Cornell aniversity Library BOUGHT WITH THE INCOME _ FROM THE SAGE ENDOWMENT FUND |. THE GIFT OF | 2 Henry W. Sage 189x | PFs eee L4{ iad] ie : i : , ee . Cornell soo Library BS2650 .L72 1892 “Ti | Sa mes iy ‘Ap, oo ? Sen Oe FEEY 22 JUL 1915: hee 4a i: 18 (HEB § ~ 1889 RRO OF NOV—+-1960-Mp DE me wee ery | repr 1924 029 292 914 Bye F 4 Y le Sa d ate: Shows when this volume was s taken! i le ee sale HOME USE RULES. ‘ wf, °t- Immediately after His ascension we find them gathered to- gether with the Apostles, evidently recognising Him as their Master. Whence comes this change? Surely the crucifixion of one who professed to be the Messiah was not likely to bring it about. He had claimed to be King of Israel and He had been condemned as a malefactor: He had promised His follow- ers a triumph and He had left them persecution. Would not all this confirm rather than dissipate their former unbelief? An incidental statement of St Paul explains all; ‘Then He was seen of James.’ At the time when St Paul wrote, there was but one person eminent enough in the Church to be called James simply without any distinguishing epithet—the Lord’s brother, the bishop of Jerusalem. It might therefore reasonably be concluded that this James is here meant. And this view is confirmed by an extant fragment of the Gospel according to the Hebrews, the most important of all the apocryphal gospels, which seems to have preserved more than one true tradition, and which expressly relates the appearance of our Lord to His brother James’ after His resurrection. This interposition, we may suppose, was the turning-point in the religious life of the Lord’s brethren; the veil was removed at once and for ever from their hearts. In this way the antagonistic notices in the Gospels—first the disbelief of the Lord’s brethren, and then their assembling together with the Apostles—are linked together; and harmony is produced out of discord. 1 See below, p. 26. Objections to both, (1) Repeti- tion of names. Cousin- hood on either mothers’ 18 THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD. Two objections however are brought against both these theories, which the Hieronymian escapes. (1) They both, it is objected, assume the existence of two pairs of cousins bearing the same names, James and Joseph the sons of Alpheus, and James and Joseph the Lord’s brothers. If moreover we accept the statement of Hegesippus’ that James was succeeded in the bishopric of Jerusalem by Symeon son of Clopas, and also admit the identification of Clopas with Alpheus, we get a third name Symeon or Simeon common to the two families. Let us see what this objection really amounts to. It will be seen that the cousinhood’ of these persons is represented as a cousinhood on the mothers’ side, and that it depends on three assumptions: (1) The identification of James the son of Alpheus in the list of the Twelve with James the Little the son of Mary: (2) The identification of ‘Mary of Clopas’ in St John with Mary the mother of James and Joses in the other Evangelists: (3) The correctness of the received punctuation of John xix. 25, which makes ‘ Mary of Clopas’ the Virgin’s sister. If any one of these be rejected, this cousinhood falls to the ground. Yet of these three assumptions the second alone can safely be pronounced more likely than not? (though we are expressly told that ‘many other women’ were present), for it avoids the unnecessary multiplication of Maries. The first must be considered highly doubtful, seeing that James was a very common name; while the third is most improbable, for it gives two sisters both called Mary—a difficulty far surpassing that of supposing two or even three cousins bearing the same name. On the other hand, if, admitting the second identifica- tion and supplying the ellipsis in ‘Mary of Clopas’ by ‘wife’, 1 See below, p. 29 sq. ° Eusebius however makes ‘ Mary of Clopas’ a different person from Mary the mother of James and Joses; Quaest. ad Marin. ii. 5 (Op. tv. p. 945, Migne). 3 As 7 Tod KAwra may mean either the daughter or the wife or the mother of Clopas, this expression has been com- bined with the statement of Hegesippus in various ways. See for instance the — apocryphal gospels, Pseudo-Matth. Ev- ang. 52 (ed. Tisch. p. 104), Evang. Inf. Arab. 29 (ib. p. 186), and the marginal THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD. 19 we combine with it the statement of Hegesippus’ that Clopas the father of Symeon was brother of Joseph, we get three cousins, James, Joses, and Symeon, on their fathers’ side. Yet or fathers’ this result again must be considered on the whole improbable. Sa I see no reason indeed for doubting the testimony of Hege- sippus, who was perhaps born during the lifetime of this Symeon, and is likely to have been well informed.. But the chances are against the other hypotheses, on which it depends, being both of them correct. The identification of Clopas and Alpheus will still remain an open question’. note on the Philoxenian version, Joh. xix. 25, besides other references which will be given in the account of the patristic authorities. 1 The statement of Hegesippus sug- gests a solution which would remove the difficulty. We might suppose the two Maries to have been called sisters, as having been married to two brothers; but is there any authority for ascribing to the Jews an extension of the term ‘sister’ which modern usage scarcely sanctions? 2 Of the three names Alpheus (the father of Levi or Matthew, Mark ii. 14, - and the father of James, Matt. x. 3, Mark iii, 18, Luke vi. 15, Acts i. 13), Clopas (the husband or father or son of Mary, Joh. xix. 25), and Cleopas (the disciple journeying to Emmaus, Luke xxiv, 18), it is considered that the two former are probably identical, and the two latter certainly distinct, Both po- sitions may be disputed with some rea- son. In forming a judgment, the fol- lowing points deserve to be considered ; (1) In the Greek text there is no varia- tion of reading worth mentioning ; Clo- pas is certainly the reading in St John, and Cleopas in St Luke. (2) The ver- sions however bring them together. Cleopx (or Cleophs) is read in the Pe- shito, Old Latin, Memphitic, Vulgate, and Armenian text of St John. (3) Of these the evidence of the Peshito is par- ticularly important in a matter relating to Aramaic names. While for ’Addaios in all five places it restores what was doubtless the original Aramaic form sath ss, Chalphai; on the other hand, it gives the same word raaslo Kledpha (i.e. KXedras) in Luke xxiv. 18 and in John xix. 25, if the printed texts may be trusted. The Jerusalem Syriac too renders KA\wmrds by mxads (Kleophas), and’ AAgaios by ar los (Chalphai). (4) The form Kndwrds, which St John’s text gives, is confirmed by Hegesippus (Euseb. H. £.iii.11), and there is every reason to believe that this was @ common mode of writing some proper name or other with those ac- quainted with Aramaic; but it is diffi- cult to see why, if the word intended to be represented were Chalphai, they should not have reproduced it more exactly in Greek. The name Xad¢l in fact does occur in 1 Mace. xi. 70. (5) It is true that KAeézas is strictly a Greek name contracted from Kyeé7a- tpos, like ’Ayrtaras from ’Avrtiarpos, etc. But it was a common practice with the Jews to adopt the genuine Greek name which bore the closest resemblance in sound totheirown Aramaicname, either side by side with it or in place of it, as Simon for Symeon, Jason for Jesus ; and thus a man, whose real Aramaic 2—2 Thenames are com- mon. 20 THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD. But, whether they were cousins or not, does the fact of two families having two or three names in common constitute any real difficulty? Is not this a frequent occurrence among ourselves? It must be remembered too that the Jewish names in ordinary use at this time were very few, and that these three, James, Joses, and Symeon, were among the most common, being consecrated in the affections of the Jews from patriarchal times. In the list of the Twelve the name of In the New Testament no less than twelve persons bear the name of Symeon or Simon, and nearly as many that of Joseph or Joses’. In the James appears twice, Symeon twice. name was Clopas, might grecize the word and call himself Cleopas. On these grounds it appears to me that, viewing the question as one of names merely, it is quite as reasonable to identify Clopas with Cleopas as with Alpheus. But the identification of names does not carry with it the iden- tification of persons. St Paul’s Epa- phras for instance is probably a dif- ferent person from his Epaphroditus. A Jewish name ‘Alfius’ occurs in an inscription ALFIVS . IVDA . ARCON. arcosinacoevs (Inscr. Gudii, p. cclxiii. 5), and possibly this is the Latin sub- stitute for Chalphai or Chalphi, as ’A)- gaios is the Greek; Alfius being a not uncommon Latin name. One would be tempted to set down his namesake also, the ‘fenerator Alfius’ or ‘ Alphius’ of Horace (Epod. ii. 67, see Columella 1. 7. 2), for a fellow countryman, if his talk were not so pagan. 1 I am arguing on the supposition that Joses and Joseph are the same name, but this is at least doubtful. In St Matthew, according to the best au- thorities, the Lord’s brother (xiii. 55) is "Iwo, the son of Mary (xxvii. 56) "Twofs. In St Mark on the other hand the latter word is found (the geni- tive being differently written "Iwofros or Iwo, though probably Tregelles is right in preferring the former in all three passages), whether referring to the Lord’s brother (vi. 3) or to the son of Mary (xv. 40, 47). Thus if existing authorities in the text of St Mark are to be trusted, there is no distinction be- tween the names. Yet I am disposed to think with Wieseler (die Séhne Zebe- ddi ete. p. 678) that St Matthew’s text suggests the real difference, and that the original reading in Mark vi. 3 was "Iwojp; but if so, the corruption was very ancient and very general, for ’Iw- ond is found in § alone of the uncial manuscripts. A similar confusion of these names appears in the case of Bar- sabbas, Acts i. 23, and Barnabas, iv. 36; in the former case we find a various reading ‘ Joses’ for ‘Joseph,’in thelatter we shouldalmostcertainly read ‘Joseph’ for ‘Joses’ of the received text. I am disposed to think the identification of the names Joses and Joseph improbable for two reasons: (1) It seems unlikely that the same name should be repre- sented in Greek by two such divergent forms as "Iwofs, making a genitive "Iwofros, and Iwo} or Idonmos, which perhaps (replaced by a genuine Greek name) became ‘Hyijourmos. (2) The Peshito in the case of the commoner Hebrew or Aramaic names restores the original form in place of the somewhat disfigured Greek equivalent, e.g. Ju- chanon for Iwdvyys, Zabdai for ZeBe- THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD. 21 index to Josephus may be counted nineteen Josephs, and twenty- five Simons’. And moreover is not the difficulty, if difficulty there be, diminished rather than increased on the supposition of the cousinhood of these two families? The name of a common ancestor or a common relative naturally repeats itself in house- holds connected with each other. And from this point of view it is worthy of notice that the names in question actually occur in the genealogies of our Lord. Joseph’s father is Jacob or James in St Matthew (i 15, 16); and in St Luke’s table, exclusively of our Lord’s reputed father, the name Joseph or Joses occurs twice at least? in a list of thirty-four direct ancestors. (2) When a certain Mary is described as ‘the mother of (2) ‘Mary James,’ is it not highly probable that the person intended ae should be the most celebrated of the name—James the Just, the bishop of Jerusalem, the Lord’s brother? This objection to both the Epiphanian and Helvidian theories is at first sight not without force, but it will not bear examination. Why, we may ask, if the best known of all the Jameses were intended here, should it be necessary in some passages to add the name of a brother Joses also, who was a person of no special mark in the Church (Matt. xxvii. 56, Mark xv. 40)? Why again in others should this Mary be designated ‘the mother of Joses’ alone (Mark xv. 47), the name of his more famous brother being 1 The popularity of this name is probably due to Simon Maccabeus. 2 And perhaps not more than twice "Iwojd (vv. 24, 30). In ver. 26 Iwohy datos. Following this rule, it ought, if the names were identical, to have re- stored Agoda (Joseph) for the Greek "Twofjs, in place of which it has <9 Cvs (Josi, Jausi, or Jisi). In Matt. xxvii. 56, Mark xv. 40, the Memphitic Ver- sion separates Mapla [7% rod] "IaxéPou [ro5 puxpod] and “Iwof[ros] prnp, making them two different persons. On the other hand, similar instances of abbreviation, e.g. Ashe for Asher, Jochana for Jochanan, Shabba for Shabbath, are produced ; see Delitzsch in Laurent Neutest. Stud. p. 168. seems to be the right reading, where the received text has Iwoyp; and in ver. 29 "Inood, where it has "Iwo7. Possibly ’Iwcix may be a corruption for ’Iwoh¢ through the confusion of and ‘4, which in their older forms resem- ble each other closely; but if so, it isa corruption not of St Luke’s text, but of the Hebrew or Aramaic document from which the genealogy was derived. The two theories compared. (1) Rela- tion of the brethren to Joseph and Mary. 22 THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD. suppressed? In only two passages is she called simply ‘the mother of James’; in Mark xvi. 1, where it is explained by the fuller description which has gone before ‘the mother of James and Joses’ (xv. 40); and in Luke xxiv. 10, where no such explanation can be given. It would seem then that this Mary and this James, though not the most famous of their respective names and therefore not at once distinguishable when men- tioned alone, were yet sufficiently well known to be discriminated from others, when their names appeared in conjunction. The objections then which may be brought against both these theories in common are not very serious; and up to this point in the investigation they present equal claims to accept- ance. The next step will be to compare them together, in order to decide which of the two must yield to the other. 1. The Epiphanian view assumes that the Lord’s brethren had really no relationship with Him; and so far the Helvidian has the advantage. But this advantage is rather seeming than real, It is very natural that those who called Joseph His father should call Joseph’s sons His brethren. And it must be remembered that this designation is given to Joseph not only by strangers from whom at all events the mystery of the Incarnation was veiled, but by the Lord’s mother herself who knew all (Luke ii. 48). Even the Evangelist himself, about whose belief in the miraculous conception of Christ there can be no doubt, allows himself to speak of Joseph and Mary as ‘His father and mother’ and ‘His parents’.’ Nor again is it any argument in favour of the Helvidian account as compared with the Epiphanian, that the Lord’s brethren are found in company of Mary rather than of Joseph. Joseph appears in the evangelical history for the last time when Jesus is twelve years old (Luke ii. 43); during the Lord’s ministry he is never once seen, though Mary comes forward again and again. There can be little doubt therefore that he had died meanwhile. 1 Luke ii. 33 6 warip a’rod xal 4 have taken offence and substituted BaTnp, ti. 41, 43 of yoveis atrod, the ‘Joseph and Mary,’ ‘Joseph and His correct reading. Later transcribers mother,’ in all three places. THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD. 23 2. Certain expressions in the evangelical narratives are (2) Virgin- said to imply that Mary bore other children besides the Lord, Mow and it is even asserted that no unprejudiced person could interpret them otherwise. The justice of this charge may be fairly questioned. The context in each case seems to suggest another explanation of these expressions, which does not decide anything one way or the other. St Matthew writes that Joseph ‘knew not’ his wife ‘till (gs od) she brought forth a son’ (i. 25)’; while St Luke speaks of her bringing forth ‘her jirstborn son’ (ii. 7). St Matthew's expression however, ‘ till she brought forth, as appears from the context, is intended simply to show that Jesus was not begotten in the course of nature ; and thus, while it denies any previous intercourse with her husband, it neither asserts nor implies any subsequent intercourse’, Again, the prominent idea conveyed by the term ‘firstborn’ to a Jew would be not the birth of other children, but the special consecration of this one. The typical reference in fact is foremost in the mind of St Luke, as he himself explains it, ‘Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord’ (ii. 23). Thus ‘firstborn’ does not necessarily suggest ‘later-born, any more than ‘son’ suggests ‘daughter.’ The two words together describe the condition under which in obedience to the law a child was consecrated to God. The ‘firstborn son’ is in fact the Evangelist’s equivalent for the ‘male that openeth the womb.’ It may indeed be fairly urged that, if the Evangelists had considered the perpetual virginity of the Lord’s mother a matter of such paramount importance as it was held to be in the fourth and following centuries, they would have avoided expressions which are at least ambiguous and might be taken to imply the contrary ; but these expressions are not in them- selves fatal to such a belief. Whether in itself the sentiment on which this belief was 1 dv mpwrbroxov ought to be reject- 2 For parallel instances see Mill, ed from St Matthew’s text, having pp. 304 sq. been interpolated from Luke ii. 7. (3) Our Lord’s dy- ing words. 24 THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD. founded be true or false, is a fit subject of enquiry; nor can the present question be considered altogether without reference to it. Ifit be true, then the Epiphanian theory has an advantage over the Helvidian, as respecting or at least not disregarding it; if false, then it may be thought to have suggested that theory, as it certainly did the Hieronymian, and to this extent the theory itself must lie under suspicion. Into this enquiry however it will not be necessary to enter. Only let me say that it is not altogether correct to represent this belief as suggested solely by the false asceticism of the early Church which exalted virginity at the expense of married life. It appears in fact to be due quite as much to another sentiment which the fathers fantastically expressed by a comparison between the conception and the burial of our Lord. As after death His body was placed in a sepulchre ‘wherein never man before was laid, so it seemed fitting that the womb consecrated by His presence should not thenceforth have borne any offspring of man. It may be added also, that the Epiphanian view prevailed especially in Palestine where there was less disposition than elsewhere to depreciate married life, and prevailed too at a time when extreme ascetic views had not yet mastered the Church at large. 3. But one objection has been hurled at the Helvidian theory with great force, and as it seems to me with fatal effect, which is powerless against the Epiphanian*. Our Lord in His dying moments commended His mother to the keeping of St John; ‘Woman, behold thy son.” The injunction was forthwith obeyed, and ‘from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home’ (John xix. 26, 27). Yet according to the Helvidian view she had no less than four sons besides daughters living at the time. Is it conceivable that our Lord would thus have snapped asunder the most sacred ties of natural affection ? The difficulty is not met by the fact that her own sons were 1 This argument is brought forward who all held the view which I have not only by Jerome, but alsoby Hilary designated by the name of the last of of Poitiers, Ambrose, and Epiphanius, the three. THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD. 25 still unbelievers. This fact would scarcely have been allowed to override the paramount duties of filial piety. But even when so explained, what does this hypothesis require us to believe? Though within a few days a special appearance is vouchsafed to one of these brethren, who is destined to rule the mother Church of Jerusalem, and all alike are converted to the faith of Christ; yet she, their mother, living in the same city'and joining with them in a common worship (Acts i. 14), is consigned to the care of a stranger of whose house she becomes henceforth the mmate. Thus it would appear that, taking the scriptural notices Conelu- alone, the Hieronymian account must be abandoned; while of the remaining two the balance of the argument is against the Helvidian and in favour of the Epiphanian. To what extent the last-mentioned theory can plead the prestige of tradition, will be seen from the following catena of references to the fathers and other early Christian writings’. 1 The testimony of Papias is fre- quently quoted at the head of the pa- tristic authorities, as favouring the view of Jerome. The passage in question is an extract, to which the name of this very ancient writer is prefixed, in a Bodleian ms, no. 2397, of the date 1302 or 1303. It is given in Grabe’s Spicil. 11. p. 34, Routh’s Rel. Sacr. 1. p. 16, and runs as follows: ‘ Maria mater Domini: Maria Cleophae, sive Alphei uxor, quae fuit mater Jacobi episcopi et apostoli et Symonis et Thadei et cujusdam Joseph: Maria Sa- lome uxor Zebedei mater Joannis evan- gelistae et Jacobi: Maria Magdalene: istae quatuor in Evangelio reperiuntur. Jacobus et Judas et Joseph filii erant materterae Domini; Jacobus quoque et Joannes alterius materterae Domini fu- erunt filii, Maria Jacobi minoris et Joseph mater, uxor Alphei, soror fuit Mariae matris Domini, quam Cleophae Joannes nominat vel a patre vel a gen- tilitatis familia vel alia causa. Maria Salome a viro vel a vico dicitur: hance eandem Cleophae quidam dicunt quod duos viros habuerit. Maria dicitur illuminatrix sive stella maris, genuit enim lumen mundi; sermone autem Syro Domina nuncupatur, quia genuit Dominum.’ Grabe’s description ‘ad marginem expresse adscriptum lego Papia’ is incorrect; the name is not in the margin but over the passage as a title to it. The authenticity of this fragment is accepted by Mill, p. 238, and by Dean Alford on Matth. xiii. 55. Two writers also inSmith’s Biblical Diction- ary (s. vv. ‘Brother’ and ‘ James’), re- spectively impugning and maintaining the Hieronymian view, refer to it with- out suspicion. It is strange that able and intelligent critics should not have seen through a fabrication which is so manifestly spurious. Not to mention the difficulties in which we are involved by some of the statements, the following reasons seem conclusive: (1) The last sentence ‘ Maria dicitur etc.’ is evidently Hebrew Gospel. 26 THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD. . 1. The GosprL accoRDING To THE HEBREWS, one of the earliést and most respectable of the apocryphal narratives, related that the Lord after His resurrection ‘went to James and appeared to him; for James had sworn that he would not eat bread from that hour in which the Lord had drunk the cup (biberat calicem Dominus), till he saw Him risen from the dead.’ Jesus therefore ‘took bread and blessed it and brake it and gave it to James the Just and said to him, My brother, eat thy bread, for the Son of Man has risen from the dead’ (Hieron. de Vir. Illustr. 2). I have adopted the reading ‘Dominus, as the Greek translation has Kvpzos, and it also suits the context better; for the point of time which we should naturally expect is not the institution of the eucharist but the Lord’s death’, Our Lord had more than once spoken of His sufferings under very late, and is, as Dr Mill says, ‘justly rejected by Grabe.’ Grabe says, ‘ad- didit is qui descripsit ex suo’; but the passage is continuous in the ms, and there is neither more nor less authority for assigning this to Papias than the remainder of the extract. (2) The state- mentabout‘ Maria uxor Alphei’is taken from Jerome (adv. Helvid.) almost word for word, as Dr Mill has seen ; and it is purely arbitrary to reject this as spuri- ous and accept the rest as genuine. (3) The writings of Papias were in Je- rome’s hands, and eager as he was to claim the support of authority, he could not have failed to refer to testi- mony which was so important and which 80 entirely confirms his view in the most minute points. Nor is it conceivable that a passage like this, coming from so early a writer, should not have impressed itself very strongly on the ecclesiastical tradition of the early centuries, whereas in fact we dis- cover no traces of it. For these reasons the extract seemed to be manifestly spurious ; but I might have saved myself the trouble of ex- amining the Bodleian ms and writing these remarks, if I had known at the time, that the passage was written by a medisval namesake of the Bishop of Hierapolis, Papias the author of the ‘Elementarium,’ who lived in the 11th century. This seems to have been a standard work in its day, and was printed four times in the 15th century under the name of the Lexicon or Vocabulist. I have not had access to a printed copy, but there is.4 ms of the work (marked Kk. 4. 1) in the Cambridge University Library, the knowledge of which I owe to Mr Brad- shaw, the librarian. The variations from the Bodleian extract are unim- portant. It is strange that though Grabe actually mentions the later Pa- pias the author of the Dictionary, and Routh copies his note, neither the one nor the other got on the right track. I made the discovery while the first edition of this work was passing through the press [1865]. 1 There might possibly have been an ambiguity in the Hebrew original owing to the absence of case-endings, as Blom suggests (p. 83): but itis more probable that a transcriber of Jerome carelessly wrote down the familiar phrase ‘the cup of the Lord.’ THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD. 27 the image of draining the cup (Matt. xx. 22, 28, xxvi. 39, 42, Mark x. 38, 39, xiv. 36, Luke xxii. 42)'; and He is represented as using this metaphor here. If however we retain ‘Domini,’ it must be allowed that the writer represented James the Lord’s brother as present at the last supper, but it does not follow that he regarded him as one of the Twelve. He may have assigned to him a sort of exceptional position such as he holds in the Clementines, apart from and in some respects superior to the Twelve, and thus his presence at this critical time would be accounted for. At all events this passage confirms the tradition that the James mentioned by St Paul (1 Cor. xv. 7) was the Lord’s brother; while at the same time it is character- istic of a Judaic writer whose aim it would be to glorify the head of his Church at all hazards, that an appearance, which seems in reality to have been vouchsafed to this James to win him over from his unbelief, should be represented as a reward for his devotion. 2. The GosPEL ACCORDING TO PETER was highly esteemed Gospel of by the Docetz of the second century. Towards the close of ad that century, Serapion, bishop of Antioch, found it in circulation at Rhossus a Cilician town, and at first tolerated it: but finding on examination that, though it had much in common with the Gospels recognised by the Catholic Church, there were sentiments in it favourable to the heretical views that were secretly gaining ground there, he forbad its use. In the fragment of Serapion preserved by Eusebius (H. £. vi. 12)’, from which our information is derived, he speaks of this apo- eryphal work as if it had been long in circulation, so that its date must be about the middle of the second century at the latest, and probably somewhat earlier. To this gospel Origen refers, as stating that the Lord’s brethren were Joseph’s sons by a former wife and thus maintaining the virginity of the Lord’s mother’. 1 Comp. Mart. Polyc. 14 év r@ wo- Sacr. 1. p. 452, and Westcott History tpl rod Xpicroi cov. of the Canon, p. 385. 2 For this fragment see Routh’s Rel. 3 See below, p. 35. Protevan- gelium and other apocry- phal gospels, Older Versions. 28 THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD. 3. PROTEVANGELIUM JAcoBI, a purely fictitious but very early narrative, dating probably not later than the middle of the second century, represents Joseph as an old man when the Virgin was espoused to him, having sons of his own (§ 9, ed. Tisch. p. 18) but no daughters (§ 17, p. 31), and James the writer of the account apparently as grown up at the time of Herod’s death (§ 25, p. 48). Following in this track, subsequent apocryphal narratives give a similar account with various modifications, in some cases naming Joseph’s daughters or his wife. Such are the Pseudo-Matthei Evang. (§ 32, ed. Tisch. p. 104), Huang. de Nativ. Mar. (§ 8, ib. p. 111), Historia Joseph. (§ 2, ib. p. 116), Evang. Thome (§ 16, p. 147), Hvang. Infant. Arab. (§ 35, p. 191), besides the apocryphal Gospels mentioned by Jerome (Comm. in Matth. T. vu. p. 86) which were different from any now extant’. Doubtless these accounts, so far as they step beyond the incidents narrated in the Canonical Gospels, are pure fabrications, but the fabrications would scarcely have taken this form, if the Hieronymian view of the Lord’s brethren had been received or even known when they were written. It is to these sources that Jerome refers when he taunts the holders of the Epiphanian view with following ‘deliramenta apocryphorum.’ 4, The EARLIEST VERSIONS, with the exception of the Old Latin and Memphitic which translate the Greek literally and preserve the same ambiguities, give renderings of certain passages bearing on the subject, which are opposed to the Hieronymian view. The CURETONIAN Syriac translates Mapia "Taxed Bov (Luke xxiv. 10) ‘Mary the daughter of James” The PesHiTo in John xix. 25 has, ‘His mother and His mother’s sister and Mary of Cleopha and Mary Magdalene’; and in Luke vi. 16, Acts 1. 18, it renders ‘Judas son of James.’ One of the old Egyptian versions again, the THEBAIC, in John xix. 25 gives ‘Mary daughter of Clopas,’ and in Luke vi. 16, Acts 1. 13 ‘Judas son of James.’ 1 As appears from the fact mentioned by Jerome; see above, p. 12, note 2. THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD. 29 5. The CLEMENTINE HomILiEs, written, it would appear, not late in the second century to support a peculiar phase of Ebionism, speak of James as being ‘called the brother of the Lord’ (6 AexGeis dderpds rod Kupiov, xi. 35), an expression which has been variously interpreted as favouring all three hypotheses (see Blom, p. 88: Schliemann Clement. pp. 8, 218), and is indecisive in itself. It is more important to observe that in the Epistle of Clement prefixed to this work and belonging to the same cycle of writings James is styled not Apostle, but Bishop of Bishops, and seems to be distinguished from and in some respects exalted above the Twelve. 6. In the portion of the Clementine Recognitions, which seems to have been founded on the AscENTS OF JAMES, another very early Ebionite writing’, the distinction thus implied in the Homilies is explicitly stated. The Twelve Apostles after disputing severally with Caiaphas give an account of their conference to James the chief of Bishops; while James the son of Alphzeus is distinctly mentioned among the Twelve as one of the disputants (i. 59). 7. HEGEsIPPUS (about 160), a Hebrew Christian of Pales- tine, writes as follows: ‘After the martyrdom of James the Just on the same charge as the Lord, his paternal uncle’s child Symeon the son of Clopas is next made bishop, who was put forward by all as the second in succession, being cousin of the Lord’ (wera 7O paptupnoas “laxwBov tov Sixatov ds Kal oO Kupsos él TO adT@ AOy@, Tadw 6 éx Tod Belov adTod Yuuedy 6 Tod Krome xabicratas érickoros, bv rpoeGevto TavtTes dvTa dveyriov tod Kupiov Sedrepov®, Euseb. H. E. iv. 22). If the passage be correctly rendered thus (and this rendering alone seems intelligible*), Hegesippus distinguishes between the 're- 1 The word AexGels is most naturally taken, I think, to refer to the reputed brotherhood of James, as a consequence of the reputed fatherhood of Joseph, and thus to favourthe Epiphanian view. See the expressions of Hegesippus, and of Eusebius, pp. 277, 278. 2 See the next dissertation. 3 For devrepov comp. Euseb. H. EL. iii. 14. 4A different meaning however has been assigned to the words: mdé\w and devrepov being taken to signify ‘another child of his uncle, another cousin,’ and thus the passage has been represented as favouring the Hieronymian view. So Clemen- tine writings. Hegesip pus. 30 THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD. lationships of James the Lord’s brother and Symeon His cousin. So again, referring apparently to this passage, he in another fragment (Euseb. H. £. iii. 32) speaks of ‘the child of the Lord’s paternal uncle, the aforesaid Symeon son of Clopas’ (6 é« Oeiov Tod Kupiov 6 mpoespnuévos Zupedy vids KXw7ra), to which Eusebius adds, ‘for Hegesippus relates that Clopas was the brother of Joseph.’ Thus in Hegesippus Symeon is never once called the Lord’s brother, while James is always so designated. And this argument powerful in itself is materially strengthened by the fact that, where Hegesippus has occasion to mention Jude, he too like James is styled ‘the Lord’s brother’; ‘There still survived members of the Lord’s family (of da6 yévous Tod Kupiov) grandsons of Judas who was called His brother accord- ing to the flesh’ (rod xatd cdpxa A‘eyopévov adtod adeddgod) ; Euseb. H. E. iti. 20. In this passage the word ‘called’ seems to me to point to the Epiphanian rather than the Helvidian view, the brotherhood of these brethren, like the fatherhood of Joseph, being reputed but not real. In yet another passage (Euseb. H. #. u. 23) Hegesippus relates that ‘the Church was committed in conjunction with the Apostles’ to the charge of (Siadéyetat tTHv éxxAnolay peta Tdv arrocToAwv) the Lord’s brother James, who has been entitled Just by all from the Lord’s time to our own day; for many bore the name of James.’ From this last passage however no inference can be safely drawn ; for, supposing the term ‘ Apostles’ to be here restricted for instance Mill p. 253, Schaf p. 64, On the other hand see Credner Hinl. p. 575, Neander Pflanz. p. 559 (4te aufi.). To this rendering the presence of the definite article alone seems fatal (6 ék rov Oelou not repos rev éx rod Gelov) ; but indeed the whole passage appears to be framed so as to distinguish the rela- tionships of the two persons; whereas, had the author’s object been to repre- sent Symeon as a brother of James, no more circuitous mode could well have been devised for the purpose of stating so very simple a fact. Let me add that Eusebius (/.c.) and Epiphanius (Haer. pp. 636, 1039, 1046, ed. Petav.) must have interpreted the words as I have done. Whether atroi should be referred to "IdxwBov or to Kupios is doubtful. If to the former, this alone decides the meaning of the passage. This seems the more natural reference of the two, but the form of expression will admit either. 1 Jerome (de Vir, Ill. § 2) renders it ‘post apostolos,’ as if wera rods drooré- ous ; Rufinus correctly ‘cum apostolis.’ THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD. 31 to the Twelve, the expression werd taév droctéAwy may dis- tinguish St James not from but among the Apostles; as in Acts v. 29, ‘Peter and the Apostles answered.’ Thus the testimony of Hegesippus seems distinctly opposed to the Hieronymian view, while of the other two it favours the Epiphanian rather than the Helvidian. If any doubt still remains, the fact that both Eusebius and Epiphanius, who derived their information mainly from Hegesippus, gave this account of the Lord’s brethren materially strengthens the position. The testimony of an early Palestinian writer who made it his business to collect such traditions is of the utmost importance. 8. TERTULLIAN’S authority was appealed to by Helvidius, Tertul- and Jerome is content to reply that he was not a member of a the Church (‘de Tertulliano nihil amplius dico quam ecclesiae hominem non fuisse, adv. Helvid. § 17). It is generally assumed in consequence that Tertullian held the Lord’s brethren to be sons of Joseph and Mary. This assumption, though probable, is not absolutely certain. The point at issue in this passage is not the particular opinion of Helvidius respecting the Lord’s brethren, but the virginity of the Lord’s mother. Accordingly in reply Jerome alleges on his own side the authority of others’, 1 ‘Numquid non possum tibi totam veterum scriptorum seriem commove- re: Ignatium, Polycarpum, Irenaeum, Justinum Martyrem, multosque alios apostolicos et eloquentes viros?’ (adv. Helvid. 17). I have elsewhere (Ga- latians p. 180, note 3) mentioned an instance of the unfair way in which Jerome piles together his authorities. In the present case we are in a posi- tion to test him. Jerome did not “possess any writings of Ignatius which are not extant now; and in no place does this apostolic father maintain the perpetual virginity of St Mary. In one remarkable passage indeed (Ephes. 19), which is several times.quoted by whose testimony certainly did not go subsequent writers, he speaks of the virginity of Mary as a mystery, but this refers distinctly to the time before the birth of our Lord. To this passage which he elsewhere quotes (Comment. in Matth. T. vu. p. 12), Jerome is doubtless referring here. In Cowper’s Syriac Miscell. p. 61, I find an extract, ‘Justin one of the authors who were in the days of Augus- tus and Tiberius and Gaius wrote in the third discourse: That Mary the Gali- lean, who was the mother of Christ who was crucified in Jerusalem, had not been with a husband. And Joseph did not repudiate her, but Joseph continued in holiness without @ wife, he and his Clement of Alex- andria. Latin fragment. 32 THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD. beyond this one point and had no reference to the relationship of the Lord’s brethren. Thus too the more distinct passages in the extant writings of Tertullian relate to the virginity only (de Carn. Christ. c. 23 and passim, de Monog. c. 8). Elsewhere however, though he does not directly state it, his argument seems to imply that the Lord’s brethren were His brothers in the same sense in which Mary was His mother (adv. Mare. iv. 19, de Carn. Christ. 7). It is therefore highly probable that he held the Helvidian view. Such an admission from one who was so strenuous an advocate of asceticism is worthy of notice. 9. CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA (about A.D. 200) in a passage of the Hypotyposeis preserved in a Latin translation by Cassio- dorus (the authorship has been questioned but without sufficient reason’) puts forward the Epiphanian solution; ‘Jude, who wrote the Catholic Epistle, being one of the sons of Joseph and [the Lord’s] brother, a man of deep piety, though he was aware of his relationship to the Lord, nevertheless did not say he was His brother; but what said he? Jude the servant of five sons by a former wife: and Mary continued without a husband.’ The editor assigns this passage to Justin Martyr; but not to mention the ana- chronism, the whole tenor of the pas- sage and the immediate neighbourhood of similar extracts shows that it was intended for the testimony (unques- tionably spurious) of some contempo- rary heathen writer to the facts of the Gospel. 1 We read in Cassiodorus (de Inst. Div. Lit. 8), ‘In epistolas autem cano- nicas Clemens Alexandrinus presbyter, qui et Stromateus vocatur, id est, in epistola (-am?) 8. Petri prima (-am?) ' 8. Johannis prima (-am ?) et secunda (-am ?) et Jacobi quaedam Attico ser- mone declaravit. Ubi multa quidem subtiliter sed aliqua incaute loquutus est, quae nos ita transferri fecimus in Latinum, ut exclusis quibusdam offen- diculis purificata doctrina ejus securior possit hauriri.’ If ‘Jude’ be substi- tuted for ‘James,’ this description ex- actly applies to the Latin notes extant under the title Adumbrationes. This was a very easy slip of the pen, and I can scarcely doubt that these notes are the same to which Cassiodorus refers as taken from the Hypotyposeis of Clement. Dr Westcott (Canon, p. 401) has pointed out in confirmation of this, that while Clement elsewhere directly quotes the Epistle of St Jude, he never refers to,the Epistle of St James. Bunsen has included these notes in his collection of fragments of the Hypotyposeis, Anal. Anten. 1. p. 325. It should be added that the statement about the relationship of Jude must be Clement’s own and can- not have been inserted by Cassiodorus, since Cassiodorus in common with the Latin Church would naturally hold the Hieronymian hypothesis. THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD. 33 Jesus Christ, because He was his Lord, but brother of James ; for this is true; he was his brother, being Joseph’s [son]’* (ed. Potter, p. 1007). This statement is explicit. On the other hand, owing to an extract preserved in Eusebius, his authority is generally claimed for the Hieronymian view ; ‘Clement,’ says Eusebius, ‘in the sixth book of the Hypotyposeis gives the hea following account: Peter and James and John, he tells us, after Eusebius. the resurrection of the Saviour were not ambitious of honour, though the preference shown them by the Lord might have entitled them to it, but chose James the Just Bishop of Jerusalem. The same writer too in the seventh book of the same treatise gives this account also of him (James the Lord’s brother); The Lord after the resurrection delivered the gnosis to James the Just? and 1 «Frater erat ejus [filius] Joseph.’ The insertion of ‘ filius’ (with Bunsen) is necessary for the sense, whether Cassiodorus had it or not. Perhaps the Greek words were ddedpds avrov tav "Iwend, which would account for the omission. 2 Credner, Hinl. p. 585, condemns the words r@ dxaly as spurious. Though it might be inferred from the previous extract given by Eusebius that the son of Zebedee is meant here, I believe nevertheless that they are genuine. For (1) They seem to be required as the motive for the explan- ation which is given afterwards of the different persons bearing the name James, (2) It is natural that a special prominence should be given to the same three Apostles of the Circum- cision who are mentioned in Gal. ii. 9 as the pillars of Jewish Christendom. (3) Eusebius introduces the quotation as relating to James the Just (epi atrov), which would not be a very good description if the other James were the prominent person in the passage. (4) I find from Hippolytus that the Ophite account singled out James the Lord’s brother as a possessor of the esoteric L. gnosis, rafrd éorw did moAAGy Tdavu Adywy Ta Keddraia ad Pyow rapadedw- kévac Mapidury tov IdcwBov rod Kuptou Tov ddedpdv, Haer. x. 6, p. 95. Clement seems to have derived his information from some work of a Jewish Gnostic complexion, perhaps from the Gospel of the Egyptians with which he was well acquainted (Strom. iii. pp. 529 sq, 553, ed. Potter); and as Hippolytus tells us that the Ophites made use of this Gospel (ras 5é éEaddayas ravras ras moixthas & rp emeypagouevy Kar’ Alyurrious ebayyedig Keyévas Exovaw, ib. v. 7, p. 98), it is probable that the account of Clement coincided with that of the Ophites. The words rw ducalw are represented in the Syriac translation of Eusebius of which the existing ms (Brit. Mus. add. 14,639) belongs to the 6th century. I hold 7@ dixaty therefore to be the genuine words of Clement, but I do not feel so sure that the closing explanation bv0 dé yeydvacw "IdxwBo. x.7.A. is not an addition of Eusebius. This I sup- pose to be Bunsen’s opinion, for he ends his fragment with the preceding words I. p. 321. 34 THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD. John and Peter. These delivered tt to the rest of the Apostles ; and the rest of the Apostles to the seventy, of whom Barnabas was one. Now there are two Jameses, one the Just who was thrown down from the pinnacle (of the temple) and beaten to death with a club by a fuller, and another who was beheaded’ (H. £. ii. 1). This passage however proves nothing. Clement says that there were two of the name of James, but he neither states nor implies that there were two only. His sole object was to distinguish the son of Zebedee from the Lord’s brother ; and the son of Alpheus, of whom he knew nothing and could tell nothing, did not occur to his mind when he penned this sentence. There is in this passage nothing which contradicts the Latin extract; though indeed in a writer so uncritical in his historical notices* such a contradiction would not be sur- prising’. 10. ORIGEN (+ A.D. 253) declares himself very distinctly in favour of the Epiphanian view, stating that the brethren were sons of Joseph by a deceased wife*, Elsewhere‘ indeed he says that St Paul ‘calls this James the Lord’s brother, not so much on account of his kinsmanship or their companionship together, as on account of his character and language,’ but this is not inconsistent with the explicit statement already referred to. 1 For instance he distinguished Cephas of Gal. ii. 9 from Peter (see Galatians, p. 129), and represented p. 75) ddedgovs wer ovk lye pices, odre Ths wapOévov Texovons Erepoy ovdé adras éx 700 Iwohd rvyxdvev" vou Tovyapoov St Paul as a married man (Euseb. H. E. iii. 30). 2 On the supposition that Clement held the Hieronymian theory, as he is represented even by those who them- selves reject it, the silence of Origen, who seems never to have heard of this theory, is quite inexplicable, Epipha- nius moreover, who appears equally ignorant of it, refers to Clement while writing on this very subject (Haer. p. 119, Petav.). Indeed Clement would then stand quite alone before the age of Jerome. 3 In Joann. ii, 12 (Catena Corder. expnudricay abrod ddedpol, viot "Ilwohp dvres €x mporeOvyxulas -yuvaikds : Hom. in Luc. 7 (11. p. 940, ed. Delarue) ‘Hi enim filii qui Joseph dicebantur non erant orti de Maria, neque est ulla scriptura quae ista commemoret.’ In this latter passage either the translator has been confused by the order in the original or the words in the translation itself have been displaced accidentally, but the meaning is clear. 4. Cels. i, 47 (1. p. 368) of roo- ofrov dia 7d mpds aluaros ovyyevés 9 Thy Kowhpy atrav dvactpophy scov did Td 700s Kat Tov Adyor. THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD. - 35 In one passage he writes at some length on the subject ; ‘Some persons, on the ground of a tradition in the Gospel according to Peter, as it is entitled, or the Book of James (ie. the Prot- evangelium), say that the brothers of Jesus were Joseph’s sons by a former wife to whom he was married before Mary. Those who hold this view wish to preserve the honour of Mary in virginity throughout... And I think it reasonable that as Jesus was the first-fruit of purity and chastity among men, so Mary was among women: for it is not seemly to ascribe the first-fruit of virginity to any other woman but her’ (in Matt. xiii. 55, 111. p. 462). This passage shows not only that Origen himself favoured the Epiphanian view which elsewhere he has directly maintained, but that he was wholly unaware of the Hierony- mian, the only alternative which presented itself being the denial of the perpetual virginity ’. \ 1 Op. ur. p. 462 sq. Mill, pp. 261, 273, has strangely misunderstood the purport of this passage. He speaks of Origen here as ‘teaching the opinion of his (James the Just) being the son of Joseph, both as the sentiment of a minority among right-minded Chris- tians and as founded on apocryphal traditions’; and so considers the note on John ii. 12, already referred to, as ‘standing strangely contrasted’ to Origen’s statement here. If Dr Mill’s attention however had been directed to the last sentence, cal oluat Adyor éyew «.7.d., which, though most im- portant, he has himself omitted in quoting the passage, he could scarcely have failed to see Origen’s real mean- ing. 2 The authority of Hippolytus of Portus, a contemporary of Origen, has sometimes been alleged in favour of Jerome’s hypothesis, In the treatise De XII Apostolis ascribed to this au- thor (ed. Fabric. 1. app. p. 30) it is said of James the son of Alpheus, knptoow év ‘Tepovoadhy. td lovdalwv Karanevobels dvaipetrac kal Odrrerae éexet mapa te vayp. He is thus confused or identified with James the Lord’s brother. But this blundering treatise was certainly not written by the bishop of Portus: see Le Moyne in Fabricius 1, p. 84,and Bunsen’s Hippol. 1. p. 456 (ed. 2). On the other hand in the work De LXX Apostolis (Fabricius 1. app. p. 41), also ascribed to this writer, we find among the 70 the name of *IdxwBos 6 ddeApb0e0s emia oros ‘lepoco- dduwv, who is thus distinguished from the Twelve. This treatise also is mani- festly spurious. Again Nicephorus Callistus, H. E. ii. 3, cites as from Hippolytus of Portus an elaborate account of our Lord’s brethren follow- ing the Epiphanian view (Hippol. Op. 1. app. 43, ed. Fabric.); but this ac- count seems to be drawn either from Hippolytus the Theban, unless as Bunsen (J. ¢c.) supposes this Theban Hippolytus be a mythical personage, or from some forged writings which bore the name of the older Hippolytus. 3—2 Aposto- lical Con- stitutions. Victor- inus of Pettaw. Eusebius of Cesa- rea. 36 11. The AposToLicaL CoNnsTITUTIONS, the main part of which may perhaps be regarded as a work of the third century, though they received considerable additions in later ages, distin- guish James the Lord’s brother from James the son of Alpheus, making him, like St Paul, a supernumerary apostle, and thus counting fourteen in all (vi. 12, 18, 14; compare ii. 55, vii. 46, vill. 4), 12. VicrorINUS PETAVIONENSIS (about 300) was claimed by Helvidius as a witness in his own favour. Jerome denied this and put in a counter claim. It may perhaps be inferred from this circumstance that Victorinus did little more than repeat the statements of the evangelists respecting the Lord’s brethren (adv. Helvid. 17). 13. ‘EUSEBIUS OF CaSAREA (+ about 340) distinguished James the Lord’s brother from the Twelve, representing him as a supernumerary apostle like St Paul (Comm. in Isat. in Montfaucon’s Coll. Nov. Patr. 1. p. 422; Hist. Eccl. i. 12; comp. vil. 19). Accordingly in another passage he explains that this James ‘was called the Lord’s brother, because J oseph was His THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD. reputed father’ (Hist. Eccl. ii. 1). 1 "TaxwBov rdv rod Kuplov deyduevov aderpbv, Bre dy Kal obros Too "Iwonp dvouacro rats Too 6¢ Xpucroh warp 6’Iwond, @ prnorevdeica 4 mapbévos «.7.A. On the whole this passage seems to be best explained by referring otros to Kvpus. But this is not necessary ; for dvoudyecOat (or KadeicGat) rats ruvds is a good Greek phrase to denote real as well as reputed sonship: as Asch. Fragm. 285 aid’ err “Ardavros mratdes dvopacpévar, Soph. Trach. 1105 6 ris dplorns pnrpos dvopacuévos, Eur. Elect. 935: comp. Ephes. iii. 15 rd» rarépa éf 08 waca warpia dvoudtera:. The word dévéyacro cannot at all events, as Mill (p. 272) seems disposed to think, imply any doubt on the part of Eusebiusabout the parentage of James, for the whole drift of the passage is plainly against this, The other reading, dri 5) kat obros Tod "Iwohp rod voputouévou oiovel matpos Tod Xporod, found in some mss and in the Syriac version, and pre- ferred by Blom p. 98, and Credner Hinl. p. 585, I cannot but regard as an obvious alteration of some early transcriber for the sake of clearness. Compare the expressions in i. 12 efs de kat odros rv pPepopérwy ddeApav Fr, and iii. 7 roo Kuplov xpnwarliwv dded- 6s. He was a reputed brother of the Lord, because Joseph was His reputed father. See also Eusebius On the Star, ‘Joseph and Mary and Our Lord with them and the five sons of Hannah (Anna) the first wife of Joseph’ (p. 17, Wright’s Transl.). The account from which this passage is taken professes to be founded on a document dating a.D. 119, THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD. 37 14, CyRIL of JERUSALEM (+ 386) comments on the suc- Cyril of cessive appearances of our Lord related by St Paul, first to pan Peter, then to the Twelve, then to the five hundred, then to James His own brother, then to Paul His enemy; and his language implies that each appearance was a step in advance of the testimony afforded by the former (Catech. xiv. 21, p. 216, ed. Touttée). It may be gathered thence that he distinguished this James from the Twelve. As this however is only an inference from his language, and not a direct statement of his own, too much stress must not be laid on it. In another passage also (Catech, iv. 28, p. 65, cal rots arroorédous Kab “laxoBy TO TavTns Ths éxxAnotas emicxor@) Cyril seems to make the same distinction, but here again the inference is doubtful. 15. Hivary or Porrrers (+ 368) denounces those who Hilary of ‘claim authority for their opinion (against the virginity of the ROInerEs Lord’s mother) from the fact of its being recorded that our Lord had several brothers’; and adds, ‘yet if these had been sons of Mary and not rather sons of Joseph, the offspring of a former marriage, she would never at the time of the passion have been transferred to the Apostle John to be his mother’ (Comm. in Matth. i. 1, p. 671, ed. Bened.). Thus he not only adopts the Epiphanian solution, but shows himself entirely ignorant of the Hieronymian. 16. VICTORINUS THE PHILOSOPHER (about 360) takes ed p17) Victor- in Gal. i. 19 as expressing not exception but opposition, and ma distinctly states that James was not an Apostle: ‘Cum autem ®Pher. Sratrem dixit, apostolum negavit.’ 17. The AmBrosian HiLary (about 375) comments on Ambrosi- Gal. i. 19 as follows; ‘The Lord is called the brother of James oor and the rest in the same way in which He is also designated the son of Joseph. For some in a fit of madness impiously assert and contend that these were true brothers of the Lord, being sons of Mary, allowing at the same time that Joseph, though not His true father, was so-called nevertheless. For if these were His true brothers, then Joseph will be His true father; for he who called Joseph His father also called James Basil. Gregory Nyssen. 38 THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD. and the rest His brothers.’ Thus his testimony entirely coin- cides with that of his greater namesake. He sees only the alternative of denying the perpetual virginity as Helvidius did, or accepting the solution of the Protevangelium; and he un- hesitatingly adopts the latter. 18. Bastu THE GREAT (+ 379), while allowing that the perpetual virginity is not a necessary article of belief, yet adheres to it himself ‘since the lovers of Christ cannot endure to hear that the mother of God ever ceased to be a virgin’ (Hom. in Sanct. Christ. Gen. 11. p. 600, ed. Garn.)*. As im- mediately afterwards he refers, in support of his view, to some apocryphal work which related that Zacharias was slain by the Jews for testifying to the virginity of the mother of Jesus (a story which closely resembles the narrative of his death in the Protevang. §§ 23, 24), it may perhaps be inferred that he accepted that account of the Lord’s brethren which ran through these apocryphal gospels. _19. His brother GREGory Nyssen (+ after 394) certainly adopted the Epiphanian account. At the same time he takes up the very untenable position that the ‘ Mary who is designated in the other Evangelists (besides St John) the mother of James and Joses is the mother of God and none else?) being so called because she undertook the education of these her stepsons; and he supposes also that this James is called ‘the little’ by St Mark to distinguish him from James the son of Alpheus who 1 This very moderate expression of opinion is marked by the editors with a caute legendum in the margin; and in Garnier’s edition the treatise is con- signed to an appendix as of doubtful au- thenticity. The main argument urged against it is the passage here referred to. (See Garnier, 1. pref. p. xv.) 2 Similarly Chrysostom, see below, p. 43, note 1. This identification of the Lord’s mother with the mother of James and Joses is adopted and simi- larly explained also in one of the apo- eryphal gospels: Hist. Joseph. 4 (Tisch. p. 117). Possibly Gregory derived it from some such source. It was also part of the Helvidian hypothesis, where it was less out of place, and gave Jerome an easy triumph over his adversary (adv. Helvid. 12 etc.). It is adopted moreover by Cave (Life of St James the Less, § 2), who holds that the Lord’s brethren were sons of Joseph, and yet makes James the Lord’s brother one of the Twelve, identifying Joseph with Alpheus. Fritzsche also identifies these two Maries (Matth. p. 822, Marc. p. 697). THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD. 39 was ‘great,’ because he was in the number of the Twelve Apostles, which the Lord’s brother was not (in Christ. Resurr. il, Op. 111. pp. 412, 413, ed. Paris, 1638). 20. The ANTIDICOMARIANITES, an obscure Arabian sect in Antidico- the latter half of the fourth century, maintained that the Lord’s ae mother bore children to her husband Joseph. These opinions seem to have produced a reaction, or to have been themselves reactionary, for we read about the same time of a sect called Collyridians, likewise in Arabia, who going to the opposite extreme paid divine honours to the Virgin (Epiphan. Haeres. Ixxvii, xxix). 21. EPIPHANIUS a native of Palestine became bishop of Epipha- Constantia in Cyprus in the year 367. Not very long before nate Jerome wrote in defence of the perpetual virginity of the Lord’s mother against the Helvidians at Rome, Epiphanius came forward as the champion of the same cause against the Anti- dicomarianites. He denounced them in an elaborate pastoral letter, in which he explains his views at length, and which he has thought fit to incorporate in his subsequently written treatise against Heresies (pp. 1034—1057, ed. Petav.). He moreover discusses the subject incidentally in other parts of his great work (pp. 115, 119, 432, 636), and it is clear that he had devoted much time and attention to it. His accouzit coincides with that of the apocryphal gospels. Joseph, he states, was eighty years old or more when the Virgin was espoused to him ; by his former wife he had six children, four sons and two daughters, the names of the daughters were Mary and Salome, 1 The names are plainly terms of ridicule invented by their enemies. Au- gustine supposes the ‘ Antidicoma- rianite’ of Epiphanius (he writes the word ‘Antidicomarita’) to be the same as the Helvidians of Jerome (adv. Haer. 84, vi. p. 24). They held the same tenets, it is true, but there seems to have been otherwise no con- nexion between the two, Considera- tions of time and place alike resist this identification. Epiphanius had heard that these opinions, which he held to be deroga- tory to the Lord’s mother, had been promulgated also by the elder Apol- linaris or some of his disciples; but he doubted about this (p. 1034). The report was probably circulated by their opponents in order to bring discredit upon them. ‘ 40 THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD. for which names by the way he alleges the authority of Scripture p. 1041); his sons, St James especially, were called the Lord’s brethren because they were brought up with Jesus; the mother of the Lord remained for ever a virgin; as the lioness is said to exhaust her fertility in the production of a single offspring (see Herod. iii. 108), so she who bore the Lion of Judah could notin the nature of things become a mother a second time (pp. 1044, 1045). These particulars with many other besides he gives, quoting as his authority ‘the tradition of the Jews’ (p. 1039). It is to be observed moreover that, though he thus treats of the subject several times and at great length, he never once alludes to the Hieronymian account; and yet I can scarcely doubt that one who so highly, extolled celibacy would have hailed with delight a solution which, as Jerome boasted, saved the virginity not of Mary only but of Joseph also, for whose honour Epiphanius shows himself very jealous (pp. 1040, 1046, 1047), / Helvidius, 22. Somewhere about the year 380 HELVIDIUS, who re- oa sided in Rome, published a treatise in which he maintained nianus. that: the Lord’s brethren were sons of Joseph and Mary. He seems to have succeeded in convincing a considerable number of persons, for contemporary writers speak of the Helvidians as a party. These views were moreover advocated by Bonosus, bishop of Sardica in Ilyria, about the same time, and apparently also by JOVINIANUS a monk probably of Milan. The former was condemned by a synod assembled at Capua (A.D. 392), and the latter by synods held at Rome and at Milan (about A.D, 890; see Hefele Conciliengesch. 11. pp. 47, 48), eS In earlier times this account of the Lord’s rethhen: so far as dians. it was the badge of a party, seems to have been held in conjunc- tion with Ebionite views respecting the conception and person of I 1 The work ascribed to Dorotheus the Lord’s brother and James the son Tyrius is obviously spurious (see Cave of Alpheus, and makes them successive Hist. Lit. 1. p. 163); and I have there- bishops of Jerusalem. See Combefis fore not included his testimony in this in Fabricius’ Hippol. 1. app. p. 36. list. The writer distinguishes James THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD. 41 Christ’. For, though not necessarily affecting the belief in the miraculous Incarnation, it was yet a natural accompaniment of the denial thereof. The motive of these latter impugners of the perpetual virginity was very different. They endeavoured to stem the current which had set strongly in the direction of celibacy ; and, if their theory was faulty, they still deserve the sympathy due to men who in defiance of public opinion refused to bow their necks to an extravagant and tyrannous super- stition. We have thus arrived at the point of time when Jerome’s Evidence answer to Helvidius created a new epoch in the history of this ao controversy. And the following inferences are, if I mistake not, fairly deducible from the evidence produced. First: there is not the slightest indication that the Hieronymian solution ever occurred to any individual or sect or church, until it was put forward by Jerome himself. If it had been otherwise, writers like Origen, the two Hilaries, and Epiphanius, who discuss the question, could not have failed to notice it. Secondly: the Epiphanian account has the highest claims to the sanction of tradition, whether the value of this sanction be great or small. Thirdly: this solution seems especially to represent the Palestinian view. In the year 382 (or 383) Jerome published his treatise ; and Jerome’s the effect of it is visible at once. ane AMBROSE in the year 392 wrote a work De Institutione Ambrose. Virginis, in which he especially refutes the impugners of the perpetual virginity of the Lord’s mother. In a passage which is perhaps intentionally obscure he speaks to this effect: ‘The 1 [I fear the statement in the text may leave a false impression. Previous writers had spoken of the Ebionites as holding the Helvidian view, and I was betrayed into using similar language. But there is, so far as I am aware, no evidence in favour of this assumption. It would be still more difficult to sub- stantiate the assertions in the following note of Gibbon, Decline and Fallc. xvi, ‘This appellation (‘brethren’) was at ‘first understood in the most obvious sense, and it was supposed that the brothers of Jesus were the lawful issue of Joseph and Mary. A devout respect for the virginity of the mother of God suggested to the Guostics, and after- wards to the Orthodox Greeks, the ex- pedient of bestowing a second wife on Joseph, etc.’] 2nd ed. 1866. Pelagius. Augustine. 42 THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD. term brothers has a wide application; it is used of members of the same family, the same race, the same country. Witness the Lord’s own words I will declare thy name to my brethren (Ps. xxii. 22). St Paul too says: I could wish to be accursed for my brethren (Rom. ix. 3). Doubtless they might be called brothers as sons of Joseph, not of Mary. And if any one will go into the question carefully, he will find this to be the true account. For myself I do not intend to enter upon this ques- tion: it is of no importance to decide what particular relation- ship is implied; it is sufficient for my purpose that the term “brethren” is used in an extended sense (ie. of others besides sons of the same mother)” From this I infer that St Ambrose had heard of, though possibly not read, Jerome’s tract, in which he discourses on the wide meaning of the term: that, if he had read it, he did not feel inclined to abandon the view with which he was familiar in favour of the novel hypothesis put forward by Jerome: and lastly, that seeing the importance of coopera- tion against a common enemy he was anxious not to raise dissensions among the champions of the perpetual virginity by the discussion of details. PELAGIUS, who commented on St Paul a few years after Jerome, adopts his theory and even his language, unless his text has been tampered with here (Gal. i. 19). At the same time Jerome’s hypothesis found a much more weighty advocate in St AuGUSTINE. In his commentary on the Galatians indeed (i. 19), written about 394 while he was still a presbyter, he offers the alternative of the Hieronymian and Epiphanian accounts. But in his later works he con- sistently maintains the view put forward by Jerome in the 1 The passage, which I have thus paraphrased, is ‘ Fratres autem gentis, Quod quidem si quis diligentius prose- quatur inveniet. Nos ea prosequenda et generis, populi quoque consortium nuncupari docet Dominus ipse quidicit : Narrabo nomen tuum fratribus meis ; in medio ecclesiae laudabo te. Paulus quoque ait: Optabam ego anathema esse pro fratribus meis. Potuerunt autem fratres esse ex Joseph, non ex Maria. non putavimus, quoniam fraternum no- men liquet pluribus esse commune’ (11. p. 260, ed. Ben.). St Ambrose seems to accept so much of Jerome’s argument as relates to the wide use of the term ‘brothers’ and nothing more. THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD. 43 treatise against Helvidius (In Joh. Evang. x, 1. 2. p. 868, ib. XXvill, 1. 2. p. 508; Hnarr. in Ps. xxvii, Iv. 2. p. 1443; Contr. Faust. xxii. 35, VIII. p. 383; comp. Quaest. XVIT in Matth., ut. 2. p. 285). Thus supported, it won its way to general acceptance in Western the Latin Church ; and the WEsTERN SERVICES recognise only a one James besides the son of Zebedee, thus identifying the Lord’s brother with the son of Alpheus. In the East also it met with a certain amount of success, Chryso- but this was only temporary. CHRyYsosTOM wrote both before ae and after Jerome’s treatise had become generally known, and his expositions of the New Testament mark a period of transi- tion. In his Homilies on the earlier books he takes the Epiphanian view: St James, he says, was at one time an unbeliever with the rest of the Lord’s brethren (on Matth. i. 25, vu. p. 77; John vii. 5, VU. p. 284; see also on 1 Cor. ix. 4, x. p- 181 £); the resurrection was the turning-point in their career; they were called the Lord’s brethren, as Joseph himself was reputed the husband of Mary (on Matth. i. 25, 1. ¢.). 1 A comment attributed to Chryso- stom in Cramer’s Catena on 1 Cor. ix. 4—7, but not found in the Homilies, is still more explicit; "AdeXgovs Tod Ku- plou Aéye Tos vomoévras evar adrod ddedgots* érerdh yap odTos 6 Xpyparifwv kal adrés Kara Thy Kowhy Sdéav elev abrovs* Tods 5¢ viods "Iwand Aéye, of adeAgol ro Kuptov éxpnudricay dia rhv mpods Thy Oeoréxov pynorelay Tod Two. Adyes 5¢ "IdxwBov emloxomov ‘lepooodv mw kal "Iwonp duwvupov r@ marép Kal Zl- pwva Kat “Iovda. I give the passage without attempting to correct the text. This note reappears almost word for. word in the Gicumenian catena and in Theophylact. If Chrysostom be not the author, then we gain the testimony of some other ancient writer on the same side. Compare also the pseudo-Chry- sostom, Op. 11. p. 797. The passages referred to in the text Hitherto show clearly what was Chrysostom’s earlier view. To these may be added the comments on 1 Cor. xv. 7 (x. 355 bp), where he evidently regards James as not one of the Twelve; on Matth. x. 2 (vz1. pp. 368, 9), where he makes James the son of Alphzus a tax- gatherer like Matthew, clearly taking them to be brothers; and on Matth. xxvii. 55 (vil. p. 827 a), where, like Gregory Nyssen, he identifies Mapla *IaxwBov with the Lord’s mother.. The accounts of Chrysostom’s opinion on this subject given by Blom p, 111 sq, and Mill p. 284 note, are unsatis- factory. The Homilies on the Acts also take the same view (1x. pp. 23 B, 26 4), but though these are generally ascribed to Chrysostom, their genuineness is very questionable. In another spurious work, Opus imp. in Matth., vi. p. Theodo- ret, Cyril of Alexan- dria. Theophy- lact. Eastern Churches. 44 THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD. he betrays no knowledge of the Hieronymian account. But in his exposition of the Epistle to the Galatians (i. 19) he not only speaks of James the Lord’s brother as if he were an apostle (which proves nothing), but also calls him the son of Clopas'. Thus he would appear meanwhile to have accepted the hypo- thesis of Jerome and to have completed it by the identification of Clopas with Alpheus. And THEODORET, who for the most part closely follows Chrysostom, distinctly repudiates the older view: “He was not, as some have supposed, a son of Joseph, the offspring of a former marriage, but was son of Clopas and cousin of the Lord ; for his mother was the sister of the Lord’s mother.’ But with these exceptions the Epiphanian view maintained its ground in the East. It is found again in CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA for instance (Glaphyr. in Gen. lib. vii. p. 221), and seems to have been held by later Greek writers almost, if not quite, universally. In THEOPHYLACT indeed (on Matth. xiii, 55, Gal. i. 19) we find an attempt to unite the two accounts. James, argues the writer, was the Lord’s reputed brother as the son of Joseph and the Lord’s cousin as the son of Clopas; the one was his natural, and the other his legal father; Clopas having died childless, Joseph had raised up seed to his brother by his widow according to the law of the levirate’, This novel suggestion however found but little favour, and the Eastern Churches continued to distinguish between James the Lord’s brother and James the son of Alpheus. The GREEK, SYRIAN, and Copric CALENDARS assign a separate day to each. The table on the next page gives a conspectus of the patristic and early authorities. elxxiv z, the Hieronymian view ap- pears; ‘Jacobum Alphaei lapidantes: propter quae omnia Jerusalem de- structa est a Romanis.’ 1 roy rot KAw7a, Sarep kal 6 evaryye- Moris Geyer. He is referring, I sup- pose, to the lists of the Apostles which mention James the son of Alpheus, See above, p. 19. This portion of his exposition however is somewhat con- fused, and it is difficult to resist the suspicion that it has been interpolated. 2 See the remarks of Mill, p. 228. (A. Sons of Joseph and Mary. B. Sons of 4 Joseph by a former wife. C. Sons of the \ Virgin's sister. THE BRETHREN OF THE LORD. TERTULLIAN, HE vip1vs, Bonosvs, J OVINIANUS (1), ANTIDICOMARIANITES, (GOSPEL OF PETER, PROTEVANGELIUM etc., CLEMENT OF ALEX., ORIGEN, EuseEstius, HILARY OF POITIERS, AMBROSIASTER, GREGORY OF NYSSA, EPrIpHANIus, AMBROSE, [CuRysostom], CYRIL OF ALEX, EASTERN SERVICES (Greek, Syrian, and Coptic), LatER GREEK \ WRITERS. (J EROME, PELAGIUS, AUGUSTINE, [Curysostom], THEODORET, WESTERN SERVICES, LATER LATIN \ WRITERS. \ } \ | A. or B. ‘Brethren’ in @ strict sense. James the Just not one of the Twelve. < 45 EARLY VERSIONS, CLEMENTINE HO- MILIEs (}), ASCENTS OF JAMES, Hzcss1ppvs, APOST. CONSTIT., CYRIL OF JERU- SALEM (2), VICTORINUS THE reirginity of Mary. B. or C. Perpetual ( L PHILOSOPHER. BAsIL, CATHOLIC WRI- TERS GENE- RALLY. Uncertain. HEBREW GOSPEL, VICTORINUS PETAVIONENSIS. Levirate. THEOPHYLACT. Three Apostles alone besides St Paul promi- nent. The four meet to- gether at a great crisis. Il. ST PAUL AND THE THREE. eee and three only of the personal disciples and imme- diate followers of our Lord hold any prominent place in the Apostolic records—James, Peter, and John; the first the Lord’s brother, the two latter the foremost members of the Twelve. Apart from an incidental reference to the death of James the son of Zebedee, which is dismissed in a single sentence, the rest of the Twelve are mentioned by name for the last time on the day of the Lord’s Ascension, Thenceforward they disappear wholly from the canonical writings. And this silence also extends to the traditions of succeeding ages. We read indeed of St Thomas in India, of St Andrew in Scythia; but such scanty notices, even if we accept them as trustworthy, show only the more plainly how little the Church could tell of her earliest teachers. Doubtless they laboured zealously and effectively in the spread of the Gospel; but, so far as we know, they have left no impress of their individual mind and character on the Church at large. Occupying the foreground, and indeed covering the whole canvas of early ecclesiastical history, appear four figures alone, St Paul and the three Apostles of the Circumcision. Once and, it would appear, not more than once, these four great teachers met together face to face. It was the one great crisis in the history of the Church, on the issue of which was ST PAUL AND THE THREE. AT staked her future progress and triumph. Was she to open her doors wide and receive all comers, to declare her legitimate boundaries coextensive with the limits of the human race? Or was she to remain for ever narrow and sectarian, a national institution at best, but most probably a suspected minority even in her own nation ? Not less important, so far as we can see, was the question at issue, when Paul and Barnabas arrived at Jerusalem to confer with the Apostles of the Circumcision on the subject of the Mosaic ritual which then distracted the youthful Church. It must therefore be an intensely interesting study to watch the attitude of the four great leaders of the Church at this crisis, merely as a historical lesson. But the importance of the subject does not rest here. Questions of much wider interest are cones suggested by the accounts of this conference: What degree of by this coincidence or antagonism between Jewish and Gentile converts meaent may be discerned in the Church? What were the relations existing between St Paul and the Apostles of the Circumcision? How far do the later sects of Ebionites on the one hand and Marcionites on the other, as they appear in direct antagonism in the second century, represent opposing principles cherished side by side within the bosom of the Church and sheltering themselves under the names, or (as some have ventured to say) sanctioned by the authority, of the leading Apostles? What in fact is the secret history—if there be any secret history—of the origin of Catholic Christianity ? On this battle-field the most important of recent theological Import- controversies has been waged: and it is felt by both sides that a the Epistle to the Galatians is the true key to the position. In eeictle the first place, it is one of the very few documents of the Apostolic ages, whose genuineness has not been seriously challenged by the opponents of revelation. Moreover, as the immediate utterance of one who himself took the chief part in the incidents recorded, it cannot be discredited as having passed through a coloured medium or gathered accretions by lapse of time. And lastly, the very form in which the informa- Apology for this essay. Proposed sketch of the rela- tions of Jewish and Gentile Christ- ians, 48 ST PAUL AND THE THREE. tion is conveyed—by partial and broken allusions rather than by direct and continuous statement—raises it beyond the reach of suspicion, even where suspicion is most active. Here at least both combatants can take their stand on common ground. Nor need the defenders of the Christian faith hesitate to accept the challenge of their opponents and try the question on this issue. If it be only interpreted aright, the Epistle to the Galatians ought to present us with a true, if only a partial, solution of the problem. Thus the attempt to decipher the relations between Jewish and Gentile Christianity in the first ages of the Church is directly suggested by this epistle; and indeed any commentary would be incomplete which refused to entertain the problem. This must be my excuse for entering upon a subject, about which so much has been written and which involves so many subsidiary questions. It will be impossible within my limits to discuss all these questions in detail. The objections, for instance, which have been urged against the genuineness of a large number of the canonical and other early Christian writings, can only be met indirectly. Reasonable men will hardly be attracted towards a theory which can only be built on an area prepared by this wide clearance of received documents. At all events there is, I think, no unfairness in stating the case thus; that, though they are supported by arguments drawn from other sources, the general starting-point of such objections is the theory itself’ If then a fair and reasonable account can be given both of the origin and progress of the Church generally, and of the mutual relations of its more prominent teachers, based on these documents assumed as authentic, a general answer will be supplied to all objections of this class. I purpose therefore to sketch in outline the progressive history of the relations between the Jewish and Gentile converts in the early ages of the Church, as gathered from the Apostolic writings, aided by such scanty information as can be got together from other sources. This will be a fit and indeed a necessary introduction to the subject with which the. ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 49 Epistle to the Galatians is more directly concerned, the positions occupied by St Paul and the three Apostles of the Circumcision respectively. This history falls into three periods which mark three Three distinct stages in its progress: (1) The Extension of the Church Pe to the Gentiles; (2) The Recognition of Gentile Liberty; (3) of this . . . bj t. The Emancipation of the Jewish Churches’. ane 1. The Extension of the Church to the Gentiles. It appears from the Apostolic history that the believers in The early the earliest days conformed strictly to Jewish customs in their suns e religious life, retaining the fixed hours of prayer, attending the ™ temple worship and sacrifices, observing the sacred festivals. The Church was still confined to one nation and had not yet broken loose from the national rites and usages. But these swathing bands, which were perhaps needed to support its infancy, would only cripple its later growth, and must be thrown off, if it was ever to attain to a healthy maturity. This emanci- pation then was the great problem which the Apostles had to work out. The Master Himself had left no express instructions, OurLord’s He had charged them, it is true, to preach the Gospel to all me nations, but how this injunction was to be carried out, by what changes a national Church must expand into an universal Church, they had not been told. He had indeed asserted the sovereignty of the spirit over the letter; He had enunciated the great principle—as wide in its application as the law itself 1 Important works treating of the re- lation between the Jewish and Gentile Christians are Lechler’s Apostolisches und Nachapostolisches Zeitalter (2te aufl. 1857), and Ritschl’s Entstehung der Althatholischen Kirche (2te aufi. 1857). I am indebted to both these works, but to the latter especially, which is very able and suggestive, Ritsch] should be read in his second edition, in which with a noble sacrifice of consistency to L. truth he has abandoned many of his former positions, and placed himself in more direct antagonism to the Tiibin- gen school in which he was educated. The historical speculations of that school are developed in Baur’s Paulus and Christenthum und die Christliche Kirche der drei ersten Jahrhunderte, and in Schwegler’s Nachapostolisches Zeitalter. Jews of the Dis- persion, First day of Pente- cost. 50 ST PAUL AND THE THREE. —that ‘Man was not made for the sabbath, but the sabbath for man’; He had pointed to the fulfilment of the law in the Gospel. So far He had discredited the law, but He had not deposed or abolished it. It was left to the Apostles themselves under the guidance of the Spirit, moulded by circumstances and moulding them in turn, to work out this great change. And soon enough the pressure of events began to be felt, The dispersion was the link which connected the Hebrews of Palestine with the outer world. Led captive by the power of Greek philosophy at Athens and Tarsus and Alexandria, attracted by the fascinations of Oriental mysticism in Asia, swept along with the busy whirl of social life in the city and court of the Cesars, these outlying members of the chosen race had inhaled a freer spirit and contracted wider interests than their fellow-countrymen at home. By a series of insensible gradations—proselytes of the covenant—proselytes of the gate? —superstitious devotees who observed the rites without accept- ing the faith of the Mosaic dispensation—curious lookers-on who interested themselves in the Jewish ritual as they would in the worship of Isis or of Astarte—the most stubborn zealot of the law was linked to the idolatrous heathen whom he abhorred and who despised him in turn. Thus the train was uncon- sciously laid, when the spark fell from heaven and fired it. The very baptism of the Christian Church opened the path for its extension to the Gentile world. On the first day of Pentecost were gathered together Hellenist Jews from all the principal centres of the dispersion. With them were assembled also numbers of incorporated Israelites, proselytes of the covenant. The former of these by contact with Gentile thought 1 The distinction between proselytes of the covenant or of righteousness and proselytes of the gate is found in the Gemara: the former were circumcised, and observed the whole law; the latter acknowledged the God of Israel and conformed to Jewish worship in some respects, but stood without the cove- nant, not having been incorporated by the initiatory rite. The former alone, it would appear, are called mpooduro in the New Testament ; the latter, who hardly form a distinct class, are oi ce- Bouevor tov Ocdv, of edoeBets etc. In speaking therefore of ‘ proselytes of the gate’ Iam using a convenient anachro- nism, ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 51 and life, the latter by the force of early habits and associations}, would accept and interpret the new revelation in a less rigorous spirit than the Hebrew zealot of Jerusalem. Each successive festival must have been followed by similar though less striking results. The stream of Hellenists and proselytes, constantly ebbing and flowing, must have swept away fragments at least of the new truth, purging it of some local encumbrances which would gather about it in the mother country, and carrying it thus purged to far distant shores. Meanwhile at Jerusalem some years passed away before the barrier of Judaism was assailed. The Apostles still observed the Mosaic ritual; they still confined their preaching to Jews by birth, or Jews by adoption, the proselytes of the covenant. At length a breach was made, and the assailants as might be expected were Hellenists. The first step towards the creation Appoint- of an organised ministry was also the first step towards the ne emancipation of the Church. The Jews of Judea, ‘ Hebrews of oficers. the Hebrews,’ had ever regarded their Hellenist brethren with suspicion and distrust; and this estrangement reproduced itself in the Christian Church. The interests of the Hellenist widows had been neglected in the daily distribution of alms. Hence ‘arose a murmuring of the Hellenists against the Hebrews’ (Acts vi. 1), which was met by the appointment of seven persons specially charged with providing for the wants of these neglected poor. If the selection was made, as St Luke’s language seems to imply, not by the Hellenists them- selves but by the Church at large (vi. 2), the concession when granted was carried out in a liberal spirit. All the names of the seven are Greek, pointing to a Hellenist rather than a Hebrew extraction, and one is especially described as a proselyte, being doubtless chosen to represent a hitherto small but grow- ing section of the community. By this appointment the Hellenist members obtained a Effects of this me: F 1 ‘Trust not a proselyte,’ said one (Shimoni) on Ruthi. 11,12, § 601. See Baer of the rabbis, ‘till twenty-four genera- also the passages given by Danz in tions; for he holds hisleaven.’ Yalkut Meuschen Test. Iilustr. p. 651. 4—2 Stephen’s testimony. 52 ST PAUL AND THE THREE. status in the Church; ’and the effects of this measure soon became visible. Two out of the seven stand prominently forward as the champions of emancipation, Stephen the preacher and martyr of liberty, and Philip the practical worker’. STEPHEN is the acknowledged forerunner of the Apostle of the Gentiles. He was the first to ‘look steadfastly to the end of that which is abolished, to sound the death-knell of the Mosaic ordinances and the temple worship, and to claim for the Gospel unfettered liberty and universal rights. ‘This man,’ said his accusers, ‘ ceaseth not to speak words against the holy place and the law; for we have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place and shall change the customs which Moses delivered us’ (vi. 13, 14). The charge was only false as misrepresenting the spirit which animated his teaching. The accused attempts no denial, but pleads justifica- tion. of martyrs is shed. 7 In Nicolas, the only one of the remaining five whose name reappears in history, liberty is degraded into licence. I see no valid reason for doubting the very early tradition that the Nicolaitans (Apoc. ii. 6, 15) derived their name from him. If there was a traitor among the Twelve, there might well be a heresi- arch among the Seven. Nor is it likely that an account so discreditable to one who in the New Testamentis named only in connexion with his appointment toan honourable office would have been circu- lated unless there were some foundation in fact. At the same time the Nicolai- tans may have exaggerated and per- verted the teaching of Nicolas. Iren- wus (i. 26, 3) and Hippolytus (Haer. vii. 36) believe him to have been the founder of the sect; while Clement of Alexandria (Strom. ii. p. 411, iii, p. 522, Potter) attributes to him an ambiguous saying that ‘the flesh must be abused (deiv Trapaxphoba 79 capkl),’ of which these Nicolaitans perverted the mean- To seal this testimony the first blood of the noble army ing; and in attempting to clear his reputation relates a highly improbable story, which, if true, would be far from creditable. In another passage of Hip- polytus, a fragment preserved in Syriac (Lagarde’s Anec. Syr. p. 87, Cowper’s Syr. Miscell, p. 55) and taken from the ‘Discourse on the Resurrection’ ad- dressed to Mammea, this writer again represents Nicolas as the founder of the sect, speaking of him as ‘stirred by a strange spirit’ and teaching that the resurrection is past (2 Tim. ii. 18), but not attributing to him any directly immoral doctrines. A common in- terpretation, which makes Nicolaus a Greek rendering of Balaam, is not very happy; for Nixédaos does not al- together correspond with any possible derivation of Balaam, least of all with oy ya ‘the destroyer of the people,’ generally adopted by those who so ex- plain Nixédaos. See below, p. 64, with the notes. ‘ ST PAUL AND THE THREE, 53 The indirect consequences of his martyrdom extend far Indirect beyond the immediate effect of his dying words, A persecution Gnenaed: ‘arose about Stephen.’ The disciples of the mother Church ‘were scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria’ (viii. 1). Some of the refugees even ‘travelled as far as Phenice and Cyprus and Antioch’ (xi. 19). This dispersion was, as we shall see, the parent of the first Gentile congregation. The Church of the Gentiles, it may be truly said, was baptized in the blood of Stephen. The doctrine, which Stephen preached and for which he Philip died, was carried into practice by Puinip. The sacred narra- 7" tive mentions two incidents in his career, each marking an onward stride in the free development of the Church. It is therefore not without significance that years afterwards we find him styled ‘the Evangelist’ (xxi. 8), as if he had earned this honourable title by some signal service rendered to the Gospel. 1, The Samaritan occupied the border land between the (1) The Jew and the Gentile. Theologically, as geographically, he was the ae connecting link between the one and the other. Half Hebrew by race, half Israelite in his acceptance of a portion of the sacred canon, he held an anomalous position, shunning and shunned by the Jew, yet clinging to the same promises and looking forward to the same hopes. With a bold venture of faith Philip offers the Gospel to this mongrel people. His overtures are welcomed with joy, and ‘Samaria receives the word of God.’ The sacred historian relates moreover, that his labours were sanctioned by the presence of the chief Apostles Peter and John, and confirmed by an outpouring of the Holy Spirit (viii. 14—17). ‘He who eats the bread of a Samaritan,’ said the Jewish doctor, ‘is as one who eats swine’s flesht’? ‘No Samaritan shall ever be made a proselyte. They have no share in the resurrection of the dead*’ In opening her treasures to 1 Mishnah Shebdiith viii. 10. Ezra and Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel 2 Pirke Rabbi Elieser 38. The pas- and Jehoshua the son of Jehozadak? ‘sage so well illustrates the statementin (They went) and they gathered together the text, that I give itin full: ‘Whatdid all the congregation into the temple of (2) The Ethiopian eunuch. Conver- sion of Cornelius. 54 ST PAUL AND THE THREE. this hated race, the Church had surmounted the first barrier of prejudice behind which the exclusiveness of the nation had entrenched itself. To be a Samaritan was to have a devil, in the eyes of a rigid Jew (John viii. 48, comp. iv. 9). 2. Nor was it long before Philip broke through a second and more formidable line of defence. The blood of the patriarchs, though diluted, still flowed in the veins of the Samaritans. His next convert had no such claim to respect. A descendant of the accursed race of Ham’, shut out from the congregation by his physical defect (Deut. xxiii. 1), the Ethiopian chamberlain laboured under a twofold disability. This double line is assailed by the Hellenist preacher and taken by storm. The desire of the Ethiopian to know and to do God’s will is held by Philip to be a sufficient claim. He acts boldly and without hesitation. He accosts him, instructs him, baptizes him then and there. The venture of the subordinate minister however still wanted the sanction of the leaders of the Church. At length this sanction was given in a signal way. The Apostles of the Circumcision, even St Peter himself, had failed hitherto to comprehend the wide purpose of God. With their fellow- the Lord, and they brought 300 priests and 300 children and 300 trumpets and 300 scrolls of the law in their hands, and they blew, and the Levites sang and played, and they banned the Cuth- gans (Samaritans) by the mystery of the ineffable name and by the writing which is written on the tables and by the anathema of the upper (heavenly) court of justice and by the anathema of the nether (earthly) court of justice, that no one of Israel should eat the bread of a Cuthsan for ever. Hence they (the elders) said: Whosoever eats the bread of a Cuthzan is as if he ate swine’sflesh ; andno Cuthean shallever be made a proselyte: and they have no share in the resurrection of the dead ; for it is said (Ezra iv.3), Ye have nothing to do with us to build an house unto our God, (that is) neither in this world. nor in the future. And that they should have neither portion nor inhe- ritance in Jerusalem, as it is said (Neh. ii, 20), But ye had no portion nor right nor memorial in Jerusalem. And they communicated the anathema to Israel which is in Babylon. And they put upon them anathema upon anathema. And king Cyrus also decreed upon them an everlasting anathema, as it is said (Ezra vi. 12), And the God that has caused His name to dwell there ete.’ Several passages bearing on this subject. are collected in the article ‘Samaritan Pentateuch,’ by Mr E. Deutsch, in Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible. 1 Amos ix. 7, ‘Are ye not as the children of the Ethiopians unto me, O children of Israel?’ ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 55 countrymen they still ‘held it unlawful for a Jew to keep com- pany with or to come near an alien’ (Acts x. 28). The time when the Gospel should be preached to the Gentiles seemed not yet to have arrived: the manner in which it should be preached was still hidden from them. At length a divine vision scatters the dark scruples of Peter, teaching him to call no man ‘common or unclean. He goes himself and seeks out the devout Roman centurion Cornelius, whose household he instructs in the faith. The Gentile Church, thus founded on the same ‘rock’ with the Jewish, receives also the same divine confirma- tion. As Peter began to speak, ‘the Holy Ghost fell on them, as it did’ on the Jewish disciples on the first day of Pentecost (xi. 15). As if the approval of God could not be too prompt or too manifest, the usual sequence is reversed and the outpouring of the Spirit precedes the rite of baptism (x. 4448). The case of Cornelius does not, I think, differ essentially Signifi- from the case of the Ethiopian eunuch. There is no ground fe for assuming that the latter was a proselyte of the covenant. His mutilation excluded him from the congregation by a Mosaic ordinance, and it is an arbitrary conjecture that the definite enactment of the law was overruled by the spiritual promise of the prophet (Is. lvi 3—5). This liberal interpreta- tion at all events accords little with the narrow and formal spirit of the age. Both converts alike had the inward qualifi- cation of ‘fearing God and working righteousness’ (x. 35); both alike were disabled by external circumstances, and the disabilities of the Ethiopian eunuch were even greater than those of the Roman centurion. If so, the significance of the conversion of the latter consists in this, that now in the case of the Gentile, as before in the case of the Samaritan, the principle asserted by the Hellenist Philip is confirmed by the Apostles of the Circumcision in the person of their chief and sealed by the outpouring of the Spirit. Meanwhile others were asserting the universality of the Preaching Church elsewhere, if not with the same sanction of authority, at foe" all events with a larger measure of success. With the dying Anticch. The name Christ- ians. The first step gained. 56 ST ‘PAUL AND THE THREE. words of Stephen, the martyr of Christian liberty, still ringing in their ears, the persecuted brethren had fled from Jerusalem and carried the tidings of the Gospel to distant lands. At first they ‘ preached the word to none but to the Jews only’ (xi. 19). At length others bolder than the rest, ‘when they were come to Antioch, spake unto the Gentiles’, preaching the Lord Jesus.’ Probably this was an advance even on the conversion of the Ethiopian eunuch and of Cornelius. These two converts at all events recognised the God of the old covenant. Now for the first time, it would seem, the Gospel was offered to heathen idolaters. Here, as before, the innovators were not Hebrews but Hellenists, ‘men of Cyprus and Cyrene’ (xi. 20). Their success was signal: crowds flocked to hear them; and at Antioch first the brethren were called by a new name—a term of ridicule and contempt then, now the pride and glory of the civilized world. Hitherto the believers had been known as ‘Galileans’ or ‘ Nazarenes’; now they were called ‘Christians.’ The transition from a Jewish to a heathen term marks the point of time when the Church of the Gentiles first threatens to supersede the Church of the Circumcision. Thus the first stage in the emancipation of the Church was gained, The principle was broadly asserted that the Gospel received all comers, asking no questions, allowing no impedi- ments, insisting on no preliminary conditions, if only it were found that the petitioner ‘feared God and worked righteousness.’ 2. The Recognition of Gentile Liberty. It is plain that the principle, which had thus been asserted, involved consequences very much wider than were hitherto clearly foreseen and acknowledged. But between asserting a principle and carrying it out to its legitimate results a long interval must necessarily elapse, for many misgivings have to be dissipated and many impediments to be overcome. 1 xi. 20. Icannotdoubt that"EAnvas requires it; but external authority pre- is correct, as the preceding Iovdalovs ponderates in favour of ‘EAAnniords, ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 57 So it was with the growth of Gentile Christendom. The Questions Gentiles were no longer refused admission into the Church ie unless first incorporated with Israel by the initiatory rite. But many questions remained still unsettled. What was their exact position, when thus received? What submission, if any, must they yield to the Mosaic law? Should they be treated as in all respects on an equality with the true Israelite? Was it right for the Jewish Christian so far to lay aside the traditions of his race, as to associate freely with his Gentile brother ? These must necessarily in time become practical questions, and press for a solution. At this point in the history of the Church a new character Saul of appears on the scene. The mantle of Stephen has fallen on pa the persecutor of Stephen. Saux has been called to bear the name of Christ to the Gentiles. Descended of pure Hebrew ancestry and schooled in the law by the most famous of living teachers, born and residing in a great university town second to none in its reputation for Greek wisdom and learning, inheriting the privileges and the bearing of a Roman citizen, he seemed to combine in himself all those varied qualifications which would best fit him for this work. These wide ex- periences, which had lain dormant before, were quickened into thought and life by the lightning flash on the way to Damascus; and stubborn zeal was melted and fused into large-hearted and comprehensive charity. From his conversion to the present time we read only of his preaching in the synagogues at Damascus (ix. 20, 22) and to the Hellenists at Jerusalem (ix. 29). But now the moment was ripe, when he must enter upon that wider sphere of action for which he had been specially designed. The Gentile Church, founded on the ‘rock,’ must be handed over to the ‘wise master-builder’ to enlarge and complete. So at the bidding of the Apostles, Barnabas seeks out Saul in his retirement at Tarsus and brings him to Antioch. Doubtless he seemed to all to be the fittest goes oa instrument for carrying out the work so auspiciously begun. mare Meanwhile events at Jerusalem were clearing the way for Circum- stances affecting the mother Church. 1) With- awal of the Apo- stles. (2) Famine relieved by Gentile alms. 58 ST PAUL AND THE THREE. his great work. The star of Jewish Christendom was already on the wane, while the independence of the Gentiles was gradually asserting itself. Two circumstances especially were instrumental in reversing the positions hitherto held by these two branches of the Church. 1. It has been seen that the martyrdom of Stephen marked an epoch in the emancipation of the Church. The martyrdom of James the son of Zebedee is scarcely less im- portant in its influence on her progressive career. The former persecution had sown the disciples broad-cast over heathen lands; the latter seems to have been the signal for the withdrawal of the Apostles themselves from Jerusalem. The twelve years, which according to an old tradition our Lord had assigned as the limit of their fixed residence there, had drawn to a close’, So, consigning the direction of the mother Church to James the Lord’s brother and the presbytery, they depart thence to enter upon a wider field of action. Their withdrawal must have deprived the Church of Jerusalem of half her prestige and more than half her influence. Henceforth she remained indeed the mother Church of the nation, but she was no longer the mother Church of the world. 2. About the same time another incident also contributed to lessen her influence. A severe famine devastated Palestine and reduced the Christian population to extreme want. Collec- tions were made at Antioch, and relief was sent to the brethren in Judea. By this exercise of liberality the Gentile Churches were made to feel their own importance: while the recipients, thus practically confessing their dependence, were deposed from the level of proud isolation which many of them would gladly have maintained. This famine seems to have ranged over many years, or at all events its attacks were several times repeated. Again and again the alms of the Gentile Christians were conveyed by the hands of the Gentile Apostles, and the Churches of Judea laid themselves under fresh obligations to the heathen converts. 1 See Galatians, p. 127, n. 1. ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 59 Events being thus ripe, Saul still residing at Antioch is set New stage apart by the Spirit for the Apostleship of the Gentiles to which Gone he had been called years before. The Gospel thus enters upon a new career of triumph. The primacy of the Church passes from Peter to Paul—from the Apostle of the Circumcision to the Apostle of the Gentiles. The centre of evangelical work is transferred from Jerusalem to Antioch. Paul and Barnabas set forth on their first missionary tour. Though they give precedence everywhere to the Jews, their St Paul’s mission is emphatically to the Gentiles. In Cyprus, the first ee country visited, its character is signally manifested in the journey. conversion of the Roman proconsul, Sergius Paulus. And soon it becomes evident that the younger Church must supplant the elder. At Antioch in Pisidia matters are brought to a crisis: the Jews reject the offer of the Gospel: the Gentiles entreat to hear the message. Thereupon the doom is pronounced: ‘It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you; but seeing ye put it from you and judge your- selves unworthy of everlasting life, lo we turn to the Gentiles’ (xiii. 46).. The incidents at Pisidian Antioch foreshadow the destiny which awaits the Gospel throughout the world. Every- where the Apostles deliver their message to the Jews first, and everywhere the offer rejected by them is welcomed by the heathen. The mission of Paul and Barnabas is successful, but its success is confined almost wholly to the Gentiles. They return to Antioch. Hitherto no attempt had been made to define the mutual The que relations of Jewish and Gentile converts. All such questions, it cumcision would seem, had been tacitly passed over, neither side perhaps ™!8e¢- being desirous of provoking discussion. But the inevitable crisis at length arrives. Certain converts, who had imported into the Church of Christ the rigid and exclusive spirit of Pharisaism, stir up the slumbering feud at Antioch, starting the question in its most trenchant form. They desire to impose circumcision on the Gentiles, not only as a condition 60 ST PAUL AND THE THREE. of equality, but as necessary to salvation (xv. 1). The imposi- tion of this burden is resisted by Paul and Barnabas, who go on a mission to Jerusalem to confer with the Apostles and elders. ae I have given elsewhere what seems to me the probable ference. account of the part taken by the leading Apostles in these controversies, and shall have to return to the subject later. Our difficulty in reading this page of history arises not so much from the absence of light as from the perplexity of cross lights, The narratives of St Luke and St Paul only then cease to conflict, when we take into account the different positions of the writers and the different objects they had in view. zoe At present we are concerned only with the results of this conference. These are twofold: First, the settlement of the points of dispute between the Jewish and Gentile converts: Secondly, the recognition of the authority and commission of Paul and Barnabas by the Apostles of the Circumcision. It will be necessary, as briefly as possible, to point out the signifi- cance of these two conclusions and to examine how far they were recognised and acted upon subsequently. ii 1. The arrangement of the disputed points was effected mise. by a mutual compromise. On the one hand it was decided once and for ever that the rite of circumcision should not be imposed on the Gentiles. On the other, concessions were demanded of them in turn; they were asked to ‘abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication.’ Emanci- The first of these decisions was a question of principle. If ae the initiatory rite of the old dispensation were imposed on all members of the Christian Church, this would be in effect to deny that the Gospel was a new covenant; in other words to deny: its essential character”. It was thus the vital point on which the whole controversy turned. And the liberal decision 1 See Galatians, p. 126 sq, and the notes on Gal. ii. 1—10. 2 See Ritschl, p. 127. ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 61 of the council was not only the charter of Gentile freedom but the assertion of the supremacy of the Gospel. On the other hand it is not so easy to understand the Restrict- bearing of the restrictions imposed on the Gentile converts. clauses, Their significance in fact seems to be relative rather than absolute. There were certain practices into which, though most abhorrent to the feelings of their Jewish brethren, the Gentile Christians from early habit and constant association would easily be betrayed. These were of different kinds: some were grave moral offences, others only violations of time- honoured observances, inwrought in the conscience of the Israelite. After the large concession of principle made to the Gentiles in the matter of circumcision, it was not unreasonable that they should be required in turn to abstain from practices which gave so much offence to the Jews. Hence the prohibi- tions in question. It is strange indeed that offences so hetero- geneous should be thrown together and brought under one prohibition ; but this is perhaps sufficiently explained by sup- posing the decree framed to meet some definite complaint of the Jewish brethren. If, in the course of the hot dispute which preceded the speeches of the leading Apostles, attention had been specially called by the Pharisaic party to these detested practices, St James would not unnaturally take up the subject and propose to satisfy them by a direct condemna- tion of the offences in question‘. It would betray great ignorance of human nature to suppose co that a decision thus authoritatively pronounced must have ed by silenced all opposition. If therefore we should find its pro- *°™ visions constantly disregarded hereafter, it is no argument against the genuineness of the decree itself, The bigoted 1 This seems to me much simpler kindred (Levit. xviii. 18), as it is inter- than explaining the clauses as enforc- ing the conditions under which prose- lytes of the gate were received by the Jews. In this latter case ropyela will perhaps refer to unlawful marriage, e.g. within the prohibited degrees of preted by Ritschl p. 129 sq, who ably maintains this view. These difficulties of interpretation are to my mind a very strong evidence. of the genuine- ness of the decree. Cireumci- sion still insisted on. The re- strictive clauses not uni- formly enforced. St James. Antioch and the neigh- bouring churches. 62 ST PAUL AND THE THREE. minority was little likely to make an absolute surrender of its most stubborn prejudices to any external influence. Many even of those, who at the time were persuaded by the leading Apostles into acquiescence, would find their misgivings return, when they saw that the effect of the decree was to wrest the sceptre from their grasp and place it in the hands of the Gentile Church. Even the question of circumcision, on which an absolute decision had been pronounced, was revived again and again. Long after, the Judaizing antagonists of St Paul in Galatia attempted to force this rite on his Gentile converts. Perhaps however they rather evaded than defied the decree. They may for instance have no longer insisted upon it as a condition of salvation, but urged it as a title to preference. But however this may be, there is nothing startling in the fact itself. But while the emancipating clause of the decree, though express and definite, was thus parried or resisted, the restrictive clauses were with much greater reason interpreted with latitude. The miscellaneous character of these prohibitions showed that, taken as a whole, they had no binding force independently of the circumstances which dictated them. They were a temporary expedient framed to meet a temporary emergency. Their object was the avoidance of offence in mixed communities of Jew and Gentile converts. Beyond this recognised aim and the general understanding implied therein the limits of their application were not defined. Hence there was room for much latitude in individual cases. St James, as the head of the mother Church where the difficulties which it was framed to meet were most felt, naturally refers to the decree seven years after as still regulating the intercourse between Jewish and Gentile converts (xxi. 25), At Antioch too and in the neigh- bouring Churches of Syria and Cilicia, to which alone the Apostolic letter was addressed and on which alone therefore the enactments were directly binding (xv. 23), it was doubtless long observed. The close communication between these churches and Jerusalem would at once justify and secure its strict ST PAUL AND THE THREE. - 63 observance. We read also of its being delivered to the brother- hoods of Lycaonia and Pisidia, already founded when the council was held, and near enough to Palestine to feel the pressure of Jewish feelings (xvi. 4). But as the circle widens, its influ- ence becomes feebler. In strictly Gentile churches it seems never to have been enforced. St Paul, writing to the Corin- ey Paul 0 the Co- thians, discusses two of the four practices which it prohibits Sans without any reference to its enactments. Fornication he con- demns absolutely as defiling the body which is the temple of God (1 Cor. v. 1—138, vi. 18—20). Of eating meats sacri- ficed to idols he speaks as a thing indifferent in itself, only to be avoided in so far as it implies participation in idol worship or is offensive to the consciences of others. His rule therefore is this: ‘Do not sit down to a banquet celebrated in an idol’s temple. You may say that in itself an idol is nothing, that neither the abstaining from meat nor the partaking of meat commends us to God. All this I grant is true: but such knowledge is dangerous. You are running the risk of falling into idolatry yourself, you are certainly by your example leading others astray; you are in fact committing an overt act of treason to God, you are a partaker of the tables of devils. On the other:hand do not officiously inquire when you make a purchase at the shambles or when you dine in a private house: but if in such cases you are plainly told that the meat has been offered in sacrifice, then abstain at all hazards. Lay down this rule, to give no offence either to Jews or Gentiles or to the churches of God’ (1 Cor. viii. 1—13, x. 14-22). This wise counsel, if it disregards the letter, preserves the spirit of the decree, which was framed for the avoidance of offence. But St Paul’s language shows that the decree itself was not held binding, perhaps was unknown at Corinth: otherwise the discussion would have been foreclosed. Once again we come g¢ John across the same topics in the apocalyptic message to the to the Asiatic Churches of Pergamos and Thyatira. The same irregularities churches. prevailed here as at Corinth: there was the temptation on the one hand to impure living, on the other to acts of conformity 64 | ST PAUL AND THE THREE. with heathen worship which compromised their allegiance to the one true God. Our Lord in St John’s vision denounces - them through the symbolism of the Old Testament history. In the Church of Pergamos were certain Nicolaitans ‘holding the doctrine of Balaam who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed to idols and to commit fornication’ (ii. 14). At Thyatira the evil had struck its roots deeper. The angel of that Church is rebuked because he ‘suffers his wife Jezebel who calls herself a prophetess, and she teacheth and seduceth God’s servants to commit forni- cation and to eat things sacrificed to idols.’ I see no reason for assuming a reference here to the Apostolic decree. The two offences singled out are those to which Gentile churches would be most liable, and which at the same time are illustrated by the Old Testament parallels. If St Paul denounces them independently of the decree, St John may have done so like- wise. In the matter of sacrificial meats indeed the condemna- tion of the latter is more absolute and uncompromising. But this is owing partly to the epigrammatic terseness and symbolic reference of the passage, partly, also, we may suppose, to the more definite form which the evil itself had assumed*. In both cases the practice was justified by a vaunted knowledge which held itself superior to any such restrictions?. But at Corinth 1 Yet the expression od Bdddw 颒 buds dddo Bdpos (ii. 24) looks like a reference to the decree. 2 The coincidence of the two Apostles extends also to their language. (1) If St John denounces the offence as a fol- lowing of Balaam, St Paul uses the same Old Testament illustration, 1 Cor. x. 7, 8, ‘Neither be ye idolaters, as were some of them; as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play: neither let us commit fornication, as some of them com- mitted, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand.’ (2) If St John speaks of ‘casting a stumblingblock (cxdvéadrov) before the children of Is- rael,’ the whole purport of St Paul’s warning is ‘to give no offence’ (uh oxavdanlfew, Vili. 13, darpboxora ylvec- Oa, x, 32). With all these coinci- dences of matter and language, it is a strange phenomenon that any critic should maintain, as Baur, Zeller, and Schwegler have done, that the denun- ciations in the Apocalypse are directed against St Paul himself. ® Comp. Apoc. ii. 24 Saou odk exovow Thy Sidaxiv radrny, oltwes otk eyvw- gav Ta Badéa rod Zarava, ws Aé- youow. The false teachers boasted a knowledge of the deep things of God; ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 65 this temper was still immature and under restraint: while in the Asiatic churches it had outgrown shame and broken out into the wildest excesses!. Thus then the decree was neither permanently nor uni- Object of versally binding. But there was also another point which be admitted much latitude of interpretation, What was under- ‘fed. stood to be the design of these enactments? They were articles of peace indeed, but of what nature was this peace to be? Was it to effect an entire union between the Jewish and Gentile churches, a complete identity of interest; or only to secure a Were the Gentiles to be welcomed as brothers and admitted at once to all the privileges of sons of Israel: or was the Church hereafter to be composed of two separate nationalities, as it were, equal and independent; or lastly, were the heathen converts to be recognised indeed, but only as holding a sub- ordinate position like proselytes under the old covenant? The first interpretation is alone consistent with the spirit of the Gospel: but either of the others might honestly be maintained without any direct violation of the letter of the decree. - The Church of Antioch, influenced doubtless by St Paul, took the ‘I would not that ye should have fel- lowship with devils.’ 1 The subject of eléwAddura does not disappear with the Apostolic age: it turns up again for instance in the middle of the second century, in Agrip- strict neutrality, a condition of mutual toleration ? they possessed only a knowledge of the deep things of Satan. St John’s mean- ing is illustrated by a passage in Hip- polytus (Haer. v. 6, p. 94) relating to the Ophites, who offer other striking resemblances to the heretics of the Apostolic age; émexdderay éavrovs yrw- otixots, pdoxkovTes pdvo. TA BAAN yivw- oxecvy: see also Iren, ii. 28. 9. St Paul’s rebuke is very different in form, but the same in effect. He begins each time in a strain of noble irony. ‘We all have knowledge’; ‘I speak as to wise men’: he appears to concede, to defer, to sympathize, even to en- courage: and then he turns round up- on the laxity of this vaunted wisdom and condemns and crushes it: ‘I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend’; L. pa Castor (Euseb. H. EH. iv. 7) writing against Basilides, and in Justin (Dial. 35, p. 253 p) who mentions the Basili- deans among other Gnostic sects as ‘participating in lawless and godless rites’: comp. Orac. Sib. ii. 96. Both these writers condemn the practice, the latter with great severity. When the persecution began, and the Christians were required to deny their faith by participating in the sacrifices, it be- came a matter of extreme importance to avoid any act of conformity, how- ever slight. 5 St Paul’s authority recog- nised. Continued opposition to St Paul. 66 ST PAUL AND THE THREE. larger and truer view; Jewish and Gentile converts lived freely together as members of one brotherhood. A portion at least of the Church of Jerusalem, ‘certain who came from James,’ adopted a narrower interpretation and still clung to the old distinctions, regarding their Gentile brethren as unclean and refusing to eat with them. This was not the Truth of the Gospel, it was not the Spirit of Christ ; but neither was it a direct breach of compact. 2. Scarcely less important than the settlement of the disputed points was the other result of these conferences, the recognition of St Paul’s office and mission by the Apostles of the Circumcision. This recognition is recorded in similar language in the narrative of the Acts and in the Epistle to the Galatians. In the Apostolic circular inserted in the former Paul and Barnabas are commended as ‘ men who have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ’ (xv. 26). In the conferences, as related in the latter, the three Apostles, James, Peter, and John, seeing that ‘the Gospel of the un- circumcision was committed unto him,’ and ‘perceiving the grace that was given unto him, gave to him and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that they should go unto the heathen’ (ii. 7—10). This ample recognition would doubtless carry weight with a large number of Jewish converts: but no sanction of authority could overcome in others the deep repugnance felt to one who, himself a ‘ Hebrew of the Hebrews,’ had systematically opposed the law of Moses and triumphed in his opposition. Henceforth St Paul’s career was one life-long conflict with Judaizing an- tagonists. Setting aside the Epistles to the Thessalonians, which were written too early to be affected by this struggle, all his letters addressed to churches, with but one exception!, refer more or less directly to such opposition. It assumed different forms in different places: in Galatia it was purely 1 This exception, the Epistle to the Asiatic churches, in which special re- Ephesians, may be explained by its ferences would be out of place. character as a circular letter to the ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 67 Pharisaic; in Phrygia and Asia it was strongly tinged with speculative mysticism ; but everywhere and under all circum- stances zeal for the law was its ruling passion. The systematic hatred of St Paul is an important fact, which we are too apt to overlook, but without which the whole history of the Apo- stolic ages will be misread and misunderstood. 3. The Emancipation of the Jewish Churches. We have seen hitherto no signs of waning affection for the Zeal for law in the Jewish converts to Christianity as a body. On the oe contrary the danger which threatened it from a quarter so unexpected seems to have fanned their zeal to a red heat. Even in the churches of St Paul’s own founding his name and authority were not powerful enough to check the encroach- ments of the Judaizing party. Only here and there, in mixed communities, the softening influences of daily intercourse must have been felt, and the true spirit of the Gospel insensibly diffused, inculcating the truth that ‘in Christ was neither Jew nor Greek.’ But the mother Church of Jerusalem, being composed Seanace entirely of Jewish converts, lacked these valuable lessons of servance daily experience. Moreover the law had claims on a Hebrew anne of Palestine wholly independent of his religious obligations, Church. To him it was a national institution, as well as a divine cove- nant. Under the Gospel he might consider his relations to it in this latter character altered, but as embodying the decrees and usages of his country it still demanded his allegiance. To be a good Christian he was not required to be a bad citizen. On these grounds the more enlightened members of the mother church would justify their continued adhesion to the law. Nor is there any reason to suppose that St Paul himself took a different view of their obligations. The Apostles of the Cir- cumcision meanwhile, if conscious themselves that the law was fulfilled in the Gospel they strove nevertheless by strict con- formity to conciliate the zealots both within and without the 5—2 68 ST PAUL AND THE THREE. Church, were only acting upon St Paul’s own maxim, who ‘became to the Jews a Jew that he might gain the Jews. Meanwhile they felt that a catastrophe was impending, that a deliverance was at hand. Though they were left in uncertainty as to the time and manner of this divine event, the mysterious warnings of the Lord had placed the fact itself beyond a doubt. They might well therefore leave all perplexing questions to the solution of time, devoting themselves meanwhile to the practical work which lay at their doors. Fall of Je- = And soon the catastrophe came which solved the difficult rusalem, problem. The storm which had long been gathering burst over av.70. the devoted city. Jerusalem was razed to the ground, and the Temple-worship ceased, never again to be revived. The Chris- tians foreseeing the calamity had fled before the tempest; and at Pella, a city of the Decapolis, in the midst of a population chiefly Gentile the Church of the Circumcision was recon- stituted. They were warned to flee, said the story, by an oracle’: but no special message from heaven was needed at this juncture ; the signs of the times, in themselves full of warning, interpreted by the light of the Master’s prophecies plainly foretold the approaching doom. Before the crisis came, they had been deprived of the counsel and guidance of the leading Apostles. Peter had fallen a martyr at Rome; John had retired to Asia Minor; James the Lord’s brother was slain not long before the great catastrophe; and some thought that the horrors of the Flavian war were the just vengeance of an offended God for the murder of so holy a man*. He was succeeded by his cousin Symeon, the son of Clopas and nephew of Joseph. The Under these circumstances the Church was reformed at Church at Pella, Pella. Its history in the ages following is a hopeless blank?; 1 Euseb. H. E. iii. 5 card twa xpy- cpdv rots abrb0. Soxipos 8¢ dmroKadd- pews éxdobevra K.T.A. ? Hegesippus in Euseb. H. E. ii. 23 kal evdvds Ovecractavds rodtopKel avTovs, and the pseudo-Josephus also quoted there, rafra 88 cupBéBnxev "Tovdalos kar’ éxdlenow TaxdBou 708 duxalov K.7.d. 3 The Church of Pella however con- tributed one author at least to the ranks of early Christian literature in Ariston, the writer of an apology in ST PAUL AND THE THREE, 69 and it would be vain to attempt to fill in the picture from conjecture. We cannot doubt however that the consequences of the fall of Jerusalem, direct or indirect, were very great. In two points especially its effects would be powerfully felt, in the change of opinion produced within the Church itself and in the i altered relations between the converted and unconverted Jews. (1) The loss of their great leader at this critical moment was compensated to the Church of the Circumcision by the stern teaching of facts. In the obliteration of the Temple services they were brought at length to see that all other sacrifices were transitory shadows, faint emblems of the one Paschal Lamb, slain once and for ever for the sins of the world. In the impossibility of observing the Mosaic ordinances except in part, they must have been led to question the efficacy of the whole. And besides all this, those who had hitherto maintained their allegiance to the law purely as a national institution were by the overthrow of the nation set free henceforth from any such obligation. We need not suppose that these inferences were drawn at once or drawn by all alike; but slowly and surely the fall of the city must have produced this effect. (2) At the same time it wholly changed their relations the form of a dialogue between Jason a Hebrew Christian and Papiscus an Alexandrian Jew: see Routh 1. p. 93. One of his works however was written after the Bar-cochba rebellion, to which it alludes (Huseb. H. EH. iv. 6); and from the purport of the allusion we may infer that it was this very dia- logue. The expulsion of the Jews by Hadrian was a powerful common-place in the treatises of the Apologists; see eg. Justin Martyr Apol. i. 47. On the other hand it cannot have been written long after, for it was quoted by Celsus (Orig. c. Cels. iv. 52, p. 544, Delarue). The shade of doubt which rests on the authorship of this dia- logue is very slight. Undue weight seems to be attributed to the fact of its being quoted anonymously; e.g. in Westcott’s Canon, p. 93, Donaldson’s Christian Literature etc. u, p. 58. It I am right in conjecturing that the reference to the banishment of the Jews was taken from this dialogue, Kusebius himself directly attributes it to Ariston, The name of the author however is of little consequence, for the work was clearly written by a Hebrew Christian not later than the middle of the second century. Whoever he may have been, the writer was no Ebionite, for he explained Gen. i. 1, ‘In‘filio fecit Deus caelum et terram’ (Hieron. Quaest. Hebr. in Gen., ut. p. 305, ed. Vall.) ; and the fact is important, as this is the earliest known expression of Hebrew Christian doctrine after the canonical writings, except perhaps the Testa- ments of the Twelve Patriarchs. Effects of the change. (1) The law loses its power. (2) Jews and 70 ST PAUL AND THE THREE. Christians with their unconverted countrymen. Hitherto they had main- in anta- gonism. Difficulties and dis- sensions. tained such close intercourse that in the eyes of the Roman the Christians were as one of the many Jewish sects. Hence- forth they stood in a position of direct antagonism. The sayings ascribed to the Jewish rabbis of this period are charged with the bitterest reproaches of the Christians, who are denounced as more dangerous than the heathen, and anathemas against the hated sect were introduced into their daily prayers. The probable cause of this change is not far to seek. While the catastrophe was still impending, the Christians seem to have stood forward and denounced the national sins which had brought down the chastisement of God on their country. In the traditional notices at least this feature may be discerned. Nor could they fail to connect together as cause and effect the stubborn rejection of Messiah and the coming doom which He Himself had foretold. And when at length the blow fell, by withdrawing from the city and refusing to share the fate of their countrymen they declared by an overt act that henceforth they were strangers, that now at length their hopes and inte- rests were separate. These altered relations both to the Mosaic law and to the Jewish people must have worked as leaven in the minds of the Christians of the Circumcision. Questions were asked now, which from their nature could not have been asked before. Difficulties hitherto unfelt seemed to start up on all sides. The relations of the Church to the synagogue, of the Gospel to the law, must now be settled in some way or other. Thus diver- sities of opinion, which had hitherto been lulled in a broken and fitful slumber, suddenly woke up into dangerous activity. The Apostles, who at an earlier date had moderated extreme tendencies and to whom all would have looked instinctively for counsel and instruction, had passed away from the scene. 1 See especially Graetz Geschichte by this writer, whose account is the der Juden tv. p. 112sq. Theantago- more striking as given from u Jewish nism between the Jews and Christians _ point of view. at this period is strongly insisted upon ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 71 One personal follower of the Lord however still remained, Symeon Symeon the aged bishop, who had succeeded James?. At cen length he too was removed. After a long tenure of office he 4p. 106. was martyred at a very advanced age in the ninth year of Trajan. His death, according to Hegesippus, was the signal for a shameless outbreak of multitudinous heresies which had hitherto worked underground, the Church having as yet pre- served her virgin purity undefiled’. Though this early his- torian has interwoven many fabulous details in his account, there seems no reason to doubt the truth of the broad state- ment, confirmed as it is from another source’, that this epoch was the birth-time of many forms of dissent in the Church of the Circumcision. How far these dissensions and diversities of opinion had ripened meanwhile into open schism, to what extent the majority still conformed to the Mosaic ordinances (as for instance in the practice of circumcision and the observance of the sabbath), we have no data to determine. But the work begun by the fall of Jerusalem was only at length completed by the advent of another crisis, By this second catastrophe the Church and the law were finally divorced; and the mal- contents who had hitherto remained within the pale of the Church became declared separatists. A revolution of the Jews broke out in all the principal Rebellion centres of the dispersion. The flame thus kindled in the Sa dependencies spread later to the mother country. In Palestine 1k. ae a leader started up, professing himself to be the long promised Messiah, and in reference to the prophecy of Balaam styling himself ‘Bar-cochba, ‘the son of the Star. We have the testimony of one who wrote while these scenes of bloodshed were still fresh in men’s memories, that the Christians were the 1 Hegesippus in Buseb. H. H. iv. 22. dpa wéxpe rv tore xpdvwv map0évos Ka- This writer also mentions grandsons Gapa xal ddid@Bopos euewev 4 éxxdyola, of Jude the Lord’s brother as ruling év ddydy mov oxbre: pwdevdvrwy eloére over the Churches and surviving till rére rv, el Kal rwes brfipxov, Tapapbei- the time of Trajan; H. E. iii. 32. pew émcxeipotvTw kK... ; Comp. iv. 22. 2 Huseb. H. LE. iii. 32 émidéyer ws 3 See below, p. 82, note 3. flia Ca- pitolina. The church reconsti- tuted. 72 ST PAUL AND THE THREE. chief sufferers from this rebel chieftain’. Even without such testimony this might have been safely inferred. Their very existence was a protest against his claims: they must be de- nounced and extirpated, if his pretensions were to be made good. The cause of Bar-cochba was taken up as the cause of the whole Jewish nation, and thus the antagonism between Judaism and Christianity was brought to a head. After a desperate struggle the rebellion was trampled out and the severest vengeance taken on the insurgents. The practice of circumcision and the observance of the sabbath—indeed all the distinguishing marks of Judaism—were visited with the severest penalties. On the other hand the Christians, as the avowed enemies of the rebel chief, seem to have been favourably received. On the ruins of Jerusalem Hadrian had built his new city Alia Capitolina. Though no Jew was admitted within sight of its walls, the Christians were allowed to settle there freely’. Now for the first time a Gentile bishop was appointed, and the Church of Jerusalem ceased to be the Church of the Circumcision’. The account of Eusebius seems to imply that long before this disastrous outbreak of the Jews the main part of the Christians had left their retirement in Pella and returned to their original home. At all events he traces the succession of bishops of Jerusalem in an unbroken line from James the Lord’s brother until the foundation of the new city*. If so, we must imagine the Church once more scattered by this second 1 Justin Apol. i. 31,p. 72 B, év 7g ‘Quod quidem Christianae fidei pro- viv yeyernuévy lovdatkp rorgup Bapyw- xéBas 6 ris "lovialwy drocrdcews dp- xuyérns Xprariavovs wdvous els Tiyswplas Sewds, el wh dpvolvro Inaoby rov Xpiorov kal Bracpnpoter, éxédevev dmdyecGat. 2 Justin Apol. i. 47, p. 84 B, Dial. 110, p. 337 p; Ariston of Pella in Euseb. H. E. iv. 6; Celsus in Orig. c. Cels. viii. 69. 3 Sulpicius Severus (H. S. ii, 31) speaking of Hadrian’s decree says, ficiebat, quia tum pene omnes Chris- tum Deum sub legis observatione cre- debant; nimirum id Domino ordinante dispositum, ut legis servitus a libertate fidei atque ecclesiae tolleretur.’ 4H. E. iii. 82, 35, iv. 5. Eusebius seems to narrate all the incidents af- fecting the Church of the Circumcision during this period, as taking place not at Pella but at Jerusalem. ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 73 catastrophe, and once more reformed when the terror was passed. But the Church of lia Capitolina was very differently constituted from the Church of Pella or the Church of Jeru- salem; a large proportion of its members at least were Gentiles’. Of the Christians of the Circumcision not a few doubtless accepted the conqueror’s terms, content to live henceforth as Gentiles, and settled down in the new city of Hadrian. But Judaizing there were others who clung to the law of their forefathers ee with a stubborn grasp which no force of circumstances could loosen: and henceforward we read of two distinct sects of Judaizing Christians, observing the law with equal rigour but observing it on different grounds’. 1 Kuseb. H. FE. iv. 6 ris adrd0e éx- KAnolas €& €Ovav cvykpornbelons. 2? As early as the middle of the second century Justin Martyr distin- guishes two classes of Judaizers; those ' Who retaining the Mosaic law them- selves did not wish to impose it on their Gentile brethren, and those who insisted upon conformity in all Chris- tians alike as a condition of commu- nion and a means of salvation (Dial. c. Tryph. § 47; see Schliemann Clement. p. 553 sq). In the next chapter Justin alludes with disapprobation to some Jewish converts who held that our Lord was a mere man; and it seems not unreasonable to connect this opi- nion with the second of the two classes before mentioned. We thus obtain a tolerably clear view of their distinctive tenets. But the first direct and defi- nite account of both sects is given by the fathers of the fourth century, especially Epiphanius and Jerome, who distinguish them by the respec- tive names of ‘Nazarenes’ and ‘ Ebion- ites.’ Treneus (i. 26. 2), Tertullian (de Praescr. 33), and Hippolytus (Haer. vii. 34, p. 257), contemplate only the second, whom they call Ebionites. The Nazarenes in fact, being for the most part orthodox in their creed and holding communion with Catholic Christians, would not generally be in- cluded in the category of heretics: and moreover, being few in number and living in an obscure region, they would easily escape notice. Origen (c. Cels. v. 61) mentions two classes of Christians who observe the Mosaic law, the one holding with the Catholics that Jesus was born of a Virgin, the other that He was conceived like other men; and both these he calls Ebionites. In an- other passage he says that both classes of Ebionites ("HBiwvato. dupbrepor) re- ject St Paul’s Epistles (v. 65). If these two classes correspond to the ‘ Naza- renes’ and ‘Ebionites’ of Jerome, Ori- gen’s information would seem to be incorrect. On the other hand it is very possible that he entirely overlooks the Nazarenes and alludes to some differ- ences of opinion among the Ebionites properly so called; but in this case it is not easy to identify his two classes with the Pharisaic and Essene Ebionites of whom I shall have to speak later. Euse- bius, who also describes two classes of Ebionites (H. E. iii. 27), seems to have taken his account wholly from Irenzus and Origen. If, as appears probable, both names ‘Nazarenes’ and ‘Ebion- ites’ were originally applied to the Naza- renes, Their tenets. 74 ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 1, The NAzARENES appear at the close of the fourth century as a small and insignificant sect dwelling beyond the Jordan in Pella and the neighbouring places. Indications of their existence however occur in Justin two centuries and a half earlier; and both their locality and their name carry us back to the primitive ages of Jewish Christianity. Can we doubt that they were the remnant of the fugitive Church, which refused to return from their exile with the majority to the now Gentile city, some because they were too indolent or too satisfied to move, others because the abandonment of the law seemed too heavy a price to pay for Roman forbearance ? The account of their tenets is at all events favourable to this inference*, They held themselves bound to the Mosaic ordinances, rejecting however all Pharisaic interpretations and additions. Nevertheless they did not consider the Gentile Christians under the same obligations or refuse to hold com- munion with them ; and in the like spirit, in this distinguished from all other Judaizing sectarians, they fully recognised the work and mission of St Paul’. It is stated moreover that they mourned over the unbelief of their fellow-countrymen, praying for and looking forward to the time when they too should be brought to confess Christ. whole body of Jewish Christians indis- criminately, the confusion of Origen and others is easily explained. In re- cent times, since Gieseler published his treatise Ueber die Nazaréer und Ebioni- ten (Staéudlin u. Tzschirner Archiv fiir Kirchengesch. iv. p. 279 sq, 1819), the distinction has been generally recog- nised. A succinct and good account of these sects of Judaizers will be found in Schliemann Clement. p. 449 sq, where the authorities are given; but the dis- covery of the work of Hippolytus has since thrown fresh light on the Essene Ebionites. The portion of Ritschl’s work (p. 152 sq) relating to these sects should be consulted. 1 Epiphan. Haer. xxix. 7; comp. Their doctrine of the person of Hieron. de Vir. Ill. § 3. 2 See the account in Schliemann, p. 445 sq, with the authorities there given and compare Ritschl p. 152 sq. 3 Hieron. in Is. ix. 1 (1v. p. 180), ‘Nazaraeci...hune locum ita explanare conantur: Adveniente Christo et prae- dicatione illius coruscante prima terra Zabulon et terra Nephthali scribarum et Pharisaeorum est erroribus liberata et gravissimum traditionum Judaica- rum jugum excussit de cervicibus suis. Postea autem per evangelium apostoli Pauli, qui novissimus apostolorum omnium fuit, ingravata est, id est, multiplicata praedicatio; et in termi- nos gentium et viam universi maris Christi evangelium splenduit.’ ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 75 Christ has beén variously represented; but this seems at all events clear that, if it fell short of the Catholic standard, it rose above the level of other Judaic sects. The fierce and indis- criminate verdict of Epiphanius indeed pronounces these Naza- renes ‘Jews and nothing else’’: but his contemporary Jerome, himself no lenient judge of heresy, whose opinion was founded on personal intercourse, regards them more favourably. In his eyes they seem to be separated from the creeds and usages of Catholic Christendom chiefly by their retention of the Mosaic law. Thus they were distinguished from other Judaizing sects Their rela- by a loftier conception of the person of Christ and by a frank pan eee recognition of the liberty of the Gentile Churches and the commission of the Gentile Apostle. These distinguishing features may be traced to the lingering influence of the teaching of the Apostles of the Circumcision. To the example of these same Apostles also they might have appealed in defending their rigid observance of the Mosaic law. But herein, while copying the letter, they did not copy the spirit of their model; for they took no account of altered circumstances. Of this type of belief, if not of this very Nazarene sect, an Eesti 2 early document still extant furnishes an example. The book thetTwelve called the ‘ Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs”’ was certainly a 1 Haer, xxx. 9. 2 It is printed in Grabe’s Spicil. SS. aii, Patr. (Roterod. 1857), and defend- ed against Kayser. The whole tone Pair. i. p. 145 sq (ed. 2, 1700), and in Fabricius Cod. Pseudepigr. Vet. Test. 1. p. 519 sq (ed. 2, 1722), and has re- cently been edited with an introduc- tory essay by Sinker (Cambridge, 1869). Ritschl in his first edition had assigned this work to a writer of the Pauline school. His opinion was controverted by Kayser in the Strassburg. Beitr. z. den Theol. Wissensch. x11. p. 107 (1851), and with characteristic honesty he withdrew it in his second edition, at- tributing the work to a Nazarene au- thor (p. 172 sq). Meanwhile Ritschl’s first view had been adopted in a mo- nograph by Vorstman Disquis. de Test. and colouring of the book however seem to show very plainly that the writer was a Jewish Christian, and the opposite view would probably never have been entertained but for the pre- conceived theory that a believer of the Circumcision could not have written so liberally of the Gentile Christians and so honourably of St Paul. Some writers again who have maintained the Judaic authorship (Kayser for in- stance, whose treatise I only know at second hand) have got over this as- sumed difficulty by rejecting certain passages as interpolations. On the other hand Ewald pronounces it ‘mere Hebrew sympa- thies 76 ST PAUL AND THE THREE, written after the capture of Jerusalem by Titus and probably before the rebellion of Bar-cochba, but may be later’. With some alien features, perhaps stamped upon it by the individual writer, it exhibits generally the characteristics of this Nazarene sect. In this respect at least it offers a remarkable parallel, that to a strong Israelite feeling it unites the fullest recognition of the Gentile Churches. Our Lord is represented as the re- novator of the law*: the imagery and illustrations are all Hebrew: certain virtues are strongly commended and certain vices strongly denounced by a Hebrew standard: many incidents in the lives of the patriarchs are derived from some unknown legendary Hebrew source*, Nay more; the sympathies of the writer are not only Judaic but Levitical. The Messiah is represented as a descendant not of Judah only but of Levi also; thus he is high priest as well as king*; but his priestly office folly to assert that Benj. c. 11 (the prophecy about St Paul) was a later addition to the work’ (Gesch. d. Volks Isr. vit. p. 329), and certainly such arbitrary assumptions would render criticism hopeless, Whether Ritschl is right or not in supposing that the author was actually a Nazarene, it is difficult and not very important to decide. The really im- portant feature in the work is the com- plexion of the opinions. I do not think however that the mere fact of its having been written in Greek proves the au- thor to have been a Hellenist (Ewald ib. p. 833). 1 The following dates have been assigned to it by recent critics; a.p. 100-135 (Dorner), 100-120 (Wieseler), 183-163 (Kayser), 100-153 (Nitzsch, Liicke), 117-193 (Gieseler), 100-200 (Hase), about 150 (Reuss), 90-110 (H- wald). These dates except the last are taken from Vorstman p. 19 sq, who himself places it soon after the fall of Jerusalem (a.D. 70). The frequent re- ferences to this event fix the earliest possible date, while the absence of any allusion to the rebellion of Bar-cochba seems to show that it was written before that time. It is directly named by Origen (Hom. in Jos. xv. 6), and probably was known to Tertullian (c, Mare. v. 1, Scorpiace 13), and (as I be- lieve) even earlier to Ireneus (Fragm. 17, p. 836 sq Stieren). 2 Levi 10, dvaxaworooivra tov vduov év Ouvdue bylcrov. ‘The law of God, the law of the Lord,’ are constant phrases with this writer; Levi 13, 19, Judas 18, 26, Issach. 5, Zabul. 10, Dan 6, Gad 3, Aser 2, 6,7, Joseph 11, Benj. 10: see also Nepht, 8. His language in this respect is formed on the model of the Epistle of St James, as Ewald re- marks (p. 329). Thus the Law of God with him ‘is one with the revealed will of God, and he never therefore under- stands it in the narrow sense of a Jew or even of an Ebionite.’ 3 See Ewald Gesch. 1. p. 490. 4 Simeon 5, 7, Issach. 5, Dan 5, Nepht. 6, 8, Gad 8, Joseph 19, besides the passages referred to in the next note. ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 77 is higher than his kingly, as Levi is greater than Judah?: the dying patriarchs one after another enjoin obedience to Levi: to the Testament of Levi are consigned the most important prophecies of all: the character of Levi is justified and partially cleansed of the stain which in the Old Testament narrative attaches to it’. Yet notwithstanding all this, the admission of the Gentiles into the privileges of the covenant is a constant united theme of thanksgiving with the writer, who mourns over the liberal falling away of the Jews but looks forward to their final restitu- Principles. tion. And into the mouth of the dying Benjamin he puts a prophecy foretelling an illustrious descendant who is to ‘ arise in after days, beloved of the Lord, listening to His voice, en- lightening all the Gentiles with new knowledge’; who is to be ‘in the synagogues of the Gentiles until the completion of the ages, and among their rulers as a musical strain in the mouth of all’; who shall ‘be written in the holy books, he and his work and his word, and shall be the elect of God for ever®’ 2. But besides these Nazarenes, there were other Judaizing Ebionites. sects, narrow and uncompromising, to whose principles or pre- judices language such as I have just quoted would be most abhorrent. The EBIONITES were a much larger and more important body Their than the Nazarenes. They were not confined to the neighbour- *"** hood of Pella or even to Palestine and the surrounding coun- tries, but were found in Rome and probably also in all the great centres of the dispersion‘. Not content with observing 1 Reuben 6 mpds Tov Aevt éyyioare... the work presents several coincidences airds yap ethoyjce Tdv "Iopayd kal rov of language with St Paul (see Vorst- "Iovdav, Judas 21 cal viv réxva ov dya- man p. 115 sq), and at least one quo- mhoare Tov Aecvt...duol yap e6wxe Kips tation, Levi 6 épOace 5¢ h dpyh Kuplov riv Bacidrelav Kdxelvy Thy leparelay kal é avrovs els rédos, from 1 Thess. ii. 16. brérate Thy Baoidelay 77 lepwotvy: éuot On the whole however the language in Zdwxe Ta ext rhs yhs «axelvxy ra év the moral and didactic portions takes obpavois, ib. 25 Aevt mpiros, dedrepos its colour from the Epistle of St James, éyd, Nepht. 5 Aevt éxpdryce Tov Hdov and in the prophetic and apocalyptic kal "Iovdas POdoas érlace Thy cedyvnv. from the Revelation of St John. 2 Levi 6, 7. 4 Epiphan. Haer. xxx. 18. 8 Benj. 11. Besides this prophecy Relation to the Judaizers of the Apostolic age. Another type of Ebionism, 78 ST PAUL AND THE THREE. the Mosaic ordinances themselves, they maintained that the law was binding on all Christians alike, and regarded Gentile believers as impure because they refused to conform. As a necessary consequence they rejected the authority and the writings of St Paul, branding him as an apostate and pursuing his memory with bitter reproaches. In their theology also they were far removed from the Catholic Church, holding our Lord to be a mere man, the son of Joseph and Mary, who was justified, as any of themselves might be justified, by his rigorous performance of the law‘. If the Nazarenes might have claimed some affinity to the Apostles of the Circumcision, the Ebionites were the direct spiritual descendants of those false brethren, the Judaizers of the Apostolic age, who first disturbed the peace of the Antio- chene Church and then dogged St Paul’s footsteps from city to city, everywhere thwarting his efforts and undermining his authority. If Ebionism was not primitive Christianity, neither was it a creation of the second century. As an organization, a distinct sect, it first made itself known, we may suppose, in the reign of Trajan: but as a sentiment, it had been harboured within the Church from the very earliest days. Moderated by the personal influence of the Apostles, soothed by the general practice of their church, not yet forced into declaring themselves by the turn of events, though scarcely tolerant of others these Judaizers were tolerated for a time themselves. The beginning of the second century was a winnowing season in the Church of the Circumcision. The form of Ebionism’, which is most prominent in early 1 For the opinions of these Ebion- by all Ebionites alike: (1) The recog- ites see the references in Schliemann ition of Jesus as Messiah; (2) The p. 481 sq, and add Hippol. Haer. vii. denial of His divinity; (3) The uni- 3 el yap Kal erepbs Tis wemoujxer Ta év versal obligation of the law; (4) The vou mpoorerayueva, qv ‘av éxeivos 6 rejection and hatred of St Paul. Their Xpirbs* divacda 6é kat éavrods duolws differences consisted in (1) Their view rohoayras Xpiorovds yevécOat' cal yap of what constituted the law, and (2) kal adrov dmolws dvOpwrov elvas wacw Their conception of the Person of Aéyouew. Christ; e.g. whether He was born of 2 The following opinionswere shared a Virgin or in the course of nature; ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 79 writers and which I have hitherto had in view, is purely Pharisaic; but we meet also with another type, agreeing with the former up to a certain point but introducing at the same time a new element, half ascetic, half mystical. This foreign element was probably due to Essene influences, derived The doctrines of the Christian school bear so close a resemblance ee to the characteristic features of the Jewish sect as to place their parentage almost beyond a doubt?: and moreover the head- quarters of these heretics—the countries bordering on the Dead Sea—coincide roughly with the head-quarters of their proto- type. This view however does not exclude the working of other influences more directly Gnostic or Oriental: and as this type of Ebionism seems to have passed through different phases at different times, and indeed to have comprehended several species at the same time, such modifications ought probably to be attributed to forces external to Judaism. Having regard then to its probable origin as well as to its typical character, we can hardly do wrong in adopting the name Lssene or Gnostic Ebionism to distinguish it from the common type, Pharisaic Ebionism or Ebionism proper. If Pharisaic Ebionism was a disease inherent in the Church of the Circumcision from the first, Essene Ebionism seems to Its later have been a later infection caught by external contact. In the onginy Palestinian Church: at all events we see no symptoms of it during the Apostolic age. It is a probable conjecture, that after the destruction of Jerusalem the fugitive Christians, living in their retirement in the neighbourhood of the Essene settlements, received large accessions to their numbers from this sect, which thus inoculated the Church with its peculiar views’, It is at least worthy of notice, that in a religious work what supernatural endowments He had and at what time they were be- stowed on Him, whether at His birth or at His baptism, etc. The Ebionites of earlier writers, as Ireneus and Hippolytus, belong to the Pharisaic type; while those of Epipha- nius are strongly Essene. 1 See especially the careful investi- gation of Ritschl p. 204 sq. 2 Ritschl (p. 223), who adopts this view, suggests that this sect, which had stood aloof from the temple-worship and abhorred sacrifices, would be led to but greater literary activity, and zeal- ous prose- lytism. Book of Elchasai. 80 ST PAUL AND THE THREE. emanating from this school of Ebionites the ‘true Gospel’ is reported to have been first propagated ‘after the destruction of the holy place’ This younger form of Judaic Christianity seems soon to have eclipsed the elder. In the account of Ebionism given by Epiphanius the Pharisaic characteristics are almost entirely absorbed in the Essene. This prominence is probably due in some measure to their greater literary capacity, a remarkable feature doubtless derived from the speculative tendencies and studious habits of the Jewish sect” to which they traced their parentage. Besides the Clementine writings which we possess whole, and the book of Elchasai of which a few fragmentary notices are preserved, a vast number of works which, though no longer extant, have yet moulded the traditions of the early Church, emanated from these Christian Essenes. Hence doubt- less are derived the ascetic portraits of James the Lord’s brother in Hegesippus and of Matthew the Apostle in Clement of Alexandria’, to which the account of St Peter in the extant Clementines presents a close parallel *. And with greater literary activity they seem also to have united greater missionary zeal. To this spirit of proselytism we owe much important information relating to the tenets of the sect. One of their missionaries early in the third century brought to Rome a sacred book bearing the name of Elchasai or Elxai, whence also the sect were called Elchasaites. This book fell into the hands of Hippolytus the writer on heresies*, from welcome Christ as the true prophet, i. 37, 64, iii. 61 (in the Syriac, as be- when they saw the fulfilment of His predictions against the temple. In Clem. Hom. iii. 15 great stress is laid on the fulfilment of these prophecies: comp. also Clem. Recogn. i. 37 (especi- ally in the Syriac). 1 Clem. Hom, ii. 17 pera xabalpeow Tod arylou rérov ebay yéduov dAnbes Kpipa StareupOfvas eis éravdpOwow Trav éco- wewy alpécewy: comp. Clem. Recogn. low, p. 86, note 5). See also Epiphan. Haer. xxx. 2, 2 Joseph. B. J. ii. 8. 6. 3 Paedag. ii. 1 (p. 174 Potter), where St Matthew is said to have lived on seeds, berries, and herbs, abstaining from animal food. See Ritschl p. 224. * Clem. Hom. xii. 6, comp. viii. 15, xv. 7. 5 Haer, ix. 13. See a valuable ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 81 whom our knowledge of it is chiefly derived. It professed to have been obtained from the Seres, a Parthian tribe, and to contain a revelation which had been first made in the third year of Trajan (A.D. 100). These Seres hold the same place in the fictions of Essene Ebionism, as the Hyperboreans in Greek legend: they are a mythical race, perfectly pure and therefore perfectly happy, long-lived and free from pain, scrupulous in the performance of all ceremonial rites and thus exempt from the penalties attaching to their neglect’. Elchasai, an Aramaic word signifymg the ‘hidden power’, seems to be the name of the divine messenger who communi- cated the revelation, and probably the title of the book itself: Hippolytus understands it of the person who received the revelation, the founder of the sect. ‘Elchasai, adds this father, ‘delivered it to a certain person called Sobiai.’ Here again he was led astray by his ignorance of Aramaic: Sobiai is not the name of an individual but signifies ‘the sworn members’, to whom alone the revelation was to be communicated and who, paper on the Elchasaites by Ritschl in Niedner’s Zeitschrift iv. p. 573 sq (1853), the substance of which is given also in the second edition of his Alt- katholische Kirche. Hilgenfeld has edited the fragments of the book of plains it Svvamis Kexaduypevyn, Haer. xix. 2. See Ritschl 1. c. p. 581, and Altkath. Kirche p. 245. Other ex- planations of the word, given in Hil- genfeld 1. c. p. 156, in M. Nicolas Fvan- giles Apocryphes p. 108 (1866), and by Elxai in his Novum Testamentum extra Canonem Receptum, fase. 111. p. 153 sq (1866). The use made of it by Epi- phanius is investigated by Lipsius, Quellenkritik des Epiphan. p. 143 sq. 1 Clem. Recogn. viii. 48, ix. 19. Even in classical writers the Seres or Chinese are invested with something of an ideal character: e.g. Plin. vi. 24, Strabo xv. p. 701, Mela iii. 7. But in the passage which most strikingly il- lustrates this fact (Geogr. Graec. Min. u. p. 514, ed. Miiller), the name dis- appears when the text is correctly read (‘se regentes,’ and not ‘Serae gentes’). 2995 Syn. Epiphanius correctly ex- L. Geiger Zeitsch. der Deutsch. Morgenl. Gesellsch, xvi. p. 824 (1864), do not recommend themselves. The name is differently written in Greek, HAyaca:, Edxeoor and HiAéa. The first, which is most correct, is found in Hippolytus, who had seen the book. 8 From Yaw. Accordingly Hippo- lytus (iz. 17) relates that the Elcha- saite missionary Alcibiades made a mystery of his teaching, forbidding it to be divulged except to the faithful; see Ritschl 1. c. p. 589. Ewald however (Gesch. vu. p. 159) derives Sobiai from i.e. . e al ah 2 «e ie. Barriorat. Se SO Chwolson die Ssabier etc. 1. p. 111, 6 Its pre- tended date. Essene Ebionites distin- guished from Pha- risaic, 82 ST PAUL AND THE THREE. perhaps, like their Essene prototypes’, took an oath to divulge it only to the brotherhood. I need not follow this strange but instructive notice farther. Whether this was the sacred book of the whole sect or of a part only, whether the name Elcha- saism is coextensive with Essene Ebionism or not, it is unimportant for my purpose to enquire. The pretended era of this revelation is of more consequence. Whether the book itself was really as early as the reign of Trajan or whether the date was part of the dramatic fiction, it is impossible to decide’. Even in the latter case, it will still show that according to their own tradition this epoch marked some striking development in the opinions or history of the sect; and the date given corre- sponds, it will be remembered, very nearly with the epoch mentioned by Hegesippus as the birthtime of a numerous brood of heresies *. Without attempting to discriminate the different forms of doctrine which this Essene Ebionism comprised in itself—to point out for instance the distinctive features of the book of Elchasai, of the Homilies, and of the Recognitions respectively —it will be sufficient to observe the broad line of demarcation which separates the Essene from the Pharisaic type*. Laying almost equal stress with the others on the observance of the law as an essential part of Christianity, the Essene Ebionites undertook to settle by arbitrary criticism what the law was‘. 1 Joseph. B. J. ii, 8. 7. 2 Hilgenfeld (p. xxi) maintains the early date very positively against Ritschl. Lipsius (1. ¢.) will not pro- nounce an opinion. 3 See above, p. 71 sq. In the pas- sage there quoted Hegesippus speaks of these heresies ‘as living underground, burrowing (pwevdyrwv)’ until the reign of Trajan. This agrees with the state- ment in the Homilies (ii. 17) already referred to (p. 80, note 1) that the true Gospel (i.e. Essene Ebionism) was first ‘secretly propagated’ after the destruction of the temple. The opi- nions which had thus been progressing stealthily now showed a bold front; but whether the actual organization of the sect or sects took place now or at a still later date (after the rebellion of Bar-cochba), it is impossible to say. 4 The chief authorities for the Es- sene Ebionites are Epiphanius (Haer. xix, xxx); Hippolytus (Haer. ix. 13— 17) and Origen (Euseb. H. E. vi. 38), whose accounts refer especially to the book of Elchasai; and the Clementine writings. 5 See Colossians p. 372. ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 83° By this capricious process they eliminated from the Old Testament all elements distasteful to them—the doctrine of sacrifices especially, which was abhorrent to Essene principles —cutting down the law to their own standard and rejecting the prophets wholly. As a compensation, they introduced certain ritual observances of their own, on which they laid great stress; more especially lustral washings and abstinence from wine and from animal food. In their Christology also they differed widely from the Pharisaic Ebionites, maintaining that the Word or Wisdom of God had been incarnate more than once, and that thus there had been more Christs than one, of whom Adam was the first and Jesus the last. Christianity in fact was regarded by them merely as the restoration of the primeval religion: in other words, of pure Mosaism before it had been corrupted by foreign accretions. Thus equally with the Phari- saic Ebionites they denied the Gospel the character of a new covenant; and, as a natural consequence, equally with them they rejected the authority and reviled the name of St Paul’. If the Pharisaic Ebionites are the direct lineal descendants and allied of the ‘false brethren’ who seduced St Paul’s Galatian converts eis from their allegiance, the Essene Ebionites bear a striking bertio family likeness to those other Judaizers against whom he raises his voice as endangering the safety of the Church at Colossae’*. Of the hostility of these Christian Essenes to St Paul, as of their other typical features, a striking example is extant in the - fictitious writings attributed to the Roman bishop Clement. These are preserved in two forms: the Homilies, extant in the Plaien- Greek, apparently an uniform work, which perhaps may be aeeluinigs: assigned to the middle or latter half of the second century; and the Recognitions, a composite production probably later than the Homilies, founded, it would appear, partly on them or some earlier work which was the common basis of both and partly on other documents, and known to us through the Latin 1 See Epiphan. Haer. xxx. 16, 25, the Clementine writings quoted in the Orig. ap. Euseb. 1. c. roy darborodoy ré- text. Neov abere?; besides the passages in 2 See Colossians p. 73 sq. 6—2 Attack on St Paul in the Homi- lies, 84 ST PAUL AND THE THREE. translation of Rufinus, who avowedly altered his original with great freedom’. In the Homilies Simon Magus is the impersonation of manifold heresy, and as such is refuted and condemned by St Peter. Among other false teachers, who are covertly denounced in his person, we cannot fail to recognise the linea- ments of St Paul? Thus St Peter charges his hearers, ‘Shun any apostle, or teacher, or prophet, who does not first compare his preaching with James called the brother of my Lord and entrusted with the care of the Church of the Hebrews in Jerusalem, and has not come to you with witnesses*; lest the wickedness, which contended with the Lord forty days and prevailed not, should afterwards fall upon the earth as lightning 1 The only complete editions of the Homilies are those of Dressel, Clemen- tis Romani quae feruntur Homiliae Viginti (1853), and of Lagarde, Cle- mentina (1865); the end of the 19th and the whole of the 20th homily having been published for the first time by Dressel. The Recognitions, which have been printed several times, may be read most conveniently in Gersdorf’s edition (Lips. 1838). A Syriac Version lately published by Lagarde (Clementis Romani Recogniti- ones Syriace, Lips. et Lond. 1861) is made up partly of the Recognitions (i, ii, iii, iv), and partly of the Homilies (x, xi, xii, xiii, xiv, the xth book being imperfect). The older of the two ex- tant mss of this version was actually written a.p. 411, the year after the death of Rufinus; but the errors of transcription, which it exhibits, show that it was taken from an earlier ms. We are thus carried back to a very re- mote date. The first part, containing the early books of the Recognitions, is extremely valuable, for it enables us to measure the liberties which Rufinus took with his original. An important instance of his arbitrary treatment will be given below, p. 86, note 5. Two abridgments of the Homilies are ex- tant. These have been edited by Dres- sel, Clementinorum Epitomae duae (Lips. 1859), one of them for the first time. Of those monographs which I have read on the relations between the different Clementine writings, the treatise of Uhblhorn, Die Homilien und Recogni- tionen etc. (Gottingen, 1854), seems to me on the whole the most satis- factory. It is dangerous to express an opinion where able critics are so di- vided; and the remarks in the text are not hazarded without some hesitation. Baur, Schliemann, Schwegler, and Uhlhorn, give the priority to the Homilies, Hilgenfeld and Ritschl to the Recognitions, Lehmann partly to the one and partly to the other, while Reuss and others decline to pronounce a decided opinion. 2 See on this subject Schliemann Clement. pp. 96 sq, 5384 sq: comp. Stanley’s Corinthians, p. 366 sq. 3 kal pera wapripwv mporedndrvOdra. It is needless to insert uy} with Schlie- mann and Schwegler: the negative is carried on from the former clause uy mpbrepoy dvTiBdddovra. ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 85 from heaven and send forth a preacher against you, just as he suborned Simon against us, preaching in the name of our Lord and sowing error under the pretence of truth; wherefore He that sent us said, Many shall come to me in sheep's clothing, but within they are ravening wolves (xi. 35). The allusions here to St Paul’s rejection of ‘commendatory letters’ (2 Cor. iii. 1) and to the scene on the way to Damascus (Acts ix. 3) are clear. In another passage St Peter, after explaining that Christ must be preceded by Antichrist, the true prophet by the false, and applying this law to the preaching of Simon and himself, adds: ‘If he had been known (ei éywv@oxero) he would not have been believed, but now being not known (dyvoodpevos) he is wrongly believed...being death, he has been desired as if he were a saviour...and being a deceiver he is heard as if he spake the truth (ii, 17, 18)” The writer seems to be playing with St Paul’s own words, ‘as deceivers and yet true, as unknown and yet well known, as dying and behold we live (2 Cor. vi. 8, 9),’ In a third passage there is a very distinct allusion to the Apostle’s account of the conflict at Antioch in the Galatian Epistle: ‘If then, says St Peter to Simon, ‘our Jesus was made known to thee also and conversed with thee being seen in a vision, He was angry with thee as an adversary, and therefore He spake with thee by visions and dreams, or even by outward revelations. Can any one be made wise unto doctrine by visions? If thou sayest he can, then why did the Teacher abide and converse with us a whole year when we were awake ? And how shall we ever believe thee in this, that He was seen of thee? Nay, how could He have been seen of thee, when thy thoughts are contrary to His teaching? If having been seen .and instructed of Him for a single hour thou wast made an Apostle, then preach His words, expound His teaching, love His Apostles, do not fight against me His companion. For thou hast withstood and opposed me (évavtios avOéoTnKds or), the firm rock, the foundation of the Church. If thou hadst not been an adversary, thou wouldest not have calumniated and reviled my preaching, that I might not be believed when I in the Leiter of Peter, in the Recogni- tions, 86 ST PAUL AND THE THREE. told what I had heard myself in person from the Lord, as though forsooth I were condemned (xcatayvwabévtos) and thou wert highly regarded’. Nay, if thou callest me condemned (xate- yvoopévov), thou accusest God who revealed Christ to me and assailest Him that called me blessed in my revelation” (xvii. 19).’ In this same bitter spirit the writer would rob him of all his missionary triumphs and transfer them to his supposed rival: the Apostleship of the Gentiles, according to the Homi- lies, belongs not to St Paul but to St Peter: Barnabas is no more the companion nor Clement the disciple of St Paul but of St Peter’, Again, in the letter of Peter to James prefixed to the Homilies, emanating from the same school though perhaps not part of the work itself, and if so, furnishing another example of this bitterness of feeling, St Peter is made to denounce those Gentile converts who repudiate his lawful preaching, welcoming a certain lawless and foolish doctrine of the enemy (rod éyOpov avOperrou dvouov twa Kal Prvapodn Sidaccadriav), complaining also that ‘certain persons attempted by crafty interpretations to wrest his words to the abolishing of the law, pretending that this was his opinion, but that he did not openly preach it, with more to the same effect (§ 2). In the Recognitions, probably a later patch-work*, the harsher features of the Essene-Ebionite doctrine, as it appears in the Homilies, are softened down, and these bitter though indirect attacks on St Paul omitted; whether by the original redactor or by his translator Rufinus, it is not easy to say®. 1 The existing text has xal éuoi evdoxtyobvros, for which some have pro- posed to read cat wh eddoxipodvros. It Paul noted elsewhere, Galatians, p. 61. 4 Not much earlier than the middle of the third century; for a portion of is better perhaps to substitute ood or ovdayod for éuod, though neither is a neat emendation. Some change how- ever is absolutely needed. 2 ro6 émi droxadtWe paxaploavrds we, The allusion is to Matt. xvi. 17, paxd- pros ef K.7.X. 3 See also other references to St the treatise de Fato, written probably by a disciple of Bardesanes, is worked up in the later books; unless indeed this isitself borrowed from the Recognitions. 5 In one instance at least the change is due to Rufinus himself. His trans- lation of Clem. Recogn. iii. 61 contains a distinct recognition of St Paul’s ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 87 Thus in the portions corresponding to and probably taken from the Homilies no traces of this hostility remain. But in one passage adapted from another work, probably the ‘ Ascents of James’, it can still be discerned, the allusion having either escaped notice or been spared because it was too covert to give offence. It is there related that a certain enemy (homo quidam inimicus) raised a tumult against the Apostles and with his own hands assaulted James and threw him down from the steps of the temple, ceasing then to maltreat him, only because he believed him to be dead; and that after this the Apostles received secret information from Gamaliel, that this enemy (inimicus ille homo) had been sent by Caiaphas on a mission to Damascus to persecute and slay the disciples, and more especi- ally to take Peter, who was supposed to have fled thither (i. 70, 71)?.. The original work, from which this portion of the Recognitions seems to have been borrowed, was much more and in the violent and unscrupulous in its attacks on St Paul; for in the 720m’ ‘Ascents of James’ Epiphanius read the story, that he was of Gentile parentage, but coming to Jerusalem and wishing to marry the high-priest’s daughter he became a proselyte and was circumcised: then, being disappointed of his hope, he turned round and furiously attacked the Mosaic ordinances (Haer. xxx. 16). Apostleship, ‘Nonum (par) omnium gentium et illius qui mittetur seminare verbum inter gentes.’ (On these cufv- vias of the false and the true see above, p. 85.) But the corresponding pas- sage in the Syriac version (p. 115, 1. 20, Lagarde) is wholly different, and trans- lated back into Greek will run thus: 7 &e evdryn (cufvyla) rod owépparos Tév figaplwy Kal roG edaryyedlov roi mepro- pévou els émurrpogiy, drav expifwOG 7d Gytov kal els rhy éphpwow atrod Ojcouct 7d BdéAvypo: see Dan. ix. 27, and com- pare Clem. Hom. ii. 17 (quoted above, p. 80, note 1). Thus the commenda- tion of St Paul, which is wholly alien to the spirit of these Clementine writ- ings, disappears. 1 Uhlhorn, p. 366. Epiphanius men- tions this book, dvaBaOuol ’IaxwBov, as being in circulation among the Ebion- ites (xxx. 16). It was so called doubt- less as describing the ascents of James up the temple-stairs, whence he ha- rangued the people. The name and the description of its contents in Epi- phanius alike favour the view that it was the original of this portion of the Recognitions. But if so, the redactor of the Recognitions must have taken the same liberties with it as he has done with the Homilies. 2 This passage is substantially the same in the Syriac. 88 ST PAUL AND THE THREE. Astisity of In the earlier part of the third century these Gnostic Ebionites seem to have made some futile efforts to propagate their views. An emissary of the sect, one Alcibiades of Apamea in Syria, appeared in Rome with the pretended revelation of at Rome, Elchasai, and (thinking himself the better juggler of the two, 919-293, says Hippolytus) half succeeded in cajoling the pope Callistus, but was exposed and defeated by the zealous bishop of Portus who tells the story (Haer. ix. 13—17). Not many years after and Cxsa- another emissary, if it was not this same Alcibiades, appears to rea a ra 247? have visited Caesarea, where he was confronted and denounced by Origen’. De ‘This display of activity might lead to an exaggerated of Pales- estimate of the influence of these Judaizing sects. It is not a probable that they left any wide or lasting impression west of Syria. In Palestine itself they would appear to have been confined to certain localities lying for the most part about the Jordan and the Dead Sea. After the reconstitution of the mother Church at Alia Capitolina the Christianity of Palestine seems to have been for the most part neither Ebionite nor Nazarene. It is a significant fact, implying more than appears Paschal at first sight, that in the Paschal controversy which raged in aay the middle and later half of the second century the bishops of Cesarea and Jerusalem, of Tyre and Ptolemais, ranged them- selves, not with the Churches of Asia Minor which regulated their Easter festival by the Jewish passover without regard to the day of the week, but with those of Rome and Alexandria and Gaul which observed another rule; thus avoiding even the semblance of Judaism*®. But we have more direct testimony to the main features of Palestinian doctrine about the middle of the second century in the known opinions of two writers who lived at the time—Justin as representative of the Samaritan, and Hegesippus of the Hebrew Christianity of their day. The 1 Buseb. H. E. vi. 38. This extract 247. See Redepenning Origenes 1. is taken from Origen’s Homily on the pp. 72. 82nd Psalm, which appears to have 2 Euseb. H. E. v. 23, 24. See below, been delivered in Cwsarea about av. yp. 101, note 2. ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 89 former of these declares himself distinctly against the two characteristic tenets of Ebionism. Against their humanitarian views he expressly argues, maintaining the divinity of Christ’. On the universal obligation of the law he declares, not only that those who maintain this opinion are wrong, but that he himself will hold no communion with them, for he doubts whether they can be saved®. If, as an apologist for the Gospel against Gentile and Jew, he is precluded by the nature of his writings from quoting St Paul®, whose name would be received by the one with indifference and by the other with hatred, he still shows by his manner of citing and applying the Old Testament that he is not unfamiliar with this Apostle’s writings‘. The testimony of Hegesippus is still more im- portant, for his extant fragments prove him to have been a thorough Hebrew in all his thoughts and feelings. This writer made a journey to Rome, calling on the way at Corinth among other places; he expresses himself entirely satisfied with the teaching of the Churches which he thus visited ; ‘Under each successive bishop,’ he says, ‘and in each city it is so as the law and the prophets and the Lord preach’.’ Was the doctrine of 1 Dial. ec. 48, 127. 2 Dial. cc. 47, 48. 3 See Westcott’s argument (Canon p. 117 sq) drawn from the usage of other apologists, Tertullian for in- stance, who does not quote even the Gospels in his Apology. 4 See Galatians, p. 60, and the notes on Gal. iii. 28, iv. 27. 5 In Euseb. H. E. iv. 22. The ex- tract ends, yevduevos 5¢ év ‘Pwun Siad0- xiv éroncdpny péxpis’Avixjrov ob did- xovos qv EXevOepos’ kal mapa ’Avixyrou Siadéxerar Zwrhp, wed’ dv ’HNevGepos * ev éxdorn 6€ diadoxy Kal ev éxdory mode otras exer ws 6 vouos Kypirre Kai ot mpopyra: kal 6 Képios. If the text be correct, Siadox hv érrornoduny must mean ‘I drew up a list or an account of the successive bishops’ (see Pearson in Routh 1. p. 268 sq); and in this case Hegesippus would seem to be referring to some earlier work or earlier portion of this work, which he now supple- ments. Possibly however the conjec- tural reading diarpiBhy érornodpnv, ‘1 continued to reside,’ may be correct: but the translation of Rufinus, ‘per- mansi inibi (i.e. Romae) donec Aniceto Soter et Soteri successit Eleutherus,’ is of little or no weight on this side; for he constantly uses his fluency in Latin to gloze over his imperfect knowledge of Greek, and the evasion of a real difficulty is with him the rule rather than the exception. If we re- tain diadox4v, the words of Hegesippus would still seem to imply that he left Rome during the episcopate of Anice- tus. Eusebius indeed (H. E. iv. 11) infers, apparently from this passage, that he remained there till Eleutherus Justin. Hegesip- pus, not an Ebionite. 90 ST PAUL AND THE THREE. the whole Christian world at this time (a4.D. 150) Ebionite, or was the doctrine of Hegesippus Catholic? There is no other alternative. We happen to possess information which leaves no doubt as to the true answer. Eusebius speaks of Hegesippus as ‘having recorded the unerring tradition of the apostolic preaching’ (H. #. iv. 8); and classes him with Dionysius of Corinth, Melito, Irenzeus, and others, as one of those in whose writings ‘the orthodoxy of sound faith derived from the apostolic tradition had been handed down?’ In this Eusebius could not have been mistaken, for he himself states that Hegesippus ‘left the fullest record of his own opinions in five books of memoirs’ which were in his hands (H. #. iv. 22). It is surely a bold effort of recent criticism in the face of these plain facts to set down Hegesippus as an Ebionite and to infer thence that a great part of Christendom was Ebionite also. True, this writer gives a traditional account of St James which represents him as a severe and rigorous ascetic’; but between this stern view of life and Ebionite doctrine the interval may be wide enough ; and on this showing how many fathers of the Church, Jerome and Basil for instance in the fourth century, Bernard and Dominic and Francis of Assisi in later ages, must plead guilty of Ebionism. True, he used the Hebrew Gospel; but what authority he attributed to it, or whether it was otherwise than orthodox, does not appear. True also, he appeals in a passage already quoted to the authority of ‘the law and the became bishop; and Jerome (de Vir. Ill. 22), as usual, repeats Eusebius, This inference, though intelligible, seems hardly correct; but it shows almost conclusively that Eusebius did not read duarpiBjv. The early Syriac translator of Eusebius (see above, p. 38, note 2) certainly read Siadoxyy. The dates of the accession of the suc- cessive bishops as determined by Lip- sius are, Pius 141 (at the latest), Anicetus 154156, Soter 166 or 167, Eleutherus 174 or 175, Victor 189, Zephyrinus 198 or 199, Callistus 217, Urbanus 222; Chron. der Rom. Bisch. p. 263, But there is considerable variation in the authorities, the ac- cession of Anicetus being placed by some as early as a.p. 150; see the lists in Clinton’s Fasti Romani u. p. 534 sq. 1H, E. iv. 21 dv kal els huas rijs GrocToNKhs twapaddcews % THs vyods mlorews &yypaos KarhdOev dpOodotla. 2 Huseb. H. E. ii. 23. See the ac- count of St James below. ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 91 prophets and the Lord”; but this is a natural equivalent for ‘the Old and New Testament, and corresponding expressions would not appear out of place even in our own age. True lastly, he condemns the use made of the text, ‘Eye hath not seen nor ear heard’ etc.?, as contradicting our Lord’s words, 1 See the passage quoted above, p. 89, note 5. For the inferences of the Tiibingen school see Schwegler Nacha- post. Zeitalter 1. p. 355, Baur Christen- thum etc. p. 78. A parallel instance will serve the purpose better than much argument. In a poem by the late Prof. Selwyn (Winfrid, afterwards call- ed Boniface, Camb. 1864) the hero is spoken of as ‘ Printing heaven’s mes- sage deeper in his soul, By reading holy writ, Prophet and Law, And four- fold Gospel.’ Here, as in Hegesippus, the law is mentioned and ‘the Apo- stle’ is not. Yet who would say that this passage savours of Ebionism? Comp. Irengzus Haer. ii, 30. 6 ‘ Relin- quentes eloquia Domini et Moysen et reliquos prophetas,’ and again in Spicil. Solesm. 1. p. 3, and the Clementine Epistles to Virgins i. 12 ‘ Sicut ex lege ac prophetis et a Domino nostro Jesu Christo didicimus’ (Westcott Canon p. 187, 6th ed.). So too Apost. Const. ii. 39 wera Thy dvdyvwow Tob vépov Kal Tay . mpopyrav xat rod ebaryyediov, Hippol. Haer. viii. 19 wdeidv re 5¢ adrav...pe- Hadnxévar 7 x vouou Kal mpopyTrav Kat ebayyerlwv. 2 The fragment to which I refer is preserved in an extract from Stepha- nus Gobarus given in Photius Bidl. 232. After quoting the words ra qrot- pacpéva rols duxaious dyaGa ore 6pOadyes eldev otre ofs jxovcey ottre emi Kap- Slay dvO@pdrov dvéBn, Stephanus pro- ceeds, ‘Hyjourmos pévro, dpyaibs re dvhp kai drooroNKds, vy Te Téumry TOV brouyynpdrwv, obx of6’ 6 Tt Kal radur, barny perv elpjobar Tatra, Aéyet kal kara- petdecOar rods raira gpayévous trav TE Belwy ypapay cat rod Kuplouv A¢yorros Maxdproe of dpOadpol Sud x.7.d. It is not surprising that this writer, who lived when Gnosticism had passed out of memory, should be puzzled to ‘know what had come to Hegesip- pus’; but modern crities ought not to have gone astray. Hegesippus can hardly be objecting to the passage itself, which is probably a quotation from Is. lxiv. 4. His objection there- fore must be to some application of it. -But whose application? Even had there been no direct evidence, it might have been gathered from the argument which follows that he re- ferred to the esoteric teaching of the Gnostics; but the lately discovered treatise of Hippolytus establishes the fact that it was a favourite text of these heretics, being introduced into the form of initiation: see v. 24, 26, 27 (of Justin the Gnostic), vi. 24 (of Valentinus). This is the opinion of Lechler p. 463, Ritschl p. 267, West- cott Canon pp. 208, 284, Bunsen Hip- polytus 1. p. 132 (2nd ed.), and Hilgen- feld Apost. Viiter p. 102, but otherwise Zeitschr. f. Wiss. Theol. 1876, p. 203 sq. Yet Baur (Christenthum p. 77, Paulus p.221), and Schwegler (1. p.352), forcing an unnatural meaning on the words, contend that Hegesippus is directly denying St Paul’s claim to a revelation and asserting that this privilege belongs only to those who have seen and heard Christ in the flesh. It is worth noticing that the same quotation, ‘eye hath not seen etc.,’ is found in the “Epistle of Clement (c. 34) [where see note]; and this epistle was referred to by Hegesippus, as the notice of Euse- bius seems to imply (H. E. iv. 22), Ebionism not preva- lent in other Churches. 92 ST PAUL AND THE THREE. ‘Blessed are your eyes for ye see, etc.’; but he is here protesting against its perverted application by the Gnostics, who em- ployed it of the initiated few, and whom elsewhere he severely denounces; and it is a mere accident that the words are quoted also by St Paul (1 Cor. ii. 9). Many of the facts mentioned point him out as a Hebrew, but not one brands him as an Ebionite. The decisive evidence on the other side is fatal to this inference. If Hegesippus may be taken as a type of the Hebrew Church in his day, then the doctrine of that Church was Catholic. And if the Palestinian Churches of the second century held Catholic doctrine, we shall see little or no reason to fix the charge of Ebionism on other communities farther removed from the focus of Judaic influences. Here and there indeed Judaism seems to have made a desperate struggle, but only to sustain a signal defeat. At Antioch this conflict began earlier and probably continued longer than elsewhere; yet the names of her bishops Ignatius, Theophilus, and Serapion vouch for the doctrine and practice of the Antiochene Church in the second century. In Asia Minor the influence first of St Paul and then of St John must have been fatal to the ascendancy of Ebionism. A disproportionate share indeed of the faint light which glimmers over the Church of the second century is concen- trated on this region: and the notices, though occasional and fragmentary, are sufficient to establish this general fact. The same is true with regard to Greece: similar influences were at work and with similar results. The Churches of Gaul took their colour from Asia Minor, which furnished their greatest teachers: Irenzeus bears witness to the Catholicity of their faith, In Alexandria, when at length the curtain rises, Christianity is seen enthroned between Greek philosophy and Gnostic speculation, while Judaism is far in the background. The infancy of the African Church is wrapt in hopeless dark- ness: but when she too emerges from her obscurity, she comes with approval. This very mention of evidence that Hegesippus recognised Clement’s epistle isin itselfasecondary the authority of St Paul. ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 93 forward in no uncertain attitude, with no deep scars as of a recent conflict, offering neither a mutilated canon nor a dwarfed theology. The African Bible, as it appears in the old Latin version, contains all the books which were received without dispute for two centuries after. The African theology, as represented by Tertullian, in no way falls short of the standard of Catholic doctrine maintained in other parts of Christendom. But the Church of the metropolis demands special attention. The At Rome, if anywhere, we should expect to see very distinct oe ” traces of these successive phenomena, which are supposed to have extended throughout or almost throughout the Christian Church—first, the supremacy of Ebionism—then the conflict of the Judaic with the Pauline Gospel—lastly, towards the close of the second century, the triumph of a modified Paulinism and the consequent birth of Catholic Christianity’. Yet, even if this were the history of Catholicity at Rome, it would still be an unfounded assumption to extend the phenomenon to other parts of Christendom. Rome had not yet learnt to dictate to the Church at large. At this early period she appears for the most part unstable and pliant, the easy prey of designing or enthusiastic adventurers in theology, not the originator of a policy and a creed of her own. The prerogative of Christian doctrine and practice rests hitherto with the Churches of Antioch and Asia Minor. But the evidence lends no countenance to the idea that the tendencies of the Roman Church during this period were towards Ebionism. Her early history indeed is wrapt in Heretics obscurity. If the veil were raised, the spectacle would probably {hore, as not be very edifying, but there is no reason to imagine that Judaism was her characteristic taint. As late heathen Rome 1 The episcopate of Victor (about A.D. 190—200) is fixed by the Tiibin- gen critics (see Schwegler 11. p. 206 sq) as the epoch of the antijudaic revolu- tion in the Roman Church. This date follows necessarily from their assump- tion that Hegesippus was an Ebionite ; for his approval of this Church extends to the episcopate of Hleutherus, the immediate predecessor of Victor; see above, p. 89, note 5. They suppose however that the current had been setting in this direction some time before. Secession of Juda- izers. St Peter in Rome. 94 ST PAUL AND THE THREE. had been the sink of all Pagan superstitions, so early Christian Rome was the meeting-point of all heretical creeds and philo- sophies. If the presence of Simon Magus in the metropolis be not a historical fact, it is still a carrying out of the typical character with which he is invested in early tradition, as the father of heresy. Most of the great heresiarchs—among others Valentinus, Marcion, Praxeas, Theodotus, Sabellius—taught in Rome. Ebionism alone would not be idle, where all other heresies were active. But the great battle with this form of error seems to have been fought out at an early date, in the lifetime of the Apostles themselves and in the age immediately following. The last notice of the Roman Church in the Apostolic ‘writings seems to point to two separate communities, a Juda- izing Church and a Pauline Church. The arrival of the Gentile Apostle in the metropolis, it would appear, was the ‘signal for the separation of the Judaizers, who had hitherto associated with their Gentile brethren coldly and distrustfully. The presence of St Paul must have vastly strengthened the numbers and influence of the more liberal and Catholic party ; while the Judaizers provoked by rivalry redoubled their efforts, that in making converts to the Gospel they might also gain proselytes to the law’. Thus ‘in every way Christ was preached.’ If St Peter ever visited Rome, it must have been at a later date than these notices. Of this visit, far from improbable in itself, there is fair if not conclusive evidence; and once admitted, we may reasonably assume that important conse- quences flowed from it. Where all is obscurity, conjecture on one side is fairly answered by conjecture on the other. We may venture therefore to suggest this, as a not unlikely result of the presence of both Apostles in Rome. As they had done before in the world at large, so they would agree to do now in 1 The inferences in the text are the circumcision) are my fellow-work- drawn from Phil. i. 15—18, compared _ ers etc.’ with Col. iv. 11 ‘These only (ie. of ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 95 the metropolis: they would exchange the right hand of fellow- ship, devoting themselves the one more especially to the Jewish, the other to the Gentile converts. Christian Rome was large A twofold enough to admit two communities or two sections in one Chand: community, until the time was ripe for their more complete amalgamation. Thus either as separate bodies with separate governments, or as a confederation of distinct interests repre- sented each by their own officers in a common presbytery, we may suppose that the Jewish and Gentile brotherhoods at Rome were organized by the combined action of the two Apostles. This fact possibly underlies the tradition that St Peter and St Paul were joint founders of the Roman Church: and it may explain the discrepancies in the lists of the early bishops, which perhaps point to a double succession. At all events, the presence of the two Apostles must have tended to tone down antipathies and to draw parties closer together. The Judaizers seeing that the Apostle of the Circumcision, whose name they had venerated at a distance but whose principles they had hitherto imperfectly understood, was associating on terms of equality with the ‘hated one,’ the subverter of the law, would be led to follow his example slowly and suspiciously: and advances on the one side would be met eagerly by advances on the other. Hence at the close of the first century we see no ante more traces of a twofold Church. The work of the Apostles, ¢ ae now withdrawn from the scene, has passed into the hands of no unworthy disciple. The liberal and catholic spirit of Clement eminently fitted him for the task of conciliation; and he appears as the first bishop or presiding elder of the one Roman Church. This amalgamation however could not be effected without some opposition ; the extreme Judaizers must necessarily have been embittered and alienated: and, if a little later we discern traces of Ebionite sectarianism in Rome, this is not only no surprise, but the most natural consequence of a severe but short-lived struggle. The Epistle to the Corinthians written by Clement in the Clement's name of the Roman Church cannot well be placed after the ia A.D. 95? Testi- mony of Ignatius. A.D. 110? 96 ST PAUL AND THE THREE. close of the first century and may possibly date some years earlier. It is not unreasonable to regard this as a typical document, reflecting the comprehensive principles and large sympathies which had been impressed upon the united Church of Rome, in great measure perhaps by the influence of the distinguished writer. There is no early Christian writing which combines more fully than this the distinctive features of all the Apostolic Epistles, now asserting the su- premacy of faith with St Paul, now urging the necessity of works with St James, at one time echoing the language of St Peter, at another repeating the very words of the Epistle to the Hebrews? Not without some show of truth, the au- thority of Clement was claimed in after generations for writings of very different tendencies. Belonging to no party, he seemed to belong to all. Not many years after this Epistle was written, Ignatius now on his way to martyrdom addresses a letter to the Roman brethren. It contains no indications of any division in the Church of the metropolis or of the prevalence of Ebionite views among his readers. On the contrary, he lavishes epithets of praise on them in the opening salutation; and throughout the letter there is not the faintest shadow of blame. His only fear is that they may be too kind to him and deprive him of the honour of martyrdom by their intercessions. To the Ephesians, and even to Polycarp, he offers words of advice and warning ; but to the Romans he utters only the language of joyful satisfaction®. But in a Church thus formed we might expect to meet with and spirit with every commandment of Christ, filled with the grace of God 1 See Westcott History of the Canon p. 24 sq. 2 This is the case, even though we should accept only the parts preserved in the Syriac as genuine; but the Greek (Vossian) Epistles are still more explicit. They distinctly acquit the Romans of any participation in heresy ; speaking of them as ‘united in flesh inseparably, and strained clear of every foreign colour (dzodwwAtopévos amd mavrds dddorplov xpdyaros).’ At the same time the writer appears in other passages as a stubborn opponent of Judaism, Magn. 8, 10, Philad. 6. — ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 97 other and narrower types of doctrine than the Epistle of Clement exhibits. Traditional principles and habits of thought would still linger on, modified indeed but not wholly transformed by the predominance of a Catholicity which comprehended all elements in due proportion. One such type is represented by an extant work which emanated from the Roman Church during the first half of the second century’. In its general tone the Shepherd of Hermas confessedly Shephard Hermas differs from the Epistle of Clement; but on the other hand the 5 oe Bbion- writer was certainly no Ebionite, as he has been sometimes represented. If he dwells almost exclusively on works, he yet states that the ‘elect of God will be saved through faith®’: if c.a.. 145. he rarely quotes the New Testament, his references to the Old Testament are still fainter and scantier: if he speaks seldom of our Lord and never mentions Him by name, he yet asserts that the Son of God was present with His Father in counsel at the founding of creation’, and holds that the world is ‘sus- tained by Him*’ Such expressions no Ebionite could have used. Of all the New Testament writings the Shepherd most ‘ resembles in tone the Epistle of St James, whose language it _ sometimes reflects: but the teaching of St James appears here in an exaggerated and perverted form. The author lays great stress on works, and so far he copies his model: but his inter- pretation of works is often formal and ritualistic, and in one passage he even states the doctrine of supererogation®, Whether the tone of this writing is to be ascribed to the traditional 1 On the date of the Shepherd see xricews a’rod* Galatians, p. 99, note 3. Tw. Ota TooTo Kal maatds éo- ‘H 68 why Oa rh Kauvh, pnyi, KUpre; 2 Vis. iii. 8: comp. Mand. viii. 3 Sim. ix. 12. The whole passage is striking: Uprov, pyul, révrwr, Kv- pte, TobTS por EnAwoov: 4H wérpa Kal 7 midn tls éorw; ‘H wérpa, dnoly, atrn kal} 7UAy 6 vlds Too Scot éorl. Ilas, dnpl, bpie, y wérpa mada éorw, h dé mtAn Kawh; “Axove, pyol, kal cine, dotvere. 6 ev lds Tol Oeod rdons Tis xrlcews adrod mpoyevéorepés ori, wore cbpuBovdov abrov yevérbat To Tarp Tis L. "Ort, oyolv, ew éoxdrwy Trav hpepav Tis ouvredelas pavepds éyévero, 5a Todro kawwh éyévero 4 wUdn, va ot péddovTes ocwfecbar dv adris els Thy Bacidelay elo- Adwot Toh Geos. 4 Sim. ix. 14 7d soya Tod viod rod Ocod péya éorl Kal adxwpyrov Kal Tov kécpov bdov Bacrage. On the whole subject see Dorner Lehre ete. 1. p. 186 sq, Westcott Canon p. 202 sq. 5 Sim. v. 3: comp. Mand. iv. 4. 7 98 ST PAUL AND THE THREE. feelings of Judaism yet lingering in the Church, or to the influence of a Judaic section still tolerated, or to the constitu- tion of the author's own mind, it is impossible to say. The view of Christian ethics here presented deviates considerably, it is true, from St Paul’s teaching; but the deviation is the same in kind and not greater in degree than marks a vast number of medieval writings, and may in fact be said to cha- racterize more or less distinctly the whole medieval Church. Thus it affords no ground for the charge of Ebionism. Hermas speaks of law indeed, as St James speaks of it; yet by law he means not the Mosaic ordinances but the rule introduced by Christ. On the other hand his very silence is eloquent. There is not a word in favour of Judaic observances properly so called, not a word of denunciation direct or indirect against either the doctrine or the person of St Paul or his disciples. In this respect the Shepherd presents a marked contrast to the truly Ebionite work, which must be taken next in order. Roman The Clementine writings have been assigned with great origin of ysis ore the Cle. confidence by most recent critics of ability to a Roman author- vee ship’. Of the truth of this view I am very far from convinced. ed, The great argument—indeed almost the only argument—in its favour is the fact that the plot of the romance turns upon the wanderings of this illustrious bishop of Rome, who is at once the narrator and the hero of the story. But the fame of Clement reached far beyond the limits of his own jurisdiction. To him, we are specially told by a contemporary writer, was assigned the task of corresponding with foreign churches*. His rank and position, his acknowledged wisdom and piety, would point him out as the best typical representative of the Gentile converts: and an Ebionite writer, designing by a religious fiction to impress his views on Gentile Christendom, would 1 So for instance Baur, Schliemann, Clementina.’ Uhlhorn is almost alone Ritschl, Hilgenfeld: and this view is among recent critics in raising his voice adopted by Dean Milman Latin Chris- against this general verdict: p, 370 sq. tianity 1. p. 31, who speaks of it as ‘the 2 Hermas Vis, ii. 4 wéupe ody KAj- unanimous opinion of those who in yas els rds tkw médes* éxelvw yap ém- later days have criticallyexamined the rérparra.. ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 99 naturally single out Clement for his hero, and by his example enforce the duty of obedience to the Church of the Circum- cision, as the prerogative Church and the true standard of orthodoxy. At all events it is to be noticed that, beyond the use made of Clement’s name, these writings do not betray any familiarity with or make any reference to the Roman Church in particular: On the contrary, the scenes are all laid in the East; and the supreme arbiter, the ultimate referee in all that relates to Christian doctrine and practice, is not Peter, the Clementine Apostle of the Gentiles, the reputed founder of the Roman Church, but James the Lord’s brother, the bishop of bishops, the ruler of the mother Church of the Circumcision. If the Roman origin of these works is more than doubtful, the time of writing also is open to much question. The dates — assigned to the Homilies by the ablest critics range over the whole of the second century, and some place them even later. If the Roman authorship be abandoned, many reasons for a very early date will fall to the ground also. Whenever they Their im- were written, the Homilies are among the most interesting and Pee important of early Christian writings; but they have no right ated. to the place assigned them in the system of a modern critical school, as the missing link between the Judaism of the Christian era and the Catholicism of the close of the second century, as representing in fact the phase of Christianity taught at Rome and generally throughout the Church during the early ages. The very complexion of the writer’s opinions is such, that they can hardly have been maintained by any large and important community, at least in the West. Had they presented a purer bela form of Judaism, founded on the Old Testament Scriptures, a sent the doctrine 1 The Epistle of Clement to James, prefixed to the work, is an exception ; for it gives an elaborate account of the writer’s appointment by St Peter as his successor. The purpose of this let- ter, which is to glorify the see of Rome, shows that it was no part of and proba- bly is later than the Homilies them- selves, If the Homilies had really been writ- ten by a Roman Christian, the slight and incidental mention of St Peter’s so- journ in Rome (i. 16, comp. Recogn.i.74) would have thrown considerable doubt on the fact. But if they emanated from the East, from Syria for instance, no explanation of this silence is needed. 7—2 of the Roman Church. Notice in Hippoly- tus. No Ebion- ite lean- ings in the Roman Church. 100 ST PAUL AND THE THREE. more plausible case might have been made out. But the theology of the Clementines does not lie in a direct line between the Old Testament and Catholic Christianity: it deviates equally from the one and the other. In its rejection of half the Mosaic law and much more than half of the Old Testament, and in its doctrine of successive avatars of the Christ, it must have been as repugnant to the religious sentiments of a Jew trained in the school of Hillel, as it could possibly be to a disciple of St Paul in the first century or to a Catholic Christian in the third. Moreover the tone of the writer is not at all the tone of one who addresses a sympathetic audience. His attacks on St Paul are covert and indirect; he makes St Peter complain that he has been misrepresented and libelled. Altogether there is an air of deprecation and apology in the Homilies. If they were really written by a Roman Christian, they cannot represent the main body of the Church, but must have emanated from one of the many heresies with which the metropolis swarmed in the second century, when all promulgators of new doctrine gathered there, as the largest and therefore the most favourable market for their spiritual wares. There is another reason also for thinking that this Gnostic Ebionism cannot have obtained any wide or lasting influence in the Church of Rome. During the episcopate of Callistus (a.D. 219—223) a heretical teacher appears in the metropolis, pro- mulgating Elchasaite doctrines substantially, though not identi- cally, the same with the creed of the Clementines, and at first seerns likely to attain some measure of success, but is denounced and foiled by Hippolytus. It is clear that this learned writer on heresies regarded the Elchasaite doctrine as a novelty, against which therefore it was the more necessary to warn the faithful Christian. If the Ebionism of the Clementines had ever prevailed at Rome, it had passed into oblivion when Hippolytus wrote. The few notices of the Roman Church in the second century point to other than Ebionite leanings. In their ecclesiastical ordinances the Romans seem anxious to separate themselves as ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 101 widely as possible from Jewish practices. Thus they extended the Friday’s fast over the Saturday, showing thereby a marked disregard of the sabbatical festival’. Thus again they observed Easter on a different day from the Jewish passover; and so zealous were they in favour of their own traditional usage in this respect, that in the Paschal controversy their bishop Victor Evidence resorted to the extreme measure of renouncing communion with end those churches which differed from it. This controversy affords *Ve"Y- a valuable testimony to the Catholicity of Christianity at Rome in another way. It is clear that the churches ranged on diffe- rent sides on this question of ritual are nevertheless substan- tially agreed on all important points of doctrine and practice. This fact appears when Anicetus of Rome permits Polycarp of Smyrna, who had visited the metropolis in order to settle some disputed points and had failed in arranging the Paschal question, to celebrate the eucharist in his stead. It is distinctly stated by Irenzeus when he remonstrates with Victor for disturbing In its creed the Roman Church was one with the Gallic and Asiatic Churches; and that this creed was not Ebionite, the names of Polycarp and Irenzeus are guarantees. Nor is it only in the Paschal controversy that the Catholicity of the Romans may be inferred from their intercourse with other Christian communities. the peace of the Church by insisting on non-essentials®. 1 Tertull. de Jejun. 14; see Neander Ch. Hist. 1. p. 410 (Bohn). ¥ On the Paschal controversy see Euseb. H. E.v. 23—25. Polycrates on behalf of the Asiatic Churches claimed the sanction of St John; and there seems no reason to doubt the validity of this claim. On the other hand a different rule had been observed in the Roman Church at least as far back as the episcopate of Xystus (about 120— 129) and perhaps earlier. It seems probable then that the Easter festival had been established independently by the Romans and those who followed the Roman practice. Thus in the first instance the difference of usage was no index of Judaic or antijudaic leanings: but when once attention was called to its existence, and it became a matter of controversy, the observance of the Christian anniversary on the same day with the Jewish festival would afford a handle for the charge of Judaism ; and where it was a matter of policy or of principle to stand clear of any sym- pathy with Jewish customs (as for in- stance in Palestine after the collision of the Jews with the Romans), the Roman usage would be adopted in preference to the Asiatic. 3 In Euseb. H. E. v. 24 7 diadwvla Tis vyorelas thy dudvoray Tis mlorews cwiocrnow, and the whole extract. Other communi- cations with foreign churches. Internal condition of the Roman Church. 102 ST PAUL AND THE THREE. The remains of ecclesiastical literature, though sparse and frag- mentary, are yet sufficient to reveal a wide network of inter- communication between the churches of the second century ; and herein Rome naturally holds a central position. The visit of Hegesippus to the metropolis has been mentioned already. Not very long after we find Dionysius bishop of Corinth, whose ‘orthodoxy’ is praised by Eusebius, among other letters addressed to foreign churches, writing also to the Romans in terms of cordial sympathy and respect. On the Catholicity of the African Church I have already remarked: and the African Church was a daughter of the Roman, from whom therefore it may be assumed she derived her doctrine’. The gleams of light which break in upon the internal history of the Roman Church at the close of the second and beginning of the third century exhibit her assailed by rival heresies, com- promised by the weakness and worldliness of her rulers, altogether © distracted and unsteady, but in no way Ebionite. One bishop, whose name is not given, first dallies with the fanatical spiritual- ism of Montanus; then suddenly turning round, surrenders himself to the patripassian speculations of Praxeas? Later than this two successive bishops, Zephyrinus and Callistus, are stated, by no friendly critic indeed but yet a contemporary writer, the one from stupidity and avarice, the other from craft and ambition, to have listened favourably to the heresies of Noetus and Sabellius*, It was at this point in her history that the Church of Rome was surprised by the novel doctrines of the Elchasaite teacher, whom I have already mentioned more than once. But no one would maintain that at this 1 In Euseb. H. E. iv. 23. 2 Tertull. de Praescr. 36. Cyprian of Rome to revoke his concessions to Montanism, ‘Ita duo negotia diaboli Epist. 48 (ed. Fell) writing to Cornelius speaks of Rome as ‘Heclesiae catholicae radicem et matricem,’ in reference to the African Churches. 3 Tertull. adv. Prax. 1. Tertullian, now 2 Montanist, writes of Praxeas who had persuaded thisnameless bishop Praxeas Romae procuravit, prophetiam expulit et haeresim intulit, paracletum fugavit et patrem crucifixit.’ For spe- culations as to the name of this bishop see Wordsworth’s Hippolytus pp. 131, 132. 4 Hippol. Haer. ix. 7 sq. ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 103 late date Ebionism predominated either at Rome or in Christen- dom generally. Ebionites indeed there were at this time and very much later. Even at the close of the fourth century, they seem to have mustered in considerable numbers in the east of Palestine, and were scattered through the great cities of the empire. But their existence was not prolonged much later. About the middle of the fifth century they had almost disappeared’. They would gradually be absorbed either into the Catholic Church or into the Jewish synagogue: into the latter probably, for their attachment to the law seems all along to have been stronger than their attachment to Christ. Thus then a comprehensive survey of the Church in the second century seems to reveal a substantial unity of doctrine and a general recognition of Jewish and Gentile Apostles alike throughout the greater part of Christendom. At the same time it could hardly happen, that the influence of both should be equally felt or the authority of both estimated alike in all branches of the Church. St Paul and the Twelve had by mutual consent occupied distinct spheres of labour; and this distribution of provinces must necessarily have produced some effect on the subsequent history of the Church? The com- munities founded by St Paul would collect and preserve the letters of their founder with special care; while the brotherhoods evangelized by the Apostles of the Circumcision would attribute a superior, if not an exclusive, value to the writings of these ‘pillars’ of the Church. It would therefore be no great surprise if we should find that in individual writers of the second century and in different parts of the early Church, the Epistles of St Paul on the one hand, the Apocalypse of St John or the letter of St James on the other, were seldom or never appealed to as authorities*, The equable circulation of all the apostolic writings was necessarily the work of time. 1 Theodoret, Haer. Fab. ii. 11, men- 2 Gal. ii. 9; see Westcott’s History tions the Ebionites and the Elchasaites of the Canon p. 78 sq. among those of whom ovdé Bpaxd dé- 3 Many false inferences however, pewe Nelavov. affecting the history of the Canonical Ebionism dies out. Use of the foregoing account, St Pavn. His por- trait in the Acts. Its truth question- ed, 104 ST PAUL AND THE THREE. eee foregoing account of the conflict of the Church with Judaism has been necessarily imperfect, and in some points conjectural; but it will prepare the way for a more correct estimate of the relations between St Paul and the leading Apostles of the Circumcision. We shall be in a position to view these relations no longer as an isolated chapter in history, but in connexion with events before and after: and we shall be furnished also with means of estimating the value of later traditional accounts of these first preachers of the Gospel. St Pav himself is so clearly reflected in his own writings, that a distorted image of his life and doctrine would seem to be due only to defective vision. Yet our first impressions require to be corrected or rather supplemented by an after considera- tion. Seemg him chiefly as the champion of Gentile liberty, the constant antagonist of Jew and Judaizer, we are apt to forget that his character has another side also. By birth and education he was a Hebrew of the Hebrews: and the traditions and feelings of his race held him in honourable captivity to the very last. Of this fact the narrative of the Acts affords many striking examples. It exhibits him associating with the Apostles of the Circumcision on terms of mutual respect and love, celebrating the festivals and observing the rites of his countrymen, every- where giving the precedence to the Jew over the Gentile. But the character of the witness has been called in question. This narrative, it is said, is neither contemporary nor trust- worthy. It was written long after the events recorded, with writings, have been drawn from the silence of Eusebius, which has been entirely misapprehended: see Con- temporary Review, January, 1875, p. 169 sq, Colossians p. 52 sq. The phenomenon exhibited in the Ancient Syriac Documents (edited by Cureton, 1864) is remarkable. Though they refer more than once to the Acts of the Apostles (pp. 15, 27, 35) as the work of St Luke and as possessing canonical authority, and though they allude incidentally to St Paul’s labours (pp. 35, 61, 62), there is yet no refer- ence to the epistles of this Apostle, where the omission cannot have been accidental (p. 32), and the most im- portant churches founded by him, as Ephesus, Thessalonica, Corinth, etc., are stated to have received ‘the Apostles’ Hand of Priesthood from John the Evangelist’ (p. 34). ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 105 the definite purpose of uniting the two parties in the Church. Thus the incidents are forged or wrested to subserve the purpose of the writer. It was part of his plan to represent St Peter and St Paul as living on friendly terms, in order to reconcile the Petrine and Pauline factions. The Acts of the Apostles in the multiplicity and variety of its details probably affords greater means of testing its general character for truth than any other ancient narrative in existence ; and in my opinion it satisfies the tests fully. But this is not the place for such an investigation. Neither shall I start from the assumption that it has any historical value. Taking common ground with those whose views I am considering, I shall draw my proofs from St Paul’s Epistles alone in the first instance, nor from all of these, but from such only as are allowed even by the extreme critics of the Tiibingen school to be genuine, the ne iy Epistles to the Romans, Corinthians, and Galatians. It so his own happens that they are the most important for my purpose. If mnSIBE: they contain the severest denunciations of the Judaizers, if they display the most uncompromising antagonism to Judaism, they also exhibit more strongly than any others St Paul’s sympathies with his fellow-countrymen. . These then are the facts for which we have St Paul’s direct personal testimony in the epistles allowed by all to be genuine. (1) The position of the Jews. He assigns to them the prerogative (1) Posi- : = iis f thi over the Gentiles; a prior right to the privileges of the Gospel, ws involving a prior reward if they are accepted and, according to an universal rule in things spiritual, a prior retribution if they are spurned (Rom. i. 16, ii. 9, 10). In the same spirit he declares that the advantage is on the side of the Jew, and that this advantage is ‘much every way’ (Rom. iii. 1, 2). (2) His (2) His affection for them. 1 These four epistles alone were accepted as genuine by Baur and Schwegler. Hilgenfeld, who may now be regarded as the chief of the Ti- bingen school, has in this, as in many other points, deserted the extreme po- sition of Baur whom he calls the ‘great master.’ He accepts as genuine 1 Thes- salonians, Philippians, and Philemon: thus substituting, as he expresses it, the sacred number Seven for the heathen Tetractys of his master: see Zeitsch. fiir wissensch. Theol. v. p. 226 (1862). 106 ST PAUL AND THE THREE. affection for his countrymen. His earnestness and depth of feeling are nowhere more striking than when he is speaking of the Jews: ‘Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved: for I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge’ (Rom. x. 1, 2). Thus in spite of their present stubborn apostasy he will not allow that they have been cast away (xi. 1), but looks forward to the time when ‘all Israel shall be saved’ (xi. 26). So strong indeed is his language in one passage, that commen- tators regarding the letter rather than the spirit of the Apostle’s prayer, have striven to explain it away by feeble apologies and unnatural interpretations: ‘I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost, that I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart: for I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ (avd@eua elvas avtos éyo amo tod Xpiorov) for my brethren, my kinsmen (3) His according to the flesh’ (Rom. ix. 1—3). (3) His practical care practical : : : care for for his countrymen. The collection of alms for the poor brethren them. —_ of Judea occupies much of his attention and suggests messages to various churches (Rom. xv. 25, 26; 1 Cor. xvi. 1—6; 2 Cor. viii, ix; Gal. ii, 10). It is clear not only that he is very solicitous himself on behalf of the Christians of the Circumcision, but that he is anxious also to inspire his Gentile converts with . (4) His the same interest. (4) His conformity to Jewish habits and usages. cue St Paul lays down this rule, to ‘become all things to all men usages. that he may by all means save some’ (1 Cor. ix. 22). This is the key to all seeming inconsistencies in different representations of his conduct. In his epistles we see him chiefly as a Gentile among Gentiles; but this powerful moral weapon has another edge. Applying this maxim, he himself tells us emphatically that ‘ unto the Jews he became as a Jew, that he might gain the Jews; unto them that are under the law as under the law, that he might gain them that are under the law’ (1 Cor. ix. 20). The charges of his Judaizing opponents are a witness that he did carry out his maxim in this direction, asin the other. With asemblance of truth they taunt him with inconsistency, urging that in his ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 107 own practice he had virtually admitted their principles, that in fact he bad himself preached circumcision’. (5) His reverence (5) His use for the Old Testament Scriptures. This is a strongly marked pk Spe naa feature in the four epistles which I am considering. They teem ™**- with quotations, while there are comparatively few in his remaining letters, For metaphor, allegory, example, argument, confirmation, he draws upon this inexhaustible store. However widely he may have differed from his rabbinical teachers in other respects, he at least did not yield to them in reverence for ‘the law and the prophets and the psalms,’ These facts being borne in mind (and they are indisputable) the portrait of St Paul in the Acts ought not to present any difficulties. It records no one fact of the Apostle, it attributes no sentiment to him, which is not either covered by some comprehensive maxim or supported by some practical instance in his acknowledged letters. On the other hand the tone of the Difference history confessedly differs somewhat from the tone of the oe epistles. Nor could it possibly have been otherwise. Written ne in the heat of the conflict, written to confute unscrupulous antagonists and to guard against dangerous errors, St Paui’s language could not give a complete picture of his relations with the Apostles and the Church of the Circumcision. Arguments directed against men, who disparaged his authority by undue exaltation of the Twelve, offered the least favourable opportunity of expressing his sympathy with the Twelve. Denunciations of Judaizing teachers, who would force their national rites on the Gentile Churches, were no fit vehicle for acknowledging his respect for and conformity with those rites. The fairness of this line of argument will be seen by comparing the differences observable in his own epistles. His tone may be said to be graduated according to the temper and character of his hearers. The opposition of the Galatian letter to the Mosaic ritual is stern and uncompromising. It was written to correct a virulent form of Judaism. On the other hand the remonstrances in the Epistle to the Romans are much more moderate, guarded by 1 See Galatians p. 28 sq, and notes on Gal. i. 10, ii. 3, v. 2, 11. St Paul’s relations with the Three as described in this epistle. 108 ST PAUL AND THE THREE. constant explanations and counterpoised by expressions of deep sympathy. Here he was writing to a mixed church of Jews and Gentiles, where there had been no direct opposition to his authority, no violent outbreak of Judaism. If then we picture him in his intercourse with his own countrymen at Jerusalem, where the claims of his nation were paramount and where the cause of Gentile liberty could not be compromised, it seems most natural that he should have spoken and acted as he is represented in the Acts. Luther denouncing the pope for idolatry and Luther rebuking Carlstadt for iconoclasm writes like two different persons. He bids the timid and gentle Melanchthon ‘sin and sin boldly’: he would have cut his right hand off sooner than pen such words to the antinomian rioters of Munster. It is not that the man or his principles were changed: but the same words addressed to persons of opposite tempers would have conveyed a directly opposite meaning. St Paul’s language then, when in this epistle he describes his relations with the Three, must be interpreted with this caution, that it necessarily exhibits those relations in a partial aspect. The purport of this language, as I understand it, is explained in the notes: and I shall content myself here with gathering up the results. (1) There is a general recognition of the position and authority of the elder Apostles, both in the earlier visit to Jerusalem when he seeks Peter apparently for the purpose of obtaining instruction in the facts of the Gospel, staying with him a fortnight, and in the later visit which is undertaken for the purpose, if I may use the phrase, of comparing notes with the other Apostles and obtaining their sanction for the freedom of the Gentile Churches. (2) On the other hand there is an uncompromising resistance to the extravagant and exclusive claims set up on their behalf by the Judaizers. (3) In contrast to these claims, St Paul’s language leaves the impression (though the inference cannot be regarded as certain), that they had not offered a prompt resistance to the Judaizers in the first instance, hoping perhaps to conciliate them, and that the brunt ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 109 of the contest had been borne by himself and Barnabas. (4) At the same time they are distinctly separated from the policy and principles of the Judaizers, who are termed false brethren, spies in the Christian camp. (5) The Apostles of the Circum- cision find no fault with St Paul’s Gospel, and have nothing to add to it. (6) Their recognition of his office is most complete. The language is decisive in two respects: it represents this recognition first as thoroughly mutual, and secondly as admitting a perfect equality and independent position. (7) At the same time a separate sphere of labour is assigned to each: the one are to preach to the heathen, the other to the Circumcision. There is no implication, as some have represented, that the Gospel preached to the Gentile would differ from the Gospel preached to the Jew. Such an idea is alien to the whole spirit of the passage. Lastly, (8) Notwithstanding their distinct spheres of work, St Paul is requested by the Apostles of the Circumcision to collect the alms of the Gentiles for the poor brethren of Judea, and to this request he responds cordially. With the exception of the incident at Antioch, which will References be considered presently, the Epistle to the Galatians contains phe ce nothing more bearing directly on the relations between St “* Paul and the Apostles of the Circumcision. Other special references are found in the Epistles to the Corinthians, but none elsewhere. These notices, slight though ‘they are, accord with the view presented by the Galatian letter. St Paul indeed says more than once that he is ‘not a whit behind the very chiefest Apostles’ (trav trepdiav drroaTorwr, 2 Cor. xi. 5, xi1, 11), and there is in the original a slight touch of irony which disappears in the translation: but the irony loses its point unless the exclusive preference of the elder Apostles is regarded as an exaggeration of substantial claims. Elsewhere St Paul speaks of Cephas and the Lord’s brethren as exercising an apostolic privilege which belonged also to himself and Barnabas (1 Cor. ix. 5), of Cephas and James as witnesses of the Lord’s resurrec- tion like himself (1 Cor. xv. 5, 7). In the last passage he calls himself (with evident reference to the elder Apostles who are 110 ST PAUL AND THE THREE. mentioned immediately before) ‘the least of the Apostles, who is not worthy to be called an Apostle. In rebuking the dissensions at Corinth, he treats the name of Cephas with a delicate courtesy and respect which has almost escaped notice. When he comes to argue the question, he at once drops the name of St Peter; ‘While one saith, I am of Paul, and another, I am of Apollos, are ye not carnal? What then is Apollos, and what is Paul?’ Apollos was so closely connected with him (1 Cor. xvi. 12), that he could use his name without fear of misapprehension. But in speaking of Cephas he had to observe more caution: certain persons persisted in regarding St Peter as the head of a rival party, and therefore he is careful to avoid any seeming depreciation of his brother Apostle. _ ioe In all this there is nothing inconsistent with the character between St Of St Paul as drawn in the Acts, nothing certainly which fauland represents him as he was represented by extreme partisans in Apostles. ancient times, by Ebionites on the one hand and Marcionites on the other, and as he has been represented of late by a certain school of critics, in a position of antagonism to the chief Apostles of the Circumcision. I shall next examine the scriptural notices and traditional representations of these three. Sr Prrzr 1. The author of the Clementine Homilies makes St PETER oe the mouth-piece of his own Ebionite views. In the prefatory letter of Peter to James which, though possibly the work of another author, represents the same sentiments, the Apostle complains that he has been misrepresented as holding that the law was abolished but fearing to preach this doctrine openly. ‘Far be it,’ he adds, ‘ for to act so is to oppose the law of God which was spoken by Moses and to which our Lord bare witness that it should abide for ever. For thus He said, Heaven and earth shall pass away: one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law. And this He said that all things might be fulfilled. Yet these persons professing to give my sentiments (Tov éuov vody éraryyeddopuevor) I know not how, attempt to interpret the words that they have heard from me more ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 111 cleverly (¢poviyua@tepov) than myself who spoke them, telling their pupils that this is my meaning (¢povnua), though it never once entered into my mind (6 éym obdé éveOuunOny). But if they dare to tell such falsehoods of me while I am still alive, how much more will those who come after me venture to do it when I am gone (§ 2).’ It has been held by some modern critics that the words thus put into the Apostle’s mouth are quite in character; that St Peter did maintain the perpetuity of the law; and that therefore the traditional account which has pervaded Catholic Christendom from the writing of the Acts to the present day gives an essentially false view of the Apostle. I think the words quoted will strike most readers as betraying a consciousness on the part of the writer that he is treading on hollow and dangerous ground. But without insisting on this, it is important to observe that the sanction of this venerated and also : ‘ Da by oppo- name was claimed by other sectarians of opposite opinions. site sects. Basilides (about A.D. 130), the famous Gnostic teacher, announced that he had been instructed by one Glaucias an ‘interpreter’ of St Peter’. An early apocryphal writing moreover, which should probably be assigned to the beginning of the second century and which expressed strong antijudaic views’, was 1 Clem. Alex.Strom.vii, p. 898, Potter. 2 On this work, the xipvyya Ilé- tpov, see Schwegler Nachap. Zeit. i. p. 30 sq. Its opposition to Judaism appears in an extant fragment preserved in Clem, Alex. Strom. vi. p. 760, unde xara, "lovdalous céBerGe...dore kal tpets dolws kal dixalws pavOdvorres & mapadl- Sopev bylv pudrdocecbe, kawas Tov Ocdy dua TOO Xpiorob ceBopevor’ etipowev yap év tais ypadais xaOws 6 Kupios \éye* "ld0d diarlOewar dpiv Kowhy SiaOnkny «7A. The fragments of this work are collected by Grabe, Spicil. 1. p. 62 sq. It was made use of by Heracleon the Valentinian, and is quoted more than once, apparently as genuine, by Clement of Alexandria. The identity of this work with the Praedicatio Pauli quoted in the trea- tise De Baptismo Haereticorum printed among Cyprian’s works (App. p. 30, Fell) seems to me very doubtful, though maintained by several able critics. The passage there quoted is strangely misinterpreted by Baur (Christenthum p. 53), I give his words, lest I should have misunderstood him: ‘Auch die kirchliche Sage, welche die Apostel wieder zusammenbrachte, lasst erst am Ende nach einer langen Zeit der Trennung die gegenseitige Aner- kennung zu Stande kommen. Post tanta tempora, hiess es in der Pre- dicatio Pauli in der Stelle, welche sich in der Cyprian’s Werken angehingten St Paul’s notice of the occur- rence at Antioch, 112 ST PAUL AND THE THREE. entitled the ‘Preaching of Peter.’ I do not see why these assertions have not as great a claim to a hearing as the opposite statement of the Ebionite writer. They are probably earlier ; and in one case at least we have more tangible evidence than the irresponsible venture of an anonymous romance writer. The probable inference however from such conflicting state- ments would be, that St Peter's true position was somewhere between the two extremes. But we are not to look for trustworthy information from such sources as these. If we wish to learn the Apostle’s real attitude in the conflict between Jewish and Gentile converts, the one fragmentary notice in the Epistle to the Galatians will reveal more than all the distorted and interested accounts of later ages: ‘But when Cephas came to Antioch I withstood him to the face, for he was condemned (his conduct condemned itself), For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles, but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those of the circumcision: and the rest of the Jews also dissembled with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their dissimulation (cvvamnyOn avtov 7H bToxpice). But when I saw that they walked not straight according to the truth of the Gospel, I said unto Cephas before all, If thou, being born a Jew (‘Iovdaios irdpywv), livest after the manner of the Gentiles and not after the Schrift de rebaptismate erhalten hat among other instances he alleges the (Cypr. Opp. ed. Baluz. s. 365 f.), Petrum et Paulum post conlationem evangelii in Jerusalem et mutuam cogitationem [?] etaltercationem et rerum agendarum dispositionem postremo in urbe, quasi tune primum, invicem sibi esse cogni- tos.’ Baur thus treats the comment of the writer as if it were part of the quotation. In this treatise the writer denounces the Praedicatio Pauli as maintaining ‘adulterinum, imointerne- cinum baptisma’; in order toinvalidate its authority, he proceeds to show its thoroughly unhistorical character; and fact that it makes St Peter and St Paul meet in Rome as if for the first time, forgetting all about the congress at Je- rusalem, the collision at Antioch, and so forth. Schwegler takes the correct view of the passage, 11. p. 32. Other early apocryphal works attri- buted to the chief Apostle of the Cir- cumcision are the Gospel, the Acts, and the Apocalypse of Peter; but our information respecting these is too scanty to throw much light on the pre- sent question: on the Gospel of Peter see above, p. 27. ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 113 manner of the Jews, how compellest thou the Gentiles to live like the Jews? ete.’ (ii. 11—14). Now the point of St Paul’s rebuke is plainly this: that in sanctioning the Jewish feeling which regarded eating with the Gentiles as an unclean thing, St Peter was untrue to his principles, was acting hypocritically and from fear. In the argument which follows he assumes that it was the normal practice of Peter to live as a Gentile (€Ovuxds fps and not €Ovixdds qs), in other words, to mix freely with the Gentiles, to eat with them, and therefore to disregard the distinction of things clean and unclean: and he argues on the glaring inconsistency and unfairness that Cephas should claim this liberty himself though not born to it, and yet by hypocritical compliance with the Jews should practically force the ritual law on the Gentiles and deprive them of a freedom which was their natural right’. How St Peter came to hold these liberal principles, so It accords entirely opposed to the narrow traditions of his age and country, ane is explained by an incident narrated in the Acts. He was eee at one time as rigid and as scrupulous as the most bigoted of his countrymen: ‘nothing common or unclean had at any time entered into his mouth’ (x. 14, xi. 8). Suddenly a light bursts in upon the darkness of his religious convictions. He is taught by a vision ‘not to call any man common or un- clean’ (x. 28). His sudden change scandalizes the Jewish 1 I do not see how this conclusion can be resisted. According to the Ti- bingen view of St Peter’s position, his hypocrisy or dissimulation must have consisted not in withdrawing from, but in holding intercourse with the Gen- tiles; but this is not the view of St Paul on any natural interpretation of his words; and certainly the Ebionite wri- ter already quoted (p. 110) did not so understand his meaning. Schwegler (1. p. 129) explains ouvurexplOncay aire ‘were hypocritical enough to side with him,’ thus forcing the expression itself L. and severing it from the context; but even then he is obliged to acquit the other Jewish Christians at Antioch of Ebionism. Hilgenfeld (Galater p. 61 sq) discards Schwegler’s interpretation and explains tréxpicts of the self-con- tradiction, the unconscious inconsist- ency of Jewish Christian or Ebionite principles: but inconsistency is not dis- simulation or hypocrisy, and this inter- pretation, like the former, loses sight of the context which denounces St Peter for abandoning a certain line of con- duct from timidity. 8 and with his cha- racter as given in the Gos- pels. The First Epistle of St Peter shows the influence of St Paul, 114 ST PAUL AND THE THREE. brethren: but he explains and for the moment at least con- vinces (xi. 18). And if his normal principles are explained by the narrative of the Acts, his exceptional departure from them is illustrated by his character as it appears in the Gospels. The occasional timidity and weakness of St Peter will be judged most harshly by those who have never themselves felt the agony of a great moral crisis, when not their own ease and comfort only, which is a small thing, but the spiritual welfare of others seems to clamour for a surrender of their principles. His true nobleness— his fiery zeal and overflowing love and abandoned self-devotion —will be appreciated most fully by spirits which can claim some kindred however remote with his spirit. Thus the fragmentary notices in the Gospels, the Acts, and the Epistles of St Paul, combine to form a harmonious portrait of a character, not consistent indeed, but—to use Aristotle’s sig- nificant phrase—consistently inconsistent (ouaras avebparov) ; and this is a much safer criterion of truth. But there is yet another source of information to be considered—his own letters. If the deficiency of external evidence forbids the use of the Second Epistle in controversy, the First labours under no such disabilities; for very few of the apostolical writings are better attested. To this epistle indeed it has been objected that it bears too manifest traces of Pauline influence to be the genuine writing of St Peter. The objection however seems to overlook two important considerations. First. If we consider the prominent part borne by St Paul as the chief preacher of Christianity in countries Hellenic by race or by adoption; if we remember further that his writings were probably the first which clothed the truths of the Gospel and the aspirations of the Church in the language of Greece; we shall hardly hesitate to allow that he ‘had a great influence in moulding this language for Christian purposes, and that those who afterwards trod in his footsteps could hardly depart much from the idiom thus moulded’, 1 Schleiermacher, Einl. ins N. T. p. 402 sq. ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 115 Secondly. It is begging the whole question to assume that St Peter derived nothing from the influence of the Apostle of the Gentiles. The one was essentially a character to impress, the other to be impressed. His superior in intellectual culture, in breadth of sympathy, and in knowledge of men, his equal in love and zeal for Christ, St Paul must have made his influence felt on the frank and enthusiastic temperament of the elder Apostle. The weighty spiritual maxims thrown out during the dispute at Antioch for instance would sink deep into his heart}; and taking into account the many occasions when either by his writings or by personal intercourse St Paul’s influence would be communicated, we can hardly doubt that the whole effect was great. But after all the epistle bears the stamp of an individual but bears mind quite independent of this foreign element. The sub- ie a 7 stratum of the thoughts is the writer's own. Its individuality *®™P indeed appears more in the contemplation of the life and suffer- ings of Christ, in the view taken of the relations between the believer and the world around, in the realisation of the promises made to the chosen people of old, in the pervading sense of a regenerate life and the reiterated hope of a glorious advent, than in any special development of doctrine: but it would be difficult to give any reason why, prior to experience, we should have expected it to be otherwise. Altogether the epistle is anything but Ebionite. Not only ofa mind i z : Hebrew is the ‘law’ never once named, but there is no allusion to put not formal ordinances of any kind. The writer indeed is essentially #¥m4te- an Israelite, but he is an Israelite after a Christian type. When he speaks of the truths of the Gospel, he speaks of them through the forms of the older dispensation: he alludes again and again to the ransom of Christ’s death, but the image present to his 1 See 1 Pet. ii. 24 ras duaprias quay doctrinal teaching (though there are abrés dviveyxey ev TG odyart abrod ért occasionally strong resemblances of 7d Eddov, a Tals duaprius droyevonevo. language). With it compare Gal. ii. 20 TH Sixaoctyn Showney, This is the Xpur@owecravpwua G dé odkért cys, most striking instance which the epistle {7 dé év éuol Xpiords x.7.d. exhibits of coincidence with St Paul’s 8—2 Tts rela- tion to St Paul and St James. Mark and Silvanus. St Peter and St Paul asso- ciated in early tra- dition. Rome, Antioch. 116 ST PAUL AND THE THREE. mind is the paschal lamb without spot or blemish; he addresses himself to Gentile converts, but he transfers to them the cherished titles of the covenant race; they are the true ‘ disper- sion’ (i. 1); they are ‘a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people’ (ii. 9). The believer in Christ is the Israelite; the unbeliever the Gentile (ii. 12). Corresponding to the position of St Peter as he appears in the Apostolic history, this epistle in its language and tone occupies a place midway between the writings of St James and St Paul. With St James it dwells earnestly on the old: with St Paul it expands to the comprehension of the new. In its denunciation of luxurious wealth, in its commendation of the simple and homely virtues, in its fond reference to past examples in Jewish history for imitation or warning, it recalls the tone of the head of the Hebrew Church: in its conception of the grace of God, of the ransom of Christ’s death, of the wide purpose of the Gospel, it approaches to the language of the Apostle of the Gentiles. With St Paul too the writer links himself by the mention of two names, both Christians of the Circumcision, and both companions of the Gentile Apostle; Mark who, having accom- panied him on his first missionary tour, after some years of alienation is found by his side once more (Col. iv. 10), and Silvanus who shared with him the labours and perils of planting the Gospel in Europe. Silvanus is the bearer or the amanuensis of St Peter’s letter; Mark joins in the salutations (v. 12, 13). Thus the Churches of the next generation, which were likely to be well informed, delighted to unite the names of the two leading Apostles as the greatest teachers of the Gospel, the brightest examples of Christian life. At Rome probably, at Antioch certainly, both these Apostles were personally known. We have the witness of the one Church in Clement; of the other in Ignatius. The former classes them together as the two ‘noble ensamples of his own generation, ‘the greatest and most righteous pillars’ of the Church, who ‘ for hatred and envy were persecuted even unto death’ (§ 5). The latter will not ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 117 venture to command the Christians of Rome, ‘as Peter and Paul did; they were Apostles, he a convict; they were free, he a slave to that very hour*.’ Clement wrote before the close of the first century, Ignatius at the beginning of the second. It seems probable that both these fathers had conversed with one or other of the two Apostles. Besides Antioch and Rome, the names of St Peter and St Paul appear together also in connexion with the Church of Corinth (1 Cor. iii. 22). This Corinth. church again has not withheld her voice, though here the later date of her testimony detracts somewhat from its value’, Dionysius bishop of Corinth, writing to the Romans during the episcopate of Soter (c. 166—174), claims kindred with them on the ground that both churches alike had profited by the joint instruction of St Peter and St Paul* But though the essential unity of these two Apostles is thus Misrepre- recognised by different branches of the Catholic Church, a rims aaa disposition to sever them seems early to have manifested itself Parte. in some quarters. Even during their own lifetime the religious agitators at Corinth would have placed them in spite of them- selves at the head of rival parties. And when death had removed all fear of contradiction, extreme partisans boldly claimed the sanction of the one or the other for their own views. The precursors of the Ebionites misrepresented the Israelite sympathies of St Peter, as if he had himself striven to put a yoke upon the neck of the Gentiles which neither their 1 Rom. 4. The words ovy ws Ilé- tpos kat Tladdos Siardocopat div gain force, as addressed to the Romans, if we suppose both Apostles to have preached in Rome. 2 The language of Clement however implicitly contains the testimony of this church at an earlier date: for heassumes the acquiescence of the Corinthians when he mentions both Apostles as of equal authority (§§ 5, 47). 3 In Euseb. H. E. ii. 25 ri ard Tlérpou xal Ilavdov qgurelay -yevnOeioav “Pwpalwy re kal KopwOlwy ovvexepdcare. kal yap dudw kat els rhy Huerépay Ké- pwOov porjcavres Huds cuolws édldatay, duolws 5¢ xal els rhv "IraNlay opudce Oiddiavres €uapripncay Kara Tov abrov xaipév. All the mss and the Syriac version here have guretoavres; but gorrfioavres is read by Georgius Syn- cellus, and Rufinus has ‘adventantes’ ; the sense too seems to require it. In any case it is hardly a safe inference that Dionysius erroneously supposed the Churches of Rome and Corinth to have been founded by both Apostles jointly. Concilia- tory aim of the Acts. Sr Joan not claim- ed by Ebionites. His posi- tion in the apostolic history. 118 ST PAUL AND THE THREE. fathers nor they were able to bear. The precursors of Marcion- ism exaggerated the antagonism of St Paul to the Mosaic ritual, as if he had indeed held the law to be sin and the command- ment neither holy nor just nor good. It seems to have been a subsidiary aim of St Luke’s narrative, which must have been written not many years after the martyrdom of both Apostles; to show that this growing tendency was false, and that in their life, as in their death, they were not divided. A rough parallel- ism between the career of the two reveals itself in the narrative when carefully examined. Recent criticism has laid much stress on this ‘conciliatory’ purpose of the Acts, as if it were fatal to the credit of the narrative. But denying the inference we may concede the fact, and the very concession draws its sting. Such a purpose is at least as likely to have been entertained by a writer, if the two Apostles were essentially united, as if they were not. The truth or falsehood of the account must be determined on other grounds. 2. While St Peter was claimed as their leader by the Judaizers, no such liberty seems to have been taken with the name of St Joun*. Long settled in an important Gentile city, surrounded by a numerous school of disciples, still living at the dawn of the second century, he must have secured for his teaching such notoriety as protected it from gross misrepresen- tation. His last act recorded in St Luke’s narrative is a visit to the newly founded Churches of Samaria, in company with St Peter (viii. 14). He thus stamps with his approval the first move- 1 In the portion of the first book of in their writings. In another passage the Recognitions, which seems to have been taken from the ‘ Ascents of James,’ the sons of Zebedee are introduced with the rest of the Twelve confuting here- sies, but the sentiments attributed to them are in no way Ebionite (i. 57). It is this work perhaps to which Epi- phanius refers (xxx. 23), for his notice does not imply anything more than a casual introduction of St John’s name Epiphanius attributes to the sons of Ze- bedee the same ascetic practices which distinguished James the Lord’s brother (Haer. lxxviii. 13); and this account he perhaps derived from some Essene Ebionite source. But I do not know that they ever claimed St John in the same way as they claimed St Peter and St James. ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 119 ment of the Church in its liberal progress. From the silence of both St Paul and St Luke it may be inferred that he took no very prominent part in the disputes about the Mosaic law. Only at the close of the conferences we find him together with St Peter and. St James recognising the authority and work of St Paul, and thus giving another guarantee of his desire to advance the liberties of the Church. This is the only passage where he is mentioned in St Paul’s Epistles. Yet it seems probable that though he did not actually participate in the public discussions, his unseen influence was exerted to promote the result. As in the earliest days of the Church, so now we may imagine him ever at St Peter’s side, his faithful colleague and wise counsellor, not forward and demonstrative, but most powerful in private, pouring into the receptive heart of the elder Apostle the lessons of his own inward experience, drawn from close personal intercourse and constant spiritual com- munion with his Lord. ‘ At length the hidden fires of his nature burst out into flame. His life in When St Peter and St Paul have ended their labours, the more conan ad active career of St John is just beginning. If it had been their 8% task to organize and extend the Church, to remove her barriers and to advance her liberties, it is his special province to build up and complete her theology. The most probable chronology makes his withdrawal from Palestine to Asia Minor coincide very nearly with the martyrdom of these two Apostles, who have guided the Church through her first storms and led her to her earliest victories. This epoch divides his life into two distinct periods: hitherto he has lived as a Jew among Jews; henceforth he will be as a Gentile among Gentiles. The writings of St John in the Canon probably mark the close of each period. The Apocalypse winds up his career in the Church of the Circumcision; the Gospel and the Epistles are the crowning result of a long residence in the heart of Gentile Christendom. Both the one and the other contrast strongly with the leading features of Ebionite doctrine; and this fact alone would The Apo- calypse Hebrew in its ima- gery, but not Ebionite in doc- trine. The Christ. 120 ST PAUL AND THE THREE. deter the Judaizers from claiming the sanction of a name so revered, . Of all the writings of the New Testament the APOCALYPSE is most thoroughly Jewish in its language and imagery. The ‘whole book is saturated with illustrations from the Old Testa- ment. It speaks not the language of Paul, but of Isaiah and Ezekiel and Daniel. Its tone may be well described by an expression borrowed from the book itself; ‘the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy’ (xix. 10). The doctrine of Balaam, the whoredoms of Jezebel, the song of Moses, the lion of Judah, the key of David, the great river Euphrates, the great city Babylon, Sodom and Egypt, Gog and Magog, these and similar expressions are but the more striking instances of an imagery with which the Apocalypse teems. Nor are the symbols derived solely from the canonical Scriptures; in the picture of the New Jerusalem the inspired Apostle has borrowed many touches from the creations of rabbinical fancy. Up to this point the Apocalypse is completely Jewish and might have been Ebionite. But the same framing serves only to bring out more strongly the contrast between the pictures themselves. The two distinctive features of Ebionism, its mean estimate of the person of Christ and its extravagant exaltation of the Mosaic law, are opposed alike to the spirit and language of St John. It might have been expected that the beloved disciple, who had leaned on his Master’s bosom, would have dwelt with fond preference on the humanity of our Lord: yet in none of the New Testament writings, not even in the Epistles of St Paul, do we find a more express recognition of His divine power and majesty. He is ‘the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning (the source) of the creation of God’ (ii. 14). ‘Blessing, honour, glory, and power’ are ascribed not ‘to Him that sitteth on the throne’ only, but ‘to the Lamb for ever and ever’ (v.18). His name is ‘the Word of God’ (xix: 18). There- fore He claims the titles and attributes of Deity. He declares Himself ‘ the Alpha and Omega, the first and last, the beginning and the end’ (xxii. 13; comp. i. 8). He is ‘the Lord of lords ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 121 and the King of kings’ (xvii. 14, xix. 16). And so too the Ebionite reverence for the law as still binding has no place in the Apocalypse. The word does not occur from beginning to The law. end, nor is there a single allusion to its ceremonial as an abiding ordinance. The Paschal Lamb indeed is ever present to St John’s thought; but with him it signifies not the sacrifice offered in every Jewish home year by year, but the Christ who once ‘ was slain, and hath redeemed us to God by His blood out of every kindred and tongue and people and nation’ (v. 9). All this is very remarkable, since there is every reason to believe that up to this time St John had in practice observed the Jewish law?. 1 Certain traditions of St John’s residence at Ephesus, illustrating his relation to the Mosaic law, deserve no- tice here. They are given by Polycrates who was himself bishop of Ephesus (Euseb. H. E. v. 24). Writing to pope Victor, probably in the last decade of the second century, he mentions that he ‘numbers (2xwv) sixty-five years in the Lord’ (whether he refers to the date of his birth or of his conversion, is uncertain, but the former seems more probable), and that he has had seven relations bishops, whose tradition he follows. We are thus carried back to a very early date. The two statements with which we are concerned are these. (1) St John celebrated the Paschal day on the 14th of the month, coinciding with the Jewish passover. It seems to me, as I have said already (see p. 101), that there is no good ground for ques- tioning this tradition. The institution of such an annual celebration by this Apostle derives light from the many references to the Paschal Lamb in the Apocalypse ; and in the first instance it would seem most natural to celebrate it on the exact anniversary of the Pass- over. It is more questionable whether the Roman and other Churches, whose usage has passed into the law of Chris- To him however it was only a national custom tendom, had really the apostolic sanc- tion which they vaguely asserted for celebrating it always on the Friday. This usage, if not quite so obvious as the other, was not unnatural and pro- bably was found much more convenient. (2) Polycrates says incidentally of St John that he was ‘a priest wearing the mitre and a martyr and teacher (és éyernOn lepeds Td wéradov mepopexws Kal Mdprus Kat dddoKaros).’ The reference in the zéradov is doubtless to the metal plate on the high-priest’s mitre, cf. Exod, xxviii. 36 réradov xpvooiv Kada- pv, comp. Protevang. ¢. 5 rd méradov Tob lepéws; but the meaning of Poly- crates is far from clear. He has perhaps mistaken metaphor for matter of fact (see Stanley Apostolical Age p. 285); in like manner as the name Theophorus assumed by Ignatius gave rise to the later story that he was the child whom our Lord took in His arms and blessed. I think it probable however that the words as they stand in Polycrates are intended for a metaphor, since the short fragment which contains them has seve- ral figurative expressions almost, if not quite, as violent; e.g. ueydda ororxeta, xexolunrat (where orovxeia means ‘lu- minaries,’ being used of the heavenly bodies); MeXrwva rdv edvodxov (proba- 122 ST PAUL AND THE THREE. and not an universal obligation, only one of the many garbs in which religious worship might clothe itself, and not the essence of religious life. In itself circumcision is nothing, as uncircum- cision also is nothing; and therefore he passes it over as if ib were not. The distinction between Jew and Gentile has ceased ; the middle wall of partition is broken down in Christ. If preserving the Jewish imagery which pervades the book, he records the sealing of twelve thousand from each tribe of Israel, his range of vision expands at once, and he sees before the throne ‘a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations and kindreds and peoples and tongues’ (vii. 9). If he denounces the errors of heathen speculation, taking up their own watchword ‘knowledge (yvaous)’ and retorting upon them that they know only ‘the depths of Satan’ (ii. 24)1, on the other hand he condemns in similar language the bigotry of Jewish prejudice, denouncing the blasphemy of those ‘who say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan’ (il. 9; comp. iii, 9). bly a metaphor, as Rufinus translates it, ‘propter regnum dei eunuchum’ ; see Matt. xix. 12and comp. Athenag. Suppl. 33, 34, Clem. Alex. Paed. iii. 4, p. 269, Strom. iii. 1. p. 509 sq); Tov pexpdr prov dvOpwrov (‘my insignificance’ ; comp. Rom. vi. 6 6 madads quay dvOpwrros, 2 Cor. iv. 16 6 dw jay dvOpwros, 1 Pet. iii. 4 6 xpumrds Tis Kapdlas dvOpwrros). The whole passage is a very rude speci- men of the florid ‘Asiatic’ style, which even in its higher forms Cicero con- demns as suited only to the ears of a people wanting in polish and good taste (‘minime politaeminimeque elegantes,’ Orator, 25) and which is described by another writer as koumwdns Kal ppvaryya- tlas kal Kevod yavpiduaros kal didoriulas dvwpddou peoros, Plut. Vit. Anton. 2; see Bernhardy Griech. Litt. 1. p. 465. On the other hand itis possible—I think not probable—that St John did wear this decoration as an emblem of his Christian privileges; nor ought this view to cause any offence, as inconsistent with the spirituality of his character. If in Christ the use of external symbols is nothing, the avoidance of them is no- thing also. But whether the statement of Polycrates be metaphor or matter of fact, its significance, as in the case of the Paschal celebration, is to be learnt from the Apostle’s own language in the Apocalypse, where not only is great stress laid on the priesthood of the be- lievers generally (i. 6, v. 10, xx. 6), but even the special privileges of the high- priest are bestowed on the victorious Christian (Rev. ii. 17, as explained by Ziillig, Trench, and others: see Stanley 1. c. p. 285; comp. Justin Dial. 116 apxeparikdy 7d GAnOwdy yévos oper Tod Geod, and see below, p. 218), The expression is a striking example of the lingering power not of Ebionite tenets but of Hebrew imagery. 1 See above, p. 64, note 3. ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 123 A lapse of more than thirty years spent in the midst of a The Gos- Gentile population will explain the contrasts of language and Pein imagery between the Apocalypse and the later writings of St a John, due allowance being made for the difference of subject’, pared with , The language and colouring of the Gospel and Epistles are no in i longer Hebrew ; but so far as a Hebrew mind was capable of the transformation, Greek or rather Greco-Asiatic. The teaching of these latter writings it will be unnecessary to examine; for all, I believe, will allow their general agreement with the theology of St Paul; and it were a bold criticism which should discover in them any Ebionite tendencies. Only it seems to be often overlooked that the leading doctrinal ideas which they contain are anticipated in the Apocalypse. The passages which I have quoted from the latter relating to the divinity of Christ are a case in point: not only do they ascribe to our Lord the same majesty and power; but the very title ‘the Word, with which both the Gospel and the first Epistle open, is found here, though it occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. On the other hand, if the Apocalypse seems to assign a certain preroga- tive to the Jews, this is expressed equally in the sayings of the Gospel that Christ ‘came to his own’ (i. 11), and that ‘Salvation is of the Jews’ (iv. 22), as it is involved also in St Paul’s maxim ‘to the Jew first and then to the Gentile.’ It is indeed rather a historical fact than a theological dogma. The difference between the earlier and the later writings of St John is not in the fundamental conception of the Gospel, but in the subject and treatment and language. The Apocalypse is not Ebionite, unless the Gospel and Epistles are Ebionite also. 3. Sr James occupies a position very different from St By dames local office. Writers of the Tii- 1 Owing to the difference of style, many critics have seen only the alterna- tive of denying the apostolic authorship either of the Apocalypse or of the Gos- pel and Epistles. The considerations urged in the text seem sufficient to meet the difficulties, which are greatly increased if a late date is assigned to the Apocalypse. bingen school reject the Gospel and Epistles but accept the Apocalypse. This book alone, if its apostolical au- thorship is conceded, seems to me to furnish an ample refutation of their peculiar views. Reasons for his appoint- ment. His allegi- ance to the law. 124 ST PAUL AND THE THREE. Peter or St John. If his importance to the brotherhood of Jerusalem was greater than theirs, it was far less to the world at large. In a foregoing essay I have attempted to show that he was not one of the Twelve. This result seems to me to have much more than a critical interest. Only when we have learnt to regard his office as purely local, shall we appreciate the traditional notices of his life or estimate truly his position in the conflict between Jewish and Gentile Christians. A disbeliever in the Lord’s mission to the very close of His earthly life, he was convinced, it would seem, by the appearance of the risen Jesus’. This interposition marked him out for some special work. Among a people who set a high value on advantages of race and blood, the Lord’s brother would be more likely to win his way than a teacher who would claim no such connexion. In a state of religious feeling where scrupulous attention to outward forms was held to be a condition of favour with God, one who was a strict observer of the law, if nota rigid ascetic, might hope to obtain a hearing which would be denied to men of less austere lives and wider experiences. These considerations would lead to his selection as the ruler of the mother Church. The persecution of Herod which obliged the Twelve to seek safety in flight would naturally be the signal for the appointment of a resident head. At all events it is at this crisis that James appears for the first time with his presbytery in a position though not identical with, yet so far resembling, the ‘bishop’ of later times, that we may without much violence to language give him this title (Acts xii. 17, xxi. 18). As the local representative then of the Church of the Circumcision we must consider him. To one holding this position the law must have worn a very different aspect from that which it wore to St Peter or St John or St Paul. While they were required to become ‘all things to all men, he was required only to be ‘a Jew to the Jews.’ No troublesome questions of conflicting duties, such as entangled St Peter at 1 See above, p. 17. ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 125 Antioch, need perplex him. Under the law he must live and die. His surname of the Just? is a witness to his rigid observance of the Mosaic ritual. A remarkable notice in the Acts shows how he identified himself in all external usages with those ‘many thousands of Jews which believed and were all zealous of the law’ (xxi. 20). And a later tradition, somewhat distorted indeed but perhaps in this one point substantially true, related how by his rigid life and strict integrity he had won the respect of the whole Jewish people’. A strict observer of the law he doubtless was; but whether The ac- to this he added a rigorous asceticism, may fairly be questioned. count of Hegesip- The account to which I have just referred, the tradition P”* preserved in Hegesippus, represents him as observing many formalities not enjoined in the Mosaic ritual. ‘He was holy,’ says the writer, ‘from his mother’s womb. He drank no wine nor strong drink, neither did he eat flesh. No razor ever touched his head; he did not anoint himself with oil; he did not use the bath. He alone was allowed to enter into the holy place (eis ta aysa). For he wore no wool, but only fine linen. And he would enter into the temple (vacv) alone, and be found there kneeling on his knees and asking forgiveness for the people, so that his knees grew hard like a camel’s knees, because he was ever upon them worshipping God and asking forgiveness for the people. There is much in this account which cannot be true: the assigning to him a privilege which was confined to the high-priest alone, while it is entangled with the rest of the narrative, is plainly false, and can only have been started when a new generation had grown up which knew nothing of the temple services®*. Moreover the account of his 1 In the account of Hegesippus, re- ferred to in the following note, 6 dtxaros ‘Justus’ is used almost as a proper name. Two later bishops of Jerusalem in the early part of the second century also bear the name ‘Justus’ (Euseb. H. E£. iv. 5), either in memory of their predecessor or in token of their own rigid lives: compare also Acts i. 23, xviii. 7, Col. iv. 11 (with the note). 2 Hegesippus in Huseb. H. E. ii. 23. 8 It is perhaps to be explained like the similar account of St John: see above, p. 121, note 1. Compare Stan- ley Apostolical Age p. 324. Epiphanius not trust- worthy. 126 ST PAUL AND THE THREE. testimony and death, which follows, not only contradicts the brief contemporary notice of Josephus’, but is in itself so melodramatic and so full of high improbabilities, that it must throw discredit on the whole context”. (Haer. lxxviii. 14) makes the samestate- ment of St James which Polycrates does of St John, wéradov éml rijs xepa- Aijs ebbpece. 1 Josephus (Antig. xx. 9. 1) relates that in the interregnum between the death of Festus and the arrival of Albi- nus, the high-priest Ananusthe younger, who belonged to the sect of the Saddu- cees (notorious for their severity in judicial matters), considering this a fa- vourable opportunity kadite. cvvédprov xpir@v, kal qaparyayov els aird rév adedgpdv "Inood rot Aeyouévov Xpiorod, "TdxwBos dvoua airy, Kal Twas érépous, WS Tapavounodyrwy Karyyoplay mronod- Hevos tapédwxe evoOnoopevous. This notice is wholly irreconcilable with the account of Hegesippus. Yet it is pro- bable in itself (which the account of Hegesippus is not), and is such as Jo- sephus might be expected to write if he alluded to the matter at all. His stolid silence about Christianity elsewhere cannot be owing to ignorance, for a sect which had been singled out years before he wrote as a mark for imperial ven- geance at Rome must have been only too well known in Judwa. On the other hand, if the passage had been a Chris- tian interpolation, the notice of James would have been more laudatory, as is actually the case in the spurious passage of Josephus read by Origen and Eu- sebius (H. E. ii. 23, see above, p. 68, note 2), but not found in existing copies. On these grounds I do not hesitate to prefer the account in Josephus to that of Hegesippus. This is the opinion of Neander (Planting 1. p. 367, Eng. Trans.), of Ewald (Geschichte v1. p. 547), and of some few writers besides (so recently Gerlach Rémische Statthalter etc. p. 81, 1865): but the majority take the opposite view. 2 The account is briefly this. Cer- tain of the seven sects being brought by the preaching of James toconfess Christ, the whole Jewish people are alarmed. To counteract the spread of the new doctrine, the scribes and Pharisees re- quest James, as a man of acknowledged probity, to ‘persuade the multitude not to go astray concerning Jesus.’ Inorder that he may do this to more effect, on the day of the Passover they place him on the pinnacle (rreptyiov) of the tem- ple. Instead of denouncing Jesus how- ever, he preaches Him. Finding their mistake, thescribes and Pharisees throw him down from the height; and as he is not killed by the fall, they stone him. Finally he is despatched by a fuller’s club, praying meanwhile for his mur- derers. The improbability of the nar- rative will appear in this outline, but it is much increased by the details. The points of resemblance with the portion of the Recognitions conjectured to be taken from the ‘ Ascents of James’ (see above, p. 87) are striking, and recent writers have called attention to these as showing that the narrative of Hegesip- pus was derived from a similar source (Uhlhorn Clement. p. 367, Ritschl p.226 sq). May we not go a step farther and hazard the conjecture that the story of the martyrdom, to which Hegesippus is indebted, was the grand jinale of these ‘Ascents,’ of which the earlier portions are preserved in the Recognitions? The Recognitions record how James with the Twelve refuted the Jewish sects: the account of Hegesippus makes the conversion of certain of these sects the starting-point of the persecution which ST PAUL AND THE THREE. Ley We are not therefore justified in laying much stress on this He was tradition. It is interesting as a phenomenon, but not trust- eae worthy as a history. Still it is possible that James may have been a Nazarite, may have been a strict ascetic. Such a repre- sentation perhaps some will view with impatience, as unworthy an Apostle of Christ. But this is unreasonable. Christian devotion does not assume the same outward garb in all persons, and at all times; not the same in James as in Paul; not the same in medieval as in protestant Christianity. In James, the Lord’s brother, if this account be true, we have the prototype of those later saints, whose rigid life and formal devotion elicits, it may be, only the contempt of the world, but of whom neverthe- less the world was not and is not worthy. But to retrace our steps from this slippery path of tradition to St James firmer ground. The difference of position between St James ae and the other Apostles appears plainly in the narrative of the ya so-called Apostolic council in the Acts. It is Peter who Acts, proposes the emancipation of the Gentile converts from the law; James who suggests the restrictive clauses of the decree. It is led to his martyrdom. In the Recog- nitions James is represented ascending the stairs which led up to the temple and addressing the people from these : in Hegesippus he is placed on the pin- nacle of the temple whence he delivers his testimony. In the Recognitions he is thrown down the flight of steps and left. as dead by his persecutors, but is taken up alive by the brethren; in Hegesippus he is hurled from the still loftier station, and this time his death is made sure. Thus the narrative of Hegesippus seems to preserve the con- summation of his testimony and his sufferings, as treated in this romance, the last of a series of ‘ Ascents,’ the first of these being embodied in the Recognitions. If Hegesippus, himself no Ebionite, has borrowed these incidents (whether directly or indirectly, we cannot say) from an Ebionite source, he has done no more than Clement of Alexandria did after him (see above, p. 80), than Epiphanius, the scourge of heretics, does repeatedly. The religious romance seems to have been a favourite style of composition with the Essene Ebionites : and in the lack of authentic informa- tion relating to the Apostles, Catholic writers eagerly and unsuspiciously ga- thered incidents from writings of which they repudiated the doctrines. It is worthy of notice thatthough the Essenes are named among the sects in Hege- sippus, they are not mentioned in the Recognitions; and that, while the Re- cognitions lay much stress on baptisms and washings (a cardinal doctrine of Essene Ebionism), this feature entirely disappears in the account of James given by Hegesippus. 128 ST PAUL AND THE THREE. Peter who echoes St Paul’s sentiment that Jew and Gentile alike can hope to be saved only ‘by the grace of the Lord Jesus’; James who speaks of Moses having them that preach him and being read in the synagogue every sabbath day. I cannot but regard this appropriateness of sentiment as a subsidiary proof of the authenticity of these speeches recorded by St Luke. andinthe And the same distinction extends also to their own writings. nee St Peter and St John, with a larger sphere of action and wider obligations, necessarily took up a neutral position with regard to the law, now carefully observing it at Jerusalem, now relaxing their observance among the Gentile converts. To St James on the other hand, mixing only with those to whom the Mosaic ordinances were the rule of life, the word and the thing have a higher importance. The neutrality of the former is reflected in the silence which pervades their writings, where ‘law’ is not once mentioned’. The respect of the latter appears in his differential use of the term, which he employs almost as a synonyme for ‘ Gospel?’ The But while so using the term ‘law,’ he nowhere implies that oe the Mosaic ritual is identical with or even a necessary part of Be Christianity. On the contrary he distinguishes the new dis- pensation as the perfect law, the law of liberty (i. 25, ii. 12), thus tacitly implying imperfection and bondage in the old. He assumes Indeed that his readers pay allegiance to the Mosaic law (ii. 9, 10, iv. 11), and he accepts this condition without commenting upon it. But the mere ritual has no value in his eyes. When he refers to the Mosaic law, he refers to its moral, not to its ceremonial ordinances (ii, 8—11). The external service of the religionist who puts no moral restraint on himself, who will not exert himself for qthers, is pronounced deceitful and vain. The external service, the outward garb, 1 As regards St John this is true 7 duapria éorly » dvoula. In St Peter only of the Epistles and the Apoca- neither véuos nor dvopla occurs. lypse: in the Gospel the law is neces- 2 The words evayyéduov, edaryyerlie- sarily mentioned by way of narrative. o@a:, do not occur in St James. In 1 Joh, iii. 4 it is said significantly ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 129 the very ritual, of Christianity is a life of purity and love and self-devotion’. What its true essence, its inmost spirit, may be, the writer does not say, but leaves this to be inferred. Thus, though with St Paul the new dispensation is the St James negation of law, with St James the perfection of law, the ideas Co underlying these contradictory forms of expression need not be essentially different. And this leads to the consideration of the language held by both Apostles on the subject of faith and works, The real significance of St James’s language, its true relation Faith and to the doctrine of St Paul, is determined by the view taken of a the persons to whom the epistle is addressed. If it is intended to counteract any modification or perversion of St Paul’s teach- ing, then there is, though not a plain contradiction, yet at all events a considerable divergency in the mode of dealing with the question by the two Apostles. I say the mode of dealing with the question, for antinomian inferences from his teaching are rebuked with even greater severity by St Paul himself than they are by St James’. If on the other hand the epistle is directed against an arrogant and barren orthodoxy, a Pharisaic self-satisfaction, to which the Churches of the Circumcision would be most exposed, then the case is considerably altered. The language of the Epistles to the Romans and Galatians at once suggests the former as the true account. But further consideration leads us to question our first rapid inference. Justification and faith seem to have been common terms, Abraham’s faith a common example, in the Jewish schools* This fact, if allowed, counteracts the prima facie evidence on the other side, and leaves us free to judge from the tenour of the epistle itself, Now, since in this very passage St James mentions as the object of their vaunted faith, not the funda- 1 James i. 26, 27. Coleridge directs New Testament and elsewhere, as the attention to the meaning of Opyoxela, ‘cultus exterior,’ see Trench Synon. and the consequent bearing of thetext, § xlviii. in a well-known passage in Aids to 2 eg. Rom. vi. 15—23, 1 Cor. vi. Reflection, Introd. Aphor. 23. For the 9—20, Gal. v. 13 sq. signification of Opyoxela both in the 3 See Galatians, p. 164. L. 9 Ebionite misrepre- sentations of St James explained. 130 ST PAUL AND THE THREE. mental fact of the Gospel ‘Thou believest that God raised Christ from the dead?,’ but the fundamental axiom of the law ‘Thou believest that God is one”’; since moreover he. elsewhere denounces the mere ritualist, telling him that his ritualism is nothing worth ; since lastly the whole tone of the epistle recalls our Lord’s denunciations of the scribes and Pharisees, and seems directed against a kindred spirit; it is reasonable to conclude that St James is denouncing not the moral aberrations of the professed disciple of St Paul (for with such he was not likely to be brought into close contact), but the self-complacent orthodoxy of the Pharisaic Christian, who, satisfied with the possession of a pure monotheism and vaunting his descent from Abraham, needed to be reminded not to neglect the still ‘ weightier matters’ of a self-denying love. If this view be correct, the expressions of the two Apostles can hardly be compared, for they are speaking, as it were, a different language. But in either case we may acquiesce in the verdict of a recent able writer, more free than most men both from traditional and from reactionary prejudices, that in the teaching of the two Apostles ‘there exists certainly a striking difference in the whole bent of mind, but no opposition of doctrine*’ Thus the representation of St James in the canonical Scrip- tures differs from its Ebionite counterpart as the true portrait from the caricature. The James of the Clementines could not have acquiesced in the apostolic decree, nor could he have held out the right hand of fellowship to St Paul. On the other hand, the Ebionite picture was not drawn entirely from imagination. A scrupulous observer of the law, perhaps a rigid ascetic, partly from temper and habit, partly from the requirements of his position, he might, without any very direct or conscious falsifi- cation, appear to interested partisans of a later age to represent their own tenets, from which he differed less in the external forms of worship than in the vital principles of religion. More- 1 Rom. x. 9. who however considers that St James * 1,19. Comp. Clem. Hom.iii.6sq. is writing against perversions of St 3 Bleek (Einl. in das N. T. p. 550), Paul’s teaching. ST PAUL AND THE THREE. 131 over during his lifetime he was compromised by those with whom his office associated him. In all revolutionary periods, whether of political or religious history, the leaders of the movement have found themselves unable to control the extra- vagances of their bigoted and short-sighted followers: and this great crisis of all was certainly not exempt from the common rule. St Paul is constantly checking and rebuking the excesses of those who professed to honour his name and to adopt his teaching: if we cannot state this of St James with equal confi- dence, it is because the sources of information are scantier. Of the Judaizers who are denounced in St Paul’s Epistles His rela- this much is certain; that they exalted the authority of the ie eae Apostles of the Circumcision: and that in some instances at 2°78: least, as members of the mother Church, they had direct rela- tions with James the Lord’s brother. But when we attempt to define these relations, we are lost in a maze of conjecture. The Hebrew Christians whose arrival at Antioch caused the Antioch. rupture between the Jewish and Gentile converts are related to have ‘come from James’ (Gal. ii. 12). Did they bear any commission from him? If so, did it relate to independent matters, or to this very question of eating with the Gentiles ? It seems most natural to interpret this notice by the parallel case of the Pharisaic brethren, who had before troubled this same Antiochene Church, ‘ going forth’ from the Apostles and insisting on circumcision and the observance of the law, though they ‘gave them no orders’ (Acts xv. 24). But on the least favourable supposition it amounts to this, that St James, though he had sanctioned the emancipation of the Gentiles from the law, was not prepared to welcome them as Israelites and admit them as such to full communion: that in fact he had not yet overcome scruples which even St Peter had only relinquished after many years and by a special revelation; in this, as in his recognition of Jesus as the Christ, moving more slowly than the Twelve. Turning from Antioch to Galatia, we meet with Judaic Galatia. teachers who urged circumcision on the Gentile converts and, 9—2 Corinth. The two Judaizing parties. 132 ST PAUL AND THE THREE. as the best means of weakening the authority of St Paul, asserted for the Apostles of the Circumcision the exclusive right of dictating to the Church. How great an abuse was thus made of the names of the Three, I trust the foregoing account has shown: yet here again the observance of the law by the Apostles of the Circumcision, especially by St James, would furnish a plausible argument to men who were unscrupulous enough to turn the occasional concessions of St Paul himself to the same account. But we are led to ask, Did these false teachers belong to the mother Church? had they any relation with James? is it possible that they had ever been personal disciples of the Lord Himself? There are some faint indications that such was the case; and, remembering that there was a Judas among the Twelve, we cannot set aside this supposition as impossible. In Corinth again we meet with false teachers of a similar stamp; whose opinions are less marked indeed than those of St Paul’s Galatian antagonists, but whose connexion with the mother Church is more clearly indicated. It is doubtless among those who said ‘I am of Peter, and I of Christ, among the latter especially, that we are to seek the counterpart of the Galatian Judaizers*. To the latter class St Paul alludes again in the Second Epistle: these must have been the men who ‘trusted to themselves that they were of Christ’ (x. 7), who invaded another’s sphere of labour and boasted of work which was ready to hand (x. 13—16), who were ‘false apostles, crafty workers, 1 Several writers representing dif- ferent schools have agreed in denying the existence of a ‘ Christ party.’ Pos- sibly the word ‘party’ may be too strong to describe what was rather a sentiment than an organization. But if admissible at all, I cannot see how, allowing that there were three parties, the existence of the fourth can be ques- tioned. For (1) the four watchwords are co-ordinated, and there is no indi- cation that éya 6¢ Xpirod is to be isolated from the others and differently interpreted. (2) The remonstrance im- mediately following (ueudpiorar 6 Xpr- orés) shows that the name of Christ, which ought to be common to all, had been made the badge of a party. (3) In 2 Cor. x. 7 the words ef ris wéroibev éauvr@ Xpicrob elvac and the description which follows gain force and definite- ness on this supposition. There is in fact more evidence for the existence of a party of Christ than there is of a party of Peter. ST PAUL AND THE THREE, 133 transforming themselves into apostles of Christ’ (xi. 13), who “commended themselves’ (x. 12, 18), who vaunted their pure Israelite descent (xi. 21—23). It is noteworthy that this party of extreme Judaizers call themselves by the name not of James, but of Christ. This may perhaps be taken as a token that his concessions to Gentile liberty had shaken their confidence in his fidelity to the law. The leaders of this extreme party would appear to have seen Christ in the flesh: hence their watchword ‘IT am of Christ’; hence also St Paul’s counter-claim that ‘he was of Christ’ also, and his unwilling boast that he had himself had visions and revelations of the Lord in abundance (xii. 1 sq). On the other hand, of the party of Cephas no distinct features are preserved ; but the passage itself implies that they differed from the extreme Judaizers, and we may therefore conjecture that they took up a middle position with regard to the law, similar to that which was occupied later by the Nazarenes. In claiming Cephas as the head of their party they had probably neither more nor less ground than their rivals who sheltered themselves under the names of Apollos and of Paul. Is it to these extreme Judaizers that St Paul alludes when Letters of he mentions ‘certain persons’ as ‘needing letters of recommen- asia dation to the Corinthians and of recommendation from them’ (2 Cor. iii. 1)? If so, by whom were these letters to Corinth given? By some half-Judaic, half-Christian brotherhood of the dispersion? By the mother Church of Jerusalem? By any of the primitive disciples? By James the Lord’s brother himself? It is wisest to confess plainly that the facts are too scanty to supply an answer. We may well be content to rest on the broad and direct statements in the Acts and Epistles, which declare the relations between St James and St Paul. A habit of suspicious interpretation, which neglects plain facts and dwells on doubtful allusions, is as unhealthy in theological criticism as in social life, and not more conducive to truth. Such incidental notices then, though they throw much light petenenices on the practical difficulties and entanglements of his position, notices, reveal nothing’ or next to nothing of the true principles of 134 ST PAUL AND THE THREE. St James. Only so long as we picture to ourselves an ideal standard of obedience, where the will of the ruler is the law of the subject, will such notices cause us perplexity. But, whether this be a healthy condition for any society or not, it is very far from representing the state of Christendom in the apostolic ages. If the Church had been a religious machine, if the Apostles had possessed absolute control over its working, if the manifold passions of men had been for once annihilated, if there had been no place for misgiving, prejudice, treachery, . hatred, superstition, then the picture would have been very different. But then also the history of the first ages of the Gospel would have had no lessons for us. As it is, we may well take courage from the study. However great may be the theo- logical differences and religious animosities of our own time, they are far surpassed in magnitude by the distractions of an age which, closing our eyes to facts, we are apt to invest with an ideal excellence. In the early Church was fulfilled, in its inward dissensions no less than in its outward sufferings, the Master’s sad warning that He came ‘not to send peace on earth, but a sword.’ III. THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. III. THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. not limited by the restrictions which fetter other societies, Church. political or religious. It is in the fullest sense free, comprehen- sive, universal. It displays this character, not only in the acceptance of all comers who seek admission, irrespective of race or caste or sex, but also in the instruction and treat- ment of those who are already its members. It has no sacred days or seasons, no special sanctuaries, because every time and every place alike are holy. Above all it has no sacerdotal system. It interposes no sacrificial tribe or class between God and man, by whose intervention alone God is reconciled and man forgiven. Each individual member holds personal com- munion with the Divine Head. To Him immediately he is responsible, and from Him directly he obtains pardon and draws strength. It is most important that we should keep this ideal Necessary definitely in view, and I have therefore stated it as broadly oa as possible. Yet the broad statement, if allowed to stand alone, would suggest a false impression, or at least would convey only a half truth. It must be evident that no society of men could hold together without officers, without rules, without institutions of any kind; and the Church of Christ is not exempt from this universal law. The conception in short is strictly an ideal, which we must ever hold before our eyes, dl isa kingdom of Christ, not being a kingdom of this world, is fe The idea and the realiza- tion. Special character- istic of Christian- ity. The Jew- ish priest- hood. 138 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. which should inspire and interpret ecclesiastical polity, but which nevertheless cannot supersede the necessary wants of human society, and, if crudely and hastily applied, will lead only to signal failure. As appointed days and set places are indispensable td her efficiency, so also the Church could not fulfil the purposes for which she exists, without rulers and teachers, without a ministry of reconciliation, in short, without an order of men who may in some sense be designated a priesthood. In this respect the ethics of Christianity present an analogy to the politics. Here also the ideal conception and the actual realization are incommensurate and in a manner contradictory. The Gospel is contrasted with the Law, as the spirit with the letter. Its ethical principle is not a code of positive ordinances, but conformity to a perfect exemplar, incorporation’ into a divine life. The distinction is most im- portant and eminently fertile in practical results. Yet no man would dare to live without laying down more or less definite rules for his own guidance, without yielding obedience to law in some sense; and those who discard or attempt to discard all such aids are often farthest from the attainment of Christian perfection. This qualification is introduced here to deprecate any misunderstanding to which the opening statement, if left without compensation, would fairly be exposed. It will be time to enquire hereafter in what sense the Christian ministry may or may not be called a priesthood. But in attempting to investigate the historical development of this divine institution, no better starting-point suggested itself than the characteristic distinction of Christianity, as declared occasionally by the direct language but more frequently by the eloquent silence of the apostolic writings. For in this respect Christianity stands apart from all the older religions of the world. So far at least, the Mosaic dis- pensation did not differ from the religions of Egypt or Asia or Greece. Yet the sacerdotal system of the Old Testament possessed one important characteristic, which separated it from THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 139 heathen priesthoods and which deserves especial notice. The priestly tribe held this peculiar relation to God only as the representatives of the whole nation. As delegates of the people, | they offered sacrifice and made atonement. The whole com- munity is regarded as ‘a kingdom of priests, ‘a holy nation.’ When the sons of Levi are set apart, their consecration is distinctly stated to be due under the divine guidance not to any inherent sanctity or to any caste privilege, but to an act of delegation on the part of the entire people. The Levites are, so to speak, ordained by the whole congregation. ‘The children of Israel,’ it is said, ‘shall put their hands upon the Levites*’ The nation thus deputes to a single tribe the priestly functions which belong properly to itself as a whole. The Christian idea therefore was the restitution of this Its rela- immediate and direct relation with God, which was partly See ee suspended but not abolished by the appointment of a sacerdotal cg tribe. The Levitical priesthood, like the Mosaic law, had served its temporary purpose. The period of childhood had- passed, and the Church of God was now arrived at mature age. The covenant people resumed their sacerdotal functions. But the privileges of the covenant were no longer confined to the limits of a single nation. Every member of the human family was potentially a member of the Church, and, as such, a priest of God. The influence of this idea on the moral and spiritual growth Influence ah ena is : : ‘ of the of the individual believer is too plain to require any comment ; Christian but its social effects may call for a passing remark. It will ieal- hardly be denied, I think, by those who have studied the history of modern civilization with attention, that this concep- tion of the Christian Church has been mainly instrumental in the emancipation of the degraded and oppressed, in the removal of artificial barriers between class and class, and in the diffusion of a general philanthropy untrammelled by the fetters of party or race; in short, that to it mainly must be attributed the most important advantages which constitute the superiority of 1 Num. viii. 10. 140 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. modern societies over ancient. Consciously or unconsciously, the idea of an universal priesthood, of the religious equality of all men, which, though not untaught before, was first embodied in the Church of Christ, has worked and is working untold blessings in political institutions and in social life. -But the careful student will also observe that this idea has hitherto been very imperfectly apprehended; that throughout the his- tory of the Church it has been struggling for recognition, at most times discerned in some of its aspects but at all times wholly ignored in others; and that therefore the actual results are a very inadequate measure of its efficacy, if only it could assume due prominence and were allowed free scope in action. ( This then is the Christian ideal; a holy season extending the whole year round—a temple confined only by the limits of \ the habitable world—a priesthood coextensive with the human race. Practical Strict loyalty to this conception was not held incompatible ac with practical measures of organization. As the Church grew ( in numbers, as new and heterogeneous elements were added, as ] the early fervour of devotion cooled and strange forms of disorder sprang up, it became necessary to provide for the emergency by fixed rules and definite officers. The community of goods, by which the infant Church had attempted to give effect to the idea of an universal brotherhood, must very soon have been abandoned under the pressure of circumstances, The Sree celebration of the first day in the week at once, the institution of worship; of annual festivals afterwards, were seen to be necessary to stimulate and direct the devotion of the believers. The appoint- ment of definite places of meeting in the earliest days, the erection of special buildings for worship at a later date, were found indispensable to the working of the Church. But the but the Apostles never lost sight of the idea in their teaching. They pe ay : proclaimed loudly that ‘God dwelleth not in temples made by hands.’ They indignantly denounced those who, ‘observed days and months and seasons and years.’ This language is not satisfied by supposing that they condemned only the temple- THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 141 worship in the one case, that they reprobated only Jewish sabbaths and new moons in the other. It was against the false principle that they waged war; the principle which exalted the means into an end, and gave an absolute intrinsic value to subordinate aids and expedients. These aids and expedients, for his own sake and for the good of the society to which he belonged, a Christian could not afford to hold lightly or neglect. But they were no part of the essence of God’s message to man im the Gospel: they must not be allowed to obscure the idea of Christian worship. So it was also with the Christian priesthood. For communi- Appoint- ment of a cating instruction and for preserving public order, for conducting ministry. religious worship | and for dispensing social « charities, it became necessary to appoint nt special officers. But the priestly functions and “privileges ‘of the Christian people are never regarded as transferred or even delegated to these officers. _ They are called stewards or messengers of God, servants or ministers of the Church, and the like: but the ‘sacerdotal title is never once conferred upon them. The only priests under the Gospel, designated as such in the New Testament, are the saints, the members of the Christian brotherhood’. As s individuals, all Christians are priests alike. As members Two pas- of a corporation, they have ‘their several and distinct ‘offices. Pe os The similitude of the human body, where each limb or organ lating thereto. performs its own functions, and the health and growth of the whole frame, are promoted by. the _harmonious but separate working o of _every part, was chosen by St Paul to represent the progress and operation of the Church. In two passages, written at two different stages in his apostolic career, he briefly sums up the offices in the Church with reference to this image. 1 1 Pet. ii. 5, 9, Apoc.i.6, v. 10,xx.6. et sacerdotale etc.’ (Ambrosiast. on The commentator Hilary has express- Ephes. iv. 12). The whole passage, ed this truth with much distinctness: to which I shall have occasion to refer ‘In lege nascebantur sacerdotes ex ge- again, contains a singularly apprecia- nere Aaron Levitae: nunc autemomnes tive account of the relation of the mi- ex genere sunt sacerdotali, dicente istry to the congregation. Petro Apostolo, Quia estis genus regale 142 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. In the earlier he enumerates ‘first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly teachers, then powers, then gifts of healing, helps, governments, kinds of tongues. In the second passage’ the. list is briefer ; ‘some apostles, and some prophets, and some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers’ The earlier enumeration differs chiefly from the later in specifying dis- tinetly certain miraculous powers, this being required by the Apostle’s argument which is directed against an exaggerated estimate and abuse of such gifts. Neither list can have been They refer intended to be exhaustiver In both alike the work of convert- aia ing unbelievers and founding con congregations holds the s foremost eo place, while the ‘permanent government and instruction of the \ - several churches is kept in the background. This prominence was necessary in the earliest age of the Gospel. The apostles, | prophets, evangelists, all range under the former head. But the permanent ministry, though lightly touched upon, is not /forgotten ; for under the designation of ‘ teachers, helps, govern- ments’ in the one passage, of ‘pastors and teachers’ in the . other, these officers must be intended, Again in both passages | alike it will be seen that great stress is laid on the work of the Spirit. The faculty of governing not less than the utterance of prophecy, the gift of healing not less than the gift of tongues, is an inspiration of the Holy Ghost. But on the other hand in both alike there is an entire silence about priestly functions: for the most exalted office in the Church, the highest gift of the Spirit, conveyed no sacerdotal right which was not enjoyed by the humblest member of the Christian community. e Growing From the subordinate place, which it thus occupies in the import she notices of St Paul, the permanent ministry gradually emerged, ance of the permanent 43 the Church assumed a more settled form, and the higher but ministry. --— (¢ temporary) offices, such as the apostolate, fell away. This progressive growth and development of the ministry, until it arrived at its mature and normal state, it will be the object of the following pages to trace. ave But before proceeding further, some definition of terms is or terms necessary. 1 1 Cor. xii. 28. 2 Ephes. iv. 11. 4 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 143 necessary. On no subject has more serious error arisen from the confusion of language. The word ‘priest’ has two different senses. In the one it is a synonyme for presbyter or elder, and designates the minister who presides over and instructs a Christian congregation: in the other it is equivalent to the Latin sacerdos, the Greek (epeds, or the Hebrew }73, the offerer of sacrifices, who also performs other mediatorial offices between God and man. How the confusion between these two meanings has affected the history and theology of the Church, it will be instructive to consider in the sequel. At present it ‘Priest’ is sufficient to say that the word will be used throughout this oa essay, .as it has been used hitherto, in the latter sense only, so that priestly will be equivalent to ‘sacerdotal’ or ‘hieratic,’ Etymologically indeed the other meaning is alone correct (for the words priest and presbyter are the same); but convenience will justify its restriction to this secondary and imported sense, since the English language supplies no other rendering of sacerdos or éepeds. On the other hand, when the Christian elder is meant, the longer form ‘presbyter’ will be employed throughout. History seems to show decisively that before the middle of Different the second century each church or organized Christian commu- eee nity had its three orders of ministers, its bishop, its presbyters, ee a and its deacons. On this point there cannot reasonably be two ministry. opinions. But at what time and under what circumstances this organization was matured, and to what extent our allegiance is due to it as an authoritative ordinance, are more difficult questions. Some have recognized in episcopacy an institution of divine origin, absolute and indispensable; others have represented it as destitute of all apostolic sanction and authority. Some again have sought for the archetype of the threefold ministry in the Aaronic priesthood; others in the arrangements of synagogue worship. In this clamour of antagonistic opinions history is obviously the sole upright, impartial referee; and the historical mode of treatment will Ministry appointed to relieve the Apo- stles. 1. Dsa- cons. Appoint- ment of the Seven. 144 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. therefore be strictly adhered to in the following investigation. The doctrine in this instance at all events is involved in the: history? St Luke’s narrative represents the Twelve Apostles in the earliest, days as the sole directors and administrators of the Church. For the financial business of the infant community, not less than for its spiritual guidance, they alone are responsible. This state of things could not last long. By the rapid accession of numbers, and still more by the admission of heterogeneous classes into the Church, the work became too vast and too various for them to discharge unaided. To relieve them from the increasing pressure, the inferior and less impor- tant functions passed successively into other | hands: and thus each grade of “the ministry, beginning from the lowest, was created in. order. 1. The establishment of the diaconate came first. Com- plaints had reached the ears of the Apostles from an outlying portion of the community. The Hellenist widows had been overlooked in the daily distribution of food and alms. To remedy this neglect a new office was created. Seven men were appointed whose duty it was to superintend the public messes’, and, as we may suppose, to provide in other ways for the bodily wants of the helpless poor. Thus relieved, the Twelve were enabled to devote themselves without interruption ‘to prayer and to the ministry of the word.’ The Apostles suggested the creation of this new office, but the persons were chosen by — popular election and afterwards ordained by the Twelve with imposition of hands. Though the complaint came from the Hellenists, it must not be supposed that-the ministrations of the Seven were confined to this class*, The object in creating 1 The origin of the Christian minis- try is ably investigated in Rothe’s Anfinge der Christlichen Kirche etc. (1837), and Ritschl’s Entstehung der Altkatholischen Kirche (2nd ed. 1857). These are the most important of the more recent works on the subject with which I am acquainted, and to both of them I wish to acknowledge my obliga- tions, though in many respects I have arrived at results different from either. 2 Acts vi. 2 diaxovely rpamétas. 3 So for instance Vitringa de Synag. mm. 2. 5, p. 928 sq, and Mosheim de co THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 145 this new office is stated to be not the partial but the entire relief of the Apostles from the serving of tables. This being the case, the appointment of Hellenists (for such they would appear to have been from their names’) is a token of the liberal and loving spirit which prompted the Hebrew members of the Church in the selection of persons to fill the office. I have assumed that the office thus established represents The Seven the later diaconate; for though — this. point has been much eae sei disputed, I do not see how the identity of the two can ‘reasonably be called. in question», If the . word. ‘deacon’ does not occur in the passage, yet the ‘corresponding verb and substantive, Siacovely and Svaxovia, are “repeated more than _ once. “The functions moreover are substantially those which devolved on the deacons of the earliest ages, and which still in theory, though not altogether in practice, form the primary duties of the office. Again, it seems clear from the emphasis with which St Luke dwells on the new institution, that he looks on the establishment of this office, not as an isolated incident, but as the initiation of a new order of things in the Church. It isin short one of those representative facts, of which the earlier part of his narrative is almost wholly made up. Lastly, the tradition of the identity of the two offices has been unanimous from the earliest times. Irenzus, the first writer who alludes to the appointment of the Seven, distinctly holds them to have been deacons*. The Roman Church some centuries later, though Reb. Christ. p. 119, followed by many later writers. 1 This inference however is far from certain, since many Hebrews bore Greek names, e.g. the Apostles An- drew and Philip. 2 It is maintained by Vitringa m1. 2. 5, p. 920 sq., that the office of the Seven was different from the later diaconate. He quotes Chrysost. Hom. 14 in Act, (1x. p. 115, ed. Montf.) and Can. 10 of the Quinisextine Council L. (comp. p. 146, note 2) as favouring his view. With strange perversity Bohmer (Diss. Jur. Eccl. p. 349 sq.) supposes them to be presbyters, and this account has been adopted even by Ritschl, p. 355 sq. According to another view the office of the Seven branched out into the two later orders of the diaconate and the presbyterate, Lange Apost. Zeit. uw. i. p. 75. 3 Iren. i, 26, 3, iii. 12. 10, iv. 15. 1. 10 The office was a new institution not borrowed from the Levitical order, 146 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. the presbytery had largely increased meanwhile, still restricted the number of deacons to seven, thus preserving the memory of the first institution of this office’, And in like manner a canon of the Council of Neocesarea (A.D. 315) enacted that there should be no more than seven deacons in any city however great’, alleging the apostolic model. This rule, it is true, was ouly partially observed; but the tradition was at all events so far respected, that the creation of an order of subdeacons was found necessary in order to remedy the inconvenience arising from the limitation®. The narrative in the Acts, if I mistake not, implies that the office thus created was entirely new. Some writers however have explained the incident as an extension to the Hellenists of an institution which already existed among the Hebrew Christians and is implied in the ‘ younger men’ mentioned in an earlier part of St Luke’s history’. This view seems not only to be groundless in itself, but also to contradict the general tenour of the narrative. It would appear moreover, that the institution was not merely new within the Christian Church, but novel absolutely. There is no reason for connecting it with any prototype existing in the Jewish community. The narrative offers no hint that it was either a continuation of the order of Levites or an adaptation of an office in the syna- gogue. The philanthropic purpose for which it was established presents no direct point of contact with the known duties of either. The Levite, whose function it was to keep the beasts for slaughter, to cleanse away the blood and offal of the 1 In the middle of the third century, when Cornelius writes to Fabius, Rome has 46 presbyters but only 7 deacons, Euseb. H. E. vi. 43; see Routh’s Rel. Sacr. 1. p. 23, with his note p. 61. Even in the fourth and fifth centuries the number of Roman deacons still remained constant: see Ambrosiast. on 1 Tim, iii, 13, Sozom. vii. 19 didovor de mapa ‘Pwpatos elaére viv elov érrd.... mapa 5é Trois dddows adtddopos 6 TovTwY dprbpés. 2 Concil. Neocwxs. ¢. 14 (Routh Rel. Sacr. Iv. p. 185): see Bingham’s Antig. tr. 20. 19. At the Quinisextine or 2nd Trullan council (4.p. 692) this Neoce- Sarean canon was refuted and rejected: see Hefele Consiliengesch. m1. p. 304, and Vitringa p. 922. 3 See Bingham 1m. 1, 3, + Acts v. 6,10. This is the view of Mosheim de Reb. Christ. p. 114, THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 147 sacrifices, to serve as porter at the temple gates, and to swell the chorus of sacred psalmody, bears no strong resemblance to the Christian deacon, whose ministrations lay among the widows and orphans, and whose time was almost wholly spent in works of charity. And again, the Chazan or attendant in nor from the synagogue, whose duties were confined to the care of the a building and the preparation for service, has more in common with the modern parish clerk than with the deacon in the infant Church of Christ’. It is therefore a baseless, though avery common, assumption that the Christian diaconate was copied from the arrangements of the synagogue. The Hebrew Chazan is not rendered by ‘deacon’ in the Greek Testament ; but a different word is used instead’, We may fairly presume that St Luke dwells at such length on the establishment of the diaconate, because he regards it as a novel creation. Thus the work primarily assigned to the deacons was the Teaching relief of the poor. Their office was essentially a ‘serving of ae ee i tables, as distinguished from the higher function of preaching the office. and instruction. But partly from the circumstances of their position, partly from the personal character of those first appointed, the deacons at once assumed a prominence which is not indicated in the original creation of the office. Moving about freely among the poorer brethren and charged with the relief of their material wants, they would find opportunities of influence which were denied to the higher officers of the Church who necessarily kept themselves more aloof. The devout zeal of a Stephen or a Philip would turn these oppor- tunities to the best account; and thus, without ceasing to be dispensers of alms, they became also ministers of the Word. The Apostles themselves had directed that the persons chosen should be not only ‘ men of honest report,’ but also ‘ full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom’: and this careful foresight, to which 1 Vitringa (mr. 2. 4, p. 914 sq., m1. view, the fact that as a rule there was 2, 22, p. 1180 sq.) derives the Christian only one Chazan to each synagogue deacon from the Chazan of the syna- must not be overlooked. gogue. Among other objections to this 2 Sanpérns, Luke iv. 20. 10—2 Spread of the diaco- nate to Gentile churches. 148 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. the extended influence of the diaconate may be ascribed, proved also the security against its abuse. But still the work of teaching must be traced rather to the capacity of the individual officer than to the direct functions of the office. St Paul, writing thirty years later, and stating the requirements of the diaconate, lays the stress mainly on those qualifications which would be most important in persons moving about from house to house and entrusted with the distribution of alms. While he requires that they shall ‘hold the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience, in other words, that.they shall be sincere believers, he is not anxious, as in the case of the presbyters, to secure ‘aptness to teach,’ but demands especially that they shall be free from certain vicious habits, such as a love of gossiping, and a greed of paltry gain, into which they might easily fall from the nature of their duties’. From the mother Church of Jerusalem the institution spread to Gentile Christian brotherhoods. By the ‘helps®’ in the First Epistle to the Corinthians (4.D. 57), and by the ‘ministration ®’ in the Epistle to the Romans (4.D. 58), the diaconate solely or chiefly seems to be intended; but besides these incidental allusions, the latter epistle bears more sig- nificant testimony to the general extension of the office. The strict seclusion of the female sex in Greece and in some Oriental countries necessarily debarred them from the ministra- tions of men: and to meet the want thus felt, it was found necessary at an early date to admit women to the diaconate. A woman-deacon belonging to the Church of Cenchrex is mentioned in the Epistle to the Romans*. As time advances, the diaconate becomes still more prominent. In the Philippian Church a few years later (about A.D. 62) the deacons take their rank after the presbyters, the two orders together constituting the recognised ministry of the Christian society there’. Again, passing over another interval of some years, we find St Paul in 1 1 Tim. iii. 8 sq. * Rom. xvi. 1. 2 1 Cor. xii. 28. 5 Phil. i. 1. 3 Rom. xii. 7. THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 149 the First Epistle to Timothy (about a.p. 66) giving express directions as to the qualifications of men-deacons and women- deacons alike’. From the tenour of his language it seems clear that in the Christian communities of proconsular Asia at all events the institution was so common that ministerial organiza- tion would be considered incomplete without it. On the other hand we may perhaps infer from the instructions which he sends about the same time to Titus in Crete, that he did not consider it indispensable ; for while he mentions having given direct orders to his delegate to appoint presbyters in every city, he is silent about a diaconate’. 2. While the diaconate was thus an entirely new creation, 2. Prus- called forth by a special emergency and developed by the **”™™” progress of events, the early history of the presbyterate was different. If the sacred historian dwells at length on the institution of the lower office but is silent about the first beginnings of the higher, the explanation seems to be, that the latter had not the claim of novelty like the former. The nota new Christian Church in its earliest stage was regarded by the body ae of the Jewish people as nothing more than a new sect springing up by the side of the old. This was not unnatural: for the first disciples conformed to the religion of their fathers in all essential points, practising circumcision, observing the sabbaths, and attending the temple-worship. The sects in the Jewish commonwealth were not, properly speaking, nonconformists. They only superadded their own special organization to the established religion of their country, which for the most part they were careful to observe. The institution of synagogues bol dot was flexible enough to allow free scope for wide divergences of syna- creed and practice. Different races as the Cyrenians and 88% Alexandrians, different classes of society as the freedmen’, perhaps also different sects as the Sadducees or the Essenes, each had or could have their own special synagogue‘, where 1 1 Tim. iii. 8 sq. 4 It is stated, that there were no less 2 Tit. i. 5 sq. than 480 synagogues in Jerusalem. 3 Acts vi. 9. The number is doubtless greatly ex- 150 _THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. they might indulge their peculiarities without hindrance. As soon as the expansion of the Church rendered some organiza- tion necessary, it would form a ‘synagogue’ of its own. The Christian congregations in Palestine long continued to be designated by this name’, though the term ‘ecclesia’ took its place from the very first in heathen countries. With the synagogue itself they would naturally, if not necessarily, adopt _ the normal government of a synagogue, and a body of elders Occasion of its adoption. or presbyters would be chosen to direct the religious worship and partly also to watch over the temporal well-being of the society. Hence the silence of St Luke. When he first mentions the presbyters, he introduces them without preface, as though the institution were a matter of course. But the moment of their introduction is significant. I have pointed out elsewhere” that the two persecutions, of which St Stephen and St James were respectively the chief victims, mark two important stages in the diffusion of the Gospel. Their connexion with the internal organization of the Church is not less remarkable. The first results directly from the establishment of the lowest order in the ministry, the diaconate. To the second may probably be ascribed the adoption of the next higher grade, the presbytery. This later persecution was the signal for the dispersion of the Twelve on a wider mission. Since Jerusalem would no longer be their home as hitherto, it became necessary to provide for the permanent direction of the Church there; and for this purpose the usual government of the synagogue would be adopted. Now at all events for the first time we read of ‘ presbyters’ in connexion with the Christian brother- hood at Jerusalem*. aggerated, but must have been very considerable: see Vitringa prol. 4, p. 28, and 1. 1. 14, p. 253. 1 James ii. 2. Epiphanius (xxx. 18, p. 142) says of the Ebionites cvvayw- yhv oro kadodor Thy éavradv éxxdyolap, kal obxl éxxAnolay. See also Hieron. Epist. cxii, 13 (1. p. 746, ed. Vall.) ‘per totas orientis synagogas,’ speaking of the Nazareans ; though his meaning is not altogether clear. Comp. Test. ait Patr. Benj. 11. 2 See above, pp. 53, 58. 3 Acts xi. 30. On the sequence of THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 151 From this time forward all official communications with the Presbytery mother Church are carried on through their intervention. To ee the presbyters Barnabas and Saul bear the alms contributed by the Gentile Churches’. The presbyters are persistently asso- ciated with the Apostles, in convening the congress, in the superscription of the decree, and in the general settlement of the dispute between the Jewish and Gentile Christians’. By the presbyters St Paul is received many years later on his last visit to Jerusalem, and to them he gives an account of his missionary labours and triumphs’. But the office was not confined to the mother Church alone. Extension Jewish presbyteries existed already in all the principal cities of as the dispersion, and Christian presbyteries would early occupy aan a not less wide area. On their very first missionary journey the Apostles Paul and Barnabas are described as appointing presbyters in every church’. The same rule was doubtless carried out in all the brotherhoods founded later; but it is mentioned here and here only, because the mode of procedure on this occasion would suffice as a type of the Apostles’ dealings elsewhere under similar circumstances. The name of the presbyter then presents no difficulty. But Presbyters what must be said of the term ‘bishop’? It has been shown Sees that in the apostolic writings the two are only different desig- nations of one and the same office*, How and where was this second name originated ? To the officers of Gentile Churches alone is the term applied, but only in as a synonyme for presbyter. At Philippi’, in Asia Minor’, in Ce. ea Crete’, the presbyter is so called. In the next generation the title is employed in a letter written by the Greek Church of Rome to the Greek Church of Corinth’. Thus the word would seem to be especially Hellenic. Beyond this we are left to Possible ’ origin of events at this time see Galatians p. 5 See Philippians p. 96 sq. the term. 124, 6 Phil, i. 1. 1 Acts xi. 30. 7 Acts xx. 28, 1 Tim. iii. 1,2; comp. 2 Acts xv. 2, 4, 6, 22, 23, xvi. 4. 1 Pet. ii. 25, v. 2. 3 Acts xxi. 18, 8 Tit. i. 7. 4 Acts xiv. 23. 9 Clem. Rom. 42, 44. Twofold duties of the presbyter. The fune- _ tion of teaching. 152 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. conjecture. But if we may assume that the directors of religious and social clubs among the heathen were commonly so called’, it would naturally occur, if not to the Gentile Christians themselves, at all events to their heathen associates, as a fit designation for the presiding members of the new society. The infant Church of Christ, which appeared to the Jew as a synagogue, would be regarded by the heathen as a confraternity. But whatever may have been the origin of the term, it did not altogether dispossess the earlier name ‘presbyter, which still held its place as a synonyme even in Gentile congregations*. And, when at length the term bishop was appropriated to a higher office in the Church, the latter became again, as it had been at first, the sole designation of the Christian elder‘. The duties of the presbyters were twofold. They were both rulers and instructors of the congregation. This double function appears in St Paul’s expression ‘pastors and teachers’,’ where, as the form of the original seems to show, the two words describe the same office under different aspects. Though government was probably the first conception of the office, yet the work of teaching must have fallen to the presbyters from the very first and have assumed greater prominence as time went on. With the growth of the Church, the visits of the apostles and evangelists to any individual community must have become less and less frequent, so that the burden of in- struction would be gradually transferred from these missionary 1 The evidence however is slight: 4 Other. more general designations in see Philippians p. 95, note 2. Some the New Testament are oi mpoorduevor light is thrown on this subject by the (1 Thess. v. 12, Rom. xii. 8: comp. fact that the Roman government seems 1 Tim. v. 17), or ol tyovuevor (Hebr. first to have recognised the Christian xiii. 7,17, 24). For the former comp. brotherhoods in their corporate capa- Hermas Vis. ii, 4, Justin. Apol. i. 67 city, as burial cluhs: see de Rossi Rom. (6 rpoeords); for the latter, Clem. Rom. Sotterr. 1. p. 371. 1, 21, Hermas Vis, ii. 2, iii. 9 (of wpon- 2 On these clubs or confraternities -yovpevou). see Renan Les Apédtres p. 351 sq.; 5 Ephes. iv. 11 rods dé rouévas kat comp. Saint Paul p. 239. Odackddovs. For roimalvew applied to 8 Acts xx. 17, 1 Tim. v. 17, Tit. i.5, the érloxoros or rpecBirepos see Acts 1 Pet. v. 1, Clem. Rom. 21, 44. xx. 28, 1 Pet. v. 2; comp. 1 Pet. ii. 25. THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 153 preachers to the local officers of the congregation. Hence St Paul in two passages, where he gives directions relating to bishops or presbyters, insists specially on the faculty of teaching as a qualification for the position. Yet even here this work seems to be regarded rather as incidental to than as inherent in the office. In the one epistle he directs that double honour shall be paid to those presbyters who have ruled well, but especially to such as ‘labour in word and doctrine’, as though one holding this office might decline the work of instruction. In the other, he closes the list of qualifications with the requirement that the bishop (or presbyter) hold fast’ the faithful word in accordance with the apostolic teaching, ‘that he may be able both to exhort in the healthy doctrine and to confute gainsayers, alleging as a reason the pernicious activity and growing numbers of the false teachers. Neverthe- less there is no ground for supposing that the work of teaching and the work of governing pertained to separate members of the presbyteral college*. As each had his special gift, so would he devote himself more or less exclusively to the one or the other of these sacred functions. 3. Itisclear then that at the close of the apostolic age, the 3.Brsors. two lower orders of the threefold ministry were firmly and widely established ; but traces of the third and highest order, the episcopate properly so called, are few and indistinct. For the opinion hazarded by Theodoret and adopted by The office | many later writers‘, that the same officers in the Church . who ann 1 1 Tim. iii. 2, Tit. i. 9. 21 Tim. v.17 pddora of Komidvres év Ady kal didackarig. At a much later date we read of ‘presbyteri doc- tores,’ whence it may perhaps be in- ferred that even then the work of teaching was not absolutely indispens- able to the presbyteral office; Act. Perp. et Fel. 13, Cyprian. Epist. 29: see Ritschl p. 352. 3 The distinction of lay or ruling elders, and ministers proper or teaching elders, was laid down by Calvin and has been adopted as the constitution of several presbyterian Churches. This interpretation of St Paul’s language is refuted by Rothe p. 224, Ritschl p. 352 sq., and Schaff Hist. of Apost. Ch. 11. p. 312, besides older writers such as Vitringa and Mosheim. 2 On 1 Tim. iii. 1, rods 5¢ vdv Kadov- pévous éerurkbmous dirocréAous wvduatov' Tod 5é xpévouv mpotbyros Td pév THs aro- arovys dvoua rots adnOus drrocrdbdas 154 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. of the apo- were first called apostles came afterwards to be, designated stolate. Phil. ii, 25 as an ‘apostle’ of the Philippians. 4, Meaning which is thus assigned to it, all the three orders of the wrongly explaine \ bishops, i is ; baseless, If the two offices had been identical, the ' substitution of the one name for the other would have required ' gome explanation. But in fact the functions of the Apostle and _ the bishop differed | widely. ‘The ‘Apostle, like the prophet or the evangelist, held no local office. He was essentially, as his name denotes, a missionary, moving about from place to placé, founding and confirming new brotherhoods. The only ground on which Theodoret builds his: theory is a false interpretation of a passage in St Paul. At the opening of the Epistle to Philippi ‘the presbyters (here called bishops) and deacons are saluted, while in the body of the letter one Epaphroditus is mentioned If ‘apostle’ here had the ministry would be found at Philippi. But this interpretation will not stand. The true Apostle, like St Peter or St John, bears this title as the messenger, the delegate, of Christ Himself: while Epaphroditus is only so styled as the messenger of the Philippian brotherhood; and in the very next clause the expression is explained by the statement that he carried their alms to St Paul) The use of the word here has a parallel in another passage’, where messengers (or apostles) of the churches are mentioned. It is not-therefore to the apostle that we must look for the prototype of the bishop. How far indeed and in what sense the bishop may be called a successor of the Apostles, will be a proper subject for consideration: but the succession at least does not consist in an identity of office. karé\urov, TO 5é THs Emiokomys ToLs maNaL Karoupevos drocrddas éréferav. See also his note on Phil. i, 1. Comp. Wordsworth Theoph. Angl. c. x, Blunt First Three Centuries p. 81. Theodoret, as usual, has borrowed from Theodore of Mopsuestia on 1 Tim. iii. 1, ‘Qui vero nune episcopi nominantur, illi tune apostoli dicebantur...Beatis vero apostolis decedentibus, illi qui post illos ordinati sunt.,.grave existima- verunt apostolorum sibi vindicare nuncupationem; diviserunt ergo ipsa nomina etc.’ (Raban. Maur. vi. p. 604 p, ed. Migne). Theodore however makes a distinction between the two offices: nor does he, like Theodoret, misinterpret Phil. ii. 25. The com- mentator Hilary also, on Ephes. iv. 11, says ‘apostoli episcopi sunt.’ 1 Phil. ii, 25, see Philippians p. 123. 2 2 Cor. viii. 23, see Galatians p. 95, note 3. THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 155 The history of the name itself suggests a different account The epis- of the origin of ‘the 2 episcopate. If bishop was at first, used as a ne al synonyme for presbyter and afterwards came to designate the le higher officer under whom the presbyters served, the episcopate tery. properly s so called would seem to have been developed from the subordinate office. In other words, the episcopate was formed not_ out of the apostolic order by localisation but out of the presbyteral by elevation: and the title, which originally was common to all, came at length to be appropriated to the chief among them’. If this account be true, we might expect to find in the St James mother Church of Jerusalem, which as the earliest founded oe would soonest ripen into maturity, the first traces of this >isbop, developed form of the ministry. Nor is this expectation disappointed. James the Lord’s brother alone, within the period compassed by the apostolic writings, can claim to be regarded as a bishop in the later and more special sense of the term. In the language of St Paul he takes precedence even of the earliest and greatest preachers of the Gospel, St Peter and St John’, where the affairs of the Jewish Church specially are concerned. In St Luke’s narrative he appears as the local representative of the brotherhood in Jerusalem, presiding at the congress, whose decision he suggests and whose decree he appears to have framed’, receiving the missionary preachers as they revisit the mother Church‘, acting generally as the referee in communications with foreign brotherhoods. The place assigned to him in the spurious Clementines, where he is 1 A parallel instance from Athenian institutions will illustrate this usage. The émordrys was chairman of a body of ten mpéedpor, who themselves were appointed in turn by lot to serve from a larger body of fifty rpurdves. Yet we find the émrierdrys not only designated mptravis par excellence (Demosth. Ti- mocr. § 157), but even addressed by this name in the presence of the other mpdedpor (Thue. vi. 14). 2 Gal. ii. 9; see the note. ® Acts xv. 13 sq. St James speaks last and apparently with some degree of authority (éyd xplyw ver. 19). The decree is clearly framed on his recom- mendations, and some indecisive coin- cidences of style with his epistle have been pointed out. 4 Acts xxi. 18; comp. xii. 17. See also Gal. i. 19, ii. 12. 156 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. represented as supreme arbiter over the Church universal in matters of doctrine, must be treated as a gross exaggeration. This kind of authority is nowhere conferred upon him in the apostolic writings: but his social and ecclesiastical position, as it appears in St Luke and St Paul, explains how the exaggera- tion was possible. And this position is the more remarkable if, as seems to have been the case, he was not one of the Twelve’. so Maa On the other hand, though especially prominent, he appears lated from n the Acts as a member of a body. When St Peter, after his foe escape from prison, is about to leave Jerusalem, he desires that his deliverance shall be reported to ‘James and the brethren?’ When again St Paul on his last visit to the Holy City goes to see James, we are told that all the presbyters were present®. If in some passages St James is named by himself, in others he is omitted and the presbyters alone are mentioned*. From this it may be inferred that though holding a position superior to the rest, he was still considered as a member of the presbytery ; that he was in fact the head or president of the college. What power this presidency conferred, how far it was recognised as an independent official position, and to what degree it was due to the ascendancy of his personal gifts, are questions, which in the absence of direct information can only be answered by conjecture. But his close relationship with the Lord, his rare energy of character, and his rigid sanctity of life which won the respect even of the unconverted Jews’, would react upon his office, and may perhaps have elevated it to a level which was not definitely contemplated in its origin. Nobishops | But while the episcopal office thus existed in the mother Pe Church of Jerusalem from very early days, at least in a rudi- Churches. mentary form, the New Testament presents no distinct traces of such organization in the Gentile congregations. The govern- Twostages ment of the Gentile churches, as there represented, exhibits two ofdevelop- - goa on ess ment: successive stages of development tending i in this direction ; : but 1 See above, p. 1 sq. 4 Acts xi. 30; comp. xv. 4, 23, xvi. 4. 2 Acts xii. 17. 5 See above, p. 12 sq. 3 Acts xxi. 18. THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 157 the third stage, in which episcopacy definitely appears, still lies beyond the horizon. (1) We have first of all the Apostles themselves exercising (1) Occa- sional su- the superintendence of the churches under their care, sometimes pervision in person ¢ and on the ‘spot, sometimes. at a distance by letter or Pe by message. The imaginary picture drawn by St Paul, when celles he directs the punishment of the Corinthian offender, vividly represents his position in this respect. The members of the church are gathered together, the elders, we may suppose, being seated apart on a dais or tribune; he himself, as presi- dent, directs their deliberations, collects their votes, pronounces sentence on the guilty man’. How the absence of the apostolic president was actually supplied in this instance, we do not know. But a council was held; he did direct their verdict ‘in spirit though not in person’; and ‘the majority’ condemned the offender?. In the same way St Peter, giving directions to the elders, claims a place among them. The title ‘ fellow-presbyter, which he applies to himself?, would doubtless recal to the memory of his readers the occasions when he himself had presided with the elders and guided their deliberations. (2) As the first stage then, the Apostles themselves were (2) Resi- the superintendents of each individual church. But the wider Sete spread of the Gospel would diminish the frequency of their 4!8ates. visits and impair the efficiency of such supervision. In the second stage therefore we find them, at critical seasons_an Vand i in important congregations, delegating some trustworthy disciple who should fix his abode in a given place for a time and direct the affairs of the _ church. there. The Pasioral. Epistles present this second stage to our view. It is the conception of a later age which represents Timothy as bishop of Ephesus and Titus as bishop of Crete‘. St Paul’s own language implies that the position which they held was temporary. In both cases their 1 1 Cor. v. 3 sq. 3 1 Pet. v. 1. 22 Cor. ii. 6 7% émiriula atrn 7% bro 4 Const. Apost. vii. 46, Huseb. H. E. Tay TAEdvuY. iii, 4, and later writers. Theangels in the Apo- calyusaint writings do not carry us. bishops. 158 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. term of office is drawing to a close, when the Apostle writes’. But the conception is not altogether without foundation. With less permanence but _perhaps greater authority, the position occupied by. these 2 apostolic delegates nevertheless fairly repre- sents the ‘functions of the bishop early in the second century. The [hey were in “fact ‘the link between the Apostle whose super- intendence was occasional and general and the bishop who exercised a, permanent supervision over an individual con- gregation. Beyond this second stage the notices in the apostolic The angels of the seven churches indeed are frequently alleged as an exception’. But neither does the name ‘ angel’ itself suggest such an explanation’, nor is this view in keeping with the highly figurative style of this wonderful book. Its sublime imagery seems to be seriously impaired by this interpretation. On the other hand St John’s own language gives the true key to the symbolism. ‘The seven stars, so it is explained, ‘are the seven angels of the seven churches, and the seven candlesticks are the seven churches*” This contrast between the heavenly and the earthly fires—the star shining steadily by its own inherent is far too indefinite to encourage such an inference, 3 It is conceivable indeed that a bishop or chief pastor should be called an angel or messenger of God or of Christ 1 See 1 Tim. i. 3, iii. 14, 2 Tim. iv. 9, 21, Tit. i. 5, iii, 12, 2 See for instance among recent writers Thiersch Gesch. der Apost. Kirche p. 278, Trench Epistles to the Seven Churches p. 47 sq., with others. This explanation is as old as the earliest commentators. Rothe supposes that the word anticipates the establishment of episcopacy, being a kind of prophetic symbol, p. 423 sq. Others again take the angel to designate the collective ministry, i.e. the whole body of priests and deacons. For various explanations see Schaff Hist. of dpost. Ch, 11. p. 223. Rothe (p. 426) supposes that Dio- trephes 6 gidorpwredwy airdv (3 Joh. 9) was a bishop. This cannot be pro- nounced impossible, but the language (comp. Hag. i. 13, Mal. ii. 7), but he would hardly be styled an angel of the church over which he presides. See the parallel case of drécroXos above, p. 154. Vitringa (11. 9, p. 550), and others after him, explain dyyeos in the Apocalypse by the mow, the messenger or deputy of thesynagogue. These however were only inferior officers, and could not be compared to stars or made responsible for the well-being of the churches ; see Rothe p. 504, 4 Rey. i. 20. THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 159 eternal light, and the lamp flickering and uncertain, requiring to be fed with fuel and tended with care—cannot be devoid of meaning. The star is the suprasensual counterpart, the True ex- heavenly representative; the lamp, the earthly realisation, the een outward embodiment. Whether the angel is here conceived as an actual person, the celestial guardian, or only as a personifi- cation, the idea or spirit of the church, it is unnecessary for my present purpose to consider. But whatever may be the exact conception, he is identified with and made responsible for it to a degree wholly unsuited to any human officer. Nothing is predicated of him, which may not be predicated of it. To him are imputed all its hopes, its fears, its graces, its shortcomings. He is punished with it, and he is rewarded with it. In one passage especially the language applied to the angel seems to exclude the common interpretation. In the message to Thyatira the angel is blamed, because he suffers himself to be led astray by ‘his wife Jezebel’ In this image of Ahab’s idolatrous queen some dangerous and immoral teaching must be personified ; for it does violence alike to the general tenour and to the individual expressions in the passage to suppose that an actual woman is meant. Thus the symbolism of the passage is entirely in keeping. Nor again is this mode of representation new. The ‘princes’ in the prophecy of Daniel’ present a very near if not an exact parallel to the angels of the Revelation. Here, as elsewhere, St John seems to adapt the imagery of this earliest apocalyptic book. Indeed, if with most recent writers we adopt the early date of the Apocalypse of St John, it is scarcely possible that the episcopal organization should have been so mature when it was written. In this case probably not more than two or three years have elapsed from the date of the Pastoral Epistles’, and 1 Rev. ii. 20 ry yuvatkd cov’ lefdBer. 3 The date of the Pastoral Epistles The word gov should probably be re- may be and probably is as late as a.p. tained in the text: or at least, if not 66 or 67; while the Apocalypse on a correct reading, it seems to beacor- this hypothesis was written not later rect gloss. than a,p, 70, * Dan, x, 13, 20, 21. Episco- pacy esta- blished in Gentile churches before the closeof the century. Rothe’s solution. Import- anceof the crisis. 160 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. this interval seems quite insufficient to account for so great a change in the administration of the Asiatic churches. government have aye Hitherto. appeared in in . Gentile “Christendom. Yet unless we have recourse to a sweeping condemnation of received documents, it seems vain to deny that early in the second century the episcopal office was firmly _and_ widely established. Thus during the last three decades _of the first century, and consequently during the lifetime of the latest surviving Apostle, t this change must, have | been brought about. But the circumstances under which it was effected are shrouded in darkness ; and various attempts | have been made to read the obscure enigma. Of several solutions offered one at least deserves special notice. If Rothe’s \ s view cannot be accepted as final, its examination will at least serve to bring out the conditions of the problem: and for this reason I shall state and discuss it as briefly as possible’. For the words in which the theory is stated I am myself responsible. ‘The epoch to which we last adverted marks an important crisis in the history of Christianity. The Church was distracted and dismayed by the growing dissensions between the Jewish and Gentile brethren and by the menacing apparition of Gnostic heresy. So long as its three most prominent leaders were living, there had been some security against the ex- travagance of parties, some guarantee of harmonious combina- tion among diverse churches. But St Peter, St Paul, and St James, were carried away by death almost at the same time and in the face of this great emergency. Another blow too had fallen: the long-delayed judgment of God on the once Holy City was delayed no more. With the overthrow of Jerusalem the visible centre of the Church was removed. __ The keystone of the fabric was withdrawn, and the whole. le edifice 1 See Rothe’s Anfinge etc. pp.354— which I have urged) by Baur Ursprung 392. Rothe’s account of the origin of des Episcopats p. 39 sq., and Ritschl episcopacy is assailed (on grounds inp, 410 sq. many respects differing from those THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 161 threatened with ruin. There was a crying need for some organization w which ‘should cement together the diverse elements of f Christian society and preserve it from disintegration.’ ‘Out_of this need the. Catholic Church arose. Christendom nee ee had hitherto existed as a number of distinct isolated congrega- lieChurch. tions, drawn in the same direction by a common faith and common sympathies, accidentally linked one with another by the personal influence and apostolic authority of their common teachers, but not bound together in a harmonious whole by any permanent external organization. Now at length this great result was brought about. The magnitude of the change effected during this period may be measured by the difference in the constitution and conception of the Christian Church as presented in the Pastoral Epistles of St Paul and the letters of St Ignatius respectively.’ ‘By whom then was the new constitution organized? To ao of the surviv- this question only one answer can be given. This great work ing Apo- must be ascribed to the surviving Apostles. St John especially, me who built up the speculative theology of the Church, was mainly instrumental in completing its external constitution also; for Asia Minor was the centre from which the new movement spread. St John however was not the only Apostle or early disciple who lived in this province. St Philip is known to have settled in Hierapolis. St Andrew also seems to have dwelt in these parts’. The silence of history clearly proclaims the fact which the voice of history but faintly suggests. If we hear nothing more of the Apostles’ missionary labours, it is because they had organized an united Church, to which they had transferred the work of evangelization.’ ‘Of such a combined effort on the part of the Apostles, Evidence resulting in a definite ecclesiastical polity, in an united ee Catholic Church, no direct account is preserved: but incidental stlie Council. notices are not wanting; and in the general paucity of informa- 1 Papias in Euseb. H. E. iii. 39; 2 Muratorian Canon (cire. 170 a.p.) Polyerates and Caius in Euseb. H. E. Routh Rel. Sacr. 1. p. 394. iii. 31, L. 11 Hegesip- pus. Treneus. Clement of Rome. 162 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. tion respecting the whole period more than this was not to be expected’ ‘(1) Eusebius relates that after the martyrdom of St James and the fall of Jerusalem, the remaining Apostles and personal disciples of the Lord, with his surviving relations, met together and after consultation unanimously appointed Symeon the son of Clopas to the vacant see’, It can hardly be doubted, that Eusebius in this passage quotes from the earlier historian Hegesippus, from whom he has derived the other incidents in the lives of James and Symeon: and we may well believe that this council discussed larger questions than the appointment of a single bishop, and that the constitution and prospects of the Church generally came under deliberation. It may have been on this occasion that the surviving Apostles partitioned out the world among them, and ‘Asia was assigned to John®’ ‘(2) A fragment of Irenzus points in the same direction. Writing of the holy eucharist he says, ‘They who have paid attention to the second ordinances of the Apostles know that the Lord appointed a new offering in the new covenant*’ By these ‘second ordinances’ must be understood some later decrees or injunctions than those contained in the apostolic epistles: and these would naturally be framed and promulgated by such a council as the notice of Eusebius suggests.’ ‘(3) To the same effect St Clement of Rome writes, that the Apostles, having appointed elders in every church and foreseeing the disputes which would arise, ‘afterwards added a codicil (supplementary direction) that if they should fall asleep, 1 Besides the evidence which I have stated and discussed in the text, Rothe also brings forward a fragment of the Praedicatio Pauli (preserved in the tract de Baptismo Haereticorum, which is included among Cyprian’s works, app. p- 30, ed. Fell; see above, p, 111, note 2), where the writer mentions a meeting of St Peter and St Paul in Rome. The main question however is so slightly affected thereby, that I have not thought it necessary to investigate the value and bearing of this fragment. 2 Kuseb, H. H. iii. 11. 3 According to the tradition reported by Origen as quoted in Euseb. H. E. iii. 1. 4 One of the Pfaffian fragmenis, no. xxxviii, p. 854 in Stieren’s edition of Trenzus (vol. 1.), THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 163 other approved men should succeed to their office’’ Here the pronouns ‘they,’ ‘their,’ must refer, not to the first appointed presbyters, but to the Apostles themselves. Thus interpreted, the passage contains a distinct notice of the institution of bishops as successors of the Apostles; while in the word ‘afterwards’ is involved an allusion to the later council to which the ‘second ordinances’ of Irenzus also refer*.’ ‘These notices seem to justify the conclusion that imme- diately after the fall of Jerusalem a council of the apostles and first teachers of the Gospel was held to deliberate on the crisis, and to frame measures for the well-being of the Church. The Results of centre of the system then organized was episcopacy, which at a ae, once secured the compact and harmonious working of each individual congregation, and as the link of communication between separate brotherhoods formed the whole into one undivided Catholic Church. Recommended by this high authority, the new constitution was immediately and generally adopted.’ This theory, which is maintained with much ability and Value of vigour, attracted considerable notice, as being a new defence of road episcopacy advanced by a member of a presbyterian Church. On the other hand, its intrinsic value seems to have been unduly depreciated; for, if it fails to give a satisfactory solution, it has at least the merit of stating the conditions of the problem with great distinctness, and of pointing out the direction to be followed. On this account it seemed worthy of attention. 1 Clem. Rom. § 44 xaréornoav rovs mpoeipnuevous (8c. mperBurépous) kal wera- Edt erwopy t beddKacwy, drws, day Koyuy- Odcw, Siabdswvrar Erepor Sedoxtpacpuévor dvdpes Tiv Aeroupylay airav. The in- terpretation of the passage depends on the persons intended in couunbdow and avréy (see the notes on the passage). 2A much more explicit though somewhat later authority may be quoted in favour of his view. The Ambrosian Hilary on Ephes. iv. 12, speaking of the change from the pres- byteral to the episcopal form of govern- ment, says ‘immutata est ratio, pro- spiciente concilio, ut non ordo ete.’ If the reading be correct, I suppose he was thinking of the Apostolic Constitu- tions. See also the expression of St Jerome on Tit. i. 5 (quoted below, p. 166) ‘in toto orbe decretum est,’ 11—2 The evi- dence ex- amined. Hegesip- pus, Trenseus. Clement. See 164 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. It must indeed be confessed that the historical notices will not bear the weight of the inference built upon them. (1) The account of Hegesippus (for to Hegesippus the statement in ‘Eusebius may fairly be ascribed) confines the object of this gathering to the appointment of a successor to St James. If its deliberations had exerted that vast and permanent influence on the future of the Church which Rothe’s theory supposes, it is scarcely possible that this early historian should have been ignorant of the fact or knowing it should have passed it over in silence. (2) The genuineness of the Pfaffian fragments of Ireneus must always remain doubtfult. Independently of the mystery which hangs over their publication, the very passage quoted throws great suspicion on their authorship; for the ex- pression in question? seems naturally to refer to the so-called Apostolic Constitutions, which have been swelled to their present size by the accretions of successive generations, but can hardly have existed even in a rudimentary form in the age of Irenzus, or if existing have been regarded by him as genuine. If he had been acquainted with such later ordinances issued by the authority of an apostolic council, is it conceivable that in his great work on heresies he should have omitted to quote a sanction so unquestionable, where his main object is to show that the doctrine of the Catholic Church in his day represented the true teaching of the Apostles, and his main argument the fact that the Catholic bishops of his time derived their office by direct succession from the Apostles? (3) The passage in the epistle of St Clement cannot be correctly interpreted by Rothe: for his explanation, though elaborately defended, dis- regards the purpose of the letter. disturbed by a spirit of insubordination. 1 The controversial treatises on either side are printed in Stieren’s Irenzus 11. p. 381 sq. It is sufficient here to state that shortly after the transcrip- tion of these fragments by Pfaff, the Turin ms from which they were taken disappeared; so that there was no The Corinthian Church is Presbyters, who have. means of testing the accuracy of the transcriber or ascertaining the charac- ter of the ms. 2 The expression ai de¥repat r&v dro- oréhwy Siardées closely resembles the language of these Constitutions; see Hippol. p. 74, 82 (Lagarde). THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 165 faithfully discharged their duties, have nevertheless been ruth- lessly expelled from office. St Clement writes in the name of the Roman Church to correct these irregularities. He reminds the Corinthians that the presbyteral office was established by the Apostles, who not only themselves appointed elders, but also gave directions that the vacancies caused from time to time by death should be filled up by other men of character, thus pro- viding for a succession in the ministry. Consequently i ‘in these unworthy feuds they were setting themselves in opposition to officers of repute either actually nominated by Apostles, or appointed by those so nominated in accordance with the apo- stolic injunctions. There is no mention of episcopacy, properly so called, throughout the epistle; for in the language of St Clement, ‘bishop’ ane lake ” are still synonymous ned the reading to to be correct?) Rothe has rightly translated émivopnv ‘a codicil, it is unnecessary to enquire, as the rendering does not materially affect the question. Nor again does it appear that the rise of episcopacy was so a sudden and so immediate, that an authoritative order issuing 4 Liga Aon from an apostolic council alone can explain the phenomenon, “tio, In the mysterious period which comprises the last thirty years of the first century, and on which history is almost wholly silent, episcopacy must, it is true, have been mainly developed. But before this period its beginnings may be traced, and after the close it is not yet fully matured. It seems vain to deny with Rothe* that the position of St James in the mother Church furnished the precedent and the pattern of the later episcopate. It appears equally mistaken to maintain, as this theory requires, that at the close of the first and the beginning of the second century the organization of all churches alike had arrived at the same stage of development and exhibited the episcopate in an equally perfect form. 1 See Philippians pp. 97, 98. pov ; see the notes on the passage. 2 The right reading is probably ém- 3 p. 264 sq. 166 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. but ma- On the other hand, the emergency which consolidated the tured by : : i a critical episcopal form of government is correctly and forcibly stated. emergency Tt was remarked long ago by Jerome, that ‘ before factions were introduced into religion by the prompting of the devil, the churches were governed by a council of elders, ‘but as soon as each man began to consider those whom he had baptized to belong to himself and not to Christ, it was decided throughout the world that one elected from among the elders should be placed over the rest, so that the care of the church should devolve on him, and the seeds of schism be removed)’ And again in another passage he writes to the same effect; ‘When afterwards one presbyter was elected that he might be placed over the rest, this was done as a remedy against schism, that each man might not drag to himself and thus break up the Church of Christ.’ To the dissensions of Jew and Gentile converts, and to the disputes of Gnostic false teachers, the development of episcopacy may be mainly ascribed. and Nor again is Rothe probably wrong as to the authority AsiaMinor a . 3 : : : under the mainly instrumental in effecting the change. Asia Minor was of StJobn. the adopted home of more than one Apostle after the fall of Jerusalem. Asia Minor too was the nurse, if not the mother, of episcopacy in the Gentile Churches. So important an insti- tution, developed in a Christian community of which St John was the living centre and guide, could hardly have grown up without his sanction: and, as will be seen presently, early tradi- tion very distinctly connects his name with the appointment of bishops in these parts. Manner of — But to the question how this change was brought about, a ioe somewhat different answer must be given. We have seen that the needs of the Church and the ascendancy of his personal character placed St James at the head of the Christian brother- hood in Jerusalem. Though remaining a member of the presbyteral council, he was singled out from the rest and placed in a position of superior responsibility. His exact power it 1 On Tit. i, 5 (vir. p. 694, ed. Vall.). 2 Epist. cxlvi ad Evang. (1. p. 1082). THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 167 would be impossible, and it is unnecessary, to define. When therefore after the fall of the city St John with other surviving Apostles. removed to Asia Minor and found there manifold i ir- regularities and 1 threatening symptoms of disruption, he would not unnaturally encourage an approach in these Gentile ‘Churches to the same organization, which had been signally blessed, and proved ¢ effectual i in holding together the. mother Church amid dangers . not, Jess serious. “The existence of a council or college necessarily supposes a presidency of some kind, whether this presidency be assumed by each member in turn, or lodged in the hands of a single person’. It was only necessary therefore for him to give permanence, definiteness, stability, to an office which already existed in germ. There is no reason however for supposing that any direct ordinance was issued to the churches. The evident utility and even pressing need of such an office, sanctioned by the most venerated name in Christendom, would be sufficient to secure its wide though gradual reception. Such a reception, it is true, supposes a substantial harmony and freedom of intercourse among the churches, which remained un- disturbed by the troubles of the times; but the silence of history is not at all unfavourable to this supposition. In this way, during the historical blank which extends over half a century after the fall of Jerusalem, episcopacy was matured and the Catholic Church consolidated’. 1 The Ambrosian Hilary on Ephes. iv. 12 seems to say that the senior member was president; but this may be mere conjecture. The constitution of the synagogue does not aid mate- rially in settling this question. In the New Testament at all events dpyiourd- “ywyos is only another name for an elder of the synagogue (Mark v. 22, Acts xiii. 15, xviii. 8,17; comp. Justin Dial. c. Tryph. § 137), and therefore corre- sponds not to the bishop but to the presbyter of the Christian Church. Sometimes however dpyiouvd-ywyos ap- pears to denote the president of the council of elders: see Vitringa 1. 2. p. 586 sq., m1. 1. p. 610sq. The opinions of Vitringa must be received with cau- tion, as his tendency to press the re- semblance between the government of the Jewish synagogue and the Chris- tian Church is strong. The real like- ness consists in the council of presby- ters; but the threefold order of the Christian ministry as a whole seems to have no counterpart in the synagogue. 2 The expression ‘Catholic Church’ is found first in the Ignatian letter to the Smyrnmans § 8. In the Martyr- dom of Polycarp it occurs several This view . supported by the no- tices of in- dividual churches, JERUSA- LEM. St James. . Symeon, Later bishops. 168 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. At all events, when we come to trace the early history of the office in the principal churches of Christendom in succession, we shall find all the facts consistent with the account adopted here, while some of them are hardly reconcileable with any other. In this review it will be convenient to commence with the mother Church, and to take the others in order, as they are connected either by neighbourhood or by political or religious sympathy. 1. The Church of JeRusALEM, as I have already pointed out, presents the earliest instance of a bishop. A certain official prominence is assigned to James the Lord’s brother, both in the Epistles of St Paul and in the Acts of the Apostles. And the inference drawn from the notices in the canonical Scriptures is borne out by the tradition of the next ages. As early as the middle of the second century all parties concur in representing him as a bishop in the strict sense of the term’. In this respect Catholic Christians and Ebionite Christians hold the same language: the testimony of Hegesippus on the one hand is matched by the testimony of the Clementine writings on the other. On his death, which is recorded as taking place immediately before the war of Vespasian, Symeon was appointed in his place*. Hegesippus, who is our authority for this statement, distinctly regards Symeon as holding the same office with James, and no less distinctly calls him a bishop. This same historian also mentions the circumstance that one Thebuthis (apparently on this occasion), being disappointed of the bishopric, raised a schism and attempted to corrupt the virgin purity of the Church with false doctrine. As Symeon died in the reign of Trajan at an advanced age, it is not im- probable that Hegesippus was born during his lifetime. Of the successors of Symeon a complete list is preserved by Eusebius’. times, inser. and §§ 8, 16,19. Onits Recogn. i. 43, 68, 73; Clem. Alex. meaning see Westcott Canon p. 28, note (4th ed.). 1 Hegesipp. in Euseb. H. E. ii. 23, iv. 22; Clem. Hom. xi. 35, Ep. Petr. init, and Ep. Clem. init.; Clem. in Euseb. ii. 1; Const. Apost. v. 8, vi. 14, viii. 35, 46. 2 Hegesipp. in Euseb, H. E. iv. 22. ° H, E. iv. 5. The episcopate of Justus the successor of Symeon com- THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 169 The fact however that: it comprises thirteen names within a period of less than thirty years must throw suspicion on its accuracy. A succession so rapid is hardly consistent with the known tenure of life offices in ordinary cases: and if the list be correct, the frequent changes must be attributed to the troubles and uncertainties of the times. If Eusebius here also had derived his information from Hegesippus, it must at least have had some solid foundation in fact; but even then the alterna- tion between Jerusalem and Pella, and the possible confusion of the bishops with other prominent members of the presbytery, might introduce much error. It appears however that in this instance he was indebted to less trustworthy sources of infor- mation®?. The statement that after the foundation of Aelia Capitolina (A.D. 186) Marcus presided over the mother Church, as its first Gentile bishop, need not be questioned; and beyond this point it is unnecessary to carry the investigation’. Of other bishops in PaLesTINE and the neighbourhood, Other sees before the latter half of the second century, no trustworthy ee notice is preserved, so far as I know. During the Roman ae episcopate of Victor however (about a.D. 190), we find three countries. bishops, Theophilus of Caesarea, Cassius of Tyre, and Clarus of Ptolemais, in conjunction with Narcissus of Jerusalem, writing an encyclical letter in favour of the western view in the Paschal 2 This may be inferred from a com- parison of H. E. iv. 5 rocobrov é& éyypd- mences about a.p. 108: that of Marcus the first Gentile bishop, a.p. 136. Thus thirteen bishops occupy only about twenty-eight years. Even after the foundation of lia Capitolina the suc- cession is very rapid. In the period from Marcus (4.D. 136) to Narcissus (aD. 190) we count fifteen bishops. The repetition of the same names however suggests that some conflict was going on during this interval. 1 Parallels nevertheless may be found in the annals of thepapacy. Thusfrom A.D. 882 to a.D. 904 there were thirteen popes: and in other times of trouble the succession has been almost as rapid. guy mapeldynga with H. EH. v. 12 ai rév avrd Siadoxal mepiéxovor. His infor- mation was probably taken from a list kept at Jerusalem; but the case of the spurious correspondence with Abgarus preserved in the archives of Edessa (H. E. i. 18) shows how treacherous such sources of information were. 2 Narcissus, who became bishop of Jerusalem in 190 a.p., might well have preserved the memory of much earlier times. His successor Alexander, in whose favour he resigned a.p. 214, speaks of him as still living at the ad- vanced age of 116 (Euseb. H. £. vi. 11). ANTIOCH. Evodius, Ignatius. 170 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. controversy’. If indeed any reliance could be placed on the Clementine writings, the episcopate of Palestine was matured at a very early date: for St Peter is there represented as appointing bishops in every city which he visits, in Cesarea, Tyre, Sidon, Berytus, Tripolis, and Laodicea?, And though the fictions of this theological romance have no direct historical value, it is hardly probable that the writer would have indulged in such statements, unless an early development of the epis- copate in these parts had invested his narrative with an air of probability. The institution would naturally spread from the Church of Jerusalem to the more important communities in the neighbourhood, even without the direct intervention of the Apostles. 2. From the mother Church of the Hebrews we pass naturally to the metropolis of Gentile Christendom. ANTIOCH is traditionally reported to have received its first bishop Evodius from St Peter®. The story may perhaps rest on some basis of truth, though no confidence can be placed in this class of statements, unless they are known to have been derived from some early authority. But of Ignatius, who stands second in the traditional catalogue of Antiochene bishops, we can speak with more confidence. He is designated a bishop by very early authors, and he himself speaks as such. He writes to one bishop, Polycarp; and he mentions several others. Again and again he urges the duty of obedience to their bishops on his correspondents. And, lest it should be supposed that he uses the term in its earlier sense as a synonyme for presbyter, he names in conjunction the three orders of the ministry, the bishop, the presbyter, and the deacons‘. Altogether it is plain that he looks upon the episcopal system as the one recognised and authoritative form of government in all those churches 1 Euseb, H. E. v. 25, 3 Const. Apost. vii. 46, Euseb, H. E. 2 Clem. Hom. iii. 68-sq. (Cwsarea), iii. 22. vii. 5 (Tyre), vii. 8 (Sidon), vii. 12 4 eg. Polyc. 6. I single out this (Berytus), xi. 36 (Tripolis), xx. 23 passage from several which might be (Laodicea): comp. Clem. Recogn.iii.65, alleged, because it is found in the 66, 74, vi. 15, x, 68. Syriac. See below, p. 198. THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 171 with which he is most directly concerned. It may be suggested indeed that he would hardly have enforced the claims of episcopacy, unless it were an object of attack, and its compara- tively recent origin might therefore be inferred: but still some years would be required before it could have assumed that mature and definite form which it has in his letters. It seems impossible to decide, and it is needless to investigate, the exact date of the epistles of St Ignatius: but we cannot do wrong in placing them during the earliest years of the second century. The immediate successor of Ignatius is reported to Later have been Hero: and from his time onward the list of "°P* Antiochene bishops is complete. If the authenticity of the list, as a whole, is questionable, two bishops of Antioch at least during the second century, Theophilus and Serapion, are known as historical persons. If the Clementine writings emanated, as seems probable, Clemen- from Syria or Palestine’, this will be the proper place to state ings. _ their attitude with regard to episcopacy. Whether the opinions there advanced exhibit the recognised tenets of a sect or congregation, or the private views of the individual writer or writers, will probably never be ascertained; but, whatever may be said on this point, these heretical books outstrip the most rigid orthodoxy in their reverence for the episcopal office. Monarchy is represented as necessary to the peace of the Church‘. The bishop occupies the seat of Christ and must be honoured as the image of God*®. And hence St Peter, as he moves from place to place, ordains bishops everywhere, as though this were the crowning act of his missionary labours®. The divergence of the Clementine doctrine from the tenets of Catholic Christianity only renders this phenomenon more remarkable, when we remember the very early date of these writings; for the Homilies cannot well be placed later than the 1 Euseb. H. E, iii. 36. 5 Clem. Hom. iii. 62, 66, 70. See 2 Kuseb. H. E. iv. 20. below, p. 202. 3 See above, pp. 98 sq. 6 See the references given above, p. 4 Clem. Hom. iii. 62. 170, note 2. 172 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. end, and should perhaps be placed before the middle of the second century. 3. We have hitherto been concerned only with the Greek Church of Syria. Of the early history of the Syrian CHURCH, strictly so called, no trustworthy account is preserved. The documents which profess to give information respecting it are comparatively late: and while their violent anachronisms discredit them as a whole, it is impossible to separate the fabulous from the historic’. It should be remarked however, that they exhibit a high sacerdotal view of the episcopate as 5 prevailing in these churches from the earliest times of which any record is preserved?. 4. Asta Minor follows next in order; and here we find the widest and most unequivocal traces of episcopacy at an early date. Clement of Alexandria distinctly states that St John went about from city to city, his purpose being ‘in some places Activity of to establish bishops, in others to consolidate whole churches, in ae others again to appoint to the clerical office some one of those lar Asia. who had been signified by the Spirit’ ‘The sequence of bishops, writes Tertullian in like manner of Asia Minor, ‘traced back to its origin will be found to rest on the authority of John*” And a writer earlier than either speaks of St John’s ‘fellow-disciples and bishops*’ as gathered about him. The con- clusiveness even of such testimony might perhaps be doubted, if it were not supported by other more direct evidence. At the Syrian CHURCH. Asia M1- NOR. 1 Ancient Syriac Documents (ed. Cureton). The Doctrine of Addai has episcopate is conferred by the ‘Hand of Priesthood’ through the Apostles, recently been published complete by Dr Phillips, London 1876. This work at all events must be old, for it was found by Eusebius in the archives of Edessa (H. E. i, 13); but it abounds in gross anachronisms and probably is not earlier than the middle of the 3rd century: see Zahn Gétt. Gel. Anz. 1877, p. 161 sq. 2 See for instance pp. 13, 16, 18, 21, 23, 24, 26, 29, 30, 33, 34, 35, 42, 71 (Cureton). The succession to the who received it from our Lord, and is derived ultimately from Moses and Aaron (p. 24). 3 Quis Div. Salv, 42 (p. 959). 4 Adv. Mare. iv, 5. 5 Muratorian Fragment, Routh Rel. Sacr. 1. p. 394. Ireneus too, whose experience was drawn chiefly from Asia Minor, more than once speaks of bishops appointed by the Apostles, iii. 3. 1, v. 20. 1. THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 173 beginning of the second century the letters of Ignatius, even if we accept as genuine only the part contained in the Syriac, mention by name two bishops in these parts, Onesimus of Onesimus. Ephesus and Polycarp of Smyrna’. Of the former nothing oo more is known: the latter evidently writes as a bishop, for he distinguishes himself from his presbyters’, and is expressly so called by other writers besides Ignatius. His pupil Ireneus says of him, that he had ‘ not only been instructed by Apostles and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but had also been established by Apostles in Asia as bishop in the Church at Smyrna*’ Polycrates also, a younger contemporary of Polycarp and himself bishop of Ephesus, designates him by this title*; and again in the letter written by his own church and giving an account of his martyrdom he is styled ‘bishop of the Church in Smyrna®’” As Polycarp survived the middle of the second century, dying at a very advanced age (A.D. 155 or 156), the possibility of error on this point seems to be excluded: and indeed all historical evidence must be thrown aside as worthless, if testimony so strong can be disregarded. It is probable however, that we should receive as genuine Ignatian not only those portions of the Ignatian letters which are ii represented in the Syriac, but also the Greek text in its shorter form. Under any circumstances, this text can hardly have been made later than the middle of the second century’, and its witness would still be highly valuable, even if it were a forgery. The staunch advocacy of the episcopate which distinguishes these writings is well known and will be con- sidered hereafter. At present we are only concerned with the historical testimony which they bear to the wide extension and authoritative claims of the episcopal office. Besides Polycarp and Onesimus, mentioned in the Syriac, the writer names also 1 Polyc. inser., Ephes. 1. 5 Mart. Polyc. 16. Polycarp is call- 2 Polye. Phil. init. ed ‘bishop of Smyrna’ also in Mart. 3 Tren, iii, 3. 4. Comp. Tertull.de Ignat. Ant. 3. Praescr. 32. 6 See below, p. 198, note. 4 In Euseb. v. 24. ¥ 174 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. . Damas bishop of Magnesia! and Polybius bishop of Tralles’; and he urges on the Philadelphians also the duty of obedience to their bishop’, though the name is not given. Under any circumstances it seems probable that these were not fictitious personages, for, even if he were a forger, he would be anxious to give an air of reality to his writings: but whether or not we / regard his testimony as indirectly affecting the age of Ignatius, for his own time at least it must be regarded as valid. But the evidence is not confined to the persons and the ea churches already mentioned. Papias, who was a friend of lis. Polycarp and had conversed with personal disciples of the Lord, is commonly designated bishop of Hierapolis‘; and we learn from a younger contemporary Serapion’, that Claudius Apollinaris, known as a writer against the Montanists, also Sagaris. held this see in the reign of M. Aurelius. Again Sagaris the martyr, who seems to have perished in the early years of M. Aurelius, about A.D. 165°, is designated bishop of Laodicea by an author writing towards the close of the same century, Melito. who also alludes to Melito the contemporary of Sagaris as Polyerates holding the see of Sardis’; The authority just quoted, in a Polycrates of Ephesus, who flourished in the last decade of the century, says moreover that he had had seven relations bishops before him, himself being the eighth, and that he followed their tradition’: When he wrote he had been ‘sixty-five years in the Lord’; so that even if this period date from the time of his birth and not of his conversion or baptism, he must have been born scarcely a quarter of a century after the death of the last surviving Apostle, whose latest years were spent in the very Church over which Polycrates himself presided. It 1 Magn. 2. see Colossians p. 63. 2 Trall. 1, 7 Polycrates in Euseb. H. E. v. 24. 3 Philad. 1. Melito’s office may be inferred from the 4 Euseb. H. £. iii. 36. contrast implied in repimévww rhy dwd 5 In Euseb, H. E. v. 19. Tav obpayay éemiogkomhy. 6 On the authority of his contempo- 8 In Euseb. H. E. v. 24. See above, rary Melito in Euseb. H. E. iv. 26: p. 121, note. THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 175 appears moreover from his language that none of these relations to whom he refers were surviving when he wrote. Thus the evidence for the early and wide extension of episcopacy throughout proconsular Asia, the scene of St John’s latest labours, may be considered irrefragable. And when we Bishops in pass to other districts of Asia Minor, examples are not wanting ee though these are neither so early nor so frequent. Marcion a Minor. native of Sinope is related to have been the son of a Christian bishop’: and Marcion himself had elaborated his theological system before the middle of the second century. Again, a bishop of Eumenia, Thraseas by name, is stated by Polycrates to have been martyred and buried at Smyrna’; and, as he is mentioned in connexion with Polycarp, it may fairly be sup- posed that the two suffered in the same persecution. Dionysius of Corinth moreover, writing to Amastris and the other churches of Pontus (about 4.D. 170), mentions Palmas the bishop of this city?: and when the Paschal controversy breaks out afresh under Victor of Rome, we find this same Palmas putting his signature first to a circular letter, as the senior of the bishops of Pontus’, An anonymous writer also, who took part in the Montanist controversy, speaks of two bishops of repute, Zoticus of Comana and Julianus of Apamea, as having resisted the impostures of the false prophetesses*> But indeed the frequent Episcopal notices of encyclical letters written and synods held towards Pa the close of the second century are a much more powerful testimony to the wide extension of episcopacy throughout the provinces of Asia Minor than the incidental mention of indi- vidual names. On one such occasion Polycrates speaks of the ‘crowds’ of bishops whom he had summoned to confer with him on the Paschal question ® 5. As we turn from Asia Minor to MAcEDONIA and Macepo- NIA and GREECE. 1 [Tertull.] adv. omn. haeres. 6. mea on the Meander is mentioned at 2 In Euseb. H. E. v. 24. the end of the chapter, probably this 3 In Kuseb. H. EL. iv, 23. is the place meant. 4 Buseb. H. E. v. 23, 6 In Euseb. H. E. v. 24 aodda 5 In Euseb. H. E, v. 16. As Apa- 7A70n. 176 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. GREECE, the evidence becomes fainter and scantier. This circumstance is no doubt due partly to the fact that these churches were much less active and important during the second century than the Christian communities of Asia Minor, but the phenomena cannot perhaps be wholly explained by this Later de- consideration. When Tertullian in one of his rhetorical flights ee challenges the heretical teachers to consult the apostolic pacy. churches, where ‘the very sees of the Apostles still preside,’ adding, ‘If Achaia is nearest to you, then you have Corinth; if you are not far from Macedonia, you have Philippi, you have the Thessalonians ; if you can reach Asia, you have Ephesus”: his main argument was doubtless just, and even the language would commend itself to its own age, for episcopacy was the only form of government known or remembered in the church when he wrote: but a.careful investigation scarcely allows, and certainly does not encourage us, to place Corinth and Philippi and Thessalonica in the same category with Ephesus as regards episcopacy. The term ‘apostolic see’ was appropriate to the latter; but so far as we know, it cannot be strictly applied to the former. During the early years of the second century, when episcopacy was firmly established in the principal churches Philippi. of Asia Minor, Polycarp sends a letter to the Philippians. He writes in the name of himself and his presbyters; he gives advice to the Philippians respecting the obligations and the authority of presbyters and deacons; he is minute in his instructions respecting one individual presbyter, Valens by name, who had been guilty of some crime; but throughout the letter he never once refers to their bishop; and indeed its whole tone is hardly consistent with the supposition that they had any chief officer holding the same prominent position at Philippi which he himself held at Smyrna. We are thus led to the inference that episcopacy did not exist at all among the Philippians at this time, or existed only in an elementary form, so that the bishop was a mere president of the presbyteral Thessalo- council. At Thessalonica indeed, according to a tradition nica. 1 Tertull. de Praescr. 37. THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 177 mentioned by Origen’, the same Caius whom St Paul describes as his host at Corinth was afterwards appointed bishop; but with so common a name the possibilities of error are great, even if the testimony were earlier in date and expressed in more distinct terms. When from Macedonia we pass to Achaia, the same phenomena present themselves. century Clement writes to Corinth, as at the beginning’ of the Corinth. second century Polycarp writes to Philippi. At the close of the first As in the latter epistle, so in the former, there is no allusion to the episcopal office: yet the main subject of Clement’s letter is the expulsion and ill-treatment of certain presbyters, whose authority he maintains as holding an office instituted by and handed down from the Apostles themselves. If Corinth however was without a bishop in the strict sense at the close of the first century, she cannot long have remained so. When some fifty years later Hegesippus stayed here on his way to Rome, Primus was bishop of this Church; and it is clear moreover from this writer’s language that Primus had been preceded by several occupants of the see. Indeed the order of his narrative, so far as we can piece it together from the broken fragments preserved in Eusebius, might suggest the inference, not at all improbable in itself, that episcopacy had been established at Corinth as a corrective of the dissensions and feuds which had called forth Clement’s letter*. Again Dionysius, one of the immediate successors of Primus, was the writer of several letters of which fragments are extant‘; 1 On Rom. xvi. 23; ‘Fertur sane traditione majorum’ (Iv. p. 86, ed. De- larue). 2 In Euseb, H. E. iv. 22, xal éréduevev éxxdnota 4 KopwOiwy ev ry 6p0g Moyy wéxpt Iptuou éricxomevtovros ev Koplvdp x7... A little later he speaks of éxdorn diadox7}, referring apparently to Corinth among other churches. 3 Hegesippus mentioned the feuds in the Church of Corinth during the reign of Domitian, which had occasioned the writing of this letter (H. E. iii. 16); L. and at the close of the century we meet and then after some account of Cle- ment’s epistle (uerd riva epi ris KXH- perros mpds KopwOlouvs émisrodfs atr@ elpnuéva, H. E. iv. 22) he continued in the words which are quoted in the last note (émidéyovros tafra, Kal éréuevev % éxkAnola x.7,r.). On the probable tenor of Hegesippus’ work see below, p. 182. 4 The fragments of Dionysius are found in Euseb. H. E. iv. 23. See also Routh Rel. Sacr. 1. p. 177 sq. 12 Athens. CRETE. 178 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. with a later bishop of Corinth, Bacchyllus, who takes an active part in the Paschal controversy?) When from Corinth we pass on to Athens, a very early instance of a bishop confronts us, on authority which seems at first sight good. Eusebius represents Dionysius of Corinth, who wrote apparently about the year 170, as stating that his namesake the Areopagite, ‘having been brought to the faith by the Apostle Paul according to the account in the Acts, was the first to be entrusted with the bishopric (or supervision) of the diocese (in the language of those times, the parish) of the Athenians”. Now, if we could be sure that Eusebius was here reporting the exact words of Dionysius, the testimony though not conclusive would be entitled to great deference. In this case the easiest solution would be, that this ancient writer had not unnaturally con- founded the earlier and later usage of the word bishop. But it seems not improbable that Eusebius (for he does not profess to be giving a direct quotation) has unintentionally paraphrased and interpreted the statement of Dionysius by the light of later ecclesiastical usages. However Athens, like Corinth, did not long remain without a bishop. The same Dionysius, writing to the Athenians, reminds them how, after the martyrdom of Publius their ruler (Tov mpocotata), Quadratus becoming ‘bishop sustained the courage and stimulated the faith of the Athenian brotherhood®. If, as seems more probable than not, this was the famous Quadratus who presented his apology to Hadrian during that emperor’s visit to Athens, the existence of episcopacy in this city is thrown back early in the century ; even though Quadratus were not already bishop when Hadrian paid his visit. §. The same writer, from whom we learn these particulars about episcopacy at Athens, also furnishes information on the Church in Crete, He writes letters to two different com- munities in this island, the one to Gortyna commending Philip who held this see, the other to the Cnossians offering words of advice to their bishop Pinytus*?. The first was author of a 1 Buseb. H, E. v, 22, 23. 2 In Euseb. H. HE. iv. 23, 3 Buseb. H. E, iv. 23. THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 179 treatise against Marcion’; the latter wrote a reply to Dionysius, of which Eusebius has preserved a brief notice’. 7. Of episcopacy in THRACE, and indeed of the Thracian Turacs. Church generally, we read nothing till the close of the second century, when one Ailius Publius Julius bishop of Debeltum, a colony in this province, signs an encyclical letter? The exist- ence of a see at a place so unimportant implies the wide spread of episcopacy in these regions, 8. As we turn to RoE, we are confronted by a far more Rouz. perplexing problem than any encountered hitherto. The attempt to decipher the early history of episcopacy here seems almost hopeless, where the evidence is at once scanty and conflicting. Tt has been often assumed that in the metropolis of the world, The pre- the seat of imperial rule, the spirit which dominated in the eal State must by natural predisposition and sympathy have infused sa itself into the Church also, so that a monarchical form of govern- ment would be developed more rapidly here than in other parts of Christendom. This supposition seems to overlook the fact that the influences which prevailed in the early church of the metropolis were more Greek than Roman’, and that therefore the tendency would be rather towards individual liberty than towards compact and rigorous government. But indeed such presumptions, however attractive and specious, are valueless against the slightest evidence of facts. And the most trust- worthy sources of information which we possess do not counte- nance the idea. The earliest authentic document bearing on eee the subject is the Epistle from the Romans to the Corinthians, fpistle, probably written in the last decade of the first century. I have already considered the bearing of this letter on episcopacy in the Church of Corinth, and it is now time to ask what light 1 Euseb. H. E. iv. 25. that the signatures of three distinct 2 Ruseb. H. E. v.19. Thecombina- persons have got confused. The error tion of three gentile names in ‘Alius however, if error it be, does not affect Publius Julius’ is possible at this late the inference in the text. epoch ; but, being a gross violation of 3 See Philippians, p. 20 sq. Roman usage, suggests the suspicion 12—2 180 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. it throws on the same institution at Rome. Now we cannot hesitate to accept the universal testimony of antiquity that it was written by Clement, the reputed bishop of Rome: and it. is therefore the more surprising that, if he held this high office, the writer should not only not distinguish himself in any way from the rest of the church (as Polycarp does for instance), but ' that even his name should be suppressed’. It is still more important to observe that, though he has occasion to speak of - the ministry as an institution of the Apostles, he mentions only two orders and is silent about the episcopal office. Moreover — he still uses the word ‘bishop’ in the older sense in which it occurs in the apostolic writings, as a synonyme for presbyter’, _ and it may be argued that the recognition of the episcopate as a higher and distinct office would oblige the adoption of a special name and therefore must have synchronized roughly with the separation of meaning between ‘bishop’ and ‘presbyter.” Testimony Again, not many years after the date of Clement’s letter, St of Igna- tius and Hermas. Ignatius on his way to martyrdom writes to the Romans. Though this saint is the recognised champion of episcopacy, though the remaining six of the Ignatian letters all contain direct injunctions of obedience to bishops, in this epistle alone there is no allusion to the episcopal office as existing among his correspondents. The lapse of a few years carries us from the letters of Ignatius to the Shepherd of Hermas. And here the indications are equivocal. Hermas receives directions in a vision to impart the revelation to the presbyters and also to make two copies, the one for Clement who shall communicate with the foreign churches (such being his duty), the other for Grapte who shall instruct the widows. Hermas himself is. charged to ‘read it to this city with the elders who preside over the church?.” Elsewhere mention is made of the ‘rulers’ of the 1 See S. Clement of Rome p. 252 sq. méuper od» KAnuys eis ras t&w mores* Appendix [and Apostolic Fathers, Part éxelvy yap émirérparrat’ Tparrh 5é 1, S. Clement of Rome, 1. p. 69 sq.]. vovderjoer Tas XHpas Kal rods dppavovs* 2 See Philippians p. 96 sq. ov dé dvayvices els rabrny tiv wow 3 Vis. ii. 4 -ypdwes obv dv0 BiBNddpia pera Tv mpecBurépwy Ta&v rpoicrapever kal réupers &y Kdijyevre cat év Toamrg. — rijs éxkAnolas. THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 181 church!, And again, in an enumeration of the faithful officers of the churches past and present, he speaks of the ‘ apostles and bishops and teachers and deacons*’ Here most probably the word ‘bishop’ is used in its later sense,and the presbyters are designated by the term ‘teachers. Yet this interpretation cannot be regarded as certain, for the ‘bishops and teachers’ in Hermas, like the ‘pastors and teachers’ in St Paul, might possibly refer to the one presbyteral office in its twofold aspect. ‘Other passages in which Hermas uses the same terms are in- decisive. Thus he speaks of ‘apostles and teachers who preached to the whole world and taught with reverence and purity the word of the Lord®’; of ‘deacons who exercised their diaconate ill and plundered the life (r7v Sonv) of widows and orphans’ ; of ‘hospitable bishops who at all times received the servants of God into their homes cheerfully and without hypocrisy,’ ‘who protected the bereaved and the widows in their ministrations without ceasing®.’ From these passages it seems impossible to arrive at a safe conclusion respecting the ministry at the time when Hermas wrote. In other places he condemns the false prophet ‘who, seeming to have the Spirit, exalts himself and would fain have the first seat®’; or he warns ‘those who rule over the church and those who hold the chief-seat,’ bidding them give up their dissensions and live at peace among them- selves’; or he denounces those who have ‘emulation one with another for the first place or for some houour®’ If we could accept the suggestion that in this last class of passages the writer condemns the ambition which aimed at transforming the presbyterian into the episcopal form of government®, we should have arrived at a solution of the difficulty: but the rebukes are couched in the most general terms and apply at least as well 1 Vis, ii. 2, iii, 9. pévas THs éxxdAnolas Kal rols mpwroxade- 2 Vis, iii, 5. Splracs, «.7.A. For the form mpwroxa- 3 Sim. ix. 25. Gedptrns see the note on cuvdidacxaNi- 4 Sim, ix. 26. ras, Ignat. Ephes, 3. 5 Sim, ix. 27. 8 Sim. viii. 7. 6 Mand. xi. ® So Ritschl] pp. 403, 535. 7 Vis. ili. 9 duty Aéyw Tols mpoyyou- Unwar- ranted inference, 182 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. to the ambitious pursuit of existing offices as to the arrogant assertion of a hitherto unrecognized power’. This clue failing us, the notices in the Shepherd are in themselves too vague to lead to any result. Were it not known that the writer’s own brother was bishop of Rome, we should be at a loss what to say about the constitution of the Roman Church in his day’. But while the testimony of these early writers appears at first sight and on the whole unfavourable to the existence of episcopacy in Rome when they wrote, the impression needs to be corrected by important considerations on the other side. Testimony Hegesippus, who visited Rome about the middle of the second of Hege- sippus and of Ire- neus. Lists of Roman bishops. century during the papacy of Anicetus, has left it on record that he drew up a list of the Roman_bishops to his own time’, As the list is not preserved‘, we can only conjecture its contents; but if we may judge from the sentence immediately following, in which he praises the orthodoxy of this and other churches under each succession, his object was probably to show that the teachings of the Apostles had been carefully preserved and handed down, and he would therefore trace the episcopal suc- cession back to apostolic times®’, Such at all events is the aim and method of Irenzus, who, writing somewhat later than Hegesippus and combating Gnostic heresies, appeals especially to the bishops of Rome, as depositaries of the apostolic tradition ®. The list of Irenzeus commences with Linus, whom he identifies 1 Comp. Matt. xxiii. 6, ete. When Ireneus wrote, episcopacy was cer- tainly a venerable institution: yet his language closely resembles the reproachful expressions of Hermas: ‘Contumeliis agunt reliquos et princi- palis consessionis (mss concessionis) tumore elati sunt’ (iv. 26. 3). 2 See Philippians p. 168, note 9, and S. Clement of Rome p. 316, Appendix [Apostolic Fathers, Part 1. 8. Clement of Rome 1. p. 359 sq.] 3 In Euseb. H. E. iv. 22. 4 [It is probably preserved in Epi- phanius, see Apostolic Fathers, Part 1. 8. Clement of Rome 1. p. 327 8q.] ® The words of Hegesippus éy éxdorp diadoyy Kal ev éxdory mode x.7.d. have a parallel in those of Irenwus (iii. 3. 3) 79 atirg rdte Kal rH abry didaxy (Lat. ‘hac ordinatione et suecessione’) qj re amd Tay drocTé\wy ev TH éxxAnolg Ta- padoots kal rd rhs dAnOelas Kipyyya xarivrykey eis Huds. May not Ireneus have derived his information from the S.ad0x of Roman bishops which Hege- sippus drew up? See below, p. 204 {and Apostolic Fathers, Part 1. S. Cle- ment of Rome 1. pp. 63 sq., 204 sq., 327 sq.]. 6 Tren. iii. 33. THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 183 with the person of this name mentioned by St Paul, and whom he states to have been ‘entrusted with the office of the bishopric’ by the Apostles. The second in succession is Anencletus of whom he relates nothing, the third Clemens whom he describes as a hearer of the Apostles and as writer of the letter to the Corinthians. The others in order are Evarestus, Alexander, Xystus, Telesphorus, Hyginus, Pius, Anicetus, Soter, and Eleu- therus during whose episcopacy Irenzeus writes. Eusebius in different works gives two lists, both agreeing in the order with Treneus, though not according with each other in the dates. Catalogues are also found in writers later than Irenzus, trans- posing the sequence of the earliest bishops, and adding the name Cletus or substituting it for Anencletus’. These discrepancies may be explained by assuming two distinct churches in Rome— a Jewish and a Gentile community—in the first age; or they may have arisen from a confusion of the earlier and later senses of émiaxo7os; or the names may have been transposed in the later lists owing to the influence of the Clementine Homilies, in which romance Clement is represented as the immediate disciple and successor of St Peter? With the many possibilities of Linus, error, no more can safely be assumed of Linus and ANENCLETUS aroun, - nencle- than that they held some prominent position in the Roman ee s. Church. But the reason for supposing CLEMENT to have been Clement, a bishop is as strong as the universal tradition of the next ages “” si can make it. Yet, while calling him a bishop, we need not suppose him to have attained the same distinct isolated position 1 On this subject see Pearson’s Dis- sertationes duae de serie et successione primorum Romae episcoporum in his Minor Theological Works 11. p. 296 sq. (ed. Churton), and especially the recent work of Lipsius, Chronologie der rémi- schen Bischife, Kiel 1869. The earliest list which places Clement’s name first belongs to the age of Hippolytus. The omission of his name in a recently discovered Syriac list (Ancient Syriac Documents p. 71) is doubtless due to the fact that the names Cletus, Cle- mens, begin with the same letters. In the margin I have for convenience given the dates of the Roman bishops from the Ecclesiastical History of Eu- sebius, without however attaching any weight to them in the case of the earlier names, See Philippians p. 169 [and Apostolic Fathers, Part 1. S. Clement of Rome 1. p. 201 sq. ]. 2 See above, p. 99. Evarestus, A.D. 100. Alexander, A.D. 109. Xystus, A.D. 119. Telespho- rus, A.D. 128. Hyginus, A.D. 139, Pius, A.D. 142, 184 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. of authority which was occupied by his successors Eleutherus and Victor for instance at the close of the second century, or even by his contemporaries Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp of Smyrna. He was rather the chief of the presbyters than the chief over the presbyters. Only when thus limited, can the episcopacy of St Clement be reconciled with the language of his own epistle or with the notice in his younger contemporary Hermas. At the same time the allusion in the Shepherd, though inconsistent with any exalted conception of his office, does assign to him as his special province the duty of com- municating with foreign churches’, which in the early ages was essentially the bishop’s function, as may be seen by the instances of Polycarp, of Dionysius, of Irenzeus, and of Polycrates. Of the two succeeding bishops, EVARESTUS and ALEXANDER, no au- thentic notices are preserved. XysTus, who follows, is the reputed author of a collection of proverbs, which a recent dis- tinguished critic has not hesitated to accept as genume® He is also the earliest of those Roman prelates whom Irenzus, writing to Victor in the name of the Gallican Churches, mentions as having observed Easter after the western reckoning and yet maintained peace with those who kept it otherwise. The next two, TELESPHORUS and HyGINUuS, are described in the same terms. The former is likewise distinguished as the sole martyr among the early bishops of the metropolis‘; the latter is mentioned as being in office when the peace of the Roman Church was disturbed by the presence of the heretics Valentinus and Cerdon®, With Pius, the next in order, the office, if not the man, emerges into daylight. An anonymous writer, treat- ing on the canon of Scripture, says that the Shepherd was written by Hermas ‘ quite lately while his brother Pius held the 1 See above, p. 180, note 3. tie, 1873. 2 Ewald, Gesch. des V. I. vit. p. 321 3 Tren. in Euseb. H. E. v. 24. sq. On the other hand see Zeller * Tren. iii, 3. 3. At least Irensus Philos. der Griechen 111. 1, p. 601 note, mentions him aloneasa martyr. Later and Singer in the Jiidische Zeitschrift stories confer the glory of martyrdom (1867) p. 29 sq. It has recently been on others also. edited by Gildemeister, Sexti Senten- 5 Tren. iii. 4. 3. THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 185 see of the Church of Rome’ This passage, written by a con- temporary, besides the testimony which it bears to the date and authorship of the Shepherd (with which we are not here concerned), is valuable in its bearing on this investigation ; for the use of the ‘chair’ or ‘see’ as a recognised phrase points to a more or less prolonged existence of episcopacy in Rome, when this writer lived. To Pius succeeds ANIcErus. And now Anicetus, Rome becomes for the moment the centre of interest and “” 1°” activity in the Christian world’ During this episcopate Hegesippus, visiting the metropolis for the purpose of ascer- taining and recording the doctrines of the Roman Church, is welcomed by the bishop*. About the same time also another more illustrious visitor, Polycarp the venerable bishop of Smyrna, arrives in Rome to confer with the head of the Roman Church on the Paschal dispute* and there falls in with and denounces the heretic Marcion®, These facts are stated on contemporary authority. Of Sore also, the next in succession, a contemporary Soter, record is preserved. Dionysius of Corinth, writing to the “” Romans, praises the zeal of their bishop, who in his fatherly care for the suffering poor and for the prisoners working in the mines had maintained and extended the hereditary fame of his church for zeal in all charitable and good works’. In ELEU- Eleuthe- THERUS, who succeeds Soter, we have the earliest recorded "\*) 177, instance of an archdeacon. When Hegesippus paid his visit to the metropolis, he found Eleutherus standing in this relation to the bishop Anicetus, and seems to have made his acquaint- ance while acting in this capacity’. Eleutherus however was a contemporary, not only of Hegesippus, but also of the great writers Ireneus and Tertullian*, who speak of the episcopal succession in the churches generally, and in Rome especially, as 1 See Philippians p. 168, note 9, 7 In Euseb. H. E. iv. 22 wéxpis ’Avt- where the passage is quoted. Kirov ob Sidxovos Hv ’ENevOepos. 2 See Westcott Canon p. 191, ed. 4. 8 He is mentioned by Ireneus iii. 3. * Hegesipp. in Euseb. H. E. iv. 22. 3 viv dwoexdry Tomw Tov THs émioKorfs 4 Tren, in Euseb. H. E. v. 24. dd ray dmrooréd\wy Karéxet KAjpov Edev- ® Tren. iii. 3.4; comp. iii. 4. 4. Gepos, and by Tertullian, Praescr. 30 6 In Euseb. H. E. iv. 23. ‘sub episcopatu Eleutheri benedicti. Victor, A.D. 189. GavL. 186 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. the best safeguard for the transmission of the true faith from apostolic times. With Victor, the successor of Eleutherus, a new era begins. Apparently the first Latin prelate who held the metropolitan see of Latin Christendom’, he was moreover the first Roman bishop who is known to have had intimate relations with the imperial court’, and the first also who advanced those claims to universal dominion which his successors in later ages have always consistently and often successfully maintained‘, ‘I hear, writes Tertullian scornfully, ‘that an edict has gone forth, aye and that a peremptory edict ; the chief pontiff, forsooth, I mean the bishop of bishops, has issued his commands.’ At the end of the first century the Roman Church was swayed by the mild and peaceful counsels of the presbyter- bishop Clement; the close of the second witnessed the auto- cratic pretensions of the haughty pope Victor, the prototype of a Hildebrand or an Innocent. 9. The Churches of GAUL were closely connected with and probably descended from the Churches of Asia Minor. If so, the episcopal form of government would probably be coeval with 1 Tren. iii. 3. 2, Tertull. de Praeser.. 32, 36, adv. Mare. iv. 5. 2 All the predecessors of Victor bear Greek names with two exceptions, Cle- mens and Pius; and even these appear not to have been Latin. Clement writes in Greek, and his style is wholly unlike what might be expected from a Roman. Hermas, the brother of Pius, not only employs the Greek language in writing, but bears a Greek name also. It is worth observing also that Tertul- lian (de Praescr. 30), speaking of the episcopate of Eleutherus, designates the church of the metropolis not ‘ec- clesia Romana,’ but ‘ecclesia Roma- nensis,’ i.e. not the Church of Rome, but the Church in Rome. The trans- ition from a Greek to a Latin Church was of course gradual; but, if a defi- nite epoch must be named, the episco- pate of Victor serves betier than any other. The two immediate successors of Victor, Zephyrinus (202—219) and Callistus (219—223), bear Greek names, and it may be inferred from the ac- count in Hippolytus that they were Greeks; but from this time forward the Roman bishops, with scarcely an exception, seem to have been Latins. 2 Hippol. Haer. ix. 12, pp. 287, 288.. 4 See the account of his attitude in the Paschal controversy, Kuseb. H. E. v, 24, 5 Tertull. de Pudic. i. The bishop here mentioned will be either Victor or Zephyrinus; and the passage points to the assumption of extraordinary titles by the Roman bishops about this time. See also Cyprian in the opening of the Concil. Carth. p. 158 (ed. Fell) ‘neque enim quisquam nostrum episcopum se episcoporum constituit etc.,’ doubtless. in allusion to the arrogance of the Roman prelates. THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 187 the foundation of Christian brotherhoods in this country. It is true we do not meet with any earlier bishop than the immediate predecessor of Irenzeus at Lyons, the aged Pothinus, of whose martyrdom an account is given in the letter of the Gallican Churches. But this is also the first distinct historical notice of any kind relating to Christianity in Gaul. 10. AFRICA again was evangelized from Rome at a compa- Arnica. ratively late date. Of the African Church before the close of the second century, when a flood of light is suddenly thrown upon it by the writings of Tertullian, we know absolutely nothing. But we need not doubt that this father represents the traditions and sentiments of his church, when he lays stress on episcopacy as an apostolic institution and on the episcopate as the depositary of pure Christian doctrine. If we may judge by the large number of prelates assembled in the African councils of a later generation, it would appear that the extension of the episcopate was far more rapid here than in most parts of Christendom’. 11. The Church of ALEXANDRIA, on the other hand, was Auzxay- probably founded in apostolic times®. Nor is there any reason we to doubt the tradition which connects it with the name of St Mark, though the authorities for the statement are compara- tively recent. Nevertheless of its early history we have no 1 The Epistle of the Gallican Churches in Huseb. H. E. v. 1. 2 At the African council convoked by Cyprian about 50 years later, the opinions of as many as 87 bishops are recorded; and allusion is made in one of his letters (Epist. 59) to a council held before his time, when 90 bishops assembled. For a list of the African bishoprics at this time see Miinter Primord. Eccl. Afric. p. 31 sq. The enormous number of African bishops a few centuries later would seem incredi- ble, were it not reported on the best authority. Dupin (Optat. Milev. p. lix) counts up as many as 690 African sees: compare also the Notitia in Ruinart’s Victor Vitensis p. 117 sq., with the notes p. 215 sq. These last references I owe to Gibbon, u. xxxvii. and ¢, xli. 3 Independently of the tradition re- lating to St Mark, this may be inferred from extant canonical and uncanonical writings which appear to haveemanated from Alexandria. The Epistle to the Hebrews, even if we may not ascribe it to the learned Alexandrian Apollos (Acts xviii. 24), at least bears obvious marks of Alexandrian culture. The so- called Epistle of Barnabas again, which may have been written as early as the reign of Vespasian and can hardly date later than Nerva, must be referred to the Alexandrian school of theology. Hadrian’s letter. 188 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. authentic record. “Eusebius indeed gives a list of bishops beginning with St Mark, which here, as in the case of the Roman see, is accompanied by dates!; but from what source he derived his information is unknown. The first contem- porary notice of church officers in Alexandria is found in a heathen writer. The emperor Hadrian, writing to the consul Servianus, thus describes the state of religion in this city: ‘I have become perfectly familiar with Egypt, which you praised to me; it is fickle, uncertain, blown about by every gust of rumour. Those who worship Serapis are Christians, and those are devoted to Serapis who call themselves bishops of Christ. There is no ruler of a synagogue there, no Samaritan, no Christian presbyter, who is not an astrologer, a soothsayer, a quack. The patriarch himself whenever he comes to Egypt is compelled by some to worship Serapis, by others to worship Christ.’ In this letter, which seems to have been written in the year 134, Hadrian shows more knowledge of Jewish ecclesiastical polity than of Christian: but, appa- rently without knowing the exact value of terms, he seems to 1 Euseb. H. E. ii. 24, iii, 14, ete. See Clinton’s Fasti Romani u. p. 544, ° Preserved in Vopiscus Vit. Saturn. 8. The Jewish patriarch (who resided at Tiberias) is doubtless intended; for it would be no hardship to the Christian bishop of Alexandria to be ‘compelled to worship Christ.’ Otherwise the ana- chronism involved in such a title would alone have sufficed to condemn the let- ter as spurious. Yet Salmasius, Casau- bon, and the older commentators gene- rally, agree in the supposition that the bishop of Alexandria is styled patriarch here. The manner in which the docu- ment is stated by Vopiscus to have been preserved (‘Hadriani epistolam ex libris Phlegontis liberti ejus proditam ’) is favourable to its genuineness ; nor does the mention of Verus as the em- peror’s ‘son’ in another part of the letter present any real chronological difficulty. Hadrian paid his visit to Egypt in the autumn of 130, but the letter is not stated to have been written there. The date of the third consul- ship of Servianus is a.p. 134, and the account of Spartianus (Ver, 3) easily admits of the adoption of Verus before or during this year, though Clinton (Fast. Rom. 1. p. 124) places it as late as a.D. 135. Gregorovius (Kaiser Ha- drian p. 71) suggests that ‘ filium meum’ may have been added by Phlegon or by some one else. The prominence of the Christiansin thisletterisnotsurprising, when we remember how Hadrian inter- ested himself in their tenets on another occasion (at Athens). This document is considered genuine by such opposite authorities as Tillemont (Hist. des Emp. i. p. 265) and Gregorovius (I. c. p. 41), and may be accepted without hesita- tion. THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 189 distinguish the bishop and the presbyter in the Christian community’, From the age of Hadrian to the age of Clement no contemporary or nearly contemporary notices are found, bearing on the government of the Alexandrian Church. The Clement’of language of Clement is significant; he speaks sometimes of ae ous two orders of the ministry, the presbyters and deacons”; some- times of three, the bishops, presbyters, and deacons’. Thus it would appear that even as late as the close of the second century the bishop of Alexandria was regarded as distinct and yet not distinct from the presbytery’. And the language of Clement is further illustrated by the fact, which will have to be considered at length presently, that at Alexandria the bishop was nominated and apparently ordained by the twelve pres- byters out of their own number’. The episcopal office in this Church during the second century gives no presage of the world-wide influence to which under the prouder name of patriarchate it was destined in later ages to attain. The Alexandrian succession, in which history is hitherto most in- terested, is not the succession of the bishops but of the heads of the catechetical school. The first bishop of Alexandria, of whom any distinct incident is recorded on trustworthy autho- rity, was a contemporary of Origen. The notices thus collected® present a large body of evidence Inferences 1 At this time there appears to have been only one bishop in Egypt (see below, p.196). ButHadrian, whowould have heard of numerous bishops else- where, and perhaps had no very precise knowledge of the Egyptian Church, might well indulge in this rhetorical flourish. At all events he seems to mean different offices, when speaking of the bishop and the presbyter. 2 Strom. vii. 1 (p. 830, Potter) duolws 8¢ kal xara Thy éxxdnolav, rHv pev Bed- tiwrixny ol mpecBvrepor odfovow elxbva, Thy brnpetuxhy O€ of dudkovor. 3 Strom. vi. 13 (p. 793) al évradéa kara Thy éxkdnolay mpoxoral, éricxérwv, apecBurépur, Siaxdver, pipjuara olwac dyyedixhs O6éns, Strom. iii, 12 (p. 552), Paed. iii. 12 (see the next note): see Kaye’s Clement of Alexandria p. 463 sq. 4 Yet in one passage he, like Irenseus (see Philippians p. 98), betrays his ig- norance that in the language of the New Testament bishop and presbyter are synonymes; see Paed. iii. 12 (p. 309) pupae 6¢ Scat brobFxae els mpbowra éxdexra Starelvovoa éyyeypddarat rats BlBdots rats dylats, al udev rpeaBurépots ai dé émickdrocs ai 6¢ Biaxdvors, dAdaL Xipots K.7.r. 5 See below, p. 194. 8 In this sketch of the episcopate in the different churchesI havenot thought it necessary to carry the lists later than The gene- ral preva- lence of episco- pacy. | Gradual and un- even deve- lopment of the office. 190 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. establishing the fact of the early and extensive adoption of episcopacy in the Christian Church. The investigation how- ever would not be complete, unless attention were called to such indirect testimony as is furnished by the tacit assump- tions of writers living towards and at the close of the second century. Episcopacy is so inseparably interwoven with all the traditions and beliefs of men like Irenzus and Tertullian, that they betray no knowledge of a time when it was not. Even Irenzeus, the earlier of these, who was certainly born and prob- ably grown up before the middle of the century, seems to be wholly ignorant that the word bishop had passed from a lower to a higher value since the apostolic times’. Nor is it impor- tant only to observe the positive though indirect testimony which they afford. Their silence suggests a strong negative presumption, that while every other point of doctrine or prac- tice was eagerly canvassed, the form of Church government alone scarcely came under discussion. But these notices, besides establishing the general preva- lence of episcopacy, also throw considerable light on its origin. They indicate that the solution suggested by the history of the word ‘bishop’ and its transference from the lower to the higher office is the true solution, and that the episcopate was created out of the presbytery. They shew that this creation was not so much an isolated act as a progressive development, not advancing everywhere at an uniform rate but exhibiting at one and the same time different stages of growth in different churches. They seem to hint also that, so far as this develop- ment was affected at all by national temper and characteristics, it was slower where the prevailing influences were more purely Greek, as at Corinth and Philippi and Rome, and more rapid where an oriental spirit predominated, as at Jerusalem and the second century. Nor (except in a very few cases) has any testimony been accepted, unless the writer himself flou- rished before the close of this century, The Apostolic Constitutions would add several names to the list; but this evi- dence is not trustworthy, though in many cases the statements doubtless rested on some traditional basis. 1 See Philippians .p. 98. The same is true of Clement of Alexandria: see above, p. 189, note 4. THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 191 Antioch and Ephesus. Above all, they establish this result clearly, that its maturer forms are seen first in those regions where the latest surviving Apostles (more especially St John) fixed their abode, and at a time when its prevalence cannot be dissociated from their infiuence or their sanction. The original relation of the bishop to the presbyter, which Original this investigation reveals, was not forgotten even after the ae oe lapse of centuries. Though set over the presbyters, he was still Pee regarded as in some sense one of them. Ireneus indicates this position of the episcopate very clearly. In his language a presbyter is never designated a bishop, while on the other hand he very frequently speaks of a bishop as a presbyter. In other words, though he views the episcopate as a distinct A bishop office from the presbytery, he does not regard it as a distinct hte my order in the same sense in which the diaconate is a distinct oe oer order. Thus, arguing against the heretics he says, ‘ But when again we appeal against them to that tradition which is de- rived from the Apostles, which is preserved in the churches by successions of presbyters, they place themselves in opposition to it, saying that they, being wiser not only than the presbyters but even than the Apostles, have discovered the genuine truth*’ Yet just below, after again mentioning the apostolic tradition, he adds, ‘ We are able to enumerate those who have been ap- pointed by the Apostles bishops in the churches and their successors down to our own time’’; and still further, after saying that it would take up too much space if he were to trace the succession in all the churches, he declares that he will confound his opponents by singling out the ancient and renowned Church of Rome founded by the Apostles Peter and Paul and will point out the tradition handed down to his own time ‘by the succession of bishops, after which he gives a list from Linus to Eleutherus*. So again in another passage he writes, ‘Therefore obedience ought to be rendered to the presbyters who are in the churches, who have the succession from the Apostles as we have shown, who with the succession 1 Tren. iii. 2. 2. 2 Tren. iii. 3. 1. 3 Tren. iii. 3. 2, 3. 192 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. of the episcopate have also received the sure grace of truth according to the pleasure of the Father’; after which he men- tions some ‘who are believed by many to be presbyters, but serve their own lusts and are elated with the pomp of the chief seat, and bids his readers shun these and seek such as ‘together with the rank of the presbytery show their speech sound and their conversation void of offence, adding of these latter, ‘Such presbyters the Church nurtures and rears, con- cerning whom also the prophet saith, “I will give thy rulers in peace and thy bishops in righteousness’”’, Thus also writing to Victor of Rome in the name of the Gallican churches, he says, ‘It was not so observed by the presbyters before Soter, who ruled the Church which thou now guidest, we mean Anicetus and Pius, Hyginus and Telesphorus and Xystus*’ and i And the same estimate of the office appears in Clement of ‘Mexan. Alexandria: for, while he speaks elsewhere of the three offices dria. in the ministry, mentioning them by name, he in one passage puts forward a twofold division, the presbyters whose duty it is to improve, and the deacons whose duty it is to serve, the Church*®. The functions of the bishop and presbyter are thus regarded as substantially the same in kind, though different in degree, while the functions of the diaconate are separate Testimony from both. More than a century and a half later, this view Sri is put forward with the greatest distinctness by the most learned and most illustrious of the Latin fathers. ‘There is 1 Tren. iv. 26. 2, 3, 4, 5. 2 In Euseb. H. HE. v. 24. In other assumes, p. 414 sq.) why the usage of Ireneus should throughout be uni- places Irenzeus apparently uses peo Gv- repo to denote antiquity and not office, as in the letter to Florinus, Euseb. H. E. v. 20 of mpd quay mpecBirepor of kat rots daocrédots cuuorrqoayres (comp. ii. 22. 5); in which sense the word occurs also in Papias(Euseb. H. £. iii. 39; see Contemporary Review, Aug. 1875, p. 379 sq. [Essays on Supernatu- ral Religion p. 143 sq.]); but the pas- sages quoted in the text are decisive, nor is there any reason (as Rothe form in this matter. 3 See the passage quoted above, p. 189, note 2. So also in the anecdote of St John (Quis div. salv. 42, p. 959) we read 7Q@ KaBecrGr. mpooBhépas émt- oxomw, but immediately afterwards 6 dé rpecBurepos dvahaBdv x.7.d., and then again dye 67, épn, & érloxore, of the same person. Thus he too, like Irensus, regards the bishop as a pres- byter, though the converse would not be true. THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 193 one ordination,’ writes the commentator Hilary, ‘of the bishop and the presbyter; for either is a priest, but the bishop is first. Every bishop is a presbyter, but every presbyter is not a bishop: for he is bishop who is first among the presbyters’,’ The language of St Jerome to the same effect has been quoted Jerome, elsewhere’. 'To the passages there given may be added the fol- lowing: ‘This has been said to show that with the ancients presbyters were the same as bishops: but gradually all the responsibility was deferred to a single person, that the thickets of heresies might be rooted out. Therefore, as presbyters know that by the custom of the Church they are subject to him who shall have been set over them, so let bishops also be aware that they are superior to presbyters more owing to custom than to any actual ordinance of the Lord, etc.: Let us see therefore what sort of person ought to be ordained pres- byter or bishop®” In the same spirit too the great Augustine and Au- writing to Jerome says, ‘Although according to titles of honour cea which the practice of the Church has now made valid, the epis- copate is greater than the presbytery, yet in many things Augustine is less than Jerome*’ To these fathers this view seemed to be an obvious deduction from the identity of the terms ‘bishop’ and ‘presbyter’ in the apostolic writings; nor indeed, when they wrote, had usage entirely effaced the original connexion between the two offices. Even in the fourth and Bishops fifth centuries, when the independence and power of the epis- diem: copate had reached its maximum, it was still customary for a ae bishop in writing to a presbyter to address him as ‘fellow- byters. presbyter’, thus bearing testimony to a substantial identity of 1 Ambrosiast. on 1 Tim. iii. 10. 2 See Philippians p. 98. 3 On Tit. i. 5 (viz. p. 696). 4 Epist.lxxxii.33 (11. p. 202, ed. Ben.). 5 So for instance Cyprian, Epist. 14, writes ‘compresbyteri nostri Donatus et Fortunatus’; and addressing Corne- lius bishop of Rome (Epist. 45) he says ‘cum ad me talia de te et com- L. presbyteris tecum considentibus scripta venissent.’ Compare also Epist. 44, 45, 71, 76. Augustine writes to Jerome in the same terms, and in fact this seems to have been the recognised form of ad- dress. See the Quaest. Vet. et Nov. Test. ci, (in Augustin. Op. 111. P. 2, p. 93) ‘Quid est enim episcopus nisi primus presbyter, hoc est summus sacerdos? 13 194 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. order. Nor does it appear that this view was ever questioned until the era of the Reformation. In the western Church at all events it carried the sanction of the highest ecclesiastical authorities and was maintained even by popes and councils’. Nor was it only in the language of the later Church that the memory of this fact was preserved. Even in her practice indications might here and there be traced, which pointed to a time when the bishop was still only the chief member ae j of the presbytery. The case of the Alexandrian Church, which shop oO: ‘ . . Alexane haa already been mentioned casually, deserves special notice. dria cho- St Jerome, after denouncing the audacity of certain persons sen and eae who ‘would give to deacons the precedence over presbyters, bytery. that is over bishops,’ and alleging scriptural proofs of the identity of the two, gives the following fact in illustration: ‘At Alexandria, from Mark the Evangelist down to the times of the bishops Heraclas (A.D. 233—249) and Dionysius (4.D. 249—265), the presbyters always nominated as bishop one chosen out of their own body and placed in a higher grade: just as if an army were to appoint a general, or deacons were to choose from their own body one whom they knew to be dili- gent and call him archdeacon*®’ Though the direct statement of this father refers only to the appointment of the bishop, still it may be inferred that the function of the presbyters extended also to the consecration. And this inference is borne out by other evidence. ‘In Egypt,’ writes an older contemporary of St Jerome, the commentator Hilary, ‘the presbyters seal (ie. ordain or consecrate), if the bishop be not present®.” This how- ever might refer only to the ordination of presbyters, and not Denique non aliter quam compresbyte- ° Epist. exlvi. ad Evang. (1. p. 1082). ros hic vocat et consacerdotes suos. Numquid et ministros condiaconos suos dicit episcopus?’, where the writer is arguing against the arrogance of the Roman deacons, See Philippians p. 96. 1 See the references collected by Gieseler, 1. p. 105 sq. % Ambrosiast. on Ephes, iv.12. So too in the Quaest. Vet. et Nov. Test. ci. (falsely ascribed to St Augustine), Au- gust. Op. m1. P. 2, p. 93, ‘Nam in Alexandria et per totam Agyptum, si desit episcopus, consecrat (v. 1. con- signat) presbyter.’ THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 195 to the consecration of a bishop. But even the latter is sup- ported by direct evidence, which though comparatively late deserves consideration, inasmuch as it comes from one who was himself a patriarch of Alexandria. Eutychius, who held Teeny the patriarchal see from A.D. 933 to A.D. 940, writes as follows: chius. ‘The Evangelist Mark appointed along with the patriarch Hananias twelve presbyters who should remain with the pa- triarch, to the end that, when the patriarchate was vacant, they might choose one of the twelve presbyters, on whose head the remaining eleven laying their hands should bless him and create him patriarch. The vacant place in the pres- bytery was then to be filled up, that the number twelve might be constant*. ‘This custom, adds this writer, ‘did not cease till the time of Alexander (4.D. 313—326), patriarch of Alexandria. He however forbad that henceforth the presbyters should create the patriarch, and decreed that on the death of the patriarch the bishops should meet to ordain the (new) patriarch, ete.’ It is clear from this passage that Eutychius considered the func- tions of nomination and ordination to rest with the same persons, If this view however be correct, the practice of the ’ Eutychii Patr. Alexandr. Annales 1. p. 331 (Pococke, Oxon. 1656). The in- ferences in the text are resisted by Abra- ham Kechellensis Eutychius vindicatus p. 22 sq, (in answer to Selden the trans- lator of Eutychius), and by Le Quien Oriens Christianus 11. p. 342, who urge all that can be said on the opposite side. The authority of a writer so in- accurate as Eutychius, if it had been un- supported, would have had no weight; but, as we have seen, this is not the case. 2 Between Dionysius and Alexander four bishops of Alexandria intervene, Maximus (a.p. 265), Theonas (4.. 283), Peter I. (a.p. 301), and Achillas (.p. 312). It will therefore be seen that there is a considerable discrepancy be- tween the accounts of Jerome and Eu- tychius as to the time when the change was effected. But we may reasonably conjecture (with Ritschl, p. 432) that the transition from the old state of things to the new would be the result of a pro- longed conflict between the Alexandrian presbytery who had hitherto held these functions, and the bishops of the re- cently created Egyptian sees to whom it was proposed to transfer them. Somewhat later one Ischyras was deprived of his orders by an Alexan- drian synod, because he had been or- dained by a presbyter only: Athan. Apol. c. Arian. 75 (1. p. 152). From this time at all events the Alexandrian Church insisted as strictly as any other on episcopal ordination. 138—2 Increase of the Egyptian . episco- pate. Decree of the Coun- cil of An- cyra. 196 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. Alexandrian Church was exceptional; for at this time the formal act of the bishop was considered generally necessary to give validity to ordination. Nor is the exception difficult to account for. At the close of the second century, when every considerable church in Europe and Asia appears to have had its bishop, the only representative of the ‘episcopal order in Egypt was the bishop of Alexandria. It was Demetrius first (A.D. 190—233), as Eutychius informs us’, who appointed three other bishops, to which number his successor Heraclas (A.D. 233—249) added twenty more. This extension of episcopacy to the provincial towns of Egypt paved the way for a change in the mode of appointing and ordaining the patriarch of Alexandria. But before this time it was a matter of con- venience and almost of necessity that the Alexandrian pres- byters should themselves ordain their chief. Nor is it only in Alexandria that we meet with this peculiarity. Where the same urgent reason existed, the same exceptional practice seems to have been tolerated. A decree of the Council of Ancyra (A.D. 314) ordains that ‘it be not allowed to country-bishops- (ywperioxdrrots) to ordain pres- byters or deacons, nor even to city-presbyters, except permission be given in each parish by the bishop in writing®’ Thus while 1 Hutych, Ann. 1. c. p. 332. Hera- clas, we are informed on the same the object of yeporoveiy, but to this there is a twofold objection: (1) he authority (p. 335), was the first Alex- andrian prelate who bore the title of patriarch ; this designation being equi- valent to metropolitan or bishop of bishops. 2 Concil. Ancyr. can. 13 (Routh Rel. Sacer. 1v. p. 121) xwpemioxomors ph éfe?- vat mpecBurépous 7} Siaxdvous xetporoveiy, advAa [hv] unde mpecBurepos modews xwpls Tod emirparfvat bd rod émioKd- Tou meTa ypappdrun év éxdory maporkia, The various readings and interpreta- tions of this canon will be found in Routh’s note, p. 144 sq. Routh him- self reads dA\Q wy mndé mpecBurépous méAews, making mpecBurépovs médews necessarily understands the former mpecBurépous to mean mpecBurépous xi- pas, though this is not expressed: (2) he interprets d\\d wiv pydé ‘much less,’ a sense which 475é seems to ex- clude and which is not borne out by his examples. The name and office of the ywpert- cxoros appear to be reliques of the time when érloxoros and mpecBirepos were synonymes. While the large cities had their college of presbyters, for the vil- lages a single rpecBirepos (or érlexoros) would suffice; but from his isolated position he would be tempted, even if he were not obliged, to perform on his THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 197 restraining the existing license, the framers of the decree still allow very considerable latitude. And it is especially import- ant to observe that they lay more stress on episcopal sanction than on episcopal ordination. Provided that the former is secured, they are content to dispense with the latter. As a general rule however, even those writers who maintain Ordina- a substantial identity in the offices of the bishop and presbyter pence ” reserve the power of ordaining to the former’. This distinction eee in fact may be regarded as a settled maxim of Church polity in the fourth and later centuries. And when Aerius maintained the equality of the bishop and presbyter and denied the neces- sity of episcopal ordination, his opinion was condemned as heretical, and is stigmatized as ‘frantic’ by Epiphanius’. It has been seen that the institution of an episcopate must be placed as far back as the closing years of the first own responsibility certain acts which in the city would only be performed by the bishop properly so called, or at least would not be performed without his consent. Out of this position the office of the later xwperloxoros would gra- dually be developed; but the rate of progression would not be uniform, and the regulations affecting it would be determined by the circumstances of the particular locality. Hence, at a later date, it seems in some places to have been presbyteral, in others episcopal. In the Ancyran canon just quoted a chorepiscopus is evidently placed below the city presbytery; but in other notices he occupies a higher position. For the conflicting accounts of the xwpericxoros see Bingham 11. xiv. Baur’s account of the origin of the episcopate supposes thateach Christian congregation was presided over, not by @ college of presbyters, but by a single mpesBirepos or émloxoros, i.e. that the constitution of the Church was from the first monarchical: see Pastoralbriefe p. 81 sq., Ursprung des Episcopats p. 84 sq. This view is inconsistent alike with the analogy of the synagogue and with the notices in the apostolic and early ecclesiastical writings. But the practice which he considers to have been the general rule would probably hold in small country congregations, where a college of pres- byters would be unnecessary as well as impossible, 1 St Jerome himself (Epist. cxlvi.), in the context of the passage in which he maintains the identity of the two orders and alleges the tradition of the Alexandrian Church (see above, p. 194), adds, ‘Quid enim facit excepta ordina- tione episcopus quod presbyter non faciat?’ So also Const. Apost. viii. 28 érloxomos Xetpoberet yetporovel...mperBu- Tepos xetpoberet od xerporover, Chrysost. Hom, xi. on 1 Tim, iii. 8 rq xetporovig Bbvy brepBeBjxace Kal rovTw pdvov So- Kodot mAeovexrety mpecBurépovs. See Bingham u. iii. 5, 6, 7, for other re- ferences. 2 Haer. lxxv. 8; comp. Augustine Haer. § 53, See Wordsworth Theoph. Angl. c x. 198 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. century, and that it cannot, without violence to historical testimony, be dissevered from the name of St John, But it has been seen also that the earliest bishops did not hold the same independent position of supremacy which was and _ is pee et occupied by their later representatives. It will therefore be lopment instructive to trace the successive stages by which the power oe of the office was developed during the second and third centu- ‘ ries. Though something must be attributed to the frailty of _ human pride and love of power, it will nevertheless appear that the pressing needs of the Church were mainly instru- mental in bringing about the result, and that this development of the episcopal office was a providential safeguard amid the - confusion of speculative opinion, the distracting effects of perse- ‘ cution, and the growing anarchy of social life, which threatened not only the extension but the very existence of the Church of ‘Christ. Ambition of office in a society where prominence of ‘rank involved prominence of risk was at least no vulgar and selfish passion. Three This development will be conveniently connected with three vonneetea great names, each separated from the other by an interval of aes more than half a century, and each marking a distinct stage in its progress, Ignatius, Ireneus, and Cyprian, represent three successive advances towards the supremacy which was ulti- mately attained. 1. Iena- 1. Icwnatius of Antioch is commonly recognized as the ee staunchest advocate of episcopacy in the early ages. Even, anes though we should refuse to accept as genuine any portions which are not contained in the Syriac Version’, this view would nevertheless be amply justified. Confining our attention for the moment to the Syriac letters we find that to this father the chief value of episcopacy lies in the fact that it constitutes 1 In the earlier editions of this work shorter Greek form is genuine; but I assumed that the Syriac Version published by Cureton represented the Epistles of Ignatius in their original form. I am now convinced that this is only an abridgment and that the for the sake of argument I have kept the two apart in the text. I hope be- fore long to give reasons for this change of opinion in my edition of this father. [See p. 239 sq., Additional Note A.] THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 199 a visible centre of unity in the congregation. He seems in the Thebishop development of the office to keep in view the same purpose ee which we may suppose to have influenced the last surviving of uty. Apostles in its institution. The withdrawal of the authori- tative preachers of the Gospel, the personal disciples of the Lord, had severed one bond of union. The destruction of the original abode of Christendom, the scene of the life and passion of the Saviour and of the earliest triumphs of the Church, had removed another. Thus deprived at once of the personal and the local ties which had hitherto bound individual to individual and church to church, the Christian brotherhood was threatened with schism, disunion, dissolution. ‘Vindicate thine office with all diligence,’ writes Ignatius to the bishop of Smyrna, ‘in things temporal as well as spiritual. Have a care of unity, than which nothing is better’’ ‘The crisis requires thee, as the pilot requires the winds or the storm-tossed mariner a haven, so as to attain unto God*’ ‘Let not those who seem to be plausible and teach falsehoods dismay thee; but stand thou firm as an anvil under the hammer: ’tis the part of a great athlete to be bruised and to conquer’ ‘Let nothing be done without thy consent, and do thou nothing without the consent of God‘’ He adds directions also, that those who decide on a life of virginity shall disclose their intention to the bishop only, and those who marry shall obtain his consent to their union, that ‘their marriage may be according to the Lord and not according to lust®’ And turning from the bishop to the people he adds, ‘Give heed to your bishop, that God also may give heed to you. I give my life for those who are obedient to the bishop, to presbyters, to deacons. With them may I have my portion in the presence of God*’ Writing to the Ephesians also he says that in receiving their bishop Onesimus he is receiving their whole body, and he charges them to love him, and one and all to be in his likeness’, adding, ‘Since love does 1 Polye. 1. 5 Polye. 5. 2 Polyc. 2. 8 Polye. 6. 3 Polyc. 3. 7 Ephes. 1. 4 Polyc. 4. / i 200 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. not permit me to be silent, therefore I have been forward in exhorting you to conform to the will of God’’ From these passages it will be seen that St Ignatius values the episcopate chiefly as a security for good discipline and The Greek harmonious working in the Church. And, when we pass from letters. : Their ex- travagant exaltation of the episco- pate. the Syriac letters to the Short Greek, the standing ground is still unchanged. At the same time, though the point of view is unaltered, the Greek letters contain far stronger expressions than are found in the Syriac. Throughout the whole range of Christian literature, no more uncompromising advocacy of the episcopate can be found than appears in these writings. This championship indeed is extended to the two lower orders of the ministry’, more especially to the presbyters*. But it is when asserting the claims of the episcopal office to obedience and respect, that the language is strained to the utmost. ‘The bishops established in the farthest parts of the world are in the counsels of Jesus Christ‘. ‘Every one whom the Master of the house sendeth to govern His own household we ought to receive, as Him that sent him; clearly therefore we ought to regard the bishop as the Lord Himself*’ Those ‘live a life after Christ,’ who ‘obey the bishop as Jesus Christ’. ‘It is good to know God and the bishop; he that honoureth the bishop is honoured of God; he that doeth anything without the knowledge of the bishop serveth the devil’.’ He that obeys his bishop, obeys ‘not him, but the Father of Jesus Christ, the Bishop of all’ On the other hand, he that practises hypocrisy towards his bishop, ‘not only deceiveth the visible one, but cheateth the Unseen®’ ‘As many as are of God and of Jesus Christ, are with the bishop®.” Those are approved who are ‘inseparate [from God], from Jesus Christ, and from the bishop, and from the ordinances of the Apostles*’ ‘Do ye all, says this writer 1 Ephes. 3. 6 Trall. 2. 2 Magn. 13, Trall. 3, 7, Philad. 4, 7, 7 Smyrn. 9. Smyrn. 8, 12. 8 Magn. 3. 3 Ephes, 2, 20, Magn. 2, 6, Trall. 13. ® Philad. 3. 4 Ephes. 3. 10 Trall, 7. 5 Ephes. 6. THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 201 again, ‘follow the bishop, as Jesus Christ followed the Father’.’ The Ephesians are commended accordingly, because they are so united with their bishop ‘as the Church with Jesus Christ and as Jesus Christ with the Father.” ‘If? it is added, ‘the prayer of one or two hath so much power, how much more the prayer of the bishop and of the whole Church®’ ‘Wherever the bishop may appear, there let the multitude be, just as where Jesus Christ may be, there is the universal Church*’ Therefore ‘let no man do anything pertaining to the Church without the bishop‘.’ ‘It is not allowable either to baptize or to hold a love-feast without the bishop: but whatsoever he may approve, this also is well pleasing to God, that everything which is done may be safe and valid®’ ‘Unity of God, according to this writer, consists in harmonious co-operation with the bishop*. And yet with all this extravagant exaltation of the epis- The pres- copal office, the presbyters are not put out of sight. They form ela ae a council’, a ‘worthy spiritual coronal*’ round the bishop. It is ie the duty of every individual, but especially of them, ‘to refresh the bishop unto the honour of the Father and of Jesus Christ and of the Apostles®’ They stand in the same relation to him, ‘as the chords to the lyre”.’ If the bishop occupies the place of God or of Jesus Christ, the presbyters are as the Apostles, as the council of God™. If obedience is due to the bishop as the grace of God, it is due to the presbytery as the law of Jesus Christ”. It need hardly be remarked how subversive of the true Considera- spirit of Christianity, in the negation of individual freedom and micas the consequent suppression of direct responsibility to God in Soe Christ, is the crushing despotism with which this language, if 1 Smyrn. 8, comp. Magn. 7. curs 1 Tim. iv. 14, is very frequent in 2 Ephes. 5. the Ignatian Epistles. 3 Smyrn. 8. 8 Magn. 138. 4 ib.; comp. Magn. 4, Philad. 7. 9 Trall. 12. 5 Smyrn. 8. 10 Ephes. 4; comp. the metaphor in 6 Polyc. 8 év évérnre Ocob kal émickéd- Philad. 1. rou (v. 1. émioxorg): comp. Philad. 3, 8, ll Trall. 2, 3, Magn. 6, Smyrn. 8. 7 The word rpeoBurépov, which oc- 12 Magn. 2. The same views ad- vanced in the inter- ests of E- bionism. 202 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. taken literally, would invest the episcopal office. It is more important to bear in mind the extenuating fact, that the needs and distractions of the age seemed to call for a greater concen- tration of authority in the episcopate; and we might well be surprised, if at a great crisis the defence of an all-important institution were expressed in words carefully weighed and guarded. Strangely enough, not many years after Ignatius thus asserted the claims of the episcopate as a safeguard of ortho- doxy, another writer used the same instrument to advance a very different form of Christianity. The organization, which is thus employed to consolidate and advance the Catholic Church, might serve equally well to establish a compact Ebionite com- munity. I have already mentioned the author of the Clementine Homilies as a staunch advocate of episcopacy’. His view of the sanctions and privileges of the office does not differ materially from that of Ignatius. ‘The multitude of the faithful,’ he says, ‘must obey a single person, that so it may be able to continue in harmony.’ Monarchy is a necessary condition of peace; this may be seen from the aspect of the world around: at present there are many kings, and the result is discord and war; in the world to come God has appointed one King only, that ‘by reason of monarchy an indestructible peace may be established: therefore all ought to follow some one person as guide, prefer- ring him in honour as the image of God; and this guide must show the way that leadeth to the Holy City?’ Accordingly he delights to speak of the bishop as occupying the place or the seat of Christ®. Every insult, he says, and every honour offered to a bishop is carried to Christ and from Christ is taken up to the presence of the Father; and thus it is requited manifold‘. Similarly another writer of the Clementine cycle, if he be not the same, compares Christ to the captain, the bishop to the mate, and the presbyters to the sailors, while the lower orders 1 See above, p. 171. 3 ib. iii. 60, 66, 70. 2 Clem, Hom. iii. 61, 62. 4 ib. iti. 66, 70. THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 203 and the laity have each their proper place in the ship of the Church’. It is no surprise that such extravagant claims should not Monta- have been allowed to pass unchallenged. In opposition to the mach lofty hierarchical pretensions thus advanced on the one hand in a. the Ignatian letters on behalf of Catholicism and on the other vagance. by the Clementine writer in the interests of Ebionism, a strong spiritualist reaction set in. If in its mental aspect the heresy of Montanus must be regarded as a protest against the speculative subtleties of Gnosticism, on its practical side it was equally a rebound from the aggressive tyranny of hierarchical assumption. Montanus taught that the true succession of the Spirit, the au- thorized channel of Divine grace, must be sought not in the hier- archical but in the prophetic order. For a rigid outward system he substituted the free inward impulse. Wildly fanatical as were its manifestations, this reaction nevertheless issued from a true instinct which rebelled against the oppressive yoke of external tradition and did battle for the freedom of the individual spirit. Montanus was excommunicated and Montanism died out; but though dead, it yet spake; for a portion of its better spirit was infused into the Catholic Church, which it leavened and re- freshed and invigorated. 2. Irenzus followed Ignatius after an interval of about 2. Inz- two generations. With the altered circumstances of the Church, ate the aspect of the episcopal office has also undergone a change. The religious atmosphere is now charged with heretical specu- lations of all kinds. Amidst the competition of rival teachers, all eagerly bidding for support, the perplexed believer asks for some decisive test by which he may try the claims of the dis- putants. To this question Irenzus supplies an answer. ‘If Thebishop z é ‘ the depo- you wish,’ he argues, ‘to ascertain the doctrine of the Apostles, mea apply to the Church of the Apostles. In the succession of bishops Gaerne tracing their descent-from the primitive age and appointed by the Apostles themselves, you have a guarantee for the trans- 1 Clem. Hom. Ep. Clem. 15. 204 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. mission of the pure faith, which no isolated, upstart, self- constituted teacher can furnish. There is the Church of Rome for instance, whose episcopal pedigree is perfect in all its links, and whose earliest bishops, Linus and Clement, associated with the Apostles themselves: there is the Church of Smyrna again, whose bishop Polycarp, the disciple of St John, died only the other day’ Thus the episcopate is regarded now not so much as the centre of ecclesiastical wnity but rather as the depositary of apostolic tradition. ee bet This view is not peculiar to Ireneus. It seems to have been by Hege- advanced earlier by Hegesippus, for in a detached fragment he aoe lays stress on the succession of the bishops at Rome and at lian. Corinth, adding that in each church and in each succession the pure faith was preserved’; so that he seems here to be contro- verting that ‘gnosis falsely so called’ which elsewhere he denounces*. It is distinctly maintained by Tertullian, the younger contemporary of Irenzus, who refers, if not with the same frequency, at least with equal emphasis, to the tradition of the apostolic churches as preserved by the succession of the episcopate‘, 3. Cy. 3. As two generations intervened between Ignatius and PRIAN- _ Trenzeus, so the same period roughly speaking separates Irenzeus from Cyprian. If with Ignatius the bishop is the centre of Christian unity, if with Irenzeus he is the depositary of the The apostolic tradition, with Cyprian he is the absolute vicegerent of ee Christ in things spiritual. In mere strength of language indeed of Christ. it would be difficult to surpass Ignatius, who lived about a century and a half earlier. With the single exception of the sacerdotal view of the ministry which had grown up meanwhile, Cyprian puts forward no assumption which this father had not advanced either literally or substantially long before. This one exception however is all important, for it raised the sanctions of the episcopate to a higher level and put new force into old 1 See especially iii. cc. 2, 3, 4, iv. 26. pp. 182, 2 sq., iv. 32, 1, v. pref., v. 20, 1, 2. 3 Euseb. H. E. iii. 32. 2 In Euseb. H. E. iv. 22. See above, 4 Tertull. de Praeser, 32. THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 205 titles of respect. Theoretically therefore it may be said that Cyprian took his stand on the combination of the ecclesiastical authority as asserted by Ignatius with the sacerdotal claim which had been developed in the half century just past. But Influence the real influence which he exercised in the elevation of the ve episcopate consisted not in the novelty of his theoretical views, 8°°P#'- but in his practical energy and success. The absolute supremacy of the bishop had remained hitherto a lofty title or at least a vague ill-defined assumption: it became through his exertions a substantial and patent and world-wide fact. The first prelate whose force of character vibrated throughout the whole of Christendom, he was driven not less by the circumstances of his position than by his own temperament and conviction to throw all his energy into this scale. And the permanent result was much vaster than he could have anticipated beforehand or realized after the fact. Forced into the episcopate against his will, he raised it to a position of absolute independence, from which it has never since been deposed. The two great contro- versies in which Cyprian engaged, though immediately arising out of questions of discipline, combined from opposite sides to consolidate and enhance the power of the bishops’, The first question of dispute concerned the treatment of First con- : ‘ 3 troversy. such as had lapsed during the recent persecution under Decius. Cyprian found himself on this occasion doing battle for the Treatment episcopate against a twofold opposition, against the confessors ie who claimed the right of absolving and restoring these fallen brethren, and against his own presbyters who in the absence of their bishop supported the claims of the confessors. From his retirement he launched his shafts against this combined array, where an aristocracy of moral influence was leagued with an aristocracy of official position, With signal determination and 1 The influence of Cyprian on the sq. (1857). See also Rettberg Thascius episcopate is ably stated in two vigor- Céicilius Cyprianus p. 367 sq., Huther ous articles by Kayser entitled Cyprien Cyprian’s Lehre von der Kirche p. 59 ou VAutonomie de VEpiscopat in the sq. For Cyprian’s work generally see Revue de Théologie xv. pp. 188 sq.,242 Smith’s Dict. of Christ. Biogr. s. v. 206 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. courage in pursuing his aim, and with not less sagacity and address in discerning the means for carrying it out, Cyprian had on this occasion the further advantage, that he was defending the cause of order and right. He succeeded moreover in enlist- ing in his cause the rulers of the most powerful church in Christendom. The Roman clergy declared for the bishop and against the presbyters of Carthage. Of Cyprian’s sincerity no reasonable question can be entertained. In maintaining the authority of his office he believed himself to be fighting his Master's battle, and he sought success as the only safeguard of the integrity of the Church of Christ. In this lofty and dis- interested spirit, and with these advantages of position, he entered upon the contest. It is unnecessary for my purpose to follow out the conflict in detail: to show how ultimately the positions of the two combatants were shifted, so that from maintaining discipline against the champions of too great laxity Cyprian found himself protecting the fallen against the advocates of too great severity; to trace the progress of the schism and the attempt to establish a rival episcopate; or to unravel the entanglements of the Novatian controversy and lay open the intricate relations Power of between Rome and Carthage. It is sufficient to say that the bishop in his own church de- fined. Cyprian’s victory was complete. He triumphed over the con- fessors, triumphed over his own presbyters, triumphed over the schismatic bishop and his party. It was the most signal success hitherto achieved for the episcopate, because the battle had been fought and the victory won on this definite issue. The absolute supremacy of the episcopal office was thus estab- lished against the two antagonists from which it had most to fear, against a recognised aristocracy of ecclesiastical office and an irregular but not less powerful aristocracy of moral weight. 1 The intricacy of the whole proceed- _ nists, varying and even interchanged ing is a strong evidence of the genuine- with the change of circumstances, are ness of the letters and other documents very natural, but very unlike the in- which contain the account of the con- vention of a forger who has a distinct troversy. The situations of the antago- _ side to maintain. THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 207 The position of the bishop with respect to the individual church over which he ruled was thus defined by the first contest in which Cyprian engaged. The second conflict resulted Second in determining his relation to the Church universal. The Sealer schism which had grown up during the first conflict created the Dennen difficulty which gave occasion to the second. A question arose whether baptism by heretics and schismatics should be held valid or not. Stephen the Roman bishop, pleading the im- memorial custom of his church, recognised its validity. Cyprian insisted on rebaptism in such cases. Hitherto the bishop of Carthage had acted in cordial harmony with Rome: but now there was a collision. Stephen, inheriting the haughty temper and aggressive policy of his earlier predecessor Victor, excom- municated those who differed from the Roman usage in this matter. These arrogant assumptions were directly met by Cyprian. He summoned first one and then another synod of African bishops, who declared in his favour. He had on his side also the churches of Asia Minor, which had been included in Stephen’s edict of excommunication. Thus the bolt hurled by Stephen fell innocuous, and the churches of Africa and Asia retained their practice. The principle asserted in the struggle was not unimportant. As in the former conflict Cyprian had malenene ‘maintained the independent supremacy of the bishop over the pishops to officers and members of his own congregation, so now he con- the Unt versal tended successfully for his immunity from any interference from Church without. At a later period indeed Rome carried the vidhury, i but the immediate result of this controversy was to establish the independence and enhance the power of the episcopate. Moreover this struggle had the further and not less important consequence of defining and exhibiting the relations of the episcopate to the Church in another way. As the individual bishop had been pronounced indispensable to the existence of the individual community, so the episcopal order was now put forward as the absolute indefeasible representative of the universal Church. Synods of bishops indeed had been held frequently before; but under Cyprian’s guidance they assumed 208 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. a prominence which threw all éxisting precedents into the shade. A ‘one undivided episcopate’ was his watchword. The unity of the Church, he maintained, consists in the unanimity of the bishops’. In this controversy, as in the former, he acted throughout on the principle, distinctly asserted, that the exist- ence of the episcopal office was not a matter of practical advantage or ecclesiastical rule or even of apostolic sanction, but an absolute incontrovertible decree of God. The triumph of Cyprian therefore was the triumph of this principle. Cyprian’s The greatness of Cyprian’s influence on the episcopate is pes ae indeed due to this fact, that with him the statement of the Dek principle precedes and necessitates the practical measures. Of the sharpness and distinctness of his sacerdotal views it will be time to speak presently ; but of his conception of the episcopal office generally thus much may be said here, that he regards the bishop as exclusively the representative of God to the con- gregation and hardly, if at all, as the representative of the congregation before God. The bishop is the indispensable channel of divine grace, the indispensable bond of Christian brotherhood. The episcopate is not so much the roof as the foundation-stone of the ecclesiastical edifice; not so much the legitimate development as the primary condition of a church’. The bishop is appointed directly by God, is responsible directly 1 De Unit. Eccl. 2 ‘Quam unitatem firmiter tenere et vindicare debemus maxime episcopi qui in ecclesia praesi- demus, ut episcopatum quoque ipsum unum atque indivisum probemus’; and again ‘Episcopatus unus est, cujus a singulis in solidum pars tenetur: ec- clesia quoque una est etc.’ So again he argues (Epist. 43) that, as there is one Church, there must be only ‘unum al- tare et unum sacerdotium (ie. one episcopate).’ Comp. also Epist. 46, 55, 67. 2 Epist. 66 ‘Scire debes episcopum in ecclesia esse et ecclesiam in episcopo, et si quis cum episcopo non sit, in eccle- sia non esse’; Epist. 33 ‘Ut ecclesia super episcopos constituatur et omnis actus ecclesiae per eosdem praepositos gubernetur.’ Hence the expression ‘nec episcopum nec ecclesiam cogitans,’ Epist. 41; hence also ‘ honor episcopi’ is associated not only with ‘ecclesiae ratio’ (Epist. 33) but even with ‘timor Dei’ (Epist. 15). Compare also the language (Epist. 59) ‘ Nec ecclesia istic cuiquam clauditur nec episcopus alicui denegatur, and again (Epist. 48) ‘Soli cum episcopis non sint, qui con- tra episcopos rebellarunt.’ THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 209 to God, is inspired directly from God’. This last point deserves especial notice. Though in words he frequently defers to the established usage of consulting the presbyters and even the laity in the appointment of officers and in other matters affect- ing the well-being of the community, yet he only makes the concession to nullify it immediately. He pleads a direct official inspiration’? which enables him to dispense with ecclesiastical custom and to act on his own responsibility. Though the presbyters may still have retained the shadow of a controlling power over the acts of the bishop, though the courtesy of language by which they were recognised as fellow-presbyters? was not laid aside, yet for all practical ends the independent supremacy of the episcopate was completely established by the principles and the measures of Cyprian. In the investigation just concluded I have endeavoured to ie powcr trace the changes in the relative position of the first and } Sa ‘a second orders of the ministry, by which the power was gradually i concentrated in the hands of the former. Such a development conveni- involves no new principle and-must be regarded chiefly in its oe practical bearings. It is plainly competent for the Church at any given time to entrust a particular office with larger powers, as the emergency may require. And, though the grounds on which the independent authority of the episcopate was at times defended may have been false or exaggerated, no reasonable objection can be taken to later forms of ecclesiastical polity because the measure of power accorded to the bishop does not remain exactly the same as in the Church of the subapostolic ages. Nay, to many thoughtful and dispassionate minds even the gigantic power wielded by the popes during the middle ages will appear justifiable in itself (though they will repudiate 1 See esp. Epist. 3, 48, 55, 59, 73, tione conjunctum’; Epist. 40 ‘Ad- and above all 66 (4d Pupianum). monitos nos et instructos sciatis digna- 2 Epist. 88 ‘Expectanda non sunt tione divina ut Numidicus presbyter testimonia humana, cum praecedunt adscribatur presbyterorum etc.’ divina suffragia’; Epist. 39 ‘Non hu- 3 See above, p. 193, note 5. mana suffragatione sed divina digna- L. 14 and un- connected with sacer- dotalism. No sacer- dotalism in the New Testa- ment. 210 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. the false pretensions on which it was founded, and the false opinions which were associated with it), since only by such a providential concentration of authority could the Church, humanly speaking, have braved the storms of those ages of anarchy and violence. Now however it is my purpose to investigate the origin and growth of a new principle, which is nowhere enunciated in the New Testament, but which notwith- standing has worked its way into general recognition and seriously modified the character of later Christianity. The progress of the sacerdotal view of the ministry is one of the most striking and important phenomena in the history of the Church. It has been pointed out already that the sacerdotal functions and privileges, which alone are mentioned in the apostolic writings, pertain to all believers alike and do not refer solely or specially to the ministerial office. If to this statement it be objected that the inference is built upon the silence of the Apostles and Evangelists, and that such reasoning is always precarious, the reply is that an exclusive sacerdotalism (as the word is commonly understood) contradicts the general tenour of the Gospel. But indeed the strength or. weakness of an argument drawn from silence depends wholly on the circum- stance under which the silence is maintained. And in this case it cannot be considered devoid of weight. In the Pastoral Epistles for instance, which are largely occupied with questions relating to the Christian ministry, it seems scarcely possible that this aspect should have been overlooked, if it had any place in St Paul’s teaching. The Apostle discusses at length the requirements, the responsibilities, the sanctions, of the 1 In speaking of sacerdotalism, I as- sume the term to have essentially the same force as when applied to the Jew- ish priesthood. In a certain sense (to be considered hereafter) all officers ap- pointed to minister ‘for men in things pertaining to God’ may be called priests ; and sacerdotal phraseology, when first applied to the Christian ministry, may have borne this innocent meaning. But at a later date it was certainly so used as to imply a substantial identity of character with the Jewish priesthood, i.e, to designate the Christian minister as one who offers sacrifices and makes atonement for the sins of others. THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 211 ministerial office: he regards the presbyter as an example, as a teacher, as a philanthropist, as a ruler. How then, it may well be asked, are the sacerdotal functions, the sacerdotal privileges, of the office wholly set aside? If these claims were recognised by him at all, they must necessarily have taken a foremost place. The same argument again applies with not less force to those passages in the Epistles to the Corinthians, where St Paul asserts his apostolic authority against his detractors. Neverthe- Its rapid less, so entirely had the primitive conception of the Christian ane . Church been supplanted by this sacerdotal view of the ministry, sii before the northern races were converted to the Gospel, and the dialects derived from the Latin took the place of the ancient tongue, that the languages of modern Europe very generally supply only one word to represent alike the priest of the Jewish or heathen ceremonial and the presbyter of the Christian ministry’. For, though no distinct traces of sacerdotalism are visible in the ages immediately after the Apostles, yet having once taken root in the Church it shot up rapidly into maturity. Towards 1 It is a significant fact that in those languages which have only one word to express the two ideas, this word etymolo- gically represents ‘ presbyterus’and not “sacerdos,’ e.g. the French prétre, the German priester, and the English priest; thus showing that the sacerdotal idea was imported and not original. In the Italian, where two words prete and the second order in the ministry (e.g. Acts xiv. 23, 1 Tim. v. 17, 19, Tit. i. 5, James v. 14), and by ‘seniores’ (in Wiclif ‘eldres’ or ‘elder men’) in other passages: but if so, this rule is not always successfully applied (e.g. Acts xi. 30, xxi. 18, 1 Pet. v.1). A doubt about the meaning may explain the anomaly that the word is translated sacerdote exist side by side, there is no marked difference in usage, except that prete ig the more common, If the lat- ter brings out the sacerdotal idea more prominently, the former is also applied to Jewish and Heathen priests and therefore distinctly involves this idea. Wiclif’s version of the New Testament naturally conforms to the Vulgate, in whichit seems to betherule to translate mpecBitepo. by ‘presbyteri’ (in Wiclif ‘preestes’) where it obviously denotes ‘ presbyteri,’ ‘ preestes,’ Acts xv. 2, and ‘seniores,’ ‘elder men,’ Acts xv. 4, 6, 22, xvi. 4; though the persons intended are the same. In Acts xx. 17, it is rendered in Wiclif’s version ‘the gret- tist men of birthe,’ a misunderstanding of the Vulgate ‘majores natu.’ The English versions of the reformers and the reformed Church from Tyndale downward translate mpecBurepo uni- formly by ‘elders.’ 14—2 Distine- tion of the clergy from the laity not de- rived from the Le- vitical priest- hood. 212 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. the close of the second century we discern the first germs appearing above the surface: yet, shortly after the middle of the third, the plant has all but attained its full growth. The origin of this idea, the progress of its development, and the conditions favourable to its spread, will be considered in the present section of this essay. A separation of orders, it is true, appeared at a much earlier date, and was in some sense involved in the appointment of a special ministry. This, and not more than this, was originally contained in the distinction of clergy and laity. If the sacer- dotal view of the ministry engrafted itself on this distinction, it nevertheless was not necessarily implied or even indirectly suggested thereby. The term ‘clerus, as a designation of the ministerial office, did not owing to any existing associations convey the idea of sacerdotal functions. The word is not used of the Aaronic priesthood in any special sense which would explain its transference to the Christian ministry. It is indeed said of the Levites, that they have no ‘clerus’ in the land, the Lord Himself being their ‘clerus’. But the Jewish priesthood is never described conversely as the special ‘clerus’ of Jehovah : while on the other hand the metaphor thus inverted is more than once applied to the whole Israelite people’. Up to this point therefore the analogy of Old Testament usage would have suggested ‘clerus’ as a name rather for the entire body’ of the faithful than for the ministry specially or exclusively. Nor do other references to the clerus or lot in connexion with the Levitical priesthood countenance its special application. The tithes, it is true, were assigned to the sons of Levi as their ‘clerus’*; but in this there is nothing distinctive, and in fact the word is employed much more prominently in describing the 1 Deut. «. 9, xviii. 1, 2; comp. Num. xxvi. 62, Deut. xii. 12, xiv. 27, 29, Josh. xiv. 3. Jerome (Epist. lii. 5, 1. p. 258) says, ‘Propterea vocantur clerici, vel quia de sorte sunt Domini, vel quia ipse Dominus sors, id est pars, clericorum est.’ The former explanation would be reasonable, if it were supported by the language of the Old Testament: the latter is plainly inadequate. 2 Deut. iv. 20 elvar adrg Nady &yxdy- pov: comp. ix. 29 ofro: habs cov Kal KAfpés cov. 3 Num, xviii. 21, 24, 26. THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 213 lands allotted to the whole people. Again the courses of priests and Levites selected to conduct the temple-service were appointed by lot?; but the mode adopted in distributing a particular set of duties is far too special to have supplied a distinctive name for the whole order. If indeed it were an established fact that the Aaronic priesthood at the time of the Christian era commonly bore the name of ‘clergy, we might be driven to explain the designation in this or in some similar way; but apparently no evidence of any such usage exists’, and it is therefore needless to cast about for an explanation of a fact which itself is only conjectural. The origin of the term clergy, as applied to the Christian ministry, must be sought elsewhere. And the record of the earliest appointment made by the Origin of Christian Church after the Ascension of the Lord seems to one supply the clue. Exhorting the assembled brethren to elect a oe successor in place of Judas, St Peter tells them that the traitor ministry. ‘had been numbered among them and had received the lot («Afjpov) of the ministry’: while in the account of the subsequent proceedings it is recorded that the Apostles ‘distributed lots’ to the brethren, and that ‘the loé fell on Matthias and he was added to the eleven Apostles*’ to be the sequence of meanings, by which the word K«Afpos arrived at this peculiar sense: (1) the lot by which the office was assigned ; (2) the office thus assigned by lot; (3) the body of persons holding the office. The first two senses are illustrated by the passages quoted from the Acts; and from the second to the third the transition is easy and natural. It must not be The following therefore seems 1 1 Chron, xxiv. 5, 7, 31, xxv. 8, 9. 2 On the other hand dads is used of the people, as contrasted either with the rulers or with the priests. From this latter contrast comes Aatkdés, ‘laic’ or ‘profane,’ and Aatkéw ‘to profane’ ; which, though not found in the xxx, occur frequently in the versions of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion (Aaixés, 1 Sam. xxi. 4, Ezek. xlviii. 15; Aatxdw, Deut. xx. 6, xxviii. 30, Ruth i. 12, Ezek. vii. 22); comp. Clem. Rom. 40. 3 Acts i. 17 é\axev Tov KAfpov, 26 édwxay KAhpous adrois kal érecev 6 KdF- pos éwl MaG@iay. In ver. 25 xfpov is a false reading. The use of the word in 1 Pet. v. 3 xaraxupiedovres TOV KXiH- pwy (i.e. the flocks assigned to them) does not illustrate this meaning. No sacer- dotal idea conveyed by the term. 214 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. supposed however that the mode of appointing officers by lot prevailed generally in the early Church. Besides the case of Matthias no other instance is recorded in the New Testament ; nor is this procedure likely to have been commonly adopted. But just as in the passage quoted the word is used to describe the office of Judas, though Judas was certainly not selected by lot, so generally from signifying one special mode of appointment to office it got to signify office in the Church generally’. If this account of the application of ‘clerus’ to the Christian ministry be correct, we should expect to find it illustrated by a corresponding progress in the actual usage of the word. And this is in fact the case. The sense ‘clerical appointment or office’ chronologically precedes the sense ‘clergy.’ The former meaning occurs several times in Irenzeus. He speaks of Hyginus as ‘holding the ninth clerus of the episcopal succession from the Apostles’; and of Eleutherus in like manner he says, ‘ He now occupies the clerus of the episcopate in the tenth place from the Apostles?’ On the other hand the earliest instance of ‘clerus, meaning clergy, seems to occur in Tertullian’, who belongs to the next generation. It will thus be seen that the use of ‘clerus’ to denote the ministry cannot be traced to the Jewish priesthood, and is there- fore wholly unconnected with any sacerdotal views. The term 1 See Clem. Alex. Quis div. salv. 42, where kAnpodv ‘is ‘to appoint to the ministry’; and Iren. iii. 3. 3 «Anpodcbat Thy émuoxonyjv.