The War and Unity | Page 3

the good of which men have been granted the vision in their minds and
souls will be attained. Otherwise interest in it will pass away, and the

hope of securing it, at least for a long time, will be lost.
Before we attempt to consider any of the problems presented by the
actual state of Christendom in connexion with the subject now before
us, let us go back in thought to the position of believers in Jesus Christ
of the first generation, when His own brief earthly life had ended. They
form a fellowship bound together by faith in their common Lord, by the
confident hopes with which that faith has inspired them, and the new
view of life and its duties which they have acquired. Soon indeed
instances occur in which the bonds between different members of the
body become strained, owing especially to differences of origin and
character in the elements of which it was composed. We have an
example at a very early point in the narrative of the book of Acts in the
dissatisfaction felt by believers from among Hellenistic Jews, who were
visiting, or had again taken up their abode at, Jerusalem, because a fair
share of the alms was not assigned to their poor by the Palestinian
believers, who had the advantage of being more permanently
established in the city, and were probably the majority. But the chiefs
among the brethren, the Apostles, take wise measures to remove the
grievance and prevent a breach.
A few years later a far more serious difference arises. Jewish believers
in Jesus had continued to observe the Mosaic Law. When converts
from among the Gentiles began to come in the question presented itself,
"Is observance of that Law to be required of them?" Only on condition
that it was would many among the Jewish believers associate with them.
In their eyes still all men who did not conform to the chief precepts of
this Law were unclean. It is possible that there were Jews of liberal
tendencies, men who had long lived among Gentiles, to whom this
difficulty may have seemed capable of settlement by some compromise.
But in the case of most Jews, not merely in Palestine, but probably also
in the Jewish settlements scattered through the Græco-Roman world,
religious scruples, ingrained through the instruction they had received
and the habits they had formed from child-hood, were deeply offended
by the very notion of joining in common meals with Gentiles, unless
they had fulfilled the same conditions as full proselytes to Judaism, the
so-called "proselytes of righteousness." On behalf, however, of

Gentiles who had adopted the Faith of Christ, it was felt that the
demand for the fulfilment of this condition of fellowship must be
resisted at once and to the uttermost. So St Paul held. To concede it
would have caused intolerable interference with Gentile liberty, and
hindrance to the progress of the preaching of the Gospel and its
acceptance in the world. And further--upon this consideration St Paul
insisted above all--the requirement that Gentiles should keep the Jewish
Law might be taken to imply, and would certainly encourage, an
entirely mistaken view of what was morally and spiritually of chief
importance; it would put the emphasis wrongly in regard to that which
was essential in order that man might be in a right relation to God and
in the way of salvation.
But the point in the history of this early controversy to which I desire in
connexion with our present subject to draw attention is the fact that it is
not suggested from any side that Jewish Christians and Gentile
Christians should form two separate bodies that would exist side by
side in the many cities where both classes were to be found, keeping to
their respective spheres, endeavouring to behave amicably to one
another, "agreeing to differ" as the saying is. This would have been the
plan, we may (I think) suppose, which would have seemed the best to
that worldly wisdom, which is so often seen to be folly when long and
broad views of history are taken. And we can imagine that not a few of
the ecclesiastical leaders of recent centuries might have proposed it, if
they had been there to do so. For never, perhaps, have there been more
natural reasons for separation than might have been found in those
national and racial differences, and in those incompatibilities due to
previous training and associations between Christians of Jewish and
Gentile origin. Yet it is assumed all through that they must combine.
And St Paul is not only sure himself that to this end Jewish prejudices
must be overcome, but he is able to persuade the elder Apostles of this,
as also James who presided over the believers at Jerusalem, though
they