19: "Immo inquiunt Marcionitae, deus noster, etsi non ab initio, etsi non per conditionem, sed per semetipsum revelatus est in Christi Jesu." The very fact that different theological tendencies (schools) appeared within Marcionite Christianity and were mutually tolerant, proves that the Marcionite Church itself was not based on a formulated system of faith. Apelles expressly conceded different forms of doctrine in Christendom, on the basis of faith in the Crucified and a common holy ideal of life (see p. 267).]

[Footnote 375: Tertull., I, 13. "Narem contrahentes impudentissimi Marcionitae convertuntur ad destructionem operum creatoris. Nimirum, inquiunt, grande opus et dignum deo mundus?" The Marcionites (Iren., IV.

34. 1) put the question to their ecclesiastical opponents, "Quid novi attulit dominus veniens?" and therewith caused them no small embarra.s.sment.]

[Footnote 376: On these see Tertull. I. 19; II. 28. 29; IV. 1, 4, 6; Epiph. Hippol., Philos. VII. 30; the book was used by other Gnostics also (it is very probable that 1 Tim. VI. 20, an addition to the Epistle--refers to Marcion's Ant.i.theses). Apelles, Marcion's disciple, composed a similar work under the t.i.tle of "Syllogismi." Marcion's Ant.i.theses, which may still in part be reconstructed from Tertullian, Epiphanius, Adamantius, Ephraem, etc., possessed canonical authority in the Marcionite church, and therefore took the place of the Old Testament. That is quite clear from Tertull., I. 19 (cf. IV. 1): Separatio legis et Evangelii proprium et princ.i.p.ale opus est Marcionis, nee poterunt negare discipuli ejus, quod in summo (suo) instrumento habent, quo denique initiantur et indurantur in hanc haeresim.]

[Footnote 377: Tertullian has frequently pointed to the contradictions in the Marcionite conception of the G.o.d of creation. These contradictions, however, vanish as soon as we regard Marcion's G.o.d from the point of view that he is like his revelation in the Old Testament.]

[Footnote 378: The creator of the world is indeed to Marcion "malignus", but not "malus."]

[Footnote 379: Marcion touched on it when he taught that the "visibilia"

belonged to the G.o.d of creation, but the "invisibilia" to the good G.o.d (I. 16). He adopted the consequences, inasmuch as he taught docetically about Christ, and only a.s.sumed a deliverance of the human soul.]

[Footnote 380: See especially the third book of Tertull., adv. Marcion.]

[Footnote 381: "Solius bonitatis", "deus melior", were Marcion's standing expressions for him.]

[Footnote 382: "Deus incognitus" was likewise a standing expression.

They maintained against all attacks the religious position that, from the nature of the case, believers only can know G.o.d, and that this is quite sufficient (Tertull., 1. 11).]

[Footnote 383: Marcion firmly emphasised this and appealed to pa.s.sages in Paul; see Tertull., I. 11, 19, 23: "scio dicturos, atquin hanc esse princ.i.p.alem et perfectam bonitatem, c.u.m sine ullo debito familiaritatis in extraneos voluntaria et libera effunditur, secundum quam inimicos quoque nostros et hoc nomine jam extraneos deligere jubeamur." The Church Fathers therefore declared that Marcion's good G.o.d was a thief and a robber. See also Celsus, in Orig. VI. 53.]

[Footnote 384: See Esnik's account, which, however, is to be used cautiously.]

[Footnote 385: Marcion has strongly emphasised the respective pa.s.sages in Luke's Gospel: see his Ant.i.theses, and his comments on the Gospel, as presented by Tertullian (l. IV).]

[Footnote 386: That can be plainly read in Esnik, and must have been thought by Marcion himself, as he followed Paul (see Tertull., l. V. and I. 11). Apelles also emphasised the death upon the cross. Marcion's conception of the purchase can indeed no longer be ascertained in its details. But see Adamant., de recta in deum fide, sect. I. It is one of his theoretic contradictions that the good G.o.d who is exalted above righteousness should yet purchase men.]

[Footnote 387: Tertull. I. 6: "Marcion non negat creatorem deum esse."]

[Footnote 388: Here Tertull., I. 27, 28, is of special importance; see also II. 28: IV. 29 (on Luke XII. 41-46): IV. 30. Marcion's idea was this. The good G.o.d does not judge or punish; but He judges in so far as he keeps evil at a distance from Him: it remains foreign to Him.

"Marcionitae interrogati quid fiet peccatori cuique die illo? respondent abici illum quasi ab oculis." "Tranquilitas est et mansuetudinis segregare solummodo et partem ejus c.u.m infidelibus ponere." But what is the end of him who is thus rejected? "Ab igne, inquiunt, creatoris deprehendetur." We might think with Tertullian that the creator of the world would receive sinners with joy: but this is the G.o.d of the law who punishes sinners. The issue is twofold: the heaven of the good G.o.d, and the h.e.l.l of the creator of the world. Either Marcion a.s.sumed with Paul that no one can keep the law, or he was silent about the end of the "righteous" because he had no interest in it. At any rate, the teaching of Marcion closes with an outlook in which the creator of the world can no longer be regarded as an independent G.o.d. Marcion's disciples (see Esnik) here developed a consistent theory: the creator of the world violated his own law by killing the righteous Christ, and was therefore deprived of all his power by Christ.]

[Footnote 389: Schools soon arose in the Marcionite church, just as they did later on in the main body of Christendom (see Rhodon in Euseb, H. E.

V. 13. 2-4). The different doctrines of principles which were here developed (two, three, four principles; the Marcionite Marcus's doctrine of two principles in which the creator of the world is an evil being, diverges furthest from the Master), explain the different accounts of the Church Fathers about Marcion's teaching. The only one of the disciples who really seceded from the Master, was Apelles (Tertull., de praescr. 30). His teaching is therefore the more important, as it shews that it was possible to retain the fundamental ideas of Marcion without embracing dualism. The att.i.tude of Apelles to the Old Testament is that of Marcion, in so far as he rejects the book. But perhaps he somewhat modified the strictness of the Master. On the other hand, he certainly designated much in it as untrue and fabulous. It is remarkable that we meet with a highly honoured prophetess in the environment of Apelles: in Marcion's church we hear nothing of such, nay, it is extremely important as regards Marcion, that he has never appealed to the Spirit and to prophets. The "sanctiores feminae" Tertull. V. 8, are not of this nature, nor can we appeal even to V. 15. Moreover, it is hardly likely that Jerome ad Eph. III. 5, refers to Marcionites. In this complete disregard of early Christian prophecy, and in his exclusive reliance on literary doc.u.ments, we see in Marcion a process of despiritualising, that is, a form of secularisation peculiar to himself. Marcion no longer possessed the early Christian enthusiasm as, for example, Hermas did.]

[Footnote 390: Marcion was fond of calling Christ "Spiritus salutaris."

From the treatise of Tertullian we can prove both that Marcion distinguished Christ from G.o.d, and that he made no distinction (see, for example, I. 11, 14; II. 27; III. 8, 9, 11; IV. 7). Here again Marcion did not think theologically. What he regarded as specially important was that G.o.d has revealed himself in Christ, "per semetipsum." Later Marcionites expressly taught Patripa.s.sianism, and have on that account been often grouped with the Sabellians. But other Christologies also arose in Marcion's church, which is again a proof that it was not dependent on scholastic teaching, and therefore could take part in the later development of doctrines.]

[Footnote 391: See the beginning of the Marcionite Gospel.]

[Footnote 392: Tertullian informs us sufficiently about this. The body of Christ was regarded by Marcion merely as an "umbra", a "phantasma."

His disciples adhered to this, but Apelles first constructed a "doctrine" of the body of Christ.]

[Footnote 393: The strict asceticism of Marcion and the Marcionites is reluctantly acknowledged by the Church Fathers; see Tertull., de praescr.

30: "Sanctissimus magister"; I. 28, "carni imponit sanct.i.tem." The strict prohibition of marriage: I. 29: IV. 11, 17, 29, 34, 38: V. 7, 8, 15. 18; prohibition of food: I. 14; cynical life: Hippol., Philos. VII.

29; numerous martyrs: Euseb. H. E. V. 16, 21. and frequently elsewhere.

Marcion named his adherents (Tertull. IV. 9 36) "[Greek: suntalaiporoi kai summisoumenoi]." It is questionable whether Marcion himself allowed the repet.i.tion of baptism; it arose in his church. But this repet.i.tion is a proof that the prevailing conception of baptism was not sufficient for a vigorous religious temper.]

[Footnote 394: Tertull. I. 20. "Aiunt, Marcionem non tam innova.s.se regulam separatione legis et evangelii quam retro adulteratam recura.s.se." See the account of Epiphanius, taken from Hippolytus, about the appearance of Marcion in Rome (h. 42. 1, 2).]

[Footnote 395: Here again we must remember that Marcion appealed neither to a secret tradition, nor to the "Spirit," in order to appreciate the epoch-making nature of his undertaking.]

[Footnote 396: In his estimate of the twelve Apostles Marcion took as his standpoint Gal. II. See Tertull. I. 20: IV. 3 (generally IV. 1-6), V. 3; de praescr. 22. 23. He endeavoured to prove from this chapter that from a misunderstanding of the words of Christ, the twelve Apostles had proclaimed a different Gospel than that of Paul; they had wrongly taken the Father of Jesus Christ for the G.o.d of creation. It is not quite clear how Marcion conceived the inward condition of the Apostles during the lifetime of Jesus (See Tertull. III. 22: IV. 3. 39). He a.s.sumed that they were persecuted by the Jews as the preachers of a new G.o.d. It is probable, therefore, that he thought of a gradual obscuring of the preaching of Jesus in the case of the primitive Apostles. They fell back into Judaism; see Iren. III. 2. 2. "Apostolos admiscuisse ea quae sunt legalia salvatoris verbis"; III. 12. 12: "Apostoli quae sunt Judaeorum sentientes scripserunt" etc.; Tertull. V. 3: "Apostolos vultis Judaismi magis adfines subintelligi." The expositions of Marcion in Tertull. IV.

9, 11, 13, 21, 24, 39: V. 13. shew that he regarded the primitive Apostles as out and out real Apostles of Christ.]

[Footnote 397: The call of Paul was viewed by Marcion as a manifestation of Christ, of equal value with His first appearance and ministry; see the account of Esnik. "Then for the second time Jesus came down to the lord of the creatures in the form of his G.o.dhead, and entered into judgment with him on account of his death.... And Jesus said to him: 'Judgment is between me and thee, let no one be judge but thine own laws.... hast thou not written in this thy law, that he who killeth shall die?' And he answered, 'I have so written' ... Jesus said to him, 'Deliver thyself therefore into my hands' ... The creator of the world said, 'Because I have slain thee I give thee a compensation, all those who shall believe on thee, that thou mayest do with them what thou pleasest.' Then Jesus left him and carried away Paul, and shewed him the price, and sent him to preach that we are bought with this price, and that all who believe in Jesus are sold by this just G.o.d to the good one." This is a most instructive account; for it shews that in the Marcionite schools the Pauline doctrine of reconciliation was transformed into a drama, and placed between the death of Christ and the call of Paul, and that the Pauline Gospel was based, not directly on the death of Christ upon the cross, but on a theory of it converted into history. On Paul as the one apostle of the truth; see Tertull. I. 20: III. 5, 14: IV. 2 sq.: IV. 34: V. 1. As to a Marcionite theory that the promise to send the Spirit was fulfilled in the mission of Paul, an indication of the want of enthusiasm among the Marcionites, see the following page, note 2.]

[Footnote 398: Marcion must have spoken _ex professo_ in his Ant.i.theses about the Judaistic corruptions of Paul's Epistles and the Gospel. He must also have known Evangelic writings bearing the names of the original Apostles, and have expressed himself about them (Tertull. IV.

1-6).]

[Footnote 399: Marcion's self-consciousness of being a reformer, and the recognition of this in his church is still not understood, although his undertaking itself and the facts speak loud enough. (1) The great Marcionite church called itself after Marcion (Adamant., de recta in deum fide. I. 809; Epiph. h. 42, p. 668, ed. Oehler: [Greek: Markion sou to onoma epikeklentai hoi upo sou epatemenoi, hos seauton keruxantos kai ouchi Christon]. We possess a Marcionite inscription which begins: [Greek: sunagoge Markioniston]). As the Marcionites did not form a school, but a church, it is of the greatest value for shewing the estimate of the master in this church, that its members called themselves by his name. (2) The Ant.i.theses of Marcion had a place in the Marcionite canon (see above, p. 270). This canon therefore embraced a book of Christ, Epistles of Paul, and a book of Marcion, and for that reason the Ant.i.theses were always circulated with the canon of Marcion.

(3) Origen (in Luc. hom. 25. T. III. p. 962) reports as follows: "Denique in tantam quidam dilectionis audaciam proruperunt, ut nova quaedam et inaudita super Paulo monstra confingerent. Alli enim aiunt, hoc quod scriptum est, sedere a dextris salvatoris et sinistris, de Paulo et de Marcione dici, quod Paulus sedet a dextris, Marcion sedet a sinistris. Porro alii legentes: Mittam vobis advocatum Spiritum veritatis, nolunt intelligere tertiam personam a patre et filio, sed Apostolum Paulum." The estimate of Marcion which appears here is exceedingly instructive. (4) An Arabian writer, who, it is true, belongs to a later period, reports that Marcionites called their founder "Apostolorum principem." (5) Justin, the first opponent of Marcion, cla.s.sed him with Simon Magus and Menander, that is, with demonic founders of religion. These testimonies may suffice.]

[Footnote 400: On Marcion's Gospel see the Introductions to the New Testament and Zahn's Kanonsgeschichte, Bd. I., p. 585 ff. and II., p.

409. Marcion attached no name to his Gospel, which, according to his own testimony, he produced from the third one of our Canon (Tertull, adv.

Marc. IV. 2, 3, 4). He called it simply [Greek: euangelion (kuriou)], but held that it was the Gospel which Paul had in his mind when he spoke of his Gospel. The later Marcionites ascribed the authorship of the Gospel partly to Paul, partly to Christ himself, and made further changes in it. That Marcion chose the Gospel called after Luke should be regarded as a makeshift; for this Gospel, which is undoubtedly the most h.e.l.lenistic of the four Canonical Gospels, and therefore comes nearest to the Catholic conception of Christianity, accommodated itself in its traditional form but little better than the other three to Marcionite Christianity. Whether Marcion took it for a basis because in his time it had already been connected with Paul (or really had a connection with Paul), or whether the numerous narratives about Jesus as the Saviour of sinners, led him to recognise in this Gospel alone a genuine kernel, we do not know.]

[Footnote 401: The a.s.sociations of the Encrat.i.tes and the community founded by Apelles stood between the main body of Christendom and the Marcionite church. The description of Celsus (especially V. 61-64 in Orig.) shews the motley appearance which Christendom presented soon after the middle of the second century. He there mentions the Marcionites, and a little before (V. 59), the "great Church." It is very important that Celsus makes the main distinction consist in this, that some regarded their G.o.d as identical with the G.o.d of the Jews, whilst others again declared that "theirs was a different Deity who is hostile to that of the Jews, and that it was he who had sent the Son." (V. 61).]

[Footnote 402: One might be tempted to comprise the character of Marcion's religion in the words, "The G.o.d who dwells in my breast can profoundly excite my inmost being. He who is throned above all my powers can move nothing outwardly." But Marcion had the firm a.s.surance that G.o.d has done something much greater than move the world: he has redeemed men from the world, and given them the a.s.surance of this redemption, in the midst of all oppression and enmity which do not cease.]

CHAPTER VI.

APPENDIX: THE CHRISTIANITY OF THE JEWISH CHRISTIANS

1. Original Christianity was in appearance Christian Judaism, the creation of a universal religion on Old Testament soil. It retained therefore, so far as it was not h.e.l.lenised, which never altogether took place, its original Jewish features. The G.o.d of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob was regarded as the Father of Jesus Christ, the Old Testament was the authoritative source of revelation, and the hopes of the future were based on the Jewish ones. The heritage which Christianity took over from Judaism, shews itself on Gentile Christian soil, in fainter or distincter form, in proportion as the philosophic mode of thought already prevails, or recedes into the background.[403] To describe the appearance of the Jewish, Old Testament, heritage in the Christian faith, so far as it is a religious one, by the name Jewish Christianity, beginning at a certain point quite arbitrarily chosen, and changeable at will, must therefore necessarily lead to error, and it has done so to a very great extent. For this designation makes it appear as though the Jewish element in the Christian religion were something accidental, while it is rather the case that all Christianity, in so far as something alien is not foisted into it, appears as the religion of Israel perfected and spiritualised. We are therefore not justified in speaking of Jewish Christianity, where a Christian community, even one of Gentile birth, calls itself the true Israel, the people of the twelve tribes, the posterity of Abraham; for this transfer is based on the original claim of Christianity and can only be forbidden by a view that is alien to it. Just as little may we designate Jewish Christian the mighty and realistic hopes of the future which were gradually repressed in the second and third centuries. They may be described as Jewish, or as Christian; but the designation Jewish Christian must be rejected; for it gives a wrong impression as to the historic right of these hopes in Christianity. The eschatological ideas of Papias were not Jewish Christian, but Christian; while, on the other hand, the eschatological speculations of Origen were not Gentile Christian, but essentially Greek. Those Christians who saw in Jesus the man chosen by G.o.d and endowed with the Spirit, thought about the Redeemer not in a Jewish Christian, but in a Christian manner. Those of Asia Minor who held strictly to the 14th of Nisan as the term of the Easter festival, were not influenced by Jewish Christian, but by Christian or Old Testament, considerations. The author of the "Teaching of the Apostles," who has transferred the rights of the Old Testament priests with respect to the first fruits, to the Christian prophets, shews himself by such transference not as a Jewish Christian, but as a Christian. There is no boundary here; for Christianity took possession of the whole of Judaism as religion, and it is therefore a most arbitrary view of history which looks upon the Christian appropriation of the Old Testament religion, after any point, as no longer Christian, but only Jewish Christian.

Wherever the universalism of Christianity is not violated in favour of the Jewish nation, we have to recognise every appropriation of the Old Testament as Christian. Hence this proceeding could be spontaneously undertaken in Christianity, as was in fact done.

2. But the Jewish religion is a national religion, and Christianity burst the bonds of nationality, though not for all who recognised Jesus as Messiah. This gives the point at which the introduction of the term "Jewish Christianity" is appropriate.[404] It should be applied exclusively to those Christians who really maintained in their whole extent, or in some measure, even if it were to a minimum degree, the national and political forms of Judaism and the observance of the Mosaic law in its literal sense, as essential to Christianity, at least to the Christianity of born Jews, or who, though rejecting these forms, nevertheless a.s.sumed a prerogative of the Jewish people even in Christianity (Clem., Homil. XI. 26: [Greek: ean ho allophulos ton nomon praxei, Ioudaios estin, me praxas de h.e.l.len]; "If the foreigner observe the law he is a Jew, but if not he is a Greek.")[405] To this Jewish Christianity is opposed, not Gentile Christianity, but the Christian religion, in so far as it is conceived as universalistic and anti-national in the strict sense of the term (Presupp. -- 3), that is, the main body of Christendom in so far as it has freed itself from Judaism as a nation.[406]

It is not strange that this Jewish Christianity was subject to all the conditions which arose from the internal and external position of the Judaism of the time; that is, different tendencies were necessarily developed in it, according to the measure of the tendencies (or the disintegrations) which a.s.serted themselves in the Judaism of that time.

It lies also in the nature of the case that, with one exception, that of Pharisaic Jewish Christianity, all other tendencies were accurately parallelled in the systems which appeared in the great, that is, anti-Jewish Christendom. They were distinguished from these, simply by a social and political, that is, a national element. Moreover, they were exposed to the same influences from without as the synagogue, and as the larger Christendom, till the isolation to which Judaism as a nation, after severe reverses condemned itself, became fatal to them also.

Consequently, there were besides Pharisaic Jewish Christians, ascetics of all kinds who were joined by all those over whom Oriental religious wisdom and Greek philosophy had won a commanding influence (see above, p. 242 f.)

In the first century these Jewish Christians formed the majority in Palestine, and perhaps also in some neighbouring provinces. But they were also found here and there in the West.

Now the great question is, whether this Jewish Christianity as a whole, or in certain of its tendencies, was a factor in the development of Christianity to Catholicism. This question is to be answered in the negative, and quite as much with regard to the history of dogma as with regard to the political history of the Church. From the stand-point of the universal history of Christianity, these Jewish Christian communities appear as rudimentary structures which now and again, as objects of curiosity, engaged the attention of the main body of Christendom in the East, but could not exert any important influence on it, just because they contained a national element.

The Jewish Christians took no considerable part in the Gnostic controversy, the epoch-making conflict which was raised within the pale of the larger Christendom about the decisive question, whether, and to what extent, the Old Testament should remain a basis of Christianity, although they themselves were no less occupied with the question.[407]

The issue of this conflict in favour of that party which recognised the Old Testament in its full extent as a revelation of the Christian G.o.d, and a.s.serted the closest connection between Christianity and the Old Testament religion, was so little the result of any influence of Jewish Christianity, that the existence of the latter would only have rendered that victory more difficult, unless it had already fallen into the background, as a phenomenon of no importance.[408] How completely insignificant it was is shewn not only by the limited polemics of the Church Fathers, but perhaps still more by their silence, and the new import which the reproach of Judaising obtained in Christendom after the middle of the second century. In proportion as the Old Testament, in opposition to Gnosticism, became a more conscious and accredited possession in the Church, and at the same time, in consequence of the naturalising of Christianity in the world, the need of regulations, fixed rules, statutory enactments etc., appeared as indispensable, it must have been natural to use the Old Testament as a holy code of such enactments. This procedure was no falling away from the original anti-Judaic att.i.tude, provided nothing national was taken from the book, and some kind of spiritual interpretation given to what had been borrowed. The "apostasy" rather lay simply in the changed needs. But one now sees how those parties in the Church, to which for any reason this progressive legislation was distasteful, raised the reproach of "Judaising,"[409] and further, how conversely the same reproach was hurled at those Christians who resisted the advancing h.e.l.lenising of Christianity, with regard, for example, to the doctrine of G.o.d, eschatology, Christology, etc.[410] But while this reproach is raised, there is nowhere shewn any connection between those described as Judaising Christians and the Ebionites. That they were identified off-hand is only a proof that "Ebionitism" was no longer known. That "Judaising" within Catholicism which appears, on the one hand, in the setting up of a Catholic ceremonial law (worship, const.i.tution, etc.), and on the other, in a tenacious clinging to less h.e.l.lenised forms of faith and hopes of faith, has nothing in common with Jewish Christianity, which desired somehow to confine Christianity to the Jewish nation.[411] Speculations that take no account of history may make out that Catholicism became more and more Jewish Christian. But historical observation, which reckons only with concrete quant.i.ties, can discover in Catholicism, besides Christianity, no element which it would have to describe as Jewish Christian. It observes only a progressive h.e.l.lenising, and in consequence of this, a progressive spiritual legislation which utilizes the Old Testament, a process which went on for centuries according to the same methods which had been employed in the larger Christendom from the beginning.[412] Baur's brilliant attempt to explain Catholicism as a product of the mutual conflict and neutralising of Jewish and Gentile Christianity, (the latter according to Baur being equivalent to Paulinism) reckons with two factors, of which, the one had no significance at all, and the other only an indirect effect, as regards the formation of the Catholic Church. The influence of Paul in this direction is exhausted in working out the universalism of the Christian religion, for a Greater than he had laid the foundation for this movement, and Paul did not realise it by himself alone. Placed on this height Catholicism was certainly developed by means of conflicts and compromises, not, however, by conflicts with Ebionitism, which was to all intents and purposes discarded as early as the first century, but as the result of the conflict of Christianity with the united powers of the world in which it existed, on behalf of its own peculiar nature as the universal religion based on the Old Testament. Here were fought triumphant battles, but here also compromises were made which characterise the essence of Catholicism as Church and as doctrine.[413]

A history of Jewish Christianity and its doctrines does not therefore, strictly speaking, belong to the history of dogma, especially as the original distinction between Jewish Christianity and the main body of the Church lay, as regards its principle, not in doctrine, but in policy. But seeing that the opinions of the teachers in this Church regarding Jewish Christianity, throw light upon their own stand-point, also that up till about the middle of the second century Jewish Christians were still numerous and undoubtedly formed the great majority of believers in Palestine,[414] and finally, that attempts--unsuccessful ones indeed--on the part of Jewish Christianity to bring Gentile Christians under its sway, did not cease till about the middle of the third century, a short sketch may be appropriate here.[415]

Justin vouches for the existence of Jewish Christians, and distinguishes between those who would force the law even on Gentile-Christians, and would have no fellowship with such as did not observe it, and those who considered that the law was binding only on people of Jewish birth, and did not shrink from fellowship with Gentile Christians who were living without the law. How the latter could observe the law and yet enter into intercourse with those who were not Jews, is involved in obscurity, but these he recognises as partakers of the Christian salvation and therefore as Christian brethren, though he declares that there are Christians who do not possess this large heartedness. He also speaks of Gentile Christians who allowed themselves to be persuaded by Jewish Christians into the observance of the Mosaic law, and confesses that he is not quite sure of the salvation of these. This is all we learn from Justin,[416] but it is instructive enough. In the first place, we can see that the question is no longer a burning one: "Justin here represents only the interests of a Gentile Christianity whose stability has been secured." This has all the more meaning that in the Dialogue Justin has not in view an individual Christian community, or the communities of a province, but speaks as one who surveys the whole situation of Christendom.[417] The very fact that Justin has devoted to the whole question only one chapter of a work containing 142, and the magnanimous way in which he speaks, shew that the phenomena in question have no longer any importance for the main body of Christendom.