Y.M.C.A. Library Central Branch *i *jy i Twenty-one days allowed for reading. Overdue books are liable to a fine. DATES of ISSUE .V //u / Z THE PEOPLE OF GOD BY H. F. HAMILTON, D.D. FORMERLY PROFESSOR OF PASTORAL THEOLOGY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF BISHOP'S COLLEGE, LENNOXVILLE, CANADA IN TWO VOLUMES VOLUME I ISRAEL HENRY FROWDE OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS LONDON, EDINBURGH, NEW YORK, TORONTO & MELBOURNE 1912 OXFORD: HORACE HAET TO THE UNIVERSITY PREFACE THE first of these two volumes deals with the authority of the Old Testament and its religion ; the second with the origin of the Church and the ministry. It may, perhaps, be asked why two subjects so distinct from each other are not treated in two separate books. The answer is, because both are included in an account of Christian origins as organic parts of a single whole. This will be most readily seen if I state here the central position which links the two extremes together. Jesus, it is agreed by all, freed men from the burden of the Jewish Law. But how, and in what sense ? If He freed any one, He freed the Jews of His own day. And they believed they were bound to the Law as to an ordinance supernaturally given by God Himself. Jesus, then, could have freed them only in one or other of two ways. Either, He taught them that the Law had never been supernaturally revealed, and that therefore they need no longer consider themselves to be under any obligation towards it ; or else, He shared their belief in the supernatural authority of the Law and delivered men from it by claiming to be endowed by God with a similar supernatural authority to annul the Old and inaugurate a New Covenant. It will be seen in Chapter VIII of this volume that the latter alternative alone is in accordance with the facts of history. Perhaps the strongest objection to ascribing to Jesus a belief in the Law as a supernatural revelation lies in the fact that, at first sight, it seems impossible to harmonize such a belief with the result of modern scientific criticism of the Old Testament. Hence the position taken in Chapter VIII is preceded by a discussion of the development vi PREFACE of the Jewish religion and its value as compared with other religions. An outline of this argument will be found in the Introduction, pp. xxvii-xxxiii. According to the view advanced here, Christianity is simply the religion of the Jews reorganized by Jesus the Messiah. It is essentially the same religion as the Jewish, because its worship is directed towards one and the same divine Person, the Almighty and All-holy national God of Israel ; for both Jew and Christian claimed to worship this God, and both denied that He was served by any other people. The truth of this statement is not affected by the differences in doctrinal teaching between Christianity and Judaism ; for the Creeds are but logical deductions from the records of a revelation which was, as a matter of historical fact, given to the Jews both the Old Testament revelation through the prophets, and the New Testament revelation through Jesus the Messiah and His Holy Spirit. What I mean by ' the religion of the Jews reorganized ' is, as will be seen below, this. The basis of salvation was shifted, if such an expression is permissible, from the Law to the Death of the Messiah. From this it follows that the Law is bound to fall into insignificance ; and with the Law goes circumcision and all that is distinctive of Jewish extraction and nationality. Since salvation now depends on faith in Jesus as Messiah and on His Death on the Cross, it follows that the highest privileges of the Jewish religion are thrown open to the Gentiles upon precisely the same terms as to the Jews ; it is no longer important to be cir- cumcised, or to observe the Law, or to be a Jew. Hence the freedom wherewith Jesus made us free. Thus, it will be observed, the old Jewish exclusiveness was broken down, not between the Jewish and other religions, but between Jew and Gentile in respect of the opportunity of enjoying the privileges of the national religion of the Jews. And it was just this fact which caused that national religion to cease to be national and to become universal. PREFACE vii This position is reinforced by the first chapter of Volume II, which endeavours to show that Christianity came into existence for no other reason than because certain devout Jews became convinced that this Jesus of Nazareth had divine authority to thus reorganize the national religion. Moreover, for every one who believes that Jesus had this authority from God, it follows that those who put their trust in Jesus constitute the true Israelites, the new, the Messianic Israel, who have been obedient to God and to his Messiah ; other Jews who have disobeyed God have thereby cut them- selves off from the inheritance of their fathers. Hence the believers in Jesus are the true People of God, the possessors of all the privileges and more than these which had once belonged to Israel after the flesh. In the course of time, they became known as ' the Church ' and as ' Christians ' (cf. vol. ii, chap. ii). Thus, I attempt to sketch an account of Christian origins which appears to form a consistent whole and which must stand or fall as a whole. The chapters on the ministry are not so vitally united to the rest ; but, since the idea of the Church is scarcely complete without a reference to the ministry, they are included in the same work. Moreover, the view taken of the origin of the ministry is influenced in several particulars by the discussion which precedes it. All Biblical quotations are taken from the Revised Version ; but the word ' Yahweh ' has been substituted for LORD or GOD wherever those terms stand for the personal name of the national God of Israel a name so often mispronounced ' Jehovah '. Wherever a variation from the Revised Version has been adopted, the reasons for doing so are given. Acknowledgement is due to those who have kindly permitted me to reproduce translations and extracts ; to the Delegates of the Oxford University Press for the translation of the inscription on the Moabite Stone from Dr. Driver's Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of viii PREFACE Samuel, and for passages from Jowett's translation of Plato's Laws and Ross's translation of Aristotle's Metaphysics, to Messrs. Macmillan & Co. for the use of Lightfoot's translation of St. Clement of Rome in The Apostolic Fathers, and for an extract from Mr. Edghill's Evidential Value of Prophecy ; to Messrs. A. and C. Black for quotations from Dr. Charles's translations in The Book of Jubilees, The Assump- tion of Moses, and The Apocalypse of Baruch ; to the Chicago University Press for Harper's translation of a Babylonian Penitential Psalm in Literature of Babylonia and Assyria ; to Messrs. G. P. Putnam's Sons for the reproduction of a hymn to Amon Re, from Steindorff's Religion of Ancient Egypt ; to Messrs. Williams and Norgate for passages from Dr. Har- nack's Mission and Expansion of Christianity, and KittePs History of the Hebrews ; and to Mr. T. Fisher Unwin for a quotation from Professor Bousset's What is Religion ? These and other obligations, so far as I am aware of them, I have acknowledged in the footnotes. There remains only the welcome duty of expressing my gratitude to those who have so kindly assisted me in reading the proofs. Canon Ottley, of Christ Church, read the proofs of the first volume, and the Rev. A. E. J. Raw- linson, M.A., Tutor of Keble College, Oxford, read those of the second. I am indebted to both for many valuable suggestions. To the Rev. C. W. Mitchell, M.A., Hebrew master of Merchant Taylors' School, I owe a special debt for a painstaking revision of the proofs of the whole work. HAROLD HAMILTON. CONTENTS PAGE INTRODUCTION . . xix I. The modern view of inspiration. . ^ . . . xix II. Outline of the argument of Volume I. .... xxvii III. The assumptions and methods of the scientific students of religious phenomena. . . . . . . . xxxiv CHAPTER I POLYTHEISM AND THE GREEK MONOTHEISM . . . 1-40 I. Nature of the problem. 1-3 II. The strength of Polytheism. 3-17 1. The idea of one almighty god was not unknown, but seemed unreal. ... . . . . . . 3-9 2. Its basic assumption. . f . . . . . . 914 3. Its power as an interpretation of life. . . . 1417 III. The weakness of polytheism. . . . . . 17, 18 1. The gods limited to certain nations and areas. ... 17 2. And immoral in character. -. . . . . .18 3. Its false view of nature. .'...... 18 IV. The transition to Monotheism. ..... 19-35 1. The accumulation of a knowledge of nature was necessarily slow. . .... . . . .19 2. Monotheistic tendencies in Babylon and Egypt. . . 19-21 3. Greek monotheism. (a) The natural science of the Greeks led to . 21-23 (6) The conception of universal natural causation, . 23-26 (c) And to an explanation of the universe without reference to the old gods, leading in turn to . . 26-32 (d) The monotheism of Plato and Aristotle. . . 32-35 V. The consequent revolution in men's attitude towards . 3540 1. Intercourse with the divine. . . * . 35-39 2. The externals of religion. . . . . . 39, 40 x CONTENTS CHAPTER II PAQB YAHWEH, THE CHARACTERISTIC SEMITIC DEITY . 41-62 1. Moses and the foundation of Israel's religion. . 41-44 1. The deliverance from Egypt and the union of the tribes in one social and religious organization. . . . 41,42 2. The ' God-people ' relation established between Yahweh and Israel with mutual obligations. ..... 42 3. This relation common in the Semitic world, but peculiar in being based on a Covenant. .... 42-44 4. Israel to worship one God only. ..... 44 IL The Settlement in Canaan. ... . . . 45-48 1. The Canaanites and their religion. . . . . 45, 46 2. Canaanite influences in Israel's worship, .... 46 3. But every invasion fostered the cult of Yahweh. . . 47 4. Results of the Settlement. 47 5. Origin of the Monarchy and Division of the Kingdom. 47, 48 III. Moral and religious conditions to the Division of the Kingdom. 48-51 1. A low moral standard. ....... 48 2. Other gods besides Yahweh believed to exist. . . 49, 50 3. In character, Yahweh believed to be much the same as other gods. . . . . . . . .50 4. Use of images of Yahweh. . . . . 50, 51 5. The religious life of Israel on same level as that of other Semitic nations. ....... 51 IV. Religious conditions in the Northern Kingdom. . . 51-65 1. Other gods worshipped besides Yahweh. . . . 51-53 2. Yahweh's moral character the same as that of other Semitic deities. . . . . . . . . 53, 54 3. Externals of Israel's worship of Yahweh the same as those used by other people. ..... 54, 55 V. The Kingdom of Judah 55-58 1. Externals of worship. Use of images. .... 55 2. Yahweh, a characteristic Semitic deity. . . . 56, 57 3. Other gods worshipped besides Yahweh. . . . 57, 58 VI. 1. These views held by the nation as a whole, by people, priests, kings, and many prophets. 58-60 2. The higher views of Yahweh held by a small party in the nation. Vicissitudes of this party. . . . 60, 61 3. Hence the cause of Hebrew monotheism cannot lie in the genius of the people or in the outward forma of their religion. . . . .61,62 CONTENTS xi CHAPTER III PAGE YAHWEH, THE ONE AND ONLY GOD . . . 63-108 I. The Hebrew monotheism contrasts with Greek monotheism in the following respects : . . . . . 63-75 1. The prophets felt no need of a proof of the existence of God. 63, 64 2. The only God of the Hebrews is one of the deities recognized by the polytheists. 64-66 3. The mental life of the only God 66, 67 4. Relation of the only God to organized religions. . . 67-73 5. Each of these monotheisms forms a coherent system. Distinc- tion between the mono-Yahwist and the modern concep- tion of God 73-75 II. The Hebrew monotheism was not the product of a process of reasoning based on the observation of the facts of nature. . 75-100 1. The Old Testament conception of causation a single will intervening universally, ceaselessly, and immediately in 75 (1) Natural events which recur regularly and in . . 77-84 (2) Natural events which do not recur regularly, because they are either (a) startling reversals of the usual, or . . 84, 85 (6) irregular in occurrence, though familiar to every one, or 86-91 (c) events of national or international history. . 91-93 (3) The will of man limited not by natural law, but by the will of Yahweh alone. . . , . . . 93-95 2. The natural science of Genesis the same as that of the Baby- lonian creation tablets. . . . . . 95-97 3. The mono-Yahwists do not point out any difference between their own and the polytheistic idea of causation. . 97-99 4. Yahweh revealed His will by the same methods which the polytheistic gods employed. . . . . 99, 100 III. Nor was the Hebrew monotheism based on a study of the facts of history > . . . , 100-106 1. The logic of history against mono-Yahwism. . . * 100, 101 2. The mono-Yahwists do not appeal to history to prove their teaching 101,102 3. The arguments of Isaiah xl-lxvi 102, 103 4. A conclusion adverse to mono-Yahwism drawn by the non- prophetic party. ...... 103, 104 5. The mono-Yahwists themselves were conscious that the verdict of history was against them. . . . . 104, 105 6. Even if a belief in Yahweh's righteousness be assumed, yet history would not prove His omnipotence. . . 105, 106 xii CONTENTS PAGE IV. Nor was it the outcome of a gradual process of intellectual development. 106-108 1. The intellectual forces of the day hostile to mono-Yahwism. 106, 107 2. To assign the origin of the belief to Moses does not solve the problem, but merely transfers it. . . . .107 3. The real problem is not to discover the source from which a conception of one God may have been borrowed, but the cause of the conviction of the truth of that conception. 108 CHAPTER IV YAHWEH, THE RIGHTEOUS GOD .. . 109-137 I. A distinction to be observed between 1. The ideals of philosophical ethics. . . . . . 109 2. The rules of conduct sanctioned by public opinion, and 109, 110 3. The moral acts of daily life 110 II. The basis of morals in the ancient world. . . . 111-113 1. Distinctions of right and wrong are universal and originate in the psychological nature of man. . . . .111 2. The content of moral codes dependent on (a) the moral sensitiveness of a community, . . 111,112 (b) its stage of civilization. . . . . . .112 3. The success of a community dependent on its morality in two ways: (a) its moral codes must tend towards the preservation of society; . ... . . . . . .113 (b) its members must live up to what they know to be right. . 113 4. The moral codes of Israel. . . . . . 113 III. The differentia of the ethical teaching of the mono-Yahwists consisted 113-128 1. not in a new standard of morals, for (a) they assumed that men could distinguish between right and wrong correctly, and . . . . . . .114 (b) owing partly to certain economic changes, there was in their day a widespread violation of what was known to be right, but . . . 116-118 2. in the ground on which they urged men to live up to what they knew to be right. (a) The support given to morality in other nations was weak owing (1) to the fact that the gods were related to the community rather than to the individual, and . . .119, 120 (2) to the immoral character of the gods. . . 120-125 CONTENTS xiii PAGE (b) The mono-Yahwists' conviction that Yahweh is righteous and will never be favourable to an immoral people is the reason why they urge men to a moral reformation and is the differentia of then- ethical teaching. . . 126-128 IV. This conviction of Yahweh' s moral character is not an induc- tion based on 1. the constitution of the natural world, .... 128, 129 2. nor on the circumstances of their own lives, .... 129 3. nor on the facts of Israel's history. . . * . . . 130 (a) Disaster proved to all that offences against Yahweh had been committed ; but why do the mono-Yahwists alone exclude ritual error and emphasize moral transgression as the only cause of the offence ? . . . . 130, 131 (b) The facts of Israel's history could not yield this induction. 132 (c) The use of history by the mono-Yahwists. . . . 133 4. Nor was it due to the recollection of the covenant, . . 133, 134 5. nor to the thought of the voluntary choice of Israel by Yahweh, 134-136 6. nor to the superior goodness of their own hearts. . . 136, 137 CHAPTER V THE SOURCE OF MONO-YAHWISM . ... 138-161 I. The message of a prophet was accepted as divine because of the abnormal states of mind which the prophet experienced, . 138-141 1. in the ancient world outside Israel ;..... 138 2. in Israel. (a) Saul's prophesying. ....... 139 (6) The Baal prophets .139 (c) Balaam 139 (d) Micaiah-ben-Imlah. . ...... 140 (e) The so-called ' false ' prophets. .... 140, 141 U. And also in the case of the mono-Yahwists. . , . 141-148 1. The mono-Yahwists compared with the ' false ' prophets. (a) Both known as ' prophets ', . . 142 (b) and use the same methods. (i) Introductory formulas. . . . . . . 142 (ii) Instead of logic, assertion and symbolic action. . . 143 (c) Criteria to distinguish ' true ' from ' false ' prophets. (i) Miracles. ........ 144 (ii) Fulfilment 144 (iii) Doctrine 144 '2. The naono-Yahwists discredit the experiences of their opponents in order to establish their own. .... 145147 3. Testimony of the mono-Yahwists themselves. . . . 148 xiv CONTENTS PAGE III. Origin and genesis of the prophetio messages. . . 149-161 1. The substance, not the verbal clothing, the subject of inquiry. 149, 150 2. The substance of the prophecies of the mono-Yahwists differed from those of the ' false ' prophets, because they ap- proached the facts of their day with different views as to the power and character of Yahweh. . . . 150-152 3. The origin of mono- Yah wisin and the cause of the conviction of its truth to be found in religious experience. . 152-lb'l (a) Isaiah vi explains how Isaiah became convinced of (i) Yahweh's omnipotence and solo Deity. . . 153-157 (ii) Yahweh's righteousness. ..... 157-160 (b) The same cause may safely be inferred in the case of other mono-Yahwists. . . ... 160,161 CHAPTER VI THE VALUE OF THE JEWISH RELIGION . . . 162-188 I. This chapter assumes a thcistic interpretation of existence. Examination of terms to be used in the light of this assumption. 1. 'Religion' and 'religion' 162,163 2. Distinctions of ' true ' and ' false '. .... 163, 164 3. ' Revelation ' and ' revelation '. . . . . 164, 165 IL The value of Polytheism 165-169 1. The religious experiences of the polytheists may be explained as ' uprushes ' from the subconscious self. . . 166, 160 2. Polytheism an obstacle to true Religion because it encouraged a feeling of moral equality with the divine. . . 166-168 3. Nor can it be regarded as a Revelation 168, 169 III. The revelation of God in the ancient world. . . . 169, 170 1. God left not Himself without witness, but men did not attempt to read that witness 169 2. But at length the Greeks discovered the truth about God's existence. This perhaps ' divine ', but not a ' religious ' revelation. 169, 170 3. True Religion at length possible. . . . . . 170 IV. The value of the Jewish religion. 171-186 1. The experiences of the mono-Yahwiste not explicable as ' uprushes ' from the subconscious. . . . 171, 172 2. If true Religion is possible at all, it must be found here. . . 172 3. And if so, this constitutes a Revelation as well. . . . 172 CONTENTS xv PAGE 4. The continuation of such experiences in Israel, and their associa- tion with the Name of Yahweh, implies a divine choice of this Name, and a divine sanction of that system of religion which is known in the New Testament as the Law of Moses. 173-180 5. This is confirmed by (a) the Messianic expectation of a further revelation and its fulfilment. . . . . 180 (b) Jesus the Messiah, who claimed to possess authority to institute a New Covenant by the terms of which the j obligation to observe the Mosaic Law was removed and the highest privileges opened to Gentiles on the same terms as to the Jews. 180, 181 (c) the part which the whole series of events has played in human history. . . . . . . 182-186 V. Considerations regarding the divine appointment of an outward system of religion. ........ 186-188 1. The selection of a single race for the enjoyment of exclusive privileges was temporary only. . . . . 186 2. The provision of divinely appointed means of communion with God supplies the needs of those who are not of the same psychical temperament as the prophets, . . .187 3. and is a guarantee that God does care for our devotion. . .187 4. The individual cannot reach his fullest self-development except as a member of an organization. . . 187, 188 CHAPTER VII THE MESSIANIC HOPE .... . 189-214 I. ' Messiah ' and ' Messianic '. 189, 190 II. The substance of the Hope 190-195 1. The reunion of Yahweh and Israel, when Israel has been purified from ski. . . , . . . 190-192 2. The consequent universality of Israel's religion either by (a) the extermination of the Gentiles, or by . . . .192 (6) their voluntary submission, or . . . . . 193 (c) by the destruction of the rebellious and the submission of the rest. ......... 193, 194 (d) The Gentiles to occupy a subordinate place as servants to Israel 194, 195 III. The grounds of the Hope Yahweh's choice of and union with Israel in the past. Hence, 195-205 1. For His own Name's sake, i.e. His reputation in the world, He will intervene for Israel. ..... 198-201 xvi CONTENTS PAGE (a) Deliverances in the past are ascribed to Yahweh's jealousy for His Name 199 (6) Prayers for deliverance are based on what the heathen will say, if Israel perishes. ..... 15)9, 200 (c) A confidence that Yahweh will, for His Name's sake, intervene for Israel .200,201 2. What he has begun in Israel, He will carry through to its conclusion. . . . . , . . . 201-205 (a) Deliverances hi the past ascribed to H' faithfulness to His engagements to Israel. ...... 202 (b) Prayers for future deliverance or mercy are based on Yahweh's promises to Israel. ... 202 (c) Confidence hi the future is based on what Yahweh has done for Israel in the past. . . . . 203 (d) Israel's sin alone restrains the appearance of the Messianic blessings 204, 205 IV. The Messianic Hope in the Apocalyptic Literature. . 205-210 1. Different from the Old Testament Hope in some respects, but the essential features remain the same. . . . 205-207 (a) The reunion of Yahweh and Israel. .... 206 (b) The universality of Israel's religion. . . . 206, 207 2. (Grounds of the Hope remain the same, as shown by (a) the very existence of this literature. . . . 207, 208 (6) the testimony of the writers. . . . . . 208-210 V. Hence the fulfilment or non-fulfilment of the Messianic Hope furnishes a test of the truth of mono-Yahwism. History then shows us, as the fulfilment of this Hope, 210 1. Jesus of Nazareth 211-213 2. The religion of Jesus claiming to be heir to the Israel of old and in process of becoming universal. , . . 213, 214 CHAFTER VIII JESUS AND THE RELIGION OF THE JEWS . . 215-261 I. The saying that Jesus freed men from the Law may bo under- stood in two, and only two senses :..... 215-21U 1. He opened their eyes to the fact that they never had been bound, i.e. He denied the supernatural authority of the Law 217 2. He accepted the supernatural origin of the Law and claimed a similar supernatural authority to supersede it by something else. 217, 218 CONTENTS xvii PAGE II. Which of these alternatives is most in accord with the con- ditions of religious thought and life in His day ? . . , 219-229 1. These conditions were : (a) A background of mutually tolerant polytheisms. . 219, 220 (6) Two types of monotheism the religious system of the Jews and the philosophical theism of certain Greek thinkers. . 220 These differed from each other in : (i) Their conception of revelation: to the Greek a process of human thought ; . 220, 221 to the Jew a gift sent down from Heaven. . 221, 222 (ii) Their Attitude to the externals of religion: to the Greek no outward system of more value or authority than another ; . . . . . . 222 to the Jew the Mosaic system was infallible and essential to salvation. . . , . . 223 (c) Attempt to combine and reconcile these two by Philo Judaeus. . . . . . . . . 223,224 (d) The mystery-religions of the East. . . . . . 224 2. But so far as we know, Jesus lived His life surrounded by Jewish influences, and apart from contact with philo- sophical thought. The Jews were expecting a super- naturally authorized representative from God. Hence the second alternative places Jesus in line with the religious conditions of His day. , f . . . 225,226 3. If Jesus abandoned belief in the supernatural authority of Mosaism, He must have found some ground for His monotheism other than the Jewish Scriptures. . 226, 227 (a) But what proof is there that He ever came in contact with any other source of monotheistic thought ; . . 227 (6) why is there no trace in tradition of the inner struggle which this theory implies ? . . . . . . .228 III. Which alternative accords best with the testimony of the Gospels ? Jesus' attitude to the Jewish religion as described by the Synoptic Gospels. . . . . . . . . 229-254 1. The Jewish Scriptures. (a) They are decisive on matters of conduct and doctrine. 230-232 (6) His own death necessary because of what is written in the Old Testament 232-234 2. The Law of Moses. (a) He observed the Law Himself and taught others to do so also, 234,235 (6) but denounced the Scribes and Pharisees, . . . 235, 236 (c) and refused to observe the Tradition of the Elders especially as regards ; . 236-238 (i) the Sabbath, . 237 HAMILTON I xviii CONTENTS PAGE (ii) ceremonial ablutions and fastings, . . . 238 (iii) intercourse with sinners. . 238 3. The exclusive privileges of the Jews. (a) The God He preaches is the national God of Israel. . 239, 240 (6) The Kingdom intended for the Jews first, . . . 240 (c) who also have special responsibilities. . . . 240, 241 4. Evidence of the Fourth Gospel. ... . 241-243 5. He claimed to have authority to institute a New Covenant by the terms of which the Law ceased to be essential to salvation. Hence the second alternative is clearly con- tained in the Gospels. ..... 243, 244 6. Do they also contain evidence of the other alternative ? Is His teaching inconsistent with belief in the supernatural authority of the Jewish system ? Two typical arguments considered : (a) Harnack on Jesus' emphasis on charity, humility, &c., 245-249 (b) Bousset on Jesus' idea of the Kingdom. He could not have believed in the Kingdom or the Messiahship, if He had denied the heavenly origin of the Jewish religion. 249-254 IV. Which alternative accords best with the consequences of Jesus' work ? . . 254-259 1. If the universalism of Christianity was due to a denial of the supernatural revelation of the Law, then evidence of this denial may confidently be looked for in Acts and the Epistles . . 255 But (a) there is no trace that the Apostles ever argued that the Law had never been given by God. . . . 256 (b) Their attitude towards the Law determined by their belief that Jesus had authority to institute a new Covenant a belief which was confirmed by the descent of the Holy Spirit upon Gentile converts. . . . . .256 (c) In proclaiming that God has fulfilled the promises, they reassert the divine choice of Israel .... 256 (d) Though the Gentiles are free, the believing Jews still continue to observe the Law. ..... 256 2. Difficulties involved in the view that Jesus denied the super- natural origin of the Jewish religion. . . . 257-259 V. A consideration of this argument from the standpoint of belief in the Catholic doctrine of the Incarnation. 259-261 INTRODUCTION IT is a trite saying that our conception of the inspiration of the Bible has undergone a profound change. The old theory of verbal inspiration has passed away and is not likely to return. We are now wont to say that inspiration is not the dictation of books, but the inbreathing of God's Holy Spirit into the hearts and consciences of men. ' It has always been the Divine method to select certain men, to enter into peculiar intimacy with them, to reach their spirits by the direct operation of the Divine Spirit, to purify their hearts, to quicken their perceptive faculties, and to entrust them with a special knowledge of the Divine will and purpose in order that they may be the teachers of their fellow men. This is the primary meaning of inspiration ; men are inspired by the contact of the Divine Spirit with their spirits, not for their own sakes merely, or even chiefly, but that they may interpret the will of God to the men of their time '.* According to this view, the hearts of the writers were purified and their perceptive faculties were quickened, but their consciousness and will-power were not suppressed entirely and replaced by something which was not human but divine. Hence there is a human element as well as a divine in the composition of the Bible ; and the divine is not greater than that which the human, at each advancing stage of the process, could receive and express. This latter conception of inspiration has brought with it many obvious advantages. It enables us to hold to the inspiration of the Bible without regarding the God- given light of modern scientific inquiry as darkness and confusion. The science and historical accuracy of the Books belong to the age in which they were written ; they are part of the human element ; the Bible was not written to teach us scientific knowledge, nor to recount to us the exact historical minutiae of a remote age. Again, we are relieved 1 Armitage Robinson, Some Thoughts on Inspiration, p. 12 f. b2 XX INTRODUCTION of the difficulty involved in the moral imperfections of the Old Testament ; those imperfections are ' economic ' ; the standard of each book, however imperfect from a Christian standpoint, represents the best which the men of that day could understand and appreciate. Finally, while the theory of verbal inspiration is an assumption vouched for only by tradition, the modern view is based on an inductive argu- ment and has an answer to give to those who would probe its foundations. But in spite of these advantages, the modern view has one great disadvantage which more than outweighs all that is to be said in its favour. The Bible is the storehouse of Christian theology and morals, the treasury of the Christian preacher. It is in connexion with the preacher's work that the loss is felt most severely. Let us endeavour first to see what the Bible was in the hands of the preacher in the days when verbal inspiration was the universal doctrine, and then to see what it is under the modern view. To those who accepted verbal inspiration, the Bible was the final court of appeal in all matters of religion and morals. Its words were infallible and could make an indefeasible claim upon men for belief and obedience. The only question which could be in dispute was what does the Bible say and mean ? Once this was settled, the line of duty was clear. The preacher occupied a unique position of unparalleled authority. He went into the pulpit armed with this Book, which all his hearers acknowledged to have a right to determine what they should do and what they should believe. The business of the preacher was to expound this Book, to make clear what it really meant, to show the bearing of its words upon the lives of his hearers. His audience was keenly interested to hear him, not for his cleverness alone, nor for his personal efficiency as a speaker, nor for any private views of life which he might hold, but because he was the authorized exponent of a message dictated by God for man's guidance. The effect of his message depended not so much on his own personality and ability, as upon that Word of God from which he deduced all he had to say. The personality of the man was secondary to the Biblical text which he expounded. INTRODUCTION xxi The preacher's position was thus one of extraordinary power and authority. No one else in the community occupied a vantage-ground at all comparable to his. The press and the platform must rely on their sheer native ability and powers of persuasion ; for they had no divinely dictated message from which to draw their proof-texts. The pulpit alone possessed a Book every word of which was from the mouth of God, and which was therefore infallible and of final authority. But according to the modern view, there is a human element in the Bible as well as a divine ; and the question at once arises, where does the human end and the divine begin ? Which is fallible and which is infallible ? And the door is opened to questionings which penetrate deeper than this. Is there any divine element in it at all ? On what grounds can we say that the Bible is a message from God to which deference is due? Answers to these questions are advanced, but they are not such as place the Bible where it was before. They seem to lack just that which the old belief in verbal inspiration supplied so efficiently and so thoroughly. They do not show just how or why any words from the Bible have a right to claim obedience and faith from men. Accordingly, the Christian preacher's position is entirely altered ; his audience is no longer conscious that he possesses an infallible message from God ; indeed, the tendency is to feel that his message must be drawn from the depths of his own human experience and sympathy, and driven home by the force of his own persuasive eloquence. He may select from the Bible a verse or two to serve as a pithy summary of what he has to say, or a handle with which to introduce a discourse which has its own logical basis and argument quite independent of the Bible, and which would be as true and as cogent if it were prefaced by a passage from a moral philosopher or a religious poet. In other words, he addresses his appeal on even terms with the press and the platform. The man of great power will always draw a crowd, but the man of slender gifts has little but those slender gifts wherewith to impart the power of conviction to his words. But let us see what are the chief arguments advanced to XXII INTRODUCTION support the idea that there is a divine element in the Bible. One line of thought frequently advanced runs as follows. It being granted that there is a God who is likely to give a revelation of Himself and His will to man, that revelation must be in the Bible if it is anywhere ; because, when we contrast the Bible with the sacred books of other religions, we find in it so much more of what is true, pure, and divine. There are a great many variations in the way in which this thought is put. Let us choose the words of Dr. Sanday. ' For the Hebrew it was reserved beyond all other peoples to teach the world what it knows of Religion. From that point of view which we have seemed justified in taking, we shall say that it was the instrument specially chosen of God for that purpose. We do not deny a Divine guiding in other races. Not wholly in the dark did men of other nationalities grope after an object of worship and of praise. But it is from the Hebrew stock that we have the Bible, and the Bible is by general consent the highest expression, the most perfect document of Religion.' 1 ' And perhaps our language would be most safely guarded if we were to say that when and in so far as we speak of the Bible as inspired in a sense in which we do not speak of other books as inspired, we mean precisely so much as is covered by that difference. It may be hard to sum up our definition in a single formula, but we mean it to include all those concrete points in which, as a matter of fact, the Bible does differ from and does excel all other Sacred Books.' 2 Let us observe carefully what is involved in this argument. When the Bible is contrasted with other sacred books, it is found to exceed them in containing more of what is worthy to be called divine, more of what can be said to be ' Religion '. It seems, then, that we have a standard of what is divine by reference to which we test the Bible. Clearly, then, the Bible is no longer the final court of appeal ; there is a standard behind it by means of which it is proved to be inspired. The logic of a situation often makes its influence felt long before it is expressly formulated in words. In some 1 Sanday, Inspiration, p. 126 f. 1 Ibid. p. 128 ; cf. also Sanday, in Encyclopaedia of Rdigion and Ethics, i 578, 579, and Garvie, Encyc. Brit., Ed. XI, xiv 647 f. INTRODUCTION xxiii dim half-conscious way people are beginning to seek for that standard which lies behind the Bible. If the Bible as a whole is to be submitted to a test, so must individual passages and doctrines. That which cannot be supported by an appeal to the extra-Biblical standard has little chance of acceptance ; while that which runs counter to this popular common-sense theology, whether it be in the Bible or not, is still less likely to dominate thought and conduct. It is no longer sufficient to say, this is in the Bible, therefore it must be true. The preacher must appeal to the common sense of his hearers, to their general experience of life, and to their indefinite unformulated conception of what is true and divine. And sometimes his argument runs thus this is a true and noble idea ; it is in the Bible ; see, then, how excellent the Bible is ! All this must be taken subject to one considerable reserva- tion. Christianity is to very many people a coherent system of thought, and the outlines of that system are contained in the Bible ; accordingly, that which can be shown to be part of the Biblical system of Christianity is accepted without further appeal. But this reservation does not entirely do away with the truth of what has been said above ; for in these cases, the testimony of the Scripture is accepted, not simply because it is written in the Bible, but because it rounds off a logical position the essence of which has already been adopted. And of this more will be said below. But it is also said that the supreme excellence of the work of the Biblical writers proves their inspiration ; for an unusual degree of excellence in any branch of human activity of a beneficent character must be due to the presence, in an unusual degree, of the Spirit of God, who is immanent in all things and in all men. When it is argued that this will prove the inspiration of Shakespeare as well, the answer will probably be that the Bible deals with a different and a higher subject-matter than Shakespeare ; the latter does not pretend to teach moral and religious truth, nor does he claim to speak in the name of God. No doubt the distinction is a true one, but it is questionable whether it entirely xxiv INTRODUCTION disposes of the objection. If Shakespeare does not pretend to teach us theology or morals, it is clearly impossible to set up his works as a religious guide either by the side of, or as a substitute for, the Bible. But if we set the Bible up as a normative standard in religious matters simply on the ground of the superior excellence of its workmanship, must we not also claim that Shakespeare supplies us with an authoritative standard to which all dramas ought to conform? If an inspiration of this kind proves the Bible to be authori- tative in its sphere, does not the same kind of inspiration prove Shakespeare to be authoritative in his sphere ? Shakespeare is the best of his kind, and in view of this we may ascribe some sort of inspiration to him ; but we cannot set him up as a standard of what ought to be. If, then, the Bible is merely the best of its kind, can we set it up as the final authority ? Again, it is true that the Bible has been able to appeal to and evoke response from multitudes of the best minds of every class of society ; so also has Shakespeare ; but Shakespeare is not on that account set up as the final ideal of what ought to be in the drama ; can we, then, on this ground, prove the authority of the Bible ? These arguments do not take us all the way we would like to go. They do not replace the Bible in that position of unique authority which it occupied when men took it down to compare it with other sacred books. But there is yet another line of thought, and one which is l>erhaps more commonly relied on. It is that which bases the whole Bible on the Personality of Jesus Christ. And here we seem to have our feet on solid ground. When worked out in full, this argument would run on the following lines. We begin with the Gospels, and without assuming any idea of inspiration, submit them to the same searching literary and historical criticism which is applied to other records of the past. The effects which followed from the life and work of Jesus are taken into consideration, and, as a result of it all, His Personality stands out unique in such wise that He can only be explained as the Son of God Incarnate in the Catholic sense. Now the Bible contains the record of that manifestation of God, of what preceded and of what followed INTRODUCTION xxv it. Hence it is unique and the source of authority for the Christian religion. 1 But when this line of argument has been stated and successfully maintained, one must not fail to recognize that it has limitations. The basis of authority is shifted from the Books to the Person of whom the Books speak. And so the door is opened for a discussion as to what this Person said and taught ; as to what value He placed upon His own Personality ; and as to whether the Apostolic writers have interpreted Him aright. We may feel that these questions can be answered successfully, but we can scarcely refuse to admit that they involve a long process of close inquiry and careful reasoning. And it is just this which makes the difference from the preacher's point of view. He may be quite clear in his own mind about that process of reasoning, but unless it is clear to his audience as well, the authority of the Bible, and of any particular doctrine or passage which he may draw from it, cannot be the same to them as it is to him. Again, it is not sufficient simply to say, this is in the Bible ; it must be shown to be a necessary part of that system of which Christ is the centre. And that system is not at present quite easy for the average man to grasp and define. Accordingly the authority behind the preacher is, in the popular mind, elusive and indefinite. But perhaps time may be expected to remedy, or at least to mitigate, this difficulty. And this is not all. As regards the Old Testament there is one serious defect in this line of thought which does not apply where the New Testament is concerned. The Bible as 1 This argument was well put by Marcus Dods as follows : ' While we acknowledge that the same Spirit speaks to us through the words and writings and lives of all good men, why do we set Scripture apart from them all and assign to it a place of supremacy ? We do so because these books which form our Bible are all in direct connexion with God's historical revelation which culminated in Christ. It is this alone which gives to the Bible its normative character and separates it from all other literature ' (The Bible ; its Origin and Nature, p. 23). ' The value of the Bible results from its connexion with Christ. He is the supreme ultimate revelation of God, and the Bible, being the amber in which He is preserved for man, is as inviolable and unique as He ' (ib. p. 25). xxvi INTRODUCTION a whole is based upon the Personality of Jesus. The New Testament receives its value because it is the record of His Life and contains the teaching of those who knew Him and received the outpouring of His Spirit. And the Old Testa- ment is said to be inspired because it leads up to, and shows how the way was prepared for, the coming of Christ ; for this reason also it is said to be an essential part of the system which has Jesus for its centre and basis. The whole weight of the Old Testament, then, the burden of the proof of its inspiration and divine authority, is made to rest upon the Personality of Christ. His Personality is quite strong enough to bear it ; but plainly and undoubtedly, to put things in this way is to reverse the proper order. Jesus and His Apostles did not base the Old Testament on Him. Quite on the contrary, they believed that the Jewish Scriptures had an authority prior to His appearance, and by an appeal to them they sought to prove His divine mission. It was because He fulfilled the Old Testament that they believed Him to have been sent by God as Messiah ; and they went forth to preach, ' shewing by the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ.' l The Scriptures had an authority independent of His manifestation. They were the very Word of God which could not be broken. To the Apostles, the Scriptures proved the authority of Jesus ; there was no need to call in His authority to prove them. And to Jesus Himself also the Scriptures were of divine authority. The wiles, of the Tempter are refused because they imply a violation of the will of God contained in the Old Testament. In them is found the way to eternal life. It is because of what is written in the Scriptures that He must suffer and die. 2 If, then, we base the Old Testament upon the Personality of Jesus, we start with a 'reduced' Christianity at the outset. Have we not here the explanation of numerous failures to give an adequate account of Christian origins ? Can we hope to understand Him and His Apostles aright, when we differ so widely from them on the question of basic authority ? As has been seen, much stress is now being laid 1 Acts xviii 28 ; cf. xvii 2, 11 ; iii 18, 24 ; Rom. i 1-3 ; 1 Cor. xv 3, 4, &c. * See below, pp. 232-4. INTRODUCTION xxvii upon the system of things of which the historic Personality of Jesus Christ is the centre. Can we ever be sure that we have grasped His system aright so long as we are unable to see in the Old Testament what He saw there, to take up towards it an attitude similar to His, to find in it that which is able to help us to prove His divine mission ? To say that the religion of Jesus has its roots in the Old Testament is true ; but it is only half the truth ; the religion of Jesus has its roots in a certain view of the Old Testament that quite independently of Jesus and His words, there is contained in it an authoritative message concerning God's Being, Will, and purposes for man. We can base the Old Testament upon the Personality of Jesus ; but if we are content to rest here, we must abandon the hope of understanding His teaching and His religion aright. II Destructive criticism is a comparatively easy task ; to attempt a construction is one for which some indulgence must be craved. It may be well to begin here with a brief outline of the course of the argument to be followed below. The starting-point of the discussion is in the transition from polytheism to monotheism. At one time the belief in many gods held the minds of multitudes of civilized men in a hard relentless grasp. Escape from this darkness was effected at two different points, by two different races, quite indepen- dently of each other. Chapter I is concerned with the rise of philosophical monotheism among the Greeks. It endeavours to lay bare the prejudices and tricks of thought which made polytheism such an ever present reality in the ancient civilizations, and to trace the process by which those prejudices were gradually broken down and replaced by the more enlightened belief of monotheism. The cause of this process is found to be a growing knowledge of nature and the birth of a new conception of causation what we call ' natural ' causation. This idea of natural causes drove the old gods out of one corner of creation after another, till it finally banished them altogether by leaving no room for them anywhere ; they xxviii INTRODUCTION ceased to have existence as cosmic powers. The Greeks found out that things happen by ' nature ', not by the immediate intervention of so many different unseen beings. The universe, they saw, must be explained as a single whole, from a single source. Then came the great induction of one Supreme Being, the First Cause, the ground and source of all existence, the infinite Intelligence which has ordered things as they are. All the old gods, in a real sense, perished, and then a new God was discovered, a result due, not to any one religious system, but to philosophical inquiry. Chapters II to V discuss the origin of the Hebrew mono- theism, which is found to stand in the strangest contrast to the process outlined above. The monotheistic beliefs of the prophets are defined by comparing them, on the one hand, with the contemporary polytheism, and, on the other, with the speculative monotheism of Plato and Aristotle. Chapter II gives a brief outline of the development of the national religion of the Hebrews, and is written from the standpoint of a moderate criticism. It shows that, to all intents and purposes, the great mass of the nation were, up to the days of the exile, polytheists ; for they believed their national God, Jehovah or, to use the more correct pro- nunciation, ' Yahweh ' to be nothing more or less than a characteristic Semitic deity. Against this polytheistic background one must study the doctrine of the prophets. The point at issue between the prophets and the people is not whether there is one God only or more than one ; that point is involved, but it is not uppermost in the minds of either side ; the debate is not concerned with the meaning of existence or the ultimate nature of Reality, but with the limits of the power and the moral character of a certain divine Person whose existence both sides alike assume without question, and who is known to both by the name of Yahweh, the national God of the Hebrews. The prophetic belief ought to be called ' mono-Yahwism ' hybrid and ugly though the word is rather than ' monotheism '. Both have in mind one and the same Person ; the dispute concerns the powers and the character of that Person ; to the average Hebrew, He is a characteristic Semitic deity ; to the prophet, INTRODUCTION xxix He is Almighty, absolutely righteous, and besides Him there is none else. The problem of the Hebrew monotheism or mono-Yahwism, then, resolves itself into this : How did a handful of the Hebrews come to believe that their national God was the only God and righteous ? Chapter III begins by showing that the real nature of the problem is that which has been outlined above. It also asks whether the belief that Yahweh is the only God could have been the outcome of any process of inductive reasoning. Was it the same process which resulted in Greek mono- theism ? Was it due to the rise of a new conception of causation, to a truer knowledge of the natural world than was possessed by their polytheistic contemporaries ? This must be answered in the negative. All those primitive ways of looking at things, and all those prejudices and assump- tions regarding the nature of the universe and of existence, which made polytheism a living reality to their contempo- raries, were accepted by the Hebrew monotheists without question. Causation was to them precisely what it was to the polytheists the immediate intervention of a personal will. The main difference is that where the polytheists saw a multitude of conflicting wills at work behind phenomena, the prophets saw but one, the will of their national God intervening universally, ceaselessly, and immediately, to accomplish His holy moral purposes. Was it, then, a reasoned argument based on the facts of history and the changing scenes of international politics ? This also must be answered in the negative. The logic of history was set against the idea that the God of Israel had no equal ; and of this the prophets themselves seem to have been conscious. Chapter IV discusses the origin of the belief in the righteous character of Yahweh. The superior ethical teaching of the prophets does not consist in a truer knowledge of ethical principles ; they accept the moral standard of their day as sufficient. They are not reformers of theoretical morals, but of practical morals ; their peculiarity lies in the ground on which they urge men to live up to what they already know to be right. That ground is the moral character of Yahweh, XXX INTRODUCTION the God of Israel, who, they say, requires from His people Israel, as the first condition of His favour, a life of national righteousness. Here, again, the differentia of the prophets has no relation to philosophical principles, but to the character of a particular divine Person known to history as Yahweh, the God of the Hebrews. The average Israelite believed that His goodwill could be won by the same means as those which propitiated the gods of many another race. But the prophets maintained that His face would never be turned towards His people until they cleansed themselves from evil and learned to do well. Was this belief the result of an induction ? Since they did not perceive the organic unity of the universe, they could hardly have seen in it a power which on the whole makes for righteousness. Nor again was the logic of history entirely on their side. They seldom attempt to prove their point by an appeal to history. Certain other possibilities also are discussed in these two chapters. The Hebrew ethical monotheism was not due to the natural genius of the Hebrew race. Against that theory there is sufficient evidence in Chapter II. Nor was it due to the idea that Yahweh could cast off Israel because He was united to them by a voluntary covenant rather than by an act of physical generation. None of the prophets maintained that Yahweh could not cast off the Hebrews ; but, with one or two possible exceptions, they are quite sure that He never will do so ; and that because they feel that, having once pledged Himself to the children of Israel, He will not fail to work out His purposes through and for them. Again, to shift the basis of the doctrine from the prophets to Moses and assign its first promulgation to him is not to solve the problem, but merely to remove it to a different period. Whence did Moses derive this belief ? And this would not tell us why this doctrine, even if we suppose it was cherished in secret through the age of the Judges and so was inherited by the prophets, came to dominate their minds and thoughts as it did. Why are they alone receptive of this ? What are the conditions which make it the living truth to these few prophets and a fond delusion to every one else ? INTRODUCTION xxxi If a religious belief is to dominate conduct and organize one's views of life, it must have behind it one of three things an unquestioned prejudice or inherited assumption, a train of reasoned thought, or some vivid inner mental feeling or experience. That this last was the source of the ethical monotheism of the Hebrews is the contention of Chapter V. The prophets experienced Yahweh, His power and His righteousness, within their own souls ; in moments of intensest feeling, the belief in His Almighty power and moral uprightness was impressed upon their minds in a way which proved indelible ; it governed their conduct, it altered their views of life ; and no amount of logic, of evidence, or of opposition, could ever avail to dislodge this confidence from the citadel of their souls. They knew that they had stood in the presence of an Almighty and All-holy Person ; hence they were as certain of His existence as of their own. As the present argument aims at being inductive, it has proceeded up to this point without assuming any special revelation, or any peculiar inspiration in the Bible ; in fact, the conclusions reached thus far appear to hold good, no matter what one's view may be of the ultimate nature of existence. These results are facts of historical and psycho- logical science, and are independent of belief in a Being who may be called ' God ', and of a conviction that prayer and religion are realities. But when this scientific analysis has been pushed to its farthest limits without the assumption of any divine intervention, it remains to rise to a higher point of view and to ask what is the value or significance of these facts for one who believes that there is a loving God who wills to take man into fellowship with Himself. Accordingly, Chapter VI assumes a theistic interpretation of existence, and endeavours, in the light of this assumption, to ascertain the value of the conclusions which have just been reached. The old polytheisms were an obstacle to true communion with God, because they encouraged men to approach their gods with an easy feeling of moral equality with them. Many of the polytheists, it is true, passed through religious states of mind of great intensity and were fully convinced that they had been in communion with xxxii INTRODUCTION a divine being ; yet these states always had the effect of confirming them in the polytheistic beliefs with which they had long been familiar. There seems to be no reason, then, to refuse to accept the natural explanation of these mental states as being due to what is commonly called an ' uprush ' from the subconscious self. This explanation, however, does not hold good of the experi- ences of the mono-Yahwists, because, as will be seen below, there was nothing in their education or environment to suggest to them the truth of the idea that there is but one holy God. These men were, as a result of their peculiar religious states of mind, led to a belief which was wholly at variance with all the logic, the prejudices, and the mental habits of their day, but one which later critical observation and reflection has shown to possess a sound claim to be the truth. These experiences, then, in which a sense of the presence of one Almighty All-holy God was indelibly impressed upon the souls of men who breathed the atmosphere of the polytheistic stage of culture, bear every mark of real communion with God. If these are not cases of true religious intercourse, then either such intercourse is impossible, or it has never yet been enjoyed by man. And if these are instances of true Religion, they also constitute a self-Revelation of God. That such states of mind should have occurred at all is remarkable enough ; but that they should have been confined to one race and always associated with the one divine Name of Yahweh is even more worthy of considera- tion. It seems to imply a definite choice of this Name and of the race and religious system attached to it, to be the medium of the revelation of God and the means of carrying out His purposes for the world. And when we recall how, as a result of the continuation of these experiences in Israel for generation after generation, the whole nation was at last brought round to the beliefs of the mono-Yahwists, and its whole outward system reconstructed with a view to expressing and maintaining the truth that there is but one Holy God and that Israel is His people ; and how at length, this monotheistic religion, under the influence of the greatest Figure in man's religious history, gave birth to a new society INTRODUCTION xxxiii which claimed to be heir to all the privileges of the old, and yet was freed from all its national limitations and imperfec- tions ; and how that new society is with us still as a vital force ; we must feel that there is good reason to think that the ancient religion of the Hebrews was chosen to be the matrix of a divinely authorized system of religion which should include all the world of mankind within its fold in one universal self-conscious brotherhood. Chapter VII adduces another consideration which sup- ports this view. The experiences of the prophets were the source of the belief that an Almighty God had pledged Himself to Israel ; this belief again engendered another that some day this God would intervene to manifest Himself and His union with Israel in the eyes of all mankind. The Messianic Hope was based on the belief that the religion and religious fellowship of the people of Israel had been chosen by a God who is Almighty, and endowed by Him with peculiar religious privileges. Did this Almighty God mani- fest Himself, as the prophets pledged their word that He would, in connexion with the Jewish religion ? Did these fond beliefs of the Hebrew prophets substantiate themselves in the fulfilment of that Hope to which they gave birth ? In answer to this we are able to point to Jesus of Nazareth, a Jew, and claiming to be the fulfilment of the Messianic Hope. Chapter VIII discusses the relation of Jesus to the religion of the Jews. But the substance of this chapter has already been touched upon in the Preface. It is not likely that we shall ever return to the belief in verbal inspiration. But it is the contention of the present work that there are grounds, other than those of the authority of our Lord, for taking up essentially the same attitude towards the religion of the Old Testament which He assumed ; furthermore, if we cannot use the text of the Old Testament as the ipsissima verba of God, we can obtain a clear idea of that system of which Jesus the Messiah is the Head. HAMILTON I xxxiv INTRODUCTION III The point of departure in the argument of this volume is the essentially different character of the two kinds of monotheism the Hebrew and the Greek and the essen- tially different mental processes by which they were reached. It may not be out of place to state that the view taken here differs widely from that of many modern writers on the evolution of religion. Let us see how this transition from polytheism to monotheism is treated by some of them. It is a fundamental principle with the students of the science called ' Comparative Religion ', that religion is one great fact assuming so many differing embodiments in so many different places and periods. ' We start, then, with the assumption that religion is a thing which has developed from the first, as law has, or as art has.' 1 ' The presumption is that here as everywhere else, the higher forms have been evolved out of lower forms, and that monotheism has been developed out of a previous polytheism. Religion is an organism which runs through its various stages, animism, totemism, polytheism, mono- theism. The law of continuity links together the highest, lowest, and intermediate forms.' 2 ' What do we imply when we speak of development ? In the first place, we imply that the object undergoing develop- ment is a unity ; that the changes we observe are not like those that proceed from the caprices of fickle man, as the clothes we wear change with the freaks of fashion ; that the oak already potentially exists in the acorn, and the man in the child. The one does not merely succeed or supersede the other, but the one grows out of the other. Development is, to quote an American scholar, " a continuous progressive change according to certain laws and by means of resident forces ! " ' 3 There undoubtedly is a point of view from which the religious life of man may be viewed as a unity ; and again, it certainly is quite possible to trace certain laws and observe certain resident forces operating in the process of change. But it may be questioned whether the passages 1 Menzies, History of Religion, p. 6. 1 Jevons, Introduction to History of Religion, p. 382. ' Tiele, Elements of the Science of Religion, i 29 . INTRODUCTION xxxv quoted above do not need some modification as applied to the transition from polytheism to monotheism. It is, for instance, quite possible to see how, under the influence of ascertainable conditions, the religion of one race after another developed from one stage to another up to an advanced polytheism. But obviously, one cannot think of a number of different races developing beyond polytheism to monotheism, simply because only two races ever passed into a permanent monotheism, and all others who have made the transition have borrowed from them. One cannot help thinking that the desire to discover the working of universal laws operating on a large scale has somewhat blinded the eyes of scientists to the real facts. One can say that the monotheism of Plato and Aristotle ' succeeded ' or ' superseded ' the old polytheistic religion of Greece ; but one can scarcely think that it ' grew out of ' that polytheism as the man develops from the child ; for the fact is that Greek monotheism was the outcome of a process of philo- sophical reflection which not only had its roots quite outside the old religion, but also stood in direct antagonism to that religion and brought about its downfall. It is, of course, true that polytheism came first and monotheism came after it ; but to say that polytheism ' developed into ' or ' gave birth to ' monotheism is about as true as to say that the red man of America ' developed into ' or ' gave birth to ' the people of the United States and the Dominion of Canada ; the fact is that a new intellectual force arose which first caused polytheism to appear impossible, and then suggested the reality of monotheism. The essential truth of this statement is not in any way altered by the fact that the rites of the old religion continued to be practised till long after the death of Plato and Aristotle, nor by the fact that even men who accepted the new views conformed outwardly to the old rites. Those strata of society in which polytheism continued to be a reality were not yet infected with the new ideas ; and the philosophers who conformed to the state religion did so in a spirit which practically denied its truth. The one thing which survived the wreck of polytheism was the religious c 2 xxxvi INTRODUCTION nature of man, which continued to demand satisfaction as before ; and hence, in so far as one can speak of any develop- ment persisting through this transition, it is a development of the inner religious nature of man alone, not of the outward manifestations of religion. To treat the transition to monotheism as though it were traceable to the same set of causes in the case of the Hebrews as in the case of the Greeks is to confuse and obscure the process in both. To all minds which fully accepted the Greek monotheism, the outward forms of polytheism ceased to have any important significance ; but amongst the Hebrews, the old traditional forms of ceremonial and organization, common to many ancient religions, were not swept away, but transfigured and endowed with a higher significance. Here alone can one speak of a development of the outward manifestations of religion, since here alone did outward forms persist as matters of real importance. It will probably be pointed out that these are not the only cases of monotheistic belief ; but for the purposes of this argument they are the only two which need be considered, because, with one possible exception, all others have either, like Mohammedanism, borrowed from them, or else have failed to achieve permanence. So far as I can discover, the other monotheisms are as follows : (1) A primitive belief in an all-Father or great Spirit, of which Andrew Lang finds evidence among many savage tribes, and which he says became corrupted into different forms of polydemonism and polytheism. 1 With this may be grouped the simple mono- theism, the worship of T'ien or Shang Ti, said to have existed in China in the earliest times of which there are any historic traces. 2 (2) The monotheism of Akhnaton in Egypt and the monotheistic tendencies visible in the speculations of the Babylonian priests and astrologers. The former of these disappeared as quickly as it sprang into existence, and the 1 Cf. Lang, The Making of Religion, pp. 185-253, and Magic and Religion, pp. 15-45. 1 Giles, Encyc. Brit,, Ed. XI. vi 174 ; and Religions of Ancient China, pp. 7-26. INTRODUCTION xxxvii latter was never more than a tendency towards monotheism. Both are touched on in Chapter I (see pp. 19-21). (3) The belief of the Chuhras described by Mr. Youngson in Hastings' Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics* I am informed by Dr. Estlin Carpenter, of Manchester College, Oxford, that these are a class of Indian scavengers who feed on carrion and vermin ; hence they can hardly be reckoned to be of a very high spiritual type. They seem to owe much of their faith to Mohammedanism. Mr. Youngson notes that they are rapidly becoming absorbed by Christianity. (4) The doctrine of the Amida Buddha as held by the great Shin-Shu sect, founded by Shinran, in Japan, early in the thirteenth century. The Amida is not, of course, Creator, for Buddhism contains no room for such a conception as that of creation : he is rather a way of escape, a means of salvation, from the effects of Karma. He is the Buddha of Boundless Light and Boundless Life, who presides over a Paradise in the Pure Land, where those who have put their trust in him will enjoy for ever an existence of unalloyed bliss. His worshippers are forbidden to worship any other than Amida. 2 It is not denied that this doctrine, as it is set forth in a modern Buddhist writing called The Praises of Amida, 3 has been influenced by contact with Christian thought. And it is still being debated whether even the original teaching of Shinran may not be an echo of the Nestorian Christianity which co-existed with Buddhism in China for several centu- ries before the appearance of the Shin-Shu sect. 4 But what- ever the origin of this doctrine of Amida Buddha may have been, it certainly was not due to the inner experience of an Almighty and All-holy Person, such as the Hebrew prophets enjoyed. Nor can one say that the teaching of the Shin-Shu 1 s. v. Chuhras. 2 See Estlin Carpenter, in The Quest, April and July, 1910, and in Hibbert Journal, April, 1906 ; Troup, in Hibbert Journal, No. xiv ; Lloyd, Trans- actions of Oriental Society of Japan, vol. xxii 413-28. 3 Translated by Arthur Lloyd, and published at Tokyo. * Of. Lloyd, Shinran and his Work, pp. 4, 5 : The Praises of Amida, pp. 141-8 ;} Mrs. Gordon, Messiah, the Ancestral Hope of the Ages, Tokyo. xxxviii INTRODUCTION sect though it is the richest and most popular sect in Japan to-day has played any important part in the upward progress of the human race. None of these monotheisms, even if it be granted that they are all worthy of the name, are in any way responsible for that permanent belief in one God only, which is character- istic of the religious life of the West. Hence for the purposes of the argument of this book, as contained in Chapter VI, they need not be further considered. But to return to the scientific students of religious pheno- mena. It seems to be the common supposition that ' religion and civilization advance together ; according as the civiliza- tion is in any people so is its religion.' l This may be true of the Greeks, whose increasing intimacy with nature led them to a belief in one God. But it is not true of the Hebrews. For at the time when the prophets were proclaiming their monotheism, the Hebrew nation was still in that stage of civilization which everywhere else was accompanied by a polytheistic belief. Their art, education, politics, and law, their conception of causation, their way of conceiving of the universe, and even their moral codes and their ideas of the life after death, were the same in kind with those which everywhere else were characteristic of polytheism. The advance the prophets made was not the work of superior reasoning powers, nor of a more accurate knowledge of the facts of existence, but involved a process wholly different from a psychological point of view a vivid inner mental experience. If one must protest against the assumption that in the advance to monotheism religion everywhere progresses according to the same laws, one need have no quarrel with the methods used in the scientific study of religion. The only method which can satisfy an age which lives by scien- tific knowledge is to push the psychological and historical analysis back to its farthest limits, to trace the sequence of facts back to their most elementary beginnings in the minds of men, without assuming any such factor as a special dispensation or a miraculous intervention ; when this factor 1 Menzies, op. cit., p. 13. INTRODUCTION xxxix is introduced, scientific analysis and investigation come to an end. But when the scientific study of causes has been carried back as far as it can conceivably go, it is not necessary on this account to rule out as inconceivable the whole idea of a special divine revelation. The probability of a special revelation must depend on whether, when the scientific process is over, there are facts and considerations which make such an intervention appear as part of a moral and intelligible system of progress. Again, to begin with the assumption that one religion is true and all others false, and to review the facts in the light of this assumption, is not the method pursued in this book. The scientific student has nothing whatever to do with such distinctions ; his duty is to observe, classify, and relate all the data which come before his notice ; to begin by distinguishing them into right and wrong or into true and false is as meaningless in the study of religion as it is in the study of astronomy. But religion is something more than a mere natural science like astronomy ; the religious life of man implies and depends on a certain interpretation of the meaning of existence ; its outlook cannot be confined to one limited sphere of natural phenomena, as is the case with any special science such as astronomy. If a man decides for himself that there is no God, his attitude towards astronomical science will not be greatly altered ; it will still express a truth to him ; but his attitude towards religion must be different, since he must now hold that religion is a delusion. There is, then, a higher point of view from which to see the facts of religion ; and from this higher point of view distinctions of true and false have a real meaning. If, then, one begins by ignoring all ideas of divine revelation and all distinctions of truth and falsehood, it would be a profound mistake to erect this limitation into a hard-and-fast dogma and say that a special revelation is inconceivable, and that it is impossible that there can be any point of view from which one religion can be termed true and others misleading. CHAPTER I POLYTHEISM AND THE GREEK MONOTHEISM THE first task must be an attempt to define the terms to be used and to obtain some idea of the nature of the problem to be solved. Fortunately it is not necessary to delve into the origin of religion, nor even to attempt a philosophical definition of it. For the present purposes it will be sufficient to see that ' religion ', as that term is commonly used by the scientific students of religious phenomena, involves at least two elements. It involves (1) a belief in the existence of one or more unseen personal beings possessing power over man or his environment ; and also (2) a desire to enter into personal relation with these unseen beings. Wherever these two elements are present, we find a set of historical and psychological pheno- mena to which the term religion is usually given. If either is entirely absent, there is no religion. It is true that one element is not often found without the other ; but the two are not only separable in fact, but for the sake of clearness must be carefully distinguished in thought. A man may believe in the existence of one or more unseen personal beings without desiring to enter into personal relations with them ; or he may experience the desire in even an acute form and yet believe that to satisfy it is impossible, because he thinks there are no such personal beings at all. The first element, the belief that there are unseen beings who possess power over man and his environment, repre- sents an intellectual attitude towards the nature of exis- tence. It has been well said, ' a metaphysic of a conscious or unconscious kind always goes side by side with religion.' 1 In other words, religion implies a belief about the con- 1 Corner, Orundriss der Religionsphilcsophie, p. 51, quoted by Ladd, Philosophy of Religion, i 274. HAMILTON I T? 2 POLYTHEISM AND THE stitution of the universe ; the polytheistic worshipper of many unseen beings believed that the universe was con- trolled by many independent wills of limited power ; he who believes in the existence of one Being only, believes that his whole destiny and environment are controlled by a single supreme Will or Spirit. The second element, the craving or desire for fellowship with the divine, appears to be a constant factor in human nature. As man is by nature a social animal who seeks human fellowship to round out his life and give scope for the development of all his faculties, so also, for the same reason, he seeks to enter into relationship with the unseen being or beings around him. The religious instinct appears to be part of his psychological make-up. It is absent only in individuals, never in a whole race. Men are always religious except where they have abused their religious capacities or have consciously argued themselves out of them. 1 In every form of religion, animistic, polytheistic, or monotheistic, this craving for divine fellowship is a con- stant unvarying element. What has in the course of time varied is the number of the unseen persons with whom men have sought to satisfy their religious natures ; in the polytheistic age they naturally turned to worship the many beings in whom their view of the nature of things led them to believe ; in the present age, they turn to one and one only, because their knowledge of the universe teaches them that there is but one and one only in whom satisfaction can be found. It is of importance for the purpose in hand to make this distinction clear, because it shows that the second or emotional element in religion may safely be neglected in studying the transition from polytheism to monotheism. This element has remained constant throughout every change ; the factor which needs to be investigated is the intellectual element, the causes which made a belief in more than one unseen spiritual being so deep-rooted in the minds 1 Cf. Brinton, Religions of Primitive Peoples, p. 30 ; Tiele, Elements of the Science of Religion, ii 230-3 ; Jastrow, Study of Religion, 191-7 ; Ladd, Philosophy of Religion, i 277, 289 f. GREEK MONOTHEISM 3 of the polytheist, and the causes which have since made that belief impossible. The question should not be raised in the form of why there were many gods then and only one God now ; it may be reduced to simpler terms still. A god is an object of worship, and the question to be dealt with is not why worship was offered either then or now ; it is offered now for the same reason as it was offered then, because men experienced a desire to enter into personal relations with the beings on whom they felt themselves to be dependent. To introduce the word ' god ' therefore, is to introduce an unnecessary element. The real problem is to find out why the men of that age believed so intensely in the existence of a large number of independent unseen persons, and why a belief in more than one such being has since become so wholly inadequate and appears so entirely absurd. When this has been done, the causes of the transition from poly- theism to monotheism have been fully explained. II The polytheism of the ancients appears to us of the present day to be so manifestly inadequate and so trans- parently absurd, that we are apt to think, either that it was never seriously believed in, or else that those who did believe in it were incapable of following out the simplest process of reasoning. The impression that it was not taken seriously is perhaps due to the fact that so many people derive all their knowledge of polytheism from the pages of Greek and Latin writers of the classical period. But when they flourished, polytheism had obviously already passed through a period of decline and lost its grip upon the best minds. If we would see it in its pristine vigour, if we would understand what a power it could be in the hearts and minds of men, we must go back behind the Greek philosophers and dramatists to Homer and Hesiod, or better still, to ancient Egypt, Assyria, and Babylonia. No one can read the Babylonian Penitential Psalms, for instance, without realizing that they are written by men B 2 4 POLYTHEISM AND THE who are in deadly earnest, quite as much in earnest as the Hebrew psalmists. These men are not performing a ritual which tradition and policy call for, but which the intellect has long since abandoned as childish ; there is no laughing in the sleeve, no suspicion that what is being said and done is not the very truest truth. Polytheism is here a grim and terrible reality ; and if we imagine that it would have been seen at once to be an absurdity if only the meaning of the word ' monotheism ' had been whispered in the ear, we make a great mistake. The fact is that the bare con- ception of a single supreme god was present to the minds of the Babylonians and other polytheists, and was often upon their lips. But it was never taken seriously. The conception of monotheism was there, but no one believed in it. The traditional polytheism was apparently so deeply rooted in their minds as the one really credible form of religion, that monotheism appeared to have little or nothing to recommend it. A few examples will make this clear. Here is part of a Babylonian hymn to the moon-god, Nannar : lord, chief of the gods, who on earth and in heaven alone is exalted. Father Nannar, lord of increase, chief of the gods, Father Nannar, whose sovereignty is brought to perfection, chief of the gods. Lord, thy divinity, like the distant heaven and the wide ocean, is full (?) of fear. Ruler of the land, protector of sanctuaries, proclaimer of their name. Father, begetter of the gods and of men, establishing dwellings and granting gifts. Father, begetter of everything . . . Lord, proclaiming the decisions of heaven and earth, Whose command is not set aside. No god reaches to thy fullness. In heaven who is exalted ? Thou alone art exalted. On earth who is exalted ? Thou alone art exalted. GREEK MONOTHEISM 5 Lord, in heaven is (thy) sovereignty, on earth is thy sove- reignty. Among the gods, thy brothers, there is none like thee. King of Kings, who has no judge superior to him, whose divinity is not surpassed by any other ! 1 It will be observed that in this hymn Nannar is said to be ' chief of the gods, who on earth and in heaven alone is exalted ', ' begetter of gods and men ', ' begetter of everything ', ' Lord proclaiming the decisions of heaven and earth, whose command is not set aside ', ' King of Kings, who has no judge superior to him, whose divinity is not surpassed by any other.' It cannot be said that the conception of a single supreme deity lies very far from the thought of this author. Does the Old Testament itself contain stronger expressions of the sole sovereignty of Yahweh ? If we could take these expressions seriously and suppose that the poet really meant what his words imply, we would have to label him a monotheist. But the degree of seriousness to be attached to these phrases will readily be perceived when it is noted that the same flattering terms are addressed to several of the greater gods. If Nannar is ' chief of the gods ', so also is Asshur and so also is Ishtar. If the command of Nannar ' alone exalted hi heaven and earth ', is not set aside, no more is that of Nebo ; and if Nannar's divinity is surpassed by none, Nebo, ' supreme in heaven,' knows no rival. Is Nannar ' begetter of gods and men ' and ' of everything ' ? Asshur is ' Creator of Shamash, maker of mountains ; Creator of the gods, pro- genitor of Ishtar '. Thus a hymn addressed to Nebo runs as follows : Lord ! To thy power there is no rival power, Nebo ! To thy power there is no rival, To thy house, E-zida, there is no rival, To thy city, Borsippa, there is no rival. Thy command is unchangeable like the heavens. In heaven thou art supreme. 2 1 Jastrow, Religion of Babylonia and Assyria, pp. 303 f. 1 Jastrow, op. cit., p. 306. 6 POLYTHEISM AND THE And another in honour of Asshur : Mighty chief of the gods, omniscient : Honoured, exalted lord of gods, fixer of destinies. Ashur, mighty lord, omniscient : . . . Ashur, powerful chief of the gods, lord of countries. Forever let me exalt his power, Mightily wise leader of the gods, illustrious. Creator of Shamash, maker of mountains ; Creator of the gods, progenitor of Ishtar. 1 And again a hymn to Ishtar : goddess of goddesses, Ishtar, queen of all peoples, guide of mankind. Mighty and sovereign art thou, supreme is thy name, The light of heaven and earth, valiant daughter of Sin art thou, Bearer of weapons, arrayed for battle, Controlling all laws, clothed with the crown of sovereignty. O lady, exalted is thy rank, supreme over all the gods ! * With these may be compared the terms in which Shamash and Marduk are addressed : Shamash ! Supreme judge, great lord of all the world art thou ; Lord of creation, merciful one of the world art thou. 3 Great King, lord of the lands, Firstborn son of Ea, who is powerful in heaven and upon earth, Marduk, great lord of men, and king of the lands, god of gods, Prince of heaven and earth, who hath not his like, Darling of Anu and of Bel. Marduk, King of heaven and earth. Heaven and earth are thine. 4 1 Jastrow, in Hastings' s D. B., \ 565. * Ib. 666 b. 3 Jastrow, Religion, tL-c., p. 301. * Rogers, Religion of Babylonia, p. 175. GREEK MONOTHEISM 7 Or, to take one example from the Egyptian religion : ' Praise be to thee, Amon Re, thou bull that art in Helio- polis ; lord of Karnak . . . thou Ancient One of the heavens, and most ancient upon earth, lord of law, father of the gods . . . who hast made the higher and the lower (meaning perhaps the celestial bodies and mankind), and who givest light to the world, who makest a prosperous voyage through the heavens, thou blessed King Re, supreme over the world, thou that art rich in power, full of strength. . . . Praise be to thee, thou creator of the gods, thou that didst lift up the heavens and tread down the earth. . . . Thou lord of eternity, that didst create the eternal . . . thou comely King that art crowned with a white crown, thou lord of splendour that Greatest light, to whom the (very) gods vouchsafe praise. Praise be to thee, Re, lord of right, whose holiness is hidden, thou lord of the gods ; thou art Kheperi in thy vessel ; at thy command the gods arose ; thou art Atum that didst create mankind. Thou only art he that created whatsoever is ; men came forth from thine eye, and the gods from out of thy mouth. . . . Praised be thou that didst create all this. Thou King, supreme among gods, we worship thee because thou didst make us, we extol thee because thou hast fashioned us ; we bless thee because thou dwellest among us.' l ' There is a distinct strain of monotheistic sentiment. But it is only sentiment ; for in practice the worship of the ancient gods was clung to more firmly than ever, while, by the side of Amon, Re-Horus of Heliopolis and Ptah of Memphis retained their high place in the Egyptian Pantheon and were extolled in hymns similar to this.' 2 It seems clear that the bare conception of a supreme god, the source of all existence and power, was not absent from the minds of these writers. But the fact that so many different gods were all alike addressed in these same terms of exalted adulation becoming to a monotheistic belief shows equally clearly that it was just this monotheistic conception which was not taken seriously ; it had no logical cogency behind it ; it did not grip the intellect or govern thought and conduct. It was the polytheistic con- ception which dominated their minds and actions, which to them represented the real truth necessary to salvation 1 Steindorff , Religion of Ancient Egypt, pp. 66, 67. 2 Ib., cf. also Weigall, Akhnaton, Pharaoh of Egypt, pp. 86 f. 8 POLYTHEISM AND THE and on which they based their conduct. Deep down in their hearts they knew, or they thought they knew, that their welfare was dependent on more than one unseen personal being ; the ascription of universal dominion to so many of them was merely a piece of inexpensive flattery which no one mistook for serious truth. They knew quite well that the power of each god was limited by the power of his colleagues, but still it was not impossible to ascribe universal sovereignty to each and all of the greater gods, and it was a sound policy to avoid too much partiality. In the polytheism of the ancient East, therefore, we are dealing with something which appeared to the men of that day to be the final truth. The monotheistic conception had for them much the same degree of reality as attaches to our conception of a centaur or a mermaid ; as a form of religion, it was about as credible to them as polytheism is to us. With the results of recent historical and archaeological research before him, no thoughtful man will dismiss them all as a pack of fools or a crowd of children. The men who built up the ancient civilizations on the Nile and the Euphrates, the men who organized and governed the empires of the East, were neither fools nor children. The strength of polytheism did not lie in the absence of intellectual ability in its devotees. We have little reason to think that the constitution of the human mind was fundamentally different in those days from what it is now, or that it was then without any powers of reasoning. Men could and did reason then with as much frequency as they do now ; and if they reasoned incorrectly more often than now, this was not due to any innate inability to reason correctly, or to any fundamental distortion of their mental faculties, but rather to certain other conditions. In order to reason correctly one thing at least is necessary, an ade- quate supply of data accurately observed ; and it is safer to have a knowledge of the principles of logic, of the conditions on which correct thoughts depend. It was just the absence of these two things which kept the ancient world in darkness. If they reasoned at all on the nature of the powers which lie behind phenomena, GREEK MONOTHEISM 9 they did so on the basis of an inadequate supply of data, many of which, moreover, were inaccurately observed ; and they had not yet developed the critical habit. When they reasoned on other subjects, which did not require such a large range of observation, they did not do so badly. It must not be supposed, of course, that the ancient poly- theism was in any sense a product of reasoning ; it was not by any means the result of a conscious reasoned process, but rather of certain spontaneous assumptions inherited from a remote past and never consciously formulated. But it was supported by reason to this extent, that, as will be seen more clearly later on, if a mind which had not yet thrown off these inherited spontaneous assumptions set out to inquire into the causes of things, it could not but be con- firmed in its inherited polytheistic belief ; unless, indeed, it was guilty of a violent logical aberration. The more correctly the polytheist reasoned, the more convinced would he be of the truth of polytheism ; provided, of course, that he set out without questioning the basic assumptions of polytheism. What, then, were these basic assumptions ? Let us try to understand the polytheist 's idea of the natural world around him. One must not suppose that he found nothing but chaos and confusion in it. Human life can exist only on the presupposition that things will con- tinue to happen in the future in much the same way as they have done in the past. The farmer sows in hope that the seed will sprout and ripen as before ; the herdsman expects that his cattle will reproduce themselves, each according to its own kind ; even the hunter lays his snares in the belief that the habits of animals will continue un- changed ; while the arts of warfare are based on the belief that the nature of man will remain the same. All men expect that children will grow to maturity and then die ; that the sun will rise and the moon go through her phases, each in due course. In a very primitive stage it seems prob- able that such regularities as these were counted on more by instinct, by unconscious habit, than by any process of induction. Still the fact remains that some order and regularity must have been recognized by the polytheists. 10 POLYTHEISM AND THE Again, if we inquire into their conception of causation, their idea of how things are made to happen, it would be a mistake to suppose that they had no idea of natural causation, of the fact that one event may follow another without the intervention of a personal will between them. Nor is it true that they had no idea of the uniformity of nature, of the principle that one may expect the same cause to be followed by the same effect. But if we were to say that they had no idea of the universality of natural causa- tion, we should touch the vital point. For instance, the Australian blackfellows are wont to put a sod in the fork of a tree exactly facing the setting sun, in order to retard his descent and so lengthen the course of the day. 1 We have here first of all a recognition albeit unconscious of natural causation. The man does not himself stop the sun ; he uses one force or power to influence another, and what transpires between the sod and the sun is an impersonal, or, as we call it, a ' natural ' process. This kind of magic is primitive man's science. Moreover, we have an unconscious recognition of the principle of the uniformity of nature, i.e. every time the sod is put in the branches of the tree, the sun is retarded ; the same cause is followed by the same effect. But in the third place, the savage does not recognize the continuity of natural causation. The black- fellow himself initiated the process of causation, and unless he had put the clay in this position it would have had no power to bring about the result he desired. He is not altering the conditions of the working of laws which he knows to work independently of himself ; he it is who initiates the train of causation to accomplish his own purposes. Again, to take another illustration which will advance us further on our way. Any race engaged in agriculture can scarcely fail to notice that moisture is necessary to a harvest. Here we have the idea of the uniformity of nature. We have also the idea of natural causation ; what takes place between the rainfall and the sprouting of the crops is a natural process. But here again, primitive 1 Frazer, Golden JJouyh, col. 1'JOO, i 118. GREEK MONOTHEISM 11 man did not grasp the principle of the continuity of natural causation. It was no more easy for him to analyse the con- ditions on which a rainfall depends, than it is for the average man to-day. We know it depends on natural causes, not because the majority of us know what those causes are, but because others have told us so. But the savage, having no one to tell him this, took refuge in the thought of the action of a personal will, either that of a human rain-maker, or that of an unseen spiritual being. The constitution of nature is such that there are some facts of natural causation which impress themselves upon the least observant. And the average uninstructed person is able in many cases to trace the process through a series of interconnected causes and effects, even though he may not always do so quite correctly. But eventually there comes a point beyond which he cannot analyse further ; a point at which his train of natural causation comes to an end, because, out of all the numberless phenomena which have preceded this last cause, he cannot pick out those which alone are responsible for it. When this occurs, we in our day call in the specialist ; but primitive man, having no specialist to summon, supposed that these effects were due to a personal will not unlike his own. ' In the period of animism every event whatever which arrests attention and demands explanation is explained as being due to personal agency and personal power. . . . The question never is, what caused this event ? It always is, who did this thing ? ' x That is to say, there are some trains of natural causation so self-evident and of such frequent occurrence, such as the death of an animal from an arrow in its heart, that they are accepted as a matter of course and never arrest atten- tion. But in cases where the natural sequence was not a matter of daily familiarity to which he had become thoroughly habituated, primitive man had not learned to go in search of it, because he had never realized that there was in every case a natural cause to be found. He never asked what caused this event ? Without attempting to 1 F. B. Jevons, Transaction of Third Congress of Religion, i 78. 12 POLYTHEISM AND THE weigh the grounds for doing so, he supposed it was due to a personal will. To quote the same writer again : ' All changes whatever in the universe may be divided into two classes, those which are initiated by man and those which are not ; and it was inevitable from the first that man should believe the source and cause of the one class to be Will, as he knew it to be the cause and source of the other class of changes.' l Of course, one ought not to think of the polytheist as going consciously in search of natural causes and as taking refuge in the idea of a divine intervention only when he failed to find them. One ought to conceive the matter rather in this way. The polytheist inherited a spontaneous belief in the existence of an indefinitely large number of unseen beings, and to their operation he habitually ascribed all that he saw happening around him. But some events are constantly followed by others of so striking a character that the two cannot fail to arrest attention as coming one after the other, and hence they become associated together in memory, and one is not thought of without the other. The one becomes the sign and symbol which suggests the other, and the presence of the second does not appear to require further explanation than the presence of the first. When we speak of the rain as being recognized to be the natural cause of the harvest, this is what is meant ; the two have become so closely associated together that the mind of the polytheist did not feel the need of a personal will to explain the appearance of the second. Again, those regularities in nature on which he counted in his plans for the future 2 were always referred to the same source, a personal will. At first, no doubt, they were accepted as facts, and did not appear to require any explana- tion ; but when men became more conscious of them, they were assigned not to the very nature of the things them- selves, but to the operation of personal wills. Each great department of nature was supposed to be controlled by a deity whose will it was that things should happen accord- ing to this usual pattern. 1 Introduction to History of Religion, p. 22. * See above, p. 9. GREEK MONOTHEISM 13 The chief difference, then, between our view of causation and that of the polytheist is that we emphasize ' natural ' causes and minimize personal wills as sources of causation ; but the polytheist laid the emphasis on personal wills and minimized the operation of ' natural ' events. And this again explains why the world of man's environment appeared to the polytheist to be so very different from what we know it to be. We have not yet explored the whole of nature or even a large fraction of the whole, but in what has been observed, there are such manifold traces of order, system, and harmony, as to make us feel that if we did know all, we should be able to describe the world as a single organic whole, a vast series of causes and effects which follow each other in unvarying and therefore ascertainable sequences. Our whole experience of life, therefore, leads us to think that all existence must be referable to a single source and exph'cable by some single principle. The basic assumption of polytheism, on the other hand, is that the world of man's environment consists of so many fragments, each of which works, whether regularly or irregularly, according to the will of some unseen person. Nature was not a vast machine driven on by impersonal forces resident within itself with all its parts in a relation of dependence upon each other. It was comparable rather to a great piano with an indefinitely large number of key- notes which are continually being played by an indefinite number of personal beings, either gods, men, or demons. Each key would represent a single independent fact of causation, or a train of such facts ; none of them, whether long or short, would work, except when some one or other of those personal wills who alone were able to do so, gave the initial impulse. And this contrast between the ancient and modern con- ceptions of nature explains why in the ancient world mono- theism appeared incredible and polytheism the only possi- bility ; and why, at the present day, polytheism is impos- sible and monotheism remains the only credible basis for religion. All our experience of life leads us to regard the universe as a single whole which must be referred to a single 14 POLYTHEISM AND THE source. When we believe that this ultimate source, thi* first cause, is a personal or spiritual existence, we call our- selves Theists ; and when we further endeavour to enter into communion with that personal Being, we enter the sphere of religion and call Him God. On the other hand, the polytheist found the world to be peopled with spirits of all kinds, a belief which was confirmed by his experience of many happenings of every day. Hence, when his religious nature cried aloud for satisfaction, he naturally turned to worship one or more of the nearest or most powerful of those unseen beings whose existence seemed to him a self- evident fact. Such was the basis of polytheism. As an interpretation of life, it held the hearts and minds of its devotees in a tenacious grasp. To say that polytheism satisfied the intellect is perhaps to put the wrong aspect uppermost. The polytheist was probably as little conscious that it satisfied his intellect, as the child is that he lives on air ; but if you deprive the child of air, he becomes acutely con- scious that something is wrong ; just so the intellect of the polytheist would have rebelled against the denial of his gods. When the thunder rolled and the lightning flashed, here was proof positive that even now events of a mental order are taking place within the consciousness of this god. He is angry, or he desires to strike fear into the hearts of men, and so manifests himself in this way. If this is not so, how is the thunder to be explained ? Only, of course, by pointing to those atmospheric conditions which invariably precede the thunderstorm. But polytheism occupied an exceedingly well-entrenched position. Men were not yet ready to point out the natural causes of events, because polytheism successfully smothered all inquiry into nature, except where a close attention to facts brought in quick and obvious returns in practical advantage. The basic assumption of polytheism could not be removed except by unearthing the secrets of natural cause and effect ; and nature does not yield her secrets except to those who go in search of them with a generous supply of patience and persistence. But polytheism had an answer ready to every inquiry and GREEK MONOTHEISM 15 a solution applicable to every problem arising out of the happenings of the natural world, a solution which might well turn back even the least indolent of inquirers from the only path which could lead to the escape from polytheism. Everything which happens is due ultimately to the ' fiat ' of one of the many unseen beings with whom the world is peopled. Natural science could hardly be expected to flourish in such an atmosphere ; there was no public demand for it and but little intellectual curiosity to know. One can scarcely be surprised that under such conditions polytheism appeared to be the only credible form of religion. If the hypothesis of a single will intervening ceaselessly, universally, and immediately, could have been boldly adopted, monotheism might have been reached without travelling the hard road of scientific inquiry till it brought one to the conception of nature as an organic unity. But such a tour de force was impossible for several reasons. In the first place, the polytheist inherited the belief in many unseen beings from a very remote past, and such inherited prejudices are not thrown off with a mere shrug of the shoulders. Again, to a superficial observer such as the polytheist must have been, the occasional disappointments and unexpected disasters in which he found himself involved, the strange ups and downs of life, the conflict of the elements, the decay and renewal of vegetation, the rise and fall of nations, must have seemed to bespeak a conflict of will in the powers which lie behind phenomena. And polytheism had another secret of strength even more important than this. It made its devotee feel at home in the world. The polytheist was confident that he understood the universe and that he could bring influence to bear upon things which were clearly beyond his ken and his own physical power. 1 He believed the world to be under the control of beings of like passions with himself who were keenly in- terested in human affairs and readily accessible to human entreaty. He knew how to handle his gods and to win their favour. They could be influenced through their pockets and through their stomachs like ordinary folk. 1 Of. Dickinson, The Greek View of Life, pp. 7, 8. 16 POLYTHEISM AND THE Furthermore, the gods did not leave him without direct communication from themselves. There were authorita- tively appointed channels by which their will was made known to men. The priests could tell him the proper ritual to perform and the proper sacrifice to bring ; the prophets, shamans, and other inspired persons could inform him as to what would happen in the future ; while the augurs could tell him whether the gods were favourable to his plans or not. His deities were always indicating their will to him by one means or another ; and often, as in the case of unexpected omens, when such assistance was not even sought for. While there were many malicious and revengeful spirits abroad, yet there were also those whose special business it was to protect and cherish him. Each nation, each city, each community or organization of men, had its own patron god or gods to whom it could look for help and sympathy in return for its service ; and in many cases, as in Babylonia, this was extended to the individual as well. For the average man life must have been at most times less troubled by perplexities and anxieties than it is to-day. Polytheism, on the whole, was a comfortable and reassuring belief which smoothed out many of life's minor troubles. Where it proved itself a hopeless failure was on those occasions when a man whose conscience was clear found himself involved in an overwhelming and irremediable calamity. The problem before him was not one of natural law, but concerned the human nature of the gods ; what can it be which has offended them and how can they be propitiated ? When a man had done his duty by the gods and yet things still persisted in going wrong, in the dark- ness of that hour polytheism had no help to give him. But after all, such occasions were exceptional, and it was always possible to impute to the unfortunate sufferer a stubborn refusal to acknowledge some secret heinous sin. To abandon these gods, therefore, before the time was ripe was incon- ceivable. Not only had they the force of immemorial tradi- tion behind them, but to forsake them before there was something better to take their place would have been to go out from a world in which one was comfortably and safely at GREEK MONOTHEISM 17 home to be a friendless stranger in a land one did not know, exposed to the action of incalculable and uncontrollable forces. Instead of wondering how men could ever have accepted anything so absurd, one ought to be surprised that polytheism was ever dislodged from so strong a strategic position. Ill But polytheism had its weaknesses as well as its strength. First among these may be noticed the fact that the sphere of a god's power was in general marked out by the limits of the dominion of his people. Each independent nation had its own god or set of gods, supreme in their own terri- tory, but not necessarily supreme elsewhere. So long as each nation maintained its independence, so long did this theory of things continue to be satisfactory. But when the balance of power was overthrown by the rise of such empires as those of Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Macedonia, and Rome, the old polytheism suffered a shock and had to be accom- modated to new facts. From such changes as these, it became evident that the relations between the gods were no longer such as they had previously been supposed to be. From time to time new gods came into the ascendant and many of the old sank into insignificance. These constant readjustments among the gods must have tended to bring some discredit upon the time-honoured polytheism. But they neither abolished it altogether, nor did they bring about the introduction of monotheism. When one people conquered another, the gods of the conquered race did not always pass out of recognition altogether ; sometimes their worship was continued by the conquerors in addition to that of their own gods, and more often the conquered people served the deities who had proved the stronger as well as their own. Political conquest always enhanced the prestige of the victor's gods, but it nowhere ended in monotheism. Even the great ' pax Romana ' itself contradicted the inference which it seemed to offer ; for it was so often disturbed by internal conflict, that it did not bespeak a continuous peace in heaven. HAMILTON I Q 18 POLYTHEISM AND THE Another and more serious weakness, though even this was not of itself a sickness unto death, was the immoral character of the polytheistic gods. Under the Eastern despotisms, where might was right in the world of politics and justice was the will of the stronger, this defect seems to have occasioned no difficulty. But in Greece it proved a stumbling-block. With the overthrow of the tyrannies in the sixth century B.C., the Greek found himself a member of a city-state composed of a number of free and equal citizens. Hence arose a new conception of the rights of the individual. With their fine sense for what is becoming or fitting for man, the best minds among the Greeks were ready to rebel against the unjust, immoral character of the old gods. ' They be no gods who do aught base,' said Euripides. Sophocles and Aeschylus had done their best to moralize the character of Zeus, but the taint of immor- ality was so indelibly fixed in the pages of Homer and Hesiod that the task was hopeless. Nothing did more to make men ready to part with the old polytheism, when other conditions had made a change inevitable, than the immorali- ties of the gods ; but even they could never lead all the way to a monotheistic belief. The really vulnerable spot in the ancient polytheism lay in its very foundation, in the wholly false conception of nature on which it rested. Its position remained unassail- able only so long as its basic assumption, that things happen by the immediate intervention of personal wills, remained intact. With this assumption polytheism stood or fell. The escape from its grasp would be effected the moment some substitute was discovered for these personal wills as causes of phenomena, the moment the principle of the universality of natural causation was established. And this was really the only way of escape. It was necessary that the facts and sequences of nature should be observed with an accuracy and over an area sufficient to make the old explanation appear no longer tenable and force the new upon the mind. GREEK MONOTHEISM 19 IV This was the work of the Greeks, and perhaps the most valuable of all their gifts to the progress of mankind. It will assist our purpose to see why the necessary observa- tions of natural facts were not made elsewhere. In less highly developed societies, the facts were not observed on a sufficiently large scale, because, there being little or no division of labour or specialization of function, each indi- vidual came in contact with one and the same area of nature. Then, again, the facts were not observed with sufficient accuracy and minuteness, because, in the absence of accumulations of capital, there was no considerable body of men with sufficient leisure to concentrate their attention each on the close observation of a single set of phenomena. And finally, when the social state is unsettled and con- ditions do not remain permanent, it is impossible for know- ledge to accumulate by transmission from generation to generation. But all this was slowly reversed with the general progress of society. As civilization advances, men turn more and more of the natural forces and resources of the world to their own use ; human lif e comes into contact with nature at a larger number of points ; an ever widening area becomes familiar to man, and attention is drawn to an increasing number of the sequences and processes of the natural world ; the accumulation of capital and the organiza- tion of industry admit of the close study of special depart- ments ; and a stable government and fixed social con- ditions enable each generation to profit by the labours of its predecessors. On the one hand, a primitive society could not possibly produce the astronomy and mathematics of the Babylonians and Egyptians : and on the other, the progress of society necessarily involves the accumulation of knowledge. And this accumulation of knowledge could not fail to affect the ancient polytheistic faith. In Babylonia, for instance, the movements of the stars were studied for generations. It is impossible to go into the details of the many vexed questions concerning the astrological specula- 02 20 POLYTHEISM AND THE tions of Babylonian and Egyptian priests ; but it may be said that the principle of every astral religion is that there is a counterpart in the visible world of all that goes on among the gods in heaven. The will and the doings of heaven are to be read in the stars ; hence the importance and advantage of studying the movements of the heavenly bodies. Now no nocturnal observation of the skies can extend over a long period of time without compelling the attention to note the exact regularity and order in which the planets move. And the planets and various portions of the heavens were connected with the various gods ; hence the conclusion may not have been far off that the many gods were not absolutely independent of each other in will and action, but were rather the representatives of some unknown power who resides behind all and directs the whole. 1 This astral doctrine was never a popular belief, but the private possession of the priestly caste. And that the monotheistic conclusion was never clearly drawn even by the priests themselves was probably due to the fact that, outside their own special sphere, nature was to them just what it was to their contemporaries ; and so polytheism remained for them an important factor in the life of the average man. While the sum total of natural knowledge in ancient Babylonia and Egypt was not small, yet no one mind could become conscious of it all, because there was no university of thought, no common meeting-ground on which it could all be displayed and viewed as a whole. In Egypt also there appears a cult which some authorities describe as a monotheism based on scientific knowledge. About the end of the fifteenth century B.C. there was set up by King Amenophis IV (Akhnaton) the worship of the solar disk called Aten or Aton. Amenophis claimed universal recognition for this god and proscribed the service of all others. Of this religion, Flinders Petrie says that it does not ' show a single flaw in a purely scientific conception of the source of all life and power on earth '. 2 It seems more 1 See Baentsch, Israelitischer u. aUorientalischer Monotheismus, pp. 19-38. * lldigiun of Ancient Egypt, p. 54; cf. Weigall, Akhnalon, &c., pp. 115- the Personality of Yahweh expands before their view as it were, till they see that beside Him there is room for none else ; He fills their mental horizon from pole to pole, and language fails them to express the greatness of this concept. The Personality of Yahweh is the very essence and foundation of their monotheism. It is as though it had become impressed upon their consciousness in some over- whelming inner experience, so that go where they will, they cannot escape from Him. Yet another point in regard to which the mono-Yahwists appear to be on the same intellectual level as their con- temporary polytheists must be noticed. It is characteristic of polytheism that it ascribes to its gods a mental life the same in kind as that of man. Primitive man had no concep- tion of any type of mental life but his own ; and accordingly, even in the later polytheistic age, it was assumed that the gods were of like passions with men. Now it is true that neither fear nor a sense of bodily distress is ever ascribed to Yahweh by the mono-Yahwists, but apart from these they think of Him as experiencing much the same range of thought, feeling, and will as men and as the polytheistic gods. Love and hatred, anger and compassion, fury and tenderness, grief and joy, delight and abhorrence, repentance, determination, and jealousy, are all predicted of the one and only God without any apparent trace of a feeling of incongruity. 1 It is true that the great unknown prophet of the exile says ' my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith Yahweh. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts ' 1 Cf. MaL 12; Isa. i 13, 14 ; x 5, 6 ; xliii 4 ; Ixii 4 ; Ixiii 3, 4 ; Ixv 19 ; Jer. xxxiii 5 ; Joel ii 13 ; Amos v 21 ; vii 3, 6 ; Zech. viii 14, 15, &c. YAHWEH, THE ONE AND ONLY GOD 67 (Isa. Iv 8-9). But the fact that the two are comparable shows that the difference is one of degree rather than of essence ; and the context makes it clear that the prophet has in mind the superiority of Yahweh's moral character over that of man. For while one is justified in saying that the mono-Yahwists have no hesitation in ascribing to Yahweh a consciousness which does not differ in kind from that of men, one must always make the reservation that, in regard to moral character, they place Him on a different level from man. But there is still another point in regard to which the mono-Yahwists appear to be at one with the polytheists as against the philosophers. It was pointed out above that any one who arrives at a monotheistic position by observing and reflecting upon the facts of nature will cease to regard any one of the traditional outward systems of religion and any one outward religious fellowship as being especially favoured by the Deity. No one race has a right to think that God is specially interested in them to the exclusion of others, since He has created all alike ; nor can any one system of worship claim superiority over others, since He has authorized either all alike or none at all. But the mono-Yahwists do not take this attitude by any means. The common Semitic notion was that to each tribe or nation there corresponded its own special god. ' The fundamental conception of ancient religion is the solidarity of gods and their worshippers as part of one organic society.' x The mono-Yahwists are much more nearly in accord with this notion than with the philosophical doctrine. For in their view Yahweh and Israel are related to each other as God and people ; and they demand from Israel, and from Israel alone, that obedience which is due from a people to its God. If we took away from them this belief that the one Almighty and All-holy God is interested in Israel far more than in any other race ; that He has granted privileges to Israel incomparably greater than any He has granted to any other people ; and that consequently He has a right 1 W. R. Smith, Religion of the Semites, p. 32 ; cf. Barton, Study of Semitic Origins, p. 81. P2 68 YAHWEH, THE ONE AND ONLY GOD to expect far more from Israel than from others if we took this belief from them, we should have to re-write their prophecies from beginning to end. It is just because the Almighty has chosen Israel out of all the nations of the earth to stand towards Himself in the relation of a people, the special objects of His cherishing love and protection, the recipients of His self-revelation and self-communication, that unfaithfulness to this relation entails such fearful punishment. ' Hear this word that Yahweh hath spoken against you, children of Israel, against the whole family which I brought up out of the land of Egypt, saying, You only have I known of all the families of the earth ; there- fore will I visit upon you all your iniquities.' 1 In the view of the mono-Yahwists, the one and only God occupies to Israel a position analogous to that which the gods of poly- theism were supposed to occupy towards their peoples ; there is only one difference, a difference which, however important from other points of view, does not affect the present argu- ment ; Yahweh, because His moral character is not like that of other gods, deals with His people in a different way ; He will punish them if they refuse to obey His moral commands. And since Yahweh stands in this relation to Israel it follows that He does not stand in the same relation to other peoples. The prophets are never weary of declaiming against the gods worshipped by other nations. They are contrasted with Yahweh as the Creator of the universe is contrasted with the work of men's hands ; 2 or as subordinate beings are contrasted with their sovereign (Deut. iv 19-20) ; or else they are roundly declared not to be gods at all except in name (Jer. ii 11) ; and to be mere vanity, nothing- ness ; 8 or various names implying a scornful abhorrence are used. 4 It is quite in harmony with this that to worship 1 Amos iii 1, 2 ; cf. Deut. iv 37-40 ; vii 6-11 ; x 12-17 ; xiv 2 ; 1 Kings viii 53 ; Ps. xxxiii 12 ; cxxxv 4 ; Jer. xiii 11 ; xiv 21 ; xxxiii 9 ; Hos. xi 1, &c. &c. 2 Isa. xl 12-26, &c. ; Ps. cxv 3-8 ; cxxxv 5-17 ; Jer. ii 27 f. ; x 1-10 ; xvi 19-21 ; Hab. ii 18-20 ; cf. Deut. xxviii 36, 64. * Jer. ii 5 ; viii 19 ; xiv 22 ; xviii 15 ; 1 Kings xvi 13 ; 2 Kings xvii 15. * Jer. iv 1 ; vii 30 ; 1 Kings xi 5 ; xxi 26 ; 2 Kings xvii 12 ; xxiii 13, 24 ; see Kautzsch, Hastings' a D. B., v 681. YAHWEH, THE ONE AND ONLY GOD 69 these gods should be regarded as the worst sin Israel can commit ; it is treachery, adultery, the violation of the Covenant, entailing the severest punishment. According to the view of the mono-Yahwists, there is a deep line of cleavage running across the religious world ; on the one side is the sunshine of the knowledge, favour, and service of the one true God, and the people of Israel ; on the other side is darkness, the worship of demons, or of mere wood and stone, of nonentities, and the rest of mankind. According to the mono-Yahwists, what Israel worshipped was the living God, the only proper object of human devotion, whereas the things which occupied an analogous position and stood to other nations as the objects of their worship could claim no share in the living God ; they were totally unfit to be worshipped by men. Throughout the Old Testament there runs the idea that there is one outward system of religion and one outward religious fellowship which contain within themselves all the religious privileges which are worth having ; Israel is the peculiar people of the Living God. The study of what is commonly called Comparative Religion has made us familiar with a certain conception of religion as one universal fact. The idea is that there is but one God who is above all, and through all, and in all, and who is really the object of worship in every religion and whose presence gives to each religion its own degree of. truth and reality ; under so many different names and forms all mankind are really worshipping one and the same God ; hence the religion of the human race is a single fact, a vast unity, running through all ages and races in so many different temporary embodiments and outward forms, and in so many varying degrees of reality and truth. With the truth or falsity of this conception we are not now concerned. It is introduced here only in order to contrast it with the doctrine of the mono-Yahwists from which it differs toto caelo. There is a strange eagerness on the part of some writers to fix upon the prophets a teaching akin to this modern view, and loud are their praises when they think they have detected it. It has been argued, for 70 YAHWEH, THE ONE AND ONLY GOD instance, that because to Amos Yahweh is a God of righteous- ness, and because right is right and wrong is wrong all the world over, therefore Amos extends Yahweh's sphere beyond the limits of the nation of Israel and makes the Yahweh religion universal. ' In Amos it (the religion of Israel) breaks for the first time through the bonds of nation- ality and becomes a universal religion instead of the religion of a single people. . . . National boundaries fell before the universal power of justice.' l Again, it is thought that because Jeremiah speaks of a Covenant written upon the heart, therefore he, too, is a universalist and steps beyond all outward national organiza- tions and limitations. 2 But this surely rests upon a miscon- ception. We, in our day, can see that these doctrines of the righteousness of Yahweh and the inwardness of religion are the ideas which have made the Jewish religion fitted to become the religion of many other races ; and again, it is easy for us to take special ideas and isolated phrases from the prophets and draw out what is to us their logical implication of universalism, when once we have transposed these phrases from the intellectual atmosphere of the prophets to our own congenial philosophy. But the question is, did the prophets themselves draw these deductions ? Did they follow out in their own minds this train of reasoning ? The answer ought not to be in doubt. They have left no trace of these deductions in their writings, but on the contrary, they tell us the exact opposite. ' You only have I known of all the families of the earth,' are the words of Amos (iii 2). And if Jeremiah does speak of a new Covenant, it is ' a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah ' (xxxi 31). Jeremiah, indeed, believes that it is as impossible that the old relationship between Yahweh and Israel should come to an end, as that day and night should cease. Yahweh is no more likely to terminate the one than the other (Jer. xxxi 35-7 ; xxxiii 20-6). The reason why they were not universalists is not far to seek. There was a certain logical coherence and con- sistency about their mono- Yah wism which the adoption of 1 Cornill, Prophets of Israel, pp. 45 f. * See Cornill, op. cit. 96-8. YAHWEH, THE ONE AND ONLY GOD 71 a universalistic conception such as this would have thrown into utter confusion. It is not too much to say that if they had ceased to believe in the exclusive privileges of Israel, they would soon have ceased to be monotheists. If one starts from the common Semitic notion that to each nation or tribe there corresponds its own God, this attitude of the prophets is strictly logical and coherent. Israel alone worships Yahweh and Yahweh is the only God, therefore all other worship but that of Israel is false and misleading. And the more thoroughly convinced they are of the sole Deity of Yahweh, the more impossible it must have been to imagine that the worship of other gods had any truth or validity. To introduce into their thought the idea of a religion made universal through the breaking down of all existing barriers and outward distinctions is to make their position as mono- Yah wists illogical and untenable. The moment they began to admit that the worship which Moab, for instance, offered to Chemosh was in any sense a worship of the living God, that moment they would have begun to abandon their mono-Yahwism ; for the Moabites wor- shipped not Yahweh, the only God, but a deity who was sharply distinguished from Yahweh. Malachi i 11 is often quoted as proving the growth of a monotheistic conception which transcends all outward forms and national limitations and sees the worship of the one true God in every existing religion. 1 ' For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name is great among the Gentiles ; and in every place incense is offered unto my name and a pure offering : for my name is great among the Gentiles, saith Yahweh of hosts.' The context requires one to take the verbs in the present ; this worship is not something in the future, but is being offered to Yahweh at the time the prophet writes. To interpret the passage as referring to worship offered to Yahweh by Jews resident among the Gentiles gives it an excellent sense ; for the prophet would then be upbraiding the negligence of the Palestinian Jews by pointing to the more acceptable offerings of the Jews of the Dispersion which 1 Cf . Driver, Christianity and other Religions, pp. 32-46. 72 YAHWEH, THE ONE AND ONLY GOD are pure, even though offered in a Gentile country. The other view is not without serious objection. It makes this passage stand alone, without a parallel, in the Old Testament or in the Apocalyptic writings. It introduces a mode of con- ceiving of the one God which belongs to a different intellec- tual and religious environment and throws the whole system of mono- Yah wism into confusion. Hence it seems better to understand this passage as referring to the service rendered to the one God Yahweh by Israelites in foreign lands. 1 Such universalism as is to be found in the prophets always has reference to a future time, to a period during which Yahweh's true character and omnipotence will be revealed in a way which none can ignore. The universal religion which they foresee is the religion of Israel and the worship of Yahweh. This religion is to become universal, because the Gentiles will abandon their own religions for that of Israel. It may be necessary to force this upon them by the execution of a terrible judgement, or they may come to acknowledge it voluntarily ; but in either case, it is Israel's God who is recognized to be the universal God, and Israel's religion which is to become the universal religion. ' I am Yahweh, and there is none else ; beside me there is no God . . . that they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me : I am Yahweh, and there is none else ' (Isa. xlv 5, 6). ' At that time they shall call Jerusalem the throne of Yahweh ; and all the nations shall be gathered unto it, to the name of Yahweh, to Jerusalem ; neither shall they walk any more after the stubbornness of their evil hearts.' 2 But all this is to take place in the future at a time which has not yet arrived. For the present, the worship of the true God is confined to Israel. It is essential to grasp clearly the fact that the prophets held simultaneously two positions which to many minds of the present day seem almost contradictory. (1) There is only one God who is 1 Cf. Sayce in Expositor for August 1911. * Jer. iii 17 ; cf. Isa. ii 2-4 ; xix 18-25 ; Ix 1-22 ; Jer. iv 2 ; xii 16 f. ; xvi 19-21 ; Zeph. iii 9 ; Zech. ii 11 ; viii 20-3, &c. See Kautzsch, op. cit. pp. 711 f., and see below, pp. 192-195. YAHWEH, THE ONE AND ONLY GOD 73 sovereign lord over all creation ; (2) this God is the God of the nation of Israel alone. All other religions, not being the worship of this true God. are vain, the service of demons or of nonentities. Both these positions were held con- sciously and firmly by the same minds and at the same time. To one who reaches monotheism through philosophy, they appear almost contradictory ; but to one who starts from the presuppositions of the prophetic age, they form part of a coherent system of thought. For mono-Yahwism, as a system of theology, is thoroughly intelligible and consistent with itself, once we realize that the mono-Yahwists shared in the intellectual limitations of the polytheistic stage of culture. They proclaim a God whose existence is recognized by the polytheists as well as themselves, and they know that when they utter the word ' Yahweh ', they have in mind the same Personal Being as He whom the polytheists knew by that name ; they assume His existence and His accessibility to prayer just as the polytheists do ; they think of Him as experiencing a kind of emotional and volitional life not totally dissimilar from that usually ascribed to the polytheistic gods ; and finally, they share the common Semitic notion, that He is united to a particular people in whom He takes an especial interest to the exclusion of others who have no right to make any claim upon His favour. The great -startling difference is this, that whereas the polytheists maintain that this God is merely a characteristic Semitic deity, the mono-Yahwists proclaim Him to be the only God, the sole Sovereign and Creator of the Universe, and that in moral character He is absolutely righteous. Philosophical monotheism is also a logical and coherent system of thought, and it must not be overlooked that in every point in which mono-Yahwism stands related to the polytheistic conceptions, it stands in marked contrast to the philosophical doctrine. The two systems are opposed throughout ; in the assumption without question or reason of the existence of a personal divine Being ; in the identification of the one and only God with one of the gods worshipped by polytheists ; in the vivid life of emotion and volition ascribed to Him ; in His exclusive 74 YAHWEH, THE ONE AND ONLY GOD union with a single special religious system and fellowship ; in all these points mono-Yahwism stands contrasted with philosophical monotheism. One cannot help feeling that many works on the Old Testament are spoiled by a failure to grasp the essential difference between the mono-Yahwist and the modern con- ceptions of God. Both the mono-Yahwist and the modern mind could agree in saying that God is the Creator of the Universe and that God was the God of Israel. The difference lies in a different mental attitude towards these two state- ments. To say that God is the Creator is to the modern mind merely to state what is involved in the very idea of God ; for to many of us ' God ' means simply that which explains the existence of the world. Again, to say that God was the God of Israel is not involved in our idea of God, for we can think of God's existence without this being implied. Every one will agree that ' God ' is the Creator ; but not every one will equate Him with the object of Israel's worship. This latter represents an element of faith, something which is not involved in our very idea of God's existence. But the mono-Yahwist reversed the emphasis. Union with Israel was the idea involved in the existence of the God he recog- nized ; while the Creatorship of this God represented the element of faith. He knew that the God he worshipped existed, because Israel existed. The existence of Israel's God was a fact, of which Israel's national self-consciousness was the undeniable self-evident proof. The point which was not involved in his idea of this God's existence was the assertion that He is supreme Sovereign of the universe. That Yahweh was God of Israel could be disputed by none ; that He was the only God and supreme Lord of Creation was just what the contemporaries of the mono- Yah wists found it impossible to believe. The importance of this distinction may be illustrated in two ways. We may say with Biehm that ' the foundation of the consciousness of Israel, as regards his peculiar relation to God, is the belief that Jehovah, the Lord of the world, has in the absolute freedom of His gracious will chosen Israel from among all the peoples of the earth to be His YAHWEH, THE ONE AND ONLY GOD 75 peculiar people '- 1 No exception can be taken to this position itself ; it is entirely true of the mono-Yahwists ; and we may go on with Biehm to show how this root-idea of the Covenant, under the changing circumstances of advancing years, ' necessarily tended to produce from this germ the expectation of fresh revelations.' 2 And to this extent Riehm has explained the origin of Messianic prophecy. But when he assumes that, in the minds of the Israelite, ' Jehovah ' and ' the Lord of the world ' are synonymous and identical, he is assuming just the point which stands most in need of explanation. If this much be granted, the rest follows ; but in granting this, the whole problem of the Old Testament and of the Hebrew monotheism is not solved but overlooked. And for this reason Riehm's account of the inspiration of and the revelation to the Hebrew prophets is necessarily defective. Again, take the words of the ancient Hebrew Psalm : ' In his hand are the deep places of the earth ; and the heights of the mountains are his also. The sea is his, and he made it : and his hands prepared the dry land.' The repetition of these words by modern minds is scarcely an act of faith or of praise at all ; it is simply a poetic statement of what is involved in our very idea of God's existence. But we may be quite sure that the Psalmist meant to express something more than the connotation of the word ' God '. What he meant was that this particular divine Person, Yahweh, the God of Israel, was Creator and Supreme Sovereign of the world. This was, on his part, an act of magnificent faith and of the highest praise, because it was by no means a self-evident fact that the God of Israel was the only God. II But one must now raise the question whether the prophets became convinced of the truth of mono-Yahwism by any process of reasoning. There are at least two sets of data which might have formed the basis of a reasoned argument ending in monotheism : the facts of nature, and the facts 1 Messianic Prophecy, p. 68. 2 Ib. p. 88. 76 YAHWEH, THE ONE AND ONLY GOD of history. Since both of these are conceivable as a source of the Hebrew monotheism, it will be necessary to examine the literature of the Hebrews to see whether any trace of arguments of this kind can be found. It has already been seen how the observation of the facts of nature, of the uniformity and continuity of natural causation, gradually drove the old Greek polytheism off the field and prepared the way for the advance to monotheism. Did the Hebrew monotheists travel by the same road ? Do they show a more accurate knowledge of nature than their contemporaries ? Did they have an insight into the secrets of natural causation so much deeper than any of their fellow Semites, that while the latter were still in the polytheistic stage of thought and culture, the prophets had already pierced through the veil of phenomena to a spiritual unity behind the whole ? What kind of natural science, then, is to be found in the Hebrew literature ? What idea of the universe and of causation is presented by the mono-Yahwists ? For the purpose of this investigation one may treat the Old Testa- ment as a whole ; for while it very often reflects the opinions of those who were not mono-Yahwists, yet the whole litera- ture comes to us after having been carefully reviewed and edited by mono-Yahwists, if not actually composed by them in the first place. And it is of importance to note that one and the same conception of causation and of Yahweh's relation to the world runs throughout the whole and is common to all the writers. We are able to form a clear picture of the world and its happenings as it appeared to the Hebrews ; and it may be added that, so far as concerns natural science and the conception of how things are made to happen, the Old Testament proves itself to belong to the polytheistic stage of culture. In examining the Old Testament conception of causation, it is necessary to adopt some system of classifying the immense number of events which are said to have taken place. It will be most convenient to divide them into the following large classes : (1) those which are counted on to recur regularly ; and (2) those which cannot be counted on YAHWEH, THE ONE AND ONLY GOD 77 to occur regularly. This latter class may again be divided into (a) events which imply a startling reversal of the usual ; (b) those which are merely variations of the usual, i.e. things which do occur more or less often and are familiar pheno- mena of life, but yet cannot be depended on to recur at special times or at regular intervals ; (c) a very large class of events such as the outbreak and issue of warfare, the rise and fall of nations, and in general the history of the Hebrews and their relations to other nations. It is sometimes difficult to say in which class an event should be placed, especially in the case of (a) and (6). Class (6) is somewhat indefinite. Under it are considered things which certainly surprised the Hebrews as being very abnormal, and also events of which it may appear hard to say that they are variations from the normal. Can one think of a thunderstorm or a gale of wind as a variation of normal weather ? From the Hebrew point of view such happenings are explained in exactly the same way as the behaviour of the oxen in 1 Sam. vi, of the lion in 1 Kings xiii 24-9, and of the ravens in 1 Kings xvii 4-6. But while this classification may not be ideal from many points of view, all that is claimed for it is that it enables one to review a complex mass of facts in a comprehensive manner and to elicit their evidence in an intelligible form. It will be seen that throughout the whole of the Old Testa- ment but one cause is offered as an explanation of all that happens the almighty sovereign will of Yahweh. This, however, needs one qualification ; the human will is not bound ; it is a real source of causation ; but the relations between the human and divine wills are nowhere clearly thought out. (1) It has been said above that human life, even in the most primitive communities, cannot continue except on the belief that certain things will repeat themselves in the future as they have done in the past. All men expect the sun to rise, the moon to pass through her phases, and the seasons to succeed each other in due course. The husband- man counts on the annual rainfall and the fertility of the soil, just as the hunter and the herdsman rely on animals to continue to act as they have done before. Similarly, all men recognize that a human life will follow the regular course of birth, growth, maturity, old age, and death ; and that the appetites, interests, and bodily functions of all men are much alike. Of such general regularities as these, the Hebrews were plainly conscious and ascribed them all to the will of Yahweh. It was the God of the Hebrews who said, ' Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night ; and let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years ; and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth ' (Gen. i 14, 15) ; it was Yahweh who set His bow in the clouds as a guarantee that the waters should no more become a flood to destroy all flesh (Gen. ix 13-16) ; who promised that ' while the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease '.* Similarly, with regard to the phenomena on which the husbandman and the herdsman depend. It is Yahweh who sends the rain which is expected in its season, the former and the latter rain. 2 The same God is responsible for the general principles of the fertility of the soil and of animals, and of the reproduction of like by like ; 3 and He made provision for the food of all. 4 And, again, all the constant phenomena of human life are established by His will. He created them male and female, commanded them to be fruitful and to have dominion over the rest of creation ; 5 He established the law of pain in childbirth (Gen. iii 16), and of human toil (Gen. iii 17-19). He confounded the languages of men and scattered them abroad (Gen. xi 9). He gave man hearing and sight, and His eyes watch over the develop- ment of the human embryo. 6 Again, it is the lot of all men to die ; * and the limit to which a man may expect 1 Gen. viii 22 ; cf. Ps. civ 19 ; Jer. xxxi 35, 36 ; xxxiii 20, 21, &c. 1 Deut. xi 11, 12, 14 ; Joel ii 23 ; cf. Gen. ii 5 ; Ps. civ 13 ; cxlvii 8 ; Isa. xxx 23 ; Jer. v 24 ; xiv 22. * Gen. i 11, 12, 20-2 ; cf. Isa, xxviii 24-9. 4 Gen. i 29, 30 ; Ps. civ 14-16, 21, 27, 28 ; cxlv 15, 16, &c. 6 Gen. i 27-9 ; cf. Ps. cxxvii 2, 3. * Ps. xciv 9 ; cxxxix 14-16 ; Exod. iv 11 ; Prov. xx 12. 7 Gen. xlvii 28, 29 ; Joshua xxiii 14 ; Job xiv 10, 11. YAHWEH, THE ONE AND ONLY GOD 79 his life to run is set, like all other general rules, by the will of Yahweh. 1 It is not too much to say that everything which may be relied on to recur with any regularity does so because Yahweh has willed it thus. If we could assume that when Yahweh is said to have spoken, or to have done this or that, the writers were consciously using a figure of speech, the Old Testament conception thus far considered does not present a wide divergence from the modern conception of ' natural law ' as the expression of God's will. But when we come to ask how the will of Yahweh is believed to operate, we find at once that the Old Testament writers are not using a figure of speech ; for the uniformities of their environment did not appear to them as ' natural laws ' in our sense of the term. There are no indications that the Hebrews thought of the will of Yahweh as being mediated through long trains of natural causation, or carried out by forces which are in themselves impersonal, unfeeling, and in- variable. The conception is rather that all created objects are endowed with sufficient mental equipment to be capable of receiving Yahweh's commands and acting upon them. 2 This is the way in which, throughout the Old Testament, the will of Yahweh is held to operate. He commands and the objects He has created obey. The regularities represent, as it were, the standing orders He has given ; anything else is a special command for a definite occasion. The regularities in nature are called by the general term ' ordinances ' (D'jpn or nij?n ; QVpaeto in Ps. cxix 91). Thus there are ' weeks of the ordinances of the harvest ' (Jer. v 24) ; ordinances of the moon and the stars (Jer. xxxi 34, 35) ; ordinances of heaven and earth. 3 Human life, again, has an ordinance (pn) as its prescribed limit (Job xiv 5, 13) ; and the waters of the sea are kept in their place by an ordinance or boundary which they may not pass. 4 These ordinances are not thought of as natural laws. The Hebrew words (pn 1 Job xiv 5 ; cf. Ps. xc 10 ; xxxix 4, 5. 2 Cf. Koeberle, Natur u. Geist, p. 253 ; cf. pp. 111-13. 3 Jer. xxxiii 25 ; Job xxxviii 33 ; Ps. cxlviii 6. 4 Jer. v 22 ; Job xxvi 10 ; xxxviii 10 ; Prov. viii 27, 29. 80 YAHWEH, THE ONE AND ONLY GOD and BDB>D) are used over and over again for the rules of conduct which Yahweh has given to Israel summed up under the general term ' Law ' or ' Torah ' ; when so used they are translated ' statutes ' and ' judgements '. Yahweh is conceived of as imposing ' statutes ' or rules of conduct upon other created objects just as He does on men. ' Thus saith Yahweh, who giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, if these ordinances depart from me . . . ' (Jer. xxxi 35, 36). ' If my covenant of day and night stand not, if I have not appointed the ordinances of heaven and earth ' (Jer. xxxiii 25). ' For ever, Yahweh, Thy word is settled in heaven. Thy faithfulness is unto all generations : Thou hast established the earth, and it abideth. They continue this day according to thine ordinances ; For all things are thy servants ' (Ps. cxix 89-91). ' When he gave to the sea its bound (ipQ) that the waters should not transgress his commandment (VB rny: 16). When he marked out (^na) the foundations of the earth ' (Prov. viii 29, cf. 27). Again we hear of Yahweh as ' calling for the waters of the sea, and pouring them out on the face of the earth ' (Amos v 8 ; ix 6) ; as bringing out the host of the stars by number and calling them all by name (Isa. xl 26, cf . Ps. cxlvii 4) ; and as calling for a famine (2 Kings viii 1 ; Ps. cv 16), or for a drought (Hag. i 11). He lays His commands upon His creatures (Isa. xlv 12 ; Ps. cxlviii 5, 6 ; Job xxxviii 12) ; and when He calls, they answer or stand up together (Isa. xlviii 13, cf. xl 26) ; ' Knowest thou the ordinances of the heavens ? Canst thou establish the dominion thereof in the earth ? Canst thou lift up thy voice to the clouds, that abundance of waters may cover thee ? Canst thou send forth lightnings that they may go, and say unto thee, Here we are ? ' (Job xxxviii 33-5, cf. Jer. li 15, 16). Jeremiah can upbraid Israel by comparing its unfaithfulness with the obedience of the stork. ' Yea, the stork in the heaven knoweth her appointed times ; and the turtle and the swallow and the crane observe the time of their coming ; but my people know not the ordinance (DEPD) of Yahweh.' 1 1 Jer. viii?; cf.Ps.civ 19; and see also Koeberle,Naturu.Gei8t, pp. 111-13. YAHWEH, THE ONE AND ONLY GOD 81 This idea that Yahweh issues commands to a world of animated objects is finely expressed in the Book of Job. Yahweh ' covereth his hands with the lightning ; and giveth it a charge that it should strike the mark ' (xxxvi 32). God thundereth marvellously with his voice ; Great things doeth he, which we cannot comprehend. For he saith to the snow, Fall thou on the earth ; Likewise to the shower of rain. And to the showers of his mighty rain. He sealeth up the hand of every man : That all men whom he hath made may know it. Then the beasts go into the coverts, And remain in their dens. Out of the chamber of the south cometh the storm. And cold out of the north. By the breath of God ice is given : And the breadth of the waters is straitened, Yea, he ladeth the thick cloud with moisture ; He spreadeth abroad the cloud of his lightning. And it is turned round about by his guidance, That they may do whatsoever he commandeth them. Upon the face of the habitable world : Whether it be for correction, or for his land, Or for mercy, that he cause it to come. Hearken unto this, Job : Stand still and consider the wondrous works of God. Dost thou know how God layeth his charge upon them ? 1 We learn also that Yahweh commands the sun not to rise (Job ix 7), and the clouds not to rain (Isa. v 6; cf . Ps. Ixxviii 23, 24) ; He rebukes the sea and it is dried up (Nahum i 4 ; Ps. cvi 9 ; Mai. iii 11) ; He commands and raises the stormy wind (Ps. cvii 25). ' He sendeth out his command- ment upon earth ; His word runneth very swiftly. He giveth snow like wool ; He scattereth the hoarfrost like ashes. He casteth forth his ice like morsels ; who can stand before his cold ? He sendeth out his word and melteth them ; He causeth his wind to blow and the waters flow ' (Ps. cxlvii 15-18). There is no difference between these commands and the charges He is constantly 1 DH\bj? fli^K Dl'^Il innq Job xxxvii 5-15; cf. Ps. civ 5-9; cxlvii 14-18. HAMILTON I c. 82 YAHWEH, THE ONE AND ONLY GOD represented as laying upon animals to accomplish His will. If those whom He has determined to punish be hid from His sight ' hi the bottom of the sea, thence will I command the serpent, and he shall bite them ' (Amos ix 3). So also, He spake to the fish and it vomited out Jonah (Jonah ii 10) ; and He commanded the ravens to feed Elijah, just as He gave the same charge to the widow woman of Zarephath. 1 In the light of this evidence, one can scarcely refuse to take the commands which God is said to utter in Gen. i in a literal sense (cf. Ps. xxxiii 9). It is evident, then, that the uniformities of nature seemed to the Old Testament writers to be the immediate consequence or expression of Yahweh's commands, and not merely instances of the working of impersonal laws and forces. This conclusion is supported by two further considera- tions. We sometimes meet with a complaint that man is utterly unable to comprehend how or by what means God has brought into existence and sustains all that is ' I have seen the travail which God hath given the sons of men to be exercised therewith. He hath made everything beautiful in its time ; also he hath set the world in their heart, yet so that man cannot find out the work that God hath done from the beginning even unto the end.' 2 And, again, while the Old Testament does recognize a certain unity and harmony in the way in which things work together, that harmony and unity are not seen to be of the essential nature of things themselves any more than their uniformities are, but to be due to Yahweh, whose beneficent will has ordered them thus. The language used forbids one to think that the Hebrews have passed through that stage of observation and reflection in which things are seen to act together because such is their very nature ; they do not start from the unity and harmony of things, and argue to the unity and benefi- cence of God ; but, beginning with the belief that Yahweh is alone Creator of all, they see indications of His benevo- lence in the works He has made. The one hundred and fourth and one hundred and forty-seventh psalms are the 1 1 Kings xvii 4, 9 ; cf. Ps. cv 31, 34 ; Jer. xv 3. 1 Eccles. ill 10, 11 ; cf. i 13 ; xi 5 ; Job xxxvii 14-xxxix 30. YAHWEH, THE ONE AND ONLY GOD 83 classic examples of this. These psalmists delight to describe how Yahweh has set the sea a bound which it may not pass ; how He sends the springs into the valleys where the wild asses may quench their thirst ; how He waters the hills and causes the grass to grow for the cattle, and green herb, wine, and oil for the service of men ; how He provides a home for the birds, the wild goats, and the conies ; how He makes the night for the beasts to roam in and the day for men to work. And they call on all creation to join in a triumphant song of thanksgiving to Yahweh for all His mercy and kindness (cf. Ps. cxlviii). The eyes of all wait upon thee ; And thou givest them their meat in due season. Thou openest thine hand, And satisfiest the desire of every living thing. Yahweh is righteous in all his ways, And gracious in all his works. Yahweh is nigh unto all them that call upon him, To all that call upon him in truth. He will fulfil the desire of them that fear him. He also will hear their cry and will save them. 1 This is but the expression in verse of what the first chapter of Genesis says in prose. God provided the lights to be for signs and for seasons and for days and years, and He gave every herb and every tree for meat for man and beast. ' And God saw that it was good.' Both here and in the Psalms, things exhibit a unity and a harmony because each has an immediate relation to an almighty and benevo- lent will. ' For the word of Yahweh is right ; and all his work is done in faithfulness. He loveth righteousness and judgement : The earth is full of the lovingkindness of Yahweh ' (Ps. xxxiii 4, 5 ; cf . cxi 8, 9). Happy indeed was the Hebrew and secure his peace of mind, when he thus believed that the world in which he lived his life was under the close supervision of a faithful and loving God, who rejoiced to supply all the wants of His creatures and had undertaken to see that no sudden destruction should come upon His universe. And double 1 Ps. cxlv 15-19. G 2 84 YAHWEH, THE ONE AND ONLY GOD and treble was the Hebrew's cause for gratitude when he bethought him how this God had chosen Israel for Himself, to be His peculiar treasure above all the nations of the earth, the special objects of His cherishing love and protec- tion, and how His ears are ever open and attentive to their prayers (cf. Ps. xxxiii 12-22). ' Happy is the people, that is in such a case : Yea, happy is the people, whose God is Yahweh ' (Ps. cxliv 15). (2) Proceeding next to consider the causation of those events which cannot be relied on to recur regularly, we take up first those which imply a startling reversal of the usual order of things. Since the order and regularity visible in the world is not in the very nature of the things them- selves, but is due to the commands which Yahweh has imposed upon them, it is easy to understand how the Hebrews felt no difficulty in conceiving that the normal course might be altered or even overthrown in the most astonishing way ; it only needs that Yahweh should issue new orders to His creatures. The future, especially the Messianic future, the { Day ' when Yahweh will make a special manifestation of Himself, is looked upon as a time in which He may be expected to make signal changes in the present order of things. Some- times these changes are of a terrifying and destructive character. ' I will show wonders in the heavens and in the earth, blood, and fire, and pillars of smoke. The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and terrible day of Yahweh come ' (Joel ii 30, 31 ; cf. iii. 15, 16). ' And it shall come to pass in that day ', saith the Lord Yahweh, ' that I will cause the sun to go down at noon, and I will darken the earth in the clear day.' 1 But the changes are very often such as will make the earth a pleasanter, happier, and safer place for human habitation, or rather, for the habitation of the Israelites. ' It shall come to pass in that day, that the mountains shall drop down sweet wine, and the hills shall flow with milk, and all the brooks of Judah shall flow with waters ; and a fountain 1 Amos viii 9 ; Isa. iv 5 ; xiii 9-13 ; xxxiv 4, 9-17 ; Ezek. xxxii 3-9 ; Mic, i 4 ; Xahum i 5 ; Hab. iii 10, 11 ; Hag. ii 6, 21 ; Zech. xiv 4-8. YAHWEH, THE ONE AND ONLY GOD 85 shall come forth of the house of Yahweh and shall water the vale of Shittim ' (Joel iii 18). ' For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth ; and the former things shall not be remembered nor come into mind. . . . There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days ; for the child shall die an hundred years old, and the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed. And they shall build houses, and inhabit them ; and they shall plant vineyards, and eat the fruit of them. They shall not build, and another inhabit ; they shall not plant, and another eat. . . . The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the ox : and dust shall be the serpent's meat.' 1 In ' the new heavens and the new earth', birth and death, seed-time and harvest, eating and drinking, continue as before. Yet it is clear that this is not said out of any respect for natural law or the nature of things, for the prophet does not regard it as impossible that the wolf should become herbivorous like the lamb, and the lion eat straw like the ox. That there should be rivers in the desert is described as something ' new ', something which Yahweh has not done before, but that constitutes no reason why, if He wills it, He should not do it in the future. 2 If the ordinary routine of nature is but the behest of Yahweh, it is easy to understand the confidence with which Isaiah proposes that Ahaz should ask a sign ' either in the depth or in the height above ' (Isa. vii 11). Yahweh only has to will and anything may be accomplished, even to the bring- ing back of the shadow on the sundial of Ahaz. 3 With such a conception of the relation of Yahweh to the world, one can scarcely be surprised to meet a large number of traditions narrating the marvellous things which Yahweh did for His people Israel when He delivered them from Egypt and brought them into Canaan, and for His prophets on whom His Spirit rested. The plagues of Egypt, the wonders performed in the desert and at the conquest of Palestine, the miracles of Elijah and Elisha, presented no 1 Isa. Ixv 17, 21-2, 25 ; cf. Ix 19-22 ; xi 6-9 ; xxx 25, 26, * Isa. xliii 19, 20 ; cf. Ps. cvii 33-8. 3 2 Kings xx 9-11 ; Isa. xxxviii 5-8. 86 YAHWEH, THE ONE AND ONLY GOD such difficulties to the Hebrews as they do to those whose thought is dominated by the idea of natural law and natural causation. To the Hebrew they merely indicated that Yahweh had seen fit on these special occasions to order things to act otherwise than they usually do. But, besides those startling reversals of the usual, there is a very large class of happenings with which all men are familiar, for they may take place at any time, but which cannot be counted on to occur at any particular moment, nor can any one predict in just what particular manner they will appear. A very large number of such events may be summed up under such general heads as the changes in the weather from day to day and hour to hour, pests and blights which injure the crops, and other misfortunes such as disease, epidemics, and a premature death. It may be well to notice here that the Hebrews recognized, in a limited number of instances, the existence of what we call natural causes. They knew that clouds bring rain. 1 They observed that their harvests depended on the rainfall and that vegeta- tion in general required moisture. ' No plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up, for Yahweh God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.' 2 They noticed the effects of the wind. It dries up the water (Gen. viii 1 ; Hos. xiii 15), and brought the quails (Num. xi 31) ; the north wind brings rain (Prov. xxv 23) ; the east wind blasts the ears of corn (Gen. xli 6, 23, 27), causes the sea to go back (Exod. xiv 21) and brings the locusts (Exod. x 13) ; while the west wind drives the locusts into the Red Sea (Exod. x 19). But it is questionable whether these were regarded in any real sense as instances of ' natural causation'. They are rather the instruments or tools which Yahweh uses to accomplish these particular ends. In that 1 1 Kings xviii 44-6 ; Eccles. xi 3 ; Ps. Ixxvii 17 ; cxlvii 8 ; Prov. xxv 14. * Gen. ii 5 ; cf. Deut. xi 10-14 ; xxviii 12 ; 1 Kings viii 35, 36 ; Joel ii 23, 24 ; Amos iv 6, 7 ; Ezek. xxxi 4, 5 ; xxxiv 26 ; Jer. xiv 2-6 ; Isa. i 30 ; xxvii 3 ; xliv 3, 4, 14 ; Iv 10 ; Iviii 11 ; PB. i 3 ; Ixv 9-13 ; Ixviii 9, 10 ; civ 13-16 ; Eccles. ii 6 ; Job viii 11 ; xiv 7-9, &c. YAHWEH, THE ONE AND ONLY GOD 87 dry eastern land the wonderful outburst of vegetation and the plentiful rainfall which preceded it could scarcely fail to become so closely associated together in the thoughts of the Hebrews that the one at once suggested the other. Similarly, a violent wind and its natural effects, being both phenomena which obtrude themselves upon the attention of the least observant, become so closely associated together that one is not thought of without the other. Where any natural sequence is clearly marked, the Hebrews regarded the first as the instrument which Yahweh used to accomplish the end He had in view, which is represented by the last event of the series. When Yahweh wishes to break up the ship in which Jonah is fleeing to Tarshish, He does not cause the sea to rock in the midst of a calm ; that is not His method ; He sends out a great wind into the sea and there is a mighty tempest (Jonah i 4). Similarly, when God wishes to destroy Jonah's gourd, He prepared a worm to smite the gourd ; and when He wished to make Jonah faint, He prepared the sultry east wind as the means of bringing this about. But wherever the result which Yahweh wills to bring about has not become habitually associated with some preceding natural event, there the will of Yahweh is thought of as acting immediately without any interven- ing causes. Thus, because the natural causes for the appear- ance of the gourd at that particular moment are not obvious, God is said to have prepared the gourd, just as He prepared the ' great fish ' to swallow up Jonah (Jonah iv 6 ; cf. 7). Similarly, if the east wind brought the quails and the west wind drove them away, it was Yahweh who in both cases brought the wind ; for these winds were not constantly preceded by some other striking natural event which might become closely united with them in memory (Exod. x 13, 19). It may be laid down as a rule which holds good through- out the Old Testament that wherever the natural causes are in the very least recondite, or rather, where they do not thrust themselves upon an unobservant people, there the Hebrew writers see the will of Yahweh acting immediately in accordance with the feelings or aims which are supposed to be at the time in His mind. The harvest may depend 88 YAHWEH, THE ONE AND ONLY GOD on the rain and the rain may come from the clouds, but it is always Yahweh who causes the rain or sends the springs into the hills. There was no vegetation, we are told in Genesis ii 4, because Yahweh had not yet caused it to rain. 1 All the phenomena of the weather are regularly ascribed to Yahweh's immediate action. Thunder and lightning and hail are amongst the means which He uses to give His people success against their enemies. 2 The thunder is the ' voice ' of Yahweh, 3 and by it He manifests His presence. 4 The wind again is regularly ' sent forth ' by Yahweh ; 5 so also the ice, cold, and snow. 6 The anger of Yahweh is manifested in the earthquake ; 7 the earth trembles when it sees Him ; 8 and when the hills smoke, He has touched them. 9 One should not fail to observe that, although such phenomena as rain, thunder, hail, and so forth, must have been familiar events to every Hebrew, yet they are invariably, whenever they occur, ascribed to a special act of Yahweh. Yahweh acts thus because of what is taking place in His consciousness at the time ; it never seems to have occurred to them that there could be any other explanation. Is there a drought so that the grass withers and the cattle languish for lack of pasture ? It is because Yahweh has seen the wickedness of Israel and is visiting His anger upon them. 10 Similarly, if a pest injures the crops, the only explanation thought of is that Yahweh has done it to punish His people and bring home to them a sense of their sin. u We are not dealing here with events 1 Cf. Gen. vii 4 ; 1 Kings viii 35, 36 ; xvii 14 ; xviii 1 ; Isa. v 6 ; Jer. v 24 ; xiv 22 ; Zech. x 1 ; Job v 10 ; Ps. Ixv 9-10 ; Ixviii 9, 10 ; civ 13 ; cxlvii 8, &c. 2 Joshua x 11 ; 1 Sam. vii 10 ; 2 Sam. xxii 9-15 = Ps. xviii 11-14 ; cxliv 4. 3 Ps. xxix 3-9 ; Ixxvii 18 ; Job xxxvii 1-5 ; Isa. xxx 30. 4 1 Sam. xii 16-18 ; Ps. cxxxv 7. 8 Gen. viii 1 and passages referred to above. Ps. cxlvii 16, 17 ; Job xxxvii 10; Jer. x 12, 13 ; li 15, 16 ; Job xxxviii 22-38. 7 2 Sam. xxii 8. 8 Ps. Ixxvii 16-18 ; xcvii 4. Ps. civ 32 ; cxliv 5. 10 Hag. i 9-11 ; Jer. iii 2, 3 ; ix 7-12 ; xii 1-4 ; Joel i 15-20 ; Amos iv 6-8 ; Isa. ix 18-21. 11 Amos iv 9 ; vii 1-3 ; Hag. ii 17 ; cf. Mai. iii 10, 11 ; 2 Sam. xxi 1-14. YAHWEH, THE ONE AND ONLY GOD 89 regarded by the Hebrews as specially ' miraculous ' ; or at least, they are no more miraculous than the thunder- storm and the earthquake. In both cases, there is a special act of Yahweh's will. Some events there are which always, whenever they occurred, represented to the Hebrews a special act of divine volition, such as drought, famine, thunder, &c., and, as will be seen below, sickness of every kind. There are other events which only represent a special act because they appear to differ from what is usual, that is, from the standing orders Yahweh has issued to His creatures. Instances of this latter class are to be found in the behaviour of the lion which slew the prophet and then stood beside his carcass without consuming it or the ass on which the prophet had ridden (1 Kings xiii 24-28) ; or the behaviour of the kine in 1 Samuel vi 7-12, or that of the ravens in 1 Kings xvii 4-6. All these events gave the Hebrew reason to pause and consider, for all alike indi- cated to him a special divine volition ; but we cannot speak of ' miracles ' in our sense of the word. Where natural law is not recognized, there is no recognition of the viola- tion of natural law ; but one event becomes more impres- sive and more worthy of note than another in proportion as it is more contrary to the usual methods of Yahweh, and hence argues a more intense or more emphatic act of will. When one passes on to consider the bodily misfortunes and ills which befall men from time to time, we get the same impression of Yahweh's relation to the world. The natural causes of sickness and plague do not reveal them- selves except to patient research ; and so the Hebrews always explained them as the act of Yahweh. Just as the famine which fell on Israel in the days of David was explained as caused by Yahweh ' for Saul and for his bloody house ' (2 Sam. xxi 1-14), so also the pestilence must be due to David's sin in the numbering of Israel and ultimately to Yahweh's anger against Israel. 1 When Bathsheba's child was ill, it was because Yahweh had smitten him ; 2 Yahweh 1 2 Sam. xxiv = 2 Chron. xxiv 12-14 ; cf. Num. xi 33 ; xvi 46 ; Deut. xxviii; xxix 22-28; xxx 16-18; 2 Chron. xxi 12-14 ; Exod. v 3 ; Zech. xiv 12, 18. 2 2 Sam. xii 15. 90 YAHWEH, THE ONE AND ONLY GOD smote Azariah with leprosy ; l and allowed Satan to smite Job with boils. 2 The act of Yahweh is the only cause ever assigned for a sickness, except it be the obvious result of an accident. 3 In some cases no cause at all is mentioned. 4 An examination of the context of these passages, however, will show that the thought of divine intervention is not necessarily excluded. It has already been said that the Old Testament recog- nizes a normal length to human life a length which Yahweh Himself has determined. But if a man die before his time and not in battle or in conflict with other men, it is because Yahweh has smitten him. When it lay in David's power to kill Saul, he replies to Abishai's suggestion by saying : ' Yahweh shall smite him ; or his day shall come to die ; or he shall go down into battle and perish. Yahweh forbid that 1 should put forth my hand against Yahweh's anointed.' 5 As with death, so also with birth. The procreation of children by the sexes and the pains of childbirth are the general rules established by Yahweh. 6 But if a woman have no children, it is because Yahweh has shut her womb ; 7 and if a woman who has been barren begins to bear children, it is because Yahweh has visited her in His mercy. 8 That Leah bore children and Rachel did not is said to have been caused by Yahweh, when He saw that Leah was hated (Gen. xxix 31, 33). And so also apparently any man may say that God has given them his children (Gen. xli 52 ; xlviii 9), or any woman (Gen. xxx 17, 20). Any misfortune of any kind may be ascribed to Yahweh. When the brethren of Joseph find the money in their sacks and are unable to think how it got there, they immediately 1 2 Kings xv 5 = 2 Chron. xxvi 20. 2 Job ii 7 ; cf. also Exod. iv 24, 25 ; Num. xii 9, 10 ; Pa. xxxix 10, 11 ; 2 Chron. xxi 14, 15. 3 2 Kings i 2 ; 2 Sam. iv 4. 4 1 Kings xv 23 = 2 Chron. xvi 12 ; 1 Kings xiv 1 ; 2 Kings xx 1 = 2 Chron. xxxii 26. 5 1 Sam. xxvi 10, 11 ; cf. xxv 38 ; Gen. xxxviii 7, 10 ; 1 Kings xvii 17-22 ; 2 Sam. vi 7 ; 2 Chron. xiii 20. 6 Gen. i 27, 28 ; iii 16 ; Ps. cxxvii 3. 7 Gen. xvi 2 ; cf . xv 3 ; xx 17, 18 ; xxx 2 ; 1 Sam. i 5. 8 Gen. xxi 1, 2 ; xxv 21 ; xxx 22 ; 1 Sam. i 19, 20. YAHWEH, THE ONE AND ONLY GOD 91 ask, ' What is this that God hath done unto us ? ' (Gen. xlii 28). When the new inhabitants of the cities of Samaria were attacked by lions, it was because Yahweh had sent them. 1 More than once does Jeremiah refer to ' the sword, the famine and the pestilence ' as the three modes in which Yahweh vents his wrath upon men. 2 Similarly, Ezekiel speaks of the sword and the famine and the noisome beasts and the pestilence as ' the four sore judgements of Yahweh.' 3 That a thing is a common matter of everyday experience is no reason why it may not be ascribed to Yahweh's interven- tion. Yahweh causes deep sleep ; 4 Yahweh shut Noah in the ark (Gen. vii 16) ; Yahweh found room for Isaac (Gen. xxvi 22) ; Yahweh made homes for the midwives (Exod. i 21) ; Yahweh makes a man dumb, or deaf, or seeing, or blind (Exod. iv 11) ; Yahweh sent Abigail to meet David (1 Sam. xxv 32) ; Yahweh helped the Levites who bore the ark (1 Chron. xv 26) ; King Jehoiakim could not find Jeremiah and Baruch because Yahweh had hidden them (Jer. xxxvi 26). In reviewing the facts thus far noticed, one cannot but be impressed with the figure of the one Almighty Person who closely watches the doings of men, who is affected by what He sees and hears on earth, and who is ceaselessly and universally, in a thousand ways at once, issuing special directions to His creatures to act in such ways as will manifest His emotions or carry out His purposes. In turn- ing to the history of nations and their relations to each other, this impression is deepened ; and at the same time we perceive more clearly than before that there is one great aim which this Almighty Person has in view, and towards the ultimate accomplishment of which all His special acts are directed. That aim is to make for Himself out of the children of Abraham a nation, i.e. an organized body of worshippers, who shall serve and obey Him alone and reflect, 1 2 Kings xvii 25 ; cf. Deut. vii 20 ; Joshua xxiv 12 ; Jer. viii 17 ; xv 3. 2 Jer. xiv 12 ; xxi 6, 9 ; xxiv 10 ; xxvii 8 ; xxix 17 ; xxxiv 17 ; xliv 13. 3 Ezek. xiv 21 ; cf. vi 11, 12 ; xxviii 23 ; xxxviii 22, &c. 4 1 Sam. xxvi 12 ; Gen. ii 21. Cf. Jonah i 5. 92 YAHWEH, THE ONE AND ONLY GOD in their corporate life and mutual relations, a characteristic of His own Righteousness. With this principle firmly in hand, the mono-Yahwist writers and editors, the Deutero- nomists and priestly scribes, reviewed the whole history of the world and showed how the whole course of things was directed by Yahweh, who called Abraham, brought Israel out of Egypt, fought against the Canaanites and drove them out ; who gave His people rest in the Promised Land ; who punished them by raising up enemies and delivering Israel over to them when they angered Him by their disobedience ; who in mercy heard their cry and saved them when they repented and reformed. 1 And this, too, is the message of the great writing prophets, as is evident on their every page. When we look back upon the history of the Hebrews, we can see plainly that the pre-exilic prophets were quite right in predicting that defeat and captivity would be the consequence of the course of profligate luxury and unjust oppression of the poor upon which the wealthier classes were bent. We can see that they were right, because our know- ledge of social and economic laws tells us that such courses can have but one end the gradual loss of national vitality. And knowing that these economic and social laws are but the expression of God's will, we say that this was brought upon them by the hand of God. But the Hebrew prophets say nothing of natural law. It is not because they see the inevitable economic results of which this kind of national policy is the cause, that they foretell a punishment from God. It is rather because they know that these things are hateful to Yahweh and that Yahweh will surely punish Israel for them. Where we see the operation of natural law, the prophets saw the mental life of Yahweh. As he looks down from heaven on the course of events, He sees the wickedness of His people and it rouses His anger to raise up enemies against them ; 2 again, because these enemies are proud and do not recognize that it is His hand 1 Cf. Gen. xii 1-3 ; Deut. vii 6-16 ; Judges ii 11-23 ; 2 Kings xvii 7-23, &c. &c. * Isa. v 25, &c. ; Jer. i 15 ; iv 6-8 ; v 14-17 xv 4 ; xxv 9, &c. YAHWEH, THE ONE AND ONLY GOD 93 which gave them power, He will visit them with punish- ment even more severe ; * and again, when He remembers the covenant He made with their fathers, His compassion is moved and in everlasting love and mercy He will deliver them. ' In overflowing wrath I hid my face from thee for a moment ; but with everlasting kindness will I have mercy on thee.' 2 The Old Testament writers are so confident in seeing the action of Yahweh in everything which takes place in the course of human history as to raise a question about the free- dom of the human will. In general whatever has taken place is Yahweh's doing. Time and again the history of the nation is related as the history of Yahweh's doings. 3 Some- times the language used is such as seems to imply bodily action on the part of Yahweh, 4 or that Yahweh fights in person ; 5 but as a rule, Yahweh acts through men. He stirs up the minds of men ; of Saul against David ; 6 or, His anger being kindled against Israel, He moves David to number the nation ; 7 or He ' sent ' enemies against His people. 8 He moves men to act to their own injury in order to accomplish His purposes. 9 He has absolute control over the nations ; Israel is in His hands as clay in the hands of a potter ; 10 the Assyrian is as the rod which a man lifts up and shakes, or as the axe with which he fells a tree ; u any success or reverse in battle may be attributed to Yahweh's doing. 12 There is no opposition between the human and the divine will ; that which is done by men and fully accounted 1 Cf. Isa. x 5-19 ; cf. 24-7 ; xiii ; Jer. xliii 10 ; xliv 30, &c. 2 Isa. liv 8 ; cf. xlix 14-16 ; Jer. xxxii 37^2, &c. &c. 3 Deut. xi 2-7 ; Joshua xxiv 1-13 ; Ps. xliv 1-3, 7 ; Ixxviii 12-72 ; Ixxxix 38-45 ; cv 14-44, &c., &c. 4 Cf. Jer. xiii 13, 14. 5 Isa. xxxiv 1-3 ; Hab. iii 12-14. 6 1 Sam. xxvi 19. 7 2 Sam. xxiv 1 ; cf. 1 Chron. xxi 1 ; 1 Kings xii 15 ; Hag. i 14 ; Zech. viii 10 ; ix 13. 8 1 Kings xi 14, 23 ; 2 Kings xv 37 ; xxiv 2-4, 13, 20. ' Cf. 1 Kings xii 15 ; 2 Kings iii 10 ; Joshua xi 20 ; 2 Sam. xvii 14 ; Exod. xiv 4, &c. 10 Jer. xviii 6. u Isa. x 5, 15. 12 1 Sam. xxx 23 ; 2 Sam. v 20 ; x 12 ; 2 Chron. xiv 12 ; 2 Kings v 1 ; x. 32 ; xiii 23, &c, 94 YAHWEH, THE ONE AND ONLY GOD for by the circumstances and motives of the day is said to be done by Yahweh. Thus, Ahijah prophesies in the name of Yahweh : ' I will cut off from Jeroboam every man child, and him that is shut up and him that is left at large in Israel, and will utterly sweep away the house of Jero- boam ' (1 Kings xiv 10). And in 1 Kings xv 29, we hear that as soon as Baasha became king, ' he smote all the house of Jeroboam ; he left not to Jeroboam any that breathed, until he had destroyed him ; according unto the saying of Yahweh, which he spake by the hand of his ser- vant Ahijah the Shilonite.' 1 These cases make it appear at first sight as though Yahweh was believed to guide the minds of men in such a way as to leave them no freedom. But on the other hand, every charge of disobedience and every exhortation to repentance are an indication that, despite the absolute sovereignty of Yahweh, the human will is not bound. And again, even in the execution of His designs, the wills of men are free to go beyond Yahweh's command. ' I am very sore displeased with the nations that are at ease ; for I was but little displeased, and they helped forward the affliction.' 2 Moreover, it was often possible, when one man claimed that an act had been done by Yahweh, that another should meet this with a flat denial. 3 Both human freedom and divine sovereignty seem to have been held by the same minds without any attempt to give a clear and logical account of their mutual relations, and, so far as one can see, without any conscious- ness of a contradiction. The one thing which is clear is that there is no determination in our sense of the word, no idea that the will is governed by the impersonal laws and forces of nature. The relation is that of a stronger will to a weaker one, both of them acting in the same immediate way upon the same environment. It seems plain, then, that the name ' Yahweh ' stood in the mind of the mono-Yahwist for the cause of everything 1 For similar instances cf. 2 Sam. xii 9-12 with xvi 20-2 ; 1 Kings xvi 3, 4 with xvi 12 ; 1 Kings xxi 21-3 with xxii 38 ; 2 Kings ix 6-10 with ix 25, 26, &o. * Zech. i 15 ; cf. 2 Sam. xxiv 13, 14. 1 2 Sam. iv 8, 11 ; cf. 2 Sam. xvi 8 with xviii 19, 28, 31. YAHWEH, THE ONE AND ONLY GOD 95 which he saw taking place about him, whether it were great or small, commonplace or extraordinary, whether it were in the heaven above or in the earth beneath, whether it con- cerned the life of an individual or the rise and fall of empires except in that limited sphere and to that limited extent in which the human will acts independently of the divine. While some sequences of natural causation are observed, these sequences are never traced beyond that which obtrudes itself upon the attention of the least observant. Every such sequence of causation ends in the will and mental life of Yahweh, and the point at which it so ends is never far off ; nowhere do we find any idea of what we would call ' a violation of natural law ' ; the nearest approach to such a conception is found in those cases where Yahweh is thought of as issuing orders to His creatures which reverse or differ widely from those which He has imposed on them for their usual guidance. Once we get outside the range of what is observed and relied on to recur at regular intervals, each event, though it be as familiar and commonplace as thunder or sickness, is caused immediately by a special act of Yahweh's will. To the mono-Yahwist then, causation was, so far as concerns nature, precisely what it was to the poly- theist the ' fiat ' of a personal will ; the great all-important difference is this, that whereas the polytheists saw a multi- tude of conflicting wills behind phenomena, the mono- Yahwists saw but one the righteous will of Almighty Yahweh. If further proof is needed, three considerations may be adduced. In the first place, although the Babylonian creation-stories are as frankly polytheistic as the Hebrew account is monotheistic, yet the same conception of nature underlies both. In each case we begin with an indefinite undifferentiated continuum or watery waste. ' The earth was waste and void ; and darkness was upon the face of the deep ' (Gen. i 2). When aloft Heaven existed not, When earth below had yet no being ; But eldest Ocean, the Sower of them (i. e. of the gods) And the dark (?) Deep, who was to bear them all, 96 YAHWEH, THE ONE AND ONLY GOD The waters of these mingled in union, and No fields were embanked, no islands (or marshes) were seen. 1 There is also the same idea of a habitation created in the midst of the waters by a process of separation. ' And God said, " Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters" ' (Gen. i 6). So also in the Babylonian account the victorious Marduk took the body of Tiamat, the great watery deep, and Split her open like a flat fish into two halves ; One half of her he established as a covering for heaven He fixed a bolt, he stationed a watchman, He commanded them not to let her waters come forth. He passed through the heavens, he considered its regions, And over against the Deep, he placed the dwelling of Nudimmud, And the Lord measured the construction of the Deep. And he founded E-sharra, a mansion like unto it. The mansion E-sharra which he built like heaven, He caused Anu, Bel and Ea to inhabit in their districts. 2 The order of creation is much the same in both ; and just as the divine command is issued in Genesis, so in the Babylonian stories Marduk bargains with the gods that if he is successful against Tiamat, all power and authority should be transferred to his word of command. With my word, in your stead, will I decree destiny That which I do shall remain unchanged, It shall not be changed, it shall not fail, the word of my lips. 3 In Tablet III the gods are assembled in the midst of a feast to declare Marduk's honours : O Marduk, thou art most honoured among the great gods, Thy destiny is beyond compare, thy command is Anu In all time thy command shall not be changed, To exalt and to abase lie in thy hand. Established shall be the word of thy mouth, resistless thy command. 1 Tablet i 1-6, from Ball, Light from the East, p. 2 ; cf. also the other Babylonian account on pp. 18 and 19. * Tablet iv, 137-46. Rogers, Religion of Babylonia, p. 126. Tablet ii, 133-40. Rogers, p, 116. YAHWEH, THE ONE AND ONLY GOD 97 None among the gods shall transgress thy limits. Abundance is the desire of the shrines of the gods, In their place shall thy sanctuary be established. O Marduk, thou art our avenger. We give thee lordship over the whole world, Thou shalt take thy seat in the assembly, thy word shall be exalted. 1 How Marduk exercises this power of command is seen in the fifth Tablet : The moon-god he caused to shine forth, to him confided the night. He appointed him a being of the night, to determine the days ; Every month, without ceasing, like a crown he made him, saying, At the beginning of the month, when thou shinest on the land Thou shalt show the horns, to determine six days, And on the seventh day thou shalt divide the crown in two. On the fourteenth day, thou shalt reach the half. . . . 2 The Hebrew account is monotheistic and the Babylonian is polytheistic ; again, the Hebrew account in its sobriety, its restraint, and its reverence is immeasurably superior to the Babylonian tablets ; and yet they both reflect that primitive naive view of the world and of causation which formed the foundation of all the old polytheisms. What- ever may be the exact literary relation of these stories, it would seem that the mono-Yahwists, accepting the stock of natural science common to their day, wrote it up, as it were, in the light of their own belief in Yahweh and brought it into relation to their doctrine of His sole supreme sove- reignty. It was not then a different and truer conception of things natural which suggested to them that there is but one God ; they were already firmly convinced of this when they came to look out upon nature, and they reviewed nature in the light of it. In the second place, when the mono-Yahwists speak of Yahweh's actions, they give no indication that they 1 Tablet iv 5-15. Rogers, pp. 120 f. 2 Tablet v 12-18. Rogers, p. 128. HAMILTON' I 98 YAHWEH, THE ONE AND ONLY GOD conceive of Yahweh as acting on nature in a way any less immediate than that in which the polytheists imagined that their gods acted. For instance, Hosea complains that Israel supposed it was the Baalim who gave her bread, water, wool, flax, oil, and drink. 'For she did not know that I gave her the corn, and the wine, and the oil, and multiplied unto her silver and gold ' (Hos. ii 5, 8). Hosea can apply to Yahweh's actions the same terms as those applied by the polytheists to the actions of their gods ; so far as causation, or the mode in which the will of the God accomplishes its effects, is concerned, Hosea has apparently no correction to make ; his point is that it was not the Baalim but Yahweh who is responsible for the results in question. It is evident, again, that the same conception of causation underlies the words of both Rabshakeh and Isaiah ; the great difference is that where Rabshakeh says that Yahweh will not or cannot deliver Jerusalem, Isaiah says Yahweh can and will do so. 1 How exactly the Biblical conception of the divine mode of action tallies with that of other Semitic races may be clearly seen from the following passages from the inscrip- tion on the 'Moabite Stone', an inscription written by Mesha, a king of Moab in the ninth century B.C. ' And I made this high place for Chemosh in Q R H H, a high place of salvation, because he had saved me from all the kings (? ) and because he had let me see my pleasure on all them that hated me. Omri was king over Israel, and he afflicted Moab for many days, because Chemosh was angry with his land. . . . And Omri took possession of the land of MShedeba, and it (i.e. Israel) dwelt therein, during his days, and half his son's days, forty years ; but (resto)red it Chemosh in my days. . . . And Chemosh said unto me, Go, take Nebo against Israel. And I went by night, and fought against it from the break of dawn till noon and I took it and slew the whole of it ... for I had devoted it to Ashtor- Chemosh. And I took thence the vessels of Yahweh, and I dragged them before Chemosh. And the king of Israel had built Yahaz, and abode in it, while he fought against me. But Chemosh drave him out from before me. . . . 1 2 Kings xviii 33-5 ; xix 11-13, 21-34 ; of. also 1 Kings xviii 24-8 ; xx 23, 28 ; Isa. xxviii 23-9 ; Jer. xxii 8, 9 ; xl 2, 3. YAHWEH, THE ONE AND ONLY GOD 99 Chemosh said unto me, Go down, fight against Horonen. And I went down . . . (and) Chemosh (resto)red it in my days.' 1 If one substitutes ' Yahweh ' for ' Chemosh ' and inter- changes ' Moab ' and ' Israel ', the passage reads as though it had been taken from one of the historical books of the Old Testament, with the one exception of the refer- ence to Nebo. Chemosh does for Moab all that Yahweh is said to do for Israel. He saved Mesha from the kings, drove out his enemies and restored to him what before had been lost. And when Israel afflicted Moab, it was because Chemosh was angry with his land. Finally, Yahweh's will is revealed to His people by the same direct methods as those which the polytheistic gods were supposed to employ. It is true that all kinds of magic, including soothsaying, necromancy, divination, and sor- cery, are condemned by the mono- Yah wists. But this con- demnation is pronounced, not because these modes of inquiry are useless, but because they involve dealing with and trusting to spirits and powers other than Yahweh the national God. Hence they are disloyal and underhand. 2 On the other hand, the use of the sacred lot, the Urim and the Thummim, and a trial by ordeal are enjoined by the priest's code as modes in which Yahweh reveals His will. 3 The chief method of Yahweh's revelation, however, is that of prophecy. Yahweh was believed by the mono-Yahwists to communicate directly to the prophets the messages which He wished to be conveyed to His people. 4 If polytheism freed its devotees from many worries and anxieties as to the future, mono- Yah wism was a far more reassuring form of belief. For it implied that the God who is especially interested in and united to Israel is all-powerful ; that He watches over everything which affects His people's 1 lines 3-5, 7 b-9 a, 14-19, 32, 33 ; Driver, Notes on Hebrew Text of Samuel, p. Ixxxvii f. 2 Isa. ii 6 ; viii 19, 20 ; Jer. xxvii 9, 10 ; Exod. xxii 18 ; Deut. xviii 10, 11 ; Lev. xix 31 ; xx 6, 7 ; and cf. Whitehouse in H. D. B. iii s.v. ' Magic '. * Exod. xxviii 30 ; Lev. viii 8 ; Num. xxvii 21 ; cf. Deut. xxxiii 8, and for the ordeal Num. v 11-31. 4 See below, pp. 139-148. H 2 100 YAHWEH, THE ONE AND ONLY GOD welfare with the closest scrutiny ; and that He is ever ready to intervene on their behalf if only they will turn and repent. Between Him and His people there is constant communication. The way in which His worship should be conducted may be learned from His priests (Mai. ii 7 ; Hag. ii 11), through whom also Yahweh's decision in any judicial matter of special difficulty may be learned. 1 The future is dark and uncertain only if communication with Yahweh be cut off (Amos viii 11, 12). One may, then, with complete confidence reject the hypothesis that mono-Yahwism was the product of a process of observation and reasoning similar in kind to that which led to philosophical monotheism. So far as nature and causation, so far as the divine methods of operation upon the world are concerned, so far the mono-Yahwists are entirely within the polytheistic stage of culture. Their differentia is not a truer insight into the secrets of nature, nor a more advanced conception of causation, but lies in their knowledge of the power and character of a certain Personal Being known as Yahweh. They claim that Yahweh's will is the sole cause of all that takes place, while the polytheists maintained that other and even more powerful wills than Yahweh's affected the course of events. Ill If mono-Yahwism is not an induction based on the facts of nature, can it be the outcome of a study of contemporary political history ? Of course, to us who look back upon the history of the Hebrews and see the part which they played in the general scheme of religious evolution, it requires no great reasoning power to infer that the Jews had a special mission from Almighty God. But the prophets could not see things as we do through the lapse of centuries ; and if we would understand them aright, we must try to put ourselves into the intellectual atmosphere in which they lived. The real question is, could any one begin with the current spontaneous 1 Deut. i 17 ; xvii 9-12 ; xix 17-19 ; xxi 5. YAHWEH, THE ONE AND ONLY GOD 101 conception of Yahweh as a local national Deity, pledged to the support of His people, and from this argue, by reflection on historical events, to the idea that Yahweh was indeed the only God of the whole earth ? According to the instinc- tive belief of the Semitic world, the power of a god is to be measured by the material and political welfare of his people. If the Israelites had conquered the whole world, they would have concluded in accordance with the strictest logic that Yahweh was supreme among gods. But when we have regard to the actual facts of Israel's history, it must be seen that it was not possible to develop such a conclusion out of the premisses by any logical process. Thought which sets out from the fundamental ideas of deity then current to view the history of Israel must return back always to the same conclusion, that other gods are more powerful than Yahweh ; it is locked in a circle from which only a violent logical fallacy could enable a thinker to escape. Logic, in so far as the men of that day consciously recognized it, was undoubtedly on the side of the popular party and against the prophets. The prophets do indeed find evidences of Yahweh's might in history ; but that is because they set out to view history with the idea already firmly fixed in their minds that Yahweh is the only Divine Being an idea which history itself could not give them ; and when they approach history in this frame of mind, it is only to be expected that they should occasionally emphasize such facts as appeared to be evidence of Yahweh's power. This position may be supported by an examination of the purposes for which the history of the past is called to mind and the inferences drawn from it. The Hebrews were interested in the past and refer to it frequently. The mono- Yahwists are never weary of recounting the great deeds of Yahweh as an act of praise and thanksgiving ; l or they draw a contrast between Yahweh's mercy and repeated forbearance and Israel's ingratitude and disobedience ; 2 or 1 Deut. xxvi 5-10 ; 2 Sam. vii 18-24 ; Ps. xliv 1-8 ; Ixvi ; Ixviii 7-14 ; cv ; cxxxv 1-12 ; cxxxvi. 1 Deut. xxxii 3-19 ; Judges vi 7-10 ; Ps. Ixxviii ; cvi ; Amos ii 6-13 ; Hos. xi 1-5 ; Jer. ii 1-8 ; vii 21-6 ; xi 1-8 ; Ezek. xvi 1-34. 102 YAHWEH, THE ONE AND ONLY GOD they recite the past as a basis for an exhortation to obey Yahweh's commands and serve Him alone ; l or they com- plain that Yahweh has punished Israel without sufficient cause ; 2 or they seek to show that disobedience to what they regard as Yahweh's will has roused His anger and brought punishment ; 3 or to show that upright conduct is a good policy bringing a blessing with it ; 4 or, finally, they point to the past to prove that there is no God but Yahweh. 5 This last use of the appeal to history is confined to the Deuteronomists ; and since the doctrine of mono-Yahwism was preached at least a century before these passages were written, they can hardly be cited as proof that the study of history was the source of mono-Yahwism. Moreover, the writer plainly assumes the truth of mono-Yahwism before he begins his argument. Special mention must be made of the Second Isaiah, the only prophet who attempts an argumentative proof of the sole Deity of Yahweh. This writer has two lines of thought on the subject ; the one is a contrast between Yahweh and the man-made idols of other races. 6 The other is an argu- ment from the fulfilment of prophecy ; the idols are challenged to prove that they can foretell the future, 7 as Yahweh has constantly done ; 8 for the course of contem- porary history has long ago been foretold by Yahweh. 9 With regard to the first of these, the very existence itself of such an argument requires an explanation ; if one knew why the prophet differentiates Yahweh from all other gods as the one who cannot be identified or associated with any work of men's hands, one would know the secret of the source of mono-Yahwism. Is it, then, possible that the second argument was the real source of this prophet's doctrine of Yahweh ? Can we think of him as one who has carefully 1 Deut. xi 1-8 ; xxix 2-9 ; Joshua xxiv 1-18 ; 1 Sam. xii 6-25 ; Mic. vi 1-5. 2 Ps. xliv 9-22 ; Ixxxix 30-51. 3 Jer. xliv 1-14 ; Ezek. xx 1-20 ; Zech. i 4-6. * Jer. xxii 15, 16. 6 Deut. iv 34-40 ; cf. vii 6-9. Isa. xl 18-26 ; xliv 9-20 ; xlvi 5-7 ; cf. Ps. cxv and cxxxv ; Jer. x 1-11 ; Hab. ii 18-20. 7 xli 21-4 ; xliii 9 ; xlviii 14. 8 xli 25-9 ; xlii 9 ; xliii 12, &c. 9 xlviii 3-8, 15-16 ; xlvi 8-13, &o. YAHWEH, THE ONE AND ONLY GOD 103 collected and pored over the prophecies of the past, com- paring them with subsequent events and finding that they tally together so exactly and so amazingly, that he cannot but burst forth in this most magnificent display of courageous faith in Yahweh's sovereignty ? When one reflects on the repeated conflicts between the mono-Yahwists and the ' false ' prophets, each of whom claimed to speak in the name of Yahweh, and the consequent confusion and contra- diction which must have prevailed in the mind of the average Israelite regarding prophecies, one can scarcely think that a structure so noble rested on a basis so uncertain. If we ask what fulfilments of prophecy led him to this conviction, he does not tell us, except to refer to the rising power of Cyrus. 1 When Jerusalem fell before the Chaldeans and Judah went into exile, the strict logical conclusion from the poly- theistic premisses of the day, was correctly drawn by the non-prophetic party. According to all the common Semitic notions of the relation of a god to his people, Yahweh was proved to have succumbed, to be a broken deity in whom there is no help. The average Israelite said to himself, ' Yahweh seeth us not ; Yahweh hath forsaken the earth ' (Ezra viii 12) ; ' Yahweh hath forsaken me. Yahweh hath forgotten me.' 2 But the clearest case of all is that of Jeremiah's controversy with the last remnant of the people who fled to Egypt for refuge. Jeremiah adduces the recent disasters as a proof that Yahweh was provoked to anger ' in that they went to burn incense, and to serve other gods ' (Jer. xliv 3 ; cf. 21-3) ; and he threatens the refugees in Egypt with even worse punishment if they persist in following the same course (ib. w. 7-14, 24-30). And if one starts from the premiss that Yahweh is the Almighty Sovereign who alone has given the Chaldeans their victory, this con- clusion is strictly correct. But it was just this premiss which the refugees did not admit. Starting from the common assumption that Yahweh is merely an average Semitic deity who had no power to resist the onset of the Chaldean gods, 1 xU 25, 26 ; xlvi 11 ; xlviii 14-16. 2 Isa. xlix 14; cf. x!27; xlix 4 ; li; Zeph. i 12; cf. Mai. iii 14; Judges vi 13. 104 YAHWEH, THE ONE AND ONLY GOD even if He had had the will, they find themselves confirmed in this assumption by the course of history. ' We will certainly perform every word that is gone forth out of our mouth, to burn incense unto the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, as we have done, we and our fathers, our kings and our princes, in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem ; for then had we plenty of victuals, and were well, and saw no evil. But since we left off to burn incense to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, we have wanted all things, and have been consumed by the sword and by the famine ' (Jer. xliv 17, 18). It is evident that the course of historical events has led these people to think that the deities under whom the Chaldeans had prospered could not safely be neglected. It could not then have been a careful examination of historical facts which made Jeremiah a mono-Yahwist ; he is already a mono-Yahwist when he begins to argue from history ; and those who were not already mono-Yahwists found the verdict of history to be dead against that doctrine. That the verdict of history was frequently quoted against mono-Yahwism, the prophets themselves know well. Thus Isaiah depicts the Assyrian as arguing from his past successes that none can resist him and that it is his own strength and not Yahweh's charge which has gotten him the victory (Isa. x 5-13). Rabshakeh understood well with what force his appeal to the facts of history would come home to Hezekiah and to the Israelites on the walls of Jerusalem. ' Who are they among all the gods of these countries, that have delivered their country out of my hand, that Yahweh should deliver Jerusalem out of my hand ? ' (Isa. xxxvi 20 ; cf. 4-20 ; xxxvii 10-13). That the misfortunes of Israel will be cited by the heathen against Yahweh is a considera- tion which the Hebrews sometimes urge in their prayers for deliverance. ' Wherefore should the heathen say, where is now their God ? ' (Ps. Ixxix 10 ; Joel ii 17). And this consciousness that the verdict of historical facts is not yet clearly in their favour reappears in the fact that they are continually pleading for, or predicting the advent of, a time when, by the wonderful works which He will YAHWEH, THE ONE AND ONLY GOD 105 perform, Yahweh will prove Himself in the eyes of all nations to be the sole Supreme God. ' Arise, shine ; for thy light is come, and the glory of Yahweh is risen upon thee. For, behold, darkness shall cover the earth, and gross darkness the peoples ; but Yahweh shall arise upon thee ; and his glory shall be seen upon thee. And nations shall come to thy light and kings to the brightness of thy rising ' (Isa. Ix 1-3). As Israel's overthrow in the past was a profana- tion of Yahweh's name, so its restoration in the future will be a proof to all mankind that Yahweh alone is God. * I scat- tered them among the nations, and they were dispersed through the countries : according to their way and according to their doings I judged them. And when they came unto the nations, whither they went, they profaned my holy name : in that men said of them, These are the people of Yahweh and are gone forth out of his land. But I had pity for my holy name, which the house of Israel had profaned among the nations, whither they went. . . . And I will sanctify my great name, which hath been profaned among the nations, which ye have profaned in the midst of them ; and the nations shall know that I am Yahweh, saith the Lord Yahweh, when I shall be sanctified in you before their eyes. For I will take you from among the nations, and gather you out of all the countries, and will bring you into your own land.' 1 In the light of this evidence, then, one may with confidence dismiss the idea that mono-Yahwism is a product of the study of the history of Israel. It is sometimes suggested that the prophets began from the assumption that Yahweh was a righteous God ; and in the light of this belief, the misfortunes of His people indicated to them that He was in reality punishing them for their evil doings. Thus they came to see His omnipotence through the nations whom He raised against them. This line of argument raises another question which must be left over for the present : How did the prophets come to know that 1 Ezek. xxxvi 19-24 ; cf. xx 41-4 ; xxviii 25, 26 ; xxxviii 23 ; xxxix 6, 7, 25-9 ; Jer. xvi 19-21 ; Zeph. ii 10-13 ; iii 16-20 ; Zech. xiv 12-21 ; Isa. xlv 14-17 ; Iii 9, 10 ; Iv 4, 5 ; Ix 4-14 ; Ixi 9 ; Ixvi 18-23 ; Ps. xliv 22-6, &c. &c. 106 YAHWEH, THE ONE AND ONLY GOD Yahweh was a righteous God ? Was this latter belief the outcome of reasoning and reflection ? Without going into these questions, one may point out here that belief in the moral character of Yahweh would not logically lead to belief in His omnipotence. It would merely show that it was necessary to win His favour and assistance by different methods from those which appealed to foreign deities. Misfortune would not prove Yahweh's omnipotence or the non-existence of other gods, but merely that He was for the time being disaffected by the moral sins of His people and needed to be propitiated by true repentance. IV If it be true that mono-Yahwism is not the result of a product of reasoning, can it be explained as the result of a gradual process of development ? There is, no doubt, a development of the doctrine ; at least we see some of the later prophets making use of the language of the earlier, and the monotheistic idea is more explicitly formulated in the second Isaiah than in the work of the J E writers, though the development seems to be more one in external statement than in essential meaning. 1 But, however much development may be traceable, it must be observed that mono-Yahwism cannot be explained as a normal develop- ment resulting from the interplay of the intellectual forces dominating the age. Like organisms, ideas and doctrines undoubtedly do develop from the simple to the complex and from the indefinite to the definite. But if an idea is to develop by the operation of successive intellects, it must, like an organism, have a suitable environment. It must have a congenial atmosphere, it must be before men's minds as a living reality, and the changing circumstances of advancing years must tend to throw fresh light upon it. But if at any time new intellectual forces and conceptions come into being which make the original idea appear to be without any corresponding objective reality, and conse- quently to be devoid of practical utility, then that idea 1 Cf. the Introduction to Harper's Amos and Hosea. YAHWEH, THE ONE AND ONLY GOD 107 ceases to develop. For instance, the gradual unfolding of the implications of the Christian idea of the Personality of Christ, as new intellectual forces came into contact with it, can be traced. But if at any time those forces had been such as to make Christianity appear incredible, there would have been no further development. Now, ever since the rise of that new conception of the universe which resulted from the discovery of the continuity of natural causation, the doctrine that there is but one God has continued to nourish in a thoroughly congenial atmo- sphere. But when we go back to the age of the Hebrew prophets, we find ourselves in an intellectual environment as congenial to polytheism as it is hostile to monotheism. It would scarcely be going too far to say that monotheism was as impossible in those days as the ancient polytheism is to-day ; certainly there was nothing in the intellectual furnishings of that age to make the idea that there is but one God more credible than the idea that there is more than one. It is impossible, therefore, to explain mono-Yahwism as a development brought on by the operation of the intellectual forces which dominated the age. Intellectual forces do not exist outside the minds of men, and the minds of men were against this doctrine. Had there been nothing else behind it, those forces would have killed mono-Yahwism, if by any chance they ever allowed it to make a serious claim to objective reality. It may perhaps be said that the idea of Yahweh's omni- potence originated with Moses, and that, though there has been a process of development, the prophets owe their doctrine to him. But even if it be admitted that Moses is to be classed as a monotheist rather than as a henotheist, this by no means solves the problem. It is still necessary to ask, whence did Moses derive the doctrine and his conviction of its truth ? And if it is improbable that the prophets based their teaching on a reasoned argument, it is still less likely that Moses did so ; for the prophets would surely have been in a position of great advantage as compared with Moses, both because they would have inherited whatever learning had come from Moses, and also because they were in a 108 YAHWEH, THE ONE AND ONLY GOD position to look back upon the long course of Israel's history and in it study the purposes and character of the national God. And after all, the important question is not, whence did Moses or the prophets derive the idea of Yahweh's omni- potence ? but rather, what was it which gave this idea such compelling force and dominating power in the con- sciousness of Moses and the prophets ? The bare abstract idea of one supreme God was not unknown among the polytheists, as has been seen above. Moses and the prophets might well have heard of such a conception either in Egypt or from Babylonian sources. But the real problem is not the origin of the conception, but the condition which gave the monotheistic idea such power in the minds of the mono- Yahwists, at the time when to every one else it was but a vain and idle dream. The mono-Yahwists were continually suggesting the idea to the other Israelites. Why do their minds remain so unbelieving and their souls so cold while the prophets are set on fire by this idea ? Why is it that what is the only reality and the truest truth to the mono- Yahwist is incredible to every one else ? And for this reason it is not enough to say that the prophets themselves borrowed the idea one from the other ; we may borrow ideas from each other, but we cannot borrow con- victions. The fact is that, however much they may have used each other's ideas and expressions, yet in respect of conviction they stand apart and independent of each other. They stand behind each other in the form of a chain, it is true ; but it is not a chain of iron in which each link is dependent on those above it ; it is a chain of mountains in which each lofty peak stands on a basis of its own. Or, to vary the metaphor, the inherited assumptions, the modes of thinking, and the logic of their day, formed a vast tide of thought which was sweeping on with one consent in the direction of polytheism. But the mono-Yahwists all advance in the very opposite direction. Yet they are not organized together like the crew of a boat ; they are rather like swimmers, each one of whom must provide for himself his own means of advance against the stream. CHAPTER IV YAHWEH, THE RIGHTEOUS GOD BEFORE one can profitably discuss the cause of the ethical element in mono-Yahwism, it is necessary to under- stand the relation in which this doctrine stands to the theological conceptions which were current in the ancient Semitic world. One must endeavour to see how much of the popular stock of ideas was shared by the prophets, and how much of their teaching represents an advance upon, or a rejection of, the ancient Semitic theology. That which the prophets hold in common with the people may be accounted for by causes which operated on a large scale in the ancient world ; that which is peculiar to them must be assigned to causes which were felt by the prophets alone. When this * differentia ', as it may be called, of the pro- phetic doctrine has been determined, it will be possible to discuss the causes to which it should be assigned. But before proceeding to these inquiries, a distinction must be pointed out for the sake of clearness. In speaking of ' morals ' one is liable to fall into con- fusion of thought unless three different things are clearly distinguished, (a) ' Morals ' might be understood to mean an ethical ideal based upon a consideration of the true end and purpose of human life. (6) Morals may also be under- stood to mean those ' work-a-day ' rules of conduct which are not the expression of an ideal, but are set up by public opinion ; those customary and usual modes of acting between man and man which the community in general expects all its members to live up to, and the violation or observance of which calls down the blame or praise of the general public. There is a very wide difference between philosophical ethics and the moral requirements of public opinion. The 110 YAHWEH, THE RIGHTEOUS GOD moral philosopher first adopts some theory as to the supreme ' good ' of man, and then judges all action according as it does, or does not, conduce to the realization of this end. He has a consistent principle in the light of which he charac- terizes as right or wrong all the actions and tendencies of man's life. But the work-a-day rules of conduct which are founded upon public opinion are much more limited in their scope. They are not based upon a consideration of the whole nature of man and his self-development ; they are concerned chiefly with what is just between man and man and the duty of the individual to the community. They represent no ideal, but rather a minimum of right conduct, that below which a man cannot fall without incurring censure. In ordinary morals 'righteousness' covers very much the same ground as our modern term ' justice ', that which ought to be between man and man ; whereas in philosophical ethics ' justice ' is but one department of morality, and ' righteousness ' is a wider term covering the whole field of right and wrong. (c) In the third place, ' morals ' may be understood to mean not these work-a-day rules of conduct, but the acts themselves which a man performs in daily life. The indi- vidual may or may not live up to the standard of morality which public opinion sets before him ; if he observes it carefully, we call his morals good ; and if he fails to observe it, we call his morals bad. It will be seen below that the differentia of the prophets does not consist in a clearer insight into the theoretical principles of conduct ; as a matter of fact they accept the standard of work-a-day morality current in Israel in their day as sufficient ; but they are distinguished by the vehe- mence with which and the grounds upon which they urge their countrymen to bring their lives into closer conformity with this popularly recognized standard. And the grounds on which they urge a practical reformation of morals is simply this, that Yahweh, the God of Israel, is a Righteous God, who demands from His people, as the first condition of His favour, uprightness of moral conduct. The differentia of the ethical teaching of the prophets will be found to YAHWEH, THE RIGHTEOUS GOD 111 consist, in the last analysis, in their conviction concerning the moral character of a certain divine Person whom they know as ' Yahweh '. II But as a preliminary to this discussion, one must first examine the basis of morals in the ancient world in general, and also the support or sanction given to morality by other ancient religions. There is no race of men known which does not approve of some actions as being right, and dis- approve of others as being wrong. 1 It is difficult to see how any society, however primitive, can hold together, unless its members agree to avoid certain kinds of actions and dis- approve of any one who does them. If a man's life and property are never secure from his next-door neighbour, the possibility of living in a community is reduced to a minimum. Actions which are destructive of tribal life must be censured. Not that every moral distinction was consciously based on a reason of this kind. Men have likes and dislikes, preferences and aversions, and they praise or blame conduct as right or wrong according to the way in which it stirs their feelings. 2 And since human nature is much the same the whole world over, and is characterized by the same kind of instinctive feelings, pretty much the same kind of thing was praised or blamed among all nations. But these instinctive feelings, which may be said to con- stitute the moral sensitiveness of a community, were not the only factor which determined the concrete moral codes current in the ancient world. Another factor played an important part. The moral code of a pastoral community is necessarily simpler and shorter than that of an agricul- tural community ; and this latter, again, is necessarily less complicated than that of a commercial people. As society advances from a lower to a higher stage, population becomes more dense, men's lives touch each other at a larger number of points, and so their relations towards each other become 1 Hobhouse, Morals in Evolution, i 31. Westermarck, Development of the Moral Ideas, i 129, 130. * See Hobhouse, op. cit., pp. 14-16 ; Westermarck, i cc. 1-3. 112 YAHWEH, THE RIGHTEOUS GOD more complicated ; many kinds of action become the necessary accompaniments of daily life, which before were almost impossible owing to lack of opportunity ; and numberless new ways of injuring or benefiting others are opened up. When a community advances from a nomadic to an agricultural stage, the nomads find themselves con- fronted with many new modes of conduct such as had not been possible before, and so had not yet been distinguished into right and wrong. The culture of the vine, for instance, opens up opportunities for self-indulgence such as are not presented in the nomadic stage. And this is still more true of the advance from an agricultural to a commercial stage. When population becomes concentrated in towns, when the division of labour and the organization of industry make men dependent upon others whom they never meet face to face, it is clear that the relations between man and man are not only much more complex but also more abstract, that is to say, they become more official and less personal, more mechanical and less human. Under these conditions, injury to others is freed from the restraint of personal acquaintance. Again, a commercial stage of civilization implies the growth of a capitalist class, of a class of men who are in a position of economic advantage, and upon whom large numbers of others must become dependent in one way or another. It is obvious that under such conditions as these, countless new ways of acting towards others are opened up for the first time. And as a community enters upon these new conditions, its moral sensitiveness must do its work in classifying these new actions into right and wrong. Not that the community sets itself to work to do this formally and consciously. It is done out of sight, as it were ; there is a period during which public opinion is slowly crystallizing in accordance with the moral feelings of individuals and during which certain customary modes of acting between man and man are being established ; and what is customary represents the standard of what ought to be. From this it may be seen that the success of any com- YAHWEH, THE RIGHTEOUS GOD 113 munity is dependent upon its morality, in two ways. It will depend first upon the way in which the classification is carried out it must tend towards the preservation of society ; and secondly, upon the extent to which individuals live up to the standard of conduct thus established. If the moral sense of any people is so perverted that it praises actions which tend directly to the destruction of society, that people is doomed ; if again the mass of the individuals do not exercise sufficient self-control and self-restraint to live near to the limits of what is called right, the result is equally disastrous. Each advance in civilization is a challenge to the moral sensitiveness of the community and a call to greater self-restraint and self-control in the pre- sence of new opportunities for indulgence. The truth of this is strikingly illustrated whenever a primitive race is brought into contact with an advanced modern civilization. Unless the savage is carefully protected from them, he and his race fall victims to the opportunities of self-indulgence which the higher civilization brings with it opportunities towards which all but a small percentage of the higher race have learned to maintain an attitude of self-restraint. Now the moral codes of ancient Israel do not appear to be so different from those of other people as to warrant by themselves the conclusion that they are not the outcome of much the same set of causes as those which operated elsewhere. The Decalogues of Exod. xxxiv 1226 and Exod. xx as well as the Book of the Covenant (Exod. xx 22-xxiii 33) are to be understood as a codification of what it was customary to do in Israel. The Book of the Covenant is plainly adapted to the conditions of an agri- cultural community, while the later legislation of Deutero- nomy and the Priests' Code presupposes a more advanced civilization. Ill It is of importance to observe that these standards of right and wrong current in ancient Israel and generally acknowledged by all were accepted as adequate by the mono- Yahwists. The prophets are not aiming at a reformation HAMILTON I 114 YAHWEH, THE RIGHTEOUS GOD of theoretical morals ; they are not trying to persuade men to recognize a new classification of moral conduct and to call acts right and wrong according as they agree or 'disagree with a new ethical principle which is now being brought forward for the first time. They are not reformers of moral theories, but of practical morals ; they presuppose that men are already able to make a correct classification of acts into right and wrong, and they urge them to bring their conduct in daily life into conformity with what every one knows to be right. ' Wash you, make you clean, put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes ; cease to do evil ; learn to do well ' (Isa. i 16). ' Seek good and not evil,' says Amos, ' hate the evil and love the good ' (Amos v 14, 15 ; cf. Mic. ii 2). It is only depravity and perversity that can pretend to be unaware of these elemen- tary distinctions. ' Woe unto them that call evil good and good evil ; that put darkness for light, and light for dark- ness ; that put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter ' (Isa. v 20). It is not ignorance which the prophets inveigh against, but the moral depravity of men who know or are quite able to find out the right course, but who nevertheless prefer to do the wrong and salve their consciences as best they can. One cannot find any deep line of cleavage be- tween the moral standard of the prophets and that of the nation at large. The prophets are content with the standard of work-a-day morals approved by the general public opinion in Israel ; but they are dissatisfied with the way in which men live up to that standard. 1 The offences which they most often charge against their countrymen are such as the common conscience of mankind condemns. They protest against murder, 2 theft, 3 adultery, 4 the use of false measures, 5 drunkenness, 6 greed, 7 perjury, 8 1 Cf. Harper, Amos and Hosea, p. cxxii f. 1 Isa. i 21 ; Mic. iii 10 ; Hos. iv 2 ; vi 9 ; Jer. vii 6, 9 ; xxii 17 ; xix 4 ; Ezek. ix 9 ; xi 6, 7 ; xxii 6, 9, 25, &c. * Isa. i 23 ; Hos. iv 2 ; Amos iii 10 ; Jer. vii 9 ; Zech. v 3, 4. 4 Hos. iv 2, 13, 14 ; vii 4 ; Jer. ix 2 ; xxiii 10, 14 ; xxix 23 ; Ezek. xxxiii 26 ; Mai. iii 5. 6 Mic. vi 10, 11 ; Hos. xii 7 ; Amos viii 5. Isa. v 11, 22 ; xxviii 1, 3, 7 ; Hos. iv 11 ; vii 5 ; Mic. ii 11. 7 Isa. v 8 ; Mic. ii 2. Jer. vii 9 ; Zech. v 3, 4 ; Mai. iii 5. YAHWEH, THE RIGHTEOUS GOD 115 incest, 1 lying, 2 and breaking faith. 3 But by far the most frequent and emphatic protests are directed against oppres- sion, cruelty, and injustice to the poor and unprotected, the widows, orphans, and strangers. 4 Let us try to understand the causes of the moral decline which these last charges indicate. There can be no doubt that the moral life of the nation had in the days of the great mono-Yahwists become polluted by a wholesale oppression of the poor and prostitution of justice in the interests of the rich such as was not known before. And this, again, reacted on the private life of the individual and brought about a still further deterioration of conduct in many other direc- tions. It was not that the moral sense of the nation did not know these things to be wrong, but that certain changes in the economic condition of the country brought with it opportunities for self-indulgence in what was recognized as wrong, and there was not sufficient moral stamina to resist. It is worth while to examine these economic changes for the light which they throw upon the ethical teaching of the prophets. In the early days of the Kingdom, especially in the times of David, when the nation was composed almost entirely of farmers, men were more or less upon a footing of equality. As a general rule, no one man or class of men was so much more powerful than others that he could set at defiance all the recognized principles of justice and habitually violate the customary modes of acting. Each party to a dispute, unless one of them happened to be a widow, a stranger, or an orphan, could see to it that he was not obviously cheated by the judge. One can hardly think that oppression and injustice were entirely unknown, but there was no oppor- tunity to practise them upon a large scale. Men stood upon much the same level of power and wealth, and when 1 Amos ii 7. 2 Jer. ix 3-6 ; iii 14 ; Hos. vii 3 ; Mic. vi 12 ; Zeph. iii 13. 3 Hos. iv 2 ; x 13 ; Jer. xxxiv 8 ff. ; cf. also Ezekiel's definition of a just man, xviii 1-18 ; xxxiii 15. 4 Isa. i 23; iii 14, 15; v 23; Amos iv 1 ; v 11, 12; vi 12 ; Mic. ii 2, 8, 9 ; iii 2, 3 ; vii 3 ; Jer. v 28 ; vii 5, 6 ; xxii 13, 17, &o. 12 116 YAHWEH, THE RIGHTEOUS GOD warfare or a failure of the crops impoverished the nation, the loss fell upon all alike, leaving the balance of power within the nation practically undisturbed. This period was looked back upon by the prophets as ideal. ' I will turn mine hand upon thee, and thoroughly purge away thy dross and will take away all thine alloy (R.V. margin) : and I will restore thy judges as at the first, atid thy counsellors as at the beginning ' (Isa. i 25, 26 ; cf. 21). But in the days of Amos and Hosea, the Kingdom of Israel, and that of Judah in the time of Isaiah and Micah, had just undergone the transition from an agricultural to a commercial condition. Trade with foreign countries was carried on ; towns had sprung up ; local markets and centres of distribution were established and opportunities were found for the rapid and easy exchange of many varied products. The result was the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few ; the rich became much richer and the poor became poorer. A class of capitalists arose whose com- mand of a surplus of wealth placed them in a position of great economic advantage. When warfare or drought had devastated the farms of the poor, they were obliged to borrow from the rich. The old balance of power between man and man was upset, and the common people were placed at the mercy of the capitalists and landowners. And the rich did not fail to take advantage of their opportunities to the utmost. Regardless alike of the miserable lot of their debtors and of the economic consequences of such a course, they insisted upon draining away the very last resources of their debtors. Amos describes how the nobles live in fine mansions and fare sumptuously every day, reclining on couches of ivory and cushions of silk (Amos iii 12, vi 4-6). And these are the men who ' have sold the righteous for silver, and the needy for a pair of shoes ; that pant after the dust of the earth on the heads of the poor . . . and lay them- selves, down beside every altar upon clothes taken in pledge ' (ii 6-8). They are merciless to any one in their power, making an unscrupulous use of their opportunities to get all they can for themselves. They ' swallow up the needy, and cause the poor of the land to fail, saying, When will the YAHWEH, THE RIGHTEOUS GOD 117 new moon be gone, that we may sell corn ? and the sabbath that we may set forth wheat ? making the ephah small, and the shekel great, and dealing falsely with balances of deceit ; that we may buy the poor for silver, and the needy for a pair of shoes, and sell the refuse of the wheat ' (viii 4-6). In Judah, there is the same lack of self-restraint. The heads of Jacob ' pluck off their skin from off them, and their flesh from off their bones ; who also eat the flesh of my people ; and they flay their skin from off them, and break their bones ; yea, they chop them in pieces, as for the pot, and as flesh within the caldron ' (Mic. iii 2, 3). Moreover, when the community was thus sharply divided into two classes, the administration of justice was no longer secure. A powerful litigant might feel confident of having his case decided without any unfairness against himself ; but the poor, the needy, and especially widows and all who were unprotected, were in a position of very great disad- vantage. It must have required a judge of iron will and impeccable uprightness to run the risks involved in deciding in favour of a nobody to the injury of a powerful noble. And once the judiciary was known to be corrupt, the lot of the poor would become worse and worse. The rich would have no need to use violence in their depredations ; to obtain a favourable decision in a law court would not only be much easier, but would also throw a cloak of apparent justice and regularity over all such proceedings. The advance in civilization which both kingdoms made about this time brought a new power and new opportunities to the wealthier classes. And the welfare of the nation called imperatively for the exercise of self-restraint on the part of those to whom these new opportunities for gain and self-indulgence were thus presented. But they seem to have given free rein to their worst passions of greed and avarice. Not only did they exact the last farthing from the poor man's purse and strip him of his very clothing, but they also bribed the judges and used the law courts as instruments of unlawful gain. Accordingly, the prophets are full of complaint against the cruel injustice done to the poor, the widow and the orphan ; ' woe unto them,' says Isaiah, 118 YAHWEH, THE RIGHTEOUS GOD ' that decree unrighteousness, and to the writers that write perverseness ; to turn aside the needy from judgement, and to take away the right of the poor of my people, that widows may be their spoil, and that they may make the fatherless their prey' (Isa. x 1, 2). 'I know how manifold are your transgressions, and how mighty are your sins ; ye that afflict the just, that take a bribe, and that turn aside the needy in the gate from their right ' (Amos v 12). ' Hear this, I pray you, ye heads of the house of Jacob, and rulers of the house of Israel, that abhor judgement and pervert all equity. They build up Zion with blood, and Jerusalem with iniquity. The heads thereof judge for reward and the priests thereof teach for hire, and the prophets thereof divine for money ' (Mic. iii 10, 11). It is not unlikely that the new economic conditions and the greatly extended power over their fellows, which the rich now found themselves to possess, had a tendency to engender in their minds the impression that they and their compeers were made of other clay than the worthless and helpless peasantry ; and that it was not to be expected that they should treat the lower classes with the same respect or consideration which they extended to their equals. In fact, there would naturally arise a tendency to set up a double code of morals, one of which applied to dealings with men of one's own class, and the other to dealings with the wretched canaille, who had no right to expect justice and consideration, and only existed to be exploited in the interests of the capitalists and aristocrats. 1 The upper classes may have endeavoured to justify their conduct to themselves in some such way as this. And as against them, the prophets do, no doubt, urge a truer and higher standard of morals ; but this is obviously due to abnormal moral depravity in the rich ; it is surely impossible to think that such practices as these would not have been condemned by the moral sense of the nation at large. The mono-Yahwists were not unfair in presupposing that those whom they condemn might have known better, if they had been willing to do so. The upper classes had failed to rise to the new 1 Of. Hobhouse, op. cit. i 23 ff. YAHWEH, THE RIGHTEOUS GOD 119 morality which the advance in civilization called for ; they had allowed a selfish indulgence in the new opportunities to darken their moral judgement and to ruin the country. But if this is a fair representation of the moral condition of the nation, it is not necessary to assume a very deep insight into the theory of morals on the part of those who protested against it. The differentia of the ethical teaching of the mono-Yahwists clearly did not lie in a truer knowledge of moral principles such as would lead them to condemn conduct between man and man of which the moral sense of the nation approved. What is peculiar to them is the vehemence of their protest against the violation of the commonly accepted standard and the grounds on which they urged obedience to it. Those grounds were religious, or more properly, theo- logical considerations. But this alone was not by any means unique. Morality was supported to some extent by considerations about the gods in every ancient nation as well as in popular Yahwism. What is peculiar to the mono- Yahwists in the last analysis is the view they take of Yah- weh's character ; and it is this view, so different from that held of any other god, which leads them to be so zealous hi the cause of morality. It is because they believe that Yahweh is different in moral character from all other gods, that it is necessary for his people to live up to what they know to be right, or in other words, to obey the moral law of Yahweh. In discussing this position it will be necessary first of all to see in what way the belief about the gods supported morality in ancient religions. It is indeed probable that religion had but little to do with the formation of the popular codes of morals ; but that is a modern view ; the view of the ancient world was quite different. The customary modes of acting between man and man were placed under the protection of a deity. ' Religion was the only sanction which originally existed to enforce a custom or strengthen an institution ; religion impressed these on the people by constituting them into solemn rites binding upon all.' * 1 Ramsay, Hastings' D, B., v 136 a. 120 YAHWEH, THE RIGHTEOUS GOD Accordingly sometimes gods were held up as guardians of morality ; l Hammurabi, for instance, claims to have received his code from Shamash the Babylonian god of justice ; and in much the same way, all the legislation of Israel was ascribed to the dictation of Yahweh through Moses. Here we are on ground common to the mono- Yahwists and to the ancient Semitic world in general. But more than this. It was generally regarded as not impossible that the gods might punish for sin. In the most primitive religions this simply takes the form of a belief that there are certain spirits who are incensed by certain kinds of action without considering their moral character, and who wreak vengeance upon any one who does them. The later polytheism presents us with something better than this. The gods who have any interest in morals, and there are many who have none, are not mere vengeful spirits, acting like savages themselves, but are influenced to some extent by considerations of right and wrong. But it is very easy to overestimate the influence which the ancient gods exercised upon the moral conduct of individuals. What was expected of the god of justice was that he should give a decision in cases of unusual difficulty, and that he should assist in the police work of detecting and punishing the guilty. But none of the gods were absolutely unremitting in the searching out and punishing of offences between man and man. In fact, the everyday behaviour of man to man could not have been very deeply influenced by the thought of punishment from the gods, and for this there were two main reasons. In the first place, the gods were related to the community as a whole, as a unit ; they helped the nation or tribe as a whole, and they required as a condition of their favour and assistance, that the nation, in its corporate capacity, should do its duty towards them. And this meant chiefly the due performance of the ritual and the offering of the proper sacrifices. The gods were not interested in the individuals as such apart from the community. Where they are most concerned with the conduct of individuals 1 Hobhouse, op. cit. ii 74 ; Adam, Religious Teachers of Greece, p. 52 ; Westermarck, op. cit. ii 732. YAHWEH, THE RIGHTEOUS GOD 121 is where that conduct is plainly seen either to injure or to benefit the community. Hence the civic virtues of loyalty and patriotism are those which win most approval from the gods. 1 In the second place, although it was regarded as not at all impossible that the gods might punish for almost anything which the moral sense of the community condemned, yet it was by no means certain that they would do so. The commission of an immoral act certainly did not fill the ancients with a subjective sense of unworthiness for the divine presence. There was no feeling that the divine is separated from the human by all the difference between moral perfection and sin ; it was rather the aspect of punishment, the thought of the infliction of suffering by those who had the power to cause it, which was uppermost in men's minds. When disaster or suffering came, some god must be angry with you, and therefore you must have done something to rouse his or her wrath ; but you do not know beforehand what this is. When you injure your neighbour, it is by no means certain that any god will be incensed thereat ; if no misfortune overtakes you, the gods are obviously well disposed and have taken no umbrage ; and even if misfortune does come, it is by no means certain that it was a moral offence against your neighbour which caused the divine anger ; it was more likely to have been some ritual offence against the god himself. 2 In order to understand this, it must be recollected that before the rise of the critical spirit among the Greeks, men always ascribed to their gods a character and a type of consciousness which did not differ in kind from those of men. Accordingly, just as men universally offered to the gods that which was dearest to themselves, so they felt that the gods were most likely to be offended by the things which most readily offended men. On this supposition it was quite logical to think that a god would be more readily and more deeply incensed by some failure to pay to him 1 W. R. Smith, Religion of Semites, pp. 265-7. 2 Cf. Westermarck, i 234, and Brinton, Religions of Primitive Peoples, p. 229 f. 122 YAHWEH, THE RIGHTEOUS GOD the respect which was his due, by some neglect or slight in the ritual of his service, than by any conduct of one man toward another. The great difficulty which the men of that day experienced was evidently this the likes and dislikes of the gods were so indeterminate that it was impossible to single out at once what it was that offended them. You could not tell what kind of thing it was which had lost you the favour of a god, it might be a ritual error, and it might be some unwitting and unwilling mistake in neglecting the conventional methods of doing things, or it might possibly be a wrong done to a fellow man. All you knew was that your misfortunes proved that some god or goddess, you could not tell which, was offended for some reason, you could not tell exactly what. You could not even know that any god was angry with you, until disaster overtook you ; and then your aim must be to find some means to placate him or her, whoever it might be. Accordingly, in the Babylonian religion prayers are addressed to ' the god or goddess known or unknown ' with a confession of every kind of thing which could conceivably be supposed to offend a deity. Speaking of the incantation tablets, Professor Jastrow says, ' There is no question of retribution for actual acts of injustice or violence, any more than there is a question of genuine contrition. The enumeration of the causes for the suffering constitutes in fact a part of the incantation. The mention of the real cause in the long list the list aims to be exhaustive, so that the exerciser may strike the real cause goes a long way towards ensuring the depar- ture of the evil spirit. . . . Hence, the striking features of these texts, the enumeration of long lists of causes for misfortune, long lists of powers invoked, and a variety of ceremonies prescribed, in the hope that the priest will "hit it " at one time or the other.' l The intense anxiety to become reconciled to the gods and freed from the consequences of sin, which is so marked a characteristic of the Babylonian Penitential Psalms, does not spring from any desire for purification with a view 1 Religion of Babylonia, &c., p. 292 f. YAHWEH, THE RIGHTEOUS GOD 123 to fellowship with beings who are felt to be of a higher moral character than man ; it is due rather to a very natural wish to escape from present suffering or misfortune* Of this let us take one example from the Babylonian Psalms. May the wrath of the heart of my God be pacified ! May the god who is unknown to me be pacified ! May the goddess who is unknown to me be pacified ! May the known and unknown god be pacified ! May the known and unknown goddess be pacified ! May the god or goddess known or unknown be pacified ! May the god who is angry with me be pacified ! May the goddess who is angry with me be pacified ! The sin which I have committed I know not. The misdeeds which I have committed I know not. Pure food have I not eaten, Clear water have I not drunk. An offence against my god have I unwittingly committed. A transgression against my goddess have I unwittingly done. O lord, my sins are many, great are my iniquities My god, my sins are many, great are my iniquities ! My goddess, my sins are many, great are my iniquities ! Known or unknown god, my sins are many, great are my iniquities. The transgression I have done, I know not. The lord, in the anger of his heart hath looked upon me. The known or unknown god hath straitened me. The known or unknown goddess hath brought affliction upon me. How long, known and unknown god, until the anger of the heart be pacified? How long, known and unknown goddess, until thy un- friendly heart be pacified ? Mankind is perverted and has no judgement. Of all men who are alive, who knows anything ? They do not know whether they do good or evil. 124 YAHWEH, THE RIGHTEOUS GOD Known and unknown god, my sins are seven times seven ; forgive my sins ! Known and unknown goddess, my sins are seven times seven, forgive my sins ! 1 And it should be noted further, that just as the gods may be offended by actions which are essentially non- moral, so their anger is placated and their favour is won by means which are non-moral. The success of the incanta- tion ritual is said to depend upon ' speaking the right words and pronouncing the right name . . . together with the performance of the correct ceremony and the bringing of the right sacrifice '. 2 The simplest method was to renounce or repudiate sin in the proper form. In the Egyptian Book of the Dead, 1 the dead man enumerates all possible sins that occur to the Egyptian mind as likely to anger the gods, and he rejects them in the appropriate language. Whether he was really and truly guilty seems to have been a secondary matter. The point is that he rids himself of them by re- pudiating them in the appropriate formula.' 3 It is certainly no matter for surprise that the gods roused no subjective sense of moral un worthiness ; they were them- selves guilty of the same immoralities as men. The moral rules which they were supposed to have laid down are purely arbitrary ; they do not themselves obey these rules in their conduct, nor is it always expected that they will be strictly just in their dealings with men. As Professor Jastrow says : ' The thought whether the deity was justified in exer- cising wrath did not trouble him. ... It is not necessary for the deity to be just ; it was sufficient that some god felt himself offended, whether through omission of certain rights or through an error in the performance of rites or what not.' 4 Again, in many ancient religions, particularly those with which the Hebrews were best acquainted, the gods 1 Harper, Literature of Babylonia and Assyria, pp. 436-8. 1 Jastrow, op. cit. p. 292. 3 Hobhouse, Morals in Evolution, ii 69. 4 Religion of Babylonia, p. 314 ; cf. Adam, Religious Teachers of Greece, p. 52. YAHWEH, THE RIGHTEOUS GOD 125 demanded an immoral worship. ' In man's relationship to them (i. e. the gods) the same rules do not apply as in his intercourse with his fellow men. They punish murder and debauchery ; yet men, and particularly children, are sacri- ficed to them ; and rites which, but for the sanction of religious tradition, would even then have been condemned as licentious and barbarous, are performed in their honour.' x It should be recognized that religion has too often been an obstacle to moral progress, for it is essentially conservative and clings to ancient customs long after the moral sense of the community has outgrown them. When culture reaches a certain stage, the old gods either fall into ridicule or their personal histories have to be excluded from an ideal com- munity of men. Morality, then, is given in ancient heathenism a religious sanction ; but the sanction is almost valueless as a motive to right conduct between man and man, except where the interests of the tribe are at stake. The gods may punish for immorality, but it is by no means certain that they will do so. You may escape altogether. And if disaster, the sign of a god's anger and of the infliction of punishment, should come upon you, you cannot tell whether it is for an act of moral wrongdoing, or for some unwitting mistake in the ceremonial of his worship. And even if it be a moral wrongdoing which has roused the god's ire, you may appease him by the richness of your sacrifices, or you may gain relief by means of an incantation. The gods were no patterns of private morals ; they were as corrupt as men, and did not necessarily deal justly either with men or their fellow gods. The reason why the ancient polytheisms gave such feeble support to morals, is chiefly because of the character of the gods, because they do not insist upon right dealing between man and man as an essential condition to their favour. What is wanted is the conviction that there is a God who will never overlook wrongdoing between man and man. 2 1 Tiele, Elements of the Science of Religion, i 103 f . * Cf . W. R. Smith, Religion of the Semites, pp. 64r-6. 126 YAHWEH, THE RIGHTEOUS GOD Now the theology of the average Israelite was plainly of this common Semitic type. 1 He assumed that Yahweh's favour was to be won and retained in much the same way as that of other gods ; Yahweh will not inquire too closely into the moral condition of His people 2 provided that they do not fail in His ritual or in supplying an abundance of costly sacrifice. But the prophets come forward with the one thing needful. It is true that they have not a better classification of right and wrong acts than their contem- poraries, and they still regard Yahweh as dealing with the nation as a corporate whole rather than with individuals ; but it is also clear that they are convinced that Yahweh will never look favourably upon a nation in which injustice, murder, theft, and lying are rampant, no matter how assiduously the ritual may be practised, or how costly the sacrifices may be. This idea is re-echoed time and again. ' To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me ? saith Yahweh ; I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts ; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he-goats. . . . Bring no more vain oblations ; incense is an abomination unto me ; new moon and sabbath, the calling of assemblies I cannot away with iniquity and the solemn meeting. Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth ; they are a trouble unto me ; I am weary to bear them. And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you ; yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear ; your hands are full of blood. Wash you, make you clean ; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes ; cease to do evil ; learn to do well ; seek judgement, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow ' (Isa. i 11-17). What is peculiar about the prophetic teaching is that the prophets have fixed the character of Yahweh. When misfortune comes, no one can say exactly what it is which has offended other gods ; but the prophets know of a certainty, even before disaster comes, that Yahweh is offended by wrongdoing, particularly by the prostitution of His justice in the interests of the rich. They know that 1 Cf. cap. ii. CL Ps. x 4-11 ; xiv 1. YAHWEH, THE RIGHTEOUS GOD 127 He is determined at all costs to have for Himself a people who shall reflect His own righteous character, and that with this ultimate end in view He will, if necessary, even raise up enemies against Israel who shall carry them away into captivity. In one word, social righteousness is a con- dition essential to obtaining Yahweh's favour ; if it is absent, exile and direst disaster await the nation ; but if it is present, peace and prosperity. ' Seek ye Yahweh, and ye shall live ; lest he break out like fire in the house of Joseph, and it devour and there be none to quench it in Bethel ; ye who turn judgement to wormwood, and cast down righteousness to the earth. . . . For I know how mani- fold are your transgressions and how mighty are your sins ; ye that afflict the just, that take a bribe, and that turn aside the needy in the gate from their right. . . . Seek good and not evil, that ye may live ; and so Yahweh, the God of hosts, shall be with you, as ye say. Hate the evil and love the good, and establish judgement in the gate ; it may be that Yahweh, the God of hosts, will be gracious unto the remnant of Joseph. . . . Shall not the day of Yahweh be darkness and not light ? even very dark, and no bright- ness in it ? I hate, I despise your feasts, and I will take no delight in your solemn assemblies. Yea, though ye offer me your burnt offerings and meal offerings, I will not accept them ; neither will I regard the peace offerings of your fat beasts. Take thou away from me the noise of thy songs ; for I will not hear the melody of thy viols. But let judge- ment roll down as waters, and righteousness as a mighty stream. . . . Therefore will I cause you to go into captivity beyond Damascus, saith Yahweh, whose name is the God of hosts.' 1 The differentia of the prophetic teaching, then, is this conviction that Yahweh is Himself absolutely righteous and demands of His people that they shall reflect in their dealings with each other a righteousness akin to His own. What is peculiar to the mono-Yahwists alone in the ancient world is a conviction about Yahweh's moral character ; 1 Amos v 6, 7, 12, 14, 15, 20-4, 27 ; cf. Amos iv 4-13 ; Hos. vi 6 ; viii 11-13 ; x 12-16 ; xii 6 ; Mic. vi 6-8 ; Jer. vii 6-9, &c. 128 YAHWEH, THE .RIGHTEOUS GOD and it is this which requires to be explained by causes other than those which operated on the Semitic world in general. 1 It is not the mere presence of this conception in the minds of the prophets which requires explanation, but rather how that conception became a conviction, whence it obtained such force and such reality as to dominate the thought and conduct of these men. The prophets were continually placing the conception before the minds of the people ; but, we must suppose, it appeared to them to have no truth or corresponding reality ; other ideas which appeared more real inhibited it from having its appropriate effect upon conduct. How, then, can one explain the hold which this conception had upon the minds of the prophets ? IV In seeking the desired explanation the choice must be made between three things, an instinctive assumption or prejudice, a train of reasoning, and an inward mental experience. That the prophetic conviction was not the result of an instinctive prejudice needs no proof. The prejudices were all in the opposite direction. The universal assumption of the polytheistic world is that the gods are, in mental life and moral character, much the same as men. They have no conception or experience of any type of con- sciousness or character other than the human, and this they instinctively ascribe, not only to gods, but, in a primitive stage, to other objects as well. The fact that a prej udice of this kind is not easily broken down, serves to show that there must have been in the minds of the mono-Yahwists some very powerful force behind their conception of Yahweh's moral character to enable it to dislodge these instinctive and in- herited assumptions and establish itself so firmly in their place. If the prophetic doctrine of Yahweh's moral character cannot be ascribed to instinctive prejudice, can it be assigned to a quickened intellect and a more acute power of reason- ing ? There are two sets of data from which such a conclusion 1 Cf. W. R. Smith, Prophet* of Israel, pp. 65-7 ; G. A. Smith, Modern Preaching, etc., p. 140, YAHWEH, THE RIGHTEOUS GOD 129 might conceivably have been inferred : (a) The course and constitution of things in the natural world. (6) Yahweh's dealings with and relations to his people. The first of these is to many modern minds the source of their conviction of God's goodness. ' When from the dawn of life we see all things working together toward the evolution of the highest spiritual attributes of Man, we know, however the words may stumble in which we try to say it, that God is in the deepest sense a moral Being. The everlasting source of phenomena is none other than the infinite Power that makes for righteousness.' 1 If the prophets derived their doctrine in this way, it is obvious that they must first have believed (1) that Yahweh is responsible for all that is, that He is the Creator ; and (2) that things in general are bound together in one ordered system, and that the trend of this system is towards righteous- ness. Now even if one does not stop to ask how they came to believe that Yahweh is the one God and Creator, there still remains the objection that the universe did not appear to be an organic whole to the prophets any more than to any one else in that pre-scientific and uncritical age, and therefore they could scarcely have found evidence of a power or a tendency in the natural world making for righteousness. Hence this cannot be regarded as a satisfactory explanation. But is it possible that the idea was suggested to the prophets, not from the world as an organic whole, but from the general ordering of the circumstances and surroundings of their own lives ? One must point out hi reply, that even we in our day, although we are constantly being assured that there is in the general working of things a tendency towards what is good, do not always find it easy to make this doctrine square with the facts of our own lives. And when one recollects the facts of a life such as that of Jere- miah, or Micah, or Hosea, it is difficult to see in them that which, by a process of reflection, could give rise to the belief. And indeed, that this was not the source of the Hebrew doctrine may be clearly seen from the fact that to many of the most deeply religious, as is shown by the Book 1 Fiske, Idea, of God, p. 167. HAMILTON I 130 YAHWEH, THE RIGHTEOUS GOD of Job and certain of the Psalms, 1 the adversity of the righteous and the prosperity of the wicked furnishes a serious problem. Is it, then, possible that the doctrine is derived from a consideration of the events of Israel's history, either in the im- mediate present or the remote past ? The view is expressed by Kittel 2 that the facts of history gave rise to this belief. ' How, so runs the one question, how was what was being accomplished before their eyes at all possible ? Was not Yahweh Israel's God from of old, who must protect it against all danger ? How, then, could God thus deliver His people into the hands of the Assyrians ? If, never- theless, he did this, then either He was no longer Israel's God or Israel was no longer His people. He did it. And since Yahv6's faithfulness and power could not waver, then the logical conclusion of the prophetic preaching was inevitable. Israel is no longer what it was, it is a rebellious nation, the people are degenerate sons who have broken faith with their Lord. It is Israel's guilt, it is its sin which its God is avenging by the hand of the enemy. Thus the condition of Israel hitherto, its religious as well as its moral and social condition with its manifold evils, suddenly appears in a new light. It is because of these evils that the all-powerful enemy is allowed to knock at Israel's gates. Ay, and Yahv6 Himself thus suddenly appears in a new light ; it is He Himself who, in His moral holiness, has decreed Israel's rum, who has made its enemies its scourge.* It is often pointed out in answer to an argument of this kind that all the Palestinian states suffered from the same affliction as Israel, and yet nowhere else does the idea arise that the nation is suffering from moral shortcomings. But this answer is inapplicable here, because Kittel assumes that the prophets have already come by the belief that Yahweh is the one almighty Deity whose power cannot fail, and therefore the hypothesis of weakness on Yahweh's part is excluded for them. Moreover, the question is whether we have not after all, in the Hebrew prophets, men who were of more acute intellect than any of their contemporaries in any nation. Kittel argues that the belief in Yahweh's 1 Cf. Pss. xxxvii, Ixxiii and Jer. xii 1, 2, 1 History of the Hebrews, ii 317 f. YAHWEH, THE RIGHTEOUS GOD 131 moral holiness came as the solution of the problem, ' How was what was being accomplished before their eyes at all possible ? ' But the thought of Yahweh's righteousness is not the only solution of this problem. It is certainly quite correct to say that the prophets felt that ' it is Israel's guilt, it is Israel's sin which is being avenged on it '. But one must not forget that the people felt this as well as the prophets, and so, as the Babylonian Penitential Psalms prove, would other Semitic nations as well. The question is, why did the prophets see the disaster as the punishment for moral, and not for ritual or ceremonial sin and guilt ? Either would solve the intellectual problem equally well. If the prophets had followed the common Semitic solution, Yahweh would have been to them, in respect of His moral character, what He was to others, a characteristic Semitic deity. Hence, even if one does not stop to ask how the prophets came by the belief in Yahweh's sole Godhead, the whole problem still re- mains to be solved why did the prophets single out the moral offences of the people as the causes of Yahweh's aversion ? Moreover, the argument assumes that punishment in the shape of foreign invasion had already been inflicted or was clearly inevitable. But was this the case when Amos and Hosea flourished ? The Assyrian conquest was by no means a certainty, so long as the power of Egypt was still unsub- dued. Under Jeroboam II the Northern Kingdom was still living hi a sense of peace and security ; the storm cloud in the north-east was not yet big enough to obscure the brightness of the day. 1 Amos foresees invasion (iii il) and captivity beyond Damascus (v 27 ; cf. vi 7-14 ; vii 17) ; but it should be noted that he presents them as the conse- quence of Israel's sin, not as the ground of a problem the answer to which is Yahweh's righteous character ; and again, he certainly does not regard them as inevitable, because elsewhere he holds out the prospect that repentance and reformation will secure Yahweh's favour. ' Seek ye me, and ye shall live ' (v 5, 6 ; cf. v 14, 15). Invasion and captivity only become inevitable when it is seen that it is idle to hope for reformation (vii 1-9). Hence it can hardly 1 Cf. Hos. vii 11 ; xii 8. K2 132 YAHWEH, THE RIGHTEOUS GOD have been the foresight of certain disaster which led the prophets to their special view of Yahweh's moral character. But the point to be discussed at the moment is whether the prophets were men of unusual intellectual power who reasoned out this doctrine from a study of recent history. One must therefore ask whether any one starting from the common Semitic ideas of the character of deities and consider- ing the condition of Israel during the prophetic age, could come, by a process of logical inference, to the conclusion that the cause of Yahweh's displeasure is to be found in moral transgressions. One should notice what the nature of the argument would have to be. It would be an inductive argument. There is a certain consequent, national disaster. There are an indefinite number of antecedents all the facts of the national life past and present. In order, then, that out of all this mass of antecedents, the moral faults of the nation should be singled out by an inductive process as the required cause, the history must have fallen into fairly clearly marked periods in which moral transgression and national calamity were present or absent together, or followed very closely upon each other, or at least varied directly with each other. Was this the case in the history of Israel ? To some extent it was. The prophets undoubt- edly looked back upon the prosperous days of David as a period of national righteousness ; and the generations which saw the captivities of the two Kingdoms were especially corrupt. There was much to point in this direction. But it is scarcely necessary to say that there was also much to point in another direction. The Northern Kingdom had never been so corrupt and yet so prosperous as in the days of Jeroboam II. No king had so earnestly endeavoured to serve Yahweh in accordance with the directions of the prophets as Josiah, and yet he met a miserable defeat and death at the hands of Pharaoh Necho. Moreover, both Isaiah and Micah had given the people reason to expect that a glorious period of peace and prosperity would set in as soon as the troubles then impending had passed. In this they were disappointed, and their system of religion when put to the test seemed to fail. YAHWEH, THE RIGHTEOUS GOD 133 The facts of life are seldom so clearly ordered, either in the life of a nation or in that of an individual, as to prove, from a superficial study of historical events, that wrongdoing invariably brings disaster and righteousness prosperity. Conditions are, as a rule, far too complex for any such induction as this. And a single instance to the contrary is sufficient to overthrow the argument. If the prophets did derive this doctrine from the facts of history it was not by a process of sound logical argument ; for the premisses were not present to warrant the conclusion. Nor, indeed, will an examination of the prophetic writings themselves support this view. The prophets do point to periods when prosperity went hand in hand with judgement and justice ; 1 and the compilers of the national history were never weary of drawing moral lessons from the facts they narrate. But it is easy to be wise after an event. One need have no hesitation in saying that the Deuteronomic redactors of Judges and 1 and 2 Kings are arguing deductively. They have the principle firmly in hand from the first, and with it they thread their way through the history, classifying the reigns of the kings as good or evil according as they do or do not harmonize with their idea of what ought to have been. They are arranging the facts in their relation to a pre- conceived principle ; they are not examining them with a view to discovering principles of regular sequence in them. The prophets certainly do not use the argument from history in the way one would naturally expect them to use it, if this had been to them the fountain source from which they had themselves derived the doctrines they were striving to teach the nation. On the other hand, if the doctrine was derived from another source, it is only natural that they should from time to time point to such periods of the national history as seemed to bear out their contentions. But if it was not recent history, could it have been the recollection of the facts of the remote past the work of Moses and the Covenant at Mount Sinai which was responsible for the prophetic teaching ? 1 Cf. Jer. xxii 15, 16. 134 YAHWEH, THE RIGHTEOUS GOD It is frequently said that the germs of all the later develop- ment must have been present at the first inception of the national religion in the days of Moses. If the use of this metaphor means nothing more than that, because the prophets did preach this doctrine, therefore it must have been from the first possible that they should preach it, no objection can be made to it. But if it be meant that the germinal cause of ethical mono-Yahwism was present in the work of Moses in the same sense as that in which the germinal cause of the oak is present in the acorn, so that the one is as natural and as easily explicable as the other, the statement is misleading. Given the acorn and the natural conditions necessary to vegetable life, and the oak with all its branches results by a natural process of development. Now the original Mosaism may have contained the germ of mono- Yahwism, but it must not be forgotten that Mosaism did, as a matter of fact, develop in two directions. There were, on the one hand, the religious views of the mass of the people which show themselves to be similar to those of all other Semitic races. On the other hand, there are the views of the prophetic party, which stand in violent opposition to the popular religion. For the explanation of this difference we must look for something peculiar to the prophets. We need something to explain why the minds of the prophets were receptive of these doctrines and not the minds of others. And for the same reason also, all theories which describe mono-Yahwism as the product of the natural genius or disposition of the Hebrews are totally inadequate. The natural disposition, the natural genius of the people plainly turns when left to itself in the direction common to all Semites, despite the Mosaic traditions. We still require to know why the prophets stood out against the stream. It is the theory of Budde that ' Israel's religion became ethical because it was a religion of choice and not of nature, because it rested on a voluntary decision which established an ethical relation between the people and its God for all time '. In consequence of this moral choice and ethical relationship, its conscience awaked, whenever things went YAHWEH, THE RIGHTEOUS GOD 135 badly, to the question, ' Wherein have I deserved the dis- pleasure of Yahweh ? What must I do to ensure a renewal of his favour and help ? ' 1 But this is by no means an adequate explanation. When- ever disaster befell any Semitic nation, the national con- science always awoke to ask, Wherein have I deserved the displeasure of my god ? It is not the asking of this question, but the answer to it, which needs to be accounted for. Why did the average Semite say the displeasure is due to ritual offences and the mono-Yahwists say it was due to moral offences ? 2 Kautzsch would answer this by saying that the Israelite believed that Yahweh had seen Israel oppressed in Egypt, and prompted by righteousness and mercy, had delivered them. The God who had thus exhibited moral qualities in the choice of Israel would insist upon the same from His people. 3 But if the prophetic conviction of Yahweh's righteousness was really the outcome of so simple and obvious a process of reasoning as this, one would surely expect to find a more constant and emphatic appeal to it than in fact we do find. If, for instance, it was a reflec- tion of this kind which convinced Amos, it is strange that he does not attempt to convince his fellow countrymen by the same argument which convinced himself. It is un- fortunate for this theory that Amos assigns no motive whatever for Yahweh's choice of Israel ; he does not lay any stress on Yahweh's righteousness and mercy evinced hi the exodus. If it be argued that the Covenant relation left the way open for the idea that Yahweh could live independently of His people, whereas other gods were dependent on their people by facts of physical kinship, it may be replied that this might well account for a belief that Yahweh could cast His people off more easily than an ordinary Semitic deity, but it is difficult to see why it should result hi a belief that Yahweh is of a righteous character. And as a matter of fact the recollection of the Covenant was so far from suggesting that Yahweh would 1 Religion of Israel up to the Exile, p. 38 ; cf. 36-8. 2 See also G. A. Smith, Modern Preaching, &c., pp. 137-9, 3 H. D. B., v 632. 136 YAHWEH, THE RIGHTEOUS GOD abandon His people, that it was the surest ground of the prophetic belief that He would never do so. Those who base the conviction of Yahweh's moral character upon any process of reasoned reflection have to reckon with the fact that the mono-Yahwists lay no emphasis upon a formal argument. They have not a vestige of doubt in their minds about Yahweh's character, and if it was a reasoned argument which made things so clear to them, that process of thought itself must have been sharply defined before their mind's eye. But it is very strange that though there are references in many of the prophets and psalms to the love and mercy which Yahweh has shown to His people, and though these are frequently made the grounds of warning from sin, or of confidence for the future, or of a claim for gratitude from Israel, there is no formal argument from the facts of history or from Yahweh's choice and deliverance of Israel to His moral character. 1 When the prophets look back upon the past, they already have the conviction firmly fixed in their minds that Yahweh is a righteous God ; and if they look to history to demon- strate, and not merely to illustrate, this truth, it is the history of the future to which they look, to the time when Yahweh will arise to vindicate Himself and avenge His people. Nor is it likely that it was the goodness of their own hearts and the exalted morality of their own characters which led them to attribute the same characteristics hi an exalted degree to Yahweh. It has already been seen that the prophets have no deeper insight into theoretical morals than the people ; as to practical morals, one may feel quite confident that none of them were guilty of the cruel oppres- sion and injustice against which they protested, but it is questionable whether their moral characters were in every case so very much above the level of their day. Can we acquit Amos and Jeremiah of vindictiveness ? Amos said to Amaziah the priest, who wished to prevent him from prophesying, ' Thy wife shall be an harlot in the city, and thy sons and thy daughters shall fall by the sword, and thy 1 Cf. above, pp. 101 f. YAHWEH, THE RIGHTEOUS GOD 137 land shall be divided by line ; and thou thyself shalt die in a land that is unclean ' (Amos vii 17). The words of Jeremiah are even stronger. ' Yet, Yahweh, thou knowest all their counsel against me to slay me ; forgive not their iniquity, neither blot out their sin from thy sight : but let them be overthrown before thee ; deal thou with them in the time of thine anger.' l To this must be added the unwillingness of Jonah to preach in Nineveh because he knew the city would repent and be delivered (Jonah iv 2), and Ezekiel's desire for the annihilation of the heathen hordes before Jerusalem (Ezek. xxxviii and xxxix). But more than this, if it could be shown that the prophets were very far in advance of their contemporaries in moral sen- sitiveness, would this lead them to the conclusion that Yahweh is righteous ? Would it not rather make them utterly disgusted with the national religion and with a God such as Yahweh was held to be by many ? The prophets would surely have spurned the characteristic Semitic deity just as John Stuart Mill spurned the Calvinistic deity, or as Plato excluded the tales of the polytheistic gods from his ideal republic. But if this doctrine was not an instinctive assumption, nor developed by any process of reasoning, nor the reflec- tion of their own moral characters, can it have been the out- come of their religious experience ? This is the question discussed in the next chapter. 1 Jer. xviii 23 ; cf. xi 22, 23 ; xii 3 ; xvii 18 ; xviii 21, 22 ; xx 6. CHAPTER V THE SOURCE OF MONO-YAHWISM PROPHECY in general presents two problems which may be discussed separately. (1) What was the source of the firm conviction of the prophets, and one may add of their audiences as well, that a message from their lips was the utterance of a divine spirit ? (2) What was the mental process involved in the genesis and composition of the prophetic messages ? In the ancient world in general, a prophet was one who communicated to men messages which he was believed to have received from a deity. And if it is asked on what grounds the messages were supposed to have come from a deity, the answer must be sought in the peculiar psychical temperament of the individual. Certain persons were observed to be subject to states of consciousness so abnormal as to suggest that for the time being it was no ordinary human spirit which occupied their bodies. ' It was just the visible excitation that suggested to the onlooker that the enthusiast was possessed by the deity. Even the insane, just because he had no mastery over his mind, which seemed moved by another, was held inspired.' 1 It would be altogether a mistake to suppose that the subjects of these experiences knew them to be purely natural phenomena, but yet passed them off upon their contem- poraries as something more divine than this. Quite on the contrary, it is characteristic of a certain stage of culture to explain all such mental phenomena in this way ; and when a man exhibited the appropriate outward signs, there was no more doubt in the mind of the onlooker than hi that of the subject himself that he was being, or had been, temporarily possessed by some deity or spirit. No other explanation seems to have been ready to hand. A belief 1 Davidson, H. D. B., iv 109 f. THE SOURCE OF MONO-YAHWISM 139 of this kind was almost universal, and something analogous to prophecy is found in all religions. 1 One may say, then, that the confidence with which certain men claimed to speak a message imparted to them by a god, was grounded upon the primitive and spontaneously assumed explanation of certain mental phenomena as due to the indwelling of a divine spirit. This same explanation is to be given of the belief in prophecy which we find in the Old Testament. The earliest prophets of Yahweh with whom we meet were plainly men of this type. When they prophesy, the spirit of Yahweh comes mightily upon them (1 Sam. x 5, 6, 10 ; xix 20-4). Samuel assured Saul that when he prophesied he would be 'turned into another man' (1 Sam. x 6), and when the spirit of God came upon him, ' he stripped off his clothes, and he also prophesied before Samuel and lay down naked all that day and all that night ' (1 Sam. xix 23, 24 ; cf. 20). In the days of Samuel, Elijah and Elisha, these prophets lived in companies, possibly in part because the sympathetic co-operation of a large number was found to be of assistance in inducing the prophetic state. With these we may compare the four hundred and fifty prophets of Baal and the four hundred prophets of the Asherah, who ate at Jezebel's table, who leaped about the altar and cried aloud and cut themselves after their manner with knives and lances, till the blood gushed upon them, and prophesied till the evening (1 Kings xviii 19, 26, 29). This is the lowest form of prophecy. The prophet is not conscious himself of what he is saying, nor can it have conveyed much meaning to the hearers. It is possible that the case of Balaam represents a slight advance. Balaam was hired to curse Israel, but he assures Balak that he can only speak the word which Yahweh puts in his mouth (Num. xxii 38) ; he cannot foretell what he is going to say. 1 Cf. Frazer, Golden Bough, i 131, Ed. 1900 ; Brinton, Religions of Primitive Peoples, pp. 51-3 ; W. R. Smith, Prophets, p. 219 ; Davidson, O. T. Prophecy, p. 154 ; and Hastings's D. B., iv 107 ; Giesebrecht, Berufsbegabung, p. 36 ; Joyce, Inspiration of Prophecy, p. 12. Cf. also 1 Bangs xviii ; Jer. xxvii 3, 9. 140 THE SOURCE OF MONO-YAHWISM God meets him and puts a word in his mouth ; but when the divine afflatus does come upon him his utterances are intelligible to the bystanders (Num. xxiii 3-5). In 1 Kings xxii there is a kind of prophesying described which at first sight seems to mark a still further advance. These prophets are both intelligible to the bystanders and conscious of what they are saying. It is not clear whether the divine afflatus preceded the moment of speaking or accompanied it. On the one hand it is clear that Micaiah is supposed to know the word of Yahweh before he delivers it to Ahab ; for the messenger begs him to let his words be like those of the other prophets (v. 13), and Ahab sees reason to think that in his first utterance Micaiah has deliberately misrepresented the word he received. One might be inclined to think from this that a special visita- tion was not considered necessary for each message, but that once it had been shown that a certain person was subject to these abnormal states, his words on any special question would be regarded as those of the deity even though he had given no outward proofs of a divine inspira- tion immediately before giving forth his utterance. On the other hand, Micaiah's words about the lying spirit sent forth to entice Ahab through his prophets to go up and fall at Ramoth Gilead, point to the possibility of a special and abnormal state having taken place immediately before their utterance on this occasion at least. But whether this was so or not, it seems that the basis of the prophesying was what was regarded as the visitation of a divine spirit (cf. w. 22-4). Just how much mental disturbance was in- volved in the experience of these prophets it is impossible to say ; if it preceded the utterance, it may have involved an ecstatic condition in the four hundred and fifty ; but this could not have been so with Micaiah, who remembered so clearly what he had seen and heard. It is usual to speak of those prophets who opposed the great mono-Yahwists as false prophets ; but it would be a great mistake to dismiss them all as conscious liars. There may have been some among them who at times uttered what they felt to be a misrepresentation of the will THE SOURCE OF MONO-YAHWISM 141 of Yahweh ; there were many whose moral delinquencies had darkened their natural powers of insight into moral and spiritual questions ; and few of them rose above the level of their confreres in other races, or that of the general con- sensus of opinion in Israel. One cannot exclude the possi- bility that some individuals may have claimed to speak an inspired message, and may have persuaded men that they had undergone prophetic experiences, without having ever done so in reality. But such cases must have been few and far between. It is most unlikely that many men in that age would have had the temerity to trifle in a matter of this kind, nor could imposture have been practised upon a large scale without detection. The false prophets must have felt some justification for coming forward as spokes- men for Yahweh, and, as a general rule, they must have seen no reason to think that what they said was not in accordance with the will of Yahweh. Their justification no doubt lay in the peculiar mental disturbances to which their psychological temperament laid them open. It is true that Jeremiah claims that his opponents were not sent by Yahweh at all, and that they are prophesying lies (Jer. xxiii 21, 32), but he also informs us that they claim to have seen visions and dreamed dreams (xxiii 16, 28). His con- tention is not that the ' false ' prophets have had no pro- phetic experiences, but that these experiences were not sent by Yahweh ; their visions are visions ' out of their own heart, and not out of the mouth of Yahweh ', and ' the word of Yahweh ' is sharply distinguished from the dreams of these prophets (xxiii 16, 28, 29 ; cf. Ezek. xiii. 1-9). There is, then, no reason to doubt that the large class of prophets who seem to have regarded Yahweh as a charac- teristic Semitic deity received credence as prophets because of certain abnormal mental states through which they passed. II We now have to see that the same thing is true of the mono-Yahwists also. Let us begin our study of the psycho- logy of the mono-Yahwists by comparing them with the 142 THE SOURCE OF MONO- YAH WISH so-called ' false ' prophets. In the first place, it must be observed that both are known by the same name and included within the same class in the community. To the general public, both the mono-Yahwists and their opponents are ' prophets ' ; the mono-Yahwists themselves do not deny the title to their adversaries, and yet they recognize it as appropriate to themselves. Amos is the one prophetic mono-Yahwist who is sometimes pointed to as dissociating himself from the professional prophets (cf. vii 14) ; but he himself regards his own activities as ' prophesying ', and as such it was recognized by others (vii 13, 15, 16). Moreover, it is Amos who said, ' Surely the Lord Yahweh will do nothing, but he revealeth his secrets unto his servants the prophets ' (iii 7). To us who see little but the width and depth of the doctrinal contrast which separates the mono- Yahwists from the ' false ' prophets, they seem to have little in common ; but the fact that this divergence of opinion was not sufficient to make them appear different in kind in the eyes of their contemporaries, should prepare us to find that there was somewhere a broad basis or substratum common to both. The divergence in teaching must have appeared analogous to the differences of opinion which arise from time to time between lawyers or doctors. Men of the same profession or calling disagree in opinion, but that difference does not so completely overshadow all that they have in common as to make it appear that either side has no right to be called by the same title as the other. In the second place, the mono-Yahwists in their public teaching do not hesitate to use the same methods as those employed by the ' false ' prophets. The latter introduce their utterances with the same formulas as those which we are accustomed to hear from the lips of mono-Yahwists : ' the burden of Yahweh ' ( Jer. xxiii 34) ; ' thus saith Yahweh * ( Jer. xxviii 2) ; ' the oracle of Yahweh ' (Ezek. xiii 7 ; Jer. xxiii 31). There can be no doubt that the 'false* prophets meant these expressions to be taken literally, and by using them set up a claim to speak a message which they believed had been supernaturally communicated to them in moments of abnormal consciousness by Yahweh Himself. THE SOURCE OF MONO-YAHWISM 143 And there is no reason why this should not hold good of the mono-Yahwists as well. Again, both sides make use of a method of argument to which the modern mind refuses to allow any force. Both endeavour to overbear their opponents by sheer weight of assertion, one contradicting the other without any attempt to reason from common principles and admitted data. Zedekiah, the opponent of Micaiah-ben-Imlah, ' made him horns of iron, and said, Thus saith Yahweh, With these shalt thou push the Syrians, until they be consumed ' (1 Kings xxii 11). Similarly, Jeremiah appeared before King Zedekiah with a wooden bar upon his neck to illustrate his message of submission to the yoke of Babylon. This bar Hananiah, his opponent, took from Jeremiah's neck and broke, with the words, ' Thus saith Yahweh, even so will I break the yoke of Nebuchadnezzar . . . within two full years ' (Jer. xxviii 10, 11). Jeremiah's reply is another similar symbolic action ; the yoke of wood is replaced by a yoke of iron : ' for thus saith Yahweh of hosts, the God of Israel, I have put a yoke of iron upon all these nations that they may serve Nebuchadnezzar.' 1 It is a mistake to think that the mono- Yahwists were all men of more powerful intellect and greater reasoning ability than any of their contemporaries, and to contrast their mental life with that of the false prophets as though the one, guided by a deep insight and a strong intellect, were a scene of peace and prolonged thought, while the other, subject to no control but that of feeling, was a place of storm and confusion. The facts do not support this view. There is scarcely a page of their written prophecies which does not witness to the gales of passionate feeling which swept through the souls of the mono-Yahwists. Stormy indeed must have been the mental life of the so- called false prophets if it was more tempestuous than this. How was the average Israelite to decide between these two conflicting parties ? When he saw them at work, he could perceive little or nothing, apart from their doctrinal 1 Jer. xxviii 14. For other symbolic actions see Isa. viii 12, 18 ; xx 3 ; Jer. xiii 1-11 ; xix 1, 10 ; xxxv &c. ; Ezekiel iv 1-3, 4-6 ; v 1-4 ; xii 1-7 ; xxiv 15-18. 144 THE SOURCE OF MONO- YAH WISM differences, to distinguish them from each other. To what criteria do the mono-Yahwists offer to submit the dispute ? There is little more appeal to miracles than there is to argumentative proof. The return of the shadow on Ahaz's sundial is the one instance of a prophetic miracle in days later than Elijah and Elisha (Isa. xxxviii 5-8; cf. vii 11). Deuteronomy does contemplate the possibility of signs or wonders in attestation of prophetic utterances, but it is remarkable that it is those whom we call false prophets who are expected to work the sign (Deut. xiii 1, 2). 1 The two tests of any real significance which the mono- Yahwists propose are fulfilment (Jer. xxviii 9 ; Deut. xviii 21, 22), for which it was impossible to wait ; and doctrine, ' If they had stood in my council, then had they caused my people to hear my words, and had turned them from their evil way, and from the evil of their doings ' (Jer. xxiii 22). Let us observe what is involved in this latter point. The two conflicting parties are endeavouring to obtain credence each for their own view, which contradicts that of the other side. Each alike claims divine authority for their message on the ground that it has been communicated to them by Yahweh. Yet Jeremiah asserts that his adversaries have not received a message from Yahweh, for had they done so their teaching would not have been what it was. This, of course, is a clear case of arguing in a circle. The doctrine is authenticated by communion with Yahweh, and communion with Yahweh is proved by the doctrine. But does not this give us an insight into the secret of Jeremiah's confidence in his own message ? He has himself experienced what it is to stand in Yahweh's council (nio) 2 , and he knows that that experience can issue in nothing but a condemnation of Israel's present condition ; and because the false prophets are preaching peace, he is certain that, no matter what may be to the contrary, they have not received Yahweh's message. It is just because their confi- dence was based on an inner experience which could not be 1 Cf. Davidson, Hastings' s D. B., iv 116-18. * Jer. xxiii 18 ; cf. Ps. ii 2 ; Amos iii 7. THE SOURCE OF MONO-YAHWISM 145 communicated to others that the mono-Yahwists make so little use of reasoned argument. Since their teaching was not, even in their own minds, the outcome of any process of reasoning, they knew not how to commend it to others by logical discussion. With this in mind one can understand why they attack the religious experiences of their adversaries. Since the false prophets, equally with themselves, claimed, and no doubt manifested, sufficient visible indication that they had been visited by Yahweh, it was necessary for the mono- Yahwists to explain away, somehow or other, these prophetic states of their opponents. Thus we find that Micaiah-ben- Imlah explains the experiences of the four hundred and fifty prophets by saying that Yahweh, purposing to destroy Ahab, had sent a lying spirit into their mouths ; while his opponent Zedekiah apparently meant to suggest that the spirit of Yahweh had not spoken to Micaiah at all, or at least not on this occasion (1 Kings xxii 20-4). Similarly Deuteronomy contemplates the possibility of some one arising with every outward manifestation of prophecy, and yet counselling a course of action which conflicts with the first principle of mono- Yah wism. The explanation given is not that such a prophet is a conscious liar, or a wilful impostor, but that ' Yahweh your God proveth you, to know whether ye love Yahweh your God ' (Deut. xiii 3). Ezekiel also seems to entertain the idea that Yahweh may send a false message through a prophet ; this he says may be known to be the case, whenever a prophet undertakes to deliver an answer from Yahweh under conditions which involve idolatry (xiv 1-9). And Jeremiah again, as was seen above, gives another explanation when he declares that the visions of his opponents proceed out of their own heart and that Yahweh has not spoken to them at all (Jer. xxiii 16, 21, 25, 27). Their message of encouragement to a sinful people and their own sinful example are proofs that they have not stood in the council of Yahweh. If they see a vision, it is a vision out of their own heart ; if they prophesy on the strength of dreams, those dreams are lying dreams ; Yahweh has not sent them nor commanded them; they HAMILTON I 146 THE SOURCE OF MONO- YAH WISM cause his people to err by their lies and their vain boasting (cf . xxviii 15). In chap, xiii, Ezekiel seems to take the same line as Jeremiah. His opponents also have been preaching peace, when there is no peace (xiii 10, 16). If they appeal to inspiration from Yahweh, Ezekiel's reply is that they follow their own spirit and have seen nothing : they see vanity and lying divination, Yahweh has not sent them (xiii 2, 3, 6, 9). It should be carefully observed that the mono-Yahwists do not attack the whole idea of a divine revelation in religious experience. Their point is, not that Yahweh never com- municates His will in ways akin to that in which the false prophets claim to have received it, but that there is some- thing false about the experiences of their opponents. They are not what they claim to be. It is to the mono-Yahwists that the word of Yahweh has been revealed in truth and reality ; it is they who really declare His will and are the mouthpiece of His Spirit. They seem anxious to show that what the false prophets experienced was the false or spurious imitation of what had in truth and reality been granted to themselves. They attack the prophetic states of their opponents in order to establish their own. They know what it is to have received a revelation from Yahweh that under the circumstances of their day, it must involve an ex- hortation to repentance and a prediction of judgement ; and it is just because other prophets preach a message of peace and prosperity, that the mono-Yahwists know they cannot have experienced a true and genuine visitation from Yahweh. Giesebrecht maintains that the source of Jeremiah's confidence in his own divine mission must not be sought in the same kind of experience as those of his opponents, because he attacks those experiences in his opponents, and does not regard them as conveying a revelation. He sug- gests that Jeremiah rejects such mental processes entirely, because he looks on them almost in the modern critical light as the deception of the senses, hallucination, &C. 1 By the experiences of the false prophets, Giesebrecht here means heavenly voices and visions, states of ecstasy, 1 Berufebegabung, s. 48. THE SOURCE OF MONO-YAHWISM 147 &c. It is only this kind of religious experience which he thinks Jeremiah rejects ; elsewhere, he asserts that Jere- miah's confidence is grounded on continual intercourse with Yahweh, as well as on an initial ecstatic vision. 1 While it is certain that all prophecy depended in some measure upon the experience of abnormal states of consciousness, it is indeed questionable whether we know so much about the mental processes of the false prophets as to be able to say that the words they uttered were entirely, or even to a greater extent than those of the mono-Yahwists, the product of ecstatic vision and audition. And it is still more question- able whether Jeremiah had sufficient insight into psycho- logical processes to draw a sharp distinction in kind between the religious experiences of the false prophets and his own. It may well be that there was a difference in kind, but we have no reason to think that Jeremiah had such oppor- tunities to study the mental processes of the false prophets and contrast them with the results of his own introspection, as to enable him to draw the conclusion with such unerring certainty that his own implied a real intercourse with Yahweh, while those of the false prophets did not. And, as a matter of fact, when Jeremiah rejects these dreams and visions, &c., he does not do so simply because they are dreams and visions, but because they have resulted in a message of peace and a feeling of religious confidence in spite of an immoral life (Jer. xxiii 22). It should also be remembered that we really require some deep inner experience to account for the psychological phenomena which the mono-Yahwists exhibit. No mere cold logic and no mere tradition could strike such fire into a man's soul. Each prophet appears before us as a new beginning, as one who has realized for himself in a way he can never forget, the truth of the principles he enunciates. The intense conviction, the overmastering certainty, which constantly break through their language and throw their words into a series of vehement exhortations and denuncia- tions, do not belong to the calm judicial reasoner who has carefully weighed arguments on both sides, but rather to 1 Berufabegabung, ss. 48 n. 1, 51, 68 f. L2 148 THE SOUKCE OF MONO-YAHWISM one on whose soul the things he utters have been burned in, in a moment of intensest feeling. And when the words of the mono-Yahwists themselves are examined this view is confirmed. ' We can prove,' says Karl Marti, 1 ' in the clearest possible manner, from the prophets' own words, that the belief in the one God arose from an inner experience. They feel God's power as an inner compulsion which cannot possibly be resisted.' In support of this he quotes, 2 from Amos iii 4-6, 8, ' Will a lion roar in the forest, when he hath no prey? will a young lion cry out of his den, if he have taken nothing ? Can a bird fall in a snare upon the earth, where no gin is set for him ? shall a snare spring up from the ground, and have taken nothing at all ? Shall the trumpet be blown in a city, and the people not be afraid ? shall evil befall a city and Yahweh hath not done it ? ' Amos is here point- ing out that cause and effect are coupled together in an inevitable sequence. And then he adds, ' The lion hath roared, who will not fear ? The Lord Yahweh hath spoken, who can but prophesy ? ' Prophecy was an effect, the cause of which was a communication from Yahweh ; in this sphere also the cause must be followed by its effect. Amos knew what this was, for Yahweh had spoken to him and said, ' Go, prophesy against my people Israel ' (vii 16). The words of Micah are even clearer. ' But 1 truly am full of power by the Spirit of Yahweh, and of judgment and of might, to declare unto Jacob his transgression, and to Israel his sin ' (Mic. iii 8). Jeremiah experienced the word of Yahweh and knew that its effects were unmistakable, and far more forcible and penetrating than any prophetic dream. ' Is not my word like as fire ? ' saith Yahweh, ' and like a hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces ? ' ' Mine heart within me is broken, all my bones shake : I am like a drunken man, and like a man whom wine hath overcome ; because of Yahweh and his holy words.' 3 Similarly, Isaiah and 1 Religion of the Old Testament, p. 141 ; cf. Baentsch, AUorient u. Israel it. Monoth., s. 89. * pp. 142-6. * Jer. xiiii 29 ; cf. xxiii 28 ; and see also xv 17-21 ; xx 7-10. THE SOURCE OF MONO- YAH WISH 149 Ezekiel found the hand of Yahweh to be strong upon them. 1 The conclusion then must be that the mono-Yahwists shared the belief of the primitive world that mental pheno- mena of a certain unusual kind are undeniable evidence of. divine visitation and inspiration, and that the source of then* confidence in themselves as the organs or mouthpieces of Yahweh's spirit lay in the fact that they had passed through moments of consciousness which they could not explain in any other way than as instances of communion with Yahweh the Living God. Ill But it is now time to turn to the second main problem of prophecy. To attempt a full elucidation of the genesis and mental origin of the prophetic utterances would involve the discussion of a very much wider psychological problem than falls within the scope of the present work. The mode by which the words and sentences, &c., came into the prophetic consciousness during those abnormal states of mind could not have been so very different from that by which, in the normal waking consciousness, whole clauses and propositions spring complete into the mind from apparently nowhere, that one could leave the latter entirely out of considera- tion. Fortunately an investigation of this subject does not appear to be necessary for the purpose in hand ; and that for more reasons than one. The words which the prophets claimed to speak as from the mouth of Yahweh, when they use the formula, 'thus saith Yahweh,' &c., do not represent in their present form the exact words without alteration or deviation which came into the prophetic con- sciousness during their moments of abnormal exaltation. These formulas are used too freely and too often to repre- sent hi each case a fresh audition. Giesebrecht has shown that they mark the emphasis or are used to introduce a new thought, or even to fill up the metre. 2 But just in so far as the verbal clothing of the prophecies was the product 1 Isa. viii 11 ; Ezek. iii 14 ; viii 1 ; xxxiii 22 ; xl 1. 2 Op. cit., pp. 40-3. Cf. Joyce, Inspiration of Prophecy, p. 81 f. 150 THE SOURCE OF MONO- YAH WISM of moments of normal waking consciousness, just so far does the problem of why the prophets used these par- ticular words to convey their meaning and not others of similar import, become one which for the present purpose may be neglected, because it is not peculiar to the pro- phets but concerns the normal life of every other man as well. Moreover, the problem before us is not to find out why the prophets uttered just these particular syllables, why they gave vent to these sounds, but why they preached these particular doctrines ; it is not the verbal clothing, but the underlying substance, the ideas and views expressed by the words, which are of real importance. Now it is not difficult to see that the substance of the prophecies of the mono-Yahwists differed on so many occasions from that of the utterances of the false prophets, because they approached the conditions of their age with totally different views about the character and being of Yahweh. If we combine the theological views generally accepted in the Semitic world of that age with the his- torical circumstances of the day, we get the substance of the message of the false prophets. Similarly, if the theo- logical principles characteristic of mono-Yahwism are applied to the same historical facts, the substance of what the mono-Yahwists said may readily be deduced there- from. A recent writer has put this thought in an admirable manner : ' The prophets had events and circumstances to go upon, they possessed a knowledge of God's character ; meditating upon such things and we do not deny that they were assisted by what is commonly called supernatural enlighten- ment they came to certain conclusions as to the ways of God, which they then applied to the circumstances in which they found themselves placed. Thus Jerusalem will be delivered from, Assyria . . . was but the conclusion that the prophet drew from convictions which lay at the root of all his spiritual experience and religious teaching. The bare assertion may be expanded somewhat as follows : " God has chosen Israel. He has a purpose for her. Israel has forgotten her God, so He must punish her, but He will not destroy her. His purpose shall stand. He will punish her. The means He will employ are not far to seek. The Assyrian THE SOURCE OF MONO-YAHWISM 151 is already at the door. But pride, too, must be punished, and the Assyrian is proud. He does not realize that he is but a tool in Jehovah's hand. So he, too, must be taught that there is One who can put down the mighty from their seat. Therefore the Assyrian will be humiliated and Sion, after her humiliation, be exalted, and thus will the power and love of God be completely vindicated." ' 1 The prophecies of judgement may be explained in the same way. According to the mono- Yah wists, Yahweh is Himself righteous, and requires at all costs from His people a righteousness corresponding to His own. But the pro- phets cannot fail to see that Israel is morally corrupt, and therefore in danger of the outpouring of Yahweh's wrath, which may come in the form of sword, pestilence, famine, or wild beasts, although in most cases the political con- ditions of the moment pointed to a conquest by a foreign invader. That a god should be angry with and punish his people was by no means an idea unknown to the Semitic mind ; the mono-Yahwists accept this idea and go beyond it in two respects, when they say that Yahweh will punish for moral wrongdoing no matter how scrupulous His people may be in ceremonial observances, and that to ensure the severity of that punishment, He will himself be arrayed against His own people. Israel is to suffer by Yahweh's decree because Yahweh has chosen Israel, and Israel has become corrupt, and Yahweh cannot endure corruption. ' You only have I known of all the families of the earth, therefore I will visit upon you all your iniquities ' (Amos iii 2). 2 1 Edghill, Evidential Value of Prophecy, p. 124. 2 Giesebrecht has argued against Schwartzkopf and Riehm that the contemplation of the moral condition of Israel could not by itself have given rise to the conviction of approaching disaster. He does so largely upon the ground that it was open to any one to observe the moral condition of Israel and contrast it with the requirements of the moral law of Yahweh ; and, therefore, the prophet could scarcely have brought forward a line of thought such as this as something which had been specially revealed to him alone (op. cit., ss. 79, 80 ; cf. 86). But was it open to any one to realize the premisses and draw the conclusion in question ? No doubt they could contrast the moral standard with the corruption of the people, but would they have known that Yahweh cared more for the moral thai} 152 THE SOURCE OF MONO-YAHWISM The mono-Yahwists are concerned chiefly with the fate of nations, especially that of Israel, and they decide them by what they know of Yahweh's moral character, omni- potent power, and love for Israel. This is nowhere more true than in the case of the prophecies of the Messianic future. 1 When they foretell the fate of individuals, they do so according as the individuals appear to be friends or foes of the message which they themselves declare from Yahweh to the nation. 2 It would be difficult to say how far the whole deductive process was formally and consciously worked out ; the point is, however, that given the principles of mono- Yahwism and the historical conditions of the day, there is no need to introduce any other factor in accounting for the prophetic activities of the mono-Yahwists ; whether con- sciously reasoned out or not, these factors are sufficient to account for the substance of their prophecies at any particular moment. The important question, therefore, still remains to be answered, by what process did the mono-Yahwists come by their conviction of the truth of those theological views which lie at the basis of all their utterances and are peculiar to themselves ? It has been seen above that the solution is not to be found in any process of reasoning, nor in any inherited and unquestioned assumption. It now remains to be seen that the two fundamental principles of mono- Yahwism, if they could not be intellectually demonstrated by the mono-Yahwists, were inwardly felt or experienced to be true, and then, as a consequence of this feeling, appre- hended by the intellect as first principles or axioms of thought. There is one prophet who has left a description, albeit a meagre one, of a certain state of consciousness through which he passed, and which he attributed to the immediate the ceremonial law ? It is only those who start from this view of Yahweh's moral Being, which is one of the fundamental principles of mono-Yah- wism, who draw the conclusion in question. And these were of course the mono-Yahwists. 1 See below, Chap. VII. * Cf. Giesebrecht, op. cit., p. 102. THE SOURCE OF MONO-YAHWISM 153 presence of Yahweh, the God of Israel. What he says of this state of mind enables us to understand from a purely psychological point of view, how he came to be so firmly convinced of Yahweh's supreme sovereignty and righteous- ness. The question of the ultimate cause of this state of consciousness must be left on one side for the present. It must have been experienced, else it could not have been described ; and once experienced it must issue in these two beliefs. The experience in question is narrated in the sixth chapter of Isaiah. It should be noted first, that the prophet does not lose consciousness ; on the contrary, he becomes acutely con- scious. He is filled with the thought of himself, and that because he feels himself sharply distinguished from and con- trasted with another Personality. He is conscious that his personality is being measured by a standard which is so much greater than he can attain to that the two appear quite incommensurable. This vivid sense of personal in- adequacy brings with it the feeling of an intense strain, more than human life can endure. ' Woe is me ! For I am undone, because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips ; for mine eyes have seen the King Yahweh of Hosts.' Isaiah felt his lif e to be in danger. ' Woe is me ! ' he cries, ' I perish.' The intensity of the feeling to which this cry witnesses may be brought out by the force of two con- trasts. The superstitious dread that death will ensue upon contact with certain objects (or if certain mental phenomena are experienced) is a familiar feature in the life of primitive man. In such cases there is an anticipation that death will shortly follow ; and such an anticipation of approaching death is perhaps to be discerned in what is told us of Gideon and of Manoah, both of whom are described as in fear that death will result from the experience through which they have passed (Judges vi 22-3 ; xiii 22). But this interpre- tation cannot be put upon the experience of Isaiah. The cry that he is perishing is wrung from him at the moment when the feeling is at its height. It is not a presentiment of future death ; it is the expression of a feeling that the 154 THE SOURCE OF MONO- YAH WISH bonds which unite soul and body are even now about to burst asunder. Again, when a man has a feeling that death is rapidly approaching, it is in many cases due to the fact that his powers are gradually failing him ; the sensations he receives through the natural channels grow weaker and weaker ; consciousness becomes thin and pale ; he feels that his powers are dying out one by one ; he becomes less and less conscious of himself until the feeble flame flickers out. In such cases, it is the gradual waning of conscious- ness which causes the apprehension of death. But in the case of Isaiah, as has been seen, consciousness did not wane. What causes his apprehension is the very vividness of his consciousness, the nakedness with which he sees his soul contrasted against another Personality. If death is some- times apprehended because consciousness is felt to be dying out, in this case death is apprehended because conscious- ness is passing the bounds of life in the opposite direction. It is becoming so acute and so intense, the sense of strain and inability to cope with the situation is so severe, that the prophet feels that soul and body are on the point of being torn apart. No man can pass through such a moment and remain unchanged. The content of that state of mind must always remain for him the most real thing in the world, that by reference to which he will interpret all his varied experi- ences of life. At such a moment his mind receives a bent, has impressed upon it a certain set of axioms, as it were, from which his thinking never escapes. In writing of experiences which, from a psychological point of view, are the same hi kind with those of Isaiah, Professor W. James says : ' They are as convincing to those who have them as any direct sensible experiences can be, and they are, as a rule, much more convincing than results established by mere logic ever are. One may indeed be entirely without them ; probably more than one of you here present is without them in any marked degree ; but if you do have them, and have them at all strongly, the probability is that you cannot help regarding them as genuine perceptions of truth, as revelations of a kind of reality which no adverse argu- THE SOURCE OF MONO- YAH WISM 155 ment, however unanswerable by you in words, can expel from your belief.' 1 But to return to the particular case under discussion, Isaiah understood that the cause of his experience was the immediate presence of Yahweh the God of Israel. It was inevitable, therefore, that to him the Personality of Yahweh should be the most real thing in existence. He might have doubts on anything else, but the intense moment of his ' call ' could not allow him for an instant to question the efficacy and the reality of the presence of Yahweh. From Him there could be no escape. His power could know no limits. His Personality must fill up the prophet's whole mental horizon. Other gods, who had never been the cause of such moments, must sink into insignificance ; indeed, the mere wood and stone with which they were identified would be felt to be incapable of giving rise to moments of such intensity or of exercising any real influence on human hearts or human affairs. With the unreflecting idea of causation which was current in those days, one can well understand how a man who underwent such an experience would see the personal will of Yahweh behind every event which happened, rather than a multitude of conflicting and independent wills ; other wills would not have for him any effective existence. ' The foundation of the thresholds were moved at the voice of him that cried and the house was filled with smoke.' In a moment the prophet is filled with a sense that he is in a presence infinitely higher than that of man ; he himself and his human origin and nature stand out in contradistinction to this Divine Personality : ' Woe is me ! for I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips.' The seraphic song, ' Holy, Holy, Holy is Yahweh of Hosts : the whole earth is full of his glory,' was but the echo of the feeling which was throbbing through the prophet's soul ; had he never heard the words his conclusion would have been the same. 1 Varieties of Religious Experience, p. 72 f. ; see also the whole of Lecture III, pp. 53-77 ; cf. also for another interesting illustration from a different source, Ramsay's Education of Christ, pp. 9-11. 156 THE SOURCE OF MONO-YAHWISM The results of such an experience cannot be better described than in the words of two of the Psalms. In one of these (Ps. cxxxix), the writer describes how all-pervasive is the presence of Yahweh, not only intensively in the heart of man, but extensively in the world of nature. ' O Yahweh, thou hast searched me and known me, thou knowest my downsitting and mine uprising, thou under- standest my thought afar off. Thou searchest out my path and my lying down, and art acquainted with all my ways. For there is not a word in my tongue, but, lo, Yahweh, thou knowest it altogether. Thou hast beset me behind and before and laid thine hand upon me . . . whither shall I go from thy spirit ? or whither shall I flee from thy pre- sence ? If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there ; if I make my bed in Sheol, behold, thou art there. If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea ; even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me. If I say, surely the darkness shall overwhelm me, and the light about me shall be night ; even the darkness hideth not from thee, but the night shineth as the day ; the darkness and the light are both alike to thee.' The other Psalm (cxv) describes well the theological reconstruction which would follow on such an experience, explaining how impossible it is to imagine any communica- tion proceeding from the idols of the heathen, what folly it is to trust hi them, and how the very fact that Yahweh's presence is not made visible by any image of wood or stone is a guarantee of His power and creatorship. ' Wherefore should the nations say, where is now their God ? But our God is in the heavens ; He hath done whatsoever he pleased. Their idols are silver and gold, the work of men's hands. They have mouths, but they speak not ; eyes have they, but they see not ; they have ears, but they hear not ; noses have they, but they smell not ; they have hands, but they handle not ; feet have they, but they walk not ; neither speak they through their throat ; they that make them shall be like unto them ; yes, every one that trusteth in them. O Israel, trust thou in Yahweh : He is their help THE SOURCE OF MONO-YAHWISM 157 and shield. . . . Blessed are ye of Yahweh, which made heaven and earth. The heavens are the heavens of Yahweh, but the earth hath he given to the children of men ' (Ps. cxv 2-9, 15, 16). The writer of this psalm has evidently felt himself to be in communication with an invisible spiritual Presence, a Person, who is in the heavens, whom he identi- fied with Yahweh ; and it was apparently this which called his attention to the impossibility of receiving any communi- cation from the wooden lips of the man-made deities of other races. One can well understand how, as the result of such an experience as this, the prophets came to see the will and power of Yahweh behind every event in the world. Such an experience would not alter his conception of causa- tion that would still remain the immediate operation of a personal will but, instead of a multitude of conflicting wills, he would see the single almighty will of Yahweh intervening immediately, universally, and ceaselessly. Hence that view of the universe and its happenings which is characteristic of the mono-Yahwists. 1 In this experience, then, there is a sufficient psychological explanation of the origin of the first principle of mono- Yahwism, that Yahweh is the one and only divine Being. And the second principle, that He is righteous, was also derived from the same source. The prophet Isaiah, it was pointed out, experienced an intense feeling of personal inadequacy ; he felt himself to be measured against another Person and to come short. On one side stood Yahweh in unapproachable holiness and majesty, and on the other stood the prophet himself and his fellows : ' Woe is me ! for I am undone ; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell hi the midst of a people of unclean lips.' (Isa. vi 5). The immediate result was a feeling of intense personal unworthiness, a sense of sin and of guilt which must be removed. ' Lo, this hath touched thy lips ; and thine iniquity is taken away and thy sin purged ' (vi 7). A deep sense of guilt is found in the Babylonian Psalms ; but this feeling follows upon disaster. The individual or the nation is in trouble and feels the wrath of some god pursuing 1 See chap. iii. 158 THE SOURCE OF MONO- YAH WISM him. Hence the expression of a deep penitence, and the anxious desire to please the deity. But, as was pointed out above, the feeling of sin which Isaiah experiences is not occasioned by an overwhelming calamity. It is the very presence of Yahweh which fills him with this awful conscious- ness of his own unworthiness. It is not that Yahweh is in a mood of angry indignation and needs to be placated ; it is Yahweh's very nature and character to be holy, because the mere contact with Him produces at once this feeling of human unworthiness and guilt. Here we have just that element which is so strikingly absent from other ancient religions the subjective sense of personal unworthiness for the divine presence, a feeling of awe, or dread before God, which is not related in the prophetic mind to any one special sin, nor to the thought of divine vengeance or punishment, but is occasioned by the fact that the Person who is there, is what He is. Accordingly, Isaiah could not but realize that Yahweh was Himself absolutely holy and righteous, the f ountain source of all purity and goodness, to whom all that can be called ' sin ' or ' iniquity ' must be repugnant. His opposition to wrongdoing is not fitful and capricious ; it is the expression of His inmost Being, His permanent attitude towards men. And so to Isaiah, Yahweh becomes differen- tiated from all other gods as one whose character is known known to be upright and just known to be set against evil, and as a consequence it is certain that no immoral people can hope for His favour. It would be a mistake to suppose that Isaiah meant by the terms he used, something very different from what his contemporaries understood when they spoke the same words. ' Holiness ' had always meant that which is separated from common use and appropriated to divine service ; it did not necessarily express moral purity, but ' the distance and awful contrast between the Divine and the human '. 1 ' Uncleanness ' was the very opposite of ' holiness ', that which is farthest away from Yahweh, and offensive to Him. Both these words had a ritual rather than a moral signifi- cance. ' Sin and iniquity ' included not only offences 1 W. R. Smith, Prophets, p. 224. THE SOURCE OF MONO-YAHWISM 159 against Yahweh's moral law, but offences against His ceremonial law as well. When Isaiah says that Yahweh is ' holy ', and he and his people are ' unclean ', he is express- ing a feeling of general human infirmity and unworthiness before Yahweh. Yahweh is the absolute supreme sovereign Lord on whom all depend and to whose will all must bow ; He dwells in depths of effulgent purity of which the only thing the prophet knows is that he himself and all his people are utterly unworthy to enter there. It would probably be a mistake to suppose that the two ideas of physical and moral purity were clearly distinguished in Isaiah's mind. The purity and holiness of Yahweh no doubt implied freedom from all that the prophet had been brought up to regard as ' unclean ' from a ritual point of view, as well as all that we should call morally wrong. When we combine the probable effect of this experience upon the prophet's mind with the historical facts of his day, we have a satisfactory explanation of his teaching. Just as Isaiah had experienced Yahweh's infinite power in his inner soul and therefore knew it to be both universal and irresistible, so also he had experienced Yahweh's holiness and knew it to be the very essence of His Being. As there could be no escape from Yahweh's power, so there could be no failure or diminution or wavering in Yahweh's purity and righteousness. His favour could never be towards a people who persist in violating those principles of righteous- ness and judgement which are the expression of His inmost Being. Those who imagine that Yahweh overlooks these things entirely misjudge His character. If they will not listen to the exhortations of Yahweh's messengers, it cannot be but that the face of Yahweh will be turned away from them and they will suffer the most just and terrible punishment. That His people, so morally rotten in their national life, should approach His presence and lightly tread His courts, confident in the rich abundance of their sacrifices and cheerfully forgetful of their sins, could only be the more displeasing to Him, because it denied His essential purity and holiness and equated Him with the idols of other races. 160 THE SOURCE OF MONO- YAH WISH Nothing but repentance and moral reformation can avert His wrath. ' Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth ; they are a trouble unto me ; I am weary to bear them. And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you ; yea, when ye make many prayers I will not hear ; your hands are full of blood. Wash you, make you clean, put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes ; cease to do evil ; learn to do well ; seek judge- ment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow ' (Isa. i 14-17). It may be claimed, then, that in this experience of Isaiah we have that which will account for his peculiar teaching and activities. Are we justified in inferring that the other prophets also derived their doctrine from a similar source ? Of this there cannot be much doubt. Jeremiah and Ezekiel, for instance, prefixed to then: prophecies an account of a religious experience, the same in kind with that of Isaiah. It is true that we do not find in their experiences all the features which are found in the case of Isaiah ; both prophets felt themselves to be in the presence of a Personality of immense power, and are conscious that a task is being laid upon them, which they feel themselves utterly incapable of carrying out, until they receive strength from the same source from which the task comes. The note of personal moral unworthiness, however, does not find expression (Jer. i ; Ezek. i-iii 14). But it would be a mistake to conclude from the silence of the prophets that nothing of the kind had taken place. Both prophets relate their experiences, not in order to give a full introspective account of all that passed in their minds, but to prove to their contemporaries that they had a right to speak in the name of Yahweh because He had visited them and commissioned them to do so. It has already been seen above that Amos and Micah appeal to religious experience as proof of the genuineness of their prophetic message ; there need then be no hesitation in accepting these experiences as the source of the substance of their message. And what is true of these prophets may be safely inferred of others ; for the conditions are the same and the results are the same. The negative argument THE SOURCE OF MONO-YAHWISM 161 from silence is of no value here, because the presence of abnormal religious states of mind would be assumed in the case of every one who appeared in public as a prophet, and what has come down to us is a summary of their teaching rather than a detailed and analysed account of their mental life. Not all the mono-Yahwists, of course, were prophets. Many of them were psalmists, compilers, editors, and law- givers. But the intellectual atmosphere of the whole Old Testament, in the Pentateuch and historical books as well as in the prophets, is so plainly the same in kind with that of the prophets that one can scarcely doubt that the same results are due to the same causes, and that here, too, religious experience is the source of mono-Yahwism. The omnipotence and moral uprightness of Yahweh was impressed upon them also, although, perhaps owing to differences of psychical temperament, these experiences expressed themselves in activities other than those commonly called prophetic. HAMILTON CHAPTER VI THE VALUE OF THE JEWISH RELIGION So far this inquiry has been carried on under the limita- tions which are proper to scientific inquiry, i.e. without any assumption whatever as to the ultimate nature of Reality, or the possibility of intercourse between God and man. The results so far reached appear to hold good no matter what view be taken of the ultimate nature of existence. But when the last word of historical criticism has been said and the last scientific analysis has been performed, when the progress of events has been traced back to its elementary beginnings in the human mind, it still remains to rise to a higher point of view and to endeavour to see these facts in the light of a definite belief as to the meaning of existence. The following discussion, therefore, frankly assumes a theistic position. It assumes that the ultimate Reality is spiritual, a holy moral Person, who created the universe, who is at once immanent in the world as the ground of its existence, and also transcendent above it ; and that Revelation and Religion are true, i.e. that it is possible for men to have a knowledge of God and to hold personal communion with Him. This assumption raises all our terms to a higher power, and so it becomes necessary to examine them again. In the first place, the word ' Religion ' is now to be used in a sense which up to this point has had no place. When we say that Religion is true, we mean that it is possible for man to experience a state of mind in which he holds communion with the Eternal Spirit, the Creator of the world. This does not, of course, imply that such communion has taken place when- ever any man has believed himself to have had intercourse with a divine Spirit ; but it means that it is not beyond the powers of human nature to know God personally. In this VALUE OF THE JEWISH RELIGION 163 use of the word, then, one is thinking of something which is inward, mental, and psychological, states of mind of a certain definite character. But when we speak of the ' Hebrew religion ', as distinct from the Egyptian or Babylonian religion, it is clear that ' religion ' does not mean primarily any psychological phenomena, but certain external facts, rites, common beliefs, divine names, &c., by which one system is distinguished from the other. Here it covers quite a different set of phenomena belonging to a different order of things. For the sake of clearness one ought to speak of ' historical ' religion and ' psychological ' or ' spiritual ' religion ; but perhaps the use or non-use of a capital will serve to distinguish in which sense the word is meant to be understood. ' Religion ', then, stands for those states of mind in which man has communion with God ; while ' religion ' means the outward manifestations of the religious life of man. This, of course, is not an exhaustive classification ; for we have not reckoned those states of mind which are commonly called ' religious ' but in which there is no real communion with God ; to cover this class a third term is needed ; but it seems necessary to get along without it, unless we speak of ' true ' Religion and ' false ' Religion. Let us observe, again, that with this assumption it becomes necessary to distinguish our phenomena into true and false. From the lower standpoint of pure science such distinctions are quite meaningless. The materialist may deny that God exists, but he cannot deny that the phenomena com- monly called ' religious ' exist. These phenomena, there- fore, are fit subjects of scientific inquiry ; and the scientific student has nothing whatever to gain by attempting to distinguish them into true and false. His duty is to observe, classify, and trace causal relations between, all the data which come under his notice ; he gains no more by calling one religion, or one religious state of mind, ' false ' and another ' true ' than the astronomer gains by saying that one star is true and another is false. But the moment we assume the possibility of Religion, these distinctions become all-important. For if it be true that man can know God, the M2 164 VALUE OF THE JEWISH RELIGION question arises, when any man claims to have had a religious experience, was it true ? did he really hold communion with God or not ? Is this really a case of Religion, or is it a spurious imitation of Religion ? But how, it may be asked, is it possible to answer these questions ? What tests can one apply to distinguish the true from the false ? Who can say when a man has known God and when he has not ? It is surely possible to apply at least one test. We know how in personal intercourse between men the strong invariably influence the weak. So also must it be with God, the Almighty and inconceivably Holy. No one can have known God personally and yet continue to think that He is one among many others, or that He is indifferent to moral conduct. Shall we say, then, that the religious states of mind of all those who believe in one righteous God are true ? What if they are merely cases of an ' uprush ' from the subconscious ? Unless we can exclude the possibility of such an upheaval from the hidden depths of our own beings, we cannot say whether or not any particular religious experience is a case of true Religion. But this must be discussed more fully below. The word ' Revelation ' also needs to be touched upon. If God is immanent in the world, then one may indeed regard the world as containing a revelation of God. For those who have eyes to see and the ability to understand, there is a real knowledge of God obtainable from the study and interpretation of the facts of existence. But if God is transcendent as well as immanent, another mode of Revela- tion is at least conceivable a mode in which God does not leave man to discover Him by his own efforts, but reveals Himself directly. It would be a waste of time to attempt to determine in just what way it is likely that such a Revela- tion would take place ; but one cannot exclude the possi- bility that God might disclose His existence and character to men without their searching for Him in and through the phenomena of nature. It would be better if one could confine the use of the word ' Revelation ' to this conception ; but it has come to be the fashion to use it for that knowledge of God which we gain through the study of nature ; and there VALUE OF THE JEWISH RELIGION 165 is little use in arguing about words so long as we are quite sure of their meaning. Perhaps the use or non-use of a capital letter will here also serve to preserve a distinction ; ' revelation,' then, means the knowledge about God which man derives from reflection on the facts of existence, and would perhaps be better called ' human discovery ' ; ' Reve- lation,' on the other hand, stands for a knowledge of God given directly to man by God Himself and not mediated through reflection on the nature of existence. Whether there is reason to think that such a Revelation has actually been given must be reserved for discussion below ; it will, however, conduce to clearness to have a conception such as this in one's mind. The dividing line between ' Revelation ' and ' revelation ' is not that the former is God's effort to seek after man and the latter man's effort to seek after God ; for we do not know that the Eternal Spirit is not seeking to disclose Himself to man through his own powers of observation and reflection. In the one case, man arrives at a knowledge of God's existence and character by a slow and painful process of endeavouring to solve the riddle of existence ; in the other case, this knowledge comes directly without being mediated through such a process of reflection- II With these distinctions in mind, then, let us endeavour to review the religious life of man in order to see the value which should be assigned to the experiences of the mono- Yahwists. To begin, then, with the ancient polytheistic world outside Israel. It was seen in the last chapter that many men passed through inner experiences of a very vivid character, in which, they were fully convinced, they had been in communion with a divine spirit. The vivid sense of objectivity which these experiences carried with them is, of course, no guarantee that they were cases of true Religion ; it is explained by psychologists as due to what has been called ' unconscious cerebration '. Psychology ' teaches us by innumerable examples that by far the majority of the impressions on our senses leave no trace in conscious recol- 166 VALUE OF THE JEWISH RELIGION lection, although they are stored in the records of the brain ; that what seems lost to memory still lingers in its recesses ; and that mental action is constantly going on and reaching results, wholly without our knowledge.' l What is thus stored up out of sight in the subconscious mind suddenly comes to light in an ' uprush ' from beneath the level of consciousness. ' The most complex mechanical inventions, the most impressive art-work of the world, even the most difficult mathematical solutions, have been attained through this unknowing mechanism of mind. They seemed real inspira- tions, but we maybe sure that the mind through long conscious effort had been storing the material and laying the founda- tion for the perfect edifice which sprang so magically into existence.' 2 The suddenness with which the new thought stands revealed in the mind creates the impression that it has been imparted from the outside ; but in reality it is merely the product of our own mental faculties, which suddenly and unex- pectedly appears from below the threshold of consciousness. There does not appear to be any element in the religious experiences of the polytheists which cannot be fully ac- counted for in this way. An upheaval from the depths of the subconscious mind creates a vivid sense of objectivity ; but no new truth comes up from these hidden depths ; the same old world of polytheistic deities which had long been familiar objects of normal consciousness is once more brought to light in an abnormal manner. These, then, may be explained simply as" cases of self-suggestion. And there is another reason which makes it impossible to regard them as instances of true Religion. The polytheists always went away from those experiences without a shadow of doubt that the person with whom they had held inter- course was limited in power and of no special moral character. Can one think that men could enjoy intimate personal intercourse with the inconceivably Holy and Mighty Person of God, and yet continue to think that He is one among 1 Blinton, Religions of Primitive Peoples, p. 53. * Ibid., p. 64. VALUE OF THE JEWISH RELIGION 167 many others, or that the best way to please Him is to sacrifice their chastity or their children in His honour ? Surely these men could not have experienced God ; for if so, they could not have continued to think of Him as they did. There is, in the content of these experiences, nothing to justify a refusal to take the natural and simple explana- tion which lies ready to hand, that they are instances of an ' uprush ' from the subconscious. The truth is that the old polytheisms were a positive obstacle to real Religion, because they represented the Deity in an unworthy form, as having an outward resemblance to created objects ; and worse still, they engendered in men a wholly false sense of moral equality with the divine. In representing the gods as morally fallible, they overlooked the awfulness of wrong- doing and caused men to approach their deities with a blind confidence that no wide gulf in respect of moral character separates man from God. This foolish confidence in his moral equality with the divine is ever the greatest hindrance in man's approach to God, because it is the antithesis of true Religion. And since this is of the essence of polytheism, polytheism must disappear or be abandoned before the road is open for an approach to God in spirit and in truth. The religious nature of man performed its functions then as it does now, but it fastened itself upon the creature rather than the Creator. If any men did know God personally in those days, it was in spite of the polytheisms and because they were not successful in misleading them. To say this does not imply that the polytheists were entirely apart from the Spirit of God or beyond the pale of His love. It only means that the polytheistic religions were a hindrance to the personal knowledge of God. God is immanent in man as in all else, and all that is good and true in the thought and life of men of every age and place may justly be ascribed to the promptings of His indwelling Spirit seeking to guide them into the truth and to express Himself in and through them. But all this is not Religion, because it does not imply conscious fellowship with God. Religion is something more than the divine immanence of God in man, for this man shares with the rest of creation. Religion 168 implies an intercourse between God and man, a fellowship, a commerce in which man recognizes God and consciously submits himself to His divine love and will in worship. But God is good ; and those alone submit themselves to Him who choose what is good and pure, because they know that this is what He is. We may desire to know God and to lift up our hearts to Him, but if we imagine that this may be done without a moral regeneration and a crucifixion of all that is evil in us, we are simply deceiving ourselves. True Religion involves a choosing of goodness, because this is His will, and a rejection of evil, because it is contrary to His will. If we are to know God in that higher mode which is conscious fellowship with Him, we must, by our own act of moral choice, crucify the lower self and fling wide the gates of our souls to welcome the Divine Companion. But the ancient polytheisms not only afforded no oppor- tunity for any such act of moral choice, they also negatived the idea that it could be necessary. It is true that they encouraged the subordination of self to the interests of the community ; but they did not identify the divine with goodness, nor did they hold that the favours of the gods depended on a moral life. One could choose the polytheistic gods without choosing goodness ; one could enjoy fellowship with them without any sense of moral un worthiness. It is small wonder that the cult of the gods was at most times both popular and joyous ; it involved no acceptance of a high moral standard difficult and painful to live up to, but rather encouraged men to seek the divine in and with the gratification of the desires of the flesh. In so far, then, as true communion with God is concerned, these ancient religions were an obstacle rather than a help. Nor can it be said that the polytheisms supplied men with much true knowledge about God. In depicting the divine as divided into so many different personalities, who were often in conflict with each other, and as having an attach- ment to localities and to figures of created things, and as being of indifferent moral character, they were a travesty of God rather than the truth. There is no reason to suppose that there was any direct Revelation from God here, nor VALUE OF THE JEWISH RELIGION 169 even any revelation in the sense that men had discovered for themselves what God is. There may have been some elements of what is true in these ancient religions, but in the midst of so much confusion as to the real essence of the being and character of God, they appear as negligible quantities. Ill And yet one need not think that God left Himself without witness in any race of men. If God is immanent in the universe, if the universe is His creation, then to those who have eyes to see and minds to understand, the world of man's environment must be eloquent of God. God ' left not himself without witness, in that he did good and gave you from heaven rains and fruitful seasons, rilling your hearts with food and gladness '. ' For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being per- ceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity.' The book of Nature was there to be read with all its glorious message from God ; and when St. Paul lived, serious efforts to read it had already been made. In the polytheistic age, however, men did not apply their faculties to the solution of the great world- problem, but contented themselves with certain assumptions inherited from a remote past. When, however, they at last set themselves to read the book of Nature, it was not long before the unreality of the ancient polytheisms was dis- covered ; and this, in turn, yielded to the induction that there is one infinite Spirit who is all-wise and all-holy, and to whom alone the word ' God ' is in truth applicable. This discovery was the work of the Greek genius. It was clearly a revelation, a discovery by man of the truth about God's existence from the study of God's handiwork in the created world. We may also call it a divine revelation, if we like ; for surely these Greeks were not without a large measure of the indwelling Spirit. But it would be quite a mistake to suppose that it was in any sense a ' religious ' revelation. It was certainly not the result of religious experience, nor was it in any way mediated through the 170 VALUE OF THE JEWISH RELIGION ancient polytheisms ; on the contrary, the process of investigation on which it rested had to be carried on in the face of much opposition from the side of the old religion, and in the end it deprived that religion of all semblance of truth. Nor, again, was it a Revelation, i.e. a knowledge of God communicated apart from the study of nature. The process by which it was reached can be traced from point to point throughout its course, and everywhere it presents itself as a process of human observation and reflection. But when the Greeks had once opened men's eyes to the truth that there is but one God and that He is good, the religious life of man entered upon a new phase with new opportunities. A conception of what God is, in some measure adequate, and of what communion with Him would involve from a moral point of view, now became a permanent possession. Men now had some true idea of the spirit in which the divine ought to be approached, and knew that they were not on terms of easy moral equality with Him. It was now possible to make the free moral choice involved in true Religion, to go in search of God knowing that the lower self must be sacrificed to obtain fellowship with Him. And many entered on the search in serious earnestness. All kinds of asceticisms were practised, and all sorts of mysterious rites were performed in the Graeco-Roman world to purify the soul for an approach to God. The one great difficulty was that no one could tell for certain just where to turn to find Him. Many claimed to know, but it was clear that they could not all be right. The religious life of man was thrown back upon itself in confusion for lack of authoritative guidance. While there was much which was dark and much which was superstitious in the religion of even the more educated classes, yet there were, no doubt, here and there, a few who sought God in humility and truth, and in readiness to sacrifice everything for Him. And surely there is no reason to doubt that those who thus sought God in spirit and in truth, and endeavoured to do what they believed to be His will, did indeed receive an adequate reward. Who is to say that such good and pro- foundly reverent minds as those of Socrates and Plato, for VALUE OF THE JEWISH RELIGION 171 instance, were far from the true knowledge of God ? One reservation only would have to be made at this point. If some of the philosophers were not far from the real presence of God, this was not the source of their knowledge that He is one and is good ; that knowledge, as has been seen in chapter i, came from another origin. IV But let us now turn to the phenomena of the Hebrew religion. In the first place, the content of the experience of the mono-Yahwists cannot be explained solely as the result of an ' uprush ' from the subconscious. While this explanation may be applicable elsewhere, it does not hold good here. The polytheist was confirmed in his belief in many morally indifferent gods, because his subconscious memory had long been charged with suggestions of the reality of these gods. So the modern monotheist, brought up in an atmosphere of monotheism, finds that his sub- conscious self reveals a single God. But one thing seems quite clear regarding the mono-Yahwists. There was nothing in their past lives, before they entered on these peculiar experiences, to suggest to them the truth of mono-Yahwism. The inherited assumptions, the logic, and the entire intel- lectual atmosphere of their day, suggested to them, from childhood onwards, the truth of polytheism and the hollow unreality of ethical monotheism. Their belief, then, was not an ' uprush ' from the hidden storehouse of memory or of unconscious cerebration ; if we must speak in these terms, it would be more true to call it by Professor Percy Gardner's term, a ' down-rush ' from the ' super-conscious '. And yet there must have been some sufficient cause for these experiences. Perhaps one might make use of these phenomena in an argument in support of belief in the existence of God ; but, if we start from the premiss that God does exist and that it is possible for men to have communion with Him, then surely we must see instances of such communion in these experiences. They bear about them every mark of a personal communion with God. How 172 VALUE OF THE JEWISH RELIGION profoundly one human personality may be influenced by another, when brought into close contact with it, is a matter of common observation. The strong impress themselves upon the weak in many subtle ways, of which both are more or less conscious. One cannot think that it is otherwise with the Almighty and All-holy Personality of God. Granted that personal intercourse with Him is possible, surely, where an impression of inconceivable power and purity is so burned in upon the soul that it never ceases to believe in the almighty power and moral purity of God, one must see evidence of genuine communion between God and man. As has been seen, the experiences of the Hebrew prophets were just of this type ; they felt themselves to be in the presence of an Almighty and All-holy Person with such an intense sense of reality that it changed for them the whole meaning of existence. If this is not personal intercourse with God, then such intercourse is not to be found anywhere ; and either it is an impossibility, or else man has never yet been permitted to enjoy it. And if this is admitted, then these experiences must also be regarded as constituting a Revelation, i.e. a knowledge of Himself given by God directly and not through man's attempt to find Him out by reflection on the problem of existence. The difference between mono-Yahwism and philosophical reflection as modes of revelation may be illustrated thus. A man born blind might be educated in natural science, so that he could tell us many things that are true about such a thing as sunlight, its physical properties, its chemical action, and so forth. If, however, he were born blind, he would never have felt that personal experience of sunlight which the rudest barbarian who is born with normal powers of sight enjoys every day of his life. Philosophical speculation may give us a knowledge akin to that of the blind scientist ; but the mono-Yahwists experienced God personally. Now the barbarian's experience teaches him many things that are true about sunlight ; his knowledge may not be as exact or as well ordered as that of the blind scientist ; but for the ordinary purposes of his everyday life it is far more useful ; and just so also, when the mono- VALUE OF THE JEWISH RELIGION 173 Yahwists experienced God, they learned in those moments much which is true about Him ; and the things which they then learned about God were the things of practical impor- tance for a man to know for his soul's health, even though they state them in terms which sound crudely anthropo- morphic to the sensitive ear of the metaphysician. So far, then, there seems to be some reason for regarding each of these states as an instance of communion between God and man and as a case of divine self -Revelation. And there are still other points to be taken into consideration. It is a remarkable thing that, so far as we know, experiences such as these were confined to the Hebrew people. We have not, it is true, an exhaustive account of the religious states of mind of every prophet of every race, and therefore, in strict logic, it is impossible to establish a universal negative. But this much at least may be said with safety : if any others in the ancient world passed through such moments as these, the evidence of it has perished ; we cannot exclude the possibility that similar states may have occurred elsewhere, but if so, they were isolated and dis- connected instances which were not part of any definite system or plan of Revelation. It may perhaps be that evidence will some day be forthcoming to show that experi- ences such as those of Isaiah occurred in the ancient world outside Israel ; but, if so, it is hardly possible that they will be found to form part of a religious development, so remarkable at once for its continuation from age to age and for its beneficial effects upon mankind, as was the case with the experiences of the Hebrews. For the peculiar experiences of the mono- Yahwists initiated a sequence of events which has been quite unique. Let us observe, in the first place, that they are frequently repeated during the course of several centuries. Beginning with the writers of the Jehovistic and Elohistic narratives at the end of the ninth and early part of the eighth cen- tury B.C., they are continued with Amos and Hosea in the North, and Isaiah and Micah in the South, down to the end of the eighth century. In the reign of Manasseh (696- 641 B.C.) no great mono-Yahwist prophet appears, but 174 VALUE OF THE JEWISH RELIGION probably we should date the composition of the main part of Deuteronomy in this period. From the days of Josiah (639-609 B.C.), however, the stream of witness is continuous through the exile down to the return in the sixth and fifth centuries with Zephaniah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, the second Isaiah, Haggai, Malachi, and others. We do not know that these experiences ceased even then, but with the promulga- tion of the Law by Ezra in 444 B.C. mono- Yah wism became the accepted creed of the whole nation ; and so, in the absence of the former background of unbelief, experiences such as those of Isaiah would hardly manifest themselves in precisely the same manner. Then, again, we observe that they always came in close association with the Name of Yahweh, the national God of Israel. None of those who enjoyed these states of mind seem to have imagined that the God with whom they held intercourse was other than Yahweh, the God whom they knew to be served by many of their contemporaries as a characteristic Semitic deity, nor was any one of them ever detached, in consequence of these experiences, from his allegiance to the national God of Israel. If, then, there was an act of divine self-Revelation in any one of these states, this constant association with the Name of Yahweh can scarcely be a matter of chance, nor can it be due to the idiosyncrasies of an individual ; it argues a special divine choice of this Name as a medium of Revelation. If any one of this series of experiences represents an act of divine self- disclosure, then the series as a whole, linked together by the Name of Yahweh, the national God of Israel, represents a scheme, or better, as will be seen below, the beginnings of a scheme, of Revelation. But let us see what is involved in this admission that the Name ' Yahweh ' was chosen to be a means of Revelation. It implies that special opportunities and privileges were given to the nation which worshipped this God Yahweh. It implies that there was a truth, a reality, about this national religion which was not shared by any other. And more than this. It was the unquestioned assumption of the men of that age that the outward forms of religion were pre- VALUE OF THE JEWISH RELIGION 175 scribed by the gods themselves, each one of them having communicated his will in the matter through his priests, prophets, or other inspired persons. And so also the national system of religion in Israel was believed to have been revealed directly by Yahweh Himself. Hence the inevitable consequence of associating these peculiar experiences with the Name of Yahweh was to cause those who enjoyed them to believe that Israel's national religion represented the directly revealed will of the one Almighty and All-holy God. Since, under the conditions of that day, this belief necessarily followed from the constant linking of these special states of mind with the Name of the national God of Israel, it seems that we must include this as part of the divine scheme, and say that the entire system of Israel's religion, with all its outward forms, was chosen with the Name ' Yahweh ' to be a means of divine self -Revelation. But here a distinction must be drawn. When we speak of Israel's national system of religion, our minds run back to the corrupt practices against which the prophets protested, and with these in view, it is natural to feel that there must be some flaw in this reasoning. But, as was seen in chapter ii, these corruptions, and the confidence reposed in the mere performance of ritual, were no part of the original religion of Moses, but were borrowed from the Canaanites and their Baal worship. And the fact that these abuses were always denounced as violations of the will of Yahweh by those who experienced His power and holiness is a proof that these outward forms can lay no claim to be a part of the religious system sanctioned by the divine choice of the Name of Yahweh. On the other hand, it is of importance to observe that a system of religion of a very different kind came into existence as the direct result of the union of the Name ' Yahweh ' with the inner experience of an Almighty and All-holy God. In the pre-exilic period, as was seen in chapter ii, there were two levels of religious thought in the nation the lower level of those who regarded Yahweh as a characteristic Semitic deity, and the higher level of the mono-Yahwists. 176 VALUE OF THE JEWISH RELIGION The cultus was, for the most part, upon the lower level ; for although the sanctuary at Jerusalem was comparatively free from the worst abuses, yet the religious celebrations at the ' high places ' had taken on all the debasing features of the Canaanite ritual. In the reign of Josiah an attempt was made to capture the entire national system of religion for the mono-Yahwist belief by the suppression of the ' high places ' and the limitation of sacrifice to the central shrine at Jerusalem ; and a ritual was carefully constructed with a view to expressing the essential principles of mono- Yahwism. While this reform met with some temporary success, the nation was not yet prepared for so sweeping a change ; a reaction set in and the cultus of the popular party reasserted itself with renewed vigour under Josiah's successors. The exile, however, wrought a profound change and left the balance of power in the hands of the mono- Yahwists. Let us remind ourselves that in those days what gave a nation its cohesion and self-consciousness was the worship of a common god. When the national religion became extinct, there was nothing to hold the individuals together, and consequently the national spirit broke down. The surest way to prevent the rebellion of a subject race was to stamp out its religion ; and the only effective way of doing this was to transplant the entire people to a distant and alien soil ; for this not only proved the imbecility of the national god, but also made the organized practice of the national religion impossible. Hence the individuals soon fell apart and amalgamated with the local population of their environment. In the exile this great disaster befell the people of Israel. Many said that Yahweh was a broken god, and turned to the worship of deities whom they considered more helpful. That all the Israelites did not follow this example was due to the influence of such men as Ezekiel and the second Isaiah, and their magnificent faith and courage. The national life went into a state of solution ; the less receptive, the more unbelieving elements were set free and adhered to other religions. When it was reconstituted again, it was com- posed of those only who could respond to the teaching of VALUE OF THE JEWISH RELIGION 177 the mono-Yahwists and believe that Yahweh is something more than a characteristic Semitic deity. It required no little courage and faith on the part of the Jews to abandon their new homes in Babylon and set out for what was now a strange country, though full of many sad memories. But there was idealism enough to respond to the call ; and that certainty of Yahweh's power and love, which came in moments of religious exaltation, was not wanting to cheer the little community through many a sore trial and bitter disillusionment. After the exile the religious life of the nation entered on a new stage of its existence. The old debasing and immoral corruptions, which had crept in under Canaanite influence, were purged away. A new ritual took its place which was designed to express the idea that Yahweh is the Almighty and All-holy God and that Israel is to Him a peculiar people among all the nations of the earth. The re- writing from the mono-Yahwist point of view of the old traditions regard- ing the origin of the world and the early history of Israel, which had already been begun before the exile, was now taken up again in earnest and carried to a conclusion. Mono-Yahwism became the accepted creed of the whole people. The national system of religion thus came to repre- sent a high standard of religious belief and moral conduct, and as such was passionately and devotedly cherished by the best and most truly religious minds in the nation. Let us observe that this is something absolutely unique in the history of religions. This is the one instance in which we can properly speak of the development of a religion into a definite monotheism ; the advance to monotheism was everywhere else fatal to the old religions, and it triumphed by their downfall. But here, at a time when Greek philo- sophy was still in its infancy, when the civilized world still lay in the grip of polytheism, this national religion, without ever losing consciousness of itself as one and the same all through its history, divested itself of all polytheistic accre- tions and influences, and organized itself upon the basis of a pure ethical monotheism ; and this took place as the result of a continued series of religious experiences, each of which HAMILTON I 178 VALUE OF THE JEWISH RELIGION commends itself to us as an instance of communion between God and man. The remarkable thing about post-exilic Judaism is surely not that it became the religion of a book and a system of ordinances to be fulfilled according to the letter, but that now, for the first time in history, there appeared an organized system of monotheistic religion. It is for this monotheistic system, which is summed up in the New Testament under the term ' the Law of Moses ', that a claim to special divine sanction can rightly be made ; for that system would never have come into existence had not these instances of divine self -Revelation been continually associated with the Name of Yahweh, the national God of Israel, and confined to those who served Him. There is at the present day the strongest kind of prejudice against any limitation of religious privilege to one race or creed ; it is felt that God will reveal Himself to those who seek for Him, no matter what race or religion they belong to. If this feeling represented the divine Will in truth and in fact, one would expect, on looking back over the history of the ancient world, to find that instances of real com- munion between God and man were not confined to any special group of men, but that now one in one race, and now another in another, was led to believe in one Almighty and All-holy God who was behind all existing forms and dis- tinctions in religion, and could not be identified with any one of them to the exclusion of all others. So far as one can see, there is no reason why this might not have taken place. And if it be true that God cares nothing for the outward organized and corporate aspect of religion, but only for the individual in and by himself, one would rightly have expected to find that these experiences of God's power and holiness ignored all outward bounds between nations and religions. But we are not the best judges of how God may or may not give a Revelation of Himself. One can only say that on looking back over the history of the pre-Christian world, we find, on the one hand, no positive evidence of any such experiences outside Israel, and, on the other, clear indications of their continuation in connexion with the Name of the national God of Israel for century after century, VALUE OF THE JEWISH RELIGION 179 until the whole national religion was definitely organized upon the basis of a belief in one Almighty and All-holy God. This limitation to Israel points to the conclusion that God does care for the outward aspect of man's religious life, and that He chose this national religion to be the matrix of a divinely authorized system of religion to which all men should adhere. Let us look at this point again from a slightly different point of view. Granted that God willed to vouchsafe a Revelation of Himself through the medium of religious experience at that time and under the conditions which prevailed in the ancient Semitic world, it is conceivable that such cases of true Religion might have come to men in one of two ways. (1) They might have been vouchsafed irre- spective of race and religion and apart from any divine name then known ; or, (2) they might have been confined to one specially selected race and its religion. But under the conditions which prevailed in those days, no third alternative is conceivable, because any other method would have introduced confusion. Supposing, for instance, that certain Moabites were led to believe that Chemosh is the one and only God ; and that certain Babylonians were led to claim that title for Marduk ; and, again, the prophets of Israel to assert that Yahweh is the only God if this had happened, the result must have been such confusion and discord as would have nullified the Revelation completely. These gods were distinct personalities, as distinct as the races which worshipped them. To the Babylonian the claim of the Moabite and the Israelite alike would have appeared blasphemous and intolerable ; while just in proportion as the experiences of the Israelites and the Moabites were cases of real and true communion with God, just so much the more would they have been impelled to resist and deny the claim of Marduk. The result must have been a fierce and bitter strife, if not a war of extermination, in the name of the All- holy God. This much at least one may say, that if anything of this kind had occurred, we would have been quite right in denying that such experiences could represent a Revela- tion of God to man. N2 180 VALUE OF THE JEWISH RELIGION Under the conditions of that age, then, there are two alternatives for a Revelation through religious experience ; and the two are widely and unmistakably different from each other ; the one, in which such experiences are vouch- safed without regard to race or to the outward forms of religion, leads directly to the inference that the outward is incapable of assuring us of any special divine blessing ; the other, in which they are limited to a single religious system, brings us as directly to the conclusion that this special system has been chosen to be the channel of an assured communion with God. And when we turn back the page of history to observe what, as a matter of fact, has happened, we find that the verdict of the past is in favour of the latter of these alternatives, and against the former. Having reached this point, a number of additional considerations and possible objections at once come into view, and with these one must now attempt to deal, though in some cases one can only foreshadow what is discussed more fully in succeeding chapters. (1) Let us observe, first of all, that the Jewish system pointed beyond itself to a yet greater manifestation of God. Believing that the only and Almighty God had revealed Himself to the Hebrews alone and had made them His worshippers, the prophets felt sure that a time would come when He would reveal Himself yet more fully to Israel, and, through Israel, to all the nations of the world. Here, then,is a test of the truth of mono-Yahwism. Was this belief in the unique value of the Jewish religion justi- fied by the occurrence of anything in Jewish history which we can recognize as a further manifestation of God in and through this religion ? This point is discussed in chapter vii. (2) And this brings us to a second point. Whatever view be taken of His Personality, the teaching of Jesus possesses immense weight in matters of religion. What was His attitude, then, towards this claim of special privilege and sanction for the Law of Moses ? The universal answer will be that it was He who freed men from the burden of the Law, stripped religion of its national setting, and set before the world the conception of the universal love of God. But how did He free men from the Law ? If He freed any one, VALUE OF THE JEWISH RELIGION 181 He freed the Jews of His own day ; and they believed they were bound to the Law because it had been supernaturally revealed from heaven. Hence, if Jesus freed these Jews, He could have done so only in one of two ways. Either He freed them by opening their eyes to the fact that they never had been bound to it, by proving that the Law never had had any supernatural sanction ; or else, He freed them by claiming to possess supernatural authority to do so, by authoritatively abolishing the Law from its position of divine obligation, and authoritatively establishing a new mode of access to God. It will be seen in chapter viii that the latter is the alternative which should be adopted. What- ever degree of authority be assigned to Jesus and His teach- ing, the whole of it may be quoted in favour of this view of the value of the Jewish religion. In the first chapter of vol. ii it will be seen that the universalism of Christianity was not due to the influx of any liberal notions about the native equality of all men in the sight of God, but to the fact that certain Jews, who remained passionately devoted to the God of the Mosaic Law, were convinced that Jesus of Nazareth possessed supernatural authority to reorganize the ancient national religion, i.e. to institute a New Covenant between the national God and His people ; and they found, when they came to apply the terms of this New Covenant to the conditions around them, that they were such that the highest privileges of the ancient, but now reorganized, religion, were laid open to the Gentiles upon precisely the same terms as to the physical children of Abraham. Hence the universalism of Christianity. It cannot, then, be raised as an objection to this view of the Jewish religion that it implies the exclusion of the vast majority of men from religious privilege, as though God cared for some only and not for all. The limitation of privilege to Israel was, as a matter of fact, a part of the preparation for, and under the religious conditions of that day a necessary part of the preparation for, the ultimate inclusion of all in one world- wide self-conscious fellowship. And if it be thought incredible that God should impose an obligation to observe special outward forms or ceremonies, 182 VALUE OF THE JEWISH RELIGION such as those of the Mosaic Law, one must point out that the observance of the Law, by keeping the Jews from amalgamating with other races, served the purpose of pre- serving their monotheistic faith from the corrupting influence of the surrounding polytheisms. And, again, one must not overlook the fact that the obligation to continue to observe the Law was abolished by the greatest Figure in the history of mankind, Jesus of Nazareth, who claimed divine authority to supersede the Old by a New Covenant. Nor can it be urged against this view of the Jewish religion that it does not form part of a beneficent scheme of progress. The experiences of the mono-Yahwists, the establishment of a national system of monotheistic religion, the character, teaching, and resurrection of Jesus the Messiah, the reorgan- ization of the ancient religion into the universalism of Christianity, the spread of Christian missions from that day to this where can one find a parallel to this series of events ? The experiences of the prophets did not end with themselves ; they initiated a sequence of closely related and vitally interconnected effects which has now become world-wide and age-long, and has proved itself of the highest value in the upward advance of the human race. And there is something significant in the relation, in respect of time, in which this series stands towards the general progress of civilization elsewhere. In the first place, when these experiences began to make their appearance, the polytheistic age was about to draw to its close. The greatest of the mono- Yah wist prophets flourished in the eighth, seventh, and sixth centuries B.C. The first of the Greeks who explained the world without the help of the polytheistic gods appeared in the sixth century B.C. The latter half of the fifth century may be taken as the time when mono- Yahwism became the established creed of the whole Jewish nation, which synchronizes with the life of Socrates (469- 399 B.C.), the first philosophical monotheist. The dates of Plato are 427-347 B.C. and of Aristotle 385-322 B.C. It is thus quite plain that the establishment of the Jewish national religion upon a definitely monotheistic basis was brought about prior to, and quite independently of, the philosophical VALUE OF THE JEWISH RELIGION 183 activities of the Greeks. The centuries which immediately succeeded these events saw the conquests of Alexander the Great and the rise of the Roman Empire. In the train of Alexander went Greek culture and the Greek ideas of the universe ; and in consequence, the rapid decay of the old national religions and a growing demand for something better. The Roman Empire furthered this movement by making the world conscious of itself as a whole, and giving it an oppor- tunity to take stock of its ideas. Things were now ripe for a change ; the old religions were bankrupt ; from serious- minded men the cry went up for an assured means of access to one Holy and Supreme God. It is small wonder that, under such circumstances, the Jewish religion attracted a large number of religiously-minded Gentiles. Wherever the Jew went, he took his sacred Scriptures ; and, sooner or later, he built himself a Synagogue. And here, week by week, the children of Abraham met together with those Gentile inquirers who felt the power of the Jewish mono- theism and observed the Law in varying degrees of fullness. While these ' God-fearers ' were numerous, comparatively few of them were converted to Judaism, because compara- tively few were willing to submit to circumcision and to the sundering of every natural tie of blood and friendship which the observance of the whole Law entailed for a Gentile. Things were in this state when the ancient monotheistic religion of the Jews underwent a profound transformation. It suddenly appears in a new form, disentangled from the national limitations of Judaism, and claiming to be able to bring salvation to the whole of mankind without distinction of race or station in life. There is something providential about the moment at which this change takes place ; for on the one hand, the progress of civilization had brought the religious life of men to a point where it stood in dire need of just such a religion as Christianity ; and on the other, Christianity could not have flourished so well save in an intellectual atmosphere such as that which the spread of Greek thought had created. If the transition from Judaism to Christianity had taken place at a much earlier age, or in a country too remote to come in contact with Greek thought, 184 VALUE OF THE JEWISH RELIGION the Christian monotheism would have found itself in an uncongenial atmosphere with no one to appreciate or to feel the need of it. On the other hand, Greek thought threw the religious life of the old world into confusion. Now that the old gods were abandoned, men knew not where to turn to find God, nor how to satisfy the demands of their religious instincts. While some choice spirits may have known God in truth, the religion of the common man was a fearful medley of superstitions and mysteries. With the decay of the traditional religions went also the decline of the old consuetudinary morality. The ancient civilization was passing into the corruption of unrestrained self-indulgence, because there was no clear line of moral duty visible any- where. The call to morality needed a divine sanction to give it force ; it needed a proof that duty is of divine and not of human origin ; but Greek philosophy left men without any assured means of communion with God and without any divinely authorized revelation of His will. It was just the absence of something which could prove itself to be a definite communication from God that robbed every moral effort of its power, and threatened to corrupt the religious life of man into a hopeless confusion of superstitions. Had the Graeco-Roman civilization been left to itself, it would probably have returned of itself to savagery ; certainly, it would never have survived the inroads of the barbarians. But the experiences of the Hebrew prophets, startling the ancient world from its centuries of polytheistic slumber, appeared just in time to lay the foundations for the religion of Jesus Christ. And Christianity supplied the world with just what it needed to save it from retrogression. Its trumpet-call to a higher moral life rang out in the Name of one Almighty God and provided that inspiration to fresh endeavour which could not be found elsewhere ; it welcomed men to a religious fellowship which worshipped one holy moral God and claimed to have a special revelation of His will ; it provided an atmosphere in which the religious life of man could develop along lines of wholesome progress ; it commended itself by good works and the mutual love of its members ; and it proved its claim to the possession of truth VALUE OF THE JEWISH RELIGION 185 supernaturally communicated by pointing to its ancient origin, quite independent of Greek philosophy, and by appealing to the ancient scriptures of the mono-Yahwists and their fulfilment in Jesus the Messiah. 1 In a very real sense, then, these experiences of the mono- Yahwists initiated a process of events by which the religious life of man was provided with just that kind of home it most needed when it had shaken off the grasp of the ancient polytheisms, and by which the moral life of man was pro- vided with that incentive to right conduct which alone could save the social organism, when, through the failure of the old morality, it was in danger of dissolution. But let us now endeavour to gather our conclusions together to a focus. No real religious value can be assigned to the ancient polytheisms. The essentially religious nature of man insisted on some satisfaction then as it does now, but these systems of religion were obstacles to the true know- ledge of God. With the rise of Greek philosophy these obstacles were removed, and men were able to go in search of God with some idea of what He is and of what finding Him would mean. And one may well think that those who sought for Him with repentance and humility met with some due reward. Now if this were all that is to be said on the subject of the transition to monotheism, if we had no other facts to record, we would rightly conclude that true Religion is independent of all outward systems. But however much emphasis we may lay upon the enlightened views of the philosophers, and however much truth we may see in their religious life, we cannot shut our eyes to another series of facts. Just before the old poly- theism broke down, we find a succession of experiences which bear every mark of being instances of communion with God. And these experiences came in such a way, always in con- nexion with the name of the national God of Israel, that they resulted in the establishment of a definite organized system of religion devoted to the worship of one Almighty and Holy God. And, again, just at the moment when the progress of civilization brought men to a point where they 1 Cf. Harnack, Mission and Expansion of Christianity, Pt. I, Bk. II. 186 VALUE OF THE JEWISH RELIGION stood in need of a monotheistic religion with an assured means of approach to God, this ancient system underwent a reorganization in which all its former imperfections and limitations were done away, and all that was best in it was retained. And this transition from Judaism to Christianity took place under the authority of no less a Person than Jesus of Nazareth. Our conclusion, then, must be that it was God's will to consecrate the outward organized aspect of religion as well as the inward and individual aspect ; and that He vouchsafed the true knowledge of Himself to the Jews in order that their national system of religion might become the matrix of a divinely authorized organization in which all men of every race and position should unite before Him to accomplish His will. Against any such position as this there is a very strong prejudice at the present day. But why should it be thought unworthy of God to select a religious organization and endow it with His special divine authority and sanction ? Such a choice does of course imply a temporary limitation of privilege to a few. But against this must be set the consideration that in the case before us that limitation was temporary only, and its aim was the ultimate inclusion of all. If it be objected that even so there is an inequality, one must point out that the denial of a special choice such as this does not make men equal. The inequality of men is one of the hardest and most stubborn facts of life. No two men are born with absolutely equal opportunities and endow- ments, and no two races have an absolutely equal heritage. There is no use our asking why all created things were not made absolutely perfect from the beginning ; the fact remains that we progress from lower to higher. And in this process of advance it seems necessary that one race or individual should, for a time at least, possess privileges and advantages not given to others. One may be quite sure that the polytheists received as much as they were able to appreciate and willing to receive ; and if they did not have VALUE OF THE JEWISH RELIGION 187 the same opportunities as others, they will not be held responsible for a failure to use those opportunities. On the other hand, there are reasons why the provision of a divinely authorized system of religion appears to be more in keeping with the divine love than the lack of such provision. All men are not of the same psychological temperament. While there may be some who, when they seek God, experience a state of feeling which leaves them no doubt whatever that they have been in communion with Him, yet these are usually the minority ; there are very many others, equally devout and equally desirous of knowing God, who never know what it is to pass through such a state of mind, whose souls are not swept by violent gales of intense religious emotion. These men need some other assurance of communion with God, and the provision of a divinely authorized system of religion supplies that need ; for it assures all those who seek God in spirit and in truth that He does meet with them under certain definite outward conditions. This does not, of course, mean that the per- formance of ritual can be offered as a substitute for that inward contrition and faith which are essential to a true approach to God ; but rather, that an assurance of God's favour and fellowship is given by these outward means to those who turn to Him in the right spirit. Again, if we can believe that God has appointed definite means of approach to Himself, we can have no doubt that our religious endeavours are of value in His sight and that He does seek for fellowship with us. On the other hand, if no such divinely authorized system of religion has been appointed, the very absence of divinely assured means of communion would seem to indicate an attitude of indifference. Once more, man is by nature a social animal. The individual cannot realize himself or fulfil his being except as a member of a society in organic union with his fellows. What reason, then, is there for thinking that the individual can attain his full stature as a son of God apart from others ? Why should it be thought that in his relation to God he may stand naked and alone, and realize the full capacity of his nature without reference to other men ? We are members 188 one of another in our spiritual and religious lives as well as in our social and economic lives. In order to exercise our religious capacities we must and do organize ourselves together, for here more than anywhere else does the indi- vidual seek the company of his fellows. It is impossible to do away entirely with the outward in religion. But is that outward to be one or many ? If the human race is one in the sight of God, and if God loves all alike, then surely there should be but one outward religious system of which all should be members. Once it is granted that the individual cannot stand alone in his religious life, what ground is there for cutting the race up into so many different sections, each with its own separate religious system and fellowship ? The ideal must be the inclusion of all in a single fellowship ; the individual cannot fully realize his capacity for communion with God until he approaches God as a member of a religious brotherhood in which all the rest of mankind is associated with him. Some there are who would maintain that there is a spiritual fellowship of all those who seek God, which is independent of all outward conditions and exists in truth and reality in spite of all visible and apparent separations. If there is some measure of truth in this position, it must be granted that there is a yet higher and truer fellowship than this. At best this is but passive, something which exists though men have not chosen it nor sacrificed their own private preferences to attain it. There is a brotherhood between us which is based on facts of physical descent ; there is also a love which is based on moral choice, on the preference of the other's welfare above one's own likes and dislikes. This latter undoubtedly represents the higher moral ideal. The fellowship that involves a moral choice to be at one with others, a conscious voluntary submission of self in order to reach them and be at one with them, is something higher than a fellowship that involves no such choice. And so the appointment of a divinely authorized system of outward forms to which all alike should submit, and which all alike should choose, provides an opportunity for the creation of that higher spiritual fellowship which is based on moral choice. THE MESSIANIC HOPE IT has been well said somewhere that whereas other nations look back into the past to see the reflection of the glory of their race, the Jews looked forward into the future. The unconquerable hope with which the Jewish nation contemplated the future is something peculiar to themselves. There may have been yearnings after a future happiness, the product of a natural desire to be happy, among men of other races, 1 but nowhere else did this vague, yearning assume the form of a confident and definite expectation such as is found among the Hebrews. There must be some explanation of the fact that, in spite of constantly repeated disappointments and in the face of desperately adverse circumstances, there were, during a period of eight centuries, always some among the Hebrews who not merely clung tenaciously to the belief that the future must reverse the present, but who seem to have been unable to contemplate the future without seeing in it a period of conspicuous blessing and happiness for Israel the Messianic Age. It is scarcely necessary to say that the word ' messiah ' represents the Hebrew r?v and the Greek xpiaros, and means 'anointed'. The Hebrew word is properly an adjec- tive and was frequently used as such. Not only persons, such as prophets, priests, and kings, but also things, such as the garments of the priests, &c., were sanctified to the service of Yahweh by being anointed. 2 The ' messiah ' or 4 anointed ' of Yahweh might be any one of His servants, or one of whom He made special use, as of Cyrus (Isa. xlv 1), but especially did it apply to the King of Israel (Ps. ii 2). 1 Cf. Oesterley, Evolitiion of the Messianic Idea, pp. 123 ff. 2 1 Kings xix 15, 16 ; Exod. xxix ; Lev. viii ; 1 Sam. xv 1 ; xvi 12 ; 2 Sain, ii 4, 7 ; v 3, 17 ; xii 7 ; 1 Kings i 34. 190 THE MESSIANIC HOPE In much later times, when men were looking for the arrival of a great representative or plenipotentiary of Yahweh, it was appropriated to designate this figure and so acquired a technical sense. 1 The adjective ' messianic ', then, pro- perly applies to the person called ' the Messiah ', and to what relates to him alone ; but it has been found convenient to give it a very much wider significance. The Messiah was but an incident, albeit an important one, in a very wide scheme of things ; an incident in this sense, that the future scheme of things which the prophets and apocalyptists foresaw, very often did not include any figure analogous to that to which this name was applied. The thought of a personal Messiah was not an essential element in the hopes of the Jews, but the term ' Messianic ' has been adopted from the part to designate the whole. The Mes- sianic hope in this wider sense covers not only the hope of a personal saviour and deliverer, but also all those . very varied expectations of an optimistic character with which the Jews for many centuries looked forward into the future. II Before attempting to discuss the causes of this wider Messianic hope, it will be well to examine briefly the sub- stance of which it was composed. While it assumed many different forms at different periods, yet it always revolved around certain fixed points. It was always and essentially a religious matter ; whatever blessings or punishments are in store, they all come from Yahweh, the God of Israel. And in the second place, there was always a national element in it ; Israel, or a nucleus of righteous Israelites, was to be either the sole recipient of the blessings, or the means of imparting them to others also. The thought of these two, Yahweh and Israel, is always present in every form of the hope. In the earliest strands of the Pentateuch, the Jehovistic and Elohistic narratives, the hope is quite clearly expressed, though its details are left vague and uncertain. Israel is 1 Pss. of Solomon, Ryle and James. THE MESSIANIC HOPE 191 to be a great nation, as numerous as the sands of the sea. 1 They are to possess the land of Canaan for ever ; 2 and in Israel all the families of the earth are to bless themselves. 3 These are the oft recurring elements of the Hope as it appears in J E, though the ideas of material prosperity and political supremacy appear to be touched upon as well. 4 It is not usual to call these passages Messianic, but clearly they express an optimistic outlook into the future, and as such there is no reason why they should be excluded from a con- sideration of the national hopes of Israel. They do not, it is true, imply any sudden change brought about by a special act of intervention ; but the future blessings are, none the less, the work of Yahweh, and the idea of a special act of intervention in the world of international relations is the natural accompaniment of a time when political conditions seemed to forbid the hope of improvement without it. _To Amos the future is one of darkness with no brightness in it (v 20). His pessimism is occasioned by his deep sense of the ineradicable corruption of the people and their stubborn impenitence. When he contemplated the possi- bility of repentance, he saw the possibility of a brighter future (cf. v 5, 14). This message of approaching doom is repeated by the other pre-exilic prophets, Hosea, Isaiah, Micah, Zephaniah, and Jeremiah, as well as by the exilic Ezekiel. But with these latter prophets the punishment is distinctly corrective and preparatory ; it is not a mere vengeance ; its aim is to purify Israel for the enjoyment of the high calling to which Yahweh has called it. Beyond the period of discipline a new era is discerned, in which Yahweh and Israel will be reunited as God and people. From the farthest corners of the earth the scattered tribes will be restored to Zion, 5 and the two kingdoms of Judah and Israel will again form one political and religious organization. 6 1 Gen. xii 2 ; xiii 16 ; xv 5 ; xviii 18 ; xxii 17 ; xxvi 4, 24 ; xxviii 14 ; xlvi 3. 2 Gen. xii 7 ; xiii 15 ; xv 18-21 ; xxvi 3 ; xxviii 13. 3 xii 3 ; xviii 18 ; xxii 18 ; xxvi 4 ; xxviii 14. 4 Gen. xxvii 27-9 ; xlix 10. 6 Isa. xi 11, 12, 16 ; xlix 22 ; Ezek. xi 17, &c. 6 Hos. ill; Isa. xi 13, 14 ; Jer. iii 18 ; 1 4, 5 ; Ezek. xxxvii 16-23. 192 THE MESSIANIC HOPE In post-exilic times the thought of a future punishment for Israel does not appear. It is apparently felt that in the exile Israel has received double for all her sins. Henceforth there is laid up for her the crown of mercy alone. In the Messianic Age Yahweh and Israel are to be reunited in a bond which shall never fail ; Israel will serve Yahweh in righteousness and holiness, and Yahweh will bless Israel with the fullness of His blessing in all matters, spiritual, material, and political. 1 Material prosperity and political supremacy are but the natural accompaniments and outward manifestations of the great central feature of the Hope, the spiritual and religious blessings which will come to Israel on that day of union with Yahweh. It is not, however, necessary to lay stress on these. It is more important for the purpose in hand to observe that in the Messianic future there is to be one God universally worshipped and one religious system universally practised. This will not come about by the identification of all exist- ing deities with one great God, as though they were all manifestations of Him under so many different names, nor by the abolition of all outward distinctions between religions. Quite on the contrary, all other objects of worship except Yahweh will be deserted, and all other religions abandoned except that of Israel. Such glorious phenomena will accompany the inauguration of this period, that the fame of it, of Yahweh and Israel as God and people, will go out into all lands and the whole world will confess that Yahweh alone is God. There will be one universal religion because all others will be suppressed and a monopoly given to the service of Yahweh. This may be brought about by the extermination of the Gentiles. 2 Or the Gentiles may submit voluntarily, forsake their own gods as useless, and seek to be united to Israel. ' Yahweh, my strength and 1 Hos. i 10 ; ii 16-23 ; xiv 1-7 ; Amos ix 11-15 ; Isa. i 26, 27 ; iv 2-6 ; xi 1-10 ; xxx 18-26 ; y*Tii 1-20 ; Jer. xxxi 31-4 ; xxxiii 14-18 ; Isa. xlv 8 ; li 3-11 ; liv ; Iv ; Ix-lxii ; Zeph. iii 11-20 ; Ezek. xxxiv 10-31 ; xxxvi 8-38, &c. * Cf. Isa. xxiv ; xxxiv ; xiii 1-6 ; Zeph. ii ; iii 8-10 ; Joel iii 2-19 ; Mic. iv 11-13 ; Zech. i 19-21 ; xii 3, 4, 9; xiv 1-4, 9 ; Hag. ii 21, 22. THE MESSIANIC HOPE 193 my stronghold, my refuge in the day of affliction, unto thee shall all the nations come from the ends of the earth, and shall say, Our fathers have inherited naught but lies, even vanity and things wherein there is no profit. Shall a man make unto himself gods, which yet are no gods ? Therefore, behold I will cause them to know, this once will I cause them to know mine hand and my might ; and they shall know that my name is Yahweh ' (Jer. xvi 19-21). 'The labour of Egypt, the merchandise of Ethiopia, and the Sabaeans, men of stature shall come over unto thee, and they shall be thine ; they shall go after thee ; in chains they shall come over ; and they shall fall down unto thee, they shall make supplication unto thee, saying, Surely God is in thee ; and there is none else, there is no God. Verily thou art a God that hidest thyself, God of Israel, the Saviour. They shall be ashamed, yea, confounded, all of them ; they shall go into confusion together that are makers of idols.' l According to the great prophet of the Exile, when the day of vindication comes, a ' law ' ( n T ri ) and a system of religious ordinances (&$&&) shall go forth from Israel as a light to the Gentiles (Isa. li 4). Hence Israel is to be ' a witness to the peoples, a leader and commander to the peoples ' (Isa. Iv 4 ; cf. xlii 1, 4 ; xlix 6). Other passages there are which leave it an open question whether the Gentiles will submit or prove recalcitrant ; in the former case, there is mercy in store for them ; but in the latter, destruction. ' And it shall come to pass, if they will diligently learn the ways of my people, to swear by my name, As Yahweh liveth ; even as they taught my people to swear by Baal ; then shall they be built up in the midst of my people. But if they will not hear, then will I pluck up that nation, plucking up and destroying it, saith Yahweh ' (Jer. xii 16, 17 ; cf . Isa. lix 18, 19). ' For that nation and kingdom that will not serve thee shall perish ; yea those nations shall be utterly wasted ' (Isa. Ix 12). In still other passages, it is apparently antici- pated that a remnant of the Gentiles will survive the 1 Isa. xlv 14-16 ; cf. Isa. ii 2-4 ; = Mic. iv 1-3 ; Isa. xi 10 ; xlix 6, 7 ; Iv 5 ; Ivi 7, 8 ; Zech. ii 11 ; viii 20-3 ; Ps. xxii 27-9 ; Ixviii 29-32 ; 1 Kings viii 41-3, 60. HAMILTON I Q 194 THE MESSIANIC HOPE destruction of the rebellious and become converted. ' And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall go up from year to year to worship the King, Yahweh of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles. And it shall be, that whoso of all the families of the earth goeth not up unto Jerusalem to worship the King, Yahweh of hosts, upon them there shall be no rain. And if the family of Egypt go not up, and come not, neither shall it be upon them ; there shall be the plague, wherewith Yahweh will smite the nations that go not up to keep the feast of tabernacles ' (Zech. xiv 16-18 ; cf. Isa. Ixvi 19-24). The ultimate universality of the worship of Yahweh is contemplated in yet other passages, but the process by which other religions are to be brought to an end is not specified. 1 Although the Gentiles are to recognize that the religion of Israel is the only religion which it is at all worth while to practise, yet it does not follow that they are to be admitted to the same level of religious privilege as the Jews. The idea is rather that the blessings which Israel enjoys ' will attract the regard of all peoples and awaken in them the longing to participate in them ' . 2 The wealth of the Gentiles will flow to Jerusalem for the support of Yahweh's people and the upkeep and adornment of the Temple and its services. 3 ' And strangers shall stand and feed your flocks, and aliens shall be your plowmen and your vinedressers. But ye shall be named the priests of Yahweh ; men shall call you the ministers of our God : ye shall eat the wealth of the nations, and in their glory shall ye boast yourselves.' 4 Since the Almighty chose Israel out of all the families of the earth, it is only natural that the mono-Yahwists should expect that, however great may be the blessings derived by the Gentiles through Israel's day of union with Yahweh, yet 1 Mic. vii 16, 17 ; Jer. iii 17 ; iv 2 ; Ps. xlvii ; Ixv 2 ; Ixvi 4, 8 ; Ixxxvi 9 ; Ixxxvii ; Isa. xlv 22-4 ; liv 5 ; Hab. ii 14. * Driver on Gen. xii 3 ; cf. Gen. xviii 18 ; xxii 18 ; xxvi 4 ; xxviii 14 ; Jer. iv 2. ' Isa. xxiii 18 ; xlv 14 ; Ix 3-9, 11 ; Zech. xiv 14 ; Ps. Ixxii 10, 11. 4 Isa. Ixi 5, 6 ; cf. xiv 1, 2 ; xlix 22, 23 ; Ix 3-16 ; Dan. vii 14. THE MESSIANIC HOPE 195 the blessings of Israel itself will be richer still and even more abundant. In only one passage are any Gentiles equated with Israel in respect of religious privilege in the Messianic future. ' In that day shall Israel be the third with Egypt and with Assyria, a blessing in the midst of the earth : for that Yahweh of hosts hath blessed them, saying, Blessed be Egypt my people, and Assyria the work of my hands, and Israel mine inheritance ' (Isa. xix 24, 25 ; cf . 18- 23). And in only one passage again does the writer appear to contemplate the continuation of any other worship than that of Israel. ' For all the peoples will walk every one in the name of his god, and we will walk in the name of Yahweh our God for ever and ever ' (Mic. iv 5). Ill On what grounds did this strange confidence rest ? What was the source from which sprang this eternal Hope ? Why should this insignificant tribe have been so convinced that their religion was destined to become universal ? Their line of thought may be briefly summarized as follows. Yahweh is the one and only God, Creator of all things and men, supreme sovereign of the universe. But, under existing conditions, His worship is limited to the nation of Israel while other peoples worship what is false and illusory. Israel, it is true, does not now receive that respect and recognition among the nations to which it is entitled by the greatness and power of its God. But the time must come when Israel's God will arise and will make known to all that which is not now recognized, that He alone is God and that Israel is His people. Then will the political, material, and moral condition of Israel adequately reflect the majesty, mercy, and righteousness of Yahweh. That the worship of the one Almighty God should be for the present confined to so small a people as Israel was, in the opinion of the mono- Yah wists, no mere chance, but the outcome of a series of deliberate acts of choice on the part of Yahweh. Things are thus because He thus intended and planned them. According to the Hebrew traditions, when o 2 196 THE MESSIANIC HOPE the flood subsided Noah builded an altar to Yahweh (Gen. viii 20), and Yahweh entered into a covenant with Noah and his sons (Gen. ix 9). Just how this primitive unity of worship was broken up and the service of other gods was inaugurated, is not made clear. The only explanation given is that of Deuteronomy iv 19, which warns Israel from worshipping any of those objects ' which Yahweh thy God hath divided unto all the peoples under the whole heaven '. How or when this division took place, we are not told ; but, on the other hand, the process by which the children of Israel came into the possession of the knowledge of the one God is told with some care. It was a repeated act of choice. Yahweh called Abraham (Gen. xii 1, 2) ; He chose Israel to the exclusion of Ishmael (xxi 12) and promised to Jacob, but not to Esau, the inheritance of Abraham and Isaac (xxviii 13-15). The process is one of exclusion, of narrowing down ; the descendants of Ishmael and Esau, though children of Abraham, are simply passed over, left on one side ; and by His own act the Creator confines the know- ledge of Himself to Isaac, Jacob, and His children. To set out this process of selection in unmistakable terms is one of the chief objects of the Priests' Code ; but the same thought is present in the earliest strands of the Pentateuch as well. "Though the actual words are not used, Jehovah is first described as 'choosing' Israel in Deuteronomy (iv 37al.) J has a clear consciousness of Israel's ' election ' and ' voca- tion '.! " Accordingly, it seems that the exclusion of the other children of Noah must have appeared to the mono-Yahwists to be part of a conscious purpose, a deliberately formed plan, on the part of Yahweh. From this it follows that, in the belief of the mono- Yahwists, Yahweh the only God has selected the children of Abraham in order to bestow on them special blessings special blessings which will certainly attract the attention and rouse the envy of the Gentiles, if indeed they are not to be imparted to them through Israel. Hence the future is faced with confidence by the mono-Yahwists. Their special doctrine of the sole Deity of Yahweh is so far from leading 1 Driver, Genesis, pp. xxi f. THE MESSIANIC HOPE 197 them to a liberal universalism, that it is the very ground of their confidence in the ultimate supremacy of Israel's religion. Yahweh is the one and only God ; Israel alone are His people ; therefore they and their religion will be exalted. The more clearly defined and more firmly fixed mono- Yahwism becomes, as time advances through the Captivity to the Return from the Exile, the more convinced are its exponents of the glorious future which they believe to be just about to break forth. None of the prophets have a firmer grasp upon the absolute sovereignty of Yahweh than Ezekiel and the second Isaiah ; and it is in their works that one finds the surest confidence, even when the national fortunes were at their lowest ebb, in a future of glory for Israel. In choosing Abraham and his seed, Yahweh the Almighty God has committed Himself, as it were, to a certain course of action from which they feel sure He will not draw back. There are two sides or two aspects to this line of thought, which, though often closely interwoven, may yet be treated separately for the sake of clearness. (1) The emphasis maybe laid upon the thought of Yah- weh's Name, His reputation, as it were, in the world of men. Since Israel is His people, men judge of Him and His power by the position which Israel occupies in the world. The idea is that the position of Israel in the visible world indicates the position of Yahweh in the invisible world, in much the same way as that in which the position of the hand on the dial of an engine indicates the amount of unseen power within. Hence one finds (a) that the Hebrew writers very often ascribe their deliverances in the past to Yahweh's care for His Name, because His Name is profaned by the humiliation of Israel ; (6) that the Gentiles are represented as inferring from the degradation of Israel, the supineness of its God; and so there are prayers to Yahweh to intervene for Israel for His Name's sake ; and (c) that an assured con- fidence is expressed that, for His Name's sake, He will so intervene. (2) Or the emphasis may be laid upon the thought of what Yahweh has done in the past, how He chose Abraham and 198 THE MESSIANIC HOPE His seed and by an oath promised to give them His blessing ; how He delivered them from the Egyptian bondage and made a covenant with them through Moses ; how He chose David and sware that he should have a son to sit upon his throne for ever. In all this there was a purpose. As He Himself is righteous and holy, so He would make for Himself a people righteous and holy to reflect His own character. Despite their unworthiness and ingratitude, He will not cast them off entirely. He remembers His covenant and the oath which He sware unto Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob ; and when the work of purification is done, He will then fulfil His purpose and bless His people with every imaginable bless- ing. That which Yahweh has begun, He surely will accom- plish. Accordingly the Old Testament writers (a) ascribe the great deliverances of the past to His recollection of His oath and to His faithfulness to the Covenant ; and (6) they constantly implore Him to intervene now for the sake of all that He has done for His people in the past ; and more than that, (c) they are quite sure that that time of intervention is now not far off ; finally (d) the one thing which restrains the glorious future from bursting forth upon Israel, is its disobedience, its unfaithfulness to its part of the Covenant. Let us look at these points more closely and in the order given above. 1. All the traditions of the Hebrews are unanimous that Israel and Yahweh are related to each other as people and God. The earliest strands of the Pentateuch point out that Yahweh called Abraham to make of his seed a great nation ; l Israel is Yahweh's son, His firstborn, or, in other words, no other race has any rights or privileges in Yahweh (Exod. iv 22). It is therefore a legitimate extension of this idea, when the Deuteronomists and later writers insist that the seed of Abraham was chosen by Yahweh ' to be a peculiar people unto himself, above all peoples that are upon the face of the earth '. 2 Among the nations, Israel is Yahweh's as none other is. Accordingly, Israel was selected to be to Yahweh not 1 Gen. xii 2 ; xiii 14-16 ; xv 6 ; xviii 18 ; xxii 17, 18. 1 Deut. vii 6 ; cf. iv 19, 20, 37 ; x 15 ; xiv 2 ; 1 Kings iii 8 ; viii 53 ; Ps. cxxxv 4 ; cf. Exod. xix 5, 6 ; Ps. xxxiii 12 ; Jcr. xxxii 20-2. THE MESSIANIC HOPE 199 only a people, but also a name and a praise. ' As the girdle cleaveth to the loins of a man, so have I caused to cleave unto me the whole house of Israel and the whole house of Judah, saith Yahweh ; that they might be unto me for a people, and for a name, and for a praise, and for a glory ; but they would not hear.' l As Israel was chosen to be to Him for a Name, so in the Deuteronomists' view, Jerusalem is chosen that Yahweh may place His name there ; 2 and the Temple is sanctified for Yahweh's name, i.e. that Yahweh may manifest His presence there. 3 (a) Since Israel is Yahweh's representative in the visible world, one is quite prepared to find that what He has done for His people in the past is sometimes ascribed to His jealousy for His own reputation or Name. This is explicitly stated by Ezekiel. In Egypt and in the wilder- ness Israel was time and again rebellious and would not hearken ; ' then I said I would pour out my fury upon them, to accomplish my anger against them in the midst of the land of Egypt. But I wrought for my name's sake, that it should not be profaned in the sight of the nations, among whom they were, in whose sight I made myself known unto them, in bringing them forth out of the land of Egypt.' 4 The same thought is expressed in other words in Deut. xxxii 26-7 : ' I said, I would scatter them afar, I would make the remembrance of them to cease from among men : were it not that I feared the provocation of the enemy, lest their adversaries should misdeem, lest they should say, Our hand is exalted, and Yahweh hath not done all this.' 5 (6) The Hebrews were at all times sensitive to the opinions of their neighbours. They liked to think that other nations will call them blessed ; they rage against those who rejoice at their misfortunes ; and they picture to themselves what will be said among the heathen, when Yahweh inflicts punishment upon His people. 6 And, again, in their prayers 1 Jer. xiii 11 ; cf. Deut. xxvi 17-19 ; 2 Sam. vii 22-4=1 Chron. xvii 20-2 ; Isa. Ixiii 12-14. 2 Deut. xii 5 ; cf. Exod. xx 24. 3 1 Kings iii 2 ; 2 Chron. vii 20 ; xx 9. 4 Ezek. xx 8, 9 ; cf. 13, 14, 22 ; Ps. cvi 8. 5 Cf. Mic. vii 10. * Cf. 1 Kings ix 8 = 2 Chron. vii 21 ; Mai. i 4, 5 ; iii 12. 200 THE MESSIANIC HOPE for deliverance or forgiveness, they frequently plead what the heathen will say of Yahweh, if Israel should be destroyed. Thus in the Jehovistic narrative, when Yahweh proposes to consume Israel and make a great nation of Moses, ' Moses besought Yahweh his God and said, Yahweh, why doth thy wrath wax hot against thy people, which thou hast brought forth out of the land of Egypt with great power and with a mighty hand ? Wherefore should the Egyptians speak, saying, For evil did he bring them forth, to slay them in the moun- tains, and to consume them from the face of the earth ? Turn from thy fierce wrath, and repent of this evil against thy people.' 1 The thought that Yahweh's Name or reputation is at stake in Israel is constantly employed as a ground of intercession. ' Help us, O God of our salvation, for the glory of thy name : and deliver us, and purge away our sins, for thy name's sake. Wherefore should the heathen say, where is their God ? ' (Ps. Ixxix 9, 10). ' We acknow- ledge, O Yahweh, our wickedness, and the iniquity of our fathers : for we have sinned against thee. Do not abhor us, for thy name's sake ; do not disgrace the throne of thy glory : remember, break not thy covenant with us.' 2 Yahweh is 'he that blotteth out thy transgressions for mine own sake ; and I will not remember thy sins.' 3 (c) And so also the mono-Yahwists are quite sure that because Israel is His people, Yahweh will not forsake them for His own sake and His Name's sake. ' Yahweh will not forsake His people for his great name's sake ; because it hath pleased Yahweh to make you a people unto himself.' 4 Ezekiel is very deeply impressed with the fact that Yahweh's Name has been profaned among the heathen by Israel's exile, but he is equally sure that that Name will yet be sanctified in the sight of all men by the appearance of the Messianic Age. ' And when they came unto the nations, whither they went, they profaned my holy name ; in that 1 Exod. xxxii 11, 12 ; cf. Num. xiv 11-16 ; Deut. ix 28 ; Joel ii 17 ; 1 Kings viii 59, 60 ; 2 Kings xix 19. 1 Jer. xiv 20, 21 ; cf. xiv 7 ; Joshua vii 9 ; Ps. Ixxiv 19-22 ; Isa. Ixiv 1,2. Isa. xliii 25 ; cf. Dan. ix 19. 4 1 Sam. xii 22 ; 2 Kings xix 34 ; xx 6 = Isa. xxxvii 35. THE MESSIANIC HOPE 201 men said of them, These are the people of Yahweh, and are gone forth out of his land. But I had pity for mine holy name, which the house of Israel had profaned among the nations, whither they went. Therefore say unto the house of Israel, Thus saith the Lord Yahweh : I do not this for your sake, house of Israel, but for mine holy name, which ye have profaned among the nations, whither ye went. And I will sanctify my great name, which hath been profaned in the midst of them ; and the nations shall know that I am Yahweh, saith the Lord Yahweh, when I shall be sanctified in you before their eyes.' 1 The day must dawn in which Yahweh will vindicate Himself and His choice of Israel ; and then Israel shall be to Him a name and a praise, and all men will acknowledge the majesty of Yahweh. ' And this city shall be to me for a name of joy, for a praise and for a glory, before all the nations of the earth, which shall hear all the good that I do unto them, and shall fear and tremble for all the good and for all the peace that I procure unto it.' 2 2. There is also another ground on which confidence in the Messianic future is based. What Yahweh has begun, He will carry through to the end. Having begun with the choice of Israel, having pledged Himself by an oath to the patriarchs, by the solemn covenant on Sinai and by the promises vouchsafed to David, He will surely fulfil His word. The mono-Yahwists feel that over and over again in the past, it has been only His faithfulness to His oath, to His covenant and to His promise, that has saved Israel from destruction ; and they are confident that the same faithfulness may be relied on for the future. It is scarcely possible to exaggerate the closeness of the tie which they believe binds Yahweh to Israel. Yahweh is Israel's father ; 3 and Israel is Yahweh's son. 4 Yahweh is Israel's maker and creator ; 5 and Israel is His vineyard, 1 Ezek. xxxvi 20-3 ; cf. xx 39-44 ; Isa. lii 5, 6. 2 Jer. xxxiii 9 ; cf. 24-6 ; Zeph. iii 19, 20 ; Isa. Iv 12, 13 ; Ezek. xxxvii 27, 28 ; xxxix 7. 3 Deut. xxxii 6 ; Jer. iii 4, 19 ; xxxi 9 ; Isa. Ixiii 16 ; Ixiv 8 ; Ma.l. 1 6, &c. 4 Exod. iv 22 ; Hos. xi 1 ; Jer. xxxi 9, 20, &c. 5 Isa. xliii 1 ; xliv 2, &c. 202 THE MESSIANIC HOPE His inheritance : l Yahweh loves Israel with an everlasting love above all things. 2 The relationship between them is as that of husband and wife. 3 (a) Yahweh called Abraham, and promised to make of his seed a great nation. In fulfilment of His oath to Abraham Yahweh blessed Isaac ; 4 and in remembrance of His covenant with the Patriarchs, Yahweh delivered Israel from the bondage in Egypt ; 5 gave them to inherit the land of Canaan; 6 delayed the destruction of the Northern King- dom; 7 and gave His people power to accumulate wealth. 8 The Mosaic Covenant in turn and the promise to David are offered as reasons why Yahweh showed mercy to a people so often in rebellion. 9 (6) And so again, these great acts of Yahweh are frequently urged in prayer as a reason why He should deliver or forgive His people. When Yahweh proposes to destroy Israel, Moses intercedes : ' Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, thy servants, to whom thou swarest by thine own self, and saidst unto them, I will multiply your seed as the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have spoken of will I give unto your seed, and they shall inherit it for ever. And Yahweh repented of the evil which he said he would do unto his people.' 10 Solomon is represented as interceding for Israel, ' for they be thy people, and thine inheritance, which thou broughtest forth out of Egypt, from the midst of the furnace of iron. . . . For thou didst separate them from among all the peoples of the earth, to be thine inheritance, as thou spakest by the hand of Moses thy servant, when thou broughtest our fathers out of Egypt, O Lord Yahweh.' u And there are again pleadings that Yahweh will keep the oath He swore to David : ' Lord, where are thy former 1 Isa. v 1 ; Jer. xii 7, 10, &c. I Isa. xliii 3, 4 ; xlix 15, 16 ; Jer. xxxi 3. * Jer. iii 20 ; Isa. liv 5 ; Hos. ii 2, &c. * Gen. xxvi 2-4, 24. 8 Exod. ii 24 ; vi 5 ; Deut. vii 8 ; Ps. cv 8-11, 42. Exod. vi 4 ; Deut. ix 5. 7 1 Kings xiii 23. Deut. viii 18. ' Isa. Ixiii 11, 12 ; Ps. cxi 9 ; 2 Kings viii 19 = 2 Chron. xxi 7. 10 Exod. xxxii 13, 14 ; Deut. ix 26, 27 ; cf. Gen. xxxii 9. II 1 Kings viii 51, 53 ; cf. Ps. Ixxiv 2 ; Ixxx 8-15 ; 2 Chron. xx 7. THE MESSIANIC HOPE 203 mercies, which thou swarest unto David in thy faithful- ness ? ' 1 (c) And once more, the mono-Yahwists are quite sure that the future holds deliverance and mercy for Israel because of Yahweh's goodness to her in the past. ' He will turn again and have compassion upon us ; he will tread our iniquities under foot, and thou wilt cast all their sins into the depths of the sea. Thou wilt perform the truth to Jacob, and the mercy to Abraham, which thou hast sworn unto our fathers from the days of old ' (Mic. vii 19, 20). ' Nevertheless I will remember my covenant with thee in the days of thy youth, and I will establish unto thee an everlasting covenant.' 2 ' For I will defend this city to save it, for mine own sake, and for my servant David's sake.' 3 Jeremiah finds it easier to think that heaven and earth should pass away, than that Israel should cease to be a nation before Yahweh for ever (xxxi 35-7), ' Behold, the days come, saith Yahweh, that I will perform that good word which I have spoken concern- ing the house of Israel and concerning the house of Judah. . . . If ye can break my covenant of the day, and my covenant of the night, so that there should not be day and night in their season ; then may also my covenant be broken with David my servant. . . . Considerest thou not what this people have spoken, saying, The two families which Yahweh did choose, he hath cast them off ? thus do they despise my people, that they should be no more a nation before them. Thus saith Yahweh : If my covenant of day and night stand not, if I have not appointed the ordinances of heaven and earth ; then will I also cast away the seed of Jacob, and of David my servant, so that I will not take of his seed to be rulers over the seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob ; for I will cause their captivity to return, and will have mercy on them ' (Jer. xxxiii 14, 20, 21, 24-6). ' For this is as the waters of Noah unto me ; for as I have sworn that the waters of Noah should no more go over the earth, so have I sworn that I would not be wroth with thee, nor rebuke 1 Ps. Ixxxix 49 ; of. 1 Kings viii 23-6. * Ezek. xvi 60 ; cf. Dcut. iv 30, 31 ; Hag. ii 4, 5 ; Ps. Ixxiv 19, 20. 3 Isa. xxxvii 35 = 2 Kings xix 34 ; cf. xx 6 ; Ps. cxxxii 10, 11. 204 THE MESSIANIC HOPE thee. For the mountains shall depart, and the hills be removed ; but my kindness shall not depart from thee, neither shall my covenant of peace be removed, saith Yahweh that hath mercy on thee ' (Isa. liv 9, 10 ; cf . li 1-3). The prophecy of Amos is sometimes held up as an example of a stern denunciation which saw no hope whatever in the future, but only complete and irrevocable destruction. He is said to take his stand on the fact that Yahweh's relation to Israel is based on a voluntary agreement, not on an act of physical generation ; Yahweh is therefore independent of His people and can cast them off completely (cf . Amos v 18- 20 ; ix 1-4, 7). That it is absolutely impossible for Yahweh to cast off His people is not suggested by any prophet ; but with the possible exception of Amos, they are all quite sure that Yahweh will never do so. The idea of the Covenant bond may make the thought of a permanent rejection conceivable ; but the idea of Yahweh's mercy and truth, His loving-kindness to Israel and His faithfulness to that Covenant bond, make it impossible to believe that any with- drawal of His favour will be final and complete. And if the genuine work of Amos shows that he has no hope for the future, it should be remembered in the first place, that his despair is not occasioned by any doubts of Yahweh's willing- ness to pardon, but by his conviction that Israel will never repent (v 5, 14, 15) ; and, in the second place, this attitude of despair was in later times felt to be unworthy and to require correction. Hence the optimistic ending added to the book by other hands (ix 8-15). (d) The one thing which restrains the inauguration of the Messianic Age is the sin and unfaithfulness of Israel. If only Israel were obedient and kept the covenant, how abundantly it would be blessed ! ' Oh that thou hadst hearkened to my commandments ! then had thy peace been as a river and thy righteousness as the waves of the sea : thy seed also had been as the sand, and the offspring of thy bowels like the grains thereof : his name should not be cut off nor destroyed before me.' x And even now if Israel would repent, Yahweh would 1 Isa. xlviii 18, 19 ; cf. Deut. vii 12-24 ; xxviii 1-14 ; xxxii 28-30 ; Ps. Lxxxi 8-16 ; 1 Kings vi 11-13. THE MESSIANIC HOPE 205 be merciful. 1 Every trouble, trial, and disaster, whether present or impending, is explained by the mono-Yahwists as a punishment for sin ; but when this period of correction and discipline is over ; when Israel has been taught her lesson and her stubborn pride and self-sufficiency are humbled ; then will break forth the glorious day of redemption and the fulfilment of the promises. 2 The great prophet of the Exile is fully persuaded that Israel has received of Yahweh's hand double for all her sins (Isa. xl 2), nothing remains now but to speak comfortably to her and to reassure her that the moment of glorious deliverance is at hand. IV In the Apocalyptic literature, which the two centuries immediately preceding the birth of Jesus produced in such abundance, the Messianic Hope reappears with many striking differences, it is true, but still also with the same essential fundamental facts as its basis. Chief among the changes is the thought that the new heaven and the new earth will not be an ideal consummation (a-vvreXfia) of present conditions, but an entirely new mode of existence. The great act of intervention will involve something far more than a mere redistribution of political power ; in fact, nothing less than the destruction of the present organic conditions of life and an entirely new start in a new en- vironment. The rise of individualism again is responsible for another sweeping change. The future concerns not the national life alone, but the life of the individual as well. A great and glorious future is in store for the nation ; and those who have been faithful on earth will not be robbed of their share in it by the fact of death. Sheol will be made to open her mouth and yield them up in order that they, too, may enjoy the blessings of the Messianic Age. There will, then, be a resurrection of the dead ; sometimes it is the righteous Israelites alone who rise : others believed that all 1 Amos v 14, 15 ; Hos. x 12 ; Jer. xxvi 3, 13, 18, 19, &c. 2 Hos. i-iii ; Isa. ix 1-7 ; x 24-7 ; xi 1-9 ; Jer. xxxi 31-4 ; xxxii 36-41 ; Obad. 15-21 ; Mai. iii 1-5 ; Ezek. xvi 59-63 ; Joel ii 12-32 ; iii 9-21. 206 THE MESSIANIC HOPE Israel would rise ; and others that not Israel alone, but all mankind would be brought to life, and that then there would be a judgement in which the righteous would be distinguished from the wicked. In spite of these differences, however, the essentials of the Hope remain the same. It is still the union of Israel and that Almighty Person, who, through all the ages, has been known as Israel's God ; it is still the vindication of Israel by the manifestation of the power of her God ; it is still the religion of Israel which is to be universal in the Messianic Age. Two points alone need to be emphasized for the purposes of this argument the ultimate universality of the religion of Israel, and the persistence of the same basis for the Hope. While there is the same unanimous belief in the Apocalypses as in the Old Testament that the religion of Israel alone can survive in the Messianic Age, there is also the same wide variation of opinion as to how this is to be brought about. Sometimes all the Gentiles are to be annihilated without more ado. 1 The Messiah is a warrior who slays them with the breath of his mouth. 2 When the Gentiles are wiped out of existence, the religion of Israel alone remains. But, according to other views, the Gentiles will not be entirely exterminated, and those who survive will voluntarily abandon their own gods as useless, and look to Jerusalem for religious truth and the service of the true God. In this case, the religion of Israel becomes universal by the con- version of all men to it. ' And all the heathen will revert to the truth and the fear of God, and will bury their idols ; and all the heathen will praise the Lord.' 3 But though the Gentiles are converted, yet they are not admitted to the 1 Eth. En. xci 9 ; 4 Ez. xiii 37, 38, 49. 2 Eth. En. Ixii 2-12 ; Pss. Sol. xvii 27 ; 4 Ez. xiii 38 ; cf. Eth. En. xc 18 ; Pss. Sol. xvii 26, 31, 32 ; 3 Sib. 653 f. ; 5 Sib. 108 f., 416-20 ; Apoc. Bar. xxxix 7-xl ; Ixx 9 ; 4 Ez. xii 32 f. ; Slav. En. ii 2 ; cf. x 6 ; Ixvi 1. 3 Tob. xiv 6 f. ; cf. xiii 11 f. ; Sib. iii 616 ff., 716 ff. ; Eth. En. x 21 ; xc 30 ; xci 14 ; Test. Jud. xxiv 6 ; T. Lev. ii 11 ; xiv 4 ; viii 14, iv 4 ; T. Sim. vi 5 ; T. Benj. x 5 ; T. Ash vii 3 ; T. Naph. viii 3 ; Apoc. Bar. xiii 5-xiv 2 ; xli 4; Ixxii 2-6 ; Eth. En. xlviii 4, 5 ; Ixii 3, 6, 9 ; 1 2-3; Pss. Sol. xvii 34, 38. THE MESSIANIC HOPE 207 same level of privileges as the true-born Jew. The promises and the blessings are for the Jews first of all and are mediated, in a reduced degree, to the Gentiles through Israel. The Gentiles may be glad to be allowed to gird themselves and serve Israel, bringing the work of their hands for the upkeep of the temple and to enable the children of Israel to devote themselves in holiness and righteousness to the worship of God. 1 The grounds from which sprang the Messianic Hope are the same in the Apocalyptic as in the Biblical literature. The Jews continue to entertain this Hope, because they continue to believe that the Almighty God has in the past pledged His favour to Israel to the exclusion of other nations ; that their religion alone can bring men to the living God, the Source of Life and Light. Of this the very existence itself of such a literature is a proof. The aim of these books is to solve a problem a problem of no ordinary difficulty. If the Almighty is the God of Israel alone, how is it that His Saints are so cruelly maltreated while the godless sinners, who do not recognize the Law of God, whether of Gentile or Jewish blood, continue to triumph over them ? To this problem the apocalyptic literature offered an answer which bade fair to be completely reassuring. Far back in the ancient history of the race, God revealed the course of all things to His chosen Saints, to Enoch, to the Patriarchs, to Moses, to Isaiah, to Baruch. Of that foreseen course of things, the present sufferings of Israel form a definite part ; they are a just punishment for sin, and they are a prelude to the dawning of the great day of vindication. To this triumphant issue, this glorification of Israel, the whole course of history has been guided along paths foreseen and fore-ordained from the beginning, and specially revealed by God to the Hebrew Saints of old. The darker the present hour, the nearer and surer the day of redemption. 1 Tob. xiii 11 ; Eth. En. 1 3 ; xc 30 ; 3 Sib. 716-26, 772 ff. ; Pss. Sol. xvii 32, 34. See Charles's notes on Apoc. Bar. Ixxii 4-6 ; and in Testa- ments of the Twelve Patriarchs, pp. xcvii and 211, W. V. Hagne in Journal of TheoL Studies, October 1910, pp. 78 f. 208 THE MESSIANIC HOPE The whole Hope for the future is thus built up upon belief in the exclusive privileges of the nation of Israel ; take from these writers this conviction, exchange it for the idea that all other religions are more or less on an equality with that of Israel in respect of truth and divine authority, and you at once reduce the Hebrews to the level of the polytheistic races which surrounded them ; their mono- theism ceases to be, and their Messianic Hope vanishes into thin air. If other religions are true as well as Israel's, if other nations also are worshipping what is really and truly divine, then Yahweh is not the only God, then Israel is not the only people of the Living God, and her sufferings cease to be a problem of more special acuteness than the suffering of other people ; and consequently, there is no more reason to anticipate a future of glory for Israel than for any other nation. And so, if the conviction of Israel's exclusive privileges is withdrawn, all that is distinctive of the race fades out and becomes indistinguishable from the general monotony of its surroundings. Nor are there wanting individual expressions in the Apocalyptic literature which confirm this general considera- tion. In the Book of Jubilees (c. 135 B.C.), for instance, Moses is represented as pleading, ' O Lord my God, do not forsake thy people and thy inheritance, so that they should wander in the error of their hearts, and do not deliver them into the hands of their enemies, the Gen- tiles, lest they should rule over them and cause them to sin against thee. But they are thy people and thy inheritance; which thou hast delivered with thy great power from the hands of the Egyptians : create in them a clean heart and a holy spirit' (i 19-21). The reply is that they will sin and afterwards repent, and then God will ' cleanse them so that they shall not turn away from me from that day unto eternity. And their souls will cleave to me and to all my commandments, and I shall be their Father and they will be my children. And they will all be called the children of the Living God, every angel and every spirit will know, yea, they will know that these are my children, and that I am their Father in uprightness and THE MESSIANIC HOPE 209 righteousness and that I love them '. ' And the Lord will appear to the eyes of all, and all will know that I am the God of Israel and the Father of all the children of Jacob, and king on Mount Zion for all eternity. And Zion and Jerusa- lem will be holy.' * Again, in the Psalms of Solomon (c. 53 B.C.) we find a pathetic appeal which could be paral- leled more than once from the Old Testament. 'And now thou art our God and we are thy people whom thou hast loved ; behold, and have pity, God of Israel, for we are thine, and remove not thy mercy from us, that they set not upon us. For thou didst choose the seed of Abraham before all the nations, and didst set thy name upon us, Lord ; and thou wilt abide among us for ever. Of a truth thou didst covenant with our fathers concerning us ; and in thee will we trust when our soul is turned unto thee. Let the mercy of the Lord be upon the house of Israel for everlasting and world without end.' 2 Or again, in the Assumption of Moses (A. D. 7-29), the tribes exiled in Babylon cry to God, saying : ' God of Abraham, God of Isaac, and God of Jacob, remember thy covenant which thou didst make with them, and the oath which thou didst swear unto them by thyself, that their seed should never fail in the land which thou hast given them ' (iii 9). ' Lord of all, King on the lofty throne, who rulest the world, and didst will that this people should be thine elect people, then (indeed) thou didst will that thou shouldest be called their God, according to the covenant which thou didst make with their fathers ' (iv 2). ' Then God will remember them on account of the covenant which he made with their fathers, and he will manifest his compassion in those times also.' 3 Finally, to take one more example, from a still later book, the Apocalypse of Baruch (Source B 1 after A.D. 70), 'If thou destroyest thy city, and deliverest up thy land to those that hate us, how shall the name of Israel be again remembered ? Or how shall one speak of thy praises ? or to whom shall that which is in thy law be explained ? Or shall the world return to its nature (of aforetime) and the 1 i 23-6, 28, tr. Charles. 2 Pss. Sol. ix 16-20, tr. Ryle and James. * iv 5, tr. Charles. HAMILTON I p 210 THE MESSIANIC HOPE age revert to primeval silence ? And shall the multitude of souls be taken away, and the nature of man not again be named ? And where is all that which thou didst say to Moses concerning us ? ' x The Messianic Hope, then, is based upon this fundamental principle of mono-Yahwism, that the God who is known as Israel's God, the author of Israel's religious organization, is the only God, omnipotent and absolutely supreme. Consequently the fulfilment or non-fulfilment of that Hope becomes a test of the truth or falsity of mono-Yahwism. To imagine that this insignificant little people had greater religious privileges than any other race, must have seemed to the polytheists to be nothing short of absurd. What overwhelming conceit, what groundless vanity that these people should think that their national God was more powerful, or more truly God, than the deities of Assyria and Babylonia ! Did not every stubborn fact of international politics prove that the Chaldaean gods were stronger than Yahweh ? To assert, then, that the God of Israel was the only God, sole arbiter of the destinies of nations and supreme sovereign of the universe was mere madness. But the mono- Yahwists were not dismayed by any considerations such as these. That Israel's God is the only God was not, they knew, in their day, borne out by visible facts ; but the time was not far off when the God of Israel would arise to vindicate Himself and His choice of Israel in a way which would make it patent to all, that there is no other God but He. Because this great Almighty God had chosen to place the knowledge of Himself in Israel alone, because He is Himself the author and creator of Israel's religion and the object of its national worship, therefore He will appear to make 1 iii 5-9, tr. Charles ; cf. also Pss. Sol. vii ; xi 9 ; xii 8 ; xiv 3 ; xvii 5 ; Assump. Mos. i 12-17 ; Apoc. Bar. v 1-3 [Source B 1 ] ; xlviii 19-24 [Source B 1 ] ; Ixxxv 3-5 [Source B 3 ] ; Ben. Sir xxxvi 8-17 ; xliv 19-23 ; Jubilees ii 19-21 ; xii 22-4 ; xv 3-10, 19-21 ; xvi 17, 18 ; xvii 15, 16 ; xix 17-29 ; xxii 6-15, 24, 28-30 ; xxxiii 19, 20 ; Tests. Twelve Patriarchs, Jud. xxii 3. THE MESSIANIC HOPE 211 Himself known to all as the God of Israel ; and this mani- festation will take place through the national religious system of Israel. If the mono-Yahwists misrepresented the Almighty in claiming such a unique position for Israel, one would not expect that this Hope of a future intervention for Israel would do otherwise than disappear without the occurrence of any event which could possibly claim to have been sent by God as its fulfilment or realization. If, on the other hand, we suppose the mono-Yahwists to have been right, their idea that God would one day make a fuller revelation of Himself and His will to all mankind through the religious system which He chose in the past, is in accordance with what, so far as our faculties can judge, a God of Love might be expected to do. What, then, of the fulfilment of the Messianic Hope ? As we turn back the pages of history do we find any movement arising among the Jews, or are there any phenomena in Jewish religious history, which could claim to be an answer to this Hope ? Has this ancient religion given birth to any new force, to any new truth, to any new factor of progress, so worthy to have come from God as to make us feel that this was God's answer to the great doctrines and high expectations of the mono-Yahwists ? Has God given a further manifestation of Himself through the Jewish religion ? It will not be easy for any one who believes in God and His love for men to answer these questions in the negative. The facts with which we have to deal are these. Jesus of Nazareth appeared upon the stage of history as a member of the Jewish race ; He worshipped in the temple ; used the Hebrew Scriptures as divine ; called the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, His Father ; and claimed to be the fulfil- ment of the Messianic Hope, and to introduce the realization of that which had been promised to the Patriarchs. Even if we do not rise above the standard of what is called * reduced ' Christianity, we must see in Jesus not only one who knew God as none other did, but one who brought a message from God, who did reveal God to us. It will be P2 212 THE MESSIANIC HOPE seen presently that Jesus Himself was a mono-Yahwist ; and Jesus and the prophets form a combination which is not easily withstood. The prophets alone exhibit phenomena worthy of a divine revelation ; Jesus, on the lowest estimate of His Person, taught the truth about God ; and each bears witness to the other. The prophets look to God to send a revelation of Himself through their religion ; Jesus, who bore a vital organic relation to that religion, brought a revelation, and pointed men back to the prophets to find the proof of His own divine mission. Surely one could scarcely imagine a more convincing vindication of mono- Yahwism. The tendency of the present day is not to deny that in Jesus there is in some degree a manifestation of God, but to minimize His connexion with the Jewish religion. Emphasis is laid upon the many points in which His teaching contrasts with the doctrines of Judaism and His fulfilment with their expectations. The fact is that He and His work so far transcend all the brightest expectations of the Jews, and are so much more worthy of God according to our ideas of Him than anything they looked forward to, that to many of us they appear to stand in a relation of opposition to Jewish national Hopes, rather than in one of fulfilment. And this is especially the case with that particular doctrine of mono-Yahwism which has been emphasized in these pages more than once the exclusive privileges of the Jews. The liberalism of Jesus is placed in opposition to the particularism of Judaism, and it is often made to appear that it is just from a narrowness of this type that He was most anxious to deliver men. Hence to many it would seem impossible to claim His authority for a limitation of religious privilege to the Jews. This is not the place for a full discussion of these questions. But it may be briefly pointed out here that He differed from the Jews because, like the prophets before Him, He had a higher, purer, and more worthy conception of their national God. Instead of bloodshed and conquest, He offered the Cross as the exhibition of the purpose and character of God ; instead of stern and strict retribution He proclaimed the THE MESSIANIC HOPE 213 Fatherhood of God. He differed from them not because He preached a God other than Him whom they worshipped as their national God, but because He knew that national God better than they did. And again, while He taught the universal love of God, His work did not result in a composite religion made by equating all existing cults. He accepted the Jewish belief that they knew the true God, and He never said that any other religion could bring men to the truth. His work as Messiah was to reorganize the Jewish religion, to reconstitute it upon a new basis in such a way that all the privileges of the Old Covenant, and more than they, were thrown open to the Gentiles, i.e. the uncircumcised, on precisely the same terms and in precisely the same degree, as to the circumcised Jew. And nothing surprised the believing Jews more than the discovery of the fact that, in the post- Messianic Israel, ' the Gentiles are fellow-heirs, and fellow- members of the body and fellow-partakers of the promise with themselves ' (Eph. iii 6). If anything is needed to show the providential guidance of the whole course of this ancient religion, it will be found in the way in which its privileges, once confined to the circumcised descendants of Abraham, were, by Jesus the Messiah, opened out to all mankind with equal opportunities for all. But of this more will be said below. Again, although the belief that the national God of the Hebrews would one day be the only God recognized among men, must have appeared to the polytheists to be the most unreasonable vanity, yet that belief has received a fulfil- ment, which, though as yet it is partial only, is still such as to arrest attention and afford food for reflection. As will be seen more clearly below the religion of the Jews underwent a reorganization ; and this reorganized religion claimed to be the true Israel, to be heir to all the privileges and promises given to the Hebrew fathers ; moreover, it is slowly but surely making its way over all the world. The gods of mighty Babylon and ancient Egypt are dead ; never again will human hearts thrill at the sound of their names, nor will human lips be found to speak their praises ; their ritual has ceased and their cult is dead ; we know of 214 THE MESSIANIC HOPE them only because the antiquarian digs up their images long buried in the sands of Egypt or deciphers their names on the rocks and sun-dried bricks of Arabia. All that remains of them are those few traces which the ravages of time and weather have not availed to destroy. Every record that was written on anything less dead, or more sensitive than rock and hardened clay, together with every affectionate memory in the human heart, has long since perished. But how strangely different is the way in which history has dealt with the Hebrew religion ! For centuries, its claim to have been the sole true religion of ancient times, the sole depository of the knowledge of the true God, has been sustained by men of no mean intellectual power. Its ancient scriptures have been hailed as the Word of God by generation after generation ; they are now known the world over, and are read in the language of every civilized nation. The psalms and hymns composed in honour of the national God of the Hebrews, which once resounded through the Temple Courts at Jeru- salem in the midst of a stately Eastern ritual, are still in daily use amongst the most treasured possessions of numbers of minds which are as highly enlightened as they are deeply religious. Our interest in the Hebrew religion is not merely that of the antiquarian ; the Church of Jesus the Messiah still worships the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. God's anointed representative taught men to call Him ' Father, Son, and Holy Spirit ', and under this divine Name, He is still the object of our heart's devotion. On these broad lines the Hopes of the mono-Yahwists have received a fulfilment which is as undeniable as it is astonishing. The claim of the mono-Yahwists that Israel had received an exclusive revelation from God Almighty has been vindicated and confirmed by the facts of history. JESUS AND THE RELIGION OF THE JEWS THAT Jesus came to free and did free men from the fetters of the Jewish Law is one of the commonplaces of all the Lives of Christ. Moreover, it is undeniable that, as the result of His work, there was initiated a great religious movement which was characterized by a refusal to recognize either the Law or Jewish extraction as essential to divine sonship. This fact, then, may be taken as the starting-point of any discussion of Jesus' attitude towards the religion of the Jews ; it was He who stripped religion of its national setting, delivered men from the burden of the ceremonial requirements of the Mosaic Law, and set before the world the grand ideal of the universal brotherhood of man in the universal Father- ijiood of God. Accepting this as a fact which cannot be denied, the present chapter endeavours to define it more clearly and to determine in what sense it is true that Jesus freed men from the Law, i.e. by what process He accom- plished this deliverance. But before we can understand how Jesus freed men from the Law, we must first understand in what sense they were bound to it. Now there are two conceptions of divine revelation which, for our purposes, it is very necessary to distinguish from each other. (1) According to one idea, revelation is a gift sent down from Heaven, a deposit once committed to the saints, a thing which men did not find out for themselves ; it came to them from no earthly source ; it was prepared in heaven and transmitted thence to man by God Himself. A revelation of this kind must be for all who believe in it, not only infallible, and therefore not open to correction or alteration from any human source, but also authoritative and obligatory, i.e. acceptance of and obedience to it must be essential to God's favour. 216 JESUS AND THE (2) According to the other idea, revelation is not a deposit communicated to man from the outside ; it is something which he gathers from the world in which he lives and from his experience of life. God is immanent in all things and in all men, and that which is best, truest, and highest in human experience, and especially in religion, may be said to be inspired by God, since it argues a freer self-expression of the immanent divine Spirit. According to this view, revela- tion is a thing which grows with human knowledge and experience. It is in no sense infallible or authoritative ; for we must always be ready to yield up what we hold to-day if to-morrow shows us something better ; by its very nature it is always open to enlargement, correction, and alteration from human sources, because it is every man's right, or rather his duty, to criticize and improve upon it, and to call on others to abandon what he believes to be its imperfections and to accept anything that he can show to be better. These are two sharply contrasted conceptions of revela- tion. It is not, of course, at all impossible that the same mind should believe that both are channels of truth ; for it may be argued that, since there is but one God who is the author of both, there can be no ultimate contradiction between them. And many of us do combine them together in some proportion or other in building up our faith. But although we moderns may and do combine the two, yet there can be no doubt whatever that the Jews among whom our Lord lived and taught had no conception of revelation except the first ; and to them the whole system of the Jewish religion was of permanent divine obligation because it had been supernaturally committed by God to Moses. ' The whole Pentateuch was thus now regarded as dictated by God, as prompted by the Spirit of God. . . . Nay, at last, the view of a divine dictation was no longer sufficient. The complete book of the law was declared to have been handed to Moses by God, and it was only disputed whether God delivered the whole Thorah to Moses at once or by volumes.' 1 1 Schiirer, The Jeunsh People in the Time of Christ, ii 1. 30 ; cf. Sanday, Inspiration, pp. 70-90. RELIGION OF THE JEWS 217 Accordingly, where this view of revelation was held, we are prepared to find ' that the law, which regulated not only the priestly service but the whole life of the people in their religious, moral, and social relations, was acknowledged as given by God Himself. Its every requirement was a require- ment of God from His people, its most scrupulous observance was therefore a religious duty, nay, the supreme and, in truth, the sole religious duty. The whole piety of the Israelite consisted in obeying with fear and trembling, with all the zeal of an anxious conscience the law given him by God in all its particulars '- 1 Now if Jesus freed men from the bondage of the Jewish law, the men He freed were the Jews who held these beliefs, for they were the only people who thought themselves to be bound by it. Hence, as was stated above, two ways are con- ceivable in which He could have accomplished this deliver- ance. (1) He might have freed them by opening their eyes to the fact that they never had been bound, by proving to them that in reality the Law had never been obligatory because it had not been miraculously given by God Himself. In this case we must suppose that, however skilfully its intention was concealed, yet a large part of His teaching was in reality a polemic directed against the most cherished convictions of His contemporaries. A deliverance in this sense implies a deliberate rejection by Jesus of the alleged authority and obligation of the Mosaic Law. (2) The other sense in which Jesus may conceivably have freed men from the Law implies that He believed in its super- natural origin and authority ; it also implies a claim on His part to possess a supernatural authority equal to that which originally promulgated the Law ; finally, it implies that, by the exercise of this authority, Jesus repealed or invalidated the Mosaic Law, revealed the will of God afresh, and gave a supernatural sanction to a new mode of approach to God, to a new set of relations between God and man, which henceforth are clothed with all that obligatory character which had once belonged to the Mosaic system. Let us observe that these are the only two alternatives 1 Schiirer, ibid., p. 306. 218 JESUS AND THE before us. The Mosaic system either had or had not a unique divine sanction and authority behind it. Here is a dichotomy which is exhaustive ; there can be no third class between the two. One may think that the Jewish Law was divine, that it was the highest, the best, and the truest that had been known up to that time ; but to stop here is to put it in the class of things which are not supernaturally and immediately revealed ; the dividing line is not crossed until we go on to say that the Mosaic Law was directly given or authorized by God. To those who put it in the class of things supernaturally revealed, it is an entirely different thing from what it is to those who put it in the class of things not so revealed. To the former, it is authoritative and obligatory and cannot be set aside by human authority ; it is also infallible and not open to correction or criticism : to the latter, it may be divine, but it is not obligatory in the sense of being essential to salvation, nor is it infallible. If, then, Jesus shared the common Jewish belief that the Law was an immediate revelation, He could not have under- taken to set men free from it, unless He felt Himself to be equipped with the same supernatural authority which originally promulgated it ; for no mere private individual could undertake to deliver men from that which he believed to be the direct command of God : such a deliverance would be no deliverance at all, but mere blasphemy. If, on the other hand, Jesus altogether denied the supernatural and obligatory character of the Law, one can quite understand how He might have sought, without any consciousness of special authority in Himself, to disabuse the minds of His countrymen of their inherited traditions regarding Moses and the Law. We have, then, to choose between two alternatives ; Jesus regarded the Mosaic system either as an obligatory and supernatural revelation, or as one which was neither authoritative nor obligatory. If He believed that there was any direct divine authorization behind the Mosaic system, then He must have claimed that there was the same authority behind the freedom wherewith He made men free ; if He believed that the Mosaic Law could claim no such authority, then, so far as this point is concerned, there is no RELIGION OF THE JEWS 219 need to assume any sense of supernatural authority in the consciousness of Jesus. Which of these two alternatives, then, should be adopted ? There are three fields from which evidence may be brought to bear upon this question : (1) the historical and religious conditions of His day ; (2) the testimony of the Gospels ; (3) the course of Apostolic history. II Let us begin, then, with a brief review of the main factors in the religious thought and life of the first century of our era. It was, in the first place, an age of almost universal toleration among religions. The old traditional exclusive- ness of tribe and nation had been for some time in process of breaking down. Hand in hand with the Greek language and Greek habits of life, there had gone through the civilized world the disintegrating influence of Greek philosophical thought and the worship of the Greek gods. And after the Greek gods came the universal cult of the Roman Caesars. The worship of a new god involved no apostasy from the old ; the new deities were either identified with the old or worshipped alongside them. The official worship of the Roman Empire was frankly polytheistic, and the ' mystery ' religions, which at this time were beginning to press forward from East to West, were henotheistic rather than monotheistic. 1 One must not suppose that a belief in one Almighty God formed the substratum of the religious life of that day as it does now. At the present moment every religious-minded man feels that there is but one God whom he can worship ; he .does not imagine that he can make a choice between this God or that ; he will either worship or he will not ; but if he does, he knows that there is but one living God whom he can worship. Consequently the one thing in a man's religious life for which neither he himself nor any one else feels it necessary to seek an explanation is why he does not worship more than one God. We may ask on what grounds he 1 Cf. below, p. 224. 220 JESUS AND THE justifies his belief that the world is not mere matter ; or why he thinks it is possible for him to know the infinite Spirit ; or why he seeks fellowship with the divine ; but when we find that he is religious, we never ask him to explain why he does not worship more than one God. Every intelli- gent person who practises religion at all may be assumed to be a monotheist ; and monotheists differ according to the outward forms in which their religion manifests itself ; for monotheism may be associated with almost any attitude toward externals. But when we go back to the first century of the Christian era we find ourselves in an entirely different atmosphere, and one in which the divine unity was not a postulate of the religious life. The popular religion was still a form of polytheism. If any one of that day was sincerely religious, and yet believed in one God only, there must have been at work in his mind some special influence which caused him to differ from the traditional inherited beliefs of the mass of mankind. Hence the point which calls most loudly for explanation in the case of any monotheist of the first century is, why did he not worship more than one God ? Now the monotheists of that day were divided into two classes those who came under the influence of Greek philosophy, and those who belonged to the Jewish religion. These two classes ought not to be contrasted with each other as two schools of thought ; they differed far more profoundly than that. They were rather two different worlds, each of which had its own characteristic mental atmosphere, its own historical antecedents, and its own attitude towards the outward manifestations of religion. In origin and development each was wholly independent of the other. It is true that they did meet and mingle in the first century of our era ; but this was at Alexandria ; the monotheism of the Palestinian Jews, with which we have now to deal, owed nothing to philosophical thought. Let us try, then, to bring out the contrast briefly and clearly. The Greek monotheist did not rest his belief on tradition or on authority, but on reason and reflection, on a certain interpretation of the facts of existence. If he felt RELIGION OF THE JEWS 221 that there was but one God, this was not because any of the traditional religions with which he was familiar told him so, but because he found nature to be eloquent .of such a Being ; because he could not explain things without recourse to such an hypothesis. What he knew of God or should we say, what he knew could not be known of God ? was mediated to him through nature and his experience of life. He knew no revelation which had been sent down as a gift from heaven. To all this the monotheism of the Jew stands in pro- f oundest contrast. His knowledge of God rested on authority and tradition, and was mediated to him through the Scrip- tures and the entire religious organization of his race. The Hebrew was scarcely conscious of even the existence of those problems which led the philosopher to his belief in one God. That a belief in one righteous God provided an answer to the riddle of existence was not for him a matter of vital moment. Such considerations lay outside the pur- view of his thoughts ; like the polytheist, he lived his life undisturbed by any metaphysical questionings as to the meaning of existence and the reality which lies behind phenomena. All he knew was that the sacred time-honoured Scriptures and traditions of his race, for which his fathers had fought and died on many a bloody field, told him of one Almighty God ; and on that he was quite content to rest. To go behind or beyond the Scriptures to some other authority was impossible, for they were verbally inspired by God. Not human productions these, but divine ; for though the hands which wrote were human, the mind which composed the message and directed the muscular movements was not that of man, but of God, whose Spirit took the place of the human consciousness in controlling the organism at the moment of writing. 1 The Jew was born into this inherited belief, as he was born into a certain society of men, and experienced no need of further inquiry or proof. It is scarcely possible to exaggerate the importance of this difference. It implies an entirely different conception of God's relation to man and of His method of revelation. 1 Cf. Sanday, Inspiration, pp. 70-90. 222 JESUS AND THE According to the Jew God had certain purposes to accomplish in the creation of the world ; and He selected a certain race to be the means of carrying out these purposes ; to them alone He revealed Himself and His holy moral Law ; accord- ing to the Jew, revelation is something sent down direct from heaven ; a faith once for all delivered to the Saints, a deposit of divine knowledge supernaturally communicated and therefore in itself independent of human errors and infirmities. According to the Greek, on the other hand, revelation, if one may call it such, originated not with God, but with men. What the philosopher knew of God, he had won for himself, had wrested from the world by prying into the secrets and mysteries of existence, and since it is thus so completely the work of his own brain, it is subject to all the limitations and infirmities which attend man's efforts, and is always open to improvement as wider observation and more correct reasoning are brought to bear upon it. For the philosopher, belief in the exclusive choice of one race or in a supernatural revelation was excluded ; not thus was God related to men ; men were but a part of creation, finite and imperfect ; it was hardly possible to think that God experienced any special interest in man as such, and certainly not in any one group or race of men to the exclusion of others. And there is yet another point of contrast : philosophical monotheism, being independent of religious institutions in its origin, does not recognize any one religious organization as having privileges or authority which are not shared by all others ; it may apply a moral test to the traditional institu- tions of religion ; but it takes up the same attitude towards the outward organized aspect of all religions ; they are all alike either profitable or unprofitable according to the point of view adopted. It may be that all alike are useless, that the only way to serve God is to do one's duty by living according to nature ; but if there is any value at all in these outward forms, it is certain that no one of them has a monopoly of that value. There is but one God, who makes no distinctions between men as such, and who therefore is not limited to any one religion or any one set of externals. If anything is to be gained by outward forms, let each man RELIGION OF THE JEWS 223 follow the customs prescribed by the state, whatever they may be. To all this again the Hebrew monotheism stands as the very antithesis ; and that because of its very nature and origin. Just as the attitude of the Greek towards externals was the logical outcome of the fact that his knowledge of God was mediated entirely apart from any external system of religion ; so the attitude of the Hebrew was the necessary consequence of the fact that he knew the one true God only because God had intervened from heaven to reveal Himself and His will to the forefathers of the Jewish nation. The very authority which told him that there is but one Holy God, also assured him that that God had made a distinction between his race and all the rest of mankind by choosing them alone to stand towards Him in the relation of a ' people ', by appointing for them that system of religion which they endeavoured to practise, and by causing men to record His will in those sacred and infallible Scriptures of which his race was both possessor and guardian. It was therefore quite impossible for the Jew to regard any other system of religion as in any sense on the same level with his own. Let him admit that any other religion could be placed beside his own, and he thereby admitted that to worship the one true God was little better than to worship idols or demons. The Jew, therefore, was only logical and consistent when he held that, apart from the Jewish Law, there was no revelation and no service of God : that, apart from the Jewish religious fellowship, there was no salvation ; that the rest of mankind, the Gentiles, sat in darkness, ' alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of the promise, having no hope, and without God in the world.' Was it possible that two systems so entirely opposed to each other could be held by the same mind at the same time? An attempt to relate and interpret them to each other was made at Alexandria in Egypt, and the result is the curious work of Philo Judaeus. Philo was at once a philosopher and a Jew ; and though he held that the Jews had unique privileges, yet he accommodated his Judaism to 224 JESUS AND THE philosophy in such a way as almost to deny those privileges. He approached the Old Testament with the philosophy of Plato in his hand, and showed that the Platonic system was present in the Pentateuch long before Plato. So true was this that the Greek philosophers were mere copyists of the Jewish Scriptures, and, though the phrase is not Philo's, Plato was Moses speaking in Attic Greek. The Jews have all along had the best philosophical system, and in this consists the special privileges given to them and not to others. Well may one open one's eyes at this astonishing performance and ask how this feat is done, how Plato is extracted from Moses and how all the primitive Semitic ideas in the Jewish Scriptures are exorcised out of the way ! It is a simple matter when the magic means of allegory are at hand ; for allegorization was a convenient method of interpretation by which anything whatever can be made to prove anything one likes. 1 A word must also be said about the Eastern mystery- religions which have already been mentioned above . From one point of view these religions were henotheistic, for each of them was devoted to one god and one god only, to Isis, Cybele, Mithras, Dea Syra, or Aesculapius . It seems, however, that many persons were initiated into more than one of these cults with the idea that all reached the same end, and that the particular god worshipped was but the impersonation of the one godhead who was behind them all. To this extent there is some indication of a monotheistic belief among the votaries of these cults. But it should be observed that these religions were religions of salvation, i.e. they professed to provide a means for delivering the soul from the flesh, the world, and death ; they were not concerned to think out the relation of the god worshipped to the universe and to other objects of worship. Consequently such monotheism as there was about them did not lie in any official creed, but rather in the opinions held by particular devotees. And the monotheistic views of these individuals must be traced back to the influence of Greek philosophical thought. 2 1 Cf. Schurer II iii 366 ff. 2 Cf. Lindsay, in Cambridge Mediaeval History, i 89-92 ; Harnack, RELIGION OF THE JEWS 225 These, then, were the chief religious conditions of the world at the time when Jesus lived ; a background of polytheism and two types of monotheism, which were the very antithesis of each other in their ideas of the method of divine revelation, and in the attitude they took up towards the organized religions of the day ; and though they mingled at Alexandria at the beginning of our era, yet they were in origin and history entirely independent of each other. Bearing these conditions in mind, then, we have to ask ourselves which alternative is more probable ; did Jesus free men from the Law by teaching that it never had had a right to be considered obligatory ? or did He believe it to be of supernatural origin and set men free from it by claiming supernatural authority to release them from the obligation to observe it ? Now the most obvious facts about the life of Jesus are that He lived and died a Jew of Palestine in the first century of our era ; and so far as we know, His travels beyond Palestine, with the exception of the flight into Egypt during His infancy, were confined to two short journeys across the northern borders of Galilee. Moreover, without pressing now the details of the evidence, we may surely accept these broad facts of the Gospel story that He was brought up in a devout Jewish home at Nazareth, where He worked as a carpenter ; that His friends and chosen disciples were Jews of no special learning or ability ; that He attended the synagogue services where the Law was read, and, on occasions at least, the national festivals celebrated in Jerusalem. In the case of any other monotheist born and bred under such conditions as these, we would have no doubt whatever as to his religious beliefs ; we would without hesitation set him down as a strict Jew, sharing in all the cherished convictions of the Jews regarding the unique divine origin and obligatory character of the Mosaic religion. Moreover, it is a well-known fact that the Jews were looking forward to a new revelation of God's will and a fresh manifestation of His power ; some of the ancient prophets Mission and Expansion of Christianity, i 24-35 ; and History of Dogma, i 116-21 ; Loofs, Leitfaden zum Dogmengesch. p. 66. HAMILTON I Q 226 JESUS AND THE had foretold the approach of a time when Yahweh would abolish the old and make a new Covenant with His people ; and many expected that these things would be brought about by a supernaturally authorized or anointed representative to be known as Messiah. In view of these facts, then, it cannot be claimed that the theory which makes Jesus accept the cherished and inherited beliefs of His compatriots, and at the same time claim to possess authority to supersede the Mosaic Law, is at all out of harmony with the religious and historical facts of His place and time. Whatever difficulties it may present to the metaphysician, no exception can be taken to it on the ground that it is historically impossible. It is possible to maintain that, if Jesus made this claim, He was mistaken ; but it cannot be maintained that such a claim could not have been made by a truly religious Jew at the time He lived. On the other hand, the theory which presents Jesus as denying the unique authority and divine origin of the Jewish religion may be much more easily squared with certain systems of metaphysics, but it involves very serious historical difficulties. A denial of this kind is not, of course, impossible or inconceivable, but it at once lifts Him out of the rut of ordinary Jews and places Him upon a pinnacle by Himself quite as successfully as a claim to supernatural authority. Let us look at this point a little more closely. It can hardly be doubted that Jesus was born into an atmosphere of unquestioned belief in the supernatural authority of the Jewish religion, and that He was brought up to accept the claim to a unique revelation made by the Jews. If, then, He abandoned this belief, He must have come to see that the origin of the Law was not from above, but from earth itself ; that it had no guarantee or sanction other than that which the best of men could give it. Now it must be remembered that the sole reason which the Jews had for believing in one Holy God was that He had revealed Himself directly from heaven to Moses and the prophets ; the Jews possessed no reasoned argument to prove that there is but one Holy God ; the Scriptures and the traditions of the race were themselves the only evidence of His existence ; hence, if it RELIGION OF THE JEWS 227 had been proved to a Jew that they were not directly revealed from heaven at all, all reason for his belief in such a God would have disappeared. Any one who could prove that the Mosaic system was not supernaturally revealed would thereby bring the whole Jewish system of monotheism toppling to the ground. Any Jew, then, who denied the heavenly origin of the Jewish religion would have three alternatives open to him. He might lapse into polytheism or into one of the mystery- religions ; or, he might abandon all religious belief for either materialism or a profound scepticism ; or, he might come to believe, on grounds other than those of a supernatural revelation to the Jews, in the existence of one Holy Almighty God. If, then, Jesus abandoned a belief in the supernatural authority of Mosaism, His belief in one God must have had some grounds other than the Jewish Scriptures ; He must have come to see that there is some other source from which the knowledge of God may be derived ; He must have adopted some idea of revelation other than the Jewish. What other conception of revelation, what other source of the knowledge of one Almighty God is there ? Only the philosophical. We must suppose, then, that philo- sophical considerations and modes of thought had so profoundly influenced His mind that they caused Him first to abandon the unquestioned beliefs of His contemporaries, which He had breathed in with every breath since His boyhood, and then to substitute for them conceptions of a very different character as the basis of His religious life. But is there any evidence of such influence ? Is the presence of such an influence at all possible ? One would have to ask in the first place, from what source did it come to bear upon the life and thoughts of Jesus ? No doubt the Greek language was spoken in Palestine, Greek names were not uncommon, and Greek ideas and habits of life were not entirely unknown ; but these do not, of course, amount to anything like the powerful influence which the theory under consideration requires. 1 There is no evidence that the class of Jewish society in which Jesus was brought up 1 Cf. Schiirer, II i 11-51. Q2 228 JESUS AND THE was at all penetrated by any ray of philosophical learning. No one is likely to suggest that He was really a self -originated Plato or Aristotle. Yet the assumption that He borrowed ideas from the philosophical schools is as wholly fictitious as the complicity with the Essenes by means of which some early critical editions of the Life of Jesus sought to explain away His miracles. It is wholly without support from any tradition, however late in date ; there is nothing in the Gospels to suggest that His belief in God came to Him as the answer to the riddle of existence, nor is there any reason to think that metaphysical problems at any time occupied His thoughts. And probably most of us will agree that of the things which distinguished Him from 'His contemporaries, the possession of philosophical learning was certainly not one. 1 How is it, one must ask, that all the Christian tradi- tions represent Him as innocent of any acquaintance with philosophical problems and teachings ? And again, how is it that the storm and stress of mind, the questionings and doubts, which must have been involved in shifting the basis of His belief from the Scriptures to a philosophical conception of the world how is it that all this inner struggle has left no trace behind it on the pages of the Gospels ? According to this view, the religious faith of Jesus was broken off short and then began again on a new basis ; but, according to all that has come down to us concerning Him, His faith in one Almighty God flowed on undisturbed and unshaken by any doubts or misgivings. But still the line which will perhaps suggest itself to some minds as most reasonable at this point is to argue that, in some way, we know not how, these influences did come to act upon Him, as they did upon Philo ; and that, like Philo, He in some way accommodated His Judaism, without abandoning it altogether, to the more liberal spirit of philosophy. Hence His apparent acceptance, but real rejec- tion, of the exclusive claims of the Jews. But the comparison with Philo is exceedingly unfortunate. Philo lived at Alexandria, where he could scarcely fail to come in contact with philosophy ; Jesus lived in Palestine in a social circle 1 Cf. Harnack, What is Christianity ? pp. 36 f . RELIGION OF THE JEWS 229 which it is most unlikely had any intimate knowledge of the works and thoughts of Plato or Aristotle. Philo made it his main effort to interpret Judaism to the Greeks and the philosophy of the Greeks to the Jews ; but nothing we know of Jesus suggests that He was conscious of any source of monotheistic doctrine except the Jewish Scriptures, nor have we any right to think that He attempted a similar interpretation. Again, Philo would have been helpless without the allegorical method, but, so far as we know, Jesus never used it. And, finally, Philo said the Jewish Law ought to be observed ; ! but Jesus, we are told, denied the obliga- tion of the Jewish Law and freed men from the burden of it altogether. There were other Jewish philosophers, it is true, who did not insist upon the literal outer observance of the Law ; but that was because they explained away the legal enactments by their allegorical methods. 2 If any one maintains that there was in the mystery- religions a stronger tendency towards monotheism than has been allowed to them in these pages, he will not find it easy to prove a contact between them and either Jesus or His Apostles. Moreover, it is scarcely conceivable that they should have been able to supply an assured belief in one Holy and Almighty Father to one who had seen reason to abandon the Jewish monotheism. Those, then, who maintain that Jesus denied the super- natural origin of the Law must be asked to explain, ( 1 ) why He abandoned this belief, and from what source, when He had once abandoned it, He drew His belief in one God ; and (2) why there is no trace in Christian tradition of the inner struggle and the period of uncertainty which this theory involves. Ill We may now pass on to examine the testimony of the Gospels. The attitude of our Lord towards the religion of the Jews, as the Synoptic Gospels describe it, may be summed up in the following statements : (1) The Jewish Scriptures 1 Schiirer, II iii 369, n. 124. 2 Cf. Harnack, History of Dogma, i 108 n. 1. 230 JESUS AND THE are His treasury of the knowledge of God, the source-book of His theology. (2) He declined to observe the Tradition of the Elders and denounced the Scribes and Pharisees as hypocrites, but the Mosaic Law itself He regarded as a divine appointment, and therefore both observed it Himself and taught others to do likewise. (3) He recognized that the Jews had privileges not given to others, and corresponding responsibilities for which others were not answerable. (4) But the Law was preparatory, incomplete, and tem- porary. The whole system of the ancient Covenant looked forward to and promised something better which was to take its place. That something was nothing less than a new Covenant which He Himself inaugurated. As Messiah He was conscious that He had authority from God to bring the Mosaic Covenant to its intended close, and, like a new Moses, to inaugurate and give validity to a new Covenant between God and His people Israel. The new Covenant came into effect and was ratified through His Blood. Under the new Covenant it was His death, not the observance of the Mosaic Law, but the sacrifice He offered on Calvary, which was efficacious unto the forgiveness of sins and eternal salvation. The basis of salvation was shifted, as it were, from the Law to a personal appropriation of the merits of His Cross and Passion. The effect of this was to make the observance of the Mosaic Law no longer necessary to salvation. But if it is no longer essential to salvation, it is bound to lose its original importance, and in the course of time, to sink into insignificance. And again, once it is removed, then the way is open for Gentiles to enter in upon the Messianic salvation on precisely the same terms as the Jews. Thus the Gentiles are freed from the burden of the Law, and hence the universalism of Christianity. Let us take up first His attitude towards the Scriptures. The point of real importance is not merely that He was thoroughly familiar with the Scriptures, nor even that He accepted the traditions regarding the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, the Davidic authorship of the Psalter, and the historical genuineness of the Old Testament narratives ; but that He constantly used the Scriptures as the final court RELIGION OF THE JEWS 231 of appeal in matters of faith and practice. He finds in them a treasury of the knowledge of God and a source-book on the duty of man. To the suggestions of the tempter He replies in words from the Old Testament : ' It is written, thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.' There is more in this than a mere reminiscence. The words bear a decisive weight because they are written. It is by an appeal to the Scrip- tures that He proves the distinction between right and wrong. In them He finds a test of conduct, a guide through life, and a power to resist the evil one. The two command- ments than which there is none greater are taken out of the Old Testament, ' Hear, O Israel, the Lord (Kvpios = Yahweh) is our God ; the Lord is one ; and thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength. The second is this, thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.' J Again, when the Pharisees object to His intercourse with publicans and sinners, He bids them go and learn the meaning of a passage from Hosea. 2 His reference to the Scriptures as to a final court of appeal is all the more significant, because He fully realized that their injunctions were not in every case perfect from a moral point of view. Here, then, was a point of departure at which a polemic against the Scriptures might be expected from Him, if He felt that they were receiving an exaggerated reverence. But when He finds that one passage of the Law supports an imperfect view of marriage, He refers to another (Mark x 2-8 ; Matt, xix 1-9). He comes into conflict with the religious leaders and representatives of Judaism on many occasions. This, however, is not because He draws His knowledge of God from a different source from theirs, but because they are wrong in their interpretation of what both recognize as the final authority. The Sadducees do greatly err in their dis- belief in the Resurrection because they know not the Scrip- tures nor the power of God. A passage from Exodus is cited 1 R. V. marg. of Mark xii 29-30 ; Deut. vi 4, 5 ; Lev. xix 18 ; cf. Luke x 25-8 ; Matt, xxii 34-40. 2 Matt, ix 10-13 ; Hos. vi 6 ; cf. Matt, xii 1-7. 232 JESUS AND THE as a sufficient proof of this doctrine. ' But as touching the dead, that they are raised ; have ye not read in the book of Moses, in the place concerning the Bush, how God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob ? He is not the God of the dead, but of the living : ye do greatly err. 1 The Law and the Prophets are a divine revelation as to the duty of man and are the final court of appeal. ' On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets '. 2 Most striking of all, however, is the relation of the Scrip- tures to His consciousness of the necessity of His death and sufferings. Jesus, for some time before the Crucifixion, fore- saw His death. No doubt He realized that the enmity of the Scribes and Pharisees would be content with nothing less ; and no doubt this formed a real element in His fore- bodings. But was this all ? Was His anticipation of a violent death merely the pessimism of one who feels that the opposing forces are going to defeat him ? It is impossible to argue these questions out in full here. Suffice it to say that so far as the present writer can see, it is impossible to explain the attitude of Jesus towards the prospect of death , except on the supposition that He knew that death to be part of a divine scheme of things. He must have known that His death was not to spell defeat, but to usher in victory ; that God would not let matters rest there, but would vindi- cate Him and His work with triumphant glory ; that in and through His death, God was working out His own eternal plans. Jesus contemplated death because He knew it to be the work His Father had given Him to do. Hence it was necessary. Hence he looked forward to it with calmness and confidence, although with sorrow and anguish. But whence did He learn this scheme of things ? On what grounds did He rest His assurance that His death meant God's victory ? Here the Gospels point us to an answer and to an answer which, in face of the evidence given above and below, there is reason to accept without hesitation. Jesus knew His death to be necessary, to be a part of the divine scheme of 1 Mark xii 26-7 ; Matt, xxii 23-33 ; Luke xx 27-40. 1 Matt, xxii 40 ; cf. vii 12 ; Luke xvi 29, 31. RELIGION OF THE JEWS 233 things, because of what was written in the Old Testament. He knew Himself to be the Messiah ; and as He read the Scriptures, He found them eloquent of a divine purpose or scheme, in which the sufferings and death of the Messiah are included as an essential part. It is interesting to note that where He speaks of the death of the Messiah as fore-ordained, He does not, as a rule, refer to any one special passage or set of passages. ' How is it written of the Son of man, that he should suffer many things and be set at nought?' (Mark ix 12). ' The Son of man goeth even as it is written of him ; but woe unto that man through whom the Son of man is be- trayed ! ' 1 ' How, then, should the Scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be ? ' (on ot/rooy Sei yeveo-Qai, Matt, xxvi 54). ' Behold we go up to Jerusalem, and all the things that are written by the prophets shall be accomplished unto the Son of man ' (Luke xviii 31 ; cf . 32 f .). ' foolish men, and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken ! Behoved it not the Christ to suffer these things (ov)(i ravra e<5et iraOt'ii' TOV XpurTov] and to enter into his glory ? And beginning from Moses and from all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself ' (Luke xxiv 25-7). ' These are my words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, how that all things must needs be fulfilled, which are written in the Law of Moses, and the prophets and the psalms con- cerning me. Then opened he their mind, that they might understand the scriptures ; and he said unto them, Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer (ouroo? ykypa-mai TraOtlv rov Xpio-Tov) and rise again from the dead the third day, and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name unto all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem' (Luke xxiv 44-7). ' For I say unto you that this which is written must be fulfilled in me (8ei TX yap napfXafiov ano TOV K. seem to favour this view; on the other hand, the emphatic position of yw militates against it ; if his words rested on nothing more than the tradition common to all, one cannot but wonder why he puts himself into such a position of emphasis. It seems best to take (he passage as meaning that St. Paul had received a revelation on the subject through some medium the form of which we do not know (cf. Gal. i 12 ; Acts xxvi 16 ; Meyer in loc.) THE OFFICE OF THE APOSTLES 73 St. Paul, in short, claimed as much authority to assure the Gentiles of the Messianic salvation and to admit them into the fellowship of the New Israel as the Twelve claimed in relation to the Jews. The fact, however, that he was called after them and was sent to the Gentiles necessarily made a difference. He was not one of the original nucleus of the New Israel on whom the Spirit came on the Day of Pentecost ; and while they stood more or less together as a collective whole, he stood more by himself. But it was recognized by the Twelve that he was chosen by Christ to witness and interpret the gospel of the Messianic salvation to the Gentiles, as they had been chosen to bear witness to the Jews. There is a very general consensus of opinion among scholars that St. Paul was admitted to be an Apostle in the same sense as the Twelve. 1 As the Apostle of the Gentiles, St. Paul's relation to the Churches he founded seems to have been much the same as that of the Twelve to the Churches of Palestine. He did not claim obedience as a matter of legal right based upon any commands of Christ, although he expects his words to bear weight because he is an Apostle (1 Cor. ix 2). His converts turn naturally to him for advice and instruction as to one who has more extensive and authoritative know- ledge the source from which they themselves had heard the Gospel. St. Paul was, of course, insistent that his own Apostleship rested on the same basis as that of the Twelve ; but this was not in order to establish an official position for himself, or to make good a claim to obedience as a consti- tutional right, but rather to guarantee the genuineness and truth of the Gospel which he preached. As the Twelve were entrusted with the Gospel of the circumcision to be witnesses primarily to the nation of Israel, so was he entrusted in the same way with the Gospel of the uncircumcision to be a witness primarily to the Gentiles. It is surely a mistake to suppose that all Apostles, both the Twelve and the others, were originally upon the same 1 So Harnack, Die Lehre der Zwolf Apostel, p. 117, note 32 ; of. 115-17 ; Lindsay, Church and Ministry in Early Centuries, p. 84 ; McGiffert, Apostolic Aye, p. 647 f., &c. 74 THE OFFICE OF THE APOSTLES level of prestige and authority, and that the limitation of a peculiarly high degree of Apostleship to the Twelve and St. Paul was due to St. Paul's influence. 1 The fact that the Twelve had been chosen by Christ Himself, and had com- panied with Him throughout His ministry could not fail to make their position one of immense importance in the eyes of the primitive Christians. Not merely would they be possessed of great prestige in the eyes of their brethren because they were the Lord's personal disciples, but, as has been said above, the opportunities they had had of knowing the mind of the Messiah and the nature of the Messianic Kingdom could not but make them the fountain-source of Christian teaching. St. Paul was anxious to show that his Apostleship rested upon precisely the same basis as, was the same in kind with, the Apostleship of the Twelve, i. e. that whatever degree of authority in the Church was attached to their preaching because they were called by the Lord Himself in the flesh, belonged to his Gospel also for the same reason. Unless, then, they had a recognized position he would have had little object in seeking to place himself beside them. One cannot, therefore, think that the high respect in which the Twelve were held was due to St. Paul. The Twelve and St. Paul had from the first a unique position of their own among the brethren, and the respect paid them was only likely to increase as later generations viewed them from a distance through the lapse of time. It was inevitable that as time went on succeeding generations should regard the Apostles of Christ with increasing reverence, until, if they had come to life in later years, their words would have been obeyed as implicitly as those of the Lord Himself, and that because it was then believed that they possessed an absolute authority to rule the whole Church. But this was not so in the primi- tive days. The influence of the Apostles was paramount and yielded to on all sides because they were the first and best instructed among many brethren. The presence of the Twelve dominated the Church from the first, but the con- ception which presents them as lawgivers is a later growth. 1 So Harnack, Die Lehre der Z. A., pp. 115-17. THE OFFICE OF THE APOSTLES 75 Apostleship, then, does not imply a legal or constitutional position in the Church. An Apostle in the Church is one who possesses peculiar personal gifts and is sent out to preach in the name of Jesus. St. Paul and the Twelve form among Apostles a class apart Apostles of Christ holding a position of unique influence and authority in the Church as its centre of unity and gravity. With regard to the other class of Apostles ; they were Apostles, simply because they represented or were sent forth by local Churches. They are to be clearly distinguished from the Twelve ; they were not officials, and their personal influence was far below that of the Apostles of Christ. 1 1 Cf. also Appendix, Note iii. CHAPTERS V-VIII THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE MINISTRY CHAPTER V THE EARLY CHURCH AT JERUSALEM IT is now time to attempt a study of the origin and de- velopment of Christian organization. We begin, then, with the organization of the early Church in Jerusalem. At the very outset it ought to be observed that the atmosphere of thought and feeling in which the Apostolic band lived was entirely unfavourable to the development of organiza- tion. It is not easy for us to transplant ourselves into that frame of mind in which the Lord's return and the end of the world may be confidently expected to occur at any moment in the near future, but, clearly, such a frame of mind must involve a considerable redistribution of values and rearrangement of emphasis. If the Apostles believed that the Coming in glory was not far off, it is clear that they had no idea that they were founding a society to last through centuries ; hence the perfecting of a smooth- working mode of governing the Church would hardly have been one of the things on which emphasis was laid. When need arose and occasion required that some work should be done, some one would no doubt be told off to do it ; but there could have been no idea that this was establishing a precedent which was to be binding upon the Church for centuries to come. Moreover, the religious enthusiasm, and the constant sense of the nearness of the spiritual world, which marked those earliest years, make it altogether THE EARLY CHURCH AT JERUSALEM 77 improbable that any attention whatever was paid to the details of organization, except such as was called for by the immediate needs of the moment. In studying the origin of the Christian Ministry, therefore, one must begin by asking, what need for officials was likely to arise ? What work had to be undertaken for or on behalf of the brethren ? If there were officials, there must have been some work to be done which called them into existence ; otherwise they would not have been there ; for the creation of meaningless titles was, we may be sure, one of the last things to enter the minds of the Apostles. This, then, must be one of the fundamental principles of our attitude towards the develop- ment of Church organization. The first point is to inquire what work had to be done. In the earliest period now under examination the needs of the moment, we will expect to find, were met as they arose, without any idea of estab- lishing a permanent ministry. If the needs proved to be temporary, the organic arrangements made to meet them will probably be temporary also ; but if the work to be done continued to call for officials to discharge it, we have every right to expect the development of permanent officials. Another fact which points in the same direction must also be taken into consideration. The aim of the Apostles was not to found a religious society to rival the national Jewish organization. They were looking and hoping for the conversion of the entire nation. They were not con- sciously organizing a new religion, but they sought to regenerate an old organization, to recreate it in Christ Jesus. In so far as they thought about the matter at all, their attitude towards the Law, and their attendance at the Temple worship, show that they contemplated the continuation of the Jewish Law and hence of the Temple ritual and its organization. In all probability they scarcely stopped to think what purely Christian organization, in addition to the old Mosaic arrangements, would become necessary when the entire nation was converted. It is true that believers had a common religious life of their own ; they broke the bread in memory of the Lord Jesus at home (Acts ii 46) ; and as will be seen below, this common rite 78 THE EARLY CHURCH AT JERUSALEM was destined to play a very important part in the develop- ment of Christian organization, but in the earliest years after Pentecost it is hardly likely that this assumed such proportions as to appear to be a rival to the national system. Since the Apostles were eager for the conversion of the whole nation and its entire organization, they would not have seen any occasion to separate themselves from other Jews by establishing a Christian counterpart to any existing Jewish institution. Whatever function the Christian elders performed, one may be quite sure it was not precisely the same function as that of the Jewish elders. The Church of Jerusalem wished to show that its children were loyal and devout sons of the Jewish nation ; hence they would continue to avail themselves of the services of the lawfully established national officials. Any Christian officers must have been brought into existence in order to meet a dis- tinctively Christian need, to satisfy a want which was felt by Christians alone. II But let us now turn to see what can be learned from the early chapters of Acts about the Church in Jerusalem. We are told that the Apostles, and those whom they converted to the membership of Jesus, continued to take their part in the national religious life. They are described as ' con- tinuing steadfastly with one accord in the temple ' (ii 46), which is also the chief scene of their public testimony to Jesus (iii 11 ; v 12, 20, 21 ; cf. xxi 20-7). In addition to this, however, we are told that they had a peculiar life of their own. They possessed what has been called a ' community of goods ' and they broke bread at home (KO,T' oii) (Acts ii 44-6 ; iv 32-7 ; v 1-6 ; vi 1-4). Let us endeavour, first of all, to understand clearly what it is which St. Luke describes in the verses dealing with the ' community of goods ', and to test the trustworthiness of his account by asking whether an adequate cause for the phenomenon can be discovered, and whether the necessary economic effects of such peculiar financial arrangements are visible in later events. THE EARLY CHURCH AT JERUSALEM 70 (a) It is scarcely necessary to remark that St. Luke is not describing any compulsory communism ' after it was sold, was it not in thy power ? ' (Acts v 4). There is nothing to contradict this in the other passages. (6) The whole matter is peculiar to the Christian society. ' All that believed . . . had all things common ' (ii 44) ; ' the multitude of them believed . . . had all things common . . . neither was there among them any that lacked ' (iv 32, 34). Hence both in their causes and in their effects we may expect to find that the conditions described concern the Church primarily and in an especial way. (c) The Christians did not simply abandon their property as though it were something with which they could have nothing more to do. They were not fanatics going out to face the world, stripped of all their property. Their posses- sions were sold, that is, full value was received in exchange for them. ' They sold their possessions and goods ' (ii 45) ; ' as many as were possessors of lands or houses, sold them ' (iv 34) ; ' Joseph, having a field, sold it ' (iv 36-7) ; ' Ana- nias . . . sold a possession ' (v 1; of. v 4, 8). In other words, there was merely an exchange of commodities possessing value. They received an equivalent for that with which they parted. (d) For what purpose was this general liquidation of property ? KTrjfiara (fields, lands, &c.), vndpgeis (property, movable or immovable, ii 45) ; lands (iv 34 ; v 3), houses (iv 34), fields (iv 36), were sold, i. e. turned into cash. This was not for the ordinary purposes of trade and commerce, nor for a common commercial venture on a large scale ; nor would mere silver and gold have been of any special service to the Christians. The financial operations in ques- tion were carried on for a perfectly definite object ready money was required to supply the daily wants of the indi- vidual members of the community. Not that the rich gave a portion of their wealth to the less wealthy in order that all might have an exactly equal amount of this world's goods. The rich parted with their property in order to meet the needs of their brethren, apparently to save them from destitution or hunger. ' They sold their possessions *> THE EARLY CHURCH AT JERUSALEM and goods, and parted them to all, according as any man had need ' (ii 45) ; * neither was there among them any that lacked, for as many as were possessors . . . brought the prices of the things that were sold . . . and distribution was made unto each, according as any one had need * (iv 34-5 ; of. the * daily ministration * of vi 1). We may suppose that the goods said to have been common in ii 44 were such as could be turned to this purpose directly without being exchanged. But why was there this need on the part of so many for daily supplies ? We may imagine them to have been as poor as we like, but still they must have lived on some- thing before the day of Pentecost ; and if it had been on charity, the same source would still have been open to them, for we are told that they ' had favour with all the people ' (ii 47 ; cl. iv 21, v 13, 26). The charity of the public of Jerusalem would not have been shut up against the poor because they became Christians, and hence the mere plea of poverty is insufficient to account for the wide- spread liquidation of property which St. Luke describes. We can form but one hypothesis which will account for the facts. It is that the converts, for one reason or another, abandoned those trades or avocations by means of which they had hitherto earned their daily bread, and hence large sums of ready money were needed to maintain the brethren. This seems to be the only adequate cause for the phenomena ; for had they been engaged in trade as before, on the one hand, their interests would have required that their capital should remain undisturbed, and on the other, there seems no reason why so many believers should have been thus suddenly brought into want. () The nature of the subject under investigation now begins to dear up. The believers ceased to work at the employments in which they had hitherto been engaged. The rich would be affected but tittle, but the poor would feel the pinch at once. Then, what was quite natural happened ; the rich shared with the poor their income and duly supplies. They had all things common. But this would not suffice for long: for as the society increased. THE EARLY CHURCH AT JERUSALEM 81 more and more ready money would be required. The next thing is to draw upon capital ; lands and houses, &c., are sold. All this implies that the Christians were living upon their capital. Money once spent in this way does not return, and the capitalist must rapidly become poorer and poorer until he reaches a state of absolute poverty. In a single individual the result of such a policy is certain financial ruin ; but in the case of a large number of men in one city, the result must be not merely the destitution of indi- viduals, but some disorganization of industry and some inconvenience to the business world. One cannot live upon capital for ever, borne day a crash is inevitable. A skilled workman who has parted with the tools of his trade, or an employer who has sold his plant, must incur debt before he can begin again after his capital is once gone. And a man who has spent his capital upon his daily bread will not find it easy to borrow money. Hence, if St. Luke's account is to be trusted, we must expect to find that the Church at Jerusalem was for years afterwarde plunged in poverty. (/) By what machinery was this policy carried oat ? At first, as might be expected, there seems to have been some- thing likp indiscriminate charity. ' All that believed . . . sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all, according as any man had need ' (ii 44-5). Nothing is said here of any central controlling authority, but the need of it would soon come. One who had impoverished himself for the Church's sake, who had been reduced from affluence to beggary by his generosity to his brethren, might fairly make a claim upon whatever funds were placed at the disposal of all ; and common decency could give no few. But if justice were to be done to all such cases. indis should seek to emulate the high position of Barnabas, and at the same tfmft acquire a claim upon the MimmmiiU for permanent support, by professing to give every penny they had, though in reality keeping back a portion for themselves in case the whole should break down. This may well explain the of Ananias's sm m claiming to have given the THE EARLY CHURCH AT JERUSALEM 83 entire sum to the common funds, without having done so in reality. St. Luke's account seems to be both intelligible and con- urtent with itself ; but the conditions he describes could only have existed if the ordinary income of the Christians from daily work had ceased. Have we any justification for thinking that they threw up their usual employments ? St. Luke does not describe them as men who were eagerly and busily engaged in commerce. " All that believed were together ' (ii 44), " And day by day continuing steadfastly with one accord in the Temple and breaking bread at home, they did take their food with gladness and singleness of heart, praising God ' (ii 46). There had been a tendency on the part of the earliest converts of the Thessalonian Church to cease work, a tendency which St. Paul rebukes sharply in 2 Thess. iii 10-14. This was probably due to their expecta- tion of our Lord's early return. The Apostles at Jerusalem certainly did not know the " times or seasons ' (Acts ii 7) of the Lord's return, and the same expectation was as strong in the early Church of Jerusalem as in Thessalonica. One can well understand how, in the earliest moment of spiritual wonder and intense enthusiasm, attention was so concentrated upon the coming of the Lord, that the things of this world appeared negligible quantities, and men gave themselves up, without foreseeing the financial consequences of such a course and without the slightest idea of aiming at self-indulgence or relaxation, to concentrate all their time and energies on a realization of the marvellous things which had come to pass, and were still to come to pass among them. Moreover, a considerable portion of the brethren came from among the Greek-speaking Jews of the Dispersion and the Galilaean villagers who had come up to the Holy City for the Feast (cf . Acts iv 36 ; vi 1, 5 ; ii 7-11). Many of these may have come with just sufficient money to meet their expenses in attending the Feast ; and when they remained behind to meet the Lord in the Holy City, they would soon stand in need of assistance, since their homes and employments were in some cases far away over the sea. Had each man gone back to his work at once, 02 84 THE EARLY CHURCH AT JERUSALEM the concentration, which alone could give the Church a con- sciousness of itself as a whole, would have been impossible. These considerations seem sufficient to explain why there should have been a cessation of labour on the part of believers and why so many should have been in want. If this view is accepted, it will be seen that the community of goods was not a financial policy deliberately planned beforehand and carefully followed out. It was rather an arrangement into which the Church was drawn without quite knowing whither it was going. Once a considerable number of believers remained behind in Jerusalem without obtaining employment, the community of goods seems a very natural consequence. And it is not impossible that St. Paul's unhesitating condemnation of any similar ten- dency at Thessalonica may have been prompted by the thought of the unhappy results which had followed in the Church of Jerusalem. A financial policy such as this must produce marked economic results. Can we trace them in subsequent events V (a) It is not impossible that this general realization of property may have caused a disorganization of trade suffi- cient to produce some perceptible inconvenience. Of this we hear nothing directly. But St. Luke is not giving us an economic history of Israel, and hence we cannot com- plain if he does not mention disturbances in the markets. It is possible, however, that some dislocation of trade may have followed on this liquidation of capital and have caused some annoyance and anxiety to the public at Jeru- salem ; and the Christians, as the ultimate cause, would surely come in for some unpopularity. Now it is remarkable that in the earliest period the Christians are described as being most popular with the public, so much so that the Sanhedrin was afraid to make any open move against them (ii 47 ; iv 21 ; v 13, 26). But when the community of goods is in its last stages, there seems to have been a con- siderable revulsion of feeling against the Christians, vi 12 marks a change of attitude, ' they stirred up the people ' ; and this reaches a climax in the public stoning of Stephen and a ' great persecution against the Church ' (viii 1-3 ; THE EARLY CHURCH AT JERUSALEM 85 cf. xii 3). This unpopularity was no doubt due to religious causes, but it is interesting to note that it comes in at a time when the community of goods was likely to bring the brethren into disfavour. (6) But the effects of their policy must have been peculiarly marked in the financial condition of the Christians themselves. The plan of living upon capital cannot be carried on indefinitely. The sources of revenue must run dry, and disaster is inevitable. No amount of financial ability on the part of the Seven could avert the impending ruin. The Christians must have awakened one morning to find themselves in a deplorable con- dition, with no more money in their coffers and out of work. Jerusalem would have been no place for such a large number suddenly seeking employment. It was necessary that many of them should go elsewhere. Again it is interest- ing to note that ' they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria, except the apostles ' (viii 1 ; cf. 4). ' They therefore that were scattered abroad upon the tribulation that arose about Stephen travelled as far as Phoenicia, and Cyprus and Antioch ' (xi 19). The martyrdom of St. Stephen marks a severe crisis in the history of the Church. A general breakdown of the financial system, added to a severe persecution on religious grounds and the loss of popularity, seemed to shatter the Church into fragments. (c) But there were also many who remained behind at Jerusalem, and their condition must have been for many years that of the poorest in the city. It is only reasonable to expect that the charity of their fellow Christians else- where will be extended to them. Some time after the breaking up of the Church at Jerusalem we read of the famine prophesied by Agabus for the whole world, and of how ' the disciples, every man according to his ability, determined to send relief unto the brethren that dwelt in Judaea, which also they did, sending it to the elders by the hand of Barnabas and Saul ' (xi 28-30). If the finances of the Christians at Jerusalem had been in a normal con- dition, one would surely have expected the mother Church, 86 THE EARLY CHURCH AT JERUSALEM with her large numbers and generous members, to send help to the out-stations, instead of vice versa. But the brethren at Antioch must have known of the impoverished condition of the Church in Jerusalem and Judaea generally, and hence felt that the famine would press much more severely upon them than upon the others. But this help was merely temporary, intended to tide them over a famine. Some years later, St. Paul visited Jerusalem again, and saw the poverty of the Christians there. ' James and Cephas and John . . . gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship . . . only they would that we should remember the poor ; which very thing I was also zealous to do ' (Gal. ii 9, 10). This request St. Paul responded to nobly in the well-known collection for the Saints at Jerusalem. All the Churches of Macedonia, Achaia (Rom. xv 26), and Galatia (1 Cor. xvi 1) contributed to this fund, and no doubt a considerable sum was raised which was brought to Jerusalem by a special deputation. 1 One or two of the expressions which St. Paul uses regarding this collection seem to confirm this view of the community of goods. He is careful to explain to the Corinthians that the Church at Jerusalem is really much worse off than themselves. ' For I say not this, that others may be eased, and ye distressed ; but by equality ; your abundance being a supply at this present time for their want, that their abundance also may become a supply for your want ; that there may be equality ; as it is written, He that gathered much had nothing over ; and he that gathered little had no lack ' (2 Cor. viii 13-15). The Apostle makes it clear that, at the moment, the Judaean Church was in much greater want than the Corinthians, although there were not many mighty or noble among them (1 Cor. i 26), and expresses the hope that their kindness will in due season be requited. Very probably he said the same to the Churches of Macedonia, and yet they certainly were very poor ; ' in much proof of affliction, the abundance of their joy and their deep poverty abounded unto the riches of their liberality ' (2 Cor. viii 2). These passages seem to emphasize the 1 Cf. 1 Cor. xvi 3-4 ; Rom. xv 25-6 ; Acts xx 4. THE EARLY CHURCH AT JERUSALEM 87 poverty of the Church at Jerusalem so that one can well understand the eagerness of St. Paul to push this collection since he knew how very welcome any financial aid would be. No doubt St. Paul does say that the Gentiles are debtors to the Jews, and that they should make some return in carnal things for the spiritual blessings they have received (Rom. xv 27). But when one recollects the attitude which some believing Jews took up towards the Gentiles and the Law, one may question whether it is likely that St. Paul would have laid himself open to a charge of trying to buy off the Jewish opposition, unless he knew that the great need of the Church at Jerusalem would make it impossible for any one to misunderstand his motive. It would be difficult to maintain that these effects could not be due to other causes ; but certainly they must be taken as greatly strengthening the trustworthiness of St. Luke's narrative, since they are the effects which follow upon a financial policy such as he describes. So far, then, as these tests go, it may be concluded that St. Luke has given us a remarkably accurate and concise account of the condition of the earliest Church at Jerusalem. Ill Against this background, then, must be studied the origin of the earliest officials of the Church at Jerusalem. The community of goods was peculiar to the Christians : out of it arose the daily ministration mentioned in Acts vi 1. It was the pressing need of recognized officers to discharge certain duties in connexion with this ministration that led to the appointment of the Seven. ' There arose a murmuring of the Grecian Jews against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration. And the twelve . . . said, " Look ye out . . . seven men . . . whom we may appoint over this business" ' (Acts vi 1-3). From this it seems that the earliest Christian officials were called into existence by the pressure of circumstances, by needs peculiar to the Christians. Moreover, the financial system implied in the community of goods was, by its very nature, 88 THE EARLY CHURCH AT JERUSALEM doomed to failure. It could not and did not last, and the daily ministration ceased with it ; and with the daily ministration the Seven disappear from Church history as a working body. Their memory continues (Acts xxi 8), but their office is gone. There is really no evidence to show that either deacons or presbyters 1 were a direct continua- tion of the office here instituted. The officials named in Acts vi are not called either ' deacons ' or ' presbyters ' ; nor in fact is any title at all given to them ; it is only incidentally, in the account of St. Paul's last journey to Jerusalem, that we learn that they were known by the term ' the Seven ' (Acts xxi 8). If they were really deacons or presbyters it seems most unlikely that the term ' the Seven ' should thus have lingered on to denote officers whose numbers must by the time of St. Paul's last journey to Jerusalem have passed far beyond the original seven, and who were also well known by another title, whether that title were ' presbyter ' or ' deacon '. It would be easy for Irenaeus and later writers to read into Acts vi the institution of the later diaconate ; but we have not the least contemporary evidence that the deacons of Philippi or of other Pauline Churches were instituted in conscious imitation of the Seven. If the first officers whom the Apostles appointed were thus called into existence so entirely by the circumstances of the day, it is not likely that any officers instituted later were created from any other motive than the same desire to meet some pressing need. It is unfortunate that there is no account of the origin of the presbyters. In order to learn what the original duties of the elders were, we must consider what needs for such officers were likely to arise in the Church. The identity of name with the officers of the Jewish synagogue by no means proves an identity of function ; it merely shows that there was a sufficient resemblance in the general position of the two sets of officers within their respective spheres as to suggest the use of the term ' presbyter ' for the Christian officials. And on the other hand, there is very 1 But see Lightfoot, Philippians, p. 188 ; Lindsay, Church and Ministry, p. 116. THE EARLY CHURCH AT JERUSALEM 89 good reason to think that the Christian elders, whatever they did, did not do just that which was done by the Jewish elders. 1 Although this method of procedure cannot be expected to yield more than some degree of probability, yet it is well worth while to ask what occasion for the appointment of such officers was likely to arise. Certainly it was not the administration of justice between individuals which called the presbyters into existence, for that was already performed by the Jewish presbyters. Nor was it the work of preaching and evangelizing, for that was done by so many Christians that a need for special officers for the purpose was not likely to be felt. 2 Nor again was it the need of having leaders in daily public worship ; for the Christians worshipped God in the Temple and hence would have no need of officers for this purpose. It may have been the care of common funds (cf . Acts xi 30), although after the break- down of the financial system implied in the community of goods, it is hardly likely that the public property of the Church in Jerusalem was so large as to require another set of officers for its management. There is, however, another duty which may perhaps yield the required explanation, the need of a president for the Eucharistic Feast, the breaking of the bread. This, it appears, was done ' at home ' (KO.T' OLKOV ii 46), in contrast to the public worship in the Temple. Hence it was peculiar to the Christian society ; and, by its very nature, since one man alone can preside, it was likely to give rise to a recog- nized order of officers. IV But let us try to form some picture of the conditions under which the Eucharist was celebrated at Jerusalem. The community of goods tended to concentrate the brethren into large groups in more than one way. In the first place, some of the poor would live at the tables of their richer brethren ; in the second place, many who had houses sold 1 Cf. above, pp. 77 f. 2 Acts vi 10 ; viii 4, 5, 26 ; xi 19, 20 ; cf. also the prophets of xi 27. 90 THE EARLY CHURCH AT JERUSALEM them, and thus, while the numbers of Christians increased, the number of their dwelling-places certainly did not increase in the same proportion, and there may have been a positive decrease (cf. Acts iv 34). Moreover, when the meals were distributed out of one common fund, as seems to have been the case in the later stages (Acts vi 1), concentration would become more than ever a necessity of organization. Now these common meals were in all probability the scene in which the solemn breaking of bread in remembrance of the Lord Jesus took place. The Eucharist was instituted by Christ at the end of a meal ; at Corinth it took place after an agape or love-feast (1 Cor. xi 20, 21). Hence one may feel some assurance in assuming that at Jerusalem also it took place after a common meal. But the Eucharist necessarily involves a president ; some one individual must, after the manner of Christ, preside to break the bread and bless the cup. If we ask, who was likely to preside at the Eucharist, it might well be replied that the same person would preside at the Eucharist who had presided at the preceding meal. In this case, the most likely persons to celebrate the Eucharist would be either one of the Apostles, or the head of the house where the meal was held ; but not every householder would preside, because of the concentra- tion into large groups brought about by the community of goods. Thus there would probably come into existence a comparatively small group of individuals who would be accustomed to preside at the Eucharist. One cannot, how- ever, place great confidence in this line of thought, because so very little is known about the nature of the common meals ; whether they were meals in the ordinary sense of the word, or merely distributions, either in food or in money, to meet the daily wants. But it seems safe to say that, for a time at least, in the earliest days, the Apostles alone presided. This is rendered probable, both by the great activity of the Apostles in all branches of work, and by the fact that they alone had in the beginning been entrusted with this rite peculiar to the Messianic Israel ; the Church must have heard of its institution from the Twelve ; moreover, when the brethren THE EARLY CHURCH AT JERUSALEM 91 assembled to keep this memorial of the Lord, none would be so fitted to preside as the Lord's own chosen Twelve. How long did this last ? St. Luke tells us that ' all that be- lieved were together ' (Acts ii 44), and that the Twelve ' called the multitude of the disciples unto them ' (vi 2) to consider the appointment of the Seven. Hence it is not impossible that the Apostles alone sufficed to celebrate until after the appointment of the Seven. After that, however, when the Church broke up and was ' scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria' (viii 1); when the number of the Twelve was reduced by absence on mission work (Acts viii 14 ; ix 32), or by death (Acts xii 2) ; others must have shared in this privilege with the Apostles. When that moment arrived, whether it was early or late, is it impossible that the procedure was much the same as in the case of the Seven ? Here we have a matter of public concern, for the president of the Eucharistic gathering was necessarily con- spicuous among the brethren, both as presiding over the community and as sitting in Christ's seat ; and here is a matter in which the Apostles were specially interested as those who received the rite from the Lord Himself. More- over, these brethren were now to take a place which had hitherto been occupied by Apostles alone. It is not impos- sible, then, that they should have in some way specially set aside certain individuals to assist in the work. If this was the case, the persons selected would probably have been the older and most Christ-like among the brethren ; and hence the term ' elder ' might well have been borrowed from the Synagogues to mark them as a class. And it is noticeable that elders first appear at a time when others besides Apostles must have been accustomed to celebrate ; and when they do appear they seem to be a class whose duties are so well understood that it is unnecessary to give an account of them (Acts xi 30). But even if there was no special laying on of hands by the Apostles, as there was in the case of the Seven, yet it seems highly probable that whatever led to the selection of a certain individual to preside on one occasion would lead to his selection on another also. Hence there would soon 92 THE EARLY CHURCH AT JERUSALEM arise a definite group of men from among whom the president of the Eucharist would always come. Hence they would in the course of time come to form a class. And such a class would not have been without Apostolic sanction. But a direct Apostolic appointment, after the analogy of the institution of the Seven, appears much more probable. One cannot claim a high degree of probability for this conclusion ; the evidence is too indirect ; but it is at least interesting as supplying an explanation which is in itself reasonable and seems to be the best which can be given of the origin of the presby- terate. The main point is that it is not impossible that the presbyters arose out of the need of having a president of the Eucharist ; it matters little whether they were a direct institution of the Apostles like the Seven, or whether they simply developed out of the original group of presidents of the common meal. In either case they formed a fairly distinct class of officers and could not have been without some kind of Apostolic recognition and sanction. CHAPTER VI THE PAULINE CHURCHES BEFORE studying the actual facts of the organization of the Pauline Churches, it will be well to begin with a few points of an introductory nature. 1. As to the word ' organization '. A society may be said to be organized when its members perform different functions for the benefit of the whole. A distinction, how- ever, must be drawn between two kinds of organization industrial organization and political organization. An in- dustrial organization presupposes a division of labour in which each individual confines himself to his own particular trade or occupation. The same may also be said of political organization ; but there is this difference. In the former case, the individual is, as a rule, free to follow any trade he will without receiving authority from the whole body ; in the latter, a man cannot properly exercise any function until he has been duly authorized to do so. If public per- mission is necessary for certain industrial employments, it is regulative only, and not, as in the case of the organiza- tion of government, constitutive of the very meaning of the work. Now both these types of organization existed within the Pauline Churches and must be very carefully distinguished : the charismatic ministry of apostles, pro- phets, and teachers follows the industrial type, while the local ministry of bishops and deacons is of the political or representative type. A man was called a ' prophet ' or ' teacher ' because he had received a peculiar spiritual gift ; and this gift was bestowed by the Holy Spirit, as a general rule, independently of any human agency. No doubt gifts of grace were bestowed in answer to prayer and the laying on of hands ; l but this 1 1 Tim. iv 14 ; 2 Tim. i 6 ; Acts viii 17 ; xix 6. 94 THE PAULINE CHURCHES was not essential ; and the form in which the gift was to manifest itself could not be fixed beforehand. Ecclesiastical authority might regulate the exercise of a gift, but it could not bestow special gifts when and where and as it would. Hence the charismatic ministry was in essence independent of Church authority, and as such is analogous to the organiza- tion of industry. On the other hand, a man was called a ' bishop ' or ' presbyter ' because he had been authorized to hold an office, to discharge some duty as the representa- tive of a local Church. That these officers did receive a definite appointment from some source or other seems to be clearly recognized. 1 But at the same time, since the Church was under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, an appointment to office by members of the Church might be said to be the act of the Holy Ghost (Acts xx 28). Essen- tially, however, it was authorization from men or through men which constituted a bishop or presbyter. The difference between a prophet and an elder is analogous to that between a distinguished novelist or poet and a Secretary of State. The one receives his title from his peculiar gifts and abilities, the other from his work or office. The two titles exist on different planes, belong to different relations of life. Hence, just as a Secretary of State may be also a great novelist, so a bishop or presbyter might be, and probably often was, also a prophet or teacher. But to make ' prophet ' or ' teacher ' either coincident with, or exclusive of, ' bishop ' or ' presbyter ', would be as much a confusion of thought, as to make ' Presbyterian ' or ' Anglican ' coincide with or exclude ' merchant ' or ' soldier ' . It is with the ministry which represented the Churches in a corporate capacity that we are here concerned. 2 2. One point must be touched upon which does not usually receive the consideration it deserves. Whatever organiza- tion of this political or representative character existed in the primitive Churches was brought into existence to meet real needs, was essentially a working organization. If there were duties to be discharged which required corporate 1 Acts xiv 23 ; Titus i 5 ; Didache c xv ; Clem. Eom. xlii 4 ; xliv, &c. * For the charismatic ministry see Appendix, Note iii. 95 officials, then we would expect that such officials would be created, but not otherwise ; for the atmosphere of the Pauline Churches, no less than that of the primitive Church in Jerusalem, was peculiarly unfavourable to the develop- ment of any organization which was not based upon a real need, called for by the circumstances and requirements of the Churches. Functionless officials and meaningless titles belong to societies which have a history behind them ; they are the relics of days gone by ; they show that conditions which called certain offices into existence have passed away, and with them the usefulness of the offices, which are now retained chiefly because of the sentiment attaching to their historic past. In young and vigorous communities, where life is expanding rapidly on every side, where men's minds are filled with the thought of the living energetic present, purely ornamental titles and distinctions are scarcely con- ceivable. When we think of the state of spiritual exaltation and excitement in which the primitive Pauline Churches lived, and of their confident expectation of the Lord's early return, we must feel that here is an atmosphere peculiarly uncongenial to the development of any but very necessary offices and officers. It is quite a mistake to think that the early Churches must have possessed some corporate officials as leaders of their common life ; the prophets, teachers, and other gifted individuals could well supply whatever leadership was necessary in the ordinary meetings for prayer and praise ; only in so far as some corporate work required discharge would corporate officials be necessary. The fact that the presbyters are found over so wide an area, in spite of the presence of their more brilliant brethren of the charismatic ministry, makes their position all the more remarkable. The importance of this point seems to be often overlooked. Most inquiries into the subject of the Christian Ministry treat at considerable length of the source from which the titles ' presbyter ' and ' bishop ' were borrowed. Discussions on this subject are of great interest, but they do not really explain to us the origin of the office. The fundamental point is not the source of the title, but the work which 96 THE PAULINE CHURCHES called the office into existence. One can scarcely think that the Christians would have instituted an office and given it a name merely in order to make their societies correspond in nomenclature to any Greek or Jewish organizations. The true historical sequence was rather this. Some work of a public character had to be discharged. Some officials had to be appointed to discharge it. Some title had to be borrowed or invented to distinguish these officers. The position occupied by ' presbyters ' and ' bishops ' in other organizations was so closely analogous to that occupied by the Christian officials as to suggest these titles as suitable for the officers of the Churches. Thus, it is seen that the source of the title is secondary ; the work which made the office necessary is primary. To argue an identity of func- tion from identity of name is, in this case, surely a very questionable proceeding. It cannot be valid unless it is shown that the work requiring discharge in the Churches did not differ in kind from that which was performed in the societies from which the title is supposed to have been borrowed. Our task, then, is to answer this question, what was the work which called the presbyter-bishops into existence ? And the same question must also be raised regarding the diaconate. 1 The possibility that the ministry was appointed by the Apostles does not affect the point made here. The office of presbyter may have been instituted by the Apostles, or by the local Church, or by both conjointly, but in no case would any officers have been appointed except for some definite purpose. 3. Whatever opinion may be held regarding the historical character of Acts, we come to undoubtedly solid ground when we reach the mention of bishops and deacons in Philippians. These titles are understood by all to refer to officials of a local Church ; and they are universal in the Churches from this time, or soon after, onwards. By the date of Philippians (A. D. 59-61), then, some Churches were accustomed to perform in a corporate capacity some work 1 For the identification of ' presbyter ' with ' bishop ' in the New Testament see Appendix, Note ii. 97 or works of a sufficiently important character and with sufficient frequency to call into existence, in spite of all adverse conditions, a set of public officials. But more than this, the existence of two grades of officers bespeaks a fairly well-developed organization. Both are, no doubt, employed upon much the same kind of work, for they are usually mentioned together and always in the same order ; and the qualifications required of candidates for the office are expressed in much the same terms in both cases. 1 But yet there must have been some essential difference between the functions of the two orders ; otherwise, it is impossible to account for their continued existence side by side with each other. The bishop appears to be the superior officer, and the deacon his assistant. The bishop, then, was probably the earlier institution, and the deacon was called into existence to assist him in discharging his rapidly increasing duties. Can we then assume that deacons exer- cise exactly the same powers and do exactly the same work as a bishop, but in a subordinate capacity ? If so, one may ask, why was not the number of existing bishops increased, instead of a new order of officers instituted ? And if we grant that it is not impossible that a new order, exercising precisely the same functions as the bishops, was appointed, yet as time went on, some officers of both ranks would pass away, while, at the same time, the work to be done would assume yet greater proportions. The appointment of addi- tional officers would in time become inevitable. May we not, then, on the analogy of the appointment of the deacons, expect that a third grade will be instituted, subordinate to the deacons but exercising the same powers ? No such third grade, however, was appointed. Were additional deacons appointed ? No doubt they were. But if so, why were additional bishops appointed also ? Why was not the older title suffered to become extinct, since the new deacons could now act as assistants to those who were assistants before them ? How is it that the two do not merge into one ? The continuance of two distinct orders is without meaning or purpose, if nothing 1 See 1 Tim. iii 2-13 ; Did. c xv. HAMILTON n 98 THE PAULINE CHURCHES more than a relation of subordination is implied. But meaningless titles are inconceivable at this period of Church history. Therefore, the distinction had a definite purpose, was based upon a definite need : the work of the bishops differed in some essential respect, though probably not in all respects, from that of the deacons. The central problem of the organization of the local Pauline Churches may then be said to be this : what corporate activities were the first to require public officers to discharge them ? And to what conditions in the nature of these corporate activities is due the fact that we find two distinct grades of officials as early as the date of Philippians ? 4. This study, then, must be one of earliest origins. Since the object is to discover the essence and the differentia of the functions belonging to each office, it will be of little use to ask what duties different individual bishops or deacons may have performed at different times and in different places. The best plan will be to begin with a classification of all the conceivable kinds of corporate busi- ness which might have been carried on in the name of the local Churches, and to examine the evidence supplied by the Pauline Epistles to determine, with such accuracy as is possible, the date at which each activity first appears, and the degree of urgency with which it would require special officers for its execution. It is fortunate that there is a fair amount of evidence supplied by the Corinthian Epistles which enable us to get some insight into the conditions prevailing about five years before the earliest undoubted notice of bishops and deacons. II In order to ensure the inclusion of every possible kind of corporate activity it may be well to group them under the following wide classes : 1. Legislative and executive work : 2. The Administration of Finance, and of 3. Justice and Discipline : 4. Pastoral oversight : THE PAULINE CHURCHES 99 5. The conduct of meetings for edification and prayer, and for 6. The celebration of the Holy Eucharist. One more word of warning must be issued before pro- ceeding further. It is not unusual to call the local Churches ' self-governing republics '. Those who do so, however, should beware lest such titles betray them into an exag- gerated estimate of the extent and variety of the corporate functions discharged by a primitive Christian Church. The Pauline Churches were in no sense sovereign states ; nor were they like the military colonies of Rome, communities suddenly planted down in the midst of a foreign, and possibly hostile, population. A man's political and in- dustrial environment underwent no change when he joined the Church : his life was lived under the old conditions, but with a new meaning and a new spirit, and with the addition of a new scene of activity the meetings of the brethren. To the eye of an outsider, a local Church must have appeared as a new example of the already numerous religious associations. Hence the ' government ' of the Churches could have had reference only to the private affairs of the Christian societies. GENERAL LEGISLATIVE AND EXECUTIVE FUNCTIONS The Greek religious confraternities passed their by-laws and resolutions, and had their special officers to carry them into effect. Did the Christian communities do likewise ? In the course of time such an organization was developed, but it was not coeval with the earliest foundation of the Churches. In fact, at the time of 1 and 2 Cor., so far were the Pauline Churches from possessing any special permanent officers for this purpose, that they scarcely seem to have exercised these functions at all. The Corinthian Church, for instance, not only wrote to St. Paul for instruction on the subject of marriage (1 Cor. vii 1-24), virgins (1 Cor. vii 25-40), things sacrificed to idols (1 Cor. viii), and possibly also spiritual gifts (1 Cor. xii) : but even points with which a local legislative organization might surely have dealt were H2 100 THE PAULINE CHURCHES left to the decision of the Apostle. Thus, the Apostle settles the question of the uncovering of men's and the covering of women's heads at divine service (1 Cor. xi 2-16) ; gives regulations for the control and order of speakers (1 Cor. xiv 26-33), and addresses by women (1 Cor. xiv 34-5) ; and even appoints the method by which the money for the poor at Jerusalem is to be gathered, and sends an envoy to organize it (1 Cor. xvi 1-4 ; 2 Cor. viii 6). If such matters as these did not fall within the scope of a legislative organiza- tion, one cannot but wonder what class of subject was left for it to deliberate and resolve upon. It would seem, then, that at the time when 1 and 2 Cor. were written, the Corin- thian Church knew nothing of special officers for legislative purposes. The evidence applies to the Corinthian Church only, but there are indications that the same conditions existed else- where. Thus, with regard to marriage (1 Cor. vii 17), St. Paul can say that he gave the same directions in all the Churches ; in regard to the collection for the saints at Jerusalem, the Galatian Churches also had received his instructions (1 Cor. xvi 1) : and in connexion with the covering and uncovering of heads at public worship, the appeal is made not to any by-law or regulation of other Churches, but to their habitual practice (1 Cor. xi 16). In the other Churches, again, it had not been found necessary to formulate regulations for the order and control of speakers, for ' the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets : for God is not a God of confusion, but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints ' (1 Cor. xiv 32-3). Nor are the facts different as regards the execution of the public business of the communities. If there was no regular legislative assembly, it is not likely that there was any special executive organization. The only instances of corporate action of this nature which have come down to us from this period are the appointment of representatives to carry the alms of the Gentiles to Jerusalem (2 Cor. viii 19 ; 1 Cor. xvi 3 ; cf . Acts xi 29, 30), and the letters of commenda- tion mentioned in 2 Cor. iii 1. The former shows us the probable way in which the public business of the time was THE PAULINE CHURCHES 101 dispatched. When any occasion arose, individuals were requested to see to the particular matter in hand, but were not as yet constituted into a permanent organization. At first each case was dealt with as it arose. The letters of commendation may have been written in the name of an individual member or in that of the whole Church : but it is hardly likely that this duty alone would call for a special organization at this early period. But if there was no permanent organization for these purposes at the date of 1 and 2 Cor., when did the need of it make itself felt ? Unfortunately, our sources do not at all enable us to fix any special period ; and no doubt different Churches developed at different rates of progress, so that it would be impossible to draw a definite conclusion to hold good for more than a few particular Churches. But the subject is even more complicated than this. If these were the only functions of the local Churches which were likely to call for special officers, we should, no doubt, in the course of time, find officials called into existence for the sole and special purpose of discharging these duties. But if there were other activities which were earlier and more constant in their demand for discharge, then these latter would be the first to bring about the appointment of special officers. And if this was the case, it is quite possible that the discharge of any legislative or executive work might have become attached as a secondary task to those who were already the trusted and duly recognized officers of the community. Hence, while it is quite conceivable that work of this kind may have required special officers by the date of Philippians, yet one would haye to consider whether it was this, or some other earlier work, which originally called the Philippian bishops and deacons into existence. FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION At the outset we may notice one clear indication that permanent financial organization did not come into existence until after the date of 1 and 2 Cor. ' As I gave order to the churches of Galatia, so also do ye. Upon the first day of the 102 THE PAULINE CHURCHES week let each one of you lay by him in store (nap' iavTo> TiOeTco Orjo-avpifav) as he may prosper' (1 Cor. xvi 1, 2). In directing that each is to keep his own savings, St. Paul ignores any common treasury. The force of this is brought out by a contrast with the practice of a later generation. ' And they who are well to do and willing, give what each thinks fit : and what is collected is deposited with the president who succours the orphans and widows.' 1 The difference is significant. The Christians of Justin's day were accustomed to put their money into a common fund managed by an official : those of St. Paul's day were not. Had there been any regular financial officers, St. Paul would surely have charged them to see to this collection. The obvious inference that there were no common funds at this time may be confirmed by another line of investiga- tion. If the local Churches had public treasuries, it must have been in order to meet certain claims which fell upon the community as a whole. What claims of this nature are conceivable ? They may be classified as follows : (1) the support of apostles and other travelling missionaries : (2) the relief of the sick and poor : (3) expenses connected with the public meetings. When the question is asked, is there any evidence that the local Churches expended public money on these objects ? the reply must be made in the negative. (1) The travelling missionaries certainly had a recognized right to receive support. 'We might', says St. Paul, 'have been burdensome as apostles of Christ.' 2 But was this support, to which claim could be made, a support given in money ? In only one case is there clear indication of a money contribution. It is that of the assistance given to St. Paul by the Philippians (Phil, iv 15-17 ; cf. 2 Cor. xi 8, 9). But St. Paul is speaking here of something quite different from the support he had a right (k^ovcrta) to claim as an apostle : for what the Philippians sent was a gift, and it was the only one of its kind. Furthermore, although no doubt more than one person helped to make up the amount, there is nothing 1 Justin Martyr, Apol. i c. 67 ; cf. Tertullian, Apol. c. 39. 1 Thess. ii 6 ; cf. 1 Cor. ix 11, 12 ; 2 Thess. iii 9. THE PAULINE CHURCHES 103 to indicate that it was a grant from common funds : it may well have been a special collection for the purpose. On the other hand, there is some evidence that what the travelling missionaries had a right to claim was support in board and lodging as long as they remained in the Church. ' Neither did we eat bread for nought at any man's hand . . . that we might not burden any of you : not because we have not the right ' (2 Thess. iii 8, 9 ; cf. 1 Cor. ix). In fact, it is exceedingly doubtful whether the travelling missionaries ever established a claim to a money payment. On this point, the Didache is most emphatic. Every true prophet and teacher is worthy of his food (c. 13), but ' when the apostle departs, let him take nothing save bread, until he finds shelter : but if he ask money, he is a false prophet . . . whosoever shall say in the spirit, give me silver or anything else, ye shall not listen to him ' (c. 11). Moreover, all the evidence goes to show that this claim for board and lodging was not defrayed out of public funds, but, as one might expect, was met by the hospitality of the wealthier members. Thus St. Paul and his companions on the first visit to Thessalonica did not eat bread for naught at any man's hands (irapd TWOS] in order that they might not burden any of them (TWO. v^iS>v)}- (2) The relief of the sick and the poor is an object upon which common funds might conceivably have been expended. But here, again, such scanty evidence as there is merely indicates that individual members were exceedingly generous and kindhearted. Thus, in a passage obviously addressed to Christians in an individual and not a corporate capacity, St. Paul urges the Romans to communicate to the necessities of the Saints. 2 The more generous individuals were, the less would be the need of Church funds. Finally, the hypothesis of any public money for this purpose is rendered quite unnecessary when one considers that the sole source of revenue for such a fund was the voluntary offerings of wealthy members ; and at this early period, it is more likely 1 2 Thess. iii 8 f ; cf . 2 Cor. xi 9 ; Gal. vi 6 ; Heb. xiii 2. * Roin. xii 13 ; cf. 1 Cor. xvi 15, 16 ; Rom. xvi 2, with Rom. xii 8 104 that these voluntary gifts would be administered by the givers themselves, than by others appointed for the purpose. (3) What, then, is to be said of the current running ex- penses of the meetings, &c. ? How very undeveloped Church finance must have been will be readily seen by a contrast with the Greek religious associations. The finances of the pagan clubs exhibit a well-developed state of organization. Amongst the ordinary sources of revenue were entrance fees, regular subscriptions, payments by officers, income from endowments, and rents : among the extraordinary sources were special payments by members, extra assessments, fines, income from sacrifices performed for strangers, legacies, gifts, and collections. The objects on which this money was spent included the regular club festivals and sacrifices, purchase, erection, and maintenance of buildings, burying- grounds, banquets, gifts of honour, and other running expenses. 1 Contrast this with the state of the Christian Churches. Their sole source of revenue even at a much later date was the voluntary contributions of those who gave as each saw fit. 2 As to expenses, the Churches had no costly annual festivals or sacrifices, no banquet at the public charges (for each brought ' his own supper ', 1 Cor. xi 21), no public buildings to erect or maintain, and but few presentations to make (such as the gifts of the Philippians to St. Paul) and, so far as we know, no burying-grounds. The only item worthy of consideration which remains is the rent of halls or places of meeting. Over against this, however, we have to set the frequent notices of ' house Churches ', 3 which indicate that here, too, individual generosity bore what would otherwise have fallen upon the community. A review, then, of the objects on which public money might have been spent yields no evidence of the existence of common Church funds in the Pauline communities at the date of 1 and 2 Cor. The financial system implied in the community of goods was peculiar to the Church of Jerusalem. 1 See Ziebarth, Das Oriechische Vereinswesen, pp. 156-66. 2 See Justin Martyr, Apol. i c. 67, and Tertullian, Apol, c. 39. 8 Rom. xvi 5 ; 1 Cor. xvi 19 ; Col. iv 15 ; Philem. 2. THE PAULINE CHURCHES 105 But the collection for the poor of Jerusalem established the precedent of a sum of money towards which all con- tributed, and for the care of which the Churches appointed trustees. 1 The time may not have been far distant when, at least in the large Churches, it would be found very con- venient to have a sum of money in the hands of some responsible and recognized official for the relief of particularly urgent cases and perhaps for other purposes as well. It is quite impossible to determine any exact date, for the rate of development would differ in different Churches. One can only point to the fact that in 1 Tim. we find the rudiments of a system of finance. ' If any woman that belie veth hath widows, let her relieve them, and let not the church be burdened : that it may relieve them that are widows indeed ' (1 Tim. v 16). It is evident that we are now dealing with funds belonging to the whole body. No doubt this was also the source from which the elders were to receive their double remuneration (1 Tim. v 17). It is, then, conceivable that the Philippian Church had a public treasury by the years 59-61 ; but we have no proof of it. If there was a public treasury, the bishops and deacons were no doubt the treasurers ; but it still remains an open question whether it was finance which first called them into existence. THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AND DISCIPLINE ' Is it so, that there cannot be found among you one wise man, who shall be able to decide between his brethren, but brother goeth to law with brother, and that before unbe- lievers ? ' (1 Cor. vi 5, 6). The obvious conclusion from this passage that no Christian judicial system was known at Corinth is confirmed by the two cases of the exercise of judicial and disciplinary functions which occur in the epistles to the Corinthians. No special officers are mentioned. The whole Church is to gather together to pronounce sentence upon the incestuous offender (1 Cor. v 3-5) ; in the other case (if it be another case), the penalty was inflicted by a majority 1 1 Cor. xvi 3 ; 2 Cor. viii 19 ; cf. Acts xx 4. 106 THE PAULINE CHURCHES (2 Cor. ii 6). This seems to be just what would happen in communities which as yet had no special officers for judicial purposes. The testing of prophets and prophecies, mentioned in 1 John iv 1, Rev. ii 2, and in the Didache, probably refers to a self-manifestation in the presence of the Church, rather than to a trial before a special court. To assume that a judicial organization was one of the earliest and most necessary wants of the primitive Churches is to paint their moral conditions in much darker colours than we have any warrant for doing. PASTORAL WORK It is not easy to draw any clear distinction between pastoral work proper and the edification and exhortation which were carried on in the public meetings. Under this head, however, we may discuss the evidence relating to the admonition of individuals in private : exhortation in public will be considered elsewhere. It may be pointed out, to begin with, that work of this sort is best done by those who have a natural aptitude for it, especially when that aptitude is quickened by divine grace. An official pastor may become inevitable in the course of time, but a community in which certain members have special gifts in this direction is not likely to feel the need of appointing a special set of officers for the purpose. Now, among the members of the charismatic ministry, there were certainly some who were known for their gifts of pastoral oversight and exhortation. 1 In fact, all Christians were expected to take a share in the work of mutual warning or admonition, 2 and comfort or exhortation. 3 On the other hand, however, it may be urged that bishops or presbyters were noted for their activity in this sphere of labour. 4 But in spite of this, the very nature of the work so obviously requires a special capacity, and there were so 1 Eph. iv 11 ; cf. Rom. xii 8 ; 1 Cor. xiv 3. 2 1 Thess. v 14 ; 2 Thess. iii 15 ; Rom. xv 14 ; Col. iii 16. 3 Heb. iii 13 ; x 25 ; 1 Thess. v 11. 4 Acts xx 28 ; Jas. v 14 ; 1 Pet. v 1-4 ; cf. ii 25 ; 1 Thess. v 12. THE PAULINE CHURCHES 107 many who possessed that capacity, that it seems much more likely that the bishops or presbyters took part in this work as a secondary and incidental duty, than that it was the very raison d'etre of their office. THE MEETINGS FOR PRAYER AND EDIFICATION ' When ye come together, each one hath a psalm, hath a teaching, hath a revelation, hath a tongue, hath an inter- pretation ' (1 Cor. xiv 26 ; cf. 31). It scarcely seems necessary to argue further that there was no special ministry appointed by public authority to preach and pray. Any Christian might do so, if he had aught to say. The only question is whether the need for controlling the speakers may have called a presiding officer into existence. This, however, may be safely answered in the negative. It is just the absence of such officials which St. Paul's words seem to presuppose ; in fact, the Apostle describes just what would occur in any meeting in which there was no central control. While one was speaking another would start to his feet to deliver himself of a revelation : and more than one, possibly several, had prophesied or spoken with tongues at the same time (1 Cor. xiv 27-31). It must not be supposed that these disorderly proceedings were carried on in spite of the efforts of responsible authorities to check them : this would have given a more serious aspect to the matter of which St. Paul shows no sign of being conscious. In fact, when he wishes them to cease, he nowhere refers to any presidents, but urges the duty and possibility of self-restraint on the ground that in other Churches the same spiritual gifts lead to harmony and peace and not to confusion. One more point deserves consideration here. It has been observed that as the charismatic ministry declines in vigour, the official ministry of bishops and deacons strengthens its grip upon the corporate life of the Churches. Is it not possible, then, that the bishops and deacons were appointed for the purpose of filling the place of absent prophets and teachers ? There was certainly much work of this kind to be 108 THE PAULINE CHURCHES done the instruction of catechumens, &c. May it not have been convenient that there should be appointed officers ready to discharge these duties whenever it became necessary ? There is no doubt that much of the work done by prophets and teachers did, in the course of time, pass over to the bishops and deacons. 1 But there are no traces of decay in the charismatic ministry as early as the years 59-61 ; and further, the absence of spiritual gifts in a Church like that of Philippi would surely have been abnormal and indicative of a low spiritual condition ; of this, however, there is no trace in St. Paul's Epistle to the Philippians. Again, the early date at which we first find bishops and deacons makes it most unlikely that they were appointed to perform any work which normally fell within the range of the activity of the apostles, prophets, teachers, &c. And besides, if the bishops and deacons were really appointed in order to prophesy or teach or evangelize, why were they not called prophets, teachers, and evangelists ? How can we account for the wide use of the terms ' bishop ' and ' deacon ' ? Before going on to the subject of the Eucharist, it will be convenient to review our position. At the time of 1 and 2 Cor. it would seem that the Pauline Churches possessed no special officers either for legislative, executive, financial, or pastoral duties, or to preside at the ordinary meetings for prayer and edification. Such few cases of corporate action by local Churches as have come under our notice were isolated instances and were dealt with as such, either by the whole Church without permanent differentiation of function as in the case of the Corinthian judicial proceedings, or by individuals authorized to execute the particular work in hand without holding permanent office as in the case of the delegates who had charge of the funds for the poor at Jerusalem. But it would seem probable that before very long the general public business of the Churches, in all its various branches taken together, would grow to such proportions as would call for special officers. How soon this was likely to come to pass, we have no means of judging ; and no doubt 1 See Did. c. xv. THE PAULINE CHURCHES 109 the time varied much from Church to Church : but it is not at all impossible, or perhaps even improbable, that by the years 59-61 a flourishing Church like that of Philippi should have reached this stage of development. But even this supposition will by no means account for the bishops and deacons. If we had only one order of officers, one might say that they were the general directors of the affairs of the Christian society. But, as we have seen, the fact that there are two classes points to a division of labour, an essential distinction of function between the two over and above a mere relation of superiority and inferiority. Wherein, then, lies this distinction ? Are bishops the financial, and deacons the judicial officers, or vice versa ? Have bishops legislative, and deacons executive functions ? By no means. There is no hint whatever of any such division. Not only are the two sets of officers mentioned together as though they were closely united in the sphere of their duties, but in the qualifications required of candidates for the offices they are practically indistinguishable. 1 This would not be the case if they were engaged upon entirely different kinds of work. Is it possible, then, that both are financial or both judicial officers? If this was the case, the finances or the judicial business of the Churches must have increased with marvel- lous rapidity within the five years since 1 and 2 Cor. were written. But, to assume such an abnormally large develop- ment in any one kind of secular administration at this time is to throw out of proportion the whole picture of the life of the Churches. There is nothing to justify us in thinking that any one branch of government assumed such pre- dominance above all others as this would imply. All that we can glean from the sub-apostolic literature is entirely against such a one-sided development. The existence of bishops and deacons at Philippi in the years 59-61 must remain an exceedingly difficult problem to solve, unless the presidency of the Eucharist can throw some light upon it. 1 See 1 Tim. iii 1-13 ; Titus i 6-9 ; Did. c. xv. 110 THE PAULINE CHURCHES THE EUCHARIST It is surely far more probable that the earliest officials of the Churches were connected with their religious services than with any other of their activities. The Churches were before all else religious associations. They did not exist for the purpose of carrying on business, nor to debate and pass resolutions on questions of common interest ; nor in order to settle disputes among quarrelsome people ; nor were they primarily mutual benefit societies. Their main object was the practice of a common religion and the worship of a com- mon Deity. Such secular business as was carried on was quite secondary and incidental ; in the corporate life of the Christians the religious aspect was primary and all important. Hence, one has every right to think that the practice of the rites of their common religion will be the first to call corporate officers into existence. And this consideration is re-enforced by the fact that the chief religious rite was itself essentially of a social and corporate character. The Eucharist was normally celebrated in the presence of all the members of the local Church : all are gathered together to partake, but only one can break the bread and bless the cup : the rest, for the time being, must be in a sense onlookers. Hence, at each celebration of the Eucharist there was a differentiation of function the one individual who presides is distinguished from all the rest who partake only. It only needs that a custom should arise of always selecting the same individual, or one of a definite number of individuals, to preside, and we have the establishment of a permanent organization. But if one must preside and the rest look on, what con- siderations were likely to guide and determine the selection ? Was the nature of the rite such as to require some special qualification or gift in its president, which would at once mark out the possessor of that qualification or gift as having a predetermined right to preside ? It is quite clear that no particular physical or mental qualification would do so : for the work to be done is of the simplest kind conceivable, well within the powers of every normal adult. But did the thanksgiving require a man of special spiritual gifts such as THE PAULINE CHURCHES 111 a prophet or an apostle ? There is no evidence that a specially inspired utterance was looked for in the eucharistic prayer : nor is there anything in the story of the Last Supper which would suggest the Eucharist as a scene of spiritual excitement : the proper sphere for the exercise of the spiritual gifts of speech was the meeting for edification and prayer. 1 It is not probable, therefore, that any peculiar qualifica- tions were absolutely essential for the office, which all Christians did not possess in much the same degree. On what grounds, then, would one man be preferred above the rest ? Surely, those would be chosen who were the most respected and influential, the most Christ-like in their lives. The possession of high spiritual gifts would no doubt give a man an advantage, though it would not of itself constitute a right. Many men who were prophets may have presided ; but this was not simply because they were prophets, but because of their general fitness for the position. Now these are just the conditions out of which a permanent organiza- tion is likely to develop. The same reasons which led to the selection of a man on one occasion would lead to his selection on another. A small group of men would soon be formed within each Church from among whom all would naturally expect the president to come. But when we come to look for evidence of such a group within the limits of the New Testament, we are met by almost complete silence upon the whole subject of the president of the Eucharist. Only in a single instance have we direct information when St. Paul broke bread at Troas on his way to Jerusalem with the collection for the Saints (Acts xx 11). This silence, however, is itself eloquent. It is not, of course, a proof that the question was devoid of interest to the New Testament writers, but it is a proof that it was not one on which any serious dispute ever arose. Whatever was done, was done with the general consent and approval of all, as the most natural and fitting thing to do. In all probability, it never occurred to any one to uphold, or 1 For a discussion on the eucharistic prayers of the Didache see Appendix, Note iv, The Prophets and the Eucharist. 112 THE PAULINE CHURCHES perhaps even to suggest, a course different from that which was pursued. Nor is there any evidence of any change of opinion or of custom in this matter, until we come to the dispute at Corinth spoken of in the Epistle of St. Clement of Rome. There is, therefore, some probability that the arrangements which were originally made continued on by common consent without a break ; and hence, if we find any custom generally established at the end of the first century, there is some probability that it may really be of primitive origin. Now in the earliest Christian literature outside the New Testament we find two groups of men named bishops and deacons who were closely connected with the Eucharist, the former as celebrants, the latter presumably as assis- tants. St. Clement of Rome speaks of those who ' have offered the gifts of the bishop's office ' (irpoa-tvtyKov ray TO, 8a>pa rfjs eTnovcoTTT??, ad Cor. c. xliv). ' The gifts ', as Lightfoot observes, must involve the presidency of the eucharistic gathering. This whole letter of St. Clement may be said to be a vigorous protest against allowing any one but a duly authorized presbyter or bishop to fill the bishop's place in offering the gifts. The Didache, again, speaks of the weekly Eucharist (c. xiv) ; and then goes on to say, ' Appoint, therefore, for yourselves bishops and deacons ' (c. xv). The ' therefore ' shows the connexion between the Eucharist and the bishops and deacons. The attitude of St. Ignatius is too well known to require com- ment. It may be illustrated by his own expression, ' Let that be held a valid Eucharist which is under the bishop, or one to whom he shall have committed it ' (ad Smyrn. c. viii). But this is not the only point. Not only is celebration by bishops the orthodox practice as known to the Roman Church, there is also apparently a tradition at Rome that this custom dates from the time of the Apostles themselves. The offering of the gifts seems to belong to the bishop's office and to constitute its essential feature. ' These men we consider to be unjustly thrust out from their ministration. For it will be no light sin for us if we thrust out those who have offered the gifts of the bishop's office unblameably THE PAULINE CHURCHES 113 and holily ' (c. xliv). Again, the Apostles are spoken of as appointing in every place and city their first-fruits to be bishops and deacons (c. xlii). Hence, not only does the Roman Church know no other practice than that of cele- bration by bishops, but it believes that this custom dates from the foundation of the Church. There is, then, a very fair degree of probability in favour of carrying this custom back to a very early date. Ill Assuming this, then, as a probable hypothesis for the origin of the presbyters, let us see whether it is capable of explaining all the known facts of the development of organization within the apostolic age itself. In tracing the course of the development, we begin with the conception of a number of individuals more or less clearly defined in each Church, some one of whom is, by common consent, expected to break the bread when the Church assembles to celebrate the Eucharist. What name is likely to be given to them as a class ? A term such as ' breakers of bread ' would be too long and clumsy. Is not rjyovfieroL (Heb. xiii 7, 17, 24) or irpoicrrd^v OL (1 Thess. v 12) a likely designation ? And if this is too indefinite, might not the title Trpeo-jSurepoy (Acts xiv 23, &c.) have been borrowed from the Jews or from the Churches of Judaea ? But, again, these individuals, both on account of their own personal influence and their position as presidents of the Eucharist, would come to be regarded as the trusted heads, the leaders and representative rulers of the Church. It is probable that the management of the ordinary business affairs of the community, as occasion arose, would be placed in their hands. Thus they might come to be known in some churches as 'overseers' (k-TricrKoiroi, Acts xx 28, &c.); and these different terms might easily come into general use in all Churches, one .borrowing them from the other. Now as time went on, the public business of the Churches would grow to such volume as to get beyond the powers of the original ' leaders ' or ' presbyters '. As numbers increase, HAMILTON II T 114 THE PAULINE CHURCHES assistants will be required for two purposes (1) the general discharge of the affairs of the Church, and (2) the distribu- tion of the elements at the Eucharist : but not for the breaking of the bread itself, since it is as easy to break for five hundred as for five. Hence it would be natural to find officers appointed to assist the bishops in all their functions save that of breaking the bread. Thus would come about the institution of assistants or deacons, and the fact that they do not share the right to celebrate the Eucharist would form the distinction in function which kept them permanently apart from the bishops, while yet closely associated with them. New deacons would be constantly required as the Churches grew in numbers, but only death and a very exceptional increase in growth would occasion the appointment of new bishops, and hence the two orders never merged into one. Another consideration may be added. This hypothesis is in thorough accord with all that we know from the New Testament of the general position which bishops and deacons occupied in the local Churches. We must recall the fact that the presidents of the Eucharist take a prominent place both on account of their own personal weight, and because they preside over the Church in its most characteristic gathering, when it assembles to break bread in memory of the Lord Jesus. It would seem inevitable that such a position should in time become one of great responsibility for the general moral and religious oversight of the community. Now it is just such a position as this which the bishops or presbyters seem to occupy. When the apostle Paul thinks he is about to see his Ephesian Church no more, it is the elders he charges with the care of the brethren (Acts xx 17-35). When St. Peter would have the flock of God tended, it is to the elders he naturally turns (1 Pet. v 1-5). The point of vital interest to these apostles was not the financial or judicial administration of the Churches, but their whole moral and spiritual life. Is it likely that they would have thus com- mitted the flock to any officers whose functions were not in some way closely united with the religious life of the community ? The fact that St. James looks upon the elders as the proper persons to be summoned to pray over and THE PAULINE CHURCHES 115 anoint a sick man (Jas. v 14) is an indication that these officers were already connected with public worship. This, again, is confirmed by the fact that in the Apocalypse (v 8, 9), it is the elders who offer to God the prayers of the saints and sing the new song. It may, perhaps, be objected that the Pastoral Epistles make no allusion to the Eucharist or to public worship in speaking of bishops and deacons. But a very little considera- tion will show that, if the celebration of the Eucharist was the one essential element of a bishop's office, this omission is just what one would expect. The Pastorals, it must be carefully observed, contain ' pictures in the antecedent qualifications, in domestic and general life, of those who might become good deacons or presbyters rather than descriptions of the life or work of those who have already entered upon office '.* To break the bread at the Eucharist, as has been already seen, requires no rare and exceptional qualification, either physical, intel- lectual, or spiritual. It is an act of the simplest kind well within the powers of every normal adult. Now, when an act of this kind forms the essence of an office, that act, though the essence of the office, is always overlooked when one is giving a list of qualifications required of candidates. It is passed over because it is assumed that every possible candidate possesses it. To take an analogous case. The one essential element which constitutes the office of President of a republic is the authority to sign certain documents. Yet, when a new president is to be elected, no one asks whether any particular candidate can write his own name : we seek rather for a host of other qualifications which may fit the individual to perform creditably an indefinite number of duties which in the course of time have become attached to the office. Hence, if this is the one essential element of the office, its neglect in the connexion in which it occurs in the Pastorals is quite natural, and any mention of it would justify suspicion of these passages as exhibiting signs of a ' tendency '. In fact, the qualifications, as given in the Pastorals and in the 1 Moberly, Ministerial Priesthood, p. 138. 12 116 THE PAULINE CHURCHES Didache, are just such as one would expect would be required in the presidents of the Eucharist. They should be the most Christ-like of the brethren, the most typical Christians, men against whom no charge can be laid ; and if they have capacities for teaching, or for organization and control of men, so much the better. They should possess a number of excellent qualities, no one of which is of paramount importance. But if, on the other hand, the work which originally called the bishops and deacons into existence had been the care of common funds, or any other department of purely secular administration, we must not only assume that the secular affairs of the Churches were very much more important and highly developed than we have hitherto been led to expect, but also one must be surprised to find that no emphatic stress is laid upon financial or any other kind of adminis- trative ability to mark it above the rest as the one important qualification for the office. Surely, something more than the absence of greediness and of devotion to filthy lucre is required of those whose main or essential business is to take charge of common funds : surely, financial capacity would be insisted on with at least as much emphasis as ability to teach. 1 The Eucharist was celebrated in every Christian Church ; probably on every Lord's Day (Did. c. xv ; Acts xx 7), but certainly as an habitual practice. Hence, there must have been presidents of the Eucharist in every Church : and if these are to be identified with presbyters or bishops, we ought to find these officers over a very wide area. And this is the case. St. Peter assumes their existence among the brethren in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia (1 Pet. i 1 and v 1) ; St. James assumes that elders are within the reach of every Christian throughout ' the twelve tribes of the Dispersion ' (Jas. i 1 and v 14) ; the Apocalypse speaks of a compact body of four and twenty elders taking a prominent part in the heavenly worship (Rev. iv 10 ; v 5, 6, &c.) and it seems not improbable that this is a reflection of what was a normal part of Christian worship in the local 1 See 1 Tim. iii 2-13 ; Titus i 6-0 ; Did. c xv. 117 Churches known to the writer. So also, the expression in 1 Tim. iii 1, ' Faithful is the saying, If any man seeketh the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work,' argues a wide and popular use of the title ' bishop '- 1 In Crete, elders are to be ordained in every city (Titus i 5). Finally, Acts speaks of their existence over a wide area ; in Jerusalem (xi 30 ; xv 2, &c. ; xxi 18) ; in all the Churches of the First Missionary Journey (xiv 23) ; and in Ephesus (xx 17) ; and the casual way in which they are introduced, without explanation or comment, suggests that they were thought to exist elsewhere as well. Nor does the absence of the names in the earlier Pauline Epistles indicate the absence of the office. In the earliest days, the presidents of the Eucharist may have been without a distinctive title in some Churches, and perhaps it was only with the increase of intercommunication that the same official titles ' presbyter ' or ' bishop ' came into current use in every Church. It is, then, not unreasonable to see in the TrpoLa-rdfjievoi of Rom. xii 8 and 1 Thess. v 12, and in the fiyov/ievoi of Heb. xiii 7, 17, 24, officers essentially the same as those elsewhere called Trpeo-fivTepoi or t-jricrKOTroi. But let us look at these facts from another point of view. How is it possible to account for this widespread uniformity in the constitution of the local Churches ? How is it that these writers can take it for granted that, wherever their words reach, no matter how widely separated or how diversely situated the Churches may be, there will be found everywhere a class of officers called ' bishops ' or ' presby- ters ' ? It was certainly not due to any deliberate effort to assimilate one Church to another in outward appearance, nor to any idea that this one special type of organization possessed divine authority. It was due to the fact that the same conditions produced, and the same needs called for, the same set of officials. But what conditions and what needs in the corporate life of the Christian communities could have been so widespread, so constant, and so uniform, as to bring about this result ? The need of a president at the Eucharist supplies precisely the answer needed. And 1 Cf. 1 Tim. i 15 ; iv 9 ; 2 Tim. ii 11 ; Titus iii 8. 118 THE PAULINE CHURCHES one may indeed question whether any other satisfactory solution of the problem can be found. In this connexion it is quite possible to raise what at first sight appears a serious objection to this theory. There is no hint of any official titles or distinctions whatever in 1 Cor., where, if anywhere, we have a right to expect them. It had been impossible to celebrate the Eucharist on account of the unseemly behaviour of certain members ; and nowhere else are the practical details of the Eucharist brought into such prominence as in this Epistle. Yet there is no indica- tion of any regular president or presidents. But there are some considerations which materially weaken, if they do not entirely dispel, the force of this objection. St. Paul was thoroughly familiar with the Corinthian Church ; whether they held an official position or not, he must have known which individuals had been accus- tomed to preside ; or if he did not know, and had wished to find fault with them, he could easily have discovered who they were. Hence the argument from silence cannot hold good here, since it would prove that no one had presided at all, whether officially or otherwise. Nor is it difficult to see where the argument from silence breaks down in this case. It is this very Epistle which enables us to see that in the Corinthian Church at this time there were practically no common funds, and there was no constantly recurring legislative or executive work to be discharged. Consequently, there has as yet been but little occasion to differentiate any public officials. The Eucharist was the only work which would have caused any individuals to act in an official capacity, and hence the position of presidents of the Eucharist has not yet acquired that degree of prominence and importance which it was sure to acquire in the course of time. It seems not improbable that, at the moment of 1 Cor., the position of the Eucharistic presidents was still in a rudimentary stage, resting upon a kind of tacit consent : it was just about to develop into a more or less clearly recognized and permanent official capacity. Hence, it would be easier for St. Paul to overlook them at this moment than later on. THE PAULINE CHURCHES 119 Moreover, it must be observed that it was not the presi- dents who were at fault. The impossibility of celebrating the Eucharist was not due to them, but to certain brethren who, at the Agape which preceded the Eucharist, took each before other his own supper, and one was hungry and another drunken (1 Cor. xi 21). The fact, then, that he does not hold the presidents of the Eucharist responsible for these irregularities does not prove that there was not a group of individuals who were commonly expected to preside when the Church assembled for the Eucharist : it may merely indi- cate that their position was not as responsible and as clearly differentiated from the rest of the brethren as was the case in later years, or perhaps in other Churches at the same moment. In conclusion, then, it may be said that the following lines of argument, based on indirect evidence, converge in pointing towards the presidency of the Eucharistic gatherings as the one original and essential element of the office of bishop or presbyter, as the work which called them into existence. (1) This hypothesis gives us the best, and perhaps the only possible, explanation of the existence of the two orders of bishops and deacons at Philippi as early as 59-61. (2) The complete silence of the New Testament on the subject affords a probability that the firmly established custom which we meet at the end of the first century should be carried back into New Testament times. There is here a double argument. Not only do we have the fact that, as soon as any light is thrown upon the subject, celebration by bishops is seen to be the universal custom, but also there is a distinct tradition in St. Clement of Rome that this custom reaches back to the days of the Apostles. (3) This hypothesis gives a clear and consistent explanation of all the known facts both with regard to the development of the organization of the Churches, and with regard to the general position which presbyters and deacons occupied in primitive Christian life. (4) To these may be added the consideration that a study of the early Church at Jerusalem shows that in the presi- dency of the Eucharist we have the best cause which can 120 THE PAULINE CHURCHES be assigned for the origin of the presbyterate. These two independent investigations, then, corroborate each other. What degree of probability, then, attaches to this solution ? On the one hand, it is more than a happy conjecture. In explaining the origin of the presbyter-bishops, we have to make our choice from a certain small number of definite possibilities. It is shown that a presumption exists against all but one. That one yields a reasonable explanation of all the facts, and has the weight of tradition behind it. On the other hand, the absence of direct evidence places it outside the category of established facts. It appears to be an hypothesis which may reasonably be adopted until fuller light can be thrown upon the matter. CHAPTER VII PRESBYTERS AND APOSTLES AN historical fact, whether established or assumed, is one thing ; the value attached to it, the interpretation put upon it, is another. Apostolic succession as an historical fact must be considered apart from any of the various doctrines or theories which have been deduced from it. The following discussion aims at testing the evidence for and against the bare historic fact, but does not examine into its meaning or significance. Apostolic succession has fallen into such bad favour with most modern Church historians, that to propose to discuss it seriously is looked upon by many as little better than an acknowledgement of partisanship. One cannot help feeling that this is in some measure due to the failure to keep in mind the distinction which has just been pointed out. That the fact may be separated from its interpretation is easy to make abundantly clear. The New Testament mentions the fact (Acts xiv 23 ; Titus i 5), but it contains no theory. St. Clem- ent of Rome mentions the fact (cc. xlii, xliv) and he is the earliest Christian writer to put any interpretation upon it. St. Clement's interpretation is that a line of descent from the Apostles is involved in the order appointed by the Divine will for the due and proper conduct of Divine worship (cc. xl, xlii). St. Irenaeus is another writer who puts an interpretation upon the fact of appointment of clergy by Apostles. His theory is quite different from that of St. Clement. To him the succession of bishops reaching back to the Apostles is a guarantee of the truth which they taught ; for with the succession they have received a ' charisma veritatis '. The significance attached to the fact, then, may be separated from the fact itself. 122 PRESBYTERS AND APOSTLES II In the New Testament we find the fact mentioned twice, but without any special meaning assigned to it. St. Luke merely glances at it (Acts xiv 23). St. Paul gives directions for the ordination of elders ; but the nearest approach to any doctrine regarding it is made when he affirms the truth of the statement that one who desires a bishop's office desires a good work (1 Tim. iii 1). In short, the New Testament writers show no consciousness of any idea that Apostolic appointment of clergy is essential to a valid ministry or that it has been specially determined by revelation of God's will. For this reason alone it seems impossible to maintain any theory that the Apostles, if they did ordain elders, ordained them because they felt such ordination to be essential or obligatory. If such an idea had been current, we would expect not only to find some trace of it in the New Testament, but also to have had more evidence of the bare fact of Apostolic appointment itself. It would seem, then, that whatever was done regarding the appointment of clergy, was done because it appeared to all concerned to be the natural and fitting thing to do. Now when this fact is kept in view it does not appear at all impossible, or even improbable, that as a general rule, at least in the most important Churches, the clergy were ordained by Apostles or delegates of Apostles. There is one point which all our sources seem to take for granted. It is that there was a definite appointment to the bishop's office by some person or persons, an appointment which may for the present be distinguished by the term ' ordination '. It is St. Paul and St. Barnabas who appoint (xtipoTovrio-avTts) the elders in Acts xiv 23. Titus is to ordain elders in Crete (Titus i 5 ; cf. 1 Tim. iii 1-15). The Church, in some cases at least, elected the candidates ; but none the less they were appointed by some individuals of standing. ' Those therefore who were appointed by them, or afterward by other men of repute, with the consent of the whole Church.' l When we speak, then, of ordination by Apostles, the antithesis is 1 Clem, ad Cor. c. xliv. PRESBYTERS AND APOSTLES 123 not against popular election by the Church, but against ordination by those who had not received any previous authorization to ordain from Apostles. Who, then, are the most likely persons to preside at the ordination or installation of new presbyters ? Here is a point at which one's predilections and prejudices are apt to disguise themselves and appear to the mind as sober critical judgements. Knowing, however, the respect in which Apostles were held, it is difficult to avoid saying that no one else would preside when one of the Twelve or St. Paul was present. Nor is it at all impossible that an Apostle should have been present, at least in the larger and more important Churches, whenever presbyters were appointed. Such occasions would not be very frequent, and it is not impossible that a visit from an Apostle would be chosen as the most propitious moment to perform a ceremony so important in the life of a local Church. Moreover, we know that St. Paul was constantly travelling through the Churches and in the habit of sending his fellow workers as his delegates, wherever special need required it. 1 St. Peter also probably visited Rome, and there are the traditions of the residence of St. John in Asia. It is quite unnecessary to suppose that the Apostles themselves would not have appointed presbyters unless they had held a sacerdotal theory of the ministry. No one would accuse modern Methodist or Presbyterian missionaries of holding the divine obligation of any particular outward form of ministry : yet when they establish Churches in foreign countries they always see to the appointment of regular ministers, among whose duties the celebration of the Eucharist is included. And one may question whether there was not in the primitive Church more feeling of corporate unity and of being admitted to the fold of a single visible religious fellowship than there is in many modern Christian bodies. As has been said above, the Church was conscious of itself as the New Israel, the one People of the Living God. The fellowship to which the individual felt himself to belong 1 1 Cor. xvi 10, 11 ; 2 Cor. viii 6, 17, 18, 23; ix 2-5; Eph. vi 21, 22; Phil, ii 19, 23, 25 ; Col. i 7, 8 ; iv 7, 9 ; 1 Thess. iii 2. 124 PRESBYTERS AND APOSTLES was not that of a local body, but that of the whole number of believers in Jesus throughout the world. And this sense of unity found an outward expression in the Eucharist. ' We, who are many, are one bread, one body : for we all partake of the one bread ' (1 Cor. x 17). 'As this broken bread was scattered upon the mountains and being gathered together became one, so may Thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Thy kingdom ' (Did. c. ix). The Eucharist was not regarded as entirely the affair of each local Church by itself ; it brought to each believer a sense that in Jesus the Messiah he belonged to a vast company of saints which spread far beyond the limits of any one gathering. Now, if this was the case, it is not unreasonable to expect to find that local Churches would be desirous of having their local Eucharists recognized elsewhere as real communions of the Body and Blood of the Messiah. And how could this be done more naturally and more securely than by obtaining for the local presidents the sanction and recognition of those who, like the Twelve and St. Paul, were known as the specially authorized exponents of the Messianic Gospel and the centre of gravity in the Church ? Those who were in communion with the Apostles would be in communion with the whole Church. It is not meant that there was any hard and fast theory in the matter ; but rather that it may well have appeared, both to the Apostles and to the members of local Churches, to be desirable that those who were to break the bread in memory of the Lord Jesus should receive some authorization or recognition from the Apostles in addition to the assent and approval of the brethren in the local Church. Considerations such as these have, of course, but little positive value ; but they serve to show that there is nothing impossible in Apostolic appointment. Nor will the little direct evidence of the New Testament carry us much further. It applies to a few cases only the Churches of the First Missionary Journey, of Crete, and probably, we may add, of Ephesus also. But the very silence of the New Testament is itself PRESBYTERS AND APOSTLES 125 indicative of much. It shows us clearly that the method of appointing was not one of acute interest to the Apostolic Churches. It was not devoid of local interest, but at least it did not become the subject of any disturbance or the cause of a conflict in the Churches. When St. Clement of Rome seeks for analogies to the disorders at Corinth, he has to go back to the divisions mentioned by St. Paul in 1 Cor. and the rebellion of Korah, Dathan and Abiram : apparently he can recollect no case precisely similar to the one he is dealing with. There is a strong probability then, that whatever was done, was done with the general consent of all concerned ; and that the same customs, or lack of customs, as the case may have been, continued on without very much alteration. Hence, if we find, shortly after the Apostolic Age, some one clear consistent practice generally acknowledged as being of very long standing, there is ground afforded for carrying that practice back to a much earlier date. Ill With this we must leave the New Testament and proceed to consider the evidence of the sub- Apostolic writings. We shall have to do with the Didache, St. Clement's letter to the Corinthians and the Epistles of St. Ignatius chiefly : for the references to the ministry in the Shepherd of Hermas are so indeterminate that they may be made to harmonize with any hypothesis chosen. The Didache has but one short reference to the subject. ' Appoint, therefore, for yourselves bishops and deacons ' (\eipoTovri i s use( i ^ re " quently in these cases. Thus, in 2 Cor. viii 19 it is applied to one elected to travel with St. Paul to bring the offerings of the Gentile Churches to Jerusalem ; while St. Ignatius uses it frequently of those delegated to congratulate the Church of Antioch on the cessation of the persecution. 1 No formal induction into office could have been necessary on these occasions. (2) That the second mode was frequently employed in connexion with the presbyters we learn from St. Clement of Rome (c. xliv). The Apostles, he tells us, ' appointed (KaTea-TTjo-av) the aforesaid persons ' ; and he speaks of those, ' who were appointed by them , . . (/caraaratfei/ray VTT e/cetVco*'), with the consent of the whole Church,' &c. Here we have, as in the case of the ' Seven ' of Acts vi, some form of popular election together with a formal induction or appointment to office. This formal induction or Karao-rao-is was apparently a normal part of the institution of presbyters. Thus Titus is to appoint (KaTao-Trjo-ys) elders in Crete (Titus i 5) ; and St. Clement uses the same word in connexion with presbyters in xlii 4 ; liv 2. 2 If, then, the /carao-racny refers to the formal induction into an office, x fl P OTOJ '* a > seems usually to refer to an election either of a candidate for some permanent office, who would usually require a further formal induction, or of a special agent appointed to perform some temporary duty as in 2 Cor. viii 19 and the passages from Ignatius cited above. In the extract from the Didache before us, then, we 1 Philad. c. x 1 ; Smyrn. xi 2 ; Polyc. vii 2. ' If we compare the language of Acts vi 3 ; Titus i 5 ; Clem, ad Cor. xlii 4, xliv 2, 3 and the use of the verb Ka&'arijp in each, it would seem that the Karaaraais was throughout reserved to the Apostles or their representatives, whilst the Church, if not always selecting, may at least be regarded as consenting.' Knowling on Acts xiv 23. 127 may say that x i P OTOVli 1 a ' aTf probably refers to the popular selection of candidates, and that a definite authorization at entrance upon office is not thereby excluded. 1 Whether the writer of the Didache knew of any further ceremony beyond that contained in x L P OTOl/ W aT or no *> ^ * s i m ~ possible to decide from the language used, but the possibility of a further Karda-raa-is is not excluded. The Didache, then, has little to tell us for or against the Apostolic appointment of Clergy, although it is worthy of note that it represents the popular election of candidates for the presbyterate as a regular and normal part of the Apostolic teaching. 2 We now come to the important evidence of St. Clement of Rome. The facts regarding the writing and dispatch of the Epistle which bears his name are so well known, that a very brief summary of them will suffice here. The Corinthian Church had obtained a wide reputation for harmony, peace and good works (cc. i & ii). Unfortunately this happy state of affairs did not continue, but was interrupted by a serious dis- turbance, led by a few ' headstrong and self-willed persons ', which resulted in the removal of certain elders from their office and the introduction of others into their places. At this stage there seems to have been a pause, and the general body of Corinthians, apparently in doubt as to whether their action had been right, asked for the advice of the Roman Church on the question of the removal of presbyters. The answer of the Roman Church is contained in the letter of St. Clement, The evidence which it yields on the question under dis- cussion turns upon the interpretation of certain words in chap, xliv which it will be well to quote in full. ' And our Apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife over the name of the bishop's office. For this cause, therefore, having received complete foreknowledge, they appointed the aforesaid persons, and afterward they provided a continuance 3 that if these should 1 Cf . Gore, Ministry of the Christian Church, p. 282. " See also Harnack, Die Lehre der Z. A., p. 56, n. ; Bingham's Diet, of Christian Antiquities, ii 1503. 3 The phrase ' provided a continuance ' is a translation of Lightfoot's reading enip.ovi')v. ' The accession of Lat. to the best MS. seems to establish 128 fall asleep, other approved men should succeed to their ministration. Those, therefore, who were appointed by them, or afterwards by other men of repute, with the consent of the whole Church, and have ministered un- blameably to the flock of Christ in lowliness of mind, peace- fully and with all modesty, and for a long time have borne a good report with all, these men we consider to have been unjustly thrust out from their ministration.' The important words, on the interpretation of which the character of St. Clement's evidence depends, are the ' other men of repute ' (ere/oot eXAoy^oi dvSpes) who appointed presbyters after the Apostles. What are we to understand by this phrase ? Does it, or does it not include men who had no Apostolic appointment ? It will be well to begin by making clear certain points which will hardly be disputed. (1) St. Clement recognizes that some presbyters were appointed by the Apostles in person, ' those appointed by them', i.e. Apostles ; and some of these men were still living when St. Clement wrote (c. xliv). (2) Again St. Clement says that the Apostles ' provided a continuance ', or perhaps better, 'gave a further injunction' that, 'if these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed to their ministra- tion.' The giving of this injunction implies that some one must have received it, and that the regular and consecutive appointment of elders by some one or other must have been contemplated by the Apostles. It is scarcely likely that such appointment would have been intended to be entirely independent of those whom the Apostles had already made presbyters. Hence it is quite possible that St. Clement knew another class of presbyters, not appointed by Apostles in person, but by those probably themselves presbyters clothed with Apostolic authority to appoint. To this the position of Timothy and Titus as described in the Pastoral Epistles lends support. (3) We have, then, in this Epistle, (a) a class of elders fTnvoprjv which should be translated ' gave a further injunction.' (Sanday, Conception of Priesthood, p. 71). Sohm and Lowrie render firivofirjv by ' distribution ', i. e. the Apostles entrusted the distribution of the euchar- istic gifts to the bishops and deacons ; cf . Lowrie, The Church and its Organization, p. 332, n. 3. Sohm, Kirchenrecht, p. 82, n. 4. PRESBYTERS AND APOSTLES 129 appointed by Apostles, and (6), possibly, a second class not appointed by Apostles in person, but still on the line of Apostolic descent, appointed in accordance with Apostolic directions, whatever those directions may have been. The question is, have we a third class of presbyters, recognized as of equal authority with these two, but entirely off the line of Apostolic descent, owing their appointment neither to Apostles nor to any one having Apostolic authority to appoint ? Dr. Sanday thinks that there was this third class of elders. Thus he observes, ' The erepot eAAoyt/jot dvSpes are not . . . placed upon the direct line of descent from the Apostles '.* This is certainly quite true ; but one must not suppose that they are definitely placed off it. At the time of St. Clement's writing there was no word appropriated to designate those invested with Apostolic authority to appoint to the presby- terate : ' bishop ' is the only word which has been so appro- priated, and in St. Clement it is still synonymous with 'presbyter'. Hence, if St. Clement meant only such men as we see in Timothy and Titus, he must have had to choose as a title for them, either some long roundabout phrase, such as ' those to whom the Apostles gave authority to appoint presbyters,' and some such short, but loose expres- sion, as ' men of repute ' . Hence the mere use of an indefinite term does not necessarily decide the question. Again, Dr. Sanday says : 1 When we think of the importance of prophecy and the activity of prophets in the Apostolic Age, it is very improb- able that all who held office or dignity in the Church were appointed to it directly by Apostles in either the wider or the narrower sense. The state of things described by St. Clement is just what would be natural. Nominations to office would be made by an Apostle, if one was available, if not by those whom the Church most trusted.' 2 Dr. Sanday, of course, means by ' natural ', not anything opposed to the supernatural, but that which, taking into consideration the other ascertained facts bearing upon the 1 Conception of Priesthood, p. 72. 2 Op. cit., p. 72. HAioi/roN n 130 PRESBYTERS AND APOSTLES matter, we might expect would happen : he means that in view of what we know about the position of prophets and presbyters we may reasonably think that St. Clement knew a class of presbyters appointed by others than Apostles or Apostolic delegates. No doubt there were no Christians so prominent or important, after the Apostles themselves, as the prophets certainly they were far more to the front than the comparatively humble presbyters. But the two classes existed on entirely different levels : a man was called a presbyter because he was appointed to an office, not because he had any personal gift of an extraordinary character. Of prophets the opposite is true : a man was called a prophet not because he was appointed to an office, but in virtue of his prophetic gift. As was said above, the two classes must have been as clearly distinguished in the eyes of the first generation of Christians, as poets or novelists are distinguished from Secretaries of State in our day. They are based on entirely different principles ; and accord- ingly, beyond the possibility which the present passage of St. Clement affords, there is no direct evidence that presbyters were ever appointed by others than Apostles in the narrower sense, or their delegates such as Timothy and Titus. This, of course, applies to appointment as distinguished from election. But there is one point which seems to make it exceedingly unlikely, if not impossible, that St. Clement could have had in mind any such third class of presbyters. The existence of such a class would have entirely overthrown the force of his argument. In order to make this point clear, it will be well to give a brief analysis of the whole Epistle and then to select the important parts for fuller treatment. cc. 1-4 The troubles, which have so violently disturbed the former peace of the Corinthian Church, are due to jealousy. 5-6 Examples of the evil of jealousy, both past and present. 7-13 An exhortation to repentance and obedience with many examples from the Old Testament. 14-18 We must obey God in lowliness of mind rather than PRESBYTERS AND APOSTLES 131 those who set themselves up in arrogance. Further examples from the Scriptures. 19-23 The whole natural world obeys God in peace. We also must in all respects render obedience to God in peace and good works. 24-27 Let our souls be bound to God in faith and hope of the resurrection, of which the phoenix is a sign. 28-36 Exhortation to holiness, purity, harmony, humility, and zeal in good works, with more examples from the Scriptures. 37-39 Examples of the utility of the harmonious subordina- tion of parts in an organization and its application to Christians. 40-41 Since all things pertaining to the worship of God are fixed according to God's will in due subordination to a settled order, none of us must transgress the appointed rule of his service. 42-44 Now Jesus Christ was sent from God, the Apostles were sent by Christ, and bishops and deacons were appointed everywhere by the Apostles (an arrange- ment at which we must not be surprised), and so our decision is that your presbyters, against whom there was no charge of neglect or misconduct, were unjustly removed from their office. 45-46 History shows that it is always the lawless who persecute the righteous, and we must cling to the latter. 47-50 This sedition is more grievous than the one which called forth the letter of the Blessed Paul, and must be rooted out quickly. It violates Christian love. 51-55 The offenders are urged to confess and yield after the examples of noble men even among the Gentiles. 56-58 The Church should make intercession for the offenders who are urged to submit and accept the counsel of the Roman Church. 59-61 The prayer of the Roman Church, for help and pardon for themselves and peace and strength for the rulers of the earth. K2 132 PRESBYTERS AND APOSTLES 62-63 We have used every argument, and trust you will give us heed. 64-65 Conclusion. At first sight the Epistle appears long and rambling, and to have many digressions : but yet in all its parts it is subordinated to one end which is never lost sight of. Chapters i-xxxix are introductory, consisting mainly of exhortations to harmony, faith, obedience and love, and, above all, submission, and lead up to the decision of cc. xl-xliv, which requires the yielding of the predominant party. The important part of the argument is contained in these five chapters (xl-xliv), the rest of the Epistle, cc. xlv-lxv, being chiefly an endeavour to persuade the Corinthians to accept this decision. Chapter xl asserts the principle that everything which concerns Divine worship, ' He Himself fixed by His supreme will,' both as to place, time, and minister, as is seen by the case of High-Priest, priests, levites, and laymen. Chapter xli insists that each one should ' in his own order give thanks unto God, maintaining a good conscience and not trans- gressing the appointed rule of his service.' The services of the Temple at Jerusalem are cited as an illustration of this. Having laid down this general principle, St. Clement proceeds to apply it to the particular case in hand. ' The Apostles received the Gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ : Jesus Christ was sent forth from God. So then Christ is from God, and the Apostles are from Christ. Both, therefore, came of the will of God in the appointed order.' The Apostles then in full confidence went forth, and, ' so preaching everywhere in country and town, they appointed their first fruits, when they had proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons unto them that should believe. And this they did in no new fashion : for indeed it had been written concerning bishops and deacons from very ancient times : for thus saith the Scriptures in a certain place : ' I will appoint their bishops in righteousness and their deacons in faith." And what marvel, if they which were entrusted in Christ with such a work by God, appointed the PRESBYTERS AND APOSTLES 133 aforesaid persons ? Seeing that even the blessed Moses, who was a faithful servant in all his house, recorded for a sign in the sacred books all things that were enjoined upon him.' Then follows the story of how Moses ' when jealousy arose concerning the priesthood . . . commanded the twelve chiefs of the tribes to bring to him rods . . . and he sealed them . . . and put them away in the tabernacle . . . and said unto them, Brethren, the tribe whose rod shall bud, this hath God chosen to be priests and ministers unto Him. Now when morning came . . . the rod of Aaron was found not only with buds but also bearing fruit. What think ye, dearly beloved ? Did not Moses know beforehand that this would come to pass ? Assuredly he knew it. But that disorder might not arise in Israel, he did this, to the end that the Name of the true and only God might be glorified.' ... ' And our Apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife over the name of the bishop's office. For this cause, therefore, having received complete foreknowledge, they appointed the aforesaid persons, and afterwards they provided a continuance (or better, gave a further injunction), that if these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed to their ministration. Those, therefore, who were appointed by them, or afterward by other men of repute with the consent of the whole Church, and have ministered unblameably to the flock of Christ . . . these men we consider to be unjustly thrust out from their ministration. For it will be no light sin for us, if we thrust out those who have offered the gifts of the bishop's office unblameably and holily ' (cc. xlii-xliv). There is here a clear, consistent, and forcible line of argument. God has appointed all divine worship according to a definite order : and in the order appointed by His will, Christ is from God, the Apostles are from Christ, the presby- ters are from the Apostles, and therefore their ejection is a sin. But if St. Clement contemplated a class of presbyters who might be described as not from the Apostles, the whole sequence of the argument is destroyed : still more, if St. Clement had thought that the Corinthians would be able to point to a regular class of presbyters in any part of the 134 PRESBYTERS AND APOSTLES world, who were not from the Apostles, then he must have realized that his argument from the divine order and sequence could carry no weight. Further, the individuals who usurped the position of the ousted presbyters had apparently the authority of the Corinthian Church behind them, but not that of the Apostles ; this, however, does not suffice to place them on a level with the older presbyters. St. Clement is not content that the ejected elders should be restored and given a place by the side of those whom the local Church has instituted : the usurpers must submit and withdraw entirely (cc. liv and Ivii). And if we ask why, the reason given is because the new arrangement is not in accordance with the order appointed by the will of God, which involves a sequence through Christ and the Apostles. Hence, it is clear that the innovators are regarded as being in rebellion against divinely appointed authority, because they had no Apostolic sanction. But the position of any third class of elders, not upon the line of Apostolic descent, would have been precisely the same as that of these men whose pretensions are so scouted by St. Clement. Accordingly, we must conclude that St. Clement had no idea of the existence of a third class of presbyters not on the direct line of Apostolic descent, and that the crepoi eAAoytyuot dvdpes included no persons who were not empowered, according to the further injunction of the Apostles, to ordain elders. Sound criticism will recognize that we have here evidence of the highest historical value. (1) It is impossible to discover any other reason for the decision given, except that derived from the practice of the Apostles in appointing presbyters. (2) The decision was influenced by no ulterior motive, by no external pressure, but was reached solely by a consideration of the merits of the case. (3) The casual, not to say incidental, way in which the fact of Apostolic appointment is mentioned, although the whole decision rests ultimately upon this fact, shows how completely the Roman Church assumed unquestioning acquiescence in the fact. (4) This letter has the value of contemporary evidence on the question of appointment of clergy by Apostles. PRESBYTERS AND APOSTLES 135 The consideration of these four points must now engage attention. (1) Among the various societies which existed in Greece and Asia Minor for the worship of heathen deities, it was the custom for each club to make its own constitution, usually after the pattern of that of the State in which it existed. The officers who superintended the worship of the society, its priests or priestesses, were selected by lot or ballot for one year, though the office could be held for a longer time. 1 So also in Asia Minor, the high priests of the temples where the Emperor was worshipped, were appointed from year to year. 2 The Christians, of course, did not form the constitutions of their Churches after the type of the Greek confraternities ; but they could not have been entirely ignorant of the prac- tices which prevailed in them. Accordingly, it would certainly not have seemed strange to them if the officers appointed to superintend Christian worship should be removable at the will of the local society. It is the normal custom, practised now as well as then, that when the officers of a club fail to satisfy its members, they may be replaced by others. This is in itself a perfectly reasonable and just procedure, and no exception whatever can be taken to it on the ground of morality. We are apt to forget that there was nothing in the nature of things to prevent St. Clement from taking up a position such as this. There would have been nothing unnatural or immoral involved, if the Roman Church had said that they deplored the schism and its consequences, but that, in view of the common practice of both heathen and Christian societies, they held that the Corinthian Church had taken the best and quickest way to compose its troubles. But the Roman Church did not take up this position, but the very opposite, saying that the ejection of the presbyters involved sin. It is of importance to observe the exact reason which they give for their decision. Elders who were guilty of some immoral conduct might, no doubt, be removed, as in the case of Valens the presbyter 1 Ziebarth, Das griechische Vereinswesen, pp. 144, 146, 147, 150. * Mommsen, Provinces of the Roman Empire, i. 345. 136 PRESBYTERS AND APOSTLES at Philippi. 1 But the presbyters at Corinth were unblame- able and holy. We may assume that if they too had been convicted of some grievous sin, the decision of the Roman Church would have been different. But the fact of their blamelessness is not the cause, but only a condition, of the scandal involved in their ejection. Again, the dispute had involved grievous loss, both of spiritual power within and of reputation without, ' many were brought to despair, many to doubting, and all of us to sorrow ' (c. xlvi) : it was shameful, unseemly, and brought blasphemy upon the Name of the Lord (c. xlvii). All this St. Clement saw and deplored, but still even this is not the main reason which influenced his decision : he might have deplored all this with equal sorrow if he had taken the other side he might have blamed the stubbornness of those who upheld the original presbyters in their position. His main line of argument is this : God has fixed all things which pertain to His worship according to His own supreme will. In the order appointed by His will, Christ is from God, the Apostles are from Christ, and the Presbyters are from the Apostles ; therefore their ejection from offering the gifts in divine worship is sinful. If St. Clement had in mind any third class of presbyters not from the Apostles, it is quite conceivable that he might say that their ejection had wrought great harm to the Church, both within and without, and hence was displeasing to God ; but it is utterly inconceivable that he should call it a sin, because God had sent Christ and Christ had sent the Apostles. Such an argument would have had no application whatever. (2) It has been argued that St. Irenaeus and his contem- poraries were led to over-emphasize a doctrine of Apostolic succession, because they wished to see in it a guarantee of the truth handed down from the Apostles. Whether this is the case or not need not be considered here : but we must point out that no such motive can be attributed to St. Clement. No trace is to be found in his letter of St. Irenaeus' interpretation of Apostolic appointment : he says nothing whatever of the succession guaranteeing purity 1 Polyc. ad Phil. c. xi. PRESBYTERS AND APOSTLES 137 of doctrine, nor does he mention a ' charisma veritatis ' . It is impossible to find any ulterior motive for the decision of the Roman Church : it was not influenced by any external pressure of danger, nor was it a question which had been long in dispute and on which men outside the Corinthian Church had already taken sides. The sole occasion for rais- ing the subject was the internal disorder in a local Church : thus for the first time the issue comes up for the Church to decide, may duly appointed presbyters be removed from office at the will of the congregation, or not ? It was at this time a purely local question. There was nothing to prejudice the minds of the Roman Churchmen : the question was decided upon its merits. We may imagine the Roman Church gathered together to discuss this point referred to them by the Corinthians. Apart from the customs inherited from the days of the Apostles, other considerations, such as the custom of con- temporary heathen associations and the general expediency of the case, might urge them to recognize the lawfulness of establishing new presbyters at will, as the easiest way of settling the dispute. But the moment the thought of the Apostles comes into view, the scale is turned and the matter is settled the ejection of the old and the installation of the new violates the proper sequence from God through Christ and the Apostles. (3) Again, let us endeavour to reconstruct the situation. The Corinthian Church is sharply divided on the question of the deposition of presbyters. The Church of Rome, in giving its decision, bases its judgement upon an inter- pretation put upon a certain fact. That fact is that presbyters are on the line of Apostolic descent : the interpretation is that this line is part of the will of God, because God appointed a definite order of succession through Christ and the Apostles in order to obviate confusion in connexion with divine worship. This interpretation settles the dispute ; but the interpretation rests upon the fact, and if the fact is ques- tionable, the interpretation is utterly useless. Now it is remarkable that while the whole strength of the argument depends upon the historical accuracy of these facts, yet 138 PRESBYTERS AND APOSTLES St. Clement brings no witnesses to prove them : he expects them to be admitted as soon as stated, and has no anxiety whatever on this score. The only points which he finds it necessary to enforce are two, the significance of the fact of Apostolic appointment, and the necessity of yielding to what he believed to be the divine will in the matter : this latter apparently gave him great anxiety, and occupies the greater part of his letter. But we need not emphasize it here. His anxiety to bring every possible argument to bear in favour of the former point is obvious. He is careful to show that the fact of Apostolic appointment of clergy is not meaningless, but has a very deep significance. The advan- tages derived from subordination of parts to a settled plan are put forth in chaps, xxxvii and xxxviii. Again, it is shown that God has always appointed a set order relating to His own worship with a view to avoiding confusion (c. xl). The bishops and deacons are involved in this order, and their appointment to the exclusion of others involves no new principle ; ' and this they did in no new fashion : for indeed it had been written concerning bishops and deacons from very ancient times. ... "I will appoint their bishops in righteousness and their deacons in faith" ' (c. xlii). Thus Moses, although he knew beforehand, on other grounds, what was the divine will, yet submitted to the test of the rods that there might be no disorder (c. xliii). So also the Apostles ' knowing that there would be strife over the bishop's office ', and in order to prevent disorder, ' appointed the aforesaid persons and afterwards gave a further injunc- tion, that if these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed to their ministration' (c. xliv). But in contrast to this, the assertion that the Apostles appointed presbyters throughout the Church is stated boldly without any attempt to prove it, without any trace of consciousness that any one would call it in question. Yet, had it been possible to disprove this statement, or even question it, the interpretation put upon it by St. Clement must have fallen to the ground ; and with it the whole value and weight of his decision in the eyes of the anti- PRESBYTERS AND APOSTLES 139 presbyter party at Corinth. The very looseness of the phrase in which he speaks of the connexion between the ejected Corinthian presbyters and the Apostles ' those who were appointed by them, or afterward by other men of repute ' (c. xliv) shows how implicitly he assumed acquies- cence in the bare historic fact of appointment, either by Apostles, or by those who were from the Apostles. St. Clement then has no anxiety about the facts themselves they are not new : they will not be questioned. It is the significance he attaches to the facts which is new, and he thinks it necessary to produce several lines of argument to impress it upon the Corinthian Church. The state of things is just what we would expect to find if the practice of Apostolic appointment had been very generally, if not universally, followed for no other reason than that such appeared to be the most fitting course to pursue. Later generations woke up to find themselves in the presence of this undoubted fact, and as soon as they became conscious of it, began to ask themselves what its meaning or impor- tance was. It would not be too much to say then that St. Clement's letter is in essence an attempt to prove that nothing is a substitute for Apostolic appointment. (4) It may be well to point out here that St. Clement's witness to the fact of Apostolic appointment is of far higher value than his witness to the historic character of the inter- pretation which he puts upon the fact. When St. Clement says that the Apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife over the name of the bishop's office, and that therefore they appointed bishops and deacons (c. xliv), he speaks of something removed by some sixty-five years from his own day. Again, a tradition as to instructions given by our Lord to Apostles is one which is clearly liable to alteration and accretion in the process of transmission from mouth to mouth : for it does not seem to have been written down before it appears in St. Clement's letter. St. Clement's statement may be true, but, in view of the fact that it finds no positive support in the New Testament, it cannot be accepted simply on this evidence. On the other hand, regarding the bare fact of Apostolic 140 PRESBYTERS AND APOSTLES appointment, he is in an excellent position to give evidence. If we date his letter in A. D. 96, we find that it is only some thirty-two years later than the probable date of the deaths of St. Peter and St. Paul. Hence there were many still living who were appointed to the presbyterate by Apostles. ' Those, therefore, who were appointed by them (i.e. Apostles). . . . these men we consider to be un justly thrust out from their ministration ' (c. xliv). There were those still living who could testify to the practice of the Apostles, and of course, to that of the Church since their day. Had St. Clement been at fault in his facts regarding either the customs of the Apostles or those of the Church since their day, there were many who would have known it at once. We are not now dealing with sayings or opinions handed down by oral tradition which may have undergone alteration in the process of transmission. We have here a single concrete fact, which happened once in the lifetime of each individual presbyter. No man could forget the circumstances of his ordination, and who had presided at it. There is no chance here for any alteration or accretion by constant repetition from mouth to mouth. The evidence, therefore, of this letter concerning the appointment of clergy by the Apostles and others delegated by Apostles, is the best kind of historical evidence one can have. As has been observed before, a fact is one thing ; the significance attached to it is another. We are not now contending for St. Clement's interpretation, but merely for the fact itself ; as was pointed out above, the New Testament evidence, inconclusive in itself, leaves the way open for, if it does not point to, the condition of affairs revealed in St. Clement. In claiming that Apostolic succession must stand as an established fact, at least with regard to the main stream of Church development and history, it is not meant that either the Apostles or the Church, up to the time of St. Clement, acted under any sense of divine obligation in the matter. It was the most fitting and desirable thing that presbyters should receive Apostolic sanction and blessing upon their work, and that the Apostles should give a further injunction that others should succeed to their ministration PRESBYTERS AND APOSTLES 141 when these presbyters fell asleep. St. Clement's statement that this was done, because the Apostles knew that there would be strife over the name of the bishop's office, bears every mark of probability about it : although one could not but question his view that they knew it to be involved in the will of God. This further injunction itself would, of course, be received by those already honoured by Apostles, i.e. the presbyters, whether one or more in any given Church. Thus the fact of Apostolic succession grew in silence, and succeeding generations, finding themselves in the presence of the fact, each put upon it an interpretation such as best suited the needs of its own time. The consideration of the evidence of the Ignatian Epistles may be begun by comparing the general position of bishops and presbyters as they are found in St. Ignatius with that which we find in St. Clement. For the present one may leave out of sight the question of the single Bishop of St. Ignatius over against the presbyter-bishops of St. Clement, and confine attention to their estimate of the general position of the clergy. Both writers know of bishops existing throughout the Churches ; 1 and both again know them as concerned with the conduct of public worship, and as having a peculiar right to preside at the Eucharist. St. Clement says that none may ' transgress the appointed rule of his service ' in public worship (c. xli) and it will be no light sin to ' thrust out those (i.e. presbyters) who have offered the gifts of the bishop's office unblameably ' (c. xliv). So also Ignatius, ' assemble yourselves together in common, man by man ... to the end that ye may obey the bishop and the presbytery without distraction of mind : breaking one bread,' &c. (ad Eph. xx). ' Do ye all follow your bishop, as Jesus Christ followed the Father, and the presbytery as the Apostles .... Let no man do aught of the things pertaining to the Church apart from the bishop. Let that be counted a valid Eucharist which is under the bishop, or one to whom he shall have committed it, (Smyrn. viii). Again, it is St. Clement's main argument that the elders are a part of the order appointed by the will 1 Clem, ad Cor. c. xlii and Ignat. ad Eph. c. iii. 142 PRESBYTERS AND APOSTLES of God through Jesus Christ : this thought is echoed by St. Ignatius when he says ' I was forward to exhort you, that ye run in harmony with the mind of God ; for Jesus Christ, also ... is the mind of the Father, even as the bishops that are settled in the farthest parts of the earth are in the mind of Jesus Christ. So then it becometh you to run in harmony with the mind of the bishop.' x But on the other hand, as regards the connexion of the clergy with the Apostles, there is a difference a difference which springs from emphasizing different aspects of the same facts, rather than from any fundamental disagreement as to the facts themselves. .To St. Clement, the elders are involved in the will of God, since they have been appointed by Apostles to preside at the public worship of the Church : he lays his emphasis on the fact of the appointment by Apostles. To Ignatius the clergy are involved in the will of God, because they are the proper officers to conduct the services, more especially the Eucharist : he lays stress on the fact that they preside in the place of Christ and the Apostles, but is silent as to the mode of their appointment. According to St. Ignatius, an ideal celebration of the Holy Eucharist takes place when the Bishop presides and breaks the bread with the presbyters surrounding him, supported by the deacons who are ready to serve the laity in the main body of the building. The figure of the Bishop at the table surrounded by the presbyters irresistibly suggests the scene of the Last Supper, when Christ broke bread surrounded by His Apostles. Hence to St. Ignatius, the Bishop becomes a symbol of Christ and the presbyters a symbol of the Apostles. 2 This will be readily seen from the following passages : ' Do ye all follow your Bishop as Jesus Christ followed the Father, and the presbytery as the Apostles : and to the Deacons pay respect as to God's commandment. Let no man do aught of the things pertaining to the Church apart from the bishop. Let that be held a valid Eucharist which is under the bishop,' &c. (Smyrn. viii). ' Be ye zealous 1 Ad Eph. c. Hi ; cf. Philad. inscr. 2 Cf. Allen, Christian Institutions, pp. 64, 66, 82 f. PRESBYTERS AND APOSTLES 143 to do all things in godly concord, the bishop presiding after the likeness of God and the presbyters after the likeness of the council of the Apostles, with the deacons also ' (Magn. vi). ' Do your diligence, therefore, that ye be confirmed in the ordinances of the Lord and of the Apostles . . . with your revered bishop, and with the fitly wreathed spiritual circlet of your presbytery : and with the deacons. ... Be obedient to the bishop and to one another as Jesus Christ was to the Father, and as the Apostles were to Christ ' (Magn. xiii). ' In like manner let all men respect the deacons as Jesus Christ, even as they should respect the bishop as being a type of the Father and the presbyters as the council of God and as the college of Apostles. Apart from these there is not even the name of a Church ' (Trail, iii). Accordingly, Ignatius always compares the Bishop to Christ or God, and the elders to the Apostles. 1 Since the presbyters stand in the position of the Apostles, the mon- archical Bishop who is over them, must be placed on a higher level : his position is accordingly analogous to that of Christ or of God, an idea suggested, no doubt, by his presiding at the Eucharist, just as Christ had presided at the Last Supper. The most important fact, however, with which we have now to deal is that St. Ignatius nowhere mentions any appointment of clergy by Apostles. Are we on this account justified in concluding that he knew nothing whatever of such a method of appointment ? 2 If the argument from silence is at all admissible in this case, it holds good not only for the epistles as a whole group, but for each letter individually : we must conclude not merely that St. Ignatius did not know anything of Apostolic appointment as a general rule, but that he did not know of it in any single case, at least in the Churches which he was addressing. If we admit this argument at all, it must hold good for all the chief Churches of the East, and establish a universal negative that no clergy were appointed by Apostolic authority. 1 See Trail, ii ; Philad. v. 2 So, Loning, Gemeindeverfassung, p. 130 f. ; cf. s. 122. 144 PRESBYTERS AND APOSTLES Now the argument from silence is applicable only when certain conditions are fulfilled. ' The negative argument is thus limited to a few clearly defined cases. (1) The author of the document in which the fact is not mentioned had the intention of systematically recording all the facts of the same class, and must have been acquainted with all of them. (2) The fact, if it was such, must have affected the author's imagination so forcibly as necessarily to enter into his conceptions.' l Now, whatever the facts were in the case before us, St. Ignatius must have been acquainted with them, and hence one may proceed to ask, did St. Ignatius intend to mention all the facts regarding the appointment of the Bishops and presbyters ? The most obvious answer is the negative, because only once does he refer to the subject at all, and then it is but an incidental notice. 2 The fact of Apostolic appointment is to us in our day of such vital importance for the question of the ministry, that we can scarcely conceive that a Christian writer would not lay some stress on the subject, if he knew it to have been a customary practice. But we have many centuries of keen controversy behind us, all of which were yet to come when St. Ignatius wrote. As has been pointed out above, the writers of the New Testament who speak of presbyters being appointed by Apostles or Apostolic dele- gates, lay no stress whatever on the fact, and put no par- ticular interpretation on it. The Corinthian Church again, while being conscious of the fact, had apparently attached no important significance to it, St. Clement of Rome being the first to recognize it as a vital principle. When the fact appears in history in St. Irenaeus and Tertullian, it has an important interpretation put upon it, but one which is quite different from that of St. Clement. To St. Irenaeus it is the guarantee of the purity of the doctrine : while to St. Cyprian still later, it is the foundation on which the unity of the Church rests. In view of these considerations, it seems quite possible that St. Ignatius and his contem- poraries in Asia Minor, may have known of Apostolic 1 Seignobos and Langlois, Introduction to the Study of History, p. 256. 1 Philad. inscr. and c. 1. PRESBYTERS AND APOSTLES 145 appointment, without seeing any particular significance in that fact alone, apart from the position of the Clergy as presiding at the Eucharist : the mere fact may quite well have failed to produce any deep impression upon their imaginations. Moreover, when St. Ignatius has emphasized the impor- tance of the Bishop's office by saying that he stands in the place of Christ, and has compared the presbyters to the Apostles, would it add anything to his argument to lay stress on what was hitherto comparatively unnoticed, that all clergy were appointed by Apostles ? His main purpose is to exalt the clergy in general, and the Bishop in particular, as the centre of unity for the community : to emphasize appointment by Apostles would surely be a step down after insisting that the Bishop is the repre- sentative of Christ. To emphasize the Apostolic descent of all clergy would tend to obliterate the distinction between the three orders, since Bishop, presbyter, and deacon would now stand, in so far as Apostolic appointment was concerned, upon the same basis. The only fact which could then be brought forward to enhance the Bishop's position would be that he inducted or ordained presbyters and deacons to their office : for although St. Ignatius does not mention even this directly, yet it seems altogether unlikely that ordination would have been performed in these Churches without the Bishop (cf . Smyrn. viii). But if, at the moment of his writing, no special importance was attached to the method of appointing clergy, St. Ignatius would certainly strengthen the Bishop's position much more effectually by comparing him to Christ Himself, than by enlarging upon any Apostolic powers of appointment. We are, then, quite able to understand why St. Ignatius, if he knew of Apostolic appointment, does not refer to it. It did not impress his imagination, nor that of his contemporaries, with sufficient vividness ; nor was it the best argument he could adduce for his purpose. But is it at all possible that St. Ignatius did not know of the appointment of clergy by Apostles ? To maintain that he did not, seems to involve us in two serious historical HAMILTON II 146 PRESBYTERS AND APOSTLES difficulties, one of which concerns the letter of St. Clement, and the other the tradition of the appointment of St. Poly- carp by Apostles. As to the first, the closer one examines the literature of the early Churches, the more one is sur- prised at the constant intercourse which was kept up between the most distant parts of Christendom. As examples one may cite the frequent references to hospitality in the New Testament and the activity of the travelling mis- sionaries. ' Whether as the bearers of letters from one Church to another, or as living letters read of all men, the Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors, and Teachers kept the life-blood of the Church in circulation and counteracted the natural tendency of ancient civil society to too great independence and isolation. It is to them that we owe the fact that there is one Bible everywhere received in the Church, one Creed, one weekly holyday, one Baptism, and one Eucharist.' So writes Dr. Wordsworth. 1 And so also Sir William Ramsay 2 : ' From the first the Christian idea was to annihilate the separation due to space, and hold the most distant brother as near as the nearest.' Clear consciousness of this appears in the Pastoral Epistles, 2 and 3 John, Clement and Ignatius, all of which presuppose regular inter- communication and union of the closest kind along the great routes : and it is of course one of the commonplaces of Roman History that intercourse between the capital and every part of the Empire was direct and easy. St. Ignatius's letter to the Roman Church shows signs of this frequent intercourse. He knew that they had heard of his captivity and coming martyrdom and that they would endeavour to release him (ad Rom. cc. vi-viii) ; he finds means to send this letter on ahead to implore them to desist : he is aware that they know of his position as sole Bishop of Antioch, and says that now ' Jesus Christ shall be its bishop He and your love ' (c. ix) : he believes that they had received instructions ' as touching those who went before me from Syria to Rome unto the glory of God ' (c. xi). 1 Ministry of Grace, p. 148. 8 Church in the Roman Empire, p. 365. PRESBYTERS AND APOSTLES 147 Again, he has, as was pointed out above, a conception of the Bishops and presbyters which shows points of impor- tant agreement with that of the Roman Church : both know them as existing throughout Christianity, and both regard them as the proper officials to celebrate the Eucharist. Yet, if St. Ignatius did not know anything of an Apostolic appointment of clergy, we have to suppose that what St. Clement takes for granted as a universal practice, was unheard of in the large and important part of Christendom represented in these Epistles : and that what one so well versed in Church matters as St. Ignatius had never heard of, the important Churches of Rome and Corinth knew as the sole practice of all Churches. Some echo of the dispute at Corinth and the position assumed by the Roman Church must surely have reached St. Ignatius : and if he had known that the Roman position rested on a false and unhistorical basis, could he have referred to them in the terms of remarkably high praise which he uses in the inscription of his letter ? In view of the constant com- munication between the Churches, it seems quite impossible that the East and the West should not only have had mutually contradictory customs and traditions regarding the appointment of clergy, but also that each should have been unconscious of the practice and belief of the other. That St. Ignatius does not refer to the discrepancy in the respective positions of Bishops the single Bishop of the East, as against the presbyter-bishops of the West does not at all cause the same difficulty. For to both St. Ignatius and St. Clement the most vital point was that the Eucharist and other Church offices must be performed by the proper officers : and if this were secured in both cases by the Bishops, it could matter but little to either writer, whether they were one or many in any particular Church. The discrepancy concerned chiefly the means to a common end ; and possibly, in actual outward appearance, was not so marked as might be imagined. Among the Roman presbyters one or two must have been conspicuous as leaders : and if St. Ignatius magnifies the Bishop's L2 148 PRESBYTERS AND APOSTLES position, yet he always sees the Bishop as surrounded by, and leading, the presbyters and deacons. Again, to take the particular case of the Bishop of Smyrna, St. Polycarp. St. Ignatius, who stayed at Smyrna, had every opportunity of knowing the facts which concerned this bishop's appointment ; and if St. Ignatius did not know that he was appointed by Apostles, his ignorance was due either to the fact that the whole subject of appointment of clergy did not interest him, or to the fact that he was appointed by some other persons : there could scarcely have been a false tradition current in the local Churches on this point at the date of St. Ignatius' writing. Now St. Irenaeus (c. A. D. 180) tells us that he had known St. Polycarp and had been taught by him in his early youth ; and that St. Polycarp was appointed Bishop of Smyrna by Apostles. ' Polycarp also was not only instructed by Apostles and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but also was appointed by Apostles in Asia, Bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom we also saw in our early youth ' (Adv. Haer. iii 3, 4). Apparently, we have here two men, both of whom had seen St. Polycarp, giving contradictory evidence. One cannot accuse St. Irenaeus of a deliberate invention ; and so, if we side with St. Ignatius, we must suppose that St. Irenaeus was deceived by the common tradition of his time. But it is difficult to imagine a cause so powerful as not only to make such a tradition current in so short a time, but also to deceive a person who had such opportunities of obtaining good information as St. Irenaeus. St. Irenaeus is the first writer to turn the idea of Apostolic appointment to use as a guarantee of the truth of doctrine on the ground that a ' charisma veritatis ' was received with the office : if, then, the tradition arose outside St. Irenaeus, we must look for its cause also outside St. Irenaeus' idea of a gift of truth accompanying Apostolic appointment. But no other adequate cause has been assigned. In view of these difficulties, it would seem best to under- stand that St. Ignatius knew that the bishops and presbyters were on the line of Apostolic descent ; but, as was the case PRESBYTERS AND APOSTLES 149 with the New Testament writers and the Corinthian Church, this fact did not present itself to him as one calling for special emphasis. Hence the argument from silence does not hold good in this case. If this estimate of the evidence is correct, we must suppose that the normal practice in the great majority of cases was that the Apostles, and others on the line of descent from the Apostles, appointed the presbyters of the earliest Churches. One feels quite justified in maintaining that Apostolic appointment represents the main stream of Church practice ; but at the same time it must be admitted that the scanty direct evidence of the New Testament, and the fact that the Apostles did not act from any sense of obligation, makes it impossible to remove entirely the possibility of appointment by others than Apostles and Apostolic dele- gates. But whatever margin we may allow for such hypo- thetical cases, of which there is no direct evidence, they are mere bypaths, which either rejoin the main road or else lead nowhere : they no more alter the main stream of the succession, than do the martyrs who, the Canons of Hippolytus say, should be regarded as presbyters by virtue of their confession, though they have received no ordination. 1 1 The Canons of Hippolytus (c. A. D. 200) say that if a confessor has actually been put to the torture, he may, when released, hold the rank of presbyter without being ordained by the Bishop ; but he may not become a Bishop without proper ordination (Canon VI 43-5 in Achelis, Die Canones Hippolyti, Texte u. Untersuchungen, vi 4, pp. 67 f.). The Egyptian Church Order, a somewhat later work, found in Ethiopic, Arabic, and Saidic, contains the same provisions in the Arabic and Saidic texts (c. 24 Arabic and c. 34 Saidic. See Homer, Statutes of the Apostles, pp. 246 and 308). The Ethiopic text, however, requires that a confessor should be ordained to the presbyterate by the Bishop, though he may rank as a deacon without ordination (cc. 25 and 55, Horner, pp. 144 and 202). And this reversal of the provision of the Canons of Hippolytus is found in the Arabic and Saidic texts also (c. 54 Arabic and c. 67 Saidic) as well as in the eighth Book of the Apostolic Constitution, c. 23 (A.D. 350-400). The original texts of the Egyptian Church Order will be found in Mr. Hor- ner's book as well as an English translation. The English will also be found in Darwell Stone, Episcopacy and Valid Orders, Pusey House Occasional Papers, No. 6. It seems from this that in certain localities, 150 PRESBYTERS AND APOSTLES The succession which lasted on and ultimately prevailed everywhere, as the letter of St. Clement shows, was -that of the clergy appointed by the Apostles. and for a certain comparatively short period, confessors who had suffered torture were advanced to the presbyterate without ordination. These cases, however, do not alter the fact of the succession from the Apostles, since it is distinctly laid down that if a confessor is to be advanced to the episcopate, he must be ordained by a Bishop. CHAPTER VIII THE EPISCOPATE IN external appearance the local Churches of the latter half of the second century present a striking contrast to those with which we are familiar in the New Testament and St. Clement of Rome ; in the latter, we have bishops or presbyters, and deacons two orders of ministers only ; in the former, we find a Bishop, presbyters, and deacons, three distinct grades of officers. 1 It has been said that the great problem of early Church history is to find an explanation of this contrast ; for to modern eyes it appears to be nothing less than a political revolution, a change from democracy to monarchy. One must point out, however, that questions of constitutional rights existed only in the background in the consciousness of the Christians of that day. The change certainly did not present itself to them in the light of a political revolution. In order to interpret historical evidence aright, it is of the highest importance to place oneself in the same psychological position as the writer whose evidence is under examination. If we begin by introducing a point of view or an antithesis which was quite foreign to the mind of the writer, it will be exceedingly difficult to avoid a false estimate both of his evidence and of the actual facts underlying it. The proper course must be to begin by studying the written evidence in the light of the conditions, the controversies, and the interests of the writer's day ; from this the nature and sequence of the historical facts which he describes may be 1 In this and the preceding chapters, ' Bishop ' printed with a capital B, denotes a member of the highest grade when the ministry of the local Churches is divided into three, Bishop, presbyters, and deacons, as in St. Ignatius and later writers; 'bishop' printed with a small 'b', denotes a member of the higher when two grades only are found, presbyter- bishops and deacons, as in the New Testament and St. Clement of Rome. 152 THE EPISCOPATE determined with such precision as the case admits of. When this has been done, it will be safe to interrogate the results to discover what bearing they have upon the interests and controversies of our own day. For this reason, then, it will be well to begin a study of this subject, by excluding from one's mind all idea of political and constitutional changes ; not because this is not a real aspect of the facts in question, but because it is not the aspect which was uppermost in the minds of the writers whose evidence must be examined. The first point which strikes a modern reader with surprise is the fact that this apparently momentous change was carried through with so little opposition ; or perhaps, it would be nearer the mark to say, the fact that the progress of the change was attended with so little comment on the part of writers who were contemporary with it. We simply find first one state of things, and then later on, another, quite different from the first ; we can clearly perceive the difference, because both conditions are incidentally outlined ; but no writer sets out with the deliberate intention of describing either condition, nor has any one sufficient interest in the change to tell us plainly how and why it was brought about. As Dr. Loofs has well said, the age of the New Testament is very different from the latter half of the second century ; yet there is no wide chasm between them, the one passes over into the other quite naturally. 1 But our sense of surprise will entirely disappear when we remember that what the Churches of the day were particu- larly interested in was the preservation of the purity of their doctrine against the assaults of heretics, and the maintenance of the unity of the local Churches against disruption, and especially against disruption into separate gatherings for the Eucharist. Against these dangers, no better safeguard could be found than the establishment of one official in each Church as the centre of all activity, as the official guardian of the teaching and the chief Eucharistic authority. Thus, the whole tendency of the day was in favour of Episcopacy, apparently without even a single current of opposition. And so, to the writers of that age, the change, while still in 1 See Studien und Kritiken, 1890, p. 651 f. THE EPISCOPATE 153 progress, was so natural and reasonable that it did not impress itself upon their imaginations nor arouse much comment. The new order of things was already established before the contrast with earlier arrangements was con- sciously felt. Only a later generation could perceive the vastness of the change. II But before proceeding further, it is necessary to define what we mean by '. Episcopacy '. What constitutes the essence of the Episcopate ? In the New Testament, ' bishop ' and ' presbyter ' are practically interchangeable terms, used to designate a number of equal officers who stand at the head of each local Church without any superior over them. 1 This is one end of the process of change. What is the other ? Two answers are possible : (1) We may say that Episcopacy is established when ' Bishop ' means one who has the power of ordination, while ' presbyter ', as distinguished from ' Bishop ', means one who has not this power. (2) We may say that the essence of the change is accomplished when the term ' Bishop ' is used to designate one officer who appears at the head of each local Church, and has a number of ' presbyters ' under him, though the power of ordination was not necessarily confined to him. To put the matter briefly, we may make the differentia of the Episcopate to be either the power of ordination, or what we may be allowed to call, for lack of a better term, ' monarchy ', the rule or leadership of a single officer in the management or control of Church affairs. Now this is a distinction which, for the greater part of Church history, it is quite unnecessary to point out, because, with the possible exception of a few cases in this earliest period, the ' Bishops ' have been the chief rulers in each locality, and also the sole possessors of the power of ordaining. But if we find a Church in which several officers are acknowledged to possess the power of ordination, and yet one of them is supreme over the rest in matters of government, then the one chief officer is a ' Bishop ' in the 1 See Appendix, Note ii. 154 THE EPISCOPATE monarchical sense, though not in respect to the exclusive possession of the right to ordain. And such a condition of affairs would imply a break in the transmission of authority from the Apostles, only where the many officers, who were not called ' Bishops ', but yet possessed power to ordain, had received no authority to ordain from the Apostles and their delegates. It would be a waste of time to ask which is the correct definition of ' Bishop ' ; for there is no court to which appeal can be made to decide the correct use ; the important thing is that the student should understand clearly which sense is meant in each particular case. If we wish to study the development of constitutional practice in the Church, it would be well to make monarchy the test ; but if we wish to observe the succession of appointment in the ministry, it will be well to keep the power of ordination in view as well. In this latter case, the main object will be to discover whether clergy were ordained always by those who were known to have received Apostolic authority to ordain, or whether this was considered unnecessary. The principle of Apostolic authority in ordination is not really affected by the mere use of one ecclesiastical title rather than another ; we must look beneath the names to principles ; it is only when principles have become inextricably associated with titles that we can be content with names alone ; this was not the case in the period of Church history now under examination. There are two main points to be investigated the date and the causes of the Episcopate. In connexion with the former, at least, it will be well to study the history of both the ' monarchy ' and the right of ordination. When this has been done, it will be possible to discuss intelligently the relation of the Bishop's power of ordination to Apostolic authority. Ill With regard, then, to the date of the Episcopate, we may begin with the East and the Epistles of St. Ignatius (c. A. D. 117). Here we clearly have the monarchical Episco- THE EPISCOPATE 155 pate. And here again, since nothing pertaining to the Church is to be done apart from the Bishop, it is most improbable that ordination was performed without the Bishop. 1 And this may be supported by another considera- tion. In New Testament times we find in each of these Churches a group of presbyters without any mention of a single Bishop, and the celebration of the Eucharist seems to have belonged to them. But in the days of St. Ignatius monarchical Bishops were firmly established ; hence the right of presbyters to preside at the Eucharist must have been exercised subject to his control or permission. ' Let that be held a valid Eucharist which is under the Bishop or one to whom he shall have entrusted it '. 2 Hence there is here a limitation imposed upon the presbyters. Now what- ever conditions made this limitation advantageous would also make it of even more importance that the right to create presbyters, the right to give authority to celebrate the Eucharist, should be confined to the one central authority. Hence it would seem probable that from the moment when the single monarchical Bishop was established, no one else ever presided at ordinations. Of course, the right of ordina- tion may have been confined to the Bishop from the be- ginning, but it is not impossible that some, or even all, of the presbyters had received authority to ordain before the monarchical Bishop was appointed ; in the latter case, however, the right was not exercised by the presbyters after the Bishop appeared. There is no evidence that the presby- ters had received such authority, but there is also no proof that they had not. If they did not receive it, then we have here in the East the Episcopate in both senses, monarchical and ordaining. If they did receive it, then we must suppose that, as time went on and new presbyters were ordained, these new presbyters were appointed with limited powers, i.e. minus the right of ordination, and that thus the establish- ment of the ordaining Episcopate came a little later than that of the monarchical. But ought we to place the Episcopate in these Churches at a date yet earlier than St. Ignatius and trace it back to 1 See passim, but especially ad Smyrn. c. viii. 2 Smyrn. c. viii. 156 THE EPISCOPATE the Apostles, and especially to St. John ? The letters of St. Ignatius are evidence of the existence of the Episcopate as an institution well established in this part of the world in the second decade of the second century. Its first appearance must have taken place some years earlier ; probably before the close of the first century. If we accept the tradition of the long residence of St. John in Asia Minor, it is hardly likely, as Lightfoot says, that so important an institution should have grown up without his sanction. 1 To this Irenaeus 2 lends support when he says that Polycarp was appointed by Apostles to be Bishop of Smyrna. The tradition first meets us in plain words in Tertullian, 3 who says : ' The sequence of Bishops traced back to its origin will be found to rest on the authority of John.' We find it again more explicitly in Clement of Alexandria, 4 who remarks that when the Apostle John returned to Ephesus from the Isle of Patmos, ' he went away, being invited to the adjacent territories of the nation, here to appoint Bishops, there to establish whole Churches, and there to ordain those who were signified by the Spirit.' There seems to be little reason why this evidence should be rejected. 5 The evidence for Rome and the West is fortunately a little more clear. In New Testament times ' bishop ' and ' pres- byter ' are clearly interchangeable terms ; 6 there is no mention of a right or power of ordination. But by the date of St. Clement's letter to the Corinthians (A. D. 96), this element of ordination is introduced. The Apostles, he says, ' appointed the aforesaid persons and afterwards gave a further injunction . . . that other approved men should succeed to their ministration.' 7 Some persons must have received this injunction and acted upon it. Is the term ' Bishop ' then applied to them and them alone ? Have we here Bishops in the ordaining sense ? By no means. There is still no change in the use of the word ; ' bishop ' is still synonymous with ' presbyter ' and is not yet directly placed in connexion with ordination. The only persons said to 1 Phil. p. 206. 2 Adv. Haer. iii c. 3, 4. 3 Adv. Marc, iv 5. 4 Quis Dives Salv. c. xlii. 6 See Lightfoot, Phil, pp. 212-14. 6 See Appendix, Note ii. ' See c. xliv. THE EPISCOPATE 157 appoint elders are called indefinitely ' men of repute ' (eXXoyiftoi dvSpes). At this moment, then, there were ' Bishops ', neither in the monarchical nor in the ordaining sense. In line with this is the consideration that no single Bishop of Rome is mentioned by St. Ignatius. Not much weight, however, must be attached to this consideration, for it has been claimed by different writers to favour both the views that there was, and that there was not, a single Bishop at Rome at this time. Dr. Loofs l urges that the explanation of St. Ignatius' silence is that he knew personally the Bishops of the other Churches which he addresses, but not the Bishop of Rome. Dr. Sohm, also, has argued that if there had been no single Bishop at Rome, St. Ignatius must have mentioned it. 2 On the other hand, Dr. Wordsworth 3 regards the silence of St. Ignatius as making for the absence of a single Bishop. It has already been noticed that St. Ignatius had a very fair acquaintance with the character and doings of the Roman Church, and it was pointed out that if the same principles which he wished to preserve by the Episcopate were guaranteed at Rome by the presbyter-bishops, there is little reason why he should mention the absence of the single Bishop. On the whole, then, we must incline to think that the silence of St. Ignatius tends to show that the single Episcopate was not yet developed at Rome. The evidence of the Shepherd of Hermas, again, is claimed by both sides. The date of the Shepherd is much disputed ; but the general consensus of opinion seems to place it, in accordance with the evidence of the Muratorian Fragment, in the episcopate of Pius, shortly before the middle of the second century. 4 It is scarcely necessary to discuss the trend of the evidence of the Shepherd at great length. Suffice it to say that the book cannot be claimed as sup- porting a well-developed monarchical Episcopate. If the 1 Studien und Kritiken, 1890, p. 658. 2 Kirchenrecht, p. 169. 3 Ministry of Grace, pp. 125-7. 4 See Langen, Gesch. der Rom. Kirche, pp. 125-30 ; Sohm, Kirchenrecht, p. 172 ; Harnack, Die Lehre der Zwolf Apostel, p. 100 ; Lindsay, The Church and the Ministry, p. 74 ; Wordsworth, Ministry of Grace, p. 126. 158 THE EPISCOPATE Episcopate did exist, it was not in the clearly defined outline of later days. 1 The most which can be said is that in the ambition of those who occupy the ' chief seats ', 2 we find evidence that a ' change in Church government was in process of accomplishment '. 3 This view of the late date of the appearance of the single Bishop at Rome is supported by one or two minor considera- tions. St. Irenaeus appears to have sometimes used the terms ' bishop ' and ' presbyter ' as substitutes for each other. 4 In the Canons of Hippolytus (c. A.D. 200), again, there is still some looseness. One of ' the bishops and presbyters ' is to be chosen to lay on hands in ordination. In view of the fact that these Canons confine the power of ordination to Bishops, we may see in this a relic of the time when the two titles were applied to the same officers. So, too, the similarity in the forms of ordination for a Bishop and for a presbyter, which differ only in the use of their respective titles in the accompanying prayer (Canon IV, 32), is well explained, if, up till comparatively recent times, there had been no sharp distinction between a single Bishop and all other presbyters. Again, as is well known, there are remarkable variations in the different catalogues of the early Roman bishops, especially in the cases of Linus, Anacletus, and Clement. If this view of the late date of Episcopacy at Rome be adopted, we have an excellent explanation of these varia- tions. The fact probably is that all three presided over the Church at much the same time, all were at the same time Bishops or presbyter-bishops, according to the point of view from which we look at them. A generation which took the right of ordination as the differentia of the Episcopate could call them ' Bishops ' with perfect loyalty to the truth. Hege- sippus 5 says that when he visited Rome, he ' made out a succession ' (AiaSo^v eTroirja-dfiriv). Does this mean that he selected certain names from among those who had 1 Cf. Langen, op. cit., p. 125. ! Vis. iii 9, 7 and Sim. viii 7, 6. 8 Wordsworth, p. 127, see also Loning, Gemeindeverfassung, pp. 94-5. 4 Cf. Haer. iii 14, 2. 8 Ap. Bus., H. E. iv 22. THE EPISCOPATE 159 been known both as bishops and as presbyters, and had put them in order so as to show a succession ? Finally, the tradition of a succession of Bishops at Rome does not meet us until after the middle of the second century, in Hegesippus and Irenaeus. It would therefore seem probable that the monarchical Episcopate at Rome was the result of a gradual process of change which went on during the early middle of the second century. During this period certain causes, which are discussed below, were at work making it highly expedient to have a single officer at the head of each Church, and hence the monarchical Bishop. After the monarchical Episcopate has been firmly established, all other clergy would naturally be ordained with limited powers, i.e. minus the right of ordina- tion. Thus, the presbyters soon became differentiated from the Bishop by losing whatever rights of ordination they had once possessed ; and so the ordaining Episcopate followed hard upon the monarchical. 1 By the end of the second century the change was complete, and the single Bishop appears not only as monarch, but also as sole ordainer. To this last point testimony is borne by the Canons of Hippolytus, although, as has been seen, there was still some looseness in the use of ' bishop ' and ' pres- byter ' in these Canons. In Canon IV we read : ' The Bishop is in all respects equal to a presbyter save in the title of the throne and ordination, for the power of ordaining is not given to him ' (i. e. to the presbyter). 2 Our general conclusion with regard to Rome, then, is that the monarchical Episco- pate was the result of a process which went on chiefly in the early middle of the second century, and that the ordaining Episcopate appeared soon after, and was fully established by the end of the century. The case of the Church of Alexandria must also be briefly examined. The relative passages are in (1) Eutychius, a Uniate Patriarch of Alexandria in the tenth century ; 3 (2) Severus, the monophysite Patriarch of Antioch of the 1 Cf. Langen, op. cit., pp. 82, 89. 2 In Achelis, Die Canones Hippolyti., in Texte und Untersuchungen, vi4. 3 Cf. Lightfoot, Phil., p. 229. 160 THE EPISCOPATE first half of the sixth century ; 1 (3) Jerome ; 2 (4) the Apo- thegms of the Fathers, parts of which go back to the second half of the fourth century. 3 Jerome says that at Alexandria, from the days of St. Mark down to Heraclas and Dionysius (A. D. 233-65), the presbyters used always to appoint as Bishop one chosen out of their number and place him upon the higher grade, as if an army were electing its general, or deacons were electing from themselves one whom they knew to be a hard worker and were calling him archdeacon. ' For what,' he asks, ' does a bishop do, which a presbyter does not do, with the excep- tion of ordination ? ' The Apothegms relate a story of how certain heretics came to Poemen, an Egyptian hermit of the second half of the fourth century, and criticized the Archbishop of Alex- andria as having received ordination from presbyters. Unfortunately, Poemen refused to discuss the matter with them. It has been pointed out by Dr. Gore, 4 that the Archbishop whom the heretics criticized was probably Athanasius, who was beyond doubt ordained by Bishops. The earliest evidence for ordination by clergy known as ' presbyters ' thus breaks down completely ; and Dr. Gore suggests that the words of the heretics were simply an Arian slander invented to undermine the influence of Athanasius. Mr. C. H. Turner has now carried this a step further and suggests that this same Arian invention was the source of Jerome's information. ' Jerome, writing amid Syrian surroundings, would eagerly accept the there current presentation of the Alexandrian tradition (due to Arian literature and influence), though his knowledge of the later facts caused him to throw back the dates from the known to the unknown, from Athanasius to Dionysius and Heraclas.' 5 1 His statement is published by E. W. Brooks, in Journal of Theological Studies, ii 612 f. 2 Ep. cxlvi 1. 3 Butler, in Texts and Studies, vi 208-14. 4 J. T. 8. iii 280 ; cf. also Darwell Stone, op. cit. 43-4. 5 Cambridge Mediaeval History, i 161. Mr. Turner thinks that the Alexandrine presbyters must have possessed some unusual powers in the appointment of the patriarch, but that it is as likely that these were powers THE EPISCOPATE 161 This consideration must tend to lower the estimation in which Jerome's testimony has usually been held. Moreover, there still remains the argument advanced by Dr. Gore 1 that Origen, who, of course, had the best opportunities of knowing what customs prevailed at Alexandria during the period to which Jerome's statement applies, shows no acquaintance with a practice of ordination by ' presbyters '. If the evidence of Jerome is open to serious doubt, the testimony of Severus and Eutychius, when thus deprived of support from earlier sources, cannot carry much weight. There appears, therefore, to be little reason to think that the practice of the Alexandrian was essentially different from that of other Churches. 2 IV What causes were responsible for the appearance of a Bishop distinct from presbyters ? In this part of our inquiry it is less necessary to keep in mind the distinction between the ' ordaining ' and the ' monarchical ' capacities of the Bishops, because much the same set of causes operated in both cases. And besides, as was said above, once the administration of local Church affairs was put in the hands which elsewhere belonged to the people as that they were the powers which elsewhere belonged to the bishops. 1 J. T. 8., iii 278-82. * Cf. also Gore, The Church and the Ministry, pp. 134-44, 357-63 ; Wordsworth, op. cit., pp. 134-41. Some support for Jerome's statement has been found in the thirteenth Canon of the Council of Ancyra (A. D. 314). According to the reading adopted by Lightfoot (Phil. 232 f.) and others this Canon forbids city-presbyters to ordain without written permission from the Bishop. Xo>pe7ricrK07j-ois pf] e^elvai irpfcrftvTfpovs rj 8ia.Kot>ovs \fipo- rovf'iv dXXa prjbe irpfa-fivrepois TrdXews . Mr. R. B. Rackham, however, has made a careful study of the manuscripts of these Canons, and gives good reason for thinking that the true reading is dXXa fj.f)v p.r]8e Trpevfivrfpovs TrdXe&j?, and this means, as Mr. Rackham explains it, that country bishops may not ordain presbyters or deacons in another diocese (reading / ire pa irapoiKiq instead of iv endo-Ty napoudq with Lightfoot), nor even town-presbyters (in their own districts), without the written consent of the bishop of the 770X1? to which their country districts (x&pai) were attached (Studio, Biblica et Ecdesiastica, iii. 149, 187-93). This interpretation of Rackham's text, how- ever, is not entirely free from difficulty ; cf. Stone, op. cit., pp. 41 and 48. HAMILTON n 162 THE EPISCOPATE of a single Bishop, there would be a natural tendency to restrict the power of ordination to him also ; for if before this time authority to ordain had been given to men known as ' presbyters ', yet after this, all ' presbyters ' would be ordained without that authority. Many have been the causes suggested to explain why the Episcopate became the universal rule. The dominant conditions, however, appear to have been these. The Church of the second century was threatened with peculiar, and what may well have appeared to be at the time, appalling dangers. The brilliance of the Gnostic teachers, their eloquence, their education, their unbounded self-confidence, the seeming depth of their thought and their boasted stores of hidden knowledge, all tended to make the comparatively simple Christian teachers appear at a disadvantage. Since the Gnostics claimed to have special sources of information about the teaching of Christ, the task of the Church was to reassure her members as to what the teaching of Jesus and His Apostles really was. The need for a single definite and authoritative source of Christian doctrine in each locality was never more apparent. This was probably the strongest influence making towards Episcopacy. But there were others also. Differences in doctrine led to separate gather- ings. There was a danger lest local Churches should dissolve into separate groups, each with its own teacher and its own peculiarities of doctrine. The great corrective of this was the common meeting of all Christians for the Eucharist, where the doctrine of the Bishop could be expounded to all. It was, therefore, of especial importance that no irregular meetings of the Eucharist should be held without the know- ledge of the central authorities ; hence the advantage of placing one individual in special charge over the Eucharist, as the centre of the unity of the Churches. As Dr. Lindsay says, ' Probably the main impulse came from the pressure of temptation intellectual and moral and persecution. One man could take a stronger grip against both.' 1 And for this reason also it was well to restrict the right to ordain elders to the central authority. 1 Op. cit., r p. 206. THE EPISCOPATE 163 Sir William Ramsay has urged that the correspondence with other Churches resulted in making one officer appear as the representative of the whole. 1 A central head of the financial system may also have been an advantage. 2 The decay of the Charismata, again, tended to strengthen the position of the local ministry and that of the Bishop as the centre of all. 3 Although this applies particularly to the West and the second century, yet it will be quite clear to even a casual reader that it is to guard against just such dangers of dissolution into groups and uncertain variations of teaching that St. Ignatius so vehemently upholds the monarchical Bishop and his Clergy. The date of the original establish- ment of the Episcopate in these Churches could not have been so much earlier than the date of St. Ignatius' letters, as to make it unreasonable to assume that much the same considerations which made St. Ignatius support the single Bishop when established were also responsible for the original introduction of Episcopacy. The Gnosticism which reached its acme in the second century was already current hi an incipient but dangerous form in Asia Minor at an earlier date. Alexandria, again, was the very home of Gnostic thought. Hence the causes which resulted in the general acceptance of the Episcopate were much the same in all the Churches throughout the world. If the Bishops of Asia were appointed by St. John, this does not place them upon a higher level than, or upon a different basis from, the Bishops of Rome or Alex- andria. In both cases, much the same set of causes was at work ; the only difference was that in the East this set of 1 Church in the Roman Empire, p. 364. * Hatch, Diet. ofChr. Ant. ii 1702. 3 See Harnack, Die Lehre der Z. A., pp. 109, 110, and Expansion of Christianity, vol. i, pp. 430-3. Dr. Harnack's views on this subject are different from those given above, because of his refusal to regard the terms ' bishop ' and ' presbyter ' as synonymous in the New Testament. For further discussion see Loofs, Studien und Kritiken, 1890, pp. 651-4 ; Lulling, Qemeindeverf. pp. 138-43 ; Sohm, Kirchenrecht, pp. 177-9 ; Robinson, Enc. Bib. s. v. ' Bishops ', i 583 ; Weizsacker, Apostolic Age, ii 336 ; Harnack, Hist, of Dogma, i 214 ; Langen, Oesch. der Rdm. Kirche, i 96, 98 ; Schmiedel, Enc. Bib., s. v. ' Ministry ', 49-52. M 2 164 THE EPISCOPATE causes came into operation at an earlier date within the lifetime of the Apostle St. John than was the case in other Churches. Had the same causes operated with the same force in the West within the lifetime of St. Peter or St. Paul, we would probably have had the same result a single Bishop in each Church in the West as well. Here again, then, as in the case of the institution of presbyters, the motive for the development of the ministry was not a desire to conform to a set pattern, but the necessity of meeting the practical needs and requirements of the day. It will now be possible to discuss to advantage the relation between this right or power of ordination and Apostolic authority. The period to be examined has definite limits, though they are not the same for all Churches. The terminus a quo is fixed by the letter of St. Clement. It has been seen above that at the time of this letter ordination was, as a general rule, if not universally, performed by none but those on the line of Apostolic descent by those who were known to have Apostolic authority to appoint, i.e. by those who had received the ' further injunction ' of which St. Clement speaks, and had acted upon it. The terminus ad quern is fixed by the appearance of the single Bishop with sole right of ordination, though this did not take place in all Churches at the same time. The only question to be studied is whether, in the transition and change which took place between these two limits, we have any break with the Apostolic line of descent in the matter of ordination. If, during this period of change, no ordinations were performed except by those who were known to have authority from the Apostles to ordain, then there can be no doubt that the succession has been carried down from the Apostles to the present day ; for at the end of this period the very word ' Bishop ' means one who alone has the right of ordination, and that right was believed to have come from the Apostles. Hence, if these Bishops were on the line of Apostolic descent, the succession which proceeds from them must be so also. THE EPISCOPATE 165 It will be well to consider first the Churches of the East, then those of Rome and the West, and finally Alexandria. The silence of St. Ignatius on the subject of ordination has already been noticed. Ordination does not appear to have interested him ; but his attitude was seen to be quite consistent with the convincing evidence of St. Clement of Rome, that all clergy were appointed only by those who were themselves from the Apostles. St. Clement's evidence includes the East, because he was not conscious of the existence anywhere of any clergy who were not on the line of Apostolic descent ; and there is every reason to think that he knew what customs and conditions prevailed in the Eastern Church. Nothing which comes to us from the East itself contradicts this testimony ; on the contrary, we have, as was seen above, a strong tradition that the appointment of these Bishops was due to St. John. These Bishops appear here at such an early date as to leave only the very briefest interval between themselves and Apostles, if, indeed, we are not obliged to regard them as the very creation of Apostles. 1 Here, then, we find no ordinations except with Apostolic authority. With regard to Rome and the West, the evidence is equally clear, though the period of transition which it is necessary to study is longer, reaching down nearly to the middle of the second century. The lack of interest in ordination which has been observed in St. Ignatius is to be seen also in some of the chief western writers of the second century. The method of appointment did not deeply interest them ; what did interest them most intensely was the succession of office-bearers going back to the Apostles. They do not, however, explicitly state in what way or by what method of appointment one Bishop succeeded another ; 1 For later evidence, reference may be made to the Syriac Didaskalia (A. D. 200-250), which, though a little indefinite, speak of the presence of elders and Bishops at ordinations. (See c. iii, Mrs. Gibson's Translation in Horae Semiticae, No. ii, p. 11.) The Apostolic Constitutions (c. A. D. 400) in Bk. viii, c. 4, and the Arabic Didaskalia (A. D. 375-400) in c. xxxvi, both regard Bishops as the proper persons to ordaiii. See also Bingham's Antiquities, II, iii 5-7. 166 THE EPISCOPATE they are quite content to name them in order, saying that so- and-so came after so-and-so, but they do not, as a rule, say whether any one Bishop was ordained by other Bishops, or by presbyters, or by representatives of the congregation. Their writings seem to assume that ordination belongs to the clergy, especially to the Bishops, but they do not expressly state the fact. Hegesippus, who regards Apostles as the ultimate source of the succession of clergy, says that when he was in Rome (c. 150) he ' made out a succession down to Anicetus whose deacon was Eleutheros. And to Anicetus succeeds Soter, after whom Eleutheros, and in each succession and in each city, it is so as the law preaches and the prophets and the Lord '.* St. Irenaeus, again, speaks of ' successiones presby- terorum ', 2 ' successiones episcoporum ', 3 ' successio episco- patus ', 4 ' ab apostolis ecclesiae successio '. 5 His object was to show that there were definite links in the appointment of clergy leading directly back to the Apostles ; the manner in which the links were joined to each other was taken for granted. There is nowhere any direct reference to the method or minister of ordination in vogue in his own day ; yet it may be readily seen that he understood ordination to be confined to those who had authority from the Apostles. The Apostles, he says, appointed certain definite individuals, such as Polycarp at Smyrna 6 or Linus at Rome, 7 to whom they entrusted the Churches ; and if he does not mean that each succeeding Bishop received this trust in some way from his predecessors and handed it on to his successors, his idea of a ' successio ' is much reduced in meaning. This idea of a transmission of authority is expressed more definitely by Tertullian. In de Praescriptione, c. xli, he speaks of ordinations by heretics to the offices of Bishop, priest, and deacon ; he thus makes it clear that a definite ordination was usual. In c. xxxii he gives us an insight into the nature of ordination ; it should be performed by those who have been themselves ordained by men who can trace the succes- 1 Ap. Eus. H. E. iv 22 ; cf. iii 11. Adv. Haer. iii 2. 2. 3 Ibid, iii 3. 2 ; iv 33. 8, 4 Ibid, iv 26. 2. 3 Ibid, iv 26. 5. u Ibid., iii 3. 4. ' Ibid, iii 3. 3. THE EPISCOPATE 167 sion of their ordinations back to the Apostles. ' Let them produce the original records of the Churches ; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succes- sion from the beginning in such a manner that that first bishop of theirs shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the Apostles or Apostolic men who continued to the end in their fellowship. For this is the manner in which the Apostolic Churches transmit their registers ; as the Church of the Smyrnaeans relates that Polycarp was installed by John, as the Church of the Romans relates that Clement was ordained by Peter. So in like manner, the rest of the Churches exhibit the names of men appointed to the episcopate by Apostles, whom they possess as transmitters of the Apostolic seed.' The Clementine literature, reflecting the practice prevail- ing at the end of the second century, fully bears out this testimony, when St. Peter is described as appointing to be Bishops those upon whom he had laid his hands in the presence of the Church. Thus St. Peter is made to say, ' I lay hands upon this Clement as your bishop and to him I entrust my chair of discourse.' x There is, no doubt, a certain period for which no evidence is forthcoming. St. Clement's letter was written in A. D. 96 ; Hegesippus speaks to us from the middle of the next century. Yet the gap left is not wide enough to admit the possibility of a double change in between, such as a break in the Apostolic suc- cession would require. The Church would have had to forget the uncompromising attitude adopted at Rome in the days of St. Clement for a time long enough to allow a real break to take place ; then the idea of an Apostolic succes- sion would have had to be resuscitated again in time to allow all memory of the break to have completely passed away by the days of Hegesippus and Irenaeus. But this is surely impossible. When we come to the Church of Alexandria we find, that even if Jerome's testimony be admitted, yet the same principle is maintained. 1 Ep. Clem, ad lac. c. 2 ; cf. also c. 19 and Hoin. iii 63, 72 ; vii 5, 8, 12 ; xi 36 ; xx 23. 168 THE EPISCOPATE Let us try to understand exactly what Jerome means. He himself distinguishes ' Bishops ' from * presbyters ' by the power of ordination. ' For what does a Bishop do which a presbyter does not do, with the exception of ordination ? ' 1 He seems to want to tell us that the early practice of the Alexandrian Church was not that of his own day. Beginning from St. Mark, he says, the presbyters used to appoint as Bishop one chosen out of their own number. The analogy of deacons electing an archdeacon, which he adduces, makes it clear that no further ordination of the Bishop-elect by the presbyters was customary. Hence the Bishop so elected is not given any new powers with the title of Bishop ; the only difference is that he now begins, perhaps for the first time, to exercise a power which he already possessed in the days when he was called ' presbyter ' ; for it is scarcely possible that Jerome meant to assert that the presbyters in question were known to have received no authority to ordain, and yet had been wont to ordain, when given the title of ' Bishop '. Whether the ' Bishop ' exercised the power of ordination when still called ' presbyter ', we do not know ; but evidently the potentiality of exercising it resided in him at that time. This seems to be the force of the contrast which Jerome draws between the practice of the early Alexandrian Church, and that of his own time. His point is, that though known at the time, i.e. at the middle of the third century, as ' presbyters ', yet the Alexandrian clergy in question were recognized to possess at least a potential power of ordination ; hence the one called ' Bishop ' was a Bishop in the monarchical sense, but not in the sense that he alone had received the right of ordaining. This condition of things, he says, began in the days of St. Mark. There is therefore a change in the use of names, but no essential change of principle. From St. Mark these presbyters had, with the title ' presbyter ', received at least a potential authority to ordain. Let us look at the question in this way. The authority to celebrate the Eucharist is one thing ; the power to bestow that authority in the name of the Church is another. These 1 Ep. cxlvi. THE EPISCOPATE 169 two may be combined in the same person, or they may not, i.e. a man may have both, or he may have the first only. It appears from the discussion in the preceding chapters that in the earliest days the Apostles gave the first, and the first only, to certain individuals in each Church. These men came to be known both as ' presbyters ' and as ' bishops '. Afterwards, as St. Clement tells us, they gave a further injunction that others should succeed to the place of these presbyters when they were removed by death. 1 The persons who received this injunction and acted on it were in all probability already presbyters themselves. Hence these men now possessed both authority to preside at the Eucharist and power to bestow that authority on others. It is not impossible that, in some places, this additional power was given to all the presbyters. St. Jerome apparently means that this was so at Alexandria ; moreover, it seems probable that at Rome this power of ordination was given to at least more than one presbyter ; while in the Churches of the East it seems more likely that it was given to one only. In those Churches, however, in which the right was bestowed on more than one presbyter, it was soon found advisable to restrict it to one only. When this took place, the term 1 Bishop ' was everywhere, with the possible exception of Alexandria, appropriated to denote this class who alone possessed this power of ordaining, and at the same time ' presbyter ', as distinguished from ' Bishop ', came to mean one who had received no authority to ordain. Now if these points are admitted, it follows that in the Alexandrian practice, of which St. Jerome speaks, there is no real difference of principle involved, but merely one of names. The name ' presbyter ' was not confined in Alex- andria as early as it was elsewhere to those who possessed no authority beyond that of celebrating the Eucharist. Hence these ordinations can only be called ' presbyterian ' in the sense that they were performed by men who were called ' presbyters ', even though they had that Apostolic authority to ordain which later on became the mark of a ' Bishop '. Again, the fact that the restriction of the power of 1 Clein. ad Rom. cxliv. 170 THE EPISCOPATE ordination to one person only in each locality was enforced here at a later date than elsewhere merely means a different geographical distribution of those who have authority to appoint clergy. At the end of the first century some Churches have several of these men ; at the end of the second, each Church seems to have one only. There is no reason why they should stand in any fixed proportion either to population or to square miles of territory. As a matter of fact, the proportion always has and always will vary, for no essential principle is affected by it. It will be observed that the object in this discussion has been simply to determine historical fact, not to discuss the correctness of the values or significances which have been attached to these facts by various writers. The terms ' Apos- tolic succession ', ' Apostolic authority to ordain ', have been used to cover certain historical facts, without any attempt to determine what their true inward meaning is and what bearing they have upon the problem of Church unity. These points will be discussed in the chapters which follow. On looking back over the course of this discussion, certain points seem to stand out with some clearness. If we find that the same type of organization and the same official titles were developed throughout the local Churches, this was not because the Apostles set out with a preconceived idea of what the organization of a local Church ought to be. The truth lies in quite another direction. If a ministry came into existence, it was because some work vital to the life of the Church had to be performed. If that ministry became permanent, it was because the needs which called it into existence proved to be permanent. If the same type of ministry and the same titles prevailed in all the local Churches, it was because the same needs were felt by all local groups of Christians. The Eucharist was the one central feature of the Church's life which at once required a ministry, and called for permanent officials in every Church. The evidence shows that certain men in each Church were authorized by the Apostles to celebrate the Eucharist. Afterwards some of these were given authority THE EPISCOPATE 171 to empower others to break the bread and bless the cup. Thus these two classes of officers, known now and for many centuries before this as presbyters and Bishops, have come into existence in response to the needs of the life of the Church. Though no one was at the time conscious of the full scope and significance of what was going on, yet the Church did develop from the Apostles, as from the centre of her being, these two organs for the discharge of the functions necessary to her life. The ministry grew in silence, and men found themselves in possession of it before they began to inquire into what it meant. The process was analogous to that by which a living organism, without being fully con- scious of what it is doing, puts forth one by one the organs requisite for the performance of its vital functions. In a very real sense, the presbyterate is the organ of the Church for the celebration of the Eucharist, and the Episco- pate is the organ of the Church for the transmission of authority to thus represent the Church at the Eucharist. CHAPTERS IX-XIII THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH CHAPTER IX PROLEGOMENA IT is possible to think of a building in three different aspects. First : one may think of the material of which it is to be constructed the stone, bricks, wood, &c., which lie upon the ground, having as yet no relation to each other, but each standing in the same relation to one owner, and to his purpose in building. Again, one may think of the architect's plan, the ideal design according to which the material is to be built. Finally, one may think of the historical process of the erection of the building, the many stages of growth by which the material is worked up. If the workmen are clumsy and unskilful, the ideal will not be completely realized ; certain errors and mistakes will be built into the material structure ; the visible will fall short of the ideal. It is also possible to think of the Church in three aspects analogous to those just described. (1) We may think of the sum total of individual souls who, by accepting Jesus as Messiah and all that is involved hi this confession, are brought into a special relation to God and receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. One may exclude all idea of their relations to one another and consider them simply as a total, each bearing the same relation to Almighty God, and being endowed with the same Spirit. When the Church is viewed in this aspect, it is herein called the ' invisible Church '. The use of the adjective 'invisible' is not particularly fortunate, for it is not used with any reference to the idea of a Church within the Church ; nor is it meant that the individual souls are not marked off visibly from the rest PROLEGOMENA 173 of the world by the outward mark of Baptism. But the word ' invisible ' is used, first because the essence of the Church in this aspect is an invisible relation between God and the individual soul ; second, because the Church in this aspect is never seen in its entirety, each generation sees only a small proportion of the whole. ' The invisible Church ' is a term used here to cover the conception of the sum total of those who bear the same invisible relation to God, into which they are introduced at Baptism ; it leaves out of consideration all thought of the organic relation between individuals. (2) When the idea of the relations between the individuals who compose the invisible Church is introduced, we view the Church in another aspect. The supreme law of that relation is love. When this law is fully and completely realized, then the condition of the Church cannot be im- proved, it is in its ideal state. But unfortunately, owing to the frailty of man, this law of love is not fully realized. Hence there is an ideal of what the Church ought to be, but unfortunately is not. This, then, is another aspect in which the Church may be studied the ideal design of what the Church ought to be. To this aspect the name ' ideal Church ' is given. It is obviously of the utmost importance to study the Church in this aspect, for this is the pattern which it is man's duty to strive to realize, this is the goal towards which it is God's will that man should direct his conduct. To follow this out in all its f ulhiess would require a working out of the law of love in all the relations of human life. But this is beyond the purpose of the present inquiry, which is to consider the organic structure, i.e. the ministry of the Church. Hence the main task is to study the opera- tion of the law of love in its bearing upon the various departments of work which the Church has to perform, the various functions which constitute her life and work in the world. (3) Once more, one may consider the Church as it develops in the course of time, the various stages of its growth and history. To this aspect the name ' visible Church ' is given. 174 PROLEGOMENA It is of some importance to have these aspects of the Church distinguished, for otherwise thought may become confused. For instance, if one were to say, ' the Church is not an organic whole,' one would be expressing what is true both of the invisible Church and of the visible Church of to-day, but what is not true, as will be seen later on, of the ideal Church. Again, it must be remembered that it is not claimed that these definitions of the ' invisible ' or the ' ideal ' Church are the final and only definitions possible. These two terms are merely used for convenience' sake as labels to distinguish certain conceptions. We have a conception of a vast number of individuals throughout all time and all space who have in common the same relation to Almighty God. For this conception, the label ' invisible Church ' is chosen. Again, we may find a conception of what the organization of Christendom to-day would be, if all Christians followed the will of God without the slightest deviation. For this con- ception, the label ' ideal Church ' is appropriated. Finally, for the actual state of Christendom at any given moment of its historic development, the label ' visible Church ' is selected. Thus it will be clearly seen that these terms do not cover three conceptions of three different things, but rather three conceptions of the same thing in three different aspects. The ' invisible ' Church consists of all those who worship the one true God and have received His Holy Spirit ; and since there is but one Spirit, there can be but one sphere in which He is present. Of the ' visible ' Church of the Apostolic Age something has already been said in what precedes. It now remains to discuss what the Church ought to be in respect of the relations of organization subsisting between its members. II The question at once arises, how and where can one find this ideal ? To what court can one appeal to settle the question as to what Church organization ought to be ? Is there any ought in the matter at all ? There is, of course, PROLEGOMENA 175 the appeal to history, and especially to the history of the Apostolic Age. But this, even if the evidence were far more abundant and decisive than it is, surely cannot be set up as a final authority. One would not expect to find that the history of the Church violates the will of God from end to end, or that it nowhere reflects the mind of Christ ; somewhere or other, at some period or other, the true principles of Church organization are, we may be quite sure, exemplified in actual fact ; and this is perhaps more likely to be true of the Apostolic than of any other age. But while one may rightly expect to find the truth exempli- fied, and that even on a large scale, can one be quite sure, even of the Apostolic Age, that it contains no element of human error, and no element of temporary adaptation to transient conditions ? Can one take even the Apostolic Age and say that this, just as it stands, represents, in all its facts and details, just what the Church ought to be in every succeeding generation ? Surely, we need something to enable us to distinguish between those Apostolic arrange- ments which ought to be permanent and those which were intended to be temporary, to be mere accommodations to the special circumstances and conditions of the day ? But how are we to distinguish between these two ? Only by having some principle in hand before we approach the Apostolic Age. And this becomes still more clear when one recollects that the aim of the Apostles in introducing such organic dispositions as they did make was not to follow out the lines of a preconceived system, nor to establish precedents of universal obligation, but to meet the needs and demands of the moment. Clearly, then, it is a reason- able question to ask, ought we to repeat the arrangements of the Apostolic Age, or to follow the Apostolic practice in adapting our arrangements to suit the requirements of our own age ? Now this question cannot be answered without some thought and reflection. It is obvious that the Scriptures contain no cut-and-dried scheme of government for the Church. From this some minds would at once jump to the conclusion that there are no principles or conditions of 176 PROLEGOMENA universal obligation in Church organization ; but in a matter of such vital moment it is both worth while and also a real duty to examine all the relevant facts and considerations with patience and care, in order to see whether some decisive answer to our problem may not be elicited from them, even though that answer may not lie upon the surface. We know that the Christ expected His Church to do a certain work in the world and that He gave His followers a religious ceremony to perform in memory of Himself. Is it possible that this work can be done as He intended it should be done, by a society united by the bonds of mutual love, without requiring certain definite structural relations be- tween the members of the Church ? Is there any deep- lying principle in the teaching of Jesus or in the rites He instituted which ought to be manifested outwardly by some permanent arrangements in Church organization ? It is from this point of view that the whole question must be approached. For, after all is said and done, the only thing which can bind the consciences of Christians is a principle rooted in the moral law and fundamental purposes of God as revealed by Jesus. No institution which cannot be shown to be grounded in the mind and purposes of the Messiah can rightly claim to be a matter of duty for all. The appeal to history may be used to check the results obtained by an inquiry pushed forward on these lines. For if there is any principle of permanent obligation in the matter, we may rightly expect to find that principle illus- trated in Church history on a large scale, and especially in the history of the Apostolic Age. Ill Our present task, then, is to inquire what organic rela- tions ought to subsist between the members of the Church according to the mind of Christ. Let us then begin by calling to mind the data from which we have to work. Jesus certainly intended that all who could be induced to do so before His Coming in glory should acknowledge His Messianic claims and accept the Messianic salvation which PROLEGOMENA 177 He offered. Of this salvation assurance was given by the consciousness of the presence of the Holy Spirit in the believer's heart. And the believer, in his turn, was to confess Jesus publicly in Baptism and thus publicly unite himself to the fellowship of Christians. This fellowship or Church of Jesus was to be essentially a working body, a missionary force, inspired and supported by the Spirit of God to bring the knowledge of God and of His Messianic salvation home to all mankind. Again, all those who thus put their trust in Jesus are to join in a solemn religious rite of a social character, the breaking of the bread in memory of the Lord Jesus. The great moral principle which is to govern the relations between all the members of the Church is the principle of love. Our task, then, is to think out how this law of love will affect the organic relations of individual Christians to each other as they endeavour, under conditions of space and time, to carry on their work of bearing witness to Jesus the Messiah. This does not appear to be an altogether easy task. And it may seem at first difficult to see from what point one ought to start or where one can grasp at anything solid. It will be well, then, to try to think out our position slowly and carefully, scrutinizing at the outset the various terms of which use must be made. HAMILTON II CHAPTER X UNITY THE first term to be discussed is unity. Four different senses of the word are to be distinguished. (1) There is what may be called an * arithmetical unity '. The moment mind applies itself to the particular members of a species, each member becomes marked off with an individuality of its own, so that when any one is before the mind, and any other member is considered at the same time, we do not speak of ' one ' but of ' two '. Thus, the pen I now hold in my hand, regarded in relation to any other pen, is * one ' pen ; another pen, in relation to it, is thought of as a * second ' pen ; and when both are considered together, we speak of ' two ' pens. Unity of this kind is a postulate of all thought, necessary to every train of reasoning. It is the unity which is predicable of the different members of the same species, considered, in relation to each other. (2) A second kind of unity is the unity of God. This differs from the first in that (a) it denies the existence of a species of which the subject under consideration may be regarded as a member ; there is no ' second ' of the same kind ; (6) it asserts that there is no existence outside this unity. * The unity of God is not an accidental, it is much more than a mere arithmetical unity. It is not merely the negation of dualism. It is the unity of all-comprehensiveness. It is the unity of inherent self-completeness. The unity is a positive, a necessary, an inherent quality of the essence.' l It would thus be impossible to predicate unity of any other object of thought in this sense, because God alone is all- comprehensive. In so far, however, as we consider this sense of the word as merely negating duality, and not asserting all-comprehensiveness, we may predicate it of other 1 R. C. Moberly, Ministerial Priesthood, p. 6. UNITY 179 things. And whenever absolute unity is thus predicated of any object in this limited sense, it must imply the denial of the existence of a species of which the phenomenon in question is a member ; it asserts the absolute uniqueness of the object that it is sui generis. (3) But it is quite a different kind of unity which we mean when we speak of ' organic unity '. The term ' organic whole ' or ' unity of organization ' is predicable of any whole the parts of which are set aside to perform special functions. ' Let me say in what sense I have used the words "organic nature". ... I have used them almost as an equivalent to the word " living ", and for this reason, that in almost all living beings you can distinguish several distinct portions set apart to do particular things and work in a particular way. These are termed " organs ", and the whole together is termed " organic ".' * ' This division of labour ... is that which in the society, as in the animal, makes it a living whole.' 2 ' So long as all parts of a society have like natures and activities, there is hardly any mutual dependence, and the aggregate scarcely forms a vital whole.' 3 To say of any object that it possesses organization is to say that its various parts are set aside to perform different duties in the interests of the whole. ' Along with the advance of organization, every part more limited in its office, performs its office better . . . each aids all and all aid each with increasing efficiency, and the total activity we call "life " augments.' 4 (4) But things which have no interchange of service or function between each other may also be said to compose a single whole. So many individuals when grouped together form a crowd ; so many grains of wheat make a bushel ; so many pieces of coal are found in a ton's weight ; so many sticks are contained in a single faggot. This seems to be a collective unity. An indefinite number of things taken together may be said to form a single whole when they are sufficiently uniform with each other to be included 1 Huxley, Six Lectures to Working Men, Lecture 1, 1863, 2 H. Spencer, Principles of Sociology, 217. 3 Ibid. 270, Ibid. 237, N2 180 UNITY under one class name ; or, in other words, things which present certain uniformities with each other may generally be said to form a single collective group in virtue of those uniformities. II And now to show the bearing of these distinctions upon the subject in hand. The word ' Church ' is used with two denotations (a) a local body of Christians, (6) the whole number of the baptized, including all wherever and when- ever they may exist. In the former sense, the word has a plural, and hence arithmetical unity may be applied to it. Again, all Christians are uniform with each other in that all serve a common Lord, hold a common faith, have been ' sealed ' by the same Spirit, and worship the same God. In virtue of these uniformities they may be grouped together apart from the rest of the world and thought of as a collective whole. And to that whole the word ' Church ' is commonly applied. Hence we may predicate a collective unity of the Church in respect of the one Lord, one faith, one baptism, which are common to all individual Christians. And more than this. This collective whole corresponds to the one Spirit and the one Lord. ' There is one body, and. one Spirit, even as also ye were called in one hope of your calling ; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all ' (Eph. iv 4-6). St. Paul is here comparing certain things in respect of unity. The Church, he says, is one as God is one. We can no more conceive of the destruction of this unity, than we can imagine the destruc- tion of the unity of God. This absolute unity denies the possibility of a second Messianic Israel, a second Church of which men might become members. ' In one Spirit, were we all baptized into one body ' (1 Cor. xii 13). Because there is only one God, His worshippers, taken as a collective whole, form a body to which there can be no second. In days gone by the Jews alone worshipped the true God, but since the coming of the Messiah this peculiar privilege has passed over to the followers of the Messiah. Hence the new Israel, the Church, possesses a unity which cannot be UNITY 181 broken, unless indeed the purpose of God fails and men cease to worship Him at all. This kind of unity belongs to the ' invisible ' Church as well as to the ' visible ' ; for it is always realized in fact, no matter what men may say or do. What, then, of organic unity ? There is one duty our Lord pressed home upon the Apostles with some emphasis. It is that of rendering service to one another : ' He that is the greater among you, let him become as the younger : and he that is chief, as he that doth serve. For whether is greater, he that reclineth, or he that serveth ? Is not he that reclineth ? But I am in the midst of you as he that serveth ' (Luke xxii 26, 27). The meaning of the word for ' serving ' (SiaKoveco), which has been repeated by the other synoptists, 1 is not always satisfied by the performance of mere passing acts of courtesy and kindness ; it implies a more or less permanent relation of service, since SiaKovos is reinforced by SovXos in two of the passages (Matt, xx 27 ; Mark xi 44). Now if all are to render service to each other, there must be a diversity in the work performed ; for if each performs the same duty, how is exchange possible ? But if it is Christ's will that His followers should perform different services for each other's benefit, what is this but saying that the Church of Christ's intention possesses organization ? And this organization is not to be realized in several mutually exclusive and independent wholes ; it should be solid and united throughout. The interchange of service is not to be limited ; the brethren should not only be organized, but should be organized into one whole. Unity of organization is involved. Let us see the truth of this from another point of view. To His followers the Messiah committed the work of preach- ing the Gospel to the whole world ; He did not intend that these followers should labour in isolation, unknown to each other ; they are to be visibly distinguished from the sur- rounding world by the outward marks of baptism and confession of His Name, and they are to be linked together in the bond of mutual love ; they are to hold communion 1 See Matt, xx 26-7 ; xxiii 11 ; Mark ix 35 ; x 43-4 ; cf. John xiii 12-17. 182 UNITY with Him and with each other in the Eucharist : He knew that of themselves they could do nothing ; only through the gifts and graces supplied by the indwelling of His Holy Spirit, could the great work be carried on at all. Can we think, then, that a refusal to co-operate in the exercise of the gifts of the Spirit of love and peace is in accordance with the mind of Christ ? Apart from the fact that His followers will do their work much more efficiently by uniting in one well-organized whole, does not the supreme principle of love, the badge whereby the world is to know them as His followers, demand such harmonious co-operation ? When the gifts and graces given to individuals by the Holy Spirit are in view, St. Paul has no hesitation in ascribing unity of organization to the Church. ' For even as we have many members in one body, and all the members have not the same office ; so we, who are many, are one body in Christ, and severally members one of another ' (Rom. xii 4, 5). ' For as the body is one and hath many members, and all the members of the body, being many, are one body, so also is Christ ' (1 Cor. xii 12). Again, he tells the Ephesians to endeavour ' to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace ' (Eph. iv 3). He could scarcely have meant that any conduct of the Ephesian Christians could result in the existence of two Holy Spirits ; he was surely speaking of that unity which is the result of the Spirit's presence among men, whereby are received those differing gifts which enable Christians to be compacted into one articulated whole (of. Eph. iv 7-16). So also our Lord's prayer in John xvii is a prayer for guidance for the Church, guidance into that unity which is in accordance with the will of God a unity, therefore, which ought to be realized on earth, although, since it is made the subject of a prayer, its realization is apparently contingent upon the conduct of men. ' Neither for these only do I pray, but for them also that believe on me through their word ; that they all may be one : even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us ' (John xvii 20, 21). But, so far as one can see, the only kind of unity among Christians which is in any way dependent upon UNITY 183 human action is organic unity. It is difficult to think that St. Paul could try to persuade men not to allow a second post-Messianic Israel to come into being, or that our Lord should pray that the relations between God and believers should not be divided into two classes ; in both John xvii and Eph. iv 3 we are dealing with a unity which is con- ditioned by and dependent upon human conduct and the attitude which members of the same society take up towards each other. It is a unity of mutual love, sympathy, and co-operation in Christian work ; and this cannot be thought out apart from a unity of organization. There are, then, two chief kinds of unity predicable of the Church : an absolute unity which denies the possibility of a second sphere of the operation of the Spirit, a second body of worshippers of the one true God ; and an organic unity depending upon a mutual exchange of service on the part of the brethren. The former is predicable of the ' invisible ' and the ' visible ' Church, for it is always realized in fact. The latter is not true of the ' visible Church ', but is true of the ' ideal ' Church. This statement covers the New Testament doctrine of the unity of the Church in the sense that there is no spiritual, theological, moral, or essential unity which can serve as a substitute for either of these two unities, or which can ever find its expression apart from them. One sometimes finds it said that the unity of the Church is doctrinal and theological, but not practical ; depending upon the will of God, rather than upon any human con- duct. ' The unity of the universal Ecclesia ... is a truth of theology and of religion, not a fact of what we call ecclesiastical politics '^ The question is worth asking, what is a ' truth of theology ' ? Is it something altogether on a different level from human action, so that the two not merely never meet, but that the latter is not to be shaped, or in any way guided, by the former ? Human conduct, of course, cannot create or destroy a truth of theology ; but can we oppose a ' truth of theology ' to ecclesiastical politics in such a way as to assume that the former can 1 Hort, Christian Ecclesia, p. 168. 184 UNITY never be a pattern or a guide for the latter ? A theological truth is simply the expression in words of the will or the being of God. As applied to human conduct, the will of God falls into two divisions an absolute will expressing truth unalterable by anything that man can do or say, and a conditional will dependent for its realization in concrete fact upon the conformity of man's will with the will of God. Of the former class, there are such truths as that of the nature of God's own eternal existence, which is beyond the reach of man's action, and is always realized in fact despite the changing conditions of earth. In the second class stand all moral truths, all the duty of man to God. To the former class belongs the whole doctrine of the ' invisible ' Church and its absolute unity ; to the latter belongs the doctrine of the ' ideal ' Church and its organic unity. Hence the unity of the Church, considered as a truth of theology, cannot be placed in unqualified opposition to ' ecclesiastical politics ' ; for, in one sense, the unity of the Church always is a real fact, no matter what men say or do ; and in the other sense, the preservation of the unity of the Church is a duty of men to God. Again, it may be said that there is a unity spoken of in John xvii, which is not necessarily an organic unity at all, but a spiritual unity, an affair of heart and soul realized in a sphere above that of outward sense. ' That they may be one ; even as we are' (John xvii 11). In the first place, it must be asserted in the most emphatic terms that the unity of the Church is a spiritual fact, that its whole value and meaning lie in the unity and action of the Spirit of God. The absolute unity is a direct consequence of the fact that there is only one Spirit of God, and all who have been baptized in that Spirit are within the one sphere of the same Spirit's action. The organic unity of all Christians, again, is rendered possible by the presence of the Holy Ghost in the Church, who alone can divide to each those several gifts by the exchange of which organization is realized. We cannot oppose ' organic unity ' and ' spiritual unity ' when applied to the Church, as though they were mutually exclusive ; for just in so far as the Church is UNITY 185 permeated through and through with the presence of the Holy Spirit, will it be in a position to perfect its organization for the accomplishment of the work God has set it to perform and to realize its organic unity. Both the absolute and the organic unities of the Church may be termed ' spiritual unities ', for both depend directly upon the Spirit of God. Having made this point clear one may return to examine John xvii. * That they may be one, even as we are one ' (v. 22). The addition of the last clause, comparing the unity of Christians to the unity of the Persons in the God- head, certainly seems to warn us from endeavouring to speculate too far into its meaning. One or two points, however, may safely be noted, (a) The unity spoken of is to be realized in Christ and in God. Not only is it, ' as we are one ' : it is also, ' I in them and thou in me, that they may be perfected into one ' (John xvii 23). The unity of Christians must not be conceived of as a second unity formed upon the model of the Divine Unity : Christians are only one in so far as they are united to Christ and to God ' that they may all be one : even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us ' (John xvii 21). If it be not a unity in the Father and in the Son, the unity of Christians is meaningless, a name without a reality. Such a unity necessarily implies the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of individual Christians. (6) Yet it is not realized upon a plane altogether above the level of life on earth : it has some outward effects which are visible to the world. ' That the world may believe that thou didst send me ' (xvii 21) ; ' that the world may know that thou didst send me, and lovedst them, even as thou lovedst me ' (xvii 23). A result no less visible and tangible than the evangelization of the world is said to depend upon the realization of this unity. Now let us recollect (a) that the same presence of the Holy Spirit which, on the one side, is our union with the Father and the Son, on the other side, manifests itself outwardly by those gifts, graces, and good works whereby alone the Church is enabled to perform her duty of preaching the Gospel ; and (6) that unity with the Father and the Son 186 UNITY certainly implies a bond of mutual love between Christians : a love which cannot brook a refusal to co-operate with others in the exercise of any of the gifts supplied by the Spirit. When we recollect these points, it seems impossible to exclude organic unity from the unity spoken of in John xvii, whatever else it may include ; and of course it may include much else of which we now have no conception. In its God-ward aspect, this unity passes far beyond the reach of the human intellect : but in its earth-ward aspect an aspect quite as real it cannot be thought out apart from an outward unity of organization. It must not be thought, then, that because this unity is conditioned by the Holy Spirit's presence, it therefore transcends anything so mundane as organization ; it is precisely and only on account of that presence that organic unity is either possible or desirable. Again, theologians often speak of an ' essential ' or ' fundamental ' unity of all Christians, as though it were something lying behind all modern divisions and quite satisfying the New Testament idea of unity. 1 This term expresses a real truth, the truth that because God is one there can be but one Church. On the other hand, it does not exhaust the doctrine of the unity of the Church, nor does it do justice to the fullness of the New Testament idea of Christian unity. That idea requires another unity over and above this ' essential ' unity a unity of organization. Once more, one often finds it said that the Church is one because all its members hold to the same Lord, the same faith, and the same baptism ; and these are commonly called the ' notes ' of the Church's unity. This also expresses a truth. For all Christians are uniform in respect of the one Lord, one baptism, one God and Father of all ; and by virtue of this uniformity it is possible to speak of them as one collective whole. And since this collective whole is conditioned by a uniformity which is absolutely unique belief in the one Lord and possession of the one Spirit it is itself unique. Hence these ' notes ' are ' notes ' of the ' absolute ' or ' essential ' unity of the Church. But let us 1 See, for instance, Sanday, Conception of Priesthood, pp. UNITY 187 again beware of treating them as though they exhausted the full idea of the Church's unity. There is, or ought to be, an organic unity as well, created by the interchange of service according to the gifts given by the one Spirit to each man severally as He will. Finally, let us observe that unity is one thing and uni- formity is another. Uniformity in ritual and creed, i.e. that all should use the same methods of worship and hold to the same doctrinal formulas, may or may not be desirable both in itself and as a condition preliminary to organic unity ; but it does not constitute organic unity. The sub- ject of uniformity is a separate problem which lies beyond the range of the present discussion. Nor, again, is it uni- formity of organization that is needed. One might have the same type of constitution or the same type of arrange- ments all the world over, but so long as there is a breach in mutual trust and co-operation, this is no substitute for organic unity. What is wanted is mutual love, confidence, and assistance, an interchange of service, and a readiness to join hands in prosecuting the common work of evangeliza- tion. Without this the organic unity of the ideal still remains unrealized in the visible Church. So far, then, one may say that according to the intention of Jesus the Church should possess organic unity. But it is evident that much still remains to be cleared up and that we are still a long way from any settlement of the vexed question of the ministry. In the first place, the organic unity has relation to the whole work the Church has to do in the world, and not to the duties peculiar to what we call the ministry alone ; and in the second place, it is one thing to point out that there ought to be organic unity in the Church, and another to show on what lines that organization ought to proceed. CHAPTER XI ORGANIZATION ANOTHER conception into which one must attempt to gain some clearness of insight is that of organization. There are endless varieties and types of organic unity. As human society is constituted, men combine together in countless numbers of different ways. There is the organic unity of the industry of the world, and that of each community. Then there is the organic unity of governments, national, provincial, civic, and rural. There is an organic unity of each club, each joint-stock company, each factory, each trade union, each religious, literary, scientific, or mutual benefit society, each army and regiment, each navy and ship. And in addition to all these differing types of organiza- tion among men, there is the kind of organization possessed by the parts and cells composing the bodies of plants and animals. And all these vary according to the nature of the units composing the organism, the character of the functions it has to discharge, and the nature of its environment. To discuss all these forms or to attempt to analyse and classify them would take one far beyond the province of the present discussion. The point which it is of importance for us to know is whether the organic unity of the ideal Church is of such a kind as to require that certain special structural arrangements or conditions should always be present ; and if so, what those necessary arrangements are. Or, to put the issue in other words, are there any duties to be performed in the Church which ought not to be performed by any except by persons authorized to do so in a certain special way ? and if so, what are the conditions of this authorization ? Now in relation to this question, one sees at once that organizations fall into different classes. On the one hand, in ORGANIZATION 189 the case of the organization of industry, each individual is free to choose his trade or calling for himself ; if in some cases he has to wait for permission from some authority to exercise the functions he has chosen, this is regulative only, and does not constitute the essence of the work he desires to do. Any man may become a farmer, or a cobbler, or a factory hand ; work of this kind, though done for the benefit of society as a whole, is not confined to those only who receive some special kind of authorization from the whole organism. On the other hand, all the functions of govern- ment, be it national or local, require for their discharge a definite authorization from some source competent to represent the whole society ; if any individuals or any group of individuals take the functions of government upon them- selves without being duly authorized to do so, they are in rebellion against the state. Then again, in biological organizations, the individual units, while not receiving any conscious authorization, yet come into being fitted each for a certain definite place and work in the organism ; and if they do not do that work and take that place, the whole body suffers, and may suffer to the extent of death. Now it will not do to jump to any conclusions regarding the organic unity of the Church. It may well be that more than one of these three types of organization may be repre- sented in the Church. Let us try to see first of all how the Church, as an organization, compares with other kinds of organisms. In the first place, the Church cannot be classified simply as one among other examples of constitu- tional history. Government, both legislative and executive, there must be in the Church ; but this is, though necessary, yet only a secondary function of the Church's life. The Church does not exist either to govern or to be governed. Her work is religious and spiritual, to bring men to the Messianic salvation and to build them up in the love and fear of God. Terms of constitutional history, though doubtless one must employ them, can never fully disclose the whole 190 ORGANIZATION nature of the organic unity of the Church ; the Church has so much else to do besides its own self-government. In the second place, a comparison with the general organization of industry appears to be free from this objection. But the organization of industry within the social organism presents so many aspects that a comparison to be of any help must be based upon carefully selected resemblances. Both these analogies, again, fail at a point where a comparison with a biological organism is most apt. The organisms known to biology have, in addition to the lives of the cells of which they are composed, each a life of its own which pervades the whole. The indwelling of the Holy Spirit of God in the Church is an analogue to this ; but the industrial and political organisms possess nothing that is at all similar. On the other hand, of course, one must not overlook the fact that while biological organisms are composed of units which are concrete, i.e. in close physical contact, and of which some are specialized to be the centres of the mental life of the whole, the case of the Church is analogous to that of the social organism in that it is composed of men who are disparate and capable of independent thought and action. It would seem, then, that the Church cannot be classified with any one type of organism. If it presents analogies, it also presents striking contrasts to all other kinds of organisms. It is unique. And this creates at once some difficulty. When the biologist has to inquire into the organization of any biological specimen, he has a set of general terms and conceptions ready to hand a nomenclature and a termin- ology which enables him at once to classify and describe all its various parts and functions. But if the Church is unique, it is clear that there is no set of general terms with clearly defined meaning which are specially appropriate for the purpose of this discussion. It is necessary, therefore, to borrow terms which properly belong to another sphere of inquiry. And if this be done, it is obvious that that depart- ment which contains phenomena most closely analogous to the Church will afford the best means wherewith to work. Now, it is remarkable that practically every discussion of this subject makes Use of such terms as ' government ', ORGANIZATION 191 ' office-bearer ', ' official power ', and ' obedience to consti- tuted authority '. These are terms which properly apply to legal organizations ; they belong to constitutional history. But the Church cannot be classed simply as one among many other examples of earthly governments and associa- tions. This set of terms has no peculiar right to be regarded as the sole possible medium of interpreting the nature of the Christian society ; not that it is possible to do away with them altogether, but the use of another set of conceptions may perhaps help to give us a yet clearer insight. The terms and ideas of organic development are also often made use of. The Church is spoken of as an * organism ', and in harmony with this we have the terms * organ ', ' function', and 'the subordination of parts to the whole'. 1 The Church, of course, cannot be classed as one among many other biological or sociological organisms ; but for many reasons these conceptions seem to be useful for our purpose. In the comparison of the Church to an ordinary form of government, there is, as was said above, one very weak spot ; the analogy breaks down at a vital point. No organization of a legal character can show us anything analogous to the place occupied by the Holy Spirit in the Church of Christ ; whereas the personal spirit which animates certain organisms is at least a possible comparison. Further, the conceptions of legal organization are less scriptural than those of organic development. When St. Paul thinks of the Church as a whole, his favourite simile is taken from the field of biology. Yet these conceptions must be applied with the greatest caution. Biological and sociological development is governed by certain laws, but it would be the height of absurdity to suppose that the same laws would hold good of the Church of Christ. We must be content with borrowing terms and conceptions and pointing out analogies. The exact meaning of such terms must be accurately determined, 1 See, for instance, Priesthood and Sacrifice, ed. by W. Sanday, pp. 35-7, 145, 160 ; Dr. Moberly, Bishop of Salisbury, B, L., pp. 60, 61 ; R. C. Moberly, Ministerial Priesthood, p. 68 ; Gore, Ministry of the Christian Church, pp. 85 f., 93 f. ; Ramsay, Church in the Roman Empire, p. 361 f, ; also 1 Cor. xii ; Rom. xii 4, 5 ; Eph. iv 16. 192 ORGANIZATION their bearing upon the subject in hand must be examined, and any necessary modifications of meaning carefully marked. In short, these terms and ideas must be used as a wise master-builder uses a scaffolding. It must be strong enough to bear what is put upon it ; it must follow the lines of the structure to be erected, but nowhere must it be built into the fabric itself, in order that when the scaffolding is removed, the building, finished and complete in all its parts, may be seen to rest upon its own foundations. Let us endeavour to understand these terms proper to organic development. The word ' organism ' may be applied to any living whole the parts of which are set aside to do particular things and work in a particular way. The various parts may be said to be ' organized ' into a whole ; the parts themselves are called ' organs ' ; the duties or work they are set aside to perform are 'functions'. The term 'living whole ' is ambiguous. Many biological organisms are composed of minute particles called units, which are them- selves ' living', i.e. they exhibit those phenomena by which the presence of what is called ' life ' is recognized. Thus the term ' living whole ' may be applied to an organism, either in view of the life of the individual units of which it is composed, or in view of the larger life, above and beyond that of the individual units, which animates the organism as a whole. In biology this one larger life is usually in view when biological specimens are spoken of as ' organisms '. But the term ' organism ' is also applied to societies of men, and that, not because of any one life which dominates the whole, but because the individual men, the ' units ', are, by the division of labour, set aside to do particular things. Whether human society can be termed an ' organism ' in a proper and literal sense, or whether the application of the word is only metaphorical, need not now be discussed. There is, however, an advantage for the present purpose in this double application of the words, which will be observed in due course. If, then, we apply this set of terms and conceptions to the Church of Christ, we will say that the presence of the Holy Spirit is analogous to that of the lif e or spirit which dominates ORGANIZATION 193 the entire organism ; the work the Church has to do in the world and the Sacraments which sustain its life we will call ' functions ' ; and the individuals who compose the Church will be said to be its ' units ' ; and those who discharge its ' functions ' will be called its ' organs ' ; the external limits of this organism are defined by the test of Baptism. The analogy, . however, has its limits ; the application of the term ' organ ' requires a more careful study. The units which compose a biological organism are necessarily in close physical contact ; and, in most cases, large numbers of them must be combined together in a particular way to form the organ for the discharge of a particular function. In the Church, however, as in a social organism, the ' units ' (individual men) are not in physical contact, but disparate. It must not, therefore, be argued that, because the individuals composing the organs of a living animal must combine in a particular way so as to conform to certain necessary structural conditions, therefore the individuals who dis- charge the functions of the Church must have a fixed and permanent relation to each other and to the Church as a whole. In the social organism we may regard the particular trades and professions as so many organs discharging so many functions ; each organ may comprise any number of units, but there are no necessarily permanent structural relations between the unit and the organ as a whole ; each individual in choosing or abandoning a trade, acts largely for himself, independently of others. If, then, the ' organs ' which discharge the functions of the Church are composed of large numbers of individual men, it does not follow from this alone that those men must combine together after one particular pattern or type. So much it seems necessary to say in order to show that the mere use of these terms does not beg the question of the structure of the Christian ministry. Certain definite structural conditions may or may not be involved in Christ's intention of what His Church should be ; but the mere use of this set of names and conceptions does not settle the matter. By what process will it be possible to settle this question ? One may reply that the nature of any organ HAMILTON II f\ 194 ORGANIZATION must be determined by the nature of the function it has to discharge. We know that Christ instituted what we have called ' functions ' ; if these functions, or any one of them, are seen to embody certain essential principles which can only find their true expression in an organ constructed in accordance with certain conditions, then those conditions are involved in Christ's institution of the function. Thus it will become necessary to examine each of the functions which Christ instituted with a view to determining what principles are involved in each of them. CHAPTER XII THE ORGANIC FUNCTIONS OF THE CHURCH WE may begin with the functions of self-government legislative, executive, and disciplinary duties. It is clear that, if the Church is to exercise such functions as these, it must possess appropriate organs for the purpose ; and if it is to be an organic unity, then those organs also must be associated together in a relation of harmony and due subordination. At the same time, it does not appear that any one system or form of government is essential, or can establish a claim to permanence as a matter of divine right. Of course, when once a system of government is established, no one would be justified in seeking to overthrow it, except for the very best of reasons ; but on the other hand, if any one form should appear to be ill-adapted to the needs of a new age, or if the Church should see fit to change its arrangements by common consent, there does not seem to be anything, either in the work itself or in the words of Jesus, which would make changes such as these appear to be things which ought not to be done. Every society has to be governed, and there is nothing immoral in an agree- ment to alter the constitution. Nor can one see any principle in the nature of this work which requires for its expression an organ constructed after any special method. Unity, harmony, and co-operation, there certainly ought to be ; but this does not imply that any one of the arrangements made in the past for the work of ' governing ' the Church ought never to be altered in the future. II Teaching, another duty to be discharged, is obviously a task best done by those who have a natural aptitude for it, an aptitude which cannot be either increased or diminished 02 196 THE ORGANIC FUNCTIONS OF by merely bestowing or withholding authority to teach. Within the Church the gift of teaching is given to one and withheld from another, not by any ecclesiastical ceremony, but by the operation of the Holy Ghost, who divides to every man severally as He will. It would seem that in its essence this work and the organs which discharge it are independent of human control ; the grace to teach is given direct by God without reference to any appointment to office. The same may also be said of mission work or evangelizing. Their inmost essential nature does not contain any principle which, as a matter of divine right, will require a ministry organized after a certain type. We say ' as a matter of divine right ', for it is obvious that it will always be con- venient, if not necessary, to apply tests and require some definite authorization ; the point is merely this, that no one particular method of conveying authorization can claim the divine sanction of Christ as essential to the work of Christian teaching. The individual ought to submit himself to a scheme which embraces many others besides himself ; but on the other hand, the Church is free to adapt her methods of organizing her mission work to the needs and circumstances of the age and place in which she finds her- self. Neither the nature of the work of teaching itself nor the words of Jesus appear to make any one system, or any special set of structural relations, a permanent divine obligation. Ill On turning to Holy Baptism and the Holy Communion we come to activities which differ very markedly from those just considered. There is an art of teaching ; there can be no art of baptizing or of breaking the bread at the Eucharist. In both these latter cases the manual and verbal actions are so simple as to be well within the capacity of every normal adult, male or female. In the case of Holy Baptism there does not seem to be any reason involved in the nature of the work to incapacitate any Christian from discharging this function as an individual and without reference to external authority. Here again, no doubt, restrictions may THE CHURCH 197 be convenient and useful, but it cannot be said that any particular conditions are involved in the very nature of the work as Christ instituted it. IV The Holy Communion is a much more complicated rite and will require more detailed examination. We are told that Our Lord had ' desired with desire to eat this Pass- over ' with His Twelve Apostles (Luke xxii 15), and that He had made special preparations and plans for doing so. 1 But if it was only in the presence of the carefully selected Twelve that Jesus instituted this Sacrament, did He intend it for them alone, or for others as well ? We may safely answer that it was not for the Twelve alone, but for all Christians to the end of time, i.e. until the consummation of the Kingdom. Our Lord surely had in mind the whole Church, the whole body of Christians throughout all time, however long or short that might be, and throughout all the world. He is really bequeathing this memorial of His death to all His faithful followers, and no one of them receives it to the exclusion of others. The Twelve were but the representatives of a very much larger number. Now it is impossible to think that He would have counte- nanced any permanent separations between those to whom He gave this Sacrament. Conditions of time and space may cause temporal and spatial divisions in this great company, but when we recall His command of mutual love, so often repeated on that same night, we cannot think that He would have given His sanction to any division due to hatred, prejudice, strife, or any other such cause. In our minds, time and space bulk so large, that we do not feel the grievous- ness of a division in the celebration of the Holy Communion unless we see the two parties living side by side ; and even then, long continued usage has dulled our sensitiveness. That men who live at different times or in different countries should be unwilling to communicate with each other, many Christians scarcely think of as unchristian. But surely to 1 Luke xxii 8-13 ; Matt, xxvi 17-19 ; Mark xiv 12-16. 198 THE ORGANIC FUNCTIONS OF our Lord who instituted the Holy Supper for the benefit of the whole Church so long as time should last, all schisms, whether between contemporaries or not, must be equally deplorable. We cannot think that He intended that the Church should split itself up into factions and groups which permanently celebrate this memorial of His death apart from and mutually excluding each other. Differences may necessitate temporary divisions ; but such divisions ought not to be regarded as in themselves justifiable. A really deep-rooted principle of Christian ethics is in- volved here. Did He intend that Christians could be made one with Himself while at variance and strife with each other ? Did He mean that they might receive full com- munion with Him, while refusing full communion with each other ? If He did, then the principle is established that hostility and aversion are quite consistent with the Christian character and the Christian salvation, provided that they are only passive and not allowed to become active. To be allowed to separate from one's brethren when one finds oneself at variance with them, is a distinctly lower principle than to be required to trace out the cause of the variance to its remotest source and remove it. The whole moral teaching of Christ is in favour of the latter. The funda- mental principle of Christian ethics is not one of passive toleration, but of mutual love, active and energetic, through- out the whole limits of the society a love no less broad and deep than that of Christ Himself for us. 'A new com- mandment give I unto you, that ye love one another ; even as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another ' (John xiii 34-5). It would, no doubt, be rash to undertake to say just why the sacrament took the particular form of one loaf broken and one cup blessed of which all are to partake. It does seem, however, to emphasize the thought that when Christ's followers are nearest to Him, they are nearest to each other ; and that when they are nearest to each other, they are nearest to Him ; it symbolizes the oneness of all Christians with each other in and through Christ, and with Christ in THE CHURCH 199 and through each other. ' We, who are many, are one bread, one body : for we all partake of the one bread ' (1 Cor. x 17). It forms the final and complete test of the reality of our Christian love ; for if any are un- willing to communicate with each other when they draw nigh to Jesus, the most fundamental principle of Christian love is violated. And the mutual love and confidence thus expressed in sharing the same bread of Christ's Body and drinking the same cup of Christ's Blood have no limits except the limits of the Christian society itself ; they should reign from end to end ; there should be no exceptions, no exclusions, no divisions, no parties or favouritisms ; every race and tongue and nation and every individual comprised within them stand upon the same level and have the same value. When the brethren meet to share with each other in this memorial of the death of Christ, there should not even be any preferences among individuals ; the most distant and obscure should be as near and dear as a man's own kindred. One may conclude, then, that our Lord gave this Sacrament to the whole Church and that any separations and exclusions due to any cause other than the conditions of time and space would meet with His distinct disapproval. But we must now seek to define more clearly what is meant by saying that our Lord gave this Sacrament to the whole Church. Two parts to the rite may be distinguished (a) the communion, and (6) the breaking of the bread and the blessing of the cup. The communion belongs to the whole Church in this sense, that it belongs to each and every individual as his own right, a function which he cannot delegate to another, but must perform for himself, otherwise it is not performed at all. But that of which the individual is thus privileged to partake is a fragment of one loaf which has been broken, and a portion of one cup which has been blessed. Each and every individual, therefore, has an equal interest in the breaking of the bread ; yet it is not the act of an individual as such, for if each person breaks his own bread for himself and blesses his own cup, the character of the sacrament is materially altered from Christ's original institution. The 200 THE ORGANIC FUNCTIONS OF breaking and the blessing are acts in which every individual who has a right to partake has an equal interest and share ; they are, therefore, in a word, corporate acts, the acts of the whole Church as a corporate body. That bread which the whole Church breaks, and that cup which the whole Church blesses, are the Body and Blood of Christ. That of which the individual has a right to partake is the bread broken by the whole Church. The individual, as an indi- vidual, is not competent to break the bread himself, merely because he is minded to do so ; for all the others have an equal share with himself in it. But still, it must be observed that if one loaf is to be broken and one cup blessed, only one person at a time can act ; the rest must be content to become to this extent onlookers. Hence the individual who acts does not do so by any right belonging to himself per- sonally, but only in virtue of some authorization given to him by the whole Church, by means of which he is set apart to act as the organ or instrument of the whole. But what is meant by the ' whole Church ' which is to confer authority upon the individual ? Is it the total number of Christians throughout the world, or is it the total number of those present on any special occasion ? It is obvious that, as time advances and the faith spreads throughout the world, it will be impossible for all to meet together in one place. Local eucharistic gatherings must be held, any one of which will include only a small propor- tion of the whole Church. Will it then be sufficient for the president of each local Church to be the representative of this local group alone, or must he also have in some sense some authority from the whole body of believers ? In endeavouring to answer this question the following considerations must be borne in mind. If what takes place at a local eucharistic celebration is a communion of the Body and Blood of Christ, then every individual Christian has the right to be present there and to partake of that communion. This sacrament is not the exclusive possession of any group or section. If on any occasion when there is a communion, some are absent, this is purely accidental, due to conditions of time and space. Ideally and potentially THE CHURCH 201 all are present and all the absent have an equal right to partake with those who are present, and hence an equal interest and an equal right in the selection of the president. The very nature of the sacrament seems to look beyond the local group to the whole Church ; and since one cannot get rid of the corporate or representative element without altering the nature of what Jesus instituted, it would seem that the president ought to receive authority, not from the local group, but from the whole body throughout the world. Furthermore, if it is from the local Church alone that authority is derived to break the bread, then the separation of this company of believers from all others is thereby emphasized ; for if the breaking of the bread is the act of this local group alone, then this group thereby becomes itself a corporate whole and the Church universal is divided into so many constantly changing local unities. But surely if there is a unity and a fellowship to be symbolized by and realized in this sacrament, it is the unity and fellowship of all believers in the Messiah, the great truth that in Christ Jesus all are brethren united in one world-wide communion and fellowship. But such a truth cannot find its proper expression unless the president of each local gathering derives his right to act, not from the local body, but from the whole Church throughout the world. The Holy Communion, then, as a function of the Church's life, seems to differ from all other functions in this, that it requires for its proper discharge an organ constructed after a certain definite principle that of authorization from the whole body. But if the individual who is thus to preside at the Eucharist must be set apart by the authority of the whole Church, it is obvious that in this act of setting apait we have again an action performed, a function discharged, by the whole Church. This activity again, will require an appropriate organ, for under the conditions of space and time, we cannot conceive of the Church as acting in a cor- porate capacity except through a permanent organ. These considerations, then, lead to the conclusion that when the love of the brethren is perfect, i.e., when the 'ideal' Church 202 THE ORGANIC FUNCTIONS OF is realized on earth, we shall find two organs to act for the whole Church in discharging its functions of breaking the bread in memory of Christ : (1) an organ which acts for the whole Church in bestowing this representative character upon individuals ; (2) an organ which acts as the repre- sentative of the whole Church to break the bread at the Eucharist. These two organs will be composed of individual men ; the one condition to which all must conform is the due transmission of authority from the whole body. And when one turns to the facts of Church history, it does not seem at all impossible to think that a ministry expressing this principle has, as a matter of fact, come into existence. One must recollect that Jesus did not go about teaching men indiscriminately at many times and places to observe this ceremony. He reserved it till the last, for that last solemn occasion when on the very night on which He was betrayed He was alone with His chosen Twelve. To these, the authorized and selected witnesses of His Messianic claims, the stewards of His Messianic salvation, He entrusted this rite, commemorating the essence of the Messianic Covenant, for transmission to all other believers. In a very real sense, He made them the trustees of the Lord's Supper, the Feast of the Messianic Salvation. And if they were, as was said above, 1 chosen to be, in relation to the Church, its centre of unity and gravity, then whatever arrange- ments they made for the continued celebration of this Sacrament, with the consent of the whole Church, have a right to claim to possess the authority of the whole Church for the purpose. And one appointed by them, with the general approval of the brethren, is, in a very real sense, the authorized representative of the whole body. Not, of course, in a strictly legal sense not in the sense that deeds were drawn up and duly signed and executed, but rather in the sense in which the living organism as it develops differentiates its several members to discharge some this function, and others that function. The Twelve were the original nucleus of the Church, its centre of gravity and unity a position in the privileges and responsibilities of 1 Cf. pp. 64-66, 68-70. THE CHURCH 203 which St. Paul shared also and if they appointed or differentiated certain brethren, with the consent of the others, to perform this ceremony for the benefit of the whole, then those brethren became the organs of the body for this purpose in the same sense as that in which the various organs of the human body are charged with the execution of functions which belong to and are exercised for the benefit of the whole. It may perhaps be objected that this line of thought was entirely foreign to the minds of the Apostles ; that they had no idea of setting aside ' an organ of the whole body ', nor did they see the ' elders ' and ' bishops ' in relation to the whole Church at all, but merely as officers of local communities. There is undoubtedly very much truth in these statements ; but do they constitute a real objection to this view ? The discussion on the origin of the ministry showed clearly that, in appointing such officers as they did appoint, the Apos- tles were guided by no preconceived principle in the matter, but simply by a desire to meet the needs of the moment ; and that under the action of the forces which played upon it, the Church, having to discharge this function of breaking the bread, did, as a matter of fact and without conscious effort, make certain organic arrangements with Apostolic sanction for this purpose. And this is, after all, just the way in which every biological organism develops its organs and so obtains the discharge of the functions necessary to its life. The nature of any organ is determined by the function it has to perform and the nature of its environment. And under the influence of just these two factors, the essentially social and corporate nature of the rite and the character of its environment a body of men living under conditions of space and time the Church, without being conscious of the full significance of the fact, or even at first of the full scope of the fact itself, did develop an organ, i.e., a definite class of officials, for this purpose. This fact of unconsciousness cannot alter the reality of the process ; for no organism is ever conscious of the full meaning of the earliest differentiations it makes, and yet they are none the less real. Moreover, if as a matter of fact, the Church, in the silent process of attaining its organic development, did make these differentiations, the date at which men became conscious of the significance of them as differentiations is of slight moment. We should, then, conceive of the society of Christians as a single organism developing in history. It begins when, on the day of Pentecost, body and soul were united, as it were, by the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the Twelve Apostles. Immediately it begins to increase in size ; new members are added ; life and activity expand on every side ; functions must be discharged and organs must be developed to discharge them. Although no individuals seem to have fully understood the whole significance of the fact, yet the organ which was developed to discharge the function of presiding at local celebrations of the Eucharist followed lines entirely different from all other organs. Certain indi- viduals were put forward and received through the Apostles the sanction of the whole Church for their work of breaking the bread hi memory of the Lord Jesus. These individuals soon came to be known as a special order to whom the right to preside at the Eucharist was universally recognized to be confined. Thus they became the organ of the whole Church for this purpose. And again, as time went on, it became necessary that other individuals should from time to time receive the same authorization to preside. To meet this need a further differentiation was developed. The Apostles authorized certain individuals to give authority to preside at the Eucharist. And these also became, in the course of time, known as a special order, and the right to ordain was recognized universally as being confined to them. Thus by this second differentiation a second organ was developed. The earlier organ was known at first by the classname of ' bishop ' or ' presbyter ' . Later on ' bishop ' was appropriated to designate a member of the second or ordaining organ. Thus the twofold ministry is the organ of the whole Church for the celebration of the Holy Communion. The bread which they break and the cup which they bless is the com- munion of the whole Church, is the Body and Blood of Christ. CHAPTER XIII CONCLUSION HAD there been no institution of the Eucharist, the entire course of Church history would have been very different from what it has in fact been, and the nature of the Christian society would not have been what it is. Just because the Church had to perform this essentially social ceremony of breaking one bread in memory of the Lord Jesus, it developed everywhere without conscious effort this ministry of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons. And just because the essentially social nature of the sacrament has remained the same, the relations of the three orders of the ministry to each other have never varied. Minor orders there have been in pro- fusion, as well as distinctions in rank between the members of each order ; but none have been so fundamental, so clearly defined, or so constant in their mutual relations, as the distinctions between these three. The Eucharist is the great central fact in the origin and development of the Christian ministry. The presbyters or priests are those who possess the authority of the whole Church to represent it at the breaking of the bread ; the bishops are those who possess the authority of the whole Church to confer this representative character upon others ; the deacons are Christian ministers who lack just this repre- sentative capacity. This fundamental relation of the three orders to each other has never varied, because the relation of each to the Eucharist has never varied. We are justified in saying that the Church had to put forth these primary and fundamental organs in order to attain that measure of organic development which was already implicit in the original institutions of Jesus Christ. When these primary differentiations had been made to meet its vital and perma- nent needs, many other secondary orders were developed in 206 CONCLUSION response to the changing conditions of different times and places. This threefold organization is something absolutely unique ; something which is not merely older in point of time than any other organization ; but something which in the nature of things can scarcely be repeated. This ministry was not suddenly implanted upon the Church in accordance with a preconceived and carefully thought out plan ; the Church in the earliest days was practically unconscious at each moment of what the next step would be, and so the ministry grew up in silence, in response to the inmost needs of the Church's life and the spatial and temporal conditions of its existence. Being thus based solely upon the permanent needs of the society, and in the main apart from the self-conscious in- ventions of men, these organs have been developed under the guiding hand of the Holy Ghost, which, at once for their simplicity and their adaptability to all circumstances and conditions, and the truth and fidelity with which they represent the fundamental principles of the unity of all individuals in the sacrament of Christ's Body and Blood, can never be surpassed by any type of ministry conceivable by man. This is a case in which a religious society developed from within itself a definite ministry to meet the needs of its life and to perform a function given to it by its Founder. There are other parallel cases. Certain Christians, feeling them- selves unable to continue under the ancient ministry, went apart from it and broke their bread in memory of the Lord Jesus under conditions of their own choosing. But here again, the essentially social nature of the sacrament is such that new ministries were developed from these departures, new ministries which are representative of, and authorized by, the particular groups which separated themselves from the rest of the Church. The new ministries are not precisely the same in type as the old, because an effort was consciously made to build them up on other lines ; but no one is per- mitted to celebrate the Lord's Supper in these separated groups except those who have been commissioned by an authority recognized by the whole group as competent to CONCLUSION 207 bestow that commission. These new ministries are parallel to the older ministry ; but there is this difference. The older ministry is the representative of the whole Church in precisely the same sense as the new ministries are the representatives each of a particular group of Christians. To what extent does this view imply a judgement of those Christians who make use of the services of these other ministries ? In the first place, one must protest against the use of the expression to ' un-church '. It would be quite impossible to make those who have once been baptized to be other than members of the Church. It is just because we who are divided are all brethren in Christ, are all members of the Body of Christ, that the schism is so grievous. Nothing can avail to ' un-church ' a man totally and com- pletely except his own wilful sin ; and the sentence is not pronounced except by the Judge on the day of judgement. Excommunication, or exclusion from Christian fellowship, though ratified in heaven, is not the same thing ; it is temporary only, and intended for purposes of discipline and correction. If we ask, does this separation into mutually exclusive Eucharistic groups involve sin ? the answer must be a decided affirmative. It involves the violation of that mutual love, the fundamental law of the Church's life, which is tested and typified in the Holy Communion. But one must not assume that it is at once obvious at whose door the sin lies ; and certainly, it would seem quite untrue to say that all those on one side of the controversy are living in wilful sin. The responsibility lies chiefly with generations which are now gone, and the faults are not all on one side. To attempt to assign to each person or party concerned an appropriate share of guilt would be both an unpleasant and a useless task, and one for which modern Christians have no special ability. It will suffice us to look at the matter in this light. The Presbyterate and the Episcopate are the organs of the whole Church ; when we partake of the bread which they break, we partake of the Communion of the whole Church. The ministries which have come into existence in the last three hundred years are in this same 208 CONCLUSION sense and just as truly, each the organs of the particular body of Christians by which they were originated ; and those who partake of the bread which they break, partake of the communion of a particular group of Christians. The more clearly the particular ministry is derived from a local group, the more emphatic becomes the separation from the Communion, of the whole Church. To the mind of the present writer there can be no doubt that grace has been and is given through the sacraments administered by non-Episcopal ministries. The presence of the Holy Spirit and the blessing of God upon their work are manifest. ' By their fruits ye shall know them.' If we apply this test to the several bodies of Christians as they exist to-day, it would not be easy to say that any one of them ought to cease to exist ; and it would be quite impos- sible to pick out one body, and say that it alone amongst all deserved to be permitted to perpetuate its ministry. But if we apply the test to Christianity as a whole in its present chaotic condition, one may well doubt whether its divisions are justified by their fruits. The increasing efforts for re-union and the rising dissatisfaction with our present divided state indicate a widespread recognition that the practical evils consequent upon disunion are rapidly be- coming intolerable. If we look at modern facts with an unprejudiced eye, we will see that there are many thousands ranged under the historic ministry who cannot claim that their position as Churchmen is due to any merit of their own, for it has been determined largely by accidents of birth and educa- tion. Similarly, under other ministries we find thousands who cannot be accused of wilful separation from the Communion of the Church, for their position is due to similar accidents. Moreover, in the outward manifestations of the working of the inward Spirit, it would be difficult to say that one body is very much superior to all the rest. It is surely a very welcome thought that the many devoted individuals who partake of the separated Eucharists, without being re- sponsible for their establishment, do not thereby suffer a loss of the saving and preventing Grace of God. The CONCLUSION 209 loss falls not upon them so much as upon the Church as a whole. The worst feature in our separations is the exclusive Eucharists. But this division at the innermost heart and centre of the Church's life extends, and widens as it ex- tends, to the outmost circumference. Around each separate ministry is gathered and organized all the practical Christian work of those Christians who adhere to the different sepa- rated ministries All efforts to unite and co-operate in practical work are most laudable in themselves, but so long as the separate Eucharists remain, re-union in practical work is like healing a wound on the surface and leaving the real cause of the trouble untouched underneath. The loss of power which is consequent upon this disorganization falls upon the whole organism, for we are all members one of another. The bond of love and peace is violated, the free course of the Holy Spirit is checked and hindered, and the whole organism faints and withers. One part cannot be made perfect without the other. When Churchmen are eager for the return of their brethren to the Eucharist of the historic ministry, it is not simply because they wish to push their own peculiar form of Church government at the expense of others, but because the Church cannot be what it ought to be without that return. It is because we sorely need them and the spiritual strength they would bring with them, because neither they nor we can be made perfect apart, and because the Church cannot properly fulfil its function in the world in its present divided state, that we feel obliged to insist upon the ministry of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons as the basis of the re-union of Christendom. HAMILTON II APPENDIX NOTE I. THE TWELVE ON THE DAY OF PENTECOST THE question as to who were the recipients of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost has not, to my knowledge, been thoroughly examined. St. Luke gives the number of the names altogether at one hundred and twenty, among whom the Eleven are clearly distinguished : but he leaves one in some doubt as to whether he understood the ' tongues as of fire ' to have descended upon all the one hundred and twenty, or upon the Eleven only with Matthias. A brief consideration will show that the latter are understood to be the recipients. Our Lord, we are told, ' called his disciples and he chose from them twelve, whom he also named Apostles ' (Luke vi 13). One of these was the traitor Judas, who lost his place. ' Judas,' says St. Peter, ' was numbered among us.' But ' it is written j'n the book of Psalms . . . his office let another take. Of the men, therefore, which have companied with us ... of these must one become a witness with us of his resurrection ' (Acts i 20-2). Two men are then put forward whose qualifications are so exactly equal that the Apostles are unable to decide between them and the matter is left to the Divine choice. ' Show of these two the one whom thou hast chosen ' (Acts i 24). Apparently, it will not do to have eleven only, nor will it do to have thirteen. The ' ministry ' (Acts i 17), which consists in being a witness of His resurrection, requires twelve and twelve only. It was necessary that before the Day of Pentecost there should be twelve chosen by our Lord Himself, and as such clearly marked off from the rest of the disciples, and that in order to fulfil the ministry of being witnesses of His resurrection. Not very long after, this necessity seems to disappear. James the brother of John is killed with the sword (Acts xii 2), but nothing whatever is said about filling up his place in the Twelve. From this, then, we gather that the ministry of witnessing to Christ's resurrection required a compact body of Twelve, but that this need was not felt to be permanent. Again, Matthias is chosen to be a witness of His resurrection. P2 212 THE TWELVE ON THE But the Resurrection was a fact already past, and the Lord had been received into heaven. Matthias, moreover, had been with them ' from the baptism of John unto the day that he was received up ' (Acts i 22), therefore he was already a witness in the sense that he had already seen and heard all that he was to bear witness to. In what further sense can he ' become ' a witness ? Joseph Barsabas, again, is equally qualified with Matthias to be a witness, and yet it is necessary to distinguish between the two. In what sense can Matthias ' become ' or ' be ' a witness of His resurrection which would not also apply to Joseph Barsabas ? To this there can be only one answer. Matthias ' becomes ' a witness by receiving some authorization or enabling power given to him with the Eleven and not shared in by Barsabas and the others. Now the gift of the Holy Spirit was promised to the Eleven hi an especial way for the very purpose of giving them power to bear witness to Christ. This is brought out in Acts and in St. Luke. ' Being assembled together with them (i.e. the Apostles whom he had chosen) he charged them ... to wait for the promise of the Father . . . for John indeed baptized with water, but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence ... Ye shall receive power when the Holy Ghost is come upon you and ye shall be my witnesses ' (Acts i 4-5, 8 ; cf. Luke xxiv 45-9). We have here a promise of a definite sending of the Spirit made to the Eleven in virtue of which they are to give their witness. The election of Matthias, then, to become a witness with the Eleven in a sense which would not apply to Barsabas, can only have any meaning if Matthias and the Eleven, and not Barsabas and the others, received the enabling power of the Holy Spirit on tho Day of Pentecost. Moreover, it is to be observed that ' the promise of the Father ' relating to the gift of the Spirit, made to the Eleven, is said by St. Peter to be fulfilled on the Day of Pentecost. ' Having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath poured forth this, which ye see and hear ' (Acts ii 33). If, then, the Father's promise of the Holy Ghost to give power to become witnesses was made to the Eleven alone ; and if this promise is fulfilled on the Day of Pentecost in the descent of the Spirit upon those who are witnesses (Acts ii 32) ; and if Matthias and the Eleven are especially set aside to be witnesses, the account becomes extraordinarily confused if it is not Matthias and the Eleven alone upon whom the Spirit came. DAY OF PENTECOST 213 Again, when one comes to examine the account of the events of the Day of Pentecost itself, it seems to be far more reasonable to think that only the Twelve received the Holy Spirit. (1) ' Are not all these which speak Galilaeans ? ' (Acts ii 7). This would probably not be true of the one hundred and twenty. (2) ' Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice ' (Acts ii 14). This does not mean that St. Peter and the other Apostles rose from a sitting posture while presumably the others remained seated : but that when the first outburst had subsided, Peter and the Eleven took their stand to address the multitude. Why are the Eleven alone distinguished from the rest as standing with St. Peter if all the one hundred and twenty had spoken with tongues ? (3) ' This Jesus did God raise up, whereof we all are witnesses ' (Acts ii 32). The ' all ' here must be coextensive with those who ' are not drunken, as ye suppose ' (Acts ii 15), and again with those who ' were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and began to speak with other tongues ' (Acts ii 4). If, then, the Holy Spirit descended upon the one hundred and twenty and they too are witnesses of His resurrection, the choosing of Matthias seems quite unnecessary and the peculiar ministry of Apostles to be witnesses of the Resurrection seems to be without meaning. NOTE II. BISHOPS AND PRESBYTERS As to the relation of the terms ' bishop ' and ' presbyter ' to each other, as they occur in the New Testament, there has been much disagreement. The main question is whether the word Trpeo-fivrepos is used in the New Testament as a title for a class of officials of the Church : if it is so used, then there can be little doubt that the officers so designated were also called ITTLO-KOTTOL : if it is not so used, then the Trpecr/JvVepoi were merely the older men of the community from among whom the official CTTIO-KOTTOI were selected. We may, perhaps, best approach this vexed question by a consideration of the non-Christian use of the word 7rpeo-/3vrepos. By the Jews it was, of course, used to denote an elder by age without official distinction, 1 but this did not prevent the concur- rent use of the word to denote an official class, for it is regularly applied throughout the LXX and the New Testament to the 1 Gen. xviii 11-12; xix 4; xxiv 1; xliv 20; Joshua xiii 1 ; 2 Sam. xix 32 ; 1 Kings i 1 ; Luke xv 25, &c. 214 BISHOPS AND PRESBYTERS official elders of Israel. 1 Its Hebrew equivalent fpT is also used in both these two senses almost within the same verse (Gen. xxiv 1, 2). To Greek ears the word usually signified an elder in point of 3 ? ears, but it bore an official sense also, as applied to the members of the ' Gerousiai ', and as applied to the officers of clubs in some instances in the third century of our era. 2 These facts show that Trpetr/Sirrepos was used concurrently in the same circles in these two different senses. Hence, it is by no means inconceivable that the word may also have had two meanings when used by Christians. It is not legitimate, therefore, to infer from the consideration of some passages only, a generalization to hold good for every other passage in which the word occurs. The concurrent use of both senses is possible, therefore the meaning of the word must, in each case, be determined by a study of its context. When this is borne in mind, it will appear most probable that the word had two senses for Christian, as well as for Jewish and Greek, ears. It is only by a strained interpretation that one and the same meaning can be fixed upon each and every passage. In 1 Peter v 5, ' Likewise, ye younger, be subject unto the elder ' (wpea-ftvT^po^) ; 3 in 1 Tim. v 1-2, ' Rebuke not an elder (Trpeo-fivTfpu), but exhort him as a father: the younger men as brethren : the elder women (Trpfo-fivTepas) as mothers : the younger as sisters, in all purity ' : in Clem, ad Cor. i, ' submitting yourselves to your rulers and rendering to the elder (rots Trap' vp.w irpto-fivTepois) among you the honour which is their due. On the young too ye enjoined,' &c. : and, again, in Clem, ad Cor. c. iii, ' So men were stirred up, the mean against the honourable, the young against the elder ' (TOVS 7rpeo-/?vTepovs), in all these passages the word seems to bear an unofficial sense, meaning one who is elder by age. On the other hand, in Acts xiv 23, ' they appointed for them elders (Trpeo-ySurepous) in every Church ' : in Titus i 5, ' that thou shouldst . . . appoint elders (rrp^a-ftvr^pov^) in every city ' : in Clem. Rom. ad Cor. c. liv, ' only let the flock of Christ be at peace with its duly appointed elders ' (Ka0tara/xva>v ), in these passages the use of the term as an 1 Cf. W. Bacher, ' Sanhedrin ', Hastings' D. B., vol. iv, p. 399. * Ziebarth, Das griechische Vereinswesen, pp. 60, 61 and 154. 3 Cf. Bigg, in loc. BISHOPS AND PRESBYTERS 215 official title seems clearly indicated. 1 When this latter use of the term is once clearly established in these passages, it seema most natural to take it in this sense in other passages where its meaning might be in doubt, as : Acts xi 30 ; xv 2, 4, 6, 22, 23 ; xvi 4 ; xx 17 ; xxi 18 ; xxiii 14 ; 1 Tim. v 17, 19 ; Jas. v 14 ; 1 Pet. v 1 ; Clem, ad Cor. xl, xlvii ; and, again, in some of those passages where the unofficial sense seems predominant, it is not impossible that the writer intended the word to be taken in both senses. But if the word Trpeo-fivTepos denotes one of a class of officials, there can be no doubt that the same officials were also known by another title, that of CTTIO-KOTTOS. In Acts xx 17 we find that St. Paul called to him ' the elders of the church ', and in xx 28 he tells them to take heed ' to all the flock in the which the Holy Ghost hath made you bishops ' (eTrtcr/coTrous). Again, St. Paul tells Titus that he had left him in Crete ' to appoint elders (irpea-fivrepovs) in every city, as I gave thee charge : if any man is blameless, the husband of one wife . . . for the bishop (eTno-KOTrov) must be blameless ' (Titus i 57). St. Clement tells the Corinthians that the Apostles had appointed their firstfruits to be bishops (eVicr/coVovs) and deacons (c. xlii), and in c. xliv he goes on to say ' it will be no light sin for us, if we thrust out those who have offered the gifts of the bishop's office (TO, SoJpa unblameably and holily. Blessed are those presbyters who have gone before ... for they have no fear lest any one should remove them from their appointed places '. These passages seem to establish the use of the word Trpecr/Svrcpos as an official title, the equivalent of ^TI'O-KOTTOS. In addition to the discussion in Lightfoot (Phil. pp. 96-8) one may refer in support of this view to Chase, Credibility of the Acts, pp. 277-81 ; Sanday, Expositor, February 1887, pp. 103 ff. ; Lindsay, Church and Ministry, pp. 157 ff. ; Gwatkin, Hastings' D.B., s.v. 'Bishop'; Loofs, Studien und Kritiken, 1890, pp. 639-41 ; Schmiedel, Enc. Bib. s.v. * Ministry ', pp. 3134, 3137 f. ; Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller, p. 121, ed. vi ; Ldning, Gemeinde- verf., pp. 21-3 ; Rainy, Ancient Catholic Church, pp. 40-2 ; Bigg on 1 Peter v 1 ; Knowling on Acts xx 28, &c. On the other hand, it has been urged that the Christian com- munities fell naturally into two classes, governing and governed ; and thus arose the distinction between TrpcTcpoi and vcwrepoi. 1 See also the passages quoted below in support of the identification of 216 In the large communities all the elders could not take part in the government, and hence ot Trpeo-ySiVcpoi ol Trpoiora/Aevof. 1 It may be said in reply that if this argument proved the absence of the official use of 7rpco-/?vTepos among Christians, it would also prove its absence among the Jews : but we know that it was used in an official sense by the Jews. Again, it has been urged by Sohm 2 and by Weizsacker 3 that the word is obviously used in an unofficial sense in the early chapters of St. Clement of Rome. One may quite readily admit this, but unless it can be shown that the word could not be used concurrently in two senses, one cannot admit that these cases must determine its meaning in every other passage. Once more, it has been said that bishops and deacons are always joined together, but never presbyters and deacons ; and hence it is unlikely that presbyters and bishops are to be identified. 4 There must, of course, be some explanation of the fact that the two terms ' elder ' and ' bishop ' were applied to the same officials, and that ' bishops ' and ' deacons ' appear to be linked together rather than ' presbyters ' and ' deacons '. And an explanation has already been offered in the discussion of the organization of the local Pauline Churches, which may be briefly summarized here. The presbyters were originally appointed for the purpose of celebrating the Holy Communion. To this position of promi- nence, a number of indefinite duties such as might be best summed up under the head of ' oversight ' (firia-Ko-n-rj) became in the course of time attached. Hence eVio-KOTn? became the general name for the sum total of the duties of the elders, who in consequence were firio-KOTToi. The deacons were at first the assistants of these officers in the discharge of that secondary class of duties in virtue of which they were called overseers, and so are named in connexion with the title CTTIO-KOTTOI rather than with the irpfo-fivrepoi. 5 But, while vindicating the official use of Trpco-ySurepos, it is well to notice that the whole controversy concerns terms rather than historical facts. It seems to be admitted by those who reject the official sense that among the irpfo-/3vT(poi. there were always some who were appointed, though it is maintained that their official 1 Harnack, Die Lehre der Zwdlf Apostel, pp. 147 ff. ; cf. McGiffert, Apostolic Age, pp. 662 ff. 1 Kirchenrecht, p. 94. * Apostolic Age, vol. ii, pp. 330 ff. 4 Allen, Christian Institutions, p. 80. 6 Cf . also Sanday, Conception of the Priesthood, pp. 61-3. BISHOPS AND PRESBYTERS 217 title was eVtWoTros, not Trpccr/frrrepos. Thus, Sohm admits that the ' elders ' of 1 Tim. v 17 ; Acts xi 30 ; xiv 23 ; xx 17 ; xv 2, 6, 22, 23 ; xvi 4 ; xxi 18 ; Jas. v 14, included ' bishops '* McGiffert 2 takes the same view regarding the elders of Acts xiv 23 ; 1 Tim. v 17 ; Titus i 5 ; Clem. Rom. c. liv. Hence there is no dispute about the fact of the existence of appointed officials, but rather as to the terms applicable to them ; and so the question does not affect the evidence for the wide area over which appointed officers are to be found, but merely their official titles. NOTE III. THE CHARISMATIC MINISTRY The charismatic ministry has already been touched upon more than once. It remains to make good the positions which have been assumed. There are two main points. (1) The Apostles and prophets, &c., existed for several generations side by side with the local ministry in the same Churches, and hence there is little likelihood that the bishops or presbyters were originally appointed to fill the place of absent prophets, &c. (2) The members of the charismatic ministry were not appointed to an office, but received the titles they bore because of the peculiar gifts of grace given to them by the Holy Spirit independently of any ecclesiastical authority. (1) The writer of Acts was certainly not conscious that the two sets of titles did not coexist side by side as normal parts of the equipment of the same Church. He represents both as existing in Jerusalem throughout the period covered by Acts. The earliest mention of a prophet is that of Agabus, who foretold the famine (Acts xi 27, 28). Not long after this, presbyters are presented to us as an established institution in Jerusalem (Acts xi 30). Again, in the proceedings of the Council of Jerusalem, the presbyters occupied an important position, being bracketed with the Apostles at the head of the letter addressed to the Gentiles (Acts xv 23). But yet the charismatic ministry has by no means disappeared from this Church. Judas and Silas are two prophets mentioned by name, and possibly Agabus may have been in Jerusalem at the same time (Acts xv 32). Once more, when St. Paul visited Jerusalem in A.D. 56, seven years later, we find he was received by St. James and the elders (Acts xxi 18). But it was only a few days before that the 1 Kirchenrecht, pp. 101-4. 2 Apostolic Age. p. 663 n. 218 [THE CHARISMATIC MINISTRY prophet Agabus had come down from Judaea to meet St. Paul at Caesarea (Acts xxi 10). Similarly, the Apocalypse describes elders as taking part in the heavenly worship (Rev. iv 4, 10; v 5, 6, 8, &c.). This is probably a reflection of the normal custom of the Churches with which the author was familiar. Yet he expects, when he mentions prophets (xvi 6 ; xviii 20, 24 ; xxii 9), that all his readers will understand what is meant as readily as they know what elders are. It is clear that from the earliest times the gifts of the Holy Spirit, of which prophecy was the highest form, were a normal accompaniment of conversion. When St. Peter heard Cornelius speaking with tongues and magnifying God, he knew the Holy Ghost had fallen upon them (Acts x 46-7 ; cf. viii 17-18). So also in the Pauline Churches we hear of ' prophesyings ' at Thessalonica a few months after the foundation of the Church there (1 Thess. v 20) : and apparently in the Galatian Churches prophecy was known at an early date (1 Tim. i 18 ; iv 14; cf. Acts xvi 1-3). Moreover, St. Paul's manner of speaking of prophecies and spiritual gifts in general is a proof of the wide area over which they were known (Rom. xii 3-8 ; 1 Cor. xii ; Eph. iv 7-13). To St. Paul the existence of spiritual gifts was one of the custom- ary evidences of the presence of the Holy Spirit in all the Churches, and ' it is probable that he was not aware of any time when the Church had not prophets and teachers '- 1 Yet it must be noticed that the author of Acts does not hesitate to represent elders as existing in many Churches within the period of the Pauline Epistles. They are appointed in the Churches of the first Missionary Journey (Acts xiv 23) and at Ephesus (Acts xx 17), as well as in Jerusalem. The existence of bishops and deacons at Philippi has already been noticed. The evidence given above bespeaks the practical universality of the charismatic ministry in one or other of its forms throughout the Churches. We have already had occasion to see the wide area over which elders were to be found (cf. 1 Pet. v 1 ; Jas. v 14, &c.). If, then, the elders were appointed to supply the place of absent prophets and teachers, we would expect a general cessation of prophecy, &c., some time before the close of the first century. But this is far from being the case. The charismatic 1 Harnack, Expositor, May 1887, p. 325 ; cf. also 2 Peter iii 2 ; 1 John iv 1-3. THE CHARISMATIC MINISTRY 219 ministry continued to flourish in later days. In the Didache true Christian prophets and teachers are still to be found, though many spurious imitations are abroad also. The existence of these impostors is a proof that the true prophets might be expected to appear in a Church at any time. In the Shepherd of Hermas true and false prophets again are distinguishable. In fact, in some of its forms the charismatic ministry continued on until late in the second century. The Apostles seem to have disappeared (they are not mentioned later than the Didache) : but prophets and teachers were well known. 1 It is not too much to say that there is no writer who betrays any consciousness that prophets, teachers, &c., are interchange able in the Churches with bishops and deacons. The fact that the former waned while the latter waxed does not prove an identity of function; it merely indicates what the Didache, c. xv, shows to us that the Churches came to look to the appointed ministry for instruction in the faith and guidance in life more and more, in proportion as the spirit of prophecy and teaching came to be withdrawn. To this extent the passing of the charis- mata strengthened the position of the bishops, presbyters and deacons ; but it can hardly be that the latter were originally appointed to supply what the Churches had been accustomed to receive from its prophets and teachers. (2) That the charismatic ministry was not appointed to office is fairly obvious to every reader of the New Testament. St. Paul's words about these prophets, evangelists and teachers make it clear that the titles were bestowed in recognition of certain wonderful gifts and not because of any official position. ' Having gifts differing according to the grace that was given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of our faith : or ministry, let us give ourselves to our ministry : or he that teacheth to his teaching ' (Rom. xii 6-7) ; ' For to one is given through the Spirit the word of wisdom : and to another the word of knowledge, according to the same Spirit . . . and to another prophecy . . . but all these worketh the one and the self-same Spirit, dividing to each one severally as he will ' (1 Cor. xii 8-11 ; cf. Eph. iv 7-11). The charismata were no doubt in some sense subject to the control of the Churches. They were certainly tested (see 1 John iv 1 ; 1 Thess. v 21 ; 1 See Harnack, Expansion of Christianity, i 440-57, and Die Lehre der Z. A., p. 136. 220 THE CHARISMATIC MINISTRY Rev. ii 2 ; Did. c. xi), but the nature of the tests applied shows that the subject of inquiry is not an official position, but a personal endowment. It is scarcely necessary to delay further over this point, for there is general agreement among scholars upon it. 1 If this view be adopted, it is useless to look for the local ministry under any of the various charismata named by St. Paul in Romans, 1 Corinthians, or Ephesians. NOTE IV. THE PROPHETS AND THE EUCHARIST Since the discovery of the Didache it has been usual to hold that the prophets had in the primitive Church a peculiar right to preside at the Eucharistic feast. The grounds on which this view is based are stated at greatest length in Dr. Sohm's Kirchen- rechl, pp. 69-86. 2 This view is also held by many other writers of very different schools of thought. 3 The grounds on which it is based may be divided into three, each of which will be dealt with in turn : (1) The interpretation of chapters ix and x of the Didache ; (2) The interpretation of chapter xv of the same work ; (3) Certain other considerations which will be discussed below. (1) The important passages in Did. ix and x are here given in full, the prayers only being omitted. (Chapter IX) ' Now concerning the Eucharist, give thanks thus : (thanksgivings for the cup and the bread) . . . but let no one eat or drink of your eucharist but those who have been baptized into the name of the Lord. . . . (Chapter X) And after ye have received, give thanks thus : . . . but permit the prophets 1 See Harnack, Die Lehre der Z. A., p. 103 ; Loning, Oemeindeverfassung, p. 39 ; Sohm, Kirchenreckt, pp. 42 flf. ; Lindsay, The Church and the Ministry in the Early Centuries, pp. 75, 96 ; McGiffert, Apostolic Age, p. 650 ; Schmiedel, Encyclopaedia Biblica, s.v. ' Ministry ', p. 3115 ; Wordsworth, Ministry of Grace, p. 146 ; Moberly, Ministerial Priesthood, p. 166 ; Hastings' Bible Dictionary, H. M. Gwatkin, s.v. ' Prophets ', vol. iv, p. 128, and W. F. Adeney, ' Teacher ', vol. iv, p. 691, &c. 2 See especially p. 85, n. 11, and he is followed by Lowrie, The Church and its Organization, pp. 339-41. 3 Cf. Moberly, Ministerial Priesthood, p. 175 ; Lindsay, The Church and the Ministry, p. 99 n. ; MacLeod, The Ministry and Sacraments of the Church of Scotland, p. 82 n. THE PROPHETS AND THE EUCHARIST 221 to give thanks as much as they will, (wept 8c r/s e' TrpStrov Trepi TOW iro-njpiov . . . Trcpi 8c TOV KXacr/xaros ... Se v TravTa^pv TTCIVTCOV CVTOVCO?, oVws KaTa aXrjBrj yua^oVres Kai 6V epycov ayaBoi TroAiTevrai Kal v a?vov Kal 86av TW Trarpt TWV oAwv Sia TOV ovo/Aaros TOV vlov Kal TOV Trvev/AaTOS TOV dyiov civaTre/XTrct xai ev^apioTt'av VTrep TOV KaTv;^t(oo-^at TOVTWV Trap' avTov CTTI TroXv TroteiTai* ov o^wTcAeo-avTO? Tas ev^as fai TT/V Tras 6 Trapwv A.aos f Trevor) p-el Xeycov 'A/Aiyv. (Justin Martyr, Z. I c. Ixv.) These two features, prayer by the whole congregation together and prayer by the president alone when he breaks the bread, appear also in c . Ixvii . After the president has finished his instruc - tion, ' then we all rise together and pray, and, as we said before, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent saying Amen.' "EireiTa avicrTa^Oa. KOLVTJ TravTts xai evicts TTC/XTTO/ACV. KCU, ws Trpoe- r]fj.fv, Travo-afj.evepeTai KOL otvos /cat vowp, Kal 6 TrpoeoTws evicts 6/xot'ws Kat ev^apio-Ti'as, OOT; ovvafus avrw, dva- TTC/ATrei KOL 6 Aaos eTrcv^^/xci Xeycov TO a/t?;v. (Justin Martyr, Apol. I c. Ixvii.) The distinction drawn in the words, ' When we cease from the prayers ' (Travo-a/xevoi TU>V ev^wv, C. Ixv n-avo-a/xtvcov Ty/ HAMILTON II Q 226 THE PROPHETS AND THE EUCHARIST o. Ixvii), on the one hand ; and on the other hand, ' When the presi- dent has concluded the prayers ' (oi> orvrreXeo-avro? ras ev^as), and ' the president in like manner offers prayers ' (6 7rporro>s cvx<*s O/AOIWS), makes it clear that the whole congregation utters the earlier prayers in common. It is noteworthy that there is as yet no set form for the celebrant : he gives thanks according to his ability (GOT/ 8iW/us avrta, c. Ixvii), and for a considerable time (tTTt TroXv, c. Ixv). But the prayers of the people, if spoken alto- gether must have followed a definite form known to all and were at least by comparison short. This form, then, would be analogous to the eucharistic prayers of the Didache. Again, St. Clement of Rome lends some support to this view. At the end of chapter xl and beginning of xli he says : ' For unto the high-priest his proper services have been assigned, and to the priests their proper office is appointed, and upon the Levites their proper ministrations are laid. The layman is bound by the layman's ordinances. Let each of you, brethren, in his own order, give thanks unto God, maintaining a good conscience and not transgressing the appointed rule of his service, but acting with all seemliness.' If each one is to give thanks in his own order or division (v TO> tSto) ray/tan), it would seem probable that all the laity were accustomed to give thanks together, and that here again some formula known to all was in use. If we are right in this interpretation of the eucharistic prayers in the Didache, then we must suppose that the whole congregation uttered the words aloud and together. The sonorous roll of the many voices giving thanks together would furnish the very condition most likely to arouse the spirit or inflame the heart of such excitable persons as the prophets. Hence the direction to permit the prophets to continue on at such length as they will, when the congregation has ended the set formula. A passage from the Shepherd of Hermas seems to throw some light upon this practice and perhaps to represent the same thing taking place. In Mand. xi 1 we read, ' How then, Sir, say I, shall a man know who of them is a prophet, and who a false prophet ? . . . When then the man who hath the divine Spirit cometh into an assembly of righteous men, who have faith in a divine spirit and intercession is made to God by the gathering of those men (Tevis ye'vT/Tai irpos TOV Ofov rqs (rwaywy^s TWV dvSpwv CKiWv) then the angel of the prophetic spirit, who is attached to THE PROPHETS AND THE EUCHARIST 227 him, filleth the man, and the man, being filled with the Holy Spirit, speaketh to the multitude according as the Lord willeth. In this way, then, the Spirit of the deity shall be manifest. . . . But when he (i.e. the false prophet) comes into an assembly full of righteous men who have a spirit of deity, and intercession is made from them (Ivrev^is air avn^v yeV^rai), that man is emptied and the earthly spirit fleeth from him in fear, and that man is struck dumb and is altogether broken in pieces, being unable to utter a word.' Here we have apparently the same features as hi the Didache : the common prayers of the faithful congregation, rousing the spirit of the true prophet into utterance, but leaving the false prophet cold and speechless. It would appear, then, quite possible that the eucharistic prayers of the Didache and of the seventh book of the Constitu- tions are really an alternative, or at least an analogous form to what we find in Apost. Const, viii c. 13, 1 where a lengthy response is put into the mouth of the laity. The intensely Jewish character of the prayers in the Didache would well account for their falling into disuse in favour of forms which would appeal more directly to later generations. Now if this be the true view of the eucharistic prayers in the teaching, it is quite clear that the direction to permit the prophets to give thanks at such length as they will, has no reference to the breaking of the bread ; but rather, it means that these members, being known for their gift of inspired speech, need not be silent when the rest of the laity have finished reciting the set forms, but are to be allowed to continue on in extempore prayer as long as they will. Hence the ninth and tenth chapters of the Didache supply no evidence of celebration by the prophets. (2) We now turn to examine the fifteenth chapter of the Didache. It will be well to quote the whole passage beginning from the fourteenth chapter, omitting what is irrevelant, ' And 1 The laity are instructed to answer to the bishop : ' There is One that is Holy. There is One Lord, One Jesus Christ, blessed forever, to the glory of God the Father, Amen. Glory to God in the Highest and on earth, peace, goodwill among men. Hosanna to the Son of David ! Blessed be he that cometh in the name of the Lord, being the Lord God who appeared to us, Hosanna in the Highest.' Apost. Const, viii 13 ; cf. the doxologies in the prayers of the Didache, especially ' for thine is the power and the glory forever and ever. May grace come and may this world pasa away. Hosanna to the God of David.' Did. x 6. Q2 228 THE PROPHETS AND THE EUCHARIST on the Lord's own day gather yourselves together and break bread and give thanks, first confessing your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. . . . (c. xv) Appoint to yourselves therefore bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord, men who are meek and not lovers of money, and true and approved : for unto you they also perform the service of the prophets and teachers. Therefore despise them not : for they are your honourable men along with the prophets and teachers.' xiv. Kara KvpLaKrjv 8e Kvptov o~vva^6fVTf8pas Trpaeis KCU a^iXapyvpovs KOL aXrjOfls KCU s' vfuv yap XtLTOvpyovo-i KCU avrol rrjv Xeirovpytav TWV wv Kol 8t8acTKaA.wv. fj.r) ovv virepiSrjre aurovs' avrol yap clcrw ol TTiiJ.Tf]fj.evoL v/xcov /xcTo. TuJv TrpcxfaiqTwv /cai StSacTKaXtov. The first point to be noticed is that the celebration of the Eucharist is connected with the appointment of bishops and deacons. ' And on the Lord's own day gather yourselves together and break bread and give thanks. . . . Appoint for your- selves therefore bishops and deacons ' (xeiporovrja-aTf ovv cavrois xiv 1 and xv 1). This ovv, says Dr. Harnack, 1 ' proves that bishops (and deacons) should be appointed because in the Church an offering is made on Sunday.' If, then, this is the purpose of the appointment of the bishops and deacons, there can be no doubt that they, or the bishops at least, are regarded as being the proper persons to preside at the Eucharist. But the question must now be considered whether the bishops have the sole right to celebrate, or whether they share this right with, or even hold it in subordination to, the prophets. An argument to this effect has been drawn by Dr. Sohm from the qualifications required of bishops and deacons. Bishops and deacons must be meek, not lovers of money, &c. Why so ? Because they perform the service (Aen-oupyia) of the prophets and teachers. (V/MV yap XfLrovpyovcn KCU avrol rrjv Xcirovpyiav TWV Trpor)Tuv Kal SiSacrxaXcDv.) Dr. Sohm then proceeds to ask what service (Xeirovpyt'a) of the prophets is meant ? Is it a teaching function ? No : for it would be very strange to argue that * bishops and deacons must have these qualifications, for (beside their proper vocation and office, which would not be indicated at all) they have to perform as an avocation also the 1 Expositor, May 1887, p. 341. THE PROPHETS AND THE EUCHARIST 229 office of teacher.' Moreover, he argues that this ministry of the prophets makes it necessary for the bishops and deacons to be ' meek and not lovers of money '. Now these are two qualifica- tions which would naturally be required of those to whom was entrusted the presidency of the Eucharist, and the administration of the alms offered at the Eucharist. The Aeu-oupyta of the prophets then, which the bishops also perform, is no other than the administration of the Eucharist and of the offerings. And the reason why the bishops and deacons are not to be despised, is because they take the place of absent prophets and teachers at the Eucharist, and so occupy the place of highest honour in the community. On this we may remark first, that it is scarcely fair to say that the proper vocation and office of the bishops is not indicated at all unless the Aarovpyi'a of the prophets which they also fulfil is the Eucharist. One function of the bishops has already been mentioned in xiv 1, ' gather yourselves together and break bread,' and hence there is no need to refer to it again. The fact that they are expected to preside at the Eucharist would of itself be quite sufficient to account for the qualifications meek, not lovers of money, and true and approved required in xv 1. But these qualifications must of course be taken with their full con- text. Immediately after they are mentioned, the following words OCCUT ; vfjuv yap XfiTOvpyovcri KOL avrol T(]v Aeiroupyiaj' TWV 7rpO(f>rjT XetrovpytW TWV irpo^r^v (the ministry of the prophets) as referring to the Eucharist. Aeiroupyta, -yiv, &c., might refer to divine ministration in public worship, and is so used in Acts xiii 2 ; Heb. viii 2, 6 ; x 11 ; Luke i 23 ; Phil, ii 17 ; Bom. xv 16 ; but it is also used of service towards men in Phil, ii 25 ; 2 Cor. ix 12 ; Rom. xv 21. l The latter sense is made more probable here by the emphatic position of vfuv ' for to you they minister ', showing that the writer is thinking primarily of service towards man. Now the service par excellence which the prophets and teachers rendered to their fellow Christians was certainly prophecy and teaching : and this would be the natural sense in which to take the word, unless it can be shown on other grounds that the Eucharist formed a regular and normal part of the duties of prophets or teachers. But beyond the chapters of the Didache which we have just been discussing, and certain other considerations which will shortly be shown to be groundless, there is no evidence to support the practice of celebration by prophets. One feels, therefore, that XfiTovpyia must here be taken in its natural sense as meaning prophecy and teaching, which it was the peculiar function of the prophets and teachers to supply. In this case the interpretation of the passage will be as follows. Bishops and deacons are to be appointed on account of the weekly Eucharist. They are to be men who are gentle, no lovers of money, but true and approved. An additional reason for appointing them is that in the absence of inspired prophets and teachers, they may do their best to supply the Church with necessary instruction. For this reason they are not to be despised : for they rank with the prophets and teachers in honour. (3) We come now to the other considerations adduced. It is urged by Dr. Sohm 2 that the giving of thanks at the Eucharist was an exercise of a gift of that gift of teaching in the larger sense which included both prophecy and teaching. Hence this duty fell naturally to the prophets or other members of the charismatic ministry. Again, the president of the Eucharist had to receive and administer the alms which were offered by the faithful at the time of the celebration. This Church property was the property of God, and had to be received and managed in the name of God, by God's priestly representative : that is, 1 See Back ham on Acts xiii 2. 1 Kirchenrecht, pp. 69-81 ; cf. Lowrie, The Church and its Organization, pp. 271-3. THE PROPHETS AND THE EUCHARIST 231 by a prophet or teacher. Once more, out of this fund the prophets received support : and a gift to them was a gift to God. Hence it is evident that the prophets and other spiritually endowed individuals were the presidents of the Eucharist. On this series of arguments several things are to be said. In the first place, is it correct to say that the offering of the prayer of thanksgiving required a special spiritual gift of utterance ? Certainly there is very little in the accounts of the original institution by our Lord, or in what St. Paul says of it in 1 Cor. to suggest it as a scene of spiritual excitement. St. Paul in 1 Cor. distinguishes two kinds of meetings, one eis TO ayelv (1 Cor. xi 33), the other, for prayer, praise and mutual exhortation. All he has to say of the prophets and teachers points to the latter kind of meeting as the proper sphere for the exercise of their gifts. In the second place, with regard to the offerings at the Eucharist. It has already been seen that there were no regular common funds before the collection for the poor at Jerusalem, possibly not till close on to the date of the Pastoral Epistles. If there were no common funds, then no offerings were received at the Eucharist ; hence so long as this lasted, there could have been no need of a prophet to preside at the Eucharist in order to receive them. In the third place, both Dr. Sohm and Mr. Lowrie agree that members of the charismatic ministry were not always to be found, and that in their absence, bishops were to take their place. But if bishops, who had no special gift of utterance, could on some occasions preside, then it must be conceded that the presence of a prophet or teacher was not absolutely necessary. Now there is abundant evidence that bishops and deacons were well known throughout Christendom at a time when the charis- matic ministry was still flourishing. For years they must have coexisted in the same Churches. But, if bishops merely take the place of absent prophets at the head of the common life of the Church, how can we account for this coexistence ? Both these ministries of prophets, &c., and bishops and deacons occupy much too large a place in the lif e of the apostolic Churches, and were much too common, to be merely substitutes for each other. Dr. Sohm's arguments cannot carry much weight without direct historical evidence behind them. Yet the only authority which can be adduced, outside the passages from the Didache 232 THE PROPHETS AND THE EUCHARIST discussed above, is the heathen writer Lucian in the middle of the second century. Lucian says of Peregrinus Proteus that among the Christians he became prophet, leader, ruler of the Synagogue, everything at once (Trpo^Tfjg KOI 0ia(rapx?7s KCU ^uvaywyers *at iravra avros), and that the Christians declared him their president eVeypaov). This may well include the presidency of the Eucharist, but the use of such titles as 6iai<:, ^waywyevs Trpoo-Ta-n??, does not suggest an intimate acquaintance with the internal life of the Churches. In any case, Lucian is much too late to be of value. In his day, celebration by bishops and elders was the well-known and well-recognized custom. There has been some difference of opinion as to the date to be assigned to the Didache. Some authorities place it as early as the last quarter of the first century and other as late as the middle of the second, or even later still. It is not, however, necessary for our purpose to determine this question accurately. The main object is to elicit the evidence of the Didache on the subject of the celebration of the Eucharist : and since it reflects the conditions of Church life in some locality, probably Palestine, between the two periods given above, the exact point of time at which we are to place it, will matter but little. The customs it describes must have prevailed in whole or in part, for a consider- able period both before and after the Didache appeared in writing : just how long or how short this period may have been it is impossible to determine. NOTE V. FURTHER EVIDENCE RELATING TO ORDINATIONS (1) Dr. Lindsay l says : ' It was the rule, when the bishop was set apart to his office, that the neighbouring bishops should be present ; but this was not essential. The congregation possessed within itself the power and authority to carry out the ordination of their chief office-bearer. When all things were ready, and the whole congregation had assembled in Church, one of the Bishops, or one of the Elders of the congregation, was selected to perform the act of ordination, which consisted in laying his hands on the Bishop-elect and praying over him.' And again : ' The little society . . . contains within itself the power to perform . . . the selection and ordination of its bishop ' (ib. p. 250). This view is 1 The Church and the Ministry, p. 246. FURTHER EVIDENCE OF ORDINATIONS 233 apparently shared by Dr. Hans Achelis, 1 who says that the presence of strange bishops appears to be usual but not absolutely necessary. An examination of the Canons of Hippolytus, on which both writers base their views, scarcely seems to bear them out. There is but one word used for the ordination both of a bishop and a presbyter ; it is ' ordinari '. In Can. ii we read, ' In ea autem hebdomade in qua ordinatur (episcopus) ' and in Can. iv ' si autem ordinatur presbyter '. The two ceremonies are to be precisely the same, except that the presbyter is not to sit in the ' cathedra ' and in the prayer of ordination the word ' episco- patus ' is not to be used (Can. iv). There can be no doubt that both ordinations would be included under the term ' ordinatio '. Now in Can. iv we read, ' Episcopus in omnibus rebus aequi- paretur presbytero excepto nomine cathedrae et ordinatione, quia potestas ordinandi ipsi non tribuitur.' This seems to make it clear that Elders could not ordain alone, although they assisted the Bishop at ordinations. And when we examine Can. ii we find that a presbyter is not represented as an alternative to a bishop in the ordination of bishops, as Dr. Lindsay seems to make out : ' Eligatur unus ex episcopis et presbyteris.' ' Let one of the bishops and presbyters be chosen.' In view of Can. iv and the other evidence for the late growth of the single bishop at Rome, we seem justified in understanding this as a survival of the earlier usage of the terms ' bishop ' and ' presbyter ' as synonymous. Only because the ' presbyter ' was also a ' bishop ' would he be selected to ordain, for a mere presbyter is not allowed to ordain (see Can. iv). In any case, it is not the community apart from its appointed presbyters which ordains. The presbyters were on the line of descent from the Apostles and if it could be allowed that they could ordain a bishop, yet this would mean nothing more than that the confinement of the right to ordain to a single officer must be placed somewhat later than we have placed it. But the statement in Can. iv seems to make it quite clear that presbyters at this time did not ordain. Only if the community already included a Bishop would it be quite true to say that it ' possessed within itself the power and authority to carry out the ordination of its chief office-bearer '. (2) The earliest of the Canons are probably those fragments of the Apostolic Church Order which Harnack has called ' Sources 1 Die Canones Hippolyti, Texte und Unters. vi 4, p. 153. 234 FURTHER EVIDENCE A and B ', and which he dates between A.D. 140 and ISO. 1 These ' Sources ', or rather the first of them, is interesting as describing the organization of a Church in a community in which not even as many as twelve men can be found who are qualified to vote for a Bishop. Nothing is said as to what is to happen in larger circles of Christians, but one may presume that everything is to proceed in the same way in both, with this exception that in the case of the smaller gathering, three men are to be summoned from a neighbouring Church to assist in the selection of a Bishop ; the large communities, no doubt, proceeded to elect without external assistance. The three selected men (eVXe/croi rpek avS/*?), 2 who are to be summoned from a neighbouring Church, are not, so far as we know, clergy, though doubtless men of experience. As Dr. Harnack remarks, they are called in to prove the candidates and not necessarily to assist in their election or consecration. In fact, through the entire section there is no mention of the ordination of the Bishop, whether by the local Church, or by the three strangers, or by other clergy. Yet one cannot think that no ordination of Bishops was ever contemplated in the Churches in which these Canons were in vogue. Readers and deacons are to be both proved (SeSo/a/xaoTxeVot) and appointed (Kaflurraveo- 0u>o-ai/). Nothing is said about the ordination of presbyters, but according to Harnack, 3 the beginning of the section which treats of presbyters is lost, so that it is impossible to say whether there was a BoKifjuuria and a Karao-rao-is in their case as well. 4 It is remark- able, however, that the Apostolic Church Order, in which these Canons are incorporated, puts into the mouth of St. John at the beginning of this section the words : ' The appointed bishop . . . shall appoint two presbyters, whomsoever he has approved ' (6 Ka.Ta(rrr)6fi iiil 2 9 . . . . . . 1 199 xxi 7 . . 19 1 A . . . . 1202 i QQ 10 27 1A 1 K i on vl xxiv 12-14 . . . .189 i OA viii 1 19 i on 35,36 viii 12 EZRA .... i 103 ix6-10 25, 26 TC 27 32 117 . . JOB .... 190 xiii 6 23 1 8 vlO . . . . . .188 viii 11 . . . .186 37 1x7 . . . . . .181 xvi 3 xiv 5 . . . . .179 7-9. . . . . .186 4 9 10, 11 . . . . .178 7 23 13 . . . . . .179 10 .... xx vi 10 . xx viii 10 . xxxvi 32 . xxxvii 1-5 5-15 . 10 . . . . . .179 . . . .179 . . . .181 . . . .188 . . . .181 . . . .188 12 .... 14 15 16 25 14 . . . . . .182 4 .... xxxviii 12 33 . . . . .180 . . . . i 79 33-5 xix 11-13 . . . . 19 33-5 . . . . 180 xxxix 30 . . . . .182 21-34 . 13 PSALMS . . . . 186 34 XX 1 6 . . . 1144 9-11 xviii 11-14 xxii 27 9 . . . .188 . . i 193 xxi 3 7 xxiii 12-22 \ x i \ 39 . . . . .184 . . . . 188 xxii-xxiii 30 .. . . xxiii 4 .... xxxiii 4, 5 g . . . .183 . . . i 82 6 ... 7 ... 12 . . i 68, 198 11,12 . . . . i 130 13,24 . . . xxxix 4, 5 10.11 . . . . .179 190 14 . INDEX OF BIBLICAL REFERENCES 241 xlivl-3 193 1-8 ilOl 7 193 9-22 1 102 22-6 1 105 xlvii i 194 Ixv 2 i 194 9-10 i88 9-13 186 Ixvi ilOl 4,8 1194 Ixviii7-14 . . . .1101 9, 10 i 86, 88 29-32 i 193 IxxiilO, 11 . . . .1194 Ixxiii i 130 Ixxiv2 1202 19-22 1200,203 Ixxvii 16-18. . . .188 17 186 18 188 Ixxviii i 101 12-72 193 23,24 181 Ixxix 10 i 104, 200 Ixxx8-15 . . . .1202 Ixxxi8-16 . . . .1204 Ixxxvi 9 i 194 Ixxxvii i 194 Ixxxix 30-51 . . . i 102 38-45 193 49 1203 xc 10 i 79 xciv9 178 xcvii4 188 civ 5-9 181 13 i 78, 86, 88 14-16 i 78, 86 19 178,80 21 178 27,28 178 32 188 cv i 101 8-11,42 . . . .1202 14-44 193 16 i 80 31,34 182 cvi i 101 8 1199 9 181 evil 25 181 33-8 185 cxi8, 9 183,202 cxv i 102, 156 3-8 168 cxix 89-91 . . . .180 91 179 cxxvii2, 3 . . . .178 3 190 cxxxiilO, 11. . . . 1203 cxxxv i 102 HAMILTON JI CXXXV 1-12 . . . . 1 101 4 168,198 5-17 168 7 188 cxxxyi i 101 cxxxix i 156 14-16 178 cxliv4 . . . . .188 5 188 15 184 cxlv 15, 16 . . . . i 78 15, 19 . . . . . i 83 cxlvii4 180 8 i 78, 86, 88 14-18 181 15 181 16,17 188 18 181 cxlviii5, 6 . . . .180 6 17U PROVERBS viii 27, 29 . . . .1 79, 80 xx 12 178 xxv 14 i 86 23 186 ECCLESIASTES 113 182 116 186 11110,11 182 xi3 186 5 182 ISAIAH 13 165 11 156 11-17 1126 13 156,66 15-17 156,160 16 1114 21 1114 23 156,114 25,26 1116 26, 27 i 192 29 155 30 186 112-4 172,193 6 i 56, 99 8 155 18 155 20 155 1113 156 12-16 156 iv2-6 1192 5 184 v 1 i 202 6 181,88 8 i 114 8-12 . . .156 242 INDEX OF BIBLICAL REFERENCES v 11,22 1114 18-23 i56 20 i 114 24 i78 25 192 vi i 153-5 5, 7 i 157 viill 185,144 viii 11 i 149 12, 18 i 143 19 156 19,20 199 ixl-7 1205 15 159 18-21 188 xl, 2 156,118 5,6 165 5-13 1104 5,15 193 5-19 193 24-7 193,205 xil-10 1192,205 6-9 185 10 1193 xiii 193 9-13 184 xivl, 2 1194 22 178 xv 16 1102 xvii 8 i 55 xix 18-25 .... 172,195 24,25 1195 xx 3 i 143 xxiii 18 i 194 xxiv i 192 xxvii 3 i 86 xxviii 1, 3, 7 . . . . i 114 7,8 156,59 23-9 198 24,29 178 xxix4 166 xxx 18-26 . . . . i 192 23 178 25,26 185 30 188 xxxii 1-20 . . . . i 192 xxxiv i 192 1-3 193 4 184 9-17 184 xxxvi 20 i 104 4-20 1104 xxxvii 10-13 . . .1104 35 1200,203 xxxviii 5-8 . . . . i 86, 144 x!2 1205 12-26 168 18-26 1102 26 180 27 1103 xli 21-4 .... i 102 xli25, 26 . . . .1103 25-9 1102 xliil, 4 1193 9 1102 xliiil 1201 3,4 1202 4 166 9 1102 11,12 1202 19,20 185 25 1200 xliv2 1201 3,4 186 5 i 194 9-20 1102 12 ff 1102 14 186 xlv5, 6 172 8 1192 12 180 14 1194 14-17 1105,193 22-4 1194 xlvi5-7 1102 8-13 1102 11 1103 xlviii3-8 . . . .1102 13 180 14 1102 14-16 1103 18,19 1204 xlix4 1103 6 1193 6,7 1193 14 1103 14-16 193 15, 16 i 202 22,23 1194 11 1103 11 1-3 i 204 3-11 1192 4 1193 1115,6 1201 liii 9, 10 i 105 liv 1192 6 1202 8 193 9, 10 i 204 Iv 1192 4,5 1105,193 8,9 167 10 186 12, 13 . . . . . 1201 Ivi7, 8 1193 Iviiill 186 11x18,19 . . . .1193 Ix-lxii 1192 lxl-3 1105 1-22 172 3-9,11 . . . .1194 3-16 1194 INDEX OF BIBLICAL REFERENCES 243 1x4-14 . . . . . 1105 vii 9, 10 . 156 12 . . . . . 1193 17 . 158 19-22 . . . . . 185 18 ... i 58 1x15,6 . . . . . 1194 21-6 . . . i 101 9 . . . . . . 1105 21 i 58 Ixii4 . . . . . . 166 30 1 68 lxiiil-6 . . . . . 1192 31 . . . . i 58 3,4 . . . . . 166 viii 1 . . - . . i 59 12-14 . . . . 1199 2 . . . . . i 58 16 . . . . 1 201 7 . 1 80 lxivl,2 . . . . 1200 8-11 1 60 8 . . . . . . 1201 10 . . . . . . 157 Ixv 17 . . . . . 185 11 . . . . . . i 57 19 . . . . . . 166 17 . . . . . . 191 21, 22 . . . . . 185 19 . . . . . . i 67, 68 25 . . . . . . 185 1x2 . . . . . . 1114 Ixvi 18-23 . . . . 1105 2-8 ... . . 167 19-24 . . . . . 1194 3-9 . . . . . i 115 7-12 . . . . . 188 JEREMIAH 14 . . i 67 i . . . . . 1160 x 1-10 . . . . . 168 15 . . . . . . 192 1-11 . . . . . i 102 16 . . . . . . 157 12, 13 . . . . . 188 ii 1-8 . . . . . . 1101 xi 1-8 . . . . . i 101 5 . . . . i 68 13 . . . . . . 157 8 . . . . 160 17 . . . . . . 157 11 . . . . 168 18-23 . . . . . 160 20 . . . . 157 22,23 . . . . . i 137 23 . . . .157 xii 1, 2 . . . . . i 130 26 27 . . . . 157,59 1-4 . . . . . 188 27 . . . . 168 3 . . . . . . i 137 35 . . . . 157 7, 10 . . . . . i 202 ill 2 3 . . . . 188 16 . . . . . . 172 4 . . . . 1201 16, 17 . . . . i 193 6 . . . . 157 xiiil-11 . . . . i 143 9 . . . . 157 10 . . . . 157 13 . . . . 167 11 ... . . i 68, 199 17 . . . . 172, 194 13 ... . . 159 18 . . . . 1191 13, 14 . . . . 193 19 . . . . 1201 xiv 2-6 . . . . 186 20 . . . . . . 1202 7, 20, 21 . . . i 200 iv 1 . . . . 168 12 . . . 191 2 . . . . i 72, 194 12, 13 . . . . 157 6 8 192 13-18 . . . . 160 9 . . . . 159 21 ... . . 168 v 1-5 . . . 157,59 22 ... . . i 68, 88 7 . . . . . . 157 xv 3 . . . . . i 82, 91 8 . . . . . . 157 4 ... . . 192 12 . . . . . . 157 10 ... . . i 59 14-17 . 192 17-21 . . . . i 148 19 . 158 xvi 11 . . . . 157 22 . . . . . . 179 19-21 . . i 68, 72, 105, 193 24 . . . . . . 179,88 xvii 15-18 . . . . 169 28 . 156,115 18 ... . . 1137 30 . . . 160 xviii 6 . . 193 31 . . . . . . 160 15 ... . . i 57, 68 vi!3 . . . . . .160 156 18 ... 21,22 . . . . . 159,60 . . . i 137 5, 6 . . . . 1115 23 ... . . . i 137 5 9 1127 xix 1, 10 . . . . 1143 6.9 1114 4 1114 R2 244 INDEX OF BIBLICAL REFERENCES xix5 157 13 158 xx 1,2 169 6 160,137 7-11 159,148 xxi6, 9 191 12 156 xxii3 156,115 8,9 198 13 156 15, 16 1 102, 133 16-17 156 17 1114,115 xxiii 9-40 160 10,14 1114 14 1115 16, 21, 28, 32 . . . 1 141, 145 18 1144 22 1 144, 147 28,29 1148 34 1142 xxiv 10 1 91 xxv 9 192 xxvi 3, 13, 18, 19 . . i 205 8-11 160 10-24 160 20-3 159 xxvii 3, 9 .... 1 139 8 191 9,10 199 13-18 160 xxviii 1 60 2 1142 9 1144 10, 11, 14 . . . .1 143 15 1146 xxix 1 60 17 191 23 1114 xxxi 3 ..... i 202 9, 9-20 i 201 31 170 31-4 1192,205 34,35 179 35-7 . . . . i 70, 78, 80, 203 xxxii20-2 . . . .1198 32 159 35 158 36-40 1205 37-42 193 x x xi i i 5 1 66 9 168,201 14-18 1192 14,20-6 . . . .1203 20-6 170 21 178 24-6 1201 25 179,80 xxxiv8-ll .... 156,115 17 191 xxxv i 143 xxxvi23-6 . 26 . . . xxx vii 11-16 19 . . . xxxviii 1-13 159 191 160 160 160 14-28 160 22-38 188 x!2, 3 198 xliiilO 193 xlivl-14 . . . .1102 3 1103 7-14 1103 13 191 15-19 158 17 158 17, 18 i 104 21-3 i 103 24-30 1103 30 193 1 4, 5 i 191 li 15, 16 i 80, 88 LAMENTATIONS 14 iv!3 EZEKIEL i-iii 14 ill 14 . . . . ivl-3 . . . 4-6. . . . vl-4 . . . vi9 . . . . 11,12 . . . viii 1 .... 14, 16 . . . 1x9 . . . . xi6, 7 . . . 17 . . . . xiil-7 . . . xiii . . . . 1-9 . . . 7 . . . . 10,16 . . . xiv9-ll . . . xvi 1-34 . . . 21 . . . . 59-63 . . . 60 .... xviii 1-18 . . xx 1-20 . . . 8, 9, 13, 14, 22 26 .... 31 . . . . 39-44 . . . 41-4 . . . xxii6, 9, 25 . . 25-30 . . . xxiv 15-18 . . xxvii 27, 28 . . 160 160 160 1160 1149 1143 1143 1143 191 1238 1149 158 1114 1114 1191 1143 160 i 141, 146 1142 1146 160 1101 i 58, 91 1205 1203 1115 1102 1199 158 158 1201 1105 1114 160 1143 1201 INDEX OF BIBLICAL REFERENCES 245 xxviii 23 ... 191 1105 186 184 1115 1149 1114 1192 186 1192 i 105, 201 1191 1137 191 1105 1137 i 105, 201 1105 i!49 1194 1200 i205 154 1192 1191 1202 154 i 54, 98 154 154 154 1192 154 155 154 1 114, 115 159 1114 1114 155 155 155 159 1 127, 231 154 159,114 154 1115 1114 1114 1131 154 155 i 54, 127 154 i 54, 55 155 x 12 . . . . . .1205 25 26 . 12-15 . . . . .1127 xxxi 4, 5 13 ... xil . . . 1-5 . . . 2 ... . . .1115 . . . 168,201 . . .1101 . . . 154 xxxiii3-9 .... 15 22 26 xii 2 . . . . 155 xxxiv 10-31 .... 26 6 . . -. . . . i 127 7 ... . . . 1114 xxxvi8-38 .... 19-24 7, 8 . . . . . .154 8 ... . . . 1131 xxxvii 16-23 xxxviii f . 22 . . 9 ... . . . 154 11 ... . . . 154 xiii2 . . . . . .155 23 . . 15 . . . . . . 186 xxxlx xiv 1-7 . . . . . 1192 6, 7 i 1 *i 9ft JOEL i SS 25-9 xll DANIEL vii 14 1112-32 . . 13 ... . . .1205 . . . 166 17 i 104. 9ftft ix 19 90 i 78. HOSEA Mil 23,24 . . . . . 186 30,31 . . . . . 184 ;;; > 10 i 1Q9 2 Q_91 i 9ft^ 10 1C 1C i 84. 11 10 i S~> 112 11 6, 8 . . . AMOS . . . 154, 116 4,5. 5-8. . . . . 11-13 . , 13 6-13 . . . . . i 101 14r-16 7 ... . . . i 55, 115 16-23 ill 1, 2 . . . . . 168 17 2 ... . . . i 70, 151 ill 4 4-6. . . . . . 1148 IT 1-13 7 ... . . . i 142, 144 2 4-6 8 ... . . . i 148 10 ... . . . 154 11 11 ... . . . i 131 13, 14 12 ... . . . i 116 14 iv 1 . . . . . . i 115 15 1-5 . . . . . . 154 17 4-13 . . . . . i 127 vl 5 ... . . . 155 vi6 ...... 6-10 5, 6 . . . . . . 186 6-8 . . . . . 188 9 9 ... . . . 188 vii 1-7 v5 . . . 7 ... 8 ... . 1 55, 131, 191, 204 . . . 154,127 . . . 180 3 4 5 10-12 . . . . . 154 11 .... 11, 12 i 115 118 14 14,15 . . 18-20 . . i 114, 127, 131, 191, 204, 205 . i 204 viii 46 11-13 ix 8, 9 18-23 . . . . . i 54 x 1,2 20 ... . . . i 191 5 20-24.27 . 1127 INDEX OF BIBLICAL REFERENCES v2l i66 27 1131 vi 1-6 i 64 4-6 il!6 7-14 i!31 12 1115 viil-3 i88 1-9 1131 3,6 166 10-17 159 13-16 1142 16 1148 17 1131 viii 4-6 i 54 9 184 11,12 1100 ix 1-4, 7 i 204 3 182 3-15 1204 6 180 11-15 . 1192 15-21 14 . 5 . iilO . iv2 . 6,7, 14, OBADIAH JONAH 1205 187 191 182 1137 187 MlCAH 184 7 155 iil 156 2 156,114,115 6 159 8 . . . . .-. . 156, 115 9 156, 115 11 159,114 ill 1-5 i 56 2,3 1115,117 5-7 159 7 156 9-11 156 10 1114 10,11 159,118 ivl-3 1193 5 1195 11-13 1192 v 7 . i 56 13 155 14 155 vil-5 1102 , 7 156 6-8 1127 10,11 1114 10-12 156 12 . 1115 vii2-6 156 3 1115 10 1199 16,17 1194 19,20 1203 NAHTTM 14 181 184 II \l: \KKI'K 1114 1194 18-20 168,102 ill 10, 11 i 84 12-14 193 ZBPHAKIAH 112 1103 11 1192 10-13 . . . . . . i 105 1113,4 159 8-10,11-20 . . .1192 9 172 13 . . . . . . . 1115 16-20 i 105 19-20 1201 HAGGAI 19-11 188 11 180 14 193 114,5 1203 6 184 11 i 100 17 188 21 184 21, 22 i 192 ZEOHABIAH 14-6 1102 15 194 19-21 1192 11 11 i 72, 193 v3,4 1114 viii 10 193 14,15 166 20-3 i 72, 193 ix 13 i 93 xl 188 xii 3, 4, 9 . . . . i 192 xiv 1-4 i 192 4-8 184 9 1192 12-18 189 12-21 1105 14 i 194 16-18 . 1194 INDEX OF BIBLICAL REFERENCES 247 MALACHI 12 i66 1199 1201 171 1100 NEW TI 1236 1235 1241 1236 1241 1232 1243 1240 1 240, 248 1238 1236 1231 1243 1243 1242 1241 1236 1139 1137 1126 1244 1235 1137 1240,244 1241 11181 1236 1241 1241 1240 1248 1232 1239 1231 1232 1235 1167 11181 1237 1235 1243 1244 11197 11222 1243 1234 1243 1162 iii 1-5 6 . . 4,5 10, 11 . . 6 11 . 11 12 ... ii7 14 .... ST. MATTHEW v 17 20 3STAMENT i41 . . 44 23 11 10 47 18 vi2, 5, 16 . . . . 7,8,32 .... vii 12 23-6 27 .... 28 28 29 . iiil-i viii 10 12 .... 11 12 14 f ix 14 . . . v 39-41 .... xi 13 . . . 2 xii 1-7 . . 7 6 ... vii 1-9 41, 42 . . 8-12 xv 11, 20 15, 18, 19 . . . . 27 26 .... xvi 6, 11, 12 . . . . 16-18 . . viii 27-30 . . 31 18 38 17 1x9 27 28 12 xvii 24-7 . 31 xviii 17 35 xix28 x33, 34 xx 25 . 43,44 26 27 . xi 15-17 xxi 31, 35-43 . 33-46 . . 44 xii 1-12 43 ... 9 .... xxii 2, 3 . 26 9, 10 . . 26,27 23-33 28-30 32 29,30 34-40 31 40 . 32,33 xxiii 2 3 xiii2 8 . . 26,27 . . . . 11 ... 31 16-21 . xiv!2 23 ... 12-16 xxiv 35 . . . 22,23 xxv 31, 32 .... xxvi 17-19 .... 26, 27 . . . . 22-4 61, 62 ST. LUKE 123 . . . 26-8 .... ST. MA RK i21 22 iv 16, 33, 44 . . . . 22,32 . 25 . . 1114 188 181 1199 1103 1235 1235 1243 1238 1238 1238 1243 1238 ii62 1159,64 1235 i 234, 243 1164 1238 1237 1242 1241 1162 1163 1244 1163 1233 iii 63 ii63 11181 1163 11181 1234 11181 1241 1241 1239 1232 1239 1231 1239 1239 1236 1244 1243 1234 11197 ii222 1243 1244 11230 1234 1243 248 INDEX OF BIBLICAL REFERENCES v 29-31 i238 33 i238 vi!3 11211 vii9 1240 x9-19 1240 25-8 i 231, 240 xi 39-52 i 236 xiiilO 1234 10-16 1237 14 1237 16 1241 28,29 1240,248 xiv 21-4 i 248 24 1240 xv 2 1238 7, 10 i 243 25 11213 xvi 14-17 . . . .1236 16 1236 29,31 1232 xyiiiSl, 32 . . . .1233 xix 7 i 238 9 1241 xx 27-40 i 232 37 1239 45,47 1236 xxi33 1243 xxii 8-13 11197 17-19 1243,11222 22 1233 25,26 1167 26,27 11181 28-30 1244 30 i 240, 11 65 37 1233 xxiv25-7 . . . .1233 44-7 1233,1166 45-9 11212 49 1165,66 ST. JOHN 1113,23 16 . 22 . ill 14 . iv 21-3 v 1 . 8-12 17 . 39 . 45,46 vii 10 . 23 . x35 .. xii 12 . xiii 8 . 12-17 34,35 xv 25 . 1241 1241 1241 1241 1242 1241 1241 1241 1241 1241 1241 1241 1242 1241 1241 1241 11181 11198 1241 xvii 11 11 184 20,21 11182 21,22,23 . . . .11185 ACTS 14,5 11212 6 1142 8 . . . . . . 11 65, 66, 212 15 1135 16 117,8 17 11211 20-22 11211 22 1165,66,212 24 1165, 211 11 2-4 11 21 3 1165 4 11213 7 11 83, 213 7-11 1183 14 11213 15 11213 16 ff 118,11 24 ff 118 3CM: 118 32 1166,212,213 33 1111,212 36 1142 38 1121 41 1142 41,47 1136 42 1166,68 44 .... 1135,79,80,83,91 44-6 1178,81 45 11 79, 80, 82 46 1146,78,83,89 47 1180,84 ill 1,11 1146 11 11 78 13 1110,11 15 1166 18, 19 11 21 18,21 117 19,21 1142 23 1125,29 24 118 25 1111,42 26 1142 ivl,2, 6 1142 4 1142 5-18 1143 8-12 1142 12 1121 13, 26 11 80 21 11J43, 80, 84 25 11,7 32 11 35, 79 32-7 1178 33 1166 34 11 81, 90 INDEX OF BIBLICAL REFERENCES 249 iv34, 35 . . . . . ii 80 82 xi3 . 9 . 15-17 18 . 19 . i255 H49 ii49 34,36,37 . . 35, 37 ... . . ii79 . . ii68 36 .... 37 . . ii 79, 82, 83 . . ii 81 ii35,49 . . . . . ii85 vl . . . . 1-6 .... . . ii 79, 81 . . ii 78 19,20 24 . ii 44, 89 . ~ . . . ii 36 2 .... . . ii 68, 81 26 . . . . . . ii 37 3, 4 8 . . . . . ii 79 27 . 28 . 28-30 29 . 30 . xii2 . 3 . U89, 217 ii217 ii85 12, 20, 21, 42 . 13, 26 ... . . ii 46, 78 . . ii 43, 84 14 .... . . ii 35, 42 ii 35, 100 . . . ii 89, 91, 100, 117, 215, 217 ii91, 211 ii 85 17 . .- . ii 42 18 ff. . . . . . ii 68 30 .... 31 32 . . . . ii 10 . . ii 21 32 .... 33-41 . . . . . ii 66 . . ii43 17 . xiii 1-3 2 . 2,3. 17 . 22 . 23 . U35 ii71 vi .... . . ii 126 U230 ii70 ii 10, 11, 54 ii8 ii54 1 . . . ii 1. 2, 7 . 80, 82, 83, 87, 90 . . ii 35 1-3 .... 1-4. ... 1-7. . . . 2 .... . . ii 87 . . ii78 . . ii68 . . ii91 23, 32 27-9 38 . 33 . . . . ii 11 ii8 5 .... 10 .... . . ii83 . . ii 89 ii56 46 . ii44, 45 12 .... . . ii 84 xiv 2, 5, 14 . 15 . 19 . . . . ii45 ii70 ii9, 53 13. 14 ... . . i 255, ii 47 14 .... . . ii 48 vii 2, 32 . . . iill 15-17 23 . 26 . H53 6 .... . . ii8 ii 113, 117, 121,122, 126,214, 217, 218 H70 8 .... 17 .... 38 .... 48 ff. . . . . . iill . .iill . . ii 7, 37 . . ii 8, 47 XV 1 . ii50 2 . 4,6 6-29 7-11 8-11 ' 9 . . . . ii 69, 117, 215, 217 ii69, 215 52 .... 53 .... viii 1 .... . . ii 8, 47 . . ii9 . . ii 43, 85, 91 ii 67, 68 ii57 1-3. . . . 4 .... 5 .... 14 .... . . ii84 . . ii 85, 89 . . ii89 . . ii 69, 91 ii50 ii49 14-17 15 . 22,23 32 . . . . ii 29 . . . . ii8 . . . . ii 69, 215, 217 ii217 17 .... . . ii93 17, 18 ... . . ii 218 26 .... . . ii 44, 89 xvil,3 1-3. ii51 ix 1, 2, 10, 19, 26 13,32,41 . . 15 .... . . ii 35 . . ii35 . . ii72 ii218 3 . ii9 4 . ii 215, 217 27 .... . . ii69 xvii 2, 3, 5,13 23 . 24-30 26-8 xviii 6 12 . 11 . . . . ii8 ii45 30 .... . . ii35 31 .... . . ii44 ii53 . . . . . ii53 32 .... x3 . . . . . . ii91 . . ii44 ii53 11-14 . . . . . ii48 ii45 23 .... 41-3 . . ii 35 . . ii 66 . . . ii45 13 . iill 43 .... 44-7 . . . . . ii8 . . ii 21, 218 28 . ii8 xix 6 . ii93 45 .... . . ii 35, 49 9,23 xx 3 . ii35 xi2, 3 ii48 ii45 INDEX OF BIBLICAL REFERENCES xi 4 ii 86, 105 7 iil!6 11 iilll 17 . . . . ii 117, 216, 218 17-35 iilU 24 u72 28 . . ii 94, 106, 113, 215, 217 xxi 8 ii 88 10 ii218 18 iil!7, 215, 217 20 U51 20-4 ii9 20-7 ii78 21 U52 24 ii51 28,29 J255 xxii 4 ii 35 12 ii9,48 14 ii 20, 215 14,15 U72 22 i255 xxivS ii36 14 ii 11, 36 14,15 ii67 18 ii9 xxv 8 ii9 xxvi6 ii57 6,7 iill 16 ii72 18 ii9 22,23 iill xxvii35, 36 . . . . ii222 xxviii 17 ii 9 20 iill 22 ii35 25 ii7 28 . ii45 ROMANS 16 . . . . H44 . . . . ii55 19,20 ii53 21-3,25 . . . . ii53 ii-9, 10 ii44 25 i|55 iii 2 ii 7, 64 20 ii55 21 ii 8 21-6, 30 '. '. '. ! ii 56 ivl-11 ii55 1-25 ii55 3ff ii8,64 11,12 ii30 13 ull, 54 vii 1-6 ii 65, 56, 57 7-25 ii55 12 ii67 13 ii55 14 ii9, 57 viii 1 . .... ii 66 viii 3 ii 55 3,4 ii!5 15-17 ii54 ix 4 ii 7, 13, 54 6-8 ..... ii 30 6-13 ii30 14-18 ii8 25,26 ii30 x ii8 3-13 ii56 5 ii55 xi ii 8 1 iilO 15-24 H57 17-24 ii30 29 U27 xii3-8 ii218 4,5 U191 6,7 ii219 8 .... ii 103, 106, 117 13 iilOS xv 8 H54 8-12 iill 10 ii29 14 . . . . . . ii!06 16 U230 25 ii 86 26 U86 27 ii87, 230 xvi 2 ii 103 5 ii!04 26 ii8 1 CORINTHIANS i 1 ii 72 26 ii86 v 3-5 ii 105 vi 6, 6 ii 105 vii 1-24 ii 99 17 UlOO 25-10 ii99 viii ii99 1-7 ii54 ix ii 103 2 ii73 11,12 ii!02 x 1-4 ii 29 17 ii 124, 199 18 H30 19-21 H54 20 ii9, 54 xi2-16 iilOO 16 iilOO 20 ii90 21 ii90, 104, 119 23 ii72 24,25 ii222 26 ii56 33 ii231 xii ii 99, 191, 218 8-11 ii219 INDEX OF BIBLICAL REFERENCES 251 xii 13 ..... ii 180 28 ...... ii71 xiv 3 ...... ii 106 26 ...... iilOT 26-33 ..... iilOO 27-31 ..... ii!07 31 ...... U107 32,33 ..... iilOO 34-5 ..... iilOO xv 3, 4 ..... ii8 xvi 1 . . . . ii 39, 86, 100, 102 1-4 ...... iilOO 2 ...... ii!02 3 ...... ii 100, 105 10,11 ..... ii!23 19 ...... ii 39, 104 2 COBINTHIANS il ...... ii72 ii6 ...... ii!06 iiil ...... iilOO vi 14-16 ..... ii 9 16 ff ...... ii8, 29 vii 1 ...... ii 11 viii 2 ...... ii 86 6 ...... ii 100, 123 13-15 ..... ii86 17,18 ..... ii!23 19 . - . . . . ii 100, 105, 126 23 ...... ii 70, 123 ix2-5 . . . . . ii!23 12 ...... ii230 xi5 ...... ii72 8,9 ..... ii!02 xii 11 ...... ii 72 xiii 18, 19 . . . . ii 39 GALATIANS i 1 ....... ii 71, 72 2 ...... ii39 12 ...... ii72 7-9 ...... ii71, 72 9 ...... ii42,86 10 ...... ii86 12,13 ..... ii51 14-16 ..... ii56 8-12 12 13 14 14-18 16 17 ii8 ii55 ii56 ii54 iill ii54 iill 17.18 ..... ii55 17.19 ..... ii9, 55 19 ...... ii57 21,23 ..... ii56 23 ...... ii57 24 . ii55 iii26-9 ..... ii56, 57 29 ...... ii30 iv 1-4 ..... ii 55 5 ...... ii56 6 ...... ii21, 54 8,9 ..... ii53 21-31 ..... ii!5, 56 vl ...... ii56 1-6 ...... ii51 2 ...... ii52 2,6 ...... ii58 vi6 ...... ii!03 16 . . .- . . . ii30 EPHESIANS i 1 ....... ii 72 iill, 12 ..... ii30 11-22 ..... ii57 12 ...... ii53, 54 19,20 ..... ii63 19-22 ..... ii30 20 ...... ii66 iii4-ll ..... ii55 5,6 ..... ii35 6 ...... ii30 iv3 ...... ii 182, 183 4-6 ..... iilSO 7-11 ..... U219 7-13 ..... ii218 7-16 ..... ii!82 11 ...... ii 71, 106 16 ...... ii!91 v8 ...... ii54 vi 21, 22 ..... ii 123 PHILIPPIANS ill? ...... ii230 19,23 ..... ii!23 25 ...... ii 70, 123, 230 iv 15 ...... ii 39 15-17 . ii!02 COLOSSIAKS il 7,8. 12,13 18 . iii 16 . iv7, 9 14 . 15 . ii72 ii!23 ii54 ii218 ii54 iil06 ii!23 ii218 ii!04 1 THESSALONIANS i 1 ii 39 9 ii53 iii 2 ii!23 8 ii!03 9 ii 102, 103 252 INDEX OF BIBLICAL REFERENCES vll ii!06 12 ii 106, 113, 117 14 11106 20 11218 21 11219 2 THESSALONIANS 11 ii 39 iii 10-14 ii 83 15 iilOG 1 TIMOTHY 11 ii 72 15 11117 iii 1 ii 117, 122 1-13 11109 1-15 H122 2-13 H97, 116 iv9 11117 14 ii93 vl,2 11214 16 ii!05 16 ii!05 17 11215,217 19 ii215 2 TIMOTHY il 1172 6 1193 ii 11 ii 117 TITUS 11 ii 72 5 . ii 94, 121, 122, 126, 214, 217 5-7 ii 215 6-9 ii 109, 116 116 ii!02 Hi8 iill? PHILEMON 2 ii 104 HEBREWS il 117,10 5ff ii8 iii 7 ii7 13 ii!06 iv7-ll H29 vi 13, 14 ii 8 13-17 ... iill vii 6, 13 . . . . ii 11 12, 18, 19 . . . . ii 15 viii2, 6 H230 5,6 ii!5 10 . . . . . .1129 13 1115 1x20 iill xll ii230 15-17 1129 25 11106 xi!7 iill xiii 2 ii 103 7,17,24 .... ii 113, 117 JAMES 11 ii30, 35, 116 1120-4 ii8 v!4 . . . .ii 106, 115,116,215, 217,218 1 PETER il 1136,116 10-12 ii8 ii5 ii30 9, 10 ii 30 17 ii35 25 11106 iv 17 ii 30 vl 11116,215,218 1-4 11106,114 5 ii214 2 PETER iii 2 11218 1 JOHN ivl ii 106, 219 1-3 11218 REVELATION ii2 11106,220 iv4 11218 10 ii 116, 218 v 5, 6 ii 116, 218 8,9. ..... ii 115, 218 10 ii30 xvi 6 ii 218 xviii 20. 24 . . . . ii 218 xxi 14 ii 66 xxii 9 ii 218 THE LIBRARY UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Santa Barbara THIS BOOK IS DUE ON THE LAST DATE STAMPED BELOW. Series 9482