be exiled also 'for misanthropy and refusal to smile' by a law directed
against him alone. After an interesting condemnation of _privilegia_,
the letter explains his misanthropy. He does not hate men, but their
vices. The law should run 'If any man hates vice let him leave the
city.' Then he will go willingly. In fact he is already an exile
while in the city, for he cannot share its vices. Then he describes
Ephesian life in terms of fierce contempt, their lusts natural and
unnatural, their frauds, their wars of words, their legal
contentiousness, their faithlessness and perjuries, their robberies of
temples. He denounces their vices in connexion with the worship of
Cybele (beating the kettle-drum) and Dionysus (the eating of live
flesh), and with religious vigils and banquets, and alludes to details
of sensuality associated with these meetings. He condemns the
submission of great principles to the verdicts of the crowd at their
theatres, and passes to a further vivid onslaught on their quarrels and
murders (they are no longer men {256} but beasts), on their use of
music to excite their bloodthirsty passions, and on war altogether as
contrary to 'the law of nature,' and involving the pursuit of all sorts
of vice. All this impeachment may be compared with St. Paul, who
speaks however by comparison with marked reserve, in Rom. i. 24-31,
Eph. iv. 17-19, and elsewhere.
(4) The eighth letter is again written to Hermodorus now on his way to
Italy to assist the Decemvirs with the Ten Tables. It contains a
somewhat remarkable 'judgement on wealthy Ephesus' and statement of the
judicial function of wealth. 'God does not punish by taking wealth
away, but rather gives it to the wicked, that through having
opportunity to sin they may be convicted, and by the very abundance of
their resources may exhibit their corruption on a wider stage.' Cf. 1
Tim. vi. 9.
(5) The banishment of Hermodorus had been on account of a proposed law
to grant equal citizenship to freed men, and the right of public office
to their children. This instance of Ephesian intolerance gives
occasion for an enunciation of the Stoic doctrine that the only real
freedom is moral freedom, and moral freedom constitutes a man a citizen
of the world. 'The good Ephesian is a citizen of the world. For this
is the common home of all, and its law is no written document but God
(Greek: ou gramma alla theos), and he who transgresses his duty shall
be impious; or rather he will not dare to transgress, for he will not
escape justice.' 'Let the Ephesians cease to be the sort of men they
are, and they will love all men in an equality of virtue.' 'Virtue,
not the chance of birth, makes men equal.' 'Only vice enslaves, only
virtue liberates.' For men to enslave their fellow men is to fall
below the beasts; so also to mutilate them as the Ephesians do their
Megabyzi--the eunuch-priests of the wooden image of Artemis. There
must be inequality of function in the world, but not refusal of
fellowship, as the {257} higher parts of nature do not despise the
lower, or the soul think scorn to dwell with the body, or the head
despise the entrails, or God refuse to give the gifts of nature, such
as the light of the sun, to all equally. Here again we have what is
both like and unlike St. Paul's doctrine of true human liberty and
'fellowship in the body.'
On the whole I think these letters are worth more notice than they have
received, both in themselves and as a good example of the sort of
religious and moral doctrine current in the better heathen circles of
the Asiatic cities, while St. Paul was teaching. It presents many
points of connexion with St. Paul's teaching, and co-operated with the
influence of the Jewish synagogue to prepare men's minds for it. But
perhaps what chiefly strikes us is the contrast which the fierce and
arrogant contempt of the Stoic presents to the loving hopefulness of
the Christian messenger of the gospel.
NOTE C. See p. 74.
THE JEWISH DOCTRINE OF WORKS IN _THE APOCALYPSE OF BARUCH_.
Mr. R. H. Charles gives us the following statement[1]:--
'The Talmudic doctrine of works may be shortly summarized as follows:
Every good work--whether the fulfilment of a command or an act of
mercy--established a certain degree of merit with God, while every evil
work entailed a corresponding demerit. A man's position with God
depended on the relation existing between his merits and demerits, and
his salvation on the preponderance of the former over the latter. The
relation between his {258} merits and demerits was determined daily by
the weighing of his deeds. But as the results of such judgements were
necessarily unknown, there could not fail to be much uneasiness; and,
to allay this, the doctrine of the vicarious righteousness of the
patriarchs and saints of Israel was developed not later than the
beginning of the Christian era (cf. Matt. iii. 9). A man could thereby
summon to his aid the merits of the fathers, and so counterbalance his
demerits.
'It is obvious that such a system does not admit of forgiveness in any
spiritual sense of the term. It can only mean in such a connexion a
remission of penalty to the offender, on the ground that compensation
is furnished, either through his own merit or through that of the
righteous fathers. Thus, as Weber vigorously puts it: "Vergebung ohne
Bezahlung gibt es nicht." Thus, according to popular Pharisaism, _God
never remitted a debt until He was paid in full, and so long as it was
paid it mattered not by whom_.
'It will be observed that with the Pharisees forgiveness was _an
external thing_; it was concerned not with the man himself but with his
works--with these indeed as affecting him, but yet as existing
independently without him. This was not the view taken by the best
thought in the Old Testament. There forgiveness dealt first and
chiefly with the direct relation between man's spirit and God; it was
essentially a restoration of man to communion with God. When,
therefore, Christianity had to deal with these problems, it could not
accept the Pharisaic solutions, but had in some measure to return to
the Old Testament to authenticate and develope the highest therein
taught, and in the person and life of Christ to give it a world-wide
power and comprehensiveness.'
The doctrine called Talmudic in the above extract receives remarkable
illustration in a Jewish work, _The {259} Apocalypse of Baruch_, which
dates from the same period as the writings of the New Testament (A.D.
50-100; or if the work be regarded as composite, we should say that its
component elements are of that date), and represents to us in a very
vivid and touching form the hopes and beliefs of a pious orthodox Jew.
Thus--
1. _The doctrine of the merit of good works_, ii. 2 [words spoken to
Jeremiah by God], 'Your works are to this city as a firm pillar.' xiv.
5: 'What have they profited who confessed before Thee, and have not
walked in vanity as the rest of the nations ... but always feared Thee,
and have not left Thy ways? And, lo, they have been carried off, nor
on their account hast Thou had mercy on Zion. And if others did evil,
it was due to Zion that on account of the works of those who wrought
good works she should be forgiven, and should not be overwhelmed on
account of the works of those who wrought unrighteousness.' lxiii. 3:
'Hezekiah trusted in his works, and had hope in his righteousness, and
spake with the Mighty One ... and the Mighty One heard him.' lxxxv. 1:
'In the generations of old those our fathers had helpers, righteous men
and holy prophets ... and they helped us when we sinned, and they
prayed for us to Him who made us, because they trusted in their works,
and the Mighty One heard their prayer and was gracious unto us.' li.
7: 'But those who have been saved by their works, and to whom the law
has been now a hope, and understanding an expectation, and wisdom a
confidence, to them wonders will appear in their time.'
It is very noticeable in the above quotations that it is the works of
the righteous rather than their persons (as in Genesis xviii. 23-33)
that are put forward as the grounds of confidence with God. The claim
of righteousness in the second quotation (xiv. 5) may be paralleled in
the somewhat earlier work called _The Assumption {260} of Moses_[2]:
'Observe and know that neither did our fathers nor their forefathers
tempt God so as to transgress His commandments.'
2. _The doctrine of the treasury of merits_. The good works of the
righteous are laid up as in a treasury to avail for themselves and for
others. Thus (xiv. 12): 'The righteous justly hope for the end, and
without fear depart from this habitation, because they have with Thee a
store of works preserved in treasuries.' xxiv. 1: 'Behold the days
come when the books will be opened in which are written the sins of all
those that have sinned, and again also the treasuries in which the
righteousness of all those who have been righteous in creation is
gathered.'
The connexion of the mediaeval doctrine of the treasury of merits with
the similar Jewish doctrine needs to be traced out.
3. _Righteousness identified with the keeping of the law_. For the
Pharisaic Jew righteousness meant simply the keeping of the law. Thus
xv. 5: 'Man would not have rightly understood My judgement if he had
not accepted the law.' Again, lxvii. 6: 'So far as Zion is delivered
up and Jerusalem laid waste ... the vapour of the smoke of the incense
of righteousness which is by the law is extinguished in Zion.' Thus
the merits of Abraham are attributed to his having kept the law before
it was written. lvii. 2: 'At that time the unwritten law was named
among them, and the works of the commandments were then fulfilled.'
Of course it must be said that 'the Law' may mean the ceremonial law,
as in the lower form of Jewish thought, or special stress may be laid
on its moral precepts, as is the case in Baruch, and in the higher
Jewish teaching generally.
{261}
4. _The Gentiles are therefore incapable of righteousness_. lxii. 7:
'But regarding the Gentiles it were tedious to tell how they always
wrought impiety and wickedness, and never wrought righteousness.' Thus
the best hope of the Gentiles is that in the Messianic kingdom they
should become servants to Israel. This will be their lot if they have
never vexed the holy people; see lxxii. 2-6.
5. _The world created on account of Israel_, xiv. 18: 'Thou didst say
that Thou wouldst make for Thy world man as the administrator of Thy
works, that it might be known that he was by no means made on account
of the world but the world on account of him. [But "man" is at once
interpreted as the Jewish race.] And now I see that as for the world
which was made on account of us, lo! it abides, but we on account of
whom it was made depart' [i.e. into captivity], xv. 7: 'As regards what
thou didst say touching the righteous, that on account of them has this
world come into being, nay more, even that world which is to come is on
their account.' xxi. 23: 'Reprove therefore the angel of death ... and
let the treasuries of souls restore them that are enclosed in them, for
there have been many years like those that are desolate, from the days
of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and of all those who are like them, who
sleep in the earth, on whose account Thou didst say that Thou hadst
created the world.' (This idea of the treasury of the souls of the
righteous recurs in xxx. 2.) In _The Assumption of Moses_ (i. 12) it
is said, 'God hath created the world on behalf of His people. But He
was not pleased to manifest this purpose of creation from the
foundation of the world, in order that the Gentiles might thereby be
convicted [i.e. of ignorance], yea to their own humiliation might by
their arguments convict one another.'
The above teaching shows us exactly what it was to which St. Paul
opposed his doctrine of Justification by {262} Faith. We see it here
on its own ground. Its close association with 'boasting' is apparent
even in its better form; and its view of election contrasts, by its
selfish narrowness, with the view of election put forward by St. Paul,
viz. that God's election of a chosen people or society, together with
His apparent reprobation of others left outside, both alike subserve a
purpose of infinite width, the ultimate divine purpose to 'have mercy
upon all.' See Romans ix-xi, especially xi. 32, and cf. Eph. i. 9-10:
'the secret of His will with a view to the dispensation of the fulness
of the times, to bring together all things in the Christ, things in
heaven and things in earth.'
The marked contrast between the doctrine of Baruch and the doctrine of
St. Paul must of course be admitted in general; but it has been asked
whether the doctrine of the Atonement is not a fragment of the
abandoned Jewish doctrine of merit, borrowed inconsistently by St.
Paul, or inconsistently tolerated by him. To this the reply is surely
in the negative. The Jews undoubtedly held that Enoch, Moses,
Jeremiah, and others were, on account of their righteousness, the
accepted mediators with God on behalf of the chosen people, and
propitiators of His wrath (see especially _Assumption of Moses_, xi,
and passages from _Baruch_ cited above). But the doctrine of the
Atonement, when it is examined, proves to have one feature which puts
it into marked opposition with the Judaic doctrine of human merit.
According to the Christian doctrine of the Atonement, Christ is purely
and simply God's gift to man. He is the Son of God, given to man by
the Father, in order that, taking our nature upon Him, living the
perfect human life, and dying the death of perfect obedience, He might
satisfy the divine requirement, which we could not satisfy, and procure
for us what we could not procure for ourselves, no, not the best of us.
Therefore this doctrine {263} puts all men, the best and worst alike,
in the common attitude of simply receiving from God, as an unmerited
boon, the gift of forgiveness and reconciliation in Christ. It is in
fact the strongest possible negation of the Jewish idea of human merit,
personal or vicarious.
In other respects the doctrine of _The Apocalypse of Baruch_ affords at
once interesting contrasts and parallels to St. Paul's doctrine. Thus--
(_a_) In Baruch as in St. Paul, we have a combination of the doctrine
of divine predestination with the insistence on human free will and
responsibility. lxix. 4: 'Of the good works of the righteous which
should be accomplished before Him, He foresaw six kinds' should be
compared with Eph. ii. 10: 'Good works which God prepared beforehand
that we should walk in them.'
(_b_) The eschatology of the New Testament, including St. Paul's, is of
course especially Jewish. It does not however concern us much in the
Epistle to the Ephesians; but we notice that in _The Apocalypse of
Baruch_ the idea of 'the consummation of the times' (cf. Eph. i. 10,
'the fulness of the times') appears and reappears constantly. See
xiii. 3; xxi. 8, 17; xxx. 3; xlii. 6; liv. 21; lvi. 2; lix. 4; lxix. 4,
5; cf. _The Assumption of Moses_, i. 18: 'The consummation of the end
of the days.'
(_c_) The connexion of St. Paul's doctrine with the Jewish doctrine is
also illustrated in _The Apocalypse of Baruch_ on the following points.
_That the Gentiles had the opportunity of the knowledge of God through
His works in nature, but refused it_. See _Baruch_, liv. 18, and cf.
Romans, i. 20: _The pre-existence of the Messiah_. This is suggested
but not very clearly stated in xxx. 1, cf. Charles's note and _The
Assumption of Moses_, i. 14, where the pre-existence of Moses seems to
be asserted. Again, _the Fall of Adam and its effect in introducing
death_ (_or premature death_) _into the world_. See xxiii. 4; xlviii.
42; liv. 15; lvi. 6, and {264} Charles's notes. Once more The
Resurrection of the Body. See _Baruch_, l; li. On all these points we
see what was the material in existing Jewish thought or, in other
words, what were the existing developements of Old Testament belief,
which the Christian inspiration had to work upon. The effect of the
specifically Christian inspiration is chiefly seen (1) in selection
among existing beliefs--taking some and utterly rejecting others; (2)
in giving a definite and fixed form to current Messianic and other
ideas which were continually shifting and incoherent; and (3) in
spiritualizing and moralizing what it appropriated. Of course it is in
the Revelation or Apocalypse of St. John that we have the most signal
instance of the New Testament use of contemporary Jewish material. But
such material holds a very large place in the whole of the New
Testament, and there is no more important assistance to the study of
the New Testament than is afforded by contemporary Jewish literature,
especially that of an Apocalyptic character.
[1] _The Apoc. of Baruch_ (A. and C. Black, 1896), p. lxxxii. The
statement is compiled from Weber, _Lehre des Talmuds_.
[2] Edited also by R. H. Charles (A. and C. Black, 1897), p. 37.
NOTE D. See p. 120.
THE BROTHERHOOD OF ST. ANDREW
After the above passage was written, as to the need amongst us of a
deeper idea of the obligations of church membership, it fell to my lot
to go to the United States, to make acquaintance with the work of the
Brotherhood of St. Andrew in that country, and to assist at its general
convention in Buffalo. It seemed to me that nothing could be better
calculated to revive the true spirit of laymanship than that society,
'formed in recognition of {265} the fact that every Christian man is
pledged to devote his life to the spread of the kingdom of Christ on
earth.'
It was started among a small band of young men, of the number of the
apostles, nearly fifteen years ago, in St. James's parish, Chicago, and
has spread till to-day it numbers more than 1,200 parochial chapters in
the United States alone, and has taken firm root in Canada and other
parts of the world. It has a double rule of Prayer and of Service.
The point of the service required is that it should have the character
especially of witness among a man's equals. So much 'church work' is
directed towards raising those who are in some ways our inferiors, that
we forget that the real test of a man is the witness he bears for
Christ among his equals. There is many a man who, especially in his
youth, fails to confess Christ in his own society, and then, if I may
so express it, sneaks round the corner to do something to raise the
degraded or takes orders and preaches the gospel. Nobody can possibly
disparage these efforts of love, but a certain character of cowardice
continues to attach to them, if they are not based on a frank witness
for Christ in a man's own walk of life, where it is hardest. It is
this witness which the Brotherhood requires.
The particular rule is 'to make an earnest effort each week to bring
some one young man within hearing of the Gospel of Christ as set forth
in the services of the Church and in men's Bible classes.' This rule
is no doubt open to criticism. But it is interpreted in the spirit
rather than in the letter, and for its definite requirement it is
successfully pleaded that it keeps the members from vagueness and
slackness.
Certainly the result appears to be excellent. The brethren are
pervaded by a spirit of frank religious profession and devotion. There
appears to be a general {266} tone among them of reality and good
sense. Their missionary zeal does not degenerate into an intrusive
prying into other men's souls.
The Brotherhood was developed in the atmosphere of the United States,
and it remains a question whether it will flourish in England. The
more sharply defined distinctions of classes among us; our exaggerated
parochialism; the shyness and reserve in religious matters which
characterizes many really religious Englishmen and degenerates into a
sort of 'hypocrisy reversed,' or pretence of being less religious than
one is--these things will constitute grave obstacles. But the need is
at least as crying among us, as on the other side of the Atlantic, to
emphasize among professing Christians and churchmen the duty of
witness. At least we may trust the Brotherhood will be given a good
trial. But if it is to have a fair chance among us, the greatest care
must be taken that it should develope as a properly lay movement; and
while it receives all encouragement from the clergy, should not be
taken up by them to be turned into a guild of 'church workers,' useful
for purposes of parochial organization.
One of the most striking facts about the Brotherhood in the States is
that, while the church spirit is unmistakable--as no one who was
present at the corporate Communion of 1,300 delegates in October of
this year at half-past six in the morning in a great church at Buffalo
could possibly doubt--it has successfully avoided becoming either a
party society or a society rent by factions.
It is because I believe the witness of this Brotherhood to the true
church spirit has already proved invaluable that I venture to dedicate
this little exposition of the great book of brotherhood--though without
leave granted or asked--to its founder and president.
{267}
NOTE E. See pp. 164, 166.
THE CONCEPTION OF THE CHURCH (CATHOLIC) IN ST. PAUL IN ITS RELATION TO
LOCAL CHURCHES.
By far the most frequent use of the word 'church' or 'churches' in the
New Testament is to designate a local society of Christians or a number
of such societies taken together, 'the church at Jerusalem,' 'the
church at Antioch,' 'the churches of Galatia,' 'the seven churches
which are in Asia,' 'all the churches.' But it is used also for the
church as a whole. In fact, before Christ's coming the word in the
Greek of the Old Testament had passed from meaning an assembly of the
people, as in classical Greek, to meaning the sacred people as a
whole[1], as St. Stephen uses it in his speech 'The church in the
wilderness' (Acts vii. 38). And it is exactly in this sense that it is
used by our Lord in St. Matthew, xvi. 18. 'The church' which our Lord
there promises to 'build' is the Church of the New Covenant as a whole.
We might paraphrase His words (as Dr. Hort suggests[2]) 'on this rock I
will build my Israel.' Thus there is throughout the Acts and St.
Paul's earlier epistles, a tendency to pass from the use of 'church' as
a local society to its use as designating the whole body of the
faithful. This was but natural seeing that each local society did but
represent the one divine society, the church of the Old Covenant,
refounded by Christ. See Acts ix. 31: 'The church throughout all
Judaea and Galilee and Samaria.' {268} xii. 1: 'Herod the king put
forth his hands to afflict certain of the church.' xx. 28: 'The church
of God which he purchased with his own blood.' Gal. i. 13: 'I
persecuted the church of God.' 1 Cor. xii. 28: 'God hath set some in
the church, first apostles,' &c. In this last passage and in St.
Paul's speech to the Ephesian elders this general use of the term is
unmistakable.
In the Epistle to the Ephesians, in which alone among his epistles St.
Paul is writing not about the difficulties or needs of a particular
congregation, but about the church in its general conception, this
larger use of the term becomes dominant. And the point to be noticed
is that the church in general, or catholic church, is conceived of, not
as made up of local churches, but as made up of individual members.
The local church would be regarded by St. Paul not as one element of a
catholic confederacy[3], but as the local representative of the one
divine and catholic society[4]. But the local church is not, according
to St. Paul, a completely independent representative of the church as a
whole. The apostles, as commissioned witnesses and representatives of
Christ, are over all the churches. They, or their recognized
associates and delegates, like Barnabas, Timothy and Titus, represent
the general church which every local church must, so to speak,
reproduce. The apostles therefore, or their representatives, give to
each church when it is first founded 'the tradition' of truth and
morals which is permanently to mould it; and they maintain the
tradition by a more or less constant supervision. Thus they are {269}
the force which holds all 'the churches' together on a common basis.
'So ordain I,' says St. Paul, 'in all the churches[5].' 'Hold fast the
traditions even as I delivered them to you[6].' The apostle has, he
teaches, an 'authority' commensurate with his 'stewardship[7],' an
authority 'which the Lord gave for the edification and not the
destruction[8]' of the Christians, but which at times must take the
form of a 'rod' of chastisement[9]. The complete doctrinal and moral
independence of particular Churches is strongly denied by St. Paul in
such phrases as 'Came the word of God unto you alone?' or, 'If any man
preacheth unto you any gospel other than that which ye received, let
him be anathema[10].'