He regarded himself as a _Peraklit_ to his disciples,[11] and the
Spirit which was to come after his death would only take his place.
This was an application of the process which the Jewish and Christian
theologies would follow during centuries, and which was to produce a
whole series of divine assessors, the _Metathronos_, the _Synadelphe_
or _Sandalphon_, and all the personifications of the Cabbala. But in
Judaism, these creations were to remain free and individual
speculations, whilst in Christianity, commencing with the fourth
century, they were to form the very essence of orthodoxy and of the
universal doctrine.
[Footnote 1: Matt. xix. 3, and following.]
[Footnote 2: Matt. xxviii. 19. Comp. Matt. iii. 16, 17; John xv. 26.]
[Footnote 3: _Sap._ i. 7, vii. 7, ix. 17, xii. 1; _Eccles._ i. 9, xv.
5, xxiv. 27; xxxix. 8; _Judith_ xvi. 17.]
[Footnote 4: Matt. x. 20; Luke xii. 12, xxiv. 49; John xiv. 26, xv.
26.]
[Footnote 5: Matt. iii. 11; Mark i. 8; Luke iii. 16; John i. 26, iii.
5; _Acts_ i. 5, 8, x. 47.]
[Footnote 6: _Acts_ ii. 1-4, xi. 15, xix. 6. Cf. John vii. 39.]
[Footnote 7: John xv. 26, xvi. 13.]
[Footnote 8: To _Peraklit_ was opposed _Katigor_, ([Greek:
kategoros]), the "accuser."]
[Footnote 9: John xiv. 16; 1st Epistle of John ii. 1.]
[Footnote 10: John xiv. 26, xv. 26, xvi. 7, and following. Comp.
Philo, _De Mundi opificio_, Sec. 6.]
[Footnote 11: John xiv. 16. Comp. the epistle before cited, _l.c._]
It is unnecessary to remark how remote from the thought of Jesus was
the idea of a religious book, containing a code and articles of faith.
Not only did he not write, but it was contrary to the spirit of the
infant sect to produce sacred books. They believed themselves on the
eve of the great final catastrophe. The Messiah came to put the seal
upon the Law and the Prophets, not to promulgate new Scriptures. With
the exception of the Apocalypse, which was in one sense the only
revealed book of the infant Christianity, all the other writings of
the apostolic age were works evoked by existing circumstances, making
no pretensions to furnish a completely dogmatic whole. The Gospels
had at first an entirely personal character, and much less authority
than tradition.[1]
[Footnote 1: Papias, in Eusebius, _Hist. Eccl._, iii. 39.]
Had the sect, however, no sacrament, no rite, no sign of union? It had
one which all tradition ascribes to Jesus. One of the favorite ideas
of the master was that
|