an interesting one, that in view of Peter's probable deficiency in the knowledge of Greek, the differences between his two epistles are to be explained by his employment in their composition of different interpreters. The most recent German writers pronounce almost unanimously against its genuineness. Among other recent scholars who incline to the same conclusion are Hatch, Sanday, and Ramsay. The genuineness is defended by Plumptre, Lumby, Plummer, Salmon, and Spitta. Huther, Weiss, and Farrar remain undecided. For my part, I find the difficulties in the way of belief in its genuineness quite insurmountable. They are such as these: The author quotes the errorists as referring to the first generation of Christians as "the fathers" (iii. 4), thereby betraying the late date of the epistle, since such a mode of expression could not have been in use within the lifetime of Peter. He also betrays the late date of his writing by reckoning Paul's epistles among the ypapaí, thus placing them upon a level with the Old Testament (iii. 15, 16). He refers to widespread doubt respecting the near return of Christ as existing in his time (iii. 3, 4). He describes the heresies which he rebukes, now as if already present, and now as if future (cf. iii. 3 with iii. 4, 5), as though he was really living in the midst of them, but was trying to place himself back in thought into the apostolic age and to speak of them as future. It is extremely difficult to imagine Peter using the language of this epistle on any of these subjects. The marked difference in style and ideas between this epistle and 1 Peter also creates a very considerable difficulty.

As I have already intimated, the Biblical theologian cannot help feeling somewhat embarrassed in his work by the existing uncertainty respecting the authorship and date of some of the books which constitute his material. He can only follow what seems to him to be the probabilities and adopt a working hypothesis. He can, at least, expound the contents of the books themselves, although he may feel restricted in drawing confident conclusions in regard to certain points of history and comparative the

ology in the early Church. I shall accordingly summarize the teaching of the books which I have noticed in this chapter as representing, at least approximately, the primitive apostolic teaching. The writings may not all be so early as the traditional view supposes. It is possible that some of them fall outside the apostolic age. In any case, they are the principal sources of our knowledge of the simpler and less elaborated style of teaching which the New Testament presents and which must, on that account, stand in a certain contrast with the other apostolic writings.

CHAPTER II

THE DISCOURSES IN THE ACTS

THE material of which we have now to take account consists mainly of fragmentary reports of certain discourses and defences of the apostle Peter. To these must be added a prayer of the congregation (iii. 24 sq.), Philip's conversation with the Ethiopian chamberlain (viii. 30 sq.), and the defence of the almoner Stephen before the Sanhedrin (ch. vii.). Of importance for our purpose also are the forms and customs of the first Christians and, especially, the differences which arose over the terms on which Gentile converts should be admitted to the Church, and the deliberations of the apostolic convention at which those differences were adjusted. The first part of the Book of Acts is the principal source of our knowledge of the life and teaching of the early Church, and, while these chapters do not tell us all that we should like to know, they do furnish us a clear idea of the relations of the earliest Christians to their ancestral religion and of the principal points which they emphasized in their efforts to win men to belief in the messiahship of Jesus.

We have seen, in our study of the Gospels, that the immediate disciples of Christ did not suppose that in becoming Christians they had ceased to be adherents of the Jewish religion. They continued their attendance upon the worship of the synagogue and temple and their conformity, in general, to the requirements of the Jewish law. Their Master had, indeed, taught them the minor importance of all ceremonial observances, but he had not required them to discontinue the practice of Jewish rites. He had given them principles - such as that of the fulfilment of the law in the gospel-which were destined to

lead to the discontinuance of their practice of the Jewish ceremonial; but he preferred that this result should be accomplished gradually through the processes of their own growth and experience. He did not wish the old customs. and forms to be destroyed except by being replaced by more adequate beliefs and practices.

It was impossible, however, for the disciples to continue indefinitely in the attitude which they at first assumed. [They had adopted the belief that Jesus was the Messiah. This belief made the difference between Christians and Jews and would be certain to compel their ultimate separation from Judaism. The natural development of their Christian faith, and the course of events which was certain to issue from it, would make it inevitable that they must either go forward and carry out the principles of Christ to their logical issue, or go backward and imperil their allegiance to Christ by adhering to the legal system. And such proved to be the logic of events. One of the most interesting points in the history of the primitive Church is the development of the Church's consciousness of its Christian genius; the gradual realization of what its relation to Christ and his salvation involved and required. It was inevitable that the emergence from Judaism into Christianity, in its full import, should be slow, and attended by many perplexities. Some would accomplish it more readily than others; some would seek to maintain the two inconsistent standpoints. The great historical interest attaching to the early chapters of Acts arises from the fact that they enable us to trace the steps of this process by which the Church developed its Christian consciousness.

We learn from the Gospels that the two principal points in which the disciples failed to understand their Master's mission were, first, the nature of his Kingdom, and, second, the necessity of his death. Their difficulties in regard to both were largely due to their Jewish training. They had grown up in the belief that the Messianic Kingdom was to be an emancipated and triumphant Israel, and that the Messiah who should found it was to be a mighty King. The idea that he should suffer and die was contrary to all

their inherited beliefs. Hence we find the first disciples, notwithstanding their belief in Jesus' messiahship, protesting against his death, and wondering when the time would come when his real kingly power should be manifested in the restitution of the nation. The representations of Acts on this subject accord entirely with the description given fin the Gospels, and enable us to see how the Christian community gradually came to apprehend the principles of Jesus concerning his work and Kingdom.

The time soon came when the death of Jesus at the hands of the Jewish authorities put an end to all doubt and protest on the part of his followers. It was to them a bewildering and disheartening event. Up to the last they had continued to hope that the Messianic kingship lay veiled under the meek and quiet appearance of their Master, and would, on a sudden, assert itself and vanquish their enemies. But when the rulers, without hindrance, and almost without protest, put him to death, their hearts were struck with dismay. At first they considered his death to be also the death of all their hopes and the failure of the promised redemption of Israel (Lk. xxiv. 19, 20). While they brooded over their disappointment, they learned that he had risen from the grave. To one and another, and even to assembled companies of his disciples, he “manifested himself after his passion by many proofs" (Acts i. 3). It was the resurrection which rescued them from despair and kindled hope again in their hearts. There might still be a possibility of Israel's redemption, now that he had appeared as victor over death. In some way the expected Messianic deliverance might yet be accomplished. Perhaps his death was, after all, a part of the divine plan. Luke records how, after his resurrection, Jesus assured them that the Old Testament picture of Messiah represented him as suffering and dying (Lk. xxiv. 26, 27, 44– 46), and describes the attempts which the disciples made to find a place for this idea of Messiah's experience in the prophetic descriptions of his work (Acts ii. 25-28, 34, 35). These passages exhibit the first efforts which so far as we know the disciples made to adjust their minds to the