Christianity

Please help support the mission of New Advent and get the full contents of this website as an instant download. Includes the Catholic Encyclopedia, Church Fathers, Summa, Bible and more — all for only $19.99...

In the following article an account is given of Christianity as a religion, describing its origin, its relation to otherreligions, itsessentialnature and chief characteristics, but not dealing with its doctrines in detail nor itshistory as a visible organization. These and other aspects of this great subject will receive treatment under separate titles. Moreover, the Christianity of which we speak is that which we find realized in theCatholicChurch alone; hence, we are not concerned here with those forms which are embodied in the various non-Catholic Christiansects, whetherschismatical orheretical.

Our documentary sources ofknowledge about the origin of Christianity and its earliest developments are chiefly theNew Testament Scriptures and various sub-Apostolic writings, theauthenticity of which we must to a large extent take for granted here, as with much less grounds we take for granted theauthenticity of "Cæsar" when dealing with early Gaul, and of "Tacitus" when studying growth of the Roman Empire. (Cf. Kenyon, "Handbook of the Textual Criticism of the N.T."). We have this further warrant for doing so, that the most mature critical opinions amongst non-Catholics, deserting the wild theories of Baur, Strauss, and Renan, tend, in regard todates and authorship, to coincide more closely with theCatholic position. TheGospels, Acts, and most of theEpistles are recognized as belonging to theApostolic Age. "The oldest literature of theChurch", says Professor Harnack, "is, in the main points and in most of its details, from the point of view of literary history, veracious and trustworthy . . . . He who attentively studies these letters (those i.e. ofClement andIgnatius) cannot fail to see what a fullness oftraditions, topics of preaching, doctrines, andforms of organization already existed in thetime ofTrajan (A.D. 98-117), and in particularchurches had reached permanence" (Chronologie der altchristlichen Literature, Bk. I, pp. 8, 11). Other points will, of course, be touched on and other results assumed, which are more fully and formally treated underJ C;C;R;M.

For clearness' sake we shall arrange the subject under the following chief heads:

I. ORIGIN OF CHRISTIANITY AND ITS RELATION WITH OTHER RELIGIONS;
II. THE ESSENTIALS OF CHRISTIANITY;
III. THE DIVINE PURPOSE IN CHRISTIANITY.

Origin of Christianity and its relation with other religions

Christianity is the name given to that definite system of religiousbelief and practice which was taught byJesus Christ in the country of Palestine, during the reign of the Roman Emperor,Tiberius, and was promulgated, after itsFounder's death, for the acceptance of the whole world, by certainchosen men among His followers.

According to the acceptedchronology, these began their mission on the day of Pentecost, A.D. 29, which day is regarded, accordingly, as the birthday of theChristian Church. In order the better to appreciate the meaning of this event, we must first consider the religious influences and tendencies previously at work in theminds ofmen, bothJews andGentiles, which prepared the way for the spread of Christianity amongst them.

The whole history of theJews as detailed in theOld Testament is seen, when read in the light of other events, to be a clear though gradual preparation for the preaching of Christianity. In that nation alone, the greattruths of theexistence andunity ofGod, Hisprovidential ruling of His creatures and their responsibility towards Him, were preserved unimpaired amidst general corruption. The ancient world was given toPantheism andcreature-worship;Israel only, not because of its "monotheistic instinct" (Renan), but because of the periodic interposition ofGod through Hisprophets, resisted in the main the general tendency toidolatry. Besides maintaining those pure conceptions ofDeity, theprophets from time to time, and with ever increasing distinctness until we come to the direct and personal testimony of theBaptist, foreshadowed a fuller and more universalrevelation — atime when, and aMan through Whom,God shouldbless all the nations of the earth.

We need not here trace theMessianic predictions in detail; their clearness and cogency are such thatSt. Augustine does not hesitate to say (Retract., I, xiii, 3): "What we now call the Christian religion existed amongst the ancients, and was from the beginning of thehuman race, untilChrist Himself came in the flesh; from whichtime the already existingtrue religion began to be styled Christian". And thus it has been remarked thatIsrael alone amongst the nations of antiquity looked forward toglories to come. All peoples alike retained some more or less vague recollection of aParadise lost, a remote Golden Age, but only the spirit ofIsrael kept alive the definitehope of a world-wide empire ofjustice, wherein the Fall of Man should be repaired. The fact that, eventually, theJews misinterpreted theiroracles, and identified theMessianic Kingdom with a mere temporal sovereignty ofIsrael, cannot invalidate the testimony of theScriptures, as interpreted both byChrist's own life and the teaching of HisApostles, to the gradual evolution of that conception of which Christianity is the full and perfect expression. Mistaken nationalpride, accentuated by their galling subjection toRome led them to read a material significance into the predictions of the triumph of theMessias, and hence to love their privilege of beingGod's chosen people. The wild olive inSt. Paul's metaphor (Romans 11:17) was then grafted upon the stock of thepatriarchs in place of those rejected branches, and entered upon their spiritual inheritance.

We may trace, too, in the world at large, apart from theJewish people, a similar though less direct preparation. Whether due ultimately to theOld Testament predictions or to the fragments of the originalrevelation handed down amongst theGentile, a certain vague expectation of the coming of a great conqueror seems to have existed in the East and to a certain extent in the Roman worlds, in the midst of which the new religion had its birth. But a much more marked predisposition to Christianity may be noticed in certain prominent features of the Roman religion after the downfall of the republic. The old gods of Latium had long ceased to reign. In their stead Greekphilosophy occupied theminds of the cultured, whilst the populace were attracted by a variety of strange cults imported fromEgypt and the East. Whatever their corruption, these newreligions, concentrating worship on a single prominentdeity, weremonotheistic in effect. Moreover, many of them were characterized byrites of expiation and sacrifice, which familiarizedmen'sminds with theidea of a mediatorial religion. They combined to destroy the notion of a nation cultus, and to separate the service of theDeity from the service of the State. Finally, as a contributorycause to the diffusion of Christianity, we must not fail to mention the widespread Pax Romana, resulting from the union of the civilized races under one strong central government.

Thus much may be said with regard to the remote preparation of the world for the reception of Christianity. What immediately preceded its institution, as it was born inJudaism, concerns theJewish race alone, and is comprised in the teaching andmiracles ofChrist, His death andresurrection, and the mission of theHoly Spirit.

During his whole mortallife on earth, including the two or three years of His active ministry,Christ lived as a devoutJew, Himself observing, and insisting on His followers observing, the injunctions of theLaw (Matthew 23:3). The sum of His teaching, as of that of Hisprecursor, was the approach of the"Kingdom of God", meaning not only the rule of righteousness in theindividual heart ("thekingdom of God is within you" —Luke 17:21), but also theChurch (as is plain from many of theparables) which He was about to institute.

Yet, though He often foreshadowed atime when theLaw as such would cease to bind, and though He Himself inproof of HisMessiahship occasionally set aside its provisions ("For theSon of man is Lord even of thesabbath",Matthew 12:8), yet, as, in spite of Hismiracles, He did not win recognition of thatMessiahship, still less of His Divinity, from theJews at large. He confined His explicit teaching about theChurch to His immediate followers, and left it to them, when thetime came, openly to pronounce the abrogation of the Law. (Acts 15:5-11, 18;Galatians 3:19;24-28;Ephesians 2:2,14-15;Colossians 2:16-17;Hebrews 7:12)

It was not so much, then, by propounding thedogmas of Christianity as by informing theOld Law with the spirit of Christianethics thatChrist found Himself able to prepareJewish hearts for the religion to come. Again, thefaith which He failed to arouse by the numerousmiracles He wrought, He sought to provide with a further and stronger incentive by dying under every circumstance of pain, disgrace, and defeat, and then raising Himself from the dead in triumph andglory. It was to this fact rather than to thewonders He worked in His lifetime that His accreditedwitnesses always appealed in their teaching. On the marvel of theResurrection is based in the counsels ofGod thefaith of Christianity. "IfChrist is notrisen again, yourfaith is vain", declares theApostle Paul (1 Corinthians 15:17), who says no word of the otherwondersChrist performed. By His death, therefore, and His return from the dead,Christ, as the eventproved, furnished the strongest means for the effective preaching of the religion He came to found.

The third antecedentcondition to the birth of Christianity, as we learn from thesacred records, was a special participation of theHoly Spirit given to theApostles on the day of Pentecost. According toChrist's promise, the function of this Divine gift was to teach them alltruth and bring back to their remembrance all that [Christ] had said to them (John 14:26;16:13). "I send thePromised of my Father upon you, but remain ye in thecity till ye shall be clothed with power from on high" (Luke 24:49). "John indeedbaptized with water, but you shall bebaptized with theHoly Ghost, not many days hence" (Acts 1:5). As a result of that Divine visitation we find theApostles preaching the Gospel with wonderfulcourage, persuasiveness, and assurance in the face of hostileJews andindifferentGentiles, "theLord working with them and confirming their words by thesigns that followed" (Mark 16:20).

We have now to consider the circumstances of Christianity at the outset, and to estimate to what extent it was affected by the already existing religiousbeliefs of thetime.

It took its rise, as we have seen, inJudaism: itsfounder and Hisdisciples wereorthodoxJews, and the latter maintained theirJewish practices, at least for a time, even after the day of Pentecost. TheJews themselves looked upon the followers ofChrist as a mereIsraelitishsect (airesis) like theSadducees or theEssenes, stylingSt. Paul "the instigator of the revolt of thesect of the Nazarenes" (Acts 24:5). The new religion was at first wholly confined to thesynagogue, and it votaries had still a large share ofJewish exclusiveness; they read the Law, they practisedcircumcision, and theyworshipped in theTemple, as well as in the upper room atJerusalem. We need not wonder, then, that some modernrationalists, who reject itssupernatural origin and ignore the operation of theHoly Spirit in its first missionaries, see in early ChristianityJudaism pure and simple, and find the explanation of its character and growth in the pre-existing religious environment. But this theory of natural development does not fit the facts as narrated in theNew Testament, which is full of indications thatChrist's doctrines were new, and His spirit strange. Consequently, the records have to be mutilated to suit the theory. We cannot pretend to follow, there or in other places, therationalists in theirNew Testament criticism. There is the less need of doing so that their theories are often mutually destructive. A dozen years ago an observer computed that since 1850 there had been published 747 theories regarding theOld andNew Testaments, of which 608 were by thattime defunct (see Hastings, "Higher Criticism"). The effect of these random hypotheses has been greatly to strengthen theorthodox view, which we now proceed to state.

Christianity is developed fromJudaism in the sense that it embodies theDivine revelation contained in the lattercreed, somewhat as a finishedpainting embodies the original rough sketch. The same hand was employed in the production of bothreligions, and bytype andpromise andprophecy the Old Dispensation points clearly to the New.

Buttype, andpromise, andprophecy as clearly indicate that the New will be something very different from the Old. No mere organic evolution connects the two. A fullerrevelation, a more perfectmorality, a wider distribution was to mark theKingdom of the Messias. "The end [or object] of the Law isChrist", saysSt. Paul (Romans 10:4), meaning that the Law was given to theJews to excite theirfaith in theChrist to come. "Wherefore", he says again (Galatians 3:24), "thelaw was our pedagogue untoChrist", leading theJews to Christianity as theslave brought his charges to theschool door.

Christ reproached theJews for not reading theirScriptures aright. "For if youbelievedMoses, you would perhapsbelieve me also; for he wrote of me" (John 5:46). AndSt. Augustine sums the whole matter up in the striking words: "In theOld Testament, theNew lies hidden; in theNew, theOld is made manifest" (On the Catechizing of the Uninstructed, 4.8). ButChrist claimed to fulfil the Law by substituting thesubstance for the shadow and thegift for thepromise, and, the end having been reached, all that was temporary and provisional inJudaism came to a conclusion. Still, a direct divine intervention wasnecessary to bring this about, just as, in any rational account of the theory of evolution, recourse must be had tosupernatural power to bridge the gulf betweenbeing and non-being,life and non-life,reason and non-reason. "God, who, at sundry times and in divers manner, spoke in times past to the fathers by theprophets, least of all in these days has spoken to us by his Son" (Hebrews 1:1, 2), the message growing in clearness and in content with each successive utterance till it reached completion in theIncarnation of theWord.

The Christianity, then, which theApostles preached on the day of Pentecost was entirely distinct fromJudaism, especially as understood by theJews of thetime; it was a new religion, new in itsFounder, new in much of itscreed, new in its attitude towards bothGod andman, new in the spirit of itsmoral code. "The Law was given byMoses; grace andtruth came byJesus Christ" (John 1:17).

St. Paul, as was to be expected, is our clearestwitness on this point. "If any man be inChrist", he says, "he is a new creature; old things are passed away; behold all things are new" (2 Corinthians 5:17). How new Christianity was, theJews themselves showed by putting itsAuthor to death and persecuting His adherents. Renan himself, who is not always consistent, admits that "far fromJesus being the continuer ofJudaism, what characterizes His work is its breach with theJewish spirit" (Vie de Jésus, c. xxviii).

It may be granted that there is a certain resemblance between theEssene communities and the earliest Christian assemblies. But the resemblance is only on the outside. The spirit of theEssenes was intensely national; except in the matter of worship in theTemple, they were ultra-Jewish in their observance of external forms,ablutions, theSabbath, etc., and their mode of life and discouragement of marriage were essentially anti-social. Harnack himself owns thatChrist had no relations with this rigoristicsect, as was shown by His mixing freely withsinners, etc. (Das Wesen des Christenthums, Lect. Ii, p. 33, tr.). But Christianity did not reject anything inJudaism that was of permanent value, and so theJewishconverts on the day of Pentecost could not have felt that they wereabjuring their ancientfaith, but rather that they were then for the first time entering upon the full understanding of it. More will be said on this point when we come to consider what is theessence of Christianity, but we may notice that theChurch very early found itnecessary to emphasize her distinctness fromJudaism by abandoning the essentiallyJewishrites ofcircumcision, Temple-worship, and observance of theSabbath.

Judaism is not the only religious system that has been requisitioned byrationalistic writers to account for the appearance of Christianity. Points of similarity between the teaching ofChrist and HisApostles and the greatreligions of the East have been taken to indicated a derivation of the latter system from the earlier, and the elaborateeschatology of theEgyptian religion has been quoted to account for certain Christiandogmas about the future life.

It were a long and not very profitable task to state and refute these various theories in detail. Underlying all of them is therationalistic postulate which denies the fact and even the possibility of Divine intervention in the evolution of religion. In virtue of that attituderationalism is confronted with the impossible task of explaining how a universal religion like Christianity, with an extensive yetlogical system ofdogma, could have been evolved by a process of promiscuous borrowings from existing cults and yet preserve everywhere its unity and coherence. If the selection were made byChrist and His adherents,rationalists must tell us how these "ignorant and unlettered men" (Acts 4:13; cf.Matthew 13:54;Mark 6:2)knew thereligions of the East, when it was a matter of astonishment to their contemporaries that theyknew their own.

Or, if thedogmas and practices under consideration were the additions of a later age, the questions arise, first, how to reconcile this statement with the fact that theessence of Christianity is discoverable in the earliest Christianwitnesses and, secondly, how scattered communities composed of various nationalities and living under differentconditions could have united in selecting and maintaining the samedogmas andrules of conduct.

We may ask, furthermore, why Christianity which, on this hypothesis, only selected pre-existing doctrines, excited everywhere such bitter hostility andpersecution. "About thissect", said the RomanJews toSt. Paul inprison, "we are informed that it meets with opposition everywhere" (Acts 28:22)k.

Immense erudition has been wasted in the attempt to show thatBuddhism in particular is the prototype of Christianity, but, apart from the difficulty of distinguishing the original creed of Gautama from later and possibly post-Christian accretions, it may be briefly objected thatBuddhism is at best only anethical system, not a religion, for it recognizes noGod and no responsibility, that in so far as it emphasizes the comparative worthlessness of earthly things and the insufficiency of earthly delights it is in accord with the Christian spirit, but that in aim it is essentially diverse. The supreme aim of Christianity iseternalhappiness in a state involving the employment of all thesoul's activities, that ofBuddhism the ultimate loss ofconsciousexistence.

Let us grant, once and for all, thatGod's intercourse with His creatures is not confined to the old and New Covenants, and that Christianity includes many doctrines accessible to the unaidedhumanreason, and advocates many practices which are the natural outcome of ordinaryhuman activities. We thus expect to find that,humannature being the same everywhere, the various expressions of the religious sense will take similar shapes amongst all peoples. Accordingly,falsereligions may very well inculcate ascetic practices and possess theidea of sacrifice and sacrificial banquets, of apriesthood, ofsin and confession, ofsacramentalrites likebaptism, of the accessories of worship such asimages,hymns,lights,incense, etc. Not everything infalse religion isfalse, nor is everything in thetrue religion (or Christianity)supernatural. "We must not look", says M. Müller, "in the originalbelief ofmankind for [distinctively] Christianideas but for the fundamental religiousideas on which Christianity is built, without which as its natural and historical support, Christianity could not have become what it is" (Wissenschaft der Sprache, II, 395).

These remarks apply not only to the religious systems which are alleged to have influenced the conception of Christianity, but to those which it met as soon as it issued fromJudaism, its cradle. Here, we are face to face with history, and not with mere hypothesis and assumption. For Christianity, on its first essaying to realize its destiny as the universal religion, did actually come in contact with two mighty religious systems, the religion of Rome, and the widespread body of thought, more of aphilosophy than acreed, prevalent in the Greek-speaking world.

The effect of the national religion ofpagan Rome on early Christianity concernedrites andceremonies rather than points ofdoctrine, and was due to the general causes just mentioned. With Greekphilosophy, on the other hand, representing the highest efforts of thehumanintellect to explainlife and experience, and to reach theAbsolute, Christianity, which professes to solve all these problems, had, naturally and necessarily, many points of contact.

It is on this connection that modernrationalists have brought all their learning and research to bear in the effort to show that the whole laterintellectual system of Christianity is something more or less alien to its original conception. It was the transference of Christianity from aSemitic to aGreek soil that explains, according to Dr. Hatch (Hibbert Lectures, 1888), "why anethicalsermon stood in the forefront of the teaching ofJesus, and ametaphysicalcreed in the forefront of the Christianity of the fourth century". Professor Harnack states the problem and solves it in similar fashion. He ascribes the change, as he conceives it, from a simple code of conduct to theNicene Creed, to the three following causes:

It is the second of these reasons for the birth and growth ofdogma that concerns us immediately; but we may remark in regard to the first that it ignores the direct working ofGod on thesoul of theindividual, the perpetual renewal of fervour throughprayer and the use of thesacraments, that have always marked the course of Christianity. Herein, the spirit of its first days is seen still to be energetic, notwithstanding the comparative elaborateness ofcreed andritual of modern Christianity. Thesaints are admitted to be the mostperfect exponents of practical Christianity; they are not exceptions or accidents or by-products of the system; yet they did not finddogma any hindrance to theirperfect service ofGod andman.

As regards the thirdcause above mentioned, we may grant that it has always been theprovidential function ofheresy to bring about a clearer definition of the Christiancreed, and thatGnosticism in its many varieties undoubtedly had this effect. But long beforeGnosticism had sufficiently developed to necessitate the safeguarding ofdoctrine byconciliardefinition, we find traces of an organizedChurch with a very definitecreed. Not to mention the traditional "for ofdoctrine" spoken of bySt. Paul (Romans 6:17) and theact offaith required by Philip from the eunuch (Acts 8:37), many critics, including theProtestants Zahn and Kattenbusch (Das Apostolische Symbol., Leipzig, 1894-1900), agree that the presentApostles' Creed represents a formula which took shape in theApostolic Age and was uninfluenced byGnosticism, which Proteanheresy first became formidable about A.D. 130. And as regardsorganization, weknow that the episcopate was a fully recognized institution in thetime ofIgnatius (c. 110), whilst theCanon of New Testament Scripture, the final establishment of which was undoubtedly helped byGnosticism, was in process of recognition even inApostolic times. St. Peter (assuming theSecond epistle to be his) classifiesSt. Paul'sEpistles with the "otherScriptures" (2 Peter 3:16), andSt. Polycarp, early in the second century, quotes asScripture nine of those thirteenPauline documents.

Concerning the "union of the Gospel with the Greek spirit" which, according to Hatch and Harnack, resulted in such profound modification so the former, we may admit many of the statements made, without drawing from them therationalistic inferences. We readily grant that Greek thought and Greek culture had thoroughly permeated thesociety into which Christianity was born. Alexander's conquests had brought about a diffusion of Greek ideals throughout the East. TheJews were dispersed westwards, both from Palestine and from the towns of theCaptivity, and established in colonies in the chief cities of the empire, especially in Alexandria. The extent of this dispersion may be gathered fromActs 2:9-11), Greek became the language of commerce and social intercourse, and Palestine itself, more particularlyGalilee, was to a great extent hellenized. TheJewishScriptures were best known in a Greek version, and the last additions to theOld Testament — theBook of Wisdom and theSecond Book of Machabees — were entirely composed in that tongue. In addition to this peaceful permeation of the Hebraic by the Greek genius, formal efforts were made from time to time, both in the political and thephilosophical sphere to hellenize theJews altogether.

It is with the latter attempt that we are concerned; for the writings ofPhilo, its chief and earliest advocate, coincided with the birth of Christianity.Philo was aJew of Alexandria, well versed in Greekphilosophy and literature, and at the same time a devout believer in theOld Testamentrevelation. The general purpose of his principal writings was to show that the admirable wisdom of the Greeks was contained in substance in theJewish Scriptures, and his method was to read allegory into the simple narratives of thePentateuch. To the pure andcertainmonotheism ofJudaism he wedded variousideas taken fromPlato and theStoics, trying thus to solve the problem, with which allphilosophy is ultimately confronted, how to bridge the gulf betweenmind andmatter, theinfinite and the finite, the absolute and the conditioned. Philo's writings were, no doubt, widelyknown amongst theJews, both at home and abroad, at thetime when theApostles began to preach, but it is extremely unlikely that the latter, who were noteducated men, were acquainted with them.

Not until theconversion ofSt. Paul and the beginning of his apostolate can Christianity be said to have come, in themind of one of its chief exponents, into immediate contact with Greek religious andphilosophical theories.St. Paul was learned, not only in Hebrew, but also in Hellenistic lore, and a singularly apt instrument in the design of Providence, on account of hisJewish origin andeducation, his Greek learning, and his Roman citizenship, to aid Christianity to throw off the swaddling-bands of its infancy and go forth to the conquest of thenations.

But whilst recognizing thisprovidentialdispensation in the election ofSt. Paul, we cannot, in face of his own express and emphatic testimony, go on to assert that he universalized Christianity, asPhilo attempted to universalizeJudaism, by adding to itsethical content the merely natural religion of the Greek thinkers of his own more sublime and pure conceptions. In one of his earliest letters, theFirst Epistle to the Corinthians,St. Paul rebukes their factious spirit, whereby some of them had styled themselves partisans of Apollos, a learned Alexandrian, and repudiates again and again that very attempt to make Christianity plausible by tricking it out in the garb of current speculations. "But we preachChrist crucified, unto theJews indeed a stumbling-block, and to theGentiles foolishness" (1 Corinthians 1:23; see chaps.1 and2, andColossians 2:8).St. Paul, at any rate, was not indebted for hisChristology toPhilo or his school, and any similarity of terminology which may occur in the works of the two authors may quite reasonably be ascribed to the metaphors already embodied in the language they both used.

More insistence has been laid, perhaps, on the resemblance between theChristology set forth by St. John in the opening chapters of hisGospel and in theApocalypse, and theLogos theories whichPhilo elaborated, and which he is said to have taken from Greek sources. If he did so, we may remark, he neglected others older and nearer to hand, for the conception of a Divine Word ofGod, by which theDeity enters intorelation with the created universe, is by no means exclusively or originally Greek. Theidea, expressed in theopening verses of Genesis, is frequently repeated in the rest of theOld Testament (seePsalms 32:6;147:15;Proverbs 8:22;Wisdom 7:24-30, etc.).Philo, therefore, was not compelled to seek in thePlatonic Nous, which is merely the directivecause ofcreation, or theStoicLogos, as the rationalsoul of theuniverse, the foundation of hisdoctrine. HisLogos theory is not at all clear or consistent, but, apparently, he conceives theWord to be a quasi-personal, subordinate, intermediate being betweenGod and the world, enabling theCreator to come into contact withmatter. He calls thisLogos "the eldest" and the "first-born"son of God, and uses phrases that suggest theFourth Gospel; but there is no resemblance in substance between the bold, clear, categoric statements of theinspiredApostle, and the misty, if poetical, conceptions of the Alexandrianphilosopher. We may conjecture that St. John chose his language so as to impress the cultivated Greekmind with thetruedoctrine of theDivine Logos, thus connecting his teaching with the olderrevelation, and, at the same time, putting a check upon theGnosticerrors to which Philoism was already giving birth.

Abandoning theApostolic Age, Harnack, in his "History of Dogma", ascribes the hellenization of Christianity to theapologists of the second century (1st German edit., p. 253). This contention can best be refuted by showing that the essential doctrines of Christianity are contained already in theNew Testament Scriptures, while giving, at the same time, their due force to thetraditions ofcorporate Christianity. If theNicene Creed cannot beproved article by article from thesacred records, interpreted by thetradition that preceded them and determined their canon, then therationalist assertion will have some support.

But the point of comparison with theCreed must be not only the Sermon on the Mount, as Hatch desires, nor the merely verbal teaching ofChrist, but the wholeNew Testament record.Christ taught by Hislife no less than by His words, and it was His actions andsufferings as well as His oral lessons that HisApostles preached. For the fuller exposition of this, seeREVELATION. Here it suffices to note that Christiantheology became, in the hands of theapologists, the synthesis of all speculativetruth. It met and conquered the various imperfect systems that possessedmen'sminds at its birth and arose after that event.

The earlyheresies —Sabellianism,Arianism, and the rest — were but attempts to make Christianity one of a number ofphilosophies; the attempts failed, but the scatteredtruths that thosephilosophies contained were shown, astime went on, to exist and find their fulfilment in Christianity as well. "TheChurch", saysNewman,

has been ever 'sitting in the midst of thedoctors, both hearing and asking them questions'; claiming to herself what they said rightly, correcting theirerrors, supplying their defects, completing their beginnings, expanding their surmises, and thus gradually by means of them enlarging the range and refining the sense of her teaching. (Development of Doctrine, viii)

In the same sectionNewman thus summarizes the battle and the triumph:

such was the conflict of Christianity with the old establishedPaganism, which was almost dead before Christianity appeared; with the Oriental Mysteries, flitting widely to and fro like spectres; with theGnostics, who madeKnowledge all in all, despised the many, and calledCatholics mere children in theTruth: with theNeo-Platonists, men of literature, pedants, visionaries, or courtiers; with theManichees, who professed to seektruth byReason, not byFaith; with the fluctuating teachers of theschool of Antioch, the time-serving Eusebians, and the reckless versatileArians; with the fanaticMontanists and harshNovatians, who shrank from theCatholic doctrine, without power to propagate their own. Thesesects had no stay or consistence, yet they contained elements oftruth amid theirerror, and had Christianity been as they, it might have resolved into them; but it had that hold of thetruth which gave itsteaching a gravity, a directness, a consistency, a sternness, and a force to which its rivals, for the most part, were strangers. (ibid., viii)

The essentials of Christianity

We have so far seen, in its origin and growth, the essential independence of Christianity of all other religious systems, except that ofJudaism, with which, however, its relation was merely that ofsubstance to shadow. It is now time to point out its distinctive doctrines.

In early Christianity there was much that was transitory and exceptional. It was not presented full-grown to the world, but left to develop in accordance with the forces and tendencies that were implanted in it from the first by itsFounder. And we, having His assurance that His Spirit would abide with it for alltime, to inspire and regulate itshuman elements, can see in its subsequent history the working out of His design. Hence, it does not trouble us to find in primitive Christianity qualities which did not survive after they had served their purpose. Natural causes and the course of events, always under the Divine guidance, resulted in Christianity taking on the form which would best secure its permanence and efficiency. InApostolic times, supreme authority as tofaith andmorals was vested intwelve representatives of Christ, each of whom was commissioned to proclaim andinfallibly interpret His Gospel. Thehierarchy was in an inchoatecondition. Specialcharismata, like thegifts ofprophecy andtongues, were bestowed onindividuals outside theofficial teaching body. TheChurch was in process of organization, and the various Christian communities, united, doubtless, in a strong bond of charity, and in the sense that they had oneLord, onefaith, and onebaptism, were to a large extent independent of one another in the matter of government.

Such was the fashion in whichChrist allowed HisChurch to be established. It has greatly changed in outward appearances during the ages. Has there been any corresponding change insubstance? Are theessentials of Christianity the same now as they were then? We affirm that they are, and weprove our assertion by examining the main points of theteaching, both ofChrist and HisApostles. We must look upon the matter as a whole. We cannot judge of Christianity properly before the coming of the Holy Spirit. TheGospels describe a process which was not consummated till after Pentecost. TheApostles themselves were not fully Christians till theyknew throughfaith all thatChrist was — theirGod and their Redeemer as well as their Master. And as Christianity furnishes a regulative principle for bothmind and will, teaching us what tobelieve and what to do,faith no less than works must characterize the perfect Christian.

The teaching of Christ

Taking, then, first of all,Christ's owndogmatic andmoral teaching, we may divide it into (a) what He did not reveal but only reaffirmed, (b) what He drew from obscurity, and (c) what He added to the sum total ofbelief and practice.

(a) TheJews, at the time ofChrist, however worldly-minded, were at any rate free from their ancestral tendency toidolatry. They were strictmonotheists,believing in the unity, power, andholiness of theSupreme Deity.Christ reaffirmed, purified, and confirmed theJewishtheology, bothmoral anddogmatic. He asserted the spiritualnature of theGodhead (John 1:18;4:24), and insisted on the importance ofworshipping Him inspirit, i.e. with more than merely externalrites. And he exacted the same rightdispositions of heart in the whole ofGod's service, showing how both guilt andmerit depend on the will andintention (Matthew 5:28;15:18). He recalled the original unity and indissolubility of the marriage-tie. He brought into prominence theimmortality, and hence the transcendent importance, of thehumansoul (Matthew 16:26), as against theheresy of theSadducees and the worldliness of theJews in general. In all these points He fulfilled the Law by showing its real and full significance.

(b) But He did not stop here. Taking the great central precept of theOld Dispensation — thelove ofGod — He pointed out all its implications and made clear that thedoctrine of the Fatherhood ofGod, so imperfectly grasped under thelaw offear, was the immediate source of thedoctrine of the brotherhood of men, which theJews had never realized at all. He never tired of dwelling on the loving kindness and the tenderprovidence of His Father, and He insisted equally on theduty ofloving allmen, summing up the whole of Hisethical teaching in the observance of thelaw oflove (Matthew 5:43;22:40). This universal charity He designed to be the mark of Histrue followers (John 13:45), and in it, therefore, we must see the genuine Christian spirit, so distinct from everything that had hitherto been seen on earth that theprecept which inspired it He called "new" (John 13:34).Christ's clear and definite teaching, moreover, about the life to come, thefinal judgment resulting in aneternity ofhappiness ormisery, the strict responsibility which attaches to the smallest human actions, is in great contrast to the currentJewisheschatology. By substitutingeternal sanctions for earthly rewards and punishments, He raised and ennobled the motives for the practice ofvirtue, and set beforehuman ambition an object wholly worthy of theadopted sons ofGod, the extension of their Father's Kingdom in their ownsouls and in thesouls of others.

(c) Among the doctrines added byChrist to theJewish faith, the chief, of course, are those concerning Himself, including the centraldogma of the whole Christian system, theIncarnation of God the Son. In regard to Himself,Christ made two claims, though not with equal insistence. He asserted that He was theMessias ofJews, the expected of thenations, Whose mission it was to undo the effects of the Fall and to reconcileman withGod; and He claimed to be HimselfGod, equal to, and one with, the Father. In support of this double claim, He pointed to the fulfilment of theprophecies, and He worked manymiracles. His claim to be theMessias was not admitted by the leaders of His nation; had it been admitted, He would doubtless have manifested His Divinity more clearly. Most modernrationalists (Harnack, Wellhausen, and others) acknowledge thatChrist from the beginning of His preachingknew Himself as theMessias, and accepted the various titles which belong in theScripture to that personage — Son ofDavid,Son of Man (Daniel 7:13), theChrist (seeJohn 14:24;Matthew 16:16;Mark 14:61-62). In one passage — and very significant one — He applies the name to Himself — "But this iseternal life: That they mayknow thee, the onlytrue God, andJesus Christ, whom thou hast sent" (John 17:3).

In regard to His Divinity, His claim is clear, but not emphasized. We cannot say that the title"Son of God", which is repeatedly given to Him in theGospels (John 1:34;Matthew 27:40;Mark 3:12;15:39, etc.), and which He is described as taking to Himself (Matthew 27:43;John 10:36), necessarily of itself connotes a Divinepersonality; and in the mouths of several of the speakers, e.g. in the exclamation ofNathaniel, "Rabbi, Thou art theSon of God", it presumably does not. But in the confession of St. Peter (Matthew 16:16) the circumstances point to more than a mere amplification of theMessianic title. That title was at thattime in habitual use in regard toJesus, and there would have been nothing significant inPeter's expression and inChrist's glad acceptance of it, if it had not gone further than the commonbelief.Christ hailed St. Peter's confession as a specialrevelation, not as a merededuction from external facts. When we compare this with that other declaration narrated in the same Gospel (Matthew 26:62-66), where, in answer to thehigh-priest'sadjuration, 'Iadjure thee by theliving God, that thou tell us if thou be theChrist theSon of God",Jesus replied, "Thou has said it" (i.e., "I am"; seeMark 14:62), we cannot reasonablydoubt thatChrist claimed to beDivine. TheJews so understood this and put Him to death as ablasphemer.

Another prominent feature in thetheology ofChrist was Hisdoctrine about theParaclete. When, inSt. John'sgospel (14:16-17), He says; "And I will ask the Father, and he shall give you anotherParaclete, that he may abide with you forever, thespirit oftruth", it is impossible tobelieve that what He promises is a mere abstraction, not aperson like Himself. Inverse 26, the personality is still more marked: "And theParaclete, theHoly Spirit, whom the Father shall send in my name, He will teach you all things". (Cf.15:26, "But when theParaclete shall come whom I shall send you from the Father, the Spirit ofTruth who proceeds from the Father" etc.) It may be that the full meaning of those words was not realized till the Spirit did actually come; moreover, therevelation was made, of course, only to His immediate followers; still, no unbiasedmind can deny thatChrist here speaks of a personal influence as a distinct Divine entity; a distinction and a Divinity which is further implied in thebaptismal formula He afterwards instituted (Matthew 28:19).

Christ took up the burden of the preaching of Hisprecursor and proclaimed the advent of theKingdom of God, or theKingdom of Heaven, a conception already familiar in theOld Testament [Psalm 144:11-13], but furnished with a wider and more varied content in the words ofChrist. It may be taken to mean, according to the context, theMessianic Kingdom in itstrue spiritual sense, i.e. theChurch of God whichChrist came to found, wherein to store up and perpetuate the benefits of theIncarnation (cf. Theparables of the wheat and the tares, the dragnet, and the wedding feast), or the reign ofGod in the heart that submits to His sovereignty (Luke 16:21), or the abode of theblessed (Matthew 5:20 etc.). It was the main topic of His preaching, which was occupied in showing what dispositions ofmind and heart and will, werenecessary for entrance into "the Kingdom", what, in other words, was the Christian ideal. Regarded as theChurch, He preached theKingdom to the multitude inparables only, reserving fuller explanations to private intercourse with HisApostles (Acts 1:3).

The last greatdogma which we learn from thelife, preaching, and death ofChrist is thedoctrine ofRedemption. "For theSon of Man also came not to be ministered unto but to minister, and to give Hislife aredemption for many" (Mark 10:45). Thesacrificial character of His death is clearly stated at theLast Supper: "This is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission ofsins" (Matthew 26:28). And He ordained the perpetuation of thatSacrifice by His Disciples in the words: "Do this in commemoration of me" (Luke 22:19).Christ, knowing the counsels of His Father, deliberately set Himself to realize in His ownperson the portrait of the suffering servant ofJahveh, so vividlypainted byIsaias (chapter 53), aMessias Who should triumph through death and defeat. This was a strangerevelation toIsrael and the world. What wonder that so novel anidea could not enter theApostles'minds till it had actually been realized and further explained by theDivine Victim himself (Luke 24:27, 45). Thus, first of all in action,Christ preached the greatdoctrine of the Atonement, and, by raising Himself from the dead, He added anotherproof to those establishing His Divine mission and His Divinepersonality. But, naturally enough, He left the more explicit teaching on these points to His chosenwitnesses, whose presentment of Christianity we shall presently examine.

To turn now to what is new in themoral teachings ofChrist, we may say, once for all, that it embodiedethical perfection. There may be development ofdoctrine, but, after the Sermon on the Mount, there can be no further evolution ofmorals.God's own perfection is set as the standard (Matthew 5:48).Duty was the principal motive in the Old Dispensation; in the New this was sublimated intolove.Men were taught to serve not on account of the penal ties attached to non-service, but on principles of generosity. Before,God's will was to be the aim of the creature's performance; now, His good pleasure also was to be sought. "What things are pleasing to Him, these do I always" (John 8:29), and by action even more than by wordChrist taught the lesson ofvoluntary self-sacrifice. Never till Histime were the Evangelical counsels — voluntary poverty, perpetualchastity, and entire obedience — preached or practised. From no previousmoral code, however, exalted, could theBeatitudes have been evolved. Meekness andhumility were unknown asvirtues to theheathen, and despised by theJew.Christ made them the ground-work of the wholemoral edifice. To realize what new thingChrist'sethical teaching brought into the world and put within the grasp of everyone, we have only to think of the great host of the Christiansaints. For they are thetruedisciples of the Cross, those who imbibed and expressed His spirit best, who had thecourage to test thetruth of that Divine paradox which forms the substance ofChrist'smoral message; "He that shall wish to save hissoul shall lose it, but he that shall lose hissoul on my account shall find it" (Matthew 16:25; cf.Mark 8:35;Luke 9:24;17:33;John 12:25). That was the course He Himself adopted — the way of the Cross — and Hisdisciples were not above their Master. Self-conquest as a preliminary to conquering the world ofGod — that was the lesson taught byChrist'slife, and still more by His passion and death.

The teaching of the Apostles

Does the Christianity presented to us in the rest of the writings of theNew Testament differ from that described in theGospels? And if so, is the difference one of kind or one of degree? We have seen that Christianity must not be judged in the making, but as a finished product. It was never meant to be fully set forth in theGospels, where it is presented mainly in action. "I have yet many things to say to you: but you cannot bear them now", saidChrist in His last discourse. "But when he, the Spirit of truth is come, he will teach you alltruth . . . and the things that are to come he shall show you" (John 16:12, 13). We may presume thatChrist Himself told them these many things when "He showed himself alive after his passion, by manyproofs, for forty days appearing to them, and speaking of thekingdom of God" (Acts 1:3), and that they were rendered permanent in theminds of theApostles by the indwelling of the Spirit of Truth after Pentecost. Accordingly, we must expect to find in their teaching a more formal, more theoretic, and moredogmatic exposition of Christianity than in the drama ofChrist'slife. But what we have noright to expect, and whatrationalists always do expect, is to find the whole of Christianity in its written records.Christ nowhere prescribed writing as a means of promulgating Hisgospel. It was comparatively late in theApostolic Age, and apparently in obedience to no preconceived plan, that thesacred books began to appear. Many Christians must have lived and died before those books existed, or withoutknowledge of them. And so we cannot argue from the non-appearance of any particular tenet to its non-existence, nor from its first mention to its first invention — fallacies which often vitiate the erudite researches of therationalists.

The main heads of theApostolic preaching, as far as we can gather from the records, vary with thecharacter of the audiences they addressed. To theJews they dwelt upon the marvellous fulfilment of the prophesies inChrist, showing that, in spite of the manner of Hislife and death, He was actually theMessias, and that theirredemption fromsin had really been accomplished by His sacrifice on the Cross. This was the burden of St. Peter's discourses (Acts 2 and3) and those ofSt. Stephen and all who addressed theJews in theirsynagogues (cf.Acts 26:22-23). Once convinced of the reality ofChrist's mission and the sealGod set upon it by HisResurrection, they were received into theChristian body to discover more at leisure all the implications of theirbelief. In regard to theGentiles, the same striking fact of theResurrection was in the forefront of theApostolic teaching, but more stress was laid upon the divinity ofChrist. Still,St. Paul, whose peculiar mission it was to approve the newrevelation to those that sat in darkness and had no common ground ofbelief with theJews, did not consider that his Gospel was anything different from that of the others. "I have laboured more abundantly than all they: yet not I, but thegrace of God with me: for,whether I, or they, so we preach, and you havebelieved" (1 Corinthians 15:10-11).

This definiteness and uniformity of content in theApostolic message, and this sense of responsibility in regard to itscharacter, is still more strikingly emphasized by the sameApostle in thenext Epistle, wherein, rebuking theGalatians for giving heed toinnovators "who would pervert theGospel of Christ", he exclaims: 'Yet, though we ourselves or anangel fromheaven preach agospel other than that we have preached to you, let him beaccursed" (Galatians 1:7, 8). There is no trace here of uncertainty orignorance as to what Christianity meant, or of any tentative groping in search oftruth. Even then, whentheological science was in its infancy, we find theApostle exhortingTimothy to keep to the very phrases in which he has received theFaith, "the form of sound words", avoiding "profane novelties of expression" (1 Timothy 6:20;2 Timothy 1:13). Once again "Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold thetraditions which you have learned, whether by word or by ourepistle" (2 Thessalonians 2:14). And thosetraditions were directly communicated byChrist Himself to HisApostle, as he tells us in many passages — "For I have received of theLord that which also I delivered unto you" (1 Corinthians 11:23), and again "For I delivered unto you first of all what I received" (1 Corinthians 15:3).

Manyrationalists have professed to discover in theapostolic writings various kinds of Christianity mutually antagonistic and all alike illegitimate developments of the original Gospel. We havePauline, Petrine,Joannine Christianity, as distinguished from the Christianity ofChrist. But those theories which ignoreCatholic tradition andsupernatural guidance, and rest on thewritten records alone, are gradually being abandoned, helped to their disappearance by the critics themselves, who have little respect for each others' hypotheses. We may take theApostolic messages as one self-consistent whole, any apparent discrepancies or want of coherence being amply accounted for by the different circumstances of their deliverance.

This preaching, therefore, reduced to its simplest form, was: TheResurrection of Christ as aproof of His Divinity andIncarnation, a guarantee of His teaching and a pledge ofman'ssalvation.

On the historic fact of theResurrection the whole of Christianity is based. If He was not truly slain,Christ cannot have beenman; if he did notrise again, He cannot have beenGod.St. Paul does not hesitate to stake everything on thetruth of this fact: IfChrist be notrisen again, then is our preaching vain, and yourfaith also is vain. Yea, and we are foundfalsewitnesses ofGod" (1 Corinthians 15:14-15). Consequently,God's providence has so arranged matters that theproofs ofChrist's Resurrection place the fact beyond all reasonabledoubt.

But ifSt. Paul is so emphatic about the foundation of the ChristianFaith, he is also careful to erect the edifice upon it. It is to him that we owe the statement of thedoctrine of grace, that wonderfulgift of God toregenerateman.Christ had already taught, in the allegory of the vine and the branches (John 15:1-17), that there can be no salutary action on the part of thefaithful without vital communication with Him. This greattruth is expanded in many passages bySt. Paul (Philippians 2:13;Romans 8:9-11;1 Corinthians 15:10;2 Corinthians 3:5;Galatians 4:5-6) whereinregenerateman learns that he isGod's adopted son and united with Him by the indwelling of HisHoly Spirit. Thisprivilege is whatman gains byChrist's redemption, the benefits of which are applied to hissoul bybaptism and othersacraments. AndSt. Paul is not only the chief exponent of thisdoctrine, but he alone of theApostles promulgates anew themystery of the Blessed Eucharist, the principal fountain of grace (1 Corinthians 11:23, 24; cf.John 4:13-14).

We need not pursue farther the development ofdoctrine amongst theApostles. The Christianity they preached was received fromChrist Himself, and His Spirit prevented them from misconceiving or misinterpreting it. On the strength of His commission they insisted on the obedience offaith, theydenouncedheresy, and with skill, incredible had it not been Divine, they preserved thetruth committed to them in the midst of a perverse, subtle and corrupt civilization. That same Divine skill has remained with Christianity ever since;heresy afterheresy has attacked theFaith and been defeated, leaving the fortress all the more impregnable for its onset. The Christianity we profess today is the Christianity ofChrist and HisApostles. Just as they were more explicit than He in its verbal formulation, so theApostolic Church has ever since laboured to express more and more clearly the treasures ofdoctrine originally committed to her charge. In a sense, we maybelieve more than our first Christian ancestors, inasmuch as we have a more completeknowledge of the contents of ourFaith; in a sense, theybelieved all that we do, for they accepted as we the principle of a Divinely-commissioned teaching authority, to whosedogmatic utterances they were ever prepared to give assent. The same essential oneness offaith and the same variety in its content for theindividual exist side by side in theChurch today. The trainedtheologian, deeply versed in the wonders ofrevelation, and the young or the uneducated whoknow explicitly little more than the bare essentials of Christianity, knowing theOne True God, andJesus Christ whom He hath sent,believing in theIncarnation, the Atonement, theChurch, are equally Christians, equally possessed of the integrity offaith.

The divine purpose in Christianity

It remains now to set forth, as far as we can determine it from thesacred records and from the course of history itself, the purpose ofGod in establishing Christianity. We gather that the Divine founder meant Christianity to be (1) a universal religion, (2) a perfect religion, (3) a visibly organized religion.

Universality includes both space and time

As regardsspace, we see that Christianity is intended for the whole world

The universality of Christianity, intime as well asspace, is implied inChrist's promise, "Behold, I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world" (Matthew 28:20). It follows, furthermore, from the next element inGod's purpose to be considered.

Christianity is meant to be a perfect religion

A priori, we should expect that a religious system which was revealed and instituted, not by aprophet or even anangel, but by the personal action ofGod Himself, and was designed, moreover, to supplant an imperfect and provisional form of religion, would lack nothing of possible perfection in end or means.Christ's own teaching satisfied this expectation, and precludes the notion entertained by some earlyheretics, and still alive in theminds ofmen, of a fuller and more perfectrevelation to come.

We are compelled, therefore, tobelieve that the Christianrevelation closed with the death of the last ofthose originally commissioned to set it forth. We are thus brought counter to a modern view regardingrevelation which has lately been condemned asheretical byPius X (Encyclical, "Pascendi Gregis", Sept., 1907). It is to the effect thatrevelation is nothing external, but a clearer and closer apprehension of things Divine by the Christianconsciousness, which in each particular age is the expression of the experience of the best men of that age. Consequently,revelation grows, like a material organism, by waste and renewed supply, and therefore what istruth for one age maybe quite different from what istruth for another. Theerror which has these developments is ultimatelyphilosophical, being based on thefalse assumption that the finitemind canknow only the phenomenal and can have nocertainty of what is beyond experience. Were that so, any externalrevelation would be impossible, for its guarantees —miracle andprophecy — could not be grasped byhumanintelligence. Theseerrors were long ago exposed and condemned by theVatican Council. The most casual glance at the history of Christianity shows that there has been development ofdoctrine; theCreed grew only gradually; but that development is merelylogical, produced byanalysis of the content of the original deposit. (See DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE.)

God intended, in the third place, that Christianity should be a visible organization

Christ established aChurch and, in a variety ofparables, sketched many of the features of its character and history, all of which point to something external and perceptible by the senses. It is the "house built upon a rock" (Matthew 7:24), showing the security and permanence of its foundation, and "the city set upon a hill" (Matthew 5:14) indicating its visibility. Itsdoctrine works in the three great races descended fromNoe's sons like the leaven hidden in three measures of meal, silently, irresistibly (Matthew 13:33). It grows great from humble beginnings, like the mustard seed (Luke 13:19). It is a vineyard, a sheep-fold, and finally a kingdom, all of which images are unintelligible if the bond that unites Christians is merely the invisible bond of charity.

The old distinction between the body andsoul of theChurch is useful to prevent confusion ofideas. Christianbaptism constitutes membership in the VisibleChurch; the state of grace, membership in the Invisible. It is obvious that one membership does not necessarily connote the other. Some of theseparables apply only to theChurch fully developed, and so they indicateChrist's ultimate purpose. History shows us that, in establishing Christianity as an institution, He was content that on its human side its organization should be subject to the samelaws of growth and development as otherhuman institutions. He did not give HisApostles a draft scheme of theChurch's constitution beforehand, to be worked out in the course of ages, prescribing the various stages of progress, and indicating the final term. But the organization which existed in germ in theconsecratedhierarchy of theapostles was left to unfold itself under the guidance of the abiding Spirit, according to the needs oftime and place. The presence of theHoly Ghost andChrist'spromise sufficiently guarantee that the result, however obtained, is in accordance with the original design. It may well be that the development was very largely natural, modelled, first of all, on thesynagogue, and then on the existingcivil government; its progress may have been hastened or retarded by thepassions ofindividuals, but any account of it that ignores the directing finger of Providence cannot betrue.

This, then, is Christianity, asupernatural religion and the only absolute one; in a sense (developed in theEpistle to the Hebrews), the oldest, for theChurch is not an afterthought, but instituted byGod in the fullness oftime, and containing arevelation of Himself, which all to whom it has been adequately presented are bound under pain ofeternal loss to accept (Mark 16:16), offering to all, who are sincere in seeking, the solution of all the world's problems; enablinghumannature to rise to the sublimest heights and "to play theimmortal"; full itself ofmysteries and Divine paradoxes, as bringing theInfinite into contact with the finite; the one bond of civilization, the one condition of progress, the onehope ofhumanity. Its fortunes have been the fortunes of itsFounder; "not allobey thegospel" (Romans 10:16). TheJews rejectedChrist in spite of the evidence ofprophecy andmiracle; the world rejects theChurch of Christ, the "city set upon a hill", conspicuous though she be through the notes that proclaim her Divine. Whatmen call the failure of Christianity is noproof that it is notGod's finalrevelation. It only makes evident how real is humanliberty and how grave human responsibility. Christianity is furnished with all thenecessary evidence to create conviction of itstruth, given goodwill. — "He that hath ears to hear, let him hear".

CONTACT US |ADVERTISE WITH NEW ADVENT