I. THE LIFE OF JESUS.

§ 13. JESUS CHRIST, THE SAVIOUR OF THE WORLD.

“But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth His Son,

made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the

law, that we might receive the adoption of sons” (Gal. iv. 4, 5). In

accordance with prophetic announcements, He was born in Bethlehem as the

Son of David, and, after John the Baptist, the last of the prophets of

the Old Covenant, had prepared His way by the preaching of repentance

and the baptism of repentance, He began in the thirtieth year of His age

His fulfilment by life and teaching of the law and the prophets. With

twelve chosen disciples He travelled up and down through the land of the

Jews, preaching the kingdom of God, helping and healing, and by miracles

and signs confirming His divine mission and doctrine. The Pharisees

contradicted and persecuted Him, the Sadducees disregarded Him, and

the people vacillated between acclamations and execrations. After

three years’ activity, amid the hosannas of the multitude, He made His

royal entry into the city of His kingly ancestors. But the same crowd,

disappointed in their political and carnal Messianic expectations, a

few days later raised the cry: Crucify Him, crucify Him! Thus then He

suffered according to the gracious good pleasure of the Father the death

of the cross for the sins of the world. The Prince of life, however,

could not be holden of death. He burst the gates of Hades, as well as

the barriers of the grave, and rose again the third day. For forty days

He lingered here below, promised His disciples the gift of His Holy

Spirit, and commissioned them to preach the gospel to all nations. Then

upon His ascension He assumed the divine form of which He had emptied

Himself during His incarnation, and sits now at the right hand of power

as the Head of His church and the Lord of all that is named in heaven

and on earth, until visibly and in glory, according to the promise, He

returns again at the restitution of all things.

§ 13.1. In regard to the =year of the birth= and the =year of the

death= of the Redeemer no absolutely certain result can now be

attained. The usual Christian chronology constructed by Dionysius

Exiguus in the sixth century, first employed by the Venerable

Bede, and brought into official use by Charlemagne, assumes the

year 754 A.U.C. as the date of Christ’s birth, which is evidently

wrong, since, in A.D. 750 or 751, Herod the Great was already

dead. Zumpt takes the seventh, others the third, fourth, or fifth

year before our era. The length of Christ’s public ministry was

fixed by many Church Fathers, in accordance with Isaiah lxi. 1, 2,

and Luke iv. 19, at one year, and it was consequently assumed

that Christ was crucified when thirty years of age (Luke iii. 21).

The synoptists indeed speak only of one passover, the last,

during Christ’s ministry; but John (ii. 13; vi. 4; xii. 1) speaks

of three, and also besides (v. 1) of a ἑορτὴ τῶν Ἰουδαίων.

§ 13.2. Among the non-biblical =witnesses to Christ= the earliest

is probably a Syrian Epistle of =Mara= to his son Serapion,

written, according to Cureton (“_Spicileg. Syriacum_.” Lond.,

1855), about A.D. 73. The father, highly cultured in Greek wisdom

but dissatisfied with it, writes from exile words of comfort

and exhortation to his son, in which he places Christ alongside

of Socrates and Pythagoras, and honours him as the wise King,

by whose death the Jews had brought upon themselves the swift

overthrow of their kingdom, who would, however, although slain,

live for ever in the new land which He has given. To this period

also belongs the witness of the Jewish historian =Josephus=,

which in its probably genuine portions praises Jesus as a worker

of miracles and teacher of wisdom, and testifies to His death on

the cross under Pilate, as well as the founding of the church in

His name. Distinctly and wholly spurious is the =Correspondence

of Christ with Abgar=, Prince of Edessa, who entreats Christ

to come to Edessa to heal him and is comforted of the Lord by

the sending of one of His disciples after His ascension. This

document was first communicated by Eusebius (_Hist. Eccl._, i. 13)

from the Archives of Edessa in a literal translation from the

Syriac, and is also to be found in the Syrian book _Doctrina

Addæi_ (§ 32, 6). Of a similar kind are the apocryphal =Acta

Pilati=, as well the heathen form which has perished (§ 22, 7),

as the Christian form which is still extant (§ 32, 4). An

=Epistle of Lentulus,= pretending to be from a Roman resident

in Palestine on terms of intimacy with Pilate, containing a

description of the appearance of Christ, is quoted, and even then

as a forgery, by Laurentius Valla in his writing on the _Donation

of Constantine_. Since in many particulars it agrees with the

description of the person of Christ given in the Church History

by Nicephorus Callisti (§ 5, 1), in accordance with the type then

prevailing among Byzantine painters, it may fairly be regarded

as an apocryphal Latin retouching of that description originating

in the fifteenth century. At Edessa a picture of Christ was known

to exist in the fourth century (according to the _Doctr. Addæi_),

which must have been brought thither by the messengers of Abgar,

who had picked it up in Jerusalem. During the fourth century

mention is made of a statue of Christ, first of all by Eusebius,

who himself had seen it. This was said to have been set up in

Paneas by the woman cured of the issue of blood (Matt. ix. 20).

It represents a woman entreating help, kneeling before the lofty

figure of a man who stretches out his hand to her, while at his

feet a healing herb springs up. In all probability, however,

it was simply a votive figure dedicated to the god of healing,

Æsculapius. The legend that has been current since the fifth

century of the sweat-marked handkerchief of =Veronica=--this name

being derived either from _vera icon_, the true likeness, or from

Bernice or Beronice, the name given in apocryphal legends to the

woman with the issue of blood,--on which the face of the Redeemer

which had been wiped by it was imprinted, probably arose through

the transferring to other incidents the legendary story of Edessa.

On the occurrence of similar transferences see § 57, 5.

II. THE APOSTOLIC AGE.

A.D. 30-70.

§ 14. THE MINISTRY OF THE APOSTLES BEFORE PAUL.

After the Apostolate had been again by means of the lot raised to the

significant number of twelve, amid miraculous manifestations, the Holy

Spirit was poured out on the waiting disciples as they were assembled

together on the day of Pentecost, ten days after the Ascension of the

Lord. It was the birthday of the church, and its first members were

won by the preaching of Peter to the wondering multitude. By means of

the ministry of the Apostles, who at first restricted themselves to

Jerusalem, the church grew daily. A keen persecution, however, on the

part of the Jews, beginning with the execution of the deacon Stephen,

scattered them apart, so that the knowledge of the gospel was carried

throughout all Palestine, and down into Phœnicia and Syria. Philip

preached with peculiarly happy results in Samaria. Peter soon began a

course of visitation through the land of Jews, and at Cæsarea received

into the church by baptism the first Gentile family, that of Cornelius,

having been prepared for this beforehand by a vision. At the same time

there arose independently at Antioch in Syria a Christian congregation,

composed of Jews and Gentiles, through the great eagerness of the

Gentiles for salvation. The Levite Barnabas, a man of strong faith, was

sent down from Jerusalem, took upon himself the care of this church, and

strengthened his own ministry by securing Paul, the converted Pharisee,

as his colleague. This great man, some years before, by the appearing of

Christ to him on the way to Damascus, had been changed from a fanatical

persecutor into a zealous friend and promoter of the interests of the

church. Thus it came about that the Apostolic mission broke up into

two different sections, one of which was purely Jewish and had for its

centre and starting point the mother church at Jerusalem, while the

other, issuing from Antioch, addressed itself to a mixed audience, and

preeminently to the Gentiles.

It is difficult to determine with chronological exactness

either the =beginning= (§ 13, 1) or the =close of the Apostolic

Age=. Still we cannot be far wrong in taking A.D. 30 as the

beginning and A.D. 70 as the close of that period. The last

perfectly certain and uncontested date of the Apostolic Age is

the martyrdom of the Apostle Paul in A.D. 64, or perhaps A.D. 67,

see § 15, 1. We have it on good evidence that James the elder

died about A.D. 44, and James the Just about A.D. 63 (§ 16, 3),

that Peter suffered martyrdom contemporaneously with Paul

(§ 16, 1), that about the same time or not long after the most of

the other Apostles had been in all probability already taken home,

at least in regard to their life and work after the days of Paul,

we have not the slightest information that can lay any claim

to be regarded as historical. The Apostle John forms the only

exception to this statement. According to important witnesses

from the middle and end of the second century (§ 16, 2), he

entered upon his special field of labour in Asia Minor after

the death of Paul, and continued to live and labour there, with

the temporary interruption of an exile in Patmos, down to the

time of Trajan, A.D. 98-117. But the insufficient data which

we possess regarding the nature, character, extent, success,

and consequences of his Apostolic activity there are partly,

if not in themselves altogether incredible, interesting only

as anecdotes, and partly wholly fabulous, and therefore little

fitted to justify us, simply on their account, in assigning the

end of the first or the beginning of the second century as the

close of the Apostolic Age. We are thus brought back again to

the year of Paul’s death as indicating approximately the close of

that period. But seeing that the precise year of this occurrence

is matter of discussion, the adoption of the round number 70 may

be recommended, all the more as with this year, in which the last

remnant of Jewish national independence was lost, the opposition

between Jewish and Gentile Christianity, which had prevailed

throughout the Apostolic Age, makes its appearance under a new

phase (§ 28).

§ 15. THE MINISTRY OF THE APOSTLE PAUL.

Set apart to the work by the church by prayer and laying on of hands,

Paul and Barnabas started from Antioch on their =first= missionary

journey to Asia Minor, A.D. 48-50. Notwithstanding much opposition

and actual persecution on the part of the enraged Jews, he founded

mixed churches, composed principally of Gentile Christians, comprising

congregations at Antioch in Pisidia, Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe. When

Paul undertook his =second= missionary journey, A.D. 52-55, Barnabas

separated himself from him because of his refusal to accept the company

of his nephew John Mark, who had deserted them during their first

journey, and along with Mark embarked upon an independent mission,

beginning with his native country Cyprus; of the success of this mission

nothing is known. Paul, on the other hand, accompanied by Silas and

Luke, with whom at a later period Timothy also was associated, passed

through Asia Minor, and would thereafter have returned to Antioch had

not a vision by night at Troas led him to take ship for Europe. There he

founded churches at Philippi, Thessalonica, Berea, Athens, and Corinth,

and then returned through Asia Minor to Syria. Without any lengthened

interval he entered upon his =third= missionary journey, A.D. 55-58,

accompanied by Luke, Titus, and Timothy. The centre of his ministerial

activity during this period was Ephesus, where he founded a church with

a large membership. His success was extraordinary, so that the very

existence of heathenism in Asia Minor was seriously imperilled. Driven

away by the uprising of a heathen mob, he travelled through Macedonia,

pressed on to Illyricum, visited the churches of Greece, and then went

to Jerusalem, for the performance of a vow. Here his life, threatened

by the excited Jews, was saved by his being put in prison by the Roman

captain, and then sent down to Cæsarea, A.D. 58. An appeal to Cæsar, to

which as a Roman citizen he was entitled, resulted in his being sent to

Rome, where he, beginning with the spring of A.D. 61, lived and preached

for several years, enduring a mild form of imprisonment. The further

course of his life and ministry remains singularly uncertain. Of the

later labours and fortunes of Paul’s fellow-workers we know absolutely

nothing.

It may be accepted as a well authenticated and incontestable

fact that =Paul= suffered =martyrdom= at Rome under Nero. This

is established by the testimony of Clement of Rome--μαρτυρήσας

ἐπὶ τῶν ἡγουμένων οὕτως ἀπηλλάγη τοῦ κοσμοῦ,--and is further

explained and confirmed by Dionysius of Corinth, quoted in

Eusebius, and by Irenæus, Tertullian, Caius of Rome (§ 16, 1). On

the other hand it is disputed whether it may have happened during

the imprisonment spoken about in the Acts of the Apostles, or

during a subsequent imprisonment. According to the tradition of

the church given currency to by Eusebius (_Hist. Eccl._, ii. 22),

which even in our own time has been maintained by many capable

scholars, Paul was released from his first Roman imprisonment

shortly before the outburst of Nero’s persecution of the

Christians in A.D. 64 (§ 22, 1), and made a fourth missionary

journey which was brought to a close by his being a second

time arrested and subsequently beheaded at Rome in A.D. 67. The

proofs, however, that are offered in support of this assertion

are of a very doubtful character. Paul certainly in A.D. 58

had the intention (Rom. xv. 24, 28) after a short visit to Rome

to proceed to Spain; and when from his prison in Rome he wrote

to Philemon (v. 22) and to the Philippians (i. 25; ii. 24), he

believed that his cherished hope of yet regaining his liberty

would be realised; but there is no further mention of a journey

into Spain, for apparently other altogether different plans of

travel are in his mind. And indeed circumstances may easily be

conceived as arising to blast such hopes and produce in him that

spirit of hopeless resignation, which he gives expression to

in 2 Tim. iv. 6 ff. But the words of Clement of Rome, chap. 5:

δικαιοσύνην διδάξας ὅλον τὸν κόσμον καὶ ἐπὶ τὸ τέρμα τῆς δύσεως

ἐλθών, etc., are too indefinite and rhetorical to be taken as

a certain testimony on behalf of a Spanish missionary journey.

The incomplete reference in the Muratorian Fragment (§ 36, 8)

to a _profectio Pauli ab Urbe ad Spaniam proficiscentis_ may

be thought to afford more direct testimony, but probably it is

nothing more than a reminiscence of Rom. xv. 24, 28. Much more

important, nay almost conclusive, in the opposite direction, is

the entire absence, not only from all the patristic, but also

from all the apocryphal, literature of the second and third

centuries, of any allusion to a fourth missionary journey or a

second imprisonment of the Apostle. The assertion of Eusebius

introduced by a vague λόγος ἔχει can scarcely be regarded as

outweighing this objection. Consequently the majority of modern

investigators have decided in favour of the theory of one

imprisonment. But then the important question arises as to

whether the Epistles to Timothy and Titus, claiming to be Pauline,

with the journeys referred to or presupposed in them, and the

residences of the Apostle and his two assistants, can find

a place in the framework of the narrative in the Acts of the

Apostles, and if so, what that place may be. In answering this

question those investigators take diverse views. Of those who

cannot surrender their conviction that the Pastoral Epistles

are genuine, some assign them to the Apostle’s residence of

almost three years in Ephesus, others to the imprisonment in

Cæsarea which lasted two years and a half, and others to the

Roman imprisonment of almost three years. Others again, looking

upon such expedients as inadmissible, deny the authenticity of

the Pastoral Epistles, these having appeared to them worthy of

suspicion on other grounds.

§ 16. THE OTHER APOSTLES AFTER THE APPEARANCE

OF THE APOSTLE PAUL.

Only in reference to the most distinguished of the Apostles have any

trustworthy accounts reached us. James the brother of John, at an early

period, in A.D. 44, suffered a martyr’s death at Jerusalem. Peter was

obliged by this persecution to quit Jerusalem for a time. Inclination

and his special calling marked him out as the Apostle of the Jews

(Gal. ii. 7-9). His ministry outside of Palestine was exercised,

according to 1 Pet. i. 1, in the countries round about the Black Sea,

and, according to chap. v. 13, extended to Babylon. The legend that,

contemporaneously with the beheading of Paul, he suffered death by

crucifixion under Nero at Rome (John xxi. 18, 19), is doubtful; and

it is also questionable whether he ever went to Rome, while the story

of his having down to the time of his death been Bishop of Rome for

twenty-five years is wholly fabulous. John, according to the tradition

of the church, took up Asia Minor as his special field of labour after

it had been deprived of its first Apostle by the martyr death of Paul,

fixing his residence at Ephesus. At the head of the mother church of

Jerusalem stood James the Just, the brother of the Lord. He seems never

to have left Jerusalem, and was stoned by the Jews between A.D. 63-69.

Regarding the rest of the Apostles and their fellow-workers we have only

legendary traditions of an extremely untrustworthy description, and even

these have come down to us in very imperfect and corrupt forms.

§ 16.1. =The Roman Episcopate of Peter.=--The tradition that

Peter, after having for some years held the office of bishop

at Antioch, became first Bishop of Rome, holding the office for

twenty-five years (A.D. 42-67), and suffered martyrdom at the

same time with Paul, had its origin in the series of heretical

apocryphal writings, out of which sprang, both the romance of the

Clementine Homilies and Recognitions (§ 28, 3), and the Ebionite

Acts of Peter; but it attained its complete form only at the end

of the fourth century, after it had been transplanted into the

soil of the church tradition through the _Acta Petri et Pauli_

(§ 32, 6). What chiefly secured currency and development to this

tradition was the endeavour, ever growing in strength in Rome,

to vindicate on behalf of the Roman Episcopate as the legitimate

successor and heir to all the prerogatives alleged to have been

conferred on Peter in Matt. xvi. 18, a title to primacy over all

the churches (§ 34, 8; 46, 3 ff.). But that Peter had not really

been in Rome as a preacher of the gospel previous to the year

A.D. 61, when Paul came to Rome as a prisoner, is evident from the

absence of any reference to the fact in the Epistle to the Romans,

written in A.D. 58, as well as in the concluding chapter of the

Acts of the Apostles. According to the Acts, Peter in A.D. 44

lay in prison at Jerusalem, and according to Gal. ii., he was

still there in A.D. 51. Besides, according to the unanimous

verdict of tradition, as expressed by Irenæus, Eusebius, Rufinus,

and the Apostolic Constitutions, not Peter, but Linus, was the

first Bishop of Rome, and it is only in regard to the order of

his successors, Anacletus and Clement, that any real uncertainty

or discrepancy occurs. This, indeed, by no means prevents us

from admitting an appearance of Peter at Rome resulting in his

martyrdom. But the testimonies in favour thereof are not of such

a kind as to render its historical reality unquestionable. That

Babylon is mentioned in 1 Pet. v. 13 as the place where this

Epistle was composed, can scarcely be used as a serious argument,

since the supposition that Babylon is a symbolical designation

of Rome as the centre of anti-Christian heathenism, though quite

conceivable and widely current in the early church, is not by any

means demonstrable. Toward the end of the first century, Clement

of Rome relates the martyrdom of Peter as well as of Paul, but

he does not even say that it took place at Rome. On the other

hand, clear and unmistakable statements are found in Dionysius

of Corinth, about A.D. 170, then in Caius of Rome, in Irenæus

and Tertullian, to the effect that Peter and Paul exercised

their ministry together and suffered martyrdom together at Rome.

These statements, however, are interwoven with obviously false

and fabulous dates to such a degree that their credibility is

rendered extremely doubtful. Nevertheless they prove this much,

that already about the end of the second century, the story

of the two Apostles suffering martyrdom together at Rome was

believed, and that some, of whom Caius tells us, professed to

know their graves and to have their bones in their possession.

§ 16.2. =The Apostle John.=--Soon after the death of Paul, the

Apostle John settled in Ephesus, and there, with the temporary

break caused by his exile to Patmos (Rev. i. 9), he continued

to preside over the church of Asia Minor down to his death in

the time of Trajan (A.D. 98-117). This rests upon the church

tradition which, according to Polycrates of Ephesus (Eus., _Hist.

Eccl._, v. 24) and Irenæus, a scholar of Polycarp’s (Eus., iv. 14),

was first set forth during the Easter controversies (§ 37, 2)

in the middle of the second century by Polycarp of Smyrna, and

has been accepted as unquestionable through all ages down to our

own. According to Irenæus (Eus., iii. 18), his exile occurred

under Domitian; the Syrian translation of the Apocalypse, which

was made in the sixth century, assigned it to the time of Nero.

But seeing that, except in Rev. i. 11, neither in the New

Testament scriptures, nor in the extant writings and fragments

of the Church Fathers of the second century before Irenæus, is

a residence of the Apostle John at Ephesus asserted or assumed,

whereas Papias (§ 30, 6), according to Georgius Hamartolus, a

chronicler of the 9th cent., who had read the now lost work of

Papias, expressly declares that the Apostle John was slain “by

Jews” (comp. Matt. xx. 23), which points to Palestine rather

than to Asia Minor, modern critics have denied the credibility

of that ecclesiastical tradition, and have attributed its origin

to a confusion between the Apostle John and a certain John the

Presbyter, with whom we first meet in the Papias-Fragment quoted

in Eusebius as μαθητὴς τοῦ κυρίου. Others again, while regarding

the residence of the Apostle at Ephesus as well established, have

sought, on account of differences in style standpoint and general

mode of thought in the Johannine Apocalypse on the one hand, and

the Johannine Gospel and Epistles on the other hand, to assign

them to two distinct μαθηταὶ τοῦ κυρίου of the same name, and

by assigning the Apocalypse to the Presbyter and the Gospel and

Epistles to the Apostle, they would in this way account for the

residence at Ephesus. This is the course generally taken by the

Mediation theologians of Schleiermacher’s school. The advanced

liberal critics of the school of Baur assign the Apocalypse to

the Apostle and the Gospel and Epistles to the Presbyter, or else

instead of the Apostle assume a third John otherwise unknown.

Conservative orthodox theology again maintains the unity of

authorship of all the Johannean writings, explains the diversity

of character discernible in the different works by a change on

the part of the Apostle from the early Judæo-Christian standpoint

(Gal. ii. 9), which is still maintained in the Apocalypse, to

the ideal universalistic standpoint assumed in the Gospel and

the Epistles, and is inclined to identify the Presbyter of Papias

with the Apostle. Even in Tertullian we meet with the tradition

that under Nero the Apostle had been thrown into a vat of boiling

oil, and in Augustine we are told how he emptied a poisoned cup

without suffering harm. It is a charming story at least that

Clement of Alexandria tells of the faithful pastoral care which

the aged Apostle took in a youth who had fallen so far as to

become a bandit chief. Of such a kind, too, is the story told of

the Apostle by Jerome, how in the extreme weakness of old age he

had to be carried into the assemblies of the congregation, and

with feeble accents could only whisper, Little children, love one

another. According to Irenæus, when by accident he met with the

heretic Cerinthus (§ 27, 1) in the bath, he immediately rushed

out to avoid any contact with him.

§ 16.3. =James, the brother of the Lord.=--The name of James was

borne by two of the twelve disciples of Jesus: James, the son of

Zebedee and brother of John, who was put to death by the command

of Herod Agrippa I. (Acts xii. 2) about A.D. 44, and James,

son of Alphæus, about whom we have no further information. A

third James, designated in Gal. i. 19 the brother of the Lord,

who according to Hegesippus (Euseb., _Hist. Eccl._, ii. 23) on

account of his scrupulous fulfilment of the law received the

title of the Just, is met with in Acts xii. 17; xv. 13; xxi. 18,

and is recognised by Paul (Gal. i. 19; ii. 9-12) as the President

of the church in Jerusalem. According to Hegesippus (§ 31, 7),

he was from his childhood a Nazirite, and shortly before the

destruction of Jerusalem, the Jews at the Passover having desired

of him a testimony against Christ, and he having instead given

a powerful testimony on His behalf, he was hurled down from a

pinnacle of the temple, stoned, and at last, while praying for

his enemies, slain by the blows of a fuller’s club. According

to Josephus, however, Ananus, the high priest, after the recall

of the Proconsul Festus and before the arrival of his successor

Albinus, along with other men hostile to James, hastily condemned

him and had him stoned, about A.D. 63. In regard to the person of

this last-named James three different theories have been proposed.

a. In the ancient church, the brothers of Jesus, of whom besides

James other three, Joses, Simon, and Judas, are named, were

regarded undoubtedly as step-brothers of Jesus, sons of

Joseph and Mary (Matt. i. 25), and even Tertullian argues

from the existence of brothers of the Redeemer according to

the flesh against the Docetism of the Gnostics.

b. Soon, however, it came to be felt that the idea that Joseph

had conjugal intercourse with Mary after the birth of Jesus

was in conflict with the ascetic tendency now rising into

favour, and so to help themselves out of this embarrassment,

it was assumed that the brothers of Jesus were sons of

Joseph by a former wife.

c. The want of biblical foundation for this view was the

occasion of its being abandoned in favour of a theory,

first hinted at by Jerome, according to which the expression

brothers of Jesus is to be taken in a wider sense as meaning

cousins, and in this way James the brother of the Lord was

identified with James the son of Alphæus, one of the twelve

disciples, and the four or five Jameses named in the New

Testament were reduced to two, James the son of Zebedee

and James son of Alphæus. It was specially urged from

John xix. 25 that James the son of Alphæus was the sister’s

son of Jesus’ mother. This was done by a purely arbitrary

identification of the name Clopas or Cleophas with the

Alphæus of the Synoptists, the rendering of the words Μαρία

τοῦ Κλωπᾶ by the wife of Clopas, and also the assumption,

which is scarcely conceivable, that the sister of the mother

of Jesus was also called Mary. We should therefore in this

passage regard the sister of the mother of Jesus and Mary

wife of Clopas as two distinct persons. In that case the

wife of Alphæus may have been called Mary and have had two

sons who, like two of the four brothers of Jesus, were named

James and Joses (Matt. xxvii. 56; Mark xv. 40; Luke xxiv. 10);

but even then, in the James here mentioned, we should meet

with another James otherwise unknown, different from the

James son of Alphæus in the list of the Apostles, whose name

occurs in Luke xv. 16 and Acts i. 13 in the phrase Judas of

James, where the genitive undoubtedly means brother of James

son of Alphæus. And though in Gal. i. 19, James the brother

of the Lord seems to be called an Apostle, when this is

compared with Acts xiv. 14, it affords no proof that he

belonged to the number of the twelve.

But the fact that the brothers of Jesus are all and always

expressly distinguished from His twelve Apostles, and form a

group outwardly and inwardly apart from them (Matt. xii. 46;

Mark iii. 31; Luke viii. 19; John ii. 12), tells decidedly against

that idea. In John vii. 3, 5, they are, at a time when James

son of Alphæus and Judas brother of James were already in the

Apostolate, described as unbelieving, and only subsequently to

the departure of the Lord, who after His resurrection appeared

to James (1 Cor. xv. 7), do we meet them, though even then

distinguished from the twelve, standing in the closest fellowship

with the Christian believing community (Acts i. 14; 1 Cor. ix. 5).

Besides, in accordance with Matt. xxviii. 19, none of the twelve

could assume the permanent presidency of the mother church, and

Hegesippus not only knows of πολλοὶ Ἰάκωβοι, and so surely of

more than two, but makes James enter upon his office in Jerusalem

first μετὰ τῶν ἀποστόλων.

§ 16.4. =The Later Legends of the Apostles.=--The tradition that

after the Lord’s ascension His disciples, their number having

been again made up to twelve (Acts i. 13), in fulfilment of

their Lord’s command (Matt. xxviii. 18), had a special region

for missionary labour assigned by lot to each, and also the other

tradition, according to which, before their final departure from

Jerusalem, after a stay there for seven or twelve years, they

drew up by common agreement rules for worship, discipline and

constitution suited to the requirements of universal Christendom,

took shape about the middle of the second century, and gave

occasion to the origin of many apocryphal histories of the

Apostles (§ 32, 5, 6), as well as apocryphal books of church

order (§ 43, 4, 5). Whether any portion at all, and if so, how

much, of the various contradictory statements of the apocryphal

histories and legends of the Apostles about their mission

fields and several fortunes can be regarded as genuine tradition

descending from the Apostolic Age, must be left undecided. In any

case, the legendary drapery and embellishment of casual genuine

reminiscences are in the highest degree fantastic and fabulous.

Ancient at least, according to Eusebius, are the traditions

of Thomas having preached in Parthia, Andrew in Scythia, and

Bartholomew in India; while in later traditions Thomas figures

as the Apostle of India (§ 32, 5). The statement by Eusebius,

supported from many ancient authorities, that the Apostle Philip

exercised his ministry from Hierapolis in Phrygia to Asia Minor,

originated perhaps from the confounding of the Apostle with the

Evangelist of the same name (Acts xxi. 8, 9). A history of the

Apostle Barnabas, attributed to John Mark, but in reality dating

only from the fifth century, attaching itself to Acts xv. 39,

tells how he conducted his mission and suffered martyrdom in his

native country of Cyprus; while another set of legends, probably

belonging to the same period, makes him the founder of the church

of Milan. John Mark, sister’s son of Barnabas, who appears in

Col. iv. 10; 2 Tim. iv. 11; and Philem. 24, as the fellow-labourer

of the Apostle Paul, in 1 Pet. v. 13 as companion of Peter at

Babylon, and, according to Papias, wrote his gospel at Rome as

the amanuensis of Peter, is honoured, according to another very

widely received tradition, quoted by Eusebius from a Chronicle

belonging to the end of the second century, from which also

Julius Africanus drew information, as the founder and first

bishop of the church of Alexandria, etc., etc.

§ 17. CONSTITUTION, WORSHIP, AND DISCIPLINE.[6]

Bound under Christ its one head into an articulated whole, the church

ought by the co-operation of all its members conditioned and determined

by position, talent, and calling, to build itself up and grow (1 Cor.

xii. 12 ff.; Eph. i. 22 f.). Development will thus be secured to natural

talent and the spiritual calling through the bestowment of special gifts

of grace or charismata. The first form of Christian church fellowship,

in the Jewish as well as the Gentile Christian churches, was of a

thoroughly free character; modelled upon, and attached to, forms of

organization already existing and legitimized, or, at least, tolerated

by the state, but all the while inspired and leavened by a free

Christian spirit. Compelled by the necessity which is felt in all social

federations for the recognised ranking of superiority, inferiority, and

equality, in which his own proper sphere and task would be assigned to

each member, and encroachment and disorderliness prevented, a collegial

church council was soon formed by a free compact, the members of which,

all possessed of equal rights, were called πρεσβύτεροι in consideration

of their personal character, and ἐπίσκοποι in consideration of their

official duties. Upon them devolved especially attention and care in

regard to all outward things that might affect the common interests

of the church, management of the property which had to be realised

and spent on the religious services, and of the means required for the

support of the poor, as well as the administration of justice and of

discipline. But alongside of these were other more independent offices,

the holders of which did not go forth like the members of the eldership

as the choice of the churches, but rather had the spiritual edification

of the church assigned them as their life work by a special divine

call and a charismatic endowment of the gift of teaching. To this class

belong, besides Apostles and helpers of the Apostles, Prophets, Pastors,

and Teachers.

§ 17.1. =The Charismata= of the Apostolic Age are presented to us

in 1 Cor. xii. 4 ff. as signs (φανερώσεις, v. 7) of the presence

of the Spirit of God working in the church, which, attaching

themselves to natural endowment and implying a free personal

surrender to their influence, and manifesting themselves in

various degrees of intensity from the natural to the supernatural,

qualified certain members of the church with the powers necessary

and desirable for the upbuilding and extension of the Christian

community. In verses 8-11, the Charismata are arranged in three

classes by means of the twice-repeated ἑτέρω.

1. Gifts of Teaching, embracing the λόγος σοφίας and the λόγος

γνώσεως.

2. Completeness of Faith, or πίστις with the possession of

supernatural powers for healing the sick, working miracles,

and prophesying, and alongside of the latter, for sifting

and proving it, διάκρισις πνευμάτων.

3. Ecstatic speaking with tongues, γένη γλωσσῶν, γλώσσαις

λαλεῖν, alongside of which is placed the interpretation of

tongues necessary for the understanding thereof ἑρμενεία

γλωσσῶν.

In addition to these three are mentioned, in verse 28, ἀντιλήψεις,

care of the poor, the sick and strangers, and κυβερνήσεις, church

government. The essential distinction between speaking with

tongues and prophesying consists, according to 1 Cor. xiv. 1-18,

in this, that whereas the latter is represented as an inspiration

by the Spirit of God, acting upon the consciousness, the νοῦς of

the prophet, and therefore requiring no further explanation to

render it applicable for the edification of the congregation,

the former is represented as an ecstatic utterance, wholly

uncontrolled by the νοῦς of the human instrument, yet employing

the human organs of speech, γλῶσσαι, which leaves the assembled

congregation out of view and addresses itself directly to God,

so that in ver. 13-15 it is called a προσεύχεσθαι, being made

intelligible to the audience only by means of the charismatic

interpretation of men immediately acted upon for the purpose by

the Spirit of God. In Rom. xii. 6-8, although there the charisms

are enumerated in even greater details, so as to include even

the showing of mercy with cheerfulness, the γλώσσαις λαλεῖν is

wanting. It would thus seem that this sort of spiritual display,

if not exclusively (Acts ii. 4; x. 46; xix. 6; Mark xvi. 17), yet

with peculiar fondness, which was by no means commended by the

Apostle, was fostered in the church of Corinth. The thoroughly

unique speaking with tongues which took place on the first

Pentecost (Acts ii. 6, 11) is certainly not to be understood

as implying that the Apostles had been either temporarily

or permanently qualified to speak in the several languages

and dialects of those present from all the countries of the

dispersion. It probably means simply that the power was conferred

upon the speakers of speaking with tongues and that at the same

time an analogous endowment of the interpretation of tongues

was conferred upon those who heard (Comp., Acts ii. 12, 15, with

1 Cor. xiv. 22 f. ).

§ 17.2. =The Constitution of the Mother Church at

Jerusalem.=--The notion which gained currency through Vitringa’s

learned work “_De synagoga vetere_,” publ. 1696, that the

constitution of the Apostolic church was moulded upon the pattern

of the synagogues, is now no longer seriously entertained. Not

only in regard to the Pauline churches wholly or chiefly composed

of Gentile Christians, but also in regard to the Palestinian

churches of purely Jewish Christians, no evidence in support

of such a theory can be found. There is no sort of analogy

between any office bearers in the church and the ἀρχισυνάγωγοι

who were essentially characteristic of all the synagogues

both in Palestine and among the dispersion (Mark v. 22;

Luke viii. 41, 49; Acts xiii. 15; xviii. 8, 17), nor do we find

anything to correspond to the ὑπήρεται or inferior officers of

the synagogue (Luke iv. 20). On the other hand, the office bearers

of the Christian churches, who, consisting, according to Acts vi.,

of deacons, and also afterwards, according to Acts xi. 30, of

πρεσβύτεροι, or elders of the church at Jerusalem, occupied a

place alongside of the Apostles in the government of the church,

are without any analogy in the synagogues. The Jewish πρεσβύτεροι

τοῦ λαοῦ mentioned in Matt. xxi. 23; xxvi. 3; Acts iv. 5; xxii. 5,

etc., did not exercise a ministry of teaching and edification in

the numerous synagogues of Jerusalem, but a legislatory, judicial

and civil authority over the whole Jewish commonwealth as members

of the Sanhedrim, of chief priest, scribes and elders. Between

even these, however, and the elders of the Christian church a

far-reaching difference exists. The Jewish elders are indeed

representatives of the people, and have as such a seat and vote

in the supreme council, but no voice is allowed to the people

themselves. In the council of the Christian church, on the other

hand, with reference to all important questions, the membership

of all believers is called together for consultation and

deliverance (Acts vi. 2-6; xv. 4, 22). A complaint on the part

of the Hellenistic members of the church that their poor were

being neglected led to the election of seven men who should care

for the poor, not by the Apostles, but by the church. This is

commonly but erroneously regarded as the first institution of

the deaconship. To those then chosen, for whom the Acts (xxi. 8)

has no other designation than that of “the seven,” the διακονεῖν

τραπέζαις is certainly assigned: but they were not and were not

called Deacons in the official sense any more than the Apostles,

who still continued, according to v. 4, to exercise the διακονία

τοῦ λόγου. When the bitter persecution that followed the stoning

of Stephen had scattered the church abroad over the neighbouring

countries, they also departed at the same time from Jerusalem

(Acts viii. 1), and Philip, who was now the most notable of their

number, officiated henceforth only as an evangelist, that is, as

an itinerant preacher of the gospel, in the region about his own

house in Cæsarea (Acts viii. 5; xxi. 8; comp. Eph. iv. 11; 2 Tim.

iv. 5). Upon the reorganization of the church at Jerusalem, the

Apostles beginning more clearly to appreciate their own special

calling (Matt. xxviii. 19), gave themselves more and more to the

preaching of the gospel even outside of Jerusalem, and thus the

need became urgent of an authoritative court for the conducting

of the affairs of the church even during their absence. In these

circumstances it would seem, according to Acts xi. 30, that those

who ministered to the poor, chosen probably from among the most

honourable of the first believers (Acts ii. 41), passed over into

a self-constituted college of presbyters. At the head of this

college or board stood James, the brother of the Lord (Gal. i. 19;

ii. 9; Acts xii. 17; xv. 13; xxi. 15), and after his death,

according to Hegesippus, a near relation of the Lord, Simeon,

son of Clopas, as a descendant of David, was unanimously chosen

as his successor. The episcopal title, however, just like that of

Deacon, is first met with in the New Testament in the region of

the Pauline missions, and in the terminology of the Palestinian

churches we only hear of presbyters as officers of the church

(Acts xv. 4, 6, 22; xxi. 18; James v. 14). In 1 Peter v. 2,

however, although ἐπίσκοπος does not yet appear as an official

title, the official duty of the ἐπισκοπεῖν is assigned to

presbyters (see § 17, 6). It is Hegesippus, about A.D. 180, who

first gives the title Bishop of Jerusalem to James, after the

Clementines (§ 28, 3) had already ten years previously designated

him ἐπισκόπων ἐπίσκοπος.

§ 17.3. =The Constitution of the Pauline Churches.= Founding upon

the works of Mommsen and Foucart, first of all Heinrici and soon

afterwards the English theologian Hatch[7] has wrought out the

theory that the constitution of the churches that were wholly

or mainly composed of Gentile Christians was modelled on those

convenient, open or elastic rules of associations under which

the various Hellenistic guilds prospered so well (θίασοι,

ἔρανοι),--associations for the naturalization and fostering of

foreign, often oriental, modes of worship. In the same way, too,

the Christian church at Rome, for social and sacred purposes,

made use of the forms of association employed in the Collegia or

Sodalicia, which were found there in large numbers, especially

of the funeral societies in which both of those purposes were

combined (_collegia funeraticia_). In both these cases, then,

the church, by attaching itself to modes of association already

existing, acknowledged by the state, or tolerated as harmless,

assumed a form of existence which protected it from the suspicion

of the government, and at the same time afforded it space and

time for independent construction in accordance with its own

special character and spirit. As in those Hellenic associations

all ranks, even those which in civil society were separated from

one another by impassable barriers, found admission, and then,

in the framing of statutes, the reception of fellow members, the

exercise of discipline, possessed equal rights; as, further, the

full knowledge of their mysteries and sharing in their exercise

were open only to the initiated (μεμυημένοι), yet in the exercise

of exoteric worship the doors were hospitably flung open even to

the ἀμυήτοι; as upon certain days those belonging to the narrow

circle joining together in partaking of a common feast; so too

all this is found in the Corinthian church, naturally inspired

by a Christian spirit and enriched with Christian contents. The

church also has its religious common feast in its Agape, its

mystery in the Eucharist, its initiation in baptism, by the

administration of which the divine service is divided into two

parts, one esoteric, to be engaged in only by the baptized,

the other exoteric, a service that is open to those who are

not Christians. All ranks (Gal. iii. 28) have the same claim

to admission to baptism, all the baptized have equal rights in

the congregation (see § 17, 7). It is evident, however, that

the connection between the Christian churches and those heathen

associations is not so to be conceived as if, because in the one

case distinctions of rank were abolished, so also they were in

the other; or that, because in the one case religious festivals

were observed, this gave the first hint as to the observance of

the Christian Agape; or that, because and in the manner in which

there a mysterious service was celebrated from which all outside

were strictly excluded, so also here was introduced an exclusive

eucharistic service. These observances are rather to be regarded

as having grown up independently out of the inmost being of

Christianity; but the church having found certain institutions

existing inspired by a wholly different spirit, yet outwardly

analogous and sanctioned by the state, it appropriated, as far

as practicable, their forms of social organization, in order to

secure for itself the advantages of civil protection. That even

on the part of the pagans, down into the last half of the second

century, the Christian congregational fellowship was regarded as

a special kind of the mystery-communities, is shown by Lucian’s

satire, _De morte Peregrini_ (§ 23, 1), where the description

of Christian communities, in which its hero for a time played

a part, is full of technical terms which were current in

those associations. “It is also,” says Weingarten, “expressly

acknowledged in Tertullian’s _Apologeticus_, c. 38, 39, written

about A.D. 198, that even down to the close of the second century,

the Christian church was organized in accordance with the rules

of the _Collegia funeraticia_, so that it might claim from the

state the privileges of the _Factiones licitæ_. The arrangements

for burial and the Christian institutions connected therewith are

shown to have been carefully subsumed under forms that were

admitted to be legal.”

§ 17.4. Confining ourselves meantime to the oldest and

indisputably authentic epistles of the Apostle, we find that

the autonomy of the church in respect of organization, government,

discipline, and internal administration is made prominent as

the very basis of the constitution. He never interferes in those

matters, enjoining and prescribing by his own authority, but

always, whether personally or in spirit, only as associated with

their assemblies (1 Cor. v. 3), deliberating and deciding in

common with them. Thus his Apostolic importance shows itself not

in his assuming the attitude of a lord (2 Cor. i. 24), but that

of a father (1 Cor. iv. 14 f.), who seeks to lead his children

on to form for themselves independent and manly judgments (1 Cor.

x. 15; xi. 13). Regular and fixed church officers do not seem to

have existed in Corinth down to the time when the first Epistle

was written, about A.D. 57. A diversity of functions (διαιρέσεις

διακονιῶν, 1 Cor. xii. 4) is here, indeed, already found, but

not yet definitely attached to distinct and regular offices

(1 Cor. vi. 1-6). It is always yet a voluntary undertaking of such

ministries on the one hand, and the recognition of peculiar piety

and faithfulness, leading to willing submission on the other hand,

out of which the idea of office took its rise, and from which

it obtained its special character. This is especially true of

a peculiar kind of ministry (Rom. xvi. 1, 2) which must soon

have been developed as something indispensable to the Christian

churches throughout the Hellenic and Roman regions. We mean

the part played by the patron, which was so deeply grounded in

the social life of classical antiquity. Freedmen, foreigners,

proletarii, could not in themselves hold property and had no

claim on the protection of the laws, but had to be associated

as _Clientes_ with a _Patronus_ or _Patrona_ (προστάτης and

προστάτις) who in difficult circumstances would afford them

counsel, protection, support, and defence. As in the Greek and

Roman associations for worship this relationship had long before

taken root, and was one of the things that contributed most

materially to their prosperity, so also in the Christian churches

the need for recognising and giving effect to it became all the

more urgent in proportion as the number of members increasing

for whom such support was necessary (1 Cor. i. 26-29). Phœbe

is warmly recommended in Rom. xvi. 1, 2, as such a Christian

προστάτις, at Cenchrea, the port of Corinth, among whose numerous

clients the Apostle himself is mentioned. Many inscriptions in

the Roman catacombs testify to the deep impress which this social

scheme made upon the organization, especially of the Roman church,

down to the end of the first century, and to the help which it

gave in rendering that church permanent. All the more are we

justified in connecting therewith the προϊστάμενος ἐν σπουδῇ

(Rom. xii. 8), and in giving this passage in connection with the

preceding and succeeding context the meaning: whoever represents

any one as patron let him do it with diligence.--The gradual

development of stated or independent =congregational offices=,

after privileges and duties were distinguished from one another,

was thus brought about partly by the natural course of events,

and partly by the endeavour to make the church organization

correspond with the Greek and Roman religious associations

countenanced by the state by the employment in it of the same

or similar forms and names. In the older communities, especially

those in capital cities, like Thessalonica, Corinth, Rome, etc.,

the heads of the families of the first believers attained an

authoritative position altogether unique, as at Corinth those of

the household of Stephanas, who, according to 1 Cor. xvi. 15, as

the ἀπαρχὴ τῆς Ἀχαΐας εἰς διακονίαν τοῖς ἁγίοις ἔταξαν ἑαυτούς.

Such honour, too, was given to the most serviceable of the

chosen patrons and others, who evidently possessed the gifts of

κυβερνήσεις and ἀντιλήψεις, and those who first in an informal

way had discharged official duties had amends made them even

after death by a formal election. On the other hand, the

churches that sprang up at a later period were probably provided

immediately with such offices under the direction and with the

consent of the Apostle or his apostolic assistants (1 Tim. v. 9;

Tit. i. 5).

§ 17.5. =Congregational and Spiritual Offices.=--While then, down

to A.D. 57 no ecclesiastical offices properly so called as yet

existed at Corinth, and no injunctions are given by the Apostle

for their definite introduction, it is told us in Acts xiv. 23

that, so early as A.D. 50, when Paul was returning from his first

missionary journey he ordained with prayer and fasting elders

or presbyters in those churches of Asia Minor previously founded

by him. Now it is indeed quite conceivable that in these cases

he adhered more closely to the already existing presbyterial

constitution of the mother church at Jerusalem (Acts xi. 30),

than he did subsequently in founding and giving a constitution

to the churches of the European cities where perhaps the

circumstances and requirements were entirely different. But

be this as it may, it is quite certain that the Apostle on his

departure from lately formed churches took care to leave them

in an organized condition, and the author of the Acts has given

expression to the fact proleptically in terms with which he was

himself conversant and which were current in his time.--Among the

Pauline epistles which are scarcely, if at all, objected to by

modern criticism the first to give certain information regarding

distinct and independent congregational offices, together

with the names that had been then assigned to these offices,

is the Epistle to the Philippians, written during the Roman

imprisonment of the Apostle. In chap. i. 1, he sends his apostolic

greeting and blessing πᾶσι τοῖς ἁγίοις τοῖς οὖσιν ἐν Φιλίπποις

σὺν ἐπισκόποις καὶ διακόνοις.[8] The =Episcopate= and the

=Diaconate= make their appearance here as the two categories

of congregational offices, of both of which there are several

representatives in each congregation. It is in the so-called

Pastoral Epistles that for the first time we find applied in

the Gentile Christian communities the title of =Presbyter= which

had been the usual designation of the president in the mother

church at Jerusalem. This title, just as in Acts xx. 17, 28, is

undoubtedly regarded as identical with that of bishop (ἐπίσκοπος)

and is used as an alternative (Tit. i. 5, 7; 1 Tim. iii. 1; iv. 14;

v. 17, 19). From the practical identity of the qualifications

of bishops (1 Tim. iii. 1) or of deacons (_v._ 12 f.), it follows

that their callings were essentially the same; and from the

etymological signification of their names, it would seem

that there was assigned to the bishops the duty of governing,

administrating and superintending, to the deacons that of serving,

assisting and carrying out details as subordinate auxiliaries. It

is shown by Rom. xvi. 1, that even so early as A.D. 58, the need

of a female order of helpers had been felt and was supplied. When

this order had at a later period assumed the rank of a regular

office, it became the rule that only widows above sixty years

of age should be chosen (1 Tim. v. 9).--We are introduced to

an altogether different order of ecclesiastical authorities in

Eph. iv. 11, where we have named in the first rank =Apostles=,

in the second =Prophets=, in the third =Evangelists=, and in the

fourth =Pastors= and =Teachers=. What is here meant by Apostles

and Prophets is quite evident (§ 34, 1). From 2 Tim. iv. 5 and

Acts xxi. 8 (viii. 5), it follows that Evangelists are itinerant

preachers of the gospel and assistants of the Apostles. It is

more difficult to determine exactly the functions of Pastors and

Teachers and their relation to the regular congregational offices.

Their introduction in Eph. iv. 11, as together constituting a

fourth class, as well as the absence of the term Pastor in the

parallel passage, 1 Cor. xii. 28, 29, presupposes such a close

connection of the two orders, the one having the care of souls,

the other the duties of preaching and catechizing, that we

unhesitatingly assume that both were, if not always, at least

generally, united in the same person. They have been usually

identified with the bishops or presbyters. In Acts xx. 17, 28,

and in 1 Pet. v. 2-4, presbyters are expressly called pastors.

The order of the ἡγούμενοι in Heb. xiii. 7, οἵτινες ἐλάλησαν ὑμῖν

τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ, has also been regarded as identical with that

of bishops. In regard to the last named order a confusion already

appears in Acts xv., where men, who in _v._ 22 are expressly

distinguished from the elders (presbyters) and in _v._ 32 are

ranked as prophets, are yet called ἡγούμενοι. We should also

be led to conclude from 1 Cor. xii. 28, that those who had

the qualifications of ἀντιλήψεις and κυβερνήσεις, functions

certainly belonging to bishops or presbyters as administrative

and diocesan officers, are yet personally distinguished from

Apostles, Prophets, and Teachers. Now it is explicitly enjoined

in Tit. i. 9 that in the choice of bishops special care should be

taken to see that they have capacity for teaching. In 1 Tim. v. 17

double honour is demanded for the καλῶς προεστῶτες πρεσβύτεροι,

if they also labour ἐν λόγῳ καὶ διδασκαλίᾳ. This passage, however,

shows teaching did not always and in all circumstances, or even

_ex professo_ belong to the special functions of the president

of the congregation; that it was rather in special circumstances,

where perhaps these gifts were not at all or not in sufficient

abundance elsewhere to be found, that these duties of teaching

were undertaken in addition to their own proper official work of

presidency (προϊστάναι). The dividing line between the two orders,

bishops and deacons on the one hand, and pastors and teachers

on the other, consists in the fundamentally different nature of

their calling. The former were congregational offices, the latter,

like those of Apostles and Prophets, were spiritual offices. The

former were chosen by the congregation, the latter had, like the

Apostles and Prophets, a divine call, though according to James

iii. 1 not without the consenting will of the individual, and

the charismatic capacity for teaching, although not in the

same absolute measure. The former were attached to a particular

congregation, the latter were, like the Apostles and Prophets,

first of all itinerant teachers and had, like them, the task of

building up the churches (Eph. iv. 12, εἰς οἰκοδομὴν τοῦ σώματος

τοῦ Χριστοῦ). But, while the Apostles and Prophets laid the

foundation of this building on Christ, the chief corner stone,

preachers and teachers had to continue building on the foundation

thus laid (Eph. ii. 20). A place and importance are undoubtedly

secured for these three spiritual offices, in so far as continued

itinerant offices, by the example of the Lord in His preliminary

sending forth of the twelve in Matt. x., and of the seventy

disciples in Luke x.--Continuation, § 34, 1.

§ 17.6. =The question about the original position of the

Episcopate and Presbyterate=, as well as their relation to one

another, has received three different answers. According to

the =Roman Catholic= theory, which is also that of the Anglican

Episcopal Church, the clerical, hierarchical arrangement of the

third century, which gave to each of the larger communities a

bishop as its president with a number of presbyters and deacons

subject to him, existed as a divine institution from the

beginning. It is unequivocally testified by the New Testament,

and, as appears from the First Epistle of Clement of Rome (ch. 42,

44, 57), the fact had never been disputed down to the close of

the first century, that bishops and presbyters are identical.

The force of this objection, however, is sought to be obviated by

the subterfuge that while all bishops were indeed presbyters, all

presbyters were not bishops. The ineptitude of such an evasion

is apparent. In Phil. i. 1 the Apostle, referring to this one

particular church greeted not one but several bishops. According

to Acts xx. 17, 28, all the presbyters of the one Ephesian

community are made bishops by the Holy Ghost. Also, Tit. i. 5, 7

unconditionally excludes such a distinction; and according to

1 Pet. v. 2, all such presbyters should be ἐπισκοποῦντες.--In

opposition to this theory, which received the sanction of the

Council of Trent, the =Old Protestant= theologians maintained the

original identity of the two names and offices. In support of

this they could refer not only to the New Testament, but also to

Clement of Rome and the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (§ 34, 1),

where, just as in Phil. i. 1, only bishops and deacons are named

as congregational officers, and as appointed by the free choice

of the congregation. They can also point to the consensus of the

most respected church fathers and church teachers of later times.

Chrysostom (Hom. ix. in _Ep. ad Tim._) says: οἱ πρεσβύτεροι

τὸ παλαιὸν ἐκαλοῦντο ἐπίσκοποι καὶ διάκονοι Χριστοῦ, καὶ οἱ

ἐπίσκοποι πρεσβύτεροι. Jerome (_ad Tit._ i. 5) says: _Idem

est presbyter qui et episcopus et antequam diaboli instinctu

studia in religione fierent ... communi presbyterorum concilio

gubernantur ecclesiæ._ Augustine, and other church fathers of the

fourth and fifth centuries, as well as Urban II. in A.D. 1091,

Petrus [Peter] Lombardus and the Decree of Gratian, may all

be referred to as supporting the same view. After such an

identification of the person and office, the existence of the two

names must be explained from their meaning as words, by assuming

that the title ἐπίσκοπος, which arose among the Gentile-Christian

churches, pointed more to the duty officially required, while

the title πρεσβύτερος, which arose among the Jewish-Christian

churches, pointed more to the honourable character of the person

(1 Tim. v. 17, 19). The subsequent development of a monarchical

episcopacy is quite conceivable as having taken place in the

natural course of events (§ 34, 2).--A third theory is that

proposed by =Hatch=, of Oxford, in A.D. 1881, warmly approved of

and vigorously carried out by =Harnack=. According to this theory

the two names in question answer to a twofold distinction that

appears in the church courts: on the college of presbyters was

devolved the government of the community, with administration

of law and discipline; on the bishops and their assistants the

superintendence and management of the community in the widest

sense of the word, including its worship, and first of all and

chiefly the brotherly care of the poor, the sick and strangers,

together with the collecting, keeping, and dispensing of

money needful for those ends. In the course of time the two

organizations were combined into one, since the bishops, on

account of their eminently important place and work, obtained

in the presbytery not only a simple seat and vote, but by-and-by

the presidency and the casting vote. In establishing this theory

it is pointed out that in the government and management of

federations of that time for social and religious purposes

in country districts or in cities, in imitation of which the

organization of the Christian communities was formed, this

twofold distribution is also found, and that especially the

administrators of the finances in these societies had not only

the title of ἐπίσκοποι, but had also the president’s seat in

their assemblies (γερουσία, βουλή), which, however, is not

altogether conclusive, since it is demonstrable that this title

was also borne by judicial and political officials. It is also

pointed out on the other hand that, in accordance with the

modified view presented in the Pastoral Epistles, the Acts,

and the Epistle of Clement of Rome, the consciousness of the

original diversity of calling of the two offices were maintained

throughout the whole of the second century, inasmuch as often a

theoretical distinction between bishops and presbyters in the way

specified was asserted. Now, in the first place, it can scarcely

be matter of dispute as to whether the administration of property,

with the care of the poor (ἀντιλήψεις) as the principal task,

could actually have won a place so superior in respectability,

influence and significance to that of congregational government

(κυβερνήσεις), or whether the authority which embraced the

functions of a judicial bench, a court of discipline, and a court

of equity did not rather come to preponderate over that which was

occupied in the administration of property and the care of the

poor. But above all we shall have to examine the New Testament

writings, as the relatively oldest witnesses to the matter of

fact as well as to the usage of the language, and see what they

have to say on the subject. This must be done even by those who

would have the composition of the Pastoral Epistles and the Acts

removed out of the Apostolic Age. In these writings, however,

there is nowhere a firm and sure foundation afforded to that

theory. It has, indeed, been supposed that in Phil. i. 1 mention

is made only of bishops and deacons because by them the present

from the Philippians had been brought to the Apostle. But seeing

that, in the case of there actually existing in Philippi at this

time besides the bishops a college of presbyters, the omission

of these from the greeting in this epistle, the chief purpose

of which was to impart apostolic comfort and encouragement, and

which only refers gratefully at the close, ch. iv. 10, to the

contribution sent, would have been damaging to them, we must

assume that the bishops with their assistants the deacons were

the only office-bearers then existing in that community. Thus

this passage tells as much against as in favour of the limiting

of the episcopal office to economical administration. Often

as mention is made in the New Testament of an ἐπισκοπεῖν and

a διακονεῖν in and over the community, this never stands in

specific and exclusive relation to administration of property and

care of the poor. It is indeed assumed in Acts xi. 30 that care

of the poor is a duty of the presbyter; so also the charismatic

caring for the sick is required of presbyters in James v. 14;

and in 1 Pet. v. 2 presbyters are described as ἐπισκοποῦντες;

in 1 Pet. ii. 25 Christ is spoken of as ἐπίσκοπος τῶν ψυχῶν;

in Acts i. 20 the apostolic office is called ἐπισκοπή, while in

Acts i. 25 and often, especially in the Pauline epistles, it is

designated a διακονία.[9]--Continuation, § 34, 2.

§ 17.7. =Christian Worship.=--Even in Jerusalem, where the

temple ordinances were still observed, the religious needs of

the Christian community demanded that separate services of a

distinctly Christian character should be organized. But just

as the Jewish services of that day consisted of two parts--the

ministry of the word for purposes of instruction and edification

in the synagogues, and the symbolic service of a typical and

sacramental character in the temple,--the Christian service was

in like manner from the first divided into a homiletical-didactic

part, and a eucharistic-sacramental part.--=The Homiletical and

Didactic part=, on account of the presence of those who were

not Christians, must have had, just like the synagogue service,

alongside of its principal aim to instruct and edify the

congregation, a definite and deliberately planned missionary

tendency. The church in Jerusalem at the first held these

_morning_ services in one of the halls of the temple, where the

people were wont to assemble for prayer (Acts ii. 46; iii. 1, 11);

but at a later period they were held in private houses. In the

Gentile churches they seem from the first to have been held in

private houses or in halls rented for the purpose. The service

consisted in reading of portions of the Old Testament, and at a

later period, portions of the Apostolic Epistles and Gospels, and

in connection therewith, doctrinal and hortatory discourses, with

prayer and singing of psalms. It is more than probable that the

liberty of teaching, which had prevailed in the synagogues (Luke

ii. 46; iv. 16; Acts xiii. 15), was also permitted in the similar

assemblies of Jewish Christians (Acts viii. 4; xi. 19; James

iii. 1); and it may be concluded from 1 Cor. xiv. 34 that this

also was the practice in Gentile-Christian congregations. The

apparent contradiction of women as such being forbidden to

speak, while in 1 Cor. xi. 5 it seems to be allowed, can only be

explained by supposing that in the passage referred to the woman

spoken of as praying or prophesying is praying in an ecstasy,

that is, speaking with tongues (1 Cor. xiv. 13-15), or uttering

prophetic announcements, like the daughters of Philip (Acts

xxi. 9), and that the permission applies only to such cases, the

exceptional nature of which, as well as their temporary character,

as charismatic and miraculous gifts, would prevent their being

used as precedents for women engaging in regular public discourse

(1 Thess. v. 19). In 1 Cor. xiv. 24 the ἰδιῶται (synonymous with

the ἀμύητοι in the statutes of Hellenic religious associations)

are mentioned as admitted along with the ἀπίστοι to the didactic

services, and, according to _v._ 16, they had a place assigned

to them separate from the congregation proper. We are thus led to

see in them the uninitiated or not yet baptized believers, that

is, the _catechumens_.--=The Sacramental part of the service=,

the separation of which from the didactic part was rendered

necessary on account alike of its nature and purpose, and is

therefore found existing in the Pauline churches as well as

in the church of Jerusalem, was scrupulously restricted in its

observance, in Jewish and Gentile churches alike, to those who

were in the full communion of the Christian church (Acts ii. 46;

1 Cor. xi. 20-23). The celebration of the Lord’s Supper

(δεῖπνον κυριακόν, 1 Cor. xi. 21), after the pattern of the

meal of institution, consisting of a meal partaken of in common,

accompanied with prayer and the singing of a hymn, which at a

later period was named the Ἀγάπη, as the expression of brotherly

love (Jude _v._ 12), was the centre and end of these _evening_

services. The elements in the Lord’s Supper were consecrated to

their sacramental purpose by a prayer of praise and thanksgiving

(εὐχαριστία, 1 Cor. xi. 24; or εὐλογία, 1 Cor. x. 16), together

with a recital of the words of institution which contained

a proclamation of the death of Christ (1 Cor. xi. 26). This

prayer was followed by the kiss of brotherhood.[10] In the

service of song they used to all appearance besides the

psalms some Christian hymns and doxologies (Eph. v. 19;

Col. iii. 16).[11]--The homiletical as well as the eucharistic

services were at first held daily; at a later period at least

every Sunday.[12] For very soon, alongside of the Sabbath, and

among Gentile Christians, instead of it, the first day of the

week as the day of Christ’s resurrection began to be observed as

a festival.[13] But there is as yet no trace of the observance of

other festivals. It cannot be exactly proved that infant baptism

was an Apostolic practice, but it is not improbable that it

was so.[14] Baptism was administered by complete immersion

(Acts viii. 38) in the name of Christ or of the Trinity

(Matt. xxviii. 19). The charism of healing the sick was exercised

by prayer and anointing with oil (Jas. v. 14). On the other

hand, confession of sin even apart from the public service was

recommended (Jas. v. 16). Charismatic communication of the Spirit

and admission to office in the church[15] was accomplished by

prayer and laying on of hands.[16]

§ 17.8. =Christian Life and Ecclesiastical Discipline.=--In

accordance with the commandment of the Lord (John xiii. 34),

brotherly love in opposition to the selfishness of the natural

life, was the principle of the Christian life. The power of

youthful love, fostered by the prevalent expectation of the

speedy return of the Lord, endeavoured at first to find for

itself a fitting expression in the mother church of Jerusalem by

the voluntary determination to have their goods in common,--an

endeavour which without prejudice of its spiritual importance

soon proved to be impracticable. On the other hand the well-to-do

Gentile churches proved their brotherly love by collections for

those originally poor, and especially for the church at Jerusalem

which had suffered the special misfortune of famine. The three

inveterate moral plagues of the ancient world, contempt of

foreign nationalities, degradation of woman, and slavery, were

overcome, according to Gal. iii. 28, by gradual elevation of

inward feeling without any violent struggle against existing laws

and customs, and the consciousness of common membership in the

one head in heaven hallowed all the relationships of the earthly

life. Even in apostolic times the bright mirror of Christian

purity was no doubt dimmed by spots of rust. Hypocrisy (Acts v.)

and variance (Acts vi.) in single cases appeared very early in

the mother church; but the former was punished by a fearfully

severe judgment, the latter was overcome by love and sweet

reasonableness. In the rich Gentile churches, such as those

of Corinth and Thessalonica, a worldly spirit in the form of

voluptuousness, selfishness, pride, etc., made its appearance,

but was here also rooted out by apostolic exhortation and

discipline. If any one caused public scandal by serious departure

from true doctrine or Christian conduct, and in spite of pastoral

counsel persisted in his error, he was by the judgment of the

church cast out, but the penitent was received again after his

sincerity had been proved (1 Cor. v. 1; 2 Cor. ii. 5).

§ 18. HERESIES IN THE APOSTOLIC AGE.[17]

When Christianity began its career of world conquest in the preaching

of the Apostle Paul, the representatives of the intellectual culture

of the ancient world assumed toward it an attitude, either of utter

indifference, or of keen hostility, or of readiness to accept Christian

elements, while retaining along with these many of their old notions.

From this mixing of heterogeneous elements a fermentation arose which

was the fruitful mother of numerous heresies.

§ 18.1. =Jewish Christianity and the Council of Apostles.=--The

Lord had commanded the disciples to preach the gospel to all

nations (Matt. xxviii. 19), and so they could not doubt that the

whole heathen world was called to receive the church’s heritage;

but feeling themselves bound by utterances of the Old Testament

regarding the eternal validity of the law of Moses, and having

not yet penetrated the full significance of the saying of Christ

(Mark v. 17), they thought that incorporation into Judaism by

circumcision was still an indispensable condition of reception

into the kingdom of Christ. The Hellenist Stephen represented a

more liberal tendency (Acts vi. 14); and Philip, also a Hellenist,

preached at least occasionally to the Samaritans, and the

Apostles recognised his work by sending down Peter and John

(Acts viii. 14). On the other hand, it needed an immediate

divine revelation to convince Peter that a Gentile thirsting for

salvation was just as such fit for the kingdom of God (Acts x.).

And even this revelation remained without any decisive influence

on actual missionary enterprise. They were Hellenistic Jews who

finally took the bold step of devoting themselves without reserve

to the conversion of the Gentiles at Antioch (Acts xi. 19). To

foster the movement there the Apostles sent Barnabas, who entered

into it with his whole soul, and in Paul associated with himself

a yet more capable worker. After the notable success of their

first missionary journey had vindicated their claim and calling

as Apostles of the Gentiles, the arrival of Jewish zealots in

the Antiochean church occasioned the sending of Paul and Barnabas

to Jerusalem, about A.D. 51, in order finally to settle this

important dispute. At a Council of the Apostles convened there

Peter and James the Just delivered the decision that Gentile

converts should only be required to observe certain legal

restrictions, and these, as it would seem from the conditions

laid down (Acts xv. 20), of a similar kind to those imposed

upon proselytes of the gate. An arrangement come to at this

time between the two Antiochean Apostles and Peter, James, and

John, led to the recognition of the former as Apostles of the

Gentiles and the latter as Apostles of the Jews (Gal. ii. 1-10).

Nevertheless during a visit to Antioch Peter laid himself open

to censure for practical inconsistency and weak connivance with

the fanaticism of certain Jewish Christians, and had to have

the truth respecting it very pointedly told him by Paul (Gal.

ii. 11-14). The destruction of the temple and the consequent

cessation of the entire Jewish worship led to the gradual

disappearance of non-sectarian Jewish Christianity and its

amalgamation with Gentile Christianity. The remnant of Jewish

Christianity which still in the altered condition of things

continued to cling to its principles and practice assumed ever

more and more the character of a sect, and drifted into open

heresy. (Comp. § 28).

§ 18.2. =The Apostolic Basis of Doctrine.=--The need of fixing

the apostolically accredited accounts of the life of the

Redeemer by written documents, led to the origin of the Gospels.

The continued connection of the missionary Apostles with the

churches founded by them, or even their authority of general

superintendence, called forth the apostolic doctrinal epistles.

A beginning of the collection and general circulation of the New

Testament writings was made at an early date by the communication

of these being made by one church to another (Col. iv. 16). There

was as yet no confession of faith as a standard of orthodoxy, but

the way was prepared by adopting Matt. xxviii. 19 as a confession

by candidates for baptism. Paul set up justification through

faith alone (Gal. i. 8, 9), and John, the incarnation of God in

Christ (1 John iv. 3), as indispensable elements in a Christian

confession.

§ 18.3. =False Teachers.=--The first enemy from within its own

borders which Christianity had to confront was the ordinary

Pharisaic Judaism with its stereotyped traditional doctrine, its

lifeless work-righteousness, its unreasonable national prejudices,

and its perversely carnal Messianic expectations. Its shibboleth

was the obligation of the Gentiles to observe the Mosaic

ceremonial law, the Sabbath, rules about meats, circumcision,

as an indispensable condition of salvation. This tendency had

its origin in the mother church of Jerusalem, but was there

at a very early date condemned by the Apostolic Council. This

party nevertheless pursued at all points the Apostle Paul with

bitter enmity and vile calumnies. Traces of a manifestation of a

Sadducean or sceptical spirit may perhaps already be found in the

denial of the resurrection which in 1 Cor. xv. Paul opposes. On

the other hand, at a very early period Greek philosophy got mixed

up with Christianity. Apollos, a philosophically cultured Jew

of Alexandria, had at first conceived of Christianity from the

speculative side, and had in this form preached it with eloquence

and success at Corinth. Paul did not contest the admissibility

of this mode of treatment. He left it to the verdict of history

(1 Cor. iii. 11-14), and warned against an over-estimation of

human wisdom (1 Cor. ii. 1-10). Among many of the seekers after

wisdom in Corinth, little as this was intended by Apollos, the

simple positive preaching of Paul lost on this account the favour

that it had enjoyed before. In this may be found perhaps the

first beginnings of that fourfold party faction which arose

in the Corinthian church (1 Cor. i.). The Judaists appealed to

the authority of the Apostle Peter (οἱ τοῦ Κηφᾶ); the Gentile

Christians were divided into the parties of Apollos and of Paul,

or by the assumption of the proud name οἱ τοῦ Χριστοῦ, sought to

free themselves from the recognition of any Apostolic authority.

Paul successfully opposes these divisions in his Epistle to

the Corinthians. Apprehension of a threatened growth of gnostic

teachers is first expressed in the Apostle Paul’s farewell

addresses to the elders of Asia Minor (Acts xx. 29); and in the

Epistle to the Colossians, as well as in the Pastoral Epistles,

this ψευδώνυμος γνῶσις is expressly opposed as manifesting itself

in the adoption of oriental theosophy, magic, and theurgy, in an

arbitrary asceticism that forbade marriage and restricted the use

of food, in an imaginary secret knowledge of the nature and order

of the heavenly powers and spirits, and idealistic volatilizing

of concrete Christian doctrines, such as that of the resurrection

(2 Tim. ii. 18). In the First Epistle of John, again, that

special form of Gnosis is pointed out which denied the

incarnation of God in Christ by means of docetic conceptions; and

in the Second Epistle of Peter, as well as in the Epistle of Jude,

we have attention called to antinomian excrescences, unbridled

immorality and wanton lust in the development of magical and

theurgical views. It should not, however, be left unmentioned,

that modern criticism has on many grounds contested the

authenticity of the New Testament writings just named, and

has assigned the first appearance of heretical gnosis to

the beginning of the second century. The Nicolaitans of the

Apocalypse (iii. 5, 14, 15, 20) appear to have been an antinomian

sect of Gentile Christian origin, spread more or less through the

churches of Asia Minor, perhaps without any gnostic background,

which in direct and intentional opposition to the decision of the

Apostolic Council (Acts xv. 29) took part in heathen sacrificial

feasts (comp. 1 Cor. x.), and justified or at least apologized

for fleshly impurity.