permanent endowment, Whichever view we take of this peculiar which is now generally abandoned, as feature of the Pentecostal glossolalia, in this going far beyond the data of the New diversified application to the cosmopolitan Testament and known facts of the early multitude of spectators, it was a symbolical spread of the gospel. anticipation and prophetic announcement of 2. The speaking with tongues began before the universality of the Christian religion, the spectators arrived, that is before there which was to be proclaimed in all the was any motive for the employment of languages of the earth and to unite all nations foreign languages. in one kingdom of Christ. The humility and 3. The intervening agency of the Spirit love of the church united what the pride and harmonizes the three accounts of Luke, hatred of Babel had scattered. In this sense and Luke and Paul, or the Pentecostal and we may say that the Pentecostal harmony of the Corinthian glossolalia; the only tongues was the counterpart of the difference remaining is that in Corinth the BabyIonian confusion of tongues. interpretation of tongues was made by

History of the Christian Church, Philip Schaff 7 Volume 1, Chapter 4 a Grace Notes course

The speaking with tongues was followed by Spirit and gospel, instead of the old theocracy the sermon of Peter; the act of devotion, by an of letter and law, the typical meaning of the act of teaching; the rapturous language of the Jewish Pentecost was gloriously fulfilled. But soul in converse with God, by the sober words this birth-day of the Christian church is in its of ordinary self-possession for the benefit of turn only the beginning, the type and pledge, the people. of a still greater spiritual harvest and a While the assembled multitude wondered at universal feast of thanksgiving, when, in the this miracle with widely various emotions, St. full sense of the prophecy of Joel, the Holy Peter, the Rock-man, appeared in the name of Spirit shall be poured out on all flesh, when all the disciples, and addressed them with all the sons and daughters of men shall walk remarkable clearness and force, probably in in his light, and God shall be praised with new his own vernacular Aramaic, which would be tongues of fire for the completion of his most familiar to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, wonderful work of redeeming love. possibly in Greek, which would be better NOTES understood by the foreign visitors. I. GLOSSOLALIA.—The Gift of Tongues is the He humbly condescended to refute the charge most difficult feature of the Pentecostal of intoxication by reminding them of the early miracle. Our only direct source of information hour of the day, when even drunkards are is in Acts 2, but the gift itself is mentioned in sober, and explained from the prophecies of two other passages, 10:46 and 19:6, in the Joel and the sixteenth Psalm of David the concluding section of Mark 16 (of disputed meaning of the supernatural phenomenon, as genuineness), and fully described by Paul in 1 the work of that Jesus of Nazareth, whom the Corinthians 12 and 14. There can be no doubt Jews had crucified, but who was by word and as to the existence of that gift in the apostolic deed, by his resurrection from the dead, his age, and if we had only either the account of exaltation to the right hand of God, and the Pentecost, or only the account of Paul, we effusion of the Holy Ghost, accredited as the would not hesitate to decide as to its nature, promised Messiah, according to the express but the difficulty is in harmonizing the two. prediction of the Scripture. (1) The terms employed for the strange Then he called upon his hearers to repent and tongues are “new tongues” (καιναὶ γλῶσσαι, be baptized in the name of Jesus, as the Mark 16:17, where Christ promises the gift), founder and head of the heavenly kingdom, “other tongues,” differing from ordinary that even they, though they had crucified him, tongues (ἕτεραι γλ. Acts 2:4, but nowhere the Lord and the Messiah, might receive the else), “kinds” or “diversities of tongues” (γένη forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy γλωσσῶν, 1 Cor. 12:28), or simply, “tongues” Ghost, whose wonderful workings they saw (γλῶσσαι, 1 Cor. 14:22), and in the singular, and heard in the disciples. “tongue” (γλῶσσα, 14:2, 13, 19 27, in which This was the first independent testimony of passages the E. V. inserts the interpolation the apostles, the first Christian sermon: “unknown tongue”). To speak in tongues is simple, unadorned, but full of Scripture truth, called γλώσσαις or γλώσσῃ λαλεῖν (Acts 2:4; natural, suitable, pointed, and more effective 10:46; 19:6; 1 Cor. 14:2, 4, 13, 14, 19, 27). than any other sermon has been since, though Paul uses also the phrase to “pray with the fraught with learning and burning with tongue” (προσεύχεσθαι γλώσσῃ), as eloquence. It resulted in the conversion and equivalent to “praying and singing with the baptism of three thousand persons, gathered spirit” (προσεύχεσθαι and ψάλλειν τῷ as first-fruits into the garners of the church. πνεύματι, and as distinct from προσεύχεσθαι In these first-fruits of the glorified Redeemer, and ψάλλειν τῷ νοΐ, 1 Cor. 14:14, 15). The and in this founding of the new economy of plural and the term “diversities” of tongues,

History of the Christian Church, Philip Schaff 8 Volume 1, Chapter 4 a Grace Notes course as well as the distinction between tongues of have been entirely useless in a devotional “angels” and tongues of “men” (1 Cor. 13:1) meeting of converts, but a speaking in a point to different manifestations (speaking, language differing from all known languages, praying, singing), according to the and required an interpreter to be intelligible individuality, education, and mood of the to foreigners. It had nothing to do with the speaker, but not to various foreign languages, spread of the gospel, although it may, like which are excluded by Paul’s description. other devotional acts, have become a means The term tongue has been differently of conversion to susceptible unbelievers if explained. such were present. (a) Wieseler (and Van Hengel): the organ It was an act of self-devotion, an act of of speech, used as a passive instrument; thanksgiving, praying, and singing, within the speaking with the tongue alone, Christian congregation, by individuals who inarticulately, and in a low whisper. But were wholly absorbed in communion with this does not explain the plural, nor the God, and gave utterance to their rapturous terms “new” and “other” tongues; the feelings in broken, abrupt, rhapsodic, organ of speech remaining the same. unintelligible words. It was emotional rather than intellectual, the language of the excited (b) Bleek: rare, provincial, archaic, poetic imagination, not of cool reflection. It was the words, or glosses (whence our language of the spirit (πνεῦμα) or of ecstasy, “glossary”). But this technical meaning of as distinct from the language of the γλῶσσαι occurs only in classical writers understanding (νοῦς). (as Aristotle, Plutarch, etc.) and among grammarians, not in Hellenistic Greek, We might almost illustrate the difference by a and the interpretation does not suit the comparison of the style of the Apocalypse singular γλῶσσα and γλώσσῃ λαλεῖν, as which was conceived ἐν πνεύματι (Apoc. γλῶσσα could only mean a single gloss. 1:10) with that of the Gospel of John, which was written ἐν νοΐ. The speaker in tongues (c) Most commentators: language or was in a state of spiritual intoxication, if we dialect (διάλεκτος, comp. Acts 1:19; 2:6, may use this term, analogous to the poetic 8; 21:40; 26:14). This is the correct view. “frenzy” described by Shakespeare and “Tongue” is an abridgment for “new Goethe. His tongue was a lyre on which the tongue” (which was the original term, divine Spirit played celestial tunes. He was Mark 16:17). It does not necessarily mean unconscious or only half conscious, and one of the known languages of the earth, scarcely knew whether he was, “in the body but may mean a peculiar handling of the or out of the body.” vernacular dialect of the speaker, or a new spiritual language never known No one could understand this before, a language of immediate unpremeditated religious rhapsody unless he inspiration in a state of ecstasy. The was in a similar trance. To an unbelieving “tongues” were individual varieties of this outsider it sounded like a barbarous tongue, language of inspiration. like the uncertain sound of a trumpet, like the raving of a maniac (1 Cor. 14:23), or the (2) The glossolalia in the Corinthian church, incoherent talk of a drunken man (Acts 2:13, with which that at Caesarea in Acts 10:46, 15). “He that speaketh in a tongue speaketh and that at Ephesus, 19:6, are evidently not to men, but to God; for no one identical, we know very well from the understands; and in the spirit he speaketh description of Paul. It occurred in the first mysteries; but he that prophesies speaketh glow of enthusiasm after conversion and unto men edification, and encouragement, continued for some time. It was not a and comfort. He that speaketh in a tongue speaking in foreign languages, which would

History of the Christian Church, Philip Schaff 9 Volume 1, Chapter 4 a Grace Notes course edifies himself; but he that prophesies edifies the obscurity of the gift from our ignorance of the church” (1 Cor. 14:2–4; comp. 26–33). the fact. From that time on the glossolalia was The Corinthians evidently overrated the usually misunderstood as a miraculous and glossolalia, as a showy display of divine permanent gift of foreign languages for power; but it was more ornamental than missionary purposes. But the whole history of useful, and vanished away with the bridal missions furnishes no clear example of such a season of the church. It is a mark of the great gift for such a purpose. wisdom of Paul who was himself a master in Analogous phenomena, of an inferior kind, the glossolalia (1 Cor. 14:18), that he assigned and not miraculous, yet serving as to it a subordinate and transient position, illustrations, either by approximation or as restrained its exercise, demanded an counterfeits, reappeared from time to time in interpretation of it, and gave the preference seasons of special religious excitement, as to the gifts of permanent usefulness in which among the Camisards and the prophets of the God displays his goodness and love for the Cevennes in France, among the early Quakers general benefit. Speaking with tongues is and Methodists, the Mormons, the Readers good, but prophesying and teaching in (“Läsare”) in Sweden in 1841 to 1843, in the intelligible speech for the edification of the Irish revivals of 1859, and especially in the congregation is better, and love to God and “Catholic Apostolic Church,” commonly called men in active exercise is best of all (1 Cor. Irvingites, from 1831 to 1833, and even to 13). this day. See Ed. Irving’s articles on Gifts of the We do not know how long the glossolalia, as Holy Ghost called Supernatural, in his thus described by Paul, continued. It passed “Works,” vol. V., p. 509, etc.; Mrs. Oliphant’s away gradually with the other extraordinary Life of Irving, vol. II.; the descriptions quoted or strictly supernatural gifts of the apostolic in my Hist. Ap. Ch. § 55, p. 198; and from age. It is not mentioned in the Pastoral, nor in friend and foe in Stanley’s Com. on Corinth., p. the Catholic Epistles. We have but a few 252, 4th ed.; also Plumptre in Smith’s, “Bible allusions to it at the close of the second Dict.,” IV. 3311, Am. ed. century. Irenæus (Adv. Haer. 1. v. c. 6 § 1,) The Irvingites who have written on the speaks of “many brethren” whom he heard in subject (Thiersch, Böhm, and Rossteuscher) the church having the gift of prophecy and of make a marked distinction between the speaking in “diverse tongues” (παντοδαπαῖς Pentecostal glossolalia in foreign languages γλώσσαις), bringing the hidden things of men and the Corinthian glossolalia in devotional (τὰ κρύφια τῶν ἀνθρώπων) to light and meetings; and it is the latter only which they expounding the mysteries of God (τὰ compare to their own experience. Several μυστήρια τοῦ θεοῦ). It is not clear whether by years ago I witnessed this phenomenon in an the term “diverse,” which does not elsewhere Irvingite congregation in New York; the occur, he means a speaking in foreign words were broken, ejaculatory and languages, or in diversities of tongues unintelligible, but uttered in abnormal, altogether peculiar, like those meant by Paul. startling, impressive sounds, in a state of The latter is more probable. Irenæus himself apparent unconsciousness and rapture, and had to learn the language of Gaul. Tertullian without any control over the tongue, which (Adv. Marc. V. 8; comp. De Anima, c. 9) was seized as it were by a foreign power. A obscurely speaks of the spiritual gifts, friend and colleague (Dr. Briggs), who including the gift of tongues, as being still witnessed it in 1879 in the principal Irvingite manifest among the Montanists to whom he church at London, received the same belonged. At the time of Chrysostom it had impression. entirely disappeared; at least he accounts for

History of the Christian Church, Philip Schaff 10 Volume 1, Chapter 4 a Grace Notes course

(3) The Pentecostal glossolalia cannot have (b) The heteroglossolalia was a mistake of the been essentially different from the Corinthian: hearers (a Hörwunder), who in the state of it was likewise an ecstatic act of worship, of extraordinary excitement and profound thanksgiving and praise for the great deeds of sympathy imagined that they heard their own God in Christ, a dialogue of the soul with God. language from the disciples; while Luke It was the purest and the highest utterance of simply narrates their impression without the jubilant enthusiasm of the new-born correcting it. This view was mentioned church of Christ in the possession of the Holy (though not adopted) by Gregory of Nyssa, Spirit. It began before the spectators arrived and held by Pseudo-Cyprian, the venerable (comp. Acts 2:4 and 6), and was followed by a Bede, Erasmus, Schneckenburger and others. missionary discourse of Peter in plain, If the Pentecostal language was the ordinary language. Luke mentions the same Hellenistic dialect, it could, with its composite gift twice again (Luke 10 and 19) evidently as character, its Hebraisms and Latinisms, the an act of devotion, and not of teaching. more easily produce such an effect when Nevertheless, according to the evident spoken by persons stirred in the inmost meaning of Luke’s narrative, the Pentecostal depth of their hearts and lifted out of glossolalia differed from the Corinthian not themselves. St. Xavier is said to have made only by its intensity, but also by coming home himself understood by the Hindoos without to the hearers then present in their own knowing their language, and St. Bernard, St. vernacular dialects, without the medium of a Anthony of Padua, St. Vincent Ferrer were human interpreter. Hence the term able, by the spiritual power of their “different” tongues, which Paul does not use, eloquence, to kindle the enthusiasm and sway nor Luke in any other passage; hence the the passions of multitudes who were ignorant astonishment of the foreigners at hearing of their language. Olshausen and Bäumlein each his own peculiar idiom from the lips of call to aid the phenomena of magnetism and those unlettered Galileans. It is this somnambulism, by which people are brought heteroglossolalia, as I may term it, which into mysterious rapport. causes the chief difficulty. I will give the (c) The glossolalia was speaking in archaic, various views which either deny, or shift, or poetic glosses, with an admixture of foreign intensify, or try to explain this foreign words. This view, learnedly defended by element. Bleek (1829), and adopted with modifications (a) The rationalistic interpretation cuts the by Baur (1838), has already been mentioned Gordian knot by denying the miracle, as a above (p. 233), as inconsistent with mistake of the narrator or of the early Hellenistic usage, and the natural meaning of Christian tradition. Even Meyer surrenders Luke. the heteroglossolalia, as far as it differs from (d) The mystical explanation regards the the Corinthian glossolalia, as an unhistorical Pentecostal Gift of Tongues in some way as a tradition which originated in a mistake, counterpart of the Confusion of Tongues, because he considers the sudden either as a temporary restoration of the communication of the facility of speaking original language of Paradise, or as a foreign languages as “logically impossible, prophetic anticipation of the language of and psychologically and morally heaven in which all languages are united. This inconceivable” (Com. on Acts 2:4, 4th ed.). But theory, which is more deep than clear, turns Luke, the companion of Paul, must have been the heteroglossolalia into a homoglossolalia, familiar with the glossolalia in the apostolic and puts the miracle into the language itself churches, and in the two other passages and its temporary restoration or anticipation. where he mentions it he evidently means the Schelling calls the Pentecostal miracle “Babel same phenomenon as that described by Paul. reversed” (das umgekehrte Babel).

History of the Christian Church, Philip Schaff 11 Volume 1, Chapter 4 a Grace Notes course

A similar view was defended by Billroth (in (De Civ. Dei, XVIII. c. 49): “Every one of them his Com. on 1 Cor. 14, p. 177), who suggests spoke in the tongues of all nations; thus that the primitive language combined signifying that the unity of the catholic church elements of the different derived languages, would embrace all nations, and would in like so that each listener heard fragments of his manner speak in all tongues.” Some confined own. Lange (II. 38) sees here the normal the number of languages to the number of language of the inner spiritual life which foreign nations and countries mentioned by unites the redeemed, and which runs through Luke (Chrysostom), others extended it to 70 all ages of the church as the leaven of or 72 (Augustine and Epiphanius), or 75, after languages, regenerating, transforming, and the number of the sons of Noah (Gen. 10), or consecrating them to sacred uses, but he even to 120 (Pacianus), after the number of assumes also, like Olshausen, a sympathetic the disciples present. Baronius mentions rapport between speakers and hearers. these opinions in Annal. ad Ann. 34, vol. I. 197. Ewald’s view (VI. 116 sqq.) is likewise The feast of languages in the Roman mystical, but original and expressed with his Propaganda perpetuates this theory, but usual confidence. He says that on the day of turns the moral miracle of spiritual Pentecost the most unusual expressions and enthusiasm into a mechanical miracle of synonyms of different languages (as ἀββὰ ὁ acquired learning in unknown tongues. Were πατήρ, Gal. 4:6; Rom. 8:15, and μαρὰν ἀθά 1 all the speakers to speak at once, as on the Cor. 16:22), with reminiscences of words of day of Pentecost, it would be a more than Christ as resounding from heaven, Babylonian confusion of tongues. commingled in the vortex of a new language Such a stupendous miracle as is here of the Spirit, and gave utterance to the supposed might be justified by the far- exuberant joy of the young Christianity in reaching importance of that creative epoch, stammering hymns of praise never heard but it is without a parallel and surrounded by before or since except in the weaker insuperable difficulties. The theory ignores manifestations of the same gift in the the fact that the glossolalia began before the Corinthian and other apostolic churches. spectators arrived, that is, before there was (e) The Pentecostal glossolalia was a any necessity of using foreign languages. It permanent endowment of the apostles with a isolates the Pentecostal glossolalia and brings miraculous knowledge of all those foreign Luke into conflict with Paul and with himself; languages in which they were to preach the for in all other cases the gift of tongues gospel. As they were sent to preach to all appears, as already remarked, not as a nations, they were gifted with the tongues of missionary agency, but as an exercise of all nations. devotion. It implies that all the one hundred disciples present, including the women—for a This theory was first clearly brought out by tongue as of fire “sat upon each of them”— the fathers in the fourth and fifth centuries, were called to be traveling evangelists. long after the gift of tongues had disappeared, and was held by most of the older divines, A miracle of that kind was superfluous (a though with different modifications, but is Luxuswunder); for since the conquest of now abandoned by nearly all Protestant Alexander the Great the Greek language was commentators except Bishop Wordsworth, so generally understood throughout the who defends it with patristic quotations. Roman empire that the apostles scarcely Chrysostom supposed that each disciple was needed any other—unless it was Latin and assigned the particular language which he their native Aramaean—for evangelistic needed for his evangelistic work (Hom. on purposes; and the Greek was used in fact by Acts 2). Augustine went much further, saying all the writers of the New Testament, even by James of Jerusalem, and in a way which shows

History of the Christian Church, Philip Schaff 12 Volume 1, Chapter 4 a Grace Notes course that they had learnt it like other people, by vernacular dialect; while in Corinth the early training and practice. Moreover there is interpretation was made either by the no trace of such a miraculous knowledge, nor speaker in tongues, or by one endowed with any such use of it after Pentecost. On the the gift of interpretation. contrary, we must infer that Paul did not I can find no authority for this theory, and understand the Lycaonian dialect (Acts therefore suggest it with modesty, but it 14:11–14), and we learn from early seems to me to avoid most of the difficulties ecclesiastical tradition that Peter used Mark of the other theories, and it brings Luke into as an interpreter (ἑρμηνεύς or ἑρμηνευτής, harmony with himself and with Paul. It is interpres, according to Papias, Irenæus, and certain that the Holy Spirit moved the hearts Tertullian). God does not supersede by of the hearers as well as the tongues of the miracle the learning of foreign languages and speakers on that first day of the new creation other kinds of knowledge which can be in Christ. In a natural form the Pentecostal attained by the ordinary use of our mental heteroglossolalia is continued in the faculties and opportunities. preaching of the gospel in all tongues, and in (f) It was a temporary speaking in foreign more than three hundred translations of the languages confined to the day of Pentecost Bible. and passing away with the flame-like tongues. II. FALSE INTERPRETATIONS OF THE PENTECOSTAL The exception was justified by the object, MIRACLE. namely, to attest the divine mission of the (1) The older rationalistic interpretation apostles and to foreshadow the universalness resolves the wind into a thunderstorm or a of the gospel. This view is taken by most hurricane surcharged with electricity, the modern commentators who accept the tongues of fire into flashes of lightning falling account of Luke, as Olshausen (who combines into the assembly, or electric sparks from a with it the theory b), Baumgarten, Thiersch, sultry atmosphere, and the glossolalia into a Rossteuscher, Lechler, Hackett, Gloag, praying of each in his own vernacular, instead Plumptre (in his Com. on Acts), and myself (in of the sacred old Hebrew, or assumes that H. Ap. Ch.), and accords best with the plain some of the disciples knew several foreign sense of the narrative. But it likewise makes dialects before and used them on the an essential distinction between the occasion. So Paulus, Thiess, Schulthess, Pentecostal and the Corinthian glossolalia, Kuinöl, Schrader, Fritzsche, substantially also which is extremely improbable. A temporary Renan, who dwells on the violence of Oriental endowment with the knowledge of foreign thunderstorms, but explains the glossolalia languages unknown before is as great if not a differently according to analogous greater miracle than a permanent phenomena of later times. This view makes endowment, and was just as superfluous at the wonder of the spectators and hearers at that time in Jerusalem as afterwards at such an ordinary occurrence a miracle. It robs Corinth; for the missionary sermon of Peter, them of common sense, or charges dishonesty which was in one language only, was on the narrator. It is entirely inapplicable to intelligible to all. the glossolalia in Corinth, which must (g) The Pentecostal glossolalia was certainly be admitted as an historical essentially the same as the Corinthian phenomenon of frequent occurrence in the glossolalia, namely, an act of worship, and not apostolic church. It is contradicted by the of teaching; with only a slight difference in comparative ὥσπερ and ὡσεί of the narrative, the medium of interpretation: it was at once which distinguishes the sound from ordinary internally interpreted and applied by the Holy wind and the tongues of flame from ordinary Spirit himself to those hearers who believed fire; just as the words, “like a dove,” to which and were converted, to each in his own

History of the Christian Church, Philip Schaff 13 Volume 1, Chapter 4 a Grace Notes course all the Gospels compare the appearance of the says against Zeller, without naming him (VI. Holy Spirit at Christ’s baptism, indicate that 119) “Nothing can be more perverse than to no real dove is intended. deny the historical truth of the event related (2) The modern rationalistic or mythical in Acts 2.” We hold with Rothe (Vorlesungen theory resolves the miracle into a subjective über Kirchengeschichte I. 33) that the vision which was mistaken by the early Pentecostal event was a real miracle (“ein Christians for an objective external fact. The eigentliches Wunder”), which the Holy Spirit glossolalia of Pentecost (not that in Corinth, wrought on the disciples and which endowed which is acknowledged as historical) them with the power to perform miracles symbolizes the true idea of the universalness (according to the promise, Mark 16:17, 18). of the gospel and the Messianic unification of Without these miraculous powers languages and nationalities (εἷς λαὸς Κυρίου Christianity could not have taken hold on the καὶ γλῶσσα μία as the Testament of the world as it then stood. The Christian church Twelve Patriarchs expresses it). itself, with its daily experiences of regeneration and conversion at home and in It is an imitation of the rabbinical fiction heathen lands, is the best living and (found already in Philo) that the Sinaitic omnipresent proof of its supernatural origin. legislation was proclaimed through the bath- kol, the echo of the voice of God, to all nations III. TIME AND PLACE, of Pentecost. Did it occur in the seventy languages of the world. So on a Lord’s Day (the eighth after Easter), or Zeller (Contents and Origin of the Acts, I. 203– on a Jewish Sabbath? In a private house, or in 205), who thinks that the whole Pentecostal the temple? We decide for the Lord’s Day, and fact, if it occurred at all. “must have been for a private house. But opinions are much distorted beyond recognition in our record.” divided, and the arguments almost equally But his chief argument is: “the impossibility balanced. and incredibility of miracles,” which he (1) The choice of the day in the week depends declares (p. 175, note) to be “an axiom” of the partly on the interpretation of “the morrow historian; thus acknowledging the negative after the (Passover) Sabbath” from which the presupposition or philosophical prejudice fiftieth day was to be counted, according to which underlies his historical criticism. We the legislative prescription in Lev. 23:11, 15, hold, on the contrary, that the historian must 16—namely, whether it was the morrow accept the facts as he finds them, and if he following the first day of the Passover, i.e. the cannot explain them satisfactorily from 16th of Nisan, or the day after the regular natural causes or subjective illusions, he must Sabbath in the Passover week; partly on the trace them to supernatural forces. date of Christ’s crucifixion, which took place Now the Christian church, which is certainly a on a Friday, namely, whether this was the most palpable and undeniable fact, must have 14th or 15th of Nisan. If we assume that the originated in a certain place, at a certain time, Friday of Christ’s death was the 14th of Nisan, and in a certain manner, and we can imagine then the 15th was a Sabbath, and Pentecost in no more appropriate and satisfactory account that year fell on a Sunday; but if the Friday of of its origin than that given by Luke. Baur and the crucifixion was the 15th of Nisan (as I Zeller think it impossible that three thousand hold myself, see § 16, p. 133), then Pentecost persons should have been converted in one fell on a Jewish Sabbath (so Wieseler, who day and in one place. They forget that the fixes it on Saturday, May 27, A.D. 30), unless majority of the hearers were no skeptics, but we count from the end of the 16th of Nisan (as believers in a supernatural revelation, and Wordsworth and Plumptre do, who put needed only to be convinced that Jesus of Pentecost on a Sunday). But if we take the Nazareth was the promised Messiah. Ewald “Sabbath” in Lev. 23 in the usual sense of the weekly Sabbath (as the Sadducees and

History of the Christian Church, Philip Schaff 14 Volume 1, Chapter 4 a Grace Notes course

Karaites did), then the Jewish Pentecost fell others. Perhaps it was the same chamber in always on a Sunday. which our Lord partook of the Paschal Supper At all events the Christian church has with them (Mark 14:14, 15; Matt. 26:28). uniformly observed Whit-Sunday on the Tradition locates both events in the eighth Lord’s Day after Easter, adhering in “Coenaculum,” a room in an irregular building this case, as well as in the festivals of the called “David’s Tomb,” which lies outside of resurrection (Sunday) and of the ascension Zion Gate some distance from Mt. Moriah. (Thursday), to the old tradition as to the day (See William M. Thomson, The Land and the of the week when the event occurred. This Book, new ed. 1880, vol. I. p. 535 sq.). But view would furnish an additional reason for Cyril of Jerusalem (Catech. XVI. 4) states that the substitution of Sunday, as the day of the the apartment where the Holy Spirit Lord’s resurrection and the descent of the descended was afterwards converted into a Holy Spirit, for the Jewish Sabbath. church. The uppermost room under the flat was (עֲלִ ּיה ,Wordsworth: “Thus the first day of the week roof of Oriental houses. (ὑπερῷον has been consecrated to all the three Persons often used as a place of devotion (comp. Acts of the ever-blessed and undivided Trinity; 20:8). But as a private house could not and the blessings of Creation, Redemption, possibly hold so great a multitude, we must and Sanctification are commemorated on the suppose that Peter addressed the people in Christian Sunday.” Wieseler assumes, without the street from the roof or from the outer good reason, that the ancient church staircase. deliberately changed the day from opposition Many of the older divines, as also Olshausen, to the Jewish Sabbath; but the celebration of Baumgarten, Wieseler, Lange, Thiersch (and Pentecost together with that of the myself in first ed. of Ap. Ch., p. 194), locate the Resurrection seems to be as old as the Pentecostal scene in the temple, or rather in Christian church and has its precedent in the one of the thirty side buildings around it, example of Paul, Acts 18:21; 20:16.— which Josephus calls “houses” (οἴκους) in his Lightfoot (Horae Hebr. in Acta Ap. 2:1; Opera description of Solomon’s temple (Ant. VIII. 3, II. 692) counts Pentecost from the 16th of 2), or in Solomon’s porch, which remained Nisan, but nevertheless puts the first from the first temple, and where the disciples Christian Pentecost on a Sunday by an assembled afterwards (Acts 5:12, comp. unusual and questionable interpretation of 3:11). In favor of this view may be said, that it Acts 2:1 ἐν τῷ συνπληροῦσθαι τὴν ἡμέραν better agrees with the custom of the apostles τῆς Πεντηκοστῆς, which he makes to mean (Luke 24:53; Acts 2:46; 5:12, 42), with the “when the day of Pentecost was fully gone,” time of the miracle (the morning hour of instead of “was fully come.” But whether prayer), and with the assembling of a large Pentecost fell on a Jewish Sabbath or on a multitude of at least three thousand hearers, Lord’s Day, the coincidence in either case was and also that it seems to give additional significant. solemnity to the event when it took place in (2) As to the place, Luke calls it simply a the symbolical and typical sanctuary of the “house” (οἶκος, Acts 2:2), which can hardly old dispensation. mean the temple (not mentioned till 2:46). It It is difficult to conceive that the hostile Jews was probably the same “upper room” or should have allowed the poor disciples to chamber which he had mentioned in the occupy one of those temple buildings and not preceding chapter, as the well known usual interfered with the scene. In the dispensation meeting place of the, disciples after the of the Spirit which now began, the meanest ascension, τὸ ὑπερῷον … οὗ ἦσαν dwelling, and the body of the humblest καταμένοντες, 1:13). So Neander, Meyer, Ewald, Wordsworth, Plumptre, Farrar, and

History of the Christian Church, Philip Schaff 15 Volume 1, Chapter 4 a Grace Notes course

Christian becomes a temple of God. Comp. 1.25 The Church of Jerusalem and the John 4:24. Labors of Peter IV. EFFECTS of the Day of Pentecost. From Σὺ εἶ Πέτρος, καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ πέτρᾳ Farrar’s Life and Work of St. Paul (I. 93): “That οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐπκλησίαν, καὶ πύλαι this first Pentecost marked an eternal ᾅδου οὐ κατισχύσουσιν αὐτῆς.—Matt. 16:18. moment in the destiny of mankind, no reader of history will surely deny. Undoubtedly in LITERATURE. every age since then the sons of God have, to I. Genuine sources: Acts 2 to 12; Gal. 2; and two an extent unknown before, been taught by the Epistles of Peter. Spirit of God. Undoubtedly since then, to an Comp. the Commentaries on Acts, and the Petrine extent unrealized before, we may know that Epistles. the Spirit of Christ dwelleth in us. Among the commentators of Peter’s Epp. I Undoubtedly we may enjoy a nearer sense of mention Archbishop LEIGHTON (IN MANY EDITIONS, union with God in Christ than was accorded NOT CRITICAL, BUT DEVOUT AND SPIRITUAL), STEIGER (1832, TRANSLATED BY FAIRBAIRN, 1836), JOHN to the saints of the Old Dispensation, and a BROWN (1849, 2 VOLS.), WIESINGER (1856 and 1862, thankful certainty that we see the days which in Olshausen’s Com.), SCHOTT (1861 AND 1863), DE kings and prophets desired to see and did not WETTE (3D ED. BY BRÜCKNER, 1865), HUTHER (in see them, and hear the truths which they Meyer’s Com., 4th ed. 1877), FRONMÜLLER (in desired to hear and did not hear them. And Lange’s Bibelwerk, transl. by Mombert, 1867), this New Dispensation began henceforth in all ALFORD (3d ed. 1864), John Lillie (ed. by Schaff, its fullness. 1869), Demarest (Cath. Epp 1879), MASON AND It was no exclusive consecration to a PLUMPTRE (in Ellicott’s Com., 1879), PLUMPTRE (IN THE “CAMBRIDGE BIBLE,” 1879, WITH A VERY FULL separated priesthood, no isolated endowment INTRODUCTION, PP. 1–83), SALMOND (in Schaff’s Pop. of a narrow apostolate. It was the Com. 1883). Comp. also the corresponding sections consecration of a whole church—its men, its in the works on the Apostolic Age mentioned in § 20, women, its children—to be all of them ‘a and my H. Ap. Ch. pp. 348–377. chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy II. Apocryphal sources: Εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ Πέτρον, nation, a peculiar people;’ it was an of Ebonite origin, Κήρυγμα Πέτρου, Πράξεις endowment, of which the full free offer was Πέτρου, Ἀποκάλυψις Πέτρου, Περίοδοι Πέτρου meant ultimately to be extended to all (Itinerarium Petri), Πράξεις τῶν ἁγίων mankind. ἀποστόλων Πέτρου καὶ Παύλου (Acta Petri et Each one of that hundred and twenty was not Pauli). See Tischendorf’s Acta Apost. Apocr 1–39, and Hilgenfeld’s Novum Testamentum extra the exceptional recipient of a blessing and canonem receptum (1866), IV. 52 sqq. The Pseudo- witness of a revelation, but the forerunner Clementine “Homilies” are a glorification of Peter and representative of myriads more. And this at the expense of Paul; the, “Recognitions” are a miracle was not merely transient, but is Catholic recension and modification of the continuously renewed. It is not a rushing “Homilies.” The pseudo-Clementine literature will sound and gleaming light, seen perhaps for a be noticed in the second Period. moment, but it is a living energy and an III. Special works on Peter: unceasing inspiration. It is not a visible E. TH. MAYERHOFF: Historisch-Kritische Einleitung in symbol to a gathered handful of human souls die Petrinischen Schriften. Hamb. 1835. in the upper room of a Jewish house, but a WINDISCHMANN (R. C.): Vindiciae Petrinae. Ratisb. vivifying wind which shall henceforth breathe 1836. in all ages of the world’s history; a tide of light STENGLEIN (R. C.): Ueber den 25 jahrigen Aufenthalt which is rolling, and shall roll, from shore to des heil. Petrus in Rom. In the “Tübinger Theol. shore until the earth is full of the knowledge Quartalschrift,” 1840. of the Lord as the waters cover the sea.”

History of the Christian Church, Philip Schaff 16 Volume 1, Chapter 4 a Grace Notes course

J. ELLENDORF: 1st Petrus in Rom und Bishof der direction of the apostles, chiefly of Peter, to römischen Gemeinde gewesen? Darmstadt, 1841. whom the Lord had early assigned a peculiar Transl. in the “Bibliotheca Sacra,” Andover, 1858, prominence in the work of building his visible No. 3. The author, a liberal R. Cath., comes to the church on earth. The apostles were assisted conclusion that Peter’s presence in Rome can by a number of presbyters, and seven never be proven. deacons or persons appointed to care for the CARLO PASSAGLIA (Jesuit): De Praerogativis Beati poor and the sick. But the Spirit moved in the Petri, Apostolorum Principis.Ratisbon, 1850. whole congregation, bound to no particular THOMAS W. ALLIES (R. C.): St. Peter, his Name and his office. Office as set forth in Holy Scripture. London, 1852. Based upon the preceding work of Father The preaching of the gospel, the working of Passaglia. miracles in the name of Jesus, and the BERNH. WEISS: Der Petrinische Lehrbegriff. Berlin, attractive power of a holy walk in faith and 1855. Comp. his Bibl. Theol. des N. T, 3d ed. 1880, love, were the instruments of progress. The and his essay, Die petrinische Frage in “Studien und number of the Christians, or, as they at first Kritiken,” 1865, pp. 619–657, 1866, pp. 255–308, called themselves, disciples, believers, and 1873, pp. 539–546. brethren, saints, soon rose to five thousand. THOS. GREENWOOD: Cathedra Petri. Lond., vol. I. They continued steadfastly under the 1859, chs. I and Il. pp. 1–50. instruction and in the fellowship of the PERRONE (R. C.): S. Pietro in Roma. Rome, 1864. apostles, in the daily worship of God and C. HOLSTEN (of the Tübingen School): Zum celebration of the holy Supper with their Evangelium des Paulus und des Petrus.Rostock, agape or love-feasts. 1868. They felt themselves to be one family of God, R. A. LIPSIUS: Die Quellen der röm. Petrussage. Kiel, members of one body under one head, Jesus 1872. By the same: Chronologie der röm Bischöfe. Christ; and this fraternal unity expressed Kiel, 1869. Lipsius examines carefully the heretical itself even in a voluntary community of sources of the Roman Peter-legend, and regards it goods—an anticipation, as it were, of an ideal as a fiction from beginning to end. A summary of state at the end of history, but without his view is given by binding force upon any other congregation. SAMUEL M. JACKSON: Lipsius on the Roman Peter- They adhered as closely to the temple Legend. In the “Presbyterian Quarterly and worship and the Jewish observances as the Princeton Review” (N. York) for 1876, pp. 265 sqq. new life admitted and as long as there was G. VOLKMAR: Die römische Papstmythe. Zürich, any hope of the conversion of Israel as a 1873. nation. They went daily to the temple to A. HILGENFELD: Petrus in Rom und Johannes in teach, as their Master had done, but held their Kleinasien. In his “Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche devotional meetings in private houses. Theol.” for 1872. Also his Einleitung in das N. T., 1875, pp. 618 sqq. The addresses of Peter to the people and the W. KRAFFT: Petrus in Rom. Bonn, 1877. In the Sanhedrin are remarkable for their natural “Theol. Arbeiten des rhein. wissenschaftl. simplicity and adaptation. They are full of fire Predigervereins,” III. 185–193. and vigor, yet full of wisdom and persuasion, JOH. FRIEDRICH (Old Cath.): Zur ältesten Gesch. des and always to the point. More practical and Primates in der Kirche. Bonn, 1879. effective sermons were never preached. They WILLIAM M. TAYLOR: Peter the Apostle. N. York, are testimonies of an eye-witness so timid a 1879. few weeks before, and now so bold and ready at any moment to suffer and die for the cause. The congregation of Jerusalem became the They are an expansion of his confession that mother church of Jewish Christianity, and Jesus is the Christ the Son of the living God, thus of all Christendom. It grew both the Saviour. inwardly and outwardly under the personal

History of the Christian Church, Philip Schaff 17 Volume 1, Chapter 4 a Grace Notes course

He preached no subtle theological doctrines, the Pharisees made common cause with the but a few great facts and truths: the Sadducees against the gospel. crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus the Thus began the emancipation of Christianity Messiah, already known to his hearers for his from the temple-worship of Judaism, with mighty signs and wonders, his exaltation to which it had till then remained at least the right hand of Almighty God, the descent outwardly connected. Stephen himself was and power of the Holy Spirit, the fulfillment of falsely accused of blaspheming Moses, and prophecy, the approaching judgment and after a remarkable address in his own glorious restitution of all things, the defense, he was stoned by a mob (AD 37), and paramount importance of conversion and thus became the worthy leader of the sacred faith in Jesus as the only name whereby we host of martyrs, whose blood was thenceforth can be saved. There breathes in them an air of to fertilize the soil of the church. From the serene joy and certain triumph. blood of his martyrdom soon sprang the great We can form no clear conception of this bridal apostle of the Gentiles, now his bitterest season of the Christian church when no dust persecutor, and an eye-witness of his heroism of earth soiled her shining garments, when and of the glory of Christ in his dying face. she was wholly absorbed in the The stoning of Stephen was the signal for a contemplation and love of her divine Lord, general persecution, and thus at the same when he smiled down upon her from his time for the spread of Christianity over all throne in heaven, and added daily to the Palestine and the region around. And it was number of the saved. It was a continued soon followed by the conversion of Cornelius Pentecost, it was paradise restored. “They did of Caesarea, which opened the door for the take their food with gladness and singleness mission to the Gentiles. In this important of heart, praising God, and having favor with event Peter likewise was the prominent actor. all the people.” After some seven years of repose the church Yet even in this primitive apostolic at Jerusalem suffered a new persecution community inward corruption early under king Herod Agrippa (A.D. 44). James the appeared, and with it also the severity of elder, the brother of John, was beheaded. discipline and self-purification, in the terrible Peter was imprisoned and condemned to the sentence of Peter on the hypocritical Ananias same fate; but he was miraculously liberated, and Sapphira. and then forsook Jerusalem, leaving the At first Christianity found favor with the church to the care of James the “brother of people. Soon, however, it had to encounter the Lord.” Eusebius, Jerome, and the Roman the same persecution as its divine founder Catholic historians assume that he went at had undergone, but only, as before, to that early period to Rome, at least on a transform it into a blessing and a means of temporary visit, if not for permanent growth. residence. But the book of Acts (12:17) says The persecution was begun by the skeptical only: “He departed, and went into another sect of the Sadducees, who took offence at the place.” The indefiniteness of this expression, doctrine of the resurrection of Christ, the in connection with a remark of Paul. 1 Cor. centre of all the apostolic preaching. 9:5, is best explained on the supposition that he had hereafter no settled home, but led the When Stephen, one of the seven deacons of life of a travelling missionary like most of the the church at Jerusalem, a man full of faith apostles. and zeal, the forerunner of the apostle Paul, boldly assailed the perverse and obstinate THE LATER LABORS OF PETER spirit of Judaism, and declared the Afterwards we find Peter again in Jerusalem approaching downfall of the Mosaic economy, at the apostolic council (A.D. 50); then at

History of the Christian Church, Philip Schaff 18 Volume 1, Chapter 4 a Grace Notes course

Antioch (51); where he came into temporary It is the uniform tradition of the eastern and collision with Paul; then upon missionary western churches that Peter preached the tours, accompanied by his wife (57); perhaps gospel in Rome, and suffered martyrdom among the dispersed Jews in Babylon or in there in the Neronian persecution. So say Asia Minor, to whom he addressed his more or less clearly, yet not without epistles.4 Of a residence of Peter in Rome the admixture of error, Clement of Rome (who New Testament contains no trace, unless, as mentions the martyrdom, but not the place), the church fathers and many modern at the close of the first century; Ignatius of expositors think, Rome is intended by the Antioch (indistinctly), Dionysius of Corinth, mystic “Babylon” mentioned in 1 Pet. 5:13 (as Irenæus of Lyons, Caius of Rome, in the in the Apocalypse), but others think of second century; Clement of Alexandria, Babylon on the Euphrates, and still others of Origen, Hippolytus, Tertullian, in the third; Babylon on the Nile (near the present Cairo, Lactantius, Eusebius, Jerome, and others, in according to the Coptic tradition). the fourth. The entire silence of the Acts of the Apostles, To these patristic testimonies may be added respecting Peter, as well as the silence of Paul the apocryphal testimonies of the pseudo- in his epistle to the Romans, and the epistles Petrine and pseudo-Clementine fictions, written from Rome during his imprisonment which somehow connect Peter’s name with there, in which Peter is not once named in the the founding of the churches of Antioch, salutations, is decisive proof that he was Alexandria, Corinth, and Rome. However absent from that city during most of the time these testimonies from various men and between the years 58 and 63. A casual visit countries may differ in particular before 58 is possible, but extremely doubtful, circumstances, they can only be accounted for in view of the fact that Paul labored on the supposition of some fact at the bottom; independently and never built on the for they were previous to any use or abuse of foundation of others; hence he would this, tradition for heretical or for orthodox probably not have written his epistle to the and hierarchical purposes. Romans at all, certainly not without some The chief error of the witnesses from allusion to Peter if he had been in any proper Dionysius and Irenæus onward is that Peter is sense the founder of the church of Rome. associated with Paul as “founder” of the After the year 63 we have no data from the church of Rome; but this may be explained New Testament, as the Acts close with that from the very probable fact that some of the year, and the interpretation of “Babylon” at “strangers from Rome” who witnessed the the end of the first Epistle of Peter is doubtful, Pentecostal miracle and heard the sermon of though probably meant for Rome. The Peter, as also some disciples who were martyrdom of Peter by crucifixion was scattered abroad by the persecution after the predicted by our Lord, John 21:18, 19, but no martyrdom of Stephen, carried the seed of the place is mentioned. gospel to Rome, and that these converts of We conclude then that Peter’s presence in Peter became the real founders of the Jewish- Rome before 63 is made extremely doubtful, Christian congregation in the metropolis. if not impossible, by the silence of Luke and Thus the indirect agency of Peter was Paul, when speaking of Rome and writing naturally changed into a direct agency by from Rome, and that His presence after 63 tradition which forgot the names of the pupils can neither be proved nor disproved from the in the glorification of the teacher. New Testament, and must be decided by post- The time of Peter’s arrival in Rome, and the biblical testimonies. length of his residence there, cannot possibly be ascertained. The above mentioned silence

History of the Christian Church, Philip Schaff 19 Volume 1, Chapter 4 a Grace Notes course of the Acts and of Paul’s Epistles allows him hands and head to be washed. He cut off the only a short period of labor there, after 63. ear of Malchus in carnal zeal for his Master; The Roman tradition of a twenty or twenty- and in a few minutes afterwards he forsook five years’ episcopate of Peter in Rome is him and fled. He solemnly promised to be unquestionably a colossal chronological faithful to Christ, though all should forsake mistake. Nor can we fix the year of his him; and yet in the same night he betrayed martyrdom, except that it must have taken him thrice. He was the first to cast off the place after July, 64, when the Neronian Jewish prejudices against the unclean persecution broke out (according to Tacitus). heathen and to fraternize with the Gentile It is variously assigned to every year between converts at Caesarea and at Antioch; and he 64 and 69. We shall return to it again below, was the first to withdraw from them in and in connection with the martyrdom of cowardly fear of the narrow-minded Paul, with which it is associated in tradition. Judaizers from Jerusalem, for which inconsistency he had to submit to a 1.26 The Peter of History and Fiction humiliating rebuke of Paul. No character in the New Testament is But Peter was as quick in returning to his brought before us in such life-like colors, with right position as in turning away from it. He all his virtues and faults, as that of Peter. He most sincerely loved the Lord from the start was frank and transparent, and always gave and had no rest nor peace till he found himself as he was, without any reserve. forgiveness. With all his weakness he was a We may distinguish three stages in his noble, generous soul, and of the greatest development. In the Gospels, the human service in the church. God overruled his very nature of Simon appears most prominent; the sins and inconsistencies for his humiliation Acts unfold the divine mission of Peter in the and spiritual progress. founding of the church, with a temporary In his Epistles we find the mature result of relapse at Antioch (recorded by Paul); in his the work of purification, a spirit most humble, Epistles we see the complete triumph of meek, gentle, tender, loving, and lovely. divine grace. He was the strongest and the Almost every word and incident in the gospel weakest of the Twelve. He had all the history connected with Peter left its impress excellences and all the defects of a sanguine upon his Epistles in the way of humble or temperament. He was kind-hearted, quick, thankful reminiscence and allusion. His new ardent, hopeful, impulsive, changeable, and name, “Rock,” appears simply as a “stone” apt to run from one extreme to another. He among other living stones in the temple of received from Christ the highest praise and God, built upon Christ, “the chief corner- the severest censure. stone.” He was the first to confess him as the Messiah His charge to his fellow-presbyters is the of God, for which he received his new name of same which Christ gave to him after the Peter, in prophetic anticipation of his resurrection, that they should be faithful commanding position in church history; but “shepherds of the flock” under Christ, the he was also the first to dissuade him from chief “shepherd and bishop of their souls.” entering the path of the cross to the crown, The record of his denial of Christ is as for which he brought upon himself the prominent in all the four Gospels, as Paul’s rebuke, “Get thee behind me, Satan.” The rock persecution of the church is in the Acts, and it of the church had become a rock of offence is most prominent—as it would seem under and a stumbling-block. He protested, in his own direction—in the Gospel of his pupil presumptive modesty, when Christ would and “interpreter” Mark, which alone mentions wash his feet; and then, suddenly changing the two cock-crows, thus doubling the guilt of his mind, he wished not his feet only, but his

History of the Christian Church, Philip Schaff 20 Volume 1, Chapter 4 a Grace Notes course the denial, and which records Christ’s words THE PETER OF FICTION of censure (“Satan”), but omits Christ’s praise No character of the Bible, we may say, no (“Rock”).4 Peter made as little effort to personage in all history, has been so much conceal his great sin, as Paul. It served as a magnified, misrepresented and misused for thorn in his flesh, and the remembrance kept doctrinal and hierarchical ends as the plain him near the cross; while his recovery from fisherman of Galilee who stands at the head of the fall was a standing proof of the power and the apostolic college. Among the women of mercy of Christ and a perpetual call to the Bible the Virgin Mary has undergone a gratitude. similar transformation for purposes of To the Christian Church the double story of devotion, and raised to the dignity of the Peter’s denial and recovery has been ever queen of heaven. Peter as the Vicar of Christ, since an unfailing source of warning and and Mary as the mother of Christ, have in this comfort. Having turned again to his Lord, who idealized shape become and are still the prayed for him that his personal faith fail not, ruling powers in the polity and worship of the he is still strengthening the brethren. largest branch of Christendom. As to his official position in the church, Peter In both cases the work of fiction began among stood from the beginning at the head of the the Judaizing heretical sects of the second and Jewish apostles, not in a partisan sense, but in third centuries, but was modified and carried a large-hearted spirit of moderation and forward by the Catholic, especially the Roman comprehension. He never was a narrow, church, in the third and fourth centuries. contracted, exclusive sectarian. After the 1. The Peter of the Ebionite fiction. The vision at Joppa and the conversion of historical basis is Peter’s encounter with Cornelius he promptly changed his inherited Simon Magus in Samaria, Paul’s rebuke of view of the necessity of circumcision, and Peter at Antioch, and the intense distrust and openly professed the change at Jerusalem, dislike of the Judaizing party to Paul. These proclaiming the broad principle “that God is three undoubted facts, together with a no respecter of persons, but in every nation singular confusion of Simon Magus with an old he that fears him and works righteousness is Sabine deity, Semo Sancus, in Rome, furnished acceptable to him;” and “that Jews and the material and prompted the motive to Gentiles alike are saved only through the religious tendency—novels written about and grace of the Lord Jesus Christ.” after the middle of the second century by He continued to be the head of the Jewish ingenious semi-Gnostic Ebionites, either Christian church at large, and Paul himself anonymously or under the fictitious name of represents him as the first among the three Clement of Rome, the reputed successor of “pillar”-apostles of the circumcision3 But he Peter. stood mediating between James, who In these productions Simon Peter appears as represented the right wing of conservatism, the great apostle of truth in conflict with and Paul, who commanded the left wing of Simon Magus, the pseudo-apostle of the apostolic army. And this is precisely the falsehood, the father of all heresies, the position which Peter occupies in his Epistles, Samaritan possessed by a demon; and Peter which reproduce to a great extent the follows him step by step from Caesarea teaching of both Paul and James, and have Stratonis to Tyre, Sidon, Berytus, Antioch, and therefore the character of a doctrinal Rome, and before the tribunal of Nero, Irenicum; as the Acts are a historical disputing with him, and refuting his errors, Irenicum, without violation of truth or fact. until at last the impostor, in the daring act of mocking Christ’s ascension to heaven, meets a miserable end.

History of the Christian Church, Philip Schaff 21 Volume 1, Chapter 4 a Grace Notes course

In the pseudo-Clementine Homilies the name place June 29, 258, according to the of Simon represents among other heresies Kalendarium of the Roman church from the also the free gospel of Paul, who is assailed as time of Liberius. A hundred years later the a false apostle and hated rebel against the remains of Peter were permanently authority of the Mosaic law. The same transferred to the Basilica of St. Peter on the charges which the Judaizers brought against Vatican, those of St. Paul to the Basilica of St. Paul, are here brought by Peter against Simon Paul (San Paolo fuori le mura) outside of the Magus, especially the assertion that one may Porta Ostiensis (now Porta San Paolo). be saved by grace alone. His boasted vision of The tradition of a twenty-five years’ Christ by which he professed to have been episcopate in Rome (preceded by a seven converted, is traced to a deceptive vision of years’ episcopate in Antioch) cannot be the devil. The very words of Paul against traced beyond the fourth century (Jerome), Peter at Antioch, that he was “self- and arose, as already remarked, from condemned” (Gal. 2:11), are quoted as an chronological miscalculations in connection accusation against God. In one word, Simon with the questionable statement of Justin Magus is, in part at least, a malignant Martyr concerning the arrival of Simon Magus Judaizing caricature of the apostle of the in Rome under the reign of Claudius (41–54). Gentiles. The “Catalogus Liberianus,” the oldest list of 2. The Peter of the Papacy. The orthodox popes (supposed to have been written before version of the Peter-legend, as we find it 366), extends the pontificate of Peter to 25 partly in patristic notices of Irenæus, Origen, years, 1 month, 9 days, and puts his death on Tertullian, and Eusebius, partly in apocryphal June 29, 65 (during the consulate of Nerva productions, retains the general story of a and Vestinus), which would date his arrival in conflict of Peter with Simon Magus in Antioch Rome back to A.D. 40. Eusebius, in his Greek and Rome, but extracts from it its anti-Pauline Chronicle as far as it is preserved, does not fix poison, associates Paul at the end of his life the number of years, but says, in his Church with Peter as the joint, though secondary, History, that Peter came to Rome in the reign founder of the Roman church, and honors of Claudius to preach against the pestilential both with the martyr’s crown in the Neronian errors of Simon Magus. persecution on the same day (the 29th of The Armenian translation of his Chronicle June), and in the same year or a year apart, mentions “twenty” years;3 Jerome, in his but in different localities and in a different translation or paraphrase rather, “twenty- manner. Peter was crucified like his Master five” years, assuming, without warrant, that (though head-downwards3), either on the hill Peter left Jerusalem for Antioch and Rome in of Janiculum (where the church S. Pietro in the second year of Claudius (42; but Acts Montorio stands), or more probably on the 12:17 would rather point to the year 44), and Vatican hill (the scene of the Neronian circus died in the fourteenth or last year of Nero and persecution); Paul, being a Roman (68). Among modern Roman Catholic citizen, was beheaded on the Ostian way at historians there is no agreement as to the the Three Fountains (Tre Fontane), outside of year of Peter’s martyrdom: Baronius puts it in the city. They even walked together a part of 69; Pagi and Alban Butler in 65; Möhler, the Appian way to the place of execution. Gams, and Alzog indefinitely between 66 and Caius (or Gaius), a Roman presbyter at the 68. In all these cases it must be assumed that close of the second century, pointed to their the Neronian persecution was continued or monuments or trophies on the Vatican, and in renewed after 64, of which we have no the via Ostia. The solemn burial of the historical evidence. It must also be assumed remains of Peter in the catacombs of San that Peter was conspicuously absent from his Sebastiano, and of Paul on the Via Ostia, took flock during most of the time, to superintend

History of the Christian Church, Philip Schaff 22 Volume 1, Chapter 4 a Grace Notes course the churches in Asia Minor and in Syria, to by inference from the words of Christ: “Thou preside at the Council of Jerusalem, to meet art Rock, and on this rock I will build my with Paul in Antioch, to travel about with his church, and the gates of Hades shall not wife, and that he made very little impression prevail against it.” This passage, recorded there till 58, and even till 63, when Paul, only by Matthew, is the exegetical rock of writing to and from Rome, still entirely Romanism, and more frequently quoted by ignores him. Thus a chronological error is popes and papists than any other passage of made to overrule stubborn facts. The famous the Scriptures. But admitting the obvious saying that “no pope shall see the (twenty- reference of petra to Peter, the significance of five) years of Peter,” which had hitherto this prophetic name evidently refers to the almost the force of law, has been falsified by peculiar mission of Peter in laying the the thirty-two years’ reign of the first foundation of the church once and for all time infallible pope) Pius IX., who ruled from 1846 to come. He fulfilled it on the day of Pentecost to 1878. and in the conversion of Cornelius; and in this pioneer work Peter can have no successor NOTE.—ON THE CLAIMS OF THE PAPACY. any more than St. Paul in the conversion of On this tradition and on the indisputable the Gentiles, and John in the consolidation of preëminence of Peter in the Gospels and the the two branches of the apostolic church. Acts, especially the words of Christ to him 3. The actual transfer of this prerogative of after the great confession (Matt. 16:18), is Peter—not upon the bishops of Jerusalem, or built the colossal fabric of the papacy with all Antioch, where he undoubtedly resided—but its amazing pretensions to be the legitimate upon the bishop of Rome, where he cannot be succession of a permanent primacy of honor proven to have been from the New and supremacy of jurisdiction in the church of Testament. Of such a transfer history knows Christ, and—since 1870—with the additional absolutely nothing. Clement, bishop of Rome, claim of papal infallibility in all official who first, about A.D. 95, makes mention of utterances, doctrinal or moral. The validity of Peter’s martyrdom, and Ignatius of Antioch, this claim requires three premises: who a few years later alludes to Peter and 1. The presence of Peter in Rome. This may Paul as exhorting the Romans, have not a be admitted as an historical fact, and I for my word to say about the transfer. The very part cannot believe it possible that such a chronology and succession of the first popes rock-firm and world-wide structure as the is uncertain. papacy could rest on the sand of mere fraud If the claims of the papacy cannot be proven and error. It is the underlying fact which gives from what we know of the historical Peter, to fiction its vitality, and error is dangerous in there are, on the other hand, several proportion to the amount of truth which it undoubted facts in the real history of Peter embodies. But the fact of Peter’s presence in which bear heavily upon those claims, Rome, whether of one year or twenty-five, namely: cannot be of such fundamental importance as the papacy assumes it to be: otherwise we 1. That Peter was married, Matt. 8:14, would certainly have some allusion to it in the took his wife with him on his missionary New Testament. Moreover, if Peter was in tours, 1 Cor. 9:5, and, according to a Rome, so was Paul, and shared with him on possible interpretation of the “coëlect” equal terms the apostolic supervision of the (sister), mentions her in 1 Pet. 5:13. Roman congregation, as is very evident from Patristic tradition ascribes to him his Epistle to the Romans. children, or at least a daughter (Petronilla). His wife is said to have 2. The transferability of Peter’s suffered martyrdom in Rome before him. preëminence on a successor. This is derived

History of the Christian Church, Philip Schaff 23 Volume 1, Chapter 4 a Grace Notes course

What right have the popes, in view of this lordly ambition (1 Pet. 5:1–3). Love of example, to forbid clerical marriage? We money and love of power are twin-sisters, pass by the equally striking contrast and either of them is “a root of all evil.” between the poverty of Peter, who had no It is certainly very significant that the silver nor gold (Acts 3:6) and the weaknesses even more than the virtues of the gorgeous display of the triple-crowned natural Peter—his boldness and papacy in the middle ages and down to presumption, his dread of the cross, his love the recent collapse of the temporal power. for secular glory, his carnal zeal, his use of the 2. That in the Council at Jerusalem (Acts sword, his sleepiness in Gethsemane—are 15:1–11), Peter appears simply as the faithfully reproduced in the history of the first speaker and debater, not as papacy; while the addresses and epistles of president and judge (James presided), the converted and inspired Peter contain the and assumes no special prerogative, least most emphatic protest against the of all an infallibility of judgment. hierarchical pretensions and worldly vices of According to the Vatican theory the whole the papacy, and enjoin truly evangelical question of circumcision ought to have principles—the general priesthood and been submitted to Peter rather than to a royalty of believers, apostolic poverty before Council, and the decision ought to have the rich temple, obedience to God rather than gone out from him rather than from “the man, yet with proper regard for the civil apostles and elders, brethren” (or “the authorities, honorable marriage, elder brethren,” 15:23). condemnation of mental reservation in 3. That Peter was openly rebuked for Ananias and Sapphira, and of simony in inconsistency by a younger apostle at Simon Magus, liberal appreciation of heathen Antioch (Gal. 2:11–14). Peter’s conduct on piety in Cornelius, opposition to the yoke of that occasion is irreconcilable with his legal bondage, salvation in no other name but infallibility as to discipline; Paul’s conduct that of Jesus Christ. is irreconcilable with Peter’s alleged 1.27 James the Brother of the Lord supremacy; and the whole scene, though perfectly plain, is so inconvenient to Ἡ πίστις χωρὶς ἔργων νωκρά ἐστιν.—James Roman and Romanizing views, that it has 2:26 been variously distorted by patristic and SOURCES. Jesuit commentators, even into a I. Genuine sources: theatrical farce gotten up by the apostles Acts 12:17; 15:13; 21:18; 1 Cor. 15:7; Gal. 1:19; for the more effectual refutation of the 2:9, 12. Comp. James “the brother of the Lord,” Judaizers! Matt. 13:55; Mark 6:3; Gal. 1:19. 4. That, while the greatest of popes, from The Epistle of James. Leo I. down to Leo XIII. never cease to II. Post-apostolic: speak of their authority over all the JOSEPHUS: Ant. XX. 9, 1.—HEGESIPPUS in Euseb. Hist. bishops and all the churches, Peter, in his Ecc. II. ch. 23.—JEROME: Catal. vir. ill. c. 2, under speeches in the Acts, never does so. And “Jacobus.” EPIPHANIUS, Haer. XXIX. 4; XXX. 16; his Epistles, far from assuming any LXXVIII. 13 sq. superiority over his “fellow-elders” and III. Apocryphal: over “the clergy” (by which he means the Protevangelium Jacobi, ed. in Greek by Tischendorf, Christian people), breathe the spirit of the in “Evangelia Apocrypha,” pp. 1–49, comp. the sincerest humility and contain a Prolegg. pp. xii-xxv. James is honorably mentioned prophetic warning against the besetting in several other apocryphal Gospels.—Epiphanius, sins of the papacy, filthy avarice and Haer. XXX. 16, alludes to an Ebionite and strongly

History of the Christian Church, Philip Schaff 24 Volume 1, Chapter 4 a Grace Notes course anti-Pauline book, the Ascents of James (Ἀναβαθμοὶ H. HOLTZMANN: Jakobus der Gerechte und seine Ἰακώβου), descriptions of his ascension to heaven, Namensbrüder, in Hilgenfeld’s “Zeitschrift für which are lost.—The Liturgy of James, ed. by W. wissenschaftl. Theol.” Leipz. 1880, No. 2. Trollope, Edinb. 1848. Composed in the third Next to Peter, who was the ecumenical leader century, after the Council of Nicæa (as it contains of Jewish Christianity, stands JAMES, THE the terms ὁμοούσιος and θεοτόκος), but resting BROTHER, OF THE LORD (also called by post- on some older traditions. It was intended for the church of Jerusalem, which is styled “the mother apostolic writers “James the Just,” and of all churches.” It is still used once a year on the “Bishop of Jerusalem”), as the local head of festival of St. James, Oct. 23, in the Greek Church at the oldest church and the leader of the most Jerusalem. (See vol. II. 527 sqq.) conservative portion of Jewish Christianity. Exegetical and Doctrinal. He seems to have taken the place of James the A D Commentaries on the Epistle of James by HERDER son of Zebedee, after his martyrdom, . . 44. (1775), STORR (1784), GEBSER (1828), He became, with Peter and John, one of the SCHNECKENBURGER (1832), THEILE (1833), KERN three “pillars” of the church of the (1838), DE WETTE (1849, 3D ED. BY BRÜCKNER, circumcision. And after the departure of Peter 1865), CELLERIER (1850), WIESINGER (in from Jerusalem James presided over the Olshausen’s Com., 1854), STIER (1845), HUTHER AND mother church of Christendom until his BEYSCHLAG (in Meyer’s Com., 1858, 4th ed. 1882), death. Though not one of the Twelve, he LANGE AND VAN OOSTERZEE (in Lange’s Bibelwerk, enjoyed, owing to his relationship to our Lord 1862, Engl. transl. enlarged by MOMBERT, 1867), and his commanding piety, almost apostolic ALFORD, WORDSWORTH, BASSETT (1876, ASCRIBES THE authority, especially in Judaea and among the EP. TO JAMES OF ZEBEDEE), PLUMPTRE (IN THE CAMBRIDGE SERIES, 1878), PUNCHARD (in Ellicott’s Jewish converts. On one occasion even Peter Com. 1878), ERDMANN (1882), GLOAG (1883). yielded to his influence or that of his representatives, and was misled into his WOLDEMAR G. SCHMIDT: Der Lehrgehalt des Jakobusbriefes. Leipzig, 1869. uncharitable conduct towards the Gentile brethren.2 W. BEYSCHLAG: Der Jacobusbrief als urchristliches Geschichtsdenkmal. In the “Stud. u. Kritiken,” 1874, James was not a believer before the No. 1, pp. 105–166. See his Com. resurrection of our Lord. He was the oldest of Comp. also the expositions of the doctrinal type of the four “brethren” (James, Joseph, Judas, James in NEANDER, SCHMID, SCHAFF, WEISS (pp. 176– Simon), of whom John reports with touching 194, third ed.). sadness: “Even his brethren did not believe in Historical and Critical. him.” It was one of the early and constant BLOM: De τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς et ταῖς ἀδελφαῖς το υ trials of our Lord in the days of his Κυρίου. Leyden, 1839. (I have not seen this tract, nomination that he was without honor among which advocates the brother-theory. Lightfoot his fellow-townsmen, yea, “among his own says of it: “Blom gives the most satisfactory kin, and in his own house.” James was no statement of the patristic authorities, and Schaff doubt imbued with the temporal and carnal discusses the scriptural arguments most Messianic misconceptions of the Jews, and carefully.”) impatient at the delay and unworldliness of SCHAFF: Jakobus Alphäi, und Jakobus der Bruder his divine brother. Hence the taunting and des Herrn. Berlin, 1842 (101 pages). almost disrespectful language: “Depart hence MILL: The Accounts of our Lord’s Brethren in the and go into Judaea.… If thou doest these New Test. vindicated. Cambridge, 1843. (Advocates things, manifest thyself to the world.” The the cousin-theory of the Latin church.) crucifixion could only deepen his doubt and LIGHTFOOT: The Brethren of the Lord. Excursus in his sadness. Com. on Galatians. Lond. 2d ed. 1866, pp. 247–282. But a special personal appearance of the risen (The ablest defence of the step-brother-theory of the Greek Church.) Lord brought about his conversion, as also that of his brothers, who after the

History of the Christian Church, Philip Schaff 25 Volume 1, Chapter 4 a Grace Notes course resurrection appear in the company of the gently to Christ. He was the only man that apostles. This turning-point in his life is could do it in that critical time of the briefly but significantly alluded to by Paul, approaching judgment of the holy city. As who himself was converted by a personal long as there was any hope of a conversion of appearance of Christ. It is more fully reported the Jews as a nation, he prayed for it and in an interesting fragment of the, “Gospel made the transition as easy as possible. When according to the Hebrews” (one of the oldest that hope vanished his mission was fulfilled. and least fabulous of the apocryphal Gospels), According to Josephus he was, at the which shows the sincerity and earnestness of instigation of the younger Ananus, the high James even before his conversion. He had priest, of the sect of the Sadducees, whom he sworn, we are here told, “that he would not calls “the most unmerciful of all the Jews in eat bread from that hour wherein the Lord the execution of judgment,” stoned to death had drunk the cup [of his passion] until he with some others, as “breakers of the law,” i.e. should see him rising from the dead.” The Christians, in the interval between the Lord appeared to him and communed with procuratorship of Festus and that of Albinus, him, giving bread to James the Just and that is, in the year 63. The Jewish historian saying: “My brother, eat thy bread, for the Son adds that this act of injustice created great of man is risen from them that sleep.” indignation among those most devoted to the In the Acts and in the Epistle to the Galatians, law (the Pharisees), and that they induced James appears as the most conservative of the Albinus and King Agrippa to depose Ananus Jewish converts, at the head of the extreme (a son of the Annas mentioned in Luke 3:2; right wing; yet recognizing Paul as the apostle John 18:13). He thus furnishes an impartial of the Gentiles, giving him the right hand of testimony to the high standing of James even fellowship, as Paul himself reports, and among the Jews. unwilling to impose upon the Gentile Hegesippus, a Jewish Christian historian Christians the yoke of circumcision. He must about A.D. 170, puts the martyrdom a few therefore not be identified with the heretical years later, shortly before the destruction of Judaizers (the forerunners of the Ebionites), Jerusalem (69). He relates that James was who hated and opposed Paul, and made first thrown down from the pinnacle of the circumcision a condition of justification and temple by the Jews and then stoned to death. church membership. He presided at the His last prayer was an echo of that of his Council of Jerusalem and proposed the brother and Lord on the cross: “God, Father, compromise which saved a split in the forgive them; for they know not what they church. He probably prepared the synodical do.” letter which agrees with his style and has the The dramatic account of James by Hegesippus same greeting formula peculiar to him. is an overdrawn picture from the middle of He was an honest, conscientious, eminently the second century, colored by Judaizing practical, conciliatory Jewish Christian saint, traits which may have been derived from the the right man in the right place and at the “Ascents of James” and other apocryphal right time, although contracted in his mental sources. He turns James into a Jewish priest vision as in his local sphere of labor. and Nazirite saint (comp. his advice to Paul, From an incidental remark of Paul we may Acts 21:23, 24), who drank no wine, ate no infer that James, like Peter and the other flesh, never shaved, nor took a bath, and wore brothers of the Lord, was married. only linen. But the biblical James is Pharisaic The mission of James was evidently to stand and legalistic rather than Essenic and ascetic. in the breach between the synagogue and the In the pseudo-Clementine writings, he is church, and to lead the disciples of Moses raised even above Peter as the head of the

History of the Christian Church, Philip Schaff 26 Volume 1, Chapter 4 a Grace Notes course holy church of the Hebrews, as “the lord and acknowledged at the time of Eusebius and bishop of bishops,” as “the prince of priests.” Jerome, has strong internal evidence of According to tradition, mentioned by genuineness. It precisely suits the character Epiphanius. James, like St. John at Ephesus, and position of the historical James as we wore the high-priestly petalon, or golden know him from Paul and the Acts, and differs plate on the forehead, with the inscription: widely from the apocryphal James of the “Holiness to the Lord” (Ex. 28:36). And in the Ebionite fictions. It hails undoubtedly from Liturgy of St. James, the brother of Jesus is Jerusalem, the theocratic metropolis, amid raised to the dignity of “the brother of the the scenery of Palestine. very God” (ἀδελφόθεος). Legends gather The Christian communities appear not as around the memory of great men, and reveal churches, but as synagogues, consisting the deep impression they made upon their mostly of poor people, oppressed and friends and followers. The character which persecuted by the rich and powerful Jews. shines through these James-legends is that of There is no trace of Gentile Christians or of a loyal, zealous, devout, consistent Hebrew any controversy between them and the Christian, who by his personal purity and Jewish Christians. The Epistle was perhaps a holiness secured the reverence and affection companion to the original Gospel of Matthew of all around him. for the Hebrews, as the first Epistle of John But we must carefully distinguish between was such a companion to his Gospel. It is the Jewish-Christian, yet orthodox, probably the oldest of the epistles of the New overestimate of James in the Eastern church, Testament.2 It represents, at all events, the as we find it in the fragments of Hegesippus earliest and most meager, yet an eminently and in the Liturgy of St. James, and the practical and necessary type of Christianity, heretical perversion of James into an enemy with prophetic earnestness, proverbial of Paul and the gospel of freedom, as he sententiousness, great freshness, and in fine appears in apocryphal fictions. We have here Greek. the same phenomenon as in the case of Peter It is not dogmatic but ethical. It has a strong and Paul. Every leading apostle has his resemblance to the addresses of John the apocryphal shadow and caricature both in the Baptist and the Lord’s Sermon on the Mount, primitive church and in the modern critical and also to the book of Ecclesiasticus and the reconstruction of its history. The name and Wisdom of Solomon. It never attacks the Jews authority of James was abused by the directly, but still less St. Paul, at least not his Judaizing party in undermining the work of genuine doctrine. It characteristically calls the Paul, notwithstanding the fraternal gospel the “perfect law of liberty,” thus agreement of the two at Jerusalem. The connecting it very closely with the Mosaic Ebionites in the second century continued dispensation, yet raising it by implication far this malignant assault upon the memory of above the imperfect law of bondage. The Paul under cover of the honored names of author has very little to say about Christ and James and Peter; while a certain class of the deeper mysteries of redemption, but modern critics (though usually from the evidently presupposes a knowledge of the opposite ultra- or pseudo-Pauline point of gospel history, and reverently calls Christ view) endeavor to prove the same “the Lord of glory,” and himself humbly his antagonism from the Epistle of James (as far “bond-servant.” He represents religion as they admit it to be genuine at all). throughout in its practical aspect as an The Epistle in our canon, which purports to exhibition of faith by good works. be written by “James, a bond-servant of God He undoubtedly differs widely from Paul, yet and of Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes of the does not contradict, but supplements him, dispersion,” though not generally

History of the Christian Church, Philip Schaff 27 Volume 1, Chapter 4 a Grace Notes course and fills an important place in the Christian apostles. They were called the “sons of system of truth which comprehends all types thunder.” of genuine piety. There are multitudes of 2. JAMES (the son) OF ALPHAEUS, who was sincere, earnest, and faithful Christian likewise one of the Twelve, and is mentioned workers who never rise above the level of in the four apostle-catalogues, Matt. 10:3; James to the sublime heights of Paul or John. Mark 3:10; Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13. The Christian church would never have given 3. JAMES THE LITTLE, Mark 15:40 (ὁ μικρός, not, to the Epistle of James a place in the canon if “the Less,” as in the E. V.), probably so called she had felt that it was irreconcilable with the from his small stature (as Zacchaeus, Luke doctrine of Paul. Even the Lutheran church 19:3), the son of a certain Mary and brother did not follow her great leader in his of Joseph, Matt. 27:56 (Μαρία ἡ τοῦ Ἰακώβου unfavorable judgment, but still retains James καὶ Ἰωσὴφ μήτηρ); Mark 15:40, 47; 16:1; among the canonical books. Luke 24:10. He is usually identified with After the martyrdom of James he was James the son of Alphaeus, on the assumption succeeded by Symeon, a son of Clopas and a that his mother Mary was the wife of Clopas, cousin of Jesus (and of James). He continued mentioned John 19:25, and that Clopas was to guide the church at Jerusalem till the reign the same person as Alphaeus. But this of Trajan, when he died a martyr at the great identification is at least very problematical. age of a hundred and twenty years. The next 4. JAMES, simply so called, as the most thirteen bishops of Jerusalem, who came, distinguished after the early death of James however, in rapid succession, were likewise the Elder, or with the honorable epithet of Jewish descent. BROTHER OF THE LORD (ὁ ἀδελφὸς τοῦ Κυρίου), Throughout this period the church of and among post-apostolic writers, the JUST, Jerusalem preserved its strongly Israelitish also BISHOP OF JERUSALEM. The title connects type, but joined with it “the genuine him at once with the four brothers and the knowledge of Christ,” and stood in unnamed sisters of our Lord, who are communion with the Catholic church, from repeatedly mentioned in the Gospels, and he which the Ebionites, as heretical Jewish as the first among them. Hence the Christians, were excluded. After the line of the complicated question of the nature of this fifteen circumcised bishops had run out, and relationship. Although I have fully discussed Jerusalem was a second time laid waste under this intricate subject nearly forty years ago Hadrian, the mass of the Jewish Christians (1842) in the German essay above mentioned, gradually merged in the orthodox Greek and then again in my annotations to Lange on Church. Matthew (Am. ed. 1864, pp. 256–260), I will NOTES briefly sum up once more the chief points with reference to the most recent discussions I. JAMES AND THE BROTHERS OF THE LORD. There (of Lightfoot and Renan). are three, perhaps four, eminent persons in the New Testament bearing the name of JAMES There are three theories on James and the (abridged from JACOB, which from patriarchal brothers of Jesus. I would call them the memories was a more common name among brother-theory, the half-brother-theory, and the Jews than any other except Symeon or the cousin-theory. Bishop Lightfoot (and Simon, and Joseph or Joses): Canon Farrar) calls them after their chief advocates, the Helvidian (an invidious 1. James (the son) of Zebedee, the brother of designation), the Epiphanian, and the John and one of the three favorite apostles, Hieronymian theories. The first is now the proto-martyr among the Twelve confined to Protestants, the second is the (beheaded A.D. 44, see Acts 12:2), as his Greek, the third the Roman view. brother John was the survivor of all the

History of the Christian Church, Philip Schaff 28 Volume 1, Chapter 4 a Grace Notes course

(1) The BROTHER-theory takes the term incipient worship of the Virgin Mary; and ἀδελφοί the usual sense, and regards the recently by the majority of German Protestant brothers as younger children of Joseph and exegetes since Herder, such as Stier, De Mary, consequently as full brothers of Jesus in Wette, Meyer, Weiss, Ewald, Wieseler, Keim, the eyes of the law and the opinion of the also by Dean Alford, and Canon Farrar (Life of people, though really only half-brothers, in Christ, I. 97 sq.). I advocated the same theory view of his supernatural conception. This is in my German tract, but admitted afterwards exegetically the most natural view and in my Hist. of Ap. Ch., p. 378, that I did not give favored by the meaning of ἀδελφός sufficient weight to the second theory. (especially when used as a standing (2) The HALF-BROTHER-theory regards the designation), the constant companionship of brethren and sisters of Jesus as children of these brethren with Mary (John 2:12; Matt. Joseph by a former wife, consequently as no 12:46; 13:55), and by the obvious meaning of blood-relations at all, but so designated Matt. 1:25 (οὐκ ἐγίνωσκεν αὐτὴν ἑως οὓ, simply as Joseph was called the father of comp. 1:18 πρίν ἢ συνελθει ν αὐτούς) and Jesus, by an exceptional use of the term Luke 2:7 (πρωτότοκος), as explained from adapted to the exceptional fact of the the standpoint of the evangelists, who used miraculous incarnation. This has the these terms in full view of the subsequent dogmatic advantage of saving the perpetual history of Mary and Jesus. virginity of the mother of our Lord and The only serious objection to it is of a Saviour; it lessens the moral difficulty implied doctrinal and ethical nature, viz., the assumed in John 19:25; and it has a strong traditional perpetual virginity of the mother of our Lord support in the apocryphal Gospels and in the and Saviour, and the committal of her at the Eastern church. It also would seem to explain cross to John rather than her own sons and more easily the patronizing tone in which the daughters (John 19:25). If it were not for brethren speak to our Lord in John 7:3, 4. But these two obstacles the brother-theory would it does not so naturally account for the probably be adopted by every fair and honest constant companionship of these brethren exegete. The first of these objections dates with Mary; it assumes a former marriage of from the post-apostolic ascetic overestimate Joseph nowhere alluded to in the Gospels, and of virginity, and cannot have been felt by makes Joseph an old man and protector Matthew and Luke, else they would have rather than husband of Mary; and finally it is avoided those ambiguous terms just noticed. not free from suspicion of an ascetic bias, as The second difficulty presses also on the being the first step towards the dogma of the other two theories, only in a less degree. It perpetual virginity. To these objections may must therefore be solved on other grounds, be added, with Farrar, that if the brethren had namely, the profound spiritual sympathy and been elder sons of Joseph, Jesus would not congeniality of John with Jesus and Mary, have been regarded as legal heir of the throne which rose above carnal relationships, the of David (Matt. 1:16; Luke 1:27; Rom. 1:3; 2 probable cousinship of John (based upon the Tim. 2:8; Rev. 22:16). proper interpretation of the same passage, This theory is found first in the apocryphal John 19:25), and the unbelief of the real writings of James (the Protevangelium Jacobi, brethren at the time of the committal. the Ascents of James, etc.), and then among This theory was held by Tertullian (whom the leading Greek fathers (Clement of Jerome summarily disposes of as not being a, Alexandria, Origen, Eusebius, Gregory of “homo ecclesiae,” i.e. a schismatic), defended Nyssa, Epiphanius, Cyril of Alexandria); it is by Helvidius at Rome about 380 (violently embodied in the Greek, Syrian, and Coptic attacked as a heretic by Jerome), and by services, which assign different dates to the several individuals and sects opposed to the commemoration of James the son of Alphaeus

History of the Christian Church, Philip Schaff 29 Volume 1, Chapter 4 a Grace Notes course

(Oct. 9), and of James the Lord’s brother (Oct. (b) It assumes that two sisters had the same 23). It may therefore be called the theory of name, Mary, which is extremely improbable. the Eastern church. It was also held by some (c) It assumes the identity of Clopas and Latin fathers before Jerome (Hilary of Poitiers Alphaeus, which is equally doubtful; for while ,(חלפר) and Ambrose), and has recently been ably Ἀλφαῖος is a Hebrew name advocated by Bishop Lightfoot (l. c.), followed Κλωπα ς, like Κλεόπας, Luke 24:18, is an by Dr. Plumptre (in the introduction to his abbreviation of the Greek Κλεόπατρος, as Com. on the Ep. of James). Antipas is contracted from Antipatros. (d) It (3) The COUSIN-theory regards the brethren as is absolutely irreconcilable with the fact that more distant relatives, namely, as children of the brethren of Jesus, James among them, Mary, the wife of Alphaeus and sister of the were before the resurrection unbelievers, Virgin Mary, and identifies James, the brother John 7:5, and consequently none of them of the Lord, with James the son of Alphaeus could have been an apostle, as this theory and James the Little, thus making him (as well assumes of two or three. as also Simon and Jude) an apostle. The RENAN’S theory.—I notice, in conclusion, an exceptive εἰ μή, Gal. 1:19 (but I saw only original combination of the second and third James), does not prove this, but rather theories by Renan, who discusses the excludes James from the apostles proper question of the brothers and cousins of Jesus (comp. εἰ μή in Gal. 2:16; Luke 4:26, 27). in an appendix to his Les évangiles, 537–540. This theory was first advanced by Jerome in He assumes four Jameses, and distinguishes 383, in a youthful polemic tract against the son of Alphaeus from the son of Clopas. Helvidius, without any traditional support, He holds that Joseph was twice married, and but with the professed dogmatic and ascetic that Jesus had several older brothers and aim to save the virginity of both Mary and cousins as follows: Joseph, and to reduce their marriage relation 1. Children of Joseph from the first marriage, to a merely nominal and barren connection. and older brothers of Jesus: In his later writings, however, after his residence in Palestine, he treats the question a. JAMES, the brother of the Lord, or Just, or with less confidence (see Lightfoot, p. 253). Obliam. his is the one mentioned Matt. 13:55; By his authority and the still greater weight of Mark 6:3; Gal. 1:19; 2:9, 12; 1 Cor. 15:7; Acts St. Augustin, who at first (394) wavered 12:17, etc.; James 1:1 Jude 1:1, and in between the second and third theories, but Josephus and Hegesippus. afterwards adopted that of Jerome, it became b. JUDE, mentioned Matt. 13:55; Mark 6:3; the established theory of the Latin church and Jude 1:1; Hegesippus in Eusebius’ Hist. Eccl. was embodied in the Western services, which III. 19, 20, 32. From him were descended acknowledge only two saints by the name of those two grandsons, bishops of different James. But it is the least tenable of all and churches, who were presented to the must be abandoned, chiefly for the following emperor Domitian as descendants of David reasons: and relations of Jesus. Hegesippus in Euseb. (a) It contradicts the natural meaning of the III. 19, 20, 32 word “brother,” when the New Testament has c. Other sons and daughters unknown. Matt. the proper term for cousin Col. 4:10, comp. 13:56; Mark 6:3; 1 Cor. 9:5. also συγγενής Luke 2:44; 21:16; Mark 6:4, 2. Children of Joseph (?) from the marriage etc.), and the obvious sense of the passages with Mary: JESUS. where the brothers and sisters of Jesus 3. Children of Clopas, and cousins of Jesus, appear as members of the holy family. probably from the father’s side, since Clopas, according to Hegesippus, was a brother of

History of the Christian Church, Philip Schaff 30 Volume 1, Chapter 4 a Grace Notes course

Joseph, and may have married also a woman of entering the temple alone, and was by the name of Mary (John 19:25). often found upon his bended knees, and a. JAMES THE LITTLE (ὁ μικρός), so called to interceding for the forgiveness of the distinguish him from his older cousin of that people; so that his knees became as hard name. Mentioned Matt. 27:56; Mark 15:40; as a camel’s, on account of his constant 16:1; Luke 24:10; otherwise unknown. supplication and kneeling before God. And indeed, on account of his exceeding b. JOSES, Matt. 27:56; Mark 15:40, 47, but great piety, he was called the Just [Zaddik] erroneously (?) numbered among the and Oblias [δίκαιος καὶ ὠβλίας, probably brothers of Jesus: Matt. 13:55; Mark 6:3; a corruption of the Hebrew Ophel am, otherwise unknown. Tower of the People ], which signifies c. SYMEON, the second bishop of Jerusalem justice and the bulwark of the people (Hegesippus in Eus. III. 11, 22, 32; IV. 5, 22), (περιοχὴ του λαου ); as the prophets also erroneously (?) put among the brothers declare concerning him. of Jesus by Matt. 13:55; Mark 6:3. Some of the seven sects of the people, d. Perhaps other sons and daughters mentioned by me above in my Memoirs, unknown. used to ask him what was the door, II. The description of James by HEGESIPPUS [probably the estimate or doctrine] of (from Eusebius, H. E. II. 23).” Hegesippus also, Jesus? and he answered that he was the who flourished nearest the days of the Saviour. And of these some believed that apostles, gives (in the fifth book of his Jesus is the Christ. But the aforesaid sects Memorials) this most accurate account of him: did not believe either a resurrection, or “ ‘Now James, the brother of the Lord, that he was coming to give to every one who (as there are many of this name) was according to his works; as many, surnamed the Just by all (ὁ ἀδελφός του however, as did believe, did so on account Κυρίου Ἰάκωβος ὁ ὀνομασθεὶς ὑπὸ of James. πάντων δίκαιος), from the Lord’s time And when many of the rulers also even to our own, received the believed, there arose a tumult among the government of the church with (or from) Jews, Scribes, and Pharisees, saying that the apostles [μετά, in conjunction with, or the whole people were in danger of according to another reading, παρὰ τω ν looking for Jesus as the Messiah. They ἀποστόλων, which would more clearly came therefore together, and said to distinguish him from the apostles]. James: We entreat thee, restrain the This man [ου τος not this apostle ] was people, who are led astray after Jesus, as consecrated from his mother’s womb. He though he were the Christ. We entreat drank neither wine nor strong drink, and thee to persuade all that are coming to the abstained from animal food. No razor feast of the Passover rightly concerning came upon his head, he never anointed Jesus; for we all have confidence in thee. himself with oil, and never used a bath For we and all the people bear thee [probably the luxury of the Roman bath, testimony that thou art just, and art no with its sudatorium, frigidarium, etc., but respecter of persons. not excluding the usual ablutions Persuade therefore the people not to be practised by all devout Jews]. led astray by Jesus, for we and all the He alone was allowed to enter the people have great confidence in thee. sanctuary [not the holy of holies, but the Stand therefore upon the pinnacle of the court of priests]. He wore no woolen, but temple, that thou mayest be conspicuous linen garments only. He was in the habit on high, and thy words may be easily

History of the Christian Church, Philip Schaff 31 Volume 1, Chapter 4 a Grace Notes course

heard by all the people; for all the tribes tombstone is still remaining, by the have come together on account of the temple. He became a faithful witness, Passover, with some of the Gentiles also. both to the Jews and Greeks, that Jesus is The aforesaid Scribes and Pharisees, the Christ. Immediately after this, therefore, placed James upon the pinnacle Vespasian invaded and took Judaea.’ ” of the temple, and cried out to him: “O “Such,” adds Eusebius, “is the more ample thou just man, whom we ought all to testimony of Hegesippus, in which he fully believe, since the people are led astray coincides with Clement. So admirable a man after Jesus that was crucified, declare to indeed was James, and so celebrated among us what is the door of Jesus that was all for his justice, that even the wiser part of crucified.” the Jews were of opinion that this was the And he answered with a loud voice: “Why cause of the immediate siege of Jerusalem, do ye ask me respecting Jesus the Son of which happened to them for no other reason Man? He is now sitting in the heavens, on than the crime against him. Josephus also has the right hand of the great Power, and is not hesitated to superadd this testimony in about to come on the clouds of heaven.” his works: ‘These things,’ says he, ‘happened And as many were confirmed, and gloried to the Jews to avenge James the Just, who was in this testimony of James, and said:, the brother of him that is called Christ and “Hosanna to the Son of David,” these same whom the Jews had slain, notwithstanding his priests and Pharisees said to one another: preeminent justice.’ The same writer also “We have done badly in affording such relates his death, in the twentieth book of his testimony to Jesus, but let us go up and Antiquities, in the following words,’ ” etc. cast him down, that they may dread to Then Eusebius gives the account of Josephus. believe in him.” And they cried out: “Ho, ho, the Just himself is deceived.” And they 1.28 Preparation for the Mission to the fulfilled that which is written in Isaiah, Gentiles “Let us take away the Just, because he is The planting of the church among the Gentiles offensive to us; wherefore they shall eat is mainly the work of Paul; but Providence the fruit of their doings.” [Comp. Is. 3:10.] prepared the way for it by several steps, And going up, they cast down the just before this apostle entered upon his sublime man, saying to one another: “Let us stone mission. James the Just.” And they began to stone 1. By the conversion of those half-Gentiles him, as he did not die immediately when and bitter enemies of the Jews, the cast down; but turning round, he knelt Samaritans, under the preaching and baptism down, saying:, I entreat thee, O Lord God of Philip the evangelist, one of the seven and Father, forgive them, for they know deacons of Jerusalem, and under the not what they do.” confirming instruction of the apostles Peter Thus they were stoning him, when one of and John. The gospel found ready entrance the priests of the sons of Rechab, a son of into Samaria, as had been prophetically the Rechabites, spoken of by Jeremiah the hinted by the Lord in the conversation at prophet (Jer. 35:2), cried out, saying: Jacob’s well. But there we meet also the first “Cease, what are you doing? The Just is heretical perversion of Christianity by Simon praying for you.” And one of them, a Magus, whose hypocrisy and attempt to fuller, beat out the brains of the Just with degrade the gift of the Holy Spirit received the club that he used to beat out clothes. from Peter a terrible rebuke. (Hence the term Thus he suffered martyrdom, and they simony, for sordid traffic in church offices and buried him on the spot where his dignities.) This encounter of the prince of the

History of the Christian Church, Philip Schaff 32 Volume 1, Chapter 4 a Grace Notes course apostles with the arch-heretic was regarded in the ancient church, and fancifully represented, as typifying the relation of ecclesiastical orthodoxy to deceptive heresy. 2. Somewhat later (between 37 and 40) occurred the conversion of the noble centurion, CORNELIUS of Caesarea, a pious proselyte of the gate, whom Peter, in consequence of a special revelation, received into the communion of the Christian church directly by baptism, without circumcision. This bold step the apostle had to vindicate to the strict Jewish Christians in Jerusalem, who thought circumcision a condition of salvation, and Judaism the only way to Christianity. Thus Peter laid the foundation also of the Gentile-Christian church. The event marked a revolution in Peter’s mind, and his emancipation from the narrow prejudices of Judaism. 3. Still more important was the rise, at about the same time, of the church at Antioch the capital of Syria. This congregation formed under the influence of the Hellenist Barnabas of Cyprus and Paul of Tarsus, seems to have consisted from the first of converted heathens and Jews. It thus became the mother of Gentile Christendom, as Jerusalem was the mother and centre of Jewish. In Antioch, too, the name “Christian” first appeared, which was soon everywhere adopted, as well denoting the nature and mission as the followers of Christ, the divine-human prophet, priest, and king. The other and older designations were disciples (of Christ the only Master), believers (in Christ as their Saviour), brethren (as members of the same family of the redeemed, bound together by a love which springs not from earth and will never cease), and saints (as those who are purified and consecrated to the service of God and called to perfect holiness).