Encyclopaedia Biblica/Ministry-Minni

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search




  • GENERAL (1)
  • I. JESUS (2-6)
    • Jesus and Judaism (2).
    • His inner circle (3).
    • Saying about Peter (4).
    • An ecclesia? (5).
    • Jesus' authority (6).
  • II. APOSTOLIC AGE (7-24)
    • Fundamental facts regarding the church (7).
    • The Pauline communities (8-10).
    • No connection with Jewish organisation (11).
    • Primitive Derivation from pagan religious societies (12).
    • Attitude of Paul (13-16).
    • Apostles (17-19).
    • Conception of Church in apostolic age (20).
    • Conjectures regarding the primitive church (21-23).
    • The presbyters (24).
    • Growing appreciation of the church (25).
    • Extra ecclesiam nulla salus (26).
      • Creed (27).
      • Nova Lex (28).
      • Canon (29).
      • Sacraments (30).
      • Discipline (31).
      • Office (32).
      • Value of these institutions (33).
      • First apostles (34).
      • Apostolic literature (35).
      • Peter and Paul (36).
      • Succession ; laying on of hands (37).
      • Prophets (38).
      • Teachers (39).
      • Deacons, deaconesses (40).
      • Widows (41).
      • Apostles of Didache ; evangelists ; Lectors, exorcists, etc. (42).
      • Ncwrepoi or Ne oi ( Young men ), and presbyteri ( 43).
      • Episcopi of Hatch and Harnack (44).
      • Presbyters the officers in Acts and 1 Clem. (45).
      • Presbyters identical with episcopi (46).
      • Meaning and synonyms of episcopos (47).
      • Bishops and deacons (48).
      • Rise of episcopate (49).
      • Money matters, conduct of worship (50).
      • Teaching authority (51).
      • Special causes of monarchy of bishops (52).
      • Acme of episcopal idea; Ignatius (53).
      • Preparatory step in Pastoral Epistles (54).
      • In 3 Jn. (55).
      • Correct interpretation of Didache (56).
      • Phil. (57).
      • Too early dates (58).
      • Development after 180 A.D. (59).
  • Bibliography (60).

1. General.[edit]

In so far as religion consists in a relation of the devout heart to God, every thing of the nature of a 'constitution', any relation of superiority or subordination between certain human persons and others, anything that could be described as legal formality is essentially foreign to its nature.

(a) The fact is certainly noteworthy that Sohm (see 60), whose lifework it has been to study church law in all its forms, has expressed it as his deliberate judgment that strictly speaking no such thing ought ever to have existed (pp. 1-3). One evidence that a judgment of this kind has never been wholly without its advocates is to be found in the efforts towards reform which have at all times been made efforts which, if not exclusively, almost always at least partially, were directed against existing ecclesiastical constitutions as well as in the schisms and the sects which almost invariably have had it as their professed object to effect a return to the primitive Christian simplicity as conceived by them.

(b) The same history shows at the same time that any such object is impossible of permanent attainment. On this account alone it would be of importance that we should reach a clear idea of the way in which ecclesiastical forms of government first came into being. With this end in view the student's first task must be to inquire what were the worthy and wholly creditable causes that led to the formation of the first organised Christian fellowships.

Whatever the form of piety, the need of sharing it with others is felt, and once the devout soul has found comrades it cannot but seek to rejoice along with them in the glad possession they have found together. Once formed, this fellowship becomes a powerful support for each individual in the moments when he finds himself wavering, whether through doubts in his own mind as to the truth of his conviction, or through unfavourable out ward circumstances, especially a time of persecution. The mutual love drawn forth in such a fellowship will also express itself in various forms of material help as occasion arises. The fellowship, moreover, is able to restrain the individual - even against his own will - from actions which would mean the abandonment of his higher ideals, and cast reproach on his past attainments. In so far as arrangements were necessary for these ends - regular meetings, care for the right conducting of these, articulate expression of the faith held in common, ministration to the necessities of those who might be in spiritual or bodily need, money collections, nay, even interference with the economical or ethical private affairs of those who might suffer without such intervention everything accomplished in such directions must be regarded as a sign of progress.

(c) Such arrangements nevertheless carry within themselves a danger to the purity of religion. The sharp division between members and non-members leads only too easily to an exaggerated consciousness of selectness and a depreciation of outsiders (cp 1 Cor. 5:12-13). The practically compulsory attendance at the regular meetings, the uniformity of the proceedings there, the formal common prayer, may result in a cooling of the emotions of the heart ; such a thing as attachment to the religious principles of the community, yet without full formal assent given and without participation in all ceremonies, is not regarded as admissible ; and yet it is easily possible that not only particular institutions but also (and above all) the formulated expressions of the common faith may take such a form as many a one may find himself unable to accept, whilst yet his attitude towards the matter in its religious essence is entirely sympathetic, and the impossibility of full membership in the community is felt by him as involving a grievous loss. The interference in the private affairs of individual members in like manner not only can easily be carried farther than is desirable ; what is worse, in place of a pure concern for the imperilled individual may come concern for the interests of the community, for appearances, for the maintenance of decisions once arrived at (though now perhaps in need of reform), in a manner that may lead to grave injustices. Above all, there is apt to develop itself only too readily, in the persons charged with the duty of ruling and judging, an unhealthy sense of superiority, an autocratic, ambitious, and even, where money is concerned, an avaricious temper.

(d) All these phenomena, both on the one side and on the other, in their noble and, to an appalling extent, in their ignoble aspects, are already to be seen in the Old-Christian literature, canonical and extra-canonical, down to about 170 or 180 A.D. that is, to the time which marks the close of the period now to be con sidered, as being the latest date within which the NT books could have arisen. In view of what these writings reveal, the following general observation admits of being made : the more elaborate the forms and institutions, the more conspicuously do their hurtful effects predominate. In the literature just mentioned we can already observe the beginning of every one of those tendencies which afterwards wrought so per niciously in the church. It will therefore perhaps not be wholly superfluous to remember that our historical investigation of these beginnings ought not to be carried on with too great partiality for them. At any rate it will be necessary at all times to bear in mind that our research has reference to a subject of only relative and, so far as the essence of religion is concerned, unquestion ably only secondary importance. Historically speaking, it is evident that our first weighty thesis regarding the constitution of the church must be the same as that which has to be laid down regarding the canon (the two histories are closely parallel at all points) if we may adopt the famous words used by Arius of the Person of Christ ; there was a time when it was not (ffv fire OUK fy).

I. JESUS[edit]

2. Jesus and Judaism.[edit]

The truth of the thesis just enounced emerges immediately when we turn to the teaching of Jesus.

(a) It would be a great mistake to suppose that Jesus himself founded a new religious community.

The furthest that can he adduced in this direction is the saying (in Mt. 26:51, 27:40 and ||s) that he would destroy the temple and in three days build up another or it. These two readings, however, differ considerably. The interpretation in Jn. 2:19-22 is to be left out of account. Jesus would certainly not have called his body a temple ; the sole purpose of the writer in connecting the saying with the cleansing of the temple is to gain another of those words of two meanings which are so characteristic of the Fourth Gospel. If, however, Jesus really gave expression to the thought which, according to the synoptists (most clearly in Mk. 14:58: 'made with hands', 'not made with hands' ; ^eipo- irotrjToi/ a^eipoTroiijTOi ), lies in the words, he certainly did not carry it out.

(b) Whatever the freedom of Jesus outward attitude towards the law when he laid down such maxims as Mt. 5:32, 5:34-37, 12:7-8, 19:8, he must certainly have been, in the general conduct of his life, if not perhaps a strict legalist (according to Jos. Ant. xvii. 24, 42, the Pharisees numbered altogether only some 6000), at least an ad herent of the law ; had he been otherwise we should not have found his personal disciples clinging so persistently to it or the Pauline doctrine of freedom from the law encountering the opposition it did. In a word, it was hearts not external conditions that Jesus sought to reform. He sought to arouse the conscience to make decision for itself, not himself to give the decisions.

Precisely in this element of restraint, in this confining himself to quite general principles of universal application, lay the endur ing vitality of Jesus work. Seldom do we find him giving definite form to institutions at all, as when he forbids oaths, or divorce; in the result, his adherents with the utmost calmness ignored them. Of the prohibition of oaths Paul knows nothing (Gal. 1:20, 2 Cor. 1:23, 11:31, etc.), the epistle to the Hebrews nothing (6:16) ; and, as for the prohibition of divorce, it was set aside by Paul in 1 Cor. 7:15, and by tradition (in Mt. [5:32, 19:9], contrary to the testimony of Paul [1 Cor. 7:10-11), as also of Mk. and Lk.) by the addition of the words 'saving for the cause of fornication' (n-ap- e/cTOS Aoyou Tropveias) or 'except for fornication' (jxr) en-i Tropyeia) (GOSPELS, 145a).

(c) In a saying which is shown by its very nature to be absolutely authentic (Mt. 5:23-24) Jesus assumes that gifts are offered in the temple and demands merely that fraternal reconciliation shall be regarded as more im portant. The idea of the Ebionitic source in Lk. (GOSPELS, 110) that one must wholly divest oneself of every earthly possession is so impossible of reconcili ation with the fundamental thought of Jesus as to the all-importance of disposition and spirit that it can only be regarded as based on a. misunderstanding. The exhortation given by Jesus to the rich man (Mk. 10:21 and s) to give all his goods to the poor, with utterances of a like kind (COMMUNITY OF GOODS, 5), may have given occasion to such a view. We have, however, no certainty that Jesus would have spoken thus to every rich man ; possibly he may have spoken as he did to the particular individual in the story either because he knew him or because he saw through him.

3. His inner circle.[edit]

Or it may have been because the man desired to be a follower of Jesus and received into the inner circle of his disciples, (a) For this inner circle Jesus had of necessity to devise some arrangement differing in various respects from those of ordinary civil life. The injunctions of Mt. 10:1-15 and ||s, however, in so far as they come from Jesus at all and not from a later time (GOSPELS, 128b, 136), are to be taken as applying only to the short missionary journey of the disciples, not to the period during which they are in the company of Jesus. The idea that Jesus gathered together all his adherents into one new religious community l>eing impossible, the attempt is indeed often made to establish the conception of a community of disciples in the sense that Jesus laid down special ordinances for these at least. Neither, however, can this be carried out. It is supposed that in this way justification can be found for the church's present disregard of the prohibition of oaths or of the precepts to let the unjust claimant of a man s coat have his cloak also, and when smitten on the right cheek to turn the other also (Mt. 5:34a, 37:39-41) and, as regards the prohibition of divorce, for accepting as authoritative precisely those exceptions which were not laid down by Jesus. It is urged that strict principles like these were laid down by Jesus only for an ideal set of conditions such as he saw realised, or wished to see realised, in the community of his disciples but not for ordinary civil life. It would, however, be directly contrary to the ethical conceptions of Jesus that anything should become a rule for one, which did not require to be so for another. Or, were such precepts as those of Mk. 9:35 and ||s, bidding him that would be greatest become a servant, or those of Mt. 238, bidding all who hear to avoid the title of rabbi and cherish that of brother, intended only for 'ideal conditions' of society ?

(b) We come now to the question as to positions of pre-eminence accorded to certain individuals. If Jesus did indeed designate the members of the inner circle of his disciples by the name 'apostles' - which remains doubtful notwithstanding Mk. 3:14, Lk. 6:13 (11:49) - we may be sure, from what has been adduced above, that at any rate he did not do so as conferring a particular rank upon them, but merely in order to denote the manner in which they were to serve. The same is true of Mt. 10:40 : he who receiveth you receiveth me. Here the parallel in Lk. 10:16 is very instructive; he that heareth you heareth me, and he that rejecteth you rejecteth me. This does not put the disciples on a level with Jesus in respect of dignity, but is only a self-evident consequence of the presupposition that they fittingly carry on the preaching of Jesus. Equally instructive is the other parallel Mt. 18:5 = Mk. 9:37 = Lk. 9:48 : whosoever receiveth a child in my name receiveth me.

4. Saying about Peter.[edit]

The saying in Mt. 16:18-19 as to the primacy of Peter must be viewed in the same light. 16:19a ( 'I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven' ) is the most that can be regarded as having actually come from Jesus - not, however, in the sense which it has in its present context where Peter is represented as the highest servant in a household (cp Is. 22:22), but only if we might venture to suppose that Jesus intended to convey something similar to what we find in Mt. 23:13 (ye shut the kingdom of heaven against men) - namely, that it is given to Peter, by preaching of the gospel, to open the door of the kingdom of heaven. 16:19b ( 'whatsoever thou shall bind', etc.), on the other hand, cannot have been intended for Peter alone, if only because in 18:18 it is applied to the entire aggregate of disciples in the widest sense (there all hearers of Jesus, not the apostles alone, are being addressed).

To judge by the connection with vvv. 15-17, by binding and loosing (see BINDING AND LOOSING) is meant the non-forgiveness and forgiveness of sins (cp Is. 40:2 LXX : AfAurai aiirrj? rj a^apria), and the word is so taken also in Jn. 20:23, though there with limitation to the apostles. In such a sense the word is. in the mouth of Jesus, impossible. The forgiveness and non-forgive ness of sins belong to God, and if Jesus as Messiah laid claim also to the exercise of such power (Mt. 9:6 and ||s) it is neverthe less impossible that he should have delegated it to any merely human authority whether to each separate individual among his followers (for that only the aggregate of these as a corporation is to have this right, is by no means said in Mt. 18:18), or to the apostles, or even to Peter alone - still less would he delegate the power of declaring sins incapable of forgiveness. 1 however, when we disregard the connection and assume that by binding and loosing Jesus, in accordance with the original sense of the words, meant forbidding and allowing, it is very difficult to believe him to have said that what his followers, or even Peter, should determine in such a manner would also be held as for bidden or allowed in heaven.

In 16:18 we may entirely believe that Jesus said Peter really was, what his name implied, a rock (irtrpa. [petra]; in Aram, the name and the appellative are absolutely identical) ; only the more incredible, on the other hand, is the continuation, the more certainly false its old Protestant interpretation, that by the rock is meant not Peter's person, but his faith. Cp GOSPELS, 136, 151)

5. An ecclesia?[edit]

A further consideration that tells against the genuineness of Mt. 16:18 is the occurrence in it of the word ecclesia (fKK\-nffia).

(a) After it has been seen to be impossible to maintain that Jesus founded any distinct religious community, there will still be felt in many quarters a strong desire to discover that he made provision for the founding of such an institution in the future. Whether he would have arrived at this had he lived longer is a question that must remain unanswered. In view of the shortness of his public activity, however, it is easy to understand why our sources should fail to supply us with any indication as to this. From the beginning of his ministry down even to the day of the triumphal entry into Jerusalem Jesus cherished the hope of winning the Jewish nation en bloc to his side. Only by a very definite act of re nunciation could he have brought himself to contem plate but a small part of it as his ecclesia.

(b) As for the word itself, it occurs elsewhere in the Gospels only in Mt. 18:17. There, however, it denotes simply the Jewish local community to which every one belongs ; for what is said relates not to the future but to the present, in which a Christian ecclesia cannot, of course, be thought of. Even in 18:15-17, however, we are not to see any precept intended to be literally carried out ; it is only a concrete and detailed illustration of the thought that one ought to leave no stone unturned in order to bring an erring brother to repentance. Should anyone perchance have succeeded in effecting this in some other way, Jesus would never have looked upon such a result as a violation of the precept he had laid down. If the precept must have been meant to be taken literally, we should have therein a proof of its late origin. In any case, what demands our careful attention is the closing expression : let him be unto thee as the Gentile and the publican. No suggestion here of authorised excom munication. After the failure of every attempt at re conciliation the injured person is to regard his assailant as he regards a Gentile and a publican.

(c) Baptism also and the repetition of the last supper were no ordinances of Jesus (GOSPELS, 136 end, 145 c).

On the last evening of his earthly life Jesus' purpose was fully attained when he had supplied his disciples with a mode of looking at his approaching death by which they could be protected against despair. That in after years and generations his actions and words on that occasion were ever anew recalled to memory has certainly been well ; but for Jesus there was no occasion to enjoin this, as he could take it for granted as matter of course that what he had said as to the divine purpose of his death would impress itself indelibly on the minds of his disciples and supply them with the strength they needed for steadfastness in his cause. Conybeare (Z.NTW, 1901, 275-288) shows that Eus. down to 325 A.D. read Mt. 28:19 thus : 'and make disciples of all the nations in my name, teaching them', etc.

(d) If, finally, the conclusion of the parable of the tares, Mt. 13:28b-30, does not come from Jesus (GOSPELS, 128c), we are left without any evidence that he instituted measures for the cleansing of the church from its impure elements, whether sinners or heretics. The parable of the net (Mt. 13:47-50) is much slighter ; it describes only what happens on the judgment day without dealing with the preceding actions of men.

6. Jesus' authority.[edit]

This whole attitude of unconcern was rendered possible only because the portion of Mt. 23:8, not yet cited above (3a end) applied to the situation : one is your teacher ; cp 23:10 (one is your Master, even the Christ), though Jesus can hardly have expressed himself literally so. It was only the unconditional authority of Jesus and the possibility of his settling at once every question as it emerged that made any hard and fast regulations dispensable.

(a) Yet, precisely on account of the greatness of the authority which he claimed and actually possessed, it requires further to be pointed out that he made the claim, essentially, not for his person but only for the cause which he represented. Assuredly he required of his disciples in a very energetic way that he should be believed and followed. Yet according to the synoptics he by no means made his own person the centre of religion in the manner in which we find this done in the Fourth Gospel.

Here again the continuation of the passages cited above (36) is instructive : whosoever receiveth me receiveth him that sent me. Thus God is no otherwise represented by Jesus than Jesus by his apostles or by a child who is received in his name. 'In my name' can here quite simply mean : because I have enjoined such a reception of children. Different, but certainly not original, is the explanation added to 'in my name' (iv ovofiari fj.ov) in Mk. 9:41 : because ye are Christ's (OTI XpicrroO core). Further, it is evident at a glance that one of the two members is superfluous and thus in all probability may be regarded as a later addition. Moreover, 'the name of Jesus' or even 'the Name', without any addition (Acts 5:41, 3 Jn. 7, etc.), became in the apostolic time so much of a watchword - used even in unnatural connections, as for example in Acts 15:26 ( 'men that have hazarded their lives for' ), 21:13 ( 'to die at Jerusalem for' ), 26:9 ( 'that I ought to do many things contrary to' ) - that it may be questioned whether it does not owe its origin to this later usage even in Mt. 10:22 ( 'ye shall be hated of all men for' ), 24:9 ( 'hated of all the nations for' [ = Mk. 13:13, Lk. 21:17]), 19:29. Similarly the formulation in Mt. 10:33-34 may be held open to question. In any case in Mt. 10:37-39 we may very well apply the principle that when Jesus names himself we ought to think ultimately of the cause represented by him ( 'whoso loveth father or mother more than me', etc.). Instructive if certainly not original is the collocation in Mk. 8:35, 10:29 : 'for my sake and the Gospel's' (evticev e/uou icai TOU evayyeAiou : GOSPELS, 119b) with the parallels 'for my name's sake' (eW/ca roO ejnov ovo^(no<; : Mt. 19:29) and 'for the kingdom of God's sake' (e IvfKfv TJJS /SacrtAeia? TOV deov.: Lk. 18:29).

(b) The reason why this subordinate relation between the person of Jesus and the cause he represents must be consistently maintained and doubt entertained as to all that militates against it is to be sought in the passage which is elsewhere (GOSPELS, 139) included among the 'foundation pillars' of a life of Jesus : 'whosoever shall speak' etc., Mt. 12:32. If, accordingly, Jesus demanded faith in his person, it was only as a means, not as an end in itself, and thus also not as an indis pensable condition of salvation. The objects of the faith which he unconditionally demands are the reality of the Final Judgment on the one hand and the Fatherly Love of God on the other. Such a faith, however, can be cherished by any one in any position in life and in any religious fellowship. So small was the concern of Jesus to leave behind him, for the new religious fellowship which might be formed in connection with his preaching, even so much as the tangible centre which his person might supply, not to speak of definite institutions and laws. At the moment of his death, the whole church-constitu tion of future generations was yet to shape.

(c) We may perhaps deem this a disadvantage ; but we must at the same time allow ourselves to be convinced that in view of what Jesus was it was inevitable ; and perhaps after all a blessing lay concealed in the absence of formal constitutions drawn up with the authority of Jesus. When constitutions became antiquated there was no insuperable obstacle in the way of their removal ; the pure religious-ethical gospel stood forth as the one eternally abiding thing still possessed of force to regulate and mould the new forms called forth by new times. History has at least clearly taught this : when once, rightly or wrongly, men attributed to Jesus certain arrangements, such as the primacy of Peter (and his alleged successors in Rome), the prohibition of oaths and of divorce (with exceptions in the latter case), the form of celebration of the eucharist, the age for baptism and the trinitarian formula to be employed in it, the immutability of these arrangements has created for the Christian church difficulties and dangers of the gravest character, seriously impeded its prosperous development, and even at times imperilled its very existence.


7. Fundamental facts regarding the primitive church.[edit]

With the death of Jesus the whole situation changed,

(a) The master had been taken away. In compensation for this loss came what his followers had not hitherto possessed : the belief in his resurrection. This was not belief in something future, like the Final Judgment, or in some attribute of God, such as his forgiving love, ever anew to be hoped for and experienced. It was belief in a fact of the past. Such a belief was open to historical criticism. In the event of a favourable issue it might promote a clearer intellectual apprehension without any participation of the heart. In the event of an unfavourable issue the whole of the new religion could be endangered. Furthermore, a firm confession of faith towards Jesus was attained ; his later designation 'Jesus Christ' was properly speaking and essentially a sentence expressing this new faith : Jesus is the Messiah. There came to be a definitely fixed circle of persons who confessed this faith, and a precise de limitation from all those who were not members of the new society.

(b) Moreover, there came into existence recurring meetings with observance of the Lord's supper and - very soon, at any rate - also an outward act of admission into the society, the rite of baptism.

The eucharistic formula in Mk. (14:22-24) and in Mt. (26:26-28) shows that in the regions to which the writers of these gospels belonged the words this do in remembrance of me were still unused in the celebration, and thus also were still unknown as words of Jesus. On the other hand, Paul, who has them, must have believed them to have come from Jesus. The two facts can be reconciled only if we suppose that he had found (not these words indeed, but) as a matter of fact the actual repetition of the celebration current among Christians at the very beginning of his acquaintance with them, that is to say even in his persecuting days, and thus very shortly after the death of Jesus.

As for baptism its origin is strictly speaking very obscure. It is certain, however, that Paul takes it for granted as a matter of course in the case of every one who passes over to Christianity (Rom. 6:3, Gal. 3:27, 1 Cor. 12:13 - which is by no means invalidated by 1:13-17). This would be hard to understand if he himself was never baptized. Here also, as in the whole of what is said in succeeding sections relating to the apostolic age, we shall leave out of account what is related in Acts (on Paul's baptism, especially, see 9:18) as not being sufficiently trustworthy. Paul himself, however, appears in point of fact in Rom. 6:3-8 to presuppose his own baptism although often enough he in advertently uses the first plural in cases where it does not apply at one and the same time both to himself and to all his readers (Gal. 3:13, 3:23-25, 4:5, 1 Cor. 10:1, Rom. 4:1 7:6). Even so, it may still always remain a question whether he received baptism in accordance with a fixed custom or in accordance with a personal wish to receive a penitential baptism after the manner of that of John. In any case it cannot be doubted that the custom became fixed not long after the death of Jesus.

(c) Other institutions of the primitive church, which rest on the authority of Acts alone we shall return to later (21-23), confining ourselves at present to what may be regarded as perfectly certain. In this category we must place, in addition to what has already been indicated, the fact that the function of government in general lay in the hands of the original apostles and that at the time of the Council of Jerusalem James the brother of Jesus held a pre-eminent position ; further, that the original apostles and the brethren of Jesus made missionary journeys among the Jewish populations and in doing so claimed for themselves and their wives material support at the hands of the communities which they founded (Gal. 2:9, 1 Cor. 9:4-6); lastly, that the communities in Palestine within twenty or thirty years after the death of Jesus stood in need of pecuniary help from those founded by Paul (COMMUNITY OF GOODS, 5).

Our information as to the conditions prevailing in the Pauline communities is tolerably exact.

8. The Pauline communities : meetings.[edit]

Although Paul certainly liked to begin his missionary activity in the synagogue (ACTS, 4), as soon as he had won converts, however few, whether Jews or Gentiles for the faith in Jesus a separate place of meeting became necessary. One or another of the converts offered the use of a room in his house for this purpose. Here on the one hand the believers came together 'to eat' (eij r6 ^a-yetr : 1 Cor. 11:33) - i.e. , for the observance of the love-feast followed by that of the Lord s Supper (not preceded, for otherwise the Supper could not have been disturbed as it sometimes was by the drunkenness of some of the partakers). The foods partaken of were brought by the members of the company, and it was only by a malpractice which had crept in that they were not equally divided. That they were purchased out of a common fund cannot be reconciled with 11:22, for the 'shame' arose only when, in consequence of the discontinuance of equal division, some had to suffer hunger because they were too poor to be able to bring with them a sufficient meal to the meeting. The expression 'supper' (SetTrpoi ) points to the evening as the time, as also does the later accusation that Thyestean banquets (Gtwreta SetTri a) were held at which children were slaughtered, and Oedipodean orgies (Ot 5i7r65oi A" eis) with a view to which the lights were extinguished. 1 How often the feast was celebrated, however, does not appear, 1 Cor. 16:2 throws no light upon this question, for there the Sunday contribution to the common collection is to be made by each individual at home (irap eai>r). All that can be definitely made out is that in the 'we-source' of Acts (20:7-11) the observance there spoken of falls upon a Sunday. According to 1 Cor. 10:16-21 only members of the community took part in the celebration, and this (see 11:33 : dXX^Xoi s Kdexf<rGe) not merely at the Lord s Supper but also at the love-feast. From this it appears that there was held, apart from this kind of meeting, that other sort at which the addresses of instruction were delivered ; for in these last strangers also may take part (14:16-17, 14:23-25). The question as to who should speak was left entirely to the suggestion of the Spirit (see SPIRITUAL GIFTS) ; often it happened even that several spoke at once (14:27-31) and women also took part (11:5).

1 Just. Apol. i. 26:7, ii. 12:2-5 ; Epistle from Lyons (177 A.D.) in Eus. HE v. 1:14 ; so doubtless also even Tacitus, Ann. 1544 ( per flagitia invisos . . . exitiabilis superstitio ) and Pliny (/: />. x. , ti 7, 112-113 A. D. ; affirmabant morem sibi fuisse . . . rursus coeundi ad capiendum cibum, promiscuum tamen et innoxium). Perhaps even Acts 20:8 (from the 'we-source' ) is already intended to ward off this accusation.

9. Little organised.[edit]

As regards organisation what is of importance here is

(a) that not only are there no regular teachers, but that in the Epistles to the Corinthians no mention is anywhere made of any heads of the community. For effecting the cure of the malpractices which have crept in, Paul addresses himself not to any such officers but to the community as a whole. So also the community awards punishments (1 Cor. 5:2-5, 2 Cor. 2:6) and chooses delegates (1 Cor. 16:3 ; cp 2 Cor. 8:19) by decision of a majority. We learn indeed that Stephanas and his household had given themselves to the service of the community ; but the subordination which Paul desires with reference to them, as with reference to all others who are active in the same direction is not based upon their official position ; it is regarded as entirely voluntary (1 Cor. 16:15-18). This is explained if we observe that not only the gifts of doctrine but also 'governments' (Kvfffpvijafis) and 'helps' (dfTtXlifi^ea) or 'ministry' (SiaKovia) (1 Cor. 12:28, Rom. 12:7) are reckoned among the spiritual gifts. It is nevertheless also true that leaders (irpoiffT<ifj.fvoi) occur, and that not merely in the Epistle to the Romans (12:8), on whose organisation as a Christian community Paul has had no influence, but also in Thessalonica (1 Thess. 6:12). It would actually appear therefore as if Paul in so weighty a matter as this had not moulded all the communities for which he was responsible upon one and the same model, but had allowed himself to be guided in each case by the different local desires, or even had not personally interfered in the matter at all, but left things to follow their natural course of development. If in Rom. 16:2 Phoebe is called 'succourer' (irpoaraTis}, the meaning is simply that as patrona she took special care of those under her charge, perhaps in particular exercised patronage in the recognised legal sense ; it is not however permissible with Weingarten (see below, 60) to extend this meaning also to the masc. participle (n-poiffTa.fj.evoi). On Phil. 1:1 see 57.

(b) How inchoate the state of matters was in the respects now under consideration appears in various other points as well.

In Corinth the members of the community were in the habit of bringing their disputes before the heathen courts ; the women asserted their freedom as against the custom of veiling ; unchastity occurred in various forms ; and there were those, on the other hand, who believed that marital relations ought to be given up or that marriage was a thing to be avoided (1 Cor. 5-6, 7:1-7, 7:36-38, 11:2-16). The weaker brethren in Corinth who held meat offered to idols to be in all circumstances a thing forbidden (1 Cor. 8, 10:23-11:1) were exceeded by those in Rome (Rom. 14). In Thessalonica many gave up regular work and became burdens on the others (1 Thess. 4:11-12). These and similar phenomena show how gigantic were the difficulties to be over come before the valuable content of the new religion could find for itself forms which should protect it against the danger of degeneration without at the same time suffocating it.

10. House-churches.[edit]

A word must here be given to the church in the house. The expression would have nothing remarkable in it if it denoted merely the initial stage of an organised community (see above, 5, 8). In Rom. 16:5, 1 Cor 16:19, Philem 2, Col. 4:15, however, we find in one and the same city several house-churches ; also in Rom. 16:14-15 , whether we are here to understand that there were two or as many as eight. The meetings spoken of above (8), accompanied with celebration of the Lord s Supper and doctrinal discourses, are however held in common for the Christianity of the whole city. It might on this ground be conjectured that the total number of the Christians inhabiting one and the same house is intended by the expression 'church in the house'. This, however, does not accord with the manner in which the word ecclesia is invariably used. It must therefore, doubtless, be assumed that apart from the general meetings of the entire community, sectional meetings also were held, - perhaps because in the greater cities, especially for slaves, the distances were too great for regular attend ance at the general place of meeting at certain hours. One can for example suppose sectional meetings for morning devotion.

What has just been said will be inapplicable to Col. 4:15 ('Salute the brethren that are in Laodicea, and Nympha[s], and the church that is in ... [AV 'his' ] house' ) if with KAC (so RV) we read 'their' (a.\>iiav [auton]) and refer it to 'the brethren in Laodicea and Nymphas' (TOVS tv AaoStKeto a&f A(f>oi/s (cat Nu/u.$aj>) ; for these words embrace the entire community. For this very reason the interpretation is unlikely. There is difficulty also, however, in Lightfoot s reference of 'their' (aiiTwi/) to Nymphas and his surrounding only ; difficulty, too, attaches in another way to the reading 'her' (<XUTTJS) in B (RVmg-), since a fem. name would be Nymphe (Nun<f>T)) not Nympha (Nii/iic^a). The principal point, however, remains unaffected by these various readings.

1 Schurer, 6/^(2)2358-360, 513-533 (ETii. 255-68 243-270); see also below, 24.

11. No connection with the Jewish organisation.[edit]

It becomes at once apparent that in the organisation just described there is no imitation of the Jewish organisation of communities such as one might have expected to find in view of the high significance of the primitive circle of believers and the Jewish origin of Paul.

Even when the arrangements of a Jewish community in a heathen city, not those which prevailed in Palestine, are assumed as the basis, the difference which emerges is complete. 1 A Jewish community of the sort indicated had a constitution similar to that of a heathen municipal community. At its head stood the gerusia (yepovo-ia), whose members were 'presbyters' (irpe<7/3vTepoi), even though the latter title has not been established for Rome from the inscriptions. The acting body chosen from the gerusia constituted the archons (ap^ot/Tes) ; at the head of these stood the gerusiarch (yepouacdp^rjs). The officials were elected for a definite period. Their functions were civil : administration of property, jurisdiction - even in criminal matters - over the members of the community, and so forth. Distinct from this was the office of the 'ruler of the synagogue' (ap\t- (rvi dyuyof) who had charge of the ordering of worship. At his side were an almoner and a synagogue servant. In Rome there were many such communities, each of them with its own governing body. These various 'synagogues' (cruvaytuyai) - this was the name not only of the meeting-houses but also of the communities - had no common board as was the case in Alexandria. It is plain that in the Gentile-Christian communities everything was different from this. The participation of the women in the common worship and the love-feasts are also un-Jewish.

Of any reading or explanation of the OT scriptures such as was practised in the synagogue we hear nothing so far as Corinth is concerned ; it can only have taken place in private, if at all, not at the stated acts of worship. All that the two institutions have in common, then, apart from the Amen uttered in common by the community (1 Cor. 14:16) which must indeed have been borrowed, 1 will be the very vague feature that in structive discourses were held in both and that speakers were admitted without any special selection. With the Jews indeed these were, so far as we can judge from Acts 13:15, invited by the president of the meeting. In this last point, therefore, the Corinthian conditions are more closely in accord with the analogue to which we must now proceed to direct our attention.

12. Connection with pagan meetings for worship.[edit]

The pagan societies or clubs which devoted themselves to the cult of particular deities, and more especially in the form of mysteries, exhibit many instructive points of contact with the arrangements of the Christian community in Corinth.

(a) There also the constitution of the society was entirely democratic. It had elective heads ; but all decisions were come to by the meeting as a whole. All members stood on a footing of complete equality and were called brethren and sisters. Women also were free to speak. In the meeting-room a place was set apart specially for strangers. To the common meals the individual participants brought each his share. Money grants were made to sister communities. The technical name for all such associations was eranos (Zpavos) and thiasos (tiiavos] ; but ecclesia (fKK\rjaia) was also employed.

(b) The supposition that all these things arose inde pendently within the community at Corinth under the pressure of an internal necessity, and without any con sciousness of any of the coincidences we have enumerated, is not for a moment to be entertained. We may take it as absolutely certain that many of the Christians of Corinth had formerly belonged to pagan clubs of this kind. In that case, however, neither can it be regarded as conceivable that Paul should have remained ignorant of the coincidence. The opinion has been held that nevertheless he would have refrained from making use of any such forms as had served for the worship of demons (1 Cor. 10:20). In that case, however, he would have had to give up many things which nevertheless were indispensable. We shall therefore be safe in assuming that he did not hesitate about adopting any such forms if only he was satisfied that they could also be made of service in expressing the Christian idea.

In this manner the love-feast, for example, even if the bringing of his own provisions by each guest, and perhaps many another detail, were borrowed from the pagan syssitia, did not cease on that account to be serviceable for commemoration of the last supper of Jesus and as an expression of the idea of Christian brotherhood. To what an extent Paul was capable of becoming a gentile to gentiles is shown, to take a single example, in his speaking in 11:47a of a practice quite contrary to that of the Jews as being a matter of course, simply because from his Christian point of view it commends itself to him as being the only right one.

1 So also perhaps the laying on of hands (37b).

(c) Adherence to the forms observed by such pagan associations, however, was even enjoined by a very weighty consideration. Christianity as a religio illicita was at all times exposed to prosecution by the State as soon as its distinctness from Judaism, which was a religio licita, came to be recognised. If this did not happen in Rome till towards the end of the reign of Domitian, as has been indicated as the most probable conclusion elsewhere (CHRISTIAN, 9), it has been there also pointed out how singular the fact is. Such action on the part of the State must have been a subject of dread from a much earlier date. Conforming to the usages of a heathen cult gave the Christian the best hope of being able, according to the law cited elsewhere (CHRISTIAN, col. 756, begin.), to escape the attention of the authorities.

(d) The fact of this conformity once established, we may perhaps draw certain further inferences regarding Christian institutions as to points on which we have no direct information.

A heathen club had, as already stated (see a), elective heads. It is impossible to imagine thi^t the Christian community in its turn can ever have wholly dispensed with such services as those rendered for example by persons who arranged the programme for a given meeting, saw to its being carried out, and the like. In that case it will be possible, indeed, that persons like Stephanas may have discharged such functions with the mere tacit approval of the community; still, another possibility is that those endowed with the gift of 'government' ((cupf pcrjo-ts) were actually elected to it. Only, in that case, we must not allow ourselves to forget that their functions by no means extended so far as to make it possible for Paul to demand from them the reform of those abuses which had crept in. Again, a pagan club had a common purse. In the Christian community this was not necessary either for the expenses of the common meals or for the collections made, and hardly in order to defray the costs of a place of meeting (above, 8). It is possible, however, that such a purse was needed to meet the expenses of the teachers who came from a distance ( 7, c), expenses which we learn were often heavy (2 Cor. 11:20 (careo-Oiei). Paul alone made no draft on this source ; but even his practice varied in different communities (1 Cor. 9:1-18, 2 Cor. 11:7-12, Phil. 4:10-20).

13. Attitude of Paul.[edit]

The attitude assumed by Paul towards the communities of his own founding wholly departs from the analogy furnished by the heathen guilds of worship.

(a) Paul's attitude is wholly patriarchal. He acted on the ground that he was their father with thorough going seriousness (1 Cor. 4:14-15). He commands (1 Cor. 11:2, 11:17-34, 14:26-40, 16:1), and that very definitely, precisely where institutions are concerned. He makes very short work with contumacy (7:40, 11:16, 14:37-38)- Partisanship on behalf of individual teachers he sets down (33-34) to carnal-mindedness, disregard of his authority to arrogance (4:18). He disclaims judgment (avatcpivtiv) of himself in 2:14-16, 4:3-5 with a clearness that leaves nothing to be desired. Against the Judaising teachers he declares himself in 2 Cor. 11:13-15, Gal. 1:7-9, 5:10-12 with the greatest asperity. In short, in his person there appears the same unconditioned authority which Jesus had. Instead of the deference which Jesus found, Paul, it is true, had to encounter the liveliest opposition ; claim the authority nevertheless he did, and for the most part he succeeded in asserting it.

(b) The chief enemies Paul had to deal with were the deeply-rooted immorality, and {next to that) the view, due to the influence of his own preaching, that every Christian has within himself the Holy Ghost and there fore does not need to recognise any authority over him. With regard to his decisions on questions affecting the life of the community, a feature of special interest is that, as in the case of Jesus, the decisions received the less attention just in proportion to the degree of speciality they possessed.

Whether his direction as to the punishment of the incestuous person (1 Cor. 5:1-8) was carried out we do not know ; for 2 Cor. 2:5-11, 7:12 refers not to this but to the case of another member of the community, who had uttered a grave slander against Paul. 1 We know, however, as regards the injunctions, pressed with so much earnestness, that women should be veiled, and that, except where there is danger of unchastity, marriage is better avoided (1 Cor. 11:2-16, 7:1-2, 7:7-9, 7:25-26, 29-35:40), at all times very little attention was paid to them ; and as against his advice (7:21-24) that Christian slaves ought to make no effort to obtain civil freedom, the abolition of slavery is generally and rightly regarded as one of the most glorious, though belated, achievements of Christianity.

1 Schmiedel, IfC 2 i, on 2 Cor. 2:11 : Kennedy, The Second and Third Ef is tics oj St. Paul to the Corinthians ( 1 900), 105 n.

(c) Of greatest importance are the principles followed by Paul in his decisions. Much of the effect he pro duced is doubtless due to the fact that he withstood immorality and licentiousness with resolute strictness, without making any concessions, whilst yet avoiding the error of setting up an absolutely fixed law of any kind whereby the community s freedom of movement could be hampered and its enthusiasm for the new faith stifled.

Paul wished to be not lord of his converts faith but only a helper of their joy (2 Cor. 1:24). Like Jesus, he made his appeal to the conscience, in a particularly beautiful manner in dealing with the question as to meat offered to idols (1 Cor. 8, 10:23-11:1). All things are lawful, but not all are expedient ; knowledge puffs up, but love builds up ; all things are to be done to edifica tion ; all to be done in a decent and orderly way (1 Cor. 6:12, 10:23, 8:1, 14:26-40): such are some of the aphorisms which show in what spirit it was that Paul sought to lead on the members of the Christian community of Corinth to the establishment of well-ordered institutions. Placed upon its religious basis the same thought runs : all things are yours ; but ye are Christ s (3:21-23). As regards slaves he has put this thought to an even too ideal use (7:21-24).

14. His standards.[edit]

With every effort to allow full play to individual freedom, Paul was nevertheless unable to avoid giving to certain things a normative value which later hardened into a rigid law and did serious injury to the religious life properly so called.

(a) One such norm his Jewish training led him to find as a matter of course in the OT - that is to say, a book - and moreover in a method of interpreting the OT which found in it such things as the writers could never have dreamed. What was there which could not be deduced from such a book when, for example, in Dt. 264 it was possible to find, not somehow by way of later accommodation but actually as the proper primary meaning of the author, an in junction that Christian teachers are entitled to receive support from the communities they instruct (1 Cor. 9:8-10), or in Is. 28:11-12 that 'speaking with tongues' must be regarded as of subordinate value to the gift of 'prophecy' (1 Cor. 14:21-22)?

(b) Next to the OT came in point of authority the words of Jesus (1 Cor. 7:10-11, 9:14, 11:23-25). This also was quite a matter of course ; and yet it was a departure from that fundamental direction of the piety of Paul which declared that it sought in Jesus a redeemer, not a lawgiver. As, however, a church order was what had to be created, it was inevitable that the very individual who preached freedom not only from Mosaic law but from all law whatsoever (imposed on man from without, not emanating from within) had to set up as an external authority the 'law of the Christ' (i>6/u.os TOV XpiffTov). Moreover, it is a law that cannot everywhere be expressed, as in Gal. 6:2, by some such word as love, or, as in 1 Cor. 9:21, as the command to subordinate one's own personal inclinations to the great object of bringing about the fulfilment of the kingdom of God. Elsewhere, on the contrary, it is a law made up of a series of precepts, including many about particular things which could equally well have been ordered otherwise without danger to piety. The OT and the words of Jesus, however, taken together constitute the foundations of a canon.

(c) Alongside of these Paul made tradition also into a norm ; for it was a necessity with him to maintain his connection with the primitive Church, and he therefore lays weight upon the fact that what he preaches to the Corinthians he has himself previously received (1 Cor. 11:23, 15:3).

15. Dogma.[edit]

What demands our attention next is the earliest instance of the action of that growing power which ultimately contributed so much to the moulding of piety into ecclesiastical forms. What, according to 1 Cor. 15:3, Paul received is a dogma ; an explanation, to wit, of the death of Jesus as an atoning sacrifice for the sins of men. In his own experience, indeed, Paul has become acquainted with faith in the deepest way as consisting in the yielding up of the heart to the grace and mercy of God ; and he well knows how to describe it as such. Nevertheless, we find him presenting to faith for its object not only, as the primitive Church had done (7a), a bare fact, - that of the resurrection of Jesus, - a fact that could possibly be brought into doubt or even disproved by historical criticism at any time, but also a dogma which has always the disadvantage of being liable to become burdensome to the lay conscience or to be questioned by the theological thinker - moreover, a special dogma that was not extensively held within the primitive Church at so early a time, and still less extensively at a later period when Haul was actually subjected to persecution by the Jewish-Christian party on account of his doctrine of the cross of Jesus (Gal. 5:11, 6:12). Nay, more, he declares faith in this dogma to be a command of God.

'Unbelief' (aTrto-Ti a) in Rom. 11:20 is equivalent to 'disobedience' (aTrei Seia : Ti. WH ; RV) in 11:30 ; as over against the Mosaic law which insists upon works, there is, according to Rom. 327, a divine ordinance (vofios Trurrecus) which demands belief in the atoning death and resurrection of Jesus ; and the 'obedience of faith' (vnaicorj TritrTews) of Rom. 1:5 is none other than that obedience to this divine ordinance which consists in believing. Properly speaking, faith is for Paul the exact opposite of works, not only the works of the Mosaic law but also every thing upon which man could base any claim to the divine consideration (Rom. 11:6); but as soon as it is a fulfilment of a law it does constitute something which can ask to be considered. By the turn thus given to the matter Paul accordingly has deprived faith of one of its most precious attributes, and over and above the law of Christ, referred to above ( 14), has intro duced into Christianity a second law, - this time in the interests of the divine honour ; for, it is argued, if God has once given up his Son to the death it would be a derogation from the greatness of this gift if so much as one individual were to seek salvation in any other way (Gal. 22:16+).

16. Other points.[edit]

(a) Furthermore, it is hardly possible to avoid the impression that the interest of the community as a whole - in other words, respect for church-considerations - influenced Paul's decisions. Here, again, it is quite natural that he should wish that no occasion for evil speaking should be given by the community either to Jew or to Gentile (1 Cor. 10:32); yet the question must still be asked whether his judgment upon the incestuous person (1 Cor. 5:1-8) is dictated merely by concern for the salvation of the culprit although, of course, this point of view was by no means wholly lost sight of.

(b) The impression left by his attitude towards the sacraments is equally uncertain.

Whilst, according to Gal. 3:26-27, baptism need be nothing more than the external declaration of the fact that the subject of it has embraced the Christian faith, in Rom. R 3-8 it is represented with considerable vigour as an act producing upon the subject of it a certain effect which could not have been produced apart from the act. Again, the reason of the punishment threatened in 1 Cor. 11:27-30 is not that the bread and wine contained in a magical manner the body and blood of Jesus, but that the dis regard shown for the sacred function is ethically wrong in every way ; but we find the apostle referring in 1 Cor. 15:29 without any disapproval, on the contrary as if confirming his own position, to the baptism for the dead, in which unquestionably a magical view of the working of the sacrament is involved.

(c) Finally, it was Paul who, by the emphasis he laid upon the possession of the Spirit, laid the foundation for the distinction between pneumatic and psychic persons (1 Cor. 2:6-3:3) a distinction which as employed by the gnostics went near to rending the church and, that this disaster might be avoided, made necessary that violent reaction which certainly would have been in the highest degree distasteful to the apostle himself ( 33, 53b)-

(d) The emphasis on the possession of the Spirit just referred to, however, was for Paul quite inevitable. For him it was upon the inspiration of the Holy Ghost that the validity of his own decisions, whether in matters of dogma or of government, rested. Upon the Corinthians, it is true, this made but little impression. In fact, they themselves possessed the gift of the Spirit, and that, too, according to Paul's own teaching. His subsequent withdrawal from this ideal opinion and declaration that they were not spiritual but carnal (1 Cor. 3:1-3) did not prevent them from continuing to make the claim for themselves and setting up their own views against Paul s as possessing an equal authority ; and in such a case the apostle could only answer in the language of 1 Cor. 7:40 : 'I think that I also have the Spirit of God'. Here was a conflict of decisions that had each been suggested by the Spirit. The true basis; for the unconditioned authority he claimed he accordingly sought in his apostleship. Here, however, he encountered new difficulties which we must now proceed to consider.

17. 'Apostle' wide sense.[edit]

(a) If the name apostle itself did not come from Jesus (3b), it can easily have been transferred from those emissaries of the Jewish authorities in Jerusalem who used to travel up and down the countries of the dispersion for the temple dues which they brought with them to Jerusalem, and who were also charged with the function of carrying letters and advices to the people of the dispersion and generally with that of promoting a common consciousness of religious fellowship through out theentire nation (Lightf. Gal.W, 92-101, 'The name and office of an apostle' ; Seufert [see below, 60], 8-14). In the Pauline writings 2 Cor. 8:23, Phil. 2:25 come nearest to this use of the word.

(b) Even apart from these passages, however, other persons also besides Paul and the twelve are included under the name 'apostle'.

The wider meaning occurs in 1 Cor. 9:5-6 (Barnabas) 4 9 15:7 ( all the apostles as distinguished from the twelve in 15:5), and eventually also in 1 Thess. 2:7, if Silas (cp Acts 16 1940 17 i) and Timothy are included, and in Rom. 167, where on account of the /cod [kai] ( 'who are of note among the apostles, who also have been in Christ before me' ) we can hardly understand the meaning to be that Andronicus and Junias (or a woman named Junia) are of note in the estimation of the original apostles, but must understand that Andronicus and Junias themselves are apostles. Further, the 'pre-eminent apostles' (oi \nrep\iav ajrooToAoi) of 2 Cor. 11:5, 12:11 are certainly not the original apostles (for Paul would never have expressed himself so sharply regarding these as he does in 11:13-15); rather must we take the expression as denoting certain persons who had come to Corinth itself and were looked upon by some as being in comparison with Paul the true apostles. It is not to be supposed that the Corinthians applied to them the expression 'the pre-eminent apostles' (oi viTrepAiW an-doToAoi), but Paul hits off their thought very well when he himself - ironically, of course - calls them so. He had seemed to the Corinthians simple of speech (ifiiio-nj? TOJ Aoyw) (lie) ; this also would explain itself best if the Corinthians had had opportunity of personally comparing his manner of speech with that of these people. If, now, the apostle in 11:13 calls them 'false apostles' (i//euSa7r6cTToAoi), he does not thereby by any means deny that so far as outward qualification goes - aptness in teaching, and missionary practice of this - they really are apostles ; it is only because they bring a 'different gospel' * (erfpof euayye Aioi ) and are morally reprehensible that he designates them as false apostles. If this more extended meaning for the word apostle has been made good, Paul can easily have applied it in Gal. 1:19 also to James the brotherof Jesus, although this is not exegetically certain, for the language can also mean other of the apostles saw I none, but only James [who is not an apostle] ; cp 2:16, Rom. 14:14, Mt. 12:4, Mk. 13:32, Rev. 9:4, 21:27.

(c) It is quite certain, however, that it is not to Paul that this wider application of the word 'apostle' is due. His interest was quite in the other direction, - to limit the title as narrowly as possible ; for his authority would naturally be diminished if the name of apostle placed him only in the same category as a large number of persons - many of them of very subordinate importance. Thus we may infer that the larger use of the word comes from the primitive Church and must have been customary there from the earliest times, for other wise Paul would not have failed to point out that his opponents of subordinate rank were, strictly speaking, not entitled to be called apostles. What, then, let us ask, was the characteristic mark of an apostle according to this original meaning ? It is not having been person ally called by Jesus, nor having seen the risen Jesus, nor yet an exceptionally large endowment with spiritual gifts. On the one hand, all three do not apply to every person who is called apostle ; on the other hand, the power to witness and the special endowment do not apply to those alone who are called apostles. The characteristic feature consists not at all in anything which such a man has or is, but in something which he does. Therefore it is not strictly correct to speak of apostleship as an office. It belongs, as also appears from 1 Cor. 12:28, to the charismata. Now, the charac teristic activity of the apostle is the missionary one, carried out, of course, not occasionally merely, but as a lifework (1 Cor. 15:10, Gal. 2:8). According to 1 Cor. 9:5 the original apostles also exercised this activity although at various times they had their abode in Jerusalem. If some of them took less part in the work than others, all equally received the same designation as they constituted a unity.

18. Narrower sense.[edit]

In the missionary sense of the word no one could possibly ever have disputed Paul s right to be called an Apostle ; and yet dispute it his adversaries did, as can at once be seen from the emphasis with which he claims the title,

(a) He describes himself, in fact, in 2 Cor. 1:1 as 'apostle by the will of God', and in Rom. 1:1, 1 Cor. 1:1 still more emphatically as called to be such (through the will of God), in Gal. 1:1 as 'apostle not through man but through Jesus Christ'. In 1 Cor. 9:1 as one proof of apostleship the question is asked, 'Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?' but another is added, 'Are not ye my work in the Lord?' This last, along with the addition in Rom. 1:1, 'separated unto the gospel of God', is the criterion of missionary activity already spoken of above ; the new criteria are those of having seen the risen Lord and of having been called. In virtue of what he had seen Paul is qualified to bear witness to the resurrection of Jesus. This, however, many others also were able to do. Thus, what occurred at his conversion conies into consideration primarily, not because he then saw Jesus, but because he was then called by Jesus.

(b) To have urged this would have been purposeless had not his adversaries been in the habit of asserting that he was not an apostle because he had not been called thereto by Jesus. In their controversy with Paul his adversaries must thus have narrowed the meaning of the word and have made its differentia consist in a call by Jesus. On this account the original apostles acquired a unique position. On the most conspicuous of their number was bestowed the title of honour 'the pillars' (Gal. 2:9 ; COUNCIL, 6). That Paul claimed to have received a similar call they thought they could ignore, as the claim could not be verified. The pseudo-Clementine Homilies (17:19) still represent Peter as saying to Simon Magus - under which mask Paul is disguised (see SIMON MAGUS), - 'And how are we to believe your word when you tell us that he appeared to you ?'

(c) Immediately before, Peter says in the same context, 'Can any one by a vision be made fit to instruct? And if you will say, It is possible, then I will ask, Why did our teacher abide and discourse a whole year with those who were awake?' The vision, it would appear from this, seemed questionable not only as regarded its divine origin but also as regarded its fitness to qualify an apostle for his work ; and this, from the point of view of those who had living remini scences of the conversation of Jesus while on earth to fall back upon, is perfectly intelligible.

(d) Hereby, however, at the same time a way was indicated by which it became possible to place above Paul such persons also as could not appeal to any call they had received from Jesus, if only they had known Jesus personally and for a longer or shorter time listened to his instruction.

To this class belonged those persons who first raised the party cry in Corinth, 'I am of Christ'. Their adherents followed them in taking up the same cry although they had never seen Jesus ; but originally its simple meaning was, 'I am a personal disciple of Christ', just as in the competing cries, 'I am of Paul', 'I of Apollos', 'I of Cephas' (1 Cor. 1:12). 2 Cor. 10:7 admits of no satisfactory explanation unless by 'any man' who 'trusteth in himself that he is Christ's' we are to understand the same persons as those who set up the party alluded to in 1 Cor. 1:12. These, however, as we can see from the connection in 2 Cor. 10- 13, are none other than the 'pre-eminent apostles' (virep\iav aTTooroAoi), who had practically won over the entire community to their side and alienated it from Paul. According to 2 Cor. 3:1 they had come with letters of commendation to Corinth. These, however, would have made but little impression if they had not proceeded from the primitive church, for the weightiest commendation which they can have contained must have been simply this : these men are genuine apostles, because they have known Jesus (COUNCIL, 3).

(e) If, over and above this, a definite call is still sought for them, it is always open to us to suppose that they received this from the community which felt itself under the guidance of the Holy Ghost, just as we read in the case of the community at Antioch in Acts 13:1-4. Yet we have no direct proof of this ; and the hostile attitude of the primitive church and of the original apostles who were at its head would on such an assumption of an official act appear in a still stronger light than it does on the other supposition which assumes only the irre ducible minimum - that the primitive church and the original apostles tacitly sanctioned the issue of the letters of commendation by refraining from laying a veto on them.

(f) If the idea conveyed by the word apostle was altered on the part of primitive Christianity in the manner just described, it is still by no means permis sible to go so far as Seufert, who thinks that the definite fixing of the number of the original apostles at twelve was arrived at only in consequence of the struggle with Paul. Against such a view Paul would protest with the utmost emphasis. Gal. 2 or 2 Cor. 10-13 offered opportunity enough. He makes allusion to the twelve only in i Cor. 15:5 ; but there is no sufficient reason for our rejecting this passage as spurious with Holsten. It has to be recognised as a historical fact that Jesus himself chose twelve disciples to be his immediate attendants and to carry on his work. The choice of the number, that of the twelve tribes of Israel, becomes quite intelligible if the number of persons who suggested themselves to his mind as suitable approximated twelve. Even the subsequent election of Matthias need not be brought into question, although the discourse of Peter which is reported in connection with it (Acts 1:16-22) is absolutely unhistorical (ACTS, 14, begin. ).

19. Paul's views.[edit]

(a) Of the original apostles, when it was sought to give Paul a position subordinate to them, Paul speaks with little respect (Gal. 26:11-21); but he does not demand anything more than to be co-ordinated with them. The name 'apostle' did not secure for him such a position of equality, for the wider sense of the word was still current. For this reason Paul must have favoured restricting the designation to those who had been personally called by Jesus, and sanctioning the enhanced estimation in which the twelve were held, although by reason of the rivalry of these with himself his own personal interest lay in the other direction. The narrower sense of the word 'apostle' led to the consequence that the apostolate, after the death of its first bearers, could not be handed down, and, as an institution belonging entirely to the past, enjoyed an enhanced appreciation (34). Personal disciples of Jesus who had not belonged to the number of the twelve, were from the end of the first century onwards no longer called apostles but 'disciples of Jesus' (ftaOijTal TOV Kvpiov : JOHN, SON OF ZEBEDEE, 4e). The wider sense of the word 'apostle' has held its ground in the Didache (see below, 39b). The story of the mission of the seventy which is peculiar to Lk. (10:1 ; cp GOSPELS, 109, 128b) is untrustworthy.

(b) Paul ranks the apostolic dignity extraordinarily high. In 1 Cor. 12:28 he gives it the first place (irpwrov}. In the same degree in which he humbly ranks himself far below Jesus, does he feel himself exalted as the ambassador of Jesus. He is a fellow-worker with God (1 Cor. 8:9), a 'minister' (\eiTovpy6s [leitourgos]) of Christ (Rom. 15:16), entrusted with the ministry of reconciliation (2 Cor. 5:18-19), capable of exhibiting the signs of an apostle (2 Cor. 12:12 ; cp Rom. 15:19) which, in accordance with that name, far exceed the wonderful deeds of other Christians (1 Cor. 12:9-28; id/mara, dvvdneis). As an apostle he can claim honour (i Thess. 26, RVmg). As an apostle he feels himself also entirely filled and led by God (2 Cor. 3:5-6, 4:6); his conception of the gospel is for him absolute truth, and for everything opposed to it he has his anathema (Gal. 1:8-9). However easily we may feel ourselves inclined to agree with him, we must nevertheless never conceal from ourselves that such a degree of self-consciousness in all decisions carried within it the gravest dangers for a sound development of the Christian church. There might easily arise a situation of affairs in which we should find ourselves impelled emphatically to disapprove in another of that which we gladly applaud in the apostle.

20. Conception of the church in the apostolic age.[edit]

The idea involved in the term church has already been touched on in 16.

(a) It being impossible to regard as historical the employment of the word ecclesia ( KK\-qffia. ) by Jesus as a designation of the Christian community (5a, 5b), Paul is the first whose manner of using the word is open to our observation. In a quite preponderating majority of instances it denotes with him the community of a definite city or place (CHURCH, 6), seldom the church as a whole. In Gal. 1:13, 1 Cor. 15:9, Phil. 3:6 where Paul says that he persecuted the church (of God), this is spoken in a manner that lays no stress on the fact that the church, notwithstanding the local separateness of the various communities, constitutes a unity. This is done more clearly when, in 1 Cor. 12:28, Paul says that God has set in the church some to be apostles, others to be prophets, and so forth ; for the apostles are servants of the whole church. The apostles alone, however : the prophets, teachers, and the rest are the servants only of the community in which they reside. As soon as prophets or teachers undertook missionary journeys, they became in those days forthwith apostles (17). The ideal notion of a general church seems present also in 1 Cor. 10:32 : 'give no occasion of stumbling . . . to the church of God'. This comprehensive meaning of the word is prepared for by the LXX using it to render the Heb. "?np (assembly), the aggregate of all the constituent members of the Jewish people (CHURCH, i), whilst in later Judaism it is the word 'synagogue' (ffvvayuyri) that is most commonly employed to denote the individual community (Schurer, <7/F< 2 2:361, note; ET 4:58, note). Nevertheless it would be an inversion of the natural order of things if we were to take this use of ecclesia in the Pauline writings and elsewhere as primary, and the application to local com munities as only derivative and secondary.

The roof cannot be placed upon the house till the walls have been built. The usage of profane Greek also, which can never have been without its influence upon all Gentile Christians at least, contemplates only a local community when ecclesia is em ployed. Paul, moreover, would hardly have spoken of the Corinthian community taken by itself as a temple of God or a pure virgin of Christ (1 Cor. 3:16-17, 2 Cor. 11:2) if in his view these predicates had, strictly speaking, belonged only to the church as a whole. The images would be much more appropriate if Christ were regarded as having but one temple, one pure virgin. Since Paul nevertheless does not so speak, we can see how vague is his vision when he looks beyond the separate communities to the church as a whole. He also attaches but little value to uniformity of institutions in different places. For an example, see above, 9a. True, he often alludes to the existence of similar institutions elsewhere (1 Cor. 4:17, 7:17, 11:16, 16:1 [14:33b - which, however, along with vv. 34-35, in view of the contradiction with 11:5-13, may perhaps not be genuine]); he emphasises the fact that one community enjoys a good reputation in other com munities (1 Thess. 1:7-8, 2 Cor. 8:1-5, 9:2-5, Phil. 2:15) and exercises hospitality towards wayfaring brethren ; by his own journeyings and those of his associates he awakens and stimulates the interest of the communities in one another. Still, the idea of the church as a whole does not play any great part in his writings.

If the idea has no great prominence with Paul, who nevertheless was endowed with the widest vision, certainly much less is it to be looked for in his contemporaries, and least of all in the primitive church with which the mission to the Gentiles was at all times a subordinate affair.

(b) There is one point, undeniably, in which Paul gave prominence to a thought which at a later date contributed greatly to the externalisation of piety. He promised not only the gift of the holy spirit but also the certainty of eternal life to every one who had become a member of the church (Rom. 8:29-30, 10:9-13, 5:18-21). This followed as a matter of course for his ideal representation that at conversion every one becomes an entirely new man in the same way as he himself had become an entirely new man. Paul, however, is very far from regarding membership of the church as the cause of possession of the spirit and of eternal life.

The cause according to him is ever to be found, upon God's side in the divine mercy and grace, upon man s side in faith, in other words, in a thing which is purely subjective ; and when he saw clearly the contradiction between the reality and the ideal he had assumed Paul did not hesitate to deny that the Corinthians were in possession of the spirit (1 Cor. 3:1-3), or to make eternal blessedness dependent for Christians also upon the issue of a judgment in which their condemnation was conceivable (Gal. 5:19-21, 1 Cor. 8:17, 6:9-10, 15:2, 2 Cor. 6:1, 11:15, Rom. 6:21, 11:21-22, Phil. 3:19). None the less, however, was his ideal theory open to misconstruction and the abuse indicated above.

21. Conjectures regarding the primitive church.[edit]

We turn once more from Paul to a consideration of the primitive church with the view of supplementing so far as possible what has been said already (7).

(a) It is from the very outset manifest that the arrangements of the primitive church differed greatly from those of the Gentile Christian communities, for in Palestine any borrowing from the usages of pagan religious associations is not to be thought of. It is also clear that it was in Palestine that the development of the ecclesiastical constitution could most readily be slow since some at least of the apostles, or at any rate James the brother of the Lord, to whom willing deference was paid, were always within reach. By way of indicating with what caution the statements in Acts must be received we need only refer the reader here to the article COMMUNITY.

(b) The first thing we have definitely to set aside is the view that the Christian church was founded at the first Pentecost after the crucifixion. It had been founded long before, not by an express act of Jesus indeed, but by the faith in his resurrection and by the solidarity which was the result of this faith (cp the five hundred brethren who, according to 1 Cor. 156, saw the risen Jesus simultaneously). What happened at Pentecost resolves itself when critically considered into an intense manifestation of the gift of tongues as this is described by Paul and, on the basis of previous sources, by Acts (10:46, 19:6; see SPIRITUAL GIFTS). With the discourse of Peter (2:14-36), which says nothing about any miracle, and with 2:12-13, according to which the Christians on that occasion were held to be drunk with new wine, would fit excellently some such sentence as 2:4, which, we may conjecture, immediately preceded in a written source, only with omission of 'different' (€T€pais : 'they were . . . speak with tongues . . . utterance' ). Perhaps the occurrence intended in 2:1-13 is the same as that described much less fully in 4:31 after another source : 'the place was shaken . . . and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost and spake the word of God with boldness'.

(c) Moreover, it is exceedingly doubtful whether the occurrence was at Pentecost at all.

For Pentecost - according to the Babylonian Talmud at least (Pes. fol. 68b) is the feast of the giving of the law at Sinai (according to Jubilees, 6:17, in the first century A.D., at least the feast of the making of the covenant with Noah, with which that of the making of the covenant at Sinai could easily be conjoined). But the giving of the law is described by Philo (2:185-186, 2:188, 2:295 ed. Mangey ; ET, by Yonge. 3:146 etc.) in terms quite similar to those used in the description of the miracle in Acts ; God s voice spread itself abroad, there went forth overall the earth an invisible sound which became changed into flame-like fire. The flame became articulate into the dialect to which the listeners were accustomed, and rendered the words soclearly that the hearer believed himself to be seeing rather than hearing. If any one finds himself indisposed to accept the miracle in Acts in a literal sense, it will be open to him to conjecture that the narrative is not independent of that in Philo ; and in that case the date (Pentecost) was probably supplied by the same source.

(d) In proportion as the date is put back to an earlier period shall we be compelled to doubt whether the occurrence can have taken place in Jerusalem.

All that is certain is that three years after his conversion Paul found Peter and James at the head of a Christian community in Jerusalem (Gal. 1:18-19) , but that these two individuals and the other followers of Jesus belonging to Galilee should have established themselves in Jerusalem within so short a period as seven weeks after the death of the Master rests only upon the pre-supposition of Lk. - which cannot be accepted (see GOSPELS, 138a) - that the apostles never left Jerusalem at all after that event. If, however, they had - what is in accordance with all historical probability - betaken themselves to Galilee, it would have been very singular if they had, within a few weeks, again left house and home for a place where the greatest danger threatened them without any apparent motive or necessity for such a migration. It is to Galilee in all probability that we must look for the earliest beginnings and history of the church.

22. The law.[edit]

That the Mosaic law as a whole was adhered to is certain. Yet the length of the period - down to the date of the council of Jerusalem (see COUNCIL, 4) - within which Paul's mission of emancipation from the law was allowed to go on unchallenged, would seem to indicate that the degree of legal strictness to which Christians submitted was not so severe as it became after the middle of the century. It can hardly be doubted that in Jerusalem attendance at the temple worship, and throughout Palestine in general, attendance at the synagogue services was still kept up. The specifically Christian gatherings, notwithstanding, served not only for the observance of the eucharist, but also for the mutual instruction and edification of believers through the word and common prayer. Exposition of the OT may easily have been a feature of such meetings. Appropriately enough, therefore, are the Christians in Acts 24:5-14 spoken of as a sect. They were distinguished essentially from the Jews by their belief in Jesus and by the obedience they yielded to his religious and ethical precepts.

The story of Hegesippus regarding James the brother of Jesus (Eus. HE ii. 23:4-18), which tells us that he had permission to go into the temple and pray for his people, and that the Jewish authorities took him, the head of the Christian community, up to a lofty place on the temple in order that he might bear witness against Jesus, is no doubt fabulous. Probably, however, it contains this much of truth that James, and with him the community under his leadership, had some good understanding with the Jews who did not believe in Jesus. We may suppose that James's death by stoning at the hands of the Jews in 62 A.D. - accounted for by Hegesippus as due to the witness he bore to Jesus on the occasion referred to - was what brought about the new turn of affairs when all religious connection of the community with Judaism was deliberately and permanently severed.

23. Appointments.[edit]

As for persons, it is not permissible to base conclusions on what we read in Acts 6:5 as to the election of the seven by the community, in 11:22 as to its sending of Barnabas to Antioch, or in 123-26 as to the election of Matthias by lot to the apostleship, whilst according to 8:14 the apostles themselves choose delegates from their own number. The author could easily figure such things to himself just as seemed natural and fitting. Too little prominence is given them to justify us in supposing that he found definite details regarding them in his source (cp 37a) In addition to the classes just mentioned, the presbyters are the only persons possessed of ruling functions who come into consideration for the apostolic time.

24. The presbyters.[edit]

In Acts 11:30 the contribution from Antioch for relief of the sufferers from the famine in Palestine, in the reign of Claudius, is sent to the elders in Jerusalem. In itself considered, it is just as natural that in Palestine Christian institutions should be moulded after the Jewish pattern, as it was that outside of Palestine pagan models were followed ; and as the Jews had their elders in every age (GOVERNMENT, 16, 19 ; PRESBYTER, 2) it is very natural to derive the Christian presbyters from these. It was not the Jews only, however, who had presbyters ; Deissmann (Bib. -Stud. 153-155, ET 154-157) shows that there were presbyters in Egypt and in Asia Minor as well. If then we meet with them in Gentile-Christian communities also from the close of the first century onwards, 1 we cannot with confidence say that the institution has been derived from Jewish Christianity, for (1) neither is the epistle of James with its presbyters of the ecclesia (irpffffivrfpoi TT?J (KK\rj<rias, 5:14-15) (to whom the originally quite free gift of healing [i Cor. 12:9-28] is now confined) essentially older than the two writings cited first in footnote i, below, 2 nor (2) can we be certain that Acts, in what it says about presbyters, rests upon earlier sources and not rather upon the known conditions of the author s own time merely (cp ACTS, 16).

Apart from 11:30, 14:23 is open to the suspicion of being an anachronism (see below, 37a), and elsewhere the presbyters make their appearance always (15:2, 15:4, 15:6, 15:22-23, 16:4) in connection with the apostles or (21:18) with James the brother of Jesus, without having, so far as can be seen, any definite function assigned to them. In Jerusalem itself, at any rate, any function possessed by them could hardly have been a very important one to be exercised alongside of the original apostles or of James. In Jewish-Christian communities outside of Jerusalem we may look with greater certainty for presbyters who, in actual fact, stood at the head of their respective communities as we know they did at a later date in the Gentile-Christian churches ; but on Gentile-Christian ground the institution could also have originated without borrowing from Judaism or from Jewish Christianity. Even without the presence of pagan examples it would have been a very natural thing for the men of more mature years to be made leaders of the community, and the official name could have developed afresh from its original character as denot ing mere age, even if such a thing had not occurred elsewhere long before. The difficulty attaching to the elucidation of the idea contained in 'presbyter' (irprflvTfpos) lies in good measure in this ambiguity (cp also JOHN, SON OF ZEBEDEK, 46). On the presbyters' sphere of duty in their relation to the bishops, see 44-48 ; on the 'rulers' (-ffyov^voi : Heb. 13:17) who watch on behalf of souls, as they that shall give account (cp 13:7-24), see 47b.

1 Circa 93-97 A.D. in 1 Clem. 44:5, 47:6, 54:2, 57:1 : circa 112 A.D. (see CHRISTIAN, 8) in 1 Pet. 5:15; circa 140 A.D. in Hermas, 170-180 in Ignatius (see below, 53 c-i) ; and, according to Acts 20:17, if one is disposed to accept the authority, already in the time of Paul.

2 See CHRISTIAN, 8, where Jas. is placed between Heb. and 1 Pet. ; in JAMES (EPISTLE), 5, it is placed still later.

3 The Epistle to the Colossians, controverting the Gnostics as it does, cannot, in view of the statement of Hegesippus in Eus. HE. iii. 32:7-8 that Gnosticism first arose in Trajan's time, be dated earlier than 100 A.D., and that to the Ephesians must be placed still later, exhibiting, as it does, a more advanced de velopment of the idea of the church and also showing literary dependence on Col. ; it must not, however, be brought lower than 130 A.D. as it was known to Marcion in 140 A.D.


25. Rising appreciation of the church.[edit]

Of the post-apostolic age one of the most outstanding characteristics is its steadily advancing appreciation of the church. The idea of individual communities, though still the dominant one in Acts and in James (5:14), falls on the whole into the background; that of the general church becomes the regulative one. The church's most important attributes are unity and purity.

(a) The Epistle to the Colossians and (still more) that to the Ephesians 3 are specially taken up with this idea which constitutes one of the most important elements in their contents, and frequently recurs.

In both (Col. 1:18-24, Eph. 5:23) the church is the body, of which Christ is no longer as in Paul (1 Cor. 12:12-13) the spirit, but the head, according to Eph. 1:22 the head over all ; in spite of its subordinateness to Christ the church is yet a completion to him, so that apart from it he who nevertheless 'filleth all in all' would yet be as incomplete as a head without a trunk (Eph. 1:23) ; it is the connection of the church, no longer as in 2 Cor. 11:2 that of the individual community, with Christ, that is set forth under the figure of the bridal, or marriage, relation (Eph. 5:25-30, see also Rev. 19:7-8), and is held to have been prophesied in Gen. 2:24 (Eph. 5:31-32) ; through the church it is that to the angels, who have no inherent aptitude for this knowledge, is made manifest the manifold wisdom of God (Eph. 3:10). The establishment of the church is the aim of the world s entire evolution and the object of the divine economy (oixoi-oixia : Eph. 1:10, 3:2, 9), that divine predetermination which has been a mystery from all eternity (3:11) and now is revealed to the apostles and prophets (3:3-5). It is destined to reach perfection even here upon earth (4:13) ; the prospect of a blessedness to be looked for only in the world beyond is found, in the two epistles, only in Col. 1:12-13, 3:1-4, Eph. 4:30. The most important thing in the idea of the church is, especially for Ephesians, its destina tion for the Gentiles and the fusion of these with the Jewish Christians (Eph. 2:11-22, 3:6, Col. 3:11), who have their advantage historically only, in having been nigh salvation from the first (Eph. 2:13-17).

(b) So also in the Fourth Gospel (Jn. 10:16, 'other sheep . . . not of this fold . . . one flock, one shepherd ; 422, salvation is from the Jews, cp JOHN, SON OF ZEBEDEE, 27, 39). Although the word ecclesia is not employed by this author, any more than by the writer of 1 Jn. or 2 Jn. , all three writings together with 3 Jn. have a strong churchly interest. In the gospel, however, as in Ephesians, the high dignity of the church is delineated in a purely ideal way, whilst i Jn. and still more 2 and 3 Jn. , as also the Pastoral Epistles, draw the practical consequences with much energy. In 1 Tim. 3:15 in particular a new feature is the emphasis with which it is insisted that the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth (ffrvXos /ecu edpa.iwfj.0. rrjs dXrjOfias).

(c) From the divine predestination of the church in Eph. 1:10 3:2-5, 3:9-11 there is but a single step further to that of its pre-existence, which is accepted in Hermas, Vis. ii. 4:1, and in 2 Clem. 14:1. The church appears to Hermas in his visions, and large portions of his book are devoted to its nature.

(d) The course of the development through well-nigh two centuries, which can here only be lightly sketched, reached its goal in the designation 'catholic church' which is met with, from about 170-180 A.D. onwards, in the Muratorian fragment (z). 61, 66, 69), in Ignatius (ad Smyrn. 82), in the Martyrdom of Polycarp (superscription, and 8:1 16:2, l9:2) and in an Antimontanistic writing (ap. Eus. HE v. 16:9). Cp, further, 53e.

Even Irenaeus, however, about 185 A.D. has only periphrases, such as (i. 3 [i. 10:2]) iv oAco TU> (coc7/u.a> 8tfmrap/j.ei>ri or (ii. 8:1 [9:]) ecclesia omnis per univers um orbem accepit ... In the NT we find as honorific predicates only 'ecclesia of God' (TOV 0eou : 1 Cor. 10:32, 15:9, etc. ; of an individual church in 11:22, etc. ; in the plural 11:15) and ecclesia of the saints (riav ayiiav : 14:33) ; elsewhere the holy (dyt a) ecclesia (Herm. Vis. i. 34, etc. ; cp Harnack, Lehrb. d. Doginengesch, I. ft) 335, n. 3, ET 2:73, n. 4).

26. Extra ecclasiam nulla salus.[edit]

The whole development tends constantly more and more towards the proposition : extra ecclesiam nulla salus. In principle, indeed, it is latent as soon as there is a church at all. A great difference depends, however, on whether the principle is insisted on or not, and, if insisted on, whether this is done theoretically merely, or also practically. Primarily, it is urged in order to make the invitation to join the church all the more pressing. If the invitation is complied with, the proposition becomes innocuous. On the other hand, if it is not complied with, or if the member once received has been expelled, this always comes to be associated with the idea that the person who refuses or is rejected at the same time becomes a lost soul. The thesis 'if thou believest . . . thou shall be saved' (eai> jTiOTewrfls . . . au6r)ffrj : Rom. 10:9, and frequently in other turns of expression) has always as its necessary counterpart, whether written or unwritten, that other proposition : 'he who has disbelieved shall be condemned' (6 ciTricmjcras KaraKpiOrifffTai, : Mk. 16:16).

The presupposition that Christianity alone has power to save led to the fine idea in 1 Pet. 3:19-20, according to which Jesus preached in the underworld to the spirits of the departed there, and thereby afforded them the opportunity to become partakers of salvation. Yet the idea is very imperfectly expressed. It is not merely that the writer treats as spirits in prison only those who had been disobedient in the days of Noah (which can only be explained as a borrowing from Enoch 10:11-14); even if the reader ventures to extend the preaching of Jesus to all the spirits of the departed then existing in the underworld, this means of grace fails to reach all those who have gone there after Jesus time without having heard the gospel upon earth. With Hermas (Sim. ix. 16:5-7) the pious souls who died before the coming of Christ need in the underworld not only preaching but also baptism - which they receive through the apostles. In another direction, however, Hermas is very liberal, explaining (Vis. iii. 7:5-6) that those who, after receiving the instruction of catechumens, but before receiving baptism, have relapsed into their former sins could, if they did penance, be built as living stones (not into the church, indeed, but) into a lesser building ; cp Sim. viii. 6:5-6. This goes essentially a step further than is taken when Paul (Rom. 4, Gal. 3:6), proceeding on Gen. 15:6, regards the faith of Abraham, and Hebrews (chap. 11) the faith of all OT saints, as fully effectual for salvation ; for in the excessive regard paid to the OT this inconsequence was only top natural. Christendom was regarded as simply the continuation of the OT people of God (Gal. 6:16, Heb. 2:16-17, 4:9, 1 Pet. 2:9, Rev. 14:1, cp 7:4-8, etc.). True emancipation from the ban of the conception of the Church under which all the canonical writers stand is found for the first time in Justin in his memorable utterance (Apol. 1. 46:2) : 'Those who lived with [the] Logos are Christians, even though they have been thought atheists' (this is probably polemic against the 'men without God in the world' of Eph. 2:12 [afleot iv T<a (coovia)]), 'as among the Greeks Socrates and Heraclitus and men like them ; and among the barbarians Abraham, and Ananias, and Azarias, and Misael [the three men in the furnace in Daniel], and Elias, and many others' (ot fxeTa Ao-yov /Stujcrai Tes Xpto Ttai Ot eto"tc, (car a$eot fVO/j.i<T0r)cra.v, olov ev "EAAr)(Ti pev 2<o(CpaTr)? (cat HpoucAetTOS (cat Afapt as (cat MtcrarjA (cat HAta? (cat dAAoi TroAAot).

27. The confession of faith.[edit]

If we turn now to a survey of the most important institutions of the church (27-32), it appears that the oneness of that body which the church represents rests according to Eph. 4:3-6 upon the one Spirit, the one Lord, and the one Father ; in other words, upon - though still without the later dogmatic formulation of the oneness of these three persons or entities. It follows immediately from this that the one faith which is directed towards these three (4513) is not formulated so simply as it was in the oldest times. This triad, which in the mouth of Jesus (Mt. 28:19) is un-historical (5c; GOSPELS, 136, end), and with Paul (2 Cor. 13:13) in this collocation has not yet been made an object of faith, constitutes rather the foundation of the regula fidei to which converts to Christianity had to signify their adherence at baptism and out of which by ever new additions the so-called symbolum apostolicum at last grew.

For the oldest extant forms from as early as the beginning of the second century see, for example, Harnack, Pat. ap. op. i. 2:115-142.1 This rule already contains many more dogmas than those which Paul declared indispensable (15) ; and faith in the formula 'one faith' (Oxt a Trio-Tts) no longer means the exercise of faith - a meaning which can be upheld for all the passages in Paul, even for Gal. 3:25, Rom. 1:5 (upon which cp 15, end) - but the matter of faith : in a word, no longer fides qua creditur but fides quae creditur. So also in the Pastoral Epistles, particularly clearly in Tit. 1:4, 1 Tim. 1:19b, 4:1, 4:6, 6:10-21, 2 Tim. 3:8 (where a wrong attitude in respect of faith is the same thing as a wrong attitude in respect of truth in 2:18) and Jude 20 and 3 ( 'your most holy faith . . . once for all delivered unto the saints' ). Here, accordingly, and throughout the whole of the post-apostolic literature much greater importance is attached to orthodoxy of belief than formerly.

1 The oldest Roman formula runs as follows : I believe in God the Father, Almighty, and in Christ Jesus his son, the only-begotten, our Lord, who was born of the Holy Spirit and Mary the virgin, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate and buried, who rose on the third day from the dead, who ascended into the heavens, who is seated at the right hand of the Father, whence he will come to judge quick and dead ; also in [the] Holy Ghost, [the] holy church, forgiveness of sins, resurrection of [the] flesh. Amen, (n-toreiiioeis flebi/ jrare pa Troi TCXcpaTOpa, (tai ei? Xpicrrbi/ \Tf\o~o\iv TOV vibv avTOV TOV novoyev ij, TOV (cvptoy i)H<o> / , TOV yfwriOevTa CK Tryevjuaro? dyiov (tat Mapt as r>) napBevoy, TOV <=7Tt HOVTIOV ITiAarou o~Tavp<a6fVTa (cat Ta<f>fVTa, TT} rptTT/ r)ju.e pa ai/ao-rai/Ta (C VfKpuiv, dvafldvTa. eis TOV? ovpavovs, Kafrjuevov ei 6ef la TOV Trarpos, odfv ep^erai Kplva.1 (Jwrras (cat veKpovs, Kal ets 7n>eCju.a aytop, dyiav CKKAjjcrtaf, afye&iv ajLtapTtaJi , crapKO? ayacr- rao-ii/ an)f.) Kattenbusch (Apostol. Symbol, cp his own excerpt in ZTK, 1901, 407-428) dates this formula at about 100 A.D.

28. The new moral law.[edit]

In the Didache, which is intended for catechumens of the entire church, we find the Lord s Prayer, as also his Law (upon which chaps. 1-5 are based) as a kindred bond of union. These two constitute the most precious heritage which the church has retained, and their genuineness is undoubted. The externalisation, however, of which we have spoken shows itself in the DidaM in the manner in which these and other exhortations of the law are in vested with the formal character of a positive injunction ; the Lord s Prayer is to be offered three times a day, and Christians are to differentiate themselves from the hypocrites, that is, from the Jews, by fasting not on Monday and Thursday but on Wednesday and Friday (813). Here, as in kindred matters, Christianity takes more and more the form of a nova lex. This finds expression in the strikingly paradoxical conception of a law of liberty ( Ja. 1:25), which is very well paraphrased in Barn. 26 : 'the new law of our Lord Jesus Christ, being free from constraint' (6 A-aicds vbjjios TOU Kvpiov i]IJ.C)v Irjcrou X/HcrroD, &vfv firyoG dvd-yKrj^ &v). Cp 146.

29. The canon.[edit]

The value attached to the words of Jesus led to a corresponding value being attached to the books in which these were recorded, and these formed the first portion of a NT canon. Before this last attained recognition the OT, as from the earliest days of Christianity, was regarded as a holy book : with particular fulness, in Hebrews, and with far-reaching application of the allegorical method in the Epistle of Barnabas ; but also in the Fourth Gospel (JOHN, SON OF ZEBEDEE, 39), in the Pastoral Epistles (2 Tim. 3:15-16), in 2 Pet. (1:19-21), in Ignatius (ad Philad. 9:2), etc. Eph. and Col. stand alone in laying no stress upon it. The NT, or rather, part of the writings now contained in it, was first raised to the same rank with the OT as 'holy scripture' somewhere between 170 and 180 A. D. , and this not as the result of a gradually and naturally increasing appreciation, but because, in the conflict with Gnosticism and Montanism, a definite norm was needed to which appeal could be made on the one hand against the gnostic forms of the church's faith (e.g. , 2 Tim. 2:8), and on the other hand alike against the traditions put forth by the Gnostics as resting on secret apostolic tradition and against the new prophecies of the Montanists. It is not by mere accident that the canonisation of the bulk of the NT dates from the same period as the rise of the designation Catholic Church. See further, 32 end, and 35 b-e.

30. The sacraments.[edit]

In like manner the importance attached to the sacraments increased. In Eph. 4:5, 'one Lord, one faith' is immediately followed by 'one baptism'. The necessity of baptism for salvation is expressly emphasised even in the pneumatic Fourth Gospel (3:5). The next step is that, whilst in the apostolic age, and to a large extent even in the post-apostolic (GOSPELS, 136, end ; cp also Clem. Recog. 1:39, 1:73 [although there we read also of trinas invocationis baptisms in 1:63] and even in the third century the opponents of Cyprian [epist. 73:16-18]), baptism was administered simply in the name of Jesus, the trinitarian formula is met with in Did. 7:1 and in Justin, Apol. i. 61:3. The intermediate stage, of two clauses only, is perhaps indicated by Rev. 14:14, Jn. 17:3, 1 Tim. 2:5. The oneness of the eucharistic celebration is specially insisted on by Ignatius (ad Philad. 4, ad Eph. 202, ad Magn. 7:2). In Did. 9:4, 10:3 the unity of the church, represented by the union of the grains of corn in the bread - an idea which figures in 1 Cor. 10:17 in a subsidiary degree only - appears as the central idea of the eucharist. The indispensableness of this sacrament for eternal life is strongly insisted on in Jn. 6:51-58, although the outward action is again divested of its value by 6:63. What sort of magical ideas were capable of being associated with it is seen in Ignatius (ad Eph. 20:2), where participation in the sacrament guarantees immortality :

'Bread, which is the medicine of immortality and the antidote that we should not die, but live in Jesus Christ for ever' (dp-ros Tpefavrai WMV) ;

similarly Justin, Apol. i 662:

'food from our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished'

and perhaps Didache 103:

'didst bestow on us spiritual food and drink and eternal life' (wlv (\api<rta ircevpariKi}! rpo^>r\v KOI TTOTOV xai fu>T|i/ aiucior).

31. Treatment of sinners and of heretics.[edit]

The purity of the church renders necessary, on the one hand, the conflict with immorality (2 Tim. 2:19), and on the other - the conflict with heresy. In church discipline concern for the salvation of the sinner becomes mingled more and more, not only with the churchly (16a), but also with the hierarchical, interest. As against heretics, since heresy (a ipeffis), properly speaking, means a peculiar opinion and a special class of men who are held together by it - as in Josephus (Ant. xiii. 5:9, 171 and often): the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the Essenes (cp above, 18d) - the only appropriate method of dealing with them is, naturally, by endeavouring to convince them, by means of oral discussion, of the erroneousness of their views. The epistle to the Ephesians reveals only in 4:14, 5:6 that it has to do with opponents at all. So also the Fourth Gospel meets them not with polemic, but with positive statement. The epistle to the Colossians, in its polemical parts (chap. 2), makes use of restrained language and is at pains to adduce reasons for what it says. For the rest, however, the method of dealing with heretics constitutes one of the darkest pages in the whole history even of the earliest theology. The views disapproved of are simply rejected, and to those who hold them such impure motives are ascribed, and so many crimes (which yet have no sort of connection with the doctrines attributed to them) that it is hardly possible to persuade oneself of the justice of the representations. The conjecture suggests itself only too readily, that the churchly writers were neither able nor willing to do justice to the views of their opponents. 1 Whilst 1 Jn. simply shares the language of strong reprobation and censure, as of moral perversity, not intellectual error merely, which is met with in the Pastoral Epistles, in Jude, and in 2 Pet. , 2 Jn. proceeds to practical measures by excommunicating the adversary (v. 10-11). In the Pastoral Epistles it is possible to discover the order in which they were written (probably by different authors between 100 and 150 A.D. ), by the attitude they disclose towards opponents. In 2 Tim. 4:14 the divine retribu tion is threatened upon Alexander ; but, as a general rule, according to 2:24-26, the attempt ought to be made to win adversaries to a change of view by gentleness of demeanour. According to Tit. 1:13, 3:10 the rebuke ought to be 'sharply' ( 'briefly' : aTroro/uws) given, and after the second admonition adversaries ought to be shunned. In i Tim. 1:20 Hymenreus and Alexander, the first men tioned of whom is named also in 2 Tim. 2:17-18 are given over to Satan. For a heretic is here prescribed the treatment which in 1 Cor. 55 was the punishment of the most scandalous. The conclusion of the parable of the tares (5d) did not everywhere meet with attention.

1 As Paul permitted his followers to eat meat that had been offered to idols, and to form marriages with relations or with pagans (Cous ciL, n, begin.), it is not impossible that the author of Rev. 2-3 was simply hurling back the reproaches of 2 Cor. 11:13-15 and elsewhere when he used the language which we find in 2:2 (an-ocrr. i//ei/8ets), 26:14-15, 26:20-24. If the Epistles were not written till long after the death of Paul, the probability increases that they are directed not against him but against his successors ; this, however, does not lessen the violence of their polemic.

32. Enhanced appreciation of offices.[edit]

For giving effect to all these things the church needed ruling persons, and it is for this reason that the scope of the present article has been widened so as to include consideration of institutions which, regarded in themselves, seem impersonal. Step by step, with the enhanced appreciation of the church and its institutions, the appreciation of the persons charged with its conduct advances also, and what originally was only a free activity occasionally exercised, develops from the nature of the case into an office. Whilst Paul (in 1 Cor. 12:28), after enumerating apostles, prophets, and teachers, goes on to give the sentence an impersonal turn and speaks of miracles, gifts of healing, helps, governments, kinds of tongues, in Eph. 4:11 the 'governments' have become persons pastors. Moreover, they are promoted in rank, for they come immediately after apostles, prophets, and evangelists, and before teachers (unless, indeed, they are to be identified with these ; see below, 39e). The management and administration of affairs became more and more the chief concern. The ultimate issue of the development is arrived at in Ignatius, with whom the bishop stands before all other bearers of office, apostles alone excepted. It is not by mere accident that this also synchronises with the introduction of the expression 'Catholic Church', and with the rise of the NT Canon. See, more specially, 49-54.

33. Value of this development.[edit]

In spite of every dark side which the development of the church displays when contrasted with the original gospel of Jesus, it has to be acknowledged, from the point of view afforded by history, that the development, as a whole, was inevitable if Christianity was to hold its own at all against two dangers to which it was exposed. On the one hand there was persecution, on the other hand the unlimited freedom involved in possession of the Spirit, as also the speculations - not so much religious as philosophical - of Gnosticism. As matters stood, a strict organisation really was essential. Exactly in proportion as the representatives of traditional Christianity fell below the Gnostics intellectually and otherwise, was it necessary for them to be able to lay hold of a fixed regula fidei, a canon, a high valuation of the sacraments. Similarly, the more the individual Christian felt himself unable to withstand the allurements of pagan life, the terrors of persecution, the infectious character of gnostic theories, the more was it necessary for men of strong character to hold the reins with firm hand. The evils which this necessarily brought in its train threatened indeed to carry the church so far away that it could no longer be recognised as truly and faithfully representing the essence of Christianity. At the same time, in what the church had succeeded in conserving - it may be in a violent and, in many respects, unchristian way - she possessed, though in conjunction with assets of a very questionable character, the genuine gospel of Jesus which still preserved its power to frustrate all distortion and obscuration of its true nature. In this way the church development of which we have been speaking has rendered to Christianity a quite inestimable service. What is to be regretted is not so much that the development occurred as that, along with the truly Christian element which was saved, there was transmitted to future ages also much that was foreign, or even hostile, to the essence of Christianity, taken on under stress of circumstances in a manner that now makes purifica tion from such elements extraordinarily difficult.

34. Appreciation of first apostles (the Twelve and Paul).[edit]

We come now to a consideration of the various classes of persons whose action resulted in the development of the church which has just been sketched. First in order come the apostles in the narrower sense of that word (8). In respect their immediate call by Jesus himself it was impossible for them to have successors, and the regard in which they were held by succeeding generations grew all the more on that account.

(a) The apostles are represented as the founders of the church, and even Haupt (see below, 60) accepts the unhistorical theory - possible only to a distant retrospect - that it was in the founding of the church by missions and organisation of communities, and not in the securing of a progressive development, that the task assigned to the apostles by Jesus lay. It is obvious, however, that these two do not admit of being separated, and that it could not have been either Jesus wish or theirs that they should refrain from any further development of ecclesiastical organisation if this was open to them, especially in the case of so long a lifetime as is assigned, by Haupt as by others, to John the son of Zebedee.

(b) The result of this view, however, was that the apostles were also regarded as the foundation upon which the building of the church rests. In 1 Cor. 3:11 Jesus alone is this one foundation ; in Eph. 2:20 he is only the corner stone, the foundation being the apostles t nd (NT) prophets (see 38a), in the former class Paul also being of course included. In Rev. 21:14, it is the twelve apostles of the lamb (without Paul) whose names are written upon the twelve foundation stones of the heavenly Jerusalem.

This verse has for long been with many theologians an obstacle to their regarding the Apocalypse as the work of one of these twelve. So also the reading of TR in 18:20, 'ye holy [not 'ye saints and ye' ] apostles and ye prophets' (oi iyiot [without icai oij aTrdoToAot <cal oi n-po^rai), as long as it was held to be the correct reading constituted a similar hindrance with many. The same consideration, however, demands to be applied to Eph. If it was really Paul who wrote the words in 3:5, 'his holy apostles and prophets' (rocs a-yt ois ajrocTToAois airroti xai Trpo^rais), the case would be much the same as if to-day a bishop were to speak of the 'holy bishops of God'. According to Harnack (/.tschr.f. Kircliengcsch.,i%-]{), p. 391) the phrases in variably met with every where else down to the third century are only the good apostles, 'the blessed Paul', 'the apostle Paul', and the like ; we find in Ignatius, ad Magn. 3:1, presbyters, and in Mart. Polyc. 17:1, martyrs called holy. 1

(c) The first apostles are further regarded as having received the Holy Ghost as no others had done. In Jn. 20:22-23 this gift is communicated by Jesus to his disciples along with the power of forgiving or retaining sins - a power which, according to Mt. 18:8 ( 4) is not limited to them. According to Acts 8:14-19, 19:6 only the Twelve and Paul, not missionaries of subordinate rank such as Philip, possess the power of conferring (by imposition of hands) the gift of the Holy Spirit upon the baptized - a position in direct contradiction not only to Paul but also to Acts 19:2, according to which authorities the gift comes of itself by the act of believing. A new theory of this kind could spring up all the more readily when, during the second century, the consciousness that every Christian possesses the Holy Spirit gradually fell into the background. For further consequences of this change of view, see 37 b-e.

35. 'Apostolic' literature.[edit]

This exceptional spiritual endowment of the apostles qualified them also for the production of normative writings.

(a) This consideration soon found practical application when obscure men, who could hope for no attention to books written in their own names, wrote under the names of apostles (2 Thess. , Col, Eph., Pastoral Epistles, James, 1 and 2 Pet. ; indirectly also the Fourth Gospel ; cp JOHN, SON OF ZEBEDEE, 41).

This must not at all be regarded, in accordance with modern ways of looking at things, as forgery. The only reasonable view is that which takes as normal for the whole attitude of the ancient world towards such questions the saying of the Neo-platonist lamblichus, who set it down to the credit of the Pythagoreans that, renouncing all praise for themselves, they turned everything to the honour and glory of their master. For Christianity in particular we may regard as normal the saying of the presbyter in Tertullian (de Bapt. 17), when asked why he had written the Acts of Paul and Thecla under the name of Paul, that he had done it for love of Paul ('id se amore Pauli fecisse'). The judgment of Tertullian upon this is also interesting ; he has no moral censure for it but only sarcasm - 'as if he were augmenting Paul's fame from his own store' ( 'quasi Pauli titulo de suo cumulans' ) ; so, too, is the information Tertullian gives, that this presbyter was deprived of his office not because he had written a spurious work, but because in that work, contrary to the ecclesiastical order (1 Cor. 14:34), he had introduced Thecla's example as a warrant for women's teaching and baptizing.

1 The holy prophets of 2 Pet. 3:2, since the apostles are mentioned after, not before, them, must be those of the OT. The expression, the holy choir of the apostles (6 tepbs TO>I aTrocr-^6\tav xopds) cannot, with certainty, be traced to Hegesippus, since Eusebius (HE iii. 32:8) does not quote his words verbatim.

(b) The view that apostles alone were fitted to be the writers of normative books came to be applied still more extensively when the canon was being fixed. None but apostolic writings could render that service against Gnostics and Montanists which the canon, according to 29, Was required to render. Were other writings also admitted it became impossible to establish any hard and fast line over against those Gnostic and Montanistic writings which, nevertheless, it was desired to exclude. Thus it became compulsory, on the one hand, to accept all writings which offered themselves as being of apostolic origin, and on the other hand, to declare to be apostolic every writing which it was not desired to drop, or which had already established itself so firmly that it could no longer be set aside.

(c) The violent measures which these considerations rendered necessary supply us with the reason why, in 29, it was found necessary to reject what would otherwise have been the simplest and most natural view, that the books of the NT came gradually to be regarded as on a level with those of the OT by a silent and natural growth of the appreciation in which they were held.

The gospels attributed to non-apostolic men, Mark and Luke, had to be justified by the assertion that they rested upon the communications of Peter and Paul respectively, although Paul had confessedly not known Jesus at all during his life on earth. Of the epistles to Philemon, Titus, and Timothy we read in the Muratorian fragment (the only writing which enables us to see not only the fact but also the motive of the formation of the NT canon) [i. 61] ; 'in honorem ecclesise catholicae in ordinatione ecclesiastica; discipline sanctificatae sunt'. With regard to the Fourth Gospel the fragment confirms what we know already from 21:24, that a plurality of persons attested the character of its author as eye witness (i. 14 : ut recognoscentibus cunctis Johannes suo nomine cuncta describeret ; cp JOHN, SON OF ZEBEDEE, 40, end).

Of all these writings, in other words, the author of the fragment knew that their canonisation had to be carried through in the face of serious doubts.

(d) It has even been conjectured that writings like the epistle of James or 1 Pet. only now had the apostolic names prefixed after having existed for some time in an anonymous form, as the epistle to the Hebrews does even to this day. Conversely it has also been conjectured with regard to Hebrews, which has already reached a full close in 13:21, that the present conclusion - which by its mention of Timothy would seem to point to a Pauline origin - was added at this time, and the beginning, which had named a non-apostolic person as author, removed. The examples cited uuder (c), however, are sufficient to show that the establishment of the canon was set about with full deliberation, and that the leading thought in carrying out the task was the demand for apostolic origin.

(e) No difference is made by the fact that along with the principle just mentioned that of the catholicity of the contents of the books was also followed. This was done only where the apostolicity of origin was contested, as in the case of the Pastoral Epistles and the Fourth Gospel, and it was done simply in order to meet the doubt as to the apostolic origin. In the case of expressly non-apostolic writings like Mk. and Lk. a third principle was deferred to - that of traditional estimate ; but the efforts made to prove an apostolic origin even for them show that the traditional estimate alone was not regarded as decisive any more than catholicity of contents was.

36. Peter and Paul.[edit]

The number twelve, as applied to the apostles had, in view of the obscurity of most of those men, only a schematic value ; (Q) Peter alone, in the recollection of the second century, could take a position of importance even approximating to that of Paul and, after him, James the brother of Jesus, and the John of Asia Minor (if we suppose him to have been the apostle ; see JOHN, SON OF ZEBEDEE, 3).

The pseudo-Clementine Recognitions (l:68, 1:73, 4:35) and Homilies (beginning, epistle of Peter, Ia.Ku>p<? TU> xvpiia KOI eirto-Konta TTJS ayios fKK\r<riay) make James the universal bishop and represent Paul under the guise of Simon Magus (see 18 be, and SIMON MAGUS) ; and Justin, although acquainted with the writings of Paul, at least never mentions him, and (Apol. i. 39:3, 50:12 Dial. 42) attributes the mission to the Gentiles to the twelve.

The Johannine writings, on the other hand, put forward the John of Asia Minor as the highest authority in such a manner that Peter everywhere falls behind the beloved disciple ; he comes into competition with him even at the visit to the empty grave (20:3-9), and not till the appendix in chap. 21 is reached is he, in some measure at least, rehabilitated (JOHN, SON OF ZEBEDEE, 40). In Acts, however, care has already been taken to put forward Peter as the representative of the primitive apostles who was on a level with Paul at all points, even in the details of his miracles and sufferings (ACTS, 4). This view could only be furthered by the belief that Peter had laboured in Rome (see SIMON PETER), which, as the metropolis of the world, very soon acquired a dominating position for all Christendom (so already in 1 Clem. 1:1, 63:2-3). So it came about that, in place of Jesus and in place of all the apostles and prophets (34), Peter in his single person could seem, to a later redactor or supplementer of the First Gospel (16:18), to be the foundation of the church (4).

(b) The belief, however, that Peter had been in Rome at the same time as Paul constituted the best possible reason for bringing forward, in highest prominence, the two men, who really had been so sharply opposed in their lifetimes, as representatives of Jewish and Gentile Christianity respectively, in fullest accord with each other. So it is that we find Ignatius writing to the Romans (43): 'not like Peter and Paul do I lay my commands on you' ; and 2 Pet. , the latest of the NT writings (160-180 A.n. ), ratifies this oneness by making 'Peter' acknowledge the insight that has been given to Paul and reckon his epistles as integral parts of holy scripture whilst yet much that is contained in them - in other words the portions which are unacceptable to him - are gently set aside as 'hard to be understood' (3:15-16).

37. Succession: laying on hands.[edit]

That the first apostles possessed in a pre-eminent degree the Holy Spirit would have been a belief of little value for the later church if they had not been able in some way or other to transmit the gift. Of course, not to every one, but only to those who could be regarded as their successors in office.

(a) Already in 1 Clem. 42:4, 44:2-3 it is represented as a thing quite made out, that the apostles appointed bishops and deacons in the communities founded by them, under the approval of these, and took steps to secure that as these bishops and deacons were removed by death proper men should be their successors. In like manner we read in Acts 14:23 that Paul and Barnabas chose elders in every community. When the absolute autonomy possessed by the community at Corinth is borne in mind (9a), this representation is very hard to believe. In Tit. 1:5 the task of appointing presbyters in every city of Crete is committed to Titus as repre senting Paul.

(b) The conception reaches completion, however, only when at installation there is conferred upon the person chosen a capability or power possessed by the person installing, but not possessed by the person in stalled without a solemn act. This power is no other than that special high measure of the gift of the spirit which is peculiar to the apostles. For its transmission the same act is needed as, according to Acts 8:17-19, 19:6, was required for the communication of the Holy Spirit to new converts by the apostles namely, the imposition of hands, which in Heb. 62 seems to be associated with baptism, and which is also appropriate to acts of blessing (Gen. 48:14-20, Mk. 10:16), and to acts of healing (Mk. 5:23, 7:32, 8:23, Acts 9:12, 9:17 and often). It appears also as consecration to an office in Acts 6:6, and in the Mishna it is used at the installation of a judge (Schur. GJV- 2:152; ETii. 1:177 ).

(c) The spirit of his office conferred upon Timothy is called (1 Tim. 4:14, 2 Tim. 1:6) 'charisma', -x&pia pa. (rod Beov [ton theon]).

It is, however, no such gift as that which, according to 1 Cor. 12:11, the Spirit bestows 'as he will' ; it is bestowed on Timothy, according to 2 Tim. 1:6, 'through the laying on of my hands' (Sia rrjs en-tSeVews r<av \ei.piav juov). In other words, a purely magical conception, of which Beyschlag (see below, 60) p. 95 says 'nothing more un-Pauline is to be met with anywhere in the Pastoral Epistles'. Nor is the criticism obviated by the fact that, according to 1 Tim. 4:14, this 'charisma' is bestowed upon Timothy 'by prophecy' (Sia 7rpo<|)Tetas). Prophetic indications that this or the other man was the right person to fill a given office may very easily have influenced elections (cp 1:15 : 'according to the prophecies ... on thee' ), and such announcements may have been repeated at the solemn installation (cp Acts 13:1-2 and doubtless also 20:28 : 'the Holy Ghost hath made you bishops' ). Still, even in 1 Tim. 4:14 the imposition of hands is by no means lacking.

(d) Only, it is another custom that is here referred to - a custom which often enough may have asserted itself and therefore could not be passed over in complete silence by the writer - namely, the laying on of hands by the presbytery. It is, however, to be observed that it is represented only as a concomitant circumstance (fj.rd), not (as the laying on of hands by Paul in 2 Tim. 16: did) as the cause of endowment with the gifts of office. As we can find a precedent for the act that effects endowment in the imposition of hands by Moses on Joshua, according to what we read in Nu. 27:18-23, Dt. 349, so for the act that merely accompanies endowment we have an analogous proceeding in the imposition of hands by the people in Nu. 8:10 at the installation of Levites which also resembles Acts 13:3. Whilst in Acts, however, the whole community lays its hands on the missionaries who are about to be sent forth, we find this function in i Tim. 4:14 already limited to the presbytery.

(e) The limitation just mentioned is connected with the further restriction that the communication of the gift of office is made not to every bearer of office, but only to Timothy ; that is to say, to the representative of the bishop (see below, 54d). That he does not become a partaker in the apostolical succession for his own person alone, but with the capability, and also the duty, of further transmitting it, is shown by 1 Tim. 5:22, 2 Tim. 2:2. From the verb here used (ira.pa.Qov) it is at the same time clear that the trust (trapaflriKri) of 1 Tim. 6:20, 2 Tim. 1:14 (less easily 1:12) is to be regarded along with 'charisma' (xdpia >tct) as a more precise desig nation of the gift of office so bestowed. It seems thus to be looked upon as a valuable committed to the custodian's care to be faithfully kept and delivered up undamaged.

38. The prophets.[edit]

(a) After the apostles the first place is taken, not only in 1 Cor. 12:28 but also in Eph. 4:11, by the prophets ; and in Eph. 2:20, 3:5 they and they alone are associated with the apostles as constituting a unity. It follows not only from 4:11 but also from 3:5 that NT not OT prophets are intended, since to them the mystery hidden from former generations has now (vvv) been revealed. The collocation in Rev. 18:20 ( 'ye saints and ye apostles and ye prophets' ) is similar, the prophets in this book taking (as can be easily understood) a prominent part throughout (10:7, 226; along with the saints in 11:18, 16:6, 18:24, cp 22:9 ; also the two witnesses in 11:3-10 are called prophets). In Did. 13:3 (circa 130-160 A.n.) the prophets alone are called 'your chief priests' (with reference to 1 Cor. 9:13) and receive on this account the first-fruits ; at the Lord's Supper, the presidency over which, as we can perceive, belongs to them, they are not, according to 10:7, restricted to the use of the formal prayers ; to cast doubts upon their pneumatic utterances is the sin against the Holy Ghost (11:7 ; cp Mt. 12:31-32).

(b) In the very next sentences, however, the author of the Didache proceeds to give rules that neutralise this prohibition. He sets up criteria according to which his readers are to be able to discriminate be tween true prophets and false.

He who has not 'the ways of the Lord' (rpoiroi icvpiov), he who does not himself practise what he teaches, he who in pneu matic utterance orders a table and then partakes of it, he who demands money or other things, is a false prophet. The greater the reverence for the spirit of God which speaks out of the prophets, the worse must have been the degeneracy which rendered such cautions necessary. In point of fact Hermas finds a whole inandatum (11) required in order to meet this need. Peregrinus was, according to Lucian (ch. 11-13, 16), amongst the Christians a prophet (7rpo</>jJTT) [prophetes]), a leader of a Thiasus-band (0ia<r<xpx)? : as leader of the love-feast), a synagogue officer (fuyayioyevs : as preacher), president (Trpoo-Tanjs), and ex perienced in his captivity the most extraordinary attentions and on his journeyings the richest maintenance. A goetes such as he, who knew how to deal with Christians with the requisite cunning, had it in his power, according to Lucian about 166 A.D., to become a rich man within a very short time. Similar things can be found in Celsus about 180 A.D. (ap. Origen 7 9 11 ; vol. i. 700 and 702 ed. de la Rue). Perhaps we may also interpret Mt. 7:15-23 in the same sense ( 'false prophets . . . in sheep s clothing . . . have we not prophesied in thy name?' etc.), especially as prophecy in the name of Jesus during his lifetime could much less easily have happened than what Lk. (13:26-27) has in the parallel passage : we have eaten and drunk in thy presence, and thou hast taught in our streets. The char acterisation given by Hermas may possibly, in view of what has just been said, not be entirely exact. He says that a false prophet gives to individuals privately forecasts as to their future, but shrinks from coming forward in the public meeting of the congregation and speaks only when consulted (Mana 11:5-6, 11:13-14). On the contrary, the prophets just depicted were met with both as itinerant preachers and also as settled members of the communities to which they respectively belonged (cp Acts 11 17 21:10 as contrasted with 13:1). Only in the latter case are they (their good behaviour being, of course, presupposed), according to Did. 13:1-3, to receive the first-fruits. As their manner of speech was ecstatic indeed, yet, in contradistinction from the speaking with tongues, capable of being generally understood, it admits of being designated as doctrine {Did. 11:10, Rev. 2:20), and conversely the false apostle of Did. 11:5-6 can be called a false prophet.

(c) It is only natural that, with the general falling off of that inspiration by which the spiritual gifts of the oldest Christianity are to be explained, the form also of ecstatic preaching became increasingly rare. In Did. 134 provision is made for the case of there being no prophet in a community ; the firstling gifts are then to go to the poor. Partly the abuses already referred to, partly also the very pronounced recrudescence of ecstatic utterance among the Montanists, and the in compatibility of the unbridled individualism implied in this with the ecclesiastical organisation which in the meanwhile had grown to greater strength, served to bring the whole manifestation into discredit, and so to an end. The respect which the prophets lost must naturally have accrued to the bishops, who now came to be looked upon as the sole organs of the Holy Spirit (through the apostolical succession).

39. Apostle of Didache; evangelists; teachers.[edit]

The third place (i.e. , next to the apostles and the prophets) is by Paul (1 Cor. 12:28) assigned to the teachers ; by the epistle to the Ephesians (4:l1) on the other hand, it is given to the evangelists, whilst the teachers are relegated to the fifth place (yet see below, e).

(a) A possible inference is that the evangelists constitute a special class.

The view that the authors of written gospels are intended is quite impossible ; but so also is the other that by evangelists are meant subordinate missionaries who had not to teach but merely to recite the gospel history in accordance with a fixed type of narrative committed to memory (GOSPELS, 115). If that were so, not only would the high appreciation bestowed upon them in Eph. 4:11 be remarkable ; the limitation to a task of this description would be on missionary journeys quite un workable. 2 Tim. 4:5 throws no light on the subject, for in the expression do the work of an evangelist (tpyov iroi^trov eiiayyeAio-roG) it is presupposed that Timothy was not himself an . evangelist. The explanation of what is meant by evangelist is doubtless, however, to be found by the help of the last passage in which the word occurs (Acts 21:3).

The evangelist mentioned in Acts 21:8 - Philip - is the same as the person whose missionary activity in Samaria and with the Ethiopian eunuch is recorded in Acts 8:5-40. Thus by an evangelist we are to understand a non-apostolic missionary, all the more because in its original meaning 'gospel' (evayye\iov) also denotes not the history of Jesus but the glad tidings of salvation.

(b) In this case, however, an evangelist does not differ from an apostle in the wider sense of the word explained in 17, and one could at most suppose that the word evangelist, which is met with only in writings of the second century, had come into use in place of the word apostle because the prevailing use of 'apostle' had come to be in the narrower sense. This we may take to be the true state of the case in the three writings referred to above (Acts, Eph., 2 Tim.). The Didache affords evidence, indeed, that alongside of the narrower meaning the wider sense also maintained itself. The apostles, however, who are contemporary with its author, are by no means on a level with the former bearers of that title. The early apostles figure only in the superscriptions (5i5ax>7 TWI> SwSexa awovToXuv and dtSaxi) Sia rwt> 5a>5f KO. a.TroffT6\uv rots H8v((nv) the contemporary apostles, on the other hand, rank after the prophets even, as only these last are put on a level with the high priests (133). According to 114 the (contemporary) apostles ought to be received like the Lord himself (cp Mt. 10:40) ; but according to Did. 11:1-2 this holds good of every teacher. The Didache shows us how the apostles ought to be classified, ranking them along with the teachers. If prophets and teachers come before us together in 15:2 as those who are to be held in honour (rertyUTj/xevoi) it is impossible that it should be intended to exclude the apostles from this category.

(c) Nevertheless, there remains the distinction that the apostles pass from place to place ; whilst by the teacher, who (like the prophet who is stationary in the community) is worthy of his hire (13:1-2), we are plainly to understand a resident member of the local community. The apostles, however, do not devote themselves ex clusively to mission work ; they also come forward with the function of teachers in the already existing com munities which they visit in the course of their travels. These itinerant teachers unquestionably did much, not only, as in Paul's time, towards the strengthening of the Christian conviction and zeal of the communities they visited by what they had to tell about things they had seen in other places, but also towards promoting that uniformity in ecclesiastical institutions and that high estimate of the dignity of the church which are so distinctive of the second century.

Of the vocation of the teachers broadly considered the epistle of James (3:1) thinks very gravely ( 'be not many teachers . . . we shall receive heavier judgment' ). The writer of the epistle of Barnabas says (18:4-9), with that modesty which he affects, that he wishes to write his epistle 'not as a teacher' (ov\ <> fiiSaovcaAos). Hermas (Sim. ix. 25:2) still holds to this, that the teachers possess the Holy Ghost (a position resting on Rom. 12:7). From the prophets they are distinguished by the non-ecstatic character of their speech. They are associated with the prophets as in Did. 13:1-2, 15:1-2, also Acts 13:1.

(d) In another respect also are the teachers on a level with the prophets : they were exposed to the same dangers. According to Did. 11:5-6 the teachers abused the regard in which they were held, exactly as did the prophets ; and the same precautionary regulations were needed with respect to them.

In fact, we find one rule laid down with regard to the itinerant apostles which plainly was not ventured upon in the case of the prophets : they are to remain and receive maintenance in a com munity for only one day, and for two days only in cases of necessity (11:4-5) ; whilst to a travelling Christian who is not a teacher, two days, or if necessary three, are conceded (12:2). This is certainly very humiliating for the teachers, and shows how bad their behaviour must sometimes have been. But further it has to be feared in the case of teachers - what was not so much the case, it would seem, with prophets - that they spread heretical views (11:2 : oAAiji SiSa^r;! ei TO (caToAvcrai. ; 2 Jn. 10). There were, in fact, very many itinerant gnostic teachers, and the mere circumstance that communities were being accustomed to regard Christianity as a sort of philosophical school, and so to allow its practical duties to fall out of sight, was a grave one.

(e) Various means were employed to cope with these dangers. Either the churches were armed with a few simple watchwords by which they could themselves test the churchly correctness of the teachers. In this sense it is said in Did. 11:2, 12:1 and in 1 Jn. 4:1 that teachers and other itinerants ought to be tested, and in 1 Jn. 4:2-3, 2 Jn. 7, also Polyc. 7:1, the formula for this is proclaimed as being that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh (cp JOHN, SON OF ZEBEDEE, 47). Or, no admission is given to suspicious comers, and it is forbidden to receive them. So 2 Jn. 10. The same policy in the opposite sense was followed by Diotrephes, according to 3 Jn. 9 (cp 55). This analogy shows how natural it was that the bishops should become the persons to take such measures and exercise their authority in carrying them out. Then, however, it became also necessary that they for their part should themselves see to the providing of correct teaching. The authors of the Pastoral Epistles desire therefore that the presidents of the various churches shall themselves undertake the business of teaching.

The bishop must be 'apt to teach' (iiiaicTucos : 1 Tim. 3:2; cp 2 Tim. 2:24, Tit. 1:9); his models, Timothy and Titus, are continually exhorted to teach (1 Tim. 4:11, 6:3, etc.), their successors must be fitted for this work (2 Tim. 22), and the presbyters who labour in word and doctrine are to receive double remuneration (1 Tim. 5:17 ; cp 50d). According to Did. 15:1, bishops and deacons do the work also of prophets and teachers. The same combination of functions is perhaps indicated in Eph. 4:11 when at the end of the enumeration we find 'the shepherds and teachers' (not 'the teachers' : roin Se jrotjieVos cai i6a<raAoi/ without the repetition of TOVS Se before 5t6ao icdAov). So also already in Heb. 13:7, if 'governors' (rfyovntvoi) be the heads of the community (see 47b).

According to Justin (Apol. i. 67:4), it is in fact the 'president' (irpofarus [proestoos]) who preaches on Sunday. But it was by no means always the case that bishops were capable of themselves discharging the teaching office. The development nevertheless ended in this, that they at least took in hand the supervision of the teachers. Teaching could never like prophecy become extinct, for it answered to a never-ending need of the Church, and was free from a transitory form such as ecstatic speaking is. The episcopate, however, in this respect also gained in power.

40. Deacons and deaconesses.[edit]

Clearest of all are the functions of the deacons, from the time that their office has become definite and formal.

(a) As we are compelled to disregard the narrative of Acts 6 relating to the Seven in this connection (see COMMUNITY OF GOODS, 5, end), and must in the meantime also pass over Phil, 1:1 (see 57), our first testimony for the office and functions of a deacon is found in 1 Clem. (37a). The more general and comprehensive the meaning of the terms for the person* and his work and office (didnovos diaKovtiv diaKovia) in Paul and even in the Pastoral Epistles as applied to Timothy and Titus (see DEACON, 3), the more certainly may we regard the terms as confined in the case of elected deacons to the humbler services which were found necessary in the community.

These services may, of course, have been very many and varied ; the characteristic thing about them, however, is their subordinate nature. As to what they were we learn very little in detail. According to Justin (Apol. i. 67:5), one of them was that of carrying to church members detained from the eucharistic service their portions of bread and wine. The enumeration of the qualities to be looked for in a deacon in 1 Tim. 3:8-9, 3:12, and in Polyc. 5:2, says nothing as to their sphere of duty ; it shows only that their office was by no means regarded as unimportant. In 1 Tim. 3:10, also, it is expressly enjoined that they are to be tested before receiving office, and in 3:13 a special reward is held out for the faithful discharge of their duties, whatever is meant by the 'degree' ((3aS/uos [bathmos]) which they are to attain.

(b) In particular, however, it is the prohibition of a second marriage (3:12) which brings the deacon so nearly into the same plane with the bishop - all the more because the author in 5:14 expressly wills that the younger widows remarry. Therefore, even though the services required by the deacons included those of the humblest possible kind, they themselves none the less belonged to the clergy. This also explains why it is that according to Did. 15:2 they are reckoned, together with the prophets and teachers, along with the bishops to the number of 'those who are to be held in honour' (reTip.rifj.lvoi}, and according to 15:1 take part in teaching. This not only goes further than 1 Clem., which (13:21b) demands honour only for the 'governors' ([irpo-]iiyoi /jifvoi [[pro-]iggoymenoi) and the 'presbyters' (irprf3vT(poi [presbyteroi]), although according to 42:4, 44:2-3 the deacons also are instituted by the apostles or at their instance ; it also goes beyond the Epistle to the Ephesians, which does not mention deacons at all, and in fact in the enumeration of offices so often referred to already in 4:11-12 means by 'ministry' (Sianovia [diaconia]) something which all the members of the church ought to render. Ignatius goes still farther than the Pastoral Epistles and the Didache ; eleven times he names bishops, presbyters, and deacons as an inseparable unity, and demands on behalf of the last-named that heed be paid to them as to Jesus himself or to the command of God (ad Trail. 3:1 ; ad Smyrn. 8:1).

(c) Female deacons are mentioned in 1 Tim. 3:11, whilst the services of Phoebe (Rom. 16:1-2) as 'succourer' (Trpoo-Tans : see above, 9a, end) will not have been entirely of a menial character (see DEACON, 6 and 4). Amongst the humbler services rendered by the female deacon* we may reckon that of washing the feet of the saints, spoken of in 1 Tim. 5:10, 1 Tim. 3:11 may be interpreted in the sense indicated with all the less hesitation because Pliny (112 or 113 A.D.) already makes allusion to 'females who were called ministers' (ancilUr qitce ininistrce dicebantur) whom he caused to be put to the torture in his procedure against the Christians of Bithynia (Epist. x. 96:8 [97:8]).

41. Widows.[edit]

The present will be an appropriate place in which to consider that other part taken by women in the ecclesiastical system, of which we read in 1 Tim. 5:3-16.

If the passage were dealing only with the question of the support of widows, in the first instance by their own people (5:4, 5:8, 5:16a) and in the second instance by the church (v. 16b), or only with the qualities which were to be regarded as entitling or disentitling them to the support of the church (vv. 5-7, 10, 13-15) it would not have to be considered here. Of the widows who are to be supported by the community, however, three qualifications are demanded which it would not be reasonable to demand if the question were one of support merely : the widow must be not less than sixty, must have been the wife of one man, and be definitely pledged not to marry again (vv. 9, 11). The author, according to v. 14, positively desires the younger widows to remarry, and therefore there would be no reason for making willingness to do so a ground for withholding that support which a widow of less advanced years might yet in certain cir cumstances urgently need. The renunciation of second marriage is rather to be regarded as placing these widows on the same level with the bishops and deacons (3:2, 3:12). So also the injunction 'honour [them]' (rijua : 5:3 : cp Did. 15:1-2).

Thus the widows possess an office, and that too, of course, quite distinct from that of the deaconesses of 3:11 : probably in fact, so far as we can conjecture, that of supervision of the female members of the community. This is what is pointed to also by the 'going about from house to house' (v. 13), and we can now perceive that the qualities which seemed to be spoken of with reference merely to eligibility for support may equally well have been insisted on as fitting their possessor for an office of oversight.

The enrolment in a formal list (v. 9) will also have reference to an office, and the 'first faith' (n-pui-n) n-i trris) which, according to v. 12 is broken by re-marriage, will be not the promise of fidelity made to the first husband, but the promise to remain single which these widows in all probability had to make when appointed to their office. Thus the only point which could mislead is this, that the 'widows indeed' (OVTUK; ^rjpai) of v. 3 are defined in vv. 4-5 only as those who are childless, whilst the injunction to honour them rests not upon their childlessness but upon the office they hold. 'Those who are widows indeed' (ras OVTOX; \rjpas) has thus a double meaning which nevertheless has its reason in the state of the facts. For a suggestion that perhaps a trace of this use of words is even to be found already in Acts 6:1 see COMMUNITY OF GOODS. 5. end.

The Ignatian Epistles which here also go beyond the Pastoral Epistles bring the matter into perfect clearness. In Smyrn. 13:1 Ignatius greets 'the households of my brethren with their wives and children, and the virgins who are called widows' (TOUS oi/cous ru>v dSeX^wc fj.ov avv yvvai^i KCU TKVOLS /ecu rets irapOtvovs rcU Xeyo/u-tvas X^pas). Here 'widows' (XTJ/JCU) is already so strictly technical an expression that its literal meaning no longer exactly fits. Outside of the families which Ignatius first names stand virgins as members of a class to which originally only widows belonged.

42. Lectors, exorcists, etc.[edit]

There still remain to be considered certain categories of persons with regard to whose employments our information is exceedingly scanty,

(a) In Rev 13 ( 'blessed prophecy' ) it is presupposed that the book is to be read in presence of a congregation. This is, of course, a thing that is capable of being done in a quite casual way, and each several time, should the reading be repeated, by a different individual. It would, however, be somewhat pointless to invoke a blessing upon the reader as distinct from the hearers if his function was not a stated one. The art of reading is not universally diffused throughout those circles of society from which the Christian communities largely drew their member ship. Again, in Justin (Apol. i. 67:3-4) the reader is a distinct person from the president, who follows him with the sermon. Once more, the author of the homily, dating from about 160-180 A.n. , which is usually known as the Second Epistle of Clement, says (191) that he reads this his present discourse to the hearers. One of the sources postulated by Harnack (in TU 2:5) for the Apostolic church-order (sources which he finds for the most part related to the Pastoral Epistles and the accounts of Justin, and assigns to a date somewhere between 140 and 180 A. D. ) demands that the reader shall be 'a good narrator, knowing that he discharges the function of an evangelist' (diijyrjTiKos, et Sws on fvayyeXiffTou TOWOV e/rydfercu).

Harnack is thus led to conjecture (I.c. 79-84) that 2 Clem, may have had some such reader as its author, especially as the writer goes on to say, further, that his preaching is an exhorta tion to pay heed to the text on which it is founded 'in order that ye may prepare salvation alike for yourselves and for him who reads in your midst' (jov avayiviacrKovTa. fv u/uii ).

(b) We mention exorcists here, only in order to say that, even if their services were necessary at baptism, they had within our period by no means advanced in the direction of a stated position even so far as the readers conjecturally had, and that in any case information with regard to them is wholly wanting. The same holds good of the other inferior offices of later times - subdeacons, acolytes, ostiarii. Much rather would it be incumbent to speak of the martyrs, the ascetics (saints), and the virgins, as important personages of the post-apostolic, if not even of the apostolic, age, were it not that they all, though indeed enjoying a high degree of personal regard, were not in the several capacities mentioned in the regular service of the church. Cp 44c, end.

43. The vewtepoicor [neoteroi], veoi [neoi], and the Tipeo-BuTepoi [presbyteroi][edit]

The last class remaining to be considered is that of the 'younger [men]' (veurfpot [neoteroi]) who according to Acts 5:6 bury Ananias and Sapphira (in v. 10 they are called veavio-Koi [neaniskoi]).

(a) Since this act unquestionably comes under the category of the inferior services which, so far as we can conjecture, probably fell to the lot of deacons at a later period, the term 'younger men' (peourepoi) has been taken to be an expression to denote the forerunners of the deacons (the seven are first chosen in chap, 6), and it has even been held that the recurrence of the expression in 1 Pet. 5:5 is a proof that this epistle comes from the most ancient times, in which there were no deacons as yet. On this assumption, it would indeed be all the more singular that even at that early date the presbyters should have needed to be warned (v. 2-3.) against discontent with their office, greed, and ambition. We may be certain, however, at least of this, that these presbyters were not simply elderly people but leaders of the community, for only these last can tend (iroi/buuVeii ). The flock (woiijiviov [poimnion]) of v. 2-3 must be separated from the pastors (n-oi/uuuVoires [poimainontes]) by something more definite than mere age, which, indeed, furnishes no hard and fast limit, and Peter would not have called himself (v. 1) a 'fellow presbyter' ((TV|U.7rpe<r/3uTepos) if 'presbyter' (Trpecr/SuTepos) were not an official position. It does not follow from this, however, that the 'younger men' (>f ourcpoi), because contrasted with the presbyters, were also bearers of a definite office. Not they alone, but the whole community, have to obey the presbyters.

(b) We have here, therefore, a peculiar change of usage. In the primitive condition of matters when (as for example in Corinth ; see 9a) there still was no president, a community naturally fell into two classes, the seniors and the juniors, and the seniors, even without any fixed regulation, were entitled to respect and defer ence from the juniors for their counsel and advice. This simple division continued, of course, even after the introduction of presbyters as governors of the com munity. Thus it comes about that in 1 Tim. 5, alongside of the official titles (v. 17), their age is also spoken of in v. i (so we must interpret, for in v. 2 we have 'elder women', irpffffivrfpat, which was never an official designation). In Tit. 2:1-6 the same rendering is made certain by the consideration that to the 'younger men' (vfUTfpot) of v. 6 the antithesis is not 'elder men' (TT peer fti/re pot) at all but 'old men' (irpeaflvrcn) (v. 2). But when 'elders' (7rpe<r/3irrepot) came to be used as an official designation 'younger men' (vewrfpoi) also changed its meaning so that it still continued to form the antithesis to the other word ; it became a step towards, or a parallel to, the idea of 'layman'. 1 Thus it is in 1 Pet. 5:5 and, in all probability, also in Polyc. 53, where the duties of the 'younger men' (vfurepoi) and of the virgins (wapOfixx. [parthenoi]) are enumerated in the middle place, between those of deacons and those of presbyters, and at the same time obedience towards the presbyters and deacons is enjoined on the 'younger men' (i/ewrepoi).

(c) The most difficult of explanation are the 'young men' (veot [neot]) of 1 Clem, (in this writing i/ewrepot [neoteroi] does not occur). In 1:3 and 21:6 the structure of the sentences is in harmony to the effect that honour is demanded in the first place for the 'governors' ([jrpo-]i cyov/LLi Oi) and next for the 'presbyters' (7rpe<r/3iiTepoi) ; then the duties of the 'young men' (veoi) and afterwards those of the women are spoken of. The mention of the women, which is parallel to that of the 'virgins' (irapOfvot) in Polycarp, renders it probable that by 'young men' (i/e oi) we are to understand all the male laity. The question still remains open whether the official persons with whom they are brought into contrast are to be sought in the 'governors' ([n-po-JrjyoOjuei Oi) or in the 'presbyters' (irpeoVSurepoi : see below, 47-48). In 3:3 allusion is made to the deposition of certain church leaders, but in depend ence on Is. 3:5 (see BISHOP, 8, end) where of old age it is said : 'the child will press against the old man' (n-poovcdi^ei TO iratSiov Trpo? TOC Trpecr/SuTT)! ). Clement can very well have preserved this meaning in his words 'the young were stirred up against the elder' (tTrr\yep9i\cr(iv . . . oi veoi firi roi/s irpecrjSuTepoi)?) as he has also retained the other general antithesis from Isaiah : 'the base against the honourable' (6 artfio? Trpbs rbv eVri/xoi ). Yet the selection of the word 'elders' (n-pe<r(3uTepoi [presbyteroi]) instead of old men (TrpecrjSOrai [presbytai]) points, as will be seen in s. 45, to the fact, only too well known to the readers, that it was against official presbyters that the rising was. 'Elders' (irpfcrfivTepoi) in this case has a double meaning which rhetorically is very effective ; and so also 'young men' (viot). For since according to 476 only one or two persons had given occasion to the offence, it is very easily possible that these were young persons, but also at the same time that they stood in the position of laymen towards the presbyters in so far as these were official persons.

1 Aatxo? does not occur in the LXX but is met with in Aq., Symm. Thdt., 1 S. 21:4 [21:5] (LXX /3c /3i)Aot, scil. aprot as against iepoi aprot), similarly in 21:5 [21:6], Ezek. 22:26, 48:15. The verb AatKow is used by one or more of these translators in Ezek. 7:22, Dt. 20:5, 28:30, and by LXX in some codices in Ruth 1:12. 1 Clem. 40:5 already has the expression o AaiVcbs avOpwiros rots AaiVcotf Trpoorayfiao-i Se&trat. The next instances of the employment of the word (Harnack, ad loc.) are not earlier than about 200 A.D.

44. The bishops, according to Hatch and Harnack.[edit]

When we turn now to the most difficult portion of the whole question relating to the constitution of the church - that of the origin of monarchical episcopacy, it will be advisable to start from the hypothesis of Hatch (see BlSHOP, 5) as by its introduction an entirely new course has been given to the investigation. As, however, its author imposed upon himself at various points a cautious reserve, we shall arrive at the most questionable points more directly if we take as the basis of our remarks the more elaborated form which the hypothesis subsequently received from Harnack.

(a) Harnack distinguishes three organisations,

  • (1) First, there is the spiritual or religious organisation consisting of apostles, prophets, and teachers, which served the church as a whole, not the separate communities, and possessed divine authority in virtue of its being endowed with the gift of the Holy Spirit.
  • (2) The patriarchal, arising out of the natural preponderance of the older members of the community over the younger, yet not involving the attribution to the elders of any official quality. For Jewish-Christian communities Harnack assumes elective presbyteries on the basis of the Jewish model (24) ; but so far as Gentile-Christian communities are concerned he disputes their existence for the whole of the first century and especially as regards 1 Clem. , Acts, and 1 Pet. When the second century is reached, he recognises them, especially in Jam. 5:14 (TOI>S Trpf<r[3vT^povs rfjs ^/ocX^trfas) and in Polycarp and Hernias ; adopting the expression of the last-named author (Vis. ii. 4:3) he calls them 'the presbyters who superintend the church' (oi irpffffivrfpot oi irpoL(TTdfj.(i>oi TTJJ fKK\-rjffias). 1 They thus formed a ruling body selected from among the senior members of the community after the manner of the body which, under the name of ewtdpioit TTJS /Soi X^s, constituted the council in Greek cities in the Roman period. Ignatius (ad Trall. 3:1) calls the presbyters a 'synedrion of God' (ffvv^Spiov Otov).
  • (3) Already in Phil. 1:1 (see below, 57) Harnack finds the administrative organisation - i.e. , episcopi and deacons who were chosen by the community to look after money matters, and more particularly the distribution of doles, yet still more, as Harnack, going beyond Hatch, urges, for the conduct of the worship.

The last thesis Harnack supports specially by reference to 1 Clem. 444 : 'those who have brought forward the gifts' (TOUS irpoafvfyKOVTasTa&uipa), because by the 'gifts' or 'offerings' (duipa. or 7rpo<r0opat, 36 i), according to 41:1 (where the Jewish form of worship in which these expressions occur is applied to the Christian), the prayers offered in the meetings of the congregation are intended ; also by reference to the 'therefore' (ou^) of Did. 15:1, after treating of the Sunday service in chap. 14 : 'Appoint for yourselves therefore episcopi and deacons'. The distribution of doles, including the care for travelling brethren, which was a very important matter in those days, is the one characteristic function of the episcopi arid deacons referred to by Hermas (Sim. ix. 27:2, cp 26:2). 2

(b) These functionaries (episcopi and deacons) were, according to Harnack, chosen not without regard to the question whether they were possessed of a charismatic endowment for their sphere of duties ; but their office did not place them in a position of superiority over the community as a whole ; it only gave them an oversight over many members of the community. Originally between episcopi and deacons there was no distinction whatever ; they were differentiated, however, quite naturally by reason of age, the humbler duties falling to the lot of the younger among them. Those who had to undertake the more responsible part of the duty thus belonged as matter of course to the senior section of the community, and since there was a select body chosen from among these, individual members of this smaller body - in other words individual 'presiding presbyters' (irpefffivTepoi. TrpoiaTa/j.fvoi) - were readily chosen to be episcopi. If those chosen to be episcopi did not already belong to, the body just mentioned, . they were, according to Harnack, very soon taken into it. Such members of this body as were at the same time episcopi are designated by Harnack in an expression which is not met with in the sources, as 'episcopal presbyters' (irpevfivrfpoi eiriffKOTrovvres).

(c) The episcopi at first in respect of organisation had held a place apart from the presbyters and in respect of dignity had been inferior to them. The respect and influence enjoyed by the 'episcopal presbyters' {wpeaftuTepoi ^TriffKowovvres), on the other hand, according to Harnack steadily increased as compared with the non-episcopal members of the board. This was partly because the administration of money matters was in their hands, partly because they had charge of the worship, but principally because they also took upon themselves the work of teaching. Thus, with the gradual disappearance of the apostles, prophets, and teachers (see 37e, 38c, 39e), the divine authority possessed by these several orders passed to the episcopal presbyters, who had received through their election only a human authority and through their charismatic endow ment only a general resemblance to the persons charged with the duty of teaching.

This transference of the regard enjoyed by the teaching persons to the officials charged with affairs of government is held by Harnack to be one of the most important particulars which the Didache has transmitted to us (so, already, the Pastoral Epistles also : see above, 39e). By this transference was brought about the cumulation of the dignity of all three groups (apostles, prophets, teachers) upon the one class of officials, the connecting of the presbyterate with the episcppi having been brought about before. All that was now wanting to the episcopi was participation in the dignity of a fourth group - the spiritual aristocracy, as it were - that, namely, of the ascetics, virgins, martyrs, etc. (42b). On the other hand, there arose as a new element in their favour the idea of the apostolic succession (37).

1 Yet presbyters without qualifying phrase also occurs in Hermas (Vis. ii. 4:2 and iii. 1:8). As Hermas in the last passage says let the presbyters sit down first they are doubtless also intended by the irpiaroicaBe&pirai of Vis. iii. 9:7 (cp 47b).

2 The only other passage where episcopi and deacons occur in Hermas is Vis. iii. 5:1, in this connection : apostles, episcopi, teachers, deacons.

(d) All that has been said holds good of the episcopi even for the time during which they still constituted a college ; the special supremacy of the episcopi over the non-episcopal presbyters is older than the monarchy of the one bishop in the church of each separate locality. How this monarchy arose is one of the obscurest problems. According to the Ignatian Epistles, which Harnack regards as genuine and now (ACL, 1 1. [ = Chronol. ] 1:381-406) assigns to 110-117 or at latest 117-125 A.D. (see, however, below, 53c-i), it appeared in Syria and Asia Minor at a much earlier date "than in Rome, where Justin (circa 152 A.D. ) is the first to give evidence for it whilst Hermas still knows nothing of it. The most various causes may have contributed together to its rise ; Harnack regards as the most important of these the habituation of the otherwise so democratically constituted communities to the despotic influence which from the very first was exercised by apostles, prophets, and teachers in virtue of their possession of the Holy Spirit, and now passed over to the bishops.

45. The presbyters official persons in Acts and 1 Clem.[edit]

In forming an opinion upon this unquestionably most important and acute construction it is necessary to set aside all vague impressions, such as that it is 'attractive', or that it is 'complicated', and to take one's stand, upon facts that have been ascertained with as much certainty as may be possible. With this end in view let us examine in the first instance the preliminary question as to whether the presbyters in Acts and 1 Clem, really are all the senior members of the community and not rather an elected board. That this last is the case in 1 Pet. we consider to have been established already (43a) ; yet this is without bearing upon the question of what is meant by episcopi. In Acts and 1 Clem. , on the other hand, the episcopi are mentioned in conjunction with the presbyters.

Now, that chosen rulers are intended in Acts 20:17 follows from the same considerations as those on which it follows (according to 43a) from 1 Pet. 5:1-5 : in v. 28 the 'flock' (iroi^viov) is mentioned as contra distinguished from them, and they are to feed the church of the Lord (read Kvpiov) which he has purchased with his own blood. Here unquestionably the whole church, not the junior members alone, is intended. In 1 Clem, we have (43c) left the meaning of irpeffp. in 1:3 and 216 undetermined, and do not require to determine it till later (47b). For a decision on the other passages we must start from the fact that according to 444 several episcopi had been deposed : 'It will be no light sin for us, if we thrust out of the bishop's office those who have offered the gifts unblamably and holily' (a^apria ov fjLiKpa Tjfjuv &TTCU, ea.v Toi)s d/jL^/ULTTTtjos Ko.1 offices TTpoffevey- (cAvras TO, SJjpa rrjs ^TnffKowfjs a7ro/3d\a; y uej ), where 'bishop's office' (T?}S Tri<rt<:oirf}s) depends on 'thrust out' (awo/3d\.), not, as might at first sight appear, on 'the gifts' (TO. 5wpa). Immediately afterwards we read (44:5): blessed are the departed presbyters : they need not to fear lest any one should depose them.

Harnack (TLZ, 1889, p. 419) renders: 'blessed are the deceased senior members of the community', and urges in support that not only episcopi but also deacons are meant. Both together have been in fact mentioned in chap. 42. On the other hand, however, throughout the whole of chaps. 43 and 44 the deacons are mentioned only incidentally with 'the aforesaid persons' (roi/s Trpoeipjj/ueVous) in 44:2 ; but in 44:1 exactly as in 44:4 (see above) it is expressly the 'episcopate' (en-to-Kpn-rj) that is alone being spoken of ; the apostles foresaw that strife would arise regarding the episcopal office. Thus 'presbyter' must be an official designation. In 542 we even find such an expression as this : 'the appointed presbyters'. Harnack (I.c. 424) renders : 'the old men who have been installed in the office' (of episcopi, that is, not the presbyterate). In that case, however, the expression ought to have run 'the appointed episcopi' (oi Ka0e(rraju.eVoi eTUCTKOTTOl).

If, however, the idea of office is made good for this place, we have no longer any right to refuse to admit it in 47:6 and 57:1 (see the passages under BISHOP, 8). Neither is it by any means a 'desperate assumption' (so Harnack, loc. cit. ) if in the same epistle elsewhere, 1:3, 2:16, we still understand by the word irpftr^vrfpoi [presbyteroi] not official persons, but seniors (see 47b). In the case of 3:3 it has been seen (43c) that in one passage a working together of both meanings is possible.

46. Presbyter identical with episcopus.[edit]

(a) We have now reached a point at which it will he proper to formulate the proposition which has been continually offering itself in the preceding section ; the word presbyter, in the later chapters of 1 Clem. and also in 3:3 according to one sense of its twofold meaning, denotes not merely some kind of office, but definitely that of the episcopos.

In 44:4-5, in particular, both words stand in close proximity as expressions for the same idea. When Hatch's hypothesis was still unknown, Harnack had observed in his Patruni apostol. opera upon the 'episcopi and diaconi' (eTricrKon-ovs icai SiaKOvovs) of 42 4 : that then, as in the time of the apostles, the offices were two: episcopi ( = presbyters) and diaconi ( 'luce clarius est, duos in clero ordines et apostolorum tempore et tum temporis [cap. 44] fuisse, episcopos [ = presbyteros] et diaconos' ). This still holds good.

The same remark, moreover, applies to Acts 20:17 where Paul summons the presbyters (TOVS irp.) of the church of Ephesus to Miletus and says to them (v. 28), 'the Holy Ghost hath made you bishops'. We by no means take this as representing the view of Paul ; but all the more must it be held to represent the view of the writer of Acts. So too with Tit. 1:5-7 ( 'that thou shouldest . . . appoint elders in every city ... for the bishop must be', etc.). For the epistle of Polycarp, in which bishops are not mentioned, Harnack himself (transl. of Hatch, 233, n. 12) makes it plain that, according to 6:1, 11:1, the presbyters (who figure as official persons) exercise the functions which on his view pertain to bishops (cp Lightfoot, Christ. Ministry, 53-54, and, on the date of the epistle, JOHN, SON OF ZEBEDEE, 47).

(b) It is true that, in Hennas, in the few places where presbyters are mentioned (see above, 44a, 2), the leadership of the church is the only thing predicated of them, whilst in the still fewer passages where bishops occur no function is expressly assigned to them beyond that of seeing to the support of the poor ; but as against the facts already adduced this cannot be brought into account as turning the scale (cp further, 47a). So also with the argument that, apart from Polyc. 5:2-6:1, the conjunction presbyters and diaconi is never found, but always episcopi and diaconi ; for the most obvious verbal antithesis of presbyter-elder is 'younger' (vewrepos [neoteros]) (43), whilst episcopus and diaconus have this in common that they describe the nature of the work of those respectively designated. Similarly too with the fact that along with apostles, prophets, or teachers, only bishops (and deacons), never presbyters, are enumerated ; the instance in which this last is done being according to Harnack's own survey. (TU ii. 2:111-112; cp 148, n. 77b) a solitary one (Herm. Vis. iii. 5:1), - for in Sim. ix. 25:2, 26:2, 27:2 the four cannot be regarded as members of a consecutive enumeration - and alongside of the solitary instance just mentioned we have Eph. 4:11 with its 'pastors' (Trot/ufves) in such an enumeration - in other words, with an idea which Harnack (transl. of Hatch, 230) finds to be precisely identical with that of presbyters when it occurs in Hermas (Sim. ix. 31:5-6). Nay, more: in the Pastoral Epistles Harnack himself finds this series : 'apostle, prophet (1 Tim. 1:18, 4:14), evangelist (teacher), presbyters functioning as episcopi (irpeffpuTepoi eTTiffKOirovv- res), deacons (on the third member of this series cp 54c below).

Lastly, as against the conclusion arrived at above nothing is to be gained by the suggestion that the absence of the word presbyter from the Didache is to be explained by the fact that it denotes no office. The bishops are mentioned in the Didache only once (15:1); on the supposition that the presbyters were identical with them it must be regarded as a mere accident that the one name, not the other, was chosen. Or rather, not even an accident, for the deacons are placed in juxtaposition with them, and to 'deacon' the word 'presbyter' is not the most natural complement. Greater weight would be due to the con sideration that for the Didache there is no more a governing body in the church than there is in the Epistles of Paul to the Corinthians (9a). On this point, however, see 56.

(c) In the meanwhile, we are in a position to say so much as this by way of answer to our question - that Harnack's expression 'presbyters functioning as episcopi' (TrpfajSijTtpoi. firiaKoirovvTes] not only does not occur in the sources, but also is in contradiction with them, and that it is precisely in the First Epistle of Clement, which Harnack ranks so high as our first document for the amalgamation of the administrative with the patriarchal organisation, that this theory - upon which his entire construction depends - is most decisively wrecked. In it not only are the presbyters already official persons ; the episcopi are also identical with them and are desig nated as presbyters neither because they were of more advanced age nor because they formed a part of the elected presbyterial college.

47. Meaning and synonyms of TTtO-K01TOS [episkopos].[edit]

Or shall we say that linguistic usage is decisive against the identity of presbyters and episcopi ?

(a) The proofs adduced by Hatch to show that episcopos in those times meant a finance officer are very interesting and weighty ; but they are not wholly conclusive. The word has also quite other senses. In the LXX, for example, it signifies a military officer (Nu. 31:14, 2 K. 11:15), or it is applied to God (Is. 60:17, Wisd. 16), as in fact it also is in i Clem. 59:3, or to Christ (1 Pet. 2:25 : 'shepherd and bishop' ; cp BISHOP, 4 and 6). But, indeed, even apart from such examples as these, we should be by no means precluded from thinking that the etymological meaning of the word (to oversee) must be taken into account. It is pointed to by such phrases as (Herm. Vis. iii. 5:1) 'episcopi . . . who . . . discharged their overseership . . . purely' (iiriaKowoi . . . oi . . . TricrKOirriffa,vTes . . . ayvs) (which at the same time weakens the force of the remark of Harnack about Hermas referred to in 46b), or (Acts 1:20) 'overseership' (firicrKoirri). (More in Loofs, St.Kr., 1890, p. 628-629).

(b) The synonyms also lead to a like conclusion. According to Acts 20:28 the bishops duty is to shepherd (iroifw.il> fLv) ; the bishops thus are synonymous with the 'pastors' (iroifj-fves) of Eph. 4:11, as also appears from 1 Pet. 2:25. The pastors again, however, even Harnack (see above, 46b) has perceived to be in Hermas synonymous with 'presbyters', and 'shepherding' (Troifj.aivfiv [poimainein]) is the distinctive task of presbyters according to 1 Pet. 5:2. Further, where the shepherd goes before the flock he is their leader (i)yov/j.evos).

That 'leaders' Oryou/uici oi) in Heb. denotes the heads of the church is an interpretation very much recommended by 13:17 ( 'they watch on behalf of your souls' ) and v. 24 and not set aside by v. 7 ; for in v. 7 it is not said that teaching is the primary task of the leaders (cp 39a) - in fact, the meaning may even be such an 'admonition' (vovQerelv [nonthetein]) as we find in 1 Thess. 5:12 expressly attributed to the church rulers.

The phrase 'chief men' (di/6pe? ^yov^evoi) applied in Acts 15:22 as a title of honour to Judas Harsabbas and Silas is much too general to warrant us in taking it for a technical term which, were it to be so regarded, would rest upon the circumstance that, according to 15:32, they were prophets. Equally little reason is there for holding that in Hermas (Vis. iii. 9:7-10) the 'leaders' (Trporjyoujuei oi.) as teachers are distinguished from those who have precedence (npuiroKaOeSplrai.) as presidents (see above, 44 a 2, note), for the exhortation immediately following - 'be not like sorcerers' - is given not to the first merely but to both. In Vis. ii. 2:6 the leaders of the church (ot n-porryoufiefot TTJ eKKArjaias) fits the presidents very well. As regards 1 Clem., Harnack (TLZ, 1889, p. 419, n. 2) has already withdrawn the view previously set forth by him ( TU 2 2, pp. 95 and 111) that 'leaders' ([n-po-] movfLtvoi) in the sense of 'held in honour' (TeTijnr)(ne i<ot, Did. 15 2) applies only to apostles, prophets, and teachers. It was all the more certainly a mistaken view inasmuch as 'leaders' (rjyoiijoi.) in 1 Clem, is six times used to denote high political functionaries (5:7, 32:2, 37:2-3, 51:5, 55:1, 61:1). It was necessary for Harnack to hold it as long as in 1:3, 21:6 the presbyters for whom honour is demanded after the 'leaders' (^you/ixei/ot) - but in different phraseology (see the structure of the passages in 43c) - were taken to be official persons (46a). If, in accordance with his present view, we take the word in these two passages as meaning elderly people, there is yet nothing to hinder us from taking - contrary to his view - the 'leaders' ([Trpo-J rjyovfifvoi.) in the sense of presidents of the church, as in all other passages.

This 'ruling' (rryflffOai.), however, in turn, is nothing else than the 'presiding' (TrpoiVracrtfcu) of 1 Thess. 5:12, Rom. 128, 1 Tim. 5:17 or the exercise of the gift of 'government' (Kvfitpvriffis) in 1 Cor. 12:28. Such a church ruler is very well described in Tit. 1:7 comprehensively as a 'steward of God' (0eoO otKov6fj.os). Thus the synonyms also lead us to the conclusion already indicated, that the distinction between the function of church government by presbyters and that of administration of finance and worship by episcopi must be given up. 1

48. Connection between deacons and bishops.[edit]

Much value is attached by Hatch and Harnack in support of their theory to episcopi and deacons being apparently closely connected, not only linguistically but also in respect of their functions. The fact is admitted ; but it does not prove the theory. If there was only a single superintendency it of course carried with it the supervision also of the activity of the deacons, and was exercised in conjunction with them.

So was it, admittedly, at a later date when the episcopus, as with Justin, was leader of the divine service and chief almoner in addition to his other duties ; so also can it have been, therefore, at an earlier date, and all the more so as the conditions were comparatively simple. Already in i Cor. 1228 only the gift of government (Kv|3epT)<ris), and in Rom. 126-8 only ruling (Trpoio-TacrSai), is presented as what can be regarded as the primi tive form alike of the duty of the presbyters and of that of episcopi in the sense intended by Hatch and Harnack. For the very earliest times Hatch in point of fact supposes only one superin tendency. This is valid, however, for the whole development ; if in the helps (<ii>TiAjn.i//eis) the later deacons are prefigured, the later episcopi are prefigured in this whole function of leadership and not in an activity limited to matters of cultus or of finance. The warning against greed in which Harnack sees a weighty support for his description of the sphere of duty of the episcopi is given in i Pet. 5 2 to the presbyters.

49. Rise of episcopate.[edit]

The state of the question is essentially simplified by what has just been observed. The problem - first created by the hypothesis itself - as to how it came about that the episcopi who in the earliest times ranked after the presbyters came to rise above them, falls to the ground with that hypothesis. Thus the question that alone remains is simply this : how was it that the episcopate reached to the high position it ultimately did gain ? This of its own accord divides into two : on the one hand, the question as to the origin of the supremacy of the episcopate - not, however, the supremacy of the college of episcopi over the college of presbyters, for the two were identical, but the supremacy over the community in the surprisingly high degree actually attained - and, on the other hand, as to the origin of the monarchy of the episcopus in the in dividual church. The explanations that can be given for the latter fact are only partially different from those that can be given for the former.

If we follow Harnack's representations as to the various organisations, summarised above (44a), then we can in point of fact actually distinguish three : that of the persons who teach, the patriarchal organisation of the senior members of the community, and that of the elective officials - that is to say, of the superintendents (without distinction between presbyters and episcopi) and of the deacons. Now, it is certainly correct to say that ultimately the dignities belonging to the two first-named organisations accrued by cumulation to the episcopi, even although the increment from the patriarchal element cannot, from the nature of things, have been very great ; and the change is enormous. Nevertheless, it is at the same time reasonable to demand that the explanation shall endeavour to dispense, if possible, with any assumption of a break in the development, with any such supposition as that (with which Loning, for example, works in accounting for the monarchy of the bishop) of a change of constitution ; for we have no trace of any such abrupt change. As a means towards this end, however, nothing can be said in favour of the suggestion of Loofs that the monarchy of the episcopus began already soon after i Clem. , before the position of the episcopate as highest had established itself. Not only are the sources unanimous against this ; the argument also that in the conduct of divine service the shifting presi dency by various members of the governing college, and the alternation of these also in the free prayer and the preaching was not long tolerable, can claim little weight.

1 In the present discussion the angels of the churches in Rev. 2-3 are (in agreement with Lightfoot, Christ. Ministry, 29-31) left out of account.

50. Money matters, conduct of service.[edit]

If now, in our search for the immediate causes which led to the supremacy of the episcopi, we leave out of account all such fanciful notions as that Christians believed representatives of Christ to be necessary before his own actual parusia, unquestionably (a) great weight is to be attached to the matter of financial control. A considerable portion of the com munity was only too easily dependent on the officials who had control of the church's alms.

(b) Only, this aspect of their functions would hardly in itself have led to the episcopi as conceived of by Hatch and Harnack becom ing leaders of the service. The fact that expenses are incurred in connection with divine service was far from involving the necessity that the men whom we may liken to paymasters should offer the prayers and preside at the celebration of the eucharist. Much rather would this be naturally, and in the first instance, the function of such church members as are marked out for it by their Christian experience and worth. Such were, according to the view taken in the present article, the chosen presidents who at the same time managed the money matters of the community. The conduct of the service thus constitutes a second element which contributed to the raising of their dignity. Still, it was not in itself of extreme importance, for the teaching addresses delivered in the course of the service by any persons qualified for the task must doubtless have been looked upon as something still more important.

It is also surprising that our sources practically nowhere have anything to say as to the person to whom it pertains to conduct the eucharistic service ; and the indication as to this point in the Didache (10:7) actually points to the inference that prophets had precedence over the regular leaders of the function, not only in delivering free addresses but also at the eucharist. At the same time the function of conducting the divine service has given the author of 1 Clem. (40-41) occasion to put the presidents on a level with the OT high priests or priests, which the Didache does from a quite different point of view (that, namely, of their being entitled to the first-fruits) precisely with the prophets (133). From the end of the second century onwards this equation re dounded greatly to the benefit of the bishops (cp 59a).

(c) For the sake of supplying the counterpart from the post-apostolic period to what has been shown in s. 8 regarding the worship of the oldest Christian time, we briefly mention here that Pliny (40 c) - more particularly for the Sunday (stato die: cp Barn. 15:9, Did. 14:1) - made out two distinct gatherings : one in the morning (ante lucem) for the purpose of responsive singing to Christ as a deity (carmen Christo quasi Deo dicere secum invicem), and to exhort one another mutually to good deeds, the other for a repast (ad capiendum cibunt). The latter had been abandoned after Pliny's publication of the emperor's prohibition of 'hetaeriae' or religious confraternities. In fact, we find in Justin (Apol. 16:7) only one Sunday service, with lessons from the gospels or the prophets ( 42a), preaching by the president (Trpoeorws [proestoos]), common prayer, free eucharistic prayer by the president, Amen by the congregation, partaking of the eucharist, offering of voluntary alms to the president. When in 2 Pet. 2:13, in spite of the retention of 'feasting with' (ffwdiuxov/J-foi) from Jude 12, the word love-feasts (d7d7rcus [agapais]) gives place to 'deceivings' (dirdrais [apatais]), this may perhaps be regarded as indicating that the agapa or love-feasts were no longer in use at the date of 2 Pet.

(d) The application of the OT law concerning first- fruits to bishops led to another result : they were able to give up their civil callings and devote themselves wholly to the duties of their ecclesiastical office. By this they, and the presbyters and deacons under them, became for the first time a definite order of a spiritual kind. As citation is made in i Tim. 5:18 of the OT saying about the ox that treads the corn, and of the aphorism of Jesus (Lk. 10:7) that the labourer is worthy of his hire, we cannot doubt that by 'double honour' (5t7r\^ TI/XT?) in v. 17 for the ruling presbyters who labour in teaching, is meant double remuneration, although perhaps in the form of gifts in kind, since fixed salaries were, even at the end of the second century, still uncommon and not looked upon with favour. Cp also 2 Tim. 2:46.

51. Teaching authority.[edit]

Since, however, the most material step in the development of the supremacy and monarchy of the episcopi was made in the period of gnosticism, the part taken by the episcopi in the work of teaching (39e) was in all probability one of the most important of the causes of their advancement. It was not so much that the bishops themselves regularly preached, as that they looked after the orthodoxy of those who did preach.

At the same time, it would doubtless be too ideal a way of looking at matters were we to suppose that the communities accorded an increased reverence to their bishops on the ground that as teachers they came forward clothed with a divine authority in virtue of their endowment with the Holy Spirit, and no longer merely with the human authority that had been bestowed on them by the fact of their election. In a constitutional matter of such far-reaching import we may conjecture that the issue was really determined by common -sense practical considerations. As over against gnosticism, if the church was not to fall to pieces, very fixed and definite norms were needed, and he who applied them firmly and unhesitatingly was the man for the time. We may be sure that opposition was not absent ; but what gained the victory here also, as so often, was clearness and decision of aim. The suppression of personal freedom and of the democratic power of the community was not flinched from ; a majority could always be found which saw in these things the lesser evil. This holds good, not only with respect to the whole field of doctrine, but also with respect to all spheres within which energetic episcopi gradually extended their powers.

Thus it was not the transference of the teaching authority to the episcopi that, in itself considered, was decisive for the supremacy ; it was their whole governing activity ; and this whole activity, not their doctrinal authority alone, was aided by the idea of apostolic succession (37), which naturally, where it existed, had great influence.

52. Special causes of monarchy of bishops.[edit]

The greater the dangers arising from gnosticism and from persecution, the more indispensable was unity of authority. This would serve to explain not only the steps we have already enumerated, but also the final step, the transition from a college of presidents to a monarchical bishop, although, apart from the actual evidence of the transition in question, one would hardly have ventured to declare it inevitable. In any case little value is to be attached to any one of the analogies which have been adduced. There are no close analogies in the Greece- Roman religious institutions or the Graeco-Roman municipal government; nor is it very much to the point to remark that a monarchical position arises with some sort of necessity out of presidency over a college. There must always be extraordinary conditions if this is to happen. Such extraordinary conditions were, in fact, to be found in the necessity of the time. We may be sure, moreover, of this that the great majority of the bishops of that period who rose above the college to which they belonged, or ought to have belonged, were conspicuously fitted for their work, otherwise the encroachments which were inevitable before the monarchical position could be secured would not have been acquiesced in.

It may also be allowable to suggest that corruption among the presbyters and deacons, such as, e.g., Hermas rebukes and 1 Pet. 5 has in view, may have elicited within the community itself the wish for a strong hand to control such persons. Whether, on the other hand, we ought to give much prominence to the leading of the Spirit which, according to Loofs, may have given rise to such wishes, or to the example of James the brother of Jesus, or even, as Liming thinks, to that of Symeon the son of CLOPAS (q.v., 4-5), his successor, as having been monarchical bishops of the primitive church, is doubtful. The final issue here also will have been the result of very simple and practical considerations. In any case we shall have to concede that, after all our efforts to ascertain it, the exact course of the process by which the monarchy of the Christian bishop arose remains obscure.

53. Acme of episcopal idea: Ignatius.[edit]

On the contrary, the goal which was attained at the close of our period is quite clear.

(a) As regards the conduct of worship, we have already seen (50c) how, according to Justin, all functions except those of the deacons and that of the reading aloud were united in the person of the 'president' (Trpoecrrws [proestos]). The title chosen, however, for which we may be sure that the community of Rome, to which Justin belonged, used episcopos, reminds us that Justin is writing for pagans and chooses his language with pagans in view (see BISHOP, 14). On this account we must reckon with the possibility that he has also somewhat simplified for his readers his account of the Christian institutions.

(b) In the Ignatian epistles, on the other hand, the ideal of the episcopate is delineated with perfect clearness.

The community at Rphesus is one with its bishop just as the church is one with Christ (Eph. 5:1). The bishop ought to be regarded as the Lord himself is regarded (Eph. 6:1), and obedience given to him as to Christ ( Trail. 2 i ). The bishop is God's representative, and the presbyters represent the synedrium of the apostles (Magn. 6:1, Trail. 2:2, 3:1). The deacons are to be honoured like Jesus, like the bishop (ibid.), like the commandment of God (Smyrn. 8:1). As Jesus followed the Father, so ought all to follow the bishop (ibid.) ; as Jesus did nothing without the Father, so ought the Christian to do nothing without the bishop and the presbyters (Magn. 7:1, Trail. 2:2) : especially, and before all, nothing that has relation to the church (Smyrn. 8:1). Where the bishop appears, there ought the laity (TO TrArjSos) to be ; just as where Christ is, there the catholic church is (8:2). Without the bishop and the presbyters nothing deserves the name of church (Trail. 3:1). A celebration of the eucharist is in order only when it is conducted by the bishop or by some one to whom the duty has been committed by him ; without the bishop s authority neither may baptism be administered nor a love-feast held ; he who does aught without the cognisance of the bishop is serving the devil (Smyrn. 8:2, 9:1). A marriage is to be gone about with the bishop's concurrence. If an ascetic becomes more famous by his abstinence than the bishop he has incurred perdition (ad Polyc. 5:2). A layman is not entitled even to have a private opinion (ad Magn. 7:1). In short, the hierarchy is in optima forma.

(c) What we do not find in Ignatius is the idea of the apostolic succession, of consecration, and of the equation of bishops with the priests of the OT. In everything else, however, he shows himself to be the thinker who has travelled farthest on the path which we are now survey ing not only in respect of predominant point of view, but also in all the other individual points detailed in preceding paragraphs. Nevertheless, his epistles are often regarded as genuine and assigned to the beginning of the second century. As regards the matter of church- constitution, the question of genuineness is not so im portant as that of date. It is not, after all, incompre hensible if any one should think the genuineness of the epistles defensible as long as he leaves it open to bring the date down as late as to 150 A.D.

It must, however, be pointed out that the manner also in which Ignatius writes to his readers is such as to raise the gravest difficulties in the mind of a critic who looks for what is natural and in the circumstances probable. The judgment as to this will vary, it is true, according to the subjectivity of each individual. Nevertheless, we are constrained to believe that it is unmistakable in at least the Epistle to Polycarp that Ignatius could not have sent to his honoured colleague, whom in 8:1 he speaks of as possessing the mind of God, exhortations so ele mentary, and even sometimes containing such an element of censure, as the following : - 'vindicate thine office in all diligence of flesh and of spirit' (1:2) ; 'despise not slaves' (4:3); 'be thou wise as the serpent in all things, and harmless always as the dove' (2:2) ; 'ask for larger wisdom than thou hast' (1:3) ; 'be thou more diligent than thou art' (3:2), etc. They are still more inappropriate than those of the Pastoral Epistles ( 54b ). How little the author in reality bears in mind that he is claiming to be writing to Polycarp is shown also in the fact that, without any attempt at a transition, from chap. 6 forwards he addresses the church of Polycarp : 'give ye heed to the bishop', etc.

(d) On the other hand, the assignment of the Ignatian epistles to the first decennia of the second century is attended by insurmountable difficulties.

Ignatius does not seek, like 1 Tim. (see 54), to introduce monarchical episcopacy as something new ; he takes it for granted as a matter of course. What he is contending for is merely unconditional subjection to the bishops. Whoever assigns the earlier date to the epistles is compelled, therefore, to assume that, in Antioch (and all Syria), the home of Ignatius, and in the communities of Asia Minor to which he writes, mon archical episcopacy had arisen as early as about the year 100 A.D., whilst throughout the whole of the rest of the church it was unknown, and especially at Rome, the central point, was still unknown to Hermas in 140. It can readily be allowed that the development of the constitution of the church may in many provinces have taken a different course from that which it followed in others ; but a difference so immense as that just in dicated is attended with the gras est difficulties. All the more ought it to be considered that we have no other witness for the early existence of monarchical episcopacy than precisely the Ignatian epistles themselves.

The circumstance that no bishop of Rome is mentioned in the Ignatian Epistle to the Romans is often regarded as a proof of the genuineness of all seven epistles, inasmuch as this representation is in accordance with the actual position of affairs in Rome before Justin s time (see above, ). What it actually does prove is one or other of these two things : -

  • (1) Either that the author, out of deference to the Roman community (1 : 'Ye were the instructors of others, and my desire is that those lessons shall hold good which as teachers ye enjoin' ), deemed it unfitting to give to them in the same manner as he had given to the other churches his theories and exhortations regarding the episcopate (so Sohm, 168-170, on the assumption of the genuineness of the Ignatian epistles ; but on the hypothesis of their spuriousness the argument remains equally applicable). Or,
  • (2) the Epistle to the Romans is not by the same hand as the other six epistles (so Volter, Die ignat. Jlriefe, 1892, who, however, combines this idea with an untenable hypothesis).

(e) If, however, it be suggested that in the provinces indicated the early realisation of the idea had to en counter practical hindrances such as, let us say, the democratic habitude of the communities or the want of outstanding episcopal personalities, the observation does not apply at any rate to a pure idea, such as that of the catholic church, which finds expression in ad Smyrn. 82. As an idea it figures in Col. and Eph. and the Pastoral Epistles as a matter of great importance ; had the word (KO.QO\(.K-T\ [kathalike]) been pronounced, it must have spread like wildfire and met with acceptance everywhere. Instead of this, what do we find? Complete silence down to the decennium from 170-180 (see above, 25 d).

In the Martyrdom of Polycarp (Superscription and 8:1, 16:2, 19:2) Harnack (Expos. 1885b , p. \iof.\ Lehrb. d. Do^ntcngesch. 1 12)336, n., ET 2 75, n.) disputes the genuineness of the word catholic (icaSoAuc))) ; plainly what he has in his mind is that this writing could not have come into being immediately after the death of Polycarp in 155 or 156 A.D. if it contained this word ; yet we are to be told that it had already been spoken about 110-117 D V Ignatius. Harnack seeks to gain acceptance for this by drawing the distinction that in Mart. Polyc. ^ KaSoAiiCT) eicicATjaia [e katholike ekklesia] means 'the orthodox church' (a sense which 'first came into use a long while after the middle of the first century' ), whilst on the other hand it means in Ignatius 'the universal church, in contrast to the particular congregations', which last sense was, he maintains, undoubtedly known even in the apostolic age (cp also Sohm, 196-198). Harnack himself shows how little tenable is this distinction, as well as the conjecture of so early a date for the expression 'the catholic church', and draws the right inference from the facts mentioned, when in ACL II. ( Chronol.)\ 391 he prints the word KaOoAnnj in Ignatius also with a mark of interrogation, although unfortunately without giving a word of explanation of the reason for his doubt. This is a very questionable way of getting over difficulties, to be resorted to only in cases when all other indications are against the possibility of the occurrence of such a word in the circle of ideas of the writer who is in questino.

(f) Here, however, this is not the case. Harnack himself acknowledges two matters which present equally great difficulties against the earlier dating of the epistles ; viz. , the theological terminology which breathes the spirit of the close of the second century, and the unacquaintance with the epistles shown by all the ecclesiastical writers previous to Irenaeus. (The Epistle of Polycarp cannot be regarded as an external testimony to their early date ; see JOHN, SON OF ZEBEDEE, 47. )

(g) The most important of Harnack's proofs for the higher antiquity of the Ignatian epistles is, to begin with, the absence of the idea of the apostolic succession.

This idea, however, is no more than prepared for in the Pastoral Epistles ( 37 c-e), and according to Harnack himself (Lehrb. d. Dogmengesch. K 2 >33o/. , ET26gJf. ) there are even as late as "in Irenaeus and Tertullian only the first hints of the new conception. " It is therefore hardly to be wondered at that Ignatius always places not the bishops but the presbyters on a level with the apostles. And how would it be if in drawing his parallel, in con sequence of this, between the bishop and Christ, he was conscious of saying something advanced, just as in the Fourth Gospel the theory of the virgin birth of Jesus is ignored because the writer is conscious that he can call him the Logos (cp MARY, 10, 16)?

(A) The observation of Harnack that the Ignatian epistles betray no knowledge of the great gnostic systems, whilst yet they frequently are found controverting gnosticism and especially docetism, also deserves attention.

Here, however, it has to be remarked in the first place with regard to the reading referring to Valentinus (ad Magn. 8:2), 'eternal logos not proceeding from silence' (Aoyos cuSios OUK diro <riyrjs Trpoe\9tai>), that it cannot be finally disposed of by passing a judgment upon the general superiority of the MSS and versions which omit the two words 'eternal', 'not' (cu5io OVK), and thus depriving the passage of all its colour ; what has to be done is to explain how the longer could have arisen out of the shorter reading ; and this will be found a difficult task, as the copyists, of course, had no inkling of the Valentinian ideas. As for the shorter reading itself, it is, indeed, possible at a pinch to say what its meaning would be if the author had written it ; but it will be difficult to suggest any satisfactory occasion as explaining why he should have wished to express any such thought at all.

If we leave this passage, however, out of account, may it not be that the author, like the majority of the NT writers (see above, 31), regarded it as beneath his dignity to go with any detail at all into the views of his opponents ? In the case of a writer who (to take a single instance) speaks of those whom he is controverting as mad dogs who bite secretly (ad Eph. 7:1), there would be nothing surprising in such a thing.

(i) When, moreover, Ignatius enjoins obedience, not only as towards the bishops, but also as towards the presbyters and deacons, this is not a proof of defective zeal for the episcopal dignity, as soon as it is presupposed that, before all, the presbyters and deacons obey the bishop.

But this must suffice ; the Ignatian question cannot be pursued further here. What has already been said may perhaps, however, serve in some measure at least to justify the judgment of critical theology that the epistles came into being about 170-180 A. D., and therefore are not genuine.

54. Preparatory stage in Pastoral Epistles.[edit]

(a) If we fix our eye upon what we find in Ignatius as representing the final phase in the development, we shall be able to understand better one of the intermediate stages on the same road, leading towards the same terminus. In what has hitherto been said we have made use of the Pastoral Epistles as a source for our knowledge of actual conditions only with caution, since they are open to the suspicion that they do not reflect a clear image of any one definite time. However that may be, the purpose of the author, or of the authors, which was to bring about a condition of things such as we see actually existing in the Ignatian epistles, claims our attention. In the course of our examination it will incidentally appear how utterly impossible it becomes, in view of the course which the development of the ecclesiastical constitution took, to attribute these epistles to Paul ; on the question of their authorship, see TIMOTHY [EPISTLE]; TITUS [EPISTLE].

(b) In 2 Tim. we already meet with the idea of the apostolic succession ( 37 c-e), although church offices are not as yet expressly treated. Needless to say, the exhortations - which, in the highly elementary form in which we find them for example in 1:13, 2:22, 3:14-15, were certainly quite unnecessary for Timothy, Paul's intimate associate and fellow-worker for many years - have no other object than to exhibit the qualifications which must be looked for in one who is to occupy a position of leadership in the church. In Tit. and 1 Tim. they are of the same character ; here, however, we find added a formal catalogue of the attributes that are necessary in a bishop (Tit. 1:6-9, 1 Tim. 3:2-7) ; in 1 Tim. 3:8-12 those re quired in deacons and deaconesses are also enumerated. As Titus is to appoint presbyters in every city of Crete (1:5), and as, according to 1:7, 'episcopus' is only another word for presbyter, we may not say that the singular (rbv (iriffKoirov [ton episkopon]) implies the precept or the presupposition that each community is to have only one bishop.

In 1 Tim. the case seems to be different in so far as the singular the episcopos (TOV firiaKo-nov) in 3:2 has the plural 'diaconi' (6iaKoi>ou) as its parallel in v. 8. Nevertheless, to infer monarchical episcopacy from this would be insecure ; for the singular in 3:2 can quite well, exactly as in Tit. 1:7, where it is simply a carrying on of the plural 'presbyters' (7rpe<rj3vTpovs), be due to the circumstance that on each occasion in the preceding verse 'any [man]' (TIS) is used: (Tit. 1:6) 'if any man is blameless', etc. ; (1 Tim. 3:1) 'if a man seeketh the office of a bishop', etc. Indeed, as the presbyters are wanting in ch. 3 and yet are found in 4:14, 5:17-19, we are compelled, if we suppose the author of the epistle to be the same throughout, to conclude that here also they are identical with the bishops.

(c) In other passages, however, i Tim. goes farther, and that too in the injunctions laid upon Timothy him self. In 5:19 a precept is given with reference to judicial proceedings against a presbyter - not against a senior member of the community, which is the meaning of the word in v. 1 ( 43b), - for immediately before (v. 17) it is found in its official sense.

It is, therefore, a great mistake to suppose that the position assigned to Timothy is merely that of an evangelist or teacher, inferior, not only to that of apostles, but also to that of prophets, and superior to that of presbyters ( = episcopi) only in virtue of the precedence due to Timothy in his capacity of teacher (so Harnack, TU 2:2, p. 112 ; cp above, 46b). Not only is it illegitimate to take a single expression of 2 Tim. as conclusive for the Pastoral Epistles altogether : it has further to be remem bered that 2 Tim. 4:5 says no more than that Timothy ought to do the work of an evangelist. His own proper position may easily, therefore, be something different, and similarly the repeated exhortations addressed to him with respect to his teaching by no means imply that he is only a teacher ; similar exhortations are addressed in the same epistle to the bishop (39e).

Equally mistaken, however, is the other extreme, which goes so far as to hold that it is the metropolitan dignity that is described and founded in the delineation here given of Timothy and Titus. As in 20a, so here again, it has to be said that the roof cannot be laid in its place until the walls have been built.

(d) It is of great importance to remember that the authors of the Pastoral Epistles found themselves in a very difficult position. They desired to set forth the church ideals of their own time in the form of epistles of Paul, and therefore made it their concern to represent Paul as having instituted that apostolic succession which they were setting forth as a matter of theory for the episcopal dignity. We have to judge of this undertaking of theirs on the same principles as have been laid down in 35a. The most prominent of Paul s fellow-workers seemed the most suitable persons to select for addresses ; perhaps the selection of the particular names may in part have been occasioned by the existence of a few genuine scraps from the hand of Paul which various critics believe they can detect in 2 Tim. 4:9-18, 4:19-22a (1:15-18), Tit. 3:12-13 The ideal of the author of 1 Tim., however, in particular, was none other than that which lay so close at hand at the time in which he lived, namely, monarchical episcopacy. It is in this sense that he draws his picture of Timothy without, however, being able to prevent the intrusion of inappropriate features into the picture since, in point of fact, Timothy was not the stationary bishop of one community but an itinerant missionary. It is easy, however, to see that the exhortations addressed to him are much more appropriate to the case of a local bishop.

55. In 3 Jn.?[edit]

The authority of an apostle, or of a disciple of an apostle, over the entire number of the communities founded by him was, wherever it existed, a hindrance to the development of a local episcopate ; and Harnack regards 3 Jn. as a vain attempt by John the Presbyter (see JOHN, SON OF ZEBEDEE, 3-7) to uphold the territorial authority which, according to Rev. 2-3 , he possessed in Asia Minor.

The journeys of the emissaries of the Presbyter, who carried messages from him and brought back to him their reports (v. 3), were ever found to be more and more inconvenient, according to Harnack,and ultimately led Diotrephes, the first local bishop whose name we know, to refuse any longer to receive these messengers, and to excommunicate those members of the com munity who showed themselves friendly to them. The Presbyter, who in 2 Jn. 10 himself warns against peripatetic teachers, was not in the end triumphant. Monarchical local episcopacy forced its way, and the Presbyter retained the respect in which he had been held only in virtue of his writings, which according to Harnack were the Apocalypse, the Fourth Gospel, and the three epistles. In Harnack s view this consideration supplies us with a final but hitherto unnoticed means of accounting for the development of monarchical episcopacy.

The theory is by no means lacking in inherent prob ability, and may therefore be accepted as a welcome addition to our conjectures on the subject, even though it should not prove to be supported by 3 Jn. It pre supposes that the epistle in question really did proceed from the church-leader of Asia Minor towards the end of the first century. In this, however, there is little prob ability (see JOHN, SON OF ZEBEDEE, 65). Apart from this, the reasons of Diotrephes for the conduct referred to may have been other than those which Harnack, on purely conjectural grounds, has supposed : in fact, Diotrephes need not have been a bishop at all ; unless the expression, who loveth to have the pre-eminence among them (6 0i\07r/3wrei;cuj O.VTUV), in v. 9, be a very unjust one, we must rather hold him to have been a member of the community or of the ruling body who knew how to win for himself an influence extensive enough to enable him to carry out his terrorising measures.

56. Right understanding of Didache.[edit]

The Didache also demands a word. It has shed much new light on our present subject, yet the use we make of it ought not to be such as results in a bouleversement of all our previous knowledge.

This is what would be the inevitable result if we were to draw from it the inference that the Christian communities at the date of its composition were still as much without regular heads as was the community of Corinth about 58 A.D. (see above, 9a), and that bishops and deacons were still non-existent and requiring to be introduced. To escape this consequence, it has either been proposed to carry the date of the Didache back to the middle of the first century, or it has been suggested that it describes in the second century either a stage of the development that has been already passed, or else the actual conditions prevailing in some belated province. Of these three possibilities the last-named would be the preferable.

Better still, however, will it be, as in the case of the Pastoral Epistles ( 54d), to bear in mind the pre suppositions under which the author is writing. His intention is to give a doctrine for the Gentiles who are being converted to Christianity. To these the whole constitution of the Church is of course new, and what has long prevailed in consolidated communities must be imparted as a novelty. Hence the exhortation to choose to themselves bishops and deacons. At the same time, however, the continuation in 15:11, 'for they also perform such and such a service', or in 15:12, 'for they are your honourable men', shows that he has before his eyes conditions that have long existed ; were it otherwise, he would have said : and it will be theirs to, etc. So long, however, as he cannot presuppose the presence of bishops among his readers, he is also precluded from directing his exhortations to these, but must address them to the members of the community at large, and thus necessarily produce the appearance of knowing nothing of any constitution already existing.

57. Phil. 1.[edit]

We close with Phil. 1:1, the passage which Hatch makes almost the starting-point of his investigation. We have kept it to the end because the words 'with episcopi and diaconi' (<rvv firifficbirois (ecu 5iai<6vois) are very questionable. In connection with the address 'to all the saints in Christ Jesus who are at Philippi' (iraffiv TOIS 071015 iv Xptory Irjffov TOIJ oZffiv iv 4>iXt7r7rots) they are not merely superfluous but even confusing.

As a counsel of despair they have sometimes been taken as part of the subject ( 'Paul and Timothy together with bishops and deacons' ) ; 'syn-episcopi' (<ru ejri<r<co7rois) has even been taken as a single word - which is certainly very meaningless, - or it has been regarded as the marginal gloss of an ancient reader who, desiderating a salutation somewhat in the manner of Heb. 13:24 addressed in the first instance to the officials, made good the need as best he could. This last explanation is certainly the preferable one, if the words are found incompatible with a Pauline authorship of the epistle ; to declare the whole epistle to be ungenuine because of them is a course not to be recommended, 1 as the epistle as a whole becomes much less com prehensible on this assumption than on that of the genuineness (so also it is advisable to omit oAAa [alla] of 2:7, all of 2:6 except os [Have this mind in you which was also in Christ Jesus who emptied himself], and the last five words of 2:10 [of things in heaven and things on earth and things under the earth] or the whole of 3:10-11, rather than to reject the whole epistle).

Yet it will not be found possible categorically to maintain that the two expressions in 1:1 cannot by any means have come from Paul ; they are foreshadowed by the 'governments' (Ki>/3f/wr)<Tets) and 'helps' (O.VTI- Xij/ui/ eis [autolempseis]) of 1 Cor. 12:28 (48) ; and in the last resort it is even conceivable that Paul, dictating his epistle, introduced the episcopi and diaconi without having at the outset intended to mention them - and did so not very felicitously indeed, but in the only way that the form of the sentence permitted, - the consideration which led him to do so being in all probability the fact that these persons had specially exerted themselves in con nection with the gift sent him by the Philippians (2:25, 4:10-20). Only, we must not infer from this that the episcopi were mere administrators of finance (and worship) ; they had to do with the matter in their capacity of church leaders also.

58. Too early dates for monarchical episcopacy.[edit]

In conclusion we briefly notice certain characteristic views which appear to assign too early an origin to monarchical episcopacy.

(a) The dogma of an unbroken apostolic succession need not any longer detain us after what has been urged in the course of the present article.

(b) Richard Rothe (Anfdnge der christl. Kirche, 1837) thought he could show that shortly after 70 A.D. a council of apostles and teachers drew up a constitution of which the centre was episcopacy, and that the new constitution was immediately and generally adopted.

To Lightfoot's refutation (Chr. Min. 32-40) we need only add that Pfaffs Fragments of Irenauis have now been shown by Harnack ( TU 20 3, 1900) to be forgeries by Pfaff.

(c) According to Lightfoot himself, 'James, the Lord's brother . . . can claim to be regarded as a bishop in the later and more special sense of the term', even although also 'he was still considered as a member of the presbytery' (25-26). 'After the fall of the city, St. John . . . would not unnaturally encourage an approach in the Gentile churches (of Asia Minor) to the same organisation' (40). 'Before the middle of the second century each church or organised Christian community had its three orders of ministers, its bishop, its presbyters, and its deacons' (9).

The foundation on which Lightfoot's views ultimately rest is the postulate of the credibility of Acts and of the genuineness of the Pastoral Epistles and Epistles of Ignatius, a postulate which need not be discussed afresh here. A word, however, must be devoted to a proof, not yet adverted to, which Lightfoot finds for his last-mentioned thesis in the fact that bishops are already- known to us by name before the middle of the second century (42-72). The force of this proof is completely destroyed by Lightfoot's own admission (56) that Dionysius of Corinth, about 170 A.D., according to whom (Eus. HE iv. 23:3) his namesake the Areopagite, 'having been brought to the faith by the apostle Paul, according to the account in the Acts [17:34], was the first to be entrusted with the bishopric of the diocese of the Athenians', had 'not unnaturally confounded the earlier and later usage of the word bishop'. The same admission is made by Lightfoot (63) with regard to the 'bishops' of Rome, two of whom are even reckoned as predecessors of Clement, although the EfttttM of Clement shows that 'he was rather the chief of the presbyters than the chief over the presbyter's. 2 There is, however, no reason discernible why this confusion should not be regarded as possible in every case where we read of a bishop as living at a period for which monarchical episcopacy has not been shown by independent and incontestable evidence to have existed. In fact, in one instance even Lightfoot himself has fallen into the like confusion. He says (p. 49) : 'Polycarp evidently writes as a bishop, for he distinguishes himself from his presbyters'. The opening words of the letter of Polycarp here cited, however, IIoAOicapTros Kal oi <rvv aurai 7rpe<r/3uTCpoi, are just as appropriate for a chief of the presbyters as for a chief over the presbyters.

(d) As against the view of Sohm, that monarchical episcopacy arose in Rome about 100-110 A.D. as a result of the First Epistle of Clement, cp 440?, 45, 46 a. (See also ROME [CHURCH].)

1. [Cp, however, PHILIPPIANS.]

2. So far as the words of Hegesippus (aj>. Eus. HE iv. 22 3) in particular are concerned : yeyon.ei os iv p w/^J) Siaiox Ji efoir) <ra.v.rjv pljfyuf AmicrJTOu, which are generally interpreted as meaning that he drew up a list of the Roman bishops to his own time, Zahn (Forschungen, 6:243-246) thinks they mean neither this nor anything else that can be clearly made out, and that Rufinus either read or conjectured the correct reading - say, Siarpipriii for Sia&o\rii - when he thus rendered the words 'cum autem venissem Romam, permansi inibi donee Aniceto Soter et Soteri successit Eleutherus'.

59. Sketch of the development after 180 A.D.[edit]

However great the distance travelled within our period from the primitive conditions of the earliest Christianity, many steps in the development of the catholic system still remained to be accomplished in the period which succeeded.

(a) It was not till the end of the second century that the idea of 'priest' began to be connected with any officers of the Christian church.

If this appears to have happened as early as in 1 Clem. 40-41 (see above, 50b) the object is simply to show by the example of the OT (as being of divine appointment) that in the church also each individual has his determinate place and must not encroach upon the functions of his neighbour ; it is not intended to be held that the bishop actually possesses the same functions as the high priest, the presbyter those of the priest, and so forth. So also in Didache 13:3 the prophets are co-ordinated with the high priests only in respect of that which they receive in the way of doles, not in respect of that which they do. Moreover, neither bishop nor prophet can take the place of the high priest if, as we read in Heb. (2:17, 3:1, 4:1-2 etc.) and also in Ignatius (ad Philad. 9:1), it is Christ who holds that position and also in actual fact exercises the functions of the high priest.

The idea of the universal priesthood of believers is still the prevailing one throughout the period we have been considering. It is infringed, however, by the theory of Ignatius that no ecclesiastical action can be taken in hand apart from the bishop (see above, 53b). The designation 'clergy' (clerus), too, for the officials of the church makes its appearance for the first time with the end of the second century ; but in substance the thing can already be found at a fairly advanced stage in Ignatius (cp Lightfoot, Chr. Min. 97-132).

(b) Within our period the bishop was chosen by his church. Only in cases where the community numbered fewer than twelve men qualified to give a vote was it enjoined, according to an ordinance placed by Harnack between the years 140 and 180 A.D. ( TU 11. 5:7-10), to invite the established neighbouring churches each to send three men for the proving of the bishop to be elected. In the third century this developed itself into an arrangement that at every election of a bishop at least three other bishops should co-operate with the members of the church electing and should have the decisive voice. During the same period the Roman bishops successfully carried into effect the view that a bishop could not be deposed from his office even for mortal sin.

(c) Joint meetings of the leaders of the various churches for purposes of consultation were held, we may be sure, from a very early date ; but we hear nothing of authoritative synods being held within the period we have been considering. The way was prepared for them, however, by the theory that the gift of the Holy Spirit is concentrated in the bishops ; in fact the language of the apostolic decree at the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:28: 'it seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us' ) had only to be imitated.

(d) Within the period under consideration few traces are to be found of a bishop's being set over the other bishops of his province or over several communities each of which was under the guidance of presbyters merely. Apart from Egypt, where there actually were many communities of the kind just men tioned, it holds true as a general rule that each com munity has its own bishop or (in the earlier time) its college of bishops, and that all bishops stand on an equality. Even Harnack who (SBAW, 1901, 1191- 1212) finds the beginnings of a metropolitan dignity as early as in the time of Ignatius, about 115 (in ad Rom. 2:2 Ignatius is called bishop of Syria instead of bishop of Antioch), is nevertheless wholly disinclined to regard it as a direct continuation of the primitive con ditions described in 55. But the struggle for power, naturally inherent in the episcopacy, must also have led to the subordination of the less important episcopal sees and especially of the village-bishops (chorepiscopi).

(e) In the First Epistle of Clement it is still the Roman church as a whole which makes the claim to exercise supervision over the Corinthian (see ROME, CHURCH OF). From the close of the second century onwards the Roman bishops as such laid claim with ever growing pretensions to this right of supervision over the entire church, and in fact in the theory which regards Peter and Paul as apostles of Rome (36) and still more in what we read in Mt. 16:18-19 (4) a quite suitable foundation for the papacy is laid. In short, however far the full consequences of the catholic constitution of the church may have been from having been explicitly drawn up prior to 180 A. D. , all the premisses were present, and they necessarily pressed forward to their full expression.

60. Literature.[edit]

Weizsacker, Kirchenverfassung des apost. Zeitalters in JDT, 1873, pp. 631-674; Apostol. Zeitalter, 1886, pp. 566-645, ( 2 ) 1892, pp. 544-622 ; i LZ, 1883, pp. 435-440 (on Hatch -Harnack; see below); Beyschlag, Christliche Gemeindeverfassung im Zeit alter des NT, and Maronier, De inrichting der Christelijke gemecnten voor het ontstaan i/e r Katho liekc Kcrk (both Teyler prize essays, new series, part iii., nos. i and 2, Haarlem, 1874); Heinrici, ZWT, 1876, pp. 465-526 ( Die Christengemeinde Korinths u. d. relig. Genossenschaften der Griechen ) ; 1877, pp. 89-130; St. A>. 1 88 1, pp. 505-524 ; Das erste Sendschreiben des Paulus an die Korinthier, 1880, pp. 20-29 ; in Meyer s Com mentary on 2 Cor.i l 1890, pp. 400-417 ; on i Cor.(&) 1896, pp. 4-9 ; Holsten, Evang. ties Paulus, i. 1 (1880) 236-245 ; Schiirer, 6V- meindeverfassung der Juden in Rom., 1879 (cp his own excerpt in TLZ, 1879, pp. 542-546) ; Holzmann, Pastoralbriefe, 1880, pp. 190-252; Wiengarten, 'Umwandlung der urspriingl. chrisil. Gemeindeorganisation zur kathol. Kirche' in Histor. Zischr. vol. 45, 1881, pp. 441-467 ; Seyerlen, Christ!. Cultus im apostol. Zeitalter in Ztschr.f. pract. Theol., 1881, pp. 222-240, 289-327; 1887, pp. 97-143, 201-244, 297-333 ; Hatch, Organisation of the Early Christian Church, 1881, Germ, transl. by Harnack, Gesellschaftsverfassung der christ lichen Kirchen im Alter- thum, 1883, with Harnack s Analekten, 229-259; Harnack, Lehre der 12 Apostel (in TU 1 if., 1884) ; Quellen der apostol. Kirchenordnung nebst . . . L rsfrung des Lectorats u. der andern niedern ll tihen (in TU 2 5, 1886); Lehrb. d. Dogmen- gesch., i. 3 7, (-} 180-184, ( 3 I 204-207 ; TLZ, 1889, pp. 417-429 (on Loning ; see below); Ueber den dritten Johannesbricf (in TU 163, 1897) (also Kriiger s review in ZWT, 1898, pp. 307-311); Vorstudie zu einer Geschichte der Verbreitung des Christenthums in den ersten 3 Jahrhunderten (SBA W, 1901, pp. 810-845, 1186- 1214); Harnack, Sanday, and many others on the origin of the Christian Ministry, Kxpos. 1887, i888/>, pp. 321-337; Kiihl, Gemeindeordnung in den Pastoralbriefen, 1885 ; Cunning ham, The Growth of the Church in its Organisation and Institutions, 1886; Hilgenfeld in ZWT, 1886, pp. 1-26 (review of Hatch-Harnack), 456-473 (review of Kiihl); 1890, pp. 98-115 ( VerfassungderUrgemeinde ), 223-245 ( Vorkathol. Verfassung ausser Palastina ), 303-314 ( Gemeindeverfassung in der Bildungszeit der katholischen Kirche ) ; Seufert, L rsprungu. Bedeutung des Apostolats (Haager prize dissertation, 1887); Lunm g,Genieindeyerfassung des Urchristenthums, 1888 ; Loofs, Urchristl. Gemeindeverfassung in St. Kr., 1890, pp. 619-658; Sohm, Kirchenrecht, i. 1892; Zockler, Diakonen u. Evan- gelisten in Bibl. u. kirchengesch. Studien, ii. 1893; Reville (Jean), Les origines de 1 episcopat, I. in Bibliotheque dejecole des hautes etudes, sciences relig., vol. 5, 1894 ; Le role des veuves dans les communautes chretiennes primitives, ibid. vol. i, 1889, pp. 231-251 ; Haupt, Zum Verstiindniss des Apostolatp (Halle Easter programmes), 1895-96 ; Weinel, Paulus als kirch- licher Organisator, 1899; Wernle, Anfange unsrer Religion, 1901, pp. S, 45/:, 52/, 61-63, 71-82, 112-115, 126-130, 165-167, 208, 237-251, 356-369 ; Lightfoot, The Christian Ministry, 1901 (originally in the Comm. on Philipp., and afterwards in Dis sertations on the Apostolic Age). P. W. S.


(*30), a land mentioned in Jer. 5l:27 [LXX, chap. 28]; jTAp 6MOY [BXAQ], menni [Vg.]), the Mannu of the Assyrians, which was W. of the Lake of Urumiya. Its inhabitants are the Mannai, of whom we read in the inscriptions of Shalmaneser II., Sargon, Esarhaddon, and Asur-bani-pal.

See ASHKENAZ, ARARAT, and, for the Assyrian (and Vannic) notices, Schrader, KA / ( 2 >423 ; Sayce, A / ( 2 )l 163^.; Winckler, GBA 200 241 243 269 ; AOFl 4&&gt;ff. On the 33 of Ps. 45 8 [9], which Tg. Pesh. render Armenia, see IVORY.