_________________________________________________________________

           Title: The Church and the Ministry in the Early Centuries
      Creator(s): Lindsay, Thomas Martin (1843-1914)
   CCEL Subjects: All; History;
      LC Call no: BV648
   LC Subjects:

   Practical theology

   Ecclesiastical theology Including the Church, church and state, etc.

   Church Polity
     _________________________________________________________________

                          THE CHURCH AND THE MINISTRY
                            IN THE EARLY CENTURIES

   The Eighteenth Series of 

   The Cunningham Lectures

   by

   Thomas Martin Lindsay, D.D.

   Principal of the Glasgow College of

   the United Free Church of Scotland

   Hodder and Stoughton
   London
   1903
     _________________________________________________________________

PREFACE

   The aim of these Lectures is to pourtray the organized life of the Christian
   Society as that was lived in the thousands of little communities formed by
   the proclamation of the Gospel of our Lord during the first three centuries.

   The method of description has been to select writings which seemed to reveal
   that life most clearly, and to group round the central sources of
   information illustrative evidence, contemporary or other. The principle of
   selection has been to take, as the central authorities, those writings
   which, when carefully examined, reveal the greatest number of details. Thus,
   the Epistles of St. Paul, especially the First Epistle to the Corinthians,
   have been chosen as furnishing the greatest number of facts going to form a
   picture of the life of the Christian Society during the first century, and
   the material derived from the other canonical writings such as the Acts of
   the Apostles, the Apocalypse and the Pastoral Epistles, have been arranged
   around them. Similarly the Didache, the Sources of the Apostolic Canons and
   the Epistles of Ignatius have been selected for the light they throw on the
   life and work of the Church during the second century. The Canons of
   Hippolytus, supplemented by the writings of Irenaeus and of Tertullian, have
   furnished the basis for the description of the organization during the
   first, and the Epistles of Cyprian of Carthage for that of the second half
   of the third century.

   The method used has the disadvantage of making necessary some repetitions,
   which the form of Lectures rendered the more inevitable; but it puts the
   reader in possession of the contemporary evidence in the simplest way.

   Quotations from the original authorities have been given in English for the
   most part, and, as a rule, the translations have been taken from well known
   versions—from the Ante-Nicene Library, from the late Bishop Lightfoot’s
   translations of Clement of Rome and of Ignatius, and from Messrs. Hitchcock
   and Brown’s version of the Didache. This has been done after consultation
   with friends whose advice seemed to be too valuable to be neglected.

   Dr. Moberly, in his eminently suggestive book, Ministerial Priesthood, has
   warned all students of early Church History to beware of mental
   presuppositions, unchallenged assumptions, hypotheses or postulates. The
   warning has been taken with all seriousness, even when the perusal of his
   book has suggested the thought that mental presuppositions, like sins, are
   more readily recognized in our neighbours than in ourselves. I feel bound to
   admit that three assumptions or postulates may be found underlying these
   lectures. Whether they are right or wrong the reader must judge.

   My first postulate is this. I devoutly believe that there is a Visible
   Catholic Church of Christ consisting of all those throughout the world who
   visibly worship the same God and Father, profess their faith in the same
   Saviour, and are taught by the same Holy Spirit; but I do not see any
   Scriptural or even primitive warrant for insisting that catholicity must
   find visible expression in a uniformity of organization, of ritual of
   worship, or even of formulated creed. This visible Church Catholic of Christ
   has had a life in the world historically continuous; but the ground of this
   historical continuity does not necessarily exist in any one method of
   selecting and setting apart office-bearers who rule in the Church; its basis
   is the real succession of the generations of faithful followers of their
   Lord and Master, Jesus Christ. It is with devout thankfulness that I can
   make this assumption with perfect honesty of heart and of head, because it
   relieves me from the necessity—sad, stern and even hateful it must seem to
   many pious souls who feel themselves under its power—of unchurching and of
   excluding from the “covenanted” mercies of God, all who do not accept that
   form of Church government which, to my mind, is truest to scriptural
   principles and most akin to the ecclesiastical organization of the early
   centuries.

   My second postulate concerns the ministry: There is and must be a valid
   ministry of some sort in the churches which are branches of this one Visible
   Catholic Church of Christ; but I do not think that the fact that the Church
   possesses an authority which is a direct gift from God necessarily means
   that the authority must exist in a class or caste of superior office-bearers
   endowed with a grace and therefore with a power “specific, exclusive and
   efficient,” and that it cannot be delegated to the ministry by the Christian
   people. I do not see why the thought that the authority comes from
   “above,” a dogmatic truth, need in any way Interfere with the conception
   that all official ecclesiastical power is representative and delegated to
   the officials by the membership and that it has its divine source in the
   presence of Christ promised arid bestowed upon His people and diffused
   through the membership of the Churches. Therefore when the question is put:
   “Must ministerial character be in all cases conferred from above, or may it
   sometimes, and with equal validity, be evolved from below?” it appears to me
   that a fallacy lurks in the antithesis. “From below” is used in the sense
   “from the membership of the Church,” and the inference suggested by the
   contrast is that what comes “from below,” i.e. from the membership of the
   Church, cannot come “from above,” i.e. cannot be of divine origin, warrant
   and authority. Why not? May the Holy Spirit not use the membership of the
   Church as His instrument? Is there no real abiding presence of Christ among
   His people? Is not this promised Presence something which belongs to the
   sphere of God and may it not be the source of an authority which is “from
   above”? The fallacious antithesis has apparently given birth to a
   formula,—that no valid ministry can be evolved from the membership of the
   Christian congregation; and this formula has been treated as expressing a
   dogmatic truth which has been compared with the truth of the dogma of the
   Incarnation, and which has been used as a guiding principle in the
   interpretation of the references in the New Testament writings and in other
   early Christian literature to the origin and growth of the Christian
   ministry. Fortified by this supposed dogmatic truth one Anglican divine can
   contentedly rest the Scriptural warrant for the theory of “Apostolic
   Succession” and all the sad and stern practical consequences he deduces from
   it, on an hypothesis and on a detail in a parable, and another can find
   evidence for the same “gigantic figment” in a statement of Clement of Rome
   which describes the earliest missionaries of the Christian Church doing what
   missionaries of all kinds, from those of the Church of England to those of
   the Society of Friends, have done in all generations to secure the
   well-being and continuance of the communities of believers who have been
   converted to the faith of Jesus.

   My third postulate belongs to an entirely different sphere from the two
   already mentioned, but it has been so much in my mind that it ought to be
   mentioned. It is that analogies in organization illustrative of the life of
   the primitive Christian communities can be more easily and more safely found
   on the mission fields of our common Christianity than among the details of
   the organized life of the long established Churches of Christian Europe. In
   the early centuries and on the Mission field we are studying origins. It was
   my good fortune some years ago to spend twelve months in India, examining
   there the methods, work and results of the Missions of the various branches
   of the Church of Christ. One seemed at times to be transported back to the
   early centuries, to hear and to see what the earliest writers had recounted
   and described. Portions of the Didache, of the Sources of the Apostolic
   Canons, of the Canons of Hippolytus were living practices there. One lived
   among scenes described by Tertullian and by Clement of Alexandria. The
   Arabian Nights tell us of the fortunate possessor of a magic carpet who,
   when seated on his treasure, had only to wish it to be carried anywhere in
   space he desired. Historians might long to be owners of a similar mat to
   carry them anywhen backwards and forwards throughout the past centuries. A
   visit to the Mission field, especially to one among a people of ancient
   civilization who have inherited those original speculations which were the
   fertile soil out of which sprang the earliest Christian Gnosticism, is the
   magic carpet which transports one back to the times of primitive
   Christianity. The visitor sees the simple meaning of many a statement which
   seemed so hard to understand with nothing but the ancient literary record to
   guide him He learns to distrust some of the hard and fast canons of modern
   historical criticism, and to grow somewhat sceptical about the worth of many
   of those “subjective pictures” which some modern critics first construct and
   then use to estimate the date, authorship and intention of ancient
   documents. He learns that the modern western mind cannot so easily gauge the
   oriental ways of thought as it persistently imagines. Modern missionary work
   appears to me to be full of helpful illustrations of the life and
   organization of the early centuries:

   These Lectures are the fruit of long, careful, and, I trust, reverent study
   of the literary remains of the early Christian centuries. The last quarter
   of a century has brought many ancient documents to light which were formerly
   unknown, and these have not been passed over. The extent of my obligations
   to others may be seen in the notes; but the debt owed to such writers as
   Bishop Lightfoot, Professor Harnack and Dr. Hort far exceeds what can be
   acknowledged in such a way.

   I have to express my sense of the great assistance given to me by my old
   friend, the Rev. A. O. Johnston, D.D., who read the lectures in MS., and who
   has also gone over the proofs with great care. The book owes much to his
   labour and to his criticisms.

   THOMAS M. LINDSAY.
     _________________________________________________________________

EXTRACT DECLARATION OF TRUST.

  March 1, 1862.

   I, William Binny Webster, late Surgeon in the H.E.I.C.S., presently residing
   in Edinburgh,—Considering that I feel deeply interested in the success of
   the Free Church College, Edinburgh, and am desirous of advancing the
   Theological Literature of Scotland, and for this end to establish a
   Lectureship similar to those of a like kind connected with the Church of
   England and the Congregational body in England, and that I have made over to
   the General Trustees of the Free Church of Scotland the sum of £2,000
   sterling, in trust, for the purpose of founding a Lectureship in memory of
   the late Reverend William Cunningham, D.D., Principal of the Free Church
   College, Edinburgh, and Professor of Divinity and Church History therein,
   and under the following conditions, namely,—First, The Lectureship shall
   bear the name, and be called, ‘The Cunningham Lectureship.’ Second, The
   Lecturer shall be a Minister or Professor of the Free Church of Scotland,
   and shall hold the appointment for not less than two years, nor more than
   three years, and be entitled for the period of his holding the appointment
   to the income of the endowment as declared by the General Trustees, it being
   understood that the Council after referred to may occasionally appoint a
   Minister or Professor from other denominations, provided this be approved of
   by not fewer than Eight Members of the Council, and it being further
   understood that the Council are to regulate the terms of payment of the
   Lecturer. Third, The Lecturer shall be at liberty to choose his own subject
   within the range of Apologetical, Doctrinal, Controversial, Exegetical,
   Pastoral, or Historical Theology, including what bears on Missions, Home and
   Foreign, subject to the consent of the Council. Fourth, The Lecturer shall
   be bound to deliver publicly at Edinburgh a Course of Lectures on the
   subjects thus chosen at some time immediately preceding the expiry of his
   appointment, and during the Session of the New College, Edinburgh; the
   Lectures to be not fewer than six in number, and to be delivered in presence
   of the Professors and Students under such arrangements as the Council may
   appoint; the Lecturer shall be bound also to print and publish, at his own
   risk, not fewer than 750 copies of the Lectures within a year after their
   delivery, and to deposit three copies of the same in the Library of the New
   College; the form of the publication shall be regulated by the Council.
   Fifth, A Council shall be constituted, consisting of (first) Two Members of
   their own body, to be chosen annually in the month of March, by the Senatus
   of the New College, other than the Principal; (second) Five Members to be
   chosen annually by the General Assembly, in addition to the Moderator of the
   said Free Church of Scotland; together with (third) the Principal of the
   said New College for the time being, the Moderator of the said General
   Assembly for the time being, the Procurator or Law Adviser of the Church,
   and myself the said William Hinny Webster, or such person as I may nominate
   to be my successor: the Principal of the said College to be Convener of the
   Council, and any Five Members duly convened to be entitled to act
   notwithstanding the non-election of others. Sixth, The duties of the Council
   shall be the following:—(first), To appoint the Lecturer and determine the
   period of his holding the appointment, the appointment to be made before the
   close of the Session of College immediately preceding the termination of the
   previous Lecturer’s engagement; (second), To arrange details as to the
   delivery of the Lectures, and to take charge of any additional income and
   expenditure of an incidental kind that may be connected therewith, it being
   understood that the obligation upon the Lecturer is simply to deliver the
   Course of Lectures free of expense to himself. Seventh, The Council shall be
   at liberty, on the expiry of five years, to make any alteration that
   experience may suggest as desirable in the details of this plan, provided
   such alterations shall be approved of by not fewer than Eight Members of the
   Council.
     _________________________________________________________________

CONTENTS

   LECTURE I
   THE NEW TESTAMENT CONCEPTION OF THE CHURCH OF CHRIST
   The Promise of the Church (Ecclesia) 3
   Jewish and Greek Meanings of Ecclesia 4
   The Word has its Home in the Pauline Literature 5
   It includes five great Thoughts 5
   i. Fellowship with Christ and with the Brethren 6-9
     St. Paul rings the changes on this Thought 7
     Fellowship with Christ manifested in “gifts” to the Church 8
     Fellowship among Believers implied in the early Names for Christians 9
   ii. Unity 10-15
     Church and Churches 10
     The Unity of the Church a primary Verity of the Christian Faith 13
   iii. The Church is a visible Community 16-24


   It can be seen in every Christian Community large or small for it is an
   ideal Reality
   16
     This Ideal ought to be made manifest 18
     St. Paul’s way of manifesting the Unity of the Church of Christ 20
     His leading thought was “fellowship” (koinōnia) 20
     How he grouped his Churches 21
     The great “Collection” 22
     The Methods of the Twelve 23
   iv. The Church has Authority 24-33


   The Promise of Authority made to St. Peter, to the Twelve and to the whole
   Company of the Believers
   25
     How these Promises were interpreted by the primitive Church 32


   The Self-government and Independence of the Apostolic Churches
   32
   v. The Church is a Sacerdotal Society 33-37
     The ideal Israel 33
     The sacerdotal Character belongs to the whole Membership 34
     Luther on the sacerdotal Character of the Church 35
     No Idea of a maimed Sacerdotalism in primitive Times 36
   LECTURE II
   A CHRISTIAN CHURCH IN APOSTOLIC TIMES
   The local Churches in primitive Times met in private Houses 41
   The Brethren had three Kinds of Meetings 43
   i. The Meeting for Edification 44
     The Service and the Arrangement of the Parts 44
     Almost unlimited Freedom in Worship 49
   ii. The Meeting for Thanksgiving (Eucharistic) 50
     The Details indistinctly given 50
     May be reconstructed 52
   iii. The Congregational Business Meeting 54


   It was the Centre of the Unity and the Seat of the Independence of the local
   Church
   55
     It settled even the civil Disputes among the Brethren 55
     Every local Church was a little self-governing Republic 57

   Leadership within the Christian Communities had a Distinctive Character, and
   implied Service and the possession of “Gifts”
   62
   Traces of a double Ministry, the prophetic and the local 64

   These Ministries quite separate, but the Men composing them might belong to
   both
   66
   LECTURE III
   THE PROPHETIC MINISTRY OF THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH

   The Christian Community is a Body of which the Spirit of Christ is the Soul
   69
   The “Gift” to “speak the Word of God” the most prized 70

   Its Complement was the “Gift” to “discern” or test those who “spoke the Word
   of God”
   70

   The prophetic Ministry was three-fold, Apostles, Prophets and Teachers
   73

   This three-fold Ministry is to be traced throughout the Church of the first
   and second Centuries
   74
   i. Apostles were the Missionaries who founded the Churches 75
     Various Classes of Apostles 76
     Their Number increased during the earlier Decades 82
     The wider and narrower uses of the Word “Apostle” 85
     The special Character of Apostolic Work and Authority 87
     St. Paul as the Type of an Apostle 88
   ii.

   Prophets were found in every Christian Community, and sometimes wandered
   from one to another
   90
     What Prophecy was 93
     Prophecy and Ecstasy 94
     Prophecy and visions 94
     Prophets were not Office-bearers 95


   They exercised a great deal of influence in matters of discipline, and had a
   unique place in the restoration of the lapsed
   96
     Wandering Prophets and the Firstfruits 97
     Their Claims were to be tested by the “Gift” of Discernment 99
     False Prophets 100
   iii. Teachers, their special Work 103
   The Prophets of the Old and of the Now Testaments compared 106
   LECTURE IV
   THE CHURCH OF THE FIRST CENTURY—CREATING ITS MINISTRY

   Traces of several Types of Organization in the New Testament
   113
   The Seven of Acts vi. and the Jewish Village Community. 115
   Elders in Churches outside Palestine 118

   The Supremacy of James in Jerusalem, and a Series of Rulers who were of the
   Kindred of Jesus
   119
   Office-bearers in the Pauline Gentile Churches 121
   The Prohistamenei and the Relation of Patron and Client. 123
   The heathen Confraternities and their Organization 125
   The Jewish Synagogues outside Palestine and their Organization. 129

   The Christian Churches did not copy either the Synagogue or the
   Confraternities
   131
   They had an external Resemblance to both Synagogue and Confraternity 132
   The Organization in the Pastoral Epistles 137

   The Information given in the Pastoral Epistles is complementary to what is
   to be found in the earlier Epistles of St. Paul
   148
   Names for Office-bearers in early Christian Literature 152
   Episcopus designates the Kind of Work done and is not the Name of an Office
   153
   The Meaning and Origin of the Christian “Elders” 153

   The Churches in the first Century were ruled by a College of
   Presbyter-bishops who were assisted by a Body of Deacons
   154

   The Unity of the Church never forgotten in the Independence of the local
   Churches
   155
   Note on “Presbyter” and “Bishop”

   Harnack’s Theory that Bishops were distinct from Presbyters from the first
   157
   The Witness of Clement 159
   The Identity of the New Testament “Presbyters” and “Bishops” 163
   LECTURE V
   THE CHURCHES OF THE SECOND AND THIRD CENTURIES—CHANGING THEIR MINISTRY
   The Ministry of the first Century was changed during the second 169
   The Ministry in the Didaché 171
     The Congregational Meeting 173
     The Prophetic Ministry 174
     Elected Office-bearers 175
   The Ministry in the Sources of the Apostolic Canons 177


   The smallest Christian Communities to be organized under Bishop or Pastor,
   Elders and Deacons
   178
     A Ministry of Women 181
     The Reader and uneducated Bishops 182


   The Document shows a three-fold Ministry in a transitional Stage
   183
   The Letters of Ignatius 186
     Their Characters and Contents 187
     They plead for Unity through Obedience to the Office‑bearers 190


   The Organization they bear Witness to: a Bishop, a Session of Elders and a
   Body of Deacons, which form one whole
   196
     They reveal a three-fold Ministry but not Episcopacy 198
     The Authority of the Bishop or Pastor limited 198
     The Powers of the Congregational Meeting 200

   An unpaid Ministry explains how the smallest Body of Christians could have a
   complete Organization
   200

   The Organization of Bishop, Session of Elders and body of Deacons became
   almost universal within the Empire
   204

   The Reasons for the Change from a two-fold collegiate Ministry to a
   three-fold Ministry and the Paths by which the Change advanced can only be
   guessed
   205
   The Church has always the Power to change its Ministry 210

   LECTURE VI
   THE FALL OF THE PROPHETIC MINISTRY AND THE CONSERVATIVE REVOLT

   The Work of Edification began to pass from the prophetic Ministry to the
   ordinary Office-bearers
   213

   The Causes which led to the Fall of the prophetic Ministry are not
   specifically known but may be guessed
   217
   The Need to make a combined Stand against Heresies 217
   The Gnostic Treatment of Christianity 218
   Marcion’s Canon, Creed, and Churches 219
   Irenaeus voiced the Need which his Time felt 221

   The Guarantee for Christian Truth is to be found in the Succession of
   Office-bearers in the Churches from the Times of the Apostles
   223
   Office-bearers were supposed to have a charisma veritatis 227
   Effect of this on the prophetic Ministry 228
   The Growth of a Desire to come to some Accommodation with the Empire 229
   The Apologists 230
   The Deterioration of Prophecy 233
   Protests against the silent Movement in the Church 235

   The Phrygian Movement the Centre and Exaggeration of what was affecting the
   whole of the Churches
   236
   Montanism properly speaking was conservative 238
   Proof from Montanist Prophecy 239
   The Break with the “great” Church 243
   The Fate of the later Montanists 243
   The Organization of the Churches after the Montanists were outside 244
   What the Canons of Hippolytus tell us 245
   A three-fold Ministry of Bishop, Elders, and Deacons 245

   Qualifications, Choice and Ordination (which might be done by an Elder) of
   Bishops
   246
   Elders and Bishops were theoretically equal but practically very distinct
   247
   The two Meetings for public Worship 250
   The Meeting for Exhortation 251
   The Eucharistic Service 252
   The Distribution of the Offerings 255

   Comparison between the Organization of the Churches in the Beginning of the
   third Century and those of modern Times
   259

   LECTURE VII
   MINISTRY CHANGING TO PRIESTHOOD

   In the Course of the third Century the Conceptions of the local and of the
   universal Church began to change
   265

   The Changes led in the End to the Idea that a local Church was a Body of
   Christians obedient to their Bishop and that the universal Church was the
   Federation of these obedient Communities
   266
   The Phases in this Change 266

   The novel Position and Autocracy of the Bishop needed a Sanction which was
   found in the legal Fiction of an Apostolic Succession
   278
   The Idea first emerged in the Quarrels between Hippolytus and Calixtus 280
   The Work and Influence of Cyprian 283
   The Decian Persecution 287
   The Lapsed 290
   The “Authority” of the Martyr confronts the “Authority” of the Bishop 295
   Cyprian’s Theory of the Position and Power of the Bishop 299
   The Bishop is the Representative of Christ and has the Right to forgive Sins
   305

   Cyprian’s maimed Sacerdotalism: the Bishop a unique Priest and the Eucharist
   a unique Sacrifice
   307

   Cyprian’s Method of exhibiting the universality of the visible Church by
   Means of Councils
   313

   His Theory confronted by a Roman one which was in the End triumphant in the
   West
   317
   LECTURE VIII
   THE ROMAN STATE RELIGION AND ITS EFFECTS ON THE ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH

   The Instrument for effecting the Grouping of federated Churches round the
   definite Centres was the Council or Synod
   323
   Sohm’s Theory of the Origin and Meaning of Synods 327

   The Synod was really the Application of the Congregational Meeting to a
   wider ecclesiastical Sphere
   334

   This democratic Principle of Organization confronted with an imperialist
   one; the two subsisted for long side by side
   335

   Councils became a regular part of the Organization of the Churches before
   the End of the third Century
   336
   The same Period saw other Changes 337

   In the more compact Organization of the federated Churches the Roman
   Organization for the State pagan Religion was largely copied
   340
   The religious Reforms of Augustus 341
   The Worship of the Emperors 342
   The Organization of the Priesthood of the imperial Cult 348
   This Organization copied within the Christian Churches 350
   The Churches also copied the State Temple Service 353
   The Church thus organized was still a Federation of Churches 358

   Numerous and flourishing Christian Churches existed which did not belong to
   the Federation
   359

   After the Conversion of Constantine these outside Christians were vehemently
   persecuted by the State, which only acknowledged the federated Churches
   359
   APPENDIX

   Sketch of the History of modern Controversy about the Office‑bearers in the
   primitive Christian Churches
   364
   INDEXES

   Index of References to Contemporary Authorities, Canonical and Non-canonical
   379
   Index of Names and Subjects 386
     _________________________________________________________________

CHAPTER I

  THE NEW TESTAMENT CONCEPTION OF THE CHURCH

   And I say also unto thee, that thou art Petros, and on this petra I will
   build My Church (Ecclesia); and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against
   it.” [1] Our Lord was far from Galilee and farther from Jerusalem when He
   uttered these words. He was sojourning in an almost wholly pagan land. The
   rocks overhanging the path were covered with the mementos of a licentious
   cult; and in the neighbouring city of Caesarea Philippi Herod Philip had
   built and consecrated a temple to the Emperor Augustus, who was there
   worshipped as a god. [2] It was among scenes which showed the lustful
   passions of man’s corrupt heart and the statecraft of Imperial Rome seating
   themselves on the throne of God, that Jesus made to His followers the
   promise which He has so marvellously fulfilled.

   The word translated Church is Ecclesia—a word that had a history both
   theocratic and democratic, and that came trailing behind it memories both to
   the Jews who were then listening to Him, and to the Greeks, who, at a later
   period, received His Gospel. To the Jew, the Ecclesia had been the assembly
   of the congregation of Israel, [3] summoned to meet at the door of the
   Tabernacle of Jehovah by men blowing silver trumpets. To the Greek the
   Ecclesia was the sovereign assembly of the free Greek city-state, [4]
   summoned by the herald blowing his horn through the streets of the town. To
   the followers of Jesus it was to be the congregation of the redeemed and
   therefore of the free, summoned by His heralds to continually appear in the
   presence of their Lord, who was always to be in the midst of them. It was to
   be a theocratic democracy.

   The New, if it is to be lasting, must always have its roots in the Old; and
   the phrase “My Ecclesia” recalled the past and foretold the future. The
   roots were the memories the word brought both to Jew and to Greek; and the
   promise and the potency of the future lay in the word “My.” The Ecclesia had
   been the congregation of Jehovah; it was in the future, without losing
   anything of what it had possessed, to become the congregation of Jesus the
   Christ. Its heralds, like James, the brother of our Lord, could apply to it
   the Old Testament promises, and see in its construction the fulfilment of
   the saying of Amos about the rebuilding of the Tabernacle of David; [5] or,
   like St. Paul, could call it the “Israel of God,” and repeat concerning it
   the prayer of the Psalm, “Remember thine ecclesia, which Thou hast purchased
   of old, which Thou hast redeemed to be the tribe of Thine inheritance.” [6]
   It had been the self-governing Greek republic, ruled by elected
   office-bearers; hereafter the communities of Christians, which were to be
   the ecclesiae, were to be little self-governing societies where the
   individual rights and responsibilities of the members would blend
   harmoniously with the common good of all.

   The word with its memories and promises appealed to none of our Lord’s “Sent
   Ones” more strongly than to St. Paul, who was at once an “Hebrew of the
   Hebrews,” and the apostle to the Gentiles. The term “ecclesia” has its home
   in the Pauline literature. [7] It is met with 110 times within the New
   Testament, and of these 86 occur in the Epistles of St. Paul and in the Acts
   of the Apostles. We naturally turn to the writings of St. Paul to aid us in
   expounding the thought which is contained in the term. When we do so we are
   entitled to say that the conception contains at least five different ideas
   which embody the essential features of the “Church of Christ.”

   The New Testament Church is fellowship with Jesus and with the brethren
   through Him; this fellowship is permeated with a sense of unity; this united
   fellowship is to manifest itself in a visible society; this visible society
   has bestowed upon it by our Lord a divine authority; and it is to be a
   sacerdotal society. These appear to be the five outstanding elements in the
   New Testament conception of the Church of Christ.

   1. The Church of Christ is a fellowship. It is a fellowship with Jesus
   Christ; that is the divine element in it. It is a fellowship with the
   brethren; that is the human element in it. The Rock on which the Church was
   to be built was a man confessing—not the man apart from his confession, as
   Romanists insist, nor the confession apart from the man, as many Protestants
   argue. It was a man in whom long companionship with Jesus and the revelation
   from the Father had created a personal trust in His Messianic mission; [8]
   and the faith which had grown out of the fellowship had the mysterious power
   of making the fellowship which had created it more vivid and real; for
   faith, in its primitive sense of personal trust, is fellowship become
   self-conscious. Faith is what makes fellow-ship know itself to be
   fellowship, and not haphazard social intercourse.

   The faith of Peter, seer as he was into divine mysteries, and prophet as he
   was, able to utter what he had seen, did not involve a very adequate
   apprehension of the fellowship he had confessed. He knew so little about its
   real meaning that shortly after his confession he made a suggestion which
   would have destroyed it; [9] a thought prompted by the Evil One succeeded
   the revelation from the Father—so strangely and swiftly do inspirations of
   God and temptations of the Devil succeed each other in the minds of men. The
   sad experience of Peter has been shared by the Church in all generations. He
   did not cease to be the Rock-Man in consequence; nor has the promise failed
   the Church which was founded on him and on his confession, although it has
   shared his weakness and sin.

   St. Paul rings the changes on this thought of fellowship with Jesus which
   makes the Church. The churches addressed in his epistles are described as in
   Christ Jesus. He is careful to impress on believers the personal relation in
   which they stand to their Lord, even when he is addressing the whole Church
   to which they belong. If he writes to the Church of God which is in Corinth,
   [10] he is careful to add “to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus,
   called to be saints”; and in his other epistles he addresses the brethren
   individually as “saints,” “saints and faithful brethren,” “all that are in
   Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints.” [11] The individual believer is
   never lost in the society, and he is never alone and separate. The bond of
   union is not an external framework impressed from without, but a sense of
   fellowship springing from within. The believer’s union to Christ, which is
   the deepest of all personal things, always involves something social, The
   call comes to him singly, but seldom solitarily.

   Perhaps, however, St. Paul’s conception of the fellowship with Christ which
   is the basis of the Church, comes out most clearly in the way he speaks of
   the “gifts” of grace, the charismata, which manifest the abiding presence of
   our Lord in His Church and His continuing fellowship with His people. [12]
   He enumerates them over and over again. He points to “apostles,” the
   missionary heralds of the Gospel; to “prophets,” to whom the Spirit had
   given special powers for the edification of the brethren; to “teachers,” who
   are wise with the wisdom of God, and have those divine intuitions which the
   apostle calls “knowledge”; to “pastors,” who feed the flock in one
   community. He speaks of “helps” (antilēpseis) or powers to assist the sick,
   the tempted and the tried; of “insight” to give wise counsels; of gifts of
   rule (kubernēseis); of gifts of healing, and in general of all kinds of
   service. They are all gifts of the Spirit, and are all so many different
   manifestations of the presence of Jesus and of the living fellowship which
   His people have with Him. [13]

   These various gifts are bestowed on different members of the Christian
   society for the edification of all, and they serve to show that it is one
   organism, where the whole exists for the parts, and each part for the whole
   and for all the other parts. They also show that the Christian society is
   not a merely natural organism; there is divine life and power within it,
   because it has the abiding presence of Christ; and the proof of His presence
   is the possession and use of these various “gifts,” all of which come from
   the one Spirit of Christ in fulfilment of the promise that He will never
   leave nor forsake His Church. Their presence is a testimony to the presence
   of the Master which each Christian community can supply. It is a Church of
   Christ if His presence is manifested by these fruits of the Spirit which
   come from the exercise of the “gifts” which the Spirit has bestowed upon it;
   for the Church as well as the individual Christian is to be known by its
   fruits. [14]

   This sense of hidden fellowship with its Lord was the secret of the Church.
   It was a bond uniting its members and separating them from outsiders more
   completely than were the initiated into the pagan mysteries sundered from
   those who had not passed through the same introductory rites. While Jesus
   lived their fellowship with Him was the external thing which distinguished
   them from others. They were His disciples (mathētai) gathered round a
   centre, a Person whom they called Rabbi, Master, Teacher—names they were
   taught not to give to another. They shared a common teaching and drank in
   the same words of wisdom from the same lips; but even then they could not be
   called a “school,” for they were united by the bond of a common hope and a
   common future. They were to share in the coming kingdom of God in and
   through their relation to their Master. After His departure the other side
   of the fellowship became the prominent external thing—their relation to each
   other because of their relation to their common Lord. New names arose to
   express the change, names suggesting the relation in which they stood to
   each other. They were the “brethren,” the “saints,” and they had a
   fellowship (koinōnia) with each other. [15] This thought of fellowship, as
   we shall see, was the ruling idea in all Christian organization. All
   Christians within one community were to live in fellowship with each other;
   different Christian communities were to have a common fellowship. Visible
   fellowship with each other, the outcome of the hidden fellowship with Jesus,
   was to be at once the leading characteristic of all Christians and the bond
   which united them to each other and separated them from the world lying
   outside.

   2. The second characteristic of the Church of Christ is that it is a Unity.
   There was one assembly of the congregation of Israel; one sovereign assembly
   of the Greek city-state. There is one Church of Christ.

   It must be admitted that the word Church is seldom used in the New Testament
   to designate one universal and comprehensive society. On the contrary, out
   of the 110 times in which the word occurs, no less than 100 do not contain
   this note of a wide-spreading unity. In the overwhelming majority of cases
   the word “church” denotes a local Christian society, varying in extent from
   all the Christian congregations within a province of the Empire to a small
   assembly of Christians meeting together in the house of one of the brethren.
   St. Paul alone, [16] if we except the one instance in Matt. xvi., uses the
   word in its universal application; and he does it in two epistles only—those
   to the Ephesians and to the Colossians—both of them dating from his Roman
   captivity. [17] But there are numberless indications that the thought of the
   unity of the Church of Christ was never absent from the mind of the Apostle.
   The Christians he addresses are all brethren, all saints, whether they be in
   Jerusalem, Damascus, Ephesus or Rome. The believers in Thessalonica are
   praised because they had been “imitators of the churches of God which are in
   Judea,” who “are in Jesus Christ “ as the Thessalonians “are in Jesus
   Christ.” [18] The Epistles to the Corinthians are full of exhortations to
   unity within the local church, and the warnings are always based on
   principles which suggest the unity of the whole wide fellowship of
   believers. The divisions in the church at Corinth had arisen from a
   misguided apostolic partizanship which implied a lack of belief in Christian
   unity at the centre; the apostle repudiates this by holding forth the unity
   of Christ, and by pointing to the one Kingdom of God to be inherited. [19]
   He has the same message for all the local churches. However varied in
   environment they may be, these local churches have common usages, and ought
   to unite in showing a common sympathy with each other. [20]

   Besides these minor indications of the thought, we have, in various of his
   epistles what may be called its poetic expression. The Church of Christ is
   such a unity that it has thrown down all the walls of race, sex, and social
   usages which have kept men separate. [21] It has reconciled Jew and Gentile.
   It has bridged the gulf between the past of Israel and the present of
   apostolic Christianity. [22]

   These thoughts and phrases, which run through all the epistles of St. Paul,
   lead directly to the description of the glorious unity of the one Church of
   Christ which fills the great Epistle to the Ephesians. Thus, though it is
   true that we cannot point to a single use of the word “church” in the
   earlier epistles which can undoubtedly be said to mean a universal Christian
   society, the thought of this unity of all believers runs through them all.
   The conception of the unity of the Church of Christ is one of the abiding
   possessions of St. Paul in the earliest as in the latest of his writings;
   but it is only in the writings of his Roman captivity that it attains to its
   fullest expression. [23]

   This unity of the Church of Christ which filled the mind of St. Paul was
   something essentially spiritual. It is a reality, but a reality which is
   more ideal than material. It can never be adequately represented in a merely
   historical way. It is true that we can trace the beginnings of the formation
   of Christian communities, and the gradual federation of these Christian
   societies into a wide-spreading union of confederate churches; but that only
   faintly expresses the thought of the unity of the Church of Christ. It is
   true that we can see in the fellowship of Christians the illustration of the
   pregnant philosophical thought that it is not good for man to be alone, and
   that personality itself can only be rightly conceived when taken along with
   the thought of fellowship. [24] Apart, however, from all surface facts and
   philosophical ideas, there is something deeper in the unity of the Christian
   Church, something which lies implicitly in the unformed faith of every
   believer, that in personal union with Christ there is union with the whole
   body of the redeemed, and that man is never alone either in sin or in
   salvation. The unity of the Church of Christ is a primary verity of the
   Christian faith: “There is One Body, and One Spirit, even as ye are called
   in one hope of your calling; One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism, One God and
   Father of all, Who is over all and through all and in all.” [25] And because
   the Unity of the Church of Christ is a primary verity of the Christian
   faith, it can never be adequately represented in any outward polity, but
   must always be, in the first instance at least, a religious experience. Its
   source and centre can never be an earthly throne, but must always be that
   heavenly place where Jesus sits at the Right Hand of God. [26]

   This enables us to see how the word “church” can be used, as it is in the
   New Testament, to denote communities of varying size, from the sum total of
   all the Christian communities on earth down to the tiny congregation which
   met in the house of Philemon. For the unity of the Christian Church is, in
   the first instance, the oneness of an ideal reality, and is not confined
   within the bounds of space and time as merely material entities are. It can
   be present in many places at the same time, and in such a way that, as
   Ignatius says, “Where Jesus Christ is, there is the whole Church.” [27] The
   congregation at Corinth was, in the eyes of St. Paul, the Body of Christ or
   the whole Church in its all-embracing unity—not a Body of Christ, for there
   is but one Body of Christ; not part of the Body of Christ, for Christ is not
   divided; but the Body of Christ in its unity and filled with the fulness of
   His powers. [28] It is in this One Body, present in every Christian society,
   that our Lord has placed His “gifts” or charismata, which enable the Church
   to perform its divine functions; and all the spiritual actions of the
   tiniest community, such as the Church in the house of Nymphas—Prayer,
   Praise, Preaching, Baptism, the Holy Supper—are actions of the whole Church
   of Christ.

   The Christians of the early centuries clung to this thought, and we have a
   long series of writers, from Victor of Rome, [29] in the second century,
   down to Clement of Alexandria and Origen, [30] who tell us that the whole
   Church of the redeemed, with Christ and the angels, is present in the public
   worship of the individual congregation. The promise of the Master, that
   where two or three were gathered together in His Name there would He be in
   the midst of them, was placed side by side with the thought in the Epistle
   to the Hebrews that believers are surrounded with a great cloud of
   witnesses; and the combination suggested that in the simplest action of the
   smallest Christian fellowship there was the presence and the power of the
   whole Church of Christ. Tertullian pushes the thought to its furthest limits
   when he says in a well-known passage: “Accordingly, where there is no joint
   session of the ecclesiastical order, you Offer, Baptize, and are Priest
   alone for yourself; for where three are there the Church is, although they
   be laity.” [31]

   3. The Church of our Lord’s promise was to be a visible community. This note
   of visibility is suggested by the word ecclesia itself, and by the whole
   environment of its earliest Christian use.

   The “congregation of Israel” and the “sovereign assembly” of the Greek
   city-state had been visible things. The time of the promise suggested a
   visible community. It came when the visible people of Israel had manifestly
   refused to accept Jesus as the Messiah. His Church was set over against the
   Israel which had denied Him—one visible community against another. The
   earliest uses of the word ecclesia refer unmistakably to visible
   communities. When St. Paul persecuted the “Church of God,” he made havoc of
   something more than an abstraction. He haled men and women to prison and
   confined real bodies within real stone walls. The churches spoken of in the
   Acts and in the Epistles were societies of men and women, living in
   families, coming together for public worship, and striving in spite of many
   infirmities to live the life of new obedience to which they had been called.
   They were little societies in the world, connected with it on all sides and
   yet not of it—lamps set on lamp-stands to enlighten the darkness of
   surrounding paganism. The “gifts” of the Spirit, which manifested the
   presence of Christ, were seen at work in the public assembly of the
   congregation, and were given to edify a visible society.

   The two universal rites of the new society—Baptism and the Lord’s
   Supper—show that it was a visible thing. St. Paul makes it clear that
   entrance into the Church was by the visible rite of Baptism, and that he
   himself had come into the Church by this door. [32] The Lord’s Supper was a
   visible social institution, and could only occupy the place it did in a
   visible society. [33]

   Even the Church Universal, which is described in the Epistle to the
   Ephesians, is a visible Church. It is an ideal reality; but an ideal Church
   is not invisible because it is ideal. It can be seen in any Christian
   community, great or small; seen in a measure by the eye of sense, but more
   truly by the eye of faith. For it is one of the privileges of faith, when
   strengthened by hope and by love, to see the glorious ideal in the somewhat
   poor material reality. It was thus that St. Paul saw the universal Church of
   Christ made visible in the Christian community of Corinth.

   St. Paul has described the Church in that great trading and manufacturing
   city of Corinth, where the rich were very rich and the poor were very poor;
   where the thoroughness of character, inherited from the early Roman
   colonists, had pushed the sensuous side of Greek civilization into all
   manner of excesses, until the city had become a by-word for foul living, and
   religion itself had become an incentive to lust. [34] This environment had
   tainted the Christian society. St. Paul saw it all and has described it. He
   has made us see the very Love-feasts, which introduced the Holy Supper,
   changed into banquets of display on the part of the rich, while the poor
   were swept into corners or compelled to wait till their wealthier brethren
   were served. He has shown us petty rivalries disguising themselves under the
   mask of faithfulness to eminent apostolic teachers. He has depicted the
   tainted morals of the city appearing unchecked within the Christian society.
   What a picture the heathen satirist Lucian, with his keen eye and his
   outspoken tongue, would have drawn of such a community! St. Paul saw all the
   frailty, the feebleness to resist the evil communications and the
   fickleness; and yet he saw in that community the Body of Christ. He needed
   the love that “beareth all things, that believeth all things, and that
   hopeth all things,” to make his vision clear—and that is perhaps the reason
   why the wonderful chapter on Christian love comes in the middle of this
   epistle; but his vision was clear, and he saw the life there with its
   potency and promise. He could say to that Church Ye are the Body of Christ.
   He could see it, as he saw the Ephesian Church, becoming gradually rooted
   and grounded in love, gradually strengthened to apprehend with all saints
   the height, the depth, the length and the breadth of that love of Christ
   which passeth knowledge, and at last filled with all the fulness of God.

   All things earthly have a double element, whether they be of good or evil
   report. They are in the present and they are making for the future. They are
   what they are to be. It is the same with all things belonging to
   Christianity on the human side. We are “sons of God,” and yet we “wait for
   the adoption”; we are redeemed, and yet our redemption “draweth nigh.” Those
   who “have been saved” are enjoined to “work out their own salvation.” So it
   is with the Church of God. It is what it is to be. [35] And we are
   definitely taught by the very ways in which St. Paul uses the word “ Church
   “ to see the Church Universal in the individual Christian community. [36]

   It will be admitted, however, that ideals are given us to be made manifest
   to the eye of sense as well as to the vision of faith. and that a duty is
   laid upon every Christian and upon every Christian society to make the
   universality of the Church of Christ which is manifest to faith plainly
   apparent to the eyes of sense. If the duty has been but scantily performed
   since the beginning of the third century, we may find that the neglect has
   come from abandoning apostolic methods in favour of others suggested by the
   great pagan empire of Rome. The duty of trying to make visible to the senses
   the inherent unity of the Church of Christ was always distinctly present to
   the mind of the great apostle to the Gentiles, and it may be useful to see
   how he set himself to the task.

   One thing meets us at the outset. He would not for the sake of an external
   universality agree to anything which would set limits on the real
   universality of the Church of Christ. The preservation of the liberty with
   which Jesus had made His people free was of more importance in His eyes than
   the manifestation of the visibility of the universal fellowship of
   Christians with each other. Jewish believers were inclined to think that the
   practice of circumcision “embodied the principle of the historical
   continuity of the Church,” [37] and that no one who was outside the circle
   of the “circumcised,” no matter how strong his faith nor how the fruits of
   the Spirit were manifest in his life and deeds, could plead the “security of
   the Divine Covenant,” For this they could give reasons stronger than are
   brought forward by many who, in our own day, insist on different external
   “successions” as marks of catholicity. The Scripture had said: “My covenant
   shall be in your flesh, an everlasting covenant.” [38] The Saviour himself
   had been circumcised on the eighth day. He had never, in so many words,
   either publicly to the people or privately to His disciples, declared that
   circumcision was no longer to be the sign of the covenant of God.

   St. Paul recognized that to limit “the security of the covenant” to
   something defined by what the Jews believed to be the “principle of the
   historical continuity of the Church,” would be to destroy the real for a
   limited, though more sensibly visible, universality. He bent his whole
   energies to break down this false principle of continuity which placed the
   “succession” in something external, and not in the possession and
   transmission from generation to generation of the “gifts” of the Spirit
   within the community. This done, he used his administrative powers, and they
   were those of a statesman, to create channels for the flow of the
   manifestation of the visible unity of the Church of Christ.

   His ruling thought was to provide that all the various Christian communities
   should manifest their real brotherhood in the cultivation of the “fruits of
   the Spirit.” The method of carving out a visibly universal Church by means
   of regulations affecting organization and external form is not without its
   attractions, which are irresistible to minds of the lawyer type and
   training, such as we see afterwards in Cyprian of Carthage. It seems a short
   and easy method of showing that the whole Church is visibly one. But it was
   not Paul’s method. He seems to have thought as little about the special
   “construction of sheep-folds” as his Master. What concerned him was that the
   sheep should be gathered into one flock around the One Shepherd. He nowhere
   prescribed a universal ecclesiastical polity, still less did he teach that
   the universality of the Christian brotherhood must be made visible in this
   way. He regarded all the separate churches of Christ as independent
   self-governing societies. He strove to implant in all of them the principle
   of brotherly dealing with one another, and he dug channels in which the
   streams of the Spirit might flow in the practical manifestation of Christian
   fellowship.

   Fellowship (koinōnia), word and thought, is what filled his mind. All the
   brethren within one Church were to have fellowship with each other. The
   local churches within a definite region were to be in close fellowship. The
   churches among the Gentiles were to maintain brotherly relations with the
   Mother-Church in Jerusalem. What this fellowship primarily meant can be
   learnt from what the apostle says in Gal. ii. 9. [39] He tells us that the
   apostles to the Jews, and he the apostle to the Gentiles, gave each other
   the right hand of fellowship, because they recognized that they had a common
   faith in the same Christ. It was the recognition of a common belief in the
   One Christ, the knowledge that they all had within them a new faith which
   had revolutionised their lives, and was to express itself in their whole
   character and conduct, that made them feel the kinship with each other which
   was expressed in the common name “brethren.” All down through the early
   centuries this idea that Christians form one brotherhood finds abundant
   expression. Brotherhood alternates with Ecclesia in the oldest sets of
   ecclesiastical canons, [40] while omnis fraternitas and pasa hē adelphotēs
   are used to denote the whole of Christendom. [41]

   The graceful deference which St. Paul always showed to the leaders in
   Jerusalem, who had been in Christ before himself; his anxieties about the
   welfare of the poor “saints” at Jerusalem, and his care to provide for their
   needs; [42] the letters he asks to be read to all the members of the
   churches to which they are addressed, and sometimes to other churches also;
   [43] the eagerness with which he communicates the fact that the church he is
   writing to enjoys a reputation for hospitality towards wayfaring brethren;
   [44] the salutations his letters contain from one church to another, [45]
   and from individual Christians to the churches; [46] the messages sent by
   his assistants; his and their frequent journeyings from church to church—are
   all evidences of his unwearied efforts to make the universality of the
   Christian brotherhood widely manifest.

   He did more. He grouped his churches in a statesmanlike way so that each
   could support the others. His statesmanship discerned the advantages which
   the imperial system, with its trade routes, its postal arrangements and its
   provincial capitals, gave not merely for the propagation of the Gospel, but
   for the fellowship of the churches. Corinth was the centre for the churches
   of Achaia, and the second Epistle to the Corinthians is addressed to all the
   Christians within that important Roman province. [47] Round Ephesus [48]
   were grouped the churches of Asia—Smyrna, Pergamos, Thyatira, Sardis,
   Philadelphia, Laodicea, with Troas and others on the coast, and Colossae and
   Hierapolis in the Lycus valley. [49] The churches of Macedonia were, in al:
   probability, grouped round Thessalonica, [50] and those of Galatia formed
   another group, although we are not told what the centre was. [51]

   While engaged in giving visibility to the unity of the churches he had
   planted St. Paul was never unmindful that he wished also to see them united
   visibly with the churches of Jerusalem and Judea. He had started with the
   thought of a visible fellowship between Jew and Gentile, and the union which
   was symbolised when Barnabas and he gave and received the right hand of
   fellowship with Peter, James and John, was never far from his thoughts. He
   thought of One Church of Christ which embraced Jew and Gentile all the world
   over. [52]

   But perhaps the evidence of the apostle’s method of implanting a sense of a
   visible unity within the Church of Christ is best seen in the methods, plan
   and motive of the great collection for the saints at Jerusalem, which fills
   so large a place in his epistles.

   This great collection was no mere spontaneous outburst of Christian charity
   like the previous succours sent to the poor of Jerusalem. It was a
   carefully-planned attempt to unite a host of independent churches, which
   represented wide areas, in co-operative brotherly action. The preparations
   occupied more than a year’s time. The principle of representation was
   introduced. Each group of contributing churches sent deputies, all of whom
   joined the apostle at different places and at different dates, and
   accompanied him to Jerusalem, bearing with them the money collected. The
   anxiety which the apostle displayed in the careful arrangement of all the
   details; the patience with which he awaited the complete mustering of the
   delegates on the road; the determination that nothing should prevent him
   from accompanying the delegates to Jerusalem—not even prophetic warnings of
   danger nor the hindrance of cherished plans to visit Rome—all combine to
   show that he regarded it as the fulfilment of long cherished plans for
   making visible the fellowship of all believers in the way that best
   commended itself to his mind. [53]

   It may be that the success of this mustering of his mission churches, this
   triumphant experiment of co-operation and re-presentation, combined with the
   assurance that Jew and Gentile were at last dwelling harmoniously within the
   One Household of God, kindled the thoughts which find expression in the
   epistles of his Roman captivity. The unity of the wide-spreading Church of
   Christ was at last made visible to the eyes of sense, not by uniformity of
   external polity, but by the manifestation of brotherly love. The actual
   unity of all believers was conspicuous in this great fruit of the Spirit of
   Christ.

   If we follow the accounts given us in the Acts, the tests of what was
   required for visible fellowship by the leaders of the church in Jerusalem
   did not differ greatly from those demanded by St. Paul. It seemed to be
   their custom when they heard of some new and unexpected appearance of faith
   in Jesus to send down some one to inquire about it. Peter and John were sent
   to Samaria to inquire into the conversions among the Samaritans made by the
   preaching of Philip. [54] Barnabas was sent down to Antioch on a similar
   errand. [55] The tests applied in both cases seem to have been: Are there
   any manifestations of the fruits of the Spirit in the lives of the new
   converts? The case of Antioch is most instructive. The Gospel had been
   proclaimed there, we know not how or by whom. The apostles at Jerusalem seem
   to have had nothing to do with the proclamation. An infant church had come
   into being without their guidance or assistance. Its birth is unrecorded;
   its earliest history unknown; the congregation is in being before the
   apostles seem to have heard of it. When the delegate from Jerusalem appeared
   and made his inquiries, what satisfied him was that the grace of God was
   manifestly with the brethren there. The believers in Antioch and the
   delegate from Jerusalem had the same faith in the same Saviour, and their
   faith found its proper outcome in a renewed life. That was enough for
   fellowship or visible and fraternal union. We see no attempt to impose any
   external ecclesiastical ordinances, no suggestions about the need for
   showing themselves to be in the line of the “historic continuity of the
   church” by accepting circumcision or otherwise. Whether we take the
   reception of Cornelius, the welcome accorded to the Samaritan converts, or
   the joy of Barnabas when he perceived that the grace of God was manifest in
   Antioch, the unity of the Christian Church was made visible to the eyes of
   sense, not by uniformity of organization, but by the manifestation of the
   fruits of the Spirit; that was the one feature that was regarded as proof
   that it was worthy of being received into the common fellowship.

   IV. To this visible society belongs Authority. The very thought of a
   Christian Church visible suggests the idea of a separate community with a
   distinct sphere of religious life; and this in turn implies that the society
   must have, like every form of corporate social existence, powers of
   oversight and discipline to be exercised upon its members. But the authority
   which the Church possesses is altogether different from what a voluntary
   association of men may exercise upon its members, and of another kind from
   what is possessed by lawful civil government. The authority comes from
   Christ Himself. The Christian Democracy is also a Theocracy; it combines the
   two ideas of rule associated with the Greek and the Hebrew uses of the word
   “ecclesia.” While the authority belongs to the whole member-ship, and is
   therefore democratic; it nevertheless comes from above, and is therefore
   theocratic. [56] It comes from Jesus Christ, who is the Head of the Church.
   [57]

   Our Lord has intimated that He has imparted this authority to His Church in
   many recorded sayings, and in particular in three well-known passages: in
   Matt. xvi. 13-19; Matt. xviii. 15-20, and in John xx. 21-23.

   The first promise was made to St. Peter in very special circumstances. Our
   Lord had asked a question of all His disciples. St. Peter, answering
   impetuously in their name, made himself their representative. His answer was
   an adoring confession of his faith in the Person of Christ [58] —a
   confession which contained in germ all the future confessions of the Church
   of Christ, and which made him the spokesman for the mighty multitude which
   no man can number, who were to make the same confession of adoring trust in
   their Saviour. The confession was an inspired one; it had been revealed to
   St. Peter by the Father; there was divinity in it, for God gave the
   revelation which prompted the confession ; and there was humanity in it, for
   the man appropriated and made his own what the Father had revealed to him.
   It was the first of what was to become a multitudinous sea of voices of men
   inspired by the Father to know and to confess that Jesus was the Christ, the
   Son of the Living God. It was to the Peter who answered as representing the
   Twelve, to Peter who was the spokesman for countless thousands of the
   faithful who down through the march of Time would make the same glad
   confession, that the promise was given.

   The promise was of authority to bear the key of the household of the
   faithful, to have the power to let in and keep out from the household. The
   words and metaphor used were the familiar Jewish terms to denote a delegated
   authority. The thought conveyed is commonly and correctly explained by a
   reference to the substitution of Shebna for Eliakim in the stewardship of
   the House of David; [59] and it is implied that our Lord, in the word He
   used, made St. Peter, and those he represented, stewards of the Household of
   the faithful with the authority to “bind” and to “loose,” to “prohibit” and
   to “permit,” to “admit” and “exclude.” Other passages in the New Testament,
   making use of the same simile of the major-domo with his key and his power
   of letting in or locking out, assist us to see the fuller meaning of the
   promise recorded. The one is a warning and the other an encouragement. Our
   Lord called the attention of his followers to the scribes and Pharisees, who
   “sat in Moses’ seat,” and had to be obeyed. They had the keys and they used
   them to shut the door of the kingdom of heaven against men. [60] Jesus
   pronounces woe on them for using the keys in this way. Their shutting out,
   although they have the keys officially, was evidently not ratified in
   heaven. Hence we must infer that the mere official position of being the
   bearer of the “keys” does not always ensure that what is done on earth by
   the bearer will be ratified in heaven. Then in the message to the Church in
   Philadelphia, the brethren there were told that the real bearer of the
   “keys” is the Lord Himself. [61] It is only when He lets in that there can
   be no exclusion; it is only when He shuts out that there is any real
   exclusion. A real authority is bestowed, and real powers are given; but just
   as Peter’s confession depended on the inspiration of the Father, so the
   ratification of the exercise of power depends on its Christ-like use.

   It is doubtful whether the second saying was addressed to the Twelve, or to
   a larger group of disciples, but the advice which precedes the promise is to
   be applied and can only be applied to all the followers of Jesus within a
   community. It gives directions for dealing with offences and offenders
   within the Christian society, and has been commonly regarded as the
   Scriptural warrant for the exercise of discipline within the Church. It
   proceeds on the idea that offences may arise from thoughtlessness as well as
   from wilful sin, and that the offender, in spite of his offence, is a
   brother to be won back to brotherliness. It prescribes a threefold attempt
   to win back the erring brother to a state of brotherly feeling. If
   everything fails, if the offender has refused to hear the offended person
   pleading with him in his own person, if he has rejected the remonstrances of
   two or three fellow-Christians pleading with him, if he finally spurns the
   warnings of the Church or whole Christian society, then, and not till then,
   does the thought of punishment enter. The punishment, if punishment it can
   be called, is expulsion of a certain kind from the Christian communion. The
   offender is to be treated as the Jewish Synagogue acted towards a Gentile or
   a publican. He was to be looked on as if he had never belonged to the
   society, or as if he had voluntarily excluded himself by the course of life
   he had chosen to persist in.

   We are told that the decisions of the Church on earth in such cases as those
   described will be ratified in Heaven. This is a confirmation of the promise
   given to St. Peter, and like it is strictly conditional. The condition
   attached is that there must be a real and living communion between the
   Church and its Head the Lord Jesus Christ, so that the Church decides in a
   Christ-like spirit. It is impossible to separate the promise from the verses
   which immediately follow. Our Lord Himself joins them together by very
   solemn words. This condition does not render the promise of ratification
   deceptive. The fellowship with Christ, which is the condition, is to be had
   provided it is sought for earnestly, honestly and trustingly in prayer (v.
   19).

   The authority is given to the society of believers, whether two or three
   meeting together in a place far from any others, or a great and organised
   community. It is not entrusted by our Lord directly to any official class;
   it is not given to any human power not rising out of the company of the
   faithful. It is given to the visible fellowship, and it belongs to them in
   reality, as well as in name, in the measure in which they have living
   communion with Him Who is their Head.

   The third promise seems to have been made to the nucleus of the infant
   Church in Jerusalem, if we are to accept Luke xxiv. 33 ff. as the parallel
   passage—to “the disciples and those who were with them.” It is commonly held
   to include all that is bestowed in the other two, and perhaps something even
   more solemn—the power to pronounce the divine sentence of pardon involved in
   the proclamation of the Gospel of Christ. Whatever be the powers granted,
   they are given to the whole company of believers and not to any class among
   them. They are also, as in the earlier passages, given under conditions. The
   power can only manifest itself in those who are filled with the Spirit of
   Christ. [62] In virtue of this promise with its gift of power the visible
   Church of Christ can with absolute confidence declare the gospel of pardon
   through the work of Christ, and can assert that the divine conditions are
   those which it proclaims. In virtue of the same promise every individual
   Christian is entitled to affirm with absolute certainty to every penitent
   sinner that God pardons his sins if he accepts Jesus as his All-sufficient
   Saviour. [63]

   The authority was given in the first passage to one man; in the second
   probably to the Twelve; in the third to the whole Christian community. In
   each case the more particular is absorbed in the more general. The power
   given to St. Peter in the first passage is merged in the authority given to
   the Twelve in the second; and the authority given to the Twelve is in turn
   merged in the authority given to the whole congregation. St. Peter received
   the power because he represented the Twelve directly, and the whole Church
   founded on him and on his confession indirectly. The Twelve received it
   because they represented the Church which was to come into existence through
   their ministry. After the Resurrection the whole infant Church received the
   same, if not greater, authority. St. Peter was to die; the Twelve also were
   to go the way of all flesh; but the society was to remain, and with it the
   authority bestowed upon it by its Lord.

   It is needless to say that very varying interpretations of these three
   passages have been given by different schools of theologians; that Romanists
   found on the promise given to St. Peter, and that some Anglicans insist that
   the third promise was made to the Eleven only, even if the company included
   other disciples, and build up the edifice of Apostolic Succession on this
   narrow foundation; and that both affirm that the authority which our Lord
   gave to His Church was placed directly in the hands of office-bearers, and
   not in those of the whole membership.

   To examine at length the various exegetical arguments brought forward in
   support of these positions would lead far beyond the space at our disposal;
   but two general considerations may be adduced. Such an interpretation seems
   to be against the analogy of our Lord’s teaching; and He was not so
   understood by His New Testament Church.

   While our Lord chose Twelve to form an inner circle of disciples, while He
   trained them by close companionship with Himself for special service, while
   He weaned them in half-conscious ways from their old life, it nowhere
   appears that He bestowed upon them a special rank or instituted a peculiar
   or exceptional office of stewardship of divine mysteries in their persons.
   [64] It is improbable that He bestowed on them the name apostles to be a
   general and distinguishing title, and one unshared in by other disciples
   besides the Twelve. Our Lord called them apostles when He sent them on a
   special mission among the villages; they were apostles while this mission
   lasted; when it came to an end they were the Twelve or inner circle of
   intimates of the Master. [65] After the Death and Resurrection of the Lord
   the task to which they had been trained by companion-ship with the Saviour
   and in the apprentice mission among the villages, became their life work,
   but it was shared in from the very beginning by others who bore with them
   the common name apostle. [66] Nor does our Lord make any promises to the
   Twelve which imply that He had bestowed upon them a special rank in the
   Church which was to come. He told them that whoever received them received
   Him; but this was a privilege shared in by the least of His followers, for
   whoever received a little child in His name received Him. [67] It is
   impossible to avoid noticing how the ancient manuals of church organization
   have caught the spirit of Christ’s teaching, that there are to be no
   lordships in His Church. The qualifications set forth for office are those
   which every Christian ought to possess; and the duties said to belong to
   office are those which for the most part all Christians ought to perform. We
   do not see orders in the sense of ecclesiastical rank whose authority does
   not come from the people; we see ecclesiastical order and arrangement of
   service. Whatever power and authority the Church of Christ possesses in gift
   from the Lord resides in the membership of the Church and not in any
   superior rank of officials who have received an authority over the Church
   directly from Christ Himself.

   The Church of the New Testament evidently interpreted the words of our Lord
   to mean that He placed the authority which He had bestowed upon His Church
   in the hands of the membership, of the community which formed the local
   church.

   Even in the Primitive Church in Jerusalem, where the presence of an apostle
   was seldom lacking, the community was self-governing, and acted on the
   conviction that the authority bestowed by Christ on His Church belonged to
   the whole congregation of the faithful and not to an apostolic hierarchy.
   The assembly of the local church appointed delegates and elected
   office-bearers. The vice-apostle Matthias and the Seven were, elected by the
   assembly, [68] and a similar assembly appointed Barnabas to be its delegate
   to Antioch. [69] The assembly of the local church summoned even apostles
   before it, and passed judgment upon their conduct. [70] The apostles might
   suggest, but the congregation ruled.

   When we pass from the Church at Jerusalem to the churches planted by the
   ministry of St. Paul, the proofs of democratic self-government are still
   more abundant. When the apostle urges the duty of stricter discipline, or
   when he recommends a merciful treatment of one who had lapsed, he writes to
   the whole community in whose hands the authority resides. He pictures
   himself in their midst while they are engaged in this painful duty. He
   assures them that they have the authority of the Lord for the exercise of
   discipline. For however thoroughly democratic the government of the New
   Testament Church was, it was still as thoroughly theocratic. The presence of
   the Lord Himself was with them in the exercise of the authority He had
   entrusted to their charge. [71] The evidence of the presence of Christ was
   of the same kind as witnessed His presence in the actions of public worship.
   The local churches recognised His presence in the manifestation of the
   “gifts” of His Spirit bestowed upon them. These “gifts” included not only
   the bestowal of grace needed for exhortation to edification, but also the
   wisdom to “govern” and to “guide.” The theocratic element was not given in a
   hierarchy imposed upon the Church from without; it manifested itself within
   the community. It appeared in the presence, recognition and use made of
   gifts of government bestowed upon its membership which were none the less
   spiritual, divine and “from above,” because they concerned the ordinary
   duties of oversight and manifested themselves in the natural endowments of
   members of the community. The presence of Christ among His people may be as
   easily manifested in the decision which the assembly of the local church
   arrives at by a majority [72] of votes as in the fiat launched from an
   episcopal chair. The latter is not necessarily from above, and the former is
   not of necessity from beneath.

   V. Lastly, the Church of Christ is a sacerdotal society.

   The Church of Christ is continually represented as the “ideal Israel.” This
   is a favourite thought of St. Paul’s, and it implies that the special
   function of the Church of Christ is to do in a better manner what the
   ancient Israel did imperfectly. When we ask what the special function of the
   ancient Israel was, we find it given in a great variety of ways, all of
   which include one central thought, best expressed perhaps by the phrase, “To
   approach God.” This central idea was connected with the thoughts of special
   times of approach, or Holy Seasons; with a special place of approach, which
   was the Temple of God’s Presence; and with a special set of men who made the
   approach on behalf of their fellows, and who were called Priests. When we
   turn to the Church of Christ we find the same central thought and the same
   dependent ideas. The main function of the New Testament Church is also to
   approach God. Just as in the Old Testament economy the priests when
   approaching God presented sacrifices to Him, so in the New Testament Church
   gifts are to be presented to God, and these gifts or offerings bear the Old
   Testament name of sacrifices. We are enjoined to present our bodies; [73]
   our praise, “that is the fruit of our lips which make confession to His
   name”; [74] our faith; [75] our alms-giving; [76] our “doing good and
   communicating.” [77] These are all called “sacrifices,” or “sacrifices
   well-pleasing to God,” and, to distinguish them from the offerings of the
   Old Testament economy, “spiritual or living sacrifices.” [78] The exertions
   made by St. Paul to bring the heathen to a knowledge of the Saviour is also
   called a sacrifice or offering. [79] The New Testament Church is the ideal
   Israel, and does the work which the ancient Israel was appointed to do. The
   limitations only have disappeared. There is no trace in the New Testament
   Church of any specially holy places or times or persons. The Christian ideal
   is, to quote the late Dr. Lightfoot, a Holy Season extending all the year
   round, a Temple confined only by the limits of the habitable globe, and a
   Priesthood including every believer in the Lord Jesus Christ. [80]

   This does not mean that the New Testament Church may not select special days
   for the public worship of God; that it may not dedicate buildings where the
   faithful can meet together to unite in offering the sacrifices of prayer and
   praise; that it may not set apart men from among its membership and appoint
   them to lead its devotions. But it does mean that God can be approached at
   all times, and in every place, and by every one among His people. His fellow
   believers may select one from among themselves to be their minister. There
   may be a ministering priesthood, but there cannot be a mediating priesthood
   within the Christian society. There is one Mediator only, and all, men,
   women and children, have the promise of immediate entrance into the presence
   of God, and are priests.

   Luther has expressed the thought of the sacerdotal character of the Church
   of Christ when he says, in a description of the Eucharistic service: “There
   our priest or minister stands before the altar, having been publicly called
   to his priestly function; he repeats publicly and distinctly Christ’s words
   of the Institution; he takes the Bread and the Wine, and distributes it
   according to Christ’s words; and we all kneel beside him and around him, men
   and women, young and old, master and servant, mistress and maid, all holy
   priests together, sanctified by the blood of Christ. We are there in our
   priestly dignity. . . . We do not let the priest proclaim for himself the
   ordinance of Christ; but he is the mouthpiece of us all, and we all say it
   with him in our hearts with true faith in the Lamb of God Who feeds us with
   His Body and Blood.”

   This sacerdotal character of the whole Church of Christ was maintained in
   the primitive Christian Church down to at least the middle of the third
   century. Whatever evinced a whole-hearted dedication of one’s self to God
   was a sacrifice which required no mediating priesthood in the offering. For
   the Christian sacrifice always means a sacrifice of self. When Polycarp gave
   his body to be burnt for the faith of Jesus, he gave it in sacrifice, and
   every martyr’s death or suffering was a sacrifice well-pleasing to God. [81]
   When poor and humble believers fasted that they might have food to give to
   the hungry, they were sacrificing a spiritual sacrifice. [82] When
   Christians, either at home and in private or in the assembly for public
   worship, poured forth prayers and thanksgivings, they were offering
   sacrifice to God. [83] Justin Martyr does not hesitate to call such
   devotions “the only perfect and well-pleasing sacrifices to God.” [84]

   And the Holy Supper, the very apex and crown of all Christian public
   worship, where Christ gives Himself to His people, and where His people
   dedicate themselves to Him in body, soul and spirit, was always a sacrifice
   as prayers, praises and almagi ring were. The Church of Christ was a
   sacerdotal society, its members were all priests, and its services were all
   sacrifices. [85]

   Such is the New Testament thought of the Church of Christ—a Fellowship, a
   United Fellowship, a Visible Fellowship, a Fellowship with an Authority
   bestowed upon it by its Lord, and a sacerdotal Fellowship whose every member
   has the right of direct access to the throne of God, bringing with him the
   sacrifices of himself, of his praise and of his confession.
     _________________________________________________________________

   [1] Matt. xvi. 18. Some modern critics (cf. Schmiedel in the Encyc. Bibl.,
   p. 3105) declare that this passage could not have come from the lips of our
   Lord in the form in which it has been recorded, and in particular that He
   could not have used the word “ecclesia”; the main reason given being that
   our Lord sought to reform hearts and not external conditions. To argue from
   that statement, however true it may be, that Jesus had no intention of
   founding a religious community and could not have used the word “church,”
   seems to me to be purely subjective and therefore untrustworthy reasoning.
   Besides, the use of the word by St. Paul in Gal. i. 13, shows that St. Paul
   found the word existing within Christian circles when he embraced the new
   faith; and to find it in common use at so early a period entitles us, in my
   judgment, to trace it back to Jesus Himself. The trend of modern criticism
   has been to place St. Paul’s conversion much closer to the crucifixion than
   it was formerly held to be. St. Paul implies that the words of the
   eucharistic formula (Mk. xiv. 22-24, Matt. xxvi. 26-28) came from Jesus; he
   takes it for granted that every one who becomes a Christian (himself
   included) must be baptized. We have thus, quite independently of the Gospels
   or of the Acts, “church,” “baptism,” “the eucharist”—all implying a
   religious community, all in common use at a time scarcely two years after
   the death of our Lord, That entitles us to attribute them to Jesus Himself.

   [2] Compare Josephus, Antiq. XV. x. 3; Bell. Jud. I, xxi. 3. See also
   Schürer, Geschichte des Jüdischen Volkes (1898, 3rd ed.), ii. 158 f.; G. A.
   Smith, Historical Geography of Palestine, p. 473 ff.; Wissowa, Religion and
   Kultus der Römer (1902), p. 284, n. 3.

   [3] Numbers x. 2, 3. In the Old Testament two words are used to denote the
   assembling of Israel, qāhāl and ’edāh; the former is translated “assembly”
   and the latter “congregation” in the Revised Version. In the Septuagint
   ekklēsia is almost always always used to translate qāhāl, and sunagōgē to
   translate ’edāh. Both Greek words appear continually in the later
   Hellenistic Judaism, and it is difficult to distinguish their meanings; but
   Schürer is inclined to think that sunagōgē means the assembly of Israel as a
   matter of fact; while ekklēsia has always an ideal reference attached to it.
   Compare Schürer, Geschichte des Jüdischen Volkes (3rd ed. 1898), ii. 432, n.
   10; Hort, The Christian Ecclesia, pp. 5-7.

   [4] This is the common use of the word in classical Greek; in the later
   Greek the word denotes any popular assembly, even a disorderly one; it is
   this use that is found in Acts xix. 41. Dio Cassius uses the word to denote
   the Roman comitia or ruling popular assembly of the sovereign Roman people.
   The ruling idea in the word, whether in classical or in Hellenistic Greek,
   is that it denotes an assembly of the people, not of a committee or council.
   Against this view compare Hatch, The Organization of the Early Christian
   Churches (1881), p. 30, n. 11; and for a criticism of Hatch, see Sohm,
   Kirchenrecht (1892), i. 17, n. 4.

   [5] Acts xv. 16; cf. Amos ix. 11.

   [6] Gal. vi. 16; Acts xx. 28; cf. Ps. lxxiv. 2.

   [7] Weizsäcker, Jahrbücher für deutsche Theologie, xviii, 481.

   [8] The rock on which the Church is founded is “a human character
   acknowledging our Lord’s divine Sonship.” Gore, The Church and the Ministry,
   3rd ed. p. 38. “In virtue of this personal faith vivifying their
   discipleship, the Apostles became themselves the first little Ecclesia,
   constituting a living rock upon which a far larger and ever enlarging
   Ecclesia should very shortly be built slowly up, living stone by living
   stone, as each new faithful convert was added to the society.” Hort, The
   Christian Ecclesia, p. 17.

   [9] Matt xvi. 22, 23. The suggestion of the Evil One to Peter, and presented
   to our Lord by Peter—the possibility of Messiahship without suffering—met
   the Saviour at the great moments of His earthly ministry; at the beginning,
   in the Temptation scene; here, when he had the vision and gave the promise
   of the Church; at the end, in the Garden of Gethsemane. There are
   indications in the Gospels that it was the temptation never absent from his
   mind. In the form in which it presents itself to His followers—the
   possibility of saving fellowship with Jesus apart from trust on a suffering
   Saviour—it has perhaps also been the crowning temptation of His Church and
   followers. If our Lord alluded to this special temptation when He said to
   St. Peter, near the end, “Simon, Simon, behold Satan asked to have you that
   he might sift you as wheat,” as is most likely from His references to His
   own temptations and to St. Peter’s relation to his brethren, there is a
   delicate suggestion of fellowship softening rebuke and vivifying the
   promise; Luke xxii. 31.

   [10] 1 Cor. i. 2.

   [11] Phil. i. 1; Eph. i. 1; Col. i. 2; Rom. i. 7.

   [12] 1 Cor. xii.; Eph. iv. 4-13; Rom. xii. 3-16. It is important to notice
   that St. Paul, in Rom. xii. 7, makes diakonia a “gift” which manifests the
   presence of Christ, and that this word is used to mean any kind of
   “ministry” within the Church. See below p. 62.

   [13] See p. 63 n.

   [14] For St. Paul’s statement about the “gifts’: compare Hort, The Christian
   Ecclesia, pp. 153-70; Heinrici, Das Erste Sendschreiben des Apostel Paulus
   an die Korinther (1880), pp. 347-463; Kühl, Die Gemeindeordnung in den
   Pastoralbriefen (1885), pp. 42-49.

   [15] Weizsäcker, The Apostolic Age (English translation), I. p. 44 ff.

   [16] It ought to be noted, however, that although we do not find the word
   “ecclesia” in 1 Peter, we do find the thought of the unity of all believers
   strongly expressed in a variety of ways: “Ye are an elect race, a royal
   priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession” (1 Peter ii.
   9); and in v. 17 we have the word “brotherhood” used to bring out the same
   idea: This word in the early centuries was technically used as synonymous
   with ecclesia. See below p. 21. The double meaning of ecclesia is found in
   Matt. xvi. 18 compared with Matt. xviii. 17. In the Apocalypse the unity is
   expressed in the phrase “the Bride, the Lamb’s wife,” and the plurality in
   the “Seven Churches” (Rev. xxi. 9; ii. 1, etc).

   [17] The various passages in which the word “ecclesia” occurs in the sense
   of the Christian society have often been collected and grouped. The
   following classification is based on that of Dr. Hort. i. The word
   “ecclesia,” in the singular and with the article, is used to denote:— 1. The
   original Church of Jerusalem and Judea, when there was no other; Acts v. 11;
   viii. 1, 3; Gal. i. 13; 1 Cor. xv. 9; Phil. iii. 6. 2. The sum total of the
   churches in Judea, Samaria and Galilee; Acts ix. 31. 3. The local
   church:—Jerusalem, Acts xi. 22; xii. 1, 5; xv. 4. Thessalonica, 1 Thess. i.
   1; 2 Thess. i. 1. Corinth, 1 Cor. i. 2; vi. 4; xiv. 12, 23; 2 Cor. i. 1;
   Rom. xvi. 23. Cenchrea, Rom. xvi. 1. Laodicea, Col. iv. 16. Antioch, Acts
   xiii. 1; xv. 2. Each of the Seven Churches of Asia, Rev. ii. iii. Ephesus,
   Acts xi. 26; xiv. 27; xx. 17; 1 Tim. v. 16. Caesarea, Acts xviii. 22. Also
   in Jas. v. 14; 3 John 9, 10. 4. The assembly of a local church:—Acts xv. 22;
   1 Cor. xiv. 23. 5. The House Church:—at Ephesus, 1 Cor. xvi. 19; at Rome,
   xvi. 5; at Colossae, Col. iv. 15; Philem. 2. ii. The word “ecclesia,” in the
   singular and without the article, is used to denote:— 1. Every local church
   within a definite district:—Acts xiv. 23. 2. Any or every local Church:—1
   Cor. xiv. 4; iv. 17; Phil. iv. 15; and probably 1 Tim. iii. 5, 15. 3. The
   assembly of the local church:—1 Cor. xiv. 19, 35; xi. 18; 3 John 6. iii. The
   word “ecclesia” in the plural is used to denote:— 1. The sum of the local
   churches within a definite district. the name being given or implied:—Judea,
   1 Thess. ii. 14; Gal. i. 22. Galatia, 1 Cor. xvi. 1; Gal. i. 2. Syria and
   Cilicia, Acts xv. 41. Derbe and Lystra, Acts xvi. 5. Macedonia, 2 Cor. viii.
   1, 19. Asia, 1 Cor. xvi. 19; Rev. i. 4, 11, 20; ii. 7, 11, 17, 29; iii. 6,
   13, 22; xxii. 16. 2. An indefinite number of local churches:—2 Cor. xi. 8,
   28; viii. 23, 24; Rom. xvi. 4, 16. 3. The sum total of all the local
   churches:—2 Thess. i. 4; 1 Cor. vii. 17; xi. 16; xiv. 33; 2 Cor. xii. 13. 4.
   The assemblies of all the local churches:—1 Cor. xiv. 34. iv. The word
   “ecclesia” is used in the singular to denote:— 1. The one universal Church
   as represented in the individual local Church:—l Cor. x. 32; xi. 22; (and
   probably) xii. 28; Acts xx. 28; (and perhaps) 1 Tim. iii. 5, 15. 2. The one
   universal Church absolutely:—Col. i. 18, 24; Eph. i. 22; iii. 10, 21; v. 23,
   24, 25, 27, 29, 32. Compare also Bannerman, The Scripture Doctrine of the
   Church, p. 571 ff.; Hort, The Christian Ecclesia, pp. 116-118.

   [18] 1 Thess. ii. 14; cf. i. 1.

   [19] 1 Cor. i. 12, 13; vi. 9.

   [20] 1 Cor. iv. 17; vii. 17; xi. 2, 23; xvi. l.

   [21] Gal. iii. 28.

   [22] Rom. xi. 17.

   [23] Professor Ramsay traces a growth of definiteness in St. Paul’s use of
   the word “Church” from its application to a single congregation to its use
   to denote what he calls the “Unified Church,” and ingeniously connects the
   use in each case with political parallels. Thus the phrase “the Church of
   the Thessalonians” corresponds in civil usage to the ecclesia of the Greek
   city-state, while the phrase “the Church in Corinth,” suggesting as it does,
   “the Church” in other places as well as in Corinth, corresponds in civil
   usage to a universal and all-embracing political organization like the Roman
   Empire. Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller, pp. 124-7. Whether this be true or
   not, few will fail to find a connexion between the wide meaning the apostle
   puts into the word “Church” in the Epistles to the Ephesians and to the
   Colossians, and the imperial associations of the city from which he wrote.
   “Writing now from Rome, he (St. Paul) could not have divested himself, if he
   would, of a sense of writing from the centre of all earthly human affairs;
   all the more since we know from the narrative in Acts xxii. that he himself
   was a Roman citizen, and apparently proud to hold this place in the Empire.
   Here then he must have been vividly reminded of the already existing unity
   which comprehended both Jew and Gentile under the bond of subjection to the
   emperor at Rome, and similarity and contrast would alike suggest that a
   truer unity bound together in one society all believers in the crucified
   Lord.” Hort, The Christian Ecclesia, p. 143.

   [24] “Not in abstraction or isolation, but in communion lies the very
   meaning of personality itself,” Moberly, Ministerial Priesthood, p. 5.
   “Fellowship is to the higher life what food is to the natural life—without
   it every power flags and at last perishes,” Hort, Hulsean Lectures, p. 194.

   [25] Eph. iv. 4-6.

   [26] This thought has been beautifully expressed by Dr. Sanday, The
   Conception of Priesthood (1898), pp. 11-14.

   [27] To the Smyrnaeans, 8.

   [28] Exegetes differ about the exact translation of 1 Cor. xii. 27: humeis
   de este sōma Christou A few (such as Godet) translate it: “a body of
   Christ”; by far the largest number translate: “the Body of Christ”; many
   “Christ’s Body,” leaving the exact thought indeterminate. It seems to me
   that the exact rendering, a or the, cannot be reached from purely
   grammatical reasoning. St. Paul is completing his metaphor or interpreting
   his parable, He has been emphasizing the fact that the Christian community
   at Corinth is an organism with a variety of parts differing in structure and
   function. It is a perfect organism in the sense that there is no necessary
   part lacking that is required for the purpose the organism is intended, to
   serve for its support or increase or for work. The life which pervades the
   organism in its totality and in every minutest part is Christ (Col. iii.
   14). The organism is the Body of Christ.

   [29] “Este potius . . . Christianus, pecuniam tuam adsidente Christo
   spectantibus angelis et martyris praesentibus super mensam dominicam
   sparge.” De Aleatoribus, 11; Harnack and v. Gebhardt, Texte u.
   Untersuchungen, V. i. 29.

   [30] Origen, De Or. 31:—“Kai angelikōn dunameōn ephistamenōn tois
   athroismasi tōn pisteuontōn kai autou tou kuriou kai sōtēros hēmōn dunameōs
   ēdē de kai pneumatōn hagiōn, oimai de, hoti kai prokekoimēmenōn; saphes de,
   hoti kai en tō biō periontōn, ei kai to pōs ouk eucheres eipein.”

   [31] Tertullian, De exhortatione castitatis, 7; compare De poenitentia, 10;
   De pudicitia, 21; De fuga in persecutione, 14.

   [32] Rom. vi. 3-8.; Gal. iii. 27.

   [33] 2 Cor. xi. 23-27.

   [34] Compare Dobschütz, Die Urchristlichen Gemeinden, Sittensgeschichtliche
   Bilder (1902), pp. 18 ff.

   [35] Compare Robertson, Regnum Dei, p. 54:—“It (the kingdom of Christ) is
   the Kingdom of God in its idea—in potency and in promise: but visibly and
   openly not yet. This is St. Paul’s well-known paradox of the Christian life.
   Our whole task as Christians is to become what we are.”

   [36] As in 1 Cor. x. 32; xi. 22; and xii. 28; compare above p. 11, note 2,
   § iv. 1.

   [37] The principle which underlies the claim generally associated with the
   ambiguous phrase “apostolic succession” is so curiously like the demand made
   by “those of the sect of the Pharisees who believed” in the, days of St.
   Paul, that it can be most naturally expressed in the same language if only a
   “succession of bishops” takes the place of “circumcision.”

   [38] Gen. xvii. 13.

   [39] Gal. ii. 9: “And when they perceived the grace that was given unto me,
   James and Cephas and John, they who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me
   and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship, that we should go unto the
   Gentiles, and they unto the circumcision.”

   [40] See Sources of the Apostolic Canons, where ekklēsia appears in § 1 and
   adolphotēs in § 2; Texte u. Untersuchungen, II. v. 7. 12.

   [41] For universa fraternitas, see the tract De Aleatoribus, 1; Texte u.
   Untersuchungen, V. i. 11; omnis fraternitas, V. i. 14; compare Tertullian,
   Apologia, 39; De praescriptione, 20; De pudicitia, 13. For pasa hē
   adolphotēs, see 1 Clem. ii. 4; and Harnack’s note on the passage; also 1
   Peter ii. 17.

   [42] Acts xi. 30; cf. xii. 25.

   [43] Col. iv. 16; where St. Paul asks that his letter be read to the Church
   of Laodicea.

   [44] 1 Thess. iv. 9-11.

   [45] Rom. xvi. 16; 1 Cor. xvi. 19.

   [46] Rom. xvi. 21-23; 1 Cor. xvi. 19; Gal. i. 2; Phil. iv. 21, 22; Col. i.
   1, 2.

   [47] 2 Cor. i. 1.

   [48] 1 Cor. xvi. 19; Acts xix. 10.

   [49] Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller, p. 274.

   [50] 1 Thess. iv. 1O.

   [51] 1 Cor. xvi. 1.

   [52] 1 Cor. x. 32; xii. 13; Rom. iii. 29.

   [53] Rendall, The Pauline Collection for the Saints, Expositor, Nov; 1893.
   For St. Paul’s conception of what was meant by “fellowship” and the methods
   he took to make it visible, see Weizsäcker, The Apostolic Age of the
   Christian Church (Eng. Trans.) I. p. 46 ff.; II, pp. 307-9; and Ramsay, St.
   Paul the Traveller, pp. 54, 130 ff.

   [54] Acts viii. 14-27.

   [55] Acts xi. 22, 23.

   [56] Some Anglican divines make strange deductions from the truth that the
   authority which belongs to the Church comes from above. They at once infer
   that inasmuch as the authority comes from above it cannot come directly to
   the whole Christian society; but must come through an official class of
   ministers who act as a species of plastic medium between our Lord and His
   people. Strange how Gnostic and Arian ideas banished from the creeds of the
   Church linger in thoughts about Orders! Then by a confusion of ideas they
   transfer the phrase “from above” to the human sphere, and make it an
   essential idea of legitimate ecclesiastical rule that it must be invariably
   communicated from a higher to a lower order of ministry! Why should
   authority imparted through the Christian Society be regarded as “from
   beneath,” as of the earth earthy?

   [57] Ephes. v. 23; Col. i. 18.

   [58] “There is a tone of loving reverence and worship in the words ‘Thou art
   the Christ, the Son of the Living God.’ They answer to our Lord’s picture of
   the spiritual experience of His disciples in His great intercessory prayer;
   ‘I manifested Thy name unto the men whom Thou gavest Me out of the world;
   Thine they were, and Thou gavest them to Me; and they have kept Thy word.
   Now they know that all things, whatsoever Thou hast given Me, are from Thee;
   for the words which Thou gavest Me, I have given unto them; and they
   received them, and knew of a truth that I came forth from Thee, and they
   believed that Thou didst send Me.” Bannerman, The Scripture Doctrine of the
   Church, p. 169.

   [59] Isaiah xiii. 20, 22. Compare Gore, The Church and the Ministry, p. 223.

   [60] Matt. xxiii. 2, 3, 13:—hoti kleiete tēn basileian tōn ouranōn
   emprosthen tōn aithrōpōn.

   [61] Rev. iii. 7:—tade legei ho hagios, ho alēthinos, ho echōn tēn klein
   Dabid, ho anoigōn kai oudeis kleisei, kai kleiōn kai oudeis anoigei.

   [62] John xx. 22, 23:—kai toûto ei̓pṑn e̓nephúsēsen kaì légei au̓tois,
   Lábete Pneuma Hagion an tinōn a̓phēte tàs a̔martías, a̓phientai
   (apheōntai Ti., W. H.) autois, án tinōn kratēte kekrátēntai.

   [63] “The main thought which the words convey is that of the reality of the
   power of absolution from sin granted to the Church and not of the particular
   organization through which the power is administered. There is nothing in
   the context to show that the gift was confined to any particular group (as
   the apostles) among the whole company present. The commission must therefore
   be regarded as properly the commission of the Christian society, and not as
   that of the Christian ministry (cf. Matt. v. 13, 14). The great mystery of
   the world, absolutely insoluble by thought, is that of sin; the mission of
   Christ was to bring salvation from sin; and the work of the Church is to
   apply to all that which He has gained. Christ risen was Himself the sign of
   the completed overthrow of death, the end of sin, and the impartment of His
   life necessarily carried with it the fruit of His conquest. Thus the promise
   is in one sense an interpretation of the gift. The gift of the Holy Spirit
   finds its application in the communication or withholding of the powers of
   the new life. . . . The promise, as being made not to one but to the
   Society, carries with it of necessity . . . the character of perpetuity: the
   society never dies. . . . The exercise of the power must be placed in the
   closest connexion with the faculty of spiritual discernment, consequent on
   the gift of the Holy Spirit.” Westcott, Gospel of St. John, p. 295.

   [64] Cf. 1 Peter iv. 10: “According as each hath received a gift,
   ministering it among yourselves, as good stewards of the manifold grace of
   God.”

   [65] The relations of the Twelve to the Church of Christ are strikingly
   brought out by Dr. Hort in his Christian Ecclesia, pp. 23-41. On the title
   apostle he says: “Taking these facts together respecting the usage of the
   Gospels, we are led, I think, to the conclusion that in its original sense
   the term Apostle was not intended to describe the habitual relation of the
   Twelve to our Lord during the days of His ministry, but strictly speaking
   only that mission among the villages, of which the beginning and the end are
   recorded for us.” . . . “If they (the Twelve) represented an apostolic order
   within the Ecclesia then the Holy Communion must have been intended only for
   members of that order, and the rest of the Ecclesia had no part in it. But
   if, as the men of the apostolic age and subsequent ages believed without
   hesitation, the Holy Communion was meant for the Ecclesia at large, then the
   Twelve sat down that evening as representatives of the Ecclesia at large;
   they were disciples more than they were apostles.”

   [66] St. Paul in his account of the appearances of our Lord after His
   Resurrection distinguishes between the Twelve and apostles; 1 Cor. xv. 5-8;
   cf. below, pp. 74-85.

   [67] Matt. x. 40; cf. Luke x. 16; Matt. xviii. 5; Mark ix. 37; Luke ix. 48.

   [68] Acts i. 23; vi. 5.

   [69] Acts xi. 22.

   [70] On the conduct of St. Peter at Caesarea, Acts xi. 1-4; on the opinions
   and practices of St. Paul, xv. 12, 22-29, and whatever differences may be
   found in the account of the proceedings in this chapter and in St. Paul’s
   statement in the Epistle to the Galatians (Gal. ii. 1 ff.) there is no
   question that both recognize the supremacy of the assembly of the Church.

   [71] 1 Cor. v. 3-5; Gal. vi. 1.

   [72] The censure inflicted on the member of the Corinthian Church who had
   disobeyed the Apostle Paul was carried by a majority: 2 Cor. ii. 6. hē
   epitimia au̔́tē hē hupo tōn pleionōn.

   [73] Rom. xii. 1: “I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God,
   to present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, well-pleasing to God, which
   is your reasonable service (tēn logikēn latreian humōn).” The thought
   expressed is that the Christian should consecrate the whole personality,
   body, soul and spirit to God; and thus all service whether of work or
   worship became a sacrifice. Compare Ps. li. 15-17.

   [74] Heb. xiii. 15.

   [75] Phil. ii. 17.

   [76] Paul’s great collection for the poor saints in Jerusalem is an
   offering: Acts xxiv. 17; so is the contributions which the members of the
   Church at Philippi sent to the apostle: Phil. iv. 18.

   [77] Heb. xiii. 16.

   [78] Thusiai pneumatikai: 1 Pet. ii. 5; thusia zōsa: Rom. xii. 1; cf. Phil.
   ii. 17.

   [79] Rom. xv. 16.

   [80] Commentary on the Epistle to the Philippians (1881), 6th ed. p. 183.

   [81] Compare Letter of the Smyrnaeans on the Martyrdom of Polycarp, 14:
   “Then he, placing his arms behind him and being hound to the stake, like a
   goodly ram out of a great flock for an offering, a burnt sacrifice made
   ready and acceptable to God, looking up to heaven, said: O Lord God
   Almighty. . . .”

   [82] Aristides, Apology, 15: “And if any among the Christians is poor and in
   want, and they have not overmuch of the means of life, they fast two or
   three days, in order that they may provide those in need with the food they
   require.” A favourite phrase to describe widows and orphans was “the altar
   of God” on which the sacrifices of almsgiving were offered up. It is used by
   Polycarp, To the Philippians, 4; also in the Apostolic Constitutions, ii. 26
   and iv. 3, of the orphans, the old and all who were supported by the
   benevolence of the faithful. Tertullian says of the widow: “aram enim Dei
   mundam proponi oportet,” Ad Uxor. i. 7.

   [83] Clement of Alexandria spiritualizes the Old Testament sacrifices to
   make them the forerunners of Christian prayers. “And that compounded incense
   which is mentioned in the Law, is that which consists of many tongues and
   voices in prayer . . . brought together in praises with a pure mind, and
   just and right conduct, from holy works and righteous prayer,” Strom. vii.
   6. In the same chapter he says: “For the sacrifice of the Church is the word
   breathing as incense from holy souls, the sacrifice and the whole mind being
   at the same time unveiled to God.”

   [84] Dialogue, 117.

   [85] The conception of a mutilated sacerdotalism, where one part of the
   Christian worship is alone thought of as the true sacrifice, and a small
   portion of the fellowship—the ministry—is declared to be the priesthood, did
   not appear until the time of Cyprian, and was his invention.
     _________________________________________________________________

CHAPTER II

  A CHRISTIAN CHURCH IN APOSTOLIC TIMES

   Can we, piercing the mists of two thousand years, see a Christian Church as
   it was in Apostolic times—a tiny island in a sea of surrounding heathenism?
   Our vision gets most assistance from the Epistles of St. Paul, which not
   only are the oldest records of the literature of the New Testament, but give
   us much clearer pictures of the earliest Christian assemblies for
   edification and thanksgiving than are to be found in the Acts of the
   Apostles. The more we study these epistles the more clearly we discern that
   we must not project into these primitive times a picture taken from any of
   the long organized churches of our days. On the other hand, we can see many
   an analogy in the usages of the growing churches of the mission field. This
   is not to be wondered at. The primitive church and churches growing among
   heathen surroundings have both to do with the origins of organization.

   For one thing, we must remember that the meetings of the congregation were
   held in private houses; [86] and as the number of believers grew, more than
   one house must have been placed at the service of the brethren for their
   meetings for public worship and for the transaction of the necessary
   business of the congregation. We are told that in the primitive church at
   Jerusalem the Lord’s Supper was dispensed in the houses, [87] and that the
   brethren met in the house of Mary the mother of John Mark, [88] in the house
   of James the brother of our Lord, [89] and probably elsewhere. At the close
   of the Epistle to the Romans, St. Paul sends greetings to three, perhaps
   five, groups of brethren gathered round clusters of distinguished Christians
   whom he names. One of these groups he calls a “church,” and the others were
   presumably so also. [90] The account of Saul, the persecutor, making havoc
   of the Church, entering every house and haling men and women to prison,
   reads like a record of the persecution of the Huguenots among the
   house-churches of Reformation times in France, or like raids on
   house-conventicles in the Covenanting times in Scotland. It becomes evident
   too as we study these early records that when it was possible, that is, when
   any member had a sufficiently large abode and was willing to open his house
   to the brethren, comparatively large assemblies, including all the
   Christians of the town or neighbourhood, met together at stated times and
   especially on the Lord’s Day, for the service of thanksgiving. Gaius was
   able to accommodate all his fellow Christians, and was the “host of the
   whole Church.” [91]

   Traces of these earliest house-churches survived in happier days. The ground
   plan of the earliest Roman church, discovered in 1900 in the Forum at Rome,
   is modelled not on the basilica or public hall, but on the audience hall of
   the wealthy Roman burgher, and the recollections of the familiar
   surroundings at the meetings in the house-churches probably guided the
   pencil of the architect who first planned the earliest public buildings
   dedicated to Christian worship. [92] Old liturgies which enjoin the deacon,
   at the period of the service when the Lord’s Supper is about to be
   celebrated, to command the mothers to take their babies on their knees,
   bring [93] with them memories of these homely gatherings in private houses,
   which lasted down to the close of the second century and probably much
   later, except in the larger towns. [94]

   It is St. Paul, in his First Epistle to the Corinthians, who gives us the
   most distinct picture of the meetings of the earliest Christian communities.
   The brethren appear to have had three distinct meetings—one for the purposes
   of edification by prayer and exhortation, another for thanksgiving which
   began with a common meal and ended with the Holy Supper, [95] and a third
   for the business of the little society.

   1. In his description of the first the apostle introduces us to an earnest
   company of men and women full of restrained enthusiasm, which might soon
   become unrestrained. We hear of no officials appointed to conduct the
   services. The brethren fill the body of the hall, the women sitting
   together, in all probability on the one side, and the men on the other;
   behind them are the inquirers; and behind them, clustering round the door,
   unbelievers, whom curiosity or some other motive has attracted, and who are
   welcomed to this meeting “for the Word.”

   The service, and probably each part of the service, began with the
   benediction: “Grace be to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord
   Jesus Christ,” which was followed by an invocation of Jesus and the
   confession that He is Lord. [96] One of the brethren began to pray; then
   another and another; one began the Lord’s Prayer, [97] and all joined; each
   prayer was followed by a hearty and fervent “Amen.” [98] Then a hymn was
   sung; then another and another, for several of the brethren have composed or
   selected hymns at home which they wish to be sung by the congregation. [99]
   Several of these hymns are preserved in the New Testament, and one is
   embodied in one of our Scotch paraphrases: [100] —


   To Him be power divine ascribed,

   And endless blessings paid;

   Salvation, glory, joy, remain

   For ever on His Head:


   Thou hast redeemed us with Thy Blood,

   And set the prisoners free;

   Thou mad’st us kings and priests to God,

   And we shall reign with Thee,


   *   *   *   *   *


   To Him that sits upon the throne

   The God whom we adore,

   And to the Lamb that once was slain;

   Be glory evermore. [101]

   After the hymns came reading from the Old Testament Scriptures, and readings
   or recitations concerning the life and death, the sayings and deeds of
   Jesus. [102] Then came the “instruction”—sober words for edification, based
   on what had been read, and coming either from the gift of “wisdom,” or from
   that intuitive power of seeing into the heart of spiritual things which the
   apostle calls “knowledge.” [103] Then came the moment of greatest
   expectancy. It was the time for the prophets, men who believed themselves
   and were believed by their brethren to be specially taught by the Holy
   Spirit, to take part. They started forward, the gifted men, so eager to
   impart what had been given them, that sometimes two or more rose at once and
   spoke together; [104] and sometimes when one was speaking the message came
   to another, and he leapt to his feet, [105] increasing the emotion and
   taking from the edification. When the prophets were silent, first one, then
   another, and sometimes two at once, began strange ejaculatory prayers, [106]
   in sentences so rugged and disjointed that the audience for the most part
   could not understand, and had to wait till some of their number, who could
   follow the strange utterances, were ready to translate them into
   intelligible language. [107] Then followed the benediction: “The Grace of
   the Lord Jesus be with you all”; the “kiss of peace”; and the congregation
   dispersed. Sometimes during the meeting, at some part of the services, but
   oftenest when the prophets were speaking, there was a stir at the back of
   the room, and a heathen, who had been listening in careless curiosity or in
   barely concealed scorn, suddenly felt the sinful secrets of his own heart
   revealed to him, and pushing forward fell down at the feet of the speaker
   and made his confession, [108] while the assembly raised the doxology:
   “Blessed be God, the Father of the Lord Jesus, for evermore. [109] Amen.”

   Such was a Christian meeting for public worship in Corinth in apostolic
   times; and foreign as it may seem to us, the like can be still seen in
   mission fields among the hot-blooded people of the East. I have witnessed
   everything but the speaking “with tongues” in meetings of native Christians
   in the Deccan in India, when European influence was not present to restrain
   Eastern enthusiasm and condense it in Western moulds.

   The meeting described by the apostle is not to be taken as something which
   might be seen in Corinth but was peculiar to that city; it may be taken as a
   type of the Christian meeting throughout the Gentile Christian Churches; for
   the Apostle, in his suggestions and criticisms, continually speaks of what
   took place throughout all the churches. [110]

   It is to be observed that if the apostle finds fault with some things, he
   gives the order of the service and expressly approves of every part of it,
   even of the strange ejaculatory prayers. [111] He gives his Corinthian
   converts one broad principle, which he expects them to apply for themselves
   in order to better their service. Everything is to be done for the
   edification of the brethren, and the first qualification for edification is
   that all things be done “decently and in order,” for God is not a God of
   confusion but of peace. [112] He gives examples of his principle. The
   prophets were to restrain themselves; they were to speak one at a time, and
   not more than two or three at one meeting; [113] and those who prayed “in
   tongues” were to keep silence altogether unless some one who could interpret
   was present, for it is better to speak five words with understanding than
   ten thousand in a tongue. The women too who had the gift of prophecy were to
   use it in private, and not start forward at the public meeting and deliver
   their message there. So far from finding fault with the kind of meeting
   described, St. Paul seems to look on the manifestation of these gifts of
   praise, prayer, teaching, and prophecy, within the congregation at Corinth,
   as an evidence that the Christian community there was completely furnished
   within its own membership with all the gifts needed for the building up in
   faith and works. [114]

   What cannot fail to strike us in this picture is the untrammelled liberty of
   the worship, the possibility of every male member of the congregation taking
   part in the prayers and the exhortations, and the consequent responsibility
   laid on the whole community to see that the service was for the edification
   of all. When we consider the rebukes that the apostle considered it
   necessary to administer, it is also somewhat surprising to find so few
   injunctions which take the form of definite rules for public worship, and to
   observe the confidence which the apostle had that if certain broad
   principles were laid down and observed, the community was of itself able to
   conduct all things with that attention to decency and order which ensured
   edification.

   Our wonder is apt to be increased when we remember the social surroundings
   and conditions of these Corinthian Christians. They were a number of
   burghers, freedmen and slaves, who, as their names show, were mostly of
   Roman origin, gathered from the wealthiest and most profligate city on the
   Mediterranean. The population of Corinth was as mixed as that of Alexandria.
   At Cenchrea, on the eastern shore of the isthmus, the wealth of Asia and
   Egypt poured in, and was sent off to Rome and Italy from Lechaeum, the
   western harbour. The flow of commerce brought with it the peoples, religions
   and habits of all lands. The religion of the city was a strange medley of
   cults Eastern and Western. Aphrodite and Astarte, Isis and Cybele, were
   among her deities; Romans, Jews, Egyptians and Phoenicians among her people.
   The familiar illustrations which the apostle uses in his epistles indicate
   the habits of the population. He speaks of the arena and the wild-beast
   fights, [115] of the theatre, [116] of the boxing match and the stadium
   race, [117] of the great idol-feasts and processions. [118] The city, we
   know, was honeycombed with “gilds”—religious corporations for the practices
   of the Eastern religions, and trades unions for the artizans and the seamen.
   The Christian society was gathered from all classes; from the poor and the
   slaves, [119] from the well-to-do like the city treasurer, [120] and an
   elder from the Jewish Synagogue; [121] it included ladies of rank like
   Chloe, [122] and men of abounding wealth like Gains. [123] It was this
   hcterogenous society, including so many jarring elements, that the apostle
   expected to develop into an orderly Church of Christ in virtue of the “
   gifts “ of the Spirit implanted within it.

   2. It is by no means so easy to get a clear picture of the second meeting of
   the Christian community—the meeting for thanksgiving—as it is to see what
   the meeting for edification was like. [124] With the latter we have only to
   remove the blemishes which the apostle found, and the vision of the meeting
   as he approved of it stands clearly before us. But the abuses which had
   corrupted the meeting for thanksgiving had so changed it, from what it ought
   to have been, that it could not serve what it was meant to do. The framework
   of the degenerate meeting and of the same gathering re-organized according
   to the apostle’s directions can easily be traced. The members of the
   Christian community in Corinth assembled together in one place, where they
   ate together a meal which they themselves provided; and this meeting ended
   with the celebration of the Lord’s Supper. The Holy Supper was the essential
   part. The common meal and what belonged to it were accessories, the casket
   to contain the one precious jewel, the body to be vivified by this soul. It
   was the Holy Supper that really brought them together; but their conduct had
   made it impossible for them to be the Lord’s guests at His Table. [125] The
   apostle tells the Corinthians that their meeting could not be a Lord’s
   Supper nor even a love-feast if each ate his own meal and one was hungry,
   while another drank his fill. [126] The common meal showed that all the
   brethren belonged to one living organism which was the Church in Corinth, of
   which the Lord was the Head. Nothing could so wound this thought as making
   the distinctions between rich and poor, which had been done. It banished the
   whole idea of fellow-ship, and sensuality was introduced where, above all
   places, it ought to have been absent. [127] God had manifested His
   displeasure by sending sickness and death into the congregation. [128] The
   apostle lays down a general principle, and gives instances of its
   application, which if followed out will make the common meal a fitting
   introduction to the Holy Supper, and then shows how the Lord’s Supper itself
   is to be solemnly and fitly celebrated according to the commands of Jesus.
   If we take the principles which the apostle lays down and suggestions from
   other portions of the New Testament, with those which come from the earliest
   post-apostolic descriptions of similar meetings, we may perhaps venture to
   reconstruct the scene.

   The apostle shows that this meeting for thanksgiving is to be a social meal
   representing the fellowship which subsists between all the members of the
   brotherhood, because they have each a personal fellowship with their Lord.
   They are therefore to eat all together, and if anyone is too hungry to wait
   for his neighbours he ought to eat at home. It is also to be a fitting
   introduction for the Lord’s Supper, which both symbolises and imparts that
   personal fellowship with Christ which is the permanent basis of their
   fellowship with each other. This thought that the Holy Supper is to come at
   the end of it must dominate the meeting during its entire duration. From
   beginning to end the brethren are at the Lord’s Table and are His guests.

   The whole membership of the Church at Corinth met together at one place on a
   fixed day, the Lord’s day, [129] for their Thanks-giving Meeting. The
   meeting was confined to the member-ship; even catechumens, as well as
   inquirers and unbelievers, were excluded. The partakers brought provisions,
   according to their ability. Some of the brethren, who belonged to that
   honoured number who were recognized to have the prophetic gift, presided.
   [130] The food brought was handed over to them, and they distributed so that
   the superfluity of the rich made up for the lack of the poor. They also
   conducted the devotional services at the feast and at the Holy Supper which
   followed. The presidents began with prayers of thanksgiving for the food
   prepared for them and before them; [131] it was an evidence of the bounty of
   God the Creator; a pledge of His fellowship with them His creatures; a
   warrant for their continuous trust in His Fatherly care and providence; and
   a suggestion of the bounties of His redemption which were more fully
   symbolised in the Holy Supper which followed. [132] During the feast the
   brethren were taught to regard themselves as in God’s presence and His
   guests; but this did not hinder a prevailing sense of gladness, nor prevent
   them satisfying their hunger and their thirst; God the creator had placed
   the food and drink before them for that purpose. [133] It did prevent all
   unseemly behaviour, all unbrotherly conduct in speech or action, and it
   insisted on the absence of all who were at variance with their neighbours
   until the quarrel had been put an end to. [134] During the feast hymns were
   sung at intervals, and probably short exhortations were given by the
   prophets. [135] Then when all was decently finished the Holy Communion was
   solemnly celebrated as commanded by the apostle.

   3. It is to be remembered that the apostle regarded the community of
   Christians at Corinth as something more than a society for performing
   together acts of public worship, whether eucharistic or for prayer, praise
   and exhortation. It was a little self-governing republic. This made the
   third kind of meeting necessary. The common worship of the society,
   especially the eucharistic service, united it with the whole brotherhood of
   believers throughout the world, and showed it to be in the succession from
   the ancient people of God; [136] but it had a corporate unity of its own
   which manifested itself in actions for which the whole body of the
   Corinthian believers were responsible. This local unity took shape in the
   meeting of the congregation which is expressly called the “Church” [137] by
   the apostle, at which all the members apparently had the right of appearing
   and taking part in the discussion and voting—women at first as well as men.

   This meeting had charge of the discipline of the congregation and of the
   fraternal relations between the community and other Christian communities.
   Letters seeking apostolic advice were prepared and dispatched in its name;
   [138] it appointed delegates to represent the church and gave them letters
   of commendation, [139] and in all probability it took charge of the money
   gathered in the great collection for the poor saints at Jerusalem. [140] The
   whole administration of the external affairs of the congregation was under
   its control; and this was a work of very great importance, because it was
   this fraternal intercourse that made visible the essential unity of the
   whole Church of Christ.

   It exercised the same complete control over the internal administration of
   the affairs of the congregation. It expelled unworthy members; [141] it
   deliberated upon and came to conclusions about the restoration of brethren
   who had fallen away and showed signs of repentance. [142] It arrived at its
   decisions when necessary by voting, and the vote of the majority decided the
   case. [143] We hear nothing in the epistles of a common congregational fund
   for purposes common to the brethren; if such existed it was probably under
   the care of this meeting also.

   All these things implied independent self-government; and the apostle asks
   the brethren to undertake another task which shows even more clearly how
   independent and autonomous he expected the congregation to be. He censured
   Christians for bringing their fellow-believers before the ordinary
   law-courts should disputes arise between brethren; he urged that such
   matters should be settled within the congregation. He used stronger language
   about this than about any other side of the practical expression of their
   religious life. “Dare any of you,” he says, “having a matter against his
   neighbour, go to law before the unrighteous, and not before the saints?”
   [144] To grasp the full significance of his meaning we must remember that
   the apostle is speaking to men living in the busiest commercial city of the
   age, and to a little community within it which included city officials,
   merchants, and artizans, as well as slaves. He is not addressing men
   belonging to a small rural village where life is simple and the occasions of
   dispute few and mainly personal. The Christians of Corinth lived in the
   grasp of a highly artificial and complicated commercial life, where the
   complexity of affairs offered any number of points at which differences of
   opinion might honestly arise between brethren related as masters and
   servants, buyers and sellers, traders and carriers. It was men living in
   these surroundings whom the apostle ordered to abstain from going before the
   ordinary law courts for the purpose of settling disputes which might arise
   between them, and whom he commanded to create tribunals within the community
   before which they were to bring all differences. Have they not one single
   “wise man,” he asks, among them who could act as judge? [145] We are apt to
   forget that Christianity came to establish a new social living as well as a
   religion, and that from the first it demanded that all the relations between
   man and man ought to be regulated on Christian principles. That means now
   that our national laws ought to conform to the principles of the Gospel; it
   meant then that all disputes were to be settled within the Christian
   community, and that nothing was to be taken before the heathen tribunals.

   Such is the picture of a Christian church in the Apostolic age, as it
   appears in the pages of the Epistles of St. Paul to the Corinthians, and,
   although no such clear outline is given us of any other Christian community,
   still we are warranted, as we shall see, in assuming that the Church in
   Corinth did not differ much from the other churches which came into being
   through the mission work of the great apostle to the Gentiles. [146] We see
   a little self-governing republic—a tiny island in a sea of surrounding
   paganism—with an active, eager, enthusiastic life of its own. It has its
   meetings for edification, open to all who care to attend, where the
   conversions are made which multiply the little community; its quieter
   meetings for thanksgiving, where none but the believing brethren assemble,
   and where the common meal enshrines the Holy Supper as the common fellowship
   among the brethren embodies the personal but not solitary fellowship which
   each believer has with the Redeemer; its business meetings where it rules
   its members in the true democratic fashion of a little village republic, and
   attaches itself to other brotherhoods who share the same faith and hope,
   trust in and live for the same Saviour, and have things in common in this
   world as well as beyond it. The meeting for thanksgiving represents the
   centre of spiritual repose, the quiet source of active life and service; the
   meeting for edification, the enthusiastic, eager, aggressive side of the
   life and work; and the business meeting, the deliberative and practical
   action of men who recognize that they are in the world though not of it.

   We can see our brethren in the faith living, loving, working together,
   quarrelling and making it up again, across these long centuries, and all
   very human as we are.

   The evidence for the independence and self-government of the churches to
   which St. Paul addressed his epistles is so overwhelming that it is
   impossible even to imagine the presence within them of any ecclesiastical
   authority with an origin and power independent of the assembly of the
   congregation, and the apostle does not make the slightest allusion to any
   such governing or controlling authority, whether vested in one man or in a
   group of men. The apostle was so filled with the sense of high rank to which
   all Christians are raised in being called to be “sons of God” through Jesus
   Christ, that in his view this sublime position makes all believers of equal
   standing no matter with what spiritual gifts and natural abilities
   particular individuals may be endowed. [147] It was a natural and practical
   consequence of this thought that all believers should share the
   responsibilities of control in the community to which they belonged. So we
   find it as a matter of fact in the churches to which St. Paul addressed his
   epistles. He did not write to ecclesiastical persons to whom the brethren
   owed obedience as to an authority different from, and superior to, the
   assembly of the congregation. He addressed his letters to the whole
   community, who, in his eyes, are responsible for the progress and good
   behaviour as for the misdeeds and decline of the society and of individual
   Christians within it. His letters are quite consistent with the existence of
   ministering officials who owe their position to the assembly and are
   responsible in the last resort to it; but they are not consistent with the
   existence within the community of any authority whose power comes directly
   from a source outside the brotherhood.

   In his letters to the Church at Corinth, the apostle makes scant allusion to
   office-bearers of any kind. The meeting of the congregation is the one thing
   which gathers up the unity of administration within the community. The
   apostle appears to acquiesce in this state of matters, unless we consider
   the query as to whether there are no wise men within the society who can
   settle disputes within the brotherhood to be a suggestion that some kind of
   recognized officials are needed for the furtherance of the orderly life of
   the local church. In verses 3-15 of the last chapter of the Epistle to the
   Romans, whether these be a short letter addressed to the Church at Ephesus,
   as some think, or whether they be an integral part of the letter to “all
   that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints,” the apostle
   ad-dresses Christians who appear to be living in an even less organized
   condition of Christian fellowship. They form a unity because of their common
   faith and love; but that unity does not appear to find expression even in
   one common congregational meeting. Little companies, to whom the apostle
   unhesitatingly gives the name of “churches,” have gathered round prominent
   persons who appear to have been the first converts, or those who had placed
   their houses at the disposal of the brethren for holding meetings for
   worship, or those who had voluntarily done special services to their fellow
   believers. The same condition of things is to be found at Colossae and at
   Laodicea. The apostle sends greetings to persons of different sexes and
   positions in life, but never to office-bearers as such. Nor among his many
   exhortations does he allude to the need of organization under hierarchical
   authority, still less does he prescribe a form of organization which was to
   be uniform throughout the whole Church of Christ.

   We do, however, find traces of an organization within the Christian
   communities, if we use the word in the most general way, in the Epistles of
   St. Paul. The meeting of the congregation is almost as prominent in the
   Church of the Thessalonians as it is at Corinth; it exercises discipline;
   [148] it selects faithful men to accompany the apostle to Jerusalem with the
   money brought together in the great collection; [149] it evidently has all
   administrative powers in its hands. But besides this, we hear of men who are
   called “those who are over you in the Lord,” and the brethren of
   Thessalonica are told to value them highly for their works’ sake. [150] In
   the Corinthian Church we hear of “gifts,” of “helps” (antilēpseis), anything
   that could be done for the poor or outcast brethren, either by rich and
   influential brethren, or by the devotion of those who stood on no such
   eminence; and guidances or “governments” (kubernēseis), men who by wise
   councils did for the community what the steersman or pilot does for the
   ship. [151] These “gifts” were bestowed on members of the community for the
   service of all; and men who were recognized to be able to guide wisely as
   well as others from whom all kinds of subordinate service could be expected,
   were present within the Christian community at Corinth. [152] Again the
   Corinthian Christians are told “to be in subjection” to Stephanas, the first
   convert, and others like him who have ministered to the saints and who have
   laboured among them, putting heart into their work. [153] In the Epistle to
   the Romans there is express mention of men who are over their brethren, and
   they are told to do their work diligently. [154] These references and others
   show us that there were men in these Christian societies who were recognized
   as leaders and who rendered continuous and valued services to their brethren
   by so doing. They may not have been office-bearers by election and
   appointment, but they were engaged in doing the work that office-bearers do
   in a Christian church.

   Altogether apart, however, from the organization of the local churches,
   whether developed or undeveloped, we find a ministry which existed in all
   the churches of the Epistles of St. Paul, and indeed in all the churches of
   the New Testament. We meet everywhere with men who are called prophets, and
   who occupy a distinguished place in the primitive churches. St. Paul
   esteemed them highly. He placed them second to apostles in his enumeration
   of the “gifts” bestowed by God on the churches. [155] He exhorts the
   Corinthian Christians to cultivate the “gift” of prophecy, and the
   Thessalonian Christians are told to cherish “prophesyings.” It becomes
   evident the more these epistles of St. Paul are studied, that teaching and
   exhortation, associated afterwards in a very special manner with the
   functions of rule and leadership, were in the hands of the prophets to a
   very large extent in the apostolic Church, and that no inquiry into the
   “ministry” of the primitive Church can omit the functions and position of
   prophets and prophecy.

   This brings us to consider the “ministry” and organization of the churches
   in the apostolic age, a thing necessary to complete our conception of what a
   Christian society was like in these early times. The subject is interesting,
   but confessedly difficult. Yet we have light enough, from the writings of
   the New Testament and the earliest extra-canonic literature, to show us that
   it was entirely unlike anything which has existed in any part of the
   Christian Church from the beginning of the third century downwards.

   Before we begin to inquire what this ministry and organization were, it may
   be useful to note two things: first, it must be remembered that our Lord has
   clearly intimated that leadership within His Church was to have a
   distinctive character of its own; and secondly, there is from the very first
   beginnings of organization a clearly marked separation between two different
   kinds of ministry. [156]

   The distinctive character of leadership in the Christian Church is given in
   the saying of our Lord contained in Luke xxii. 26: “He that is greater among
   you let him become as the younger, and he that is chief as he that doth
   serve”; and this junction of service and leadership is maintained throughout
   the Epistles of St. Paul. The Corinthian Christians were to place themselves
   under the guidance of Stephanas and those like him who had served them and
   laboured among them. Those that are “over the Thessalonian brethren in the
   Lord” are the men who spend most labour upon them. Everywhere service and
   leadership go together. These two thoughts are continually associated with a
   third, that of “gifts”; for the qualifications which fit a man for service
   and therefore for rule within the Church of Christ are always looked upon as
   special “gifts” of the Spirit of God, or charismata. [157] Thus we have
   three thoughts: of qualification, which is the “gift” of God; the service to
   the Church of Christ which these “gifts” enable those who possess them to
   perform; and lastly the promise that such service is honoured by the Father,
   [158] and is the basis of leadership or rule within the Church of Christ.

   The earliest evidence we have for the beginnings of the organization of a
   local church is given in Acts vi., where we are told about “seven” men being
   set apart for what is called the “ministry of tables,” and which is
   contrasted with the “ministry of the Word.” [159] We have thus at the very
   beginnings of organization a division of ministry, or rather two different
   kinds of ministry, within the Church of Christ in the apostolic age. Harnack
   calls this division the “earliest datum in the history of organization.”
   [160] The distinction which comes into sight at the very beginning runs all
   through the apostolic Church, and goes far down into the sub-apostolic
   period. It can be traced through the Pauline epistles and other New
   Testament writings, and down through such sub-apostolic writings as the
   Didache, the Pastor of Hermas, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Apology of
   Justin Martyr, and the writings of Irenaeus. It is also found in the
   Christian literature which does not belong to the main stream of the
   Church’s history, among the Gnostics, the Marcionites and the Montanists.
   [161] The distinction ceases to be an essential one or one inherent in the
   very idea of the ministry when we get down as far as Tertullian, but it does
   not cease entirely. Prophets are found long after Tertullian’s time, but
   they no longer occupy the position which once was theirs.

   The common name for those who belong to the first kind of ministry is “
   those speaking the Word of God,” and this name is given to them not only in
   the New Testament, but also in the Didache, by Hermas, and by Clement of
   Rome. To the second class belonged the ministry of a local church by
   whatever names they came to be called, pastors, elders, bishops, deacons. We
   may call the first kind the prophetic, and the second kind the local
   ministry. The great practical distinction between the two was that the
   prophetic ministry did not mean office-bearers in a local church; while the
   local ministry consisted of these office-bearers. The one was a ministry to
   the whole Church of God, and by its activity bound all the scattered parts
   of the Church visible together; the other was a ministry within a local
   church, and, with the assembly of the congregate in, manifested and
   preserved the unity and the independence of the local community. In the
   apostolic and early sub-apostolic church the prophetic ministry was
   manifestly the higher and the local ministry the lower; the latter had to
   give place to the former even within the congregation over which they were
   office-bearers.

   But while this higher ministry can be clearly separated from the lower
   ministry of the local churches, it does not follow that these office-bearers
   did not from the first count among their number men who possessed the
   prophetic gift. Prophecy or the gift of magnetic utterance might come to any
   Christian, and St. Paul desired that it might belong to all. [162] The two
   ministries can be clearly distinguished, but no hard and fast line can be
   drawn between the men who compose the ministries. The “prophetic” gift of
   magnetic speech was so highly esteemed that it is only natural to suppose
   that when congregations chose their office-bearers they selected men so
   gifted, if any such were within their membership. This, we can see, was the
   case in later times. Polycarp was an office-bearer in the Church at Smyrna,
   but he was also a “prophet.” [163] Ignatius of Antioch was a prophet. [164]
   Cyprian and other pastors in North Africa had the same gift, which was a
   personal and not an official source of enlightenment. [165] We have by no
   means obscure indications that what took place later happened in the
   earliest period. The “Seven,” who were selected for the lower ministry in
   Jerusalem, did not confine themselves to the “service of tables,” but were
   found among those who “spoke the Word of God” with power. [166]
     _________________________________________________________________

   [86] It is true that we read in Acts xix. 9, 10 that St. Paul held meetings
   in the Schola of Tyrannus: but this is a unique instance.

   [87] Acts ii. 46: klōntes te kat' oikon a̓́rton.

   [88] Acts xii. 12: “The house of Mary, the mother of John whose surname was
   Mark; where many were gathered together and were praying.”

   [89] Acts xxi. 18; xii. 17.

   [90] Rom. xvi. 3-5: “Salute Prisca and Aquila . . . and the church that is
   in their house”; xvi. 14: “Salute Asynsritus, Phlegon, Hermes, Patrobas,
   Hermas, and the brethren that are with them”; 15: “Salute Philologus and
   Julia, Nereus and his sister, and O1ympas, and all the saints that are with
   them”; 10: “Salute them which are of the household of Aristobulus”; 11:
   “Salute them of the household of Narcissus.” The groups saluted in verses 10
   and 11 may have been a number of freedmen or slaves belonging to the
   households of the two wealthy men mentioned; but the other three groups are
   evidently house-churches. St. Paul sends salutations to other
   house-churches; to that meeting in the house of Philemon at Colossae
   (Philem. 2), to that meeting in the house of Nymphas in Laodicea (Col. iv.
   15), and to that meeting in the house of Stephanas (1 Cor. xvi. 15).

   [91] Rom. xvi. 23.

   [92] Compare C. Dehio, Die Genesis der christlichen Basilika in the
   Sitzensber. d. München. Akad. d. Wiss. 1882, ii. 301 ff.

   [93] In the so-called Liturgy of St. Clement there is the following
   rubric:— “The order of James, the brother of John, the son of Zebedee. “And
   I James, the brother of John, the son of Zebedee, command that forthwith the
   deacon say, Let none of the hearers, none of the unbelievers, none of the
   heterodox stay. Ye who have prayed the former prayer, depart. Mothers, take
   up your children. Let us stand upright to present unto the Lord our
   offerings with fear and trembling.” Neale and Littledale, Translations of
   Primitive Liturgies, p. 75. The writer had the privilege of worshipping in a
   house-church in the Lebanon under the shoulder of Sunim in the autumn of
   1888. The long low vaulted kitchen had been swept and garnished for the
   occasion, though some of the pots still stood in a corner. The congregation
   sat on the floor—the men together in rows on the right and the women in rows
   on the left. During the services which preceded the Holy Communion, babies
   crawled about the floor making excursions from mother to father and back
   again. When the non-communicants had left, and the “elements,” as we say in
   Scotland, were being uncovered, the mothers secured the straggling babies
   and kept them on their laps during the whole of the communion service, as
   was enjoined in the ancient rubric quoted above.

   [94] The earliest trace we find of buildings set apart exclusively for
   Christian worship dates from the beginning of the third century (202-210):
   Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, vii. 5. Clement speaks of a building
   erected in honour of God, while he insists that it is the assembly of the
   people and not the place where they assemble that ought to be called the
   church.

   [95] The best account of the Agape is in Keating’s The Agape and the
   Eucharist (1901).

   [96] St. Paul does not mention the benediction as forming part of the
   Christian worship, but the way in which it occurs regularly at the beginning
   of his epistles, preserving always the same form, warrants us in supposing
   its liturgical use in the manner above indicated. The invocation of Jesus as
   the Lord is made the test of all Christian public utterance for edification,
   and must have preceded the prophetic addresses if not the whole service: 1
   Cor. xii. 3.

   [97] The use of the Lord’s prayer is not mentioned but it may be inferred.
   “Paul nowhere mentions the Lord’s prayer. But we may assume that we have a
   trace of it in Rom. viii. 15, and in Gal. iv. 6. In speaking of the right to
   call God Father, he gives the Aramaic form for father, in each instance
   adding a translation; and this is only to be explained by supposing that he
   had in mind a formula which was known wherever the Gospel had penetrate, and
   which, by preserving the original language, invested the name with peculiar
   solemnity, in order to maintain its significance unimpaired in the
   believer’s consciousness.” Weizsäcker, The Apostolic Age, ii. p. 258 (Eng.
   Trans.). According to the Didache the Lord’s Prayer was to be said three
   times every day (Did. viii.).

   [98] 1 Cor. xiv. 16.

   [99] 1 Cor. xiv. 26.

   [100] If it be permitted, as I think it is, to believe that the author of
   the Apocalypse used the outline of the Christian worship of the earliest age
   as the canvas on which he painted his glorious prophetic visions, then we
   can disentangle many a short hymn used in the services of the apostolic
   Church and also get many a detail about that service. The paraphrase quoted
   above combines two of the songs given in Revelation (v. 9-13). We have
   another in xv. 3 f.:—


   Great and marvellous are Thy works,

   O Lord God the Almighty;

   Righteous and true are Thy ways,

   Thou King of the Ages.

   Who shall not fear Thee, Lord, and glorify Thy Name?

   For Thou only art Holy;

   All the Nations shall come and worship before Thee;

   For Thy righteous acts have been made manifest;
   and yet another in xi. 17:—


   We give Thee thanks, O Lord God, the Almighty,

   Which art and which wast;

   Because Thou hast taken Thy great power and didst reign,

   And the Nations were wroth,

   And Thy wrath came,

   And the time of the dead to be judged,

   And the time to give their reward to Thy servants,

   To the prophets and to the saints,

   And to them that fear Thy Name,

   The small and the great;

   And to them who destroy the earth.
   It is likely that the singing was antiphonal; there are alternate strophes
   in the hymns in the heavenly worship, and Pliny says that the Christians
   “carmen Christo quasi Deo dicere secum invicem” (Ep. 96 [97]).

   [101] Scotch Paraphrases, lxv. 7-11.

   [102] St. Paul does not mention the reading of Scripture in his order of
   worship; but it must have been there. In his epistles to the Corinthians, to
   confine ourselves to them, he implies such a knowledge of the Old Testament
   and of deeds and sayings of Jesus as could only be got from the continuous
   public reading of the Scriptures, and the reciting sentences about Jesus. He
   takes it for granted that the Old Testament Scriptures are known and known
   to be the law for life and conduct, in 1 Cor. vi. 16; ix. 8-13; xiv. 21; 2
   Cor. vi. 16, 18; viii. 15; ix. 9. In the beginning of 1 Cor. xv. he clearly
   refers to formal statements, not yet perhaps committed to writing, which he
   himself had handed over as he had received them, and which recited the facts
   about the sayings and deeds of Jesus. The opening and reading from the book
   comes after the singing in the heavenly worship (Rev. v. vi.).

   [103] Instruction (didachē), teaching or doctrine includes the “wisdom” and
   “knowledge” of 1 Cor. xii. 8; “wisdom,” (logos sophias) is described in 1
   Cor. ii. 7; vi. 5; and “knowledge” (logos gnōseōs) in 2 Cor. x. 5; xi. 6;
   and perhaps the pistis of 1 Cor. xii. 9, which may mean depth of loyal
   spiritual experience.

   [104] 1 Cor. xiv. 31.

   [105] 1 Cor. xiv. 30.

   [106] I have followed Weizsäcker’s conception of what was meant by speaking
   “in a tongue.” These things have to be noted about the phenomenon. It
   occurred in prayer only (1 Cor. xiv. 2, 14); it appeared like a soliloquy (1
   Cor. xiv. 2); the speaker edified himself (xiv. 4), but seems to have lost
   conscious control over himself (xiv. 14); what was said was not intelligible
   to others (xiv: 2); it could be compared to the sound of a trumpet which
   gave no clear call (xiv. 7, 8); or to the use of a foreign and barbarous
   language (xiv. 10, 11); the speaker in a tongue ought to interpret what he
   has said, and that he may be able to do this he ought to pray for divine
   assistance (xiv. 13); that such speaking was not all of one sort—there were
   “kinds of tongues” (xii. 10). Upon the whole then we may conceive it to have
   been rapt ejaculatory prayer uttered during unrestrained emotion, where
   words often took the place of sentences. This enables us to see how
   brethren, who were sympathetio enough, could follow the obscure windings of
   thought and expression, and interpret. Our knowledge is exclusively derived
   from 1 Cor. xiv.; the two passages in Acts x. 46; xix; 8, and the references
   in the post-apostolic period do not enlighten us. Compare Heinrici, Das
   Erste Sendschreiben an die Korinther, pp. 376-393; Bleek, Studien u.
   Kritiken (1829), pp. 3-79; Hilgenfeld, Die Glossolalie in der alien Kirche,
   Leipzig, 1850. This “gift” of tongues is referred to by Irenaeus, v. 6, and
   Tertullian, Adv. Marcion, v. 8.

   [107] 1 Cor. xiv. 27, 28.

   [108] 1 Cor. xiv. 25.

   [109] The other form of doxology common to St. Paul’s epistles is “Unto God
   our Father, be glory for ever, Amen.” These doxologies are found running
   through St. Paul’s and other epistles in the New Testament. They are used to
   end a prophetic utterance, or an exposition of divine wisdom, and they occur
   in the description of the heavenly worship in the Apocalypse.

   [110] 1 Cor. xiv. 33; xi. 16.

   [111] 1 Cor. xiv. 39. The order of service is given by St. Paul in 1 Cor.
   xiv. 26; where the “psalm” includes the supplication and thanksgiving of
   xiv. 16.

   [112] 1 Cor. xiv. 33, 40.

   [113] 1 Cor. xiv. 29-33.

   [114] 1 Cor. xii. 4 ff.: cf. Eph. iv. 16.

   [115] 1 Cor. xv. 32.

   [116] 1 Cor. iv. 9; vii. 31.

   [117] 1 Cor. ix. 24-27.

   [118] 1 Cor. viii. 10.

   [119] 1 Cor. i. 26.

   [120] Erastus, Rom. xvi. 23.

   [121] Crispus, Acts xviii. 8; 1 Cor. i. 14.

   [122] 1 Cor. i. 11.

   [123] Rom. xvi. 23; 1 Cor. i. 14.

   [124] It is strange that, apart from the descriptions of the Last Supper in
   the Synoptic Gospels (and for obvious reasons they cannot be taken as
   descriptions of the way in which the Eucharistic service was celebrated in
   the Apostolic and post-Apostolic Church), we have no very clear account of
   how the Service of Thanksgiving was observed among the primitive Christians
   till the middle of the second century, when we have the statement of Justin
   Martyr in his Apology, i. 67. The earliest account, so far as I know, which
   gives as full a description of the Holy Communion as we have of the meeting
   for exhortation in the First Epistle to the Corinthians, is to be found in
   the Canons of Hippolytus (Gebhardt and Harnack, Texte u. Untersuchungen, VI.
   iv. pp. 118-22). Yet the whole line of the history of worship, of the
   organization of the local churches, and of the administration of
   ecclesiastical property follows the development of this part of the public
   worship of the Church. We can learn many details, but we have no complete
   account. In the account of the Last Supper, here in the Epistle to the
   Corinthians, in the Didache (x. 1), in the description of Pliny, in Clement
   of Alex. (Paidagogos, ii. 1), in Ignatius (Ad Smyrnæos, viii.), the
   celebration follows a common meal; in Justin it takes place during the
   meeting for exhortation; in the Canons of Hippolytus, the meeting for
   exhortation, the Holy Communion, and the Lord's day common meal are all
   separate from each other.

   [125] 1 Cor. xi. 20.

   [126] 1 Cor. xi. 21.

   [127] 1 Cor. xi. 22.

   [128] 1 Cor. xi. 30-32.

   [129] The Lord’s day: Acts xx. 7; Didache, xiv. 1; Canons of Hippolytus
   (Texte u. Untersuchungen, VI. iv. p. 105, cf. p. 183 n.).

   [130] Didache, x.

   [131] The beautiful prayer given in the Didache is (x.): “We thank Thee,
   Holy Father, for Thy holy name, which Thou hast caused to dwell in our
   hearts, and for the knowledge and faith and immortality which Thou hast made
   known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever. Thou,
   Lord Almighty, didst create all things for Thy Name’s sake, both food and
   drink Thou didst give to men for enjoyment, in order that they might give
   thanks to Thee; but to us Thou hast graciously given spiritual food and
   drink and eternal life through Thy Servant. Before all things we thank Thee
   that Thou art Mighty; to Thee be the glory for ever. Remember Thy Church,
   Lord, to deliver it from every evil and to make it perfect in Thy Love, and
   gather it from the four winds, the sanctified, into Thy Kingdom. Let Grace
   come and let this world pass away. Hosanna to the Son of David. Whoever is
   holy, let him come; whoever is not let him depart. Maranatha. Amen.” This
   prayer was to be said at the close of the feast. “Now after ye are filled
   thus do ye give thanks” is the introductory sentence. It is also to be
   remembered that when prophets conducted the love-feast they were not
   confined to prescribed prayers. “Permit the prophets to give thanks as much
   as they will.”

   [132] The common meals which our Lord shared with His disciples were always
   looked upon as showing His intimate fellowship with them, and spiritual
   associations clustering round the thought were enhanced by His frequent
   comparison of the Kingdom of God to a common meal (Matt. xxii. 4; Luke xiv.
   15 f.; Luke xxii. 30; cf. Rev. iii. 20). Those who had sat at meat with Him
   supposed that they had a claim upon Him (Luke xiii. 26); while the
   miraculous feeding was a picture of the providence of God which ought to
   awaken our continuous trust in Him. There are evidences of all these
   thoughts.

   [133] The note of gladness is always marked. The brethren in the primitive
   Church at Jerusalem “breaking bread at home, did eat with gladness and
   singleness of heart.” Acts ii. 46; cf. Acts xxvii. 33-35. “Both food and
   drink Thou didst give to man for enjoyment, in order that they might give
   thanks to Thee,” Didache, x. “Edant bibantque ad satietatem, neque vero ad
   ebrietatem; sed in divina praesentia cum laude Dei,” Canons of Hippolytus
   (Texte u. Untersuchungen, VI, iv. p. 107).

   [134] ” But every one that hath controversy with his friend let him not come
   together with you until they be reconciled,” Didache, xiv. In the special
   “Lord’s day” love-feast which may be given to the poor, as set forth in the
   Canons of Hippolytus, it is said: “Ne quis multum loquatur neve clamet, ne
   forte vos irrideant, neve sint scandalo hominibus, ita ut in contumeliam
   vertatur qui vos invitavit, cum appareat, vos a bono ordine aberrare”
   (Texte, etc. VI. iv. p. 108). These love-feasts naturally became the means
   of helping the poor attached to the Christian congregations, as we can see
   in the primitive Church at Jerusalem (Acts vi. 1, 2), and from such ancient
   ecclesiastical manuals as the Canons of Hippolytus. Gentile Christians had
   been accustomed to pagan banquets and the more modest common meals of the
   “gilds,” and could the more readily accommodate themselves to the Christian
   observance, but this familiarity with the heathen usages would the more
   readily lead to such corruptions as St. Paul censures in the Corinthian
   Church. Cf. W. Liebenam, Zur Geschichte u. Organisation des Römischen
   Vereinswesens, pp. 260-261. Liebenam thinks that the evidence goes to prove
   that the eating at these common meals of the confraternities was for the
   most part frugal and that the excess arose from over-drinking. He and
   Foucart (Des associations religieuses chez les Grecs, p. 153 ff.) have
   collected the evidence. The excesses at Corinth arose from the pagan
   associations connected either with these common meals of the confraternities
   or more probably with the temple banquets (1 Cor. x. 14-22).

   [135] “Psalmos recitent, antequam recedant,” Can. Hipp. (Texte, VI. iv. 106)

   [136] 1 Cor. x. 1-4.

   [137] 1 Cor. xiv. 19, 34, 35; xi. 18.

   [138] 1 Cor. vii. 1. The epistle known as the First Epistle of Clement
   begins: “The Church of Rome to the Church of Corinth, elect and consecrate,
   greeting.”

   [139] 2 Cor. iii. 1, 2; viii. 19.

   [140] 1 Cor. xvi. 1-2.

   [141] 1 Cor: v. 1-8.

   [142] 2 Cor. ii. 6-9.

   [143] 2 Cor. ii. 6

   [144] 1 Cor. vi. 1. This advice of St. Paul passed into the ecclesiastical
   legislation of the primitive Church. We read in the Apostolic Constitutions
   (II. xlvi. xlvii. xlviii. xlix.): “Let not therefore the heathen know of
   your differences among one another, nor do you receive unbelievers as
   witnesses against yourselves, nor be judged by them . . . but render unto
   Caesar the things that are Caesar’s . . . as tribute, taxes or
   poll-money. . . . Let your judicatures be held on the second day of the
   week, that if any controversy arise about your sentence, having an interval
   till the Sabbath, you may be able to set the controversy right and to reduce
   those to peace who have the contests one with another before the Lord’s day.
   Let the deacons and the elders be present at your judicatures, to judge
   without acceptance of persons, as men of God with clear conscience. . . . Do
   not pass the same sentence for every sin, but one suitable to each crime,
   distinguishing all the several sorts of offences with much prudence, the
   great from the little. Treat a wicked action after one manner, and a wicked
   word after another; a bare intention still otherwise . . . Some thou shalt
   curb with threatenings only; some thou shalt punish with fines to the poor;
   some thou shalt mortify with fastings; others shalt thou separate according
   to the greatness of their several crimes. . . . When the parties are both
   present (for we will not call them brethren until they receive each other in
   peace) examine diligently concerning those who appear before you. . . .”

   [145] 1 Cor. vi. 5.

   [146] Compare Weizsäcker’s The Apostolic Age, ii. 246-290. Heinrici, Das
   Erste Sendschreiben des Apostels Paulus an die Korinther, passim.

   [147] Gal. iii. 26-28; cf. 1 Cor. xii. xiii.

   [148] 1 Thess. v. 14.

   [149] 2 Cor. viii. 19.

   [150] 1 Thess. v. 13.

   [151] Hort, The Christian Ecclesia, p. 159.

   [152] 1 Cor. xii. 28.

   [153] 1 Cor. xvi. 15, 16. The phrase “to minister unto the saints” (eis
   diakonian tois hagiois) corresponds with the diakonein trapezais of Acts vi.
   2. This ministry to the saints, which is connected with leadership of some
   kind, is expanded in the Epistle to the Romans to include liberality,
   showing mercy and leadership (Rom. xii. 6-8); and these three heads read
   like a brief summary of the qualifications of the elder or episcopus
   enumerated in the First Epistle to Timothy (1 Tim. iii. 1-9). In the First
   Epistle to the Thessalonians the thought of ministry to the saints includes
   the three heads of caring for the spiritual and bodily wants of the
   brethren, having oversight of moral behaviour, and leadership or
   presidency—kopiōntes, nouthetountes, and proistamenoi. (1 Thess. v. 12).

   [154] Rom. xii. 8.

   [155] 1 Cor. xii. 28.

   [156] If we examine the various uses of the words “minister” or “servant” or
   “deacon” (diakonos), “he who ministers or serves” (ho diakonōn) “ministry or
   service” (di9akonia), and “to minister or to serve” (diakonein) we have the
   following extensive application:— 1. The ordinary service which a hired
   servant renders to his master, such as waiting at table, etc., as in Luke
   xii. 37 and elsewhere. 2. Kindly personal attentions rendered to our Lord,
   as by St. Peter’s mother-in law (Matt. viii. 15; Mk. i. 31; Luke iv. 39), by
   Martha (Lu. x. 40; John xii. 2), or by the women from Galilee (Matt. xxvii.
   55; Mk. xv. 41; Luke viii. 3); or rendered to our Lord’s followers and
   looked on as done to Himself (Matt. xxv. 44; Heb. vi. 10); or rendered to
   St. Paul by Timothy, Erastus and Onesimus (Acts xix. 22; Philem. 13; 2 Tim.
   i. 18). 3. The service of angels rendered to our Lord and to men (Matt. iv.
   11; Mark i. 13; Heb. i. 14). 4. The service rendered by the O. T. economy (1
   Peter i. 12; 2 Cor. iii. 7). 5. The work of our Lord Himself (Matt. xx. 28;
   Mark x. 45; Luke xxii. 26, 27; 2 Cor. iii. 8; v. 18; Rom. xv. 8). 6. WITHIN
   THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH we find the following widely extended application:— a.
   Discipleship in general (John xii. 26). b. Service rendered to the Church
   because of “gifts” bestowed and specially connected with the bestowal and
   posesssion of these “gifts” (Rom. xii. 7; 1 Cor. xii. 5; 1 Peter iv. 10.
   11). c. Hence all kinds of service, whether the “ministry of the Word” or
   ministry not distinctly of the Word (Acts vi. 2; Matt. xx. 26; xxiii. 11;
   Mark ix. 35; x. 43). d. Specifically the “ministry of the Word” (Acts vi. 4;
   Eph. iv. 12; 2 Tim. iv. 5); and most frequently the “Apostleship” (Acts i.
   17; xx. 24; xxi. 19; Rom. xi. 13; 2 Cor. iii. 3, 6; iv. 1; vi. 3 f.; 1 Tim.
   i. 12; 1 Cor. iii. 5; Eph. iii. 7; Col. i. 23, 25). e. Service which was not
   a “ministry of the Word”:—Feeding the poor (Acts vi. 1); providing, bringing
   and dispensing resources in the time of famine (Acts xi. 29; xii. 25);
   organizing, gathering and conveying the great collection for the poor saints
   at Jerusalem (Rom. xv. 25, 31; 2 Cor. viii. 4, 19, 20; ix. 1, 12, 13); to
   which we may probably add the service of the whole Church of Thyatira (Rev.
   ii. 19). f. Services rendered by specially named men, and which probably
   included both the “ministry of the Word” and other kinds of service:—The
   ministry of Stephanas (1 Cor. xvi. 15), of Archippus (Col. iv. 17), of
   Tychicus (Eph. vi. 21; Col. iv. 7), of Epaphras (Col. i. 7), and of Timothy
   (1 Thess. iii. 2; 1 Tim. iv. 6). g. Men who are office-bearers in a local
   church and are called “deacons” as a title of office (1 Tim. iii. 8-13); men
   who may be office-bearers but who may get the name applied to them not
   because of office but because of the work they do—a work which has not yet
   ripened into a permanent office as in Phil. i. 1, and as in Rom. xvi. 1
   (“Phoebe, our sister, who is a deacon of the Church which is at Cenchrea,”
   and who is also called “patroness”). 7. The idea of “rule” is conveyed in
   Rom. xiii. 4, where kings are called the “deacons” of God; and in John xii.
   26; Matt. xxv. 44; Heb. vi. 10, where it is said that those who serve are
   honoured of the Father, and where all service done to the Church or its
   members is said to be done to our Lord Himself.

   [157] The “gifts” (charismata) are individual capacities or excellencies
   laid hold on, strengthened, vivified and applied by the Spirit to service
   within the community. They are the natural capacities which men possess
   apart from their own power of acquiring them and which come from the free
   bounty of God the Creator. Men are not all alike; their capacities and
   natural powers differ; and thus when the Spirit works through these powers
   there is nothing mechanical in the activities set in motion. These natural
   endowments are laid hold on by the Spirit, strengthened by His agency, and
   used, each of them, for a special service (diakonia) within the Christian
   society. They may be the natural capacities for teaching, for
   evangelization, for the vision, and utterances of spiritual truths, for
   ecstatic praise, for leadership of men, for organization, for duties to the
   poor and sick, for the performance of all the practical and social duties
   needed for the welfare of the community. These natural endowments are seized
   by the Spirit and so influenced that they become the specialized “gifts” of
   the Spirit, and fit the possessors for all kinds of service, so that as
   Chrysostom says, “energēmata kai charismata kai diakoniai onomatōn diaphorai
   monai, epei pragmata ta auta” (Cat. 233). Lists of these “gifts” are given,
   none of them being meant to be exhaustive. In 1 Cor. xii. 4-11 appear: the
   word of wisdom (lógos sophías), the word of knowledge (lógos gnṓseōs),
   faith (pístis) gifts of healing (charísmata i̓amátōn), prophecy
   (prophēteía), workings of powers (e̓nergḗmata dunámeōn), testing of
   spirits (diakríseis pneumátōn), kinds of tongues (génē glōssōn), and
   interpretation of tongues (e̔rmēneía glōssōn). In 1 Cor. xii. 28-31 appear:
   apostles (a̓póstoloi), prophets (prophētai), teachers (didáskaloi), powers
   (dunámeis), gifts of healing (charísmata iama̜tōn), helps (antilēpseis),
   governments (kubernēseis), kinds of tongues (genē glōssōn). In Rom. xii. 6-8
   appear:—prophecy (prophēteia), service (diakonia), teaching (didaskalia),
   the liberal man (ho metadidous), the ruler (ho proistamenos), and the
   merciful man (ho eleōn). And in Eph. iv. 11 we have: Apostles (apostoloi),
   prophets (prophētai), evangelists (euangelistai), pastors and teachers
   (poimenas kai didaskaloi). To these we may add “a man’s capacity for the
   married or celibate life” (1 Cor. vii. 7). The conception of “gifts” in
   their relation to the Christian society is given in its widest extent in 1
   Peter iv. 9-11: “Using hospitality one to another without murmuring: each,
   as he bath received a ‘gift,’ ministering it to one another, as good
   stewards of the manifold bounty of God.”

   [158] John iii. 26.

   [159] Acts vi. 2.

   [160] Expositor, Jan.–June, 1887, p. 324.

   [161] The evidence has been collected by Harnack in Texte u. Untersuchungen,
   II. ii. pp. 111 f.

   [162] 1 Cor. xiv. 5.

   [163] “The glorious martyr Polycarp, who was found an apostolic and
   prophetic teacher in our own time.” Epistle of the Smyrnaeans, 16.

   [164] Epistle to the Philadelphians, 7.

   [165] Epistles, lvii. 5 (liii.): lxvi. 10 (lxviii.).

   [166] Acts viii. 5, 40.
     _________________________________________________________________

CHAPTER III

  THE PROPHETIC MINISTRY

   St. Paul’s conception of a Christian community [167] is a body of which the
   Spirit of Christ is the soul. The individual members are all full of the
   Spirit, and their individual powers and capacities are laid hold of,
   vivified, and strengthened by the indwelling Spirit in such a way that each
   is “gifted” and enabled to do some special service for Christ and for His
   Church in the society in which he is placed. Every true Christian is
   “gifted” in this way. In this respect all are equal and of the same
   spiritual rank. The equality, however, is neither monotonous nor mechanical.
   Men have different natural endowments, and these lead to a diversity of
   “gifts,” all of which are serviceable in their places, and enable the
   separate members to perform different services, useful and necessary, for
   the spiritual life of the whole community and for the growth in
   sanctification of every member. Some have special “gifts” bestowed on them
   which enable them to do corresponding services, and some are “gifted” in a
   pre-eminent degree. Thus, although every Christian is the dwelling place of
   the Spirit, and is therefore to be called “spiritual” [168] (pneumatikos),
   some are more fitted to take leading parts than others, and are called the
   “spiritual” in a narrower and stricter sense of the word. These specialized
   gifts of the Spirit included all kinds of service, and were all, in their
   own place, valuable and equally the “gifts” of the one Spirit. Some of them,
   however, were sure to be more appreciated than others. To men and women,
   quivering with a new fresh spiritual life, nothing could be more thirsted
   after than to hear again and again renewed utterances of that “word of the
   Spirit,” which had first awakened in them the new life they were living.
   Hence among the specially “gifted” persons, those who had the “gift” to
   speak the “Word of God,” for edification and in exhortation, took a foremost
   place, and were specially honoured. [169] It would be a mistake, however, to
   call this ministry of the “Word” the “Charismatic Ministry,” as if it alone
   depended on and came from the “gifts” of the Spirit; for every kind of
   service comes [170] from a “gift,” and the ministry of attending to the poor
   and the sick, or advising and leading the community with wise counsels, are
   equally charismatic. [171]

   St. Paul always assumes that this “gift” of speaking the “Word of God”
   required a “gift” in the hearers which corresponded to the “gift” in the
   speakers, and that it would have small effect apart from the general
   “gift” of discernment of spirits. The spiritual voice needs the spiritual
   ear. The ministry of the Word depends for its effectiveness upon the
   ministry of discernment: for the “natural man receiveth not the things of
   the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness unto him; and he cannot know
   them because they are spiritually examined.” [172] There was therefore in
   this ministry of the “Word” the exercise of a two-fold “gift” or charisma;
   on the one hand the charisma which enabled the speaker to declare what was
   the message of God, and on the other hand the charisma in the hearers which
   enabled them to recognize whether the message was really what it professed
   to be, a declaration of the Spirit, to receive it if it was and to reject it
   if it was not. The duty laid upon the speakers was to speak forth the Word
   of God in the proportion of the faith that was in them, or to the full
   measure of the Christ that was in them; and the duty laid upon the hearers
   was to test whether what was said to them was really an utterance of the
   Spirit. [173]

   This “ministry of the Word” was the creative agency in the primitive Church,
   and it may almost be said to have had the same function throughout the
   centuries since. It was overthrown or thrust aside and placed under
   subjection to an official ministry springing out of the congregation, and it
   has never regained the recognized position it had in the first century and a
   half. But whenever the Church of Christ has to be awakened out of a state of
   lethargy, this unofficial ministry of the Word regains its old power though
   official sanction be withheld. From point of view, and that not the least
   important, the history of the Church flows on from one time of revival to
   another, and whether we take the awakenings in the old Catholic, the
   mediaeval, or the modern Church, these have always been the work of men
   specially gifted with the power of seeing and declaring the secrets of the
   deepest Christian life, and the effect of their work has always been
   proportionate to the spiritual receptivity of the generation they have
   spoken to. The Reformation movement, which may be simply described as the
   translation into articulate thought of the heart religion of the mediaeval
   Church, and which revived in so many ways the ideas and usages of the
   primitive times, has expressed the two cardinal ideas of this primitive
   ministry of the Word, in its declaration that the essential duty of the
   ministry of the Church is the proclamation of the Gospel, and in its
   statement that the principle of authority in the last resort is always the
   witness of the Spirit in the hearts of believers. [174]

   The divine “gift,” whose possession placed men among the class of those who
   spoke the Word of God (lalountes ton logon tou Theou) [175] gave the
   primitive Church its preaching ministry. [176] Those so endowed were in no
   sense office-bearers in any one Christian community; they were not elected
   to an office: they were not set apart by any ecclesiastical ceremony; the
   Word of God came to them, and they spoke the message that had been sent
   them. They all had the divine call manifested in the “gift” they possessed
   and could use. They were sent for the extension and edification of the whole
   Church of God, and although they used their gifts in the meetings of the
   local communities yet they were always to be conceived as the ministers of
   the Church universal. Some of them were wanderers by the very nature of the
   work they were called to; many of them, perhaps most, did not confine
   themselves to one community. They came and went as they pleased. They were
   not responsible to any society of Christians. The local church could only
   test them when they appeared, and could receive or reject their
   ministrations. The picture of these wandering preachers, men burdened by no
   cares of office, with no pastoral duties, coming suddenly into a Christian
   community, doing their work there and as suddenly departing, is a very vivid
   one in sub-apostolic literature. Their presence—men who were the servants of
   all the churches and of no one church—was a great bond which linked together
   all the scattered independent local churches and made them one corporate
   whole.

   We find in this “prophetic ministry” a threefold division. They are
   apostles, prophets and teachers. It does not seem possible to make a very
   strict or mechanical division between the kinds of “Word of God” spoken by
   each class of men, but it may be said that what was needed for zealous
   missionary endeavour was the distinguishing characteristic of the first
   class, exhortation and admonition of the second, and instruction of the
   third. In virtue of their personal “gifts” they were the venerated but not
   official leaders [177] (hēgoumenoi) of every community where they were for
   the time being to be found, and were worthy, not only of honour, but of
   honorarium. [178] We can trace this threefold ministry of the Word from the
   most primitive times down till the end of the second century, if not later.
   It existed in the oldest Gentile Christian community, that of Antioch, where
   a number of prophets and teachers sent forth two apostles from among their
   own number. [179] Apostles, prophets and teachers are mentioned in the First
   Epistle to the Corinthians and in the Epistle to the Ephesians. [180] The
   same threefold ministry is given in the Pastor of Hermas, which dates about
   [181] 140 A.D., and in the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies, which can scarcely be
   earlier than 200 A.D. [182] In all these authorities we have the three
   classes mentioned together, and in all save one we have them in the same
   order. The three classes are also placed in pairs: apostles and prophets in
   the Epistle to the Ephesians and in the Apocalypse; [183] prophets and
   teachers in the Didache and in the Pseudo-Clementine Letters; [184] apostles
   and teachers in Hermas and in the Epistles to Timothy. [185]

   1. Apostles. The distinguishing characteristic of an apostle [186] was that
   he had given himself, and that for life, [187] to be a missionary, preaching
   the gospel of the Kingdom of Christ to those who did not know it. He had
   received the “gift” of speaking the “Word of God,” and he was distinguished
   from others who had the same “gift” in this, that he had been called either
   inwardly or outwardly to make this special use of it. The prophet and the
   teacher had the same “gift” in the same or in less measure than the apostle,
   but they found their sphere of its use within the Christian community, while
   the apostle’s sphere was for the most part outside, among those who were not
   yet within the Church of Christ. They built on the foundation laid by the
   apostle; he laid the foundation for others to build upon. [188] The apostles
   were men who in virtue of the implanted “gift” of “speaking the Word of
   God” and of the “call” impelling them, were sent forth to be the heralds of
   the kingdom of Christ. This was their life-work. They were not appointed to
   an office, in the ecclesiastical sense of the word, but to a work in the
   prosecution of which they had to do all that is the inevitable accompaniment
   of missionary activity in all ages of the Church’s history.

   Our Lord has Himself shown us where to look for the origin and meaning of
   the term “apostle.” He declared Himself to be the Apostle or Sent One of the
   Father; as the Father had sent Him, so He sent others in His name to be His
   apostles or sent ones, to deliver His message of salvation. [189] The
   apostles were the representatives and “envoys” of Christ, the pioneers of
   Christianity. The word, therefore, lends itself to a very wide application,
   for in a sense every Christian ought to be an “ envoy “ or herald of the
   Master. Our Lord sanctioned the widest use of the word when He declared that
   whoever received a little child in His name received Himself; [190] the
   little ones can be and are His “envoys.”

   But there were concentric rings in this wide circle of application; and the
   men belonging to each were distinguished from the others by the kind of
   preparation they had received, and by the nature of the call which had come
   to them.

   Our Lord, personally and by living human voice, selected twelve men and
   called them “apostles,” [191] that by personal companionship with Him in the
   inner circle of His disciples, and by experience gained in a limited mission
   of apprenticeship among the villages of Galilee, where following their
   Master’s example closely they preached and cast out demons, they might have
   the training to be witnesses for Him in the universal mission which was to
   be theirs after His death. Their preparation was their intimate personal
   companionship with their Lord and their apprentice work under His eyes.
   Their call was the living voice of the Master while He was with them in the
   flesh. These two things separated the “Eleven” from all others; they were
   both of them incommunicable and rested on a unique experience.

   One, Matthias, who had enjoyed the personal companionship with Jesus, though
   in a lesser degree, and who had been an eyewitness during the Lord’s
   ministry on earth and could testify to the Resurrection, was called by the
   voice of his fellow-believers and by the decision of the lot to the same
   “service and sending forth” (diakonia kai apostolē). [192] His preparation
   was the same as that of the “Eleven,” though less complete; but his call was
   quite different.

   Another, Paul, was “called” and prepared by Jesus Himself, but in visions
   and inward inspirations. We have no evidence that St. Paul ever saw Jesus in
   the flesh, still less that he had any opportunity of converse with Him. His
   “call” came to him on the road to Damascus in the vision of the Risen Christ
   Whom he had been persecuting; it was repeated from the lips of Ananias, also
   instructed in vision; [193] it came to him over and over again in his lonely
   musings, where he was obliged to think out for himself the principles which
   were to guide him in his new life. His preparation was altogether different
   both from that of the “Eleven” and of Matthias. They had been gradually
   prepared; they had been led step by step, and had been weaned from their old
   life in half-conscious ways. He had been torn out of his by a sudden wrench;
   and his preparation had been given him in inward moral struggle and
   spiritual experience, in musings and visions and raptures, “whether in the
   body or out of the body” he could not tell. [194] It was this difference in
   “call” and preparation—the difference between personal intercourse with
   Jesus in the flesh and intercourse with Him in visions—that separated St.
   Paul from the “Eleven.” And it was this difference that St. Paul’s opponents
   of the “sect of the Pharisees who believed” seized upon when they refused to
   acknowledge his claims to apostolic authority. If we take the
   Pseudo-Clementine literature to represent the opinions of these men and
   their successors, and discern in the attacks made on Simon Magus an example
   of their arguments against the apostle to the Gentiles, there is abundant
   proof of this. The whole argument in the last chapter of the 17th Homily
   turns on the impossibility of trusting to information received in visions,
   or of verifying and authenticating them. The argument comes to a climax in
   the question: “Can any one be rendered fit for instruction through visions?
   And if you say, ‘It is possible,’ then I ask, Why did our teacher abide and
   discourse a whole year to those who were awake? And how are we to believe
   your word, when you tell us that He appeared to you?” [195]

   In others who were called “apostles” the Spirit had implanted the inward
   “call” to consecrate themselves to a life of missionary endeavour, and had
   given them that gift of speaking the Word of God which made the “call”
   fruitful. Yet another class had been selected by Christian communities and
   sent forth to be their apostles, the “apostles of the churches,” who were
   also the apostles of the Master, and who were called by St. Paul “the glory
   of Christ.” [196]

   Men belonging to all these classes, and to others besides, are called
   “apostles” in the writings of the New Testament, where the name is by no
   means confined to the “Eleven,” Matthias, and St. Paul. Barnabas [197] was
   an “apostle.” He had been selected at the bidding of the Spirit by the
   circle of prophets and teachers at Antioch, and had been sent, with prayer
   and laying on of hands, to be the companion missionary of St. Paul; he is
   called an apostle to the Gentiles in the Epistle to the Galatians, and St.
   Paul associates him with himself when he claims the privileges everywhere
   accorded to acknowledged apostles. Andronicus and Junias were “apostles,”
   who had been in Christ before St. Paul. [198] Silas or Silvanus and Timothy
   are, on the most natural interpretation, classed as apostles in the First
   Epistle to the Thessalonians. St. Paul and his companions in his missionary
   work among the Thessalonians had received no material support for their
   labours, “though we might have been burdensome to you, being apostles of
   Christ”; and the we most probably includes Silas and Timothy, whose names
   appear with that of St. Paul in the superscription of the letter. [199] In 1
   Cor. iv. 9, when St. Paul says: “I think that God hath set forth us the
   apostles last of all as men doomed to death; for we are a spectacle unto the
   world, both to angels and to men,” Apollos, on the most natural
   interpretation of the passage, is classed with St. Paul among the apostles
   who are thus set forth. [200] Epaphroditus is mentioned as one of the
   “apostles of the churches,” (the church of Philippi), and is called by St.
   Paul “my brother, and fellow-worker and fellow-soldier.” [201] Many scholars
   include James the brother of our Lord among those called apostles by St.
   Paul; but the evidence is very doubtful, and James had not the missionary
   work which belongs to an apostle. [202] Besides these St. Paul speaks of men
   whom he calls ironically “pre-eminent apostles,” [203] and more gravely
   “false apostles,” who had come among the Corinthian believers to seduce them
   from their allegiance to the apostle, probably from Jerusalem, furnished
   with letters of commendation [204] from St. Paul’s enemies there, and who
   had insinuated that St. Paul was no true apostle. There is no reason to
   believe that St. Paul denied that these men were apostles so far as outward
   marks went. They were missionaries and had given themselves to the work;
   they had come furnished with credentials. In all outward respects they were
   apostles like many others; but their message was false; they preached
   another Christ; they were among the false prophets who the Master had said
   would come. [205]

   As the earlier decades passed the number of men who were called apostles
   increased rather than diminished. They were wandering missionaries whose
   special duties were to the heathen and to the unconverted. In writings like
   the Didache they are brought vividly before us. They were highly honoured,
   [206] but had to be severely tested. They were not expected to remain long
   within a Christian community nor to fare softly when they were there. They
   were the special envoys of One Whose kingdom is not of this world, and Who
   had sent forth His earliest apostles with the words: “Go, provide neither
   gold nor silver nor brass in your girdle nor wallet for your journey,
   neither two coats, neither shoes nor staff.” [207] Primitive Christians
   insisted on as rigorous an imitation as did St. Francis, and accordingly
   formulated the saying into the rule that if the apostle spent more than
   three days among his fellow Christians, if he asked for money, if he were
   not content with bread and water, he was no true apostle, and was not to be
   received. [208]

   All these men, called apostles, have one distinguishing characteristic: they
   have given themselves for life to be missionary preachers of the Gospel of
   the Kingdom of Christ. Hence it seems superfluous to accumulate from the
   epistles of St. Paul a great variety of marks of the apostolic character and
   work. [209] The one distinctive feature about all of them was not so much
   what they were, but what they did. They were all engaged in a life work of a
   peculiar kind, aggressive pioneering missionary labour. The crowning
   vindication of their career was what they put into it and what they were
   able to accomplish; their courage, [210] their self-sacrificing endurance,
   [211] the “signs, wonders and mighty deeds” which accompanied their labours,
   [212] and, above all, the results of their work. It was to this last that
   St. Paul appealed over and over again. His Corinthian converts were the seal
   of his apostleship; he did not need written certificates from coterie or
   council, from Jerusalem or Antioch, for the Corinthians were his living
   “letter” of commendation known and read of all men. [213] He appealed to
   what every great missionary would point to if he were asked to justify his
   work, to what our Lord Himself appealed to when He was put to the question.
   [214]

   There could not but be gradations in this wide company of apostles, and
   these depended on things personal and incommunicable. Nothing could take
   from the “Eleven” the fact that they had been personally selected and
   trained for their missionary work by Jesus while He was still with them in
   the flesh. This gave them a unique position not only within the Jewish
   Christian Church, but also throughout all Christendom. This also was the
   basis of the apostolate in the narrower sense of the term. Others might be,
   and were, “separated unto the Gospel of God,” might devote themselves, in
   obedience to the “call” that came, to a life of active missionary work, and
   have their “call” vindicated in the abundant fruit of their labours. The
   Risen Christ had appeared to many others besides themselves. What separated
   the “Eleven” from other apostles was that the Lord, while in the flesh, had
   selected them and had spent long months in training them for their work.
   They were missionaries like the others, and made missionary tours like them,
   but this special and unique preparation which no others possessed gave them
   a position apart. St. Paul claimed that he too belonged to this inner
   circle; his claims were admitted when Peter, James and John “saw that he had
   been entrusted with the Gospel of the uncircumcision, even as Peter with the
   Gospel of the circumcision,” in that memorable interview, when the older
   apostles gave Barnabas and Paul the right hand of fellowship. St. Paul
   proved to them that his call and preparation had been as intimate as theirs.
   Christ, Who “had wrought for Peter unto the apostleship of the
   circumcision,” had “wrought for Paul unto the Gentiles,” [215] and they had
   seen that it was so. And as his preparation had been the same, so the
   “call” had come to him directly, as distinctively, and as immediately from
   God, as it had come to the Twelve, [216] and his vision of the Risen Saviour
   had been as evident. [217]

   These two uses of the term apostle, the wider and the narrower, continued
   beyond the apostolic age. We can see this in the Didache, which carries the
   reference to the narrower circle in its title, [218] while in its
   description of the wandering “apostles” it paints the itinerant missionaries
   to whom the term belonged in its widest extent. We can also see it in the
   difficulties which the early fathers had to determine what was the number of
   the apostles, and who were to be included within it. [219]

   The unique position occupied by the “Eleven” and by St. Paul was personal to
   themselves; it was based on a unique and immediate experience; no succession
   could come from it. But apostles, in the wider sense of the term, have
   always existed in the Church of Christ, and are with us still in the
   missioners and missionaries of the various branches of the Christian Church.
   In lands where the language of the New Testament is still spoken. the name
   as well as the thing survives; the missionaries and missioners of the modern
   Greek Church are still called “holy apostles.” [220]

   It was the apostolate in its widest extent that was a part of the “prophetic
   ministry” of the primitive Church. When we think of apostles as part of the
   triad of “apostles, prophets and teachers,” we must have in mind, not twelve
   or thirteen, but large numbers who were missionaries in the Church, and took
   the first rank in the prophetic ministry because their duty was to extend
   the boundaries of the Church of Christ. They all belonged to the class of
   those “gifted” to “speak the Word of God,” men who were to be tested by the
   discriminating “gift,” but who, when received, were to be honoured and their
   word obeyed. The spiritual “gift” which they possessed was a personal and
   not an official thing; and in one sense they were all on the same level, for
   they had all the same “ gift.” But they differed in natural endowments, and
   the spiritual gift had been bestowed in larger measure on some than on
   others. Some could, and did, fill a large sphere and wield an enormous
   influence; others had to content themselves with a much inferior position;
   but whether their sphere was large or small they had the same work to do.
   They were the pioneers of primitive Christianity. They cannot be compared
   with the officials of a long established church. The only safe comparison is
   with the missionary of modern times, and their work has the curious double
   action which must characterize pioneer Christian work in all places and at
   all times.

   They had to teach Christian morality to converts ignorant of its first
   principles, and this could only be done when stern command mingled with
   sweet persuasiveness. They had to deal with people who could but awkwardly
   apply the moral principles they had been taught, and had to select typical
   cases, and to point out how they must be decided. On the one side their
   action must appear to be highly autocratic; on the other their influence was
   entirely personal, and their only means of enforcing their decisions was by
   persuasion.

   They had to show their converts not merely how to live lives worthy of their
   new profession; they required to train them in the art of living together in
   Christian society, and they had to do it in such a way as to foster social
   as well as individual responsibility. So on the one hand they can be
   represented as shaping constitutions, selecting and appointing
   office-bearers, and generally controlling in autocratic fashion the
   communities their teaching had gathered together; and on the other hand this
   very work can be truly described as the almost independent effort of the
   communities themselves. [221] For it is the missionary’s business, and often
   the hardest part of it, to create the feelings of corporate responsibility
   and independent action. His work is that of a parent training his children,
   and dependent on natural relationship and personal character for the
   obedience he demanded, not that of an ecclesiastical superior with official
   rights to support his injunctions.

   If this double characteristic inherent in all missionary work be forgotten,
   it is possible to take the most opposite views of apostolic methods and of
   the rights which an apostle claimed to have and to exercise. [222] Men, like
   Sohm, who dwells upon the power to command inherent in the possession of the
   “gift” of speaking the Word of God, search for, find and point to St.
   Paul’s interference in the details of the life of his communities. While
   others, like Loening, who see the plain evidences of the independence and
   self-government in these same communities, insist that the apostle’s whole
   relation to his converts was purely ethical, and had nothing to do with
   organization and its working. Six months spent in watching a missionary at
   work would have taught them how to combine their views.

   No apostle stands forth so clearly before later generations as does St.
   Paul. His letters reveal the man, his modes of work, the authority he
   possessed and the way in which he used it. We may take him as the highest
   type of the first, order of the prophetic ministry. His duties and the
   authority which lay behind them were what belonged to the planting of
   Christianity.

   His claims to authority rested upon a double basis. He had received words,
   sayings and commandments of Jesus which he could hand on to his converts and
   which were the “traditions” which he asked them to hold fast; [223] and
   being filled with “the Spirit of God,” i.e., one of those who were
   “gifted,” to “speak the Word of God,” he could give the authoritative
   interpretation of these commands, and could show the true application of the
   principles of Christian morality. [224] He might have demanded to be
   honoured for these possessions and “gifts,” [225] but he preferred to rest
   his claims to the obedience, reverence, and affection of his converts on the
   personal relation which had grown up between them and himself. [226]

   He was the first who had made the Gospel known to them, and their faith in
   the Lord was of itself witness to his power over them and to his claims upon
   them; and this intimate personal relation between teacher and pupil, between
   preacher and convert, between guide and follower on the pathway heavenward,
   ought to beget on their part gratitude, affection, trust and imitation.
   [227] He was their spiritual father, and he could claim the affectionate
   obedience due to a parent, while as a father he had the right both to praise
   and to blame, and that with severity. [228]

   St. Paul never forgot that he was doing the work of a pioneer, and that his
   work was but half done if his communities of converts remained in a state of
   pupilage. He was therefore careful to cultivate their sense of personal and
   corporate responsibility. While he was ready to answer any questions about
   difficulties [229] which had arisen in the communities, he was very careful
   to make suggestions only, and to leave the full responsibility for the
   decisions to come on the shoulders of the society. Even in the case of the
   gross sin of incest “the condemnation he pronounces is not from a distance
   or in his own name only; he twice represents himself as present, present in
   spirit, in an assembly where the Corinthians and his spirit are gathered
   together with the power of our Lord Jesus. That is, while he is peremptory
   that the incestuous person shall be excluded from the community, he is
   equally determined that the act shall be their own act, and not a mere
   compliance with a command of his.” [230]

   It is not to be supposed that all the numerous apostles of the primitive
   Church were men like St. Paul; his natural endowments and the large “gift”
   of the Spirit he possessed give him a place by himself. Yet, the due
   deductions made, we can see in him the type of these unknown men who were
   the pioneers of Christianity in the first century; men who carried the
   Gospel to Antioch, who sowed its seeds in imperial Rome, who made hundreds
   of little barren spots the gardens of the Lord. They went first; the
   prophets and the teachers followed in their steps.

   2. While the apostle was the missionary of the primitive Church, the prophet
   [231] found his work within the Christian communities which had been created
   by the energy of the apostles. Prophecy was the universal and inseparable
   accompaniment of primitive Christianity and one of its most distinctive
   features. Wherever the Spirit of Jesus had laid hold on men, and believers
   were gathered into societies, there appeared among them some who believed
   themselves to be specially filled with the Spirit of the Master, and able to
   speak His Word as He wished it to be spoken. When such an one addressed
   them, his fellow Christians seemed to hear the Lord Himself speaking:
   “for,” they said, “where that which pertaineth to the Lord is spoken, there
   the Lord is.” [232]

   Prophecy had its home in Palestine; the ancient prophets, with the “Word of
   Jehovah” on their lips, were the spiritual guides in Israel of old. It had
   been silent for generations, but its reappearance was expected and longed
   for by pious Israelites as a sign of the nearness of the Messianic time.
   They looked for the return of Elijah or Jeremiah or another of the prophets;
   [233] and the apostles could appeal to the prophecies of Joel to explain the
   outpouring of the Spirit and its universal diffusion en the day of
   Pentecost. [234] Our Lord too had led His followers to expect a revival of
   prophecy. He had said that He would send prophets; had foretold that
   unbelievers would maltreat them when they appeared; [235] and had promised a
   prophet’s reward to those who received His prophets.

   We need not wonder then that Christian prophets arose in the Jewish
   Christian Church, and were to be found there from the very beginning; but
   what is to be remarked is that prophecy was not confined to the Jewish
   Church. It appeared spontaneously wherever the Christian faith spread. We
   find prophets in the churches of Jerusalem and Caesarea among purely
   Christian Jewish communities; [236] at Antioch where Jews and Gentiles
   mingled in Christian fellowship; [237] and everywhere throughout the Gentile
   churches—in Rome, in Corinth, in Thessalonica, and in the Galatian Church.
   [238] Prophets are mentioned by name in the New Testament writings—Agabus,
   [239] Barnabas, Saul, Symeon Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen, [240] Judas
   and Silas. [241] Women prophesied, among them the four daughters of Philip.
   [242] Prophecy, with prophets and prophetesses, appears in almost
   uninterrupted succession from the very earliest times down to the close of
   the second century, and indeed much longer, although it did not retain its
   old position. From the beginning too we find the true prophet confronted by
   the false, who preached a strange Christ, and attempted to turn believers
   away from the faith.

   The primitive Church had its birth at a time when the old religions, whether
   Jewish or Pagan, had lost their power; when the old religious formulae no
   longer appealed to the hearts and consciences of men; when an immediate
   revelation of the mind of the Master was the one pressing religious need for
   which all craved. Prophecy gave this to the young Christian communities. The
   effect of the presence of these inspired men, who spoke soberly enough at
   times, and often burst forth into raptures and recited the visions they had
   received, can scarcely be overrated. They confirmed the weak, they
   admonished the lax, they edified the whole society.

   The word “prophet,” like the term “apostle,” was used in a wider and in a
   narrower sense. In its widest meaning it could be, and it was, applied to
   all the three classes who were “gifted” to “speak the Word of God.” St. Paul
   himself was called a prophet long after he had begun his apostolic mission.
   [243] He had the peculiar prophetic gift of speaking in visions and
   “revelations.” [244] The “teachers” also had something in common with the
   “prophets.” [245] In this wider use the whole Church was said to be composed
   of “saints and prophets,” [246] and the prophets when present, assumed the
   lead in the local churches (hēgoumenoi). [247]

   In the narrower sense of the term prophecy had its distinct sphere between
   apostleship and teaching. St. Paul, following his Master, places it second
   in his list of the “gifts” which God has bestowed on His Church. [248] It
   had its place within the congregation, and was part of the preaching
   ministry of the apostolic Church. In the picture St. Paul gives us of the
   meeting for edification, prophecy in the order of service [249] comes
   between the part devoted to instruction and “speaking in a tongue.” St.
   Paul’s statements lead us to believe that the prophetic “gift” was not
   confined to a favoured few. He expected that it should manifest itself in
   every community of Christians. He desired that every member of the
   Corinthian Church should possess it, and that all should strive to cultivate
   it. [250] The Christians in Thessalonica were exhorted to cherish
   “prophesyings,” [251] and the brethren in Rome to make full use of the
   “gift.” [252] If he criticised the action of prophets at Corinth it was for
   the purpose of teaching them how to make the best of the “gift” which had
   been entrusted to them for the edification of their brethren. [253]

   What then was prophecy? The new revelation of God in Jesus Christ, the new
   way of approach to the Infinite Father manifested in the appearance of the
   Son, had created for the primitive Christians a new life and had illumined
   them with a new light. It gave them a new insight into the relations between
   God and man, and a fresh manifestation of the bonds uniting our Father in
   Heaven with His children on earth. It made them see with new vividness the
   way of God’s salvation and the duties which God required of man. There arose
   in the midst of the primitive Christian societies men specially filled with
   all this wealth of insight, and inspired or “gifted” to disclose to their
   fellows the divine counsels and the hidden mysteries of the faith. These
   were the prophets.

   They were teachers. A large part of what they uttered was instruction, but
   their peculiar “gift” was distinct from that of the teacher. He had to make
   known the new facts and events which the Gospel had disclosed; he had to
   trace the connexion between these divine events, and to explain the
   rationale of the divine forces at work for man’s salvation. He had to show
   the bearings of these divine facts and forces upon beliefs and ways of
   living. The distinctively prophetic task was different. The prophet was a
   producer, not an expounder simply, not a man whose task was finished when he
   had taught others to assimilate the divine knowledge which lay at their
   disposal. The prophet added something more. He was a revealer bringing forth
   something new. For prophecy presupposed revelation; it rested upon it; and
   apart from revelation it did not exist. [254] The prophet was a man of
   spiritual insight and magnetic speech. What he uttered came to him as an
   intuition of the Spirit, as if he had heard a voice or seen a sight.

   This does not mean that the prophet spoke in a state of ecstasy or amentia.
   St. Paul’s suggestions in 1 Cor. xiv. 29-33 imply that the prophet retained
   his consciousness throughout and had the power to control himself. The
   apostle counselled that whatever number of revelations had been received,
   not more than two or three should be uttered during one meeting, and that if
   a brother received a revelation while another was speaking the speaker
   should give way. Prophecy might be ecstatic, and we have evidence that it
   frequently was, but it was not so necessarily. Non-ecstatic prophecy lasted
   in the Church for two centuries, and can be shown to have existed among the
   Montanists, notwithstanding the accusations of their opponents. [255]

   Prophecy might be based on “visions.” St. Paul appeals to his own visions as
   well as to his “revelations.” [256] The Apocalypse, which is the great
   prophetic book of the New Testament and the most conspicuous relic we have
   of the prophecy of the primitive Christian Church, is a series of visions
   seen by a prophet and related by him. [257] Sub-apostolic prophecy had its
   “visions” also. The Pastor of Hermas, a Roman presbyter or elder who was a
   prophet, is largely composed of “visions.” [258] But “visions” were not
   essential to prophecy, nor do they seem to have been its common
   accompaniment. All inspired witness-bearing was prophecy, and we may almost
   say that free, spontaneous discourse about spiritual things was its
   essential characteristic. We learn, for example, from the Didache that,
   while a definite form of words was prescribed for the celebration of the
   Eucharist, the prophets were not bound to use it. They were to be allowed to
   “give thanks as much as they will.” [259] At the same time it must be
   remembered that the prophets were always believed to speak in a very special
   fashion in the name of God and with His authority. When the prophet spoke
   God was present, and the prophet was to be listened to as the messenger of
   God. [260]

   There is nothing in the whole series of descriptions of prophecy which have
   come down to us from apostolic and from sub-apostolic times to suggest that
   the prophets held any office, or that they were the recognized heads of
   local churches. Office-bearers, indeed, might be prophets; for the “gift”
   might come to anyone, and St. Paul desired that it should be the possession
   of every member of the Corinthian Church. Office neither brought it nor
   excluded it; a prophet was a gift of God to the whole Church, and no
   community could make exclusive claim to him.

   Nevertheless prophets had an important influence within the local churches
   of primitive times. We can see this from the Epistles of St. Paul and, from
   sub-apostolic literature, we can discern that their influence grew rather
   than diminished during the first decades of the second century. This power
   seems to have been exercised more particularly in the two matters of
   discipline and absolution or restoration to membership after gross cases of
   sin. St. Paul does not lend his sanction to any such special powers of
   interference. When he speaks of excommunication or of restoration he
   addresses himself to the whole Christian community, in whose hands he takes
   for granted that these duties rest. [261] But in writing to the Galatian
   church about dealing with sinners he uses the words, “Ye that are
   spiritual” (pneumatikoi). [262] This term “spiritual man” or pneumatikos
   came to be used, in a fashion quite different from St. Paul’s use, almost
   exclusively of the prophets; [263] and the phrase of the apostle must have
   had some effect in leading primitive Christians to believe that the prophets
   were the persons to deal with these matters. The primitive Church early
   adopted the idea that certain sins, of which varying lists are given, were
   of such a grievous kind that the sinner could not be received back again
   into the Christian society. They did not hold that these sins were beyond
   the mercy of God; but they did think that, without the direct voice of God
   commanding them, it was not permitted to them to restore such sinners to the
   communion of the Christian society. The voice of God they believed that they
   could hear in the judgment of the prophet; and the prophets could declare
   the forgiveness which the community felt to be beyond its power. Tertullian,
   who represents the older view, expresses this very strongly. [264] It was
   also believed that God dwelt in the martyrs as He did in the prophets, and
   that confessors and martyrs had the right to declare whether sinners ought
   to be absolved and restored. [265] There are evidences also that the
   prophets had a large share in declaring who were to be chosen to fill the
   posts of office-bearers in the local churches. All these things go to show,
   that if the statement that the prophets exercised a “despotism” [266] over
   the primitive Christian churches is too strong, they did possess very great
   authority—the authority which belongs to one who is believed to utter the
   Word of God.

   The prophets who are referred to in St. Paul’s epistles seem to have been
   members of the communities which they edified with their “gift” of
   exhortation and admonition, and this was no doubt the case with the largest
   number of these gifted men. But many who had the “gift” in a pre-eminent way
   took to wandering from one local church to another, in order to awaken
   Christian life and service in newly planted congregations; and the wandering
   habit easily grew when the services of the travelling prophets proved
   welcome to the infant communities. This custom was foreshadowed by our Lord
   Himself when He promised a prophet’s reward to those who received His
   prophets, [267] and it evidently existed from the earliest times. Agabus
   wandered from church to church; we hear of his being at Jerusalem, Antioch
   and Caesarea. [268] Such wandering prophets might easily become apostles,
   and we can see an example of this change of work when Barnabas, who did a
   prophet’s work in Antioch, was, at the call of the Spirit, sent, along with
   Saul, to undertake the work of an apostle or missionary in Cyprus,
   Pamphylia, Pisidia and Lycaonia. When these wandering prophets settled down
   for a time with their families, [269] in any Christian community, far from
   home and employment, it was but right that the community they benefited by
   their labours should support them. St. Paul had laid down the principle that
   it was a commandment of the Lord’s that “they which proclaim the gospel
   should live of the gospel,” [270] and had said to the Galatian Christians,
   “let him that is taught in the word communicate to him that teacheth in all
   good things.” [271] Primitive Christians had also the Lord’s promise made to
   those who received His prophets. [272] Hence the Christian communities made
   regulations for the support of the wandering prophets who gave them that
   exhortation and admonition which were the things chiefly sought in the
   meeting for edification. The prophets were to have the first-fruits of wine
   and oil, of corn and bread, of oxen and sheep, of clothing and of money.
   [273] The local churches supported the wandering prophets while they settled
   among them. In return the prophets exhorted in the meetings for edification
   and presided at the meetings for thanksgiving. [274]

   The conception that a prophet was inspired to speak the Word of God invested
   him with such a sacred authority that his position would have been
   completely autocratic had it not been under some controlling power. This
   power of control lay in the fact that every prophet required the permission
   or authorisation of the congregation in order to exercise his “gift” among
   them. This authorisation followed the testing or the recognition whether the
   supposed prophet had or had not the true spirit of Jesus. The power of
   testing lay in the witness of the Spirit, which was living in every
   Christian and in every Christian community. For, as has been before
   remarked, the prophetic ministry rested on a double “gift,” or charisma;
   one, the “gift” of speaking the Word, in the prophet, and the other, in the
   members of the Christian community, the “gift” of discernment. [275] The
   possession and use of this “gift” of testing preserved the freedom and
   autonomy of the local Christian churches in presence of men who were
   persuaded that they spoke in the name of God. Every prophet had to submit to
   be tested before he was received as one worthy to exhort the brotherhood;
   and his decisions or admonitions on points of discipline or absolution had
   to be approved by the congregation ere they were enforced. The right and the
   duty of Christian communities to test every one who came with a prophetic
   message was urged repeatedly by St. Paul and in other New Testament
   writings. The apostle insisted that all prophets, apostles, and even
   himself, ought to be tested by all Christians to whom they presented
   themselves. He appealed to their power of judging his own message. [276] The
   power to discriminate between the true and the false spiritual gifts was a
   special charisma which ought to be used. [277] The Lord had warned His
   followers against “ false “ prophets, and had predicted that they would
   bring evil upon His Church; [278] and St. Paul, after telling the
   Thessalonians to cherish prophesyings, insists on their using their power of
   discrimination. The same command is given in 1 John iv. 1. [279] The Church
   of Ephesus was praised for trying and rejecting men who called themselves
   apostles and were not. [280] The Churches of Smyrna and Thyatira were blamed
   for the untested and unrejected teaching which they had permitted. [281]

   There was need for testing, for if the genuine Old Testament prophecy was
   confronted with “gilds” of diviners and soothsayers belonging to the old
   Semitic naturalist religions, as well as with colleges of Jewish prophets
   who had retained the external prophetic characteristics, but had lost the
   true spirit of Jehovah, [282] the prophets of Jesus also had their rivals
   and their innocent or designing imitators. In that age of crumbling faiths
   in the Graeco-Roman world, Eastern religions were entering to possess the
   land. The great imperial system of roads and sea-routes served other
   purposes besides the traffic of trade, the convoy of troops, or the ordinary
   coming and going of the population. Bands of itinerant devotees, the
   professional prophets and priests of Syrian. Persian, and perhaps of Indian
   cults, passed along the high-roads. Solitary preachers of oriental faiths,
   with all the fire of missionary zeal, tramped from town to town, drawn by an
   irresistible impulse towards Rome, the centre of civilization. the
   protectress of the religions of her myriads of subject peoples, the tribune
   from which, if a speaker could only once ascend it, he might address the
   world. It was the age of wandering preachers and teachers, of religious
   excitements, of curiosity about new faiths, [283] when all who had something
   new to teach hawked their theories as traders dragged about and exposed
   their merchandise. We need not suppose that these men were all charlatans or
   self-conscious impostors. We must not thrust aside carelessly and without
   question the claims made by the prophets and preachers of many of these
   Eastern faiths to the possession of a knowledge of hidden powers and
   processes of nature, and of a command over them. Above all, we must not
   forget the strange assimilative character of so many Oriental faiths, which
   was as strong in Syria and Asia Minor in the early centuries as it is in
   India now. Christianity attracted men then as now; they were curious about
   it; they seized on sides of the new religion which they could best
   appreciate, and could so present their beliefs as to be able to plead that
   they themselves were Christians of a more sympathetic character and with a
   wider outlook than others. The great cities which were the centres of trade
   and commerce—the ganglia of the great empire, as the roads were its
   nerve-system—Ephesus, Corinth, Thessalonica, Rome, where we find the
   Christian prophets most active within the Gentile Christian Church, were the
   very places where this pagan Oriental prophecy most abounded. Nothing
   hindered the presence of such men at the meetings for edification; nothing
   prevented them from claiming to speak in the Spirit; only the diakrisis
   lying in the Christian society, only the power of discernment and testing
   through that “gift” of spiritual insight which was in every true Christian,
   and therefore in the Christian community, prevented the claims of such men
   to be inspired guides being admitted.

   The testing was for the purpose of finding whether the prophetic “gift” was
   genuine or not. It had little or nothing to do with the external appearance
   of the prophet or with the kind of utterance which he selected to convey his
   message. The question was: Were the contents of the prophetic message such
   as would come from the spirit of Jesus? had it the self-evidencing ring
   about it? had it the true ethical meaning which must be in a message from
   the Master?—something which distinguished it from everything heathenish or
   Jewish, something which showed that the prophet had drunk deeply at the well
   of Christ?

   The test that St. Paul gives: “no man speaking in the Spirit of God saith,
   Jesus is anathema; and no man can say that Jesus is Lord, but in the Holy
   Spirit” [284] may seem inadequate and easily eluded; but St. Paul is not
   delivering a short verbal creed; he is setting forth a principle. Prophecy
   must be filled with the sense of the Lordship of Jesus over the believer’s
   heart, soul and life, if it is true prophecy. [285] In the later days of the
   Didache the need for testing was felt as strongly, if not more so; the
   tests, however, took a much more mechanical aspect. The fine spiritual sense
   which the apostle trusted to has gone into the background and some wooden
   maxims have taken its place. “Not every one that speaketh in the spirit,”
   says the Didache warningly, “is a prophet, but only if he have the ways of
   the Lord.” [286] The phrase “ways of the Lord” does not, taken by itself,
   suggest anything mechanical, and has a flavour of the old spirituality. But
   the subordinate tests appear to indicate a degeneracy both in the prophetic
   office and in the spiritual discernment of the people. For the prophetic
   office and its discrimination demanded a somewhat high tone of spiritual
   life, and might very easily deteriorate. In this, as in other things, there
   is a close parallel to be drawn between the prophets of the New and of the
   Old Testament.

   3. The third class of persons who belonged to this prophetic ministry were
   the teachers (didaskaloi).

   We can trace their presence along with that of the apostles and the prophets
   in the promise of Jesus, in the most conspicuous of the “gifts” of His
   Spirit to the apostolic church, in the records of the sub-apostolic period.
   Our Lord promised to send “wise men and scribes”—a “gift” to be recognized
   and appreciated by His followers, and rejected with hatred by those who
   refused His salvation. [287] St. Paul emphasized their presence, when he
   said that God had set in the Church “thirdly teachers.” [288] We find them
   mentioned throughout the apostolic and sub-apostolic periods, holding an
   honoured place in the infant Christian communities.

   They were not office-bearers necessarily, though there was nothing to
   prevent their being chosen to office. What made them “teachers” was neither
   selection by their brethren nor any ceremony of setting apart to perform
   work which the Church required to be done. They were “teachers” because they
   had in a personal way received from the Spirit the “gift” of knowledge,
   which fitted them to instruct their fellow believers. Their more public
   sphere of work was in the meeting for edification, where, according to St.
   Paul, they had a definite place assigned to them after the praise and before
   the prophesyings; [289] but it may be inferred that their work was not
   limited to public exhortation, and that they devoted time and pains to the
   instruction of catechumens and others who wished to be more thoroughly
   grounded in the principles of Christian faith and life. [290] St. Paul gives
   us some indications of the work of the “teacher.” The apostle always brought
   to the communities he had founded what may be called the “oral Gospel” of
   the Lord Jesus or the saving deeds of the Evangelical history, and certain
   institutions and commandments of the Master. [291] These were the things
   which he “had received,” and which he “handed over” to his converts to be
   stored up in the retentive Oriental memory uncorrupted by reading and
   writing. He had added others—hidden things revealed to him because he was a
   prophet—which he called “mysteries,” about the Resurrection or the
   universality of the Gospel. [292] These things he had handed over to them
   either “by word or by epistle.” [293] To these he had added suggestions and
   opinions of his own. [294] All these things formed the stock of material on
   which the “gift” of the teacher enabled him to work for the edification of
   the community. St. Paul’s own discourses furnished the teachers in his
   communities with examples of the way in which all these stores of
   communicated knowledge could be brought to bear upon the faith, life and
   morals of the members of the local churches. He had given them a “pattern of
   teaching” [295] which they could strive to imitate, and which they without
   doubt did copy in their public exhortations or private instructions and
   admonitions.

   From St. Paul’s epistles it would appear that the apostle expected that
   every Christian community would furnish from its own membership, the
   teachers required to instruct the members; [296] but it is evident, at least
   when we get beyond the apostolic period, that many gifted men, whose
   services were appreciated, went from church to church teaching and
   preaching, and that without having any pretension to the prophetic gift.
   Justin Martyr and Tatian, well-known apologists of the second century, were
   wandering teachers of this kind.

   Such a wandering master, we learn from the Didache, belonged to the class of
   “honoured” persons (tetimēmenoi), and at once attained a leading position in
   the community he entered or to which he belonged. He had to submit to the
   same tests as the prophet, but like him, when once received, he was honoured
   as one who spoke the “Word of God.” [297]

   A position such as this, carrying with it both privilege and support, would
   be sought after by those who thought more of the honourable position in
   which the teacher stood than of the serious responsibilities which his
   office involved, and there are warnings both in apostolic and sub-apostolic
   literature that the work of a teacher is not to be lightly undertaken. [298]
   It is perhaps worthy of remark that the “teachers” seem to have maintained
   their position as a distinct class of men, apart from the office-bearers of
   a local church, much longer than the prophets did. In the general overthrow
   of the prophetic “ministry” during the second century the office of
   “teacher” was absorbed by the local ministry; but “teachers” apart from
   office-bearers seem to have maintained themselves in the Church for some
   centuries, [299] and some churches, notably that of Alexandria, seem to have
   possessed large numbers of teachers. [300]

   This prophetic ministry and the peculiar place it occupied was the
   distinctive feature of the organization of the Church of Christ during the
   apostolic and sub-apostolic periods. It gives this age a place by itself,
   and separates it from all other periods of the Church’s history; for it must
   be remembered that while this ministry lasted it dominated and controlled.
   Whatever administrative organization the local churches possessed had to
   bend before the authority of the members of this prophetic circle. To them
   belonged the right to lead the devotions of their brethren—to speak the
   “Word of God” in the meeting for edification, and to preside at the
   Eucharistic service—and to influence in a large but indefinite manner the
   whole action of the infant Christian communities. Yet they were not
   office-bearers in any sense of the word. They were not elected, nor were
   they set apart by any ecclesiastical action to a place of rule. Their
   vocation was immediate and personal. They could be tested, and their
   ministry might be accepted or rejected, but there the power of the Church
   with regard to them and to their ministry came to an end.

   They appear on the pages of the apostolic and sub-apostolic literature in
   the three classes which have been described; but the divisions, we can see,
   represented functions, not offices, nor can it be said that these functions
   were separated by any hard and fast line.

   The apostle or wandering missionary was also a prophet and a teacher; his
   vocation required him to be all three. The prophet might become an apostle,
   if he gave himself permanently to the aggressive creative work which was the
   characteristic of the apostolic activity; and he was also a teacher, for his
   prophetic utterances must often have been teaching of the highest and most
   stimulating kind. But a teacher could fulfil the special work of his
   vocation without having the “gift” of revelation added to that of knowledge.

   In all three classes we can discern the effects of a real outpouring of the
   Spirit, imparting special spiritual gifts, and creating for the service of
   the infant Christian communities a ministry which “spoke the Word of God” in
   the same sense as did the prophets of the Old Testament Dispensation. St.
   Paul was a prophet in the same sense that Isaiah was, and the author of the
   Apocalypse had visions as vivid as those of Ezekiel. [301] The one great
   difference between the prophesying of the two dispensations was that the
   gift was much more widely bestowed in the New than it had been in the Old
   Dispensation.

   It seems to be impossible to draw any line of demarcation between the
   prophecy of the Old and that of the New Testament, except that the latter
   partook of the universalist character of the new revelation of the Kingdom
   which our Lord proclaimed, and the “gift” was imparted to Gentiles as well
   as to Jews. The same outstanding features characterized the prophets and
   prophecy in the two dispensations. In both cases the prophetic “call” came
   to the prophet personally and immediately in a unique experience; and when
   the “call” came everything else had to be set aside, and the “word” from God
   had to be spoken. It is possible to compare narrowly St. Paul and Isaiah,
   St. John and Ezekiel, Polycarp and Jeremiah. In neither case was the
   prophetic “call” a call to office in the Church. The New Testament prophets
   were no more presbyters or bishops in virtue of their “call” than were the
   Old Testament prophets elevated to the priesthood in Israel; and in both
   cases the regular office-bearers had to give way to and bow before the men
   through whom the Spirit of God spoke.

   In Old Testament prophecy, as in the prophecy of the New Testament, the
   Spirit of God was given in a larger measure to some men and in a smaller
   degree to others, and in each case the natural faculties of the prophet had
   full play to exert themselves according to the capacities of the man. There
   were gradations in the prophetic order from men like St. Paul and Isaiah,
   who stood in the foremost rank, to the nameless prophet whom the lion slew,
   or the impetuous prophet who interrupted his brother in the meeting of the
   Corinthian congregation.

   In both cases true prophecy was surrounded with a fringe of prophet life
   which was hostile, and which was inspired by a spirit at variance with the
   purposes of Jehovah and with the principles of Jesus. In the Old Testament,
   as in the New, there was a marked tendency towards deterioration within the
   prophetic order.

   In both cases the power to discriminate between the true and the false
   prophecy, between the man who spoke full of the Spirit of God and the member
   of the prophetic “gild,” was left to the spiritual discernment of the people
   spoken to. The discerning faculty was often at fault; pretenders were
   received by and misled the faithful. Jeremiah had to protest against the way
   in which the people received men who claimed to be prophets, and Origen had
   to repudiate the prophets, or their caricatures, whom Celsus described with
   graphic irony. [302] Yet this power of spiritual insight was the only
   touchstone, and, indeed, there could have been no other in the last resort.
   For men can never get rid of their personal responsibility in spiritual
   things.
     _________________________________________________________________

   [167] This is equally true of the whole Church of Christ throughout the
   whole world: for each local church is the Church in miniature. The relation
   of the prophetic ministry to the whole Church on the one hand and to the
   local church on the other is an instructive illustration of the visibility
   of the Church Universal in every Christian community.

   [168] 1 Cor. iii. 1; cf. Gal. vi. 1, and 1 Cor. ii. 15.

   [169] Compare the tetimēmenoi of the Didache (iv. 1; xv. 2) and 1 Tim. v.
   17: “ohi kalōs proestōtes presbuteroi diplēs timēs axiousthōsan, malista hoi
   kopiōntes en logō kai didaskalia.”

   [170] Rom. xii. 7: “eíte diakonian, en tē diakonia,” is any kind of service
   in the Christian community.

   [171] “Helps” (antilēpseis) and “wise counsels” (kubernēseis) are placed in
   the same list of “gifts” with apostles, prophets, teachers and those who
   have powers of healing. The ministry of the local church, which is the
   foundation whence has come the present ministry in the Church in all its
   branches, was as much founded on the “gifts” of the Spirit as was the
   ministry of the Word. Sohm appears to ignore this in his otherwise admirable
   discussion of the “Lehrgabe” (Kirchenrecht, i. 28 ff.); and Harnack does not
   have it always before him, as it ought to be, in the dissertations appended
   to his epoch-making edition of the Didache (Texte u. Untersuchungen, II.
   ii.).

   [172] 1 Cor. ii. 14.

   [173] The prophets who speak the “Word of God” are told to prophesy
   according to the measure of the faith that is in them: kata tēn analogian
   tēs pisteōs (Rom. xii. 6); and the hearers are told to test the speakers (1
   Cor. xii. 10, compare vv. 1, 4; 1 Thess. v. 21; cf. 1 Cor. x. 15; xi. 13);
   and in 1 John iv. 1-3 it is said, “Beloved, believe not every spirit, but
   test the spirits whether they be of God,” etc. This charisma of discernment
   lay at the basis of the “call” given by the congregation to men to be their
   office-bearers: compare Canons of Hippolytus, ii. 7-9 (Texte und
   Untersuchungen, VI. iv. pp. 39, 40); and its use showed that the spiritual
   “gift” which belonged to the whole community was higher than the gift “
   possessed by an individual prophet inasmuch as it was the judge of that
   gift.” Compare Sohm, Kirchenrecht (1892), i. 56 ff., whose remarks, however
   valuable, seem too doctrinaire.

   [174] “Ut hanc fidem consequamur, institutum est ministerium docendi
   Evangelii et porrigendi Sacramenta” (Augsburg Confession, Pt. I. art. v.);
   “Nam sicuti Deus solus de se idoneus est testis in suo sermone; ita etiam
   non ante fidem reperiet sermo in hominum cordibus, quam interiore Spiritus
   testimonio obsignetur” (Calvin, Instit. I. vii. 4). “Our full persuasion and
   assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof is from the
   inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our
   hearts” (West. Conf. i. 5).

   [175] Heb. xiii. 7: Didache iv. 1: “My child, him that speaketh to thee the
   Word of God thou shalt have in remembrance day and night, and honour him as
   the Lord: for, where that which pertaineth to the Lord is spoken, there the
   Lord is.”

   [176] This statement ought to be qualified: the local presidents or
   proistamenoi of 1 Thess. v. 12 seem to have had other duties besides merely
   to exercise oversight; they had also to warn and instruct.

   [177] Heb. xiii. 7: “Mnēmoneuete tōn hēgoumenōn humōn, hoitines elalēsan
   humin ton logon tou Theou.”

   [178] 1 Cor. ix. 13, 14; Gal. vi. 6; cf. 2 Cor. xi. 8, 9, and Phil. iv. 10
   ff. “But every true prophet who will settle among you is worthy of his
   support. Likewise a true teacher, he also is worthy, like the workman, of
   his support. Every first-fruit then, of the products of the wine-press and
   threshing-floor, of oxen and of sheep, thou shalt take and give to the
   prophets.” Didache. xiii, 1-3. Timē has the two meanings of “honour” and
   “honorarium,” and it is difficult to know sometimes how to translate it; a
   case in point is 1 Tim. v. 17.

   [179] Acts xiii. 1-3.

   [180] 1 Cor. xii. 28; Eph. iv. 11.

   [181] Hermas, Simil. ix. 15: “The thirty-five are the prophets of God and
   His ministers; and the forty are the apostles and teachers of the preaching
   of the Son of God.”

   [182] Homilies, xi. 35: “Wherefore, above all, remember to shun apostle or
   prophet or teacher who does not first accurately compare his preaching with
   that of James, who was called the brother of my Lord.”

   [183] Rev. xviii. 20: “Rejoice over her, thou heaven, and ye saints and ye
   apostles and ye prophets.” Eph. ii. 20: “Being built on the foundation of
   the apostles and the prophets.” Didache, xi.

   [184] Didache, xiii. 1, 2; xvi. 2. Pseudo-Clementines, De Virginitate, i.
   11, “Ne multi inter vos sint doctores, fratres, neque omnes sitis
   prophetae”; but this is a quotation, said to be from Scripture. For fuller
   list of authorities compare Harnack, Texte u. Untersuchungen, II. ii.
   93-110, and tabular summary in note pp. 110-112.

   [185] Hermas, Pastor, Vis. iii. 5; 1 Tim. ii. 7; 2 Tim. i. 11.

   [186] For the meaning and work of an apostle: compare Lightfoot, St. Paul’s
   Epistle to the Galatians, 7th ed. pp. 92-101; note on The name and office of
   an apostle; Harnack, Texte u. Untersuchungen, II. ii. 111-118; Weizsäcker,
   The Apostolic Age (Eng. Transl.), ii. 291-299; Sohm, Kirchenrecht, i. 42-45;
   Loening, Die Gemeindeverfassung des Urchristenthums, pp. 33-37; Armitage
   Robinson, Encyc. Bibl., art. Apostle, pp. 264-6; Schmiedel, Encyc. Biblic.,
   art. Ministry, pp. 3114-3117; Hort, The Christian Ecclesia, pp. 22-41;
   Seufert, Ursprung and Bedeutung des Apostolats; Gwatkin, art. Apostle,
   Hastings’ Bible Dictionary, i. 126.

   [187] 1 Cor. xv. 10; Gal. ii. 7, 8.

   [188] Rom. xv. 20.

   [189] This appears to be the line of thought in our Lord’s address in the
   synagogue at Nazareth. He quoted from Isaiah lxi. 1, about the one sent from
   God, and declared that He was the “Sent One” (Luke iv. 18, 21); He had come
   to deliver a message from the Father which was to be proclaimed in the
   cities of Palestine (Luke iv. 41; cf. Matt. xv. 24). He made His followers
   His representatives in Matt. x. 40-42 (cf. the parallel passages in Mark ix.
   37, and Luke ix. 48). The two thoughts are combined in John xx. 21: “Jesus
   therefore said unto them again, Peace be unto you; as the Father hath sent
   Me, even so I send you”; cf. Clement, Ep. I. xlii. 1, 2; Tertullian, De
   Praescriptione, 37. In earlier classical Greek “apostolos “ meant a
   messenger who is also a representative of the man who sent him; in later
   Greek, the Attic use of the word to mean “a naval expedition, a fleet
   dispatched on foreign service,” seems to have superseded every other. The
   word however was used in later Judaism to mean the messengers sent from
   Jerusalem to collect the Temple tribute from the Jews of the Dispersion and
   who were at the same time charged with the business of carrying letters and
   advice from the Jewish leaders in the capital of Judaism, and of promoting
   religious fellowship throughout all the Jews scattered over the civilized
   world. Hence Dr. Lightfoot says, “In designating His immediate and most
   favoured disciples ‘Apostles’ our Lord was not introducing a new term, but
   adopting one which from its current usage would suggest to His hearers the
   idea of a highly responsible mission.” Commentary on the Epistle to the
   Galatians (7th ed.); The name and office of an Apostle, pp. 93, 94; cf. also
   Seufert, Ursprung and Bedeutung des Apostolats, pp. 8-14. But is is very
   doubtful if the word was in use in Judaism until after the time of our Lord,
   and it seems in every way simpler to believe that the Christian origin and
   use of the word were what are given above.

   [190] Matt. xviii. 5.

   [191] In Mark iii. 13-16 we are told that Jesus appointed Twelve, “whom He
   also called Apostles” (that is the reading adopted by Westcott and Hort) for
   a double purpose (the two parts of the purpose being made emphatic by the
   repetition of hina), of being in close companionship with Him, and of
   sending them forth to preach and to cast out demons, This, that they had to
   do, was what Jesus Himself had been doing (Mark i. 39; cf. Mark i. 14-34).
   Thus their training was both intimate companionship and close imitation in
   service. The account is confirmed by Luke vi. 13, where He called the
   Twelve; by Luke ix. 2, where He sent them forth to do and to teach; and by
   Luke ix. 10, where we are told that they did what they had been commanded.
   Hort, The Christian Ecclesia, pp. 22-41.

   [192] Acts i. 25.

   [193] Acts ix. 10 ff.

   [194] 2 Cor. xii. 1-4; Gal. i. 15-17.

   [195] Clementine Homilies, xvii. 13-20; the quotation is from sect. 19.

   [196] 2 Cor. viii. 23: “Our brethren, the apostles of the churches, the
   glory of Christ.”

   [197] Acts xiii. 2, 3: “The Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul
   for the work whereunto I have called them. Then when they had fasted and
   prayed and laid their hands on them, they sent them away”; xiv. 4: “But the
   multitude of the city was divided; and part held with the Jews and part with
   the apostles (Barnabas and Paul)”; xiv. 14: “But when the apostles, Barnabas
   and Saul heard it . . .”; Gal. ii. 9: “They who were reputed to be pillars
   gave to me and to Barnabas the right hands of fellowship that we should go
   unto the Gentiles and they to the circumcision.” Compare 1 Cor. ix. 5, 6.

   [198] Rom. xvi. 7: “Salute Andronicus and Junias, my kinsmen and my fellow
   prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also have been in Christ
   before me.” The phrase “of note among the apostles” has often been
   translated “highly esteemed among the apostles.” Upon this Dr. Lightfoot
   remarks: “ Except to escape the difficulty involved in such an extension of
   the apostolate, I do not think the words hoitines eisin episēmoi en tois
   apostolois would have been generally rendered “who are highly esteemed by
   the apostles”; and he goes on to say that the Greek fathers took the more
   natural interpretation and included Andronicus and Junias among the
   apostles. He quotes Origen and Chrysostom. The latter thought that Junias or
   Junia was a woman’s name, and yet he numbered her among the apostles;
   Lightfoot, Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians (7th ed.), p. 96 ff.

   [199] 1 Thess. i. 1, 6. Dr. Lightfoot includes Silas among those who are
   called apostles by St. Paul, but refuses to include Timothy: (1) because
   Timothy had not seen the Lord, and (2) because when the apostle mentions
   Timothy elsewhere he carefully excludes him from the apostolate. He writes
   in Col. i. 1 and in 2 Cor. i. 1, “Paul an apostle and Timothy the brother”;
   and in Phil. i. 1: “Paul and Timothy servants of Jesus Christ.” In the
   Pastoral Epistles Timothy is described as an evangelist: “Do the work of an
   evangelist; fulfil thy ministry” (2 Tim. iv. 5). It is held by many, among
   others by Lightfoot and Sohm, that the evangelists of 2 Tim. iv. 5, of Eph.
   iv. 11, and of Acts xxi. 8 (Philip the evangelist), were men who did the
   work of wandering missionaries but lacked the indispensable characteristic
   (as they think) of an apostle, viz. having seen the Lord and received a
   commission from Him (Luke xxiv. 48; Acts i. 22; 1 Cor. ix. 1). This
   distinction may prove good for the apostolic period, though it seems
   doubtful that it does, but it entirely falls to the ground in the
   immediately succeeding times. I am inclined to conclude that there is really
   no distinction between a wider use of the term apostle and the evangelist.
   The word “evangelist” occurs very seldom. The three references exhaust the
   New Testament uses; it disappears entirely in the immediately post-apostolic
   literature, it is not to be found in the Apostolic fathers nor in the
   Didache. When it reappears, as in Tertullian, De Praescriptione 4 (Qui
   pseudapostoli nisi adulteri evangelizatores) and in Eusebius (Hist. Eccl.
   III. xxxvii. 2, 4) it is used to describe such men as were called
   “apostles” in the Didache. On the other hand the apostles are described as
   “entrusted with the evangel” (Gal. i. 7, 8); as those who “preach the
   evangel” (1 Clement, 42); as the twelve evangelizers (Barnabas, viii. 3).
   Light., Com. on the Epistle to the Galatians (7th ed.), p. 96 n., 97. Sohm,
   Kirchenrecht, i. 42 n.; Harnack, Texte und Unters. II. ii. 113 n., 114;
   Sources of the Apostolic Canons (Eng. Trans.), p. 16, n. 8.

   [200] Lightfoot excludes Apollos on the double ground that it is extremely
   unlikely that he had seen the Lord, and because Clement of Rome, speaking of
   Peter, Paul and Apollos, calls the two former apostoloi memarturēmenoi and
   the latter anēr dedokimasmenos (1 Clem. 48).

   [201] Phil. ii. 25.

   [202] The evidence for including James, the brother of our Lord among those
   called apostles by St. Paul is contained in 1 Cor. xv. 7: “Then He appeared
   to James; then to all the apostles; and, last of all, as unto one born out
   of due time, He appeared to me also”; in 1 Cor. ix. 5: “Even as the rest of
   the apostles, and the brethren of our Lord, and Cephas”; and Gal. i. 19,
   which may read: “But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the
   Lord’s brother,” and would then include James among the apostles, or: “But I
   saw no other apostle, but only James the Lord’s brother.” which would
   exclude James. James is included by Lightfoot, Sohm, Weizsäcker (Apostolic
   Age (Eng. Trans.), ii. 294) and many others.

   [203] The phrase, tōn huperlian apostolōn is translated in the R. V. “the
   chiefest apostles,” which would imply that the “Twelve” were meant. But this
   is impossible. St. Paul would never have called the “Twelve” “false
   apostles, deceitful workers, fashioning themselves into apostles of
   Christ” (2 Cor. xi. 13), as he does the men mentioned in xi. 5 and xii. 11.
   The marginal reading, “those pre-eminent apostles,” is in every way to be
   preferred. Cf. Heinrici’s masterly exposition, Das Zweite Sendschreiben des
   Apostel Paulus an die Korinther, pp. 401-412; also Schmiedel, Encyc. Bibl.
   art. Ministry, p. 3114.

   [204] Cor. iii. 1.

   [205] Matt. xxiv. 11; Mark xiii. 22.

   [206] Didache, xi. 4: “Every apostle who cometh to you let him he received
   as the Lord.”

   [207] Matt. x. 10; cf. Luke ix. 3; Mark vi. 8.

   [208] Didache, xi. 5, 6: “He shall not remain except for one day; if
   however, there be need, then the next day; but if he remain three days, he
   is a false prophet. But when the apostle departeth, let him take nothing
   except bread enough till he lodge again; but if he ask for money, he is a
   false prophet.”

   [209] Dr. Lightfoot has made a list of what he conceives St. Paul thought
   were the indispensable qualifications for the apostolic office:—the apostle
   must have been a witness of the Resurrection (Acts i. 21-23); and this was
   supplied to St. Paul by a miraculous revelation; a commission received
   either directly from our Lord or through the medium of the Church as was the
   case with Matthias (Acts i. 23-26), and with St. Paul himself, who was not
   actually invested with the rank of apostle till he received it along with
   Barnabas at Antioch (Acts xiii. 2); the conversions which resulted from his
   work (1 Cor. ix. 2); possessing the signs of an apostle, which were partly
   moral and spiritual gifts such as patience, self-denial, effective
   preaching, and partly supernatural “signs, wonders and mighty deeds.” Com.
   on the Epistle to the Galatians (7th ed), pp. 98, 99. Weizsäcker has also
   made a collection of the qualifications of an apostle, but he, rightly
   enough, considers that they were the qualifications demanded from St. Paul
   by his enemies, and are therefore what they declared a true apostle ought to
   possess. “According to them the candidate for the apostolate required above
   all to be a Jew by birth (2 Cor. xi. 22). He must have seen Jesus (1 Cor.
   ix. 1; cf. 2 Cor. v. 16) and been an acknowledged promoter of His cause (2
   Cor. xi. 23; cf. Acts i. 21). Personal qualities, like courage (2 Cor. x. 1
   ff.) and eloquence seem also to have been required. On the other hand the
   apostle was then expected to attest himself by certain signs (2 Cor. xii.
   12), above all by miraculous powers and achievements; again by visions and
   revelations (2 Cor. xii. 1), and further, by attacks which could not fail to
   be made upon him, and by his bearing under them (2 Cor. xi. 13 ff.).” He
   adds, “All this would have been meaningless, if only a given number of
   definite individuals had been recognized as apostles.” The Apostolic Age,
   ii. 295 (Eng. Trans.).

   [210] 2 Cor. iii. 12; x. 1 rf.; xi. 21.

   [211] 2 Cor. vii. 5; xii. 10.

   [212] 2 Cor. xii. 12.

   [213] 1 Cor. ix. 2; 2 Cor. iii. 1-3.

   [214] Matt. xi. 2-5.

   [215] Gal. ii. 7-9.

   [216] 1 Cor. i. 1: “Paul called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ, by the
   will of God.” 2 Cor. i. 1. Gal. i. 1: “Paul, an apostle not from men nor
   through man, but through Jesus Christ, and God the Father.”

   [217] 1 Cor. ix. 1; xv. 8.

   [218] The full title is Didachē tōn dōdeka Apostolōn, “The Teaching of the
   Twelve Apostles.”

   [219] Compare Lightfoot, Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians, 99,
   100.

   [220] Missionaries and missioners in the Greek Church are called
   hierapostoloi. “The delegates of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s mission to
   the Nestorians are regularly called apostles by the Syrians of Urmi”
   (Armitage Robinson, Encyc. Bibl., art. Apostle, p. 265). So are the priests
   who itinerate in the Peloponnesus preaching to great open air gatherings on
   the market-days at such towns as Tripolitza.

   [221] Many of the differences, which make the Pastoral Epistles so different
   from the earlier epistles of St. Paul, disappear when the character of the
   apostle’s work is kept steadily in view.

   [222] Sohm (Kirchenrecht, i. pp. 42-5) declares that with the “gift” of
   “speaking the Word of God” there went as its accompaniment the “gift” of
   spiritual rule, and that all “apostles, prophets and teachers “ who had the
   one were also entrusted with the other. He shows how the apostles in the
   primitive church of Jerusalem led in all things: in the ministry of the
   “Word,” in prayer, in the appointment of office-bearers (the community
   elected but the apostles appointed—katastēsomen, Acts vi. 3—and presided in
   the laying on of hands); and when they were absent at their missionary work
   James took their place. St. Paul decided for his communities questions of
   arrangement, sometimes by quoting a “word of the Lord,” sometimes by giving
   his own opinion (1 Cor. xiv. 37); decided upon questions of marriage (1 Cor.
   vii. 10, 12), of virgin daughters (1 Cor. vii. 25, 40), and generally
   declared “how ye ought to walk” (1 Thess. iv. 1). Timothy and Titus, not
   because they were the apostle’s delegates, but because they had the “gift”
   of the “Word,” appointed to office (Titus i. 5; 1 Tim. iii. 1 ff. 8 ff.),
   and directed ecclesiastical discipline (1 Tim. v. 19, 20; Titus iii. 10).
   Loening (Die Gemeindeverfassung des Urchristenthums, pp.34, 35), on the
   other hand, thinks that the duties of an apostle were purely ethical: to
   teach believers how they should behave as Christians, and in particular what
   changes they had to make in their conduct (1 Cor. iv. 16, 17); when the
   apostle has a “word of the Lord” then he commands, but otherwise the apostle
   is not master of the faith of his converts (2 Cor. i. 24), and his
   directions are only counsels founded on his own experience; and it is with
   entreaties and persuasion that he asks the exclusion of a grievous sinner
   and the reception again of a repentant one (1 Cor. v. 3 ff.; 2 Cor. ii. 5
   ff.; viii. 11 ff.).

   [223] 1 Cor. xi. 2; “Hold fast the traditions, even as I delivered them to
   you.”

   [224] The direct command of Jesus St. Paul calls epitagē, while his own
   suggestions receive the name of sungnōmē or gnōmē; cf. l Cor. vii. 6, 10,
   25; these suggestions have a measured authority for the giver has the Spirit
   of God: 1 Cor. vii. 40; xiv. 37.

   [225] 1 Thess. ii. 6: “When we might have claimed honour from you, as
   apostles of Christ.”

   [226] 1 Cor. ix. 2; 2 Cor. iii. 1-3.

   [227] Gal. iv. 13 ff.; 1 Cor. iv. 16; xi. 1; Phil. iii. 17.

   [228] Gal. iv. 19. 1 Cor. iv. 14; 18-21; 2 Cor. ii. 9; xiii. 2, 3.

   [229] Cor. vii.-x.

   [230] Hort, The Christian Ecclesia, p. 130; cf. pp. 84-5. For the case
   mentioned above, cf. 1 Cor. v. 1-13, with the conclusion: “Do ye not judge
   them that are within, whereas them that are without God judgeth? Put away
   the wicked man from among yourselves.” For the authority exercised by the
   apostles, besides Hort as above, compare Weizsäcker, The Apostolic Age, ii.
   297-299; (Eng, Trans.); Schmiedel, Encyc. Bibl., art. Ministry, pp. 3116,
   3117. Gore, The Church and the Ministry (3rd ed.), pp. 233-238, an account
   in which history suffers from being looked at through the coloured glass of
   apostolic succession. Gwatkin, art. Apostle in Hastings’ Bible Dictionary,
   i. 126.

   [231] For the Prophetic Ministry compare: Mosheim, Dissertationes ad
   historiam ecclesiasticam pertinentes (1743), ii. pp. 132-308: De prophetis
   ecclesiae apostolicae dissertatio; Harnack, Encyclopædia Britan. art.
   Prophet (New Testament); Texte und Untersuchungen, II. ii. 119 ff.;
   Heinrici, Das erste Sendschreiben des Apostel Paulus an die Korinther, pp.
   347-462; Loening, Die Gemeindeverfassung des Urchristenthums, pp. 33 ff.;
   Robinson, Encyc. Biblica, 3883 ff.; Gayford, Hastings’ Bible Dictionary;
   art. Church, i. 434 ff.; Selwyn, Christian Prophets (1899); Weinel, Die
   Wirkungen des Geistes and der Geister im nachapostolischen Zeitalter bis
   Irenaeus (1899)—an extravagant book.

   [232] Didache, iv. 1.

   [233] Matt. xvi. 14; Mark vi. 15; viii. 28; Luke ix. 8.

   [234] Acts ii. 16; cf. Joel ii. 28, 29.

   [235] Matt. x. 41; Matt. xxiii. 34; Luke xi. 49.

   [236] Acts xi. 27; xv. 32; xxi. 9, 10.

   [237] Acts xi. 27; xiii. 1.

   [238] Rom xii. 6, 7; 1 Cor. xiv. 32, 36, 37 ff.; 1 Thess. v. 20; Gal. iii.
   3-5.

   [239] Acts xi. 28; xxi. 10.

   [240] Acts xiii. 1.

   [241] Acts xv. 32.

   [242] Acts xxi. 9.

   [243] Acts xiii. 1. Dr. Lightfoot seems to think that Saul was only a
   prophet until he had received the “call” from the prophets and teachers at
   Antioch. “The actual investiture, the completion of his call, as may be
   gathered from St. Luke’s narrative, took place some years later at Antioch.
   It was then that he, together with Baranbas, was set apart by the Spirit
   acting through the Church, for the work to which God had destined him, and
   for which he had been qualified by the appearance on the road to
   Damascus.” Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians (7th ed.), p. 98. But
   this surely contradicts St. Paul’s own statements. He claimed to have been
   an apostle from his conversion, in Acts xxii. 21, and in Acts xxvi. 17.
   Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller, pp. 66, 67, answers this curious theory very
   thoroughly.

   [244] 2 Cor. xii. 1-5.

   [245] The “prophet” is continually called a teacher and said to teach,
   Didache, xi. 10; and the woman Jezebel, who called herself a prophet, is
   said to have taught and seduced many in the church at Thyatira, Rev. ii. 20.

   [246] Rev. xi. 18; xvi. 6.

   [247] Silas and Judas, who were prophets in the church at Jerusalem are
   called hēgoumenoi there: Acts xv. 22; cf. Heb. xiii. 7 and above p. 73.

   [248] 1 Cor. xii. 28.

   [249] See above, p. 46.

   [250] 1 Cor. xiv. 1, 5, 39.

   [251] 1 Thess. v. 20.

   [252] Rom. xii. 6.

   [253] 1 Cur. xiv. 29-33.

   [254] 1 Cor xii. 3; xiv. 6, 26, 30, 32; Matt. xvi. 17.

   [255] Cf. Ritschl, Die Enstehung der altkatholischen Kirche, p, 475.

   [256] 2 Cor. xii. 1-5.

   [257] Rev. xxii. 9.

   [258] Compare the very full account of Hermas in the Dict. of Chr. Biog. ii.
   912-927. It is interesting to notice how many of the “visions” of the
   sub-apostolic prophets were concerned with some question of Christian life
   and practice. Hermas had a vision about the restoration of repentant sinners
   to Church privileges (Vis. iii. 7); Cyprian had one about the subject which
   interested him most—the obedience which ought to be given to bishops; and
   Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. V. iii. 2-3) relates how while the confessors of Lyons
   were in prison, it was revealed to one of them, Attalus, after his first
   conflict in the arena, that his companion did not act wisely in prison in
   keeping to his ascetic living, that he told his vision to his companion
   Alcibiades, who gave heed to him and left off his ascetic usages, for, it is
   added “they were not deprived of the grace of God, but the Holy Spirit was
   their director.”

   [259] Didache, x. 7.

   [260] 1 Cor. xiv. 25; Gal. iv. 14; Didache, iv. 1: “My child, remember night
   and day him that speaketh to thee the word of God and honour him as the
   Lord; for where that which pertaineth to the Lord is spoken, there the Lord
   is.” Acts xiii. 1, 2: “Now there were at Antioch, in the church that was
   there, prophets . . . and as they ministered to the Lord and fasted, the
   Holy Ghost said, Separate Me Barnabas and Saul . . .”

   [261] 1 Thess. v. 14; 1 Cor. v. 1-8; 2 Cor. ii. 5-8.

   [262] Gal. vi. 1: humeis hoi pneumatikoi katartizete ton toiouton.

   [263] Pseudo-Clem., De Virginit. i. 11: “With the gift therefore that thou
   hast received from the Lord, serve the spiritual brethren, the prophets.”
   Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. V. vi. 1: “In like manner we do hear of many brethren
   in the Church, who possess the prophetic gifts . . . whom also the apostle
   terms ‘spiritual.’”

   [264] Tertullian, De Pudicitia, xxi.: “The Church it is true will forgive
   sins; but it will be the Church of the Spirit, by means of a spiritual man;
   not the Church which consists of a number of bishops. For the right and
   judgment is the Lord’s, not His servant’s; God’s Himself, not the
   priest’s.” Hermas, Pastor, Mandata, IV. iii

   [265] Sohm has collected the evidence for the right assigned to martyrs to
   pronounce absolution on the belief that God was specially present in His
   martyr, in his Kirchenrecht, i. 32, n. 9. The office-bearers deprived the
   prophets of the right of absolution and took it upon themselves in the end
   of the second and in the beginning of the third centuries; and Cyprian’s
   long struggle with the confessors in North Africa ended in the overthrow of
   all such rights in the hands of any but the regular office-bearers in the
   Church.

   [266] Harnack, Theol. Lit. Zeitung, 1889, pp. 420, 421.

   [267] Matt. x. 41.

   [268] Acts xi. 28; xxi. 10.

   [269] 1 Cor. ix. 5.

   [270] 1 Cor. ix. 14; Matt. x. 10.

   [271] Gal. vi. 6.

   [272] Matt. x. 41.

   [273] Didache, xiii.: “But every true prophet who will settle among you is
   worthy of his support. Likewise a true teacher, he also is worthy, like the
   workman of his support. Every first-fruit then of the products of the
   wine-press and threshing-floor, of oxen and of sheep, thou shalt take and
   give to the prophets; for they are your high-priests. But if ye have no
   prophet, give it to the poor. If thou makest a baking of bread, take the
   first of it and give according to the commandment. In like manner also when
   thou openest a jar of wine or oil, take the first of it and give to the
   prophets; and of money and clothing and every possession take the first, as
   may seem right to thee, and give according to the commandment.”

   [274] Didache, x. 7. The mode of conducting the Eucharistic meeting is quite
   unknown except the one fact that when prophets were present they led. It is
   easy to conceive a collegiate superintendence of the meeting for
   edification; but it is hardly possible to think of a collegiate presidency
   at the dispensation of the Lord’s Supper. Did the prophets select one of
   their number to preside, or did they preside in turn? We do not know. Nor
   can we get out of this difficulty by supposing that the Lord’s Supper was
   dispensed in the family, when the father would naturally preside; for St.
   Paul's description clearly implies a common dispensation.

   [275] Compare pp. 70-72.

   [276] 1 Cor. x. 15; xi. 13; 2 Cor. xiii. 5, 6; cf. Rev. ii. 2; compare H.
   Weinel, Paulus als Kirchlicher Organisator (1899), pp. 18, 19.

   [277] 1 Cor. xii. 10; cf. vv. 1, 4.

   [278] Matt. vii. 15; xxiv. 11.

   [279] 1 Thess. v. 21; 1 John iv. 1-3; cf. Didache, x. 1, 2, 11; xiii. 1.

   [280] Rev. ii. 2.

   [281] Rev. ii. 14, 15, 20.

   [282] Deut. xiii. 3; Jer. xxiii. 21-32.

   [283] Compare Wissowa, Religion and Kultus der Römer (1902), pp. 78-83;
   Boissier, La Religion Romaine d’Auguste aux Antonins (1878), i. 354-403.

   [284] 1 Cor. xii. 3.

   [285] The test given in 1 John iv. 1: “Beloved, believe not every spirit,
   but test the spirits, whether they be of God; because many false prophets
   are gone out into the world. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: every spirit
   which confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God; and every
   spirit which confesseth not Jesus (annulleth Jesus) is not of God,” also
   looks like a creed; but what follows makes us see that it is to be taken as
   a principle which can be felt and which means much more than the form of
   words in which it is expressed. In both cases the statement of the test is
   immediately followed by an exposition of the necessity of Christian love
   permeating the whole Christian life.

   [286] Didache, xi. 8. The subordinate tests are: A prophet who orders a meal
   in the spirit and eateth it; a prophet who does not himself practise what he
   teaches; a prophet who asks for money—are all false prophets. But a prophet
   who has the “ways of the Lord,” and who practises more than he preaches is a
   true prophet. (Did. xi. 9-12.)

   [287] Matt. xxiii. 34: “prophets, wise men and scribes.” Luke xi. 49:
   “prophets and apostles.” Cf. Matt. x. 41.

   [288] 1 Cor. xii. 28.

   [289] 1 Cor. xiv. 26.

   [290] Gal. vi. 6.

   [291] We can see from 1 Cor. xv. 1-3, how St. Paul had made his converts
   acquainted with the sufferings, death, and rising again of our Lord; how he
   had enlarged on His character and ethical qualities (2 Cor. viii. 9; x. 1);
   etc., etc. He had taught them the institutions of Jesus (1 Cor. xi. 23 ff.).
   We have references to “commandments” of the Lord in 1 Cor. vii. 6, 25.

   [292] 1 Cor. xv. 51: “Behold I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep,
   but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the
   last trump.” 1 Cor. ii. 6 ff. Cf. xiii. 2; xiv. 2.

   [293] 2 Thess. ii. 15.

   [294] 1 Cor. vii. 6, 10, 25.

   [295] Rom. vi. 17: tupos didachēs.

   [296] Eph. iv. 15, 16.

   [297] Didache, xiii. 2; xv. 2.

   [298] James iii. 1; Barnabas, Epistle iv. 9: “Being desirous to write many
   things to you, not as your teacher, but as becometh one who loves you.”

   [299] Compare the curious sentence in the Apostolic Constitutions (VIII.
   xxxii.) which can scarcely be earlier than the beginning of the fifth
   century: “Let him that teaches, although he be one of the laity, yet, if he
   be skilful in the word and grave in his manners, teach;” where the reference
   is evidently to the instruction of catechumens. The teachers of the famous
   catechetical school of Alexandria were laymen during some part of their time
   as teachers. The Christian communities, especially in large towns, must have
   needed teachers for Christian schools; for all teaching within pagan lands
   is closely associated with idolatry. Tertullian (De Idolatria, x.) has
   discussed the difficulties of schoolmasters amidst a pagan populace; the
   same difficulties attend native Christians in India now. When a Marathi boy
   first goes to school he is placed upon a small carpet and a board covered
   with red tile dust is placed before him. The image of Saravasti, the goddess
   of learning, is painted on the board. Then the master sitting beside him
   first worships Ganesa and Saravasti, and teaches the boy to make the letters
   which form the name Ganesa. The difficulties are exactly those which
   Tertullian describes.

   [300] Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. VII. xxiv. 6: “The presbyters and the teachers
   of the brethren in the villages.”

   [301] Compare Plumptre, Theology and Life, p. 90: “Strange as the thought
   may seem to us, there were in that age (the apostolic) some hundreds it may
   be, of men as truly inspired as Isaiah or Ezekiel had been, as St. Paul or
   St. Peter then were, speaking words which were, as truly as any that were
   ever spoken, inspired words of God, and yet all record of them has
   vanished.”

   [302] Origen, Contra Celsum, vii. 9: “Again inasmuch as Celsus announces
   that he will describe from personal observation and an intimate knowledge of
   the facts, the manners peculiar to the prophets of Phenicia and Palestine,
   let us consider these statements. Firstly, he declares that there are
   several kinds of prophesyings, although he gives no list of them . . . .
   ‘The prophets,’ he says, ‘are many and unknown persons. They are apparently
   and very readily moved to speak as if in a divine ecstasy without any
   special occasion both at the time of service and at other times. Some go
   about as beggars and visit encampments and towns. Every one of them says
   readily and simply: ‘I am God,’ or ‘I am the Son of God,’ or ‘I am the Holy
   Spirit. I have come; for the world is about to be destroyed; you, O men,
   will be lost through your wickedness. I am willing to save you; and you
   shall see me again coming with heavenly power. Blessed is he who now
   worships me. On all others I shall cast eternal fire, on cities and lands
   and on men. Men who do not recognize their impending judgment will repent
   and groan in vain; but those who have hearkened unto me, I will protect for
   ever.’ With these threats they mingle words, half-frantic, meaningless and
   altogether mysterious, whose significance no sensible man could discover.
   For words that are vague and without meaning give every fool and wizard an
   opportunity of giving any particular meaning they wish on any matter, to
   what has been said.” One must remember that Celsus was what would now be
   called a cultured agnostic. His statements are not unlike some criticisms of
   the Salvation Army preachers.
     _________________________________________________________________

CHAPTER IV

  THE CHURCHES CREATING THEIR MINISTRY

   In approaching the subject of the ministry of the local Christian
   communities it may be well to note these things at the outset. We have
   abundant evidence of the thorough independence of the local churches during
   the apostolic age, whether we seek for it in the epistles of St. Paul or in
   the Acts of the Apostles. [303] We must remember the uniquely Christian
   correlation of the three thoughts of leadership, service and “gifts”;
   leadership depends on service, and service is rendered possible by the
   bestowal of “gifts” of the Spirit which enable the recipients to serve their
   brethren. [304] The possession of these “gifts” of the Spirit was the
   evidence of the presence of Jesus within the community, and gave the
   brotherhood a divine authority to exercise rule and oversight in the absence
   of any authoritative formal prescriptions about a definite form of
   government. [305] We have also to bear in mind the general evidence which
   exists to show that there was a gradual growth of the associative principle
   from looser to more compact forms of organization. [306] Nor should it be
   forgotten that the members of these earliest congregations of believers were
   well acquainted with social organization of various kinds which entered into
   their daily life in the world. When we remember these facts it need not
   surprise us that though in the end the organization of all the churches was,
   so far as we can see, pretty much the same, this common form of government
   may have arisen independently and from a variety of roots which may at least
   be guessed if they cannot be proved. There are traces of several primitive
   types of organization within the churches of the apostolic age.

   The first notice we have of organization within a local church is given us
   in the sixth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles when, at the suggestion of
   the apostles, seven men were chosen for what is called the service of
   tables. This took place probably in the year 34 A.D. These men were selected
   and set apart to take care of the poor and to administer the charity of the
   congregation.

   It is too often forgotten that this service had not the second-rate
   importance which now belongs to it in ecclesiastical organization. It is
   plain that in apostolic times the primary duty overshadowing all others, was
   that those who had this world’s goods should help their poorer brethren who
   had need. The sayings of our Lord were ringing in their ears: “If thou
   wouldest be perfect, go, sell all that thou hast and give to the poor, and
   thou shalt have treasure in heaven”; “Every one that hath left houses and
   lands for My name’s sake shall receive an hundredfold and shall inherit
   eternal life”; [307] “Seek ye His kingdom, and these things shall be added
   unto you . . . sell that ye have and give alms; make for yourselves purses
   which wax not old.” [308] Their devotion to the invisible God was to
   manifest itself in practical love to the visible brethren. [309] The first
   duty of presbyters, according to Polycarp, was to be compassionate and
   merciful, “visiting all the infirm, not neglecting a widow or an orphan or a
   poor man”; [310] and he calls widows “God’s altar”—a phrase repeated by
   Tertullian. [311] These men were chosen to fill the highest administrative
   position which the Church could give, and were to take charge in the name of
   the community of the most sacred of all ecclesiastical duties. The office
   instituted was required by the ordinary and permanent needs of the Christian
   society, for the Lord had said that the poor were always to be with them.
   [312]

   A few years later we read of money collected outside Palestine and brought
   for distribution among the poor of the Church in Jerusalem by Barnabas and
   Saul, who placed it in the hands of men who are called elders or presbyters.
   Unless we are to believe that the appointment of the seven was a merely
   temporary expedient, it is only natural to suppose that the duty of
   distributing money among the poor was performed by the men who were
   appointed by the Church to do it, or by others appointed in the same way and
   for the same purpose; and the natural inference is that the Seven of Acts
   vi. were the elders of Acts xi., and that we have in the narrative the
   account of the beginnings of the organization as a whole in the Church at
   Jerusalem, and not merely the institution of a special order of the
   Christian ministry. [313]

   The Church in Jerusalem appointed seven men. The apostles suggested the
   number. “Look ye out therefore, brethren, from among you seven men.” [314]
   They are never called deacons; the Seven is the technical name they were
   known by. Philip, one of them, is not called “Philip the Deacon,” but
   “Philip one of the Seven.” [315] Why this name? To say with Dr. Lightfoot
   that the number is mystical is scarcely an explanation, and it is not likely
   that it was merely haphazard. The Hebrew village community was ruled by a
   small corporation of seven men, [316] as the Hindu village is managed by the
   council of the Five or the Punchayat. The Seven was a title as well known in
   Palestine as the Five is now in India. The Church in Jerusalem, in founding
   their official council of administration, created an entirely new
   organization required by the needs of the young community, but one which
   brought with it associations which had deep roots in the past social life of
   the people. Modern missionary enterprise, which has the same problems of
   organization before it as confronted primitive Christianity, frequently
   sheds light on the procedure of the latter. The Church of Scotland
   (Established) missionaries at Darjeeling, who have based the organization of
   their native church on the Hindu Punchayat; the missionaries of the
   Presbyterian Church of England, who have laid hold on the village
   representative system in China; Bishop Patteson, who made a similar use of
   the native organizations in the South Seas—have all unconsciously followed
   in the footsteps of the apostles when they suggested the Jewish village
   government as a basis for the organization of the primitive Church in
   Jerusalem.

   This earliest example of Christian ecclesiastical organization contains in
   it three interesting elements—apostolic guidance and sanction; the
   self-government and independence of the community evinced in the
   responsibility for good government laid upon the whole membership; and, as a
   result, a representative system of administration suggested by the every-day
   surroundings of the people.

   When we trace the expansion of Christianity and the creation of Christian
   communities outside Jerusalem, we have no such distinct picture of the
   beginnings of their organization as is given in Acts vi., but there are
   indications of what took place. The preaching of the Gospel gave rise to
   Christian communities in various parts of Palestine which regarded the
   Church at Jerusalem as their common mother church, and all these communities
   together made the Church of God which St. Paul persecuted. [317] It is
   probable also that when this Judeo-Christianity spread beyond the bounds of
   Palestine throughout Syria and Cilicia, [318] the community in the capital
   of Judaism, presided over by its college of office-bearers with St. James at
   their head, was regarded as the mother church and the centre of the whole
   movement. They had before them the example of Judaism which appeared one
   visible whole centred in the great council. of the elders in Jerusalem.

   Further, the Acts of the Apostles relates that Paul and Barnabas left behind
   them at Derbe, Lystra and Iconium, communities of Christians with elders at
   their head. We are told that the apostles “appointed for them elders in
   every church.” [319] The word, cheirotonēsantes, means strictly to elect by
   popular vote. It suggests that Paul and Barnabas followed the example of
   their brethren at Jerusalem. and suggested and superintended an election of
   office-bearers, and the title “elders” (presbuteroi) was probably derived
   from the Church of Jerusalem. It need not have been so, however, for the
   word was common enough among the Greeks, and the more mature men in the
   congregations would be naturally selected. [320] A second and very different
   type of organization, though capable of being joined with the first, also
   comes to us from the primitive Church in Jerusalem. The accounts of the
   earliest condition of the Church, whether taken from the Acts of the
   Apostles or from the Epistles of St. Paul, reveal an independent
   self-governing community under the guidance of the apostles St. Peter and
   St. John. The leadership of these two apostles is conspicuous throughout the
   first eleven chapters of the Book of Acts. Then there is a sudden change
   which is quite unexplained, and in the twelfth chapter (ver. 17) and onwards
   St. James, the brother of our Lord, is seen to be in a position of
   pre-eminence. [321] The letters of St. Paul also reveal the change, but
   equally give no hint of when it took place or of the causes which led to it.
   But if canonical Scripture tells us nothing about the reasons for the
   change, tradition and early Church history have a good deal to say about it.
   It is quite impossible to explain the continuous and marked influence of St.
   James, on any theory of the organization of the Church at Jerusalem which
   makes it borrow its constitution from the Jewish Synagogue system. When we
   read the story of the election of his successors we have suggestions of
   another and very different organization. The James, who was the recognized
   and honoured head of the community in Jerusalem, was the eldest male
   surviving relative of our Lord. [322] We are told by Eusebius, quoting, it
   can hardly be doubted, from Hegesippus, that after the martyrdom of St.
   James and the fall of Jerusalem, the remaining apostles and personal
   disciples of our Lord, with those that were related to our Lord according to
   the flesh, the greater part of them being yet living, met together and
   unanimously selected Symeon to fill the vacant place. [323] In another
   passage he says that Symeon was the son of Clopas our Lord’s paternal uncle,
   and adds that “he was put forward by all as the second in succession, being
   the cousin of the Lord”; in a third he speaks of “the child of the Lord’s
   paternal uncle, the aforesaid Symeon, son of Clopas,” and in a fourth he
   tells us that Hegesippus relates that Clopas was “the brother of Joseph.”
   [324] In short he dwells pertinaciously on the natural kinship between the
   head of the primitive Christianity in Jerusalem and our Lord. The last
   glimpse we have of our Lord’s kinsfolk has been recorded by the same gossipy
   writer, who made it his business to preserve such details, and it reveals
   them at the head of the Jewish Christian community. He tells us that in the
   fifteenth year of the Emperor Domitian “there still survived kinsmen of the
   Lord, grandsons of Judas, who was called the Lord’s brother according to the
   flesh.” They were dragged to Rome and brought before the Emperor. He
   questioned them. They showed him their hands horny with holding the plough,
   and said that their whole wealth amounted to about 9,000 denarii, the value
   of thirty-nine acres (plethra) of land, which they cultivated themselves and
   on which they paid taxes. The Emperor contemptuously sent them back to
   Palestine, and there they were made the rulers of the Church because they
   had been martyrs and were of the lineage of the Lord. They lived till the
   reign of Trajan, and their names were James and Zoker. [325]

   A succession in the male line of the kindred of Jesus, where the eldest male
   relative of the founder succeeds, where the election to office is largely
   regulated by a family council, and where two can rule together, has no
   analogy with any form of organization known in the Christian Church. But the
   type of organization is easily recognizable. It was, and is to this day, a
   common Oriental usage that the headship of a religious society is continued
   in the line of the founder’s kindred according to Eastern line of
   succession, from eldest male surviving relative to eldest male surviving
   relative, whether brother, uncle, son or cousin. Here again we have a
   Christian community organizing itself, and that under apostolic sanction, on
   a plan borrowed from familiar social custom. [326]

   When we turn to the churches which owed their being to the apostolic work of
   St. Paul, we find the independence and self-government evidently taken for
   granted and formulated in principles laid down by the apostle in his
   epistles. The churches at Rome and at Corinth were churches because the
   presence and power of Christ were manifested within the Christian
   fellow-ship in a series of “gifts,” which provided everything necessary for
   their corporate life as churches, organized according to any form of
   self-government which recommended itself to them. There is not a trace of
   the idea that the churches had to be organized from above in virtue of
   powers conferred by our Lord officially and specially upon certain of their
   members. On the contrary the power from above, which was truly there, was in
   the community, a direct gift from the Master Himself.

   We find in the earlier Epistles [327] of St. Paul traces of men who
   exercised rule or at least leadership of some kind within the churches.
   [328] They may have been elected office-bearers or they may have been men
   who, without being office-bearers in the strict sense of the words,
   performed services necessary for the well being of the community such as
   office-bearers are accustomed to do.

   Even in the case of the simplest and smallest Christian communities certain
   services must always be rendered to the whole fellowship. Some one must
   provide a room for the meetings, take care of the Scriptures and other books
   required for the acts of public worship, keep the records of the society.
   The meetings need a president, if only for the time being. There is also
   need for services which may be called spiritual. Some one must see that
   brotherly intercourse is maintained, that quarrels are avoided, and that
   persons at variance are reconciled. The sick have to be visited, inquirers
   and the young have to be instructed and encouraged in the faith. Some
   persons have to see to all these things. They will naturally season their
   work with advice, admonition, warning, and encouragement. The men who begin
   to do these things from their love to the cause and the work naturally go on
   doing them; and their activity which was at first purely personal and
   voluntary, tends to become recognized and official. This is what may be seen
   on any mission field in the present day, especially in such lands as China
   and India, where Christianity is doing aggressive work among a civilized
   people habituated to work together in a society. The epistles of St. Paul
   reveal the same state of things. The men who are to be honoured as leaders
   are those who work for their brethren and put some heart into their labour
   (hoi kopiōntes en humin). Their work might include exhortation and
   admonition, for the term applied to them by St. Paul is the word he used to
   describe his own labours, [329] or it might be work of some other kind.
   [330] Whatever it was, it was necessary for the foundation, growth and
   stability of the infant churches. The men who laboured in these ways were
   the natural leaders of the community, for leadership was to be based on
   service, and the apostle declared that they were to be “esteemed highly for
   their work’s sake.” [331] These workers, as is the case in modern missions,
   were the first converts, like Stephanas, [332] or the men who had given
   their houses for the meetings of the brethren. [333] These brethren were to
   have the pre-eminence, and were to be obeyed for their work’s sake. [334]

   These natural leaders receive a special name in the epistles to the Romans
   and to the Thessalonians. They are called “those who are over you in the
   Lord.” The word is proistamenoi; and the term has a history, and would at
   all events suggest a special kind of relationship between leaders and led.
   It suggested the relation of patron and client, of prostatēs and metoikos,
   familiar enough in Rome and in Thessalonica, which no longer bore the old
   strictly legal meaning, but which in a less definite sense permeated the
   whole social life of the times. The word or a cognate one (proestōs)
   lingered long in the Roman Church. It is found in the writings of Hermas,
   the Roman presbyter, and was used by Justin Martyr when he wished to explain
   the organization of a Christian congregation to a Roman Emperor. [335]
   Archaeological investigation has proved how families among the privileged
   Roman aristocracy were the patrons of their poorer Christian brethren. The
   “church in the house” was not necessarily a “kitchen meeting.” The
   investigations of the late Commendatore de Rossi have shown us that the
   Christian faith made its way at a very early period into the families of
   some of the noblest and wealthiest Romans. They could, and probably did,
   open their houses to their poorer brethren and give their great audience
   halls (basilica) for the worship of the common brotherhood, interposing the
   protection of the legal sacredness of their private life as a shield on all
   who joined in their devotions. [336] Congregational meetings of this kind
   had the appearance of an assembly of powerful patrons and their humble
   clients, and thus took the form of a well recognized condition of Roman
   social life in all its ramifications. This idea is con-firmed by the shape
   of the earliest Roman churches, which, as has been before remarked, resemble
   the audience hall of the wealthy Roman burgher. When buildings were erected
   for the exclusive use of the Christian worship in happier days, the
   architects naturally copied the arrangement of the buildings they had been
   used to, and unconsciously transmitted architectural proof of the churchly
   organization of earlier times. Here, for a third time, we can see the
   Christian fellowship organizing itself under social usages well understood
   by the members of the infant brotherhood.

   In the Epistles to the Corinthians, while we find exhortations to obey, we
   do not find any words which designate those to whom obedience is due; nor
   have we any description of the organization which prevailed in the
   Corinthian Church, nor any advice given by the apostle about what it ought
   to be. The Christians of Corinth lived amidst so many forms of associated
   life that if organization was to be worked out by the congregation for
   itself, they would naturally have more aptitude for it than most Christian
   communities. For the people of Corinth were accustomed to confraternities of
   all kinds, and above all to private religious associations for the practice
   of special cults. Under the universal state religion of the Roman Empire
   there were innumerable religions with their different forms of worship. The
   state religion had its colleges of priesthoods, its great temples and its
   public sacrifices; these private religions had their associations for the
   performance of their peculiar rites. The Jewish synagogues of the Dispersion
   were enrolled as private religious societies, and seemed to their heathen
   neighbours to be one out of many kinds of institutions for the practice of a
   religion admitted to be lawful (religio licita), although it was the faith
   of only a small minority of their neighbours.

   The organization of these confraternities, as far as the western division of
   the Empire is concerned, is known in a general way; and although it differed
   in details in different societies, certain common features can be
   recognized. The confraternities were thoroughly democratic to the extent of
   admitting slaves to be members provided their masters gave consent. The
   confraternity was regarded as a great family, and the associates called each
   other “brothers” and “sisters.” They had a common meal at stated times. They
   paid a monthly subscription to the common fund (stips menstrua). They were
   permitted to make their own laws provided nothing was enacted which came
   into collision with the regulations of the State. These confraternities
   elected their own office-bearers, who were commonly called decuriones; and
   the society was strictly divided into office-bearers and commons, though
   occasionally we find an intermediate class of honoured persons. [337] The
   confraternities exercised discipline over their members and inflicted fines
   in money and in kind for offences. A book was kept (album) containing the
   names of all the associates. Women were members of a large number of these
   confraternities, more especially of the burial clubs. [338] Their places of
   meeting were generally called scholae, [339] because they were the scenes of
   leisure and re-creation, though the words curia and basilica are sometimes
   found (the Greek word is almost always oikos). There they had their common
   meals and their business meetings; the two were never held together.
   “Item,” says a decretum, “placuit si quis quid queri aut referre volet, in
   conventu referat, ut quieti et hilares diebus solemnis epulemur.” Almost all
   these confraternities had a patron or a patroness, who was always elected by
   acclamation and never by a mere majority of votes. Sometimes we hear of
   confraternities belonging to or having their seat in a private house, [340]
   consisting probably of the servants or slaves of the mansion. Almost all
   these confraternities, like their lineal descendants the “gilds” of
   mediaeval times, whether in England or on the Continent, had a distinctly
   religious side even when they were not formed for the express purpose of
   practising a foreign cult. They placed themselves under the protection of
   some deity or deities—merchants honoured Mercury; the dealers in grain,
   Ceres and the Nymphs; the wine‑dealers, Liber; the weavers and spinners,
   Minerva; and the fishermen, Neptune, etc.—and paintings of the protecting
   deity and images of the emperors adorned the walls of the Schola. [341]

   A large number of the Christian converts must have belonged to these
   confraternities before their conversion; many maintained their places as
   members after their entrance into the Christian Church in spite of all the
   efforts of masterful ecclesiastics, like Cyprian of Carthage and some
   bishops of Rome, to prevent the practice. [342] They must have known how the
   associations were organized, and they must have carried that knowledge with
   them into Christianity. They were likely to make use of that knowledge in
   the interests of the new faith to which they had attached themselves.

   This line of argument may easily be pressed too far. Scholars like Renan,
   Heinrici, Hatch and Weingarten, to say nothing of Schmiedel, [343] have
   pushed the relation which they think subsisted between the heathen
   confraternities and the organization of the primitive Gentile Christian
   communities much further than the evidence seems to warrant. Nothing that
   they have brought forward bears out the idea that the Christian societies
   were framed on the model of these pagan confraternities. On the contrary,
   all the evidence laboriously accumulated to establish the similarity between
   the Christian organization and that of the pagan confraternities, has not
   produced many points of resemblance which are not the common property of all
   forms of social organization. [344] The primitive Christian communities
   organized themselves independently in virtue of the new moral and social
   life that was implanted within them; but they did not disdain to take any
   hints about organization which would be of service from the pagan
   associations to which they had been accustomed.

   Here then we have, not a fourth type, but a fourth root of early Christian
   organization.

   A fifth may be found in the Jewish synagogues of the Dispersion; for many of
   the converts must have been Jews, or Gentiles who had become Jewish
   proselytes. The communities of the Jewish people scattered over the Roman
   Empire occupied very different positions in different places. In Alexandria
   and in Cyrene they had acquired almost complete political independence, and
   formed one large and separate community distinct from the surrounding
   population. In Rome, they had no rights that could be called political, and
   were divided into a number of separate communities apparently quite
   independent the one of the others.

   Everywhere however throughout the Roman Empire, thanks to the legislation of
   Julius Caesar and Augustus, the Jews had acquired complete legal protection
   for their religion. [345] This had been held to include the right to
   administer their property within their own communities according to their
   own laws, and to have a limited jurisdiction over their own members. Thus
   even where they had the fewest political rights the Jewish communities were
   always recognized as lawful associations permitted to practise the rites of
   a religio licita. The unit of the Jewish organization was the synagogue. In
   Alexandria the syngagogues seem to have been united under a common council;
   but in Rome, as has been said, the synagogues were independent associations,
   each having its own council, its own president, and its own office-bearers.
   [346] The privileges of administering their own property and of exercising
   jurisdiction over their own members, made these synagogues as much civil as
   religious communities, and it is very difficult, if not impossible, to
   distinguish between the two sides. At the head of each community was a
   council, the gerousia, with a president, the gerousiarchēs; the official
   leaders of the community were called archontes, and these archons were
   commonly elected for a term of years and sometimes for life. [347] They were
   purely civil officials; they decided questions of property; they had some
   criminal jurisdiction; and they were permitted to punish disobedience. The
   communities had also almoners—at least three, who are commonly classed among
   the ecclesiastical office-bearers, but whose work was almost purely civil.
   The only purely ecclesiastical office was that of archisunagōgos. All the
   actions of public worship, reading the Scriptures, preaching, praying, were
   performed by the private members, and it was the duty of the official to
   select those who were to take part in the services. Some synagogues had more
   than one archisunagōgos, and in later times the title must have become an
   honorary one, for we find it given to women and to boys. Besides this purely
   ecclesiastical official there was the “servant of the synagogue”
   (hupēretēs), who seems to have combined the offices of school-master, beadle
   and public executioner; he taught the children, brought in and removed the
   copies of Scripture used in public worship, and corporal punishment for
   misdeeds was administered by him. [348]

   However the internal organization of these Jewish communities differed from
   the pagan confraternities, their external appearance was such that they were
   undoubtedly classed among them, and by the names they gave their officials
   and by some of their customs they would appear to have tried to carry out
   the likeness as far as possible. [349]

   This synagogue organization has some points in common with that of the early
   Christian communities, and these were probably taken over into Christianity,
   but the differences were so great that it is impossible to say that the one
   organization comes from the other. Whether we regard its connexion with the
   pagan confraternities on the one hand, or with the Jewish synagogues on the
   other, it may be said that the organization of the Christian communities
   proceeded by a path peculiar to themselves. Starting from the simplest forms
   of combination they framed their ministry to serve their own needs in
   accordance with what they saw was best fitted for their own peculiar work.
   [350] This did not mean that the training acquired in pagan confraternity or
   in Jewish synagogue was altogether without effect on the members of the
   infant Christian churches, or that usages suitable for their purposes were
   not adopted; but it does mean that the organization of the primitive Gentile
   churches was not a copy either of pagan confraternity or of Jewish
   synagogue. What is to be insisted upon is that, on the supposition that the
   apostles did not prescribe any definite form of Church government (and there
   is not only no evidence that they did, but the indications are all the other
   way), the Christians of Corinth and of other cities in the East and in the
   West were sufficiently acquainted with forms of social organization to be
   able to organise their communities in such a way that the possibilities of
   rule and service which lay in the possession of those gifts of the Spirit
   that manifested the presence of Christ, could find free exercise for the
   benefit and edification of the whole community.

   One thing, however, in this connexion must not be forgotten, as it often is.
   The infant Christian churches came into being in the Graeco-Roman world at a
   time when the imperial policy was extremely jealous of any forms of social
   organization, and when its officials were on the watch to prevent any new
   development of the principle. Julius Caesar, on political grounds, had
   suppressed all confraternities except those of ancient origin, [351] but,
   also from motives of policy, had expressly excepted the Jewish synagogues.
   [352] His nephew and successor Augustus followed in his uncle’s footsteps,
   and in addition had ordered all religious associations to be placed under
   the strictest control and surveillance. [353] The well-known contempt which
   the first emperor entertained for Oriental religions was doubtless partly
   responsible for this. [354] The Jewish synagogues were again specially
   exempted. All new confraternities had to get a special permit from the
   senate, if they were in the senatorial provinces, and from the emperor, if
   they belonged to the imperial ones. The only associations which were perhaps
   exempted were the collegia tenuiorum, when they were also burial clubs; but
   it is doubtful whether there was ever a general concession made till the
   time of Severus. There existed, however, throughout the empire a multitude
   of confraternities which had not received the sanction of either senate or
   emperor, and which were therefore illicit, but which were undisturbed
   although under police supervision. They could be suppressed at any time, and
   it was provided that no very serious punishment accompanied the suppression.
   [355] Christianity was never recognized as a religio licita till the time of
   Constantine, and could never have received official sanction for its
   assemblies; but it was not impossible for the Christian churches to take the
   place of an illicit confraternity provided they had such an external
   resemblance to some well recognized confraternities as would permit the
   police to connive at their existence. It is undoubted that the Christian
   Church was at first believed by the Romans to belong to the tolerated and
   protected Judaism. Tertullian meets the charge that Christianity was “hiding
   something of its presumption under the shadow of an illustrious religion
   (Judaism), one which has at any rate the authorization of law.” [356] So
   long as the Roman Government did not perceive the difference between the
   Christians and the Jews, the infant Christian churches could remain
   sheltered under the laws which permitted legalized confraternities; [357]
   but when the difference became manifest, and when Jews themselves began to
   denounce the Christians, some other shelter was required. [358] This could
   be and no doubt was furnished by the general external resemblance of the
   Christian societies to the pagan confraternities for religious practices.
   Hence conformity with the usages of a pagan confraternity gave the
   Christians the best means of escaping the attention of the authorities,
   alert to notice any attempts to start altogether new associations. [359] It
   is evident that the Christian communities had some usages in common with the
   confraternities, and precisely those which would be the most likely to
   attract attention. They met together for a common meal (which was one of the
   things that Pliny noticed); [360] they made a distinction between the
   meetings for the common meal and those for edification and for business;
   they honoured the dies natalis of a martyr as the confraternities celebrated
   the birthdays of benefactors; they exhibited a reverence for their dead
   brethren in ways that could be compared with the practices of the
   confraternities; [361] above all, after the time of the Emperor Nerva they
   tried to assimilate themselves to the collegia tenuiorum, which obtained an
   easier recognition on the part of the authorities, and this came to a head
   when Bishop Zephyrinus was able to get the Roman Church registered as a
   burial club. [362] There was sufficient external resemblance between the
   confraternities to enable Tertullian to plead that the Church should be
   recognized as a legally permitted association, and to make Pliny suggest
   that he might proceed against the Christians as members of an illicit
   collegium. [363] All these things enable us to see how the Christian
   churches during the earliest part of their existence could maintain a
   position of precarious security in face of the imperial policy of not
   permitting new associations. But we are scarcely warranted in drawing
   conclusions about the inward organization of the primitive Christian
   communities. What we can infer is, that the Christians of the primitive
   Gentile churches had the ordinary experience to enable them to make use of
   all the divine gifts of rule and service in creating for their churches from
   their midst a ministering service.

   Churches like that of Corinth and Philippi, whatever may have suggested
   their forms of organization, and whatever bands held them together, had
   within them persons with the “gifts” which enabled them to offer wise
   counsels, to assist their neighbours, to lead the devotions and to manage
   the affairs of the community. If it be said, as it is sometimes done, that
   the churches of Corinth and Rome were not properly organized because we do
   not hear of bishops or presbyters or deacons, then that means that a
   Christian community could be addressed as a Christian church, could be
   called “Christ’s Body,” could admit catechumens by the sacred door of
   baptism, could assemble together for public worship, could partake together
   of the Holy Supper, could exercise Christian discipline, and all this
   without office-bearers set apart for the purposes of the ministry in regular
   and ecclesiastical fashion. It shows, as nothing else can, that the Church
   comes before the ministry, and that it creates for itself and its own needs
   its ministering service; the natural leaders led, the people followed, the
   organization grew and the new moral and social life had full liberty to
   develop itself in all manner of Christian service. The two types of the
   earliest local ministry, the serving and the leading, the antilēpseis and
   the kubernēseis, the diakonein and the episkopein appeared first as forms of
   doing what service was required of them, and then as permanent offices.

   Hitherto, with one exception, we have been working at those portions of the
   New Testament whose dates are well ascertained. Our material has been drawn
   chiefly from the earlier Epistles of St. Paul, all of which belong to the
   years before 57 A.D. When we come to the material given in the Epistle of
   James, 1 Peter, and the Pastoral Epistles, we are at once confronted with
   questions of date and authorship, on which modern scholars hold very varying
   opinions.

   For our purposes, however, these questions are by no means so important as
   might at first be supposed. No critic, whose opinions deserve serious
   consideration, denies the truth of the pictures of the ecclesiastical
   organization exhibited in the Pastoral Epistles or in the later chapters of
   the Acts of the Apostles. While they may refuse to admit that St. Paul or
   St. Luke was the author and while they may relegate the composition to the
   last decade of the first or to the second or third decades of the second
   century, they all admit that the representations of ecclesiastical polity
   found in these documenta are true for this later period and may be true for
   a much earlier one. The Church, it is held universally, did pass through the
   stage of organization shown in these documents. The only question is the
   date of the stage. No reasonable critic would affirm that a special feature
   of ecclesiastical organization may not have been in existence long before it
   is mentioned, or that the date when we first hear about it is the date of
   its origin, unless there is the express statement that it took its beginning
   at that time. For example, when it it said that Paul and Barnabas did not
   see elders set over the churches of Derbe, Lystra and Iconium (Acts xiv.
   23), no one denies that the passage is evidence for the existence of elders
   in these churches in the beginning of the second century. Only some critics
   believe that the statement so conflicts with St. Paul’s own account of his
   conduct towards his missionary churches that it is impossible to accept the
   idea that the office of eldership, which was certainly present when the
   document was written, dates as far back as the planting of the churches.
   They say that the writer, not unnaturally, attributes the polity of his own
   time to the earlier period. Others, who accept the late date of the
   document, find certain corroborative evidence of the existence of elders in
   these churches long before this date, and have no difficulty in believing
   that the institution of the office may have come from the missionary journey
   of St. Paul, whatever the date or authorship of the document which relates
   the circumstance. The same remark applies to the Pastoral Epistles. If the
   late date of the documents be accepted, and if it is also believed that the
   accounts of the organization of the churches given in them indicate a
   difference of polity from what appears in the undisputed Epistles of St.
   Paul, the result is not to discredit the information the documents give us
   about ecclesiastical organization, but to accept it as evidence for what
   existed in the first and second decades of the second century. If the late
   date of composition be maintained, and if it is held that the information
   given is not inconsistent with what existed in earlier days, then nothing
   compels us to conclude that the beginnings of the polity described are as
   late as the accepted date of the documents describing them. In either case
   the documents are held to describe truly the condition of the ministry of
   the Church at an earlier or at a later period—the question of time being
   settled not by the date of the document but by a comparison between the
   information it gives with what we know of the earlier period. The matter
   involved does not concern a general conception of ecclesiastical
   organization, but whether a certain stage of development, which did exist
   some-time, was of an earlier or of a later appearance—a question which, when
   we consider the utmost limits of time involved, is comparatively
   unimportant.

   We need not, therefore, concern ourselves here with the problems which the
   date and authorship of the Book of Acts and of 1 Peter suggest. [364] But
   prevailing critical opinions about the Pastoral Epistles place the portions
   which concern our subject so very late that it is necessary either to
   dissent from them or to relegate the information these documents give to the
   period which produced the Epistles of Ignatius and the Sources of the
   Apostolic Canons. [365] These Pastoral Epistles were extensively used in the
   Primitive Church as a document giving directions about ecclesiastical
   organization and discipline. The Muratorian Fragment tells us this. [366]
   Like all documents used in this way, they were apt to be interpolated to
   suit the needs of time and place. Statements about prevailing errors to be
   shunned were liable to be altered in order to be more sharply descriptive of
   existing heresies or tendencies to heresy and disciplinary directions might
   easily have taken a more technical language to suit a later period. But when
   due allowance is made for these natural effects of the primitive use of
   these documents, there does not seem to be evidence strong enough to warrant
   our refusing to believe that they are what they declare themselves to
   be—letters from St. Paul to two of his most trusted fellow-workers,
   instructing them how to carry on his missionary work, which he was not able
   to superintend personally. If this be the case these letters show us what
   St. Paul was in the habit of doing in the mission fields which be-longed
   peculiarly to himself. Titus [367] had accompanied the apostle, released
   from his Roman captivity, to Crete, and had been left there to complete the
   work which the apostle, pressed for time, could not stay to finish. His duty
   was to see that “elders” were chosen in every local church. The charge
   recalls the account given in the Acts of the Apostles of the missionary
   journey of Paul and Barnabas through the district which included the cities
   of Derbe, Lystra and Iconium. On that missionary tour the apostles did not
   see to the appointment of “elders” when their converts were first gathered
   from Judaism and heathenism. They allowed the believers in the new faith
   some little time to prove themselves. It was on their return journey, when
   they were “confirming “ their converts, that the elders were appointed. So
   here Titus was left till the sufficient time had elapsed, and then he was to
   see to the selection of elders in the local churches of Crete. His work was
   one that could be finished within a comparatively short time, for the
   apostle expected him to follow to Nicopolis, where St. Paul was to pass the
   winter. There is no suggestion that his function was anything like a
   permanent office in the Church. The work given him to do is perfectly
   familiar to modern missionaries. The other deputy was Timothy. [368] He had
   come with the apostle to Ephesus, and circumstances, we know not what, had
   required that one of the two should remain and “confirm” the Church there.
   St. Paul had other work to do; Timothy was selected to remain, and he
   received two letters advising him how to act. Such is the setting of these
   Pastoral Epistles as related in the writings themselves.

   In these letters to Titus and to Timothy we find, as we might expect in such
   documents, much more detailed references to the organization of the churches
   than in the Epistles addressed to the churches themselves. We find
   unmistakably an official ministry which appears to consist of two grades. We
   see evidence of a congregational roll on which the names of the poor, who
   are to receive the support of the congregation, are entered. There are also
   traces of a ministry of women. We find the apostle laying down rules to
   guide his deputies in the selection of office-bearers and in the removal of
   ecclesiastical excommunication. In short, we find a great deal more definite
   information about the organization and the ministry of the primitive
   churches than in any other of the New Testament writings.

   If we believe that the apostle was above all things a missionary, and that
   his deputies were to do the work of missionaries, which seems to be the only
   view which is consistent with the nature of the function and the description
   of their work which is given in the New Testament writings, these Pastoral
   Epistles may be expected to show us the organization of the primitive
   Gentile churches from the inside, while in the Epistles of St. Paul, written
   either before or during the Roman captivity, we see the same organization
   from the outside. They tell us how the apostle personally superintended the
   building into churches of the communities of believers his preaching had
   gathered together. The two sets of letters are complementary. In the earlier
   letters we see the apostle encouraging every form of spontaneous action, and
   how he made the infant communities feel that the whole responsibility lay
   upon their shoulders. In the later epistles the master-builder shows his
   deputies how carefully he was accustomed to guide the exercise of that
   responsibility with scarcely felt touches of the hand.

   The duties of the two deputies varied with the wants of the places in which
   they were set. Timothy had to do with an older community whose special
   circumstances demanded special care; Titus had to deal with comparatively
   newly-established congregations, and to guide them carefully but
   unobtrusively to organize themselves. Both had to do the work which the
   apostle was himself accustomed to do in similar circumstances. It was the
   most difficult and delicate work that falls to the lot of a missionary—to
   guide into right channels of self-government communities comparatively young
   in the faith, and to do it in such a way that the community may feel that it
   is doing the work itself, and will be able to sustain itself when the
   guiding hand shall be removed. In modern times nothing tests the ability of
   a missionary for his work like this very task.

   The apostle gave both Titus and Timothy a master-thought to guide them. The
   infant Christian communities were to be looked on as Households of God, and
   as every great household needs servants who superintend, so the Household of
   God needs men who have the oversight. He that has proved faithful in small
   things is the most likely to prove faithful in all-important work, and the
   man who has shown that he can guide and rule his own household well is
   declared to be the best fitted to super-intend the Household of God. Hence
   we are told very little about the special duties of the presbyters or
   bishops, or whatever their usual name was, and find little mention of
   qualities fitted for special functions. What the apostle insists on is
   character, and that kind of character which is shown in family
   relationships.

   Titus is told that a presbyter or elder must be a man who is above
   suspicion, who is a faithful husband [369] and whose children are Christians
   of well regulated lives. He is not to be self-willed, nor soon angry, nor
   given to wine, nor turbulent, nor given to money; he is to be a lover of
   strangers, a lover of what is good, sober-minded, upright, pious and
   temperate in all things. Besides, he ought to be so well-grounded in the
   principles of Christian morality and religion that he can exhort the
   brethren and answer the common Jewish and heathen objections to the
   Christian faith.

   Timothy was placed in temporary charge in a district where the Christian
   community had existed for a longer period; and the differences in the advice
   given all gather round this fact. The office-bearers selected by the
   community were not to be taken from the most recently converted, but from
   men who had some experience of Christianity, and whose character had stood
   the test of time. [370] The office of “oversight” had become sought after,
   and there was the more need for careful selection. [371] But as in the
   letter to Titus what St. Paul insists on is character, as that has displayed
   itself within the family, for rule in the human household is the best
   training for management within the Household of God. [372] The list of
   qualifications is practically the same as was given to Titus, with this
   added, that he who has the oversight ought to be a man respected by the
   heathen [373] as well as by his fellow Christians. [374]

   The qualifications demanded of deacons also practically consist of character
   tested by behaviour in the household—faithfulness to wife, and evidence of
   parental control over children and wise dealing with servants. [375] It is
   also interesting to notice a ministry of women.

   Presbyters or elders who rule well are to be honoured, and those who in
   addition assist in the ministry of the Word are to be doubly honoured, or
   perhaps to receive a double honorarium from the free-will offerings of the
   people. Elders who do not rule well are to be looked after; but the apostle
   charges his deputy not to accept accusations against them rashly, but to
   follow the old Jewish rule which required at least two grave witnesses to
   any accusation affecting character. But if an elder, or indeed any member of
   the congregation, did fall into sin, public rebuke was to be given without
   respect of persons. [376] The apostle also insists that his deputy is to be
   very cautious in admitting to Church Communion those who have lapsed. He is
   not “to lay hands hastily,” [377] according to the usual form in
   restoration, “on any man, neither to be a partaker of other men’s sins.”

   The picture of the relief of the poor of the community is both vivid and
   homely. It brings before our eyes not merely that far-off primitive
   Christian Church of Ephesus, but also the present work of a Scottish country
   kirk-session. When the bread-winner dies careful inquiries are to be made,
   whether the bereaved widow and orphans have any means of support, or can
   receive any aid from their relations, who are to be stirred up to do their
   duty to those who are left helpless. If the children or grandchildren are
   able to work they are to be commanded to support her who has been left a
   widow; but if such help fails, and if the widow is too old to earn her own
   living and has always borne a good character, then she is to be placed on
   the poor roll of the congregation and supported by the community.

   According to our view, these Pastoral Epistles are to be regarded as
   complementary to the earlier Epistles of St. Paul, in so far as they give us
   information about the organization of the Gentile Christian communities. The
   earlier epistles, written to the various churches, reveal the principles of
   the growth of the organization lying within the communities themselves;
   while the Pastoral Epistles, written to guide the men who were to be the
   apostle’s deputies, and had to be instructed in his methods, show how he
   watched over the communities his preaching had gathered together. The
   apostle acted like a wise father, who encourages every appearance of
   independent and responsible action, but at the same time carefully guides it
   into the proper channels. From one point of view it can be truly said that
   the churches of St. Paul’s mission were thoroughly independent and acted on
   their own responsibilities; from another the apostle or his deputies watched
   over and guided this activity. There was control, but it was the control of
   the missionary, and partook largely of parental monition and guidance.

   If we combine what is given us in the earlier Epistles of St. Paul with what
   we find in the Pastoral Epistles, we can discern the principles of
   organization within the Pauline communities. According to the ideas of the
   apostle, a Church of God was thoroughly organized when it found within its
   membership a variety of persons endowed with various spiritual gifts
   producing activities helpful to the whole community. That was the real basis
   of the common life, the divine element without which all else was of little
   moment, and with which everything else was a matter of executive detail.
   These gifts were divided into two great classes, those which served for the
   ministry of the Word, and those which were at the foundation of other kinds
   of ministry. It was from this second class of “gifts” that the ministry of
   the local churches proceeded. Among them we find two which crystallise into
   ecclesiastical office. St. Paul calls them “wise counsels” and “helps”
   (kubernēseis and antilēpseis, 1 Cor. xii. 28); we may call them
   “oversight” and “subordinate service.” Whatever may have been the original
   principle of association,whatever suggestions of social combination earliest
   presented themselves to the minds of the primitive Christians in the Gentile
   Christian communities, whatever the human bands that bound them together,
   these two classes of officials were sure to emerge—the one fitted to guide
   and lead the brethren and the other to render subordinate service.

   Some time must have elapsed before active services crystallised into
   offices, but it need not have been a long period. [378] Things move fast in
   young communities organizing themselves for the first time, and the
   spiritual gift of discernment which belonged to the whole community was an
   instrument of organization lying ready to hand. This gift of
   “discernment,” when applied to teaching, implied that those who were really
   believed to be the mouthpiece of the Holy Spirit were to be heard with
   reverence, and that the hearers ought to fashion their lives according to
   what was taught. The same gift, when applied to the discernment of abilities
   for rule and service, implied the power to select and bestow office upon men
   so gifted, and the duty of the community to obey its chosen leaders in all
   practical matters.

   In young communities full of a fresh and active enthusiasm, feeling that the
   possession of “gifts” of rule and help was the fulfilment of the promise of
   the Master to be present with them, and that the “gift” of discernment
   enabled them to select their leaders with something of divine authority,
   activities helpful to the community would speedily become offices. There is
   no reason to prevent us from believing that Stephanas and the others whom
   the Corinthian Church are ordered to reverence were office-bearers in the
   full sense of the word. [379] Harnack and many others are disposed to deny
   this. They argue that there is no trace of office-bearers properly so-called
   in St. Paul’s writings composed before his Roman captivity, although they
   naturally admit there must have been ministries from the very first, and
   that the ministries took shape under the two conceptions of “oversight” and
   “subordinate service.” It may be so, but the arguments do not convince me.
   [380] If the proistamenoi of the Epistles to the Thessalonians and to the
   Romans were not office-bearers they did the work of office-bearers. To
   assert that a period of fifty years must have elapsed before the
   proistamenoi of the earlier epistles could become the official presbuteroi
   of the Pastoral Epistles (which is practically Loening’s contention), or
   that the development required eighty years (which Harnack requires), seems
   to me to be quite unwarrantable. As has been said before, things move fast
   in young communities and, so far as the development in organization goes,
   there is no reason whatever why the state of matters described in the
   Pastoral Epistles should not have arrived at a comparatively early date.

   It is quite in accordance with what has been said, that in all the New
   Testament writings, and indeed in all the earlier books of discipline, the
   work done is always thought more of than the persons selected to do it, and
   office-bearers are honoured for their work’s sake rather than for their
   rank. The one thought running through all the earlier documents is that the
   power to render special service to the community—for rule and leadership
   according to primitive modes of thought are always founded on “service” and
   never on “lordship”—depends on the possession of “gifts” engrafted by the
   Spirit on individual character, and the occasion of these particular
   services is their recognition by the community, who appoint the brethren to
   serve it in ruling it. One of the chief services which belonged to those who
   were placed at the head of the Christian communities was to set an example
   to those under their charge, and what the leaders did all the brethren in
   their several places were expected to do. Hence in the New Testament
   writings, as well as in the earlier canons, the qualities which were to
   determine the selection of men to be leaders were those qualities of stable
   Christian character which all Christians ought to possess. The function of
   the missionary or his deputy, as we can see from the Pastoral Epistles, was
   to advise the community in their selection of those who were to be over
   them, and to inculcate such principles of selection as would abide
   permanently in their minds, and thus secure a succession of worthy
   office-bearers when the first missionaries of the Gospel were no longer
   present to advise; or to use the words of St. Clement of Rome: “Our apostles
   knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife over the name
   (dignity) of the overseer’s office. For this cause, therefore, having
   received complete foreknowledge, they appointed the aforesaid persons (i.e.
   their first converts) and afterwards gave a further injunction that if they
   should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed to their
   administration” [381] —a description of what takes place now on every
   mission field of the whole Christian Church.

   The earlier Epistles of St. Paul show us, as has been said, that the
   services rendered to the local churches by those whom the brethren are
   commanded to obey for their works’ sake were of two kinds, which we have
   called “oversight” and “subordinate service.” I think that we may presume
   that these were office-bearers, if not from the beginning, at all events
   from a very early period; but we can at least say that these two different
   kinds of service were rendered by the leaders to the led. Later writings,
   both within and without the New Testament Canon, make it plain that these
   services were rendered by two classes of officials who bore official names,
   which still exist within the Christian Church. We read of pastors,
   overseers, elders and deacons (poimenes, episkopoi, presbuteroi, diakonoi).
   [382] The references to the office-bearers of the local churches are always
   in the plural, and the government must have been collegiate. Whatever the
   special origin and primitive meanings of the first three names, they appear
   to have denoted the same office, and the service they gave was what the
   foremen or the proistamenoi of the Epistles to the Thessalonians and to the
   Romans rendered to their respective communities. The terms “pastors”
   (poimenes) and “overseers” (episkopoi) describe the kind of work done, and
   “elder” (presbuteros) was the title of the office. This name naturally
   suggests a Jewish origin; for among Jewish people we find “elders” from the
   earliest to the latest times. The principles of social organization which
   were current among the Jews no doubt insensibly moulded the earliest
   ecclesiastical organization in Palestine; and when we find “elders” in
   charge of the community in Jerusalem, ready to receive the contributions for
   the relief of those who were suffering from the famine which overtook them
   in the reign of Claudius, [383] it is impossible to doubt that the name came
   from their Jewish surroundings. At the same time it must always be
   remembered that Christian “elders” had functions entirely different from the
   Jewish, that the vitality of the infant Christian Communities made them work
   out for themselves that organization which they found to be most suitable,
   and that in this case nothing but the name was borrowed. [384] The respect
   which St. Paul always inculcated toward the mother Church in Jerusalem and
   the reception among the primitive Christian congregations of converts from
   Jewish synagogues, can easily account for the presence of the name within
   Gentile Christian churches. This does not mean that every Christian
   congregation had presbyters designedly copied from the Jewish synagogue. The
   largest number probably copied their neighbours when they came to make use
   of the word in a technical fashion. The constant intercommunication between
   Christian communities which was such a feature of primitive Christianity
   that the keen-sighted Lucian recognized it as their special possession,
   [385] promoted the gradual assimilation of constitution even when the
   beginnings were of different origins. But it is not necessary to suppose
   that the Gentile Christian communities took the word from Judaism. The term
   was common enough to denote rulers in the Graeco-Roman civilization; [386]
   and the frequent and familiar use of the word to denote a ruling body in the
   ordinary social life around them, if it did not altogether suggest the use,
   must have at least facilitated it and ensured its spread. Besides, we must
   remember that the word “elder,” in the sense of ruler, is one of the
   commonest expressions among all nations. The English have their aldermen and
   the Romans had their senators, as Dr. Lightfoot has reminded us. [387] We
   may add to this the well-known fact that in young Christian communities
   recently won from paganism the word elder is applied naturally to those who
   have been earliest brought to believe in Christ, and that the first
   office-bearers, or those to whom obedience is due, are usually taken from
   the first converts, like Stephanas in the Corinthian Church.

   All this shows us that during the last decades of the first century each
   Christian congregation had for its office-bearers a body of deacons and a
   body of elders—whether separated into two colleges or forming one must
   remain unknown—and that the elders took the “oversight” while the deacons
   performed the “subordinate services.” These constituted the local ministry
   of each Christian church or congregation—for these terms were then
   equivalent. These men watched over the lives and behaviour of the members of
   the community; they looked after the poor, the infirm, and the strangers;
   and in the absence of members of the prophetic ministry they presided over
   the public worship, especially over the Holy Supper. [388]

   Before the close of the first century the labours of apostles (and under
   this name a large number of wandering missionaries must be included) had
   given birth to thousands of these local churches. They were all strictly
   independent self-governing communities—tiny islands in the sea of
   surrounding paganism—each ruled by its session or senate of elders. There is
   no trace of one man, one pastor, at the head of any community. The ruling
   body was a senate without a president, a kirk-session without a moderator;
   and if its members did not themselves possess the “prophetic gift,” their
   authority, however defined, had continually to bend before that of the
   “prophets” and “teachers,” to whom they had to give place in exhortation and
   even in presiding at the Lord’s Table. The organization of the Primitive
   Christian Church in the last decades of the first century without one
   president in the community, and with the anomalous prophetic ministry, has
   no resemblance to any modern ecclesiastical organization, and yet contains
   within it the roots of all whether congregational, presbyterian (conciliar)
   or episcopal.

   It must not be forgotten that while each Christian community was a little
   self-governed republic, the visible unity of the corporate Church of Christ
   was never forgotten. Although each local church was an independent society,
   although it was not connected with other Christian communities by any
   organization of a political kind, it was nevertheless conscious that it
   belonged to a world-wide federation of equally independent churches. Its
   self-containedness did not produce isolation. On the contrary, every local
   church felt itself to be a real part of the universal and visible Church of
   God to which many hundreds of similar societies belonged. “All the churches
   of Christ,” said Tertullian, “although they are so many and so great,
   comprise but one primitive Church . . . and are all proved to be one in
   unbroken unity by the communicatio pacis, et appellatio fraternitatis et
   contesseratio hospitalitatis.” [389] They kept the conception of this unity
   alive in their hearts by the thought that all shared the same sacraments,
   were taught the same divine mysteries, obeyed the same commandments of God,
   and shared the same hope of the same kingdom. They made this corporate unity
   apparent by mutual help in all Christian social work, and by boundless and
   brotherly hospitality to all fellow-Christians. The picture of this
   corporate unity was always before their eyes in the fraternal intercourse of
   church with church by official letters and messengers, and was made vivid by
   the swift succession of wandering “apostles,” “prophets” and “teachers,”
   who, belonging to no one community, were the ministers of the whole Church
   of Christ—the binding-stones which made it visibly cohere.

   The view taken about presbyters or elders at the close of the preceding
   chapter was for a long time undisputed by all serious students of the
   conditions of the primitive Church. It may be found stated at length in the
   late Dr. Lightfoot’s Note on “The synonymes ` ‘bishop’ and ‘presbyter,’” in
   his Commentary on the Epistle to the Philippians. [390] It has been disputed
   by such distinguished scholars as Harnack, Sohm and Weizsacker, and their
   divergence from the opinion which was previously held with great unanimity
   arose after and in consequence of the publication of the late Dr. Hatch’s
   Bampton Lectures in 1881.

   The theory about early ecclesiastical organization which embodies this
   change of view as to the relation between the “presbyters” and “deacons,”
   will be discussed in an Appendix. The matter which concerns us here is
   whether “presbyters “ were church officials, chosen and appointed as such,
   in the Church of the first century, and identical with “bishops,” or whether
   Harnack is right when he says that “We meet with chosen or appointed
   presbyters for the first time in the second century. The oldest witnesses
   for them are the Epistle of James, the Acts of the Apostles, the Pastoral
   Epistles, the Original Document of the so-called Apostolic Ordinances, and
   the Shepherd of Hermas.” [391]

   Harnack’s opinion, if I do not mistake him, is, when put briefly, as
   follows. He believes that in the last decades of the first century there was
   at the head of each Christian congregation what may be called a three-fold
   organization—a prophetic, a patriarchal and an administrative one. The
   patriarchal rule was based upon the natural deference of the younger to the
   older members of the community, and the circle of elders, in all emergencies
   which affected the congregation, could come forward as their guides; these
   elders watched over the conduct and the evangelical character of the
   members, and admonished, punished and exhorted the congregation. The elders
   were the natural heads of the community, the aged members who were revered
   on account of age and character, but were not elected or appointed
   officials. The real officials, who formed the administration, were the
   bishops and the deacons—men who possessed the “gifts” of government and of
   public service. They were appointed primarily to preside at public worship.
   Originally there was no distinction between the bishops and the deacons save
   what came from age and experience, but their work naturally fell into two
   divisions, in which the oversight belonged to the bishops and the
   subordinate services were performed by the deacons. The bishops, in
   consequence of their position as the officials appointed to conduct public
   worship, became naturally the custodians and administrators of the property
   of the congregation, the distributors of the gifts of the faithful, the
   recognized guardians of the poor, the sick, the infirm and strangers, and
   the representatives of the society to people outside.

   Harnack, therefore, holds that presbyters and bishops were distinct from the
   first. He believes, besides, that while a circle of elders, in the sense of
   “honoured” old men, existed from the most primitive times, there were no
   elected or chosen elders forming a college of office-bearers till the second
   century; but he thinks that the bishops were usually selected from the
   circle of honoured old men, were sometimes called “elders,” and were
   invariably classed among them. In reaching this conclusion he rejects as
   unhistorical the statement in Acts xiv. 23, which tells us that the
   apostles, Paul and Barnabas, saw to the appointment of elders in the
   churches, which they had formed in Derbe, Lystra and Iconium; he believes
   that the “elders” of Acts xx. 17 were bishops; he concludes that the
   “elders” of 1 Peter v. 1 ff. were not office-bearers; he rejects, as an
   interpolation, the verses in Titus i. 7-9, [392] which practically assert
   the identity of bishops and presbyters; and he finds a complete
   justification of his views in the statements about presbyters and bishops in
   the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians.

   Let us accept, for the sake of argument, the critical conclusion of Harnack
   about the dates of documents [393] and the interpolations which may have
   come into texts, and then see what emerges from an examination of the
   authorities in which presbyters and bishops are mentioned.

   The Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians is the best starting point, for
   there is practical unanimity among scholars of all schools that this
   document belongs to about the middle of the last decade of the first
   century. The letter was sent from the Roman Church to remonstrate with the
   Corinthian Christians about the dismissal of the leaders of the Church there
   from their office. We find three names given to these men—hēgoumenoi,
   episkopoi, presbuteroi. [394] Harnack’s contention is that presbuteroi
   invariably denote the members of the circle of revered old men in the
   community, and that when the term is used to denote office-bearers, [395]
   they are so called because they were always members of that circle. On the
   other hand, Light-foot, [396] in the past, and Loening, Loofs and Schmiedel
   in the present, declare that presbuteros is the technical name for the
   office, while epispokos describes what was done (having episkopē or
   oversight), or at all events that presbuteros and episkopos are synonymous
   terms for the same officials.

   One thing to begin with is significant. Three men were sent from Rome to
   Corinth with the letter, Valerius Bito, Claudius Ephebus and Fortunatus,
   “men that have walked among us,” says the writer, “from youth to old age
   unblameably.” They belonged, therefore, to that class whom Harnack supposes
   to have been generally called “presbyters,” and if his theory were correct
   we should expect them to be so designated in an official letter, but they
   are not.

   In the Church in Corinth some men had been thrust from office, and the
   office is always referred to as episkopē [397] This is what is said: “For it
   will be no light sin for us, if we have thrust out of the oversight
   (episkopē) those who have offered the gifts (i.e. the prayers of the
   congregation) unblameably and holily. Blessed are those presbyters who have
   gone before, seeing that their departure was fruitful and ripe, for they
   have no fear lest any one should remove them from their appointed place. For
   we see that ye have displaced certain persons though they were living
   honourably, from the ministration (leitourgia) which they had kept
   blamelessly.” [398] Everything implies that the men who had been thrust out
   from their episkopē were called presbyters. This inference is strengthened
   by what follows: “It is shameful . . . that it should be reported that the
   very steadfast and ancient Church of the Corinthians, for the sake of one or
   two persons, maketh sedition against its presbyters.” [399] “Only let the
   flock of Christ be at peace with its duly appointed presbyters.” [400] “Ye
   therefore that laid the foundation of the sedition, submit yourselves unto
   the presbyters.” [401] The only sentence in the epistle which lends itself
   to the theory of Harnack is: “Let us reverence our rulers (proēgoumenoi),
   let us honour our elders (presbuteroi), let us instruct our young men in the
   lesson of the fear of God; let us guide our women toward that which is
   good”; [402] where ‘elders’ evidently mean old men. Sshmiedel’s remark on
   the rhetorical effect of substituting “elders” (presbuteroi) for “old men”
   (presbutai) is a sound explanation of the use of the words. [403]

   It appears to me that the Epistle of Clement, on which Harnack so firmly
   relies to establish his conclusion that “elders” had no official position
   until the second century, fails him utterly, and that his own earlier
   position is much more in accordance with the facts of the case. In his
   edition of the Epistles of Clement, published in 1875, Harnack said,
   commenting on the words episcopi et diaconi (xlii. 5): “Luce clarius est,
   duo in clero ordines tum temporis (i.e. in the time of the apostles) fuisse,
   episcopos (= presbyteros) et diaconos.” [404] This seems still to hold good.

   When we turn to 1 Peter (v. 1, 2) we find there that, even if we discard the
   disputed reading “exercising the oversight” (episkopountes), the elders are
   told to “shepherd the flock of God which is among you.” There is no word in
   the whole round of primitive ecclesiastical phraseology which is more
   frequently used to express the relation of office-bearers than “to
   shepherd” (poimainein); and the difference between “shepherds” and “flock”
   is much greater than between the more aged and the younger members of the
   society. [405]

   In Acts xx. 17, St. Paul summoned the presbyters (tous presboterous) of the
   Church of Ephesus to meet him at Miletus; he charged them to “shepherd the
   Church of God”; he called the Church a “flock” (poimnion); and he said that
   the Holy Spirit had made them overseers (episkopous) in this flock. Whatever
   be the date or authorship of the book the fact remains that the author did
   believe that the presbyters (not some of them) were the “overseers” and the
   “shepherds” of the Church in Ephesus. They were the office-bearers there and
   were called both presbyters and overseers or bishops.

   These statements carry us a long way. They prove to us that before the close
   of the first century bodies of presbyters existed as ruling colleges in
   Christian congregations over a great part of the Roman Empire. The Epistle
   of Clement proves this for the Roman Church. The First Epistle of Peter
   proves it for Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia. [406] The
   Apocalypse confirms the proof for Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamus, Thyatira,
   Sardis, Philadelphia and Laodicea. [407] The Acts of the Apostles adds its
   confirmation for Ephesus and Jerusalem. [408] The writings all imply that
   the colleges of presbyters at the head of congregations were no new
   institution. They had evidently existed for a long time. It will be observed
   that the places include the sphere of the mission-journey of Paul and
   Barnabas. They seem to me to confirm what the Acts of the Apostles tell us
   of the institution of presbyters by the apostles. [409] All this has been
   reached on the dates of the writings as given by advanced critics.

   The proofs for the identity of the offices of elders and bishops in the
   Church of the first century have often been collected. They may be arranged
   thus: (1) Acts xx. 17; St. Paul sent for the elders of Ephesus, and in his
   address to them said that “the Holy Spirit had made them bishops; (2) in 1
   Peter v. 1, 2, elders are told to act as pastors and as bishops (presbuteroi
   . . . poimanate . . . episkopountes); (3) in 1 Clement it is made clear that
   at Rome presbyters or elders and bishops are the same officials; (4) in 1
   Timothy a description of bishops is given (iii. 1-7), then follows what is
   required of deacons (iii. 8-13); in v. 17-19 the former ministers are
   alluded to as presbyters; (5) in Titus i. 5-7 we find that “thou shouldest
   set in order the things that were wanting, and appoint elders in every city
   . . . for the bishop must be.”; (6) in the Peshito Syriac Version of the New
   Testament episkopos is usually translated by kashisho—elder or presbyter;
   (7) the opinion of the ancient Church, founding on these passages, and
   voiced by Jerome, unhesitatingly declared that in the apostolic age elders
   and bishops were the same; and this idea may almost be said to have
   prevailed throughout the Middle Ages down to the Council of Trent. [410]

   The word episcopus had a long and varied history before it was used in
   connexion with the Christian Church. Hatch has tried in a very interesting
   but not quite conclusive manner to show that episcopi were officers of
   administration and finance; [411] Lightfoot has shown that the Attic bishop
   was the commissioner appointed to inspect a newly acquired province, and
   that the word was used in a similar way outside the sphere of Athenian
   influence. In the Septuagint episcopus means an official set to oversee
   work, a military officer, a commissioner to carry out the orders of the
   king. [412] But while all these parallels are interesting much may be said
   for the more commonplace idea that the word episcopus means simply one who
   has an episcope, one who has oversight or superintendence. If so the word is
   not, during the first century, the technical term for an office-bearer; it
   is rather the word which describes what the office-bearer, i.e. the elder,
   does. The elder was the episcopus, overseer or superintendent, while the
   deacon rendered the subordinate services. The office connected itself
   therefore with the kubernēseis, while deacon was related to the antilēpseis
   of 1 Cor. xii. 28. [413] The use of the words in the earliest Christian
   literature seems to bear out this idea, [414] This leads to the conclusion
   in the end of the preceding chapter that elder is the name for the office,
   while bishop is the title describing what the elder has to do. It can claim
   the support of Professor Sanday of Oxford and of Professor Loofs of Halle.
   [415] Dr. Loofs asserts that in his opinion the idea that episkopos is the
   name of an office, and not the term describing the work done by the
   official, is the prōton pseudos of many of the modern attempts to
   investigate and describe primitive ecclesiastical organization.
     _________________________________________________________________

   [303] Compare what has been said on pp. 32, 33; 54-57.

   [304] Compare what has been said on pp. 62 ff.

   [305] Compare p. 33 and pp. 69 ff.

   [306] This growth of the associative principle is seen in the names given to
   believers as a united company. The earliest title was disciples (mathētai);
   which implied that Jesus, their Lord, was also their teacher, and their only
   teacher-for Jesus expressly forbade His followers calling any one but
   Himself Master, Teacher, Father or Lord (Matt. xxiii. 8-10); and the command
   was repeated by St. Paul when he forbade the Christians of Corinth to call
   themselves the followers of any of the apostles (1 Cor; iii. 3-9): The name
   Teacher, with the corresponding term disciples, lingered long in a sporadic
   way in Christian literature (for example in Justin Martyr, Apol. i. 13), and
   in Sources of the Apostolic Canons, vi. p. 23), and the word disciples
   occurs frequently in the Acts of the Apostles. It is a name which suggests a
   purely personal relationship to Jesus, and it was soon displaced in favour
   of other designations which implied association among the followers of
   Jesus. Among them we may select the terms saints, brethren, the people of
   the Way. The last mentioned—hoi tēs hodou ontes—is specially interesting. It
   suggests a common worship and therefore an organization for worship. It
   implies groups of men and women, who, though far apart from each other, are
   united in spite of intervening space by the ties of a common worship. The
   Christians in Damascus and by implication those in Jerusalem, are so called
   (Acts ix. 2; xxii. 4). It was the name given to the Christians at Ephesus
   (Acts xxiv. 14); it was applied by St. Paul to himself when justifying the
   special services of the Christian worship as distinguished from the Jewish
   (Acts xxiv. 14). St. Paul himself usually employs the terms saints or
   brethren when he speaks of his fellow Christians. The brethren or the saints
   who form an independent community, whether in a house or in a town or in a
   province, are called by St. Paul a Church; and he, in his epistles to the
   Galatians and to the Corinthians, uses the same word to denote all the
   brethren, wherever they may be. These two terms saints and brethren are,
   like the phrase those of the Way; collective, and imply organization of some
   kind or other. When the brethren or the saints met together for worship the
   meeting or the building in which they met was frequently called a synagogue
   (James ii. 2), and this word was used not only by the judaising Christians
   (Epiphanius, xxx. 18); but also by the Marcionites, though they were the
   Christians furthest removed from the Jewish believers in Jesus. The oldest
   inscription stating that the building on which it is carved was used as a
   Christian place of worship comes from Syria, and states that the erection
   was a Marcionist church: Sunagōgē Markiōnistōn kōmēs Lebaēōn tou Kuriou kai
   Sōtēros Iēsou Christou. It dates from 318 A.D. (Compare Le Bas and
   Waddington, Inscriptions No. 2558, iii. 583). Compare Weizsäcker; The
   Apostolic Age, i. 45-8 (Eng. Trans.). Harnack Texte und Untersuchungen, II.
   v. p. 25, or English Translation, Sources of the Apostolic Canons, p. 22, n.
   10, for the use of Teacher. For the general question of designations, cf.
   Harnack, Expositor, 1887, Jan.-June, pp. 322-4.

   [307] Matt. xix. 21, 23; 29.

   [308] Luke xii. 31-33.

   [309] 1 John iv. 20.

   [310] Polycarp, Philippians, 6.

   [311] Polycarp, Philippians, 4. thusiastērion Theou. Tertullian, Ad Uxor. i.
   7: aram Dei. The phrase thusiastērion Theou is used in the Apostolic
   Constitutions to denote widows, orphans and the poor aided by the
   congregation. ii. 26: “Let the widows and orphans be esteemed as
   representing the altar of burnt-offering”; iv. 3: “But an orphan who, by
   reason of his youth, or he that by feebleness of old age, or the incidence
   of disease, or the bringing up of many children, receives alms . . . shall
   be esteemed an altar to God.” The phrase is almost always accompanied with
   the thought that those who receive alms are to pray for their benefactors.

   [312] Dr. Hatch in his Organization of the Early Christian Churches, pp.
   32-36 (1st ed.), has, I think, exaggerated somewhat the pauperism of the
   early centuries throughout the Roman Empire; but the case of Jerusalem must
   have been peculiar. The population of the city was largely supported by the
   profits the citizens made from the crowds of pilgrims who came from all
   parts of the Jewish Dispersion to the great festivals. Conversion to the
   Christian faith must have deprived the converts of this means of support and
   brought them into a chronic state of poverty.

   [313] Dr. Lightfoot calls the attempt to identify the Seven with the elders
   afterwards mentioned in the church at Jerusalem a “strange perversity,”
   although it has the support of Boehmer (Diss. Jur. Eccl. p. 373 ff.), of
   Ritschl (Entstehung der Altkatholisch. Kirche, 2nd ed., p. 355 ff.), and of
   Lange (Apostol. Zeitalt. ii. 75), and Gwatkin regards the idea as a possible
   one (Hastings’ Bible Dictionary, i. 440, 574); it appears to me that it must
   be made unless we suppose that the appointment of the Seven was a merely
   temporary expedient to provide for an immediate necessity, or discredit the
   narrative altogether, which is what not even such a destructive critic as
   Schmiedel is inclined to do (Encyc. Biblica, art. Community of Goods, i.
   879, 880).

   [314] Acts vi. 3.

   [315] Acts xxi. 8.

   [316] Josephus, Antiq. IV. viii. 14, 38; Bell. Jud. II. xx. 5. Compare
   Schürer, Gesch. d. Jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalt. Jesu Christi (1898), ii. 178
   (3rd ed.). Schürer quotes from the Talmud, Megilla, 26a, where the “Seven”
   of the town also appear.

   [317] Gal. i. 13; 1Cor. xv. 9.

   [318] Gal. i. 22.

   [319] Acts xiv. 23: cheirotonēsantes de autois presbuterous kat' ekklēsian.

   [320] Deissmann, Bib. Studies (Eng. Trans.), pp. 154-157: The names which
   afterwards came to denote fixed offices in the Church have all general as
   well as technical uses, and this adds greatly to the difficulty of
   investigation.

   [321] Acts xii. 17; xv. 13; xxi. 18; GaL i. 19; ii. 9, 12. This is confirmed
   by later tradition, Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. II. i. 2, 3.

   [322] Matt. xiii. 55; Mark vi. 3; Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. I. xii. 4; II. i.
   2, 3; III. xi. 1.

   [323] Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. III. xi. 1, 2.

   [324] Ibid. xi. 1, 2; xxxii. 4; IV. xxii. 4.

   [325] Ibid. III. xx. 1-8: tous de apoluthentas hēgēsasthai tōn ekklēsiōn,
   hōsan dē marturas homou kai apo genous ontas tou Kuriou. For the names of
   the two young men, see the ecclesiastical historian Philippus of Side, in
   the fragment printed in Cramer, Anecdota Graeca, ii. 88.

   [326] Dr. Harnack thinks that the position assigned to the “relatives of our
   Lord” in the choice of the head of the community shows that the thought of
   Jesus as the “Teacher” had given place to the conception of “king”; but
   according to Oriental usage it is precisely the position of a religious
   “teacher” which is transmitted in the line of the founder’s kinsfolk.
   Compare Expositor, 1887, Jan.-June, p. 326.

   [327] 1 and 2 Thessalonians written about 48-52 A.D.; 1 Corinthians and
   Galatians written about 53-55 A.D; 2 Corinthians written about 53-56 A.D.;
   Romans written about 54-67 A.D.

   [328] Compare above pp. 60 ff.

   [329] 1 Cor. xv. 10: “I laboured (ekopiasa) more abundantly than they
   all.” Gal. iv. 11: “Lest by any means I have bestowed labour (kekopiaka)
   upon you in vain.”

   [330] Rom. xvi. 6, 12; where providing for material wants seems to be the
   meaning.

   [331] 1 Thess. v. 13.

   [332] 1 Cor. xvi. 15, 19, cf. Acts xviii. 2, 26; Clement, 1 Epistle, xlii.
   4.

   [333] Rom. xvi. 5, 10, 11, 14, 15; 1 Cor. xvi. 19; Col. iv. 15; Philem. 2.

   [334] 1 Cor. xvi. 16.

   [335] We find the series of related words:—proistamenos, proistamenoi (used
   as a noun), prostatis, prostatēs and proestōs, Rom. xii. 8; xvi. 2; 1 Thess.
   v. 12; Hermas, Pastor, Vis. ii. 4; Justin, i. Apol. lxv; lxvii. The term
   prostatēs was used technically in Greek city life (and Thessalonica in
   Paul’s time was a Greek city which had been permitted by the Romans to
   retain its ancient Greek constitution) to denote those citizens who
   undertook to care for and rule over the metoikoi, or persons who had no
   civic rights. It denoted technically the Roman relation of patron and client
   and what corresponded thereto in Greek social life. The word was used by
   Plutarch to translate the Latin patronus (Plutarch, Rom. 13; Mar. 5).
   Clement, in his Epistle to the Corinthians, applies the word in three
   different places to denote our Lord: “the Patron and Helper of our
   weakness” (xxxvi. 1); the Highpriest and Patron of our souls” (lxi. 3;
   lxiv.). It was the custom that the Roman confraternities, especially those
   among the poorer classes, had a “patron” or “patrons,” who were frequently
   ladies of rank and wealth; compare Liebenam, Zur Gesch. und Organis. d.
   roem. Vereinswesens, pp. 213-18. The Jewish synagogues in Rome, which
   externally resembled the pagan confraternities for religious cults, not only
   had patrons but called their synagogues by their names; Schürer, Die
   Gemeindeverfassung der Juden in Rom in der Kaiserzeit, p. 15 f., 31. It is
   probable that Phoebe, who is called by St. Paul a “patroness of himself and
   of many” (Rom. xvi. 1-3), had a position of this kind at Cenchrea, and that
   this was the service she had rendered.

   [336] “Nam servis, respublica et quasi civitas, domus est,” Pliny Ep. viii.
   16.

   [337] This finds its parallel in the honoured class which existed in the
   Christian congregations of the early centuries, and who ranked between the
   clergy and the people—the confessors, martyrs, widows, virgins.

   [338] This peculiarity has descended to modern times; it is not very easy,
   those who have tried it say, to induce women to form trades unions, but they
   are always ready to become members of burial clubs.

   [339] ”The scholē Turannou” (Acts xix. 9) was probably such a place—the
   meeting place of a confraternity, and named after the patron of the “gild”
   according to a usual practice, with a hall which could be hired when not
   needed for the meetings of the society.

   [340] The “collegium quod est in domu Sergiae Paulinae” corresponds to “the
   church which is in the house of Philemon.”

   [341] For the confraternities which existed in the Graeco-Roman world,
   compare: Foucart, Des Associations Religieuses chez les Grecs (1873);
   Lüders, Die dionysischen Künstler (1873); Ziebarth, Das Griechische
   Vereinswesen (1895), the fullest and most accurate for the Greek
   associations; Mommsen, De collegiis et sodaliciis (1843); Gérard, De
   corporations ouvriéres à Rome (1884); Boissier, La religion romaine
   d’Auguste aux Antonins (1878), ii. 292 ff.; Cohn, Zum römischen Vereinsrecht
   (1873); Liebenam, Zur Geschichte und Organisation des roömischen
   Vereinswesen (1890), the fullest and most accurate. For the relation of
   these confraternities to the primitive Christian organization, compare:
   Renan, Les Apôtres (1866), p. 351 ff.; Heinrici, Zeitschrift für
   wissenschaftlichen Theologie (1876), pp. 465 ff.; (1877) pp. 89 ff;
   Theologischen Studien und Kritiken (1881), pp. 556 ff.; Weingarten, in his
   preface to Rothe’s Vorlesungen über Kirchengeschichte (1876), p. xiv.; and
   in Sybel’s Historische Zeitschrift, vol. xlv. (1881), pp. 441 ff.; Hatch,
   The Organization of the Early Christian Churches (1881), p. 36 ff.;
   Holtzmann, Die Pastoralbriefe (1880), pp. 194-202; Loening, Die
   Gemeindeverfassung des Urchristenthums (1889), p. 8 ff.; and Geschichte des
   deutsehes Kirchenrechts (1878), i. pp. 195-210; Liebenam, as above, pp.
   264-274; Schmiedel, Encyclopædia Biblica (1902), pp. 3110-1; Ziebarth, as
   above, pp. 126-132; Réville, Les Origines de l’Episcopat (1894), pp.
   180-194.

   [342] Cyprian’s Epistles, lxvii. 6: “Martialis also, besides frequenting the
   disgraceful and filthy banquets of the Gentiles in their collegium, and
   placing his sons in the same collegium, after the manner of foreign nations,
   among profane sepulchres, and burying them together with strangers . . .
   such persons attempt to claim for themselves the episcopate in vain; since
   it is evident that men of that kind may neither rule over the Christian
   Church, nor ought to offer sacrifices to God, especially since Cornelius,
   our colleague, a peaceable and righteous priest, and moreover honoured by
   the condescension of the Lord with martyrdom, has long ago decreed with us,
   and with all the bishops appointed throughout all the world, that men of
   this sort might indeed be admitted to repentance, but were prohibited from
   the ordination of the clergy and from the priestly honour. “Martialis was
   bishop of Astorga or of Merida in Spain, and was a libellaticus.

   [343] Encyclopædia Biblica, iii. 3110-3111. Schmiedel seems to exaggerate
   the connexion between the confraternities and the Christian societies when
   he refuses to see any connexion between the latter and the Jewish
   communities and their synagogue system.

   [344] The points of similarity which Heinrici has endeavoured to establish
   between the Christian community at Corinth and the pagan confraternities do
   not amount to mere than this; Hatch has certainly overrated the evidence he
   has brought forward that episcopi were finance officials in the
   confraternities; points of resemblance found in the records of Greek
   associations for religious purposes are almost entirely taken from
   pre-Christian times, and it is forgotten that under the imperial rule the
   constitutions and formations of confraternities for all purposes were
   entirely altered and that we know almost nothing about these confraternities
   in the eastern provinces of the Empire during the first century and a half
   of the imperial rule. What can be shown is, that to an outsider there was an
   external resemblance of the most general kind between the Christian
   communities and the confraternities; and this can be proved only in a
   general way: Pliny wrote to Trajan that he had meant to proceed against the
   Christians of Bithynia as belonging to an illicit confraternity (Ep. 96
   (97)); Tertullian in his Apology plainly pleads for the recognition of the
   Christian Churches as lawful confraternities; Bishop Zephyrinus succeeded in
   getting the Roman church recognized as a burial club in the end of the
   second century; and Lucian, in his Peregrines Proteus, describes Peregrinus
   while a Christian in words which would be applicable to the official of a
   Greek confraternity for religious purposes (thiasarchēs), which would imply
   that he looked on the Christian community as thiasos or an association for
   the promotion of a private cult. Compare Liebenam, Die Geschichte and
   Organisation des römischen Vereinswesen, pp. 264-74, and Ziebarth,
   Griechische Vereinswesen, pp. 126-32.

   [345] Both Julius Caesar and his nephew aid successor began legislation
   against the confraternities that abounded; but the Jewish communities were
   recognized by them as lawful confraternities.

   [346] These synagogue communities were sometimes named after their
   patrons—the “synagogue of the clients of Augustus,” of Agrippa, of Volumnus;
   sometimes after the quarter of Rome where they stood—the synagogue of Campus
   Martius, of the Subura, etc.; sometimes after the occupations of the
   members—the synagogue of the burners of lime. Schürer, Geschichte des
   jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi (3rd ed. 1898), iii. 44-7.

   [347] The term “elder,” which one expects, is not found in inscriptions nor
   in laws until the fourth century; archon is found almost universally.
   Schürer seems to think that the members of the gerusia were the elders and
   that they were not office-bearers, but the honoured heads of the community
   by whom the archons were appointed. If so this would be a parallel to what
   Harnack believes to be the organization of the early Christian communities,
   where the elders were not office-bearers but honoured persons from whom the
   episcopi were chosen.

   [348] For the organization of the Jewish synagogue system, compare Schürer,
   Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi (3rd ed. 1898),
   ii. pp. 427-463 (Eng. Trans. ii. 55-68, 243-270); also his
   Gemeindeverfassung der Juden in Rom in der Kaiserzeit (1879); Vitringa, De
   Synagoga vetere (1696).

   [349] Schürer notes these customs among others: the Greek communes were
   accustomed to honour with garlands and with special seats at the public
   entertainments their public benefactors, the leaders of the synagogues voted
   garlands and front seats in the synagogues to theirs; slaves were set free
   in the temples, among the Jews they were brought to the synagogues; women
   were honoured with titles—presbytera, mater synagogae, archisynagogos. As
   for the names of office-bearers, none of them are exclusively Jewish; even
   archisunagōgos has a pagan use so common that it is impossible to say that
   it is of strictly Jewish origin.

   [350] Schürer, Theologische Literaturzeitung for 1879, pp. 544-6.

   [351] Suetonius, Caesar, 42: Cuncta collegia, praeter antiquitus constituta,
   distraxit.

   [352] Josephus, Antiquitates, XIV. x. 8: “Julius Caius, praetor of Rome, to
   the magistrates, senate and people of the Parians, sendeth greeting. The
   Jews of Delos, and some other Jews that sojourn there, in the presence of
   your ambassadors, signified to us, that, by a decree of yours you forbid
   them to make use of the customs of their forefathers and their way of sacred
   worship. Now it does not please me that such decrees should be made against
   our friends and confederates, whereby they are forbidden to live according
   to their own customs, or to bring in contributions for common suppers and
   holy festivals, while they are not forbidden to do so even in Rome itself;
   for even Caius Caesar, our imperator and consul, in that decree wherein he
   forbade the Bacchanal rioters to meet in the city, did yet permit these
   Jews, and these only, both to bring in their contributions, and to make
   their common suppers. Accordingly when I forbid other Bacchanal rioters I
   permit these Jews to gather themselves together, according to the customs
   and laws of their forefathers, and to persist therein. It will therefore be
   good for you, that if you have made any decree against these our friends and
   confederates, to abrogate the same, by reason of their virtue and kind
   disposition towards us.”

   [353] Dio Cassius, lii. 36; Suetonius, Augustus, 32.

   [354] Dio Cassius, liv. 6.

   [355] “Collegia si qua fuerint illicita, mandatis et constitutionibus et
   senatusconsultis dissolvuntur; sed permittitur eis, cum dissolvuntur,
   pecunias communes si quas habent dividere pecuniamque inter se partiri: Dig.
   XLVII. xxii. 3.

   [356] Tertullian, Apology, 21.

   [357] De Rossi, Roma Sottereana, iii. 509; Bulletino di Archaeologia
   Cristiana (1865), pp. 90-94; Liebenam, Zur Geschichte and Organisation des
   römischen Vereinswesen, 268. Holtzmann, Die Pastoralbriefe, 197. The
   protection was not restricted to those who were Jews by birth; it extended
   to proselytes (sebomenoi); cf. Bulletino di Archaeologia Cristiana (1865),
   p. 91.

   [358] Authorities differ about the date when the Roman officials first
   recognized the difference. Ramsay (The Church in the Roman Empire, p. 266
   ff.) differs from most German authorities in thinking it to been have much
   earlier than the time of Domitian; I agree with him thoroughly. When we
   remember the wise political dread of religious combinations which the
   emperors from Augustus downward showed; their discernment that religion was
   the most powerful political motive power in the East; the presence in every
   province of men trained to note the beginnings of all movements which might
   disturb the state; and when we glance at the objective picture of that old
   system of ruling provinces which modern India furnishes—none but an
   arm-chair critic would deny it. British officials in India know of all the
   small beginnings of religious movements in their districts long before the
   public know anything about them, if they ever acquire the knowledge.

   [359] Schmiedel, Encyclopædia Biblica, 3111; Holtzmann, Die Pastoralbriefe,
   197 f. Schmiedel, however, is not warranted in making the deductions he does
   from the external conformity; there must have been the same outward
   conformity between the Christian communities and the Jewish synagogues.

   [360] Pliny, Epist. 96 (97).

   [361] For the burial usages of the confraternities, compare Liebenam, Zur
   Geschichte and Organisation des römischen Vereinswesens (1890), p. 254 ff.;
   Schultze, Katacomben (1882), pp. 9-14, 48-53; De Rossi, Roma Sottereana,
   iii. 501-507.

   [362] This is commonly inferred from the fact mentioned by Hippolytus, that
   Zephyrinus “appointed him (Calixtus) over the cemetery”; Refutation
   (Philosophumena), ix. 7.

   [363] Compare above p. 128, n. 2.

   [364] Personally I am not disposed to brush aside the difficulties which the
   Book of Acts presents; they relate chiefly to the limited time which the
   Eusebian chronology (and it appears to me to be the most trustworthy) allows
   for the events recorded down to the conversion of St. Paul; but difficulties
   seem to me to be increased and not lessened by any proposed reconstruction.
   So far as our subject of investigation is concerned all “critics” recognize
   the election of the “Seven” as an historical fact; and the only remaining
   question of organization is the statement that “elders “ were appointed (not
   “ordained,” for that is not the word) in the churches of the Galatian
   mission by Paul and Barnabas; and this it seems to me is rendered highly
   probable by evidence which is altogether independent of the date and
   authorship of the Acts of the Apostles. As to the date of the book, I follow
   Professor Sanday who believes the book to have been written about 80 A.D.
   and that its author was St. Luke. Dr. Harnack on the other hand declares
   that the date of the book is some time between 79 and 93 A.D. Geschichte der
   altchristliche Literatur bis Eusebius, II.; Chronologie, i. 246-50.

   [365] The “critical view” of the date of the Pastoral Epistles may perhaps
   be best taken from the short summary in Harnack’s Geschichte der
   altchristliche Literatur bis Eusebius, II., Chronologie, i. 480-5,
   supplemented from Holtzmann, Die Pastoralbriefe (1880). It is as
   follows:—The three Epistles, 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus, go together and are
   to be treated as a whole; the same arguments and the same results apply to
   all. These epistles contain some genuine sayings of St. Paul—a few verses in
   2 Timothy scarcely a third of Titus, but not a verse of 1 Timothy—enough to
   say that the writings are founded on genuine apostolic letters. But in the
   state in which they have come to us they represent an entirely different
   authorship. The reasons given for this judgment may be classed under three
   heads: the language is different from St. Paul’s, and in particular the
   epistles contain a very large number of words and phrases quite unlike what
   St. Paul uses in his authentic works; warnings are given against erroneous
   beliefs and especially against Gnostic opinions which were not in existence
   before the death of St. Paul; the description of the ecclesiastical
   organization is entirely different from what we find in the authentic
   letters of St. Paul. When it is sought to determine the date of the epistles
   two definite points of time present themselves. Polycarp distinctly quotes 2
   Timothy ii. 12; and the redaction cannot be later than 110 A.D. On the other
   hand the kinds of errors which the author denounces and warns against had no
   existence until the close of the first century. Hence the probable date of
   the letters must be sometime between 90-110 A.D. But, it is said, portions
   must be much later; the closing verses, 17-21, of 1 Tim. vi. were evidently
   added after the real end of the epistle at verse 16. Of these verses 17-19
   contain warnings which find a parallel in the admonitions of the Pastor of
   Hermas and belong to a period later than 100 A.D.; while verses 20-21 have
   no connexion with the rest of the epistle, are directed against the
   “antitheses” of Marcion and cannot be earlier than 130 A.D. Similarly verses
   1-13 in 1 Tim. iii. and verses 17-20 in 1 Tim. v. 17-20, and verses 7-9 in
   Titus i., have little connexion with the context and are portions of an
   ancient book of discipline. They present striking parallels to the Sources
   of the Apostolic Canons and cannot be much earlier than 130 A.D. This is
   what “criticism” makes of the Pastoral Epistles. It places those portions
   which concern our subject as late at 130 A.D. and forbids us to use them to
   describe the organization of the Churches within the first century. The
   reasons given are briefly these: a quotation from St. Luke’s gospel is
   called a scripture and that of itself, it is said, is sufficient to show the
   late date of the document; Timothy is represented as the president of a
   college of elders and in this capacity is the judge and administrator of
   justice—functions which are much later than even 100 A.D. A few remarks may
   be admitted in the way of briefly indicating why I refuse to accept the
   “critical” theories about these epistles. While I gratefully acknowledge Dr.
   Harnack as the greatest living authority on early Church history, I never
   read what he has to say about the two subjects of Gnosticism and
   ecclesiastical organization without longing that he could spend a few months
   in the mission field where aggressive work is being done among educated
   pagans whose minds are full of the same curious oriental faiths and their
   allied philosophies as were present to the earliest Christian converts in
   the first and second centuries. I am convinced that if this experience were
   his he would modify much that he has said both about Gnosticism and about
   ecclesiastical organization. The Oriental mind, tenacious of its own beliefs
   and at the same time curiously receptive in religious conceptions, strives
   from the first to weave Christian thoughts into its system of Oriental
   beliefs and is surprised that the amalgam thus produced is not accepted as
   Christian doctrine by the missionary. The very errors denounced by the
   Pastoral Epistles may be found among Hindu inquirers who never get further
   than inquiry and a certain measured sympathy with Christian teaching. They
   are the beginnings of Gnosticism apparent to the missionary long before they
   have acquired the definite shape of such a system as the Arya Somaj, to take
   one of the forms which modern Indian gnosticism has assumed. If the living
   picture were studied fresh insight would be acquired about ancient
   documents. It would be seen for example, that if Timothy or Titus were
   acting as deputy for an apostle or missionary it does not follow that he
   must be president of a college of elders in order to be obliged to listen to
   accusations against “elders” or to act as the one who rebukes in public and
   in private. The more I study these pastoral epistles the more evident it
   becomes to me that they are just what every experienced missionary has to
   impart to a younger and less experienced colleague when he warns him about
   the difficulties that he must face and the tasks, often unexpected, he will
   find confronting him. It is scarcely to be wondered at then that the
   Pastoral Epistles are always among the earliest portions of the scriptures
   translated in almost every Christian mission. A study of the living picture
   would also teach students that while the declaration of Hegesippus may be
   accepted that gnosticism did not trouble the Church till about the time of
   Trajan (which is the deduction usually drawn from his statements given in
   Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. III. xxxii. 7) that need not prevent our believing
   that incipient gnosticism had to be guarded against from the very beginning.
   At the same time it is very probable that the Pastoral Epistles contain many
   interpolations in which statements about errors and even directions about
   discipline have been somewhat altered to suit the requirements of the middle
   of the second century, That is what would naturally happen to a document
   which was used, as we know these epistles were used, for a manual of
   ecclesiastical procedure (the Muratorian Fragment tells us that). The
   insertion of “scripture” (graphē) might easily have come in in this way. But
   all this does not prevent me accepting these epistles as the work of St.
   Paul or of a companion who wrote for him. It may be said that the
   supposition that these letters come from St. Paul requires us to believe
   that the apostle was released from his first captivity, and made missionary
   journeys of which no record has remained; but this is rendered more than
   likely by the statement of Clement (I. v. 7) that St. Paul visited the
   furthest parts of the West (to terma tēs duseōs)—an expression which,
   notwithstanding all that has been said against the idea, seems more
   naturally applicable to Spain than to Rome. As for the language—“Tous ceux
   qui ont 1’experience de la parole en publique ne savent-ils pas que le ton
   n’est plus le même quand on parle à une assemblée que lorsqu’on s’addreese
   à une peraonne en particulier” (Réville, Les Origines de l’Episcopat (1894),
   p.497.)

   [366] “Ad Filemonem una, et ad Titum una, et ad Timotheum duas, pro affecto
   et dilectione in honore tamen ecclesiae catholice in ordinatione
   ecclesiastice descepline sanctificatae sunt.”

   [367] Titus had been one of the earliest gentile converts from heathenism—a
   convert or spiritual son of St. Paul himself (Titus i. 4). The apostle had
   esteemed him so highly that he had taken him up to Jerusalem when he went
   there to plead the cause of gentile liberty. Titus went with St. Paul to be
   shown as a specimen of what these gentile converts of his were like (Gal.
   ii. 3); and he had passed the test so well that the leaders of the Church at
   Jerusalem had not required that he should be circumcised. He had been
   employed by St. Paul on work involving tact and confidential discretion (2
   Cor. xii. 18), and had acquitted himself well.

   [368] Timothy was the favourite fellow-worker with the great apostle. When
   we piece together his story from the Acts of the Apostles and from St.
   Paul’s epistles, we find something like the following. When St. Paul left
   Antioch with Silas on his second visit to the Galatian Churches, feeling
   sadly, no doubt, that Barnabas was no longer with him, either he or his
   companion had an assurance given in “prophecy” that St. Paul would find in a
   brief time a helper who would be to him as another Barnabas (1 Tim. i. 18;
   iv. 14). When St. Paul reached Lystra he suddenly recognized in a young man
   there the fellow-worker who had been divinely promised to him. “And
   behold,” says Luke, “a certain disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of
   a Jewess who believed; but his father was a Greek. Him Paul would have to go
   forth with him” The apostle received him with the kindly Jewish benediction,
   laying his hands on his head (2 Tim. i. 6); and the elders of the Church
   also gave the young man their benediction before he set out on his new
   life-work (Acts xvi. 1-4; 1 Tim. iv. 14). There is a striking parallel
   between the “call” of Timothy and the earlier “call” of the great apostle
   himself—the vision of Ananias and the prophetic intuition of St. Paul;
   Ananias’ benediction, when he laid his hands on the future head of the
   Apostle to the Gentiles, and the benediction of Timothy by St. Paul; the
   blessing of Saul and Barnabas by the “prophets and teachers” at the head of
   the Church at Antioch, when they started on their first mission tour, and
   the blessing of the elders of Lystra when Timothy started on his life work
   as an apostle or evangelist. From this time he and St. Paul were almost
   always together; they were like father and son. Timothy’s name occurs
   frequently in the epistles of St. Paul. When difficult questions arose in
   St. Paul’s mission Churches which needed delicate handling and when the
   Apostle could not go himself to settle them Timothy was his favourite deputy
   (1 Cor. xvi. 10; 1 Thess. iii. 2). The apostle saw himself living his life
   over again in the person of his son Timothy.

   [369] “A faithful husband” appears to be the best translation of gunaikos
   andra—one who acts on the principles of Christian morality and is not led
   astray by the licentious usages of the surrounding heathenism.

   [370] 1 Tim. iii: 10; 2 Tim: ii. 2.

   [371] 1 Tim. iii. 1.

   [372] 1 Tim. iii. 5.

   [373] 1 Tim. iii. 7.

   [374] Harnack, who thinks that the verses in 1 Tim. which relate to the
   organization of the Church are an interpolation and represent an old book of
   the Church Order not unlike the Sources of the Apostolic Canons and perhaps
   derived with these fragments from a common source, points out a number of
   interesting coincidences:—“Let a woman learn in quietness with all
   subjection.” (1 Tim. ii. 11): “in order that it (the congregation) may be at
   rest without disturbance, after it has been first proved in all
   subjection” (Apost. Can. ii); “I permit not a woman to teach” (1 Tim. ii.
   12): compare with the whole of Apost. Can. viii., especially “How then can
   we, concerning women, order them services?” “The bishop must therefore be
   without reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, orderly,
   given to hospitality, apt to teach, no brawler nor striker, but gentle, not
   contentious, no lover of money . . . . moreover he must have good testimony
   from them that are without” (1 Tim. iii. 2-7); “If he (the bishop) has a
   good report among the heathen, if he is without reproach, if a friend of the
   poor, if sober-minded, no drunkard, nor adulterer, not covetous nor a
   slanderer . . . it is good if he is unmarried; if not, then the husband of
   one wife; educated . . . if unlearned, gentle” (Apost. Can. i.); “Deacons,
   in like manner, must be grave, not double tongued, not given to much wine
   . . . and let these also be first proved, then let them serve as deacons
   . . . let the deacons be husbands of one wife, ruling their children and
   their own houses well” (1 Tim. iii. 8, 9, 12); “The deacons shall be
   approved in every service . . . husbands of one wife, educating their
   children, sober-minded . . . not double-tongued . . . not using much wine”
   (Apost. Can. iv.); (of deacons) “Not using much wine, not greedy of lucre”
   (1 Tim. iii. 8); (of widows) “Not greedy of lucre, not using much wine”
   (Apos. Can. v.); “For they that have served well as deacons gain to
   themselves a good standing” (1 Tim. iii: 13); ‘For they who have served well
   as deacons . . . purchase to themselves the pastorate” (Apost. Can. vi.);
   and so on. It appears to me, however, that the interesting series of
   parallels affords striking evidence that the statements in the Pastoral
   Epistles are much older than those in the Sources of the Apostolic Canons.
   In the former it is women who are to be in subjection, and the phrase
   corresponds to 1 Cor. xiv. 34; while in the Sources of the Apostolic Canons
   it is the congregation who are to be in subjection to the office-bearers:
   the leaders and the led of the Pauline Epistles have given place to the
   clergy and the laity of a later period. Then in the Pastoral Epistles the
   deacons who have served well gain to themselves “a good standing”; in the
   later document they are promised clerical promotion, which is a very
   different idea and suggests a much later period. Again in the former
   document the senior office-bearers are to be faithful husbands (husbands of
   one wife); in the latter it is said that it is better that they be not
   married, which shows either a growth in ascetic sentiment or perhaps
   difficulties in a fair distribution of the offerings of the congregation and
   the desire for distributors who have no claims on themselves to influence
   their judgment, or both of these conceptions. Compare Chronologie, pp. 483,
   484.

   [375] 1 Tim. iii. 8-10, 12, 13.

   [376] 1 Tim. v. 17-20.

   [377] 1 Tim. v. 22. Compare Hort, The Christian Ecclesia, p. 175 ff.

   [378] Compare the evidences of growth in organization collected by Gayford,
   Hastings’ Bible Dictionary, art. Church, i. 434.

   [379] Compare Schmiedel, Encyc. Bibl., art. Ministry, 3111 (d).

   [380] Expositor (1887, Jan.-June), 328-31; The arguments put shortly
   are:—St. Paul addresses his advice about discipline, etc., to the whole
   community and not to special individuals who are in the position of
   office-bearers; all the members of the Christian community are exhorted to
   do what is enjoined upon the leaders (1 Thess. v. 14); the word ergon (verse
   12) shows that an office is not thought of; while in Rom. xii. 6-8
   presidency stands between “liberality” and “showing mercy,” and is described
   as a “gift”! The same arguments, it appears to me, would exclude the
   presence of office-bearers in the Didache and in the Epistle of Clement; for
   there the exhortations to exercise discipline are addressed to the whole
   community. The fact that the congregational meeting is the supreme judge
   does not exclude the fact of office-bearers. Compare below pp. 171 ff. for
   the Didache and 176 n. for 1 Clement.

   [381] Clement, 1 Epist. xliv., 1; cf. xlii. 4; of. Sanday’s The Conception
   of Priesthood (1898), pp. 70-2. The sentence in Clement (1 Epist. xlii. 4)
   is:—“So preaching everywhere in town and in country, they appointed their
   first-fruits (tas aparchas autōn) when they had proved them by the Spirit,
   to be overseers and deacons unto them that should believe.”

   [382] Compare Lightfoot, Philippians (1881), 6th ed. pp. 95-9.; Loofs,
   Theologische Studien and Kritiken (1890), 628-42; Schmiedel, Encyc. Bibl.
   pp. 3135-9; Loening, Die Gemeindeverfassung des Urchristenthums (1889), pp.
   58-63. Compare note on ‘Presbyters’ and ‘Bishops’ at the and of the ohapter.

   [383] Acts xi. 30.

   [384] It ought to be remembered that the organization which prevailed among
   the Judaising Christians, who refused all fraternal intercourse with the
   Gentile believers, was on the strict Jewish lines and was quite different
   from the Christian. Epiphanius tells us (Heresies, xxx. 18) that their
   congregations were presided over by archons and an archisynagogos like the
   Jewish synagogues of the Dispersion. Compare pp. 130-131.

   [385] Lucian, De Mode Peregrini, 12, 41.

   [386] Deissmann, Bible Studies, Eng. Trans. pp. 154 ff. and 233 ff.
   Deissmann shows that the term presbuteros was common for the rulers of a a
   corporation in Asia Minor, and it must have been familiar to the inhabitants
   of those towns which furnished the Christian communities among which St.
   Paul saw elders chosen on his return mission journey through Derbe, Iconium
   and Lystra (Acts xiv. 23). One of the most interesting series of facts which
   Deissmann has unearthed is that the term “elder” was a religious official
   name in Egypt, and that the affairs of the whole Egyptian priesthood in the
   times of the Ptolemies were conducted by an assembly whose members
   (twenty-five in number) were called presbuteroi. Milton had very old
   authority for his saying that “new presbyter is but old priest writ
   large.”

   [387] Commentary on the Epistle to the Philippians (1881), 6th ed. p. 96.

   [388] While everything goes to show that In primitive times the function of
   teaching was not confined to the office-bearers or rulers it is difficult to
   believe that leadership and teaching were not frequently associated. The
   “prophetic” gift was so highly prized that it was only natural that men
   possessing it in combination with the “gift” of oversight should be
   selected. The use of the phrase “to shepherd” in connexion with the leaders
   of the Christian community as in 1 Peter v. 2 (poimanate to en humin
   poimnion tou Theou) appears to include more than simple oversight, and the
   word “admonish,” applied to the proistamenoi in Thessalonica, seems to point
   to something more than mere leadership in the very early times.

   [389] De Praescript. 20.

   [390] Pp. 95-9 of the 6th ed. (1881).

   [391] Expositor for 1887. Jan.-June, p. 334. In a footnote Harnack says, “It
   seems to me very improbable that the Acts of the Apostles was written during
   the first century.”

   [392] Compare Otto Ritschl in the Theologische Literatur-Zeitung for 1885,
   No. 25.

   [393] It is important to bear in mind the dates which Harnack assigns to the
   various documents he deals with. The following are taken from his
   Chronologie der altchristlichen Literatur bis Eusebius (1897):—1 Peter was
   probably written, he thinks, some time between the years 83 and 93 A.D., but
   it may have been written one or two decades earlier, which gives at the
   extreme limits of time 63-93 A.D. (pp. 454, 718). I Clement he dates about
   93-95 but perhaps as late as 97 A.D. (pp. 255, 718). The dates he gives for
   the writings which he says are the first witnesses for presbyters are:—The
   Epistle of James about 120-140 (pp. 491, 719); the Pastoral Epistles, or at
   least those verses in them which are in question about 130 A.D. (p. 483);
   the original document of the so-called Apostolic Ordinances, about 140-180.
   Harnack classes the Acts of the Apostles among this set of documents in the
   Expositor (1887, Jan.-June), p. 334, and says that the book belongs to the
   second century. But in his Chronologie which was published ten years later,
   he says that the Acts of the Apostles was written some time between 80-93
   A.D. (pp. 250, 718). There may not be much difference between the year 93
   A.D. and the second century; but the change of date lifts the Acts of the
   Apostles out from the other writings named along with it in the Expositor,
   and places it as early as the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians and
   perhaps as early as the Epistle of Peter.

   [394] hēgoumenos and proēgoumenos, I. i. 3; xxi. 6. episkopoi, I. xlii. 4,
   5. presbuteros, I. i. 3; iii. 3; xxi. 6; xliv. 5; xlvii. 6; 1v. 4; liv. 2;
   lvii. 1.

   [395] I. xliv. 5; xlvii. 6; liv. 2; lvii. 1.

   [396] Lightfoot, Commentary on the Epistle to the Philippians (1881), 6th
   ed. p. 95 ff.; Loening, Die Gemeindeverfassung des Urchristenthums (1889),
   p. 58 ff.; Loofs, Studien and Kritiken (1890), pp. 628 ff.; Sehmiedel,
   Encyclopaedia Biblica (1902) p. 3134 if. If we apply the well-recognized
   critical principle that the statement that there were “elders” in Derbe,
   Lystra and the neighbourhood when the book which describes them was written,
   this change of date gives us “elected” elders before the close of the first
   century.

   [397] I. xliv. 1, 4.

   [398] I. xliv. 4-6.

   [399] I. xlvii. 6.

   [400] I. liv. 2.

   [401] lvii. 1.

   [402] xxi. 6.

   [403] “In iii. 3 allusion is made to the deposition of certain Church
   leaders, but in dependence on Isaiah iii. 5, where of old age it is said:
   “the child will press against the old man,” Clement can very well have
   preserved this meaning in his words “the young are stirred up against the
   elder,” as he has also retained the other general antithesis from Isaiah:
   “the base again the honourable.” Yet the selection of the word “elders”
   (presbuteroi) instead of “old men” (presbutai) points to the fact, only too
   well known to the readers, that it was against official presbyters that the
   rising was. “Elders” (presbuteroi) in this case has a double meaning which
   rhetorically is very effective; and so also young men. For since according
   to xlvii. 6 only one or two persons had given occasion to the offence, it is
   possible that these were young persons, but at the same time also that they
   stood in the position of laymen towards the presbytery in so far as these
   were official persons.” Encyclopaedia Biblica, p. 3135.

   [404] Patrum apostol. opera, I. p. 132 n. (p. 68, n. 4, in ed. of 1876).

   [405] Loofs says that he is so convinced that the presbyters of 1 Peter v. 1
   are office-bearers, that if the argument needed it (which it does not) he
   would rather believe with Mosheim and others that the neōteroi were deacons;
   Studien and Kritiken (1890), p. 638. Schmiedel, who takes the same view,
   asserts that the fact that the presbyters have to be warned against
   “discontent with their office, greed and ambition” points against the early
   date of the epistle (Encyclopaedia Biblica, p. 3134); he would not have said
   this had he known much about Churches in the mission field; the pregnant
   remark of Denney (Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible, iii. 82 b), that
   tendencies to antinomianism seem inseparable from every revival of religion,
   religion transcending even while it guarantees morality, ought to be kept
   more in mind than it is by students of early Church history.

   [406] 1 Peter i. 1.

   [407] Rev. iv. 4, 10; v. 5, 6, 8, etc.

   [408] Acts xx. 17, 28 (Ephesus); xi. 30; xv. 4, 6, 22; xvi. 4; xxi. 18;
   (Jerusalem).

   [409] Acts xiv. 23.

   [410] Compare Lightfoot, Commentary on the Epistle to the Philippians
   (1881), 6th ed. 95-9; Loofs, Studien and Kritiken (1890), 639-41; Lightfoot
   gives quotations from Jerome, but omits some of his strongest sayings; it
   may be useful to quote at greater length from his Commentary on Titus, i.
   7:—Idem est ergo presbyter, qui episcopus; et antequam diaboli instinctu
   studia in religione fierent, et diceretur in populis: ego sum Pauli, ego
   Apollo, ego autem Cephae, communi presbyterorum consilio ecclesiae
   gubernabantur. Postquam vero unusquisque eos, quos baptizaverat, suos
   putabat esse, non Christi; in toto orbe decretum est, ut unus de presbyteris
   electus superponeretur caeteris, ad quem omnis ecclesiae cura pertineret, et
   schismatum semina tollerentur. Putat aliquis non scripturarum, sed nostram
   esse sententiam, episcopum et presbyterum unum esse, et aliud aetatis, aliud
   ease nomen officii; relegat apostoli ad Philippenses verba, dicentis (then
   follow the passages quoted above in the text) . . . Haec propterea, ut
   ostenderemus, apud veteres eosdem fuisse presbyteros, quos et episcopos;
   paulatim vero ut dissensionum plantaria evellerentur, ad unum omnem
   sollicitudinem esse delatam. Sicut ergo presbyteri sciunt, se ex ecclesiae
   consuetudine ei, qui sibi praepositus fuerit, esse subjectos; ita episcopi
   noverint se magis consuetudine, quam dispositionis dominicae veritate,
   presbyteris esse majores, et in commune debere ecclesiam regere.” Gieseler
   in his Compendium of Ecclesiastical History, i. pp. 88-90, n. 1, collects a
   large number of authorities to show that this opinion of Jerome was held
   throughout the Mediaeval Church until the time of the Council of Trent. He
   concludes by saying “Since the Tridentine Council, the institutio divina of
   episcopacy and its original difference from the presbyterate became the
   general doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, which the English
   Episcopalians also followed in this particular, while the other Protestant
   Churches returned to the most ancient doctrine and regulation on the
   subject.”

   [411] Bampton Lectures (1881), pp: 36-46.

   [412] Commentary on the Epistle to the Philippians, pp. 95, 96.

   [413] Compare for example the suggestive phrase in Hermas: episkeptesthe
   allēlous kai antilambanesthe allēlōn (Vis. iii. 9).

   [414] The word episkopos is used of Christ in 1 Peter ii. 25 and of God in 1
   Clem. lix. 3. The word episkopē is used of the providence of God in Luke
   xix. 44 and in 1 Pet. ii. 12. In 1 Clement episkopē, in the sense of
   exercising oversight, is a much more prominent thought than episkopos. The
   author speaks of onoma episkopēs, leitourgia episkopēs, dōra episkopēs not
   episkopōn; Hermas of episkopoi . . . episkopēsantes hagnōs. Loofs has
   collected a number of similar phrases from later authorities in Studien und
   Kritiken (1890), p. 629, showing that there are traces of this way of
   regarding episkopos as late as the end of the second century. Then in Titus
   i. 7 the article is prefixed (ton episkopon) to denote that a type is spoken
   of: cf. Lightfoot, Commentary on the Epistle to the Philippians, p. 97, n.
   1.

   [415] After declaring that he does not regard episkopos any more than poimēn
   or hēgoumenos as a technical term denoting an office, Loofs goes on to
   say:—“Mir scheint in der vorschnellen Annahme, episkopos sei frühe Amtsname,
   Titel gewesen, ein prōton pseudos vieler neuerer Konstructionen zu liegen;
   die ältere Anschauung halte ich durchaus nicht für veraltet; episkopos ist
   eine Funktionsbezeichnung and bis ins endende zweite Jahrhundert hinein
   gehen die Spuren davon, dass man ein Bewusstsein davon hat, dass episkopos
   weniger Amtsname als Amtsbeschreibung ist.” Studien und Kritiken (1890), p:
   628. Compare Professor Sanday, The Conception of Priesthood, pp. 61-62.
     _________________________________________________________________

CHAPTER V

  THE MINISTRY IN THE SECOND CENTURY

   During the first century we can see the local churches creating their
   ministry. The same independence marks their action in the second century.
   They can be seen changing the ministry they have inherited. The beginnings
   of the change date from the early decades of the second century; by the end
   of the century it was almost complete. The change was two-fold, and
   concerned both the prophetic and the local ministry. Stated in the briefest
   manner it may be described thus: the “prophetic” ministry passed away, its
   functions being appropriated by the permanent office-bearers of the local
   churches; and every local church came to supplement its organization by
   placing one man at the head of the community, making him the president of
   the college of elders. The one part of the change which came about in the
   second century, that which gave the senate of the congregation its
   president, was simple, natural and salutary; it came about gradually and at
   different times in the various portions of the Empire; it was effected
   peacefully, and we hear of no disturbances in consequence. [416] The other
   change, which meant the overthrow of the “prophetic” ministry of the
   apostolic and immediately subsequent period, was a revolution, provoked a
   widespread revolt and rent the Church in twain.

   To understand the change in the ministry of the local churches it is to be
   kept in mind that at the close of the first century every local church had
   at its head a college or senate or session of rulers, who were called by the
   technical name of elders, and were also known by names which indicated the
   kind of work they had to do—pastors, overseers (episkopoi). This was the
   ministry of oversight. To each congregation there was also attached a body
   of men who rendered “subordinate service,” and who were called deacons—but
   whether they formed part of the college of elders, or were formed into a
   separate college of their own, it is not easy to say. The change made
   consisted in placing at the head of this college of rulers one man, who was
   commonly called either the pastor or the bishop, the latter name being the
   more usual, and apparently the technical designation. The ministry of each
   congregation or local church instead of being, as it had been, two-fold—of
   elders and deacons—became three-fold—of pastor or bishop, elders and
   deacons. This was the introduction of what is called the three-fold
   ministry. It is commonly called the beginning of episcopacy; but that idea
   is based on the erroneous conception that a three-fold ministry and
   episcopacy are identical. [417]

   In order to show what the change was and what it meant, three relics of the
   oldest Christian literature may be taken, the Didache or the Teaching of the
   Twelve Apostles, certain fragments which are sources of the Apostolic
   Canons, and the Letters of Ignatius of Antioch. Authorities differ about the
   dates of these documents, but it may be taken as well ascertained that they
   all belonged to the years between 100 and 180 A.D. [418]

   In the first mentioned we find the Christian society ruled by a college of
   office-bearers who are called “overseers and deacons”; in the second we see
   one bishop or pastor (the terms are synonymous in the document), a session
   of elders and a body of deacons, but the elders rule over the bishop as they
   rule the congregation, and the bishop is not their president; in the third
   we have the three-fold ministry of bishop, elders and deacons constituting a
   governing body [419] at the head of the congregation or local church.

   The Didache or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles [420] is a short Christian
   manual, of composite character, containing rules for the conduct of
   individual men and women, and regulations for the guidance of small
   Christian communities, hundreds of which must have been scattered over the
   wide face of the Roman Empire in the second century. The sixteen paragraphs
   of this little manual are well-arranged when compared with most manuals of
   the same kind. The first six contain simple directions for living the
   Christian life, based upon the Beatitudes of our Lord and the Ten
   Commandments. They seem to have formed the instruction administered to
   catechumens before baptism. Then follow directions about baptism, fasting
   and prayer and the Eucharist. Three sections are devoted to injunctions
   which concern the “prophetic ministry.” Then follow instructions about the
   Lord’s Day services, and the selection of office-bearers. The whole
   concludes with a warning about the last days.

   Tertullian has said: “We Christians are one body knit together by a common
   religious profession, by a unity of discipline and by the bond of a common
   hope.” [421] This little manual reads like a commentary on the saying. Every
   wayfaring stranger seeking food and lodging was to be received and fed if he
   came with a profession of the Christian faith. The letter of commendation
   which was in use among the Jews and to which St. Paul refers, was not
   required to ensure a hospitable reception [422] for one night at least. It
   was better to be imposed upon sometimes than to miss the chance of
   entertaining a brother Christian. But this hospitality was not to be without
   discrimination. “Let every one coming in the name of the Lord be received,
   but afterwards ye shall test him and know the true from the false; for ye
   shall have insight. If he cometh as a traveller, help him as much as you
   can; but he shall not remain with you unless for two or three days if it be
   necessary. If he will take up his abode with you and is an artizan, let him
   work and so eat; but if he has no trade provide employment for him, that no
   idler live with you as a Christian. But if he will not act according to this
   he is a Christ-trafficker; beware of such.” [423] The brotherly love of
   these early Christians was a real and practical thing which no experience of
   imposition seems to have damped. Their simple rules are witness to the fact
   that they were sometimes imposed upon, and Lucian’s account of the impostor
   Peregrinus, shows how a heathen could see that their charity was often
   abused. [424]

   One does not naturally expect to find an elaborate ecclesiastical
   organization among these simple folk, and there are no traces of it. The
   Didache reveals a state of matters not unlike what we see in the Epistles of
   St. Paul. The control in all things evidently rested with the community met
   in congregational meeting. It is to the community as a whole that all the
   directions are addressed. It receives, tests, finds work for or sends away
   the travelling strangers who ask assistance or hospitality. It discharges
   all these duties of Christian benevolence which we find elsewhere laid upon
   the president. [425] It is the community, in congregational meeting, which
   tests and receives or rejects the members of the “prophetic ministry” when
   they appear. The injunctions about baptism, fasting, prayers, are all given
   to the whole community, [426] and not to the office-bearers; and yet
   office-bearers did exist among them whom the community are required to elect
   and to honour.

   The manual bears evidence to the value of the “prophetic ministry.” Its
   members are to be honoured in a very special fashion. If a prophet is
   present he is to preside at the Lord’s Table, and his prayers are to follow
   his heart’s promptings; [427] if no prophet was present, one of the
   office-bearers presided; but he had to use a fixed form of prayer. The duty
   of obeying the members of the “prophetic ministry” who speak the Word of the
   Lord is laid down in the most solemn manner. Prophets and teachers who
   happen to be residing within the community are to be supported by the
   members; the first fruits are to be set aside for them; and in this respect
   they are like the high priests of the Old Testament. [428]

   The figures of these prophets, true and false, which are somewhat shadowy in
   the New Testament, take definite shape in this ancient church directory. We
   see the stir in the community when the prophet arrives. The women hasten to
   set apart the first baking of bread, the first cup of the newly opened
   wine-skin or jar of oil, the first yard or two of the newly spun cloth [429]
   for the use of these men, gifted with magnetic speech, who have come to
   edify the little society and instruct them in the ways of the Lord.

   Not that every one who comes among them saying that he is a prophet is to be
   received as such. If he asks for money, if he does not practise more than he
   preaches, if he has not the ways of the Lord—then he is a false prophet and
   is to be sent away. [430] For the Christian communities felt that they had
   the presence of their Lord with them according to His promise, and had the
   gift, however rudely it might be shown and exercised, of testing even
   “prophets” and “apostles.” When the members of this prophetic ministry were
   received they were the only persons permitted to abide within the community
   without earning their living by artisan or other labour. Their labour was
   the instruction and edification of the members of the society. [431]

   Although the community was honoured with the presence of these gifted men,
   and although the congregational meeting was, as in the Churches of Corinth
   and Thessalonica, the centre and seat of rule, the brethren were directed to
   elect office-bearers. The context gives the reason. “But on the Lord’s Day
   do ye assemble and break bread and give thanks, after confessing your
   transgressions, in order that your sacrifice may be pure. But every one that
   hath controversy with his friend, let him not come together with you until
   they be reconciled. . . . Therefore appoint for yourselves bishops and
   deacons worthy of the Lord, men meek and not avaricious, upright and proved,
   for they too render you the service of the prophets and teachers.” [432]

   The office-bearers are needed to act as judges in quarrels within the
   community, and to act as the “wise men” whom St. Paul asked the Corinthians
   to appoint. [433] They are also, whether in turn or otherwise we do not
   know, to preside at the Holy Supper and to edify the community, for they are
   to serve as “prophets and teachers.” [434] There is no division of labour
   indicated between the bishops (presbyters) and the deacons; and the same
   qualities of meekness, uprightness, proved Christian character and the
   absence of avarice are demanded of both.

   What went on in the smaller took place in the larger Christian communities;
   the outlines of the picture sketched for us in the Didache appear also in
   the Epistle of Clement [435] and in the quaint Pastor of Hermas. At the head
   of the community, as regular office-bearers, were a number of men
   presbyter-bishops with deacons as their assistants, but the congregation is
   seen to be the supreme judge in the last resort. The people rule and form a
   little democracy; they choose their office-bearers who lead their devotions
   and act as arbiters in all disputes. They are a self-governing community.
   They can even reject the services of men who assert that they are members of
   the prophetic ministry. They can do this in God’s name. They are a theocracy
   as well as a democracy. The “gifts” of the Spirit are present in their midst
   and are manifest in the power of judging.

   Our second document is what Harnack calls the Original Sources of the
   Apostolic Canons. [436] These sources are but fragments, preserved because
   they have been incorporated in a much later law-book of the Christian
   Church. We do not know from what land they came nor how wide or narrow was
   the sphere of their authority. They show us, however, what a small Christian
   community was in the last decades of the second century, and they describe
   the way in which it was created out of a number of Christian families. We
   can see the birth and growth of a Church with its complete organization. In
   many respects the process described can be seen now in any mission field,
   especially among peoples of ancient civilization. Perhaps the most
   interesting thing about it is that every body of Christians however small is
   ordered to form itself into a congregation, and the implied thought that the
   Christian life must be lived within an orderly Christian society before the
   full benefits which accompany it can be enjoyed.

   The document takes us back to a time when a few Christian families found
   themselves the only believers in the midst of a surrounding paganism. Few or
   many, they are commanded to organize themselves as a church. [437] If the
   families number less than twelve, or rather if they include fewer than
   twelve persons entitled to vote in the election, it is supposed that they
   need aid in the first important step in the organization, which is the
   selection of some one to be their pastor or bishop—the names are synonymous
   in the document. [438] In this case they are to apply to a neighbouring
   Christian community which has been established for some time, and ask them
   to appoint three men to assist them to select their pastor. [439] Along with
   these three, presumably experienced Christians, but not necessarily
   office-bearers, they are to select some one (whether from their own number
   or from the outside is not said) to be their bishop. A list of
   qualifications is given them to direct their choice, from which it appears
   that character and Christian experience are the things really needful for
   the office. [440] A pastor or bishop is to be one whose character stands so
   high that no one may be expected to bring any charge of misconduct against
   him. He is not to be given to drinking, nor to covetousness nor to foul
   living. He must not be a respecter of persons. It is better that he should
   be unmarried, but if he has a wife he must be a faithful husband. It is
   advisable that he should be an educated man and able to expound the
   Scriptures, but that is not indispensable. If he is unlearned he must at
   least be gentle and full of love towards all persons. He has to represent
   the community to the outside world, and must therefore be a man whom the
   heathen respect. He is to be the leader in public worship, and the elders
   are to support him, seated on his right hand and on his left. He must be a
   valiant fighter against sin, and the elders are to aid him in this duty
   also. He is, under the control of the elders, to administer the property of
   the Church, which in these early days consisted of the gifts brought by the
   faithful to the meeting for thanksgiving. They were handed over to him, and
   distributed under the watchful supervision of the elders.

   Besides the pastor the congregation is required to appoint at least two
   elders or presbyters. [441] They are to be men advanced in years and
   presumably unmarried (the meaning of the phrase is somewhat doubtful). [442]
   They must not be respecters of persons. They are to be ready to assist the
   pastor at all times in the conduct of public worship and in dealing with
   sinners. They are the rulers in the strict sense of the word. They are
   responsible for summoning the people to public worship, and it is their
   place to preserve order during Divine Service. The women who visit the sick
   are to report to them and not to the bishop. They are to see that the bishop
   distributes in a proper manner the offerings of the faithful. They have
   charge of the discipline of the congregation including the pastor. [443]

   Every church must have at least three deacons, who are to be the ministers
   of the people in their private and home life. They are to report on any
   unseemly conduct which may call for discipline at the hands of the elders.
   They are to be men well esteemed in the congregation, faithful husbands,
   with well-behaved families. [444] It is their duty to move among the people,
   “and carefully give heed to those who walk disorderly, warning one,
   exhorting another, threatening a third, but leaving scoffers entirely to
   themselves.” They were to be men of generous disposition, for part of their
   duty was to insist that the wealthier members of the Brotherhood, as the
   congregation is called, “open their hands” to support the poor and for other
   ecclesiastical needs, and example is better than precept. In short their
   duties, as laid down in these ancient canons, are almost identical with
   those of the deacons in presbyterian churches now, both in what they do and
   in what they are to refrain from doing.

   Every church was also to have a ministry of women. Three were to be
   appointed. They are called widows, and a curious division of duties is
   enjoined. [445] One of them is to act as a combination of nurse and
   Bible-woman. She is to assist the sick women of the congregation. To this
   end she “ must be ready for the service, discreet and not avaricious, nor
   given to much love of wine, so that she may be sober and capable of
   performing the night services and other loving ministry if she will.” The
   duty of the other two was to “persevere in prayer for all who are in
   temptation”; and they were also to pray for the reception of revelations
   where these were necessary. They took the place in the congregation of the
   old prophetic ministry, and were among the number of the New Testament
   prophetesses.

   There was another official. The congregation is told to appoint a Reader. He
   is to be an experienced Christian. His duty is to read the Scriptures during
   Divine Service, and it is required that he should have a good voice and a
   clear delivery. He is told to come early to the church on the Lord’s Day. He
   is to be able to expound the Scripture that he has read. He is to remember
   that “he fills the place of an evangelist.” The Reader in these ancient
   times did what the pastor or bishop was expected to do in later times. There
   was the more need for the office when we remember that the bishop might be
   an unlearned man, and by unlearned was frequently meant one who did not know
   the alphabet.

   Such is a picture of a small Christian Church in the last decades of the
   second century. It may be taken as the type of hundreds. It is independent
   and self-governing, but it is not isolated. It is a brotherhood
   (adelphotēs), consisting of brethren organized under office-bearers chosen
   by themselves, but it has relations with, and a knowledge of, a wider
   brotherhood of which it is a minute part. When need comes it can appeal for
   and get help in the selection of its pastor. Its ministry need not be
   learned; Christian character, saintly behaviour, the power to exhort and
   teach which comes from deep Christian experience, are more highly valued
   than ability to read. The Brotherhood has the Wise Men whom St. Paul desired
   to see in the Corinthian Church in its elders or presbyters who share the
   responsibilities of the pastor’s work, and in this respect are his
   assistants, but whose superintendence and rule extends over the pastor
   himself in other respects. We see the deacons going out and in among the
   members of the society, encouraging, warning, rebuking, if need be, and
   endeavouring to excite to Christian liberality by precept and example. We
   descry through the mists of seventeen hundred years the homely and simple
   ministry of women; on the one hand an active motherly woman, able to nurse
   her sick sisters, strong enough to endure, as women only can, long periods
   of night-watching, giving wholesome motherly advice to the women and girls
   of the community; and on the other two solitary women, in the weakness and
   loneliness of their sex and of their widowhood, powerful to wrestle with God
   in prayer, and to assist with their supplications the whole congregation and
   the strong men who are tempted and tried in the daily battle of life. The
   strong supporting the weak; and the weak, powerful in prayer, helping the
   strong; the picture is one which only a Christian community could show, and
   there it often appeared. Early Christian literature abounds in references to
   the prayers of the widows of the congregation. They are expected to bear the
   whole burden of the brethren upon their hearts, and to entreat the Lord in
   prayer. The prayers of believers are the sacrifice of primitive
   Christianity, and because the widows abound in prayer they are the altar of
   sacrifice. [446]

   These ancient fragments of old ecclesiastical canons are, however, specially
   interesting, because they represent the transition stage between the
   organization of the churches, shown

   in the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians or in the Didache, and the
   three-fold ministry of the third century. They do this in two ways; The
   prophetic ministry has departed, but its memories linger in the prayers of
   the widows for revelations and in the exhortation to the Reader that he
   holds the place of an evangelist. For our immediate purpose, however, it is
   most interesting to have in the fragments an organization lying between that
   of a church or congregation, ruled by a college of presbyter-bishops as in
   the Didache, and one where the bishop or pastor is the president of a
   compact circle of elders and deacons, and where these office-bearers have
   their fixed places under their head. In these fragments the bishop or pastor
   has neither the power nor the position he afterwards came to occupy almost
   universally in the third century.

   But there is this advance on the older organization. There is now one man
   who has a distinct position which he occupies by himself. He is the
   recognized leader of the congregation or church in several definite ways. He
   represents the congregation to those outside, else why should it be a
   necessary qualification for office that he is respected by the heathen? He
   leads the congregational worship in the meeting for thanksgiving at any
   rate, and if he is learned and can expound the Scriptures, probably at the
   meeting for edification also. The gifts of the congregation are given into
   his hands for distribution, and he is the almoner. He stands alone and
   separate from the other office-bearers in all this. In these respects also
   he stands forth as the representative of the unity of the congregation or
   church.

   On the other hand, he has not yet been placed in the position which the
   bishop or pastor afterwards held. In the Apostolic Constitutions it is the
   bishop who calls the congregation together for worship; here that duty
   belongs to the elders, who also watch over the behaviour of the people while
   in Church. [447] In later ecclesiastical manuals the deacons and deaconesses
   report tai the bishop; there they, or at least the deaconesses, report to
   the elders, who have the responsibilities for the sick and infirm of the
   congregation, which in later days belonged to the bishop. [448] All these
   things show that the discipline of the congregation is in the hands of the
   elders exclusively, and that the bishop is not the president of their court.
   If any doubt remained on this head it must vanish when we consider the
   unique regulation that the bishop himself is under the supervision of the
   elders in one of the most important of his functions. [449] When he acts as
   almoner they are to see that he acts rightly, and, what is of the highest
   importance for understanding the situation, the word used to express the
   control of the elders over the bishop is the same word (pronoeisthai), which
   describes their power of discipline over the congregation. The bishop has
   emerged from the circle of presbyters, but he is not their president; and
   while he is the leader of the congregation in many respects he is, in one
   respect at least, like the members of the congregation, amenable to the
   discipline of the elders.

   Probably had we other relics of ecclesiastical manuals belonging to this
   transition period we should find other instances of organizations on the
   road towards the three-fold ministry, but travelling by different paths. We
   know that the three-fold ministry grew more rapidly in some places than in
   others, and the organization probably passed through several transition
   stages, of which this is one, before it attained to maturity.

   Our third group of writings consists of the famous Letters of Ignatius of
   Antioch—a series of documents which have provoked an immense amount of
   criticism which cannot be said to be ended. Without entering into the
   controversy we may accept the results of the scholarly criticism of the late
   Dr. Lightfoot in this country, and of Dr. Zahn in Germany, according to
   which the Seven Epistles in the shorter recension are genuine documents.
   These letters came from the head of the Christian community in Antioch in
   Syria. Ignatius had been seized in an outburst of persecution and was being
   dragged across Asia Minor, a prisoner in charge of a band of Roman soldiers.
   He wrote to the Christians of Ephesus that he was on his way from Syria, in
   bonds for the sake of the common Name and hope, and was expecting to succeed
   in fighting with wild beasts at Rome, that by so succeeding he might have
   power to become a disciple. [450] The journey was an apprenticeship in
   suffering; for the ten soldiers, who guarded him, treated him as ten
   leopards might have done, and only waxed worse when they were kindly
   entreated. [451] The churches of Asia Minor had sent him comforting messages
   by special delegates. The letters are his answers. [452]

   They exhale the fragrance of a saintly and impassioned Christian life. They
   dwell on the need that the sin-sick children of men have for the One great
   Physician of souls. [453] The Christian preacher of the second century lives
   in them still, embalmed there and treasured up for a life beyond life. We
   find in them bursts of poetic fancy: the Lord was a Star which shone forth
   in the heaven above all stars; and its light was unutterable; and its
   strangeness caused astonishment; and all the rest of the constellations,
   with the sun and the moon, formed themselves into a chorus about the star;
   but the Star itself far out-shone them all. [454] They abound in simple but
   striking metaphors, such as the lyre and its strings, the athlete and his
   training; the chorus with its keynote; the wheat ground in the hand-mill.
   [455] We find quaint emblems: “Ye are stones of a temple, which were
   prepared beforehand for a building of God, being hoisted up to the heights
   through the engine of Jesus Christ, which is the Cross, and using for a rope
   the Holy Spirit; while your faith is your windlass, and love is the way that
   leadeth up to God.” [456] They show deep knowledge of the human heart: “No
   man professing faith sinneth, and no man possessing love hateth” [457] —a
   sentence which might have come from Thomas à Kempis. Sometimes the words
   seem insensibly to take the form of a prophetic chant, and have a rhythmic
   cadence all their own. [458] Throughout there is that taste of Oriental
   extravagance which makes them so natural. [459]

   The letters breathe the storm and strain of a time of persecution. The
   rallying cry which rolls from the first to the last is union! Keep united!
   Close the ranks! Intimate union with Christ; that is the main thing, and
   that which comes first. This is how he puts it. “For being counted worthy to
   bear a most godly name, in these bonds, which I carry about, I sing the
   praise of the churches; and I pray that there may be in them union of the
   flesh and of the Spirit which are Jesus Christ’s, our never-failing life—an
   union of faith and of love which is preferred before all things, and—what is
   more than all—an union with Jesus and with the Father, in whom, if we
   patiently endure all the despite of the prince of this world and escape
   therefrom, we shall attain unto God.” [460]

   Varying pictures of the Christian Churches rise in his imagination. Now they
   are ships driven and tossed in the storm of persecution; there must be a
   strong man at the helm and discipline in the crew; they need a favouring
   wind and a sheltering haven. [461] Or they are so many households of God:
   the office-bearers are the upper servants set there by the Master to rule,
   and the other members obey the Master Himself when they are submissive to
   those whom He has set over them. [462] Or they are disciple companies,
   cherishing an imitation of Christ, not in the solitary fashion of Thomas à
   Kempis, but in companionship. The pastor represents Jesus, the elders are
   His apostles, [463] and the deacons and the faithful those who followed Him
   in Galilee—and all, pastor and elders and people, look for the footprints
   the Master has left, and try to set their steps where He trod. Perhaps this
   picture of a disciple company is his favourite one. It has been a thought
   tenderly cherished through the centuries, and has often been set forth with
   a certain quaint realism. Columba and twelve companions came from Ireland to
   Iona. Columbanus with twelve companions appeared among the Franks and the
   Burgundians to preach the Gospel. Bernard and twelve companions left Citeaux
   to found his new dwelling at Clairvaux. In each case the chronicler lovingly
   adds: “a disciple company.”

   We miss the main thought in Ignatius if we neglect to see that the unity
   which is his passion is primarily and fundamentally something spiritual and
   mystical. The Person of Christ is the centre round which the Church
   crystallizes. By His death on the Cross and by His Resurrection our Lord has
   elevated a standard round which His troops of believers can rally and form a
   disciplined army. [464] This sacred mystical attraction is the inward
   essence and source of that union which he has always in view. So strong is
   it that all believers may be said to have one mind, a godly concord and one
   spirit of perseverance. [465] The unity which he insists upon is first of
   all a union with Christ Jesus, and then, and arising from that, a common
   religious belief and a common affection diffused throughout all believers
   who ought to live in a harmony of love. The unity Ignatius yearns after is
   first of all a unity of faith and love. [466]

   But this unseen mystical unity ought to make itself manifest according to
   the ordinances of Jesus and of His apostles. It can make itself seen in the
   best way in the attachment of believers to the visible local church which is
   the assembly of believers for prayer, exhortation, and for the celebration
   of the Holy Supper and for baptism. Those who are truly the Lord’s, and who
   share in the invisible mystical union, cannot fail to assemble together with
   one heart and mind, nor to unite in one common prayer. Ignatius addresses
   himself more than once to men who seem to think that the Christian life can
   be lived apart from the Christian visible fellowship; [467] and he declares
   that apart from the office-bearers there is not even the name of a Church.
   [468] Christians ought to manifest this inward unity which they have in an
   external unity, which can best show itself in the manifestation of mutual
   respect for each other, in reverencing each other and in loving one another
   in Jesus Christ. [469]

   This submission which is due by all believers to each other is specially due
   to those who have been placed at the head of the Christian communities, and
   who are there to be examples to their flocks. [470] Submission to one
   another and to the office- bearers—a submission founded on love—is the
   outward manifestation of the inward mystical union which all true believers
   have with Christ, who is the true centre of the union. For Ignatius never
   loses sight of the mystical union fed by faith and love. [471]

   The real centre of this unity is God and Christ Who is God; the real
   oversight lies with Him. In his fervent Oriental way which expresses
   abstract thoughts in defective, though picturesque, material and external
   representations, Ignatius sees this Divine and invisible unity manifest in
   the bishop (or in whatever may be the visible centre of the ecclesiastical
   rule). [472] For it must not be forgotten in attempting to interpret the
   thoughts of Ignatius that he belonged to what has been called the
   “enthusiastic” age of the Church, and that he shared in an exalted degree in
   the spirit of his times. He claimed to be a prophet and to possess the
   prophetic gift. “I am in bonds,” he says, “and can comprehend heavenly
   things and the arrays of angels and the musterings of principalities, things
   visible and invisible.” [473] He describes how, when he was preaching at
   Philadelphia, the prophetic afflatus suddenly possessed him, and he felt
   compelled to cry out “with a loud voice, with God’s own voice, Give ye heed
   to the bishop and the session and the deacons.” His hearers thought that
   this had been a studied reference to persons accused of causing division in
   the Church, but Ignatius assured them that was not so. The Divine afflatus
   had possession of him, and it made him cry out: “Do nothing without the
   bishop; keep your flesh as a temple of God; cherish union; shun divisions;
   be imitators of Jesus Christ, as He Himself also was of His Father.” [474]
   With the prophetic eye he saw the invisible and mystical unity which lay
   hidden within the actual visible Christian community, and every little local
   church was a symbol of what existed in the Heavenly Places where God was the
   centre and source of unity. It is from this mystical standpoint that we must
   view the impassioned exhortations to obey the office-bearers, [475]
   remembering also that obedience to the rulers in the Church is only the
   superlative of the submission of love which all Christians owe to one
   another.

   When due allowance is made for the exaltation of the writer, and for the
   Oriental extravagance of language natural to a Syrian, the exhortations of
   Ignatius do not differ so widely from the calm injunctions issued in the
   measured language of Rome to the church of Corinth which we find in the
   Epistle of Clement: “Let us mark the soldiers that are enlisted under our
   rulers, how exactly, how readily, how submissively, they execute the orders
   given them. All are not prefects, nor commanders of thousands, nor of
   hundreds, nor of fifties, and so forth; but each man in his own rank
   executeth the orders given by the prince and the government.” [476]

   It is also to be remembered that Ignatius is writing to churches in Asia
   Minor, exposed to the temptations to division caused by the presence of men
   teaching the separative doctrines of a Judaising Christianity and of
   Doketism. The epistles themselves afford abundant evidence that these
   sources of division existed and had proved strong temptations in the
   communities to which he was writing. [477] His passionate anxiety was that
   each local church should present an unbroken front and manifest a complete
   unity. The simple means which he believed would effect this was that all
   Christians should rally round the office-bearers who were at the head of the
   little Christian societies. Most, though not all, of the churches he
   addressed had the three-fold ministry in some form or other, and he enforced
   obedience to that form of ecclesiastical rule. “There is no indication that
   he is upholding the episcopal against any other form of Church government,
   as for instance the presbyteral (i.e. the government by a college of
   presbyters without a president). The alternative which he contemplates is
   lawless isolation and self-will. No definite theory is propounded as to the
   principle on which the episcopate claims allegiance. It is as the recognized
   authority of the churches which the writer addresses, that he maintains it.
   Almost simultaneously with Ignatius, Polycarp addresses the Philippian
   Church, which appears not yet to have had a bishop, requiring its submission
   ‘to the presbyters and deacons.’ [478] If Ignatius had been writing to this
   church, he would doubtless have done the same. As it is, he is dealing with
   communities where episcopacy (the three-fold ministry) had been already
   matured, and therefore he demands obedience to their bishop.” [479] He makes
   no attempt certainly when writing to the Roman Church, which was still under
   the government of a college of presbyter-bishops without a president, to
   insist that the three-fold ministry is an essential thing to the well-being
   of a Christian community. [480] What is more, he evidently regards union
   with the college of elders as the same thing as union with the bishop; for
   he invites the malcontents at Philadelphia, who had repented, to return “to
   the unity of God and of the council of the bishop.” [481]

   We can scarcely look for a calm statement about the organization of the
   Christian churches in letters of this kind. They were the impassioned
   outpourings of a man on his way to death; full of fears, not for himself,
   but for the brethren he was leaving behind in a persecuting world. It is
   pathetic to see the fiery, impassioned words of the martyr used as missiles
   by some reckless preacher of episcopal supremacy, or subjected to the
   scalpel of a cold-blooded critic, neither of whom seem to recognize the
   Oriental extravagance of language which makes them so natural. Yet the
   letters do give us a good deal of information about our subject.

   Ignatius insists that the unity of the society has for its centre and source
   of strength the supremacy of the pastor, who is always called the bishop.
   His writings are a proof that the three-fold ministry in some form or other
   did exist, early in the second century, in some parts of the Church though
   not in others. But they are not to be taken as proof that the Ignatian
   conception of what the three-fold ministry ought to be existed in any part
   of the Church whatever. [482]

   According to the conception of Ignatius, every Christian community ought to
   have at its head a bishop, a presbyterium or session of elders, and a body
   of deacons. These constitute its office-bearers to whom, jointly and
   severally, obedience is due. Ignatius regards these three elements as going
   together to form one whole. He mentions the three classes of officials
   together twelve times in his seven epistles, and in ten out of the twelve
   they form an inseparable unity—presumably they do so also in the remaining
   two, but that is not evident from the passages themselves. [483] There is
   not a trace of sacerdotalism in the sense that the Christian ministry is a
   special priesthood set apart to offer a special sacrifice; there is a great
   deal about the sacredness of order, but not a word about the sanctity of
   orders. Ignatius only once refers to priests and high priests, and he does
   so in the thoroughly evangelical fashion of contrasting the imperfect Old
   Testament priesthood with the perfect priesthood of the Redeemer. [484] The
   bishop is not an autocrat. There is a “council of the bishop,” which
   includes the bishop himself. [485] The people are told to obey all the
   office-bearers, bishops, elders and deacons. [486] The ruling body is a
   court in which the bishop sits as chairman surrounded by his council or
   session of elders; and the one is helpless without the other, for if the
   bishop is the lyre the elders are the chords, and both are needed to produce
   melody. [487] There is no apostolic succession in any form whatsoever; even
   in the poetic conception of the disciple company it is the elders who
   represent the apostles. [488] Lastly, there is no trace of diocesan rule. We
   undoubtedly find the phrase ton episkopon Surias; but as Lightfoot and Zahn,
   to say nothing of others, have pointed out, it must be translated “the
   bishop from Syria.” A bishop of Syria would have been an anachronism in the
   fourth century, and is much more so in the second. [489] It is
   unquestionable that the bishop is made the centre of everything in the
   Church or congregation. “It is not permitted without the bishop either to
   baptize or to hold a love feast,” [490] and the love feast must include the
   Holy Supper. It is even declared that when men and women marry they should
   unite themselves with the consent of the bishop, that the marriage should be
   after the Lord and not after concupiscence. [491] But this only means that
   in such a solemn action as matrimony the blessing of the Church should be
   joined to the civil contract.

   But if there be no sacerdotalism, no apostolic succession, no one-man rule,
   and no diocese; if every Christian community is to be organized under a
   leader, who is called a bishop and some-times a pastor, who presides over a
   court of elders, [492] and has under him a body of deacons; further, if, as
   the Sources of the Apostolic Canons inform us, every small Christian
   community, even when consisting of fewer than twelve families, is to have
   its bishop, its elders and its deacons; if nothing is to be done without the
   consent of the pastor or bishop, neither sacrament nor love-feast, nor
   anything congregational—then while the resemblance to modern episcopacy,
   with its diocesan system, is but small, there is a very great amount of
   resemblance to that form of ecclesiastical organization which re-emerged at
   the Reformation and which is commonly called the presbyterian, though it
   might be more appropriately named the conciliar system of Church government.

   A more minute examination of the letters reveals some details of the
   organization of the churches which were familiar to Ignatius.

   For one thing, it seems clear that whatever the authority of the bishop may
   have been, it did not extend beyond his own church or congregation. The
   corporate unity of the Churches of Christ was still a sentiment, strongly
   felt no doubt, but not yet expressed in any kind of polity. Ignatius did not
   write as a bishop of the Catholic Church; he says expressly that he was no
   apostle. [493] He wrote as a confessor of Christ to brethren who might soon
   be required to confess Christ in the same way of threatened martyrdom. Nor
   does Polycarp claim to write as a superior to the Philippians. He wrote
   because he had been asked for advice. [494] The various churches were still
   independent units in fraternal intercourse with each other, but without any
   signs of inter-congregational jurisdiction.

   The Epistle to Polycarp show what Ignatius believed to be the duties of a
   bishop within his own community. He was the administrator of the finances of
   the Church; to him the widows and the poor of the congregation had to look
   for their support, and the funds to buy the manumission of slaves were in
   his hands; [495] he had the moral oversight of the whole congregation, and
   was therefore the president of the court of discipline; [496] he had the
   right to call, and presumably to preside over, the congregational meetings;
   [497] he had the sole regulation of the sacraments of Baptism and of the
   Holy Supper and of everything congregational. [498] But large as were the
   bishop’s powers, he had to exercise them under serious limitations. There is
   not a hint that the bishop can by himself, or even in conjunction with his
   session or elders, excommunicate an offender. The power which Ignatius urges
   Polycarp to use is only that of moral suasion. [499] It is more than
   probable that the final power in all cases of discipline lay with the
   congregational meeting, as was the case in Corinth in the time of St. Paul.
   It is the congregation who are warned against false teachers and evil-minded
   persons, and they are directed to act in certain ways with regard to them.
   [500] The passages, however, do not warrant us in drawing any distinct
   conclusion. On the other hand, it is clear that the congregational meetings
   had powers. It was they who appointed delegates and messengers. The
   Christians at Smyrna are asked directly to send a delegate into Syria,
   whereas the bishop is only asked to convene a meeting of the congregation in
   order that the messenger may be appointed; and elsewhere it is made plain
   that this power belonged to the whole Church, who could order on a mission
   their bishops as well as their elders or their deacons. [501]

   Readers who know something about the work of Church extension at home and on
   the mission field, may wonder how it was possible in these early centuries
   that the smallest bodies of Christians could have had, and were commanded to
   have, such a complete ecclesiastical organization as these Epistles of
   Ignatius and the Sources of the Apostolic Canons require, and how they could
   be at the same time so independent and self-supporting. A large part of the
   problem of ecclesiastical extension in our own days, at home and on the
   mission field, has to do with money. Churches and other buildings have to be
   erected, and a salaried ministry has to be supported. But it must be
   remembered that in those early days the ministry was not paid as we
   understand payment, and that money for buildings was not needed. Church
   buildings did not exist until the second century was drawing to a close, and
   then only in large and populous centres. The only property which the Church
   had besides its copies of the Scriptures, its congregational records and
   perhaps a place of burial, were the offerings, mostly in kind, which the
   faithful presented during the meeting for thanksgiving, and which were
   almost immediately distributed. Justin Martyr gives the earliest description
   in his Apology. “On the day called Sunday, all who live in town or country
   gather together in one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or of the
   prophets are read as long as time permits; then when the reader has ceased
   the president verbally instructs, and exhorts us to the imitation of these
   good things. Then we all stand together and pray, and, when prayer is ended,
   bread and wine are brought and the president offers prayers and
   thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen.
   Then there is a distribution to each of that over which thanks has been
   given, and a portion is sent by the deacons to those who are absent. Then
   they who are well to do and are willing, give what each thinks fit; and it
   is collected and deposited with the president, who succours orphans and
   widows and those who, through sickness or any other cause, are in want,
   those who are in bondage and the strangers sojourning among us—in a word all
   who are in need.” [502]

   The gifts so bestowed and distributed were the property of the early
   Church—all that it had. Both Justin and Tertullian insist on the fact that
   these offerings were of free-will, contrasting them, it is probable, with
   the monthly compulsory payments made by the members of confraternities; but
   this did not hinder indications being given about these offerings. We find a
   continuous series of recommendations that the first fruits of all the
   necessaries of life ought to be given. All the oldest ecclesiastical
   manuals, from the Didache downwards, contain injunctions to the people about
   these first fruits. In the Didache these offerings went to support the
   prophets, and failing them the poor of the community; and the Pastoral
   Epistles [503] mention a church roll of members who ought to share because
   of their poverty. In the quotation just made from Justin Martyr these first
   fruits are distributed among the widows, orphans, poor strangers and so on;
   Tertullian describes a similar mode of distribution; so do the Canons of
   Hippolytus, which expressly prohibit any claim on the part of the ministry
   to share. [504] In the ancient Sources of the Apostolic Canons the elders
   superintend the bishop, while he makes the distribution, [505] but in Justin
   and in the Canons of Hippolytus the full control of this distribution lies
   with the president or bishop. It is probable that the members of the
   ministry from the beginning had some share in these offerings, but not in
   the way of stipend, and only if they could be classed among the poor. The
   ancient Sources of the Apostolic Canons teach us that the pastor may share
   if need be, but not by way of stipend. Dr. Hatch has only summed up what the
   history of the whole period teaches when he says: “The funds of the
   primitive communities consisted entirely of voluntary offerings. Of these
   offerings those office-bearers whose circumstances required it were entitled
   to a share. They received such a share only on account of their poverty.
   They were, so far, in the position of the widows and orphans and helpless
   poor.” [506]

   The idea that when men are once set apart for the function of office-bearers
   in the Christian Church it becomes the duty of the Church to provide them
   with the necessaries of life does not belong to the times of primitive
   Christianity. The office-bearers of the early Church were clergy in virtue
   of their call, election, and setting apart by special prayer for sacred
   office; but they worked at trades, carried on mercantile pursuits, and were
   not separate from the laity in their every-day life. We find bishops who
   were shepherds, weavers, lawyers, shipbuilders, [507] and so on, and the
   elders and deacons were almost invariably men who were not supported by the
   churches to which they belonged. An interesting series of inscriptions was
   found on the gravestones of the cemetery of the little town of Corycus, in
   Cilicia Tracheia, records of the Christian community there. They can
   scarcely be older than the fifth, and not later than the sixth century. One
   of them marks the burial place of a master potter and another that of a
   goldsmith, both of whom were elders or presbyters of the Church there. [508]
   The power of the laity in the early Church did not depend simply on the fact
   that they chose the office-bearers and had some indefinite influence over
   councils, as some modern writers put it, [509] but on the fact that in the
   earliest times none of the office-bearers, and for many centuries few of
   them, depended upon the Church as a whole to provide them with the
   necessaries of life. They were clergy, as has been said, in virtue of their
   selection for office and of their solemn setting apart to perform clerical
   functions; but they had daily association with the laity in the workshop, on
   the farm, in the warehouse, in the law-courts, and in the market-place. They
   held what must seem to be a very anomalous position to mediaeval and modern
   episcopalians. When the ancient practice is revived, as it was by the
   Reformed Church at the Reformation, episcopalians speak disdainfully of
   lay-elders and lay-deacons, as if an ecclesiastical stipend and not
   consecration by prayer and the laying on or giving of hands were the true
   and essential mark of ordination. But the practice had its value in the
   early centuries and has its importance now. It knit clergy and laity
   together in a very simple and thorough fashion, and brought men, whose life
   and callings made them feel as laymen do, within the circle of the hierarchy
   which ruled, and so prevented the hierarchy degenerating into a clerical
   caste.

   During the last decades of the second and throughout the third century the
   conception of Ignatius, to him perhaps only a devout dream, [510] dominated
   the whole Church, or at least a great part of it. Every Christian community
   had at its head a single president who is almost always called the bishop.
   He presided over the session of elders, over the body of deacons, and over
   the congregation. The whole Christian activity of the community found its
   centre in him, as it does in presbyterian congregations in the present day.
   He presided over the public worship in all its parts; had chief charge of
   the sick and of the sinful; he was over the discipline and over the
   administration of the property of the community whatever that happened to
   be. This was his position as a matter of fact. On the other hand, his
   position theoretically was by no means so unique. There is many a trace in
   the ancient canons, as we shall afterwards see, that the bishop was only
   primus inter pares in the session of elders, and that he was distinguished
   from them by two things only—a special seat in the church and the power to
   ordain elders and deacons. The practice made him the centre of the whole
   congregational life and the ruler; the theory recalled the earlier days when
   every congregation was governed by a council of elders who had no president.
   We find the theory in such law-books as the Canons of Hippolytus; [511] it
   was repeated by Jerome; it never lacked supporters during the Middle Ages,
   of whom Thomas Aquinas was one; it re-emerged at the Reformation when the
   Reformed Church revived the ecclesiastical organization of the early
   centuries; and the same difference between theory and practice exists among
   the Reformed Churches in the present day.

   The great change in the ministry which we have seen evolving itself in the
   three documents selected, and which belonged to the second and third
   centuries, was that the ruling body in every congregation changed from being
   a session of elders without a president and became a session with a
   president. The president, sometimes called the pastor, but usually the
   bishop, became gradually the centre of all the ecclesiastical life of the
   local Christian church and the one potent office-bearer. We have now to ask
   how this came about. In answer one thing only can be asserted with
   confidence. The change came gradually. It provoked no great opposition. It
   was everywhere, or almost everywhere, accepted. But when we seek for the
   causes that produced the change, or ask what were the paths along which the
   change manifested itself—then we can only give conjectural answers.

   Probably the main impulse came from the pressure of temptation—intellectual
   and moral—and persecution, and the feeling that resistance to both would be
   strengthened by a more thorough unity than could be attained under the
   leadership of a number of men who had no individual head. One man can take a
   firmer grip of things. Divided responsibility continually means varying
   counsels. What is the business of many is often the work of none. A divided
   leadership continually brings with it fickle and impotent action. The need
   for an undivided front in time of danger was what inspired Ignatius, when,
   with the eye of a statesman and the fire of a prophet, he pleaded for the
   union of the congregation under one leader. The circumstances of the times
   and the voices of those who led in the movement, all suggest that the
   supreme need of the moment was unity; and that unity could be best won and
   maintained by the change which was made.

   The paths along which the change progressed probably differed in various
   places. It is quite unnecessary to suppose that the process was everywhere
   the same. It is much more natural that there should have been several at
   work simultaneously. Differences in racial temperament and in experience in
   the art of governing; greater or less exposure to the disruptive influences
   of strange teaching; more or less capacity to endure temptations;
   differences in local environment and in inherited political usages, might
   easily produce different modes in the evolution of the ecclesiastical
   organization. Dr. Lightfoot has shown, with his usual careful minuteness,
   how the three-fold ministry came into being much sooner in some parts of the
   Empire than others, and that it appeared first in Asia Minor, [512] which
   differed in the fact that it was more exposed to the divisive influences of
   strange teachings, and that the people had been long accustomed to the rule
   of one man in secular affairs. It well may be imagined that the different
   social surroundings which belonged to Rome, to the cities of Greece, and to
   Asia Minor, bred different ecclesiastical conditions, which led to the
   selection of differing paths in the development of the ecclesiastical
   organizations.

   Professor Ramsay has suggested, ingeniously, one way in which the change may
   have come. His idea is that any member of the session of presbyters or
   elders became an episcopus or overseer when he was given the oversight of
   any special duty by his brethren. The episcopus who did his work well would
   naturally continue to do it, and the tendency was for his function to become
   permanent. One of the most important duties which fell to the college of
   elders was correspondence with other Christian churches and the reception
   and entertainment of the delegates who came from other churches to visit
   them. The elder who had the oversight of, or was the episcopus for this
   work, naturally became a very important man. He was the representative of
   his own church to all Christians outside it. He might easily come to
   represent the unity of the Church to those who also were inside it, more
   especially as he was the official who would naturally be selected to hold
   the property of the congregation when it became possessed of a place of
   burial. Thus he came to stand forth from among the other elders as the
   episcopus par excellence. Thus gradually one of the presbyters or elders
   became the episcopus for everything within the community, and the session of
   elders received its permanent head. [513] There is a great deal to be said
   for this conjecture. For one thing, there is evidence that the appointment
   of one of the elders to look after the communications with other churches
   was actually a custom; [514] for another it gives a reasonable explanation
   of those lists of bishops in various churches dating back to times when all
   the evidence shows that there was no real permanent president in existence.
   They are the lists of the men who, being the foreign correspondents,
   represented the unity of their respective churches to all Christians
   outside, and were therefore regarded as the most prominent members.

   It is also probable that the celebration of the Holy Supper suggested one
   permanent president. It is easy to conceive how the meeting for
   “exhortation” could be conducted by a session of elders, but it is very
   difficult to imagine a collegiate superintendence of the meeting for
   “thanksgiving.” Did the members of the session of presbyter-bishops or
   elders take it in turn to preside, or in what way was it done? We do not
   know. But we do know that in the second century there was one official who
   presided at the Lord’s Supper, and that he, the proestōs or president of
   Justin Martyr, [515] is clearly the anticipation of the later bishop. There
   was evidently some close connexion in thought between the one bishop and the
   unity of the congregation or church at the Holy Supper. One bishop, one
   place of celebration (thusiastērion) and one Eucharist are almost equivalent
   terms in Ignatius. This thought would lead us to imagine that the episcopus
   was the presbyter or elder selected by his brethren to preside at the
   Eucharist, and that he was bishop while he was so presiding. [516] The
   presbyter who had a special gift for this sacred work would naturally be
   frequently called to undertake it, and the duty might easily become a
   permanent one. In the Sources of the Apostolic Canons it is the bishop or
   pastor who presides at the Holy Communion, although he is under the
   disciplinary authority of the elders.

   It may also be said that the need for one authority in doctrinal matters led
   to the selection of one man, and to placing on him the responsibility of
   seeing that the members of the congregation were not tempted away from the
   true faith by irresponsible teachers, who offered themselves to instruct the
   community. This conception, as we shall see later, was developed in a
   special way with reference to the office-bearer by Irenaeus, and some
   critics see it foreshadowed in the letters of Ignatius.

   No one way needs to be selected as the only path by which the organization
   advanced, and the college of elders received a president who was the
   permanent head of the community, and the living and personal representative
   of its unity. They might all have their effect and that simultaneously.

   It must always be remembered that the duty of presiding at the Holy Supper,
   which is invariably seen to belong to the bishop as soon as he emerges from
   the college of presbyters or elders, brought with it the control over the
   gifts of the faithful which were presented after the Eucharistic service,
   and formed for long the only property of the congregation. If we add to this
   that the presbyter or elder chosen for this highest portion of the worship
   was frequently a man possessed of the prophetic gift as Ignatius was,
   additional reverence and obedience would not fail to be bestowed upon him;
   and we can see how the old reverence for the “prophetic ministry” could
   easily be transferred to the new authority.

   Whatever paths led to the change in the ministry whereby the rule was
   transferred from a college of elders without a president to a college with a
   president, when once the change was made the power of the episcopus grew
   rapidly; and one source of this increase of authority lay in the fact that
   he was always the administrator of the property of the local church.

   Without any apostolic sanction, in virtue of the power lying within the
   community and given to it by the Master, the Church of the second century
   effected a change in its ministry quite as radical, if not more so, as that
   made by the Reformed Church in the sixteenth century, when it swept away
   mediaeval excrescences, restored the bishops to their ancient position of
   pastors of congregations, and vested the power of oversight in councils of
   greater and lesser spheres of authority. What was within the power of the
   Christian people of the second century belongs to it always when
   providential circumstances seem to demand a change in the organization, for
   the ministry depends on the Church and not the Church on the ministry.
     _________________________________________________________________

   [416] Ritschl’s idea that the dissensions in the Church in Rome witnessed to
   in the Pastor of Hermas arose from the attempt to force on this change finds
   little acceptance. Compare Ritschl, Die Entstehung der altkatholischen
   Kirche (1857), pp. 403, 535.

   [417] The Presbyterian or Conciliar system of Church government is as much a
   three-fold ministry as episcopacy.

   [418] My own opinion inclines to the following dates: The Epistles of
   Ignatius, about 116 A.D.; the Didache, not earlier than 135 A.D.; the
   Sources of the Apostolic Canons, between 140-180 A.D. Compare note on next
   page.

   [419] In the Ignatian Epistles the bishop, elders and deacons are named
   together twelve times: Magn. ii. vi., xiii.; Trall. vii.; Philad. pref.,
   iv., vii.; Smyrn. viii., xii.; Polyc. vi.; Trall. ii.; Philad. x.; and, in
   the first ten at least, the three classes of office-bearers form an
   inseparable unity.

   [420] The manuscript of the Didache was discovered in 1873 in the library of
   the monastery of the Holy Sepulchre in the Phanar or Greek quarter of
   Constantinople by Philotheus Bryennios, Patriarch of Nicomedia. It was
   published by him in 1883. It is now known by numerous editions. Of these by
   far the best comes from the pen of Professor Harnack of Berlin, and it is to
   that edition that the references in the notes here are made. It is difficult
   to say what country gave birth to this manual. The external evidence is all
   in favour of Egypt; and Harnack and Lightfoot conclude that it came from
   that land. The only evidence worth mentioning which seems to invalidate this
   conclusion is the sentence in the eucharistic prayer:—“Just as this broken
   bread was scattered over the hills and having been gathered together became
   one, so let Thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into
   Thy kingdom”—words which cannot refer to Egypt but which might appropriately
   describe the corn of the Lebanon or the regions beyond the Jordan. But there
   is no reason why the eucharistic prayer might not come from Palestine and be
   received into the Churches of Egypt. The external evidence proves the use
   and the knowledge of the manual in Egypt, and the internal, with the
   exception of the sentence quoted, confirms the idea. A few Anglican scholars
   have done their best to minimise the value of the book and its evidence. A
   good example of this depreciation is to be found in Bishop Gore’s The
   Ministry of the Christian Church (1893), 3rd ed., App. L. p. 410. It is very
   difficult to determine the date. The Didache quotes the Epistle of Barnabas
   and is quoted by Clement of Alexandria, and the date assigned is practically
   determined by the date fixed for the Epistle of Barnabas. The probable date
   of this epistle depends on whether the events referred to in the sixteenth
   section describe the condition of things in the time of Domitian or of
   Hadrian. Personally I am inclined to think that the references in the
   Epistle of Barnabas are to the later period. If this be the case it is
   scarcely possible to place the Didache earlier than 135 A.D., i.e. later
   than the Ignatian letters. The majority of scholars place it very much
   earlier. The commonest date is about 100 A.D.—Wordsworth, Hitchcock and
   Brown, Spence, Bonwetsch, Massebieau; a few place it earlier—Funk and
   Loening, between 80 and 100 A.D.. Zahn dates it 80-120 and more exactly
   about 110 A.D.; Bryennios, its first editor, gives 120-130, and Harnack
   130-160 A.D. as the probable date. Hilgenfeld, who finds traces of Montanism
   in the writing, places it later than 160. For our purposes an exact
   determination of date is unnecessary; all that we have to deal with is that
   the Didache describes the condition of a Christian organization some time
   between the Epistles of S. Paul and the third century.

   [421] Apology 39; elsewhere (De Praescrip. 20) he speaks of the
   contesseratio hospitalitatis which linked all Christians together.

   [422] Compare 2 Cor. iii. 1. These commendatory letters became the rule at a
   later period in the Christian Church. Compare Smith’s Dictionary of
   Christian Antiquities, I. 407.

   [423] Chapter xii.

   [424] Peregrinus Proteus, 13.

   [425] In Justin Martyr’s Apology it is the president (proestōs) who succours
   strangers and travellers: Apology, i. 67.

   [426] “Now concerning baptism, thus baptize ye : having first uttered all
   these things (i.e. the instructions given in cc. i.-vi.), baptize into the
   name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost in living (running)
   water. But if thou hast not living, baptize in other water: and if thou
   canst not in cold then in warm. But if thou hast neither, pour water thrice
   upon the head unto the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. But
   before the baptism let the baptizer and the baptized fast and whatever
   others can; but the baptized thou shalt command to fast for one or two days
   before,” c. vii.

   [427] “But permit the prophets to give thanks as much as they will,” x. 7.

   [428] “Every first fruit . . . thou shalt take and give to the prophets; for
   they are your high-priests,” xiii. 3.

   [429] “Every first fruit then of the produce of the wine-press and of the
   threshing-floor, of oxen and of sheep, thou shalt take and give to the
   prophets. . . . If thou bakest a baking of bread, take the first of it and
   give according to the commandment. In like manner when thou openest a jar of
   wine or oil, take the first of it and give to the prophets; and of money and
   clothing and every possession take the first, as may seem good unto thee,
   and give according to the commandment,” xiii. 3-7.

   [430] xi.

   [431] “But every true prophet who will settle among you is worthy of his
   support. Likewise a true teacher, he also is worthy, like the workman, of
   his support”; xiii. 1, 2.

   [432] xiv. 1-2; xv. 1, 2.

   [433] 1 Cor. vi. 5.

   [434] “They render you the service of the prophets and teachers. Therefore
   neglect them not; for they are your honoured ones along with the prophets
   and the teachers”: xv. 1, 2. This passage is rightly regarded by Harnack,
   and in this Sanday follows him, as of the utmost importance to enable us to
   trace the development of the Christian ministry in the primitive Church. It
   must be referred to later. It is sufficient to say here that we see the
   change taking place whereby the ministry of the local Church secured the
   place at an earlier period possessed by the prophetic ministry. Compare
   Harnack’s edition of the Didache in Texte und Untersuchungen, II. i. 58
   note; ii. 140 ff.; Sanday, Expositor (1887), Jan.-June, p. 14 ff. The word
   timē was specially used to denote the respect due to spiritual guides
   (compare Harnack’s note for references); it is a question whether the
   “honoured ones” are also those who “receive an honorarium” (for the Greek
   word has the double reference); the prophets and teachers received the
   firstfruits in preference to the poor. Did the bishops and deacons who are
   placed among the honoured spiritual guides partake of these first fruits
   also? The Didache does not answer the question.

   [435] In the Epistle of Clement we find that the congregation is the supreme
   authority; the letter is addressed to the whole Church:—“To the Church which
   sojourneth in Corinth” (preface); the evil-doers are urged to do “what is
   ordered by the people” (liv. 2). The office-bearers are a number of
   presbyter-bishops and deacons (compare above pp. 159 ff.). The epistle says
   little or nothing about a “prophetic ministry” but that is not to be
   wondered at as it was written for a definite purpose which had nothing to do
   with the question. In Hermas we have the same organization and the distinct
   traces of prophets and their ministry.

   [436] A summary of the critical history of the Apostolic Canons (to be
   distinguished from the Apostolic Constitutions) will be found in Harnack’s
   edition of the Didache (Texte und Untersuchungen, II. ii. p. 193-209)
   followed by Harnack’s critical reconstruction based on the discovery of the
   Didache (pp. 209-25), and lastly the full text of the canons (pp. 225-37),
   tables and summary (pp. 237-41). According to generally accepted critical
   opinions the compiler of the Canons used four sources, the Epistle of
   Barnabas, the Didache (or more probably an abridgement of the Didache), and
   two fragments from an old ecclesiastical law-book. It is with these
   fragments that we have now to do, or rather with the first of them. Harnack
   dates it at some time between 140 and 180 A.D. These fragments, with
   commentary and excursus, have been published by Harnack in the Texte und
   Untersuchungen, II. v. Professor Sanday appears to agree with Professor
   Harnack about these fragments: Expositor (1887), Jan.-June, pp. 20, 21, 106.
   Harnack’s edition of the Sources has been translated into English by L. A.
   Wheatley under the title Sources of the Apostolic Canons (1895).

   [437] “If there are few men, and not twelve persons who are competent to
   vote at the election of a bishop, the neighbouring Churches should be
   written to, where any of them is a settled one, in order that three selected
   men may come thence and examine carefully if he is worthy.” Sources of the
   Apostolic Canons, pp. 7, 8. (Here and elsewhere I quote from the English
   translation of Harnack’s edition in the Texte und Untersuchungen, II. v.)

   [438] The word episkopos occurs in i. 4, 22; ii. 15, 19; and poimēn in ii.
   18.

   [439] The phrase is eklektoi treis andres. Various parallels may be found to
   the employment of three chosen men to conduct together work requiring tact
   and experience. The most obvious is the mission of the three men Claudius
   Ephebus, Valerius Bito and Fortunatus to Corinth from Rome (1 Clem. lxiii.
   1). Harnack finds in the three men selected to assist the small congregation
   in the selection of a bishop the anticipation of the much later rule that
   the consecration of a bishop required the presence and co-operation of the
   three neighbouring bishops. He finds a middle point in the fact evidenced by
   the letter of Cornelius of Rome to Fabius of Antioch (Euseb. Hist. Eccl.
   VI., xliii. 8, 9) that by the middle of the third century it was the custom
   that bishops were consecrated by three neighbouring bishops (Sources of the
   Apostolic Canons (1895), pp. 36 ff.). This afterwards became the law and is
   found in canons of many councils (the Council of Arles in its twentieth
   canon being the first). Hence comes the saying “All Christendom becomes
   presbyterian on a consecration day.” It is evident from the continual
   repetition of the law that the Churches found it somewhat difficult to
   enforce their regulation.

   [440] The qualifications are divided into two classes those indispensable
   and those desirable. “That is if he has a good report among the heathen, if
   he is faultless, if a friend of the poor, if honourable—no drunkard no
   adulterer, not covetous nor a slanderer, nor partial or such like” (i.
   10-15). These are the necessary qualifications. Then follow the desirable:
   “It is good if he is unmarried; if not then a man of one wife; educated, in
   a position to expound the scriptures; but if he is unlearned, then he must
   be gentle and filled with love to all, so that a bishop should never be as
   one accused of anything by the multitude “ (i. 10-23); Sources of the
   Apostolic Canons, pp. 8-10.

   [441] “Hence the presbyters must be already advanced in life, abstaining
   becomingly from communication with women, willingly sharing with the
   brotherhood, not having regard to the person, companions in consecration
   with the bishop (summustas tou episkopou), and fighting on his side,
   collecting the congregation together, kindly disposed towards the pastor.
   The elders on the right should look after the bishops at the altar, in order
   that they may distribute the gifts and themselves receive the necessary
   contributions (hopōs timēsōsi kai entimēthōsin, eis ho an deē). The elders
   on the left shall look after the congregation in order that it may be at
   rest and without disturbance, after that it has been first proved in all
   submission. But if one who is admonished should answer rudely; those at the
   altar should unite and condemn such an one to the punishment deserved by a
   general resolution, so that the others may be in awe, in order that they
   (the elders) look not at the person of any one, and that it may not spread
   as a cancer and be taken up by every one “ (ii.).

   [442] The phrase is tropō tini apechomenous tēs pros gunaikas suneleuseōs.

   [443] The relation of the elders to the bishops is expressed by the word
   pronoēsontai; this has been translated in the English version “shall
   assist,” which cannot be right, for the same word is used to express the
   relation of the elders to the people, and it is evident that the power of
   discipline is meant (ii. 19, 23).

   [444] “They shall be approved in every service, with a good testimony from
   the congregation, husbands of one wife, educating their children,
   honourable, gentle, quiet, not murmuring, not double-tongued, not quickly
   angry, not looking on the person of the rich, also not oppressing the poor,
   also not given to much wine, intelligent, encouraging well to secret works,
   while they compel those among the brethren who have much to open their
   hands, also themselves generous, communicative, honoured with all honour and
   esteem and fear by the congregation, carefully giving heed to those who walk
   disorderly, warning the one, exhorting the other, threatening a third, but
   leaving the scoffers completely to themselves” (iv.). Sources of the
   Apostolic Canons, pp. 17-19.

   [445] “Three widows shall be appointed, two to persevere in prayer for all
   those who are in temptation, and for the reception of revelations where such
   are necessary; but one to assist the women visited with sickness. She must
   be ready for service, discreet, communicating what is necessary to the
   elders, not avaricious, not given to much love of wine, so that she may be
   sober and capable of performing the night services and other loving services
   if she will; for these are the chief good treasures of the. Lord” (v.),
   Sources of the Apostolic Canons, pp. 19-21.

   [446] Compare Polycarp, Epistle to the Philippians, 4; in the Canons of
   Hippolytus (ix. 59) widows are to be highly honoured because of their
   copiosas orationes et infirmorum curam. In Apostolic Constitutions, iii. 12,
   13, it is said: “For it becomes widows when they see that one of their
   fellow widows is clothed by any one or receives money or meat or drink or
   shoes, at the sight of the refreshment of their sister to say: Thou art
   blessed O God, who hast refreshed my fellow widow. Bless O Lord, and glorify
   him that has bestowed these things upon her, and let his good work ascend in
   truth unto Thee and remember him for good in the day of his visitation.”
   Compare Apost. Constit. iii. 5, 7.

   [447] Apostolic Constitutions, ii. 57; cf. Sources of the Apostolic Canons,
   ii. 15: the same word sunathroizein being used in both as the technical term
   to summon to Church.

   [448] Apostolic Constitutions. iii. 19 orders the deacons and deaconesses:
   “Tell your Bishop of all those that are in affliction; for you ought to be
   like his soul and senses.” Sources of the Apostolic Canons, v. 8, 9, directs
   the Widows to “communicate what is necessary to the presbyters or elders.”
   In the Canons of Hippolytus, c. 5, the deacons are ordered to report to the
   bishop. Of. Riedel, Die Kirchenrechtsquellen des Patriarchate Alexandrien
   (1900), p. 203.

   [449] Apostolic Constitutions, ii. 25, 35, make it plain that the bishop was
   accountable to no one but God in his duty as almoner. The bishop is thus
   addressed: “Let him use those tenths and first fruits, which are given
   according to the command of God, as a man of God; as also let him dispense
   in a right manner the free-will offerings which are brought on account of
   the poor, to the orphans . . . as having that God for the examiner of his
   accounts who has committed the disposition to him” (ii. 25). And in the
   thirty-fifth section the people are enjoined: “Thou shalt not call the
   bishop to account nor watch his administration, how he does it, when or to
   whom, or where, or whether he does it well or ill or indifferently; for he
   has One who will call him to account, the Lord God.”

   [450] To the Ephesians, 1.

   [451] To the Romans, 5.

   [452] The letters of Ignatius were generally known during the later Middle
   Ages in the form of seventeen epistles, of which fifteen were believed to
   come from the pen of Ignatius while two (one from the Virgin and another
   from a Mary of Cassobola) were addressed to Ignatius. Renascence criticism
   disposed of the claims of four of these letters. There remained thirteen,
   twelve from the pen of Ignatius and one (from Mary of Cassobola) addressed
   to him. This collection is now known as the Long Recension, and it was this
   collection which was the subject of fierce controversy in the end of the
   sixteenth and during the seventeenth century. At the basis of these attacks
   made on the genuineness of these letters lay two facts: that Eusebius knew
   of seven letters only and that these thirteen contained passages evidently
   unknown to Eusebius or to any of the ancients. The learned Englishman,
   Ussher, afterwards archbishop of Armagh and primate of all Ireland, observed
   that the quotations made from Ignatius by some English writers from the
   thirteenth century onwards corresponded with those found in Eusebius,
   Theodoret, etc., and concluded that there must exist in England a manuscript
   which would represent the Ignatius known to the ancients. After a prolonged
   search two such manuscripts were brought to light, both of them in Latin.
   They contained seven letters but in a form shorter than the generally
   received letters. Ussher accepted six of these shorter letters as the
   genuine epistles of Ignatius (he refused to accept the letter to Polycarp).
   His book was published in 1644. Soon afterwards (1646) Isaac Voss published
   six letters from a Greek MS.—his MS. did not give the Epistle to the Romans;
   and in 1689 the full Greek text of the seven letters was published by
   Ruinart. It was generally admitted that, if any genuine letters of Ignatius
   had descended to the present time, they were these seven in the shorter
   form; but many critics still refuse to admit the genuineness of any of the
   letters. The controversy was raised again in 1845 by the publication of
   Cureton’s Ancient Syriac Version of the Epistles of S. Ignatius to S.
   Polycarp, the Ephesians and the Romans. The author had found two Syriac MSS.
   in the library of the British Museum containing the three epistles mentioned
   in his title and in a still shorter form than those published by Ussher. He
   maintained that these three short letters were the genuine remains of
   Ignatius. He defended his position in a second work, Vindiciae Ignatianae
   (1846), and in his most complete treatise, Corpus Ignatianum (1849). His
   views at once attracted attention and were very largely adopted, though many
   distinguished scholars still defended the seven letters, while others
   refused to accept even Cureton’s three in the brief form. This controversy
   was almost ended by Zahn, who, in his Ignatius von Antioch (1873), showed
   very successfully that Cureton’s three Syriac letters were epitomes of the
   three in what were called the Short Recension. This opinion was supported by
   the late Dr. Lightfoot’s elaborate work, Apostolic Fathers, part II., S.
   Ignatius, S. Polycarp (1885). The result of these two works has been that in
   Germany, France and England the seven letters, in the shorter form published
   by Ruinart in 1689, are generally accepted as the genuine remains of
   Ignatius. Many critics still refuse to accept the letters in any form as
   genuine, but their criticism is mainly of the subjective and unconvincing
   kind. The only writer whose book deserves serious consideration and who
   dissents from the conclusions of Zahn and Lightfoot is Bruston, who, in his
   Ignace d’Antioche (1897), refuses to admit the genuineness of the Epistle to
   the Romans and combines his critical opinions with the theory that Ignatius
   was not the Bishop of Antioch but a deacon in the Church there. Many
   scholars are of the opinion that the letters of Ignatius were known to
   Lucian and that he used his knowledge in writing his story De Morte
   Peregrini. They think that the imprisonment of Peregrinus, the visits paid
   to him by delegates from the Churches of Asia Minor, and the letters written
   by him to the Churches which were received with reverence, were all
   incidents suggested by the letters of Ignatius. The idea seems to me
   somewhat far-fetched; the points which Lucian seizes and makes use of may
   easily have been suggested by a general observation of usages common to
   early Christianity and need not be attached to any particular person however
   famous; but compare Lightfoot, S. Ignatius, S. Polycarp, i. pp. 331 ff.

   [453] To the Ephesians, 7.

   [454] Ibid. 19.

   [455] To the Ephesians, 4; To the Philadelphians, 1; To Polycarp, 1, 2; To
   the Romans, 4.

   [456] To the Ephesians, 9.

   [457] Ibid. 14.

   [458] Compare especially the Epistle to the Philadelphians, 7:—

   Chōris tou episkopou mēden poieite;

   Tēn sarka humōn hōs naon Theou tēreite;

   Tēn henōsin agapate;

   Tous merismous pheugete;

   Mimētai ginesthe Iēsou Christou;

   Hōs kai autos tou patros autou.
   Ignatius had evidently visited Philadelphia and had addressed the brethren
   there, and in his address he had felt the prophetic afflatus, had
   interrupted himself with a loud cry, and these sentences were part of what
   he had said. They are an example of the prophetic utterances.

   [459] As where he says:—“These men ye ought to shun as wild beasts for they
   are mad dogs, biting by stealth,” To the Ephesians, 7.

   [460] To the Magnesians, 1.

   [461] To Polycarp, 2.

   [462] To the Ephesians, 6.

   [463] To the Magnesians, 6; To the Trallians, 2, 3; To the Smyrnaeans, 8.

   [464] To the Smyrnaeans, 1:—“Truly nailed up in the flesh for our sakes
   under Pontius Pilate and Herod the Tetrarch . . . that He might set up a
   standard unto all ages through His resurrection, for His saints, whether
   among Jews or among Gentiles, in one body of His Church.”

   [465] To the Magnesians, 7, 15:—“But let there be one prayer in common, one
   supplication, one mind (nous), one hope, in love and in joy unblamable which
   is in Jesus Christ. . . . Fare ye well in godly concord, and possess ye a
   stedfast spirit which is in Jesus Christ.”

   [466] “Run in harmony with the mind of God” (Ephesians, 3); “In your concord
   and harmonious love Jesus Christ is sung; do ye, each and all of you, form
   yourselves into a chorus, that being harmonious in concord and taking the
   key-note of God ye may in union sing with one voice through Jesus Christ to
   our Father” (Ephesians, 4); cf. To the Magnesians, 1.

   [467] To the Ephesians, 5, 13, 20; To the Magnesians, 7.

   [468] To the Trallians, 3.

   [469] “Therefore do ye all study conformity to God, and pay reverence one to
   another” (Magnesians, 6). “Attempt not to think anything right for
   yourselves apart from others” (Magnesians, 7). “Be obedient to the bishop
   and to one another” (Magnesians, 13).

   [470] “Let there be nothing among you which shall have power to divide you,
   but be ye united with the bishop and with them that preside over you as an
   example and a lesson of incorruptibility” (Magnesians, 6). The office
   bearers in this sentence are called prokathēmenoi, which may be compared
   with the proistamenoi of the Epistle to the Romans and to the Thessalonians.

   [471] He calls a church to polueutakton tēs kata Theon agapēs (Magnesians,
   1).

   [472] “Give place to him (the bishop) as to one prudent in God; yet not to
   him, but to the Father of Jesus Christ, even to the Bishop of all. . . . For
   a man doth not so much deceive this bishop who is seen, as cheat the other
   Who is invisible” (Magnesians, 3).

   [473] To the Trallians, 5.

   [474] To the Philiadelphians, 7.

   [475] “The bishops established in the furthest parts of the world are in the
   counsels of Jesus Christ” (Ephesians, 3). “Every one whom the Master of the
   House sendeth to govern His own household we ought to receive, as Him that
   sent him. Clearly therefore we ought to regard the bishop as the Lord
   Himself” (Ephesians, 6). Those who “obey the bishop as Jesus Christ” live a
   life after Christ” (Trallians, 2). “It is good to know God and the bishop;
   he that honoureth the bishop is honoured of God; he that doeth anything
   without the knowledge of the bishop serveth the devil” (Smyrneans, 9). To
   obey the bishop is to obey “not him, but the Father of Jesus Christ, even
   the Bishop of all,” while to practise hypocrisy towards the bishop is “not
   to deceive the visibly one, so much as to cheat the One who is invisible”
   (Magnesians, 3). “As many as are of God and of Jesus Christ, are with the
   bishop” (Philadelphians, 3). Compare Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, S.
   Ignatius, S. Polycarp, i. 375 f.; Commentary on the Epistle to the
   Philippians (1881), 6th ed. pp. 236, 237), for a complete list of passages.
   Almost equally strong language about obedience to elders or presbyters and
   deacons will be found on the same pages.

   [476] Clement, 1 Epistle xxxvii.

   [477] “But I have learned that certain persons passed through you from
   yonder, bringing evil doctrine” (Ephesians, 9); “It is better to keep
   silence and to be, than to talk and be not” (Ephesians, 15). “It is
   monstrous to talk of Jesus Christ and to practise Judaism. . . . I would
   have you be on guard betimes, that ye fall not into the snares of vain
   doctrines” (Magnesians, 10-11); compare the Epistle to the Trallians, 6-11,
   where the brethren are warned against Doketism; the Epistle to the
   Philadelphians, 6, where the warning is against Judaism; and the Epistle to
   the Smyrneans, 5-7, where the error is Doketism.

   [478] Compare Réville, Les Origines de l’Episcopat (1894), p. 497 f.

   [479] Lightfoot, S. Ignatius, S. Polycarp, i. 382.

   [480] The three-fold ministry developed much more slowly in Rome than in
   Asia Minor. Compare Lightfoot. Commentary on the Epistle to the Philippians
   (1881), 6th ed. p. 217 ff.; Réville, Les Origins de l’Episcopat (1894), p.
   420 ff.

   [481] Epistle to the Philadelphians, 8.

   [482] In some form or other or in some stage of its growth. Lightfoot has
   drawn a distinction between chief over the presbyters and chief of the
   presbyters, and the second phrase, he says, suits very well the beginning of
   the Epistle of Polycarp:—“Polycarp and the presbyters that are with him.”
   Then there is the form given in the Sources of the Apostolic Canons, cf.
   above pp. 183 f.

   [483] To the Magnesians, 2, 6, 13; To the Trallians, 7; To the
   Philadelphians, preface, 4, 7; To the Smyrnaeans, 8, 12; To Polycarp, 6; To
   the Trallians, 2; To the Philadelphians, 10. Compare Réville, Les Origines
   de 1’Episcopat (1894), p. 496:—L’exaltation du pouvoir épiscopal qui se
   donne libre tours à travers les Épîtres d’Ignace fait trop souvent perdre de
   vue aux commenteurs cette intime association de 1’autorité presbytérale et
   de 1’autorité épiscopale, qu’un examen plus attentif dégage très
   clairement.”

   [484] To the Philadelphians, 8, 9. Compare Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, S.
   Ignatius, S. Polycarp (1885), i. 381, 382; ii. 274, 275. Zahn, Ignatii et
   Polycarpi Epistulae (1876), p. 79.

   [485] To the Philadelphians, 8. Compare Lightfoot, S. Ignatius, i. 380; ii.
   269.

   [486] Obey the bishop:—Ephesians, 6; Trallians, 2; Smyrnaeans, 8, 9;
   Magnesians, 3, 4; Polycarp. 4, 6; Philadelphians, 7. Obey the
   elders:—Ephesians, 2, 20; Magnesians, 2, 7; Trallians, 13. Obey the deacons:
   Polycarp, 6,; Magnesians, 6; Trallians, 3; Philadelphians, 7; Smyrnaeans, 8.

   [487] To the Ephesians, 4.

   [488] “It is worthy of notice that though the form of government in these
   Asian Churches is in some sense monarchical, yet it is very far from being
   autocratic. We have already seen that in one passage the writer in the term
   ‘council of the bishop’ includes the bishop himself as well as his
   presbyters. This expression tells its own tale. Elsewhere submission is
   required to the presbyters as well as to the bishop. Nay sometimes the
   writer enjoins obedience to the deacons as well as to the bishop and to the
   presbyters. The ‘presbytery’ is a ‘worthy spiritual coronal’ (axioplokou
   pneumatikou stephanou) round the bishop (Magn. 13). It is the duty of every
   one, but especially of the presbyters ‘to refresh the bishop unto the honour
   of the Father and of Jesus Christ and of the apostles’ (Trall. 12). They
   stand in the same relation to him ‘as the chords to the lyre’ (Ephes. 4). If
   obedience is due to the bishop as to the grace of God, it is due to the
   presbytery as to the law of Jesus Christ (Magn. 2). If the bishop ocupies
   the place of God or of Jesus Christ, the presbyters are as the Apostles, as
   the council of God (Magn. 6; Trall. 2, 3; Smyr. 8). This last comparison
   alone would show how widely the idea of the episcopate differed from the
   later conception, when it had been formulated in the doctrine of the
   Apostolic succession. The presbyters, not the bishops, are here the
   successors of the apostles.” Lightfoot, S. Ignatius, i. pp. 382, 383.

   [489] Lightfoot, S. Ignatius, i. 383; ii. 201, 202; Zahn, Ignatii Epistulae,
   p. 59 n.; and his Ignatius von Antioch, p. 308.

   [490] To the Smyrnaeans, 8.

   [491] To Polycarp, 5.

   [492] The presbuterion or court of elders, i.e. kirk-session, is mentioned
   frequently by Ignatius:—To the Ephesians, 2, 4, 20; To the Magnesians, 2,
   13; To the Trallians, 2, 7, 13; To the Philadelphians, 4, 7; To the
   Smyrnaeans, 8, 12. It is called the “council of God” in the Epistle to the
   Trallians, 3 (sunedrion theou).

   [493] “I did not think myself competent for this (writing more sharply),
   that being a convict I should order you as though I were an apostle” (To the
   Trallians, 3). Throughout the letters there are constant references to his
   impending martyrdom.

   [494] Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians, 3.

   [495] To Polycarp, 4.

   [496] To Polycarp, 3, 5.

   [497] To Polycarp, 4; Ignatius evidently thought that Polycarp did not hold
   congregational meetings often enough:—“Let the meetings be held more
   frequently.” It is interesting to notice that all the duties which Ignatius
   supposes to belong to the bishops in the Church at Smyrna are supposed by
   Polycarp to belong to the elders in the Church at Philippi; with the
   exception of presiding at public worship, which is not mentioned; Polycarp,
   Epistle to the Philippians. 6-12

   [498] To the Smyrnaeans, 3, for the bishop's duties with regard to the
   eucharist, baptism, and the love-feasts; To Polycarp, 5, with regard to
   marriage. Yet the advice to meet more frequently for the eucharistic service
   is given to the Ephesian community (Ephesians, 13).

   [499] To Polycarp, 2, 3, 5.

   [500] To the Ephesians, 7; To the Magnesians, 11; To the Philadelphians, 6;
   To the Smyrnaeans, 4.

   [501] To the Smyrnaeans, 11; To Polycarp, 7; To the Philadelphians, 10; To
   the Ephesians, 1, 2; To the Magnesians, 2, 6; To the Trallians, 1.

   [502] Justin, Apology, i. 67.

   [503] Didache, xiii. 1; 1 Tim. v. 9. The Pastoral Epistles perhaps teach us
   that the ministry have a share; cf. 1 Tim. v. 17, 18; 2 Tim. i. 4-7, but the
   seventh verse of the latter passage suggests that the share is not by way of
   stipend.

   [504] Tertullian, Apology, 39. Canons of Hippolytus, Canon xxxii. (Riedel)
   Kirchenrechtsquellen des Patriarchats Alexandrien, p. 221.

   [505] Texte und Untersuchungen, II. v. 13-15, or Sources of the Apostolic
   Canons, p. 13.

   [506] The Organization of the Early Churches (1881), p. 147.

   [507] A shepherd, Socrates, Eccles. Hist. i. 12; a weaver, Sozomen, Eccles.
   Hist. vii. 28; a shipbuilder, S. Gregorii Magni, Epistolae, xiii. 26; a
   lawyer, S. Gregorii Magni, Epistolae, x. 10. Compare Cyprian De Lapsis 6.
   Basil, Epistolae, 198. Compare Hatch, The Organization of the Early
   Christian Churches (1881), p. 148, who, besides giving the well-known
   individual instances quotes regulations from the Theodosian Code and from
   the Statuta Ecclesiae Antigua proving the general practice. The
   eighty-seventh of the Canons of Basil says that “none of the clergy are to
   engage in merchandise but that they are to learn a handicraft and live of
   the labour of their hands.” Riedel, Die Kirchenrechtsquellen des
   Patriarchats Alexandrien (1900), p. 270.

   [508] Bull. de Corr. Hell. vii. 230 ff.

   [509] As for example the Rev. R. B. Rackham in Essays on Church Reform
   (1898), p. 30 ff.

   [510] Compare Ramsay, The Church in the Roman Empire, pp. 370-1, where he
   says that Ignatius is not an historian describing facts but a preacher
   giving advice; and adds that he does not find in Ignatius proof that bishops
   were regarded as ex-officio supreme, that his language is quite consistent
   with the view that the respect actually paid to the bishop in each community
   depended on his individual character, and that his reiteration of the
   principle of the authority of the bishop, which came to him as a revelation,
   makes it evident that he did not find his ideal in actual existence. Compare
   also Sanday in the Expositor (1888, July-Dec.), p. 326.

   [511] Compare below, p. 248.

   [512] Commentary on the Epistle to the Philippians (1881), 6th ed. p. 206
   ff.

   [513] The Church in the Roman Empire (1893), p. 367 ff.

   [514] In the Pastor of Hermas, the old lady who represents the Church and
   who has given Hermas a revelation orders him to make two books and give one
   to Clement and the other to Grapte, “and Clement will send his to the
   foreign countries, for commission has been given him to do so, and Grapte
   will admonish the widows and the orphans; but you (Hermas, who was a
   presbyter) will read the words in this city along with the elders who
   preside over the Church,” Visiones, ii. 4.

   [515] Apology, i. 67.

   [516] Tertullian in his De Praescriptione Haereticorum, 41, speaking of the
   condition of the Gnostic or Marcionite Churches, says:—“itaque alius hodie
   episcopus, cras alius.” Sohm (Kirchenrecht, i. 119 n.) takes this as a proof
   of the condition of things in the most primitive days. He infers that in the
   earlier times when there were several bishops in each community the one who
   presided at the Eucharist was the bishop for that day, and gave place to
   another on another day who thus became the bishop in his turn. It is
   doubtful whether we can infer anything about primitive usages from these
   references in Tertullian.
     _________________________________________________________________

CHAPTER VI.

  THE FALL OF THE PROPHETIC MINISTRY AND THE CONSERVATIVE REVOLT

   The prophetic ministry of the apostolic and immediately sub-apostolic times
   passed away in the course of the second century, and its overthrow was a
   much greater alteration of the organization of the churches than the
   institution of a three-fold ministry, important as that was. The difference
   may be seen from two extracts. “Every prophet,” says the oldest
   ecclesiastical manual, “who speaketh in the Spirit, ye shall neither try nor
   judge; for every sin shall be forgiven, but that sin shall not be
   forgiven.” [517] That comes from a time when the prophetic ministry was the
   great controlling power. “Wretched men,” says Irenaeus, “who wish to be
   false prophets . . . holding aloof from the communion of the brethren”; and
   the test of being in communion with the brethren is “to obey the elders who
   are in the Church.” [518] That comes from the end of our period.

   The change between the time when the prophet was not to be judged, but to be
   obeyed, and when disobedience to his commands was believed to be “an
   unpardonable sin”; and the time when the test of a true prophet was
   obedience to the office-bearers of the local church, whose superior he had
   once been, amounted to a revolution. It was so, and the overthrow of the
   supremacy of the prophetic ministry rent the Church in twain.

   It was inevitable. The more close and firm the organization of the local
   churches became the less room remained for the exercise of the prophetic
   ministry, which in the nature of things claimed at once freedom for itself
   and the power of ruling in some indefinite way over the churches which
   admitted its exercise among them. A careful examination of the scanty
   records of the second century reveals that the early prophetic ministry was
   active within the churches down till the Montanist revolt, and that in the
   churches which shared in that movement it was continued, and its place
   within the Church became accentuated. It is also possible to show in what
   way the office-bearers of the local churches could gradually come to take
   the place of the prophetic ministry, and how with the great body of
   Christians this could be done naturally and without any strong feeling that
   there was a real breach with the past.

   In St. Paul’s summary of the gifts which the Spirit bestows, and which when
   manifested within a community of Christians make it a Church, it can be seen
   that all these gifts may be divided into two classes—those which enable
   their possessors to edify the brethren by speaking the word of God, and
   those which fit them for serving the community in many practical ways. Two
   of these practical gifts, “pilotings” (kubernēseis) and “aids” (antilēpseis)
   foreshadow in the abstract the concrete offices of overseer and servant; and
   from them the office-bearers of the local churches derive their origin. The
   task of edifying by speech belonged primarily to the first class of gifted
   persons, and the work of edifying by wise counsels and all manner of
   brotherly services belonged to the two branches of the second class out of
   which the local office-bearers developed. Edification by the Word of God was
   the most important need of the churches; and if the “gifted” apostles,
   prophets and teachers failed any community their services had to be supplied
   somehow.

   The Didache shows us the transition stage, and explains how this need was
   supplied in an ordinary way when the extraordinary means failed. “Appoint,
   therefore, for yourselves bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord, men that
   are meek and are not covetous, upright and proved; for they also render you
   the service of the prophets and teachers. Therefore neglect them not, for
   they are your honoured ones, together with the prophets and teachers.” These
   words in italics show us at once the point of junction between the prophetic
   and the local ministry, and indicate how the latter could fulfil the duties
   of the former. They also reveal the possibility of the abolition of the
   prophetic ministry as a permanent part of the organization (to use the word
   in its widest sense) of the local churches. When the wave of spiritual
   enthusiasm and illumination which came with the earliest proclamation of the
   Gospel had somewhat spent itself, there was need to supply through the
   ordinary office-bearers of the churches that exhortation and instruction
   which in the earliest times had been left to the inspiration of those gifted
   with the power of speaking the Word of God. Hence the Didache [519] counsels
   the community to select men for its office-bearers in the knowledge that
   they may be called upon to supply this need. But when once the local
   churches began to have their spiritual needs satisfied within their own
   circle and the bands of association grew stronger, it is easy to imagine
   that the power of the office-bearers grew strong enough to withstand the
   members of the prophetic ministry unless the prophets were content to take a
   secondary place. The very fact that the office-bearers could “render the
   service of the prophets and teachers” inevitably tended to place them, the
   permanent officials of the local churches, permanently in the position of
   the exhorters, instructors, and leaders of the public worship of the
   communities. Hence, while we can trace the presence and the power of the
   prophetic ministry during a great part of the second century, we can also
   see that complaints against false prophets became more and more common, and
   that there was a tendency to make the test of true prophecy subordination on
   the part of the prophets to the control of the permanent office-bearers of
   the churches. [520]

   We can see that the transition from the time when the prophets were supreme
   to the days when they were expected, if true prophets, to be subordinate to
   or at least deferential towards the office-bearers of the community, was the
   more easily effected when we remember that it is highly probable that some
   men among those chosen to lead the brethren by their gifts of governing had
   also the power of exhortation and instruction. This was probably the case
   from the earliest times. The proistamenoi of 1 Thessalonians v. 12, not only
   laboured among the brethren but “admonished”; and to “admonish” (nouthetein)
   seems to imply more than mere leading. Whatever be the date of the Pastoral
   Epistles, it is clear that by the time they were written, the functions of
   instruction and leadership were conjoined; and few critics, even among those
   who dispute the Pauline authorship, will be inclined to place them as late
   as Harnack does. [521] Then, as before remarked, those office-bearers who
   stand forth most clearly in these ancient times were almost all men who had
   the prophetic gift. We have already seen how the divine afflatus descended
   on Ignatius while he was preaching in Philadelphia, and made him cry forth
   words which the Spirit put in his mouth. The prophetic gift was to be found
   among the office-bearers of the local churches before the conflict of
   jurisdictions arose, and the office-bearers who possessed it had all the
   divine authority which was supposed to belong to the prophetic order.

   All these circumstances have to be taken into account in attempting to
   describe the great change in the ministry which the second century
   witnessed; and the last-mentioned is useful in enabling us to see how, while
   the overthrow of the prophetic ministry was sufficient to provoke a
   disruption of the Church, it could nevertheless be accepted by the great
   mass of the Christian people.

   We have no specific information in the documents of post-apostolic
   Christianity to tell us how and by what steps the great revolution was
   brought about; but the conditions and needs of the time enable us to put
   ourselves to some extent in the place of the men who carried out the change.

   Several distinct sets of circumstances require to be kept in mind.

   In the first place, the second century was a time of great fermentation in
   the world of intellectual paganism. In the east of Europe and among the
   Greek inhabitants of Asia Minor the old religions had lost almost all their
   real power. The same may be said of the people of Italy also, and especially
   of the more cultured classes of Rome. It is something pathetic to learn that
   the only one of the ancient Greek deities whose cult was still practised
   with something of the old reverence and fervour was Esculapius, the god of
   bodily health, and that he was called Soter, the Saviour, as if men had
   despaired of salvation of soul and could hope for no more than the health of
   the body. On the other hand, worships strange to Greek or Roman, coming from
   the far East, with painful initiations and purifications fur those who felt
   the power of sin or the fickleness of imperfection within them, and weird
   philosophies for the cultured, spread far and wide, counting their votaries
   by thousands and permeating all classes of society.

   Among them were systems of cosmical speculation and mystic theosophy,
   curiously similar to what we find in Hinduism, and possessing that strange
   power of absorbing and assimilating religious ideas foreign to themselves,
   which is still such a feature of Oriental speculation. Votaries of these
   theosophies were attracted towards the doctrines of Christianity, caught at
   the Christian conceptions of redemption and of the Person of Christ, and
   tried to find room for them among the medley of their fantastic beliefs.
   They set redemption within the circle of their thoughts about the inherent
   evil in matter, and the Person of Christ found its place among the doctrines
   of emanation. Christianity attracted them as it still attracts cultivated
   Hindus. The Brahma Somaj, the Prathana Somaj, the Arya Somaj, strange
   attempts to absorb some features of Christianity into Hinduism in the
   nineteenth century, had their parallels in some of the Gnostic speculations
   of the earlier centuries.

   Strange as it may seem to us, those weird speculations had an attraction for
   many cultivated persons who had embraced the Christian faith; for if the
   whole phenomenon of Gnosticism was, as it seems most likely to have been, a
   scheme of thought essentially pagan, trying to assimilate some leading
   Christian ideas, there were sides to the movement which show us men who were
   really Christians attempting to make use of these speculations as the
   metaphysical framework on which to stretch their Christian thoughts and to
   give them the shape of a rationalized theology. These metaphysics of
   “wonderland,” where the categories of Aristotle and the ideas of Plato
   assumed bodily shapes, married and begot a fantastic progeny, filled the
   intellectual atmosphere of the times, and were the air which thinkers
   breathed. The Church was face to face with the danger of seeing its
   historical verities dissolve into the shadowy shapes of a meta-physical
   mythology. For when Gnosticism entered into the Christian societies, and
   claimed to be a philosophical Christianity, the very life of the Church was
   threatened. [522]

   Nor were these the only difficulties of intellectual speculation which the
   Church of the second century had to face. We are apt to think that the
   apparent contradiction between an Almighty Maker of all things and the
   miseries of life is the peculiar property of our own age. That is not so.
   Men felt keenly the contrasts which trouble modern minds. They lived in a
   civilization as intellectually trained as our own. How could the God and
   Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of Mercies and the God of all
   Love, inspire the Old Testament, where the Jews were ordered to exterminate
   their enemies and threaten and practise all kinds of cruelties? How can
   creation, groaning and travailing in pain, be the work of that God Who has
   manifested Himself in Jesus Christ? Nature is not merciful. It seems hard
   and pitiless. The mystery of pain broods over it and in it. History is full
   of battle and pestilence, of turmoil and misery.

   Among men who had ideas like these Marcion was a leader. His solution of the
   problem was that the God of the Old Testament and the Creator of the
   Universe were very like each other and very unlike the God and Father of our
   Lord Jesus Christ. The Being who had created scorpions and sent venimous
   creeping things into the world was not unlike the God Who had commanded the
   slaughter of the Amalekites and had inspired the imprecatory Psalms. An old
   world Count Tolstoy, Marcion said that Christ’s Christianity had nothing to
   do with any part of the Old Testament, nor with much of the New. The New
   Testament had indeed come from Jesus Christ, but it had been sadly corrupted
   by the votaries of the God who created the Universe. He constructed a Canon
   of Scripture for himself and for his disciples, and into his Scriptures no
   portion of the Old Testament was admitted, and from them much of the New was
   excluded. He went back to the Pauline Epistles, the earliest literary
   creations of the Christian inspiration, to seek in them the purest records
   of the teaching of that Saviour, Who, unheralded, as he thought, by any
   partial anticipations, had come suddenly to reveal to the world the hitherto
   absolutely unknown God of Love and Mercy. Marcion was a man of deep and
   genuine religious character, of an intensely practical nature, and without
   any tendency to speculation. He stood forth in that age of mixed faiths, of
   eclectic paganism and Gnostic Christianity, as a teacher who had mastered a
   clear and definite, if narrow, creed. His sincerity, his piety, his energy
   and his wonderful powers of organization, created not merely bands of
   devoted followers, but a church which, according to the ideas of those who
   belonged to it, was a reformation and a purification of the existing
   Christianity. Within it asceticism was practised in a manner hitherto
   unknown within Christianity. No married persons could ever rise to be more
   than catechumens, and members were required to abstain from all sexual
   relations; rigid laws about meats and drinks were laid down and enforced;
   martyrdom was to be welcomed, not shunned, and the hatred of the great mass
   of their fellow-Christians was an additional burden to be endured. Wherever
   Christianity had spread the followers of Marcion appeared, formed themselves
   into separate churches, with the same ceremonies of worship, the same
   ecclesiastical organization, or one very similar, the same, if not greater,
   strictness of moral living, and an intenser joy in martyrdom. The dogmatic
   unity of the Church, if it ever had been truly and thoroughly one, was
   broken. Other bodies of Christians, with separate organizations, appeared
   standing between the Marcionite and the parent churches, and pagans could
   sneer at a divided Christianity and ask the Christians which God, they who
   preached His Unity, really worshipped? [523]

   Can we wonder then, that in face of these anxieties the leaders of the
   Christian churches felt the need for a closer fellowship and a firmer grasp
   of what they believed to be the verities of the faith? Irenaeus voiced the
   clamant need of the Church. His rallying cry is familiar enough. It is one
   which has arisen always in such crises. It was practically this; “Back to
   the Christ of history: back to the fixed verities of the Christian faith.”

   But how was it possible to get back to these fixed verities of the Christian
   faith, and by a path that all could tread? All the more important writings
   of the New Testament were already recognized as Scripture in the West, but