portant of the ceremonial requisitions, more especially those relating to the Sabbath and to forbidden meats. Not a few of the higher class of women belonged to this order (Acts xiii. 50; xvii. 4, 12). In addition to this circle there was a class who made, indeed, no profession of Judaism, but still felt the force of its monotheistic teaching. These being at once. free from Jewish pride and exclusiveness, and having greater religious intelligence than the mass of the heathen population, were among the foremost to accept the gospel message. Hence, even when the synagogue closed its doors against the apostles and the Christian evangelists, it helped to prepare for the acceptance of their preaching. In another way, also, Judaism was made to loan assistance to the gospel, whether willingly or unwillingly. For several decades, Christianity passed with the Roman authorities as simply a phase of Judaism, and enjoyed, therefore, the toleration which was given to the latter, instead of being put at once under the ban which a new and uncompromising religion, unsupported by specific national associations, might have been expected to invite. THE EARLY CHURCH. FIRST PERIOD, FROM PENTECOST TO CONSTANTINE, 30-313. CHAPTER I. THE CHURCH UNDER THE APOSTLES. I. CREDIBILITY OF THE APOSTOLIC HISTORY. THE dogmatic denial of the supernatural is the mainspring of attack upon the apostolic history as given in the New Testament. Renan speaks for the whole circle of kindred souls when he says, "It is an absolute rule of criticism to deny a place in history to narratives of miraculous circumstances."1 From their stand-point, miracle is only another name for delusion or falsehood; all records of miracles belong to the region of myths, legends, or intentional fabrications. The chief objection to the absolute rule of Renan is the omission of a very important word. His language should be: "It is an absolute rule of my criticism," etc. This wording brings out properly the personal assumption which is embodied in his, or any equivalent, state1 The Apostles, Intro. 47 ment. His rule, as stated by himself, is simply a private opinion arbitrarily set forth under the guise of an uni versal maxim. Renan, however, denies that his rule is the product of arbitrary assumption. It has, he maintains, the most palpable basis possible. It is no uncertain item of a metaphysical system; "it is simply the dictation of observation." Here, again, we must accuse the learned author of a grave omission. The qualifying pronoun is no less required in this than in the previous statement. His argument, reduced to its essential contents, amounts to this: I have never seen a miracle; I have never had communication with a trustworthy person who has seen a miracle therefore, from the dawn of time until now no miracle has ever occurred. How much broader the conclusion than the premises! Very likely M. Renan never saw a miracle; but he is not entitled to make his experience the absolute standard of the experience of all men in all ages: to do this is wholesale assumption and begging of the question. But give us the proof, says Renan; establish the reality of a single miracle: otherwise, we shall be entitled to reject every account of miraculous events which antiquity has handed down to us. This challenge is evidently no call to bring up all the arguments which can be adduced in favor of any particular miracle of Christ or of his apostles. The strain of our dogmatist implies that nothing but a miracle in the present, or the near neighborhood of the present, could satisfy. It is absolutely necessary that he himself, or the learned critics in whom he has implicit confidence, should be on hand with their tests. It would not do to depend |