communities, were quite external to the primitive theology of the Ebionites. What, therefore, was the faith of Gentile Christianity? Hegesippus, a Hebrew Christian, who visited several churches when travelling to Rome, about the middle of the second century, wrote a history of Christianity in continuation of the Apostolic age, which has disappeared through accident or design, with the exception of a few imperfect fragments preserved in the works of the ecclesiastical historian, Eusebius; according to whom, Hegesippus states that he received the same doctrine from all the bishops with whom he conversed on his journey to Rome; and that in every episcopal see and city, the prevailing doctrines were in accordance with the declarations of the Law, the Prophets, and the Lord.'1 Hegesippus then enumerates the principal heresies extant in his generation, including those of the Marcionites, Valentinians, and Basilidians, and adds: From these sprung the false Christs, false prophets, and false apostles, who destroyed the unity of the Church by introducing corrupt doctrines against God and against his Christ.' Now, as this Christian Jew had thus become familiar with the doctrines of Nazarene and Gentile churches, with the result of attributing unity of faith to all, it inevitably follows that Gentile orthodoxy, about the middle of the second century, was identical with Ebionite faith in the unity of God and the humanity of Jesus, whilst the only recognised heretics were believers in false Christs and false conceptions of divinity. The catholicity which had impressed Hegesippus during his tour of inspection throughout the Christian 1 Eusebius, His. Book IV. chap. xxii. The emi churches was, however, merely superficial. nent prelates, with whom he conversed at Corinth and at Rome, had, doubtless, placed under lock and key the ecclesiastical skeleton then rattling its bones in episcopal cupboards; theological speculation had not yet assumed sufficiently definite forms to cause an open rupture between Hebrew and Hellenistic Christianity, but beneath the seemingly unruffled surface of Christian unity were drifting divergent currents yet destined to overflow, with cumulative force and volume, the boundaries of primitive orthodoxy, and rush onwards in independent channels, until diverted by new forces into the great Dead Sea of Roman despotism. Let us briefly trace the origin of this impending revolution. Paul supplies us with a graphic sketch of primitive association among the Christians of Corinth-a motley crowd of men and women, assembled in convivial commemoration of the social feast at which Jesus bid farewell to his Galilean companions in the work of the Kingdom-all eager for distinction as psalmists, doctrinaires, prophets, polyglots, and interpreters, divinely enlightened by supernatural dreams and miraculous visions.1 This spiritual confusion was most distasteful to Paul, who told the Corinthians that if anything be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace;' but who could determine whether the second speaker had not silenced an inspired brother; was he sole judge of his own inspiration; and, if interrupted by yet another prophet, was he also to give place to a third revelation? 1 1 Cor. xiv. But later on, all this perplexing confusion was changed among the Gentile Christians by the magic of Roman organisation. Notwithstanding the spiritual resources at their command, primitive Christian communities borrowed the system common to Roman guilds or clubs, incorporated for trading, social, dramatic, or literary purposes, with administrative committees of Presbyteri or Episcopi, and a chairman or president who, in the case of Christian associations, gradually drifted into permanent primacy and eventual supremacy, as the Episcopus or Bishop, invested, in the further process of ecclesiastical evolution, with supernatural authority over the reason and conscience of his flock, and accepted by modern piety as a divinely appointed pontiff, miraculously inspired through episcopal manipulation. If presbyters and bishops succeeded in imposing reverential silence on the crowd, its members, however, retained the right to freedom of thought; and episcopal rulers enjoyed the privilege of independent teaching, long before the central power of Metropolitan, Pope, or Council had claimed the right to define the creed of orthodoxy, and pronounce the doom of heretics. And thus, philosophical Christians, both lay and clerical, worked in freedom at the hopeless task of reconciling Judaism and Christianity with the mythology and philosophy of India, Persia, and Greece, with results which supplied future generations with abundant materials for constructing the colossal fabric of medieval Christianity. The Mosaic dispensation had been, for centuries, a theosophic mystery, carefully withdrawn by the chosen race from sacrilegious contact with alien nations abhorred by the God of Israel. But when, after the conquests of Alexander, Hebrew colonies had been established in regions where Greek became the familiar language of expatriated Jews, a demand arose for a Greek version of the Hebrew Scriptures, which was accordingly produced at Alexandria, about B.c. 280, first as a translation of the Pentateuch, and subsequently as the full Greek version known as the Septuagint, the origin and authorship of which is invested with the marvels of legendary fiction. Justin Martyr and Irenæus,' the primitive canonmakers of the New Testament, declare that Ptolemy Lagi being desirous of adding a Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures to the literary treasures of his famous Alexandrian library, the Jews of Jerusalem sent seventy elders, skilled in both languages, to Alexandria, where they were placed in separate cells on their arrival, with the marvellous result that all produced independent versions exactly agreeing throughout in every word and sentence, so that it was clearly shown that the Hebrew Scriptures had been translated by the inspiration of God. If Orthodoxy accepts apostolic Gospels from the hands of Irenæus, why not also the verbal inspiration of the Septuagint, sustained by even the weighty authority of that great Latin saint, Augustine? 6 The more practical Origen, who devoted inexhaustible industry to the correction of the text, however, candidly admits that there are evidently great discrepancies in the copies of the Septuagint, whether 1 Irenæus, Against Heresies, iii. 21. Y attributable to the carelessness of scribes, or to the rash and pernicious alteration of the text by some, and the unauthorised interpolations and omissions of others— a view fully confirmed by modern criticism of both uncial and cursive MSS. dating from the fourth to the fourteenth century, which disclose in numerous discrepancies the unrevised work of different translators, imperfectly acquainted with the original Hebrew, and using the Macedonic dialect, corrupted by Egyptian words. Some instances of departure from the Hebrew original are traceable rather to theological design than to human error; thus Hellenistic Jews, desirous of cloaking Mosaic anthropomorphism, translate the mouth' by the word, and the hand' by the power of Jehovah-variations which some apologetic theologians explain by the divine purpose of adapting Hebrew Scripture to the minds of the heathen, who therefore had higher conceptions of Divinity than the Chosen Race! The Greek version of the Sacred Scriptures, therefore, became the Holy Bible of Hebrew colonists, scattered throughout the Roman Empire at the period immediately preceding the Christian era. But, more especially at Alexandria, the populous centre of Hellenistic Judaism was the Septuagint industriously studied and interpreted in harmony with the fashionable philosophy of Alexandrian sages, who had transformed the anthropomorphic imagery of effete mythologies into mere symbols of philosophic mysticism. The allegorical system of exegesis was, therefore, fully adopted by the Hellenistic apologists of Moses and the prophets, who would, doubtless, have heard with amazement, could they have risen from the dead, that whilst uttering what they |