ested against losing their insularity, but
would they have done so afterwards, when the water which divided them
from each other was gone, and they knew that they were part of the
great mountain which before they had only dimly seen, obscured by the
mists rising from the sea?
[1] See C. Montefiore, _Judaism and St. Paul_.
[2] 1 Cor. viii. 6.
[3] Irenaeus, _Apostolic Preaching_, p. 3.
[4] I would emphasise the word popular. The great missionaries were
doubtless inspired by the desire to save others, by the will to
minister rather than be ministered to, and by a readiness to give their
lives as a ransom for others, but their converts were otherwise minded.
[5] This statement would be required to be modified for detailed
application to various classes both among Christians and among
initiates in the other cults. In all cults there was probably an
uneducated substratum which thought very little about the subject. It
was satisfied with the fact of salvation, and was not specially
interested in its method. On the other hand, the educated with a
metaphysical tendency were interested in the relation of the Lord of
the cult to the Supreme God, and this might, in time, have produced
something similar to the Christological speculations of the fourth
century. Apuleius seems to identify the Supreme God with the Lord in a
manner which at times reminds the reader of Sabellian Christianity. On
the other hand, Heliogabalus seems to have produced a complete amalgam
between Mithras and Helios, and reminds us of the tendency of
uneducated Christianity in all generations to make the gospel become
the preaching of the new God, or the true God, Jesus, of which I heard
a somewhat extreme example from a preacher who maintained fervidly that
Jehovah was the Hebrew of Jesus.
[6] See the last chapter of F. C. Burkitt's _The Gospel History and its
Transmission_. This chapter is a most clear-sighted analysis of one of
the essentials of Catholic truth as opposed to error, and I venture to
say this because its importance seems in general to be overlooked.
[7] See _Prolegomena to Acts_, pp. 332 ff.
[8] From which indeed Plato had probably obtained it. He justified it,
handily enough, from his doctrine of Ideas, but scarcely derived it
thence. The triumph of Aristotle destroyed his justification, but the
parent stream flowed on placidly, undisturbed by thought.
[9] This has much in common with Origen's teaching, but unfor
|