il'l " Wi! .„, f f'lj ^^ •T {i. 'I t. X '■u" } t ll 'i \ r'vr 1" ,fl I ( 'it ■\: W' $ h <. ill>U 'ii ^'' -.'' < V 1 , m Ii V ''■^1>^^ ^V ii ll !'«s. 1; ,.■4'/. 1- 1 ti. irriiiSiiini!s:i P ,rt l!lllWt»^dWlldl)aiblllWiaa^1M».ffi'-lU'lf''-' .-'/ .■{/^■' EXTRACT FROM THE LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT OF THE LATE REV. JOHN BAMPTON, CANON OF SALISBURY. " I give and bequeath my Lands and Estates to the "Chancellor, Masters, and Scholars of the University of " Oxford for ever, to have and to hold all and singular the " said Lands or Estates upon trust, and to the intents "and purposes hereinafter mentioned; that is to say, I " will and appoint that the Vice-Chancellor of the University " of Oxford for the time being shall take and receive all the " rents, issues, and profits thereof, and (after all taxes, " reparations, and necessary deductions made) that he pay " all the remainder to the endowment of eight Divinity " Lecture Sermons, to be estabUshed for ever in the said " University, and to be performed in the manner following: " I direct and appoint, that, upon the first Tuesday in " Easter Term, a Lecturer may be yearly chosen by the " Heads of Colleges only, and by no others, in the room " adjoining to the Printing-House, between the hours of ten " in the morning and two in the afternoon, to preach eight " Divinity Lecture Sermons, the year following, at St. " Mary's in Oxford, between the commencement of the last " month in Lent Term, and the end of the third week in " Act Term. " Also I direct and appoint, that the eight Divinity " Lecture Sermons shall be preached upon either of the " following Subjects — to confirm and establish the Christian " Faith, and to confute all heretics and schismatics — upon " the divine authority of the holy Scriptures — upon the vi REV. JOHN BAMPTON'S WILL ' authority of the writings of the primitive Fathers, as to ' the faith and practice of the primitive Church— upon the ' Divinity of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ — ^upon the 'divinity of the Holy Ghost — upon the Articles of the ' Christian Faith, as comprehended in the Apostles' and ' Nicene Creed. " Also I direct, that thirty copies of the eight Divinity ' Lecture Sermons shaU be always printed, within two ' months after they are preached ; and one copy shaU be ' given to the Chancellor of the University, and one copy ' to the head of every College, and one copy to the mayor ' of the city of Oxford, and one copy to be put into the ' Bodleian Library; and the expense of printing them shall ' be paid out of the revenue of the Land or Estates given ' for establishing the Divinity Lecture Sermons; and the ' Preacher shall not be paid, nor be entitled to the revenue, ' before they are printed. " Also I direct and appoint, that no person shall be ' qualified to preach the Divinity Lecture Sermons, unless ' he hath taken the degree of Master of Arts at least, in one ' of the two Universities of Oxford or Cambridge ; and that ' the same person shall never preach the Divinity Lecture 'Sermons twice." PREFACE In delivering the Bampton . Lectures with which the University of Oxford has entrusted me I have been able to fulfil a design which I have had in my mind for more than thirty years. The subject with which these lectures deal is twofold. There is first the historical problem: What is the origin of the Christian ministry ? That is one which has attracted me ever since my undergraduate days. Shortly before I came up to Oxford Dr. Hatch delivered his Bampton Lectures, and these stirred up a renewed interest in a problem which has always been keenly discussed in the Church of England. Just after I took my degree Dr. Lightfoot published his edition of the Epistles of St. Ignatius, where again the problem was one of vital im- portance. During my early years in Oxford my lecturing was mainly devoted to the text of Eusebius and the problems of Early Church History, and I have, I think, from that time kept myself in touch with almost everything of im- portance which has been written on the subject. I was first able to put my views into writing in some lectures that I delivered in Westminster Abbey at the request of Dr. Armitage Robinson, then Dean of Westminster. Shortly afterwards I began a series of articles on the subject in the Church Quarterly Review. Parts of these have been incorporated in these lectures; and I must express my thanks to the proprietors of that review for giving me permission to do this. My views on the sub- ject have gradually been formed, and although it has not been possible to discuss every detail, I think that, as far as I am myself concerned, the main outlines of the history have become clear. References are made from vii vm PREFACE time to time to dissertations on particular points; some of those dissertations are partly written, and I should hope, if I receive any encouragement from the reception of this work, to complete them at no distant time in the future. The second' problem that I have had before me has been the practical one, partly dependent upon the historical question, but to a certain extent separated from it: the problem of religious reunion, and in connection with that the somewhat comphcated questions which have been raised concerning validity of Orders and Sacraments. Those questions, although always present, became really acute in the discussion about Anglican Orders and their recognition by the Church of Rome which took place in the years 1895-96. To that controversy I have referred in the body of this work. Its effect on myself was to create profound distrust of the methods and theology of the Church of Rome, and at the same time a feeling that we had not sufficiently probed to the bottom the question of what we mean by vaUd Orders and Sacraments. More- over, it was impossible not to ask whether our relation towards Nonconformists was not open to just the same criticism as the relation of the Church of Rome towards ourselves. From time to time also the doctrine of the Apostolic Succession came before me, and I found myself compelled to consider what it meant. On the one side episcopacy, the regular succession of bishops, the solemnity of our orderly administration of the Sacrament of Orders, appealed to me with great force ; and, moreover, much of the criticism directed against it seemed to me unhistorical and sectarian. On the other hand. Apostolic Succession as ordinarily taught in the Church of England seemed to be mechanical and entirely unreal. I could not see any marked superiority —often, in fact, there seemed to be real inferiority — in the spiritual life and capacity of our clergy, and Anglicanism, although extraordinarily attractive to me, seemed often to fail in life and effectiveness. When I came to examine the doctrine historically, I was equally surprised and gratified to find how different was the more primitive teaching on the subject from that which was customary in Anglican circles. PREFACE ix Further than that, I was surprised to see what little support the current form of teaching among us had from medieval or even modern Roman Catholic theologians. Their point of view seemed to me a different one, and I began to suspect that here we had an instance of insular disproportion. Those views were embodied in an article which I wrote for the Prayer-Book Dictionary, and I was much gratified to find that, as far as regards the earlier period, the historical statement I there made was supported and strengthened by my friend Mr. Turner in his essay published in The Church and the Ministry. A new series of questions were raised by the Kikuyu controversy to which I devoted a series of articles in the Church Quarterly Review. The final result that has im- pressed itself upon my mind is that we have no sufficient justification for condemning the validity of any Orders which are performed with a desire to obey the commands of Christ and fulfil the intentions of the Apostles by prayer and laying on of hands, but, on the other hand, that the Church rule of episcopal ordination, and the fact of Apostolic Succession which has resulted from it, was in the past the great strength of Christian unity, and that the breaking of that rule has been one of the most fruitful causes of disunion. As a result of that conclusion I arrived at the practical solution of the question before us that reunion must come from the mutual recognition of Orders and Sacraments and the establishment of the Catholic rule of episcopacy and episcopal ordination for the future on a firm and regular foundation, and that all churches must approach one another in a spirit of humility, with a desire to work out together the right method of building up the Church, ready to learn from one another, and conscious of their own imperfections rather than of those of others. It would be impossible within the limits of this preface to express my obhgations to all those from whose teaching or books I have learned, but there is one who has lately passed away of whom I should like to say something. Dr. Harold Hamilton, a son of the late Archbishop of Ottawa, a member of Christ Church, and a Doctor of Divinity of the University of Oxford, had devoted himself for many X PREFACE years to the cause of reunion. His book on The People of God is one of the most thoughtful and stimulating present- ments of the religious meaning of the Old Testament, of the development of the New Testament from the Old, and of the fundamental principles underlying the rise of the Christian Church. In his hfe in Canada he was in touch with the various movements towards reunion which were taking place among the different Nonconformist bodies, and assisted them by his advice and learning. Shortly before the war he was anxious to organize a conference amongst various representatives of the Church of England on the question of Orders and the Christian ministry, and the searching questions which he proposed as a preliminary inquiry helped me much in clearing my own mind. He had, at the same time as myself, been invited to become a candidate for the Bampton Lectureship, and would have taken the same subject as I have done, but even then his health was doubtful. He had expended himself in the care of his aged father and mother, both of whom passed away during 1919. He was to have been married in Ottawa in the early morning of Monday, December 15, 1919, but during the Sunday night he was stricken with paralysis and never recovered consciousness until on Saturday evening he quietly passed away. He was buried the day before Christmas Eve. His death is a great loss to the cause of Christian theology and of Reunion, and I am glad to have this opportunity of paying some small tribute to his memory. In conclusion, I would only express my thanks to those of my friends who have helped me in the correction of the proofs, to Bishop Robertson, to Dr. Nairne, Dr. Watson, Mr. Jenkins, Mr. Brightman, and Mr. Burroughs. They have all of them pointed out defects. In some cases I have, I hope, benefited by their criticisms, which will, perhaps, be a foretaste of what I may have to meet when these lectures are pubUshed. I would also desire to express my thanks to Miss Catchpool and Miss Isabel Church, who have typewritten these lectures, and have shown much patience in deciphering the intricacies of my handwriting; and to my wife for much assistance with the Index. CONTENTS LECTURE l-AGE I. THE ORIGINS OF THE CHURCH - - I II. THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH - - - -48 III. THE CATHOLIC CHURCH - - - " ^2 IV. THE TEACHING OF ST. AUGUSTINE - - - 138 V. THE DIVISIONS OF THE CHURCH - - - I74 VI. THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH — I. - - - 208 VII. THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH — II. - - - 241 VIII. REUNION .---.. 285 INDEX ------- 319 XI " Wholeheartedly I join in your expression of thankfulness for that spirit of union which has animated us through years of common effort and common sacrifice. I trust that some spirit may remain with us to strengthen our hands for the work of peace and to soften the remembrance of old differences. May we see its fruits in the brotherly co- operation of all in the service of the commonwealth, and in the closer ties of all religious bodies." — His Majesty THE King. THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH AND CHRISTIAN REUNION LECTURE I THE ORIGINS OF THE CHURCH That they all may be one." — St. John xvii. 2i. The purpose of these Lectures. The desire for Christian Unity. The method to be followed. The historical method. The Jewish community. As a race, a nation, and a church. Failure of the national idea. The meaning of a church. The need for such a conception. Its source in Judaism. The word ecclesia. The Jewish failure. The teaching of our Lord. Critical difficulties. The method to be followed. The Kingdom of Heaven. Its various significations. Its eschatological meaning. Its spiritual meaning. Its use to imply a society. Later interpretations of it. Discipleship. The Apostolate. The word ecclesia in the Gospels. The commission to Peter, to the Church, and to the Apostles. The Sacraments: Baptism and the Lord's Supper. Summary of the argument. Applications of our Lord's teaching and method. It is reported that when the British Army entered France the village priests, influenced by a natural instinct of religious and national sympathy, offered the use of their churches for the service of the troops. The authorities of the Roman Church in England intervened. They com- plained to Rome, and the offer was disallowed. It is reported, again, that on more than one occasion when, on the eve of a great offensive, with the prospect of immediate death before them, pious members of Presbjrterian and Nonconformist Churches desired to receive the communion at the hands of a Church of England chaplain, their request was refused. 2 THE ORIGINS OF THE CHURCH Now I do not quote these instances for the sake of condemning any individnal. The laws of the different religious bodies were probably administered honestly and correctly. I rather quote them as the most speaking illus- trations that I know of the deplorable evil of the present divided state of Christendom. Here were two nations joined together in what they believed to be a righteous cause, offering their noblest and best sons freely in one another's service, two great national Churches worshipping the same God, serving the same Master ; yet through differ- ences and divisions created many centuries back they were separated in the holiest things of life. Here were men serving side by side in the same army, differing from one another little or nothing in their religious behefs, prepared to share a common enterprise and common danger. In a few hours their bodies might be Ijdng side by side, stiff and cold, their souls together passing to the great beyond, their lives together to be weighed before the judgement seat of God; yet they could not on earth kneel together before the same altar, through differences of ecclesiastical position which they had had no share in creating, and which were as little a part of themselves as the clothes they wore. Could we have any better illustration of the evUs of a divided Christendom ? It is this problem that I am going to ask you to discuss in these lectures. It is one the difficulty of which is recog- nized. There is wide agreement as to the evils of disunion. There is a great and increasing desire for union. But so far the method by which any real progress may be made has not been found. Is this, after all, to be wondered at ? Is it wonderful that divisions which have lasted for some hundreds of years should require something more than a few years of increased goodwill and amiable aspirations to terminate them ? For we must recognize facts. We must remember that these divisions arose on questions which were looked upon as fundamental, and in the opinion of some, at any rate, are stUl considered so. Until a solution of them is found no advance can be made. From time to time reunion is discussed as if it were an economic THE TEACHING OF THE CREED 3 or business proposition. The waste of division and over- lapping is dwelt upon, the loss of efficiency or the weakening of power. All such questions in relation to Christianity are secondary. For the fundamental point to remember about it is that it claims to be a revelation of the truth, and to teach the truth. However much worldly motives or human frailty have prevailed among the causes of Christian disunion, yet ultimately the causes of division have been differences as to what is true. We may on investigation discover that the questions at issue are not reaUy of importance, we may find a solution which may harmonize both sides, we may lead people to a deeper point of view from which the differences appear trifling, but we cannot refuse to investigate. There are intellectual problems we cannot ignore. The evils of disunion are great; but a far greater evil would be to compromise with truth. It would be better that we should remain divided than leave problems unsolved. If we are to come together it must be by wider knowledge and deeper thought, and not by evading the issue.'^ It is our purpose, then, to discuss that particular article of the Christian creed contained in the words: " I believe one Holy Catholick and ApostoUck Church,"^ for it will bring us in contact with most of the questions which at present divide the Christian Church. The method I pro- pose to adopt is primarily historical. We must begin with 1 So Dr. Forsyth writes {Towards Reunion, p. 56) : " In these great and venerable problems solutions are not simple, else they would have been found long ago. Answers to age-long questions are not to be given offhand. . . . We cannot deal with history by ■vnping the slate and starting afresh. . . . The Church rests on its beSef, which it is constantly clarifying at the spring. And that is why the scholars of history and the tmnkers of faith are coming to play such a part in the matter. From being polemics, they are turning to be among the chief eirenics of the day. Parties may join for expediency, but Churches can unite only on principle." 2 Et£ fitav aylav KadoXuniv ical OTTOirroXiK^v 'EicKXrialav. In Our version of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed the words are, " I believe one Catholick and ApostoUck Church." The omission of " holy " appears to be a mere blunder. It is found in the original form of the Creed as contained in the Exposition of Faith of the Council of Chalcedon and in the Revised Creed of Jerusalem as given by Epiphanius. It is not found in the text of the Creed as quoted at the Synod of Toledo in a.d. 589. See A. E. Burn, An IntroductiQn to the Creeds, p. 119. 4 THE ORIGINS OF THE CHURCH history. Now I notice that it is the plan of many investi- gators first to state their theory and then in the light of that theory to examine the Biblical and historical evidence. It is not unnatural that, pursuing that method, they should arrive at the conclusions they desire. Even Bishop Light- foot in his famous essay, which did much to introduce historical methods into this discussion, is not free from this. When he lays down authoritatively in the first paragraph the statement that the kingdom of Christ " has no sacer- dotal system," it is obvious that he is assuming at the beginning of his inquiry a principle which might reasonably come as one of his conclusions, for probably more than half the Christian world at the present day would deny the statement.^ I notice, again, that Bishop Gore, in his work on the Church and the Ministry, always works from the dogmatic presentation of his thesis back to the Biblical and historical evidence. In the first sentence he lays down authoritatively the doctrine of a Christian ministry " which is regarded as having a divine authority for its stewardship of Christian mysteries . . . which in itself is believed to be derived not from below but from above, and to represent and perpetuate by due succession from the Apostles, the institution of Christ." That is, he assumes one of many theories of the ministry. It is not altogether surprising that he is able to find what he desires; but we can weU imagine someone else starting by an equally authoritative statement 1 St. Paul's Epistle to the Philippians, " The Christian Ministry," p. i8i. By J. B. Lightfoot, D.D.: "The kingdom of Christ, not being a kingdom of this world, is not limited by the restrictions which fetter other societies, political or rehgious. It is in the fullest sense free, comprehensive, universal. It displays this character, not only in the acceptance of all comers who seek ad- mission, irrespective of race or caste or sex, but also in the instruc- tion and treatment of those who are already members. It has no sacred days or seasons, no special sanctuaries, because every time and every place alike are holy. Above all it has no sacerdotal system. It interposes no sacrificial tribe or class between God and man, by whose intervention God is reconciled and man for- given. Each individual member holds personal communion with the Divine Head. To Him immediately he is responsible and from Him directly he obtains pardon and draws strength." We may recognize ourselves the truth of this statement, but we have to recognize also that to many it appears neither obvious nor true, and that others who might agree with it partially might con- sider certain reservations necessary. THE HISTORICAL METHOD 5 of his theory arriving at quite different conclusions, after an equally honest investigation.'^ There is another way — the only way by which we can hope to get behind our differences. That is the purely historical method, the method which begins by examining the evidence, which seeks to construct a history of things as they were, and then ultimately to draw conclusions from that evidence. That is the method which I shall attempt to carry out in these lectures, and I can at least claim that I have set it before myself in my own studies. I am conscious of the difficulties of the task, of the natural infirmities of the human mind, of the ease with which an unrealized prejudice may make an investigator misrepre- sent and misinterpret the evidence. Only too often the professed adoption of the historical method appears to be but a device for concealing one's bias.^ But the method * The Church and the Ministry, p. i. By Charles Gore, D.D., Bishop of Oxford. New Edition, revised by C. H. Turner, M.A. (London : Longmans, Green and Co. 1919) : " The reader of the history of Christendom cannot fail to be conscious, at each stage of his subject, of the prominent position held in the Church by a Ministry, which is regarded as having a divine authority for its steward- ship of Christian mysteries — an authority which is indeed limited in sphere by varying political and ecclesiastical arrangements, but which in itself is believed to be derived not from below but from above, and to represent and perpetuate by due succession from the Apostles, the institution of Christ." The work is one both of learning and candour, but the reader will notice throughout that the dogmatic presentation always precedes the history, and that the function of the latter is to prove rather than to instruct. Equally dangerous is the attempt made by Dr. Moberly in Ministerial Priesthood to justify the theological method of inter- preting the New Testament by later Church history. Because all people have some presuppositions, and some have bad ones, that does not justify us in assuming what we wish as the basis of our inquiry. What probably underlies his contention is a confusion of thought. He sees that there has been much bad exegesis from interpreting the New Testament in accordance with modern liberal or Protestant ideas. The way to correct that, however, is not to interpret it in accordance with modem Anglo-Catholic presupposi- tions, but to try and discover the presuppositions of the writers and interpret their writings in accordance with their own ideas. That is the historical method. 2 I cannot help feeling that this is largely the case with Dr. Hatch, whose speculations on the ministry produced at one time so much stir. He was as anxious to attack the current theories of the ministry as others were to defend them. It is remarkable how few of his speculations have been corroborated by further research. 6 THE ORIGINS OF THE CHURCH is the right one. It is the only one by which a solution may be obtained. Many men must attempt a task before one succeeds, and each man's failure contributes something to the final success. Our task will be a severe one. It will demand close and careful attention. It wUl not provide much scope for rhetoric or oratory. It wiR not provide the satisfaction of large generalizations, or those clear-cut theories which are so attractive to some minds. I must ask your attention during these lectures to an investigation which wUl often be lengthy and tedious, but wUl at any rate aim at being serious and honest. I propose, then, to discuss, so far as I am able, in an historical manner, the growth and development of the Christian Church. That means that we attempt to look at things as contemporaries saw them, that we are not too anxious to ask other times the questions that interest us now, which they would not have understood, and to which they cannot give a direct answer, but that we consider what questions they put to themselves, and how they answered them, what problems they were confronted with, and how they solved them. When we have done that we shall be in a better position to approach the problems and questions of the present day. Our aim is to draw from the Christian experience of the past, not to see the past merely in the light of modern problems. To-day I propose to consider, first, the preparations, Jewish and Gentile, for the conception of a Church; and, secondly, the teaching of our Lord. Any attempt to investigate the origin and development of Christianity as a society should begin with an examina- tion of the Je"«wsh environment out of which it grew. The very name ecclesia, or Church, which Christianity has in an especial manner made its own, was applied to the Jewish community, and, like so much of the early Christian ter- minology, was ready to hand, only requiring that its content should be enlarged and enriched. The new community grew out of the old. Our Lord Himself, while emphasizing THE JEWISH ORIGIN 7 the need of new bottles for new wine, yet claimed to be fulfilling and completing the purpose of the old Israel. The Apostles, and particularly St. Paul, were indeed conscious of a new life, but they always built upon the past. Their mental environment was Jewish. It was under Jewish influences that the early Christian communities grew up. In time, no doubt, they were influenced by Gentile sur- roundings, but that was later. It was out of Judaism that the Christian Church grew, and the Jewish community demands our first attention.^ The Jewish people might be looked upon as a Race, a Nation, and a Church. Originally a race, they had con- tinuously desired to become a nation, but never with real success; they ended in creating the idea of a Church. Originally a race, they have never lost the pride and exclusiveness of race. " We have Abraham to our father."^ They believed themselves to be a privileged people. By virtue of their descent alone they were heirs of the promises. Many held that only to those of Jewish descent was there any entrance to the most fundamental religious privileges. But any claim to purity of descent could only be supported by historical fictions, and many were prepared to extend the privileges of Judaism to those of other races. There were two distinct tendencies. There were some who would confine aU religious privileges to those only who were Jews by descent, and were averse to making proselytes — at any rate, outside the limits of Palestine. This tendency probably always existed, and became accentuated, under the influence of the school of Shammai, during the period of bitterness and exasperation which succeeded the faU of Jerusalem. But there had also been a more liberal conception. From an early date residents in Palestine had been admitted by 1 The main authorities are Schurer, Geschichte des Judischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi ; Bousset, Die Religion des Judentums in Neutestamentliche Zeitalter. See also Reinach, Textes d'Auteurs Grecs et Romains relatifs ait Judaisme. The greater part of this section is taken from an article by the present writer in the Church Quarterly Review for October, 1904, pp. 29/., " The Christian Society. The Jewish Community." » St. Matt. iii. 9; cf. St. Luke i. 55; St. John viii. 33, 39; Acts xiii. 26; Rom. ix. 7, xi. I, Ps. Sol, i3?. 17, Sri ai ypeHaa ri awkpfia 'A/3pad/i vapd itdvTft TO, I9vtf, 8 THE ORIGINS OF THE CHURCH circumcision to share the privileges of Judaism/ and there can be no doubt that a large proportion of the Jewish race was of Canaanitish origin. The later prophets had had visions of the inclusion of Gentiles within the limits of God's people,^ and during the times of the Maccabees these aspira- tions began to be realized. When Idumaea, Galilee, and Ituraea were conquered, the inhabitants were compelled to become Jews. A similar tendency was exhibited among the Jews of the Diaspora, who made many converts by mord influence, by literary propaganda, and by the power of a higher religion. In some districts large bodies of converts had been made, and probably one of the chief causes of the hatred felt for the Jews was that they were successful, not only in business, but also in extending their faith. " To such an extent," said Seneca, " has that accursed race increased, that it has been received into all lands: the conquered have given laws to their con- querors."^ Some became full proseljrtes; others adopted the mono- theism and moral teaching of Judaism, without apparently submitting to circumcision, and other equally unattractive customs. It seems to have been particularly among this class of " devout "^ men and women that Christianity at first spread, whUe the actual proselytes were among the bitterest opponents of St. Paul. But in any case the existence of these two large classes shews that there were elements in Judaism which might have broken down its spirit of exclusiveness. If in its origin Judaism was the religion of a race, it might have burst its barriers. It had, in fact, begun to do so and to open privileges theoreti- cally confined to the descendants of Abraham for the benefit of aU races. This element, like the other free elements in ^ Exod. xii. 48. 2 Isa. xiv. i; cf. Ix. 3. 3 Seneca ap. Augustine De Civitate Dei vi. 11 (Reinach, op. cit., p. 262). * ol tpojiov/ievoi rbv Otoj/, Acts X. 2, 22, xiii. 16, 26; ol mjioiievoi, Acts xiii. 50, xvii. 4, 17; ol aefibnivoi rbv Q(.6v, Acts xvi. 14, xviii. 7; Jos. Ant. XIV. vii. 2 (no); ol o-e/So/jEvoi TrpOfnjXurot, Acts xiii. 43. See also Juvenal, Sat. xiv. 96-106 (Reinach, p. 292), and the passages collected in illustration of it by Professor J. E. B. Mayor in his Commentary. THE JEWS AS A NATION 9 Judaism, Christianity appropriated to itself, while those who remained Jews retained the old spirit of exclusiveness, embittered by the sufferings of the great revolt and the destruction of their sacred city.-"- We have next to consider the Jews as a nation. At first only a loose confederation of tribes, they had been united under David into a powerful kingdom, which had been as transient as are most Oriental monarchies, but had served to create an ideal and to shape their future aspira- tions. Under the influence of the Prophets there grew up the expectation of the coming of an anointed King of the house of David, who should rule in righteousness and equity, under whom Israel would attain once more the half-mythic glory of the past and hold sovereign sway over the Gentiles. It was characteristic of Israel that its hopes were always placed in the future, and that, however gloomy might be its political fortunes, it believed with unconquerable faith in its divine destiny. These hopes were expressed in the expectation of the Kingdom of Heaven, a term which, at the time of our Lord, summed up the social, poHtical, and religious ideals of the nation. It took various forms. Some expected in a simple and crude manner the revival of earthly sovereignty. In this form it inspired the many revolts against Roman rule which followed the organization of Judaea as a Roman province, and expressed itself more particularly in the refusal to pay taxes to a foreign ruler. A more ideal repre- sentation was that which is put before us in the Psalms of Solomon. God is called on to raise up " their King, the Son of David " to reign over Israel His servant. He is to purge Jerusalem from the heathen, to gather together a holy people. " He shall possess the nations of the heathen, to serve him beneath his yoke; and he shall glorify the Lord in a place to be seen of the whole earth. He shall purge Jerusalem and make it holy, even as it was in the days of old, so that the nations may come from the ends of the earth to see his glory, bringing as gifts her sons that have fainted. . . . There shall be no iniquity in those 1 Bousset, Die Religion des Judentums, pp. 64-71. 10 THE ORIGINS OF THE CHURCH days, for all shall be holy, and their king is the Lord Messiah."^ But as the establishment of temporal sovereignty became less possible, there grew up, especially among the more pious Israelites who repudiated such earthly hopes, a different conception, coloured by a strong and often extrava- gant eschatology. This is suggested first in the book of Daniel, and was amplified in the book of Enoch and other apocryphal writings. When the kingdoms of the world are warring with the saints, suddenly the Ancient of Days win appear: "And the kingdom and donoinion and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven shall be given to the people of the saints of the most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him."^ The coming of this kingdom is associated with the judgement, the punishment of the wicked and the persecutors, and the reward of the righteous; often it is accompanied with crude nullennarian hopes. It meant the establishment by supernatiu-al agencies, whether on earth or in heaven or in a new earth, of an ideal kingdom of righteousness and happiness for the elect under the direct rule of the Messiah in the visible presence of the Almighty. While the aspirations of Israel were in this manner being idealized and were coming to be expressed in a more definitely religious fashion, the political fate of the nation was teaching the same lesson. To any clear-sighted ob- server it must have been apparent that the establishment of an earthly Jewish kingdom was not possible. But it required many hard blows to drive the lesson home. The period of illusion under the Maccabees was finally brought to an end by the expedition of Pompey. With a true 1 Psalms of Solomon, xvii. 23-44, ed. James and Ryle, pp. 137- 145. On the expression the Lord Messiah (XpiiTj-6c Kwpioe) see the note ad loc. This is the reading of all Greek manuscripts and of the Syriac Version. I notice, however, that Professor Buchanan Gray in Charles, Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, II. 650, translates " the Anointed of the Lord " without taking the trouble to justify it. Evidence has little weight with a modern critic. * Dan. vii. 27. See also Regnum Dei, by Archibald Robertson, D.D. [afterwards Bishop of Exeter], pp. 1-38, 39-46. Bousset, op. cit., pp. 185 sq. THE JEWS AS A CHURCH ii instinct the more pious among the Jews never forgave him, and sang a paean of triumph over his death: " God shewed me that insolent one lying pierced upon the high places of Egypt, made of less account than him that is least in earth and sea; even his dead body Ijning corrupted upon the waves in great contempt, and there was no man to bury him. He said, I will be Lord of earth and sea; and per- ceived not that it is God who is great, powerful in the great- ness of his strength. He is king over the heavens and judgeth kings and rulers. He it is that lifteth up unto glory, and layeth low the proud in eternal destruction and dishonour, because they knew him not."^ Pompey might be punished for his insolence, but the hope of Israel never returned. Herod's kingdom was felt to be an illusion. Direct Roman rule was established. The Holy People must pay taxes to a foreign ruler. The overthrow of national hopes in the great war, the destruc- tion of the city, the final failure under Barcochba, com- pelled the Jews finally to lay aside all temporal aspirations and to seek their future in religion alone. Meanwhile Jews all over the world were learning to live as citizens of other nations, protected by their laws, often enjoying special privileges. They clung to their traditional life; they jealously adhered to their religious duties. As the restoration of Israel as a people and a nation became more and more impossible, they became, in fact if not in name, a Church. The fundamental idea of a Church is that of a religious society organized apart from the State. It involves the separation of the spiritual from the temporal, and the tendency on the part of the religion to overstep ethnical and national bounds and establish itself on an international basis. This was not the original idea of religion. In the beginnings of history, religion seems invariably to belong to a particular tribe or city, and there is no distinction between the rehgious and the political organization. A man's religion is fixed by the people or city or family to which he belongs. At Rome the colleges of priests and augurs, and the vestal virgins, were as much State officials as the I Psalms of Solomon ii. 30-35. 12 THE ORIGINS OF THE CHURCH consuls or praetors. A rex sacnficulus was necessary because some religious ceremonies could only be performed by a king. A striking illustration is Julius Caesar as a young man becoming Pontifex Maximus as a step of some impor- tance in a political career. Even if foreign cults are intro- duced they are brought in as new developments of the State religion. It was the spread of commerce and the mingling of nations resulting from it that began to break down this conception. It was the great Empires of Alexander and of Rome, the destruction of the old city communities, and the change of outlook created by the substitution of a State coextensive \vith the world for one limited to a few miles of territory, that created the need for a new ideal. The various Eastern superstitions which became popular in the Imperial period, the worships of Isis and Osiris, of Cybele and Attis, and more particularly that of Mithras, conformed to a newer model and responded to the transformation which was gradually taking place in men's minds; but it was only in Judaism, or, to speak accurately, in its more spiritual off- spring, Christianity, that the idea of a Church was actually formulated. There were, in fact, many elements in Judaism which fitted it for answering these needs. Originally, Israel had been a people without any earthly ruler, and this was never forgotten. " The Lord your God is your king " represented the prophetic opposition to a kingly ideal. The same view was revived in the establishment of the theocracy after the exile, and again when the Chasidim protested against the temporal sovereignty of the Maccabean High Priests. Such an ideal was naturally obscured in times of national success, but became more prominent in times of failure, until cir- cumstances made it, for anyone who could see, the only possible basis for religious organization. They were not to be a nation with their own polity, but a people separate from the world, living under the rule of others, in many different countries. Such a conception gradually grew up. It was expressed in a number of theological terms, first used by Judaism, later taken up and applied to itself by the Christian Church. THE SPIRITUAL ISRAEL 13 The normal name for the people in its spiritual aspect was Israel. " The portion of the Lord, and. the inheritance of God, is Israel " ;^ " Israel is the Lord's portion," says the Son of Sirach.^ " Israel is a holy nation unto the Lord its God, and a nation of inheritance and a priestly and a royal nation and for his own possession."^ The people were " the Saints," " the Holy Ones."* So in Leviticus: " Speak ye unto all the congregation of the children of Israel, and say unto them: Ye shall be holy, for I, the Lord your God, am holy."^ They were essentially " the people" as opposed to " the nations."® " And now thou art God and we are the people whom thou hast loved."'' More particularly they were " a chosen race,"^ " a peculiar people," " a royal priesthood," " an holy nation."^ " Ye shaU be named the priests of Jehovah; men shaU call you the ministers of our God."^° This peculiar sanctity and priesthood was not the privilege of any one tribe, but belonged to the whole nation. " And they shall be to me, saith Jehovah Sabaoth in the day which I make, for a special possession."" Now all these thoughts and ideas'are obviously quite, independent of any special secular conditions, and they might be preserved and perpetuated when the external circumstances amid which they arose had passed away. They were adopted by later Judaism and were taken over by Christianity as claiming to be the true Israel,^^ and were 1 Ps. Sol. xiv. 3, on fi iiepls Kal i) KXtjpovo/iia tov 0605 ioriv 6 'laparjK. ^ Ecclus. xvii. 17, liepi-Q Kupiou 'laparik iariv, 3 Jubilees (ed. Charles) xxxiii. 20. 4 oi Hywi. See Hort on i Pet. i. 15; cf. Ps. Sol. xvii. 36, 49; Sanday and Headlam, Rom. i. 7. 5 Lev. xi. 44, 45, xix. 2, xx. 7. 8 o Xadc as opposed to rh Wvrj. See Hort on i Pet. ii. 9. ' Ps. Sol. ix. 16, Kai vvv av 6 Oe6c, Kai ij/ieif 6 Xaoj ov ^ydirrjaaQi ' Isa. xliii. 20, 21, rb yfi/os jiov TO IkXsktov, Xaov fiov ov irEpieTroiqffa^qv rif ipErdc jiov iirjyuoBai, ^ £xod. xix. 5, 6, iueaBi flat Xabc itEpioiaioQ dirb ttccvtihv tS>v eQvUv' ifiri yap ianv irdaa i) yij, iiiiie ^£ taiaOk pioi fSaaiXeiov iepdriv/ia xal tSvoQ iiyiov. ^^ Isa. Ixi. 6, ifietg Si iepils Kvpiov KXrjBriffeaBe, X^iTovpyoi OeoO. 1* Mai. iii. 17, ko' iaovral fjioi, Xiyu Kvpwg JlavroKpariDp, eig t'liikpav f/v iyH TTotw ek TTtpnroitimv. On all these passages see Hort on i Pet. ii. 9. i^ On the manner in which the Christian Church as the New Israel succeeded to the privileges of the old, see Hamilton, The People of God (Oxford, 1912), and especially vol, ii., chap, ii., " The New Israel." 14 THE ORIGINS OF THE CHURCH summed up in the word ecclesia, or church. Thus was created the technical term for a reUgious society apart from, and opposed to, all other forms of association. This word ecclesia,^ although it was ready to hand, and had been prepared for use, had not definitely been employed with this meaning before it was taken up by Christianity. Although once in the New Testament it is definitely used of the Jewish Church, when it is said of Moses, " This is he that was in the Church in the wilderness," yet there is no parallel to that usage in purely Jewish writings, and it is clear that Christian conceptions are being read back into pre-Christian times. The word had been gradually shaped for this purpose. There are two Hebrew words, 'edhah and qahal, which are used in the Old Testament for the" assembly" or " congregation." The former was with some consistency translated by the Septuagint synagoge, the latter by ecclesia. It is hardly possible in earlier books to find any distinction in meaning between the two, but in later Judaism there is some difference. The word synagoge came to be used more especially of an actual body of people gathered together in one place; the word ecclesia is used more particularly of a sacred assembly, especially of the sacred assembly of all Israel, and hence of an assembly in its ideal aspect. Two instances may be quoted illustrating this. In the Psalms wetead: " And the heavens shall declare thy wonders, O Lord; and thy truth in the ecclesia of the Saints " ; and in Ecclesiasticus : "Wisdom shall praise herself, and shall glory in the midst of her people. In the ecclesia of the most High shall she open her mouth."^ But the usage is not fixed, and the ultimate distinction of the words synagoge and ecclesia arose from the fact that the word synagoge became the usual Greek designation for the building known under that name, and called in Hebrew keneseth. As the one word was used for the building, the other became employed to express the rehgious assembly of God's chosen people. It thus acquired the more abstract and ideal signification, and for that reason was taken up by the 1 See Dissertation A, "The History of the word iKKXrima." 2 Ps. Ixxxviii. 5 [6] ; Ecclus. xxiv. i, 2. THE DEVELOPMENT OF A CHURCH 15 Christian Church. The two words, which had originally differed little in meaning, ultimately came to express the two antagonistic ideas of Chiirch and Synagogue. We may now sum up the results of this discussion. During the first century of the Christian era the old conception of a national rehgion peculiar to a city or people and distinct from that of any other nation had ceased to be reaUy tenable, and with it passed the identity of the reUgious and secular organization. A universal State needed and created the conception of a universal religion, and a government, which, by the necessities of the case, was mainly secular and normally tolerant, fostered the growth of the idea of a Church as a religious society apart from a State. The elements included in this idea were: first, that a religion was intended for others besides those of a particular race or nation; that it was intended in fact for the whole world, or at any rate for the elect throughout the world, and aimed more or less consciously at being universal; and then, secondly, and as a necessary conse- quence of this, that it should be organized, at any rate, to a certain extent, independently of the ordiaary social, municipal, and political" Uf e. The first and second centuries of the Christian era saw the rise of various attempts at meeting this need. The cults of Mithras and of Isis are tj^ical of the efforts which were then made with some temporary success; but Judaism in its later form and Christianity were the only permanent results, and Chris- tianity alone consciously created the conception known to us in modern times by the name of a Church. The world was seeking a universal religion. It was only a monotheism in some form which could meet such a demand. Although Judaism believed in one God who was Lord of the whole earth, yet it was hampered by a rigid exclusiveness which confined its privileges to those 'who could claim to belong to the chosen race, and by narrow nationaUst ideals, and it was unable to separate its theological ideas from the hard and severe discipline of the ceremonial law. Circumstances indeed were suggesting the abandonment of all such restrictions. Large numbers of proselytes had been made, and Judaism shewed signs of i6 THE ORIGINS OF THE CHURCH breaking down its barriers. Sensible people had ceased to arrange their lives in the expectation of a national restora- tion. But the actual step of creating the idea of a Church was not made. Christianity made this step, and absorbed in itself all those liberal tendencies which had begun to appear, while Judaism became even more stereotyped. Ever since the fall of Jerusalem it has been in fact a Church, but it has never recognized this as its ideal. It has not ceased to look forward to a restored Jewish State. It has remained exclusive, isolated, unchanging. Christianity grasped the idea and fixed the name. The word was ready to hand. It had acquired a spiritual meaning, but it had never been used in its technical signifi- cation. As employed by Christianity the word ecclesia embodied a new conception for which the world was ready, which was the spiritual fulfilment of principles innate in Judaism, and awaiting development; which only came into being in the new life and revelation through Jesus Christ.^ II We have now to approach what will be found to be a more difficult problem. In what sense and to what extent did our Lord found a Church ? At first sight the inquiry may seem tmnecessary. It is recorded of our Lord that on one of the most impressive occasions of His life He said : " On this rock I will buUd my Church."^ Such a state- ment must surely solve the problem. Unfortunately it does not do so in the opinion of certain scholars. It is argued that this and other passages which might seem to point to the same conclusion are not original, but represent a later recension of the Gospel story. They came into the narrative as a justification of more developed ecclesiastical conditions, not, it would be argued, by any 1 The idea of the Jewish ecclesia is brought out by Bousset [op. cii., pp. 54 sq., Die Entwickelung dey Judischen Frommigkeit zuv Kirche), but he fails to reaUze (i) that although the conception was post-exilic, yet it was possible, owing to tendencies in pre- exilic Judaism; (2) that even after the exile the realization was gractical rather than theoretical. As a matter of fact Judaism as become a church, but it has never realized the idea of a church. 2 St. Matt. xvi. 18. CRITICAL PRINCIPLES 17 conscious process of fraud, but by the inevitable tendency of an unwritten tradition gradually to modify itself in accordance with the desires of those who report it. It would be maintained that a study of the narrative would shew that there was not in our Lord's life and teaching any contemplation of such a development. Either it would be held that He expected so near a coming of the end of all things that the creation of a society would be entirely uimecessary, or that He taught a simple ethic with which anything like ecclesiasticism was entirely inconsistent. The Church, it would be maintained, grew up through other influences, partly through the survival of just those elements of Judaism most inconsistent with the Gospel, partly through the corrupting influence of Hellenism. In any case it does not represent our Lord's teaching in any way, and all passages with an ecclesiastical flavour are the product of the Church and not of its Founder.^ Another point of view would be that the development was entirely healthy and right, that it was indeed part of the divine purpose, but that no such idea could be found in the genuine words of our Lord, or was part of His con- scious purpose. His own aims were entirely limited. He had indeed sown the seed, and the seed had grown into a great tree; but as He died before the seed began to grow, we cannot ascribe any of the characteristics of the tree to His work." It will be apparent, I think, on examination, that all these theories labour under serious logical defects. How are these conceptions of our Lord's teaching formed ? In the only way possible, by a study of the Gospels — ^that is, * An admirable example of such views will be found in the article " Ministry," by Professor P. W. Schmiedel, of Zurich, in the Encyclo- paedia Biblica, iii. 3101-3103. "It would be a great mistake to suppose that Jesus Himself founded a new religious community." It is very doubtful whether our Lord called the disciples " Apostles "; He certainly did not do so as conferring on them a particular rank. The commission of binding and loosing in the sense of non-forgive- ness and forgiveness of sins is in the mouth of our Lord impossible, as also is almost all the address to St. Peter (St. Matt. xvi. 18). This is shewn by His use of the word ecclesia. " Baptism and the repeti- tion of the Last Supper were no ordinances of Jesus." " The con- clusion of the parable of the Tares does not come from Jesus." * This would represent the view of M. Loisy, at any rate when he wrote L'Evangile et I'EgUse. i8 THE ORIGINS OF THE CHURCH by a study of those portions of the Gospels that support such a view. Each theory is based, upon a portion of the material; and we ask whether there is any external evidence which enables us to distinguish that portion which is regarded as authentic and trustworthy. Are there any reasons of an objective character sufficient to distinguish the two strata of the Gospels ? It seems somewhat difficult to find any. Criticism such as this in fact labours under the disadvan- tage that it constructs its theory from a portion of the evidence, and dismisses the remainder only because it does not harmonize with its theory — a somewhat circular method of argument. This defect of method becomes apparent from a comparison of different modern writers. The liberal rationalistic school would consider that the principal eschatological passages of the Gospel are later interpola- tions, while the new eschatological school would consider them the most authentic portion of our Lord's sayings. So Harnack based his conception of the kingdom of heaven on a passage which Loisy maintained was certainly not authentic.^ The method pursued is in fact hardly scientific. Yet it is not possible to deny the possibility of interpolation, or of our Lord's words as reported having been influenced by later conditions. This would be particularly the case in regard to isolated sayings. A more careful investiga- tion is therefore necessary, one which wiU enable us to get a deeper insight into our Lord's methods. Such an investigation I propose to make. The critical position adopted is that in the bulk of the subject-matter of the Synoptic Gospels we have our Lord's words as they were reported among the first generations of Christians; that they were reduced to writing certainly before the faU of Jerusalem, and probably considerably earlier; that the Gospels existed in their present form in any case before the end of the first century, and probably twenty or thirty years earlier. We cannot have any certainty that we possess in every case the exact words of our Lord; yet the substantial accuracy of the record of His teaching, and the correct presentation of His religious conceptions, need not be doubted. 1 Loisy, op. cit., pp. 54-56. THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN 19 It is from this point of view that I propose to examine the teaching of the Gospels, and to inquire what evidence they give as to the relation of our Lord to the formation of the Christian society.^ I propose to avoid relying on isolated passages and special texts, and to examine the general tendency of our Lord's teaching. If we find that the more definite sayings are in harmony with the rest of the teaching it win be a reasonable deduction that they are genuine. Having thus obtained some idea of what the Gospels teach, I shall ask whether it takes its place naturally in the develop- ment of Christian life and doctrine. If it does so, if the conception thus formed gives a natural cause of the develop- ment of the Christian society, then it wiU be in accordance with good criticism to accept it as genuine. Ill The expression most commonly used by our Lord to express His teaching is that of the " kingdom of God," or, more correctly, " the rule or sovereignty of God."^ Synony- mous with this is the expression used in the First Gospel, the " kingdom of heaven," the word " heaven " being a common paraphrase employed to avoid the sacred name.^ ^ The work which. I found most helpful in this investigation was Hort's Christian Ecclesia. A large part of what follows is taken from an article of my own in the Church Quarterly Review for Janu- ary, 1905, vol. lix.. No. 118, pp. 257-285, " The Christian Society. II. The Teaching of our Lord." 2 On the Kingdom of Heaven see Dissertation B, where the meaning of each separate passage where the word is used is dis- cussed. For a full philosophical presentment of it see Robertson's Regnum Dei. 3 On these terms see particularly Dalman, The Words of Jesus, pp. 91-147, E.T. There can be no doubt that the meaning of ij PaaiXcla t&v ovpavwv is the Same as that of ^ PaaiKeia tov Oeou, the former being the Jewish expression, modified in St. Mark and St. Luke to suit Greek readers. " Jesus will have preferred the popular expression because He also readily abstained from the use of the divine name " (pp. 93, 94). On the meaning of the expression Dalman writes: " No doubt can be entertained that both in the Old Testament and in Jewish literature Jl^lD^/b when applied to God means always the ' kingly rule,' never the ' kingdom.' . . . It is more correct to regard, with B. Weiss, as fundamental, the meaning ' the full realization of the sovereignty of God,' so as never to lose sight of the starting-point." 20 THE ORIGINS OF THE CHURCH This expression first demands our examination, all the more because it has been taken (as, for example, by St. Augustine) as simply identical with " the Church." That this is so cannot be maintained. The kingdom of heaven means much more than the Church, it is a term of wider significa- tion; but there is a close connection between the two. For example, when our Lord, addressing St. Peter, speaks of the founding of His Church, He is represented by the author of the First Gospel as immediately adding the words, " I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven." What meaning, then, is to be ascribed to this expression " the kingdom of God " as used in the Gospels ?^ The primary signification was the divine theocracy, the rule of God as opposed to that of the powers of evil or the sovereigns of the world. Although the exact expression does not occur in the Old Testament the idea which it represents is common. Israel was to live under the direct rule of Jehovah; the people of Israel were to obey His law; the establishment of this kingdom would mean the over- throw and subjection of the kingdoms of the world. This had become part of the current thought of the day. The i Cf. Hort, The Christian Ecclesia, pp. i8, 19: " One large depart- ment of our Lord's teaching sometimes spoken of as if it directly belonged to our subject, may, I believe, be safely laid aside. In the verse following that whach we have been considering [Matt, xvi. 18] our Lord says to St. Peter, ' I will give thee the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven.' Without going into details of inter- pretation, we can at once see that the relation between the two verses implies some important relation between the Ecclesia and the Kingdom of Heaven: but the question is, what relation ? The simplest inference from the language used would be that the of&ce committed to St. Peter and the rest with respect to the Ecclesia, would enable him and them to fulfil the office here described as committed to him, with respect to the Kingdom of Heaven. But the question is whether this is a sufficient account of the matter. Since Augustine's time the Kingdom of Heaven or Kingdom of God, of which we read so often in the Gospels, has been simply identified with the Christian Ecclesia. This is not an unnatural deduction from some of our Lord's sayings on this subject taken by them- selves ; but it cannot, I think, hold its ground when the whole range of His teaching about it is comprehensively examined. We may speak of the Ecclesia as the visible representative of the Kingdom of God, or as the primary instrument of its sway, or under other analogous forms of language. But we are not justified in identi- fying the one with the other, so as to be able to apply directly to the Ecclesia whatever is said in the Gospels about the Kingdom of Heaven or of God." THE KINGDOM AND ETERNAL LIFE 21 exact form which the expectation took might vary, but it was always associated with limited national aims and often with crude eschatological hopes. It will always seem re- markable to anyone acquainted with contemporary thought how completely this nationaUsm has been eliminated from our Lord's teaching. He undoubtedly uses eschatological language, but it may be doubted whether He employed it in a purely literal signification. What He did was, discarding all limited conceptions, to make use of the expression " the kingdom of heaven " as the vehicle of a profound moral teaching, of inaugurating new conditions under which man was to dwell upon the earth, and of expressing in its most spiritual form the hope of future happiness offered to mankind. The Jew had looked forward to the establishment at some future time of the visible manifestation of divine power in the world. His conception was definitely eschatological. So the kingdom of God means that final realization of the divine rule for each individual, which was also, and especi- ally in St. John's Gospel, called " eternal life." The king- dom of heaven is something which is to come. The righteous are to inherit the kingdom prepared for them from the foundation of the world ;^ they shall shine forth in the kingdom of God the Father.^ It is for this coming of the kingdom — that is, for the complete fulfilment of God's will — ^that men are to pray.^ But this interpretation does not exhaust the meaning of the word as used by our Lord. The kingdom of heaven is spoken of as present. " The kingdom of God is within you."* " From the days of , John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence. "5 " But if I in the spirit of God cast out devils, then is the kingdom of God come upon you."® In many of the parables also by which the idea of the kingdom is illustrated it is represented as something already begun. The divine theocracy, then, can be spoken of as something already present, yet to come, a system as yet imperfectly reahzed, to be more completely fulfilled in the future. Occasionally it seems as if this imperfect condition were 1 St. Matt. XXV. 34. =" St. Matt. xiii. 43. » St. Matt. vi. 10. * St. Luke xvii. 20, 21. » St. Matt. xi. 12. « St. Matt. xii. 28. 22 THE ORIGINS OF THE CHURCH represented as the kingdom of the Messiah, in contrast to the complete consummation of the kingdom of God: " The Son of Man shall send forth his angels and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that cause stumbling . . • then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father."^ So our Lord says to the Twelve: "I will appoint unto you a kingdom, even as my Father appointed unto me."^ He speaks of, and His disciples expect, His kingdom,^ and it is this expectation which seems to be interpreted by St. Paul when he says: " Then cometh the end, when he shall deUver up the kingdom to God, even the Father. . . . For he must reign, until he hath put all his enemies under his feet."* Our Lord, then, was inaugurating a system of divine rule or sovereignty as opposed both to the kingdoms of the world and to the kingdom of evil, a rule already beginning and leading to a more perfect consummation in the future. This sovereignty was to consist in the sway of the divine law in men's hearts; " Seek ye first the kingdom of God and his righteousness."^ The entrance into this kingdom is dependent upon conforming to its laws: " Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall in no wise enter therein. "° Now those persons in whose hearts God has power and who have consciously accepted His rule become by so doing the subjects of the kingdom, " the sons of the kingdom."' Such a body of men so bound together by accepting a common law suggests at once the idea of a society. A closer investigation will corroborate this impression. A series of terms are used which have a meaning only in relation to a society. Our Lord speaks of the " greatest " and " least " in the kingdom of heaven.^ " He that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he."^ It is something that people attain to and enter into.^° It 1 St. Matt. xiii. 41-43. ^ St. Luke xxii. 29; c/. xii. 32. 3 St. Matt. XX. 21; St. Luke xxii. 30, xxiii. 42. * I Cor. XV. 24, 25. On this subject see Dalman, The Words of Jesus, pp. 133, 134; Robertson, Regnum Dei, pp. 54 sq., 71 sq. 6 St. Matt. vi. 33. 8 St. Mark x. 15. ' St. Matt. xiii. 38. 8 St. Matt. V. 19. » St. Matt. xi. 11. 1' St. Matt. V. 20, vii. 21, xix. 23, xxi. 31 ; St. Luke xviii. 24, 25. THE LAW OF THE KINGDOM 23 may be closed against others. Men may be cast out from it. St. Peter is said to have the keys of it.^ Of the Pharisees it is said: " Ye shut the kingdom of heaven against men : for ye enter not in yourselves, neither suffer ye those that are entering in to enter."^ Now if in some cases these expressions might refer to the final manifestation of the kingdom, in others they clearly do not. The type of society is not defined. Sometimes the language is metaphorical. The terms do, however, imply a sphere in which men will be associated with others as recognizing the sovereignty of God, and having the privileges thus conferred. A similar conception is implied in the passages which represent our Lord as a new lawgiver. Moses had given laws for the old theocracy which were accepted as the direct revelation of God's will. It is one of the most startling points in the claim of our Lord that He took upon Himself to give a new system of ethics, a natural development indeed of the old system, but definitely contrasted with it and intended to supersede it. It is conceivable that this system might represent only the moral principles which a man must accept if he acknowledges God's sovereignty in his heart. But on being examined it is found to deal not only with the relation of man to God, not only with the relation of man to the world apart from God, but also with a special relation to others, who are in the same peculiar relation to God and who are described as " brethren." When our Lord gives the series of directions about being angry with a brother, and so on. He is conceiving that those whom He addresses and who are to obey the laws of the theocracy will be members of the kingdom, having definite fraternal relations with other members of the kingdom.^ The mysteries of the kingdom were most clearly ex- pounded by our Lord in a long series of parables. Some of these put forth the privileges of the kingdom, others the duties; others, again, seem to represent it as a society in which good and evil are mingled together, a society such as a visible Church might be. In the parable of the Tares, the kingdom of heaven is represented as a community of 1 St. Matt, xvi. 19. 2 St. Matt, xxiii. 13. 3 St. Matt. V. 22, vii. 3, 4, 5, xviii. 15, 21, 35. 24 THE ORIGINS OF THE CHURCH good and evil men living together in the world at present undistinguishable, or at any rate with difficulty distin- guishable, one from another. Out of these, described as the kingdom of the Son, the evil will be plucked at the end of the world, and in the purified kingdom of the Father, the good will shine forth as the sun.^ A similar conception is suggested by the Draw-net.^ Two other parables seem even more suggestive. In the Mustard Seed and the Leaven, the external and internal growth of the kingdom is pictured. The most obvious interpretation that can be given them is that while the one represents the silent and secret growth of ideas in men's hearts, the other pictures it as a great and visible society growing in the world capable of giving rest and shelter as do the branches of the tree.^ The divine theocracy in the Old Testament was a society. The words used by our Lord to convey His teaching in- evitably suggest men united together as subjects of a king. The language used Would be evacuated of much of its meaning if no Christian society were contemplated. This society was not identical with the kingdom, but repre- sented the kingdom in process of creation. But our Lord IS represented in the Gospels uses language which imphes that those who accepted His teaching were to be united together in a community in which they should receive even in this life some of the privileges which He promised, and should exercise the righteousness which He enjoined, and that community is represented by the Christian Church. It has often been remarked as strange that the " king- dom" — an expression used with such frequency in the Gospels — should be found so little in other books of the New Testament. It may throw some light on our inquiry if we investigate this point shortly. Our Lord used this word to describe His message because it was current among the Jews. They expected the Messiah; they expected that he would inaugurate the kingdom. Jesus came as the Messiah and gave quite a new meaning to the kingdom. So long as the Gospel was addressed only to Jews, the language would be adequate and valuable, but when the 1 St. Matt. xiii. 24-30, 36-43. « St. Matt. xiii. 47-50. » St. Matt. xiii. 31-33. ^' ^ THE KINGDOM INTERPRETED 25 disciples began to preach to Gentiles it was necessary to interpret it. There was even danger attached to it. It was quite capable of being taken to mean that Chris- tianity implied a political revolution.-^ Now most of the books of the New Testament were written for Gentile readers, and therefore in most of them the process of interpretation has begun. The Synoptic Gospels, being as they profess to be historical records of our Lord's teaching, generally preserve the original phrase- ology, and this is strong evidence of their authenticity. The remaining books interpret, and it is interesting to observe the manner in which the idea of the kingdom is dissolved into its different elements. In St. John's Gospel the idea most prominent is that of " eternal life," which expresses in more modern phraseology one of the most fundamental thoughts included under the conception of the kingdom. It is noticeable, also, how exactly St. John preserves the meaning of our Lord's teaching; for "life" with him means not merely sopiething which is to be gained hereafter, but something which is enjoyed now, just as the kingdom is something which is inaugurated now, although its completion will only come hereafter. " He that believeth hath eternal life."^ " He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day."^ But, again, the kingdom meant the sway of God's laws in men's hearts, and as such it was represented and interpreted by the great Pauline idea of " righteous- ness."* " Seek ye first," said our Lord, " God's kingdom and his righteousness."^ " The kingdom of God," said St. Paul, " is righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost."" But then again the kingdom of God carried on and reasserted the idea involved in the old theocracy of the " people of God," those who were bound together as the subjects of His laws and for that reason attached to Him and separated from the rest of the world. As such 1 C/. Acts xvii. 7 with 1 Thess. ii. 12. ' St. John vi. 47. 3 St. John vi. 54. * See " St. Paul's Equivalent for the ' Kingdom of Heaven," " by W. Sanday, D.D., in Journal of Theological Studies, i., 481 Quly, 1900). » St. Matt. vi. 33. • Rom. xiv. 17. 26 THE ORIGINS OF THE CHURCH it found its interpretation in the spiritual Israel, the Christian Church. And just as eternal life was something which was partly realized here, although the fulness was only to come hereafter, just as the righteousness of earth is only a faint shadow of the righteousness in heaven, so the Christian Church, imperfect upon earth, will only attain its completion hereafter. All these ideas alike reflect the . characteristics of the kingdom or sovereignty of God, that it was to be only partially realized on earth, but was to wait for its complete consummation in the heavens.-' Such I would put before you as the explanation of that complex thought, the kingdom of heaven. Those of you who are acquainted with certain forms of modern criticism will be aware that one school would interpret it only in an eschatological sense. They would hold that the only meaning it could have to our Lord was that at some period not very remote would come the final end of this world- age, that the Messiah would come in majesty and destroy aU earthly kingdoms and establish on earth a kingdom of heaven. Some would modify this so far as to beheve that what our Lord was really teaching in a symbolical manner was a doctrine of " eternal hfe." But any other meaning would, they hold, be in the mouth of our Lord an ana- chronism. Now the difficulties of such a narrow interpretation are two. The one is that it compels us to do such violence to the records that we possess. It obliges us either to give a forced and unnatural meaning to many of the passages in the Gospels where the phrase occurs, or, as the more common expedient, to deny that they were spoken by our Lord. Even if such violent methods might be justified, the diffi- culty would still be great because, according to these same critics, the early Christian community also believed in the 1 See Robertson, Regnum Dei, p. 98: "The Church stands in a more direct relation to the Mediatorial Kingdom of Christ; but here, too, the two things are not convertible; the Church is an instrument, the chief instrument, of the Reign of Christ, it is its principal sphere, and aims at worthily embodying it in the sight of men. The Kingdom of God is not simply an idea, nor simply an institution, but a Life, and of that Life — ^the Christian Life^the Church is the nurse and home." THE DISCIPLES 27 near approach of the Parousia, and, therefore the more profound conceptions of the kingdom would be as impossible for them as for our Lord. A second difficulty is that if you evacuate the teaching of our Lord of all its most original and impressive charac- teristics, if you imagine that it did not exceed in intelligence the work of a third-rate apocalyptist, it becomes exceed- ingly difficult to explain the message of the Gospel, the rise of Christianity and of the Christian Church. I would therefore put before you that such critical methods are unscientific and that such a narrow interpre- tation of our Lord's words entirely fails to represent His Gospel. It may be doubted indeed whether even among the Jews the Kingdom and the Parousia were normally interpreted with such a crude literalism. In all ages the language describing religious hopes of the hereafter has been symboHcal and imaginative. Our Lord starts from the popular conception. He uses it to teach His message. He would teach us the universal claims of God's rule. Every man must let God rule in his heart. That was the fundamental law of life. He foresaw the contest between the rule of God and the rule of the world, His own death, the labours and sufferings of His disciples. Again and again in His parables He taught that the coming of the kingdom in its completeness was a long process. He conceived His followers bound together in a common society as a prepara- tion for the kingdom. The final coming of the kingdom for each one would be in eternal life. Righteousness, the Church, Eternal Life. Thus the kingdom would come. IV If the foundation of a religious society was part of our Lord's plan and piu'pose, in what sense and to what extent did He carry it out ? He did not directly found the Church. History shews, as theology has always taught, that this was the work of the Apostles. But He prepared for it. He collected round Himself a body of disciples,i who had 1 Cf. Hort, The Christian Ecclesia, pp. 19, 20: "Wherever we find disciples and discipleship in the Gospels, there we are dealing with what was a direct preparation for the founding of the Ecclesia. 28 THE ORIGINS OF THE CHURCH obeyed His command to follow Him. In attachment to His person He gave them a principle of union. More than this, He selected twelve to be His particular companions. To His disciples and His apostles He gave a commission which implied an extension of work after He was taken from them. He gave to the community spiritual authority. Our Lord formed a body of disciples. They were attached to Him in a special sense, and were contrasted with the crowd of mere hearers who followed Him only for a time.^ We have no definite information about their number, but they were probably never very numerous.^ He raised waves of popular enthusiasm, but they were transient. Much of His teaching was difficult, unattractive, even deterrent. He seemed to prevent men from coming to Him too easily; He sifted and tried them. No man who was not prepared to bear his cross could be His disciple.^ If we ask what were the conditions of discipleship, we shall find that while there is, as always in our Lord's teach- ing, a complete absence of rules or regulations, the funda- mental quaUfication is clear. It is attachment to Himself. " But Jesus looked at him and loved him, and said to him: One thing thou lackest : go thy way, sell all thou hast and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven. We all know how much more this word ' disciples ' sometimes means in the Gospels than admiring and affectionate hearers, though that forms a part of it ; how a closer personal relation is further involved in it, for discipleship takes various forms and passes through various stages. Throughout there is devotion to the Lord, found at last to be no mere superior Rabbi, but a true Lord of the spirit; and along with and arising out of this d,evotion there is a growing sense of brotherhood between disciples." 1 Cf. St. Matt. xiii. 36, xiv. 19. 2 There seem to be few data for arriving at the number of our Lord's disciples. We are told in the Fourth Gospel, in a passage which suggests that baptism was the external sign of discipleshrp (St. John iv. 1), that Jesus at the beginning of His ministry made and baptized more disciples than John; but later we are told in the same Gospel that many of His disciples left Him (St. John vi. 66). The highest definite number in the Gospels is that of the seventy mentioned in St. Luke (St. Luke x. i), an incident which there are no sufficient grounds for doubting, as it would be difficult to conceive any reason for its invention. The number of names mentioned in the Acts after the Ascension is one hundred and twenty (Acts i. 15) assembled in Jerusalem, and St. Paul records an appearance of our Lord to over five hundred brethren at once (i Cor. xv. 6). 3 St. Luke xiv. 27. THE TWELVE 29 and come, follow me."^ " Then Jesus said to his dis- ciples: If any one wishes to come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me."^ " Follow me "^ is the constant note. Those who confess Him, He will confess before His Father in heaven.^ Those who are not offended in Him are blessed.^ Men are bidden leave all their possessions for His name's sake. To those thus attached to His person, He teaches a new life, and He makes His name a bond of union among them. He addressed them as His flock. " Fear not, little flock, for your Father is pleased to give you the kingdom. "^ After His death His followers will continue as a society bound together in His name, hated and persecuted of others. Although at present there are none but Jews among them. He contemplates the inclusion of Gentiles as well and the exclusion of many Jews. " Many shall arise from the east and from the west and shall sit down with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, but the sons of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness."'' " The kingdom of God shall be taken from you and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof."^ " The Gospel of the kingdom has to be preached to the whole world."® In fact our Lord is represented as attaching to Himself followers whom He expects to continue together and to add to their number after He is taken away from them. But, besides the general body of disciples, and selected from among them, He appointed twelve chosen followers. The name by which they were generally known was " the Twelve " ; they appear to have been called Apostles in connection with the special mission on which they were sent out during our Lord's life on earth. If they were originally chosen for this special work, St. Mark also tells us that they were designed to be in a special sense the companions of their Master ,-'-° and the narrative makes it clear that this was the primary purpose of their selection. After the Ascen- 1 St. Mark x. 21. 2 St. Mark viii. 34; St. Matt. xvi. 24; St. Luke ix. 23. 3 St. Matt. viii. 22, ix. 9, x. 38, xvi. 24, xix. 21, etc. * St. Matt. X. 32. 6 St. Matt. xi. 6. « St. Luke xii. 32. ' St. Matt. viii. 11, 12; St. Luke xiii. 28, 29. 8 St. Matt. xxi. 43. 8 St. Matt. xxiv. 14. " St. Mark iii. 14. 30 THE ORIGINS OF THE CHURCH sion of our Lord, when, under the inspiration of the Spirit, they undertook the further missionary labours which they gradually realized, in accordance with their commission, to be their duty, the name Apostles became more common; but the only distinctive name was " the Twelve." During our Lord's earthly life they were not in any real sense Apostles, and after His Ascension they shared the name with others. Most commonly they were called simply disciples, and it is often difficult to say whether by this word is intended the Twelve or the whole body of our Lord's followers.i To estimate the meaning and importance of this act, let us look at the result. Jesus chose a small number of followers to be attached to His person. They were His constant companions, and Were with Him when no one else was present. They, or some of them, were thus the wit- nesses, and therefore able to be the narrators, of His life. They had listened to His discourses and had been the recipients of special instructions and explanations. In this way they were as a matter of fact trained by Him to carry on the message which He had come to deliver, and it is somewhat difficult to believe that this was the accidental result of action undertaken without any such purpose. After His Ascension they take their natural place at the head of the young community; they become the first preachers of the Gospel, and in a sense the rulers of the early Church. This naturally arises from the position they occupied with our Lord.^ 1 On the significance of the names used see Hort, The Christian Ecclesia, pp. 22-29. "' iwoaroXoi occurs as follows : in St. Matthew once only (x. 2), in St. Mark once, or perhaps twice (vi. 30, iii. 14, W. H.) — ^these in relation to the special mission ; in St. Luke six times (vi. 13, ix. 10, xi. 49, xvii. 5, xxii. 14, xxiv. 10); ol SaiSexa (01 S Hades shall not prevail against it. I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."'' The meaning of this passage seems clear. The Jewish people had been often spoken of as the " Israel of God," " the congregation of the children of Israel." Our Lord is clearly announcing His intention of building in its place, or as a continuation of it, " the congregation of the Messiah." He might have spoken of it as " His Israel," " His people," but neither term was quite suitable, and so He uses another expression, which had the authority of the Scriptures and of devout phraseology, and might adequately describe the ideal assembly of Israel. This expression was translated 1 St. Matt. xvi. 18, 19. It is hardly necessary to remind our readers that this passage is very commonly rejected as unauthentic. Schmiedel finds, amongst other reasons, one argument against it in the use of the word ecclesia. Loisy says, however, that it is not the employment of a word unused elsewhere which constitutes the strongest objection to this passage, " mais I'id^e meme d'une societe terrestre qui n'est ni la communaute israelite ni le royaume des cieux, et qui se substitue pour ainsi dire k I'une et k I'autre. J6sus n'a jamais preche que le royaume et I'avdnement prochain du royaume." But this statement can only be justified by omitting all the passages in which our Lord's teaching implies a Church. The following reasons may be given for thinking the passage as a whole genuine : (i.) The phraseology is not Greek but Arartiaic in origin; it must, therefore, go back to the early period of the Gospel writing. Proofs of this may be seen at lengfth in Dalman's discussion of the m.eaning of the various expressions (Dalman, op. cif., pp. 121, 213). (ii.) It could not have been interpolated at any late date (say in the second century, as has been suggested), for " the manner in which St. Peter's name enters into the language about the building of Messiah's ecclesia could not be produced by any view respecting his of&ce which was current in the second century " (Hort, p. 9). (iii.) If it is conceivable that it was written to justify the authority of St. Peter in the first days of the Church, it is much more con- ceivable that words such as these spoken to him by our Lord led to his occupying that position (see below, p. 36, n. i). (iv.) The application of the term eKK\r]oi, Acts i. 15. ^ Acts xxiv. 5, V T(ov Najupaiwi/ aipEaig- * Acts ii. 41, 42. * Acts ii. 38. 6 Acts ii. 42, iv. 35, 37, V. 2, iS, vl. 2. 52 THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH holding.^ They had been the companions of our Lord during His life, they had received His last commands. They were the witnesses of the Resurrection. They with the other disciples had received power by the coming of the Holy Spirit. Hence they are specially fitted to be the teachers of the new community. The standard of teaching was the witness and tradition of the Apostles. In the absence of authoritative records the testimony of the Apostles to the words and deeds of Jesus naturally formed the basis of the common faith. But although the rule of the community is in the hands of the Apostles, a position of special prominence is held by St. Peter. He is both spokesman and leader. On all occasions he takes the initiative. All the addresses recorded were delivered by him. It is he particularly who works miracles. He, with St. John, is especially exposed to the attention of the authorities. He takes the lead in discipline and apology; and the awe and wonder which surround an Apostle are in an especial way centred on him. But although^ he is represented as always taking the lead, it is not as one apart from, but as one joined with, the Apostolic body, as chief among them, not as a ruler over them. He is, indeed, subject to the authority of the whole body.2 3. The next characteristic mentioned of the believers is the fellowship or communion. This it is stated was in an especial sense exhibited by the fact that they had all things in common.^ We need not now examine in detail the vexed question what exactly this primitive com- munism implied economically. On the religious side it meant that the unity and fellowship of the life of the primi- tive community was shewn by a singular generosity which 1 See the account of the appointment of Matthias, Acts i. 15-26, and c/. I Cor. ix. i. The office is called a diakonia or ministry, and in a quotation from the Psalms it is described as an episcope, the word afterwards used of the office of bishop, Acts i. 20 (Ps. cviii. 8, I^XX) rfiv iTTuXKowfiv avrov Xaflhoi eVfpot'. 2 Acts ii. I, 44, iv. 32, vi. 1-4. 3 This is treated with marked sanity by Dr. Armitage Robinson in Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible, vol. i., pp. 460, 461, Art. " Com- munion," and with more than usual want of sanity by Dr. Schmiedel in the Encyclopaedia BiUica, vol. i., pp. 877-880, Community of Goods." BREAKING OF BREAD 53 almost amounted to a practical communism. The believers were as one family. All who were wealthy gave lavishly of their goods and lands for the benefit of the poor. There was a daily distribution of goods for the widows and those who were in need. The self-sacrifice, unity, and generosity, which should be always characteristic of the Christian, were realized for a short time in a manner that, as the community grew, became impossible in practice, although always possible in spirit. Fellowship in life to the fullest extent must always be a characteristic of true Christianity. 4. Next, we are told, they continued steadfast in the " breaking of bread."^ Immediately afterwards they are spoken of as " breakihg bread from house to house."^ Although the latter passage shews that a meal was intended, for it is added, " they did take their food with gladness and singleness of heart," yet the context in each case implies that the meal was also a religious act: in the first passage it is coupled with " the prayers "; in the second with the daily visit to the Temple. The phrase " breaking bread " is used in all the accounts of the Last Supper.^ St. Paul elsewhere has the very significant phrase, " the bread which we break,"'* where the context clearly implies the Christian Sacrament. Elsewhere in the Acts the phrase is used of the meal at Troas; " On the first day of the week when we were gathered together to break bread."^ All these instances, together with the evidence of the context, are sufficient to prove that here we have a religious rite, identical with what was afterwards called the Eucharist. It is possible also that in other places where the phrase recurs some connection with this institution is implied. The solemn breaking of bread in the ship at the moment of extreme peril was obviously something more than an ordinary meal.^ The risen Lord was made known to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus by the blessing and breaking of bread.'' The early Church recognized a deep 1 ry K\aaii tov aprov, Acts ii. 42. ^ Acts ii. 46, KXiovTig r€ Kar' oi/cor aprov. ' St. Matt. xxvi. 26, Mark xiv. 22, iiXoyfiaag licXaae, St. Luke xxii. 19, iixo-pt'^Thaas exXaae. * I Cor. X. 16, rbv aprov ov KXCifii)j. 6 Acts XX. 7, II. « Acts xxvii. 35. ' St. Luke xxiv. 30, 35. 54 THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH spiritual significance in the same solemn formula which is employed in all the accounts of the miraculous feeding.-^ The evidence clearly shews the rehgious character of the rite. It was celebrated privately in the home of behevers and was thus distinguished from the assemblies in the Temple courts. There was the ordinary evening meal, but there was more. The special accompaniment was the praise of God; it was a glad and happy festival, in fact a Eucharist, a feast of thanksgiving, and it was one of the visible signs of the unity of early Christianity. 5. Lastly, the early Christians were united in " the prayers."^ The meetings for prayer seem to have been of two kinds, in the Temple and in private houses.^ The body of believers were constant in their attendance in the Temple, not only as individual Israelites, but in a corporate capacity. " They continued stedfastly with one accord in the temple." To the Western, and especially to an English, reader, accustomed to the orderliness and dignity of our public services, this would imply taking part in an organized system of public worship. Yet this is probably the very last thing that is meant. The wide and spacious porticos of the Temple would, as in the case of the modern mosque, form admirable places for religious meetings, for schools, for sermons, for catechetical instruction, and for united prayer. In these porticos, and especially in that called Solomon's, they met at the stated hours of prayer, for common worship and to receive the instruction of the Apostles.4 In the narrative in the Acts the author presents to us a picture of the Church in its most primitive form. It is characterized by unity in spirit and in life, by miraculous powers, and a success only broken by slight opposition on the part of the authorities. It is a period of Ixopefulness for the future, one to which an after generation might look back with regret after the fanaticism of the Jews, the persecution of the Gentiles, and controversy among Christians had broken out. We may admit perhaps a touch of idealization, but, allowing for that, how far is it 1 St. Matt. xiv. 19, XV. 36; St. Mark vi. 41, viii. 6, 7 ; St. Luke ix. 16. ^ Acts ii. 42, Kai ralQ TrpoaevxaXg. 3 C/. ActS V. 42. * Acts ii. 46; aroA So\ofi(3v?-o£, Acts iii. II, V. 12, CREDIBILITY OF THE NARRATIVE 55 possible to maintain that it is in its general outline real history ? A certain school of critics look upon it as pure fiction. To test it we have a few hints in St. Paul's Epistles, but our chief method must be to examine its relation to what comes after and before, for our ultimate corroboration of any historical reconstruction depends upon whether it takes its proper place in the historical sequence of events. Now, as regards what comes before, if, as all our evidence implies, a definite commission and ministry were given to the Apostles, it was inevitable that they should take the place they are here represented as occupying; if our Lord had given His sanction to Baptism, both by being baptized Himself and by express command, if He had celebrated the Last Supper and given command for its repetition, it was natural that Baptism and the Breaking of Bread should become at once institutions of the early Church. The office of Messiah which He had claimed and the fact of the Resurrection are implied in all early Christian teaching. The gifts of the Holy Spirit are shewn by the Pauline Epistles to have been part of the life of the early Church. With regard to what comes after, the evidence is both negative and positive. Negative because there is a com- plete absence of any attempt to find in the early period any of the ideas or institutions of a later period. This is the more remarkable if we remember the absence of his- torical sense in most ecclesiastical writers. The author of the Acts of the Apostles lived at a time when there were certainly presbyters and perhaps bishops, and when the diaconate was a regular institution. He was strongly influenced by the thought and ideas of St. Paul. But he does not read any of these things back into the account of this oldest Christian community. The life is early and unformed. The doctrine is simple and undeveloped. The organization is embryonic. But, although this is true, it is also true that the principles that are required to account for the later ecclesiastical development are already present. There is unity in life and organization, unity in teaching, unity in Baptism and the Breaking of Bread, unity in worship. All that was required for the growth of the Church was there. 56 THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH Our argument, then, is this. If the authenticity of the Gospel narrative and of these early chapters of the Acts be assumed, we obtain a quite consistent picture adequate to account for what was to come afterwards. The Catholic Church life must have had a beginning, and here are all the elements out of which it might arise. The Church grew up with a ministry, sacraments, a common creed, and a common worship. Here we have aU these, but in an undeveloped form, and these again grow naturally out of elements in the Gospels. If, on the other hand, we assume, as some do, that the ecclesiastical elements in this early period are the inventions of later thought, we are left with no explanation of the origin or growth of the Church. It becomes inexplicable. We cannot, indeed, be certain of the accuracy of every detail; there may be some of the heightened colour which is the result of a distant view. What is maintained is that the historical sequence of events and the development of Christian institutions is naturally and correctly portrayed, and that it is not legitimate to substitute for an account written in the first century a fancy picture constructed by the imagination of the nineteenth or twentieth century. II How long the earliest period in the history of the Church lasted it is difficult to say.-^ It may have been only one year or even a few months; it may have been as much as seven years. At any rate, the picture which is presented to us shews that there were in it all the potentialities of expansion and growth which became full of energy and life so soon as occasion demanded. As so often happens, what seemed at the time a small change initiated a series 1 The narrative in the Acts of the Apostles gives no indication of any value, and modern opinion has varied between those who place the conversion of St. Paul as early as the year a.d. 30, and those who place it seven years later. It is difficult, however, to reconcile the earUer date with the fact that already there was in Damascus a body of Christians sufficiently numerous to make a persecution seem necessary, and the narrative of the Acts appears to suggest a series of events extending over some years. The death of Stephen was probably not earlier than a.d. 33 or 34, and perhaps as late as a.d. 37. THE SEVEN 57 of events of far-reaching importance, which transformed the small community at Jerusalem into the Universal Church. The occasion was a dispute among the members of the community on the distribution of alms.^ The Greek- speaking widows thought that they were neglected. To meet the crisis and to relieve the Apostles of secular work seven new officials were appointed, whose business it was to " serve tables," that is, to assist in financial matters and charitable distribution. The first question of interest which arises is this: Was this the institution of the order of deacons ? Now that is the sort of question which we are always rather too anxious to ask, and to which we shall not receive a very satisfactory answer, for it means reading into an early period later ideas. We must not try to find more than the narrative contains. Nothing suggests that the Church and the Apostles at that time had any idea in their minds that they were doing more than dealing with an emergency. For the first time they were solemnly appointing members of the community to hold office. Their action had quite un- expected consequences, and it was therefore looked back to as marking an epoch. It created a precedent which Was afterwards followed. The name diakonos, or minister, too, would quickly and naturally be specialized, just as we shall find later that the name " bishop," originally used in quite a general sense of the ministry, became specialized to one particular office. The idea of an order of deacons would grow up because other communities, following the example of Jerusalem, appointed officers to deal with charitable funds, and so they became a regular element in the Church.^ 1 Acts vi. 1-6. 2 The word SiaKovog does not occur in the narrative and the word SuiRovia is used in quite a general way — iv ry Siaxoviif rj KuOrifiepivy . . . Smkovuv rpairsiaie . . . ry diaxoviif roS Xoyoii. The WOrd StaKovos occurs PhU. i. i, avv iTritrKoirots Kai Sloicovoic, and I Tim. iii. 8-12, where it implies a well-known and estabUshed office. On the Deacons see Lightfoot, Christian Ministry, pp. 10-17, who discusses and dismisses the idea that there was any connection with the Chazan of the synagogue; Gwatkin in Hastings' Dictionary, vol. i., pp. 574, 575; Axmitage Robinson in Encyclopisdia Biblica, vol. i., pp. 1038-1040; Schmiedel, ibid., vol. iii., pp. 3132, 3133, who gets rid of all references in New Testament times. See also Dissertation D, " Pres- bsrters and Deacons." 58 THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH The second point of interest is the method of appointment. While the initiative is undertaken by the Apostles, the action is that of the whole Church : " and the saying pleased the whole multitude." The " seven " are chosen by the community. They are men who have a good repute, and are " full of the Spirit and of wisdom." They are presented by the community to the Apostles, and are appointed to their office by prayer and the la5dng on of hands. Now here we have fully developed all the elements which con- stitute a proper ecclesiastical ordination — vocation, or the caU of the Holy Spirit, the selection by the community, the public testimony, the presentation on the one side, the laying on of hands with prayer on the other.i These elements are present in the developed form of ordination which we know in the third and following centuries, and it is remarkable to find anything so complete at the begin- ning. It may be suggested that the first definite appoint- ment would naturally form a model, on which later rules would be based. It is a characteristic of the author of the Acts that he does not generally repeat what he has once narrated. He lays stress upon Baptism at the begin- ning of his narrative, but not afterwards. He dwells on the great epochs in the expansion of Christianity. He gives typical examples of St. Paul's speeches. We may reasonably conclude therefore that the author gives here a typical example of the method which prevailed in the Apostolic Church of appointment to office or, as we should call it, ordination, and that the method here described became the regular custom of the Church. The whole incident exhibits in a marked way the power of the Church to meet a new situation. It is the first great change, the parent of many others. There was no far outlook into the future, but an exhibition of that wise statesmanship, that adaptation to circum.stances which does 1 The following are the different stages : i. imaKeipaaQe dvSpag I? iifiuv . . . Kai i^eXe^avTO. ii. avlpag /laprvpovfikvovQ . . . TrXrjpeis TrveiiiaTog Kai ao