The following comments are upon extracts from the "Ecclesiastical History":--

It will be seen how much reference is made to the observance of the law and to what

was derived from it. It is also important to note how much insistence is placed on what

the twelve apostles of Israel said and did. They were the examples; Paul and the great

mystery are entirely ignored. In the 39th chapter of the 3rd book we see many names

mentioned, but not Paul's. Papias enquired much about the traditions of the twelve, and

places these traditions above what is written. All this has, of course, drawn the attention

of the critics, and men like Baur and Renan have understood that Paul was then

completely abandoned and that this teaching was not accepted. These critics did not

understand and believe Paul's latest writings, and they supposed therefore that all that

Eusebius tells us was only during a temporary revival of Judaism in the "church",

replacing Paul's gospel. They seem to think that the majority came back to Paul. It is,

however, easy to show from history that this supposition is not substantiated, and this has

been done by Bishop Lightfoot. He says that, amongst many others, Irenaeus would

certainly in this case have mentioned something about this "revolution" in the "church".

On the contrary, he always shows a gradual unfolding, starting from John and passing to

Papias, Polycarp, etc. There was no temporary change in the opinions of the first

Christians. We must conclude from this that they went on abandoning Paul. When we

understand the special character of Paul's teaching, we can quite see how it is possible for

Papias to turn away from Paul without being a real Judaising Christian. It was then that,

not believing Paul, they stuck to the twelve, because the only solution for them was to

suppose that the "church" came in the place of Israel. For us it is clear that those who left

Paul did not provoke a revolution, because practically the whole "church" did so from the

time of Paul on, as he himself says in II Timothy. At the time of the Reformation some

came a certain way back to Paul, and then we see a revolution. We who want to recover

all the truth revealed to this apostle are also treated as peace breakers.

Bishop Lightfoot, in his introduction to the Epistle to the Colossians, wonders why it

was still necessary, 300 years after this Epistle was written, for the Council of Laodicea

(363?) to curse those who kept not the Sabbath.

We need not be astonished about that, because the whole of Christendom did not pay

much attention to Paul's writings, and listened to the teaching of the twelve.

Concerning the ceremonies, it is interesting to note from Eusebius and others the

relationship between the Jewish Passover, the Christian Passover, the Roman Mass and

the Lord's Supper. We have no space here to show that the Roman Mass is a copy of the

Jewish ritual. From Eusebius we have seen how the Jewish feast was in part imitated by

the Christians. Those in Asia, including Polycarp, and the apostles, John and Philip,

followed carefully the Jewish ritual and added to it, three days later, a resurrection feast.

They ate a passover lamb on the evening of the 14th Nisan exactly as the Jews. This day

could of course be any day of the week. Their first difficulty was, therefore, that the