a little Galilean colony. The friends whom Jesus had made at Jerusalem
and in its environs, such as Lazarus, Martha, Mary of Bethany, Joseph of
Arimathea, and Nicodemus, had disappeared from the scene. The Galilean
group, who pressed around the Twelve, alone remained compact and
active. The proselytism of the faithful was chiefly carried on by means
of struggling conversions, in which the fervor of their souls was
communicated to their neighbors. Their preachings under the porticoes of
Solomon were addressed to circles not at all numerous. But the effect of
this was only the more profound. Their discourses consisted principally
of quotations from the Old Testament, by which it was sought to prove
that Jesus was the Messiah.
The real preaching was the private conversations of these good and
sincere men; it was the reflection, always noticeable in their
discourses, of the words of Jesus; it was, above all, their piety, their
gentleness. The attraction of communistic life carried with it also a
great deal of force. Their houses were a sort of hospitals, in which all
the poor and the forsaken found asylum and succor.
One of the first to affiliate himself with the rising society was a
Cypriote, named Joseph Hallevi, or the Levite. Like the others, he sold
his land and carried the price of it to the feet of the Twelve. He was
an intelligent man, with a devotion proof against everything, and a
fluent speaker. The apostles attached him closely to themselves and
called him _Barnaba_, that is to say, "the son of prophecy" or of
"preaching." He was accounted, in fact, of the number of the prophets,
that is to say, of the inspired preachers. Later on we shall see him
play a capital part. Next to St. Paul, he was the most active missionary
of the first century. A certain Mnason, his countryman, was converted
about the same time. Cyprus possessed many Jews. Barnabas and Mnason
were undoubtedly Jewish by race. The intimate and prolonged relations of
Barnabas with the Church at Jerusalem induces the belief that
Syro-Chaldaic was familiar to him.
A conquest, almost as important as that of Barnabas, was that of one
John, who bore the Roman surname of Marcus. He was a cousin of Barnabas,
and was circumcised. His mother, Mary, enjoyed an easy competency; she
was likewise converted, and her dwelling was more than once made the
rendezvous of the apostles. These two conversions appear to have been
the work of Peter.
The first flame was thus spread with great rapidity. The men, the most
celebrated of the apostolic century, were almost all gained over to the
cause in two or three years, by a sort of simultaneous attraction. It
was a second Christian generation, similar to that which had been formed
five or six years previously, upon the shores of Lake Tiberias. This
second generation had not seen Jesus, and could not equal the first in
authority. But it was destined to surpass it in activity and in its love
for distant missions. One of the best known among the new converts was
Stephen, who, before his conversion, appears to have been only a simple
proselyte. He was a man full of ardor and of passion. His faith was of
the most fervent, and he was considered to be favored with all the gifts
of the Spirit. Philip, who, like Stephen, was a zealous deacon and
evangelist, attached himself to the community about the same time. He
was often confounded with his namesake, the apostle. Finally, there were
converted at this epoch, Andronicus and Junia, probably husband and
wife, who, like Aquila and Priscilla, later on, were the model of an
apostolic couple, devoted to all the duties of missionary work. They
were of the blood of Israel, and were in the closest relations with the
apostles.
The new converts, when touched by grace, were all Jews by religion, but
they belonged to two very different classes of Jews. The one class was
the Hebrews; that is to say, the Jews of Palestine, speaking Hebrew or
rather Armenian, reading the Bible in the Hebrew text; the other class
was "Hellenists," that is to say, Jews speaking Greek, and reading the
Bible in Greek. These last were further subdivided into two classes, the
one being of Jewish blood, the other being proselytes, that is to say,
people of non-Israelitish origin, allied in divers degrees to Judaism.
These Hellenists, who almost all came from Syria, Asia Minor, Egypt, or
Cyrene, lived at Jerusalem in distinct quarters. They had their separate
synagogues, and formed thus little communities apart. Jerusalem
contained a great number of these special synagogues. It was in these
that the words of Jesus found the soil prepared to receive it and to
make it fructify.
The primitive nucleus of the Church at Jerusalem had been composed
wholly and exclusively of Hebrews; the Aramaic dialect, which was the
language of Jesus, was alone known and employed there. But we see that
from the second or third year after the death of Jesus, Greek was
introduced into the little community, where it soon became dominant. In
consequence of their daily relations with the new brethren, Peter, John,
James, Jude, and in general the Galilean disciples acquired the Greek
with much more facility than if they had already known something of it.
The Palestinian dialect came to be abandoned from the day in which
people dreamed of a widespread propaganda. A provincial _patois_, which
was rarely written, and which was not spoken beyond Syria, was as little
adapted as could be to such an object. Greek, on the contrary, was
necessarily imposed on Christianity. It was at the time the universal
language, at least for the eastern basin of the Mediterranean. It was,
in particular, the language of the Jews who were dispersed over the
Roman Empire.
The conversions to Christianity became soon much more numerous among the
"Hellenists" than among the "Hebrews." The old Jews at Jerusalem were
but little drawn toward a sect of provincials, moderately advanced in
the single science that a Pharisee appreciated--the science of the law.
The position of the little Church in regard to Judaism was, as with
Jesus himself, rather equivocal. But every religious or political party
carries in itself a force that dominates it, and obliges it, despite
itself, to revolve in its own orbit. The first Christians, whatever
their apparent respect for Judaism was, were in reality only Jews by
birth or by exterior customs. The true spirit of the sect came from
another source. That which grew out of official Judaism was the
_Talmud_; but Christianity has no affinity with the Talmudic school.
This is why Christianity found special favor among the parties the least
Jewish belonging to Judaism. The rigid orthodoxists took to it but
little; it was the newcomers, people scarcely catechized, who had not
been to any of the great schools, free from routine, and not initiated
into the holy tongue, which lent an ear to the apostles and the
disciples.
This family of simple and united brethren drew associates from every
quarter. In return for that which these brought, they obtained an
assured future, the society of a congenial brotherhood, and precious
hopes. The general custom, before entering the sect, was for each one to
convert his fortune into specie. These fortunes ordinarily consisted of
small rural, semi-barren properties, and difficult of cultivation. It
had one advantage, especially for unmarried people: it enabled them to
exchange these plots of land against funds sunk in an assurance society,
with a view to the Kingdom of God. Even some married people came to the
fore in that arrangement; and precautions were taken to insure that the
associates brought all that they really possessed, and did not retain
anything outside the common fund. Indeed, seeing that each one received
out of the latter a share, not in proportion to what one put in, but in
proportion to one's needs, every reservation of property was actually a
theft made upon the community. The Christian communism had religion for
a basis, while modern socialism has nothing of the kind.
Under such a social constitution, the administrative difficulties were
necessarily very numerous, whatever might be the degree of fraternal
feeling which prevailed. Between two factions of a community, whose
language was not the same, misapprehensions were inevitable. It was
difficult for well-descended Jews not to entertain some contempt for
their coreligionists who were less noble. In fact, it was not long
before murmurs began to be heard. The "Hellenists," who each day became
more numerous, complained because their widows were not so well treated
at the distributions as those of the "Hebrews." Till now, the apostles
had presided over the affairs of the treasury. But in face of these
protestations they felt the necessity of delegating to others this part
of their powers. They proposed to the community to confide these
administrative cares to seven experienced and considerate men. The
proposition was accepted. The seven chosen were Stephanas, or Stephen,
Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicholas. Stephen was
the most important of the seven, and, in a sense, their chief.
To the administrators thus designated were given the Syriac name of
_Schammaschin_. They were also sometimes called "the Seven," to
distinguish them from "the Twelve." Such, then, was the origin of the
diaconate, which is found to be the most ancient ecclesiastical
function, the most ancient of sacred orders. Later, all the organized
churches, in imitation of that of Jerusalem, had deacons. The growth of
such an institution was marvellous. It placed the claims of the poor on
an equality with religious services. It was a proclamation of the truth
that social problems are the first which should occupy the attention of
mankind. It was the foundation of political economy in the religious
sense. The deacons were the first preachers of Christianity. As
organizers, financiers, and administrators, they filled a yet more
important part. These practical men, in constant contact with the poor,
the sick, the women, went everywhere, observed everything, exhorted, and
were most efficacious in converting people. They accomplished more than
the apostles, who remained on their seats of honor at Jerusalem. They
were the founders of Christianity, in respect of that which it possessed
which was most solid and enduring.
At an early period women were admitted to this office. They were
designated, as in our day, by the name of "sisters." At first widows
were selected; later, virgins were preferred. The tact which guided the
primitive Church in all this was admirable. The grand idea of
consecrating by a sort of religious character and of subjecting to a
regular discipline the women who were not in the bonds of marriage, is
wholly Christian. The term "widow" became synonymous with religious
person, consecrated to God, and, by consequence, a "deaconess." In those
countries where the wife, at the age of twenty-four, is already faded,
where there is no middle state between the infant and the old woman, it
was a kind of new life, which was created for that portion of the human
species the most capable of devotion. These women, constantly going to
and fro, were admirable missionaries of the new religion.
The bishop and the priest, as we now know them, did not yet exist.
Still, the pastoral ministry, that intimate familiarity of souls, not
bound by ties of blood, had already been established. This latter has
ever been the special gift of Jesus, and a kind of heritage from him.
Jesus had often said that to everyone he was more than a father and a
mother, and that in order to follow him it was necessary to forsake
those the most dear to us. Christianity placed some things above
family; it instituted brotherhood and spiritual marriage. The ancient
form of marriage, which placed the wife unreservedly in the power of the
husband, was pure slavery. The moral liberty of the woman began when the
Church gave to her in Jesus a guide and a confidant, who should advise
and console her, listen always to her, and on occasion counsel
resistance on her part. Woman needs to be governed, and is happy in so
being; but it is necessary that she should love him who governs her.
This is what neither ancient societies nor Judaism nor Islamism have
been able to do. Woman has never had, up to the present time, a
religious conscience, a moral individuality, an opinion of her own,
except in Christianity.
It was now about the year 36. Tiberius, at Capreæ, has little idea of
the enemy to the empire which is growing up. In two or three years the
sect had made surprising progress. It numbered several thousand of the
faithful. It was already easy to foresee that its conquests would be
effected chiefly among the Hellenists and proselytes. The Galilean group
which had listened to the Master, though preserving always its
precedence, seemed as if swamped by the floods of newcomers speaking
Greek. One could already perceive that the principal parts were to be
played by the latter. At the time at which we are arrived no pagan, that
is to say, no man without some anterior connection with Judaism, had
entered into the Church. Proselytes, however, performed very important
functions in it. The circle _de provenance_ of the disciples had
likewise largely extended; it is no longer a simple little college of
Palestineans; we can count in it people from Cyprus, Antioch, and
Cyrene, and from almost all the points of the eastern coasts of the
Mediterranean, where Jewish colonies had been established. Egypt alone
was wanting in the primitive Church, and for a long time continued to be
so.
It was inevitable that the preachings of the new sect, although
delivered with so much reserve, should revive the animosities which had
accumulated against its Founder, and eventually brought about his death.
The Sadducee family of Hanan, who had caused the death of Jesus, was
still reigning. Joseph Caiaphas occupied, up to 36, the sovereign
pontificate, the effective power of which he gave over to his
father-in-law Hanan, and to his relatives, John and Alexander. These
arrogant and pitiless men viewed with impatience a troop of good and
holy people, without official title, winning the favor of the multitude.
Once or twice Peter, John, and the principal members of the apostolic
college were put in prison and condemned to flagellation. This was the
chastisement inflicted on heretics. The authorization of the Romans was
not necessary in order to apply it. As we might indeed suppose, these
brutalities only served to inflame the ardor of the apostles. They came
forth from the Sanhedrim, where they had just undergone flagellation,
rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for Him whom
they loved. Eternal puerility of penal repressions applied to things of
the soul! They were regarded, no doubt, as men of order, as models of
prudence and wisdom; these blunderers, who seriously believed in the
year 36 to gain the upper hand of Christianity by means of a few strokes
of a whip!
These outrages proceeded chiefly from the Sadducees, that is to say,
from the upper clergy, who crowded the Temple and derived from it
immense profits. We do not find that the Pharisees exhibited toward the
sect the animosity they displayed to Jesus. The new believers were
strict and pious people, somewhat resembling in their manner of life the
Pharisees themselves. The rage which the latter manifested against the
Founder arose from the superiority of Jesus--a superiority which he was
at no pains to dissimulate. His delicate railleries, his wit, his charm,
his contempt for hypocrites, had kindled a ferocious hatred. The
apostles, on the contrary, were devoid of wit; they never employed
irony. The Pharisees were at times favorable to them; many Pharisees had
even become Christians. The terrible anathemas of Jesus against
Pharisaism had not yet been written, and the accounts of the words of
the Master were neither general nor uniform. These first Christians
were, besides, people so inoffensive that many persons of the Jewish
aristocracy, who did not exactly form part of the sect, were well
disposed toward them. Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea, who had known
Jesus, remained no doubt with the Church in the bonds of brotherhood.
The most celebrated Jewish doctor of the age, Rabbi Gamaliel the elder,
grandson of Hillel, a man of broad and very tolerant ideas, spoke, it is
said, in the Sanhedrim in favor of permitting gospel preaching. The
author of the Acts credits him with some excellent reasoning, which
ought to be the rule of conduct of governments on all occasions when
they find themselves confronted with novelties of an intellectual or
moral order. "If this work is frivolous," said he, "leave it alone--it
will fall of itself; if it is serious, how dare you resist the work of
God? In any case, you will not succeed in stopping it." Gamaliel's words
were hardly listened to. Liberal minds in the midst of opposing
fanaticisms have no chance of succeeding.
A terrible commotion was produced by the deacon Stephen. His preaching
had, as it would appear, great success. Multitudes flocked around him,
and these gatherings resulted in acrimonious quarrels. It was chiefly
Hellenists, or proselytes, _habitués_ of the synagogue, called
_Libertini_, people of Cyrene, of Alexandria, of Cilicia, of Ephesus,
who took an active part in these disputes. Stephen passionately
maintained that Jesus was the Messiah, that the priests had committed a
crime in putting him to death, that the Jews were rebels, sons of
rebels, people who rejected evidence. The authorities resolved to
despatch this audacious preacher. Several witnesses were suborned to
seize upon some words in his discourses against Moses. Naturally they
found that for which they sought. Stephen was arrested and led into the
presence of the Sanhedrim. The sentence with which they reproached him
was almost identical with the one which led to the condemnation of
Jesus. They accused him of saying that Jesus of Nazareth would destroy
the Temple and change the traditions attributed to Moses. It is quite
possible, indeed, that Stephen had used such language. A Christian of
that epoch could not have had the idea of speaking directly against the
Law, inasmuch as all still observed it; as for traditions, however,
Stephen might combat them as Jesus had himself done; nevertheless, these
traditions were foolishly ascribed by the orthodox to Moses, and people
attributed to them a value equal to that of the written Law.
Stephen defended himself by expounding the Christian thesis, with a
wealth of citations from the written Law, from the Psalms, from the
Prophets, and wound up by reproaching the members of the Sanhedrim with
the murder of Jesus. "Ye stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart," said
he to them, "you will then ever resist the Holy Ghost as your fathers
also have done. Which of the prophets have not your fathers prosecuted?
They have slain those who announced the coming of the Just One, whom you
have betrayed, and of whom you have been the murderers. This law that
you have received from the mouth of angels you have not kept." At these
words a scream of rage interrupted him. Stephen, his excitement
increasing more and more, fell into one of those transports of
enthusiasm which were called the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. His
eyes were fixed on high; he witnessed the glory of God, and Jesus by the
side of his Father, and cried out, "Behold, I see the heavens opened,
and the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of God." The whole assembly
stopped their ears and threw themselves upon him, gnashing their teeth.
He was dragged outside the city and stoned. The witnesses, who,
according to the law, had to cast the first stones, divested themselves
of their garments and laid them at the feet of a young fanatic named
Saul, or Paul, who was thinking with secret joy of the renown he was
acquiring in participating in the death of a blasphemer.
In that epoch the persecutors of Christianity were not Romans; they were
orthodox Jews. The Romans preserved in the midst of this fanaticism a
principle of tolerance and of reason. If we can reproach the imperial
authority with anything it is with being too lenient, and with not
having cut short with a stroke the civil consequences of a sanguinary
law which visited with death religious derelictions. But as yet the
Roman domination was not so complete as it became later.
As Stephen's death may have taken place at any time during the years 36,
37, 38, we cannot, therefore, affirm whether Caiaphas ought to be held
responsible for it. Caiaphas was deposed by Lucius Vitellius, in the
year 36, shortly after the time of Pilate; but the change was
inconsiderable. He had for a successor his brother-in-law, Jonathan, son
of Hanan. The latter, in turn, was succeeded by his brother Theophilus,
son of Hanan, who continued the pontificate in the house of Hanan till
the year 42. Hanan was still alive, and, possessed of the real power,
maintained in his family the principles of pride, severity, hatred
against innovators, which were, so to speak, hereditary.
The death of Stephen produced a great impression. The proselytes
solemnized his funeral with tears and groanings. The separation of the
new sectaries from Judaism was not yet absolute. The proselytes and the
Hellenists, less strict in regard to orthodoxy than the pure Jews,
considered that they ought to render public homage to a man who
respected their constitution, and whose peculiar beliefs did not put him
without the pale of the law. Thus began the era of Christian martyrs.
The murder of Stephen was not an isolated event. Taking advantage of the
weakness of the Roman functionaries, the Jews brought to bear upon the
Church a real persecution. It seems that the vexations pressed chiefly
on the Hellenists and the proselytes, whose free behavior exasperated
the orthodox. The Church of Jerusalem, though already strongly
organized, was compelled to disperse. The apostles, according to a
principle which seems to have seized strong hold of their minds, did not
quit the city. It was probably so, too, with the whole purely Jewish
group, those who were denominated the "Hebrews." But the great community
with its common table, its diaconal services, its varied exercises,
ceased from that time, and was never reformed upon its first model. It
had endured for three or four years. It was for nascent Christianity an
unequalled good fortune that its first attempts at association,
essentially communistic, were so soon broken up. Essays of this kind
engender such shocking abuses that communistic establishments are
condemned to crumble away in a very short time or to ignore very soon
the principle upon which they are founded.
Thanks to the persecution of the year 37, the cenobitic Church of
Jerusalem was saved from the test of time. It was nipped in the bud
before interior difficulties had undermined it. It remained like a
splendid dream, the memory of which animated in their life of trial all
those who had formed part of it, like an ideal to which Christianity
incessantly aspires without ever succeeding in reaching its goal.