Ait 4 ae ἦν 
 ὌΝ Cia ἌΣ, »" ἐπι 
 in 
 
 “at pet's nie ie : 
 ou ΠΟΤΩ͂Ν ee ate rb cs ᾿ 
 ayes ee ὩΣ peren : fz perme shane ee νι τόσον i ek τς 
 Lah Ute ἣν 
 ἥ ἮΝ »" a ible Sesh ys} 
 
 μὲ sand mee sonny eres OW ee 
 
 5 ge 
 
 ΑΝ rhs eet Por! 
 bays Pabee eis Wr 
 
 3 
 a th se a τ aw es 
 Ἐπ hop aie 
 ΩΝ tread “Me ae ἜΣ; 
 peta whe 
 Seiatreasy ut Laas 
 bb yah) bey me sine “ ἂν 6 sat Piette i 
 ἐγ} sd ᾽ ᾿ ᾿ on" s+ gem ων if 
 ba. whee 4 Bbgrote, : petra ee δεϑν ai fan vy! dye: 
 
 ati hee r ὑ τώ γυδηνάδν. ΜῊ $1474 Rely bark sens 
 CAE 
 
 st eae 499 yeep font μὲ 
 π᾿ abby herent: Lyi eso) penne rer 
 Gee Ἄν ΓΝ iNet At Teac others ees 
 ™ εἰ ς LT belecetey 
 9 br at bal . artes eles Mettasrah tts τ ἐπ sb oyetineaness er 
 ~ rm " wt “4 .. > » Ws need 
 SS sengh ape as bh ot ὀλαγνῤῥῳνι. ἜΣ peat taf es eto τ 
 St cane seta tie) ; I deton ae yasaes 
 Μὴν. »., Daten an pape Sree sree Ses rs : ν᾿ 
 ἘΠ ΡΎΟῊν Lito δ νδν slate - εἶν ἐς na “ 
 
 - 
 ι ς ‘des νον, ΡΟ eg 
 ΠΟ ΤΩΝ sth Gers Ty ae ster 
 ΤΥ LA rei bie ee νυ 
 
 Hb at AR rat γον oanir npn iige tie 6) 
 ΤῊΝ 
 ΣΉ Ή: 
 
 ᾿ ΠΣ pice \ 
 ad Mich, 
 Ὁ ps aap tde 5 
 Sey t rare ore: eval rt mi 
 
 ome! rte ΦΊΉ Μὴν ESPEN ABN μα}. φᾷ nae reBie 
 “4 " Loe Toi 
 ( iterthereeinel aah 
 
 ALE REY 
 
 than eee 
 ponies core ah: 
 
 ue 
 mea 
 Lawl ᾿ 
 
 ey irtyt. 
 Teese 
 
 ier vata 
 
 Pere veges 
 
 Ne NA Leap 
 seks at weasel? 
 
 Fis. 4 faites 
 pete Fae Hs 
 
 γ» 
 τὰ: 
 
 χη 
 
 ν ended opt irae ph 
 thal? stintltee tee aoe ἜΑ πεν 
 ἦν δα ΨΩ; “δὴν # 7 ea Peay Heit “ 
 1¥ δ γᾷ τ Γῆ MRT. δ 4 
 ‘ we eye 
 
 Ἢ 
 are ~ ἀπ ἯΙ ? o a 
 mary tenth i set ΘΕ ὦ 
 
 sheets τῷ 5}}} 
 49,5 et 
 
 aes oo bt ae a NS OF 
 
 % ὦ Pesos gals heer) 
 
 ὁ PY GME TS | reg paca ait 
 
 oe Peppa 
 tee 
 i: ba ripe fetta ταν 
 
 mt vee ® 
 Lai dy uptak Jak ὃ 
 vt soe rte 
 
 wer. 
 DO reer 
 ᾿ 7 pastes avdente: vert νῷ ΡΝ eos 
 rien ΜΝ atte ΤΉΝ ΥΠΉ Σ Piteaests 
 2 seis i Wired te! Neda: welt ἀὐίνενν πὸ RAO ἔφ, ΤΩ» Ρ Han nies tae 
 erin aes ve sim eeu WMD ae at 4 
 
 kame τ γὴν in: 
 <mierawty este > 
 ἜΣ Heya ΩΣ 
 
 ae eas νὰ 
 Bre δεν Rady 
 
 poperi tes Haetes 
 
 he doses. 
 
 Soke hee oper 
 
 a f yiniae 
 + 
 Rah eth eal L a μ᾿ ΝΣ 
 ᾿ ἐν ry erent oer ὌΝ; 
 has i pene ret ely ota He 
 ἡ ΟΠ AIRE aed tsa oat  κυνίδ, ay Bie 
 aia Roki) καὶ testy ted 
 
 peer 
 oe yas τῶτθ εν» 
 fre 
 
 too i Cairne 
 as rome 
 eis voy et 
 
 ; ; eth rays) 
 * f σι 
 HA ie hr ha ar ᾿ Pride 7 aba 
 δ Αἰ ΤῊ μῦν THAN pts ἢ Tih ΤΣ ὌΡΗ ished yp ads 3) Ῥ 
 φὰ “1 }} ΔῊ eat aE Dhar bor ἀνε: re dd tit clyde fe 
 πο ΟΜ a} Yah ΤΥ ΔῊ “pei we ihas nhs ype a 
 ¥ rol eh “ἢ ne tattle ae fa a 
 μόδον 19099 pe ον we 
 he i ie ak bana tin Adib bese) Τὴ φη φν ἢ 
 seit ἐφ΄ try Menara cp athe oe 
 
 4 ree 
 heey hee Ἵ fh he 6] oe ipobracd 
 bm pak ae bek Poles adda bbe ἜΣ 
 ers κυ Fella tbh aeapete bind rae 3 ry PS bBo 5 
 ἌΝ 
 
 ΠΝ eeaeaseety sisi rns 
 
 it 
 . sles 81s eUhe a arabe 
 Ὁ ΡῈ ΝᾺ A fod Ae 
 Me τ a idraeel beavers “ 
 ree" i= 
 Ce oe eras as 
 Ara ὉΠ} ites tests μόνα, 
 ΜΒ αν a ΠΑ 3S Wy 
 ἂς, ρου he sina Vote ie Sab eer τὰν Ὁ 0 senate. 
 — =). we wt ee 
 
 
 
Library of The Theological Seminary 
 
 PRINCETON - NEW JERSEY 
 
 Cb 
 
 Estate of 
 Harold McAfee Robinson, D.D. 
 
 
 

 

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 Digitized by the Internet Archive _ 
 09 with funding from 
 logical Seminary Lik 
 
 Fin ὁ ἐν 
 
 ‘ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 e.org/details/saintpaulsepistlOOligh fe 
 
 : 
 
 
 
 ‘ x oi δ jt " ᾿ ὶ j 
 Bee) ibe ey f ter, Shy si A? UE iP ᾽ 
 ‘| PERERA ΩΣ rt Εν ol "ἃ ὺ ΤΑ 
 

 
| ae ν- Σι, 
 
 FAL tr, Ζ Ξ 
 (Sty? eS ae | 
 ζ FPA aarp? 
 
 THE EPISTLES OF ST PAUL. 
 
 111: 
 THE FIRST ROMAN CAPTIVITY. 
 
 1. 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 
 
 
 
fd 
 
 ped 
 
 Se 
 
 
 
 Cambridge : 
 
 PRINTED BY C. 
 
 M.A. 
 
 J. CLAY 
 A THE UNIVERSITY PRESS. 
 

 
 
 SAINT PAUL’ 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 
 
 A REVISED -TEXT 
 WITH 
 
 INTRODUCTION, NOTES, AND DISSERTATIONS. 
 
 BY 
 
 J. BB; BIGHTROOT,.. D.D. 
 
 CANON OF ST PAUL'S; 
 LADY MARGARET’S8 PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY, 
 AND 
 HONORARY FELLOW OF TRINITY COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE, 
 a 
 
 yA Civat 
 
 υ72 
 
 FOURTH EDITION. 
 
 London: 
 MACMILLAN AND CO. 
 1878 
 
 [All Rights reserved.| 
 
MIMHTAI MOY fINECOE κἀθως κἀζὼῶ Χριστοῦ, 
 
 
 
 Παῦλος γενόμενος μέγιστος ὑπογραμμός. 
 CLEMENT. 
 
 Οὐχ ὡς Παῦλος διατάσσομαι ὑμῖν" ἐκεῖνος ἀπόστολος, 
 
 J ‘ ‘ a 2 ΄ ἐλ. ‘be ο > \ δὲ έ fo) ὃ vr 
 ἐγὼ κατάκριτος" ekewwos cAevUepos, ἐγὼ OE μέχρι νυν ὁουλος. 
 IGNATIUS. 
 
 Οὔτε ἐγὼ οὔτε ἄλλος ὅμοιος ἐμοὶ δύναται κατακολουθῆσαι 
 ΄- ( -“ , Ν > , , 
 τῇ σοφίᾳ τοῦ μακαρίου καὶ ἐνδόξου Παύλου. 
 POLYCARP. 
 
TO 
 
 THE REV. B. Ε. WESTCOTS,. D.D:, 
 
 REGIUS PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY AT CAMBRIDGE, 
 
 IN AFFECTIONATE REMEMBRANCE 
 OF : 
 MANY VALUABLE LESSONS LEARNT 
 FROM 
 AN INTIMATE PRIVATE FRIENDSHIP 
 AND FROM 
 
 ASSOCIATION IN A COMMON WORK. 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 on ἧ ὦ 7 ‘ tae ὶ Pw oe 
 ΒΝ tm ὃ me 
 ieee. dh [κ᾿ αὐοδιοαν ὦ Fe a Va 
 
 | i) wir WARP δὴ ii STARE Se a ZA age, ΩΝ 
 Ν fd 1 ‘ ¥ Lah, a) ἡ πὴ ν “ἡ Ρ mt γὶ a ἐν. αἰ 
 
 Ἂ Ω τὰ Sn Vue: δὴν pops eg ri 
 q Waele ein? ee cee 
 = ΕΝ RAGE 810 BIN, 
 " ΟΝ ἐς ἡ τα τὼ ἀδμνρῖν ΠΥ 
 SiG Lie εν tt ey au τοῦτ cig”? H ile 
 agen WANG 'S ie AX aE 
 
 
 
 
PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. 
 
 THE present volume is a second instalment of the commentary 
 on St Paul’s Epistles, of which I sketched a plan in the preface 
 to my edition of the Galatians. At the same time it is in- 
 tended, like its predecessor, to be complete in itself; so that 
 the plan, as a whole, may be interrupted at any time without 
 detriment to the parts. 
 
 Here again I have the pleasure of repeating my obligations 
 to the standard works of reference, and to those commentators, 
 both English and German, whose labours extend over both epi- 
 stles and to whom I before acknowledged my debt of gratitude. 
 The special commentaries on this epistle are neither so nume- 
 rous nor so important, as on the former. The best, with which 
 I am acquainted, are those of Van Hengel, of Rilliet, and of 
 Eadie; but to these I am not conscious of any direct obligation 
 which is not acknowledged in its proper place. I have also 
 consulted from time to time several other more or less important 
 works on this epistle, which it will be unnecessary to specify, 
 as they either lay no claim to originality or for other reasons 
 
 have furnished no material of which I could avail myself. 
 
vill Preface. 
 
 It is still a greater gratification to me to renew my thanks 
 to personal friends, who have assisted me with their suggestions 
 and corrections ; and to one more especially whose aid has been 
 freely given in correcting the proof-sheets of this volume 
 throughout. 
 
 The Epistle to the Philippians presents an easier task to an 
 editor than almost any of St Paul’s Epistles. The readings are 
 for the most part obvious; and only in a few passages does he 
 meet with very serious difficulties of interpretation, I have 
 taken advantage of this circumstance to introduce some inves- 
 tigations bearing on St Paul’s Epistles and on Apostolic Chris- 
 tianity generally, by which this volume is perhaps swollen to an 
 undue bulk, but which will proportionally relieve its successors. 
 Thus the dissertation on the Christian ministry might well 
 have been left for another occasion: but the mention of ‘ bishops 
 and deacons’ in the opening of this letter furnished a good text 
 for the discussion; and the Pastoral Epistles, which deal more 
 directly with questions relating to the ministerial office, will de- 
 mand so much space for the solution of other difficulties, that it 
 seemed advisable to anticipate and dispose of this important 
 subject. 
 
 In the dissertation on ‘St Paul and the Three, attached to 
 the Epistle to the Galatians, I endeavoured to sketch the atti- 
 tude of the Apostle towards Judaism and Judaic Christianity. 
 In the present volume the discussion on St Paul and Seneca is 
 offered as an attempt to trace the relations of the Gospel to a 
 second form of religious thought—the most imposing system 
 of heathen philosophy with which the Apostle was brought 
 directly in contact. And on a later occasion, if this commentary 
 should ever be extended to the Epistle to the Colossians, I hope 
 
 to add yet a third chapter to this history in an essay on ‘Chris- 
 
Preface.. ix 
 
 tianity and Gnosis. These may be considered the three most 
 important types of dogmatic and systematized religion (whether 
 within or without the pale of Christendom) with which St Paul 
 _ was confronted. 
 
 As we lay down the Epistle to the Galatians and take up 
 the Epistle to the Philippians, we cannot fail to be struck by 
 the contrast. We have passed at once from the most dogmatic 
 to the least dogmatic of the Apostle’s letters, and the transition 
 is instructive. If in the one the Gospel is presented in its op- 
 position to an individual form of error, in the other it appears 
 as it 15 in itself. The dogmatic element in the Galatians is due 
 to special circumstances and bears a special character; while 
 on the other hand the Philippian Epistle may be taken to ex- 
 hibit the normal type of the Apostle’s teaching, when not deter- 
 mined and limited by individual circumstances, and thus to 
 present the essential substance of the Gospel. Dogmatic forms 
 are the buttresses or the scaffold-poles of the building, not the 
 building itself. 
 
 But, if the Epistle to the Philippians serves to correct one 
 false conception of Christianity, 1ὖ is equally impressive as a 
 protest against another. In the natural reaction against excess 
 of dogma, there is a tendency to lay the whole stress of the 
 Gospel on its ethical precepts. For instance men will often 
 tacitly assume, and even openly avow, that its kernel is contained 
 in the Sermon on the Mount. This conception may perhaps 
 seem more healthy in its impulse and more directly practical in 
 its aim; but in fact it is not less dangerous even to morality than 
 
 he other: for, when the sources of life are cut off, the stream will 
 cease to flow. Certainly this is not St Paul’s idea of the Gospel 
 as it appears in the Epistle to the Philippians. If we would 
 
 learn what he held to be its essence, we must ask ourselves 
 
τ Preface. 
 
 what is the significance of such phrases as ‘I desire you in the 
 heart of Jesus Christ,’ ‘To me to live is Christ,’ ‘That I may 
 know the power of Christ’s resurrection,’ ‘I have all strength in 
 Christ that giveth me power. Though the Gospel is capable 
 of doctrinal exposition, though it is eminently fertile in moral 
 results, yet its substance is neither a dogmatic system nor an 
 
 ethical code, but a Person and a Life. 
 
 Trinity CoLLEGE, 
 July 1st, 1868. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 PAGE 
 
 OS oP ΤῊΣ LUOVITOS Mad owt soulncdaledacedscacncdecasaesnenacendass I—29 
 Il. Order of the Epistles of the Captivity....cccccccccceeceees 30—46 
 1Π|- 2 ie ον ea. cdandvaadscvilsddesasivcec¥eecanedse 47—65 
 IV. Character and Contents of the Eptstle.........csscereeces 66—73 
 The Genuineness of the Epistle... ...scccserccccctscevesees 74—77 
 
 TEXT AND NOTES. 
 RN 20 Ὁ. προ τό πες νον ἐς ο θυ ἐνρὸυῤους ϑούδοι, ον σαλάνι σον ὅσος 81---Ο4 
 
 The synonymes ‘bishop’ and ‘ presbyter? .....c0.000068 = 95—99 
 
 The meaning of ‘prectorium? tn i, 13...««ὐνννννννννννννννν, QQ—104 
 
 ee ΠῚ  Ρ Ὁ τον os So εις bac au Na Τῆς Πα ydaneaanverst desk Deeg νοις 105—126 
 The synonymes μορφὴ ANd CYAUA.....1.cceececreccreeceees 127—133 
 Different interpretations of οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο 133—137 
 Lost Epistles to the Philippians ?...........csccsecescessees 138—142 
 
 ΠΣ AV een πο atest in cecueeaeidvaveacedes Nee wane tactic sass 143—167 
 “Clement my fellowlabourer? .....ccecccceccoccecececcevane 168—171 
 
 OUEST IS OE IE) fs I ER SN Sh ok ne Oe Oe en ΜΕΤᾺ 171I—178 
 
ΧΙ Contents. 
 DISSERTATIONS. 
 
 1. “The Christian Minisipye ye occ ee eee 
 Mk) S6 Paul and Seneca. .c5:cs5.sul voces eee ena ecu 
 The Letters of Paul and Senecd...........0.ceccceeeveee 
 
 NWT NG aise έέέ ποθ ντος, 
 
ST PAUL IN ROME. 
 
 ie arrival of St Paul in the metropolis marks a new and St Paul’s 
 
 visit to 
 important epoch in the history of the Christian Church. Rome al- 
 
 . ters the re- 
 Hitherto he had come in contact with Roman institutions jations be. 
 
 modified by local circumstances and administered by subordi- Pointy 
 nate officers in the outlying provinces of the Empire. Now he and the 
 was in the very centre and focus of Roman influence; and from ἤν: 
 this time forward neither the policy of the government nor the 
 ) character of the reigning prince was altogether a matter of 
 indifference to the welfare of Christianity. The change of 
 scene had brought with it a change in the mutual relations 
 between the Gospel and the Empire. They were now occupy- 
 ing the same ground, and a collision was inevitable. Up to 
 this time the Apostle had found rather an ally than an enemy 
 in a power which he had more than once successfully invoked 
 against the malignity of his fellow-countrymen. This pre- 
 carious alliance was henceforward exchanged for direct, though 
 intermittent, antagonism. The Empire, which in one of his 
 earlier epistles he would seem to have taken as the type of 
 that restraining power which kept Antichrist in check’, was 
 itself now assuming the character of Antichrist. When St 
 Paul appealed from the tribunal of the Jewish procurator to 
 the court of Cesar, he attracted the notice and challenged the 
 hostility of the greatest power which the world had ever seen. 
 _The very emperor, to whom the appeal was made, bears the 
 1 2 Thess. ii. 6, 7. 
 ) PHIL. I 
 
 ἐὰν 
 
2 ST PAUL IN ROME. 
 
 The Nero- ignominy of the first systematic persecution of the Christians ; 
 
 Keeton 22nd thus commenced the long struggle, which raged for 
 
 ἜΕΨΑ several centuries, and ended in establishing the Gospel on the 
 ruins of the Roman Empire. It was doubtless the impulse 
 given to the progress of Christianity by the presence of its 
 greatest preacher in the metropolis, which raised the Church in 
 Rome to a position of prominence, and made it a mark for the 
 wanton attacks of the tyrant. Its very obscurity would have 
 shielded it otherwise. The preaching of Paul was the necessary 
 antecedent to the persecution of Nero. 
 
 St Paul’s It is probable that the Apostle foresaw the importance of 
 
 sense of 5 ἘΠΕ : : 
 theim. is decision, when he transferred his cause to the tribunal of 
 
 ea Cesar. There is a significant force in his declaration at an 
 visit. earlier date, that he ‘must see Rome’’ It had long been his 
 
 ‘earnest desire*’ to visit the imperial city, and he had been 
 strengthened in this purpose by a heavenly vision*. To pre- 
 pare the way for his visit he had addressed to the Roman 
 Church a letter containing a more complete and systematic 
 exposition of doctrine than he ever committed to writing before 
 or after. And now, when the moment has arrived, the firm 
 and undaunted resolution, with which in defiance of policy he — 
 makes his appeal, bears testimony to the strength of his con- 
 Its promi- viction*. The sacred historian takes pains to emphasize this 
 
 St Luke’ visit to Rome. He doubtless echoes the feeling of St Paul 
 
 narrative. himself, when he closes his record with a notice of the Apostle’s 
 success in the metropolis, deeming this the fittest termination 
 to his narrative, as the virtual and prospective realisation of 
 our Lord’s promise placed in its forefront, that the Apostles 
 should be His witnesses to ‘the uttermost part of the earth®.’ 
 
 ee of It was probably in the early spring of the year 61, that 
 when St Paul arrived in Rome® The glorious five years, which 
 St Paul ushered in the reign of Nero amidst the acclamations of a 
 
 arrived, 
 1 Acts xix. 21. 4 Acts ΣΧΥ. II. 
 2 Rom. i. 1o—16, xv. 22—24, 28, 29, 5 Acts i. 8. See Lekebusch A postel- 
 32, ἐπιποθώ, ἐπιποθίαν ἔχων. geschichte p. 227 54. 
 3 Acts xxiii. τὰ ‘So must thou bear 6 See Wieseler Chronol. p. 66 sq. 
 
 witness also at Rome.’ 
 
ST PAUL IN ROME. 3 
 
 grateful people, and which later ages recalled with wistful 
 regret, as an ideal of imperial rule’, had now drawn to a close. 
 The unnatural murder of Agrippina had at length revealed the 
 true character of Nero. Burrus and Seneca, it is true, still 
 lingered at the head of affairs: but their power was waning. 
 Neither the blunt honesty of the soldier nor the calm modera- 
 tion of the philosopher could hold their ground any longer 
 against the influence of more subtle and less scrupulous coun- 
 sellors. 
 
 At Rome the Apostle remained for ‘two whole years, Length of 
 preaching the Gospel without interruption, thovgh preaching it ee 
 in bonds. By specifying this period’ St Luke seems to imply 
 that at its close there was some change in the outward condition 
 of the prisoner. This change can hardly have been any other 
 than the approach of his long-deferred trial, which ended, as 
 there is good ground for believing*, in his acquittal and release. 
 
 At all events he must have been liberated before July 64, if 
 
 liberated at all. 
 became the signal for an onslaught on the unoffending Chris- 
 tians; and one regarded as the ringleader of the hated sect 
 
 The great fire which then devastated Rome 
 
 could hardly have escaped the general massacre. 
 
 It will appear strange that so long an interval was allowed Probable 
 
 to elapse before the trial came on. But while the defendant fhe τες 
 
 of his 
 
 had no power to hasten the tardy course of justice, the accusers ΟἿ, 
 trial. 
 
 They must have foreseen 
 plainly enough the acquittal of a prisoner whom the provincial 
 
 were interested in delaying it. 
 
 1 Aurel. Vict, Ces. 5 ‘Uti merito Tra- 
 janus sepius testaretur procul differre 
 cunetos principes Neronis'quinquennio.’ 
 
 ? Acts xxviii. 30, 31. The inference 
 in the text will not hold, if, as some 
 suppose, St Luke’s narrative was ac- 
 cidentally broken off and terminates 
 abruptly. From this view however I 
 dissent for two reasons. (1) A compa- 
 rison with the closing sentences of the 
 Gospel shows a striking parallelism in 
 the plan of the two narratives; they 
 
 end alike, as they had begun alike. (2) 
 The success of St Paul’s preaching in 
 Rome is a fitter termination to the his- 
 tory than any other incident which 
 could have been chosen. It is the most 
 striking realisation of that promise of 
 the universal spread of the Gospel, 
 which is the starting-point of the nar- 
 rative. 
 
 3 The discussion of this question is 
 reserved for the introduction to the 
 Pastoral Epistles. 
 
 T—=2 
 
 < 
 
Indelence 
 of Nero, 
 
 ST PAUL IN ROME. 
 
 governor himself had declared to be innocent’. If they wished 
 to defer the issue, the collection of evidence was a sufficient 
 plea to urge in order to obtain an extension of time? St Paul 
 was charged with stirring up sedition among ‘all the Jews 
 throughout the world®’ 
 
 which his labours had extended, witnesses must be summoned. 
 
 From the whole area therefore, over 
 
 In this way two years might easily run out before the prisoner 
 But more potent probably, than any 
 formal plea, was the indolence or the caprice of the emperor 
 
 appeared for judgment. 
 
 himself’, who frequently postponed the hearing of causes inde- 
 finitely without any assignable reason, and certainly would not 
 put himself out to do justice to a despised provincial, labouring 
 
 " under a perplexing charge connected with some ‘ foreign super- 
 
 stition. If St Paul had lingered in close confinement for two 
 
 years under Felix, he might well be content to remain under 
 
 1 Acts ταν. 12, 25;COMp. XXVi. 31,32. 
 
 2 Two cases in point are quoted, as 
 occurring about this time. Tac. Ann. 
 xiii, 52 ‘Silvanum magna vis accusa- 
 torum circumsteterat, poscebatque tem- 
 pus evocandorum testium: reus illico 
 defendi postulabat.’ Silvanus had been 
 proconsul of Africa. Also we are told 
 of Suillius, who was accused of pecula- 
 tion in the government of Asia, Az. 
 xill. 43 ‘Quia inquisitionem annuam 
 impetraverunt, brevius visum [sub-] ur- 
 bana crimina incipi quorum obvii testes 
 erant.’ In both these cases the accusers 
 petition for an extension of the period, 
 while it is the interest of the defendant 
 to be tried at once. In the second case 
 a year is demanded and allowed for col- 
 lecting evidence, though the crimes in 
 question are confined to his tenure of 
 office and to the single province of 
 ‘ Asia.’ On the whole subject see Wie- 
 seler, Chronol. 407 sq., who has fully 
 discussed the possible causes of delay. 
 Compare also Conybeare and Howson 
 11. p. 462 sq. (2nd ed.). 
 
 3 Acts xxiv. § πᾶσι τοῖς ᾿Ιουδαίοις 
 
 τοῖς κατὰ τὴν οἰκουμένην. 
 
 4 Josephus (Ant. xviii. 6, 5) says of 
 Tiberius, whom he describesas μελλητὴς 
 el καί τις ἑτέρων βασιλέων ἢ τυράννων 
 γενόμενος, that he deferred the trial of 
 prisoners indefinitely in order to pro- 
 long their tortures. Nero seems to have 
 been almost as dilatory, though more 
 from recklessness and indolence than 
 from deliberate purpose. The case of 
 the priests accused by Felix (see below, 
 p- 5, note 4) illustrates this. Felix 
 ceased to be procurator in the year 60: 
 yet they were still prisoners in 63 or 64, 
 and were only then liberated at the in- 
 tercession of Josephus. For the date 
 see Clinton Iasti Rom. 1. pp. 23, 45, 77. 
 
 Geib Geschichte des rimischen Crimi- 
 nalprocesses etc. p. 691, speaking of 
 causes tried before the emperor, de- 
 scribes the practice of the early Czsars 
 as so ‘unsteady and capricious in all re- 
 spects,’ that no definite rule can be laid 
 down: ‘Hirst in der spéteren Kaiser- 
 zeit,’ he adds, ‘ist dieses anders gewor- 
 den und zwar namentlich hinsichtlich 
 des Appelationsverfahrens.’ Similarly 
 
ST PAUL IN ROME. 
 
 less irksome restraints for an equal length of time, awaiting 
 the pleasure of Cesar. 
 
 Meanwhile events occurred at Rome which shook society to gtirring 
 
 events in 
 
 its foundations, The political horizon was growing every day Bonet 
 
 darker’, Death deprived Nero of his most upright adviser in 
 the person of Burrus the prefect of the pretorians. The office 
 thus vacated was handed over to Tigellinus, with whom was 
 By 
 the death of Burrus the influence of.Seneca was effectually 
 broken’®; and, though the emperor refused to consent to his 
 retirement, his part in the direction of affairs was henceforth 
 
 
 
 associated as colleague the feeble and insignificant Rufus. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 merely nominal. 
 
 zeal and success‘, 
 
 Laboulaye Lois Criminelles des Ro- 
 mains p. 444, ‘Sous les premiers Césars 
 tout se fit sans régle et sans mesure, et 
 il ne faut pas chercher ἃ cette époque 
 de systéme régulier,’ ete. There is no 
 trace of a statutable limitation of time 
 (preescriptio) applying to the imperial 
 tribunal at this epoch. 
 
 1 Tac. Ann. xiv. 51 ‘ Gravescentibus 
 indies publicis malis.’ 
 
 2 Tac. Ann. xiv. 52 ‘ Mors Burri in- 
 fregit Senece potentiam.’ 
 
 3 Joseph. Antig. xx. 8. 11 θεοσεβὴς 
 ap ἢν, i.e. @ worshipper of the true 
 od, a proselytess. In connexion with 
 his fact the notice of her burial is re- 
 arkable; Tac. Ann. xvi. 6 ‘ Corpus 
 on igni abolitum, ut Romanus mos; 
 ed regum externorum consuetudine 
 iffertum odoribus conditur etc.’ See 
 iedlinder Sittengeschichte Roms τ. Ὁ. 
 
 At the same time the guilty career of Nero 
 culminated in the divorce aad death of Octavia; and the cruel 
 and shameless Poppzea became the emperor's consort in her 
 stead. With a strange inconsistency of character, which would 
 atone for profligate living by a fervour of religious devotion, 
 and of which that age especially was fertile in examples, she 
 had become a proselyte to Judaism’, and more than once adyo- 
 eated the cause of her adopted race before the emperor with 
 
 348 (2nd ed.). 
 
 4 It is not irrelevant to relate two 
 incidents which occurred at this time, 
 as they illustrate the nature of the com- 
 munication kept up between the Jews 
 and the imperial court, and the sort of 
 influence which Poppa exerted on the 
 affairs of this people, F 
 
 (1) Felix, while procurator of Ju- 
 dxa, had brought a trivial charge 
 against certain Jewish priests, and sené 
 them to Rome to plead their cause be- 
 fore Cesar. Here they were kept in a 
 lingering captivity, living on the hard- 
 est fare, but remaining faithful in their 
 allegiance to the God of their fathers, 
 The historian Josephus, to whom these 
 priests were known, then a young man, 
 undertook a journey to Rome for the 
 purpose of procuring their liberation, 
 Like St Paul he was shipwrecked in 
 
His silence 
 explained. 
 
 ST PAUL IN ROME. 
 
 How far the personal condition of St Paul, or his prospects 
 at the approaching trial, may have been affected by these two 
 changes, I shall have to consider hereafter. At all events he 
 cannot have been ignorant of such stirring incidents. His 
 enforced companionship with the soldiers of the preetorian 
 guard must have kept him informed of ali changes in the 
 administration of the camp. His intimacy with the members 
 of Cesar’s household must have brought to his hearing the 
 intrigues and crimes of the imperial court. It is strange 
 therefore, that in the epistles written from Rome during this 
 period there is not any, even the faintest, reference to events 
 so notorious in history. Strange at least at first sight. But 
 the Apostle would not venture to risk his personal safety, or 
 the cause which he advocated, by perilous allusions in letters 
 which from their very nature must be made public. Nor 
 indeed is it probable that he was under any temptation to 
 allude to them. He did not breathe the atmosphere of political 
 life ; he was absorbed in higher interests and anxieties. With 
 the care of all the churehes daily pressing upon him, with a 
 deep sense of the paramount importance of his personal mission, 
 
 the Adriatic, and like him he also 
 landed at Puteoli. Arrived at Rome, 
 he was introduced to Poppea by a cer- 
 tain Jew, Aliturus by name, an actor 
 of mimes, who was in great favour with 
 Nero. The empress not only advocated 
 the cause which he had at heart and 
 procured the liberation of his friends, 
 but sent him back to his native country 
 laden with presents (Joseph. Vit. § 3). 
 This took place in the year 63 or 64, 
 and was therefore nearly, if not quite, 
 coincident with St Paul’s residence in 
 Rome. 
 
 (2) The second incident almost cer- 
 tainly occurred whiiethe Apostle was in 
 the metropolis. The king’s palace at 
 Jerusalem stoodintheimmediate neigh- 
 bourhood of the temple. Agrippa had 
 recently built a lofty tower, which en- 
 abled him to overlook the sacred en- 
 
 closure and to witness the performance 
 of the holy rites. This was an outrage 
 on Jewish feeling, as well as a breach of 
 immemorial custom, and was resented 
 accordingly. The Jews erected a coun- 
 terwall, which excluded all view from 
 the royal regidence. Festus the procu- 
 rator took the side of the king and or- 
 dered the demolifion of this wall; but 
 afterwards yielded so far as to allow 
 the Jews to refer the case to Nero. An 
 embassy was accordingly sent to Rome, 
 composed of twelve persons including 
 Ismael the high-priest and Helcias the 
 treasurer. Poppa interested herself 
 in the success of their mission, and in 
 deference to her entreaties the emperor 
 allowed the wall to stand (Joseph. Ant. 
 xx. 8. ΤῈ): 
 
 It is suggested (Conybeare and How- 
 son 11. p. 462), that this embassy may 
 
ST PAUL IN ROME. τᾷ 
 
 with a near and fervid anticipation of his own dissolution and 
 union with Christ, if not of the great and final crisis when 
 heaven and earth themselves shall pass away, it is not sur- 
 prising that all minor events, all transitory interests, should be 
 merged in those more engrossing thoughts. His life—so he 
 himself writing from Rome describes the temper of the true 
 believer—his life was hidden with Christ in God’. 
 
 The degree of restraint put upon a person labouring under Character 
 
 a criminal charge was determined by various circumstances; by phe 
 the nature of the charge itself, by the rank and reputation of 
 the accused, by the degree of guilt presumed to attach to him. 
 Those most leniently dealt with were handed over to their 
 friends, who thus became sureties for their appearance; the 
 worst offenders were thrown into prison and loaded with 
 chains’, The captivity of St Paul at Rome was neither the 
 severest nor the lightest possible. 
 
 By his appeal to Cesar* he had placed himself at the 
 emperor’s disposal. Accordingly on his arrival in Rome he is 
 delivered over to the commander of the imperial guards, the 
 prefect of the pretorians*, under whose charge he appears to 
 
 have been entrusted with the prosecu- 
 tion of St Paul. It seems at least 
 certain, that the ambassadors arrived 
 in Rome while the Apostle was still a 
 prisoner there ; since Festus had ceased 
 to be procurator before the autumn of 
 62: but beyond the coincidence of date 
 all is conjecture. In any case the 
 friendly meeting of Festus and Agrippa, 
 related in the Acts, may have had refer- 
 ence to this dispute about Agrippa’s 
 building: and if so, the incident links 
 together the accusation of St Paul and 
 the complaint against Agrippa. 
 1 Col. iii. 3. 
 
 2 On the different kinds of custodia, ἡ 
 
 roughly distinguishedas libera, publica, 
 and militaris, but admitting various 
 modifications, sse Geib p. 561 sq., 
 Wieseler Chronol. p. 380 sq., 394 sq. 
 
 The custody of St Paul belongs to the 
 last of the three. 
 
 3 In republican times a difference 
 was made between ‘provocatio’ and 
 ‘appellatio.’ The former was a refer- 
 ence to the populus, the latter to the 
 tribunes. On the other hand, the ap- 
 peal to the emperor was called indiffer- 
 ently ‘ provocatio’ or ‘ appellatio’; for 
 he combined all functions in himself. 
 The latter term however seems to have 
 been the more common. On this sub- 
 ject consult Geib p, 675 sq., Rein Das 
 Privatrecht ete. p. 960. Krebs, Opuse. 
 p- 135 8q., has an essay De provocatione 
 1). Pauli ad Cesarem; which however 
 does not contain anyimportant matter. 
 
 4 Acts xxvyili. 16 παρέδωκεν τοὺς 
 δεσμίους τῷ στρατοπεδάρχῃ, i.e. to the 
 ‘ preefectus pre torio’ or ‘preefectus pre- 
 
8 
 
 He is in 
 bonds, but 
 
 51 PAUL 
 
 have remained throughout his 
 self as strictly a prisoner: he 
 
 bonds’. 
 
 IN ROME. 
 
 captivity. He represents him- 
 speaks again and again of his 
 
 At times he wses more precise language, mention- 
 
 ing the ‘coupling-chain’*. According to Roman custom he was 
 bound by the hand to the soldier who guarded him, and was 
 
 never left alone day or night. 
 
 As the soldiers would relieve 
 
 guard in constant succession, the pretorians one by one were 
 brought into communication with the ‘prisoner of Jesus Christ,’ 
 
 tori,’ for both cases are found in in- 
 scriptions. From the use of the singu- 
 lar here it has been argued with much 
 probability that the officer in question 
 was Burrus. He held the prefecture 
 alone, whereas both before and after 
 his time the office was shared by two 
 persons: sce Tac. Ann, xii. 42, xiv. 
 51. For the changes which this office 
 underwent at different times consult 
 Becker and Marquardt Rém. Alterth. 
 11. 3, p.286. With the singular here 
 contrast the plural in Trajan’s letter, 
 Plin. Ep. x. 65 ‘ Vinctus mitti ad pre- 
 fectos pratori mei debet,’ and in Phi- 
 lostr. Vit. Soph. ii. 32 dveréup9n els 
 τὴν Ῥώμην ws ἀπολογησόμενος τοῖς τῶν 
 στρατοπέδων ἡγεμόσιν: see Wieseler 
 Chronol. p.88. The whole clause how- 
 eyer is rejected by most recent editors, 
 as the balance of existing authorities is 
 very decidedly against it. On the other 
 hand the statement does not look like 
 an arbitrary fiction, and probably con- 
 tains a genuine tradition, even if it was 
 no part of the original text. 
 
 1 He calls himself δέσμιος, Acts 
 xxviii. 17, Philem. 1, 9, Ephes. iii. 1, 
 iv. 1; his δεσμοὶ are mentioned Phil. i. 
 7, 13,14, 17, Philem. τὸ, 13, Coloss. 
 iv. 18; comp. Coloss. iv. 3 δι’ ὃ (or ὃν) 
 καὶ δέδεμαι. 
 
 3 ἅλυσις, Ephes. vi. 20 ὑπὲρ ov mpec- 
 βεύω ἐν ἁλύσει, Acts xxviii. 20 τὴν 
 ἄλυσιν ταύτην περίκειμαι. The word 
 seems originally to differ from δεσμοί, 
 only as bringing out the idea of attach- 
 
 ment rather than confinement. After- 
 wards however it signifies especially 
 ‘ hand-fetters’ (manicz), as opposed to 
 πέδαι (pedice); Mark v. 4 πέδαις καὶ 
 ἁλύσεσιν δεδέσθαι, καὶ διεσπᾶσθαι ὑπ᾽ av- 
 τοῦ τὰς ἁλύσεις καὶ τὰς πέδας συντετρί- 
 φθαι. Meyer indeed denies this dis- 
 tinction: but the words διεσπᾶσθαι, 
 συντετρίφϑαι, if taken to denote the ac- 
 tion of the hands and feet respectively, 
 are much more expressive; and the dis- 
 tinction of ἁλύσεις and πέδαι seems cer- 
 tainly to be observed elsewhere, 6. δ. 
 Polyb. 111. 82.8, Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 
 vi. 26, 27: comp. Plut. Mor. p. 829 a 
 ταῖς χερσὶν ἁλύσεις. In Aristoph.Fragm. 
 (Meineke 11. p. 1079), where both ἁλύ- 
 ces and πέδαι are mentioned as ladies’ 
 ornaments, the former are perhaps 
 ‘bracelets’ or ‘ cuffs’: see also Nicostr. 
 Fragm. (ib. m1. p. 289). Hence the 
 word is used especially of the ‘coupling- 
 chain,’ ‘hand-cufi,’ by which the pri- 
 soner was attached to his guard, as in 
 the case of Agrippa, Joseph. Ant. xviii, 
 6. 7, 10. Compare the metaphor in 
 Lucian, Quom. hist. conser. ὃ 55 ἐχόμε- 
 νον αὐτοῦ Kal ἁλύσεως τρόπῳ (τρόπον 3) 
 συνηρμοσμένον, with Senee, Epist. i. 5 
 *Quemadmodum eadem catena, et cus- 
 todiam et militem copulat.’ See a simi- 
 lar use in Plutarch, Vit. Mar. 27 ἦσαν 
 
 ὑπὲρ τοῦ μὴ διασπᾶσθαι τὴν τάξιν οἱ 
 
 πρόμαχοι μακραῖς ἁλύσεσι συνεχόμενοι. 
 When the confinement was veryrigo- 
 
 rous, the prisoner was bound to two 
 
 soldiers. This was the case with St 
 
ST PAUL IN ROME. 9 
 
 and thus he was able to affirm that his bonds had borne 
 witness to the Gospel ‘throughout the imperial regiments’, 
 
 On the other hand, the severity of his confinement was not enjoys 
 so great as this circumstance standing alone might seem to Hn τον 
 imply. It is certain that all had free access to him, and that he ἢ Εἶσ' 
 was allowed to converse and write without restraint. 
 
 not thrown into prison, but lived in rooms of his own. 
 
 He was 
 
 When 
 he first arrived, he was taken to temporary lodgings; either to 
 a house of public entertainment, or to the abode of some friend’. 
 But afterwards he rented a dwelling of his own’, and there he 
 remained apparently till his release. 
 
 A natural desire has been felt to determine a locality so 
 fraught with interest as St Paul’s abode in Rome. Some have St Paul’s 
 imagined him a prisoner within the barracks attached to the lei 
 thers have fixed his 
 dwelling-place in the great camp, the head-quarters of the pra- 
 torians, without the walls to the north-east of the city. The 
 former conjecture seems hardly consistent with the mention of 
 his own hired house, The latter is less unlikely, for the camp 
 
 imperial residence on the Palatine. 
 
 Peter, Acts xii, 6 κοιμώμενος μεταξὺ 
 δύο στρατιωτῶν δεδεμένος ἁλύσεσιν δυσίν. 
 Such had also been St Paul’s condition 
 during the early days of his captivity 
 at Jerusalem: Acts xxi. 33. Α relaxa- 
 tion of the rigour of his earlier impri- 
 sonment is mentioned Acts xxiv. 23. 
 On this whole subject see Wieseler 
 Chronol. p. 380 sq. When Ignatius, 
 Rom. 5, speaks of himself as ἐνδεδεμένος 
 δέκα λεοπάρδοις ὅ ἐστιν στρατιωτικὸν 
 τάγμα, we must understand that he 
 was in charge of a company of ten, 
 who successively relieved guard, so 
 that he was attached to one at a time, 
 
 1 Phil, i. 13 ἐν ὅλῳ τῷ πραιτωρίῳ. 
 
 2 Acts xxviil. 23 εἰς τὴν ξενίαν. Sui- 
 das explains ξενίαν by καταγώγιον, κα- 
 τάλυμα, and similarly Hesychius; comp. 
 Clem. Hom. i, 15 ἐπιβάντος μου τῆς γῆς 
 καὶ ξενίαν θηρωμένου, viii. 2, xii. 24, 
 xiy. 1,8. On the other hand Philem. 
 
 22 ἑτοίμαζέ μοι ξενίαν rather suggests 
 a lodging in a friend’s house: comp. 
 Acts xxi. 16.. 
 
 3 Acts xxviii. 30 ἐνέμεινεν διετίαν ὅλην 
 ἐν ἰδίῳ μισθώματι, where ἰδίῳ seems cer- 
 tainly to distinguish the μίσθωμα here 
 from the gevla above. The word μί- 
 σθωμα elsewhere signifies ‘ hire,’ being 
 used especially in a bad sense of shame- 
 ful wages, e.g. Deut. xxiii. 18. Hence 
 Philo in Flace. p. 536M μετὰ τὸν ἐπά- 
 parov μισθόν, ἢ κυριώτερον εἰπεῖν, TO μί- 
 σθωμα: comp. Ailian V. H. iv. 12. 
 The sense, which it has here, is not re- 
 cognised by the Greek lexicographers, 
 nor can I find any other instance, 
 Wetstein indeed quotes ἐν μισθώματι, 
 οἰκεῖν as from Philo, but gives no refer- 
 ence, and I suspect there is a mistake, 
 This exceptional meaning of μίσθωμα, 
 may perhaps be explained as a trans- 
 lation of the Latin ‘ conductum,’ 
 
IO 
 
 Friends 
 
 resident in 
 
 Rome. 
 
 ST PAUL IN ROME. 
 
 was large and might have contained within its precincts lodgings 
 rented by prisoners under military custody. Yet the reference 
 to the ‘ preetorium’ does not require this, and the circumstances 
 seem naturally to poimt to a separate dwelling. Within the 
 camp then his abode may have been, near to the camp it pro- 
 bably was, for in the choice of a locality the convenience of the 
 soldiers in relieving guard would naturally be consulted’. 
 
 Thus mitigated, his captivity did not materially impede the 
 progress of his missionary work. On the contrary he himself 
 regarded his bonds as a powerful agency in the spread of the 
 Gospel. Beyond the dreary monotony of his situation, which 
 might well have crushed a spirit unsustained by his lofty hopes 
 and consolations, he was not very hardly treated. It was at 
 least an alleviation, that no restriction was placed on the visits 
 of his friends. 
 
 Of these friends not a few names might be supplied by con- 
 jecture from the long list of salutations in the Epistle to the 
 Romans. Did he fall in once again with Aquila and Priscilla, 
 his fellow-artisans and fellow-sufferers, who ‘for his life had 
 laid down their own necks’*? Did he still find in Rome his 
 countrymen, perhaps his kinsmen, Andronicus and Junias and 
 Herodion®? Did he experience once more the tender care of 
 the mother of Rufus, who in times past had treated him as her 
 own son*? Did he renew his intimacy with those former friends 
 of whom he speaks with affectionate warmth, Epznetus his 
 well-beloved, Urbanus his helper in Christ, Mary who laboured 
 much for him, Amplias, Stachys, Persis” ? 
 
 Of Roman residents however, beyond a general reference to 
 the members of Czesar’s household’, he makes no mention in 
 his letters written from the metropolis. They would probably 
 
 His perso- be unknown to his distant correspondents. But of occasional 
 
 nalcompa- 
 nions and 
 
 visitors in Rome, his converts or his colleagues in the Gospel, the 
 
 1 See the detached notes on the 4 Rom. xvi. 13. 
 meaning of ‘ pretorium’ in i, 13. 5 Rom. xvi. 5, 6, 8, 9, 12. 
 > Rom, xvi. 3. 6 Phil, iy, 22: 
 
 3 Rom. xvi. 7, ri. 
 
ST PAUL IN ROME. 
 
 companions of his travels and the delegates of foreign churches, 
 not a few are named. His youthful disciple and associate 
 Timotheus, the best beloved of his spiritual sons, seems to have 
 been with him during the whole or nearly the whole of his 
 captivity’. Another friend also, who had shared with him the 
 perils of the voyage, Luke ‘the beloved physician,’ now his 
 fellow-labourer and perhaps his medical attendant, hereafter his 
 biographer, is constantly by his side* His two favourite Mace- 
 donian churches are well represented among his companions : 
 Philippi despatches Epaphroditus with pecuniary aid, welcome 
 to him as a relief of his wants but doubly welcome as a token 
 of their devoted love*: Aristarchus is present from Thessalonica‘, 
 a tried associate, who some years before had imperilled his life 
 with St Paul at Ephesus’ and now shared his captivity at Rome®. 
 Delegates from the Asiatic churches too were with him: Ty- 
 chicus’, a native of the Roman province of Asia and probably of 
 Ephesus its capital®, the Apostle’s companion both in earlier 
 and later days’: and Epaphras the evangelist of his native 
 Colossz, who came to consult St Paul on the dangerous heresies 
 then threatening this and the neighbouring churches over 
 which he watched with intense anxiety”. Besides these were 
 
 1 His name appears in the opening 
 salutations of the Epistles to the Phi- 
 lippians, Colossians, and Philemon: 
 compare also Phil. ii. rg—23. It may 
 perhaps be inferred from St Luke’s 
 silence, Acts xxvii. 2, that Timotheus 
 did not accompany St Paul on his jour- 
 ney to Rome, but joined him soon after 
 his arrival. 
 
 2 Col. iv. 14, Philem. 24. 
 
 3 Phil. ii. 25—30, iv. 14—18. See 
 below, p. 60. 
 4 Col. iv. το, Philem. 24. On the 
 
 notice of Aristarchus in Acts xxvii. 2, 
 see below, p. 34, note 2. 
 
 5 Acts xix. 29. 
 
 6 In Col. iv. το, St Paul styles him 
 ὁ συναιχμάλωτός μου. Perhaps however 
 this may refer to the incident at Ephe- 
 sus already alluded to (Acts xix. 29). 
 
 Or does it signify a spiritual subjection 
 (αἰχμαλωσία, Rom. vii, 23, 2 Cor. x. 5, 
 Hphes. iv. 8), so that it may be com- 
 pared with σύνδουλος (Col. i. 7, iv. 7), 
 and συνστρατιώτης (Phil. ii. 25, Philem. 
 2)? St Paul uses the term συναιχμά- 
 λωτος also of Epaphras (Philem. 23), 
 and of his ‘kinsmen’ Andronicus and 
 
 Junias or Junia (Rom. xvi. 7). See 
 the note on Col. iv. ro. 
 
 7 Ephes. vi. 21, Col. iv. 7. 
 
 8 Acts xx. 4, 2 Tim. iv. 12. Heis 
 
 mentioned together with Trophimus, 
 Acts 1.¢., and Trophimus was an Ephe- 
 sian, ib. xxi. 29. 
 
 9 Acts xx. 4, 2 Tim. iy. 12: comp. 
 Tit. iii. 12. Perhaps also he is one of 
 the anonymous brethren in 2 Cor. viii. 
 18, 22. 
 
 10 Col. i. 7, iv. 12. 
 
 II 
 
 other as- 
 sociates. 
 
12 
 
 St Paul’s 
 
 correspon- 
 dence with 
 
 foreign 
 Churches. 
 
 ST PAUL IN ROME. 
 
 other friends old and new: one pair especially, whose namesare 
 
 linked together by contrast; John Mark who, having deserted 
 in former years, has now returned to his pest and is once more 
 a loyal soldier of Christ’; and Demas, as yet faithful to his 
 allegiance, who hereafter will turn renegade and desert the 
 Apostle in his sorest need®. ΤῸ these must be added a disciple 
 of the Circumcision, whose surname ‘the just’* proclaims his 
 devotion to his former faith—one Jesus, to us a name only, but 
 to St Paul much more than a name, for amidst the general 
 defection of the Jewish converts he stood by the Apostle almost 
 alone*. Lastly, there was Philemon’s runaway slave Onesimus, 
 ‘not now a slave, but above a slave, a brother beloved,’ whose 
 career is the most touching episode in the apostolic bistory and 
 the noblest monument of the moral power of the Gospel’. 
 These friendships supported him under the ‘care of all the 
 churches, which continued to press upon him in his captivity 
 not less heavily than before. The epistles of this period bear 
 testimony alike to the breadth and the intensity of his sym- 
 pathy with others. The Church of Philippi which he had 
 himself planted and watered, and the Church of Colossz with 
 which he had no personal acquaintance, alike claim and receive 
 his fatherly advice. The temporal interest of the individual 
 slave, and the spiritual well-being of the collective Churches of 
 Asia®, are equally the objects of his care. Yet these four epi- 
 stles, which alone survive, must represent very inadequately the 
 extent of the demands made upon his time and energies at this 
 period. There is no notice here of Thessalonica, none of Corinth, 
 none of the churches of Syria, of his own native Cilicia, of 
 Lycaonia and Pisidia and Galatia. It is idle to speculate on 
 the possibility of lost epistles: but, whether by his letters or 
 by his delegates, we cannot doubt that these brotherhoods, 
 
 1 Col. iv. τὸ, Philem, 24: comp. 2 4 Col. iy. 11. 
 Tim. iv. rz. 5 Col. iv. 9, and Philem. ro sq. 
 
 2 Col. iv. 14, Philem. 24: comp. 2 6 The Epistle to the Ephesians 
 Tim. iv. 10. seems to have been a circular letter to 
 
 3 See the note on Col, iv. 11. the Asiatic Churches, 
 
ST PAUL IN ROME, 13 
 
 which had a special claim upon him as their spiritual father, 
 received their due share of attention from this ‘prisoner of 
 Jesus Christ.’ 
 
 But it was on Rome especially that he would concentrate nxisting 
 his energies: Rome, which for years past he had longed to see etic 
 with an intense longing: the common sink of all the worst Church. 
 vices of humanity’, and therefore the noblest sphere for evan- 
 gelical zeal. Here he would find a wider field and a richer soil, 
 than any which had hitherto attracted him. But the ground 
 had not lain altogether fallow. There was already a large and 
 flourishing Church, a mixed community of Jew and Gentile 
 converts, founded, it would seem, partly by his own companions 
 and disciples, partly by teachers commissioned directly from 
 Palestine and imbued with the strongest prejudices of their 
 race; a heterogeneous mass, with diverse feelings and sympa- 
 thies, with no well-defined organization, with no other bond of 
 union than the belief in a common Messiah; gathering, we may 
 suppose, for purposes of worship in small knots here and there, 
 as close neighbourhood or common nationality or sympathy or 
 accident drew them together; but, as a body, lost in the vast 
 masses of the heathen population, and only faintly discerned or 
 contemptuously ignored even by the large community of Jewish 
 residents. 
 
 With the nucleus of a Christian Church thus ready to hand, Success of 
 but needing to be instructed and consolidated, with an enor- pitta  ἢ 
 mous outlying population of unconverted Jews and Gentiles to Rome 
 be gathered into the fold, the Apostle entered upon his work. 
 Writing to the Romans three years before, he had expressed his 
 assurance that, when he visited them, he would ‘come in the 
 fulness of the blessing of Christ®.’ There is every reason to 
 believe that this confidence was justified by the event. The 
 notice, with which the narrative of St Luke closes, implies no 
 small measure of success. The same may be inferred from 
 
 1 Tac. Ann. xv. 44 ‘Quo cuncta ing of the spread of Christianity in 
 undique atrocia aut pudenda conflu- Nome. 
 unt celebranturque.’ Tacitus is speak- 2 Rom. xv. 29. 
 
14 ST PAUL IN ROME. 
 
 allusions in St Paul’s own epistles and is confirmed by the 
 subsequent history of the Roman Church. 
 
 In considering the results of the Apostle’s labours more in 
 detail, it will be necessary to view the Jewish and Gentile con- 
 verts separately. In no Church are their antipathies and feuds 
 more strongly marked than in the Roman. Long after their 
 junction the two streams are distinctly traced, each with its own 
 colour, its own motion; and a generation at least elapses, before 
 they are inseparably united. In the history of St Paul they 
 flow almost wholly apart. 
 
 pe eee I. Several thousands of Jews had been uprooted from their 
 himself native land and transplanted to Rome by Pompeius. In this 
 slaty the new soil they had spread rapidly, and now formed a very im- 
 portant element in the population of the metropolis. Living 
 unmolested in a quarter of their own beyond the Tiber, pro- 
 tected and fostered by the earlier Caesars, receiving constant 
 accessions from home, they abounded everywhere, in the forum, 
 in the camp, even in the palace itself’. Their growing influ- 
 ence alarmed the moralists and politicians of Rome. ‘The 
 vanquished, said Seneca bitterly, ‘have given laws to their 
 victors.’ Immediately on his arrival the Apostle summoned to 
 his lodgings the more influential members of his race—probably 
 the rulers of the synagogues*. In seeking this interview he 
 seems to have had a double purpose. On the one hand he 
 was anxious to secure their good-will and thus to forestall the 
 calumnies of his enemies; on the other he paid respect to their 
 spiritual prerogative, by holding out to them the first offer of 
 the Gospel*. On their arrival he explained to them the cir- 
 
 1 On the numbers and influence of Compare also Pers. Sat. vy. 180, Juy. 
 the Jews in Rome, see Merivale His- vi. 542. The mock excuse of Horace, 
 tory of the Romans γι. p. 257 8q.,Fried- Sat.i. 9. 70, shows how wide was the 
 lander Sittengesch. τττ. p. 509 8q. influence of this race in Rome, even a 
 
 2 Seneca quoted by St Augustine De generation earlier. See also Ovid A. A. 
 Civ. Dei vi. 11, ‘Cum interim usque eo 1. 76, and references in Merivale p. 259. 
 sceleratissim# gentis consuetudo con- 3 Acts xxviil. 17 sq. 
 valuit, ut per omnes jam terras recep- 4 He had declared this prerogative 
 
 ta sit: victi victoribus leges dederunt.’ of the Jews in writing to the Roman. 
 
 
 
ST PAUL IN ROME. 15 
 
 cumstances which had brought him there. ‘To his personal ex- but is 
 
 planations they replied, in real or affected ignorance, that they Ἐπ ρέει 
 
 had received no instructions from Palestine; they had heard no 
 
 harm of him and would gladly listen to his defence; only this 
 
 they knew, that the sect of which he professed himself an ad- 
 
 herent, had a bad name everywhere’. For the exposition of his 
 
 teaching a later day was fixed. When the time arrived, he ‘ex- 
 
 pounded and testified the kingdom of God,’ arguing from their 
 
 own scriptures ‘from morning till evening.’ His success was not 
 
 greater than with his fellow-countrymen elsewhere. He dismissed 
 
 them, denouncing their stubborn unbelief and declaring his inten- 
 
 tion of communicating to the Gentiles that offer which they had 
 
 spurned. It is not probable that he made any further advances 
 
 in this direction. 
 Yet it was not from any indisposition to hear of Messiah’s Their an- 
 
 advent that they gave this cold reception to the new teacher. oe ὙΠῸ 
 
 The announcement in itself would have been heartily welcomed, Bish. 
 
 for it harmonised with their most cherished hopes. For years 
 
 past Jewish society in Rome had been kept in a fever of excite- 
 
 He had broken ground and nothing more. 
 
 
 
 Church, i. τό, ii. 9, το, and would feel 
 bound to regard it, when he arrived in 
 the metropolis. 
 
 1 Tt is maintained by Baur (Paulus 
 p. 368), Schwegler (Nachapost. Zeit. 11. 
 p. 93), and Zeller (Theolog. Jahrb. 1849, 
 p- 571), that this portion of the narra- 
 tive betrays the unhistorical character 
 of the Acts; that the language here 
 ascribed to the Jews ignores the exist- 
 ence of the Roman Church, and that 
 therefore the incident is irreconcileable 
 with the facts as gathered from the 
 Epistle to the Romans. On the con- 
 trary, this language seems to me to be 
 quite natural under the circumstances, 
 as it was certainly most politic. It is 
 not very likely that the leading Jews 
 would frankly recognise the facts of the 
 case. They had been taught caution 
 by the troubles which the Messianic 
 feuds had brought on their more im- 
 petuous fellow-countrymen ; and they 
 
 would do wisely to shield themselves 
 under a prudent reserve. Their best 
 policy was to ignore Christianity; to 
 enquire as little as possible about it, 
 and, when questioned, to understate 
 their knowledge. Ina large and popu- 
 lous city like Rome they might without 
 much difficulty shut their eyes to its 
 existence. When its claims were di- 
 rectly pressed upon them by St Paul, 
 their character for fairness, perhaps 
 also some conscientious scruples, re- 
 quired them to give him at least a for- 
 mal hearing. At all events the writer 
 of the Acts is quite aware that there 
 was already a Christian Church in 
 Rome; for he represents the Apostle 
 as met on his way by two deputations 
 from it. Indeed the two last chapters 
 of the narrative so clearly indicate the 
 presence of an eyewitness, that we can 
 hardly question the incidents, even if 
 we are at a loss how to interpret them. 
 
16 
 
 Judaic 
 Christian- 
 ity in 
 Rome. 
 
 ST PAUL IN ROME. 
 
 ment by successive rumours of false Christs. On one occasion 
 a tumult had broken out, and the emperor had issued a general 
 edict of banishment against the race’. If this check had made 
 them more careful and less demonstrative, it had certainly not 
 smothered their yearnings after the advent of a Prince who 
 was to set his foot on the neck of their Roman oppressors. But 
 the Christ of their anticipations was not the Christ of St Paul’s 
 preaching. Grace, liberty, the abrogation of law, the supre- 
 
 macy of faith, the levelling of all religious and social castes— | 
 
 these were strange sounds in their ears; these were conditions 
 which they might not and would not accept. 
 
 But where he had failed, other teachers, who sympa- | 
 
 thized more fully with their prejudices and made larger con- 
 
 cessions to their bigotry, might win a way. The proportion of ὶ 
 
 Jewish converts saluted in the Epistle to the Romans’, not less 
 
 1 Sueton. Claud. 25 ‘Judxos im- 
 pulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantes 
 Roma expulit.’ Suetonius here makes 
 a double mistake: (1) He confuses the 
 names Chrestus and Christus. This 
 coufusion was not unnatural, for the 
 difference in pronunciation was hardly 
 perceptible, and Chrestus, ‘the good- 
 natured,’ was a frequent proper name, 
 while Christus, ‘the anointed,’ would 
 convey no idea at all to a heathen 
 ignorant of the Old Testament and 
 unacquainted with Hebrew customs. 
 The mistake continued to be made 
 long after Suetonius: comp. Justin 
 Apol. i. p. 54 Ὁ ὅσον γε ἐκ τοῦ κατηγο- 
 ρουμένου ἡμῶν ὀνόματος, χρηστότατοι 
 ὑπάρχομεν, Tertull. Apol. 3 ‘Cum per- 
 peram Chrestianus pronuntiatur a vo- 
 bis,’ ad Nat. i. 3, Theoph. ad Autol. 1. 
 12 περὶ δὲ τοῦ καταγελᾶν μου καλοῦντά 
 με Χριστιανόν, οὐκ οἷδας ὃ λέγεις" πρῶ- 
 τον μὲν ὅτι τὸ χριστὸν ἡδὺ καὶ εὔχρηστον 
 καὶ ἀκαταγέλαστόν ἐστιν; and even as 
 late as Lactantius, Inst. Div. iv. 7 
 ‘Exponenda hujus nominis ratio est 
 propter ignorantium errorem, qui eum 
 immuteata littera Chrestum solent di- 
 
 cere. See also Boeckh C, πὶ 3857 Ps 
 App. The word ‘Chrestianus’ appears 
 in an early inscription (Miinter Sinn- 
 bilder der alten Christen τ. Ὁ. 14, Orell. 
 Inscr. 4426), where however it may be 
 a proper name. At all events the de- 
 signation ‘ Christian’ would hardly be 
 expected on a monument of this date ; 
 for other names in the inscription 
 (Drusus, Antonia) point to the age of 
 the earlier Cesars. M. Renan (Les 
 Apéotres, Ὁ. 234) is wrong in saying that 
 the termination -anus betrays a Latin 
 origin. Compare Σαρδιανός, Tpaddaves. 
 (2) It seems probable that the dis- 
 turbances which Suetonius here attri- 
 butes to the instigation of some one 
 Chrestus (or Christus), understanding 
 this as a proper name, were really 
 caused by various conflicting rumours 
 of claimants to the Messiahship. Yet 
 even in this case we may fairly sup- 
 pose that the true Christ held a pro- 
 minent place in these reports ; for He 
 must have been not less known at this 
 time than any of the false Christs. 
 
 2 The only strictly Jewish name is 
 Mary; but Aquila and Priscilla are 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ST PAUL IN ROME. 
 
 than the obvious motive and bearing of the letter itself, points 
 to the existence of a large, perhaps a preponderating, Jewish 
 element in the Church of the metropolis before St Paul’s arrival. 
 These Christians of the Circumcision for the most part owed 
 no spiritual allegiance to the Apostle of the Gentiles: some of 
 them had confessed Christ before him*; many no doubt were 
 rigid in their adherence to the law. It would seem as though 
 St Paul had long ago been apprehensive of the attitude these 
 
 17 
 
 Jewish converts might assume towards him. The conciliatory Their op- 
 
 tone of the Epistle to the Romans—conciliatory and yet un- 
 compromising—seems intended to disarm possible opposition. 
 Was it not this gloomy foreboding also which overclouded his 
 spirit when he first set foot on the Italian shore? He had 
 good reason to ‘thank God and take courage, when he was 
 met by one deputation of Roman Christians at the Forum 
 of Appius, by another at the Three Taverns*. It was a relief 
 to find that some members at least of the Roman Church were 
 favourably disposed towards him. At all events his fears were 
 not unfounded, as appeared from the sequel. His bold advo- 
 cacy of the liberty of the Gospel provoked the determined 
 antagonism of the Judaizers. We can hardly doubt to what 
 class of teachers he alludes in the Epistle to the Philippians as 
 preaching Christ of envy and strife, in a factious spirit, only 
 for the purpose of thwarting him, only to increase his anguish 
 and to render his chains more galling*. An incidental notice 
 in another, probably a later epistle, written also from Rome, 
 reveals the virulence of this opposition still more clearly. 
 Of all the Jewish Christians in Rome the Apostle can name 
 
 ‘mown to have been Jews. St Paul’s 
 ‘kinsmen’ also, Andronicus, Junia (Ju- 
 nias?), and Herodion, must have be- 
 longed to this race, whatever sense we 
 
 attach to the word ‘kinsmen.’ Apelles 
 
 too, though not a strictly Jewish name, 
 was frequently borne by Jews. It 
 moreover the Aristobulus mentioned in 
 ver. τὸ belonged to the family of Herod, 
 as seems most probable (see p. 172 8q.), 
 
 ᾿ 
 then the members of ‘ his household’ 
 
 PHIL, 
 
 also would in all likelihood be Jews. 
 
 1 At the first day of Pentecost oi ém- 
 δημοῦντες Ῥωμαῖοι, Ἰουδαῖοί τε καὶ προσ- 
 ήλυτοι, are mentioned among those pre- 
 sent, Acts ii. το. In the Epistle to the 
 Romans St Paul salutes certain Jewish 
 Christians, who were ‘ before him in 
 Christ,’ xvi. 7. 
 
 2 Acts xxviii. rs. 
 
 3 Phil, i, 15—18. 
 
 position to 
 St Paul. 
 
Their zea But if these sectarians resolutely opposed St Paul, they were 
 
 ST PAUL IN ROME. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 three only as remaining stedfast in the general desertion; Arist- 
 archus his own companion in travel and in captivity, Marcus 
 the cousin of his former missionary colleague Barnabas, and 
 Jesus surnamed the Just. ‘In them,’ he adds feelingly, ‘I 
 found comfort’. 
 
 hardly less zealous in preaching Christ. The incentive of rivalry 
 goaded them on to fresh exertions. Their gospel was dwarfed 
 and mutilated; it ignored the principle of liberty which was 
 a main feature of the true Gospel: but though their motives 
 were thus unworthy and their doctrine distorted, still ‘Christ 
 was preached’: and for this cause, smothering all personal 
 feeling, the Apostle constrained himself to rejoice”. 
 
 2. Meanwhile among the Gentiles his preaching bore more 
 abundant and healthier fruit. As he encountered in the exist- 
 ing Church of Rome the stubborn resistance of a compact body 
 of Judaic antagonists, so also there were doubtless very many 
 whose more liberal Christian training prepared them to welcome 
 him as their leader and guide. If constant communication was 
 kept up with Jerusalem, the facilities of intercourse with the ~ 
 cities which he himself had evangelized, with Corinth and 
 Ephesus for instance, were even greater. The Syrian Orontes 
 which washed the walls of Antioch the mother of Gentile | 
 Christendom, when it mingled its waters with the Tiber, 
 assuredly bore thither some nobler freight than the scum and 
 refuse of Oriental profligacy, the degraded religions and 
 licentious morals of Asia®, Gentile Christianity was not less 
 fairly represented in Rome than Judaic Christianity. If there 
 were some who preached Christ of ‘envy and strife,’ there were 
 others who preached Him of ‘ good-will.’ 
 
 Thus aided and encouraged, the Apostle prosecuted his” 
 work among the Gentiles with signal and rapid success. In 
 
 1 Col. iv. ro, 11 οἵτινες ἐγενήθησάν 2 Phil. i. 18 ἀλλὰ καὶ χαρήσομαι. 
 μοι παρηγορία. Compare the expression 3 Juv. Sat. iii. 62 ‘Jam pridem Sy- 
 quoted above from Acts xxviii. 15 εὐ rus in Tiberim defiuxit Orontes ete.’ 
 χαριστήσας τῷ Θεῷ ἔλαβεν θάρσος. 
 
ST PAUL IN ROME. 19, 
 
 two quarters especially the results of his labours may be traced. His suc- 
 The pretorian soldiers, drafted off successively to guard him ae 
 and constrained while on duty to bear him close company, had 
 opportunities of learning his doctrine and observing his manner 
 
 of life, which were certainly not without fruit. He had not 
 
 been in Rome very long, before he could boast that his bonds 
 
 were not merely known but known in Christ throughout the 
 pretorian guard’, In the palace of the Czsars too his influence 
 
 was felt. It seems not improbable that when he arrived in 
 Rome he found among the members of the imperial household, and the 
 whether slaves or freedmen, some who had already embraced at 
 the new faith and eagerly welcomed his coming. His energy 
 would be attracted to this important field of labour, where an 
 opening was already made and he had secured valuable allies. 
 
 At all events, writing from Rome to a distant church, he singles 
 
 out from the general salutation the members of Czesar’s house- 
 
 hold’, as a body both prominent enough to deserve a special 
 salutation and so well known to his correspondents that no 
 explanation was needed. 
 
 Occupying these two strongholds in the enemy’s territory, 
 he would not be slack to push his conquests farther. Οἱ the 
 social rank, of the race and religion from which his converts 
 were chiefly drawn, we have no direct knowledge and can only 
 hazard a conjecture. Yet we can hardly be wrong in assuming ᾿ 
 that the Church was not generally recruited from the higher 
 classes of society and that the recruits were for the most 
 part Greeks rather than Romans. 
 
 Of the fact that the primitive Church of the metropolis Greek.na- 
 before and after St Paul’s visit was chiefly Greek, there is hore 
 satisfactory evidence®. The salutations in the Roman letter con- Church. 
 tain very few but Greek names, and even the exceptions hardly 
 imply the Roman birth of their possessors. The Greek nation- 
 
 1 Phil. i. 13. See the detached note. best writers. See for instance West- 
 
 2 Phil. iv. 22. cott History of the Canon p. 244 586.» 
 
 3 The Greek origin of the Roman and Milman Latin Christianity τ. p- 
 Church is now generally allowed bythe 27 sqq. (1863). 
 
 2—2 
 
20 
 
 Social 
 rank of 
 the early 
 converts. 
 
 ST PAUL IN ROME. 
 
 ality of this church in the succeeding ages is still more clearly 
 
 seen. Her early bishops for several generations with very few 
 exceptions bear Greek names. All her literature for nearly 
 two centuries is Greek. The first Latin version of the Scrip- 
 tures was made not for Rome, but for the provinces, especially 
 
 for Africa. Even later, the ill-spelt, ill-written inscriptions of 
 the catacombs, with their strange intermingling of Greek and — 
 Latin characters, show that the church was not yet fully — 
 nationalised. Doubtless among St Paul’s converts were many — 
 
 who spoke Latin as their mother tongue: the soldiers of the 
 
 pretorian guard for instance would perhaps be more Italian — 
 
 than Greek. But these were neither the more numerous nor 
 
 the more influential members of the Church. The Greeks were — 
 
 the most energetic, as they were also the most intelligent and 
 
 enquiring, of the middle classes in Rome at this time. The © 
 
 successful tradesmen, the skilled artisans, the confidential ser- 
 
 vants and retainers of noble houses—almost all the activity and — 
 
 enterprise of the common people whether for good or for evil— 
 were Greek’. Against the superior versatility of these foreign 
 
 intruders the native population was powerless, and a genera- ~ 
 
 tion later the satirist complains indignantly that Rome is no 
 
 longer Roman*. From this rank in life, from the middle and — 
 lower classes of society, it seems probable that the Church — 
 
 drew her largest reinforcements. The members of the Roman 
 
 Church saluted in St Paul’s Epistle could assuredly boast no | 
 
 aristocratic descent, whether from the proud patrician or the 
 
 equally proud plebeian families. They bear upstart names, | 
 
 mostly Greek, sometimes borrowed from natural objects, some- 
 
 
 
 times adopted from a pagan hero or divinity, sometimes de- 
 
 scriptive of personal qualities or advantages, here and there 
 
 attached as slaves or freedmen, but hardly in any case bearing 
 the stamp οἵ high Roman antiquity®. Of Rome, not less than 
 
 1 See especially Juv. Sat. iii. 73— 2 Juv. Sat. iii. 60 ‘Non possum ferre, — 
 ‘So. Comp. Friedlander Sittengeschichte Quirites, Grecam urbem.’ Ι 
 Roms τ. p. 60 sq. (ed. 2). 3 Examples of these different classes — 
 
 - the surnames of some noble family to which they were perhaps — 
 
 
 
ST PAUL IN ROME. 2I 
 
 of Corinth, it must have been true, that ‘not many wise after 
 the flesh, not many powerful, not many high-born’ were 
 called’. 
 
 Not many, and yet perhaps a few. On what grounds and Converts 
 with what truth the great Stoic philosopher and statesman has pone 
 been claimed as a signal triumph of the Gospel I shall have to °#8es- 
 consider hereafter. Report has swollen the list of Roman con- 
 verts with other names scarcely less famous for their virtues or 
 their vices. The poet Lucan, the philosopher Epictetus, the 
 powerful freedmen Narcissus and Epaphroditus, the emperor's 
 mistresses Acte and Poppa’, a strange medley of good and 
 bad, have been swept by tradition or conjecture into that capa- 
 cious drag-net which ‘gathers of every kind’ 
 sions, highly improbable in themselves, there is not a shadow 
 of evidence. Yet one illustrious convert at least seems to 
 have been added to the Church about this time. Pomponia Pomponia 
 Grecina, the wife of Plautius the conqueror of Britain, was On 
 arraigned of ‘foreign superstition.’ Delivered over to a do- 
 mestic tribunal according to ancient usage, she was tried by 
 her husband in presence of her relations, and was pronounced 
 by him innocent. 
 appeared but in a mourning garb) was observed by all. The 
 untimely and cruel death of her friend Julia had drawn a cloud 
 Coupled with the 
 
 charge already mentioned, this notice suggests that shunning 
 
 For such conver- 
 
 Her grave and sad demeanour (for she never 
 
 over her life, which was never dissipated’. 
 
 society she had sought consolation under her deep sorrow 
 in the duties and hopes of the Gospel*. At all events a 
 generation later Christianity had worked its way even into the 
 imperial family. Flavius Clemens and his wife Flavia Domi- 
 
 of names among the Roman Christians 
 are: Stachys; Hermes, Nereus; Epe- 
 netus, Ampliatus, Urbanus; Julia, 
 Claudia (2 Tim. iv. 21). 
 
 1 y Cor. i. 26. 
 
 2 See Fleury Saint Paul et Sénéque 
 il. p. 10g, and the references there 
 given. 
 
 3 Tac. Ann. xili. 22. The trial took 
 
 place in the year 57 or 58, i.e. about 
 the time when the Epistle to the Ro- 
 mans was written,and some three years 
 before St Paul’s arrival in Rome. 
 
 4 The ‘superstitio externa’ of Tacitus 
 in this passage has been explained by 
 Lipsiusandothersafter him as referring 
 to Christianity. See especially Meri- 
 vale’s History of the Romans yi. p. 273. 
 
22 
 
 ST PAUL IN ROME: 
 
 Clemens tilla, both cousins of Domitian, were accused of ‘atheism’ and 
 
 and Domi- 
 tilla. 
 
 condemned by the emperor. 
 
 Clemens had only just resigned 
 
 office as consul; and his sons had been nominated successors to 
 
 the empire. 
 to one of the islands. 
 
 The husband was put to death; the wife banished 
 Allowing that the emperor sacrificed his 
 
 kinsman on a ‘most trivial charge, the Roman biographer yet 
 
 withholds his sympathy from the unoffending victim as a man 
 
 of ‘contemptible indolence’’ 
 
 1 Sueton. Domit. 15 ‘ Flavium Cle- 
 mentem patruelem suum contemptissi- 
 meinertie...repente ex tenuissima sus- 
 picione tantum non in ipso ejus consu- 
 latu interemit’: Dion Cass. Ixvii. 14 
 κἀν τῷ αὐτῷ ἔτει ἄλλους τε πολλοὺς 
 καὶ τὸν Φλαουίον Κλήμεντα ὑπατεύοντα, 
 καίπερ ἀνεψιὸν ὄντα καὶ γυναῖκα καὶ 
 αὐτὴν συγγενῆ ἑαυτοῦ Φλαουίαν Δομιτίλ- 
 hav ἔχοντα, κατέσφαξεν ὁ Δομιτιανός" 
 ἐπηνέχθη δὲ ἀμφοῖν ἔγκλημα ἀθεότητος, 
 ip ἧς καὶ ἄλλοι ἐς τὰ ᾿Ιουδαίων ἔθη 
 ἐξοκέλλοντες πολλοὶ κατεδικάσθησαν, καὶ 
 οἱ μὲν ἀπέθανον οἱ δὲ τῶν γοῦν οὐσιῶν 
 ἐστερήθησαν ἣ δὲ Δομιτίλλα ὑπερωρί- 
 σθη μόνον ἐς Ilavéareplay. Atheism was 
 the commoncharge brought against the 
 early Christians. The relationship of 
 this Domitilla to Domitian is not 
 given by Dion Cassius. It appears 
 however from other authorities that 
 she was his sister’s daughter ; Quintil. 
 Inst. iv. Procem., Orelli-Henzen Inscr. 
 5422, 5423. Again Eusebius, H. ΕἸ. 
 iii. 18, refers to heathen historians 
 as relating (with an exact notice of 
 the date, the fifteenth year of Domi- 
 tian) the persecution of the Christians, 
 and more especially the banishment of 
 Flavia Domitilla, the niece of Flavius 
 Clemens (ἐξ ἀδελφῆς γεγονυῖαν Φλαουίου 
 Κλήμεντος) one of the actual consuls, 
 to the island of Pontia, τῆς eis Χρι- 
 στὸν μαρτυρίας ἕνεκεν. The heathen 
 writer especially intended here is one 
 Bruttius, as appears from another pas- 
 sage in Eusebius, Chron. p. 162 (Schéne) 
 gub anno 95,‘ Scribit Bruttius plurimos 
 
 One whose prejudice or ignorance 
 
 Christianorum sub Domitiano fecisse 
 martyrium: inter quos et Flaviam Do- 
 mitillam, Flavii Clementis consulis ex 
 sororeneptem, ininsulam Pontiam rele- 
 gatam quia se Christianam esse testata 
 est.’ This Bruttius is not improbably 
 the Presens with whom the younger 
 Pliny corresponds (Hpist. vii. 3), Pre- 
 sens being a cognomen of the Bruttii. 
 For the various persons bearing this 
 name see Lardner’s Testimonies of An- 
 cient Heathens xii. On the confirma- 
 tion of this account derived from de 
 Rossi’s archeological researches, and 
 on the possible connexion of Clement 
 the writer of the Hpistle with this 
 Flavius Clemens, see S. Clement of 
 Rome Appendix p. 257 54. 
 
 It will be seen that the account of 
 Bruttius (or Eusebius) differs from that 
 of other authorities both in the place 
 of exile and in the relationship of 
 Domitilla to Clemens. Hence many 
 writers have supposed that two Domi- 
 tillas, aunt and niece, were banished 
 by Domitian: so e.g. among recent 
 writers, Imhof Domitianus p. 116, de 
 Rossi Bull. di Archeol. Crist. 1865, p. 
 178q.,1875,p. 69sq. The calendar also 
 commemorates a Domitilla as a virgin 
 and martyr, thus distinguishing her 
 from the wife of Clemens: see Tille- 
 mont Hist. Eccl. 1. p. 124 sq. Yet it 
 can hardly be doubtful that one and 
 the same person is intended in these 
 notices. Nor is it difficult to explain 
 the two discrepancies. (1) The locality. 
 Pontia (or Pontiw, for itis a group of 
 
 
 
ST PAUL IN ROME. 23 
 
 allowed him to see in Christianity only a ‘mischievous super- 
 stition’’ would not be very favourably impressed by a convert 
 to the new faith, debarred by his principles from sharing the 
 vicious amusements of his age, and perhaps also in the absorb- 
 ing contemplation of his higher destinies too forgetful of the 
 necessary forms of social and political life. There seems no 
 reason to doubt that Clemens and Domitilla were converts to 
 the Gospel’. 
 
 It is impossible to close this notice of St Paul’s captivity The Nero- 
 without casting a glance at the great catastrophe which over- pera. 
 whelmed the Roman Church soon after his release. The Nero- Na 
 nian persecution, related on the authority of Tacitus and 
 
 islands) and Pandateria are close to 
 each other; Strabo v. p. 233 Ilavéa- 
 τερία τε καὶ ἸΠοντία οὐ πολὺ dm ἀλλήλων 
 διέχουσαι. Hence they are constantly 
 named together ; e.g. Strabo ii. p. 123, 
 Varro R. R. ii. 5, Suet. Calig. 15, 
 Mela ii. 7. And both alike were con- 
 stantly chosen as places of exile for 
 members of the imperial family; Tac. 
 Ann. xiv. 63, Suet. Tib. 53, 54, Calig. 
 15, Dion Cass, lv. ro, lix. 22. The cells, 
 in which Domitilla was reported to 
 have lived during her exile, were 
 shown in Pontia in Jerome’s time; 
 Hieron. Ep. eviii. § 7 (1. p. 695). 
 (2) The relationship. The divergence 
 here may be explained very easily by 
 the carelessness of Eusebius or some 
 early transcriber. In the original text 
 of Bruttius the words corresponding to 
 ‘Flavyii Clementis’ probably signified 
 ‘the wife of Flavius Clemens,’ while 
 those translated ‘ex sorore neptem’ 
 described her relationship not to Cle- 
 mens but to Domitian. G. Syncellus 
 (p. 650, ed. Bonn.), copying the Chroni- 
 con of Kusebius, says Φλαυία Δομετίλλα 
 ἐξαδέλφη Κλήμηντος (sic) Φλαυίου ὑπα- 
 τικοῦ ὡς Σριστιανὴ εἰς νῆσον ἸΤοντίαν φυ- 
 “αδεύεται. This expression suggests a 
 very probable account of the error, If 
 Bruttius (or some other authority) 
 
 wrote Φλαουία Δομετίλλα ἐξαδέλφη ἡ 
 Φλαουίου Κλήμεντος, the accidental 
 omission of ἡ would at once transfer 
 the relationship from Domitian to 
 Flavius Clemens. When Philostratus, 
 Vit. Apoll. viii. 25, speaks of the wife 
 of Clemens as the sister of the emperor, 
 he confuses her with another Domitilla 
 no longer living; unless indeed (as 
 seems probable) the conjectural read- 
 ing ἐξαδέλφην should be substituted 
 for ἀδελφὴν in his text. The stemma 
 of the Flavii, constructed by Momm- 
 sen (Corp. Inscr. Lat. v1. p. 173), seems 
 to me to have nothing to recommend 
 it except the name of this truly great 
 scholar. It contradicts Apollonius, 
 Dion, Eusebius, and Quintilian alike; 
 besides being open to other objections. 
 See the criticism of de Rossi Bull. di 
 Arch. Crist. 1875, p. 70 Sq. 
 
 1 Sueton. Nero 16 ‘ superstitio nova 
 ac malefica.’ 
 
 2 So even Gibbon, who says (c. xvi), 
 ‘The guilt imputed to their charge was 
 that of Atheism and Jewish manners ; 
 a singular association of ideas, which 
 cannot with any propriety be applied 
 except to the Christians etc.’ So too 
 Baur Paulus p. 472. Early in the 
 second century the Roman Christians 
 are so influential that Ignatius fears 
 
24 ST PAUL IN ROME. 
 
 Suetonius and embodied as a cardinal article in the historic 
 creed of the Church from the earliest times, has latterly shared 
 the fate of all assumed facts and received dogmas. The histo- 
 rian of the ‘Decline and Fall’ was the first to question the 
 truth of this persecution. ‘The obscurity as well as the inno- 
 cency of the Christians,’ wrote Gibbon, ‘should have shielded 
 them from Nero’s indignation and even from his notice.’ 
 Accordingly he supposed that the real sufferers were not 
 Christians but Jews, not the disciples of the true Christ but 
 the dupes of some false Christ, the followers not of Jesus the 
 Nazarene but of Judas the Gaulonite. It might easily happen, 
 so he argued, that Tacitus, writing a generation later when the 
 Christians, now a numerous body, had been singled out as the 
 objects of judicial investigation, should transfer to them ‘the 
 euilt and the sufferings which he might with far greater truth 
 and justice have attributed to a sect whose odious memory was 
 almost extinguished’.’ An able living writer also, the author of 
 the ‘History of the Romans under the Empire’,’ paying more 
 deference to ancient authorities, yet feeling this difficulty, 
 though in a less degree, suggests another solution. He sup- 
 poses that the persecution was directed in the first instance 
 against Jewish fanatics®; that the persons thus assailed strove 
 to divert the popular fury by informing against the Christians; 
 that the Christians confessed their allegiance to a King of their 
 own in ‘a sense which their judges did not care to discriminate’; 
 that in consequence they were condemned and suffered; and 
 finally, that later writers, having only an indistinct knowledge 
 of the facts, confined the persecution directed against Jews and 
 Christians alike to the latter, who nevertheless were not the 
 principal victims. IfI felt the difficulty which this suggestion 
 Testimony 15 intended to remove, I should be disposed to accept the solu- 
 fees tion. But I do not feel justified in setting aside the authority 
 of both Tacitus and Suetonius in a case like this, where the 
 
 
 
 lest their intercession may rob him of 3 A later notice however (Pseudo- 
 the crown of martyrdom. Senec. ad Paul. Ep. 12) mentions the 
 1 Decline and Fall c. xvi. Jews also as sufferers. 
 
 2 yr. p. 280. 
 
ST PAUL IN ROME. 
 
 incident recorded must have happened in their own life-time; 
 an incident moreover not transacted within the recesses of the 
 palace or by a few accomplices sworn to secrecy, but open and 
 notorious, affecting the lives of many and gratifying the fanati- 
 cal fury of a whole populace. 
 
 25 
 
 But besides the distinct testimony of the Roman historians, Allusionin 
 
 which has generally been overlooked. How otherwise is the 
 imagery of the Apocalypse to be explained? Babylon, the great 
 harlot, the woman seated on seven hills, ‘drunken with the 
 blood of the saints and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus’’— 
 what is the historical reference in these words, if the Neronian 
 persecution be a figment of later date? It is plain that some 
 great change has passed over the relations between the Gospel 
 and the Empire, since the days when St Paul sought protection 
 and obtained justice from the soldiers and the magistrates of 
 Rome. The genial indolence of Gallio, the active interposition 
 of Claudius Lysias, the cold impartiality of Festus, afford no ex- 
 planation of such language. Roman justice or Roman indiffer- 
 ence has been exchanged meanwhile for Roman oppression. 
 
 And after all the sole ground for scepticism is the assumed fet 
 insignificance of the Roman Church at this epoch, its obscure § Baris 
 
 station and scanty numbers. But what are the facts of the πὰς ἢ 
 cant at 
 
 there is, I venture to think, strong though indirect evidence 111 i 
 
 urch of 
 not 
 
 case? Full six years before the Neronian outbreak the brethren this time, 
 
 of Rome are so numerous and so influential as to elicit from 
 St Paul the largest and most important letter which he ever 
 wrote. In this letter he salutes a far greater number of persons 
 than in any other. Its tone shows that the Roman Church 
 was beset by all the temptations intellectual and moral, to 
 which only a large and various community is exposed. In 
 the three years which elapsed before he arrived in the metro- 
 polis their numbers must in the natural course of events 
 have increased largely. When he lands on the shores of 
 
 1 Rey. xvii. 6. The argument in the for the passage might then be sup- 
 text loses some of its force, if thelater posed to refer to the persecution of 
 date be assigned to the Apocalypse; Domitian. 
 
26 ST PAUL IN ROME. 
 
 Italy, he finds a Christian community established even at 
 Puteoli?. For two whole years from this time the Gospel is 
 preached with assiduous devotion by St Paul and his compa- 
 nions; while the zeal of the Judaizers, whetted by rivalry, is 
 If besides this 
 
 we allow for the natural growth of the church in the year in- 
 
 roused to unwonted activity in the same cause. 
 
 tervening after the Apostle’s release, it will be no surprise that 
 the Christian community had by this time attained sufficient 
 prominence to provoke the indiscriminate revenge of a people 
 unnerved by a recent catastrophe and suddenly awakened to 
 the existence of a mysterious and rapidly increasing sect. 
 
 For it is in the very nature of a panic that it should take 
 alarm at some vague peril of which it cannot estimate the 
 character or dimensions. The first discovery of this strange 
 
 Ines eee Community would be the most terrible shock to Roman feeling. 
 byapanic. How wide might not be its ramifications, how numerous its 
 adherents? Once before in times past Roman society had 
 been appalled by a similar revelation. At this crisis men 
 would call to mind how their forefathers had stood aghast at 
 the horrors of the Bacchanalian conspiracy; how the canker 
 still unsuspected was gnawing at the heart of public morality, 
 aud the foundations of society were well-nigh sapped, when the 
 discovery was accidentally made, so that only the promptest and 
 most vigorous measures had saved the state’. And was not this 
 a conspiracy of the same kind? These Christians were certainly 
 atheists, for they rejected all the gods alike; they were traitors 
 
 The Ro- 
 
 1 Acts xxviii. 14. The traffic with 
 Alexandria and the East would draw 
 to Puteoli a large number of Oriental 
 sailors and merchants. The inscrip- 
 tions bear testimony to the presence of 
 Jews in these parts: see an article by 
 Minervini in the Bullett. Archeol. Na- 
 pol. Feb. 1855. For the reference to 
 this article I am indebted to Fried- 
 liinder Sittengeschichte Roms τι. p. 65. 
 See also de Rossi Bull. di Archeol.Crist. 
 1864, p. 69sq., on the Pompeian in- 
 eeription. 
 
 2 For the history of the Bacchanalian 
 conspiracy detected in the year B.c. 186 
 see Livy xxxix. 8 sq. In reading this 
 account it is impossible not to notice 
 theresemblance of the crimes apparent- 
 ly proved against these Bacchanalians 
 with the foul charges recklessly hurled 
 at the Christians: see e.g. Justin Apol. 
 i. 26, Tertull. Apol. 7, Minuce. Felix, 9, 
 28. [The passage in the text was writ- 
 ten without any recollection that Gib- 
 bon had mentioned the Bacchanalian 
 conspiracy in the same connexion. ] 
 
ST PAUL IN ROME. 
 
 also, for they swore allegiance to another king besides Cesar. 
 But there were mysterious whispers of darker horrors than 
 these ; hideous orgies which rivalled the loathsome banquet of 
 Thyestes, shameless and nameless profligacies which recalled 
 the tragedy of the house of Laius.. To us, who know what the 
 Gospel has been and is, who are permitted to look back on the 
 past history of the Church and forward to her eternal destinies, 
 such infatuation may seem almost incredible; and yet this mode 
 of representation probably does no injustice to Roman feeling 
 at the time. The public mind paralysed by a great calamity has 
 not strength to reflect or to argue. An idea once seizing it 
 possesses it wholly. The grave and reserved demeanour of the 
 Christians would only increase the popular suspicion. The ap- 
 parent innocence of the sect would seem but a cloak thrown over 
 their foul designs, which betrayed themselves occasionally by de- 
 nunciations of Roman life or by threats of a coming vengeance’. 
 
 27 
 
 The general silence of the Roman satirists is indeed a signi- Silence of 
 
 ficant fact, but it cannot fairly be urged to show the obscurity 
 of the Church at the date of the Neronian persecution. 
 mention is made of Christianity in the short poems of Persius, 
 it will be remembered that he died nearly two years before this 
 event. If Juvenal and Martial, who in the next generation 
 ‘have dashed in with such glaring colours Jews, Greeks, and 
 Egyptians’, banish the Christians to the far background of 
 their picture’, the fact must not be explained by the compara- 
 
 tive insignificance of the latter’, We may safely infer from 
 
 1 See the letter of the Churches of 
 Lyons and Vienne in Kuseb. H. H.v. 1. 
 § 14 κατεψεύσαντο ἡμῶν Θυέστεια δεῖπνα 
 καὶ Οἰδιποδείους μίξεις καὶ ὅσα μήτε λα- 
 λεῖν μήτε νοεῖν θέμις ἡμῖν, Athenag. 
 Legat. 3 τρία ἐπιφημίζουσιν ἡμῖν ἐγκλή- 
 ματα, ἀθεότητα, Θυέστεια δεῖπνα, Οἰδι- 
 ποδείους μίξεις, ib. 31, Theoph. ad Aut. 
 iii. 4, 15, Tertull. ad Nat. i. 7. 
 
 2 See the suggestion of Dean Milman, 
 History of Christianity τι. p. 456 (1863). 
 So also Pressensé Trois Premiers 
 Siécles τι. p. 97. 
 
 3 Merivale vi. p. 277. 
 
 4 Mart. x. 25, Juv. i. 155, viii. 235. 
 Even in these passages the allusion is 
 doubtful. 
 
 5 The following instance will show 
 how little dependence can be placed on 
 this line of argument. Dean Milman 
 (History of Christianity, 111. p. 352) 
 writes: ‘M. Beugnot has pointed out 
 one remarkable characteristic of Clau- 
 dian’s poetry and of the times—his ex- 
 traordinary religious indifference. Here 
 is a poet writing at the actual crisis of 
 
 theRoman 
 satirists 
 
 If no explained, 
 
25 
 
 Reticence 
 
 of the phi- 
 
 losophers 
 
 ΄“ 
 
 ST PAUL IN ROME. 
 
 the narratives of Pliny and Tacitus that at this time they 
 were at least as important and influential as the Jews. But 
 in fact they offered very poor material for caricature. So far 
 as they presented any salient features which the satirist might 
 turn to ridicule, these were found in the Jews to a still greater 
 degree. Where they differed, their distinctive characteristics 
 would seem entirely negative to the superficial glance of the 
 heathen. 
 earth, living at a time when Christians abounded everywhere, 
 can say nothing worse of them than that they are good-natured 
 charitable people, not overwise and easily duped by charlatans*. 
 
 But how did this vast religious movement escape the 
 notice of philosophical writers, who, if they were blind to its 
 spiritual import, must at least have recognised in it a striking 
 moral phenomenon? If the Christians were so important, it is 
 urged, how are they not mentioned by Seneca, ‘though Seneca 
 is full of the tenets of the philosophers’’? ΤῸ this particular 
 question it is perhaps sufficient to reply, that most of Seneca’s 
 works were written before the Christians on any showing had 
 attracted public notice. But the enquiry may be pushed further, 
 and a general answer will be suggested. How, we may well 
 ask, are they not mentioned by Plutarch, though Plutarch dis- 
 cusses almost every possible question of philosophical or social 
 interest, and flourished moreover at the very time, when by 
 their large and increasing numbers, by their unflinching courage 
 and steady principle, they had become so formidable, that 
 the propretor of Bithynia in utter perplexity applies to his 
 imperial master for instructions how to deal with a sect thus 
 passive and yet thus revolutionary? How is it again, that 
 Marcus Aurelius, the philosophical emperor, dismisses them in 
 his writings with one brief scornful allusion*, though he had 
 
 Even Lucian, who satirizes all things in heaven and 
 
 the complete triumph of the new reli- 
 gion and the visible extinction of the 
 old: if we may so speak, a strictly his- 
 torical poet... Yet...no one would know 
 the existence of Christianity at that 
 period of the world by reading the 
 
 works of Claudian.’ 
 
 1 Lucian De Mort. Peregr.§ 11 sq. 
 
 2 Merivale, l.c. 
 
 3M. Anton. xi. 3 μὴ κατὰ ψιλὴν 
 παράταξιν (from mere obstinacy), ws of 
 Χριστιανοί, ἀλλὰ λελογισμένως καὶ σε- 
 
ST PAUL IN ROME. 29 
 
 been flooded with apologies and memorials on their behalf, and 
 though they served in large numbers in the very army which 
 he commanded in person*? The silence of these later philoso- assumed 
 phers at least cannot be ascribed to ignorance; and some other pete 
 explanation must be sought. May we not fairly conclude 7°" 
 that, like others under similar circumstances, they considered 
 a contemptuous reticence the safest, if not the keenest, weapon 
 to employ against a religious movement, which was working 
 its way upwards from the lower grades of society, and which 
 
 they viewed with alarm and misgiving not unmingled with 
 
 secret respect? ? 
 
 μνῶς kal, wore καὶ ἄλλον πεῖσαι, ἀτρα- 
 Hous. 
 
 1 Thus much at least may be in- 
 ferred from the story of the thunder- 
 ing legion: see especially Mosheim De 
 Rebus Christian. sec. 2. § xvii, and 
 Lardner Testimonies, etc. xv. § 3. 
 
 2 St Augustine de Civ. Dei vi. 11 
 says of Seneca, after mentioning this 
 philosopher’s account of the Jews, 
 « Christianos tamen, jam tune Judzis 
 inimicissimos, in neutram partem com- 
 
 memorare ausus est, ne vel laudaret 
 contra sue patris veterem consuetudi- 
 nem vel reprehenderet contra propriam 
 forsitan voluntatem.’? Seneca indeed 
 could hardly be expected to mention 
 the Christians, for most of his works 
 were perhaps written before the new 
 sect had attracted the attention of his 
 fellow-countrymen. But some such 
 motive as Augustine here suggests 
 must have sealed the lips of the later 
 philosophers. 
 
Four epi- 
 stles writ- 
 ten from 
 Rome. 
 
 it 
 
 ORDER OF THE EPISTLES OF THE CAPTIVITY. 
 
 T PAUL remained in captivity between four and five years 
 (A.D. 58—63); the first half of this period being spent at 
 
 Czesarea, the second at Rome. 
 
 While thus a prisoner he wrote 
 
 four epistles, to the Philippians, to the Colossians, to the Ephe- 
 
 sians, to Philemon. 
 
 Though a few critics have assigned one or 
 
 more of these epistles to his confinement at Czesarea’, there are 
 serious objections to this view’; and the vast majority of writers 
 
 1 The three epistles are assigned to 
 the Cesarean captivity by Bottger 
 (Beitr. 11. p. 47 sqq.), Thiersch (Kirche 
 im apost. Zeit. p. 176), Reuss (Gesch. 
 der heil. Schriften § 114), Meyer (Ephes. 
 Einl. § 2) and others: the Kpistle to 
 the Philippians by Paulus (Progr. Jen. 
 1799, and Heidelb. Jahrb. 1825. Ἡ. 5, 
 referred to by Bleek), Bottger (1.c.), and 
 Thiersch (ib. p. 212), while Rilliet (in- 
 trod. § 11 and note on i. 13) speaks 
 doubtfully. The oldest tradition or con- 
 jecture dated all four epistles from 
 Rome: and this is the opinion of most 
 modern writers. Oeder alone (Progr. 
 Onold. 1731: see Wolf Cur. Phil. 1. 
 p. 168) dates the Philippians from Co- 
 rinth during St Paul’s first visit. 
 
 2 Reasons for dating the three epi- 
 stles from Cesarea are given fully in 
 Meyer (Ephes. Hinl.§ 2). I cannot at- 
 tach any weight tothem. For the Epi- 
 stle to the Philippians there is at least 
 this prima facie case, that the mention 
 
 of the pretorium in Phil. i. 13 would 
 then be explained by the statement in 
 Acts xxiii. 35, that St Paul was con- 
 fined in ‘the pretorium of Herod.’ But 
 the expression ‘throughout the preto- 
 rium’ (ἐν ὅλῳ τῷ πραιτωρίῳ), while it 
 implies a wider space than the palace 
 or official residence of Herod, is easily 
 explained by the circumstances of St 
 Paul’s connexion with the imperial 
 guards at Rome: see above, p.g. On 
 the other hand there are many serious 
 objections to Caesarea as the place of 
 writing. (1) The notice of Czsar’s 
 household (Phil. iv. 22) cannot without 
 much straining of language and facts 
 be made to apply to Cesarea. (2) St 
 Paul’s account of his progress (i. 12 
 sq.) loses all its force on this supposi- 
 tion. He is obviously speaking of some 
 place of great consequence, where the 
 Gospel had received a new and remark- 
 able development. Cmsarea does not 
 satisfy these conditions. It was after 
 
ORDER OF THE EPISTLES OF THE CAPTIVITY. 31 
 
 agree in placing all four at a later date, after the Apostle had 
 been removed thence to Rome. 
 Assuming then that they were all written from Rome, we The Phi- 
 
 . lippianlet- 
 And here again ue 
 
 have next to investigate their relative dates. 
 
 the question simplifies itself. It seems very clear, and is gene- ae ae 
 rally allowed, that the three epistles last mentioned were written are linked 
 
 : : together. 
 
 and despatched at or about the same time, while the letter 
 
 to the Philippians stands alone. Of the three thus connected 
 
 the Epistle to the Colossians is the link between the other two. 
 
 On the one hand its connexion with the Epistle to the Ephe- 
 
 sians is established by a remarkable resemblance of style and 
 
 matter, and by the fact of its being entrusted to the same 
 messenger Tychicus’. 
 with the letter to Philemon by more than one coincidence: 
 
 On the other, it is shown to synchronize 
 
 Onesimus accompanies both epistles’; in both salutations are 
 sent to Archippus’*; in both the same persons are mentioned as 
 St Paul’s companions at the time of writing*. 
 
 all not a very important place. It had 
 been evangelized by the Apostles of the 
 Circumcision. The first heathen con- 
 vert Cornelius lived there. As a chief 
 
 Cesar. May we not infer that this 
 had been his settled determination from 
 the first? that he considered it more 
 prudent to act thus than to stake his 
 
 seaport town of Palestine, the great 
 preachers of the Gospel were constantly 
 passing to and fro through it. Alto- 
 gether we may suppose it to have re- 
 ceived more attention in proportion to 
 its size than any other place; and the 
 language of St Paul seems wholly in- 
 applicable to a town with this antece- 
 dent history. (3) When this epistle is 
 written, he is looking forward to his 
 speedy release and purposes a visit to 
 Macedonia (i. 26, ii. 24: compare Phi- 
 lem. 22). Now there is no reason to 
 suppose that he expected this at Czx- 
 sarea. For what werethe circumstances 
 of the case? He had gone up to Jerusa- 
 lem, intending immediately afterwards 
 to visit Rome. While at Jerusalem he 
 is apprehended on a frivolous charge 
 and imprisoned. When at length he 
 is brought to trial, he boldly appeals to 
 
 safety on the capricious justice of the 
 provincial governor? that at all events 
 he hoped thereby to secure the fulfil- 
 ment of his long-cherished design of 
 preaching the Gospel in the metropolis? 
 
 These considerations seem sufficient 
 to turn the scale in favour of Rome, as 
 against Caesarea, in the case of the Epi- 
 stle to the Philippians. As regards the 
 other three, I shall endeavour to give 
 reasons for placing them later than the 
 Philippian letter: and if so, they also 
 must date from Rome, At all events 
 there is no sufficient ground for aban- 
 doning the common view. 
 
 1 Col, iv. 7, Ephes. vi. 21. 
 
 2 Col. iv. 9, Philem, 1o—12. 
 
 3 Col. iv. 17, Philem, 2. Hence it 
 may be inferred that they went to the 
 same place. 
 
 4 Philem. 1, 23, 24, Col. i. 1, iv. 
 
32 
 
 Was it 
 written 
 
 ORDER OF THE EPISTLES OF THE CAPTIVITY. 
 
 The question then, which I propose to discuss in the follow- 
 
 pefore or ing pages, is this: whether the Epistle to the Philippians should 
 act te be placed early in the Roman captivity and the three epistles 
 later; or whether conversely the three epistles were written first, 
 and the Philippian letter afterwards. The latter is the prevail- 
 ing view among the vast majority of recent writers, German 
 and English, with one or two important exceptions’. I shall 
 attempt to show that the arguments generally alleged in its 
 favour will not support the conclusions: while on the other 
 hand there are reasons for placing the Philippians early and 
 the three epistles late, which in the absence of any decisive 
 evidence on the other side must be regarded as weighty. 
 A The arguments in favour of the later date of the Philippian 
 its later letter, as compared with the other three, are drawn from four 
 
 date stated Ξ . ᾧ : Cree Ok 5 
 -Sndex. considerations: (1) From the progress of Christianity in Rome, 
 
 Argu- 
 
 amined. as exhibited in this epistle; (2) From a comparison of the 
 names of St Paul’s associates mentioned in the different epistles; 
 (3) From the length of time required for the communications 
 between Philippi and Rome; (4) From the circumstances of 
 St Paul’s imprisonment. These arguments will be considered 
 in order. 
 
 r.Progress 1. It is evident that the Christians in Rome form a large 
 
 ae and important body when the Epistle to the Philippians is 
 
 Church. written. The Gospel has effected a lodgment even in the im- 
 
 perial palace. The bonds of the Apostle have become known 
 not only ‘throughout the pretorium’ but ‘to all the rest.’ 
 There is a marvellous activity among the disciples of the new 
 
 Neue Test. pp. 430, 460) who considers 
 the data insufficient to decide but 
 treats the Philippians first in order; 
 
 7—14. The names common to both 
 are Timotheus, Epaphras, Marcus, 
 Aristarchus, Demas, Luke, Tychicus 
 
 and Jesus the Just are mentioned in 
 the Epistle to the Colossians alone. 
 
 1 In Germany, De Wette, Schrader, 
 Hemsen, Anger, Credner, Neander, 
 Wieseler, Meyer, Wiesinger; in Eng- 
 Jand, Davidson, Alford, Conybeare and 
 Howson, Wordsworth, Ellicott, Hadie. 
 The exceptions are Bleek (Hinl. in das 
 
 and Ewald (Sendschreibenetc.pp. 431 56.» 
 547), who however rejects the Epistle 
 to the Ephesians, and supposes the re- 
 maining three to have been written 
 about the same time. The older Eng- 
 lish critics for the most part (e.g. Ussher 
 and Pearson) placed the Philippians 
 first, without assigning reasons. 
 
ORDER OF THE EPISTLES OF THE CAPTIVITY. 33 
 
 faith: ‘In every way Christ is preached.’ All this it is argued 
 requires a very considerable lapse of time. 
 
 This argument has to a great extent been met already’. It tts condi- 
 is highly probable, as I have endeavoured to show, that St Paul Son ee 
 found a flourishing though unorganized Church, when he ™28. 
 arrived in Rome. ‘The state of things exhibited in the Epistle 
 to the Romans, the probable growth of Christianity in the in- 
 terval, the fact of his finding a body of worshippers even at 
 Puteoli, combine to support this inference. It has been sug- 
 gested also (and reasons will be given hereafter for this sug- 
 gestion) that the ‘members of Czesar’s household’ were, at least 
 in some cases, not St Paul’s converts after his arrival but older 
 disciples already confessing Christ. And again, if when he 
 wrote he could already count many followers among the pre- 
 torian soldiers, it is here especially that we might expect to see 
 the earliest and most striking results of his preaching, for with 
 these soldiers he was forced to hold close and uninterrupted in- 
 tercourse day and night from the very first. 
 
 Nor must the expression that his ‘bonds had become His Jan- 
 known to all the rest’ of the Roman people be rigorously ὅν 7% a 
 pressed. It is contrary to all sound rules of interpretation to Pressed. 
 look for statistical precision in words uttered in the fulness 
 of gratitude and hope. The force of the expression must be 
 measured by the Apostle’s language elsewhere. In writing to 
 the Thessalonians for instance, only a few months after they 
 have heard the first tidings of the Gospel, he expresses his joy 
 that ‘from them has sounded forth the word of the Lord, not 
 only in Macedonia and Achaia, but in every place their faith to 
 Godward is spread abroad’. 
 
 Indeed this very passage in the Philippian letter, which The notice 
 has been taken to favour a later date because it announces eee 
 the progress of the Gospel in Rome, appears much more es 
 natural, if written soon after his arrival. The condition of 
 things which it describes is novel and exceptional. It is evi- 
 dently the first awakening of dormant influences for good or 
 
 1 See above, p. 25 sq. 2 Thess, i. 8. 
 
 PHIL, 3 
 
34 ORDER OF THE EPISTLES OF THE CAPTIVITY. 
 
 evil, the stirring up of latent emotions of love, emulation, strife, 
 godless jealousy and godly zeal, by the presence of the great 
 Apostle among the Christians of Rome. This is hardly the 
 language he would have used after he had spent two whole 
 years in the metropolis, when the antagonism of enemies and 
 the devotion of friends had settled down into a routine of 
 hatred or of affection. Nor is the form of the announcement 
 such as might be expected in a letter addressed so long after 
 his arrival to correspondents with whom he had been in con- 
 stant communication meanwhile. 
 
 2. The argument drawn from the names of St Paul’s asso- 
 We learn from the Acts that the Apostle 
 was accompanied on his voyage to Rome by Luke and Arist- 
 archus*. Now their names occur in the salutations of the 
 Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon’, but not in the 
 Epistle to the Philippians. It seems probable therefore that 
 the letter last mentioned was written later, his two companions 
 having meanwhile separated from the Apostle. 
 
 An argument from silence is always of questionable force. 
 In order to be valid, it ought to apply to all these epistles alike. 
 Yet in the Epistle to the Ephesians no mention is made of 
 Aristarchus and Luke, and what is more remarkable, none of 
 Timothy, though it was written at the same time with the 
 letters to Colossee and to Philemon. The omission in any par- 
 ticular case may be due to special reasons ὃ 
 
 Nor is it difficult to account for this silence. In the Epistle 
 to the Philippians St Paul throws his salutation into a general 
 
 2.StPaul’s 
 
 associates. ciates is as follows. 
 
 General 
 answer to 
 this argu- 
 ment. 
 
 In this ex- 
 pression it is plain that he refers to his own personal com- 
 panions : for he adds immediately afterwards, ‘ All the brethren,’ 
 
 form; ‘The brethren that are with me greet you.’ 
 
 1 Acts xxvii. 2. in the letter to Philemon. Of this 
 
 3.00]. iv. 10, 14, Philem. 24. 
 
 3 The doubtful force of such argu- 
 ments from silence is illustrated by an- 
 other case occurring in these epistles. 
 Jesus Justus is mentioned in the Epi- 
 stle to the Colossians (iv. 11), but not 
 
 omission no account can be given. 
 There is the highest a priori probabi- 
 lity that he would be mentioned either 
 in both letters or in neither, for they 
 both were sent to the same place and 
 by the same messenger. 
 
ORDER OF THE EPISTLES OF THE CAPTIVITY. 
 
 including the resident members of the Roman Church, ‘but 
 especially they of the household of Cesar greet you’. If 
 Aristarchus and Luke were with him, they might well be com- 
 
 prehended in this general salutation. 
 
 probable account, I think, is, that he parted from St Paul at 
 Myra, and therefore did not arrive in Rome with the Apostle 
 
 but rejoined him there subsequently *. 
 
 If this be the case, the 
 
 absence of his name in the Philippian Epistle, so far as it de- 
 serves to be considered at all, makes rather for than against the 
 
 earlier date. 
 
 On the other hand St Luke certainly accom- 
 
 panied the Apostle to Rome: and his probable connexion with 
 
 1 Phil. iv. 21, 22. 
 
 2 §t Luke’s account is this: ‘Hm- 
 barking on an Adramyttian vessel, 
 intending to sail to (or along) the 
 coasts of Asia (μέλλοντες πλεῖν τοὺς 
 κατὰ τὴν ᾿Ασίαν τόπους) we put out to 
 sea, Aristarchus a Macedonian of Thes- 
 salonica being with us (Acts xxvii. 2).’ 
 When they arrived at Myra, the centu- 
 rion ‘found an Alexandrian vessel sail- 
 ing to Italy and put them (ἡμᾶς) on 
 board.’ Now it is generally (I believe, 
 universally) assumed that Aristarchus 
 accompanied St Paul and St Luke to 
 Rome. But what are the probabilities 
 of the case? The vessel in which they 
 start belongs to Adramyttium a sea- 
 port of Mysia. If they had remained 
 in this ship, as seems to have been their 
 original intention, they would have 
 hugged the coast of Asia, and at length 
 (perhaps taking another vessel at Adra- 
 myttium) have reached Macedonia : and 
 if they landed, as they probably would, 
 at Neapolis, they would have taken 
 the great Egnatian road through Phi- 
 lippi. Along this road they would have 
 travelled to Dyrrhachium and thence 
 have crossed the straits to Italy. Thus 
 a long voyage in the open seas would 
 have been avoided: a voyage peculiarly 
 dangerous at this late season of the 
 year, as the result proved. Such also, 
 at least from Smyrna onwards, was 
 
 the route of Ignatius, who likewise 
 was taken a prisoner to Rome and 
 appears also to have made this 
 journey late in the year. It was the 
 accident of falling in at Myra with an 
 Alexandrian ship sailing straight for 
 Italy which induced the centurion to 
 abandon his original design, for the 
 sake, as would appear, of greater ex- 
 pedition. But the historian adds when 
 mentioning this design, ‘one Aristar- 
 chus a Macedonian of Thessalonica 
 being with us.’ Does he not, by in- 
 serting this notice in this particular 
 place, intend his readers to understand 
 (or at least understand himself) that 
 Aristarchus accompanied them on the 
 former part of their route, because he 
 was on his way home? If so, when 
 their plans were changed at Myra, he 
 would part from them, continuing in 
 the Adramyttian vessel, and so reach 
 his destination. 
 
 I have hitherto given the received 
 text, μέλλοντες πλεῖν," 8.5 we were to sail.’ 
 The greater number of the best authori- 
 ties however read μέλλοντι πλεῖν ‘as it 
 (the vessel) was to sail.’ If the latter be 
 adopted, the passage is silent about the 
 purpose of the centurion and his pri- 
 soners, but the probable destination of 
 Aristarchus remains unaffected by the 
 change. The copies which read μέλ- 
 λοντι for the most part also insert 
 
 3—2 
 
 35 
 
 Of Aristarchus the most Aristar- 
 chus, 
 
 St Luke, 
 
36 
 
 3. Jour- 
 neys be- 
 tween Phi- 
 lippi and 
 Rome. 
 
 Four at 
 most are 
 required, 
 
 ORDER OF THE EPISTLES OF THE CAPTIVITY. 
 
 Philippi* suggests at least a presumption that he would be 
 mentioned by name, if he were still with St Paul. Again, when 
 in another passage” the Apostle declaring his intention of sending 
 Timotheus to Philippi adds that he has ‘no one like-minded 
 who will naturally care for them, for all pursue their own’ 
 pleasures and interests, we cannot suppose that ‘Luke the 
 beloved physician’ is included in this condemnation. It may 
 reasonably be conjectured however that St Luke had left Italy 
 to return thither at a later period, or that he was absent from 
 Rome on some temporary mission, or at least that he was too 
 busily occupied to undertake this journey to Philippi. Even if 
 we assume Rome to have been the head-quarters of the evan- 
 gelist during the whole of St Paul’s stay, there must have been 
 many churches in the neighbourhood and in more distant 
 parts of Italy which needed constant supervision; and after 
 Timotheus there was probably no one among the Apostle’s 
 companions to whom he could entrust any important mission 
 with equal confidence. 
 
 3. Again it is urged that the numerous communications 
 between Philippi and Rome implied by the notices in this 
 epistle in themselves demand a very considerable lapse of time 
 after the Apostle’s arrival. 
 
 The narrative however requires at most two journeys from 
 Rome to Philippi and two from Philippi to Rome; as fol- 
 lows. 
 
 (1) From Rome to Philippi. A messenger bears tidings to 
 
 the Philippians of St Paul’s arrival in Rome. 
 
 (2) From Philippi to Rome. The Philippians send contri- 
 
 butions to St Paul by the hand of Epaphroditus’*. 
 
 (3) From Rome to Philippi. A messenger arrives at the 
 
 latter place with tidings of Epaphroditus’ illness. 
 
 els before τοὺς κατὰ τὴν ᾿Ασίαν κιτλ. would be a temptation to alter μέλ- 
 It seems probable therefore that there λοντες in order to adapt it to subse- 
 has been a confusion between μέλ- quent facts. 
 
 λοντες and μέλλοντε els. The best 1 See below, pp. 53, 59- 
 
 authorities are certainly in favour of 2 Phil. ii. rg—21. 
 
 the latter. On the other hand there 3 Phil, ii, 25, iv. 18. 
 
ORDER OF THE EPISTLES OF THE CAPTIVITY. 
 
 (4) From Philippi to Rome. LEpaphroditus is infermed 
 that the news of his illness has reached the Philip- 
 pians*. 
 
 The return of Epaphroditus to Philippi cannot be reckoned 
 as a separate journey, for it seems clear that he was the bearer 
 of St Paul’s letter®. 
 
 I say four journeys at most; for the number may well be 
 halved without doing any violence to probability. As it has 
 been already stated*, St Luke’s narrative seems to imply that 
 Aristarchus parted from the Apostle at Myra, coasted along 
 Asia Minor, and so returned to his native town Thessalonica 
 by the Egnatian road. On his way he would pass through 
 Philippi, and from him the Philippians would learn that the 
 Apostle had been removed from Czesarea to Rome. Thus taking 
 into account the delay of several months occasioned by the ship- 
 wreck and the sojourn in Malta, Epaphroditus might well arrive 
 in Rome with the contributions from Philippi about the same 
 time with the Apostle himself; and this without any inconve- 
 nient hurry. On this supposition two of the four journeys 
 assumed to have taken place after St Paul’s arrival may be dis- 
 pensed with. Nor again does the expression ‘he was grieved 
 because ye heard that he was sick’ necessarily imply that Epa- 
 phroditus had received definite information that the tidings of 
 his illness had reached Philippi. He says nothing about the 
 manner in which the Philippians had received the news. The 
 Apostle’s language seems to require nothing more than that 
 a messenger had been despatched to Philippi with the tidings in 
 question. ‘This however is a matter of very little moment. On 
 any showing some months must have elapsed after St Paul’s 
 arrival, before the letter to the Philippians was written. And 
 this interval allows ample time for all the incidents, consider- 
 
 1 Phil. ti, 26 ἐπιποθῶν jv πάντας Philem. 11,12, where ἀνέπεμψα is said 
 ὑμᾶς [ἰδεῖν] καὶ ἀδημονῷν διότι ἠκούσατε of Onesimus the bearer of the letter. 
 ὅτι ἠσθένησεν. See the note on Gal. vi. 11. 
 
 3 Phil. ii. 25, 28, 29. The ἔπεμψα of 3 See above, p. 35, note 2.. 
 ver. 28 is an epistolary aorist: comp. 
 
 37 
 
 and this 
 number 
 may be 
 
 reduced. 
 
38 
 
 4.StPaul’s 
 personal 
 condition, 
 
 Contrast 
 with the 
 Acts, 
 
 and with 
 
 ORDER OF THE EPISTLES OF THE CAPTIVITY. 
 
 ing that the communication between Rome and Philippi was 
 constant and rapid’. 
 
 4. Lastly, it is urged that the general tone of the Epistle 
 to the Philippians accords better with a later stage of the Apo- 
 stle’s captivity. The degree of restraint now imposed upon the 
 prisoner appears to be inconsistent with the liberty implied in 
 the narrative of the Acts: the spirit of anxiety and sadness 
 which pervades the letter is thought to accord ill with a period 
 of successful labour. For these reasons the epistle is supposed 
 to have been written after those two years of unimpeded pro- 
 gress with which St Luke’s record closes, the Apostle having 
 been removed meanwhile from his own hired house to the 
 precincts of the pretorium, and placed in more rigorous con- 
 
 tinement. 
 
 And the view thus suggested by the contrast which this 
 
 1 A month would probably be a fair 
 allowance of time for the journey be- 
 tween Rome and Philippi. The distance 
 from Rome to Brundisium was 360 
 miles according to Strabo (vi. p. 283) or 
 358 according to the Antonine Itine- 
 rary (pp. 49, 51, 54, Parth. et Pind.). 
 The distance from Dyrrhachium to Phi- 
 lippi was the same within a few miles; 
 the journey from Dyrrhachium to Thes- 
 salonica being about 270 miles (267, 
 Polybius in Strabo vii. p. 323; 269, Itin. 
 Anton. p. 151; and 279, Tab. Peuting.), 
 and from Thessalonica to Philippi 100 
 miles (Itin. Anton. pp. 152, 157). The 
 present text of Pliny understates it at 
 328 miles, H. N. iv. 18. Ovid expects 
 his books to reach Rome from Brundi- 
 sium before the tenth day without hur- 
 rying (Ep. Pont. iv. 5.8 ‘ut festinatum 
 non faciatis iter’); while Horace mov- 
 ing very leisurely completes the dis- 
 tance in 16 days (Sat. i. 5). The voyage 
 between Dyrrhachium and Brundisium 
 ordinarily took a day: Cic. ad Ait. iv. 
 1; comp. Appian 1. p.269 (ed. Bekker). 
 The land transit on the Greek continent 
 would probably not occupy much more 
 
 time than on the Italian, the distances 
 being the same. Thiscalculation agrees 
 with the notices in Cicero’s letters, 
 Cicero (if the dates can be trusted) 
 leaves Brundisium on April 30th and 
 arrives at Thessalonica on May 23rd 
 (ad Att. iii. 8); but he travels leisurely 
 and appears to have been delayed on 
 the way. Again Atticus purposes start- 
 ing from Rome on June rst, and Cicero 
 writing from Thessalonica on the 13th 
 expects to see him ‘propediem’” (iii. 9). 
 Again Cicero writing from Thessalonica 
 on June 18th says that Atticus’ letter 
 has informed him of all that has hap- 
 pened at Rome up to May sth (111. 
 10). Lastly Cicero at Dyrrhachium re- 
 ceives on Nov. 27th a letter from Rome 
 dated Nov. 12th (iii. 23). The sea route 
 was more uncertain: but under fayour- 
 able circumstances would be quicker 
 than the journey by land, whether the 
 course was by the gulf of Corinth or 
 round the promontory of Malea. On 
 the rate of sailing among the ancients 
 see Friedlinder Sittengeschichte Roms 
 11. p. 12, to whom I owe some of the 
 above references. 
 
ORDER OF THE EPISTLES OF THE CAPTIVITY. 39 
 
 epistle offers to St Luke’s narrative is further supported by a the other 
 comparison with the other letters written during his captivity. ca 
 As distinguished from the remaining three, the Epistle to the 
 Philippians is thought to wear a gloomier aspect and to indicate 
 
 severer restraints and less hopeful prospects’. 
 
 At this point the aid of contemporary history is invoked. accounted 
 Have we not a sufficient account, it is asked, of the increased pastas 
 rigour of the Apostle’s confinement in the appointment of the history. 
 monster Tigellinus to succeed Burrus as commander of the 
 imperial guards? Must not the well-known Jewish sympathies 
 of Poppa, now all-powerful as the emperor’s consort, have 
 darkened his prospects at the approaching trial ? 
 
 The argument drawn from St Luke’s narrative has been Contrast 
 
 with the 
 Acts ex- 
 
 ble that the pretorium does not denote any locality, whether Plained. 
 the barracks on the Palatine or the camp without the city. 
 Even if a local meaning be adopted, still it is neither stated nor 
 implied that St Paul dwelt within the pretorium. If he did 
 dwell there, he might nevertheless have occupied ‘hired lodg- 
 ings. In the history, as in the letter, he is a prisoner in 
 
 partially and incidently met already*. It seems highly proba- 
 
 bonds, His external condition, as represented in the two 
 writings, in no way differs. In tone, it is true, there is a strong 
 contrast between St Luke’s account and the language of St 
 Paul himself: but this could hardly be otherwise. St Luke, 
 as the historian of the Church, views events in the retrospect 
 and deals chiefly with results, presenting the bright side of the 
 picture, the triumph of the Church. St Paul, as the individual 
 sufferer, writing at the moment and reflecting the agony of 
 the struggle, paints the scene in darker colours, dwelling on his 
 own sorrows. The Apostle’s sufferings were in a great degree 
 mental—the vexation of soul stirred up by unscrupulous op- 
 position—the agony of suspense under his impending trial— 
 his solicitude for the churches under his care—his sense of 
 
 1 So Alford (Prol. §iii. 5). But  alacriorque et blandior ceteris.’ 
 Bengel, ‘summa epistole, gaudeo, 2 Above, p. 9, and on ‘pretorium’ 
 gaudere’; and Grotius,‘Epistolaletior ini. 13. 
 
40 
 
 ORDER OF THE EPISTLES OF THE CAPTIVITY. 
 
 | responsibility—his yearning desire to depart and be with Christ. 
 
 Contrast 
 with the 
 other epi- 
 stles con- 
 sidered. 
 
 The argu- 
 ment neu- 
 tralised by 
 other pas- 
 sages. 
 
 It was impossible that the historian should reproduce this state 
 of feeling : he has not done so in other cases’. 
 
 And again: comparing the language of the Philippian letter 
 with the other epistles, it is difficult to see anything more than 
 those oscillations of feeling which must be experienced daily 
 under trying circumstances of responsibility or danger. All 
 these epistles alike reveal alternations of joy and sadness, 
 moments of depression and moments of exaltation, successive 
 waves of hope and fear. If the tone of one epistle is less cheer- 
 ful than another, this is a very insecure foundation on which 
 to build the hypothesis of an entire change in the prisoner's 
 condition. 
 
 Moreover arguments are sometimes alleged for the later 
 date of the Philippian letter, which, though advanced for the 
 same purpose, in reality neutralise those already considered. 
 It is no longer to the prevailing gloom, but to the hopefulness 
 of the Philippian letter, that the appeal is made. The Apostle 
 is looking forward to his approaching trial and deliverance. He 
 knows confidently that he shall abide and continue with the 
 Philippians for their furtherance and joy of the faith: ‘their 
 rejoicing will abound by his coming to see them again*’; he 
 ‘trusts in the Lord that he shall visit them shortly*’? Such 
 passages are, I think, a complete answer to those who represent 
 the sadness of this epistle as in strong contrast to the brighter 
 tone of the other three. Yet considered in themselves they 
 might seem to imply the near approach of his trial, and so 
 to favour the comparatively late date of the epistle. But here 
 again we must pause. These expressions, even if as strong, are 
 not stronger than the language addressed to Philemon, when the 
 Apostle bids his friend ‘prepare him a lodging, hoping that 
 ‘through their prayers he shall be given to them*’ At many 
 times doubtless during his long imprisonment, he expected his 
 
 1 Compare for instance the agony of passioned account of the same period 
 feeling expressed in the opening chap- in St Luke. 
 ters of the Second Hpistle to the 2 Phil. i. 25, 26. 
 Corinthians with the calm and unim- 3 Phil, ii, 24. 4 Philem. 22. 
 
 4 
 
 
 
ORDER OF THE HPISTLES OF THE CAPTIVITY. Al 
 
 trial to come on. His life at this time was a succession of broken 
 hopes and weary delays. 
 
 If this be so, we need not stop long to enquire how the Political 
 political changes already noticed might possibly have affected ae 
 St Paul’s condition. A prisoner so mean in the eyes of the wee a 
 Roman world, a despised provincial, a religious fanatic—like 
 Festus, they would see nothing more in him than this—was 
 beneath the notice of a Tigellinus, intent on more ambitious and 
 grander crimes. More plausible is the idea that Poppa, insti- 
 gated by the Jews, might have prejudiced the emperor against 
 an offender whom they hated with a bitter hatred. Doubtless 
 she might have done so. But, if she had interfered at all, why 
 should she have been satisfied with delaying his trial or increas- 
 ing his restraints, when she might have procured his condemna- 
 tion and death? The hand reeking with the noblest blood of 
 Rome would hardly refuse at her bidding to strike down a poor 
 foreigner, who was almost unknown and would certainly be un- 
 avenged. From whatever cause, whether from ignorance or 
 caprice or indifference or disdain, her influence, we may safely 
 conclude, was not exerted to the injury of the Apostle. 
 
 Such are the grounds on which the Epistle to the Philip- rhe Jater 
 pians has been assigned to a later date than the others written ane 
 from Rome. So far from establishing this conclusion they seem ed. 
 to afford at most a very slight presumption in its favour. On 
 the other hand certain considerations have been overlooked, 
 which in the absence of direct evidence on the opposite side are 
 
 entitled to a hearing. They are founded on a comparison of the Arcument 
 
 for the 
 earlier 
 
 ceding and the following groups—with the letters of the third 4#e- 
 Apostolic journey on the one side, and the Pastoral Epistles 
 
 style and matter of these epistles with the epistles of the pre- 
 
 on the other. The inference from such a comparison, if I mis- 
 take not, is twofold; we are led to place the Epistle to the 
 Philippians as early as possible, and the Epistles to the Colos- 
 sians and Ephesians as late as possible, consistently with other 
 known facts and probabilities. 
 1. The characteristic features of its group are less strongly ,, Reasons 
 
42 
 
 for placing 
 the Phi- 
 lippians 
 early, 
 
 Resem- 
 blance to 
 the earlier 
 
 group, 
 
 especially 
 to the 
 Romans. 
 
 ORDER OF THE EPISTLES OF THE CAPTIVITY. 
 
 marked in the Epistle to the Philippians than in the others. 
 Altogether in style and tone, as well as in its prominent ideas, 
 it bears a much greater resemblance to the earlier letters, than 
 do the Epistles to the Colossians and Ephesians’. Thus it 
 forms the link which connects these two epistles with those of 
 the third apostolic journey. It represents an epoch of transition 
 in the religious controversies of the age, or to speak more cor- 
 rectly, a momentary lull, a short breathing space, when one an- 
 tagonistic error has been fought and overcome, and another is 
 dimly foreseen in the future. The Apostle’s great battle hitherto 
 has been with Pharisaic Judaism; his great weapon the doctrine 
 of grace. In the Epistle to the Philippians we have the spent 
 wave of this controversy. In the third chapter the Apostle 
 dwells with something like his former fulness on the contrast 
 of faith and law, on the true and the false circumcision, on his 
 own personal experiences as illustrating his theme. Henceforth 
 when he touches on these topics, he will do so briefly and in- 
 cidentally. Even now in his apostolic teaching, as in his inner 
 life, he is ‘forgetting those things which are behind and reach- 
 ing forth unto those things which are before.’ A new type of 
 error is springing up—more speculative and less practical in its 
 origin—which in one form or other mainly occupies his attention 
 throughout the Epistles to the Colossians and Ephesians and 
 the Pastoral Epistles; and which under the distinctive name of 
 Gnosticism in its manifold and monstrous developments will 
 disturb the peace of the Church for two centuries to come. 
 
 But of all the earlier letters it most nearly resembles the 
 Hpistle to the Romans, to which according to the view here 
 
 maintained it stands next in chronological order. At least I do 
 
 1 This fact is reflected in the opi- is instructive. The special character- 
 
 nions entertained respecting the genu- 
 ineness of these epistles. While the 
 authorship of the Hpistle to the Phi- 
 lippians has been questioned only by 
 the most extravagant criticism, more 
 temperate writers have hesitated to 
 aecept the Colossians and Ephesians. 
 This hesitation, though unwarranted, 
 
 istics of the main group (1, 2 Corinth- 
 ians, Galatians, Romans) have been 
 taken as the standard of the Apostle’s 
 style, when they rather indicate a par- 
 ticular phase in it. The Epistle to 
 the Philippians has been spared be- 
 cause it reproduces these features more 
 nearly than the other two. 
 
ORDER OF THE EPISTLES OF THE CAPTIVITY. 
 
 not think that so many and so close parallels can be produced 
 with any other epistle, as the following : 
 
 PHILIPPIANS. 
 
 (1) i. 3, 4, 7,8. I thank my 
 God in every mention of you at 
 all times in every request of mine 
 ...as ye all are partakers with me 
 in grace (τῆς χάριτος) : for God is 
 my witness, how I long for you 
 all in the bowels of Christ Jesus. 
 
 (2) 1. το. That ye may ap- 
 prove the things that are excel- 
 ‘lent. 
 
 (3) ii. 8, 9, 10, 11. He became 
 obedient unto death...wherefore 
 God also highly exalted Him... 
 that in the name of Jesus every 
 knee may bow of things in hea- 
 ven and things on earth and 
 things under the earth, and every 
 tongue may confess that Jesus 
 Christ is Lord, &c. 
 
 (4) 11. 2—4. That ye may 
 have the same mind, having the 
 same love, united in soul, having 
 one mind: (Do) nothing in fac- 
 tiousness or vainglory, 
 
 but in humility holding one 
 another superior to yourselves. 
 
 (5) ii. 3. For we are the 
 circumcision, 
 
 who serve (λατρεύοντες) by the 
 Spirit of God (θεοῦ v. 1. θεῷ), 
 and boast in Christ Jesus... 
 
 4; 5. 1 any other thinketh 
 
 1 The idea of the spiritual λατρεία 
 appears again Rom. xii. 1, τὴν λογικὴν 
 λατρείαν ὑμῶν, where this moral service 
 of the Gospel is tacitly contrasted with 
 the ritual service of the law, as the 
 
 RomAns. 
 
 re Ὁ Ξ 1 τὶ 
 
 all...for God is my witness...how 
 incessantly I make mention of 
 you...at all times in my prayers 
 making request...for I long to see 
 you, that I may impart some spi- 
 ritual grace (χάρισμα) to you. 
 
 ii. 18. Thou approvest the 
 things that are excellent. 
 
 xiv. 9, 11. For hereunto Christ 
 died and lived (i.e. rose again), 
 that he may be Lord both of the 
 dead and of the living...For it 
 is written, I live, saith the Lord: 
 for in me every knee shall bow 
 and every tongue shall confess 
 unto God (Is. xlv. 23, 24). 
 
 xii. 16—19. Having the same 
 mind towards one another: not 
 minding high things...Be not 
 wise in your own conceits (φρό- 
 νιμοι παρ᾽ éavrois)...having peace 
 with all men: not avenging your- 
 selves. 
 
 10. In honour holding one 
 another in preference. 
 
 il, 28. For the (circumcision) 
 manifest in the flesh is not cir- 
 cumcision...but circumcision of 
 the heart. 
 
 i. 9. God whom I serve (Aa- 
 Tpevw) in my spirit’. 
 
 v. 11. Boasting in God through 
 our Lord Jesus Christ. 
 
 xi. 1. For I also am an Is- 
 
 living sacrifice to the dead victim. 
 Compare also James i. 27 θρησκεία κα- 
 θαρὰ καὶ ἀμίαντος κιτ.λ. See the notes 
 on Phil. iii. 3. 
 
 First I thank my Parallel 
 God through Jesus Christ for you passages. 
 
44 
 
 Parallel 
 passages. 
 
 ORDER OF THE EPISTLES OF THE CAPTIVITY. 
 
 PHILIPPIANS. 
 
 to trust in the flesh, I more:... 
 of the race of Israel, the tribe of 
 Benjamin. 
 
 (6) iii, 9. Not having my 
 own righteousness which is of 
 law, but that which is through 
 faith of Christ, the righteousness 
 of God in faith... 
 
 10, 11. Being made conform- 
 able (συμμορφιζόμενος) unto His 
 death, if by any means I may at- 
 tain unto the resurrection from 
 the dead : 
 
 21. That it may become con- 
 formable (σύμμορφον) to the body 
 of His glory. 
 
 07) Tas τὸ: 
 destruction, 
 
 whose God is their belly. 
 
 Whose end is 
 
 (8) iv. 18. Having received 
 from Epaphroditus the (gifts) 
 from you, an odour of a sweet 
 savour, a sacrifice acceptable, 
 well-pleasing to God. 
 
 RoMANS. 
 
 raelite, of the seed of Abraham, 
 the tribe of Benjamin. 
 
 x. 3. Ignorant of the righte- 
 ousness of God, and seeking to 
 establish their own (righteous- 
 ness). 
 
 ix. 31, 32. Pursuing a law of 
 righteousness...not of faith, but 
 as of works. 
 
 vi. 5. For if we have been 
 planted (σύμῴφυτοι γεγόναμεν) in 
 the likeness of His death, then 
 shall we be also of His resurrec- 
 tion. vill. 29. He foreordained 
 them conformable (συμμόρφους) 
 to the image of His Son. 
 
 vi. 21. For the end of those 
 things is death. 
 xvi. 18. They serve not our 
 
 Lord Christ but their own belly. 
 
 xii. 1. To present your bodies 
 a living sacrifice, holy, well-pleas- 
 ing to God. 
 
 Some verbal coincidences besides might be pointed out, on 
 which however no stress can be laid’. 
 
 2. But if these resemblances suggest as early a date for 
 
 1 [have observed the following words 
 and expressions common to these two 
 epistles and not occurring elsewhere 
 in the New Testament; ἀποκαραδοκία, 
 Rom. viii. 19, Phil. 1. 20; ἄχρι τοῦ νῦν, 
 Rom. viii. 22, Phil. 1. 5; ἐξ ἐριθείας, 
 Rom. ii. 8, Phil.i. 16; σύμμορφος, Rom. 
 vill. 29, Phil. iii. 213 προσδέχεσθαι ἐν 
 Kuply, Rom. xvi. 2, Phil. ii, 29; besides 
 one or two which occur in the parallels 
 quoted in the text. Compare also Rom. 
 xiv. 14 olda καὶ πέπεισμαι, with Phil. 
 i. 25 τοῦτο πεποιθὼς οἶδα. The follow- 
 ing are found in St Paul in these two 
 
 epistles only, though occurring else- 
 where inthe New Testament; ἀκέραιος, 
 Rom. xvi. 19, Phil. ii. 15 (comp. Matt. 
 x. 16); ἐπιζητεῖν, Rom. xi. 7, Phil. iv. 
 17 (common elsewhere); λειτουργός, 
 Rom. xiii. 6, xv. 16, Phil. ii. 25 (comp. 
 Heb. i. 7, viii. 2); ὀκνηρός, Rom. xii. 
 11, Phil. iii. r (comp. Matt. xxv. 26); 
 ὑπερέχειν, Rom. xiii. 1, Phil. ii. 3, iii. 
 8, iv. 7 (comp. 1 Pet. ii. 13); ὁμοίωμα, 
 Rom.1. 23, Ὁ. 14; σἱ- ἢ; Ὑ11: 5, ἘΠῚ 
 ii. 7 (comp. Rev. ix. 7); and perhaps 
 pevodvye, Rom. ix. 20, x. 18, Phil. iii. 
 8 (comp. Luke xi, 28). 
 
ORDER OF THE EPISTLES OF THE CAPTIVITY. 45 
 
 the Epistle to the Philippians as circumstances will allow, there 2. Reasons 
 are yet more cogent reasons for placing the others as late as re 
 possible. The letters to the Colossians and Ephesians—the Fear 
 latter more especially—exhibit an advanced stage in the de- 
 velopment of the Church. The heresies, which the Apostle 
 here combats, are no longer the crude, materialistic errors of 
 the early childhood of Christianity, but the more subtle specu- 
 lations of its maturer age. The doctrine which he preaches is 
 not now the ‘milk for babes, but the ‘strong meat’ for grown 
 men. He speaks to his converts no more ‘as unto carnal’ but 
 ‘as unto spiritual’ In the letter to the Ephesians especially 
 his teaching soars to the loftiest height, as he dwells on the 
 mystery of the Word and of the Church. Here too we find 
 the earliest reference to a Christian hymn’, showing that the 
 devotion of the Church was at length finding expression in set 
 forms of words. In both ways these epistles bridge over the 
 gulf which separates the Pastoral letters from the Apostle’s 
 earlier writings. The heresies of the Pastoral letters are the 
 heresies of the Colossians and Ephesians grown rank and cor- 
 rupt. The solitary quotation already mentioned is the precursor 
 of the not infrequent references to Christian formularies in these 
 latest of the Apostle’s writings. And in another respect also 
 the sequence is continuous, if this view of the relative dates be 
 accepted. The directions relating to ecclesiastical government, 
 which are scattered through the Pastoral Epistles, are the out- 
 ward correlative, the practical sequel to the sublime doctrine of 
 the Church first set forth in its fulness in the Epistle to the 
 Ephesians. A few writers have questioned the genuineness of 
 the letters to the Colossians and Ephesians, many more of the 
 Pastoral Epistles. They have done so chiefly on the ground 
 that these writings present a later stage of Christian thought 
 and organization, than the universally acknowledged letters of 
 St Paul. External authority, supported by internal evidence 
 of various kinds, bids us stop short of this conclusion. But, if 
 
 1 Hphes. v. 14, διὸ λέγει Kal ἀνάστα ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν 
 Ἔγειρε ὁ καθεύδων Καὶ ἐπιφαύσει σοι ὁ Χριστός. 
 
46 
 
 ORDER OF THE EPISTLES OF THE CAPTIVITY. 
 
 we refuse to accept the inference, we can hardly fail to re- 
 cognise the facts which suggested it. These facts are best met 
 by placing the Epistles to the Colossians and Ephesians late in 
 St Paul’s first Roman captivity, so as to separate them as 
 widely as possible from the earlier epistles, and by referring 
 the Pastoral letters to a still later date towards the close of 
 the Apostle’s life. 
 
IIL. 
 
 THE CHURCH OF PHILIPPI. 
 
 HILIPPI' was founded by the great Macedonian king, Natural 
 whose name it bears, on or near the site of the ancient peg 
 Crenides, ‘ Wells’ or ‘Fountains®’ Its natural advantages were Philippi. 
 considerable. In the neighbourhood were gold and silver mines 
 which had been worked in very early times by the Phcenicians 
 and afterwards by the Thasians*. The plain moreover on which 
 
 it was situated, washed by the Gangites a tributary of the 
 
 Strymon, was and is remarkable for its fertility*. 
 But the circumstance, to which even more than to its rich 
 soil and mineral treasures Philippi owed its importance, was its 
 
 1 On the geography and antiquities 
 of Philippi, see Cousinéry Voyage dans 
 la Macédoine τι p. τ sq. (1831); Leake 
 Northern Greece 111 p. 214 sq. (1835) ; 
 and more recently two short papers by 
 Perrot inthe Revue Archéologique (1860) 
 Il. p. 44.8q., p. 67 sq., entitled Daton, 
 Néopolis, les mines de Philippes. A 
 work of great importance was com- 
 menced under the auspices of the late 
 French Emperor, Mission Archéologi- 
 que de Macédoine, by MM. Heuzey 
 and Daumet; of which the part re- 
 lating to Philippi and the neighbour- 
 hood has appeared (1869). Besides 
 several unpublished inscriptions it 
 contains what appears to be a very 
 careful map of the site of the town 
 and district. 
 
 ? Diod. Sic. xvi. 3, 8; Strabo vii. 
 P- 331; Appian Bell. Civ. iv. p. 105 
 
 of δὲ Φίλιπποι πόλις ἐστὶν ἣ Adros 
 ὠνομάζετο πάλαι καὶ ἸΚζρηνίδες ἔτι πρὸ 
 Δάτου, κρῆναι γάρ εἰσι περὶ τῷ λόφῳ 
 ναμάτων πολλαί κιτιλ. Appian how- 
 ever is wrong in identifying Crenides 
 and Philippi with Datos or Daton, 
 though his statement is copied by more 
 than one recent writer. The site of 
 this last-mentioned place was near to 
 Neapolis: see Leake p. 223 sq., Per- 
 rot p. 46, Miss. Archéol. p. 60 sq. 
 
 3 On the mines of Philippi see 
 Boeckh’s Public Economy of Athens 
 p. 8 (Engl. trans.), Miss. Archéol. p. 4, 
 Ρ. 55 8d. 
 
 1. Cousinéry 1. p. 5, ‘Les produits 
 seraient immenses si l’activité et Vin- 
 dustrie des habitans répondaient ἃ la 
 libéralité de la nature’; see also Perrot 
 Pp. 49: comp, Athen. xv. p. 682 B, Ap- 
 pian iv. p. 105. 
 
48 
 
 Tts geogra- 
 phical im- 
 portance. 
 
 Its mines 
 exhausted. 
 
 THE CHURCH OF PHILIPPI 
 
 geographical position, commanding the great high road between 
 Europe and Asia. The almost continuous mountain barrier 
 between the East and West is here depressed so as to form 
 a gateway for this thoroughfare of the two continents’. It was 
 this advantage of position which led Philip to fortify the site of 
 the ancient Crenides. It was this which marked out the place 
 as the battle-field where the destinies of the Empire were 
 decided. It was this, lastly, which led the conqueror to plant 
 a Roman colony on the scene of his triumph. 
 
 Neither to its productive soil nor to its precious metals can 
 we trace any features which give a distinctive character to the 
 early history of the Gospel at Philippi. Its fertility it shared 
 with many other scenes of the Apostle’s labours. Its mineral 
 wealth appears at this time to have been almost, if not wholly, 
 drained. The mines had passed successively into the hands of 
 the three prerogative powers of civilised Europe, the Athenians, 
 the Macedonians, and the Romans. Even before Philip founded 
 
 his city, the works had been discontinued on account of the 
 
 scanty yield. By his order they were reopened, and a large 
 revenue was extracted from them®. But he seems to have 
 taxed their productive power to the utmost; for during the 
 
 Roman occupation we hear but little of them*. 
 
 1 Brutus and Cassius pitched their 
 camps somewherein the neighbourhood 
 of the pass on two eminences which 
 stand on either side of the road. Ap- 
 pian, iv. p. 106, describing their posi- 
 tion says, τὸ δὲ μέσον τῶν λόφων, τὰ 
 ὀκτὼ στάδια, δίοδος ἣν ἐς τὴν ᾿Ασίαν τε 
 καὶ Ἑϊὐρώπην, καθάπερ πύλαι: see Miss. 
 Archéol. p. τοῦ sq. The pass itself is 
 formed by a depression in the ridge of 
 Symbolum, so called because it bridges 
 together the higher mountains on 
 either side, Pangeum to the west and 
 the continuation of Hemus to the east. 
 The ridge of Symbolum thus separates 
 the plain of the Gangites from the sea- 
 board, and must be crossed in visiting 
 Philippi from Neapolis: Dion Cass. 
 
 xlvii. 35 Σύμβολον τὸ χωρίον ὀνομάζουσι 
 καθ᾽ ὃ τὸ ὄρος ἐκεῖνο (i.e. ἸΠαγγαῖον) 
 ἑτέρῳ τινὶ ἐς μεσόγειαν ἀνατείνοντι συμ- 
 βάλλει, καὶ ἔστι μεταξὺ Νέας πόλεως καὶ 
 Φιλίππων" ἡ μὲν γὰρ πρὸς θαλάσσῃ καὶ 
 ἀντιπέρας Θάσου ἣν, ἡ δὲ ἐντὸς τῶν ὀρῶν 
 ἐπὶ τῷ πεδίῳ πεπόλισται; see Leake 
 p- 217. The distance from Neapolis to 
 Philippi is given by Appian (iv. 106) as 
 70 stadia, by the Jerus. Itin. (p. 321, 
 Wess.) as ro miles (not 9, as stated by 
 MM. Heuzey and Daumet), and by the 
 Antonin. Itin. (p.603, Wess.) as 12 miles. 
 A recent measurement makes it from 
 12 to 13 kilométres (Mission Archéolo- 
 gique p. 19), i.e. about 9 Roman miles. 
 
 2 Diod. Sic. xvi. 8. 
 
 3 On the working of the Macedonian 
 
 
 
THE CHURCH OF PHILIPPI 49 
 
 On the other hand the position of Philippi as a thorough- Its mixed 
 fare for the traffic of nations invests St Paul’s preaching here ate A 
 with a peculiar interest. To this circumstance may be ascribed 
 the great variety of types among the first Philippian converts, 
 which is one of the most striking and most instructive features 
 in this portion of the narrative. We are standing at the con- 
 fluence of the streams of European and Asiatic life: we see 
 reflected in the evangelization of Philippi, as in a mirror, the 
 history of the passage of Christianity from the Hast to the 
 West. 
 
 It was in the course of his second missionary journey, gt Panl’s 
 about the year 52, that St Paul first visited Philippi. His “τοὺ vs! 
 associates were Silas who had accompanied him from Jeru- 
 salem*, Timotheus whom they had taken up at Lystra’, and 
 Luke who had recently joined the party at Troas*, At this 
 last-mentioned place the Apostle’s eyes were at length opened 
 to the import of those mysterious checks and impulses which 
 had brought him to a seaport lying opposite to the European 
 coast. ‘A man of Macedonia’ appeared in a night vision, and 
 revealed to him the work which the ‘Spirit of Jesus*’ had 
 designed for him. Forthwith he sets sail for Europe. His 
 zeal is seconded by wind and wave, and the voyage is made 
 with unwonted speed®. Landing at Neapolis he makes no 
 halt there, but presses forward to fulfil his mission. A 
 mountain range still lies between him and his work. Fol- 
 lowing the great Egnatian road he surmounts this barrier, 
 and the plain of Philippi, the first city in Macedonia, lies 
 
 mines generally under the Romans, see 
 Becker and Marquardt Rim. Alterth. 
 Ill. 2, p. 144. I have not found any 
 mention of those of Philippi after the 
 Christian era. Thepassages in ancient 
 writers referring to mining operations 
 are collected in J. and L. Sabatier 
 Production de VOr etc. (St Petersburg, 
 1850) Ῥ. 5 84. 
 
 1 Acts xv. 40. 
 
 * Acts xvi. 1, 3. 
 
 PHIL. 
 
 3 Compare Acts xvi. 8 κατέβησαν 
 εἰς Τρῳάδα, with xvi. 10 εὐθέως ἐζητή- 
 σαμεν ἐξελθεῖν εἰς τὴν Μακεδονίαν. 
 
 4 Acts xvi. 7 τὸ πνεῦμα Ἰησοῦ, the 
 correct reading. 
 
 5 Acts xvi. 11 εὐθυδρομήσαμεν els 
 Σαμοθρᾷκην, τῇ δὲ ἐπιούσῃ εἰς Νεάπολιν. 
 On a later occasion the voyage from 
 Neapolis to Troas takes five days, Acts 
 Koha 
 
50 
 
 Two fea- 
 tures in 
 St Luke’s 
 account. 
 
 1. Philippi 
 a Roman 
 colony. 
 
 THE CHURCH OF PHILIPPI. 
 
 at his feet’, 
 message. 
 
 Here he establishes himself and delivers his 
 
 Before considering the circumstances and results of this 
 mission, it will be necessary to direct attention to two features 
 in the actual condition of Philippi which appear on the face 
 of St Luke’s narrative and are not without their influence on 
 the progress of the Gospel—its political status and its resident 
 
 Jewish population. 
 
 1. Appreciating its strategical importance of which he had 
 had recent experience, Augustus founded at Philippi a Roman 
 military colony with the high-sounding name ‘Colonia Augusta 
 
 1 This is the probable explanation 
 of the expression in Acts xvi. 12, ἥτις 
 ἐστὶν πρώτη τῆς μερίδος, Μακεδονίας πό- 
 Xs, κολωνία, ‘for this is the first place 
 in the country (or district), a city of 
 Macedonia, a colony.’ The clause ex- 
 plains why the Apostle did not halt at 
 Neapolis. Though the political fron- 
 tier might not be constant, the natural 
 boundary between Thrace and Mace- 
 donia was the mountain range already 
 described: see p. 48, note 1. Thus, 
 while Philippi is almost universally as- 
 signed to Macedonia, Neapolis is gene- 
 rally spoken of as a Thracian town, 
 e.g. in Scylax (Geog. Min. τ. p. 54, ed. 
 Miiller): see Rettig Quest. Philipp. 
 p. 10 sq. The reading of Acts xvi. 
 12, which I have given, seems the best 
 supported, as well as the most expres- 
 sive: the first τῆς (before μερίδος) ought 
 probably to be retained, being omitted 
 only by B, besides some copies which 
 leave out μερίδος also; the second (be- 
 fore Μακεδονίας) to be rejected, as it 
 is wanting in a majority of the best 
 copies: but these variations do not af- 
 fect the general sense of the passage. 
 For the expression compare Polyb. ii. 
 16. 2 μέχρι πόλεως Πίσης, ἢ πρώτη 
 κεῖται τῆς Τυρρηνίας ὡς πρὸς τὰς δυσμάς, 
 and vy. 80. 3 ἣ κεῖται μετὰ ἹΡινοκόλουρα, 
 πρώτη τῶν κατὰ κοίλην Συοίαν πόλεων, 
 
 κιτιλ., quoted by Rettig pp. 7, 8. For 
 μερὶς compare μεριδάρχης, Joseph. Ant. 
 ΧΙ ie Top 
 
 Thus πρώτη describes the geographi- 
 cal position of Philippi. All attempts to 
 explain the epithet of its political rank 
 have failed. In no sense was it a ‘chief 
 town.’So far as we know, Thessalonica 
 was all along the general capital of 
 Macedonia; and if this particular dis- 
 trict had still a separate political ex- 
 istence, the centre of government was 
 not Philippi but Amphipolis. Noragain 
 can it be shown that πρώτη was ever 
 assumed as a mere honorary title by 
 any cityin Greece or Macedonia, though 
 common in Asia Minor. On this latter 
 point Marquardt, in Becker Rém. Al- 
 terth. 11. 1. p. 118, seems to be in error 
 when he states that Thessalonica was 
 styled πρώτη Μακεδόνων : he has mis- 
 interpreted the inscription mentioned 
 in Boeckh no. 1967; see Leake 11. pp. 
 214, 483, 486. The correction πρώτης 
 μερίδος for πρώτη τῆς μερίδος might 
 deserve some consideration, though un- 
 supported by any external evidence, 
 if it were at all probable that the ori- 
 ginal division of Macedonia by the Ro- 
 mans into four provinces was still re- 
 cognised; but it seems to have been 
 abandoned long before this date; see 
 Leake m1. p. 487. 
 
THE CHURCH OF PHILIPPI. 
 
 Julia Philippensis’.’ At the same time he conferred upon it 
 the special privilege of the ‘jus Italicum’’ A colony is de- 
 scribed by an ancient writer as a miniature likeness of the 
 great Roman people®; and this character is fully borne out 
 by the account of Philippi in the apostolic narrative. The 
 political atmosphere of the place is wholly Roman. The chief 
 magistrates, more strictly designated duumvirs, arrogate to 
 themselves the loftier title of pretors*. Their servants, like 
 the attendant officers of the highest functionaries in Rome, 
 
 bear the name of lictors®. 
 
 1 Plin. N. H. iv. 18 ‘Intus Philippi 
 colonia.’ See the coins in Kckhel τι. 
 p. 76, Mionnet 1. p. 486; Orell. Inser. 
 512. Inone instance at least ‘ Victrix’ 
 seems to be added to this title, Mission 
 Archéologique p. 17. According to 
 Dion Cass. li. 4, Augustus ridded 
 himself of troublesome neighbours by 
 transplanting to Philippi and other co- 
 lonies the inhabitants of those Italian 
 towns which had espoused the cause of 
 Antonius. 
 
 2 Dig. u. 15. On the ‘jus Italicum’ 
 see Becker and Marquardt Rim, Al- 
 terth. 11. 1. p. 261 sq. 
 
 3 Gell. xvi. 13 ‘Populi Romani, cujus 
 iste colonise quasi effigies parve simu- 
 lacraque esse quedam videntur.’ 
 
 4 Acts xvi. 19, 22, 35, 36, 38. The 
 same persons who are first designated 
 generally ‘the magistrates’ (ἄρχοντες, 
 ver. 19) are afterwards called by their 
 distinctive title ‘the pretors’ (στρατη- 
 yol). It is a mistake to suppose that 
 the prisoners were handed over by the 
 civil authorities (dpxovres) to the mili- 
 tary (στρατηγοί) to be tried. The chief 
 magistrates of a colony were styled 
 ‘ duumviri juri dicundo,’ or ‘ duumviri’ 
 simply. On their functions see Savigny 
 Gesch. ἃ. R. R. τ. p. 30 54., with other 
 references in Becker and Marquardt 
 Rom, Alterth. 11. 1. p. 352. Aduumvir 
 
 The pride and privilege of Roman 
 citizenship confront us at every turn. 
 
 This is the sentiment 
 
 of Philippi appears on an inscription, 
 Orell. no. 3746 C. VIBIVS C. F. VOL. 
 FLORVS . DEC. IIVIR. ET . MVNE- 
 RARIVS. PHILIPPIS.FIL. CAR. C.; 
 another on a monument at Neapolis, 
 Mission Archéologique Ὁ. 15 [DECV] 
 RIONATVS . ET . IIVIRALICIS . 
 PONTIFEX FLAMEN DIVI 
 CLAVDI . PHILIPPIS. See also a 
 mutilated inscription, ib. p.127 II[VIR. 
 J[VJR.DIC.PHILIPPIS. The second 
 must have been contemporary with St 
 Paul. On the practice of assuming the 
 title of ‘praetor’ see Cicero de Leg. 
 Agr. ii. 34 ‘Vidi, quum venissem 
 Capuam, coloniam deductam L. Con- 
 sidioetSext. Saltio (quemadmodum ip- 
 si loquebantur) pretoribus: ut intelli- 
 gatis quantam locus ipse afferat super- 
 biam...Nam primum, id quod dixi, 
 quum ceteris in coloniis duumviri ap- 
 pellentur, hi se preetoresappellari yolu- 
 erunt.’ This assumption however was 
 by no means exceptional even in Italy 
 (see Orell. Inser. 3785, Hor. Sat.i.5. 34, 
 and notes); and where some Greek title 
 was necessary,as at Philippi, στρατηγοὶ 
 would naturally be adopted. See Cure- 
 ton’s Anc. Syr. Doc. p. 188. Another 
 inscription (Orell. no. 4064) mentions a 
 MAG. QVINQVENN. (quinquennalis), 
 i.e. a censor, at Philippi. 
 5 ῥαβδοῦχοι, Acts xvi. 35, 38. 
 
 2 
 
 51 
 
52 
 
 2. The 
 Jews of 
 Philippi. 
 
 THE CHURCH OF PHILIPPI. 
 
 which stimulates the blind loyalty of the people’: this is 
 the power which obtains redress for the prisoners and forces 
 an apology from the unwilling magistrates*. Nor is this feature 
 entirely lost sight of, when we turn from St Luke’s narrative 
 to St Paul’s epistle. Addressing a Roman colony from the 
 Roman metropolis, writing as a citizen to citizens, he recurs to 
 the political franchise as an apt symbol of the higher privileges 
 of their heavenly calling, to the political life as a suggestive 
 metaphor for the duties of their Christian profession’. 
 
 2. On this, as on all other occasions, the Gospel is first 
 offered to the Jews. Their numbers at Philippi appear to have 
 been very scanty. St Paul found no synagogue here, as at 
 Thessalonica and Bercea. The members of the chosen race met 
 together for worship every week at a ‘place of prayer’ outside 
 the city gate on the banks of the Gangites*; The Apostle 
 appears to have had no precise information of the spot*, but 
 the common practice of his countrymen would suggest the 
 suburbs of the city, and the river-side especially, as a likely 
 place for these religious gatherings®, Thither accordingly he 
 repaired with his companions on the first sabbath day after 
 
 their arrival. To the women assembled he delivered his mes- 
 
 1 Acts xvi. 21 ‘And teach customs 
 which it is not lawful for us to receive 
 neither to observe, being Romans.’ 
 
 2 Acts xvi. 37—39. 
 
 3 Phil. i. 27 μόνον ἀξίως τοῦ εὐαγγε- 
 Mov τοῦ Χριστοῦ πολιτεύεσθε, ill. 20 
 ἡμῶν yap τὸ πολίτευμα ἐν οὐρανοῖς 
 ὑπάρχει. 
 
 4 Acts xvi. 13 παρὰ ποταμόν. This 
 river was the Gangas or Gangites (Ap- 
 pian iv. p. 106 ὃν Tdyyav τινές, οἱ δὲ 
 Ταγγίτην, λέγουσι) whose sources are 
 near to Philippi and probably gave its 
 name to Crenides, As this river is 
 called by Herodotus, vii. 113, ᾿ΑὙγίτης, 
 and now bears the name Anghista, it 
 would appear that the initial consonant 
 was not a decided G, but a guttural 
 sound like the Shemitic Ayin which is 
 sometimes omitted in Greek and some- 
 
 times represented by I. It is a great 
 error to identify the stream mentioned 
 by St Luke with the Strymon, which 
 must be about 30 miles distant, and 
 certainly would not be designated a 
 river without the definite article. 
 
 5 The correct reading seems to be, 
 not οὗ évoultero προσευχὴ εἶναι, but οὗ 
 ἐνομίζομεν προσευχὴν εἶναι, ‘where we 
 supposed there was a place of prayer’; 
 and may be explained in the way sug- 
 gested in the text. 
 
 6 Joseph. Ant. xiv. 10. 23 ras προσ- 
 εὐχὰς ποιεῖσθαι πρὸς TH θαλάσσῃ κατὰ 
 τὸ πάτριον ἔθος. So Tertullian speaks 
 of the ‘ orationes littorales’ of the Jews, 
 adv. Nat. i. 13; comp. de Jejun. 16: 
 see also Philo in Flacc. ὃ 14, p. 535 M, 
 and other references in Biscoe History 
 of the Acts ete. p. 182 sq. (1840). 
 
 —— 
 

 
 THE CHURCH OF PHILIPPI. 53 
 
 sage. Of strictly Hebrew converts the sacred record is silent ; 
 but the baptism of a proselytess and her household is related 
 as the first triumph of the Gospel at Philippi. 
 
 To the scanty numbers and feeble influence of the Jews we No Judaic 
 
 may perhaps in some degree ascribe the unswerving allegiance pena 
 of this church to the person of the Apostle and to the true Chae 
 principles of the Gospel. In one passage indeed his grateful 
 acknowledgment of the love and faith of his Philippian converts 
 is suddenly interrupted by a stern denunciation of Judaism’. 
 But we may well believe that in this warning he was thinking 
 of Rome more than of Philippi; and that his indignation was 
 aroused rather by the vexatious antagonism which there 
 thwarted him in his daily work, than by any actual errors 
 already undermining the faith of his distant converts% Yet 
 even the Philippians were not safe from the intrusion of these 
 dangerous teachers. At no great distance lay important Jewish 
 settlements, the strongholds of this fanatical opposition, Even 
 now there might be threatenings of an interference which 
 would tamper with the allegiance and disturb the peace of his 
 beloved church. 
 
 The Apostle’s first visit to Philippi is recorded with a mi- Charac- 
 nuteness which has not many parallels m St Luke’s history. Haein 
 The narrator had joined St Paul shortly before he crossed over narrative. 
 into Europe: he was with the Apostle during his sojourn at 
 Philippi: he seems to have remained there for some time after 
 his departure*. This exact personal knowledge of the writer, 
 combining with the grandeur and variety of the incidents 
 themselves, places the visit to Philippi among the most striking 
 and instructive passages in the apostolic narrative. 
 
 I have already referred to the varieties of type among the treo giz. 
 first disciples at Philippi, as a prominent feature in this portion | eee 
 
 es in 
 of the history. The three converts, who are especially men- the Phil- 
 pian 
 tioned, stand in marked contrast each to the other in national & pea 
 1 Phil. iii, 2 sq. sumed at the same place (Acts xx. 5 
 2 See below, p. 69 sq. > ἔμενον Huds) after a lapse of six or seven 
 3 The first person pluralis dropped years. This coincidence suggests the 
 at Philippi (Acts xvii. 1, ἦλθον») and re- inference in the text, 
 
54 
 
 Order of 
 the con- 
 versions 
 typical. 
 
 THE CHURCH OF PHILIPPI. 
 
 descent, in social rank, in religious education. They are repre- 
 sentatives of three different races: the one an Asiatic, the other 
 a Greek, the third a Roman. In the relations of everyday life 
 they have nothing in common: the first is engaged in an 
 important and lucrative branch of traffic: the second, treated 
 by the law as a mere chattel without any social or political 
 rights, is employed by her masters to trade upon the credulous 
 superstition of the ignorant: the third, equally removed from 
 both the one and the other, holds a subordinate office under 
 government. In their religious training also they stand no less 
 apart. In the one the speculative mystic temper of Oriental 
 devotion has at length found deeper satisfaction in the revealed 
 truths of the Old Testament. The second, bearing the name of 
 the Pythian god the reputed source of Greek inspiration, repre- 
 sents an artistic and imaginative religion, though manifested 
 here in a very low and degrading form’, While the third, if 
 he preserved the characteristic features of his race, must have 
 exhibited a type of worship essentially political in tone. The 
 purple-dealer and proselytess of Thyatira—the native slave-girl 
 with the divining spirit—the Roman gaoler—all alike acknow- 
 ledge the supremacy of the new faith. In the history of the 
 Gospel at Philippi, as in the history of the Church at large, is 
 reflected the great maxim of Christianity, the central truth of 
 the Apostle’s preaching, that here ‘is neither Jew nor Greek, 
 neither bond nor free, neither male nor female, but all are one 
 in Christ Jesus*’ 
 
 Again the order of these conversions is significant: first, 
 the proselyte, next the Greek, lastly the Roman. Thus the 
 incidents at Philippi in their sequence, not less than in their 
 
 
 
 variety, symbolize the progress of Christianity throughout the 
 world. Through the Israelite dispersion, through the proselytes 
 whether of the covenant or of the gate, the message of the 
 
 1 See Plut. Mor. p. 4145,Clem.Hom. mountain tribe in the Hemus chain: 
 ix. 16. It has been conjectured thatthis Herod. vii. r11. At all events the inci- 
 girl with the‘ Pytho-spirit’ was ἃ ἱερός dentisillustrated bythereligious temper 
 dovAos attached to the famous oracle of of these half-barbarous mountaineers. 
 Dionysus among the Satre, a wild 2 Gal. iil. 28. 
 
THE CHURCH OF PHILIPPI. 55: 
 
 Gospel first reached the Greek. By the instrumentality of the 
 Greek language and the diffusion of the Greek race it finally 
 established itself in Rome, the citadel of power and civilisation, 
 whence directly or indirectly it was destined to spread over the 
 whole world. 
 
 These events however are only symbolical as all history— 
 more especially scriptural history—is symbolical. The order of 
 the conversions at Philippi was in itself the natural order. 
 The sacred historian wrote down with truthful simplicity what 
 he ‘saw and heard.” ‘The representative character of these 
 
 
 
 
 
 several incidents can hardly have occurred to him. But from 
 its geographical position Philippi, as a meeting-point of nations, 
 would represent not unfairly the civilised world in miniature; 
 and the phenomena of the progress of the Gospel in its wider 
 sphere were thus anticipated on a smaller scale. 
 
 But’ while the conversions at Philippi had thus a typical Social in- 
 character, as representing not only the universality of the Gos- a ies 
 pel but also the order of its diffusion, they seem to illustrate per eae 
 still more distinctly the two great social revolutions which it the case of 
 has effected. In most modern treatises on civilisation, from 
 whatever point of view they are written, a prominent place is 
 given to the amelioration of woman and the abolition of slavery, 
 as the noblest social triumphs of Christianity. Now the woman 
 and the slave are the principal figures in the scene of the 
 Apostle’s preaching at Philippi. 
 
 As regards the woman indeed it seems probable that the (1) The 
 Apostle’s work was made easier by the national feelings and “°"*™ 
 usages of Macedonia. It may, I think, be gathered from St 
 Luke's narrative, that her social position was higher in this 
 country than in most parts of the civilised world. At Philippi, 
 at Thessalonica, at Bercea, the women—in some cases certainly, 
 in all probably, ladies of birth and rank—take an active part 
 with the Apostle’. It forms moreover a striking coincidence, 
 
 1 At Philippi, xvi. 13 ‘Wespoke to women not a few’; at Bercea, xvii. 12 
 the women that were gatheredtogether’; ‘Many of them believed, and of the 
 at Thessalonica, xvii. 4 ‘There were Greek women of rank (εὐσχημόνων) and 
 added to Paul and Silas...of the chief men not a few.’ 
 
56 
 
 Influence 
 of the sex 
 in Mace- 
 donia. 
 
 THE CHURCH OF PHILIPPI. 
 
 and surely an undesigned coincidence, between the history and 
 the epistle, that while in the former the Gospel is related 
 to have been first preached to women and the earliest converts 
 specially mentioned are women, in the latter we find the peace 
 of the Philippian Church endangered by the feuds of two 
 ladies of influence, whose zealous aid in the spread of the 
 Gospel the Apostle gratefully acknowledges’. Moreover the 
 inference thus suggested by the narrative of St Luke and 
 strengthened by the notice in St Paul's epistle is farther 
 borne out, if I mistake not, by reference to other sources of 
 information. The extant Macedonian inscriptions seem to 
 assign to the sex a higher social influence than is common 
 among the civilised nations of antiquity. In not a few in- 
 stances a metronymic takes the place of the usual patronymic’, 
 and in other cases a prominence is given to women which can 
 hardly be accidental*. But whether I am right or not’ in the 
 conjecture that the work of the Gospel was in this respect 
 
 1 Kuodia and Syntyche, Phil. iv. 2, 
 αἵτινες ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ συνήθλησάν μοι. 
 
 Ξ0ὴη the well-known inscription 
 giving the names of the Thessalonian 
 politarchs, Boeckh no. 1967, we read 
 Zwourdrpov τοῦ Κλεοπάτρας and Ταύρου 
 τοῦ» Αμμίας; on a second at Berea, 
 1957 1 (add.) Πόρος ᾿Αμμίας; on a third 
 not far from Bercea, 1957 g (add.) Ma- 
 κέδων Evyelas; on a fourth near Thes- 
 salonica, 1967 Ὁ (add.) [ὁ δεῖνα] ᾽Αντι- 
 φίλης; ona fifth at Edessa, 1997 ¢(add.) 
 ᾿Αλέξανδρος καὶ Ἑϊούλιος of Μαρκίας, 
 Ἕσπερο[5] Σεμέλης, [Εἰ]ούλ[ιο]ς Καλ- 
 λίστης. See Leake m1. pp. 236, 277, 
 292. 
 
 3 For instance one inscription (no. 
 1958) records how a wife erects a tomb 
 ‘for herself and her dear husband out 
 of theircommon earnings (ἐκ τῶν κοινῶν 
 καμάτων) : another (no. 1977) how a 
 husband erects a tomb ‘for his devoted 
 and darling wife (τῇ φιλάνδρῳ Kal γλυ- 
 κυτάτῃ συνβίῳ) and himself,’ in this case 
 
 also from their common savings (ἐκ τῶν 
 κοινῶν κόπων). Again there are cases 
 of monumeuts erected in honour of 
 women by public bodies: e.g. no. 
 1997 ἃ (add.) ἡ πόλις [κ]αὶ of cvvmrpaly]- 
 pare[v]ouevo[e] ἹΡωμαῖο[.1] Πετρωνίαν A. 
 Πετρωνίου Βάσσου] θυγατέρα Στρατύλ- 
 λαν τιμῶντί εἸ]ς [Θε]οῖς, no. 1999 Ma- 
 κεδύόνων οἱ σύνεδροι Mapxlay ᾿Ακυλίαν 
 Φαβρικιανοῦ "Απερος θυγατέρ[αἹ] ἀνδρὸς 
 ἀγαθοῦ, no. 1999 b (add.) τὸ κοινὸν τῶν 
 Μακεδόνων Μανλίαν ἸΤοντείαν Λουκούλλαν 
 Αὔλου ἸΤοντίου Βήρου τοῦ λαμπροτάτου 
 ἀνθυπάτου γυναῖκα ἀρετῆς ἕνεκεν. Again 
 the deferential language used by the 
 husband speaking of the wife is worthy 
 of notice, e.g. no. 1965 Εὐτύχης Στρα- 
 τονίκῃ τῇ συμβίῳ καὶ Kupla μνείας χάριν. 
 These are the most striking but not 
 the only instances in which an unusual 
 prominence is given to women. The 
 whole series of Macedonianinscriptions 
 read continuously cannot fail, I think, 
 to suggest the inference in the text. | 
 
THE CHURCH OF PHILIPPI. 
 
 aided by the social condition of Macedonia, the active zeal of 
 the women in this country is a remarkable fact, without a 
 parallel in the Apostle’s history elsewhere and only to be com- 
 pared with their prominence at an earlier date in the personal 
 ministry of our Lord. 
 
 And as Christianity exerts its influence on the woman at (2) The 
 
 Philippi, so does it also on the slave. The same person, whose 
 conversion exemplifies the one maxim of the Gospel that in 
 Christ is ‘neither male nor female,’ is made a living witness of 
 the other social principle also that in Him is ‘neither bond nor 
 free” It can hardly have happened that the Apostle’s mission 
 had never before crossed the path of the slave; yet it is a signi- 
 ficant fact, illustrating the varied character and typical import 
 _ of this chapter of sacred history, that the divining girl at Phil- 
 ippi is the earliest recorded instance, where his attention is 
 directed to one of these ‘live chattels’? 
 
 slave. 
 
 57 
 
 But more than this: as the Gospel recognises the claims of Family re- 
 : ; ligion ‘ex- 
 the woman and the slave severally, so also it fulfils its noblest empinea 
 
 mission in hallowing the general relations of family life, which 
 combines these and other elements. Here too the conversion of 
 the Philippian Church retains its typical character. It has 
 been observed”, that this is the first recorded instance in St 
 Paul’s history where whole families are gathered into the fold. 
 Lydia and her household—the gaoler and all belonging to 
 him—are baptized into Christ. Henceforth the worship of 
 households plays an important part in the divine economy of 
 the Church. As in primeval days the patriarch was the re- 
 cognised priest of his clan, so in the Christian Church the father 
 of the house is the divinely appointed centre of religious life to 
 his own family. The family religion is the true starting-pomt, 
 the surest foundation, of the religion of cities and dioceses, of 
 nations and empires. The church in the house of Philemon 
 grows into the Church of Colossx*; the church in the house of 
 
 1 Aristot. Pol. i. 4 ὁ δοῦλος κτῆμά τι 2 See Conybeare and Howson 1. 
 ἔμψυχον. See Colossians etc. pp. 313, Ρ. 348 (2nd edition). 
 319 84. 8 Philem. 2. 
 
58 
 
 Grandeur 
 of the in- 
 cidents. 
 
 Loyalty of 
 the Philip- 
 
 pians, 
 
 Their suf- 
 ferings. 
 
 THE CHURCH OF PHILIPPI. 
 
 Nymphas becomes the Church of Laodicea'; the church in the 
 house of Aquila and Priscilla loses itself in the Churches of 
 Ephesus and Rome’. 
 
 Altogether the history of St Paul’s connexion with Philippi 
 assumes a prominence quite out of proportion to the importance 
 of the place itself. In the incidents and the results alike of his 
 preaching the grandeur of the epoch is brought out. The perse- 
 cutions which the Apostle here endured were more than usually 
 severe, and impressed themselves deeply on his memory, for he 
 alludes to them once and again®. The marvellous deliverance 
 wrought for him is without a parallel in his history before or 
 after. The signal success which crowned his labours surpasses 
 all his earlier or later achievements. 
 
 On this last-mentioned feature it is especially refreshing to 
 dwell. The unwavering loyalty of his Philippian converts is the 
 constant solace of the Apostle in his manifold trials, the one 
 bright ray of happiness piercing the dark clouds which gather 
 ever thicker about the evening of his life. They are his ‘joy 
 and crown, his brethren beloved and eagerly desired*.’ From 
 them alone he consents to receive alms for the relief of his per- 
 sonal wants®. To them alone he writes in language unclouded 
 by any shadow of displeasure or disappointment. 
 
 St Paul’s first visit to Philippi closed abruptly amid the 
 storm of persecution. It was not to be expected that, where. 
 the life of the master had been so seriously endangered, the 
 scholars would escape all penalties. The Apostle left behind 
 him a legacy of suffering to this newly born church. This is not 
 a, mere conjecture: the afflictions of the Macedonian Christians, 
 and of the Philippians especially, are more than once mentioned 
 in St Paul’s epistles®*. If it was their privilege to believe in Christ, 
 
 1 Col. iv. 15. ing the same conflict which ye saw in 
 2 y Cor. xvi. 19, Rom. xvi. 5. me.’ 
 3 1; Thess. ii. 2 ‘ Though we had al- 4 Phi ἵν. τὶ 
 
 ready suffered and been ignominiously Sahil τὐν, τὸ: 
 
 treated (προπαθόντες καὶ ὑβρισθέντες), as 6 2 Cor. viii. 2. See the notes on 
 
 ye know, at Philippi,’ Phil.i.30‘Hav- Phil. i. 7, 28—30. 
 
THE CHURCH OF PHILIPPI. 
 
 it was equally their privilege to suffer for Him’. To this 
 refiner’s fire may doubtless be ascribed in part the lustre and 
 purity of their faith compared with other churches. 
 
 About five years elapsed between St Paul’s first and second 
 visit to Philippi: but meanwhile his communications with this 
 church appear to have been frequent and intimate. It has 
 been already mentioned that on the Apostle’s departure St Luke 
 seems to have remained at Philippi, where he was taken up 
 after the lapse of several years and where perhaps he had spent 
 some portion of the intervening period’. Again when in the 
 year 57 St Paul, then residing at Ephesus, despatched Timo- 
 theus and Erastus to Macedonia*, we may feel sure that the most 
 loyal of all his converts were not overlooked in this general 
 mission. When moreover about the same time, either through 
 these or other messengers, he appealed to the Macedonian 
 Christians to relieve the wants of their poorer brethren in 
 Judea, it may safely be assumed that his faithful Philippian 
 Church was foremost in the promptness and cordiality of its 
 response, where all alike in spite of abject poverty and sore 
 persecution were lavish with their alms ‘to their power, yea 
 and beyond their power‘*.’ Nor is it probable that these notices 
 exhaust all his communications with Philippi at this time. 
 Lying on the high-road between Asia and Achaia, this city 
 would be the natural halting-place for the Apostle’s messen- 
 gers’, as they passed to and fro between the great centres of 
 Gentile Christendom. 
 
 At length in the autumn of the year 57 the Apostle himself, 
 released from his engagements in Asia, revisits his European 
 churches. His first intention had been to sail direct to Achaia, 
 in which case he would have called in Macedonia and returned 
 
 1 Phil. i. 29 ὑμῖν ἐχαρίσθη τὸ ὑπὲρ infer that Timotheus did not proceed 
 Χριστοῦ, οὐ μόνον τὸ els αὐτὸν πιστεύειν With Erastus to Corinth, but remained 
 
 ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸ ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ πάσχειν. behind in Macedonia. 
 2 See above, p. 53, note 3. 4 2 Cor. viii. 1—5. 
 % Acts xix. 22. Of Timotheus see 5 Titus and his companion for in- 
 
 also x Cor. iv. 17, xvi. 10, 2 Cor.i. 1. stance (2 Cor. ii. 13, vii. 6, xii. 18; 
 Putting together these notices we may comp. 1 Cor, xvi. 11, 12). 
 
 Later 
 communi- 
 cations 
 with Phil- 
 ippi. 
 
69 
 
 Second 
 and third 
 visits, 
 
 THE CHURCH OF PHILIPPI. 
 
 to Corinth.’ But afterwards he altered his plan and travelled by 
 land, so as to take Macedonia on the way’. Leaving Mace- 
 donia and visiting Corinth, he had purposed to take ship from 
 this latter place direct to Palestine: but receiving information 
 of a plot against his life, he changes his route and returns 
 by land. Thus owing to a combination of circumstances 
 Macedonia receives a double visit. On both occasions his af- 
 fectionate relations with Philippi seem to attract and rivet 
 him there. On the former, seeking relief from the agony of 
 suspense which oppresses him at Troas, he hurries across the 
 sea to Macedonia, halting apparently at Philippi and there 
 awaiting the arrival of Titus*, On the latter, unable to tear 
 himself away, he despatches his companions to Asia in advance 
 and lingers behind at Philippi himself, that he may keep the 
 paschal feast with his beloved converts*. It is the last festival 
 for some years to come, which he is free to celebrate as and 
 where he wills. 
 
 Of the former visit St Luke records only the fact. But the 
 Second Epistle to the Corinthians certainly’, the Epistle to the 
 Galatians not improbably*, were written from Macedonia on this 
 occasion: and, though scarcely a single incident is directly re- 
 lated, they present a complete and vivid picture of the Apostle’s 
 inward life at this time. Of his external relations thus much 
 may be learnt: we find him busy with the collection of alms 
 for Judeea, stimulating the Macedonian churches and gratefully 
 acknowledging their liberal response’; we gather also from the 
 mention of ‘fightings without*®’ that the enemies whether 
 
 ‘Jewish or heathen, who had persecuted him in eavlier years, 
 
 1 2 Cor. i. 15—17, comp. 1 Cor. xvi. 
 5, 6. 
 
 2 Acts xix. 21, XX. I—3. 
 
 32 Cor. ii. 12 8q., Vii. 5, 6. 
 
 4 Acts xx. 5,6 ‘These going before 
 waited for us at Troas: but we set sail 
 from Philippi after the days of unlea- 
 vened bread.’ 
 
 δ᾽ 2 ΟΣ. nl, 12, Υἱῖ. 5; Vill. ISGes) UX. 
 2,4. The subscription mentions Phil- 
 
 ippi as the place of writing, and this 
 is probable, though the authority is 
 almost worthless. 
 
 6 See Galatians, p. 35 56. 
 
 7 2 Cor. vili. 1—6, ix. 2. 
 
 8 2 Cor. vii. 5; comp. viii. 2. To this 
 occasion also the Apostle may possibly 
 refer in Phil. 1. 30, τὸν αὐτὸν ἀγῶνα 
 ἔχοντες οἷον εἴδετε ἐν ἐμοί, 
 
THE CHURCH OF PHILIPPI. 
 
 made his reappearance in Macedonia a signal for the renewal of 
 their attacks, Of the latter visit we know absolutely nothing, 
 except the names of his companions and the fact already men- 
 tioned that he remained behind for the passover. 
 
 OI 
 
 From this time forward we read no more of the Philippians The Phil- 
 
 till the period of St Paul’s Roman captivity. When they heard gena alms 
 of his destination, their slumbering affection for him revived. * St Paul. 
 
 Τὸ was not the first time that they had been eager to offer and 
 he willing to reteive alms for the supply of his personal wants. 
 After the close of his first visit, while he was still in Macedonia, 
 they had more than once sent him timely assistance to Thessa- 
 lonica*. When from Macedonia he passed on to Achaia, fresh 
 supplies from Philippi reached him at Corinth*, Then there 
 was a lull in their attentions. It was not that their affection 
 had cooled, the Apostle believed, but that the opportunity was 
 wanting. Now at length after a lapse of ten years their loyalty 
 again took the same direction; and Epaphroditus was despatched 
 to Rome with their gift®. 
 
 ippians 
 
 Their zealous attention was worthily seconded by the mes- Hines of 
 Epaphro- 
 
 senger whom they had chosen. Not content with placing this 
 token of their love in St Paul’s hands, Epaphroditus* devoted 
 himself heart and soul to the ministry under the Apostle’s guid- 
 ance. But the strain of excessive exertion was too great for his 
 physical powers. In his intense devotion to the work he lost 
 his health and almost his life. 
 away: ‘God had mercy,’ says 
 
 1 Phil. iv. 16. 
 3 Phil. iv. 15 ‘When I left Mace- 
 
 At length the danger passed 
 the Apostle, ‘not on him only, 
 
 Epaphras (Col. i. 7, iv. 12, Philem. 23); 
 for, though the names are the same, 
 
 donia, no church communicated with 
 me in regard of giving and receiving 
 but ye only’; 2 Cor. xi. 8, 9 ‘When I 
 was present with you and wanted, I was 
 not burdensome to any: for my want 
 the brethren having come from Mace- 
 donia supplied.’ 
 
 3 Phil. ii. 25, 30, iv. ro—18. 
 
 4 Epaphroditus is known to us only 
 from the notices in this epistle. He 
 is doubtless to be distinguished from 
 
 the identity of the persons seems im- 
 probable for two reasons, (1) The one 
 appears to have been a native of Phil- 
 ippi (Phil. li. 25 sq.), the other of Co- 
 loss (Col. iv. 12). (2) The longer form 
 of the name is always used of the Phil- 
 ippian delegate, the shorter of the Co- 
 lossian teacher. The name in fact is so 
 extremely common in both forms, that 
 the coincidence affords no presumption 
 of the identity of persons, 
 
 ditus. 
 
62 THE CHURCH OF PHILIPPI. 
 
 but on myself also, that I might not have sorrow upon sorrow.’ 
 But his convalescence was succeeded by home-sickness. He 
 was oppressed with the thought that the Philippians would 
 have heard of his critical state. 
 that he might quiet their alarm’. 
 
 He was anxious to return 
 
 The Epi- This purpose was warmly approved by St Paul. To contri- 
 ee bute to their happiness in any way was to alleviate his own 
 
 pans, τὰ sorrows*, He would not therefore withhold Epaphroditus from 
 them. So Epaphroditus returns to Philippi, bearing a letter 
 from the Apostle, in which he pours out his heart in an overflow 
 of gratitude and love. 
 
 Mission of | 10 this letter he expresses his intention of sending Timo- 
 
 Timothy. theus to them immediately*. Whether this purpose was ever 
 fulfilled we have no means of knowing. But in sending Timo- 
 theus he did not mean to withhold himself. He hoped before 
 long to be released, and he would then visit them in person*. 
 
 The delay indeed seems to have been greater than he then 
 
 Later 
 Cae anticipated; but at length he was able to fulfil his promise. 
 One visit at least, probably more than one, he paid to Philippi 
 and his other Macedonian churches in the interval between his 
 first and second captivities®. 
 tena: The canonical writings record nothing more of Philippi. A 
 ppl. 
 
 whole generation passes away before its name is again men- 
 tioned. Early in the second century Ignatius, now on his way 
 to Rome where he is condemned to suffer martyrdom, as he 
 passes through Philippi is kindly entertained and escorted on 
 
 The name Epaphroditus or Epaphras 
 is not specially characteristic of Ma- 
 cedonia, but occurs abundantly every- 
 where. On a Thessalonian inscription 
 (Boeckh no. 1987) we meet with one 
 Tdios Κλώδιος ᾿Επαφρόδειτος. This con- 
 currence of names is suggestive. The 
 combination, which occurs once, might 
 well occur again: and it is possible 
 (though in the absence of evidence 
 hardly probable) that Gaius the Mace- 
 donian of St Luke (Acts xix. 29) is the 
 same person as Epaphroditus the Phil- 
 
 ippian of St Paul. 
 
 1 Phil. 11. 25—30. 
 
 2 Phil. ii. 28 ‘That having seen him 
 ye may rejoice again, and I may be less 
 sorrowful.’ 
 
 ΞΘ Phil: ὙΠ το. 
 
 4 Phil. ii. 24. 
 
 5 y Tim. i. 3. The notices in 2 Tim. 
 iv. 13, 20 perhaps refer to a later date. 
 If so, they point to a second visit of the 
 Apostle after his release; for in going 
 from Troas to Corinth he would natu- 
 rally pass through Macedonia. 
 

 
 THE CHURCH OF PHILIPPI. 63 
 
 his way by the members of the church’. This circumstance 
 
 seems to have given rise to communications with Polycarp, the Polycarp’s 
 youthful bishop of Smyrna and trusty friend of Ignatius, in hey 
 which the Philippians invite him to address to them some words 
 of advice and exhortation. Polycarp responds to this appeal. 
 He congratulates them on their devotion to the martyrs ‘bound Com. _ 
 in saintly fetters, the diadems of the truly elect. He rejoices ΤΕ baie 
 that ‘the sturdy root of their faith, famous from the earliest 158: 
 days’, still survives and bears fruit unto our Lord Jesus Christ.’ 
 He should not have ventured to address them, unless they had 
 themselves solicited him. He, and such as he, cannot ‘attain 
 unto the wisdom of the blessed and glorious Paul,’ who taught 
 among them in person, and wrote to them when absent instruc- 
 tions which they would do well! to study for their edification in 
 the faith®. He offers many words of exhortation, more espe- 
 cially relating to the qualifications of widows, deacons, and pres- 
 byters‘| He warns them against those who deny that Jesus 
 Christ has come in the flesh, against those who reject the 
 testimony of the cross, against those who say there is no 
 resurrection or judgment®. He sets before them for imitation 
 the example ‘not only of the blessed Ignatius and Zosimus and 
 Rufus, but also of others of their own church, and Paul himself 
 and the other Apostles,’ who have gone before to their rest®, 
 
 There is however one cause for sorrow. Valens a presbyter 
 
 1 Martyr. Ignat. § 5; Polye. Phil. 1 
 δεξαμένοις τὰ μιμήματα τῆς ἀληθοῦς ayd- 
 πης καὶ προπέμψασιν ws ἐπέβαλεν ὑμῖν, 
 τοὺς ἐνειλημμένους [ἐνειλημένους 2] τοῖς 
 ἁγιοπρεπέσι δεσμοῖς ἅἁτινά ἐστι διαδήματα 
 x.7.A. The martyrs here alluded to are 
 doubtlessIgnatius and othersmentioned 
 by name § 9. The letter of Polycarp 
 was written after the death of Ignatius 
 (§ 9); but the event was so recent that 
 he asks the Philippians to send him in- 
 formation about Ignatius and his com- 
 panions, § 13 ‘Et de ipso Ignatio et de 
 his qui cum eo sunt (the present is 
 doubtless due to the translator, where 
 
 the original was probably τών σὺν αὐτῷ) 
 quod certius agnoveritis, significate.’ 
 
 2§ 1 ἐξ ἀρχαίων καταγγελλομένη 
 χρόνων. 
 
 35.8.4, On this passage see the de- 
 tached note on iii. 1. 
 
 4 §§ 4—6. 
 
 5 § 7. It would not be a safe infer- 
 ence, that when Polycarp wrote the 
 Philippian Church was in any special 
 danger of these errors. The language 
 is general and comprehensive, warning 
 them against all the prevailing forms 
 of heresy. 
 
 6 §9. 
 
64 
 
 THE CHURCH OF PHILIPPI. 
 
 The crime in the Philippian Church, and his wife whose name is not given, 
 τι Δ Δ ἘΠΕ had brought scandal on the Gospel by their avarice’. From all 
 participation in their crime Polycarp exonerates the great 
 body of the church. He has neither known nor heard of any 
 such vice in those Philippians among whom St Paul laboured, 
 boasting of them in all the churches, at a time when his own 
 Smyrna was not yet converted to Christ, He trusts the offend- 
 
 1 $311. Polycarp after speaking of 
 the crime of Valens adds, ‘Moneo ita- 
 que vos ut abstineatis ab avaritia et 
 sitis casti et veraces...Si quis non abs- 
 tinuerit se ab avaritia, ab idololatria 
 coinquinabitur.’ The crime of Valens 
 and his wife was doubtless avarice, not 
 concupiscence, as the passage is fre- 
 quently interpreted. In 88 4, 6, ‘ava- 
 ritia’ is the translation of φιλαργυρία; 
 and this was probably the word used 
 in the original here. But even if the 
 Greek had πλεονεξία, it is a mistake to 
 suppose that this word ever signifies 
 ‘unchastity’ (see the note on Col. ili. 
 5); and the fact that both husband 
 and wife were guilty of the crime in 
 question points rather to avarice (as in 
 the case of Ananias and Sapphira) than 
 to impurity. The word ‘casti’ seems 
 to have misled the commentators; but 
 even if the original were ἁγνοὶ and not 
 καθαροί, it might still apply to sordid 
 and dishonest gain. This use of ἁγνὸς 
 would not be unnatural even in a hea- 
 then writer (e.g. Pind. Ol. iii. 21 ἁγνὰ 
 xptows); and the Apostle’s denunciation 
 of covetousness as idolatry (to which 
 Polycary refers in the context) makes it 
 doubly appropriate here. ‘Corruption’ 
 is a common synonyme for fraud. On 
 the other hand ‘veraces’ is quite out of 
 place, if concupiscence was intended. 
 
 The correct interpretation may be 
 inferred also from other expressions in 
 the letter. Polycarp seems to have had 
 the crime of Valens in his thoughts 
 when in an earlier passage, § 4, he de- 
 clares that ‘avarice is the beginning of 
 
 all troubles (ἀρχὴ πάντων χαλεπῶν φιλ- 
 apyvpia),’ and when again in enumer- 
 ating the qualifications of presbyters 
 (§ 6) he states that they must stand 
 aloof from every form of avarice (ua- 
 κρὰν ὄντες πάσης pidapyuplas). The Ma- 
 cedonian churches in St Paul’s time 
 were as liberal as they were poor (2 Cor. 
 vill. 1—3). Greed of wealth was about 
 the last crime that they could be charged 
 with. There is no reason to suppose 
 that their character had wholly changed 
 within a single generation. But a no- 
 table exception had occurred at Phil- 
 ippi; and, though Polycarp distinctly 
 treats it as an exception and acquits 
 the Philippian church as a body (§ 11), 
 yet it naturally leads him to dwell on 
 the heinousness of this sin, 
 
 The name ‘ Valens’ for some reason 
 seems to have been frequent in Mace- 
 donia; perhaps because it had been 
 borne by some local celebrity: see for 
 instance Boeckh no. 1969 (at Thessa- 
 lonica), where it occurs together with 
 another common Macedonian name 
 (Acts xx. 4), Οὐαλὴς καὶ Σεκοῦνδος. It 
 is found also in another inscription at 
 Drama (Drabescus?) in Perrot (Revue 
 Archéol. 1860, τι. p. 73); and in a third 
 and a fourth at Philippi itself, published 
 in Cousinéry 1. p. 21, Miss. Archéol. 
 Ῥ. 121. 
 
 2§ 11 ‘In quibus laboravit beatus 
 Paulus, qui estis in principio epistole 
 ejus: de vobis etenim gloriatur in om- 
 nibus ecclesiis que Deum solw tunc 
 cognoverant, nos autem nondum noye- 
 ramus.’ 
 
THE CHURCH OF PHILIPPI. 65 
 
 ers will be truly penitent: and he counsels the Philippians to 
 treat them, not as enemies, but as erring members. They are 
 well versed in the scriptures’, and will not need to be reminded 
 how the duty of gentleness and forbearance 15 enforced therein. 
 
 At the conclusion, he refers to certain parting injunctions of Conelu- 
 Ignatius: he complies with their desire and sends copies of as 
 those letters of the martyr which are in his possession: he com- 
 ᾿ς mends to their care Crescens, the bearer of the epistle, who will 
 be accompanied by his sister. 
 
 With this notice the Philippian Church may be said to pass Later his- 
 out of sight. From the time of Polycarp its name is very rarely τ 
 mentioned ; and scarcely a single fact is recorded which throws 
 any light on its internal condition®, Here and there the name 
 of a bishop appears in connexion with the records of an ecclesi- 
 astical council. On one occasion its prelate subscribes a decree 
 as vicegerent of the metropolitan of Thessalonica®. But, though 
 the see is said to exist even to the present day‘, the city itself 
 has been long a wilderness. Of its destruction or decay no 
 record is left; and among its ruins travellers have hitherto failed 
 to find any Christian remains’, Of the church which stood 
 foremost among all the apostolic communities in faith and love, 
 it may literally be said that not one stone stands upon another. 
 
 Its whole career is a signal monument of the inscrutable coun- 
 sels of God. Born into the world with the brightest promise, 
 the Church of Philippi has lived without a history and perished 
 
 without a memorial. 
 
 
 
 1 § 12 ‘Confido enim yos bene ex- 
 ercitatos esse in sacris literis et nihil 
 vos latet ete.’ 
 
 3 The rhetoric of Tertullian (de Pre- 
 scr. 36, adv. Marc. iv. 5), who appeals 
 among others to the Philippian Church 
 as still maintaining the Apostle’s doc- 
 trine and reading his epistle publicly, 
 can hardly be considered evidence, 
 though the fact itself need not be 
 questioned. 
 
 When Hoog, de Cet. Christ. Philipp. 
 etc. p. 176 (1825), speaks of a council 
 
 PHIL. 
 
 heldat Philippi,‘ imperantibus Constan- 
 tini filiis,’ he confuses Philippi with 
 Philippopolis. See Socer. H. E.ii. 20,22. 
 
 3 Flavianus, who takes an active part 
 at the Ο. of Ephesus, a.p. 431; Labb. 
 Cone. 11. 456 etc. 
 
 4 Le Quien, Or. Chr. 11. p. 70, gives 
 the name of its bishop when he wrote 
 (1740). Neale, Holy Eastern Church τ. 
 Ῥ. 92, mentions it among existing sees. 
 
 5 T ought to except one or two inscrip- 
 tions published since my first edition 
 appeared, Miss. Archéol. pp. 96, 97. 
 
 5 
 
Motive 
 of the 
 epistle, 
 
 Affection- 
 ate rela- 
 
 ΠΥ: 
 
 CHARACTER AND CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE. 
 
 HE external circumstances, which suggested this epistle, 
 have been already explained. It must be ascribed to the 
 close personal relations existing between the Apostle and his 
 converts. It was not written, like the Epistle to the Galatians, 
 to counteract doctrinal errors, or, like the First to the Co- 
 rinthians, to correct irregularities of practice. It enforces no 
 direct lessons of Church government, though it makes casual 
 allusion to Church officers. It lays down no dogmatic system, 
 though incidentally it refers to the majesty and the humiliation 
 of Christ, and to the contrast of law and grace. It is the spon- 
 taneous utterance of Christian love and gratitude, called forth 
 by a recent token which the Philippians had given of their 
 loyal affection. As the pure expression of personal feeling, 
 not directly evoked by doctrinal or practical errors, it closely 
 resembles the Apostle’s letter to another leading church of 
 Macedonia, which likewise held a large place in his affections, 
 the First Epistle to the Thessalonians. 
 But the Philippian Church was bound to the Apostle by 
 
 tions with Closer ties than even the Thessalonian. His language in ad- 
 
 the Philip- 
 
 pians. 
 
 dressing the two has, it is true, very much in common; the 
 absence of appeal to his apostolic authority, the pervading 
 tone of satisfaction, even the individual expressions of love and 
 praise. But in the Epistle to the Philippians the Apostle’s 
 commendation is more lavish, as his affection is deeper. He 
 utters no misgivings of their loyalty, no suspicions of false 
 
CHARACTER AND CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE. 67 
 
 play, no reproaches of disorderly living, no warnings against 
 grosser sins. To the Philippians he had given the surest 
 pledge of confidence which could be given by a high-minded 
 and sensitive man, to whom it was of the highest importance 
 for the sake of the great cause which he advocated to avoid the 
 slightest breath of suspicion, and whose motives nevertheless 
 were narrowly scanned and unscrupulously misrepresented. 
 He had placed himself under pecuniary obligations to them. 
 The alms sent from Philippi had relieved his wants even at 
 Thessalonica. 
 
 Yet even at Philippi there was one drawback to his ge- Disputes 
 neral satisfaction. A spirit of strife had sprung up in the a ahs 
 church ; if there were not open feuds and parties, there were Phiippi. 
 at least disputes and rivalries. The differences related not to 
 doctrinal but to social. questions; and, while each eagerly as- 
 _serted his own position, each severally claimed the Apostle’s 
 sympathies for himself. 
 
 St Paul steps forward to check the growing tendency. st Paul 
 This he does with characteristic delicacy, striking not less feo 
 surely because he strikes for the most part indirectly. He is spirit. 
 begins by hinting to them that he is no partisan: he offers 
 prayers and thanksgivings for all; he hopes well of all; he 
 looks upon all as companions in grace; his heart yearns after 
 all in Christ Jesus’. He entreats them later on, to be ‘stead- 
 fast in one spirit, to ‘strive together with one mind for the 
 faith of the Gospel*’ He implores them by all their deepest 
 Christian experiences, by all their truest natural impulses, to 
 ‘be of one mind, to ‘do nothing from party-spirit or from vain- 
 glory. Having piled up phrase upon phrase* in the ‘ tautology 
 of earnestness, he holds out for their example the ‘mind of 
 Christ,’ who, being higher than all, nevertheless did not assert 
 His divine majesty, but became lowliest of the lowly. To- 
 wards the close of the epistle* he returns again to the sub- 
 
 
 
 1 See the studied repetition of πάντες STs Bin a 
 in the paragraph i. 3—8. * iv. 2 8q. 
 Ὁ 127. 
 
 5—2 
 
Indirect 
 reference 
 to doc- 
 trinal er- 
 ror, 
 
 Absence 
 of plan 
 in the 
 epistle. 
 
 Structure 
 of the 
 epistle. 
 
 Ty ese 
 
 CHARACTER AND CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE. 
 
 ject; and here his language becomes more definite. He 
 mentions by name two ladies, Euodia and Syntyche, who 
 had taken a prominent part in these dissensions; he asks them 
 to be reconciled; and he invites the aid of others, of his true 
 yoke-fellow, of Clement, of the rest of his fellow-labourers, in 
 cementing this reconciliation. He urges the Philippians gene- 
 rally to exhibit to the world a spectacle of forbearance’. He 
 reminds them of the peace of God, which surpasses all the 
 thoughts of man. He entreats them lastly, by all that is noble 
 and beautiful and good, to hear and to obey. If they do this, 
 the God of peace will be with them. 
 
 Of errors in doctrine there is not the faintest trace in the 
 Philippian Church. In one passage indeed, where the Apostle 
 touches upon doctrinal subjects, he takes occasion to warn his 
 converts against two antagonistic types of error—Judaic for- 
 malism on the one hand, and Antinomian license on the other. 
 But while doing so he gives no hint that these dangerous 
 tendencies were actually rife among them. The warning seems 
 to have been suggested by circumstances external to the Phil- 
 ippian Church’. 
 
 Of plan and arrangement there is even less than in St 
 Paul’s letters generally. The origin and motive of the epistle 
 are hardly consistent with any systematic treatment. As in the 
 Second Epistle to the Corinthians, the torrent of personal feel- 
 ing is too strong to submit to any such restraint. Even the 
 threefold division into the explanatory, doctrinal, and horta- 
 tory portions, which may generally be discerned in his epistles, 
 is obliterated here. 
 
 At the same time the growth and structure of the epi- 
 stle may be traced with tolerable clearness. After the opening 
 salutation and thanksgiving, which in the intensity of his affec- 
 tion he prolongs to an unusual extent, the Apostle explains 
 
 Liv. 5 τὸ ἐπιεικὲὲ ὑμῶν γνωσθήτω this epistle, that the Philippian Church 
 κιτιλ. See the note there. was not yet tainted by Judaism, and 
 
 ? Schinz, die Christliche Gemeinde zu _ that thedisputes were socialrather than 
 Philippi (Ziirich 1833), decides after a doctrinal. This result has been gene- 
 careful examination of the purport of rally accepted by more recent writers. 
 
CHARACTER AND CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE. 69 
 
 his personal circumstances; the progress of the Gospel in i. 12—26. 
 Rome; the rivalry of his antagonists and the zeal of his ad- 
 herents; his own hopes and fears. He then urges his con-i. 27—ii. 
 verts to unity in the strong reiterative language which has ες 
 been already noticed. This leads him to dwell on the humi- 
 lity of Christ, as the great exemplar; and the reference is 
 followed up by a few general words of exhortation. 
 ing from this to personal matters, he relates his anticipation ii. 1,30. 
 of a speedy release; his purpose of sending Timothy; the 
 recent illness and immediate return of Epaphroditus. 
 
 Here the letter, as originally conceived, seems drawing to 
 a close. He commences what appears like a parting injunction : ii. τ. 
 ‘Finally, my brethren, farewell (rejoice) in the Lord.’ 
 the same things, he adds, ‘for me is not irksome, while for you 
 it is safe’ He was intending, it would seem, after offering this 
 apology by way of preface, to refer once more to their dissen- 
 
 Return- 
 
 ‘To say 
 
 sions, to say a few words in acknowledgment of their gift, and 
 then to close. Here however he seems to have been mmter- 
 rupted*. Circumstances occur, which recall him from these joy- 
 ful associations to the conflict which awaits him without and 
 which is the great trial and sorrow of his life. He is informed, mnterrup- 
 we may suppose, of some fresh attempt of the Judaizers in the ΠΡΟΣ ΠΝ 
 
 metropolis to thwart and annoy him. What, if they should portion. 
 interfere at Philippi as they were doing at Rome, and tamper 
 
 1 Ewald, die Sendschreiben etc. p.448 
 sq., has explained with characteristic 
 
 Polycarp (§ 3, ὃς καὶ ἀπὼν ὑμῖν ἔγραψεν 
 ἐπιστολάς); and Heinrichs (prol. p. 31 
 
 insight the sudden interruption and 
 subsequent lengthening of the letter. 
 I should be disposed however to make 
 the break not after ii. 30 with Ewald, 
 but after iii. 1 with Grotius. Moreover 
 I cannot agree with the former in re- 
 ferring iii. 17, 18, 19, still to Judaic for- 
 malism rather than to Antinomian ex- 
 cess. See the notesonthe third chapter. 
 
 Le Moyne, Var. Sacr. τι. pp. 332, 
 343, Suggested that two letters were 
 combined in our Epistle to the Philip- 
 pians, commenting on the plural in 
 
 sq.), carrying out the same idea, sup- 
 posed i. 1—iii. 1 ἐν κυρίῳ to be written 
 to the Church generally, and iii.2 τὰ 
 avrd—iv. 20 to the rulers, the con- 
 cluding verses iv. 21—23 being the close 
 of the former letter. He was answered 
 by J. I’. Krause Dissert. Acad, (Regiom. 
 1811). Paulus, Heidelb. Jahrb. P. 7, p. 
 702 (1812), adopted the theory of 
 Heinrichs, modifying it however by 
 making the close of the second letter 
 after iii. 9 instead of 111. 20. See Hoog 
 de Cat. Christ. Phil. etc. p. 54 sq. 
 
 ΄ 
 
7O 
 
 111, 2—10. 
 
 111. 12—21. 
 
 iv. I. 
 
 Subject re- 
 sumed. 
 
 IV. 2, 3. 
 
 iv. 4—7. 
 
 iv. 8, 9. 
 
 iv. 1oO—20. 
 
 CHARACTER AND CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE. 
 
 with the faith and loyalty of his converts? With this thought 
 weighing on his spirit he resumes his letter. He bids the Phil- 
 ippians beware of these dogs, these base artisans, these muti- 
 lators of the flesh. This leads him to contrast his teaching with 
 theirs, the true circumcision with the false, the power of faith 
 with the inefficacy of works. But a caution is needed here. 
 Warned off the abyss of formalism, might they not be swept 
 into the vortex of license? There were those, who professed the 
 Apostle’s doctrine but did not follow his example; who availed 
 themselves of his opposition of Judaism to justify the licentious- 
 ness of Heathenism; who held that, because ‘all things were 
 lawful, therefore ‘all things were expedient’ ; who would even 
 ‘continue in sin that grace might abound.” The doctrine of 
 faith, he urges, does not support this inference; his own ex- 
 ample does not countenance it. Moral progress is the obligation 
 of the one and the rule of the other. To a church planted in 
 the midst of a heathen population this peril was at least as 
 great as the former. He had often raised his voice against it 
 before ; and he must add a word of warning now. He exhorts 
 the Philippians to be steadfast in Christ. 
 
 Thus the doctrinal portion, which has occupied the Apostle 
 since he resumed, is a parenthesis suggested by the cireum- 
 stances of the moment. At length he takes up the thread of 
 his subject, where he had dropped it when the letter was inter- 
 rupted. He refers again to their dissensions. This was the 
 topic on which repetition needed no apology. He mentions 
 by name those chiefly at fault, and he appeals directly to those 
 most able to heal the feuds. And now once more he seems 
 drawing to a close: ‘Farewell (rejoice) in the Lord alway: 
 again I say, farewell (rejoice).’ Yet still he lingers: this fare- 
 well is prolonged into an exhortation and a blessing. At length 
 he gives-his parting injunction: ‘ Finally, my brethren, what- 
 soever things are true, etc. But something still remains unsaid. 
 He has not yet thanked them for their gift by Epaphroditus, 
 though he has alluded to it in passing. With a graceful inter- 
 mingling of manly independence and courteous delicacy he 
 
CHARACTER AND CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE. 
 
 acknowledges this token of their love, explaining his own cir- 
 cumstances and feelings at some length. At last the epistle 
 closes with the salutations and the usual benediction. 
 
 The following then is an analysis of the epistle: 
 ee ay Ts 2: Opening salutation. 
 1. 3—II. Thanksgiving and prayer for his converts, 
 
 1. r12—26. Account of his personal circumstances and 
 feelings ; and of the progress of the Gospel in Rome. 
 
 ΤΙ, 1. 27—11. 4. Exhortation to unity and self-negation, 
 
 ii, 5—11. Christ the great pattern of humility. 
 11. 12—16. Practical following of His example. 
 
 111. ii. 17—30. Explanation of his intended movements; the 
 purposed visit of Timothy; the illness, recovery, and 
 mission of Epaphroditus. 
 
 IV. iii. 1. The Apostle begins his final injunctions; but is 
 interrupted and breaks off suddenly. 
 
 [iii, 2—iv. 1. He resumes; and warns them against two 
 antagonistic errors : 
 
 Judaism (iii. 3—14). 
 
 He contrasts the doctrine of works with the doctrine of 
 grace ; his former life with his present. The doctrine 
 of grace leads to a progressive morality. Thus he is 
 brought to speak secondly of 
 
 Antinomianism (iii. 15—1v. 1). 
 
 He points to his own example; and warns his converts 
 against diverging from the right path. He appeals to 
 them as citizens of heaven. | 
 
 Here the digression ends; the main thread of the letter 
 is recovered; and 
 iv. 2, 3. The Apostle once more urges them to heal their 
 dissensions, appealing to them by name. 
 iv. 4—9. He exhorts them to joyfulness, to freedom 
 from care, to the pursuit of all good aims. 
 
 V. iv. 1o—20. He gratefully acknowledges their alms re- 
 ceived through Epaphroditus, and invokes a blessing 
 on their thoughtful love. 
 
 VI. iv. 21—23. Salutations from all and to all. 
 
 The farewell benediction. 
 
 γι. 
 
 iv. 21--23. 
 Analysis 
 of the 
 epistle. 
 
72 
 
 Thoughts 
 suggested 
 by the 
 epistle. 
 
 CHARACTER AND CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE. 
 
 The Epistle to the Philippians is not only the noblest re- 
 flexion of St Paul's personal character and spiritual illumination, 
 his large sympathies, his womanly tenderness, his delicate cour- 
 tesy, his frank independence, his entire devotion to the Master’s 
 service ; but as a monument of the power of the Gospel it yields 
 in importance to none of the apostolic writings. Scarcely thirty 
 years have passed since one Jesus was crucified as a malefactor 
 in a remote province of the empire; scarcely ten since one Paul 
 a Jew of Tarsus first told at Philippi the story of His cruel 
 death; and what is the result? Imagine one, to whom the 
 name of Christ had been hitherto a name only, led by circum- 
 stances to study this touching picture of the relations between 
 St Paul, his fellow-labourers, his converts; and pausing to ask 
 himself what unseen power had produced these marvellous re- 
 sults. Stronger than any associations of time or place, of race 
 or profession, stronger than the instinctive sympathies of com- 
 mon interest or the natural ties of blood-relationship, a myste- 
 rious bond unites St Paul, Epaphroditus, the Philippian con- 
 verts; them to the Apostle, and him to them, and each to the 
 other. In this threefold cord of love the strands are so inter- 
 twined and knotted together, that the writer cannot conceive 
 of them as disentangled. The joy of one must be the joy of 
 all; the sorrow of one must be the sorrow of all. 
 
 The Apostle’s language furnishes the reply to such a ques- 
 tioner. This unseen power is the ‘power of Christ’s resurrection’ 
 This mutual love is diffused from ‘the heart of Christ Jesus?) 
 beating with His pulses and living by His life. When the con- 
 temporary heathen remarked how ‘these Christians loved one 
 another, he felt that he was confronted by an unsolved enigma. 
 The power which wrought the miracle was hidden from him. 
 It was no new commandment indeed, for it appealed to the 
 oldest and truest impulses of the human heart. And yet it was 
 a new commandment; for in Christ’s life and death and resur- 
 rection it had found not only an example and a sanction, but 
 a power, a vitality, wholly unfelt and unknown before, 
 
 1 Phil. iii. το. 2ePhily ds. 
 
CHARACTER AND CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE. 73 
 
 To all ages of the Church—to our own especially—this tts great 
 epistle reads a great lesson. While we are expending our ‘°° 
 strength on theological definitions or ecclesiastical rules, it 
 recalls us from these distractions to the very heart and centre 
 of the Gospel—the life of Christ and the life in Christ. Here 
 is the meeting-point of all our differences, the healing of all 
 our feuds, the true life alike of individuals and sects and 
 churches: here doctrine and practice are wedded together; for 
 here is the ‘ Creed of creeds’ involved in and arising out of the 
 Work of works. 
 
Internal 
 evidence. 
 
 Genuine- 
 ness ques- 
 tioned. 
 
 Objections 
 need not 
 be consi- 
 dered. 
 
 The Genuineness of the Epistle. 
 
 Τ᾽ TERNAL evidence will appear to most readers to place the genuine- 
 ness of the Epistle to the Philippians beyond the reach of doubt. This 
 evidence is of two kinds, positive and negative. On the one hand the 
 epistle completely reflects St Paul’s mind and character, even in their 
 finest shades. On the other, it offers no motive which could have led 
 to a forgery. Only as the natural outpouring of personal feeling, called 
 forth by immediate circumstances, is it in any way conceivable. A forger 
 would not have produced a work so aimless (for aimless in his case it must 
 have been), and could not have produced one so inartificial. 
 
 Nevertheless its genuineness has been canvassed. Evanson (Disso- 
 nance, etc. p. 263) led the van of this adverse criticism. At a later date 
 Schrader (Der Apostel Paulus v. p. 201 sq.) threw out suspicions with 
 regard to different portions of the epistle. More recently it has been 
 condemned as spurious by Baur (see especially his Pawlus p. 458 sq.), 
 who is followed as usual by Schwegler (Nachap. Zeit. τι. p. 133 8q,), 
 and one or two others. His objections, says Bleek (Zin/. ins N. T. Ὁ. 433), 
 rest sometimes on perverse interpretations of separate passages, sometimes 
 on arbitrary historical assumptions, while in other cases it is hard to con- 
 ceive that they were meant in earnest. 
 
 I cannot think that the mere fact of their having been brought 
 forward by men of ability and learning is sufficient to entitle objections 
 of this stamp to a serious refutation. They have not the suggestive 
 character which sometimes marks even the more extravagant theories 
 of this school, and serve only as a warning of the condemnation which 
 unrestrained negative criticism pronounces upon itself. In this epistle 
 surely, if anywhere, the two complementary aspects of St Paul’s person 
 and teaching—his strong individuality of character and his equally strong 
 sense of absorption in Christ—the ‘I’ and the ‘yet not I’ of his great 
 antithesis—both appear with a force and a definiteness which carry thorough 
 conviction. Hilgenfeld, the present leader of the Tibingen school, refused 
 from the first to subscribe to his master’s view respecting this epistle: 
 and probably few in the present day would be found to maintain this opi- 
 nion. The criticisms of Baur have been several times refuted: e.g. in 
 the monographs of Liinemann Pauli ad Phil. Epist. defend., Gottingen 
 1847, and B. B. Brickner Epist.ad Phil. Paulo auctori vindic., Lips. 1848, 
 
THE GENUINENESS OF THE EPISTLE. τῆς 
 
 and in the introductions to the commentaries of Wiesinger, Eadie, and 
 others. See also more recently Hilgenfeld Zeitschr. 7. Wissensch. Theol. 
 1871 p. 192 8q., 309 8q., 1873 p. 178 sq. 
 
 The quotations from this epistle in early Christian writers are not Early quo- 
 80 numerous, as they would probably have been, if it had contained more *tions. 
 matter which was directly doctrinal or ecclesiastical. Among the Apo- 
 stolic fathers CLumEntT oF Roms (§ 47) uses the phrase ‘in the beginning Apostolic 
 of the Gospel’ (Phil. iv. 15). Again he says, ‘If we walk not worthily fathers. 
 of Him?’ (μὴ ἀξίως αὐτοῦ πολιτευόμενοι, § 21; comp. Phil. i. 27). A third 
 passage (§ 2), ‘Ye were sincere and harmless and not mindful of injury 
 one towards another,’ resembles Phil. i. το, ii. 15. And a fourth, in which 
 he dwells upon the example of Christ’s humility (δ 16), seems to reflect the 
 familiar passage in Phil. ii. 5 sq. Though each resemblance in itself is 
 indecisive, all combined suggest at least ἃ probability that St Clement 
 had seen this epistle. When Ienatius (Hom. 2) expresses his desire of 
 being ‘ poured out as ἃ libation (σπονδισθῆναι) to God, while yet the altar 
 is ready,’ this must be considered a reminiscence of Phil. ii. 17. In the 
 Epistle to the Philadelphians also (§ 8) the words ‘do nothing from 
 party-spirit’ (μηδὲν κατ᾽ ἐριθείαν πράσσειν) are taken from Phil. ii. 3; 
 for in an earlier passage of the same letter (§ 1) the writer reproduces the 
 second member of St Paul’s sentence, ‘nor from vainglory’ (οὐδὲ κατὰ Kevo- 
 δοξίαν). In the Epistle to the Smyrnzeans again the words § 4 ‘I endure all 
 things, while He strengtheneth me’ are derived from Phil. iv. 13, and the 
 words § 11 ‘ Being perfect be ye also perfectly minded’ from Phil. iii. 15. 
 PotyoarP, addressing the Philippians, more than once directly mentions 
 St Paul’s writing to them (§ 3, 11): he commences the body of the 
 letter with an expression taken from this epistle, ‘I rejoiced with you 
 greatly in the Lord’ (cuveydpny ὑμῖν μεγάλως ἐν Κυρίῳ, comp. Phil. iv. 10 
 ἐχάρην δὲ ἐν Κυρίῳ μεγάλως) : and in other passages his words are a re- 
 flexion of its language; e.g. ὃ 2 ‘ Unto whom all things were made subject 
 that are in heaven and that are on the earth οἷο. of Phil. ii. 10; ὃ 9 
 ‘I did not run in vain,’ of Phil. 11. 16 (comp. Gal. ii. 2); ὃ 10 ‘diligentes 
 invicem, in veritate sociati, mansuetudinem Domini alterutri przestolantes,’ 
 of Phil. 1]. 2—5; ὃ 12 ‘inimicis crucis, of Phil. iii. 18. The words ἐὰν 
 πολιτευσώμεθα ἀξίως αὐτοῦ (δ 5) are perhaps taken from Clement of Rome 
 (see above), though they resemble Phil. i. 27. 
 
 When Hermas, Vis. i. 3, writes ‘they shall be written into the books permas, 
 of life,” he probably refers rather to Rev. xx. 15, than to Phil. iv. 3. 
 
 Other coincidences, as Vis. iii, 13 ‘If anything be wanting it shall be 
 revealed to thee’ (Phil. iii. 15), Mand. v. 2 ‘ Concerning giving or receiving’ 
 (Phil. iv. 15), are not sufficient to establish a connexion. 
 
 In the TESTAMENTS OF THE TWELVE PaTRIARCHS, a Jewish Christian Test, xi 
 work probably dating early in the second century, a few expressions are Patri- 
 borrowed from this epistle: Levi 4 ‘in the heart (ἐν σπλάγχνοις) of Hig 3195. 
 Son, from Phil. i. 8; Benj. 10 ‘ Worshipping the king of the heavens 
 who appeared on earth in the form of man’ (ἐν μορφῇ ἀνθρώπου, to which 
 
 
 
76 
 
 Apolo- 
 gists. 
 
 Churches 
 of Gaul, 
 
 Syriac 
 Docu- 
 ments. 
 
 Heretics. 
 
 Apocry- 
 phal Acts. 
 
 Canons of 
 Scripture, 
 
 THE GENUINENESS OF THE EPISTLE. 
 
 one text adds ταπεινώσεως, comp. Phil. iii. 21), and Zab. 9 ‘ Ye shall see in 
 the fashion of man etc. (dweobe ἐν σχήματι ἀνθρώπου; it is doubtful 
 whether or not θεὸν should follow, but the reference is plainly to Christ), 
 from Phil. 11. 6—8 ; Levi 14 ‘Ye are the luminaries (οἱ φωστῆρες) of the 
 heaven,’ from Phil. ii. 15. 
 
 The Apologists supply several references. In the Episttn to Dioann- 
 Tus occur the words ‘their dwelling is on earth but their citizenship is in 
 heaven’ (ἐπὶ γῆς διατρίβουσιν ἀλλ᾽ ἐν οὐρανῷ πολιτεύονται § 5): comp. Phil. iii. 
 20. Justin Martyr [1] de Resurr. (0. 7, p. 592 D) also speaks of ‘ our hea- 
 venly citizenship,’ and in another place (6. 9, p. 594 B) writes, ‘The Lord 
 has said that our dwelling is in heaven (ἐν οὐρανῷ ὑπάρχειν)" In the 
 second passage the reference is probably to such sayings as Joh. xiv. 2, 3; 
 but the actual expression seems certainly to be borrowed from St Paul’s 
 language here. Mertiro (Fragm. 6, p. 416, Otto) designates our Lord 
 Θεὸς ἀληθὴς προαιώνιος ὑπάρχων, perhaps having in his mind Phil. ii. 6; and 
 again he writes (Fragm. 14, p. 420, a passage preserved in Syriac) ‘servus 
 reputatus est’ and ‘servi speciem indutus,’ obviously from the context of 
 the same passage in our epistle. THroruitus (ad Aufol.) more than once 
 adopts expressions from this epistle; i.2 ‘approving the things that are 
 excellent,’ either from Phil. i. 10 or from Rom. ii. 18 ; ii. 17 ‘minding 
 earthly things’ (τὰ ἐπίγεια φρονούντων), from Phil. iii. 19; iii. 36 ‘these 
 things are true and useful and just and lovely (προσφιλῆ), apparently from 
 Phil. iv. 8; and again, as quoted by Jerome £pist. 121 (ad Algasiam), he 
 writes ‘ Quze antea pro lucro fuerant, reputari in stercora’ from Phil. iii. 8 
 (if the work quoted by Jerome may be accepted as genuine). 
 
 In the EpistLe oF THE CHURCHES OF VIENNE AND Lyons (A.D. 177) 
 Euseb. HZ. £. v. 2, the text Phil. ii. 6 ‘who being in the form of God etc.’ is 
 quoted. 
 
 In Ancient Syriac Documents (edited by Cureton) it is said of Christ 
 (p. 14), ‘ He being God had appeared to them like men’ (Phil. ii. 6, 7), and 
 in another writing of the same collection (p. 56) these words occur ; ‘ One of 
 the doctors of the Church has said: The scars indeed of my body—that I 
 may come to the resurrection from the dead’; a combination of Gal. vi. 17 
 and Phil. iii. 11. 
 
 The SerHIANI, a very early heretical sect, are stated by Hippolytus 
 (Heres. V. p. 143, X. p. 318) to have interpreted the text Phil. ii. 6, 7, to 
 explain their own doctrines. CasstANus a Valentinian (about 170) quotes 
 Phil. ili. 20 (Clem. Alex. Strom. iii. 14, p. 554 Potter). And THropotus 
 (on the authority of the Excerpts published in the works of Clem. Alex., 
 p. 966 Potter) has two distinct references to a passage in this epistle 
 (Phil. ii. 7 in § 19 and § 35). 
 
 In the Apocryphal Acts or THomas § 27 we read ‘The holy name cf 
 Christ which is above every name’ (τὸ ὑπὲρ πᾶν ὄνομα), from Phil. ii. 9. 
 
 The Epistle to the Philippians appears in all the Canons or ScripTurt 
 during the second century : in the lists of the heretic Marcion and of the 
 Muratorian fragment, as well as in the Old Latin and Peshito Syriac 
 versions. 
 
THE GENUINENESS OF THE EPISTLE. i 
 
 With the other Pauline Epistles of our Canon it is directly quoted and Close of 
 assigned to the Apostle by Irenaus, TERTULLIAN, and CLumENt or Atex- [89 fae 
 ANDRIA. Tertullian more especially, in passages already quoted (p. 65, ἜΗΝ 
 note 2), speaks of its having been read in the Philippian Church uninter- 
 ruptedly to his own time. Though he may not say this from direct per- 
 sonal knowledge or precise information, yet the statement would not have 
 been hazarded, unless the epistle had been universally received in the 
 Church as far back as the traditions of his generation reached. 
 
ἡ 
 ip 
 ἢ 
 iF 
 ne 
 oh" 
 iting 
 au} 
 Re 
 | sig 
 ᾿ “ 
 a7 
 vel is 
 οἱ ᾿ ᾿ 
 
 ᾿Ἶ 
 τι 
 ὰ ni 
 {1 
 i] 
 7 
 
 
 
ΠΡΟΣ ΦΙΛΙΠΙΠΗΣΙΟΎΣ. 
 
WE ALL ARE CHANGED INTO THE SAME IMAGE FROM 
 
 GLORY TO GLORY, AS OF THE LORD THE SPIRIT. 
 
 BUT THE FRUIT OF THE SPIRIT IS LOVE, JOY, PEACE. 
 
 And so the Word had breath, and wrought 
 With human hands the creed of creeds 
 In loveliness of perfect deeds, 
 
 More strong than ali poetic thought. 
 
ΠΡΟΣ ΦΙΛΙΠΠΗΣΤΙΟΥΣ. 
 
 ΑΥ̓ΛΟΣ kai Τιμόθεος, δοῦλοι Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ, 
 
 Lond ~ y 
 πᾶσιν τοῖς ἁγίοις ἐν 
 
 I. Παῦλος] The official title of 
 Apostle is omitted here, as in the 
 Epistles to the Thessalonians. In 
 writing to the Macedonian Churches, 
 with which his relations were so close 
 and affectionate, St Paul would feel an 
 appeal to his authority to be unneces- 
 sary. The same omission is found in 
 the letter to Philemon, and must be 
 similarly explained. He does not en- 
 force a command as a superior, but 
 asks a favour as a friend (Philem. 8, 
 9, 14). In direct contrast to this 
 tone is the strong assertion of his 
 Apostleship in writing to the Galatian 
 Churches, where his authority and his 
 doctrine alike were endangered. 
 
 Τιμόθεος) The intercourse between 
 Timotheus and the Philippian Church 
 had been constant and intimate. He 
 had assisted the Apostle in its first 
 foundation (Acts xvi. I, 13, and xvii. 
 14). He had visited Philippi twice 
 at least during the third missionary 
 journey (Acts xix. 22, comp. 2 Cor. 
 i. 1; and Acts xx. 3, 4, comp. Rom. 
 xvi. 21). He was there not impro- 
 bably more than once during the 
 captivity at Czesarea, when the Apo- 
 stle himself was prevented from see- 
 ing them. And now again he was 
 on the eve of another visit, having 
 been chosen for this purpose, as one 
 whose solicitude for the Philippians 
 had become a second nature (γνησίως 
 μεριμνήσει ii. 20). In like manner his 
 name is associated with St Paul in 
 the letters to the other great church 
 
 PHIL, 
 
 Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ τοῖς οὖσιν 
 
 of Macedonia (1 Thess. i. 1, 2 Thess. 
 BAD), 
 
 But beyond the association of his 
 name in the salutation, Timotheus 
 takes no part in the letter. St Paul 
 starts with the singular (ver. 3) which 
 he maintains throughout ; and having 
 occasion to mention Timotheus speaks 
 of him in the third person, ii. 19. 
 
 πᾶσιν] see the note on ver. 4. 
 
 τοῖς ἁγίοις] ‘the saints, i.e. the 
 covenant people: a term transferred 
 from the old dispensation to the new. 
 The chosen race was a holy people 
 (λαὸς ἅγιος), the Israelites were saints 
 (ἅγιοι), by virtue of their consecra- 
 tion to Jehovah: see e.g. Exod. xix. 
 6, Deut. vii. 6, xiv. 2, 21, Dan. vii. 
 18, 22, 25, vill. 24. So 1 Mace. x. 39 
 τοῖς ἁγίοις τοῖς ἐν Ἱερουσαλήμ. The 
 Christian Church, having taken the 
 place of the Jewish race, has in- 
 herited all its titles and privileges ; 
 it is ‘a chosen generation, a royal 
 priesthood, an holy nation (ἔθνος ἅγιον), 
 a peculiar people (1 Pet. ii. 9)” All who 
 have entered into the Christian cove- 
 nant by baptism are ‘saints’ in the 
 language of the Apostles. Even the 
 irregularities and profligacies of the 
 Corinthian Church do not forfeit it 
 this title. Thus the main idea of the 
 term is consecration. But, though it 
 does not assert moral qualifications 
 as a fact in the persons so designated, 
 it implies them as a duty. And it 
 was probably because ἅγιος suggests 
 the moral idea, which is entirely want- 
 
 6 
 
82 EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS, five, 3 
 
 5 / \ ’ / \ ὃ , 
 εν Φιλίπποις συν €TLOKOTTOLS καὶ OLAKOVOLS. 
 
 2 , e ΄σ΄ 
 χαρις ὑμῖν 
 
 \ 3 IA 9 \ a ‘ e ΄σ \ Wa 3 co 
 Kal εἰρηνῆ απὸ Θεοῦ TATpOS ἡμῶν καὶ κυριου Ἰησοῦ 
 
 Χριστοῦ : 
 
 3 ~ ΄ς. ~ \ ~ 7 ~~ 
 δ Εὐχαριστῶ τῷ Θεῴ pou ἐπὶ πάσῃ TH. μνείᾳ ὑμῶν 
 
 ing to ἱερός, that the former was adopt- 
 ed by the Lxx translators as the com- 
 mon rendering of &7), while the latter 
 is very rarely used by them in any 
 sense: see esp. Lev. xi. 44 ἁγιασθή- 
 σεσθε καὶ ἅγιοι ἔσεσθε ὅτι ἅγιός εἰμι 
 ἐγώ. 
 
 ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ] to be connected 
 with ἁγίοις. For the omission of the 
 article see the notes on 1 Thess. i. 1. 
 
 ἐπισκόποις καὶ διακόνοις] ‘the pres- 
 byters and deacons. The contribu- 
 tions were probably sent to St Paul in 
 the name of the officers, as well as of 
 the church generally : comp. Acts xy. 
 23. Hence St Paul mentions them in 
 reply. It seems hardly probable that 
 this mention was intended, as some 
 have thought, to strengthen the hands 
 of the presbyters and deacons, their 
 authority being endangered. The dis- 
 sensions in the Philippian Church do 
 not appear to have touched the offi- 
 cers. On ἐπίσκοπος and πρεσβύτερος, 
 as interchangeable terms, see the 
 detached note, p. 95. 
 
 2. χάρις ὑμῖν x.7.A.] On the form 
 of salutation see the note on 1 Thess. 
 ets 
 
 3. The thanksgiving in this epistle 
 is more than usually earnest. The 
 Apostle dwells long and fondly on the 
 subject. He repeats words and accu- 
 mulates clauses in the intensity of his 
 feeling. As before in the omission of 
 his official title, so here in the fulness 
 of his thanksgiving, the letters to the 
 Thessalonians present the nearest pa- 
 rallel to the language of this epistle : 
 see introduction p. 66. 
 
 3—5. ‘I thank my God for you 
 all at all times, as I think of you, 
 whensoever I pray for you (and these 
 prayers I offer with joy), for that you 
 have co-operated with me to the fur- 
 
 therance of the Gospel from the day 
 when you first heard of it to the pre- 
 sent moment.’ 
 
 The arrangement of the clauses in 
 these verses is doubtful They may 
 be connected in various ways, and the 
 punctuation will differ accordingly. 
 On the whole however the. words 
 πάντοτε ἐν πάσῃ δεήσει μου ὑπὲρ πάντων 
 ὑμῶν seem naturally to run together ; 
 and if so, we have the alternative of 
 attaching them to the foregoing or to 
 the following words. I have preferred 
 the former for two reasons. (1) The 
 structure of the passage is dislocated 
 and its force weakened, by disconnect- 
 ing clauses pointed out so obviously 
 as correlative by the repetition of the 
 same word πάσῃ, πάντοτε, πάσῃ, πάν- 
 tov; see Lobeck Paral. p. 56. (2) 
 The words pera χαρᾶς τὴν δέησιν ποιού- 
 μενος seem to stand apart, as an ex- 
 planatory clause defining the charac- 
 ter of the foregoing πάσῃ δεήσει ; for 
 there would be great awkwardness in 
 making one sentence of the two, ἐν 
 πάσῃ δεήσει τὴν δέησιν ποιούμενος. For 
 the connexion εὐχαριστεῖν πάντοτε (in 
 most cases with περὶ or ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν) see 
 1 Cor. i. 4, 1 Thess. i. 2, 2 Thess. 1: 3, 
 ii. 13, Ephes. ν. 20, and perhaps also 
 Col. i. 3, Philem. 4 : comp. also Ephes. 
 i. 16 οὐ παύομαι εὐχαριστῶν. 
 
 τῷ Θεῷ μου] ‘my God.’ The singu- 
 lar expresses strongly the sense of a 
 close personal relationship : comp. Acts 
 xxvii. 23 ‘whose I am and whom I 
 serve’: see also the note on Gal. ii, 20, 
 and comp. iii+8. 
 
 ἐπὶ πάσῃ τῇ μνείᾳ] ‘in all my re- 
 membrance, not ‘on every remem- 
 brance (ἐπὶ πάσῃ μνείᾳ), which would 
 point rather to isolated, intermittent 
 acts. On μνεία and εὐχαριστῶ see the 
 notes 1 Thess, i, 2. 
 
ΠῚ. 15] 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 83 
 
 ’ “ , e A / “ - 
 ἦπάντοτε ἐν πάσῃ δεήσει μον ὑπὲρ πάντων ὑμῶν, μετὰ 
 ΄' \ if. / , \ ΄σ ὔ ΄ > 
 χαρᾶς τὴν δέησιν ποιούμενος, “ἐπὶ τή κοινωνίᾳ ὑμῶν εἰς ~ 
 \ > \ ἊΣ / , yf - ΄ 
 τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ἀπὸ [τῆς] πρώτης ἡμέρας ἄχρι τοῦ νῦν" 
 
 4. ὑπὲρ πάντων ὑμῶν] should be 
 connected rather with εὐχαριστῶ than 
 with ἐν πάσῃ δεήσει, for the following 
 reasons. (1) The words are more na- 
 turally taken as independent and co- 
 ordinate withail the preceding clauses, 
 ἐπὶ πάσῃ τῇ μνείᾳ, πάντοτε, ἐν πάσῃ 
 δεήσει, than as dependent on any one 
 singly. (2) The stress of the Apo- 
 stle’s statement is rather on the 
 thanksgiving for all than the prayer 
 for all, as he is dwelling on their good 
 deeds. (3) In the parallel passages 
 already quoted the common connexion 
 13 εὐχαριστεῖν ὑπὲρ (Or περὶ) ὑμῶν. 
 
 There is a studied repetition of the 
 word ‘all’ in this epistle, when the 
 Philippian Church is mentioned : see 
 i. 2, 7 (ὑπὲρ πάντων ὑμῶν, πάντας ὑμᾶς), 
 8, 25, 11. 17, iv. 21. It is impossible 
 not to connect this recurrence of the 
 word with the strong and repeated 
 exhortations to unity which the epi- 
 stle contains (i. 27, ii. I—4, iv. 2, 3, 5, 
 7,9). The Apostle seems to say, ‘I 
 make no difference between man and 
 man, or between party and party : my 
 heart is open to all; my prayers, my 
 thanksgivings, my hopes, my obliga- 
 tions, extend to all.’ See the intro- 
 “duction, p. 67. 
 
 μετὰ χαρᾶς κιτιλ.] ‘Summa episto- 
 
 lee, says Bengel, ‘gaudeo gaudete’ : 
 Cup: Le Paes, li. 2, 17, 10,28, 20, 
 111. I, iv. 1, 4, 10. The article before 
 δέησιν refers it back to the previous 
 δεήσει. 
 
 5. ἐπὶ τῇ κοινωνίᾳ κι. λ] The pre- 
 vious clause μετὰ χαρᾶς τὴν δέησιν 
 ποιούμενος being a parenthesis, these 
 words are connected with εὐχαριστῶ. 
 For εὐχαριστεῖν ἐπὶ see 1 Cor. i. 4. 
 The words signify not ‘ your participa- 
 tion in the Gospel’ (rod εὐαγγελίου, 
 comp. ii. I, iii. 10), but ‘ your coopera- 
 tion towards, in aid of the Gospel’ (εἰς 
 τὸ εὐαγγέλιον). For the construction 
 
 see 2 Cor. ix. 13 ἁπλύτητι τῆς κοινωνίας 
 eis αὐτούς, Rom. xy. 26 κοινωνίαν τινὰ 
 ποιήσασθαι εἰς τοὺς πτωχούς. In the 
 passages just quoted κοινωνία has a 
 restricted meaning, ‘ contributions, 
 almsgiving’ (as also in 2 Cor. viii. 4, 
 Hebr. xiii. 16; 50 κοινωνεῖν, Rom. xii. 
 13; κοινωνικός, I Tim. vi. 18; see 
 Fritzsche Rom. 11. p. 81); but here, 
 as the context shows, it denotes co- 
 operation iu the widest sense, their 
 participation with the Apostle whether 
 in sympathy or in suffering or in ac- 
 tive labour or in any other way. At 
 the same time their almsgiving was a 
 signal instance of this cooperation, 
 and seems to have been foremost in 
 the Apostle’s mind. In this particu- 
 lar way they had cooperated from the 
 very first (ἀπὸ τῆς πρώτης ἡμέρας) 
 when on his departure from Philippi 
 they sent contributions to Thessalo- 
 nica and to Corinth (iv. 15, 16 ἐν ἀρχῇ 
 Tov εὐαγγελίου), and up to the present 
 time (ἄχρι rod νῦν) when again they had 
 despatched supplies to Rome by the 
 hands of Epaphroditus (iv. 10 ἤδη πότε). 
 
 πρώτης] ‘the jist’ The article is 
 frequently omitted, because the nu- 
 meral is sufficiently definite in itself: 
 comp. Mark xii. 28—30, xvi. 9, Acts 
 ΧΙ IO, Xvi. 12, xx, 18, Ephes: vi. 2. 
 Here some of the oldest Mss read τῆς 
 πρώτης, but the article might perhaps 
 be suspected, as a likely addition of 
 some transcriber for the sake of 
 greater precision. 
 
 6, 7- ‘I have much ground for 
 thanksgiving ; thanksgiving for past 
 experience, and thanksgiving for future 
 hope. I am sure, that as God has in- 
 augurated a good work in you, so He 
 will complete the same, that it may be 
 prepared to stand the test in the day 
 of Christ’s advent. I have every rea- 
 son to think thus favourably of you 
 all; for the remembrance is ever in 
 
 6—2 
 
¢ 
 
 54 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 
 
 [I. 6, 7 
 
 6 \ 3 \ ΄σ « .» ’ ᾽ Cid hee A 
 πεποιθὼς αὐτὸ τοῦτο, OTL ὁ EvapEapeEvos ἐν ὑμῖν ἔργον 
 > θὸ > λέ of ε ΄ "I fal X By) θ 
 
 ἀγαθὸν ἐπιτελέσει ἀχρι[ς] nuepas ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, Ἰκαῦ- 
 
 (A \ lod ΄ A ͵ ΄ 
 ὡς ἐστιν δίκαιον ἐμοὶ τοῦτο φρονεῖν ὑπερ πάντων ὑμῶν, 
 
 \ δα νον 9 ~ “ e ~ af ΄ ΄- 
 διὰ τὸ ἔχειν με ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ ὑμᾶς ἔν τε τοῖς δεσμοῖς 
 
 6. ἡμέρας Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ. 
 
 my heart, how you—yes, αἰΐ of you— 
 have tendered me your aid and love, 
 whether in bearing the sorrows of my 
 captivity or in actively defending and 
 promoting the Gospel: a manifest to- 
 ken that ye all are partakers with me 
 of the grace of God.’ 
 
 πεποιθὼς αὐτὸ τοῦτο] ‘since 7 
 have this very confidence” This as- 
 surance, built on the experience of 
 the past, enables the Apostle to anti- 
 cipate matter for thankfulness. For 
 αὐτὸ τοῦτο comp. Gal. ii. 10, 2 Cor. ii. 
 3, 2 Pet.i. 5 (with av. 1.). The order 
 alone seems sufficient to exclude an- 
 other proposed rendering of αὐτὸ τοῦ- 
 το, ‘on this very account,’ i.e. ‘by rea- 
 son of your past cooperation.’ 
 
 ὁ évapEapevos| The words ἐνάρχεσθαι, 
 ἐπιτελεῖν, possibly contain a sacrificial 
 metaphor: see the notes on Gal. iii. 3, 
 and compare ii. 17 εἰ καὶ σπένδομαι ἐπὶ 
 τῇ θυσίᾳ. For the omission of Θεὸς 
 before ὁ évapEapevos compare Gal. i. 6, 
 15 (notes). 
 
 ἔργον ἀγαθόν] By this ‘good work’ 
 is meant their cooperation with and 
 affection for the Apostle. By the 
 workers of this work St Paul doubt- 
 less means the Philippians themselves. 
 Nevertheless it is God’s doing from 
 
 beginning to end: He inaugurates 
 
 and He completes. This paradox of 
 all true religion is still more broadly 
 stated in ii. 12, 13,‘ Work out your own 
 salvation, for it is God that worketh 
 in you both to will and to work etc.’ 
 ἄχρις ἡμέρας ᾿Ιησοῦ] refers to the 
 foregoing notes of time, ἀπὸ πρώτης 
 
 * ἡμέρας and ἄχρι τοῦ viv; but the ex- 
 
 pression implies something more than 
 a temporal limit. The idea of a test- 
 ing is prominent : ‘God will advance 
 you in grace, so that you may be pre- 
 
 pared to meet the day of trial.” On 
 the meaning of ἡμέρα and on the ab- 
 sence of the definite article see the 
 notes on 1 Thess. v. 2. 
 
 As ‘the -day of Christ’ is thus a 
 more appropriate limit than ‘the day 
 of your death,’ it must not be hastily 
 inferred from this expression that St 
 Paul confidently expected the Lord’s 
 advent during the lifetime of his Phil- 
 ippian converts. On the other hand, 
 some anticipation of its near approach 
 seems to underlie ἄχρις here, as it is 
 implied in St Paul’s language else- 
 where, e.g. in ἡμ εἴς of ζῶντες τ Thess. 
 iv. 17, and in πάντες οὐ κοιμηθησόμεθα 
 (probably the correct reading) 1 Cor. 
 SVS 1. 
 
 7. This confidence is justified by 
 their past cooperation, which is indeli- 
 bly stamped on the Apostle’s memory. 
 The stress of the reason (δεά), which 
 is the foundation of this assurance, 
 rests not on ἔχειν ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ but on 
 συνκοινωνοὺς τῆς χάριτος, not on the 
 act of remembering but on the thing 
 remembered. 
 
 καθώς] See the note Gal, iii. 6. 
 
 τοῦτο φρονεῖν x.t.r.] ‘to entertain 
 this opinion concerning you all’ On 
 the difference between ὑπὲρ and περὶ 
 see the note on Gal. i. 4, and comp. 
 Winer ὃ xlvii. p. 466. 
 
 dua τὸ ἔχειν pe κιτ.λ.] ‘because Ihave - 
 you’; not, as it is sometimes taken, 
 ‘because you have me,” ‘The order of 
 the words points to this as the correct 
 rendering ; and the appeal which fol- 
 lows, ‘for God is my witness, re- 
 quires it. 
 
 ἔν te τοῖς δεσμοῖς x.7.A.| Are these 
 words to be taken with the foregoing 
 or with the following clause? Ac- 
 cording as they are attached to the 
 
Ι. 3] 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 85 
 
 μου καὶ ἐν τῇ ἀπολογίᾳ Kal βεβαιώσει τοῦ sis ola 
 
 συνκοινωνούς ΓΝ τῆς χάριτος πάντας ὑμᾶς ὄντας" 
 
 "μάρ- 
 
 TUS yap μου ὁ Geos, ὡς ἐπιποθῶ πάντας ὑμᾶς ἐν σπλάγ- 
 
 ene or the other, their meaning will 
 be ditierent. (1) If we connect them 
 with what precedes, ἐν will be tempo- 
 ral, and the sense will then be, ‘I bear 
 this i in mind, both when Iam in bonds 
 and when [I am pleading my cause in 
 court.’ But even if there were ground 
 for supposing that the trial had al- 
 ready begun, the clause is thus ren- 
 dered almost meaningless. (2) On 
 the other hand, if they are attached 
 to the following words, the sense is 
 easy: ‘participators with me both in 
 my bonds and in my defence and main- 
 tenance of the Gospel, i.e. ‘1f I have 
 suffered, so have you; if I have la- 
 boured actively for the Gospel, so have 
 you’: comp. Vv. 29, 30. 
 
 τῇ ἀπολογίᾳ x.t.A.| 'The two words, 
 being connected by the same articie, 
 combine to form one idea. As ἀπο- 
 λογία implies the negative or defen- 
 sive side of the Apostle’s preaching, 
 the preparatory process of removing 
 obstacles and prejudices, so βεβαίωσις 
 denotes the positive or aggressive side, 
 the direct advancement and establish- 
 ment of the Gospel. The two toge- 
 ther will thus comprise all modes of 
 preaching and extending the truth, 
 Kor ἀπολογία see ver. 16; for βεβαίω- 
 σις I ΟὐΥ. 1. 6. 
 
 συνκοινωνούς μου κ-.τ.λ.] ‘partakers 
 with me in grace. The genitives are 
 best treated as separate and inde- 
 pendent, so e.g. ii, 30: comp. Winer 
 § Xxx. p. 239. In this case ἡ χάρις 
 with the definite article stands abso- 
 lutely for ‘the Divine grace,’ as fre- 
 quently: e.g. Acts xvili. 27, 2 Cor. iv. 
 15, Gal. v. 4, Ephes. ii. 8. ‘Grace’ 
 applies equally to the ‘ bonds,’ and to 
 the ‘ defence and confirmation of the 
 Gospel.’ If it is a privilege to preach 
 Christ, it is not less a privilege to suf- 
 fer for Him: comp. ver. 29 ὑμῖν ἐχα- 
 ρίσθη τὸ ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ, ov μόνον τὸ εἰς 
 
 αὐτὸν πιστεύειν ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸ ὑπὲρ αὐ- 
 τοῦ πάσχειν. A more special ren- 
 dering of the passage is sometimes 
 adopted, ‘joint-contributors to the 
 gift which I have received’: see e.g. 
 Paley’s Hor. Paul. vii. 1. But though 
 χάρις sometimes refers specially to 
 almsgiving (e.g. 1 Cor. xvi. 3, 2 Cor. 
 Vili. 4), such a restriction here seems 
 to sever this clause from the context 
 and to destroy the whole force of the 
 passage. 
 
 ὑμᾶς] repeated: comp. Col. ii. 13 
 (the correct reading), and see Winer 
 § xxii. p. 184. 
 
 8. ‘I call God to witness that I did 
 not exaggerate, when I spoke of having 
 you all in my heart. The same form 
 of attestation occurs in Rom. i. 9: see 
 also 2 Cor. i. 23, 1 Thess. ii. 5, 10. 
 
 emimo0a |‘ L yearn after’? The pre- 
 position in itself signifies merely di- 
 rection ; but the idea of straining after 
 the object being thereby suggested, 
 it gets to imply eagerness: comp. 
 Diod. Sic, xvii. 101 παρόντι μὲν ov χρη- 
 σάμενος ἀπόντα δὲ ἐπιποθήσας. It isa 
 significant fact, pointing to the greater 
 intensity of the language, that, while 
 the simple words πόθος, ποθεῖν, ete. 
 are never found in the New Testa- 
 ment, the compounds ἐπιποθεῖν, ἐπιπο- 
 Gia, ἐπιπόθησις, ἐπιπόθητος, occur with 
 tolerable frequency. 
 
 ev σπλάγχνοις κ-τ.λ.] Did I speak of 
 having you in my own heart ? I should 
 rather have said that in the heart of 
 Christ Jesus I long for you.” A power- 
 ful metaphor describing perfect union. 
 The believer has no yearnings apart 
 from his Lord; his pulse beats with 
 the pulse of Christ; his heart throbs 
 with the heart of Christ. ‘In Paulo 
 non Paulus vivit, says Bengel, ‘sed 
 Jesus Christus’; see the note on Gal. 
 11, 20. Comp. Test. wit. Patr. Levi 4 
 ἐν σπλάγχνοις υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ, Theophilus 
 
86 EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 
 
 [I. 9, 10 
 
 ~ - A τε , e/ ε 
 χνοις Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ" ὁκαὶ τοῦτο προσεύχομαι, ἵνα ἡ ἀγ- 
 U ε ἴων af “- \ oa / τ > / 
 arn ὑμῶν ETL μᾶλλον τ ΠΟΛΛῸΣ ἘΠ ΤΕ υ ἢ ἘΣ po SS 
 > / « ΄σ 
 
 καὶ πάση αἰσθήσει, "εἰς τὸ δοκιμαζειν ὑμᾶς τὰ δια- 
 
 ΄ ἢ € oO 3 ~ \ > / 3 « , 
 φέροντα; ἵνα ἦτε εἰλικρινεῖς καὶ ἀπροόσκοποι εἰς ἡμέραν 
 
 9. μᾶλλον περισσεύσῃ. 
 
 (ad Autol. ii. 10, 22) uses σπλάγχνα 
 and καρδία as convertible terms, speak- 
 ing of the Word in one passage as 
 ἐνδιάθετον ἐν τοῖς ἰδίοις σπλάγχνοις (τοῦ 
 Θεοῦ), in another as ἐνδιάθετον ev καρ- 
 Oia Θεοῦ. 
 
 The σπλάγχνα are properly the no- 
 bler viscera, the heart, lungs, liver etc., 
 as distinguished from the ἔντερα, the 
 lower viscera, theintestines: e.g. Asch. 
 Agam. 1221 σὺν ἐντέροις Te σπλάγχνα. 
 The σπλάγχνα alone seem to be re- 
 garded by the Greeks as the seatof the 
 affections, whether anger, love, pity, 
 or jealousy. On the other hand no 
 such distinction is observed in He- 
 brew. The words ON, O', and 
 even 2°), which occur commonly in 
 this metaphorical sense, seem to cor- 
 respond rather to ἔντερα than to 
 σπλάγχνα: Whence even κοιλία and 
 ἔγκατα are so used in the Lxx. The 
 verb σπλαγχνίζεσθαι seems not to be 
 classical, and was perhaps a coinage 
 of the Jewish dispersion, the metaphor 
 being much more common in Hebrew 
 than in Greek. 
 
 9. ‘I spoke of praying for you (ver. 
 4). This then is the purport of my 
 prayer (τοῦτο προσεύχομαι), that your 
 love may ever grow and grow, in the 
 attainment of perfect knowledge and 
 universal discernment.’ 
 
 ἵνα] introduces the clause which de- 
 scribes the purport of τοῦτο. For 
 this connexion of τοῦτο iva compare 
 1 Joh. iv. 17: see also 3 Joh. 4 μειζο- 
 τέραν τούτων οὐκ ἔχω χαρὰν iva ἀκούω 
 κιτιλ., Joh, xv. 13 μείζονα ταύτη ς aya- 
 πην οὐδεὶς ἔχει ἵνα τις τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ 
 θῇ κιτιλ. For such later usages of ἵνα, 
 which in older classical Greek always 
 denotes motive or design, see the 
 notes on 1 Thess. ii. 16, v. 4, Gal. ν. 17. 
 
 ἡ ἀγάπη" love, neither towards the 
 
 Apostle alone nor towards one another 
 alone, but love absolutely, the inward 
 state of the soul. 
 
 ἔτι μᾶλλον κιτ.λ.] An aecumulaticn 
 of words to denote superabundance, 
 as below ver. 23. The present (περισ- 
 σεύῃ), perhaps better supported than 
 the aorist’ (περισσεύσῃ), is certainly 
 more in place, as expressing the con-. 
 tinuous growth. 
 
 ἐπιγνώσει)" advanced, perfect know- 
 ledge. The intensive preposition (ἐπί) 
 before γνώσει answers to the adjective 
 before αἰσθήσει. Comp. 1 Cor. xiii. 12 
 ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους τότε δὲ ἐπι- 
 γνώσομαι: see also the distinction of 
 γνῶσις and ἐπίγνωσις in Justin Dial. 
 p 220 Dp. The substantive, which ap- 
 pears in St Paulin the Epistle to the 
 Romans (i. 28, x. 2) for the first time, 
 is found several times in the letters 
 of the captivity and afterwards. Its 
 more frequent occurrence thus corre- 
 sponds to the more contemplative as- 
 pect of the Gospel presented in these 
 later epistles. See Col. i. 9 (note). 
 
 πάσῃ αἰσθήσει] ‘all perception.’ Love 
 imparts a sensitiveness of touch, gives 
 a keen edge to the discriminating fa- 
 culty, in things moral and spiritual. 
 While ἐπίγνωσις deals with general 
 principles, αἴσθησις is concerned with 
 practical applications. The latter word 
 does not occur elsewhere in the New 
 Testament, but αἰσθητήρια is used si- 
 niilarly to denote the organs of moral 
 sense, Hebr. v. 14 τῶν dia τὴν ἕξιν τὰ 
 αἰσθητήρια γεγυμνασμένα ἐχόντων πρὸς 
 διάκρισιν καλοῦ τε καὶ κακοῦ : comp. Jer. 
 iv. 19 τὰ αἰσθητήρια τῆς καρδίας. 
 
 10. τὰ διαφέροντα] not ‘things which 
 are opposed,’ as good and bad (so for 
 instance Fritzsche Rom. τ. p. 129)— 
 for it requires no keen moral sense 
 to discriminate between these—but 
 
ΠΥ 12] 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 
 
 87 
 
 ΄ 4 \ 4 
 Χριστοῦ, “πεπληρωμένοι καρπὸν δικαιοσύνης τὸν διὰ 
 4 ΄ 5 Fi af ~ 
 Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ets δόξαν. καὶ ἔπαινον Θεοῦ. 
 \ ΄σ 7 ε 
 τ Γινώσκειν δὲ ὑμᾶς βούλομαι, ἀδελφοί, ὅτι τὰ κατ᾽ 
 
 > ‘ i > \ 
 exe μαλλον εἰς προκοπήν 
 
 ‘things that transcend,’ ‘ex bonis me- 
 liora’ in Bengel’s words. The phrase 
 δοκιμάζειν τὰ διαφέροντα occurs also 
 Rom. ii. 18. 
 
 εἰλικρινεῖς] signifies properly ‘ dis- 
 tinct, unmixed,’ and hence ‘ pure, un- 
 sullied.’ The probable derivation and 
 first meaning of the word (a strategi- 
 cal term, εἴλη, εἰληδόν, ‘ gregatim,’ 
 comp. φυλοκρινεῖν) are suggested by 
 Xen. Cyrop. Viii. 5. 14 καὶ διὰ τὸ εἰλι- 
 κρινῆ ἕκαστα εἶναι [τὰ φῦλα], πολὺ μάλ- 
 λον ἦν δῆλα, καὶ ὁπότε τις εὐτακτοίη καὶ 
 εἴ τις μὴ πράττοι τὸ προσταττόμενον. A 
 different account of the word however 
 (deriving it from εἵλη, ‘sunlight’) is 
 generally received. 
 
 ἀπρόσκοποι] might be either in- 
 transitive, ‘without stumbling,’ as Acts 
 XXiv. 16 ἀπρόσκοπον συνείδησιν ἔχειν 
 πρὺς τὸν Θεόν, or transitive, “ποῦ caus- 
 ing offence,’ as 1 Cor. x. 32 ἀπρόσκοποι 
 καὶ Ἰουδαίοις γίνεσθε καὶ Ἕλλησιν. If 
 the former sense be taken, εἰλικρινεῖς 
 and ἀπρόσκοποι will be related to each 
 other as the positive and the negative: 
 if the latter, they will denote respec- 
 tively the relation to God (εἰλικρινεῖς) 
 and the relation to men (ἀπρόσκοποι). 
 he former is to be preferred; for it 
 is a question solely of the fitness of the 
 Philippians to appear before the tri- 
 bunal of Christ, and any reference to 
 their influence on others would be out 
 of place. Comp. Jude 24, 25, τῷ de δυ- 
 γαμένῳ φυλάξαι ὑμᾶς ἀπταίστους kat 
 στῆσαι κατενώπιον τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ ἁμώ- 
 μους κιτιλ. 
 
 εἰς ἡμέραν Χριστοῦ] not “τη{ϊ1.,᾽ but 
 ‘for the day of Christ’; comp. ii. 16, 
 and see also i. 6. 
 
 11. καρπὸν δικαιοσύνης) The expres- 
 sion is taken from the Old Testament, 
 e.g. Proy. xi. 30, Amos vi. 12, and oc- 
 curs also James iii. 18. For the ac- 
 
 τοῦ EevayyeNiov ἐλήλυθεν, 
 
 cusative after πληροῦσθαι comp. Col. 
 i. 9: similarly Luke xi. 46 gopritere 
 τοὺς ἀνθρώπους φορτία δυσβάστακτα. 
 See Winer § xxxii. p. 287. 
 
 τὸν διὰ Ἰησοῦ Jadded to guard against 
 misunderstanding. The A postlemeans 
 ‘righteousness in Christ,’ as contrasted 
 with ‘righteousness by law’: comp. iii. 
 9. Ouly so far as the life of the believer 
 is absorbed in the life of Christ, does 
 the righteousness of Christ become 
 his own. 
 is intimately bound up with the lifein _ 
 Christ: it must in its very nature be 
 fruitful; it is indeed the condition of 
 bearing fruit. Comp. John xv. 4 ‘As 
 the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, 
 except it abide in the vine, no more 
 can ye, except ye abide in me.’ 
 
 εἰς δόξαν x.r..] The only true aim 
 of ail human endeavours: comp. ii. 11. 
 ‘The glory, the manifestation of His 
 power and grace; ‘the praise, the re- 
 cognition of these divine attributes by 
 men: comp. Ephes. i. 6 εἰς ἔπαινον δό- 
 Ens τῆς χάριτος αὐτοῦ, ib. i. 12, 14. 
 
 12, ‘Lest you should be misinform- 
 ed, I would have you know that my 
 sufferings and restraints, so far from 
 being prejudicial to the Gospel, have 
 served to advance it. My bonds have 
 borne witness to Christ, not only among 
 the soldiers of the imperial guard, but 
 in a far wider circle. The same bonds 
 too have through my example inspired 
 most of the brethren with boldness, 
 so that trusting in the Lord they are 
 more zealous than ever, and preach 
 the word of God courageously and un- 
 flinchingly.’ 
 
 τὰ κατ᾽ ἐμέ] ‘my circumstances, as 
 Col. iv. 7, Ephes. vi. 21: comp. Tobit 
 x. 8, 1 Hsdr. i. 22. 
 
 μᾶλλον] ‘rather’ than the reverse, 
 as might have been anticipated. 
 
 Thus righteousness by faith — 
 
88 EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 
 
 [I. 13, 14 
 
 13 74 \ , \ 3 lo , 
 
 ὥστε τοὺς δεσμούς μου Φανεροὺς ἐν Χριστῷ γενέσθαι 
 3 - δ᾿ ~ ~ a 
 
 ἐν ὅλῳ TW πραιτωρίῳ καὶ τοῖς λοιποῖς πᾶσιν, “kal τοὺς 
 7 r a , / ~ a 
 πλείονας τῶν ἀδελφῶν ἐν Κυρίῳ πεποιθότας τοῖς δεσμοῖς 
 Ip ΄. / A o ΄σ 
 μου περισσοτέρως τολμᾶν ἀφόβως τὸν λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ 
 
 προκοπήν] The verb προκόπτειν is 
 strictly classical; not so the substan- 
 tive, which is condemned in Phryni- 
 chus (Lobeck, p. 85). It is however 
 common in writers of this age. 
 
 13. φανεροὺς kt.r.| ‘ave become 
 manifest in Christ, i.e. Shave been 
 seen in their relation to Christ, have 
 borne testimony to the Gospel.’ 
 
 ἐν ὅλῳ τῷ πραιτωρίῳ] ‘throughout 
 the pretorian guard, i.e. the soldiers 
 composing the imperial regiments. 
 This seems to be the best supported 
 meaning of πραιτώριον. Ifa local sense 
 is assigned to it, it will probably sig- 
 nify the ‘przetorian camp,’ but clear 
 examples of this sense are wanting : 
 see the detached note, p.99. On St 
 Paul’s intercourse with the preetorian 
 soldiers see the introduction, pp. 7, 
 19. 
 τοῖς λοιποῖς πᾶσιν) ‘to all the rest’: 
 comp. 2 Cor. xiii. 2; a comprehensive 
 expression, which must not be rigcr- 
 ously interpreted: see the introduc- 
 tion, p. 32sq. The translation of the 
 Authorised Version, ‘in all other 
 places, will not stand. 
 
 14. τοὺς πλείονας] ‘the greater num- 
 ber” St Paul excepts a minority, who 
 through cowardice or indifference held 
 back. 
 
 ἐν Κυρίῳ] to be taken with πεποιθό- 
 τας τοῖς δεσμοῖς pov. Similarly Gal. v. 
 10 πέποιθα εἰς ὑμᾶς ev Κυρίῳ, 2 Thess. 
 iii. 4 πεποίθαμεν δὲ ἐν Κυρίῳ ἐφ᾽ ὑμᾶς. 
 Comp. also below ii. 24, Rom. xiv. 14. 
 The words ἐν Κυρίῳ are thus emphatic 
 by their position. They cannot well be 
 attached to τῶν ἀδελφῶν, as τῶν aded- 
 φῶν alone designates the Christian 
 brotherhood, and the addition would 
 be unmeaning. The instances quoted 
 in favour of this connexion (Col. i. 2, 
 iv. 7, Ephes. vi. 21) are no correct pa- 
 
 rallels; for in none of these passages 
 does the preposition depend directly 
 on ἀδελφός. For πέποιθα, with a 
 dative of the thing in which the confi- 
 dence reposes (τοῖς δεσμοῖς), see Phi- 
 lem. 21. 
 
 περισσοτέρως] This word seems 
 never to lose its comparative force: 
 see the note on Gal. i. 14. Here it 
 denotes the increased zeal of the bre- 
 thren, when stimulated by St Paul’s 
 endurance. The Apostle accumulates 
 words expressive of courage, πεποιθύ- 
 Tas, περισσοτέρως, τολμᾶν ἀφόβως, as 
 above in ver. 9 (see the note). 
 
 tov Θεοῦ] These words, which are 
 wanting in the received reading, have 
 a decided preponderance of authority 
 in their favour, and should probably 
 stand in the text: comp. Acts iv. 31 
 ἐλάλουν τὸν λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ μετὰ παρρη- 
 σίας. 
 
 15—17. ‘But though all alike are 
 active, all are not influenced by the 
 same motives. Some preach Christ 
 to gratify an envious and quarrelsome 
 spirit: others to manifest their good- 
 will, The latter work from love, ac- 
 knowledging that I am appointed to 
 plead for the Gospel: the former 
 proclaim Christ from headstrong par- 
 tisanship and with impure motives, 
 having no other aim-than to render 
 my bonds more galling.’ 
 
 These antagonists can be none other 
 than the Judaizing party, who call 
 down the Apostle’s rebuke in a later 
 passage of this letter (iii. 2sq.) and 
 whose opposition is indirectly implied 
 in another epistle written also from 
 Rome (Col. iv. 11): see above, pp. 17, 
 18. They preach Christ indeed, but 
 their motives are not single. Their 
 real object is to gain adherents to the 
 law. The main-spring of their activity 
 
 “ἃ 
 
I. 15—17] 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 89 
 
 J \ ’ Vo \ \ VS 
 λαλεῖν: “ὁ τινὲς μὲν καὶ διὰ φθόνον καὶ ἔριν, τινὲς δὲ Kat Ov 
 5 \ \ , 6S ee μα εξ ee 
 εὐδοκίαν τὸν Χριστὸν κηρύσσουσιν: “ot μεν ἐξ ἀγάπης, 
 2 [ Cas) , > € 
 εἰδότες ὅτι εἰς ἀπολογίαν τοῦ εὐαγγελίου κεῖμαι, *7 ol 
 
 is a factious opposition to the Apostle, 
 a jealousy of his influence, They 
 value success, not as a triumph over 
 heathendom, but as a triumph over 
 st Paul. It enhances their satisfac- 
 tion to think that his sufferings will be 
 made more poignant by their progress. 
 
 But how, it has been asked, can St 
 Paul rejoice in the success of such 
 teachers? Is not this satisfaction 
 inconsistent with his principles? Does 
 he not in the Hpistle to the Galatians 
 for instance wholly repudiate their 
 doctrine, and even maintain that for 
 those who hold it Christ has died in 
 vain? This apparent incongruity has 
 led some writers to deny any reference 
 to the Judaizers here; while to others 
 it has furnished an argument against 
 the genuineness of the whole epistle. 
 But the two cases are entirely different. 
 In the one, where the alternative is 
 between the liberty of the Gospel and 
 the bondage of ritualism, he un- 
 sparingly denounces his Galatian con- 
 verts for abandoning the former and 
 adopting the latter. Here on the 
 other hand the choice is between an 
 imperfect Christianity and an uncon- 
 verted state; the former, however in- 
 adequate, must be a gain upon the 
 latter, and therefore must give joy to 
 a high-minded servant of Christ. In 
 Rome there was room enough for him 
 and for them. He was content there- 
 fore that each should work on inde- 
 pendently. It was a step in advance 
 to know Christ, even though He were 
 known only ‘after the flesh.’ 
 
 καὶ διὰ φθόνον] ‘even from envy, 
 monstrous as this will seem. For διὰ 
 φθόνον see Matt. xxvii. 18, Mark xv. 
 10, Philemon the comic poet (Meineke, 
 IV. p. 55), πολλά pe διδάσκεις ἀφθόνως 
 διὰ φθόνον, has been quoted in illus- 
 tration of this passage. 
 
 {Sap /7- gre γνεκ δι 4 
 
 καὶ Ov εὐδοκίαν] ‘also out of good- 
 aill’; this second καὶ must be differ- 
 ently translated from the former, The 
 substantive εὐδοκία may mean either 
 (1) ‘purpose, design, desire, Ecclus, xi. 
 17 ἡ εὐδοκία αὐτοῦ eis τὸν αἰῶνα evo- 
 δωθήσεται, Rom. x. I ἡ εὐδοκία τῆς 
 ἐμῆς καρδίας καὶ ἡ δέησις πρὸς τὸν 
 Θεόν; or (2) ‘satisfaction, contentment, 
 happiness,’ Ecclus. xxxv. 14 οἱ ὀρθρίζον- 
 τες εὑρήσουσιν εὐδοκίαν, 2 Thess. i, 11 
 πᾶσαν εὐδοκίαν ἀγαθωσύνης ; or (3) 
 ‘benevolence, goodwill, Ps. 1. 20 ἀγά- 
 θυνον, Κύριε, ἐν τῇ εὐδοκίᾳ σου τὴν 
 Σιών, cv. 4, and perhaps Luke ii. 14. 
 These different significations arise out 
 of the object to which εὐδοκία is di- 
 rected. In the first case it refers to 
 things future, in the second to things 
 present, in the third to persons. 
 Fritzsche(2om.11.p.371) hasseparated 
 the different meanings of this word, 
 but is not happy in his examples. In 
 
 he present passage the opposition to 
 dia φθόνον καὶ ἔριν seems to require 
 the third meaning. 
 
 16,17. The order of the clauses is 
 reversed by the figure called chiasm, 
 so that the subject last introduced is 
 discussed first; as e.g. Gal. iv. 4, 5. 
 In the received text the verses are 
 transposed, with a view to remedying 
 this supposed irregularity. 
 
 ἐξ ἀγάπης) ‘the one preach Christ 
 out of love’; and ἐξ ἐριθείας must be 
 similarly taken. Others connect oi ἐξ 
 ἐριθείας, οἱ ἐξ ἀγάπης, ‘the factious,’ 
 ‘the loving, comparing Rom. ii. ὃ τοῖς 
 δὲ ἐξ ἐριθείας (see also iii. 26, Gal. iii. 
 7, 9); but the order in the second 
 clause is very awkward with this ar- 
 rangement, which makes τὸν Χριστὸν 
 καταγγέλλουσιν unduly emphatic. 
 
 κεῖμαι] ‘I am appointed, as Luke 
 ii. 34 οὗτος κεῖται εἰς πτῶσιν καὶ ἀνά- 
 στασιν πολλῶν, I Thess. iii. 3 αὐτοὶ γὰρ 
 
go EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. [I. 18, 19 
 δὲ ἐξ ἐριθείας [τὸν] Χριστὸν καταγγέλλουσιν οὐχ ay- 
 νῶς, οἰόμενοι θλίψιν ἐγείρειν τοῖς δεσμοῖς μου. ᾿ὅτί 
 
 , \ « \ / ν᾽ , of > 
 yao; πλὴν OTL παντί τρόπῳ, ELTE προφασει εἰτε αλη- 
 
 Υ Wo id \ > / / Fs 
 θείᾳ, Χριστὸς καταγγέλλεται, καὶ ἐν τούτῳ χαίρω 
 9 y > \ «.« - ’ 
 ἀλλὰ Kal χαρήσομαι: “oda yap OTL τοῦτό μοι ἀπο- 
 
 19. οἶδα δὲ ὅτι. 
 
 οἴδατε ὅτι εἰς τοῦτο κείμεθα: Comp. 
 Josh. ἵν. 6. The idea οἵ prostration, 
 if implied at all, can only be sub- 
 ordinate. 
 
 17. ἐξ ἐριθείας] The interests of 
 party were predominant with the Ju- 
 daizers: their missionary zeal took the 
 form of a political canvass. Forthe pro- 
 per meaning of ἐριθεία, ‘partisanship,’ 
 see the note on Gal.y.20. ‘The words 
 τὸν Χριστὸν καταγγέλλουσιν seem to be 
 added to bring out the contrast be- 
 tween the character of their motives 
 and the subject of their preaching ; 
 for there is a moral contradiction be- 
 tween ἐριθεία and Χριστός. 
 
 οὐχ ἁγνῶς] ‘with mixed, impuremo- 
 tives, explained afterwards by mpo- 
 φάσει. The insincere, selfish, and even 
 sordid motives of the Judaizers are 
 denounced in other passages also: 
 2 Cor, Xi. 13, 20, Gall vii 12: 
 
 θλίψιν ἐγείρειν] ‘to make my chains 
 gall me, where the metaphor in θλίψις 
 is clearly seen. This word, though ex- 
 tremely common in the Lxx, occurs 
 very rarely in classical writers even of 
 a late date, and in these few passages 
 has its literal meaning. The same 
 want in the religious vocabulary, which 
 gave currency to θλίψις, also created 
 ‘tribulatio’ as its Latin equivalent. 
 On the accent of θλίψις see Lipsius 
 Gramm. Unters. Ὁ. 35. The reading 
 ἐγείρειν, besides being better support- 
 ed, carries out the metaphor better 
 than ἐπιφέρειν of the received text. 
 The gathering opposition to the Apo- 
 stle’s doctrine of liberty, the forming 
 of a compact party in the Church 
 bound to the observance of the law, 
 were the means by which they sought 
 
 to annoy and wound him, 
 
 18. τί γάρ! ‘ What then, as Xen. 
 Mem. ii. 6. 2, 3, iii. 3.6, and conimonly 
 in classical writers: comp. also LXxx, 
 Job xvi. 3, Xxi. 4. 
 
 πλὴν ὅτι] ‘only that, as Acts xx. 
 23; comp. Plut. Mor. p. 780 4, Plato 
 Pheed. p. 57 3, Theet.p.183.4. This 
 seems on the whole the most probable 
 reading. Some texts have πλὴν alone, 
 others ὅτε alone; both which readings 
 appear like attempts to smooth the 
 construction. The latter however, 
 which is supported by one excellent 
 authority, may possibly be correct. 
 
 προφάσει] ‘as a cloke for other de- 
 signs,’ i.e. using the name of Christ to 
 promote the interests of their party 
 and to gain proselytes to the law. 
 On πρόφασις, ‘an ostensible purpose,’ 
 generally but not necessarily implying 
 insincerity, see the note on 1 Thess. ii. 
 5. The opposition of πρόφασις and 
 ἀλήθεια is illustrated by numerous ex- 
 amples in Wetstein and Raphel. 
 
 ev τούτῳ | ‘herein, 1.6. ἐν τῷ καταγ- 
 γέλλεσθαι Χριστόν. 
 
 ἀλλὰ καὶ χαρήσομαι) ψοῶ απο I shall 
 rejoice. The abruptness reflects the 
 conflict in the Apostle’s mind: he 
 crushes the feeling of personal annoy- 
 ance, which rises up at the thought of 
 this unscrupulous antagonism. The 
 A. V. however, ‘I will rejoice, brings 
 out the idea of determination more 
 strongly than the original justifies. 
 
 19, 20. ‘Is not my joy reasonable ? 
 For I know that all my present trials 
 and sufferings will lead only to my 
 salvation, and that in answer to your 
 prayers the Spirit of Christ will be 
 shedabundantlyuponme. Thus willbe 
 
1. 20] 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. OI 
 
 \ ~ ~~ , 
 βήσεται εἰς σωτηρίαν διὰ τῆς ὑμῶν δεήσεως Kal ἐπιχορ- 
 
 , ΄- 7 ΄σ ΄σ 2 \ \ > 
 nylas τοῦ πνεύματος ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, “κατὰ τὴν ἀπο- 
 
 / 3) / « 3 > \ > 77 
 καραδοκίαν καὶ ἐλπίδα μου, ὅτι ἐν οὐδενὶ αἰσχυνθήσομαι, 
 > 7 Ve ε tes \ ΄σ 
 ἀλλ᾽ ἐν πάση παρρησίᾳ ὡς πάντοτε καὶ νῦν μεγαλυνθή- 
 ᾽ \ ’ a , 7ὔ ᾽ \ > 7 \ 
 σεται Χριστος ἐν τῷ σωματί μου, εἴτε δια ζωῆς εἴτε δια 
 
 fulfilled my earnest longing and hope, 
 that 1 may never hang back through 
 shame, but at this crisis, as always, 
 may speak and act courageously; so 
 that, whether I die a martyr for His 
 name or live to labour in His service, 
 He may be glorified in my body, 
 
 19. τοῦτο] ‘this state of things,’ these 
 perplexities and annoyances. It is un- 
 connected with the preceding ἐν τούτῳ, 
 ver. 18. 
 
 σωτηρίαν] ‘salvation, in the highest 
 sense. These trials wili develope the 
 spiritual life in the Apostle, will be a 
 pathway to the glories of heaven. His 
 personal safety cannot be intended 
 here, as some have thought; for the 
 σωτηρία, of which he speaks, will be 
 gained equally whether he lives or 
 dies (ver. 20). 
 
 τῆς ὑμῶν δεήσεως κιτιλ] The two 
 clauses are fitly connected by the same 
 article ; for the supply of the Spirit is 
 the answer to their prayer. 
 
 ἐπιχορηγίας | ‘bountiful supply’; see 
 the note on Gal. iii. 5. But must the 
 following genitive rod πνεύματος be 
 considered subjective or objective? Is 
 the Spirit the giver or the gift ? Ought 
 we not to say in answer to this qnes- 
 tion, that the language of the original 
 suggests no limitation, that it will bear 
 both meanings equally well, and that 
 therefore any such restriction is arbi- 
 trary? ‘The Spirit of Jesus’ is both 
 the giver and the gift. For the ex- 
 pression τὸ πνεῦμα Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ com- 
 pare Rom. viii. 9, Gal. iv. 6, and Acts 
 xvi. 7 (the correct reading). 
 
 20. ἀποκαραδοκίαν] ‘earnest desire.’ 
 The substantive occurs once again in 
 the New Testament, Rom. viii. 19. 
 The verb is not uncommon in Polybius 
 
 and later writers. The idea of eager- 
 ness conveyed by the simple word 
 καραδοκεῖν is further intensified by the 
 preposition, which implies abstraction, 
 absorption, aS In ἀποβλέπειν, ἀπεκδέ- 
 χεσθαι, etc.: comp. Joseph. B. J. iii. 
 7.20 τοῖς μὲν οὖν καθ᾽ ἕτερα προσφέ- 
 ρουσι τὰς κλίμακας οὐ προσεῖχεν, ἀπε- 
 καραδόκει δὲ τὴν ὁρμὴν τών βελών, i.e. 
 his attention was drawn off and con- 
 centrated on the missiles; a passage 
 quoted by C. F. A. Fritzsche, whose ac- 
 count of the word however (Friizsch. 
 Opusc. I. p. 150) is not altogether 
 satisfactory. 
 
 αἰσχυνθήσομαι κιτ.λ.] αἰσχύνη and 
 παρρησία are opposed, Prov. xiii. 5 
 ἀσεβὴς δὲ αἰσχύνεται καὶ οὐχ ἕξει παρ- 
 ρησίαν, τ Joh. ii. 28 σχῶμεν παρρησίαν 
 καὶ μὴ αἰσχυνθῶμεν am αὐτοῦ. This 
 right of free speech (παρρησία) is the 
 badge, the privilege, of the servant of 
 Christ: see esp. 2 Cor, ili. 12. 
 
 καὶ νῦν] ‘so now.’ For καὶ viv (καὶ 
 ἄρτι) corresponding to ὡς (καθως) comp. 
 1 Joh. ii. 18, Gal. i. 9. 
 
 μεγαλυνθήσεται) After ἐν πάσῃ παρ- 
 ρησίᾳ the first person might naturally 
 be expected: but with sensitive reve- 
 rence the Apostle shrinks from any 
 mention of his own agency, lest he 
 should seem to glorify himself. It is 
 not μεγαλυνθήσομαι, not even μεγα- 
 λυνῶ τὸν Χριστόν, but μεγαλυνθήσεται 
 Χριστὸς ἐν τῷ σώματί pov. For the 
 thought compare 2 Cor. iv. 10 πάν- 
 TOTE τὴν νέκρωσιν τοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ ἐν TO σώ- 
 ματι περιφέροντες, ἵνα καὶ ἡ ζωὴ τοῦ 
 Ἰησοῦ ἐν τῷ σώματι ἡμῶν φανερωθῇ, 
 1 Cor. vi. 20 δοξάσατε δὴ τὸν Θεὸν ἐν 
 τῷ σώματι ὑμῶν. 
 
 21—26. ‘Others may make choice 
 between life and death, I gladly 
 
Q2 EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 
 
 θανάτου. 
 
 [ΠῚ ΖΙ 22 
 
 or? 4 \ \ es \ ἡ δον ~ 
 ἐμοὶ yap τὸ ζῆν Χριστὸς καὶ τὸ ἀποθανεῖν 
 
 , ὃ 22.2 \ \ > 3 \ Cas / \ 4 
 ς el 
 κέρδος" * Et δὲ TO ζῆν EV σαρκὶ τοῦτο μοι καρπος ἔργου 
 
 accept either alternative. If I live, 
 my life is one with Christ: if I die, 
 my death is gain to me. Yet when 
 I incline to prefer death, I hesitate : 
 for may not my life—this present ex- 
 istence which men call life—may not 
 my life be fruitful through my labours ? 
 Nay, I know not how to choose. I am 
 hemmed in, as it were, a wall on this 
 side and a wall on that. If I con- 
 sulted my own longing, I should desire 
 to dissolve this earthly tabernacle, and 
 to go home to Christ ; for this is very 
 far better. If I consulted your in- 
 terests, I should wish to live and 
 labour stili: for this your needs re- 
 quire. And a voice within assures 
 me, that so it will be. I shall continue 
 here and abide with you all; that I 
 may promote your advance in the 
 faith and your joy in believing: and 
 that you on your part may have in me 
 resh cause for boasting in Christ, 
 when you see me present among you 
 once more.’ 
 
 21. ἐμοί] ‘fo me, whatever it may 
 be to others: so ἡμῶν, iii. 20. 
 
 τὸ ζῆν Χριστός] ‘life is Christ’ 
 ‘T live only to serve Him, only to com- 
 mune with Him; I have no concep- 
 tion of life apart from Him? ‘ Quic- 
 quid vivo,’ is Bengel’s paraphrase, 
 ‘Christum vivo’: comp. Gal. ii. 20 ἕω 
 δὲ οὐκέτι ἐγώ, ζῇ δὲ ἐν ἐμοὶ Χριστός, and 
 Col. iii. 3, 4. 
 
 τὸ ἀποθανεῖν κέρδος] ‘ death is gain, 
 for then my union with Christ will be 
 more completely realised.’ The tense 
 denotes not the act of dying but the 
 consequence of dying, the state after 
 death: comp. 2 Cor. vii. 3 eis τὸ 
 συναποθανεῖν καὶ συνζῆν, ‘to be with 
 you in death and in life’ The proper 
 opposition to ζῆν is not ἀποθνήσκειν, 
 but ἀποθανεῖν or reOvava, e.g. Plato 
 Leg. p. 958 Ε, Gorg. p. 483 B, Phed. 
 62 a. The difference is marked in 
 Plato Phaed, 64 A οὐδὲν ἄλλο ἐπιτηδεύ- 
 
 ovo ἢ ἀποθνήσκειν τε καὶ τεθνάναι. 
 
 22. The grammar of the passage re- 
 flects the conflict of feeling in the 
 Apostle’s mind. He is tossed to and 
 fro between the desire to labour for 
 Christ in life, and the desire to be 
 united with Christ by death. The 
 abrupt and disjointed sentences ex- 
 press this hesitation. 
 
 ei δὲ τὸ ζῆν κιτιλ.)] Of several inter- 
 pretations that have been suggested, 
 twoonly seem to deserve consideration : 
 (1) ‘But if my living in the flesh will 
 be fruitful through a laborious career, 
 then what to choose I know ποὺ. In 
 this case καὶ will introduce the apo- 
 dosis. The only passage at all ana- 
 logous in the New Testament is 2 Cor. 
 ll. 2 εἰ γὰρ ἐγὼ λυπῶ ὑμᾶς, καὶ Tis ὁ 
 εὐφραίνων με ; comp. Clem. Hom. ii. 44 
 εἰ δὲ τὸ πῖον ὄρος ἐπιθυμεῖ, Kal Tivos τὰ 
 πάντα; εἰ ψεύδεται, καὶ τίς ἀληθεύει ; 
 κιτιλ. But the parallel is not exact, 
 for in these instances καὶ introduces a 
 direct interrogative. Passages indeed 
 are given in Hartung (I. pp. 130, 131) 
 where καὶ ushers in the apodosis after 
 ei, but these are all poetical. And 
 even if this use of καὶ be admissi- 
 ble, the sentence stillruns awkwardly. 
 (2) ‘But if (it be my lot) to live 
 in the flesh, then my labour will be 
 productive of fruit. And so what to 
 choose I know not. Thus the sen- 
 tence εἰ δὲ τὸ ζῆν κιτιλ. 15 treated as 
 elliptical, the predicate being sup- 
 pressed. But, though ellipses are very 
 frequent in St Paul (comp. e.g. Rom. 
 iv. 9, v. 18, ix. 16, 1 Cor. iv. 6, xi. 24, 
 2 Cor. i. 6, Gal. ii. 9, v. 13, ete.), yet 
 the present instance would be ex- 
 tremely harsh. Of the two explana- 
 tions already considered the first seems 
 preferable ; but may not a third be 
 hazarded? (3) ‘ But what if my living 
 in the flesh will bear fruit, ete.? In 
 fact what to choose I know not” In. 
 this case εἰ implies an interrogation, 
 
EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 
 
 93 
 
 \ , Ce / 3 Υ a) 23 ’ a\ , pie 
 καὶ Ti αἱρήσομαι οὐ γνωρίζω" "Ξσυνέχομαι δὲ ἐκ τῶν 
 5 af > A 3 - \ \ r 
 δύο, τὴν ἐπιθυμίαν ἔχων εἰς TO ἀναλῦσαι καὶ σὺν Χρισ- 
 
 the apodosis being suppressed ; as in 
 Rom. ix. 22, Acts xxiii. 9 (where the 
 received text adds μὴ θεομαχῶμεν). 
 On this and simiiar uses of εἰ see 
 Winer ὃ lvii. p. 639, ὃ Ixiv. p. 750, A. 
 Buttmann pp. 214, 215. Ido not know 
 whether this interpretation has ever 
 been suggested ; but it seems to be in 
 keeping with the abruptness of the 
 context, and to present less difiiculty 
 than those gencraily adopted. 
 
 τὸ ζῆν ev σαρκί] St Paul had before 
 spoken of the natural life as τὸ ζῆν 
 simply; but the mention of the gain of 
 death has meanwhile suggested the 
 thought of the higher life. Thus the 
 word ζῆν requires to be qualified by 
 the addition of ἐν σαρκί. After all 
 death is true life. The sublime guess 
 of Euripides, τίς οἶδεν εἰ τὸ ζῆν μέν 
 ἐστι κατθανεῖν τὸ κατθανεῖν δὲ ζῆν, 
 which was greeted with ignoble ridi- 
 cule by the comic poets, has become 
 an assured truth in Christ. 
 
 καρπὸς ἔργου] Comp. Rom. i. 13 ἵνα 
 τινὰ καρπὸν σχῶ καὶ ev ὑμῖν. For the 
 metaphor see 1 Cor. iii. 6 sq. 
 
 ov γνωρίζω] ‘I do not perceive, 
 Τνωρίζειν has two distinct senses ; (1) 
 ‘Tounderstand, know’; (2) ‘To declare, 
 inake known.’ In classical Greek the 
 former seems to be the more common, 
 even at a late date, though the latter 
 occurs not infrequently. On the other 
 hand in biblical Greek the latter is 
 the usual meaning. (e.g. below, iv. 6), 
 the exceptions being very few, as here 
 and Job iv. 16 (Symm.), xxxiv. 25 (LXx): 
 comp. Test. xii. Patr. Dan 2 φίλον οὐ 
 γνωρίζει. 
 
 23. συνέχομαι ἐκ τῶν δύο] ‘I am 
 hemmed in on both sides, I am pre- 
 vented from inclining one way or the 
 other.’ The preposition seems to de- 
 note direction, as in ἐκ δεξιᾶς, ἐκ θα- 
 λάσσης, etc. The δύο are the two horns 
 of the dilemma, stated in verses 21, 22. 
 
 τὴν ἐπιθυμίαν K.7.A.] ‘ny own desire 
 
 tends towards.’ Comp. Gal. vi. 4. 
 
 τὸ ἀναλῦσαι] ‘to break up, depart, 
 comp. ἀνάλυσις 2 Tim. iv. 6, The me- 
 taphor is drawn from breaking up an 
 encampment, e.g. Polyb. v. 28. ὃ αὖθις 
 εἰς παραχειμασίαν ἀνέλυσε, 2 Mace. ix. 1 
 ἀναλελυκὼς ἀκόσμως. The camp-life 
 of the Israelites in the wilderness, 
 as commemorated by the annual feast 
 of Tabernacles, was a ready and ap- 
 propriate symbol of man’s transitory 
 life on earth: while the land of pro- 
 mise with its settled abodes, the land 
 flowing with milk and honey, typified 
 the eternal inheritance of the redeem- 
 ed: Hebr. iv. 1 sq. See especially 
 2 Cor. v. I ἐὰν ἡ ἐπίγειος ἡμῶν οἰκία 
 τοῦ σκήνους καταλυθῇ, οἰκοδομὴν ἐκ 
 Θεοῦ ἔχομεν, οἰκίαν ἀχειροποίητον αἰώ- 
 νιον ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, and ver. 4. Com- 
 pare also the metaphor in Plut. 2701". 
 76 D ov μονὰς ποιοῦσιν ἢ ἐποχὰς ὥσπερ 
 ἐν ὁδῷ τῆς προκοπῆς ἀλλ᾽ ἀναλύσεις. 
 
 σὺν Χριστῷ εἶναι), The faithful im- 
 mediately after death are similarly re- 
 presented as in the presence and keep- 
 ing of the Lord also in 2 Cor. v. 6, 8 
 ἐνδημοῦντες ἐν τῷ σώματι ἐκδημοῦμεν 
 ἀπὸ τοῦ Κυρίου κιτιλ., Acts vii. 59; 
 comp. Clem. Rom. ὃ 5 ἐπορεύθη εἰς τὸν 
 ὀφειλόμενον τόπον τῆς δόξης οἵ St Pe- 
 ter and εἰς τὸν ἅγιον τόπον ἐπορεύθη of 
 St Paul, Polye. Phil. § 9 εἰς τὸν ὀφει- 
 λόμενον αὐτοῖς τύπον εἰσὶ παρὰ τῷ Kv- 
 pio. On the other hand their state 
 after death is elsewhere described as 
 asleep from which they will arise, 
 1 ‘Corixy. 51;)52, 1 Thess. iv, 14,16, 
 The one mode of representation must 
 be qualified by the other. 
 
 πολλῷ μᾶλλον κρεῖσσον] For the 
 triple comparative see Isocr. Archid. 
 § 83 πολὺ γὰρ κρεῖττον. ..τελευτῆσαι 
 τὸν βίον μᾶλλον ἢ ζῆν κιτιλ. and other 
 references in Wetstein: comp. Winer 
 § ΧΧΧΥ. p. 254. The insertion of γὰρ 
 is supported by most of the best mss ; 
 
 nd yet a reading which comes to tho 
 
 , / 
 on 
 i- 
 
04 EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 
 
 [I. 24—26 
 
 = > ~ ‘ “- ~ \ \ 
 τῷ εἶναι" πολλῷ [γὰρ] μᾶλλον κρεῖσσον" *47o δὲ ἐπι- 
 
 Ἑ ? om Ἄν 9 , Die nel es Pi \ ΄ 
 μένειν [ἐν] τῇ σαρκὲ ἀναγκαιότερον δι’ ὑμᾶς. “Kal τοῦτο 
 
 \ OD « = \ ~ “- a 3 
 πεποιθὼς οἶδα, ὅτι μενῶ καὶ παραμενώ πάσιν ὑμῖν εἰς 
 
 \ -~ ἊΣ \ A > , “6. \ 
 THY ὑμῶν προκοπὴν καὶ χαραν τῆς πίστεως, iva πὸ 
 
 7 e “ / > Co) ΄σ " ’ \ A 
 καυχήμα UUwWY περισσευη EV Χριστῷ Ιησοῦ ἐν ἐμοί διὰ 
 
 lo ΕῚ ΄σ , , A ΄σ 
 τῆς ἐμῆς παρουσίας πάλιν προς ὑμάς. 
 
 relief of a disjointed syntax must be 
 regarded with suspicion. 
 
 24. ἐπιμένειν τῇ σαρκί] not ‘to 
 abide in,’ but ‘to abide by the flesh,’ 
 to cling to this present life, to take it 
 with all its inconveniences. This is the 
 common construction of ἐπιμένειν in 
 St Paul, Rom. vi. 1, xi. 22, 23, Coli. 
 23, 1 Tim. iv. 16. The insertion of ev 
 weakens the force of the expression ; 
 besides that this preposition is not 
 found with ἐπιμένειν elsewhere in St 
 Paul, except in 1 Cor. xvi. 8 ἐπιμενῶ ev 
 ᾿Εφέσῳ Which is no parallel. 
 
 ἀναγκαιότερον) The comparative cor- 
 responds to the foregoing κρεῖσσον. 
 Either alternative is in a manner ne- 
 cessary, as either is advantageous. But 
 the balance of necessity (of obligation) 
 is on one side, the balance of advan- 
 tage on the other. 
 
 25. τοῦτο πεποιθὼς οἶδα] ‘of this 
 Tam confidently persuaded, that etc. ; 
 comp. Rom, xiv. 14 οἶδα kal πέπεισμαι 
 ...0TU K.T.A., aNd Ephes. v. 5 τοῦτο yap 
 ἴστε γινώσκοντες ὅτι πᾶς πόρνος K.T.A. 
 The words are commonly taken, ‘being 
 persuaded of this (that my life will be 
 advantageous to you), 1 know that ete.’ 
 
 οἶδα] not a prophetic inspiration, but 
 a personal conviction: comp. ii. 24. 
 The same word οἶδα is used Acts xx. 
 25, where he expresses his belief that 
 he shall not see his Asiatic converts 
 again. Viewed as infallible presenti- 
 ments, the two are hardly reconcilable ; 
 for the one assumes, the other nega- 
 tives, hisrelease. The assurance here 
 recorded was fulfilled (1 Tim. i. 3); 
 while the presentiment there express- 
 ed was overruled by events (1 Tim. i. 
 3, 2 Rim. J. 155-10, 4%. 20); 
 
 mapapeva] is relative, while μενῶ is 
 absolute. It denotes continuance in a 
 certain place or with certain persons 
 or in certain relations. Very frequent- 
 ly, as here, it takes a dative of the per- 
 son, e.g. Plat. Apol. p. 39 B, Pheed. 
 115 D οὐκέτι ὑμῖν παραμενῶ, ete. The 
 reading of the received text συμπαρα- 
 μενῶ may be dismissed, as insufficient- 
 ly supported. μενῶ καὶ παραμενῶ May 
 be translated ‘bide and abide.’ 
 
 τῆς πίστεως] to be taken with both 
 substantives. For χαρὰν τῆς πίστεως 
 comp. Rom. xy. 13 πληρώσαι ὑμᾶς πά- 
 ons χαρᾶς καὶ εἰρήνης ἐν τῷ πιστεύειν. 
 On joyiulness, as the key-note of tliis 
 epistle, see the notes, i. 4, iv. 4. 
 
 26. iva τὸ καύχημα κιτιλ.] ‘that you 
 may have more matter for boasting in 
 me,’ not ‘that I may have more mat- 
 ter for boasting in you,’ as it is some- 
 times taken. Hither would accord with 
 the Apostle’s language elsewhere, 2 
 Cor. i. 14 ὅτι καύχημα ὑμῶν ἐσμὲν καθ- 
 περ καὶ ὑμεῖς ἡμῶν ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τοῦ 
 Κυρίου Ἰησοῦ (comp. v. 12); but the 
 former is the simpler interpretation of 
 the words here. The words καυχᾶσθαι, 
 καύχησις, καύχημα, link this epistle 
 with the preceding group, where they 
 occur very abundantly (see the intro- 
 duction, p. 42 sq.). In the later epistles 
 only one instance is found, Ephes. ii. 
 9. On the difference between καύχη- 
 μα, καύχησις, see the note Gal. vi. 4. 
 
 ἐν] repeated. The first denotes the 
 sphere in which their pride lives ; the 
 second the object on which it rests. 
 Compare Col. ii. 7 περισσεύοντες ἐν av- 
 τῇ ἐν εὐχαριστίᾳ. 
 
 παρουσίας πάλιν) For the position of 
 πάλιν see the note on Gal. i, 13. 
 

 
 ) 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS, 
 
 The synonymes ‘bishop’ and ‘presbyter 
 
 T is a fact now generally recognised by theologians of all shades of 
 opinion, that in the language of tae New Testament the same officer in 
 the Church is called indifferently ‘bishop’ (ἐπίσκοπος) and ‘elder’ or ‘presby- 
 ter’ (πρεσβύτερος). The bearing of this fact on the origin and authority of 
 the ‘episcopate, as the term was understood later and as it is understood 
 in the present day, will be considered in a dissertation at the end of this 
 volume. At present it will be sufficient to establish the fact itself; but 
 before doing so, it may be useful to trace the previous history of the two 
 words. 
 
 Episcopus, ‘bishop, ‘overseer, was an official title among the Greeks. 
 In Athenian language it was used especially to designate commissioners 
 appointed to regulate a new colony or acquisition, so that the Attic ‘bishop’ 
 corresponded to the Spartan ‘harmost!’ Thus the impostor, who intrudes 
 upon the colonists in Aristophanes (Av, 1022), says ἐπίσκοπος ἥκω δεῦρο τῷ 
 κυάμῳ λαχών. These officers are mentioned also in an inscription, Boeckh 
 no. 73. ‘The title however is not confined to Attic usage; it is the designa- 
 tion for instance of the inspectors whose business it was to report to the 
 Indian kings (Arrian Jrd. xii. 5); of the commissioner appointed by Mithri- 
 dates to settle affairs in Ephesus (Appian J/ithr. 48); of magistrates who 
 regulated the sale of provisions under the Romans (Charisius in the Dig. 
 1. 4. 18); and of certain officers in Rhodes whose functions are unknown 
 (Ross. Jnscr. Gree. Ined. fase. 111. nos. 275, 276)". 
 
 In the txx the word is common. In some places it signifies ‘inspectors, 
 superintendents, taskmasters, as 2 Kings xi. 19, 2 Chron. xxxiv. 12, 17, Is. 
 lx. 17; in others it is a higher title. ‘captains’ or ‘presidents,’ Neh. xi. 9, 
 
 1 Harpocration s, v. (ed. Dindorf. 
 p-129) quotes from Theophrastus ,7oA\@ 
 yap κάλλιον κατά γε τὴν τοῦ ὀνόματος 
 θέσιν, ὡς οἱ Λάκωνες ἁρμοστὰς φάσκοντες 
 εἰς τὰς πόλεις πέμπειν, οὐκ ἐπισκόπους 
 οὐδὲ φύλακας, ὡς ᾿Αθηναῖοι. See also 
 Schol. on Arist. Ay. 1. ¢. of παρ᾽ ᾿Αθη- 
 ναίων eis Tas ἐπηκόους πόλεις ἐπισκέψα- 
 σθαι τὰ παρ᾽ ἑκάστοις πεμπόμενοι ἐπί- 
 σκυποι καὶ φύλακες ἐκαλοῦντο οὖς οἱ Λά- 
 κωνες ἁρμοστὰς ἔλεγον. 
 
 3 Τὴ these instances the ἐπίσκοποι 
 seem to hold some office in connexion 
 with a temple. In another inscription 
 (Ross. Inser. Grec. Ined. fase. 11. no. 
 198), found at Thera, the word again 
 occurs; AedoxOar’ ἀϊποδε]ξαμένος τὴν 
 ἐπαγγελίαν τὸ μ[ὲν ἀρ]γύριον ἐγδανεῖσαι 
 τὸς ἐπισκόϊπος] Δίωνα καὶ Μελέϊππον, 
 where among other dialectic forms the 
 accusative pluralin os occurs. M.Wesch- 
 
 er in an article in the Revue Archéo- 
 logique, p. 246 (Avril 1866), supposes 
 the ἐπίσκοποι here to be officers of a 
 club or confraternity (ἔρανος or θίασος), 
 in which he is followed by Renan Les 
 Apéires Ὁ. 353. If their opinion be cor- 
 rect, this inscription presents a closer 
 analogy to the Christian use of the term, 
 than the instances given in the text. 
 The context of the inscription however 
 is not decisive, though this interpreta- 
 tion seems fairly probable: see below 
 p. 194. There can be no reasonable 
 doubt I imagine about the reading ἐπι- 
 σκόπος; though Ross himself suggested 
 ἐπισσόφος, because he found the word 
 in another Therwxan inscription (Boeckh 
 no. 2448). In this latter inscription 
 ἐπισσόφος is probably a mason’s blunder 
 for ἐπισκόπος. 
 
 95 
 
 The two 
 words sy- 
 nonymes. 
 
 Meaning . 
 ot ‘bishop’ 
 in heathen 
 writers 
 
 and in the 
 τὴ τ ἃ 
 
96 EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 
 14,22. Of Antiochus Epiphanes we are told that when he determined to — 
 overthrow the worship of the one true God, he ‘appointed commissioners 
 (ἐπισκόπους, bishops) over all the people, to sce that his orders were 
 obeyed (1 Mace. i. 51: comp. Joseph. Ané. xii. 5. 4; in 2 Mace. v. 22 the 
 
 ἐπισκοπή. Word is ἐπιστάτας). The feminine ἐπισκοπή, which is not a classical word, 
 occurs very frequently in the Lxx, denoting sometimes the work, sometimes 
 the office, of an ἐπίσκοπος. Hence it passed into the language of the New 
 Testament and of the Christian Church. 
 Thus beyond the fundamental idea of inspection, which lies at the root 
 i of the word ‘bishop,’ its usage suggests two subsidiary notions also; (1) Re- 
 sponsibility to a superior power; (2) The introduction of a new order of 
 things. 
 πῆ term he earlier history of the word presbyterus (elder, presbyter, or priest) 
 presbyter is much more closely connected with its Christian sense. If the analogies 
 orelder of the ‘bishop’ are to be sought chiefly among heathen nations, the name 
 and office of the ‘presbyter’ are essentially Jewish. “Illustrations indeed 
 might be found in almost all nations ancient or modern, in the γερουσία of 
 Sparta for instance, in the ‘senatus’ of Rome, in the ‘signoria’ of Florence, 
 or in the ‘aldermen’ of our own country and time, hers the deliberative 
 body originally took its name from the advanced age of its members. But 
 among the chosen people we meet at every turn with presbyters or elders 
 in Church and State from the earliest to the latest times. In the lifetime 
 of the lawgiver, in the days of the judges, throughout the monarchy, during 
 the captivity, after the return, and under the Roman domination, the 
 ‘elders’ appear as an integral part of the governing body of the country. 
 transfer. But it is rather in a special religious development of the office, than in these 
 red from national and civil presbyteries, that we are to look for the prototype of 
 the Syna- the Christian minister, Over every Jewish synagogue, whether at home 
 a Os or abroad, a council of ‘elders’ presided’. It was not unnatural therefore 
 Church, that, when the Christian synagogue took its place by the side of the Jewish, 
 a similar organization should be adopted with such modifications as cir- 
 cumstances ‘required; and thus the name familiar under the old dispen- 
 sation was retained under the new. 
 Identity of Of the identity of the ‘bishop’ and ‘presbyter’ in the language of the 
 the two apostolic age, the following evidence seems conclusive. 
 in the — (1) In the opening of this epistle St Paul salutes the ‘bishops’ and 
 LE ‘deacons?’ Now it is incredible that he should recognise only the first 
 
 1 See especially Vitringa de Synag. 
 Vet. ait. τὸ οἱ τῷ p03 sq. 
 
 2 Tt may be worth while correcting 
 a mistake which runs through the criti- 
 cal editions of the Greek Testament. 
 Chrysostom is quoted as reading συνε- 
 πισκόποις in one word. His editors no 
 doubt make him read so, but of this 
 reading there is no trace in the context. 
 After explaining that the terms deacon, 
 presbyter, bishop, were originally con- 
 vertible (οἱ πρεσβύτεροι τὸ παλαιὸν ἐκα- 
 λοῦντο ἐπίσκοποι καὶ διάκονοι Χριστοῦ καὶ 
 
 οἱ ἐπίσκοποι πρεσβύτεροι), he illustrates 
 this by the fact that even in his own 
 day bishops often addressed a presbyter 
 as a fellow-presbyter, a deacon as a 
 fellow-deacon (ὅθεν καὶ viv πολλοὶ oup-, 
 πρεσβυτέρῳ ἐπίσκοποι γράφουσι καὶ συν- 
 διακόνῳ): but his language nowhere 
 implies that heread συνεπισκόποις. The 
 comment of Theodore of Mopsuestia 
 again has been understood (see Tischen- 
 dorf) as referring to and combating the 
 reading συνεπισκόποις. This also is an 
 error. After explaining the identity of 
 
EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 
 
 and third order and pass over the second, though the second was 
 absolutely essential to the existence of a church and formed the staple of 
 its ministry. It seems therefore to follow of necessity that the ‘bishops’ 
 are identical with the ‘presbyters.’ Whether or not the Philippian Church 
 at this time possessed also a ‘bishop’ in the later sense of the term, is 
 a question which must be reserved for the present. 
 
 (2) In the Acts (xx. 17) St Paul is represented as summoning to Mile- 
 tus the ‘elders’ or ‘presbyters’ of the Church of Ephesus. Yet in address- 
 ing them immediately after he appeals to them as ‘bishops’ or ‘overseers’ 
 of the church (xx. 28). 
 
 (3) Similarly St Peter, appealing to the ‘presbyters’ of the churches 
 addressed by him, in the same breath urges them to ‘fulfil the office of 
 bishops’ (ἐπισκοποῦντες) with disinterested zeal (1 Pet. v. 1, 2). 
 
 (4) Again in the First Epistle to Timothy St Paul, after describing the 
 qualifications for the office of a ‘bishop’ (iii. 1—7), goes on at once to say 
 what is required of ‘deacons’ (iii, 8—13). He makes no mention of presby- 
 ters. The term ‘presbyter’ however is not unknown to him; for having 
 occasion in a later passage to speak of Christian ministers he calls these 
 officers no longer ‘bishops,’ but ‘presbyters’ (v. 17—19). 
 
 (5) The same identification appears still more plainly from the Apostle’s 
 directions to Titus (i. 5—7); ‘That thou shouldest set in order the things 
 that are wanting and ordain e/ders in every city, as I appointed thee; if 
 any one be blameless, the husband of one wife, having believing children 
 
 
 
 S24 
 
 who are not charged with riotousness 
 
 πον) must be blameless etc.” (b 
 
 or unruly; for a bishop (τὸν éricko- 
 
 (6) Nor is it only in. the apostolic writings that this identity is found. andin Cle- 
 
 bishops and presbyters Theodore adds, 
 προσεκτέον ὅτι TO σὺν ἐπισκόποις λέ- 
 γει, οὐχ Gs τινες ἐνόμισαν ὥσπερ ἡμεῖς 
 σὺν πρεσβυτέροις γράφειν εἰώθαμεν. οὐ 
 γὰρ πρὸς τὸ ἑαυτοῦ πρόσωπον εἴπεν τὸ 
 σύν, ἵνα ἢ σὺν ἐπισκόποις ἡμῶν" ἀλλὰ 
 πρὸς τὸ πᾶσι τοῖς ἐν Φιλίπποις ἁγίοις, 
 σὺν τοῖς αὐτόθι ἐπισκόποις τε καὶ διακό- 
 νοις : ‘It must be observed that when he 
 says with the bishops, it is not, as some 
 have thought, a parallel to our practice 
 of writing ‘together with the elders’ 
 (i.e. of associating the elders with them- 
 selves in the superscription, as for in- 
 stance Polycarp does in writing to the 
 Philippians): ‘for he does not use the 
 word with in reference to himself, mean- 
 ing with our bishops, but in reference to 
 all the saints that are at Philippi, i.e. 
 with the bishops and deacons that are 
 there. Here I have substituted σὺν 
 πρεσβυτέροις for συμπρεσβυτέροις, as the 
 context seems to require, and corrected 
 the corrupt ἢ ἰσὴν into ἢ σὺν with the 
 Latin. The Latin version of Theodore 
 
 PHIL. 
 
 ip coe ον ᾿ gee 
 
 however (Raban. Maur. vi. p. 479, ed. 
 Migne) mistakes and confuses his mean- 
 ing. Theinterpretation which Theodore 
 is combating appears in the Ambrosian 
 Hilary; ‘Cum episcopis et diaconibus: 
 hoe est, cum Paulo et Timotheo, qui 
 utique episcopi erant: simul significs- 
 vit et diaconos qui ministrabant ei. 
 
 ment of 
 nome, 
 
 Ad plebem enim scribit: nam si epis- . 
 
 copis scriberet et diaconibus, ad per- 
 sonas eorum scriberet; et loci ipsius 
 episcopo scribendum erat, non duobus 
 vel tribus, sicut et ad Titum et Timo- 
 theum.’ See below, p. 230. 
 
 1 In τὸν ἐπίσκοπον the definite arti-— 
 
 cle denotes the type, as in 2 Cor. xii. 
 12 τὰ σημεῖα τοῦ ἀποστολοῦ, Joh. x. 11 
 ὁ ποιμὴν ὁ καλός: see the notes on Gal. 
 111. 20. 
 
 2 The identity of the two titles in 
 the New Testament is recognised by 
 the Peshito Syriac Version, which com- 
 monly translates ἐπίσκοπος by kashisho, 
 i.e. presbyter or elder: see Wichelhaus 
 de Vers. Syr. Ant. Ὁ. 209. 
 
 (θωννιοΐν Ponel) | thay bn offrene 2 (rem 
 
98 
 
 Different 
 usage in 
 Ignatius 
 and Poly- 
 carp. 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 
 
 St Clement of Rome wrote probably in the last decade of the first century 
 and in his language the terms are still convertible. Speaking of the 
 Aposiles he says that ‘preaching in every country and city (κατὰ χώρας καὶ 
 κατὰ πόλεις) they appointed their first-fruits, having tested them by the 
 Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of them that should believe (μελλόντων 
 muoreverv)’ ὃ 42. A little later, referring to the disorganised state of the 
 Corinthian Church, he adds, ‘Our Aposties knew through our Lord Jesus 
 Christ that there would be strife concerning the authority (ἐπὶ rod ὀνόματος) 
 of the bishopric’...‘ We shall incur no slight guilt if we eject from the δὲ- 
 shopric those who have presented the offerings (δῶρα) unblameably and 
 holily. Blessed are the presbyters who have gone before, whose departure 
 was crowned with fruit and mature (οἵτινες ἔγκαρπον καὶ τελείαν ἔσχον τὴν 
 ἀνάλυσιν) § 44. 
 
 This is the last instance of identification. With the opening of a 
 second century a new phraseology begins. In the epistles of Igna- 
 tius the terms are used in their more modern sense. In his letter to 
 Polycarp (§ 6) he writes: ‘Give heed to the bishop, that God also may give 
 heed to you. Iam devoted (ἀντίψυχον ἐγώ) to those who are obedient to 
 the bishop, to presbyters, to deacons (τῷ ἐπισκόπῳ, πρεσβυτέροις, διακόνοις).᾽ 
 The bishop is always singled out by this writer, as the chief officer of the 
 Church!. So about the same time Polycarp, writing to the Philippians, 
 gives directions to the deacons (δ 5) and the presbyters (δ 6). He also 
 begins his letter, ‘Polycarp and the presbyters that are with him” With 
 this form of address may be coupled the fact that the writer is distinctly 
 called ‘bishop of Smyrna’ by Ignatius (Polye. init.). 
 
 Towards the close of the second century the original application of 
 the term ‘bishop’ seems to have passed not only out of use, but almost 
 out of memory. So perhaps we may account for the explanation which 
 Irenzeus gives of the incident at Miletus (Acts xx. 17, 28). ‘Having called 
 
 ‘together the bishops and presbyters who were from Ephesus and the other 
 
 neighbouring cities’? But in the fourth century, when the fathers of 
 
 The iden- the Church began to examine the apostolic records with a more criti- 
 
 tity proved cal eye, they at once detected the fact. 
 by Jerome, than Jerome. 
 
 No one states it more clearly 
 ‘Among the ancients, he says, ‘bishops and presbyters are 
 the same, for the one is a term of dignity, the other of age*’ ‘The 
 Apostle plainly shows, he writes in another place, ‘that presbyters are the 
 same as bishops...It is proved most clearly that bishops and presbyters are 
 the same*” Again in a third passage he says ‘If any one thinks the opinion 
 
 1 Besides the passages quoted in the 
 text see Polyc. 5, Ephes. 2. All these 
 passages are found in the Syriac. The 
 shorter Greek teems with references to 
 the bishop as chief officer of the Church. 
 
 2 Tren. iii. 14. 2. His explanation 
 of the incident has been charged with 
 dishonesty, but I know of nothing to 
 justify such a charge. It would appear 
 a very natural solution of a difficulty, if 
 the writer had only an indistinct know- 
 
 ledge of the altered value of the term. 
 At all events the same account has been 
 given by writers who lived in a more 
 critical age; e.¢. Potter, Church Govern- 
 ment ¢. 111. p. 118. 
 
 3 Epist. 1xix(1.p. 4148q., ed. Vallarsi). 
 
 4 Epist. exlvi (1. p. 1081) ‘Quum 
 Apostolus perspicue doceat eosdem esse 
 presbyteros quos episcopos’ ...‘manifes- 
 tissime comprobatur eundem esse epis- 
 copum atque presbyterum.” 
 
EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 
 
 that the bishops and presbyters are the same, to be not the view of the 
 Scriptures but my own, let him study the words of the apostle to the 
 Philippians,” and in support of his view he alleges the scriptural proofs 
 
 at great length’. But, though more full than other writers, he is hardly and reeog- 
 more explicit. Of his predecessors the Ambrosian Hilary had discerned nised by 
 the same truth2. Of his contemporaries and successors, Chrysostom, Pela- hire and 
 gius, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret, all acknowledge it’. Thus in writers, 
 every one of the cxtant commentaries on the epistles containing the crucial 
 
 passages, whether Greek or Latin, before the close of the fifth century, 
 
 this identity is affirmed. In the succeeding ages bishops and popes ac- 
 
 cept the verdict of St Jerome without question. Even late in the medi- 
 
 seval period, and at the era of the reformation, the justice of his criticism 
 
 or the sanction of his name carries the general suffrages of theologians‘, 
 
 The meaning of ‘preetoriwm’ in i. 13. 
 
 The word ‘preetorium’ signifies properly (1) ‘The general’s tent,’ ‘the Common 
 head-quarters in a camp. Frem this it gets other derived meanings ; meanings 
 (2) ‘The residence of a governor or prince,’ e.g. Acts xxiii. 35 ἐν τῷ etahe 
 
 , ΒΞ ; Re x Sie «ὦ word. 
 
 πραιτωρίῳ τοῦ Ἡρώδου (A.V. ‘judgment hall’), Mark xv. 16 ἀπήγαγον αὐτὸν 
 ἔσω τῆς αὐλῆς 6 ἐστιν πραιτώριον, Acta Thome § 3 πραιτώρια βασιλικά, Juv. 
 Sat. x. 161 ‘sedet ad preetoria regis, Tertull. ad Scap. § 3 ‘solus in 
 pretorio suo ete.” (3) ‘Any spacious villa or palace’; Juv. Sat. i. 75 
 ‘eriminibus debent hortos prsetoria mensas, Sueton. Tiber. 39 ‘juxta 
 Terracinam in preetorio cui speluncze nomen erat inccenante eo’ (comp. 
 Octav. 72, Calig. 37), Epict. Diss. iii. 22. 47 οὐ πραιτωρίδιον ἀλλὰ γῆ μόνον 
 κιτὰλ. ; 
 
 So much for the word generally. It remains to enquire, what sense Explana- 
 it would probably bear, when used by a person writing from Rome tionsofthe 
 and speaking of the cause which he advocated as becoming known ‘in the Word in 
 whole of the preetorium. Several answers have been given to this ques- acts 
 tion. 
 
 (1) ‘The imperial residence on the Palatine.” So our English Version, (1) The 
 following the Greek commentators. Thus Chrysostom, ‘They still (τέως) Palace. 
 called the palace by this name, Similarly Theodore of Mopsuestia‘, 
 
 1 Ad Tit. i. 5 (vit. p. 695). 
 
 2 On Ephes. iv. 11. But he is hardly 
 consistent with himself. On 1 Tim. iii. 
 8 he recognises the identity less dis- 
 tinctly; on Phil. i. 1 (see above, p. 97, 
 note) he ignores it; while on Tit. i. 7 he 
 passes over the subject without a word. 
 
 3 Chrysostom on Phil. i. 1 (on r Tim. 
 iii. 8, Tit. i. 7, he is not so clear); Pela- 
 gius on Phil. i. 1, 1 Tim. iii. 12, Tit.i.7; 
 
 Theodore of Mopsuestia on Phil. i. 1, 
 Tit. i. 7, and especially on 1 Tim. iii. 
 (where the matter is fully discussed) ; 
 Theodoret on Phil. i. 1, 1 Tim. iii. 1 84.» 
 Tit. i. 7, following closely in the steps 
 of Theodore. See also Ammonius on 
 Acts xx. 28 in Cramer’s Catena, p. 337. 
 
 4 Later authorities are given in 
 Gieseler Kirchengesch. 1. pp. 105, 106. 
 
 5. In Raban. Maur. Op. vi. p. 432 a. 
 
 eo 
 
100 
 
 Objection 
 to this 
 meaning. 
 
 No in- 
 stance of 
 {his sense. 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 
 
 ‘What we are in the habit of calling the palace, he calls the preetorium.’ 
 Theodoret giving the same meaning adds, ‘It is probable that the palace 
 was so called at that time!’ This interpretation, which has the advan- 
 tage of illustrating the reference to ‘Czesar’s household’ at the close of 
 the epistle, is thus ably advocated by Dean Merivale?; “In the provinces 
 the emperor was known, not as Princeps, but as Imperator. In Judea, 
 governed more immediately by him through the imperial procurators, he 
 would be more exclusively regarded asa military chief. The soldier, to 
 whom the Apost!e was attached with a chain, would speak of him as his 
 general. When Paul asked the centurion in charge of him, ‘ Where shall 
 I be confined at Rome?’, the answer would be, ‘In the prectorium’ or 
 the quarters of the general. When led, as perhaps he was, before the 
 emperor’s tribunal, if he asked the attending guard, ‘ Where am I?’, again 
 they would reply, ‘In the preetorium,’ The emperor was protected in his 
 palace by a body-guard, lodged in its courts and standing sentry at its 
 gates ; and accordingly they received the name of preetorians.” 
 
 It is hardly probable however that in the early ages of the empire 
 the feelings of Roman citizens would be thus outraged by the adoption 
 of a term which implied that they were under a military despotism. In 
 the days of the republic the consuls were required to lay down their 
 ‘imperium’ without the walls and to appear in the city as civilians. And 
 under the early Ceesars the fiction of the republic was carefully guarded, 
 though the reality had ceased to exist. If it be urged that the name 
 was confined to the soldiers (as Dean Merivale seems to suggest), it is 
 difficult to conceive why St Paul after several months’ residence at least in 
 Rome, during which he must have mixed with various classes of men, 
 should have singled out this exceptional term, especially when writing to 
 distant correspondents. 
 
 But whatever may be said of the ὦ priori probability, it is a fatal 
 objection that not a single instance of this usage has been produced. The 
 language of the Greek fathers quoted above shows that though they 
 assumed the word must have had this meaning at an earlier date, it was 
 certainly not so when they wrote. While ‘practorium’ is a frequent desig- 
 uation of splendid villas, whether of the emperors or others, away from 
 Rome, the imperial residence on the Palatine is not once so called’. 
 Indeed the word seems to have suggested to a Roman the idea of a 
 country seat. Thus when Tacitus and Suetonius are relating the same 
 cyent, the one uses ‘ villa, the other ‘preetorium,’ to describe the scene of 
 the occurrence’. Hence Forcellini with right appreciation defines the 
 word, ‘sedes elegantiores ornatioresque in agris exstructze et villa queeque 
 
 1 His words are τὰ βασίλεια yap ritoryis meant. ἸΠαλλαντιανὸς here is 
 
 πραιτώριον προσηγόρευσεν" εἰκὸς δὲ ὅτι 
 καὶ οὕτως κατ᾽ ἐκεῖνον ὠνομάζετο τὸν και- 
 pov’ ἀρχὴν γὰρ εἶχεν ἡ ῥωμαϊκὴ δυνα- 
 στεία. 
 
 2 History of the Romans vt. Ὁ. 268. 
 
 3 In Phlegon de Longev. ὃ 4 ἐκ Za- 
 βίνων ἀπὸ πραιτωρίου παλλαντιανοῦ, ἃ 
 palace of the emperor in the Sabine ter- 
 
 explained ‘imperial’ ‘Cesarean’ by 
 Perizonius de Preior. p. 252, as if con- 
 nected with παλάτιον (comp. Dion Cass. 
 liii.16 quoted above in the text) ; but,like 
 horti Pallantiani,the name is doubtless 
 derived from its former ownerPallas; see 
 Friedlander Sittengesch. Roms τ. Ὁ. 98. 
 
 4 Tac. Ann. iv. 59, Suet. Tiber. 30. 
 
EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. IOI 
 
 minime rustica vel villze pars nobilior et cultior ubi domini, rusticari cum 
 libet, morantur.” In Rome itself a ‘pretorium’ would not have been 
 tolerated’. 
 
 (2) The ‘preetorium’ is not the imperial palace itself, but the pree- (2) The 
 torian barracks attached thereto. This interpretation is open to many of barracks 
 
 Pith : ἐς τὸ : on the 
 
 the objections urged against the former. Moreover it is equally destitute pajstine, 
 of authority. Ina passage of Dion Cassius indeed (111, 16) there seems to 
 be mention of a ‘preetorium’ on the Palatine; καλεῖται δὲ τὰ βασίλεια 
 παλάτιον...ὅτι ἔν τε τῷ παλατίῳ ὁ Καῖσαρ ᾧκει καὶ ἐκεῖ τὸ στρατήγιον εἶχε. 
 Here στρατήγιον is doubtless a rendering of the Latin ‘ preetorium’ ; but the 
 sense is hardly local. As this passage stands alone, the words would 
 appear to mean simply that the emperor was surrounded by his body- 
 guards and kept state as a military commander. This language, though it 
 would probably have been avoided by a contemporary, was not in itself 
 inappropriate when applied to Augustus, of whom Dion is speaking, be- 
 fore the przetorian camp was built, and when the barracks attached to the 
 palace were still the head-quarters of the przetorian guards’ At all 
 events, if ‘preetorium’ ever had this sense, it can hardly have been meant 
 by St Paul here; for the expression ‘throughout the preetorium,’ in con- 
 nexion with the context, would be wholly out of place in reference to 
 a space so limited. 
 
 (3) The great camp of the preetorian soldiers is so designated. Tibe- (3) The 
 rius concentrated the cohorts previously scattered up and down the city Pretorian 
 (Tac. Ann. iv. 2) and established them outside the Colline gate at the ©@™P- 
 North East of the city in a permanent camp, whose ramparts can be traced 
 at the present day, being embedded in the later walls of Aurelian. If 
 ‘preetorium’ here has a local sense, no other place could be so fitly desig- 
 nated ; for as this camp was without the walls, the term so applied would 
 give no offence. But this meaning again lacks external support. It might 
 indeed be argued that as the Greek equivalent to ‘przefectus preetorio’ 
 is στρατοπεδάρχης, ‘the commander of the camp, the camp itself would 
 be designated ‘praetorium’; but, as a question of fact, no decisive in- 
 stance of this sense is produced. The camp is sometimes called ‘castra 
 preetoria’ (Plin. NV. H. iii. 9), sometimes ‘castra preetorianorum’ (Tac. Hist. 
 
 i. 3), once at least ‘castra preetori’ (i.e. preetorii, Orell. Znmscr. 21) ; but 
 never ‘ preetorium.’ 
 
 As all attempts to give a local sense to ‘preetorium’ thus fail for 
 want of evidence, it remains to discover some other suitable meaning, 
 which is not open to this objection. 
 
 (4) Preetorium signifies not a place, but a body of men. It is used for (4) The 
 instance of a council of war, the officers who met in the general’s tent: Pretorian 
 e.g. Liv. xxvi. 15, xxx. 5. But more frequently it denotes the praetorian guards, 
 
 1 On the other hand away from about two centuries after the event. 
 Rome the residence of the emperor’s For this sense of στρατήγιον comp. 
 representative is frequently so called; Tac. Ann. ili. 33 ‘duorum egressus 
 e.g. at Cologne (Orell. 3297), at Munda _ coli, duo esse pretoria,’ where a com- 
 (ib. 3303). plaint is made of the pomp main- 
 
 2 See Perizonius p. 230. It must tained by the wives of provincial 
 be remembered that DionCassius wrote governors. 
 
This sense 
 to be 
 adopted. 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 
 
 regiments, the imperial guards. This in fact is the common use of the 
 term. It is found in ‘castra preetorii’ already quoted and probably also 
 in ‘ preefectus przetorio.” It occurs also in such phrases as ‘ veteranus ex 
 preetorio’ (Tac. Hist. ii. 11, Suet. Nero 9, Orell. Znscr. 123), ‘missus ex 
 preetorio’ (Orell. no. 1644, note), ‘lectus in preetorio’ (Orell. no, 941 ; comp. 
 nos. 3589, 6806, 6817). A guardsman was said to serve ‘in preetorio,” a 
 soldier of the line ‘in legione’ (Orell, nos. 3547, 5286, 5291). If St Paul 
 seeing a new face among his guards asked how he came to be there, the 
 answer would be ‘I have been promoted to the praetorium’ ; if he enquired 
 after an old face which he missed, he might be told ‘He has been dis- 
 charged from the prztorium.’ In this sense and this alone can it be 
 safely affirmed that he would hear the word ‘ prastorium’ used daily. The 
 following passages will further illustrate this meaning: Plin. N. H. xxv. 2 
 ‘Nuper cujusdam militantis in preetorio mater vidit in quiete...in Lace- 
 tania res gerebatur, Hispanize proxima parte’: Tac. Hisé. i. 20 ‘ Hxauc- 
 torati per eos dies tribuni, e preetorio Antonius Taurus et Antonius Naso, 
 ex urbanis cohortibus Admilius Pacensis, e vigiliis Julius Fronto’; 7b. iv. 46 
 ‘Militiam et stipendia orant...igitur in praetorium accepti’: Joseph. Ani. 
 xix. 3. I of περὶ τὸ στρατηγικὸν καλούμενον ὅπερ ἐστὶ τῆς στρατιᾶς καθαρώ- 
 τατον, i.e. ‘the preetorium, which is the flower of the army’: Dosith. Hadr. 
 Sent. ὃ 2 αἰτοῦντός twos ἵνα στρατεύηται, ᾿Ανδριανὸς εἶπεν᾽ Ποῦ θέλεις 
 στρατεύεσθαι ; ἐκείνου λέγοντος Eis τὸ πραιτώριον, ᾿Αδριανὸς ἐξήτασεν 
 Ποῖον μῆκος ἔχεις ; λέγοντος ἐκείνου ἸΠέντε πόδας καὶ ἥμισυ, ᾿Αδριανὸς εἶπεν 
 Ἔν τοσούτῳ εἰς τὴν πολιτικὴν στρατεύου, καὶ ἐὰν καλὸς στρατιώτης ἔσῃ 
 τρίτῳ ὀψωνίῳ δυνήσῃ εἰς τὸ πραιτώριον μεταβῆναι"; Mission Archéol. de 
 Macédoine no. 130 (p. 325) Tt. Κλαύδιον οὐετρανὸν στρατευσάμενον ἐν 
 πραιτωρίῳ, NO, 131 (p. 326) Te. Κλαύδιος Ῥοῦφος overpavos ἐκ πραιτωρίου. 
 
 This sense is in all respects appropriate. It forms a fit introduction to 
 the words καὶ τοῖς λοιποῖς πᾶσιν Which follow. It is explained by St Paul's 
 position as an imperial prisoner in charge of the prefect of the preetorians. 
 And lastly it avoids any conflict with St Luke’s statement that the Apostle 
 dwelt in ‘his own hired house*’: for it is silent about the locality. 
 
 1 See also Plin. N. H. vii. 19, Orell. 
 no. 3477. On the meaning of the word 
 pretorium see especially ‘ Perizoniicum 
 Hubero Disquisitio de Pretorio, etc. 
 
 (Franeq. 1699),’ a 12mo volume con- | 
 
 taining more than goo pages. Huber 
 maintained that by ‘pretorium’ in 
 Phil. i. 13 must be understood the pa- 
 lace or the audience-chamber therein. 
 Perizonius, whose refutation of his ad- 
 versary is complete, explained it of the 
 pretorian cohorts orthepretorian camp. 
 If he had omitted this second alterna- 
 tive, his work would in my judgment 
 haye been entirely satisfactory: though 
 1 must confess to having once taken 
 it to mean the camp; Jowrnal of Class. 
 and Sacr. Phil. no. x. p.. 58. Al- 
 
 most all recent commentators on the 
 Philippians occupy themselves in dis- 
 cussing the possible local senses of ‘ pree- 
 torium,’ barely, if at all, alluding to the 
 only meaning which is really well sup- 
 ported and meets all the requirements 
 of the case. Of recent writers on St 
 Paul two only, so far as I have noticed, 
 Bleek (Hinl. in das N. T. p. 433) and 
 apparently Ewald (Sendschreiben etc. Ὁ. 
 441), take what seems to be the correct 
 view, but even they do not explain their 
 reasons. On this account I hayeentered 
 into the question more fully than its ab- 
 solute importance deserves. 
 
 2 This difficulty indeed is very slight, 
 if it be interpreted of the camp; for the 
 camp was large and might perhaps have 
 
EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 
 
 103 
 
 The following account, relating to a contemporary of St Paul, who Account of 
 also spent some time in Rome under military custody, is abridged from Agrippe. 
 
 Josephus (Ané. xviii. 6. 5 sq.). As throwing light on the condition of 
 
 2 prisoner under such circumstances, it may fitly close this investigation. 
 Herod Agrippa, then a young man and resident in Rome, contracted an 
 
 intimate friendship with Caius. 
 
 On one occasion, when the two were 
 
 driving together, Agrippa was overheard praying that Tiberius would re- 
 sign the empire to make way for his friend who was ‘in all respects more 
 worthy’? Some time after, the charioteer, having been dismissed by 
 Agrippa and bearing a grudge against him, reported his words to Tiberius. 
 So Agrippa was consigned to Macro, the prefect of the preetorians, to be His eon- 
 put in chains. Hereupon Antonia, the sister-in-law of Tiberius, who had finement. 
 a kindly feeling for the Jewish prince as a friend of her grandsun Caius, 
 
 contained houses or rooms rented by 
 prisoners: see above, p.g sq. But if 
 the palace or the Palatine barracks were 
 meant, St Luke’s statement would not 
 be so easily explained. Wieseler indeed 
 (Chronol. p. 403, note 3), who pro- 
 nounces in favour of the Palatine bar- 
 racks, adduces the instances of Drusus 
 and Agrippa in support of his view. 
 But both cases break down on examina- 
 tion. (1) Drusus, it is true, was impri- 
 soned in the palace; Tac. Ann. vi. 23, 
 Suet. Tiber. 54. But this is no parallel 
 to the case of St Paul. Drusus, as a 
 member of the imperial family, would 
 naturally be confined within the pre- 
 cincts of the imperial residence. More- 
 over, as Tiberius had designs on his ne- 
 phew’s life, secresy was absolutely ne- 
 cessary for his plans. Nor indeed could 
 one, who-might at any moment become 
 the focus of a revolution, be safely 
 entrusted to the keeping of the camp 
 away from the emperor’s personal cog- 
 nisance. (2) Wieseler misunderstands 
 the incidents relating to Agrippa, whose 
 imprisonment is wholly unconnected 
 with the Palatine. When Tiberius or- 
 dered him to be put under arrest, he was 
 at the emperor’s Tusculan villa (§ 6). 
 From thence he was conveyed to the 
 camp, where we find him still confined 
 at the accession of Caius, which led to 
 his removalandrelease (§ το). Wieseler’s 
 mistake is twofold. First; he explains 
 Tov βασιλείου as referring to the palace 
 at Rome ; though Josephus lays the scene 
 of the arrest at Tusculanum (Τιβέριος 
 ἐκ τῶν ἹΚαπρεῶν εἰς Τουσκουλανὸν παραγί- 
 νεται). For the existence of such palaces 
 
 at Tusculum see Strabo v. p. 239 δεχό- 
 μενος βασιλείων κατασκευὰς éxmpemeatd- 
 τας. Secondly; heboldly translates στρα- 
 τόπεδον by ‘preetorium,’ understanding 
 thereby the Palatine barracks; though 
 these barracks were in no sense a camp 
 and were never so called. Building 
 upon these two false suppositions, he 
 makes the Palatine the scene of both 
 his arrest and his imprisonment. Ca- 
 ractacus also, like Agrippa, appears to 
 have been imprisoned in the pretorian 
 camp, Tac. Ann. xii. 36. And, if these 
 royal captives were not retained on the 
 Palatine, it is very improbable that an 
 exception should be made in the case of 
 a humble prisoner like St Paul, whose 
 case would not appear to diifer from 
 many hundreds likewise awaiting the 
 decision of Casar. 
 
 It will appear from the account 
 relating to Agrippa, given in the text, 
 that this prince was confined in the 
 camp during the reign of Tiberius; but 
 that on the accession of Caius he was 
 removed to ὦ house of his own, though 
 still under military custody. The no- 
 tices in the Acts suggest that St Paul’s 
 captivity resembled this latter condition 
 of Agrippa, and that he did not reside 
 actually withinthecamp. A Romantra- 
 ditionis perhaps preserved in the notice 
 of the Roman Hilary (Ambrosiaster) in 
 his prologue to the Ephesians; ‘In cus- 
 todia sub fidejussore intelligitur degisse 
 manens extra castra in conductu suo.’ 
 In Acts xxviii. 16 some mss (Greek 
 and Latin) read ἔξω τῆς παρεμβολῆς, 
 ‘extra castra.’ 
 
104 
 
 Death of 
 Tiberius, 
 
 Releaso οὗ 
 Agrippa. 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 
 
 grieving at his misfortune, and yet not daring to intercede with the © 
 emperor, spoke to Macro on his behalf, Her entreaties prevailed. The — 
 prefect took care that the soldiers appointed to guard him should not be 
 over severe, and that the centurion to whom he was bound should be a 
 man of humane disposition. He was permitted to take a bath every day ; 
 free access was granted to his freedmen and his friends; and other in- 
 dulgences were allowed him. Accordingly his friend Silas and his freed- 
 men, Marsyas and Stcecheus, were constant in their attendance: they 
 brought him food that was palatable to him; they smuggled in clothes 
 under pretence of selling them: they made his bed every night with the 
 aid of the soldiers, who had received orders to this effect from Macro. 
 
 In this way six months roiled by and Tiberius died. On hearing of the 
 emperor's death, Marsyas ran in hot haste to Agrippa to tell him the good 
 news. He found the prince on the threshold, going out to the baths, 
 aud making signs to him said in-Tlebrew, ‘The lion’s dead.” The centurion 
 in command noticed the hurry of the messenger and the satisfaction with 
 which his words were received. His curiosity was excited. At first an 
 evasive answer was returned to his question; bat as the nan had been 
 friendly disposed, Agrippa at length told him. The centurion shared his 
 prisoner’s joy, unfastened his chain, and served up dinner to him. But 
 while they sat at table, and the wine was flowing freely, contrary tidings 
 arrived. ‘Tiberius was alive and would return to Rome in a few days. The 
 centurion who had committed himself so grievously was furious at this 
 announcement. He rudely pushed Agrippa off the couch, and threatened 
 him with the less of his head, as a penalty for his lying report. Agrippa 
 was again put in chains, and the rigour of his confinement increased. 
 So he passed the night in great discomfort. But the next day the report 
 of the emperor’s death was confirmed. And soon after a letter arrived 
 from Caius to Piso the prefect of the city, directing the removal of Agrippa 
 from the camp to the house where he had lived before he was imprisoned. 
 This relieved and reassured him, Though he was still guarded and 
 
 watched, yet less restraint was put upon his movements (φυλακὴ μὲν καὶ 
 , ἣ μ 
 
 τήρησις ἦν, μετὰ μέντοι ἀνέσεως τῆς εἰς τὴν δίαιταν). When the new emperor 
 arrived in Rome, his first impulse was to release Agrippa at once: but 
 Antonia represented to him that this indecent haste would be regarded as 
 an outrage on his predecessor’s memory. So after waiting a few days to 
 gave appearances, he sent for Agrippa, placed the royal diadem on his 
 head, gave him the tetrarchies of Philip and Lysanias, and removing his 
 iron fetter (ἁλύσει) invested him with a golden chain of the same weight. 
 
 
 

 
 EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 
 
 105 
 
 , 7 a 5 , ΄ ~ 
 ἼΜονον ἀξίως τοῦ εὐαγγελίου τοῦ Χριστοῦ πολι- 
 
 , . of ? \ ΠΑ... 4 e > of 3 ‘ > i 
 τενεσθε, (νὰ ELTE ἐλθὼν Kat ἰδὼν ὑμᾶς ELTE ATWY αἰκουὼ 
 
 \ \ e “ ef , 3 CRN ΄ “- ad 
 TAH MEPL ὑμων OTL στήκετε EV EV πνευματι, μιᾷ ψυχῇ 
 
 27. ἀπὼν ἀκούσω τὰ περὶ ὑμῶν. 
 
 27—30. ‘But under all circum- 
 stances do your duty as good citizens 
 of a heavenly kingdom; act worthily 
 of the Gospel of Christ. So that whe- 
 ther I come among you and see with 
 my own eyes, or stay away and obtain 
 tidings from others, I may learn that 
 you maintain your ground bravely and 
 resolutely, acting by one inspiration; 
 that with united aims and interests 
 you are fighting all in the ranks of the 
 Faith on the side of the Gospel ;. and 
 that no assault of your antagonists 
 makes you waver: for this will be a 
 sure omen to them of utter defeat, to 
 you of life and safety: an omen, I say, 
 sent by God Himself; for it is His 
 grace, His privilege bestowed upon 
 you, that for Christ—yea, that ye 
 should not only believe on Him, but 
 also should suffer for Him. For ye 
 have entered the same lists, ye are 
 engaged in the same struggle, in which 
 you saw me contending then at Philip- 
 pi, in which you hear of my contend- 
 ing now in Rome.’ 
 
 27. Μόνον] ‘Only, i.e. ‘whatever 
 may happen, whether I visit you again 
 or visit you not’: see Gal. ii. 10, v.13, 
 vi. 12, 2 Thess, ii. 7. 
 
 πολιτεύεσθε] ‘perform your duties 
 as citizens. The metaphor of the 
 
 heavenly citizenship occurs again, iii. 
 
 20 ἡμῶν τὸ πολίτευμα ἐν οὐρανοῖς ὑπάρ- 
 χει, and Ephes. ii. 19 συνπολῖται τῶν 
 ἁγίων. See the note oniii. 20. Itwas 
 natural that, dwelling in the metropolis 
 of the empire, St Paul should use this 
 illustration. The metaphor moreover 
 would speak forcibly to his correspond- 
 ents ; for Philippi was a Roman colony, 
 and the Apostle had himself obtained 
 satisfaction, while in this place, by 
 declaring himself a Roman citizen: 
 Acts Xvi. 12, 37, 38. Though the word 
 
 πολιτεύεσθαι is used very loosely at 2 
 later date, at this time it seems al- 
 ways to refer to public duties devolving 
 on aman as a member of a body: so 
 Acts xxiii. I πάσῃ συνειδήσει ἀγαθῇ 
 πεπολίτευμαι τῷ Θεῷ κιτιλ., where St 
 Paul had been accused of violating the 
 laws and customs of the people and 
 so subverting the theocratic constitu- 
 tion; Joseph. Vit. ὃ 2 ἠρξάμην πολι- 
 τεύεσθαι τῇ Φαρισαίων αἱρέσει κατ- 
 ακολουθῶν, for the Pharisees were a 
 political as well as a religious party. 
 The opposite to πολιτεύεσθαι is ἰδιω- 
 τεύειν, e.g. Aschin. Timarch. p. 27. 
 
 The phrase ἀξίως πολιτεύεσθαι is 
 adopted in Clem. Rom. ὃ 21. Poly- 
 carp also, writing to these same Phi- 
 lippians (§ 5), combines it very happily 
 with another expression in St Paul 
 (2 Tim. li. 12), ἐὰν πολιτευσώμεθα ἀξίως 
 αὐτοῦ, καὶ συμβασιλεύσομεν αὐτῷ, ‘if 
 we perform our duties under Him as 
 simple citizens, He will promote us to 
 a share of His sovereignty.’ 
 
 iva εἴτε ἐλθὼν k.t.A.] The sentence 
 is somewhat irregular. It would have 
 run more smoothly iva, εἴτε ἐλθὼν καὶ 
 ἰδών, εἴτε ἀπὼν Kal ἀκούων, μάθω τὰ 
 περὶ ὑμῶν. For εἴτε, εἴτε, with parti- 
 ciples, comp. e.g. 2 Cor. v. 9 εἴτε ἐνδη- 
 μοῦντες εἴτε ἐκδημοῦντες. On this plan 
 the sentence is begun: but in the se- 
 cond clause the symmetry is lost and 
 the participle (ἀκούων) exchanged for 
 a finite verb (ἀκούω), so that in place 
 ofa general word applying to both par- 
 ticipial clauses (e.g. μάθω) is substi- 
 tuted a special one (ἀκούω) referring 
 to the second clause only. 
 
 στήκετε) ‘stand firm, ‘hold your 
 ground.’ For the metaphor see Ephes. 
 Vi. 13 ἵνα δυνηθῆτε ἀντιστῆναι ἐν τῇ 
 ἡμέρᾳ τῇ πονηρᾷ, καὶ ἅπαντα κατεργα-. 
 σάμενοι στῆναι. στῆτε οὖν, περιζωσά- 
 
106 
 
 5 ΄σ { ~ > / 
 συναθλοῦντες TH πίστει TOU εὐαγγελίου, 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 
 
 [I. 28, 29 
 
 38 λ ᾿ 
 Καὶ μῆ πτὺυ- 
 
 , > ε \ > > / c/ > \ ᾽ 
 PoMevot εν μηδενὶ UTO Τῶν αντιίκειμέενων" τις ἐστιν αὖ" 
 
 = af 3 / e > \ 7 \ ΄σ 
 τοῖς ἔνδειξις ἀπωλείας, ὑμῶν δὲ σωτηρίας, καὶ τοῦτο 
 ~ 
 
 . \ Θ ae 29 “΄ oe Ἐν: / 8 \ ε δ Xx ει ΄σ Ὥ 
 απὸ Θεοὺ OTL ὑμῖν ἐχαρίσθη τὸ ὑπὲρ Δριστου, οὐ 
 
 μένοι x.7.A. In the form στήκω the 
 idea of firmness or uprighiness is 
 prominent : see the note on Gal. v. 1. 
 In a later passage the Apostle com- 
 pares the Christian life to the Greek 
 stadium (iii. 14). Here the metaphor 
 seems to be drawn rather from the 
 combats of the Roman amphitheatre. 
 Like criminals or captives, the be- 
 lievers are condemned to fight for their 
 lives: against them are arrayed the 
 ranks of worldliness and sin: only un- 
 flinching courage and steady combina- 
 tion can win the victory against such 
 odds: comp. I Cor. iv. 9 6 Θεὸς ἡμᾶς 
 τοὺς ἀποστόλους ἐσχάτους ἀπέδειξεν ὡς 
 ἐπιθανατίους, ὅτι θέατρον ἐγενήϑημεν 
 τῷ κόσμῳ K.T.D. 
 ἑνὶ πνεύματι] iffers from μιᾷ ψυχῇ. 
 The spirit, the principle of the higher 
 life, is distinguished from the soul, te 
 seat of the affections, passions, etc. 
 For this distinction of πνεῦμα and 
 Ψυχὴ see the notes on 1 Thess. v. 23. 
 Yor ἕν πνεῦμα comp. Ephes. iv. 4, 
 Clem. Rom. 46, Hermas Sim. ix. 13. 
 συναθλοῦντες τῇ πίστει] ‘striving in 
 concert with the faith. Comp. dari. 
 Ign. ὃ 3 παρεκάλει συναθλεῖν τῇ αὐτοῦ 
 προθέσει, Ignat. Polyc. ὃ 6 συγκοπιᾶτε 
 ἀλλήλοις, συναθλεῖτε. Thus ἡ πίστις 15 
 here objective, ‘the faith, ‘the teach- 
 ing of the Gospel’; see the notes on 
 Gal. iii. 23. For this idea of association 
 with the faith, thus personified and 
 regarded as a moral agent, compare 
 1 Cor. xiii. 6 συγχαίρει δὲ τῇ ἀληθείᾳ, 
 2 Tim. i. ὃ συγκακοπάθησον τῷ evayye- 
 λίῳ, 3 Joh. ὃ συνεργοὶ γινώμεθα τῇ ἀλη- 
 θείᾳ. The other construction, which de- 
 taches τῇ πίστει from the prepositionin 
 συναθλοῦντες and translates it ‘for the 
 faith,” seems harsh and improbable. 
 28. μὴ πτυρόμενοι] ‘not blenching, 
 
 ‘not startled’: comp. Clem. Hom. ii. 
 39 πτύραντες ἀμαθεῖς ὄχλους, M. Anton. 
 viii. 45, Polycr. in Euseb. HZ. £. v. 24. 
 The metaphor is from a timid horse 
 (wroetv); comp. Plut. Aor. p. 800 Ὁ 
 μήτε ὄψει μήτε φωνῇ πτυρόμενος ὥσπερ 
 θηρίον ὕποπτον, Vit. Lab. 3 ἐντρόμου τοῦ 
 ἵππου γενομένου καὶ πτυρέντος. Though 
 apparently not an Attic word, it seems 
 to have been used in other dialects 
 from the earliest times, e.g. Hippocr. 
 de Morb. Mul. τ. p. 600 ἢ δεδίσσηται . 
 
 Somat 
 Kal πτυρηταῖι. 
 
 ἥτις] ‘seeing that it, i.e. ‘your fear- 
 lessness when menaced with persecu- 
 tion’; byattraction with ἔνδειξις : comp. 
 Ephes. iii, 13 αἰτοῦμαι μὴ ἐγκακεῖν ἐν 
 ταῖς θλίψεσίν μου ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ἥ Tes ἐστὶν 
 δόξα ὑμῶν, and see Winer § xxiv. p. 
 209. St Paul uses very similar lan- 
 guage in writing to the other great 
 church of Macedonia, 2 Thess. i. 47. 
 
 In this sentence the received text 
 presents two variations: (1) For ἐστὶν 
 αὐτοῖς it reads αὐτοῖς μέν ἐστιν : (2) 
 For ὑμῶν it has ὑμῖν. These are op- 
 viously corrections for the sake of 
 balancing the clauses and bringing out 
 the contrast. 
 
 τοῦτο ἀπὸ Θεοῦ] referring to ἔνδειξις. 
 It is a direct indication from God. 
 The Christian gladiator does not anxi- 
 
 ‘ously await the signal of life or death 
 
 from the fickle crowd (Juv. Sat. iii. 
 36‘Munera nunc edunt et verso pollice 
 vulgiquem libet occidunt populariter’). 
 The great ἀγωνοθέτης Himself has 
 given him a sure token of deliverance. 
 
 29. ἐχαρίσθη] ‘God has granted you 
 the high privilege of suffering for 
 Christ; this is the surest sign, that 
 He looks upon you with favour’ See 
 
 he note on i. 7. 
 τὸ ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ] 1.0. πάσχειν. 
 
 Tle 
 
I. 30, 11. 1] 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 
 
 107 
 
 4 A > eee, , ? \ \ Wy ve cot > ~ 
 μονον τὸ εἰς αὐτὸν πιστεύειν, ἀλλα καὶ TO ὑπερ αὐτοῦ 
 , \ re eo! - IS Ce \ 
 πασχειν: “τὸν αὐτὸν ἀγώνα ἔχοντες οἷον ELOETE ἐν Edt 
 
 \ - ᾽ , > > , 
 KQ@L νυν QKOVETE EV εμόοι. 
 
 II. “Εἴ τις οὖν παράκλησις ἐν Χριστῷ, εἴ τι παρα- 
 
 sentence is suspended by the insertion 
 of the after-thought οὐ μόνον τὸ εἰς 
 αὐτὸν πιστεύειν, and resumed in τὸ 
 ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ πάσχειν. 
 
 30. ἀγῶνα] “ἃ gladiatorial or ath- 
 letic contest,’ as 1 Tim. vi. 12, 2 Tim. 
 iv. 7; compare συναθλοῦντες, ver. 27. 
 
 ἔχοντες] It is difficult to say whether 
 this word should be taken (1) with 
 στήκετε συναθλοῦντες καὶ μὴ πτυρόμενοι, 
 the intermediate words being ἃ paren- 
 thesis; or (2) with ὑμῖν ἐχαρίσθη κ.τ.λ. 
 as an irregular nominative, of which 
 many instances occur in St Paul, e.g. 
 Col. iii. 16, Ephes. 111, 18, iv. 2: see 
 Winer ὃ Ixiii. p. 716. As στήκετε is 
 so far distant, the latter construction 
 seems more probable. 
 
 εἴδετε] ‘ye saw’; for the Apostle 
 suffered persecution at Philippi itself ; 
 see Acts xvi. 19 sq., 1 Thess. ii. 2, 
 in which latter passage he uses the 
 same word as here, ἐν πολλῷ ἀγώνι. 
 See the introduction, pp. 58, 60. 
 
 II. 1. ‘If then your experiences in 
 Christ appeal to you with any force, if 
 love exerts any persuasive power upon 
 you, if your fellowship in the Spirit is 
 a living reality, if you have any affec- 
 tionate yearnings of heart, any tender 
 feelings of compassion, listen and obey. 
 You have given me joy hitherto. Now 
 fill my cup of gladness to overflowing. 
 Live in unity among yourselves, ani- 
 mated by an equal and mutual love, 
 knit together in all your sympathies 
 and affections, united in all your 
 thoughts and aims. Do nothing to 
 promote the ends of party faction, no- 
 thing to gratify your own personal 
 vanity: but be humble-minded and 
 esteem your neighbours more highly 
 than yourselves. Let not every man re- 
 gard his own wants, his own inter- 
 ests; but let him consult also the 
 
 interests and the wants of others,’ 
 
 The Apostle here appeals to the 
 Philippians, by all their deepest ex- 
 periences as Christians and all their 
 noblest impulses as men, to preserve 
 peaceandconcord. Of the four grounds 
 of appeal, the first and third (apa- 
 κλησις ἐν Χριστῷ, κοινωνία πνεύματος) 
 are objective, the external principles of 
 love and harmony; while the second 
 and. fourth (παραμύθιον ἀγάπης, σπλάγ- 
 χνα καὶ οἰκτιρμοί) are subjective, the in- 
 ward feelings inspired thereby. The 
 Jorm of the appeal has been illus- 
 trated from Virgil An. i. 603 ‘Si qua 
 pios respectant numina, si quid us- 
 quam justitize est, et mens sibi conscia 
 recti, ete.’ - 
 
 παράκλησις ἐν Χριστῷ] i.e. ‘If your 
 life in Christ, your knowledge of Christ, 
 speaks to your hearts with a persua- 
 sive eloquence.’ The subject of the 
 sentence, the exhortation to unity, re- 
 quires that παράκλησις should be taken 
 here to mean not ‘consolation’ but 
 ‘exhortation.’ See the next note. 
 
 παραμύθιον] ‘incentive, encourage- 
 ment, not ‘comfort,’ as the word more 
 commonly means. For this sense of 
 παραμύθιον, ‘a motive of persuasion or 
 dissuasion,’ see Plat. Legg. vi. p.773 E, 
 ix. p. 880 A ἐὰν μέν τις τοιούτοις παρα- 
 μυθίοις εὐπειθὴς γίγνηται, εὐήνιος ἂν εἴη, 
 Liuthyd. p. 2728. This, which is the 
 original meaning of the word, appears 
 still more frequently in παραμυθία, πα- 
 ραμυθεῖσθαι. For the conjunction of 
 παράκλησις, παραμύθιον, in the sense in 
 which they are here used, see 1 Thess. 
 il, II παρακαλοῦντες ὑμᾶς Kat παραμυ- 
 θούμενοι καὶ μαρτυρόμενοι (With the 
 note), and perhaps 1 Cor. xiv. 3. 
 
 εἴ τις κοινωνία K.T.A.] ‘If communion 
 with the Spirit of love is not a mere 
 idle nane, bef a real thing’ Com- 
 
108 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 
 
 (II. 2, 3 
 
 ᾽ ry , / sf 7 
 μύθιον ἀγάπης, εἴ τις κοινωνία πνεύματος, εἰ τις σπλαγ- 
 
 ’ / / \ ΄ oJ \ 
 χνα Kal οἰκτιρμοί, "πληρώσατε μου τὴν χαραν, ἵνα TO 
 
 > \ = \ 3 \ / v , 
 αὐτὸ φρονῆτε, τὴν αὐτὴν ἀγάπην ἔχοντες, σύνψυχοι, 
 ε ΄σ > / \ \ 
 τὸ ἕν φρονοῦντες: ὁμηδὲν κατ᾽ ἐριθείαν μηδὲ κατὰ κενο- 
 
 pare the benediction in 2 Cor. xiii. 13. 
 
 εἴ τις σπλάγχνα K.7.A.] The ancient 
 copies are unanimous in favour of this 
 reading (the only important exception 
 being Clem. Alex. Strom. vi. p. 604 
 Potter, where τινα is perhaps a later 
 correction); and we cannot therefore 
 look upon τινὰ as anything more than 
 an arbitrary, though: very obvious, 
 emendation in the later mss where it 
 
 occurs. Nevertheless it seems hardly ἡ 
 
 possible that St Paul could have in- 
 tended so to write. Imfris is retained, 
 it can only be explained by the eager 
 impetuosity with which the Apostle 
 dictated the letter, the εἴ τις of the 
 preceding clause being repeated, and 
 then by a sudden impulse σπλάγχνα 
 καὶ οἰκτιρμοὶ being substituted for some 
 possible masculine or feminine sub- 
 stantive. Some few mss of no great 
 authority read in like manner εἴ τις 
 παραμύθιον. But it seems more pro- 
 bable that εἴ τις is an error of some 
 carly transcriber, perhaps of the origi- 
 nal amanuensis himself, for εἴ τινα 
 ΟΥ εἴτι. If εἴ τι were intended, the 
 error would be nothing more than 
 an accidental repetition of the first 
 letter in σπλάγχνα. Under any cir- 
 cumstances, the reading εἴ ris is a 
 valuable testimony to the scrupulous 
 fidelity of the early transcribers, who 
 copied the text as they found it, even 
 when it contained readings so mani- 
 festly difficult. See the note on ἦλθεν 
 in Gal. ii, 12. 
 
 σπλάγχνα] See the note on i. 8. 
 By σπλάγχνα is signitied the abode of 
 tender feelings, by οἰκτιρμοὶ the mani- 
 festation of these in compassionate 
 yearnings and actions: comp. Col. iii. 
 12 σπλάγχνα οἰκτιρμοῦ. 
 
 2. πληρώσατε) ‘complete, as you 
 have begun.’ He has already express- 
 
 ed his joy at their faith and love, i. 4, 
 9. Compare Joh. iii. 29 αὕτη οὖν ἡ 
 χαρὰ ἡ ἐμὴ πεπλήρωται. 
 
 iva] ‘so as to,’ see the note on i. 9. 
 
 τὸ αὐτὸ φρονῆτε] a general expres- 
 sion of accordance, which is defined 
 and enforced by the three following 
 clauses. It is the concord not of a 
 common hatred, but of a common love 
 (τὴν αὐτὴν ἀγάπην ἔχοντες). It mani- 
 fests itself in a complete harmony of 
 the feelings and affections (σύνψυχοι). 
 lt produces an entire unison of thought 
 and directs it to one end (τὸ ἕν φρο- 
 νοῦντες). The redundancy of expres- 
 sion is a measure of the Apostle’s 
 earnestness: BaBai, says Chrysostom, 
 ποσάκις TO αὐτὸ λέγει ἀπὸ διαθέσεως 
 πολλῆς, See the introduction, p. 67. 
 
 τὸ ἕν φρονοῦντες] a stronger expres- 
 sion than the foregoing τὸ αὐτὸ dpo- 
 vate, from which it does not otherwise 
 differ. The two are sometimes com- 
 bined, eg. Aristid. de Conc. Rhod. 
 Ῥ. 569, ἐν καὶ ταὐτὸν φρονοῦντες, comp. 
 Polyb. Υ. 104. I λέγοντες ἕν καὶ ταὐτὸ 
 πάντες καὶ συμπλέκοντες τὰς χεῖρας, 
 quoted by Wetstein. So too the Latin 
 ‘unum atque idem sentire”’ The de- 
 finite article before ἕν gives additional 
 strength to the expression. 
 
 3. μηδέν] ‘do nothing’ The verb 
 is suppressed, as is very frequently the 
 case in imperative sentences after μή, 
 e.g. Gal. v. 13 (see the note there): 
 comp. Klotz on Devar. τ. p. 669. This 
 construction is more natural and more 
 forcible than the understanding ¢dpo- 
 νοῦντες With μηδὲν from the preceding 
 clause. 
 
 kar ἐριθείαν So Ignat. Philad 
 ὃ μηδὲν κατ᾽ ἐριθείαν πράσσειν. See the 
 introduction, p. 75. On the meaning 
 of ἐριθεία, ‘factiousness, party-spirit,’ 
 see the note on Gal. v. 20. The two 
 
IT. 4] 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 
 
 109 
 
 / > \ ΄σ ’ > , e 7 
 δοξίαν, ἄλλα TH ταπεινοφροσυνῃ ἀλλήλους ἡγούμενοι 
 / =~ \ Ae ~ ef ΄ 
 ὑπερέχοντας ἑαυτῶν, μη τὰ ἑαυτών ἕκαστοι σκοποῦν- 
 
 ᾽ \ \ Ve “4 .« 
 τες, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὰ ετέρων ἕκαστοι. 
 
 4: 5- 
 
 μὴ τὰ ἑαυτῶν ἕκαστος σκοποῦντες ἀλλὰ καὶ τὰ ἑτέρων. Ἕκαστοι τοῦτο 
 
 φρονεῖτε K.T.d. 
 
 impediments to an universal, diffusive, 
 unconditional charity are the exalta- 
 tion of party and the exaltation of 
 self, Both these are condemned here : 
 the first in κατ᾽ ἐριθείαν, the second in 
 κατὰ κενοδοξίαν. The μηδὲ κατὰ Kevo- 
 δοξίαν of the older mss distinguishes 
 and emphasizes the two false motives 
 more strongly than the ἢ κενοδοξίαν of 
 the received text. 
 
 κενοδοξίαν] ‘vain-glory, personal 
 yanity.’ See the note on Gal. v. 26. 
 
 τῇ ταπεινοφροσύνῃ) ‘your lowli- 
 ness of mind? Though a common 
 word in the New Testament, ταπεινο- 
 φροσύνη secms not to occur earlier. 
 Even the adjective ταπεινόφρων and 
 the verb ταπεινοφρονεῖν, though occur- 
 ring once each in the Lxx (Prov. xxix. 
 23, Ps. cxxx. 2), appear not to be found 
 in classical Greek before the Christian 
 era. In heathen writers indeed rarec- 
 vos has almost always a bad meaning, 
 ‘vrovelling,’ ‘abject.’ In Aristotle (1) 
 for instance (Lith. Hudem. iii. 3) ταπει- 
 vos is associated with ἀνδραποδώδης ; 
 in Plato (Legg. iv. p. 774 6) with ave- 
 λεύθερος; in Arrian (pict. i. 3) with 
 ἀγεννής. ‘To this however some few 
 exceptions are found, especially in 
 Plato and the Platonists; see Nean- 
 der Church Hist. τ. p. 26 (Eng. Tr.). 
 On the other hand, St Paul once uses 
 ταπεινοφροσύνη in disparagement, Col. 
 ii. 18. It was one great result of the 
 life of Christ (on which St Paul dwells 
 here) to raise ‘humility’ to its proper 
 level; and, if not fresh coined for this 
 purpose, the word ταπεινοφροσύνη now 
 first became current through the in- 
 fluence of Christian ethics. On its 
 moral and religious significance sec 
 Neander Planting τ. Ὁ. 483 (Eng. Tr.). 
 
 ἀλλήλους «.7.A.] Le. Seach thinking 
 
 the other better.’ See esp. Rom. xii. 
 10 τῇ τιμῇ ἀλλήλους προηγούμενοι. 
 
 4, 5. These verses exhibit several 
 various readings. The received text 
 has σκοπεῖτε for σκοποῦντες, and dpo- 
 veioOw for φρονεῖτε, also inserting yap 
 after τοῦτο. All these variations may 
 be at once dismissed, as they have not 
 sufficient support and are evident al- 
 terations to relieve the grammar of 
 the sentence. But others still remain, 
 where it is more difficult to decide. 
 In ver. 4, at the first occurrence of the 
 word, there is about equal authority 
 for ἕκαστος and ἕκαστοι; at its second 
 occurrence, the weight of evidence is 
 very decidedly in favour of ἕκαστοι as 
 against ἕκαστος. On the grammar it 
 should be remarked; (1) That the plu- 
 ral of ἕκαστος, though common else- 
 where, does not occur again either in 
 the New Testament (for in Rey. vi. 11 
 it is certainly a false reading) or, as 
 would appear, in the Lxx. (2) That 
 we should expect either ra ἑαυτῶν 
 ἕκαστοι OY Ta ἑαυτοῦ ἕκαστος; but this 
 consideration is not very weighty, for 
 irregularities sometimes occur; and as 
 τὰ ἑαυτῶν precedes ἕκαστος, the latter 
 might be looked upon as an after- 
 thought inserted parenthetically. (3) 
 That St Paul can hardly have written 
 ἕκαστος in the first clause and ἕκαστοι 
 in the second, tntending the clauses as 
 correlative; and therefore if we retain 
 ἕκαστος in the first case, it will bs 
 necessary to detach the following ἔκα- 
 στοι, and join it on with the next sen- 
 tence. This view seems to have been 
 taken by some older expositors and 
 translators; and I have given it as 
 an alternative reading. Whether the 
 probabilities (independently of the evi- 
 dence) are in favour of ἕκαστος ΟΥ̓ €ka- 
 
= 
 
 IIO 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS, 
 
 [TI. 5, 6 
 
 5Touro φρονεῖτε ἐν ὑμῖν, ὃ καὶ ἐν pio Ἰησοῦ, 
 
 SOs ἐν μορφή Θεοῦ ὑπάρχων οὐχ ἑρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ 
 
 στοι in the first case, it is difficult to 
 say. The plural ἕκαστοι would mean 
 ‘each and all’ 
 
 σκοποῦντες | ‘regarding as your aim 
 (σκοπός). For this sense of σκοπεῖν 
 τὸ ἑαυτοῦ, ‘to consult one’s own in- 
 terests,’ comp. Eur. #7. 1114, Thue. vi. 
 12, and other passages quoted by Wet- 
 stein. For other instances of parti- 
 ciples used where imperatives might 
 have been expected, see Rom. xii. 9, 
 
 Teb. xiii. 5. 
 
 ἀλλὰ καί] ‘but also, 1.6. let them 
 look beyond their own interests to those 
 of others. 
 
 ἕκαστοι] for the repetition of the 
 word compare I Cor. vii. 17. 
 
 5—11. ‘Reflect in your own minds 
 the mind of Christ Jesus. Be humble, 
 as He also was humble. Though ex- 
 isting before the worlds in the Eternal 
 Godhead, yet He did not cling with 
 avidity to the prerogatives of Mis 
 divine majesty, did not ambitiously 
 display His equality with God; but di- 
 vested Himself of the glories of heaven, 
 and took upon Him the nature of a 
 
 servant, assuming the likeness of men. 
 Nor was this all. Having thus ap- 
 peared among men in the fashion of a 
 man, He humbled Himself yet more, 
 and carried out His obedience even to 
 dying. Nor did He die by a common 
 death: He was crucified, as the lowest 
 malefactor is crucified. But as was 
 His humility, so also was His exalta- 
 tion. God raised Him to a preemi- 
 nent height, and gave Him a title and 
 a dignity far above all dignities and 
 
 titles else, / For to the name and ma- 
 
 jesty of Jesus all created things in 
 heaven and earth and hell shall pay 
 homage on bended knee ;|and every 
 tongue with praise and thanksgiving 
 shall declare that Jesus Christ is Lord, 
 and in and for Him shall glorify God 
 the Father’ 
 
 5. ἐν ὑμῖν] ‘in yourselves, i.e. ‘in 
 
 your hearts, as Matt. 111. 9 μὴ δόξητε 
 λέγειν ἐν ἑαυτοῖς, ix. 3 εἶπαν ἐν ἑαυτοῖς 
 (explained by ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ὑμῶν 
 which follows), ix. 21 etc. For ὑμῖν, 
 where the New Testament writers 
 generally have ἑαυτοῖς and classical 
 authors ὑμῖν αὐτοῖς, compare Matt. vi. 
 19 μὴ θησαυρίζετε ὑμῖν θησαυρούς; and 
 see A. Buttmann, p.97. These slight 
 difficulties, together with the irregula- 
 rity of construction mentioned in the 
 next note, have doubtless led to the 
 substitution of φρονείσθω for φρονεῖτε 
 in the received text. 
 
 ὃ καὶ K.7.A.] 8c. ἐφρονεῖτο. The re- 
 gular construction would have been ὃ 
 καὶ Χριστὸς ᾿Ιησοῦς ἐφρόνει ἐν ἑαυτῷ. 
 
 6. ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ] ‘in the form of 
 God. On the meaning οὗ μορφὴ and 
 its distinction from σχῆμα see the de- 
 tached note at the end of this chapter. 
 ‘Though μορφὴ is not the same as φύ- 
 σις or οὐσία, yet the possession of the 
 μορφὴ involves participation in the ov- 
 σία also: for μορφὴ implies not the ex- 
 ternal accidents but the essential attri- 
 butes. Similar to this, though not so 
 decisive, are the expressions used 
 elsewhere of the divinity of the Son, 
 εἰκὼν τοῦ Θεοῦ 2 Cor. iv. 4, Col. i. 15, 
 and χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως τοῦ Θεοῦ 
 Heb. i. 3. Similar also is the term 
 which St John has adopted to express 
 this truth, ὁ Λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ. 
 
 ὑπάρχων] The word denotes ‘prior 
 existence, but not necessarily ‘eternal 
 existence.” The latter idea however 
 follows in the present instance from 
 the conception of the divinity of Christ 
 which the context supposes. The 
 phrase ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ ὑπάρχων is 
 thus an exact counterpart to ἐν ἀρχῇ 
 ἦν ὁ Adyos καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἣν πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν 
 κιτιλ., John 1.1. The idea correspond- 
 ing to ὑπάρχων is expressed in other 
 terms elsewhere; Col. i. 15, 17 πρωτό- 
 τόκος πάσης κτίσεως, αὐτός ἐστιν πρὸ 
 πάντων, Heb. i. 8, 10, John viii. 58, 
 
WS 7] 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 
 
 ΤῊῚΙ 
 
 io sf > > WOR AG \ ee A 4 Υ 
 εἰναι ἴσα Θεῷ, Ἰάλλα ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν μορφὴν δούλου 
 
 XVil. 24, and Apoc. i. 17, iii. 14. 
 
 οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο] ‘ yet did not 
 regard tt as ὦ prize, a treasure to be 
 clutched and retained at all hazards.’ 
 The more usual form of the word is 
 ἅρπαγμα, Which properly signifies sim- 
 ply ‘a piece of plunder, but especially 
 with such verbs as ἡγεῖσθαι, ποιεῖσθα:, 
 νομίζειν, etc., is employed like ἕρμαιον, 
 εὕρημα, to denote ‘a highly-prized pos- 
 session, an unexpected gain’: as Plut. 
 Mor. p. 330 D οὐδὲ ὥσπερ ἅρπαγμα καὶ 
 λάφυρον εὐτυχίας ἀνελπίστου σπαράξαι 
 καὶ ἀνασύρασθαι διανοηθείς, Heliod. vii. 
 20 οὐχ ἅρπαγμα οὐδὲ ἕρμαιον ἡγεῖται τὸ 
 πρᾶγμα, 1. vill. 7 ἅρπαγμα τὸ ῥηθὲν 
 ἐποιήσατο ἡ ᾿Αρσάκη, Titus Bostr. 6. 
 Manich. i. 2 ἅρπαγμα Ψευδῶς τὸ ἀναγ- 
 καῖον τῆς φύσεως ἡγεῖται, Kuseb, H. 25. 
 Vili. 12 τὸν θάνατον ἅρπαγμα θέμενοι, Vit. 
 Const. li. 31 οἷον ἅρπαγμά τι τὴν ἐπά- 
 νοδὸν ποιησάμενοι. " 
 
 It appears then from these in- 
 stances that ἅρπαγμα ἡγεῖσθαι fre- 
 quently signifies nothing more than 
 ‘to clutch greedily,’ ‘ prize highly,’ ‘to 
 set store by;’ the idea of plunder or 
 robbery having passed out of sight. 
 The form dpraypos however presents 
 greater difficulty ; for neither analogy 
 nor usage is decisive as to its mean- 
 ing: (1) The termination -μὸς indeed 
 denotes primarily the process, so that 
 ἁρπαγμὸς would.be ‘an act of plunder- 
 ing.’ But as a matter of fact substan- 
 tives in -μὸς are frequently used to 
 describe a concrete thing, e.g. θεσμός, 
 χρησμός, φραγμός, ete. (see Buttmann, 
 Ausf. Sprachl. § 119. 23 (1. p. 399): 
 with which compare the English 
 ‘seizure, capture,’ and the like): so 
 that the form is no impediment to 
 the sense adopted above. (2) And 
 again the particular word ἁρπαγμὺς 
 occurs so rarely that usage cannot 
 be considered decisive. In Plut. Mor. 
 p. 12 A τὸν ἐκ Κρήτης καλούμενον 
 ἁρπαγμόν, the only instance of its oc- 
 currence in any classical writer (for 
 
 though it appears as a various read- 
 ing for ἁρπαγὴ in Pausan. i. 20, 2, the 
 authority is too slight to deserve 
 consideration), it seems certainly to 
 denote the act. On the other hand 
 in Euseb. Comm. in Luc. vi. (Mai, 
 Nov. Pair. Bibl. wv. p. 165) 6 Πέτρος 
 δὲ ἁρπαγμὸν τὸν διὰ σταυροῦ θάνατον 
 ἐποιεῖτο διὰ τὰς σωτηρίους ἐλπίδας (a 
 reference which I owe to a friend), in 
 Cyril. Alex. de Ador. τ. p. 25 (ed. Au- 
 hert.) οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν τὴν παραίτησιν ὡς 
 ἐξ ἀδρανοῦς καὶ ὑδαρεστέρας ἐποιεῖτο 
 φρενός (speaking of Lot’s importunity 
 when the angels declined his offer of 
 hospitality), and in a late anonymous 
 writer in the Catena Possini on Mark 
 ΣΧ. 42 τῷ δεῖξαι ὅτι οὐκ ἔστιν ἁρπαγμὸς 
 ἡ τιμή, τῶν ἐθνῶν yap τὸ τοιοῦτον, it is 
 equivalent to ἅρπαγμα. Under these 
 circumstances we may, in choosing 
 between the two senses of ἁρπαγμός, 
 fairly assign to it here the one which 
 best suits the context. 
 
 The meaning adopted above satis- 
 fies this condition: ‘ Though He pre- 
 existed in the form of God, yet He 
 did not look upon equality with God 
 as a prize which must not slip from 
 His grasp, but He emptied Him- 
 self, divested Himself, taking upon 
 Him the form of a slave.’ The idea 
 is the same as in 2 Cor. viii. 9 δὲ 
 ὑμᾶς ἐπτὠχευσενπλούσιος ὦν. The 
 other rendering (adopted by the A.V.), 
 ‘thought it not robbery to be equal 
 with God, disconnects this clause from 
 its context. The objections to this 
 latter interpretation will be considered 
 more at length in the detached note at 
 the end of the chapter. 
 
 τὸ εἶναι ἴσα Θεῷ] ‘to be on an 
 equality with God’ For this use of 
 ἴσα as a predicate, comp. Job xi. 12 
 βροτὸς δὲ γεννητὸς γυναικὸς ἴσα ὄνῳ 
 ἐρημίτῃ. So ὅμοια in Thucyd. i. 25 δυ- 
 νάμει ὄντες.. «ὅμοια τοῖς Ἑλλήνων πλου- 
 σιωτάτοις : sec Jelf, Gramm. § 382. 
 The examples of the mere adverbial 
 
1izZ 
 
 ’ > , ᾽ , , 
 λαβών, ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 
 
 [IL 8 
 
 \ , 
 9 : Kat? σχήματι 
 
 \ ε of > / € , i 
 εὑρεθεὶς ὡς ἄνθρωπος ἐταπείνωσεν ἑαυτὸν, yEvopeEvOS 
 
 use of ἴσα accumulated by commenta- 
 tors do not throw much light on the 
 meaning here. Between the two ex- 
 pressions ἴσος εἶναι and toa εἶναι NO 
 other distinction can be drawn, except 
 that the former refers rather to the 
 person, the latter to the attributes. 
 In the present instance ica Θεῷ ex- 
 presses better the Catholic doctrine of 
 the Person of Christ, than ἴσος Θεῷ ; for 
 the latter would seem to divide the 
 Godhead. It is not the statement 
 either of the Lord Himself or of the 
 evangelist, but the complaint of the 
 Jews, that He ‘made Himself ἴσον τῷ 
 Θεῷ (John vy. 18). 
 
 In the letter of the synod of Ancyra, 
 directed against the Sabellianism of 
 Marcellus, attention is called to the 
 absence of the article with Θεὸς here 
 and above (ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ) ; καθὸ Θεὸς 
 ὧν οὔτε μορφῇ [οὔτ᾽ ἐν μορφῇ Ne €oTLToU 
 Θεοῦ ἀλλὰ Θεοῦ, οὔτε ἴσα ἐστὶ τῷ Θεῷ 
 ἀλλὰ Θεῷ, οὔτε αὐθεντικῶς ὡς ὁ πατήρ 
 (Bpiphan. Heer. \xxiii. 9,p.855 Petav.). 
 'fhe object of this comment, whether 
 right or wrong, is apparently to dis- 
 tinguish between Θεὸς God absolutely 
 and 6 Θεὸς God the Father; but the 
 editors generally after Petau substitute 
 ἀλλὰ Θεύς, ἀλλὰ Θεός, for ἀλλὰ Θεοῦ, 
 ἀλλὰ Θεῷ, thus disregarding the Ms 
 and confusing the sense. 
 
 . ἀλλὰ ἑαυτόν] ‘So far from this: 
 He divested Himself, not of His divine 
 nature, for this was impossible, but ‘ of 
 the glories, the prerogatives, of Deity. 
 This He did by taking upon Him the 
 form of a servant.’ The emphatic 
 position of ἑαυτὸν points to the humi- 
 liation of our Lord as voluntary, self- 
 imposed. 
 
 ἐκένωσεν] ‘emptied, stripped Him- 
 self’ of the insignia of majesty. 
 
 μορφὴν δούλου λαβών] ‘by taking 
 the form of a slave? The action of 
 λαβὼν is coincident in» time with 
 the action of ἐκένωσεν, as e.g. Ephes. 
 
 i.9: comp. Plat. Dfen. p. 92 © evepye- 
 τησον φράσας, and see Hermann on 
 Viger no. 224, Bernhardy Griech. 
 Synt. Ὁ. 383. By ‘form’ is meant not 
 the external semblance only (σχῆμα of 
 the following verse), but the character- 
 istic attributes, as in ver. 6. For dv- 
 θρωπος the stronger word δοῦλος is 
 substituted : He, who is Master(«vpzos) 
 of all, became the slave of all, Comp. 
 Matt. xx. 27, 28, Mark x. 44, 45. 
 
 This text was made the starting- 
 point of certain mystic speculations by 
 the early sect of the Sethians; Hippol. 
 FTP τ. 19, ΞῸ ΤῊ 
 
 ἐν ὁμοιώματι]͵ Unlike μορφή, this 
 word does not imply the reality of our 
 Lord’s BoE see Trench WN. 7. 
 Syn. § xv. ‘forma (μορφή) dicit 
 qniddam absolutum ; simlitedo (ὁμοί- 
 wpa) dicit relationem ad alia ejus- 
 dem conditionis ; habitus (σχῆμα) re- 
 fertur ad aspectum ‘et sensum,’ is 
 Bengel’s distinction. Thus ὁμοίωμα 
 stands midway between μορφὴ and 
 σχῆμα. The plural ἀνθρώπων is used ; 
 for Christ, as the second Adam, repre- 
 sents not the individual man, but the 
 human race; Rom. v. 15, 1 Cor. xv. 
 45—47- 
 
 γενόμενος] like λαβὼν is opposed to 
 the foregoing ὑπάρχων (ver. 6), and 
 marks the assumption of the new upon 
 the old. 
 
 8. ‘Nor was this His lowest degra- 
 dation. He not only became a man, 
 but He was treated as the meanest of 
 men. He died the death of a criminal 
 slave.’ 
 
 σχήματι κιτιλ] The former verse 
 dwells on the contrast between what 
 He was from the beginning and what 
 He became afterwards : hence λαβὼν 
 (not ἔχων), ὁμοίωμα (not μορφή), yevo- 
 μενος (not wy), all words expressive of 
 change. In the present the opposition 
 is between what He 7sin Himself, and 
 what He appeared in the eyes of men : 
 
hence σχήματι (for ὁ ὁμοιώματι or μορῷ 
 εὑρεθείς (for γενόμενος or ὑπάρ ἱ 
 ἄνθρωπος (for ἄνθρωπος), all expr 
 implying external semblane 
 hath no form nor comel 
 is no beauty that we,s 
 him : he was despised 
 him not’ (Is. liii. 
 εὑρεθεὶς k.7.A. Compa 
 Zab. 9 ὄψεσθ 
 που, Benj. 10 € 
 ἀνθρώπου τ 
 ὑπήκο os} 86 
 
 π΄, 
 pe VP O- 
 
 ἐν μορφῇ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ; comp. ver. 9, 
 On the ὑπακοὴ 
 7. 19, Hebr. v. 8. 
 al ‘I said death, 
 8 pmon death. It was 
 
 wi involved not intense 
 p aly ut intense shame also : 
 Teserved for malefactors and 
 Jeath on which the Mosaic 
 red a curse (Deut. xxi. 23), 
 even Gentiles consider the 
 ul and cruel of all punish- 
 
 » Verr. v. 64); which has 
 after to the Jews a stum- 
 and to the Greeks foolish- 
 mnpare Heb. xii, 2 ὑπέμεινεν 
 ἐσχύνης καταφρονήσας, and 
 qs p. 152 sq. The con- 
 Β own position must have 
 id St Paul’s sense of his Mas- 
 niliation. As a Roman citizen 
 yuncer no circumstances suffer 
 radation ; and accordingly, if 
 sept the tradition, while St 
 d on the cross, he himself 
 ited by the sword: see Ter- 
 p. 15, and comp. Ep. Gall. 
 
 Ν. δ v. τ, § 12. 
 
 } In consequence of this 
 humiliation, in fulfilment of 
 law which He Himself 
 od, ὁ ταπεινῶν ἑαυτὸν ὑψωθή- 
 8 Xiv. II, xviii. 14). 
 
 is a frequent collocation of 
 ethe New Testament with 
 
 ἃ Son of Man,’ 
 
 {1 
 upoo: 9 διὸ καὶ ὁ 
 
 ΄- δὼ ψῇ 
 αὐτῷ TO ὄνομα 
 a 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 eT 
 
 mF 
 
 1165 reciprocation. 
 
 Ψψωσεν) The word is found 
 ἢ times in the LXX, but ap- 
 
 ently does not occur in classical 
 
 writers. 
 
 ἐχαρίσατο αὐτῷ] ‘gave to Him, the 
 Ὑπερύψωσεν and ἐχαρί- 
 σατο are used in reference to the sub- 
 ordinate position voluntarily assumed 
 by the Son of God. 
 
 τὸ ὄνομα] ‘the name, i-e. the title 
 and dignity, comp. Ephes. i. 21 ὑπερ- 
 ἄνω πάσης ἀρχῆς καὶ ἐξουσίας καὶ δυνά- 
 μεως καὶ κυριότητος καὶπαντὸς ὀνόματος 
 ὀνομαζομένου, Heb.i. 4 ὅσῳ διαφορώ- 
 τερον Tap αὐτοὺς κεκληρονόμηκενῦνομα. 
 If St Paul were referring to any one 
 term, Κύριος would best explain the 
 reference; for it occursin the context 
 ὅτι Κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, ver. 11. But 
 here, as in the passages quoted, we 
 should probably look toa very common 
 Hebrew sense of ‘name,’ not meaning 
 a definite appellation but denoting 
 office, rank, dignity. - In this case the 
 use of the ‘ Name of God’ in the Old 
 Testament to denote the Divine Pre- 
 sence or the Divine Majesty, more 
 especially as the object of adoration and 
 praise, will suggest the true meaning: 
 since the context dwells on the honour 
 and worship henceforth offered to, Him 
 on whom ‘the name’ has been con- 
 ferred. ‘To praise the name, to bless 
 the name, to fear the name, of God’ 
 are frequent expressions in the Old 
 Testament. See especially Gesenius 
 Thesaur. p. 1432,8. v. OW, where he de- 
 fines ‘the name of God,’ ‘ Deus qua- 
 tenus ab hominibus invocatur, celebra- 
 tur” Philo in a remarkable passage 
 (among other titles assigned to our 
 Lord in the Apostolic writings) gives 
 ‘the Name of God’ as a designation 
 of the ‘Word’: καὶ ἂν μηδέπω μέντοι 
 τυγχάνῃ τις ἀξιόχρεως ὧν υἱὸς Θεοῦ 
 προσαγορεύεσθαι; σπουδαζέτω κοσμεῖσ- 
 θαι κατα τὸν πρωτόγονον αὐτοῦ 
 
 ὃ 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ἀρχάγγελον πολυώνυμον vmapy 
 yap ἀρχὴ καὶ ὄνομα Θεοῦ καὶ 
 καὶ ὁ κατ᾽ εἰκόνα ἄνθρωπος καὶ ἕ 
 
 § 28, p. 427 3). 
 seems to be the same; for the par allel 
 remains unaffected by the fact that the 
 Word was not revealed to Philo as an 
 incarnate Person. Somewhat different 
 in expression, though similar in mean- 
 ing, is St John’s language, Rev. xix. 
 13. The reading τὸ ὄνομα (for which 
 the received text has ὄνομα without the 
 article) is unquestionably correct, both 
 as having the support of the oldest Mss, 
 and as giving a much fuller meaning. 
 For other instances where τὸ ὄνομα is 
 used absolutely, comp. Acts v. 41 κατη- 
 ξιώθησαν ὑπὲρ τοῦ ὀνόματος ἀτιμασθῆναι, 
 Ignat. Eph. 3 δέδεμαι ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι, 
 Philad. το δοξάσαι τὸ ὄνομα. In all 
 these cases transcribers or translators 
 have stumbled at the expression and 
 interpolated words to explain it. The 
 same motive will account for the omis- 
 sion of the article here. 
 
 10, This passage is modelled on 
 Isaiah xlv. 23 ὅτι ἐμοὶ κάμψει πᾶν γόνυ 
 καὶ ἐξομολογήσεται πᾶσα γλῶσσα τῷ 
 Θεῷ (so Alex., but Vat. has καὶ ὀμεῖται 
 π. yd. τὸν Θεόν, and Sin. καὶ ομνιται π. 
 yA. τὸν Κύριον), the text being modi- 
 fied to suit St Paul’s application to the 
 Son. In Rom. xiv. 10, 11, on the other 
 hand, the same textis directly quoted: 
 πάντες γὰρ παραστησόμεθατῷ βήματι τοῦ 
 Θεοῦ 6. 1. τοῦ Χριστοῦ)" ᾿ γέγραπται γάρ, 
 Ζῶ ἐγώ, λέγει Κύριος, ὅτι ἐμοὶ κάμψει 
 κιτιλ.; the introductory words however, 
 Ζῶ ἐγώ, λέγει Κύριος, being substituted 
 for κατ᾽ ἐμαυτοῦ ὀμνύω of the prophet. 
 In the passage in the Romans then, if 
 the reading rod Χριστοῦ were adopted, 
 Κύριος would refer naturally to our 
 Lord, and thus it would serve to illus- 
 trate the application of the text here; 
 but the balance of authority is. de- 
 
 others besides. 
 
 [II. τὸ 
 
 ol 9 y ΄ es 
 ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι ᾿ἰησοῦ πᾶν 
 
 A A 5 / \ 
 COL επιγείων και καταχθο- 
 
 y in favour of τοῦ Θεοῦ, which 
 latless correct ; the other reading 
 
 fithout the countenance 
 us. have been obtained 
 it seems clear from 
 
 that the indi¥ du 
 this interpretation 
 following note. 
 ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι] ‘in the 
 majesty, the manifestat 
 an object of worship ἀπ 
 is not ‘the name Jesus,’ but 
 of Jesus.’ The name here must! 
 same with the name in the 
 verse. And the personal 
 cannot there be meant; [Ὁ 
 stowal of the name is rep 
 following upon the humifiat 
 death of the Son of Man. ΕΓΒ 
 been the meaning, the word 
 have run, not ‘ He bestow 
 the name etc.” but ‘He exalt 
 name borne by Him’; for, t] 
 nently significant in His ¢ 
 prophetic of His glorious o 
 i. 21), it was the personal na 
 That the 
 the knee is an act of revere 
 and not only to God throug 
 appear from the following 
 tions ; (1) The parallel clause 
 an act of reverence paid 
 the Son as its object, the u 
 however being the glory 
 ther, πᾶσα γλῶσσα e£opo0Ac 
 Κύριος ᾿Ιησοῦς κιτιλ. (2) >» 
 struction ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι Ince 
 κάμψῃ in this sense is su 
 many analogous instances w 
 adoration is meant: 6, δ᾽ 
 
IL. 11, 12] 
 
 So tenen ἡ 
 
 νίων, 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 
 
 115 
 
 ‘ a a 2 ef 
 τ καὶ πᾶοὰ FAWCCA EZOMOAOLFHCETA! OTL Κύριος 
 
 ~ > ~ 7 
 Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς εἰς δόξαν Θεοῦ πατρός. 
 
 1.“ 3 , θ \ , ε 3 
 Ὥστε, ἀγαπητοὶ μου. καῦως παντοτε ὑπήκουσατε, 
 
 5 ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί σου ἀρῶ τὰς χεῖράς μου, 
 Ps. xliv. 10 ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί σου ἐξομο- 
 λογησόμεθα, Fg. CY. Ξ ἐπαινεῖσθε ἐν τῷ 
 ὀνόματι τῷ ἁγίῳ αὐτοῦ, 1 Kings viii. 44 
 προσεύξονται ἐ ἐν ὀνόματι Κυρίου, besides 
 the very frequent expression ἐπικαλεῖ- 
 σθαι ἐν ὀνόματι Kupiov (or Θεοῦ): Kings 
 XViii. 24, 25, 26, 2 Kings v. 11, Ps. ΣΧ. 
 8, exvi. 17, 2 Chron. xxviii. 15. 
 τῶν ἐπουρανίων κ-τ.λ.] ‘all creation, 
 all things whatsoever and wheresoever 
 they be.” The whole universe, whether 
 animate or inanimate, bends the knee 
 in homage and raises its voice in 
 praise: see especially Rev. v. I 3 καὶ 
 : πᾶν κτίσμα ὃ ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς 
 ee Καὶ ὑποκάτω τῆς γῆς καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς θα- 
 ασσὴης [a] ἐ εστιν καὶ τὰ ἐν αὐτοῖς πάντα, 
 καὶ ἤκουσα λέγοντας τῷ καθημένῳ K.T.r.: 
 d comp. Ephes. i. 20—22. So in 
 manner St Paul represents ‘all 
 eation’ as awaiting the redemption 
 of Christ, Rom. viii. 22. Compare 
 Ignat. Τὴ γαϊί, 9 βλεπόντων τῶν ἐπου- 
 ρανίων καὶ ἐπιγείων καὶ ὑποχθονίων, 
 Polye. Phil. 2 ᾧ ὑπετάγη τὰ πάντα ἐπου- 
 ράνια καὶ ἐπίγεια. It would seem there- 
 fore that the adjectives here are neu- 
 ter; and any limitation to intelligent 
 beings, while it detracts from the uni- 
 versality of the homage, is not requir- 
 ed by the expressions. The personifi- 
 cation of universal nature offering its 
 praise and homage to its Creator in 
 the 148th Psalm will serve to illus- 
 trate St Paul’s meaning here. If this 
 view be correct, all endeavours to 
 explain the three words of different 
 classes of intelligent beings; as Chris- 
 tians, Jews, heathens; angels, men, 
 devils; the angels, the living, the dead ; 
 souls of the blessed, men on earth, souls 
 in purgatory, etc., are out of place. 
 11. ἐξομολογήσεται] ‘proclaim with 
 thanksgiving? In itself ἐξομολογεῖ- 
 σθαι is simply ‘to declare or confess 
 openly or plainly” But as its second- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ary sense ‘to offer praise or thanks- 
 giving’ has almost entirely supplanted 
 its primary meaning in the Lxx, where 
 it is of frequent occurrence, and as 
 moreover it has this secondary sense in 
 the very passage of Isaiah which St Paul 
 adapts, the idea of praise or thanks- 
 giving ought probably not to be ex- 
 cluded here. Compare the construc- 
 tion ἐξομολογοῦμαί σοι πάτερ ὅτι, Matt. 
 xi. 25, Luke x. 21. The authorities 
 are divided between ἐξομολογήσηται 
 and ἐξομολογήσεται. In a doubtful 
 ease I have given the preference to 
 the latter, as transcribers would be 
 tempted to substitute the conjunctive 
 to conform to κάμψη. The future is 
 justified by such passages as Rev. xxii. 
 14 ἵνα ἔσται...καὶ εἰσέλθωσιν 3 see 
 
 _ Winer ὃ xli. p. 360 sq. 
 
 Κύριος Ἰησοῦς} See Acts ii. 36 καὶ 
 Κύριον αὐτὸν καὶ Χριστὸν ὁ Θεὸς ἐποίη- 
 σεν; τοῦτον τὸν Ἰησοῦν ὃν ὑμεῖς ἐσταυ- 
 ρώσατε, Rom. x. 9 ἐὰν ὁμολογήσῃς ἐν 
 τῷ στόματί σου Κύριον ᾿Ιησοῦν, 1.6. ‘con- 
 fess Jesus to be Lord, where the 
 other reading ὅτι Κύριος Ἰησοῦς is a 
 paraphrase; comp. I Cor. xii. 3. 
 
 12, 13. ‘Therefore, my beloved, 
 having the example of Christ’s humi- 
 lity to guide you, the example of 
 Christ’s exaltation to encourage you, 
 as ye have always been obedient 
 hitherto, so continue. Do not look to 
 my presence to stimulate you. Labour 
 earnestly not only at times when Iam 
 with you, but now when I am far away. 
 With a nervous and trembling anxiety 
 work out your salvation for yourselves. 
 For yourselves, did I say? Nay, ye 
 are not alone. It is God working in 
 you from first to last: God that in- 
 spires the earliest impulse, and God 
 that directs the final achievement : for 
 such is His good pleasure.’ 
 
 ὑπηκούσατε ‘were obedient,’ i.e. to 
 God, not to St Paul himself. Ὑπακοὴ 
 8—2 
 
16 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 
 
 ΠῚ. τ 
 
 μὴ ὡς ἐν τή παρουσίᾳ μου μόνον, ἀλλὰ νῦν πολλῷ μᾶλ-: 
 λον ἐν τῇ ἀπουσίᾳ μου, μετὰ φόβου καὶ τρόμου τὴν 
 ἑαυτῶν σωτηρίαν κατεργάζεσθε" 13 Θεὸς γάρ ἐστιν ὁ 
 
 ἐνεργῶν ἐν ὑμῖν καὶ τὸ θέλειν καὶ τὸ ἐνεργεῖν ὑπὲρ τῆς 
 
 is most frequently so used in the New 
 ‘Testament of submission to the Gospel, 
 Sore ROME 1 Ὁ; Χῇ, 1, ΧΥϊ ΤΩΣ 20 
 2 Cor. vii. 15, x. 5, 6. It here refers 
 back to the example of Christ, who 
 Himself ‘showed obedience’ (ὑπήκοος 
 γενόμενος ver. 8). 
 
 μὴ ὡς ev τῇ k.T.A.] ‘do not, as though 
 my presence prompted you, work out in 
 my presence only etc’ The sentence 
 is a fusion of two ideas, μὴ ὡς ἐν τῇ 
 παρουσίᾳ μου κατεργάζεσθε, and μὴ ev 
 τῇ παρουσίᾳ μου μόνον κατεργάζεσθε, 
 ‘do not be energetic because I am pre- 
 sent,’ and ‘do not be energetic only 
 when I am present.’ The pleonastic 
 ὡς lays stress on the sentiment or mo- 
 tive of the agent: compare Rom. ix. 
 52, 2 "Cor. li, 17, Philem! 14 
 
 φόβου καὶ τρόμου] i.e. a nervous and 
 trembling anxiety to do right. Such 
 at least seems to be the meaning of 
 the phrase in St Paul, 2 Cor. vii. 15, 
 Ephes. vi. 5: comp. 1 Cor. ii. 3. The 
 words occur together frequently in 
 the Lxx, where however they have a 
 sterner import: Gen. ix. 2, Exod. xv. 
 τὸ; Deut, 11. 255 ΧΙ; 25, Ps. liy. 5,, 15. 
 ΧΙΧ. τό. 
 
 ἑαυτῶν] The word is emphatic in re- 
 ference both to what goes before and 
 to what follows. ‘Do not depend onme, 
 but on yourselves, ‘When you depend 
 on yourselves, you depend on God.’ 
 
 κατεργάζεσθε) ‘work out, as e.g. 
 Xen. Mem. iv. 2.7 πλειόνων περὶ ταῦτα 
 πραγματευομένων ἐλάττους οἱ κατεργα- 
 ζόμενοι γίγνονται. It is a common 
 word in St Paul. 
 
 13. yap] This verse supplies at once 
 the stimulus to and the corrective of 
 the precept in the preceding : ‘Work, 
 for God works with you’: and ‘ The 
 good is not your own doing, but God’s.’ 
 
 ἐνεργῶν] ‘works mightily, works ef- 
 fectively’ The preposition of the com- 
 pound is unconnected with the ἐν of 
 ev ὑμῖν (‘in your hearts’). See the 
 notes on Gal. ii. 8. 
 
 καὶ τὸ θέλειν k.7.A. | ‘not less the will, 
 the first impulse, than the work, the 
 actual performance.’ ‘Nos ergo volu- 
 mus, sed Deus in nobis operatur et 
 velle; nos ergo operamur, sed Deus in 
 nobis operatur et operari,’ Augustin. 
 de Don. Persev. 33 (x. p. 838,ed. Ben.). 
 It was not sufficient to say Θεός ἐστιν 
 ὃ ἐνεργῶν, lest he should seem to limit 
 the part of Ged to the actual working: 
 this activity of God comprises τὸ 6e- 
 dew as well as τὸ ἐνεργεῖν. The θέλειν 
 and the ἐνεργεῖν correspond respec- 
 tively to the ‘gratia preeveniens’ and 
 the ‘ gratia cooperans’ of a later theo- 
 logy. 
 
 ὑπὲρ τῆς K.T.A.] ‘in fulfilment of His 
 benevolent purpose’; for God ‘will 
 have all men to be saved’ (1 Tim. ii. 4). 
 The words should therefore be con- 
 nected with Θεός ἐστιν ὁ ἐνεργῶν, not 
 with καὶ τὸ θέλειν κιτ.λ.; for this latter 
 connexion would introduce an idea 
 alien to the context. On εὐδοκία see 
 the note i. 15. 
 
 14—16. ‘Be ye not like Israel of 
 old. Never give way to discontent 
 and murmuring, to questioning and 
 unbelief. So live that you call forth 
 no censure from others, that you keep 
 your own consciences single and pure. 
 Show yourselves blameless children 
 of God amidst a crooked and per- 
 verse generation. For you are set 
 in this world as luminaries in the fir- 
 
 ament. Hold out to others the word 
 of life. That so, when Christ shall 
 come to judge all our.works, I may be 
 able to boast of your faith, and to show 
 
II. 14—16] 
 
 , 
 εὐδοκίας. 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 
 
 117 
 
 , ~ ~ 
 ἄπαντα ποιεῖτε χωρὶς γογγυσμῶν Kal δια- 
 
 ΄σ 15. / 6 af \ Sk 
 λογισμῶν, “iva γένησθε ἀμεμπτοι Kal ἄκεραιοι, TEKNA 
 
 Ree 7 3 a “ ᾿ 
 Θεοῦ ἁἀμωμὰ μέσον γενεᾶς οκολιᾶάς KAl διεοτρὰμ- 
 
 , ΚΕ: / ε ~ 7 7 
 μένη ο» ἐν οἷς φαίνεσθε ὧς φωοτῆρες ἐν κόσμῳ, “λόγον 
 
 that my race has not been run in vain, 
 that my struggles have indeed been 
 crowned with success.’ 
 
 14. yoyyvopav] ‘murmurings.’ The 
 word is constantly used in the Lxx 
 of Israe! in the wilderness : compare 
 1 Cor. x. 10pn5é γογγύζετε καθάπερ τινὲς 
 αὐτῶν ἐγόγγυσαν. The same reference 
 to the Israelites, which is directly ex- 
 pressed in the passage just quoted, 
 seems to have been present to the 
 Apostle’s mind here; for in the next 
 verse he quotes from the song of 
 Moses. For γογγυσμὸς the Athenians 
 used τονθορυσμός : the former however 
 occurs in the oldest Ionic writers (see 
 Lobeck Phryn. p. 358). This is one 
 of many instances of the exceptional 
 character of the Attic dialect: see 
 above on πτυρόμενοι 1. 28 and Gala- 
 dians vi. 6, and p. 92 sq. 
 
 διαλογισμῶν] This word inthe New 
 Testament means sometimes ‘inward 
 questionings, sometimes ‘disputes, dis- 
 cussion’; for there is no sufficient 
 ground for denying it this second 
 meaning: see I Tim. ii. 8. Here it 
 seems to have the former sense. As 
 γογγυσμὸς is the moral, so διαλογισμὸς 
 isthe intellectual rebellion against God. 
 
 15. γένησθε] ‘may approve your- 
 selves’: better supported than the 
 other reading ἦτε. 
 
 ἀκέραιοι) ‘pure, sincere, literally 
 ‘unmixed, ‘unadulterated’ (from κε- 
 pavvupt); for the word is used of pure 
 wine (Athen. ii. 45 5), of unalloyed 
 metal (Plut. Mor. 1154 8), and the 
 like. Comp. Philo Leg. ad Cai. § 42, 
 Ῥ. 594 Μ τὴν χάριν διδοὺς ἔδωκεν οὐκ 
 ἀκέραιον ἀλλ᾽ ἀναμίξας αὐτῇ δέος ἀργα- 
 λεώτερον. The stress laid in the New 
 Testament on simplicity of character 
 appearsin thisas in many other words : 
 
 ἁπλοῦς, εἰλικρινής, δίψυχος etc. Of the 
 two words here used, the former (a- 
 μεμπτοι) relates to the judgment of 
 others, while the latter (ἀκέραιοι) de- 
 scribes the intrinsic character. 
 
 τέκνα Θεοῦ x.t.A.] A direct contrast 
 to the Israelites in the desert, who in 
 the song of Moses are described as οὐκ 
 αὐτῷ τέκνα (1.6. no children of God) 
 μωμητά, γενεὰ σκολιὰ καὶ διεστραμμένη 
 (Deut. xxxii. 5, 1ΧΧ): comp. Lukeix. 41. 
 
 ἄμωμα] Both forms ἄμωμος and ἀμώ- 
 puntos are equally common. Here the 
 weight of evidence is in favour of the 
 former, though there is some authority 
 for the latter: in 2 Pet. iii. 14 on the 
 other hand, duopnrohasmuch stronger 
 support than ἄμωμοι. 
 
 μέσον] For this adverbial use see 
 Steph. Zhes. (ed. Hase and Dindorf), 
 8. v. p. 824. The received text substi- 
 tutes ἐν μέσῳ. 
 
 διεστραμμένης |‘ distorted, astronger 
 word than σκολιᾶς: comp. Arrian Epict. 
 lii. 6. 8 of μὴ παντάπασι διεστραμμένοι 
 τῶν ἀνθρώπων (comp. i. 29.3). It cor- 
 responds to a strong, reduplicated 
 form in the Hebrew 5n2nb. 
 
 φαίνεσθε] ‘ye appear, not‘ye shine’ 
 (paivere) as the A. V. The same error 
 is made in Matt. xxiv. 27, Rev. xviii. 
 23. On the other hand in Matt. ii. 7 
 τοῦ φαινομένου ἀστέρος, it is correctly 
 rendered ‘appeared.’ φαίνεσθε here 
 should be taken as an indicative, not 
 an imperative. 
 
 ὡς φωστῆρες] ‘as luminaries? 
 The word is used almost exclusively 
 of the heavenly bodies (except when 
 it is metaphorical (as e.g. Gen. i. 14, 
 16 (where it is a rendering of )N1), 
 Ececlus. xliii. 7, Orac. Sibyll. ii. 186, 
 200, iii. 88, etc. Comp. Dan. xii. 3 
 (LXX) φανοῦσιν ὡς φωστῆρες τοῦ ovpa- 
 
118 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 
 
 [1.17 
 
 ζωῆς ἐπέχοντες, εἰς καύχημα ἐμοὶ εἰς ἡμέραν Χριστοῦ, 
 ὅτι οὐκ εἰς κενὸν ἔδραμον οὐδὲ εἰς κενὸν ἐκοπίασα. 
 τ ἀλλὰ εἰ καὶ σπένδομαι ἐπὶ τῇ θυσίᾳ καὶ λειτουργίᾳ 
 
 νοῦ, Wisd. xiii. 2 φωστῆρας οὐρανοῦ πρυ- 
 τάνεις κόσμου. The word occurs only 
 once again in the N. T., Rev. xxi. 11, 
 where also it should be translated 
 ‘Juminary.’ 
 
 ἐν κόσμῳ] To be taken not with 
 φωστῆρες alone (as the passage of Wis- 
 dom just quoted might suggest), but 
 with φαίνεσθε ὡς φωστῆρες. For in 
 the former case κύσμῳ must signify 
 the material world as distinguished 
 Jrom the moral world. But this is 
 hardly possible in the language of the 
 New Testament: for though κόσμος 
 sometimes refers to external nature, 
 yet as it much more frequently has a 
 moral significance, it cannot well, un- 
 less so defined by the context, signify 
 the former to the exclusion of the latter. 
 It is therefore used here in the same 
 sense as in John ili. 19 τὸ φῶς ἐλήλυ- 
 θεν εἰς τὸν κύσμον καὶ ἠγάπησαν οἱ ἄν- 
 θρωποι μᾶλλον τὸ σκότος K.T.A.: COMP. 
 i. Q, 10, ix. 5, xii. 46, etc. 
 
 16. ἐπέχοντες] The foregoing clause 
 ἐν ois φαίνεσθε ws Gikewanee ev κόσμῳ 
 should probably be taken as paren- 
 thetical, so that ἐπέχοντες is attached 
 to iva Weave κατὰ. For this sense of 
 ἐπέχειν ‘ to hold out’ see Hom. 77]. ix. 
 489, xxii. 494, Ar. Nub. 1382, ete. (οἶνον, 
 κοτύλην), Pausan. i. 33. 7, Plut. Zor. 
 265 A, 268 F (μαστόν, θηλήν, yada). If 
 therefore we are to look for any meta- 
 phor in ἐπέχοντες, it would most natu- 
 rally be that of offering feed or wine. 
 At all events it seems wholly uncon- 
 nected with the preceding image in 
 φωστῆρες. 
 
 εἰς ἡμέραν Χριστοῦ) ‘against the 
 day of Christ, as i. 10; comp. i. 6. 
 ‘The day of Christ’ is a phrase pecu- 
 liar to this epistle. More commonly 
 it is ‘the day of the Lord. For this 
 reference to the great judgment in 
 connexion with his ministerial labours 
 
 compare I Cor. ili. 12, 13, iv. 3—5, and 
 esp. 2 Cor. i. 14. 
 
 eis κενὸν ἔδραμον] as Gal. ii. 2. This 
 passage is quoted Polyc. Phil. § 9 
 οὗτοι πάντες οὐκ εἰς κενὸν ἔδραμον: com- 
 pare 2 Tim. iv. 7. 
 
 ἐκοπίασα] Probably a continuation 
 of the same metaphor, referring to the 
 training for the athletic games: com- 
 pare 1 Cor. ix. 24--27. At least ko- 
 πιᾶν is elsewhere associated with rpe- 
 xew in the same way: Anthol. m1, p. 
 166 πῖνε καὶ εὐφραίνου" τί yap αὔριον, ἢ 
 τί τὸ μέλλον, οὐδεὶς γινώσκει" μὴ τρέχε, 
 μὴ κοπία, ἱστιαῦ. Polyc.6 συγκοπιᾶτε 
 ἀλλήλοις, συναθλεῖτε, συντρέχετε. 
 
 17,18. ‘I spoke of my severe la- 
 bours for the Gospel. Iam ready even 
 to die in the same cause. If I am re- 
 quired to pour out my life-blood as a 
 libation over the sacrificial offering of 
 your faith, I rejoice myself and I con- 
 gratulate you all therein. Yea in like 
 manner I ask you also to rejoice and 
 to congratulate me.’ 
 
 Thus the particles ἀλλὰ εἰ καὶ will 
 refer to the preceding ἔδραμον, ἐκοπί- 
 aca. Most recent commentators ex- 
 plain the connexion in a very harsh 
 and artificial way. Assuming that St 
 Paul had before mentioned his antici- 
 pation of living till the advent of Christ 
 εἰς ἡμέραν Χριστοῦ (ver. 16), they sup- 
 pose that he now suggests the alterna- 
 tive of his dying before. But in fact 
 no such anticipation was expressed : 
 for his work would be equally tested 
 at ‘the day of Christ,’ whether he 
 were alive or dead when that day came. 
 The faint expectation, which in i. 6, 
 10 (where the same phrase occurs) is 
 suggested by the context, finds no ex- 
 pression here. On εἰ καὶ as distinguish- 
 ed from καὶ εἰ see the note on Gal. i 8. 
 
 σπένδομαι] As his death actually 
 approaches, he says ἐγὼ γὰρ ἤδη σπέν- 
 
ΤΙ. 18] 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 
 
 119 
 
 - 7 δον μον 4 \ , - ker 
 τὴ» WLOTEWS UMW), χαιρῶ Kael συγχαιρω πασιν υμιν" 
 \ \ - , \ , / 
 18 τὸ δὲ αὐτὸ Kat ὑμεῖς χάιρετεξ Kat συγχαιρετε μοι. 
 
 δομαι 2 Tim. iv. 6. Comp. Ignat. Rom. 
 2 πλέον μοι μὴ παράσχησθε τοῦ σπονδισ- 
 θῆναι Θεῷ, ὡς ἔτι θυσιαστήριον ἕτοιμόν 
 ἐστιν, uttered under similar circum- 
 stances. It is a striking coincidence, 
 that St Paul’s great heathen contem- 
 porary Seneca, whose name tradition 
 has linked with his own, is reported to 
 have used a similar metaphor when on 
 the point of death: Tac. Ann. xv. 64 
 ‘respergens proximosservorum, addita 
 voce libare se liquorem illum Jovi libe- 
 ratori’: compare the account of Thra- 
 sea, Ann. xvi. 35. The present tense 
 σπένδομαι places the hypothesisvividly 
 before the eyes: but it does not, as 
 generally explained, refer to present 
 dangers, as though the process were 
 actually begun: comp. e.g. Matt. xii. 
 26, xviii. 8, 9, etc. 
 
 ἐπὶ τῇ θυσίᾳ] The general import 
 of the metaphor is clear; but it has 
 been questioned whether the reference 
 is to heathen libations or to Jewish 
 drink-offerings. The preposition (ἐπί) 
 seems hardly conclusive. Even if it be 
 true that the drink-offerings of the 
 Jews were always poured around and 
 not upon the altar (Joseph. Ant. iii. 9. 
 4 σπένδουσι περὶ τὸν βωμὸν τὸν οἶνον; 
 see Hwald Alterth. Ὁ. 37 sq. 2te ausg.), 
 yet the Lxx certainly uses the preposi- 
 tion ‘upon’ to describe them: Levit. 
 V. 11 οὐκ ἐπιχεεῖ ἐπ᾿ αὐτὸ ἔλαιον, Num. 
 XXViil. 24 ἐπὶ τοῦ ὁλοκαυτώματος τοῦ διὰ 
 παντὸς ποιήσεις τὴν σπονδὴν αὐτοῦ. Nor 
 need ἐπὶ with the dative necessarily 
 be translated ‘upon,’ but may mean 
 ‘accompanying. On the other hand, 
 as St Paul is writing to converted hea- 
 thens, a reference to heathen sacrifice 
 is More appropriate (comp. 2 Cor. ii. 
 14); while owing to the greater pro- 
 minence of the libation in heathen rites 
 the metaphor would be more expres- 
 sive. For the appropriateness of the 
 preposition in this case see Hom. 77. 
 x1. 775 σπένδων αἴθοπα οἶνον ἐπ᾽ aidope- 
 
 νοις ἱεροῖσιν, Arrian Alex. vi. 19 σπεί- 
 σας ἐπὶ τῇ θυσίᾳ τὴν φιάλην x.r.A., and 
 the common word ἐπισπένδειν. The 
 ‘sacrifice’ (θυσία) here is the victim, 
 not the act. 
 
 Aecroupyia] This word has passed 
 through the following meanings: (1) 
 A civil service, a state-burden, espe- 
 cially in the technical language of 
 Athenian Jaw: (2) A function or office 
 of any kind, as of the bodily organs, 
 e.g. the mouth, Arist. Part. An. ii. 3: 
 (3) Sacerdotal ministration especially, 
 whether among the Jews (as Heb. viii. 
 6, ix. 21, and commonly in the Lxx), 
 or among ‘heathen nations (as Diod. 
 Sic. i, 21, where it is used of the Egyp- 
 tian priesthood): (4) The eucharistic 
 services; and thence more generally 
 (5) Set forms of divine worship. As 
 the word is applied most frequently in 
 the Bible to sacerdotal functions, it 
 should probably be taken here as sup- 
 plementing the idea of θυσία. Thus 
 St Paul’s language expresses the fun- 
 damental ideaof the Christian Church, 
 in which an universal priesthood has 
 supplanted the exclusive ministrations 
 of a select tribe or class: see 1 Pet. ii. 
 5 ἱεράτευμα ἅγιον ἀνενέγκαι πνευματικὰς 
 θυσίας. The Philippiansare the priests ; 
 their faith (or their good works spring- 
 ing from their faith) is the sacrifice : 
 St Paul’s life-blood the accompanying 
 libation. Commentators have much 
 confused the image by representing 
 St Paul himself as the sacrificer. 
 
 συγχαίρω] ‘I congratulate, not ἢ 
 rejoice with” As joy is enjoined on 
 the Philippians in the second clause, 
 it must not be assumed on their part 
 in the first. For this sense of cvyxai- 
 pew ‘to congratulate,’ where recipro- 
 cation on the part of the person ap- 
 pealed to is not so much presupposed 
 as invited, see e.g. Plut. Mor. 231 B 
 συγχαίρω τῇ πόλει τριακοσίους κρείττο- 
 vas μουπολίτας ἐχούσῃ, Polyb. xxix. 7. 4, 
 
120 
 
 EPISTLE ΤῸ THE PHILIPPIANS. 
 
 [II. 19—21 
 
 9 Ἐλπίζω δὲ ἐν Κυρίῳ Ἰησοῦ Τιμόθεον ταχέως πέμ- 
 Wat ὑμῖν, ἵνα κἀγὼ εὐψυχῶ γνοὺς τὰ περὶ ὑμῶν. ““οὐδ- 
 ἕνα γὰρ ἔχω ἰσόψυχον, ὅστις γνησίως τὰ περὲ ὑμῶν 
 μεριμνήσει: “"οἱ πάντες γὰρ τὰ ἑαυτῶν ζητοῦσιν, οὐ τὰ 
 
 Barnab. 1 μᾶλλον συγχαΐίρω ἐμαυτῷ, 
 etc. 
 18. τὸ δὴ avro]‘in the same way, i.e. 
 
 τὴν αὐτὴν χαρὰν χαίρετε : as Matt. 
 
 XXVii. 44 τὸ δ᾽ αὐτὸ καὶ οἱ λῃσταὶ. . ὠνεί- 
 διζον αὐτόν. The accusative defines 
 the character rather than the object 
 of the action, so that ταὐτὰ χαίρειν 
 (Demosth. de Cor. p. 323) is ‘to have 
 the same joys.’ For the poetical use 
 of xaipew and similar words with an 
 accusative of the object see Valcknaer 
 on Eur. Hipp. 1338. 
 
 καὶ ὑμεῖς χαίρετε] We are reminded 
 of the messenger who brought the 
 tidings of the battle of Marathon, ex- 
 piring on the first threshold with these 
 words on his lips, χαίρετε καὶ χαίρομεν, 
 Plut. Mor. p. 347 ¢. See the note on 
 iy. 4. 
 
 19—24. ‘ But though absent myself, 
 I hope in the Lord to send Timotheus 
 shortly to you. This I purpose not for 
 your sakes only but for my own also; 
 that hearing how you fare, I may take 
 heart. I have chosen him, for I have 
 
 no other messenger at hand who can - 
 
 compare with him, none other who 
 will show the same lively and instine- 
 tive interest in your welfare. For all 
 pursue their own selfish aims, reckless 
 of the will of Christ. But the creden- 
 tials of Timotheus are before you: you 
 know how he has been tested by long 
 experience, how as a son with a father 
 he has laboured with me in the service 
 of the Gospel. Him therefore I hope 
 to send without delay, when I see what 
 turn my affairs will take. At the same 
 time 1 trust in the Lord, that I shall 
 visit you before long in person.’ 
 
 19. ᾿Ελπίζω δέ] This is connected in 
 thought with ver.12. ‘I urged the 
 duty of self-reliance during my ab- 
 sence. Yet I do not intend to leave 
 
 you without guidance. I purpose 
 sending Timotheus directly, and I hope 
 to visit you myself before long” Re- 
 cent commentators seem to agree in 
 taking ἐλπίζω δὲ as oppositive to the 
 fear expressed in the foregoing εἰ καὶ 
 σπένδομαε; but the possibility of his 
 own death and the intention of send- 
 ing Timotheus do not stand in any sort 
 of opposition. 
 
 ev Κυρίῳ Ἰησοῦ] So above i. 14 
 and below ii. 24. The same idea is 
 expressed still more explicitly i. 8 ἐν 
 σπλάγχνοις Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ. The Chris- 
 tian is a part of Christ, a member of 
 His body. His every thought and 
 word and deed proceeds from Christ, 
 as the centre of volition. Thus he 
 loves in the Lord, he hopes in the 
 Lord, he boasts in the Lord, he labours 
 in the Lord, ete. He has one guiding 
 principle in acting and in forbearing 
 to act, μόνον ἐν Κυρίῳ (1 Cor. vii. 39). 
 
 κἀγὼ εὐψυχῶ) ‘L also may take 
 courage.” Comp. ver. 27 οὐκ αὐτὸν δὲ 
 μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐμέ. The guidance of 
 the Philippians was one object of Ti- 
 mothy’s mission; St Paul’s comfort 
 was another. While εὔψυχος, εὐψυχία, 
 are not uncommon, the verb εὐψυχεῖν 
 seems not to occur in classical writers, 
 though the imperative εὐψύχει ap- 
 pears frequently on epitaphs: see 
 Jacobs Anthol. xu. p. 304. In Pollux 
 iil, 28 εὐψυχεῖν is given as a syn- 
 onyme for θαρσεῖν. Comp. Hermas 
 Vis. i. 2. 
 
 20. οὐδένα yap] This condemna- 
 tion must be limited to the persons 
 available for such a mission. See the 
 introduction, p. 36. 
 
 ἰσόψυχον] ‘ like-minded, not with 
 St Paul himself, as itis generally taken, 
 but with Timotheus. Otherwise the 
 words would have been οὐδένα yap 
 
ie. 22,23] 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 
 
 121 
 
 > = πὸ Mg iN Se we \ > a , τῆ 
 Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ. "την oe δοκιμὴν αὐτοῦ γινώσκετε, OTL 
 \ ee / 3 A 7 
 εἷς πατρὶ τέκνον σὺν ἐμοὶ ἐδούλευσεν εἰς TO εὐαγγέλιον. 
 ὧν > , , e \ / \ 
 rouTov μὲν οὖν ἐλπίζω πέμψαι, ὡς av ἀφίδω Ta περὲ 
 
 21. οὐ τὰ Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ. 
 
 ἄλλον or οὐδένα γὰρ πλὴν τούτου. The 
 word ἰσόψυχος is extremely rare. It 
 occurs in Asch. Agam. 1470 (1446) 
 where it has much the same sense as 
 here. In Ps. liv. 14 ἄνθρωπε ἰσόψυχε 
 it is a rendering of ‘33 ‘as my 
 price,’ i.e. ‘quem mihi eequiparaban, 
 quem diligebam ut me ipsum’ (Gesen.), 
 being thus equivalent to ἀντίψυχε. 
 
 ὅστις] ‘such that he’ See Gal. iv. 
 24 (note), 26, v. 19. 
 
 γνησίως] i.e. as a birth-right, as 
 an instinct derived from his spiritual 
 parentage: see esp. [Demosth.] 6. 
 Neer. p. 1353 τοὺς φύσει πολίτας καὶ 
 γνησίως μετέχοντας τῆς πόλεως, Lipi- 
 taph. p. 1300 τοὺς μὲν.. πολίτας προσ- 
 αγορευομένους ὁμοίους εἶναι τοῖς εἰσποι- 
 ἥτοις τῶν παίδων, τούτους δὲ γνησίους 
 γόνῳ τῆς πατρίδος πολίτας εἶναι. Ti- 
 motheus was neither a supposititious 
 (νόθος) nor an adopted (εἰσποίητος) son, 
 but, as St Paul calls him elsewhere, 
 γνήσιον τέκνον ἐν πίστει (1 Tim. i. 2, 
 comp. Tit. 1. 4); comp. Hippol. Her.vi. 
 20 Ἰσίδωρος ὁ Βασιλείδου παῖς γνή- 
 σιος ‘his father’s own son.’ He recog- 
 nised this filial relationship (ὡς πατρὶ 
 τέκνον Ver. 22); he inherited all the 
 interests and affections of his spiritual 
 father. This, I suppose, is Chryso- 
 stoin’s meaning, when he explains it 
 τουτέστι πατρικῶς (compare πατρικὴ 
 φιλία, ἔχθρα etc.). Comp. Heb. xii. 8 
 ἄρα νόθοι kat οὐχ viol ἐστε. 
 
 21. οἱ πάντες] ‘one and all, ‘all 
 without exception” For the force of 
 thearticle with πάντες, πάντα, see Bern- 
 hardy vi. p. 320, Jelf ὃ 454. 
 
 22. δοκιμήν) ‘approved character,’ 
 as in 2 Cor. ii. 9, ix. 13, and probably 
 Rom.v. 4. See Fritzsche Rom. 1. p. 259. 
 
 γινώσκετε] ‘ye recognise, ‘ye re- 
 memberand acknowledge. Timotheus 
 was personally well known to the 
 
 Philippians ; see the note i. 1. 
 
 ὡς πατρὶ τέκνον] This is often ex- 
 plained by understanding σὺν with 
 πατρὶ from the following clause σὺν 
 ἐμοί; see Jelf $650. Instances of such 
 omissions however occur chiefly though 
 not always in poetry, and are found 
 mostly in clauses connected by con- 
 Junctions (7, καί, etc.). The preposition 
 is omitted here, because the exact form 
 of the sentence was not yet decided 
 in the writer’s mind when the first 
 words were written; see Winer ὃ 1. p. 
 525, ὃ Ixiii.p.722. For this testimony 
 to Timotheus compare 1 Cor. iv. 17 ὅς 
 ἐστίν μου τέκνον ἀγαπητὸν καὶ πιστὸν ἐν 
 Κυρίῳ, Xvi. 10 τὸ γὰρ ἔργον Kupiov ἐρ- 
 γάζεται ὡς κἀγώ. 
 
 23. τοῦτον μὲν οὖν] ‘him then, the 
 clause being answered by πέποιθα δὲ 
 ὅτι καὶ αὐτὸς ἐλεύσομαι (Ver. 24), 
 while ἐξαυτῆς is matched by ταχέως. 
 
 ws av...eautns] ‘atonce when, For 
 ὡς ἂν temporal comp. Rom. xv. 24, 
 1 Cor. xi. 34. 
 
 ἀφίδω] So ἀφορῶντες Heb. xii. 2. 
 If any weight is to be attached to the 
 agreement of the older mss, the as- 
 pirated form (ἀφίδω for amido) must 
 be read here. In Acts ii. 7 (οὐχ or 
 οὐχὶ ἰδοὺ) and in Acts iv. 29 (ἔφιδε) 
 they are divided. In the three prin- 
 cipal mss of the Lxx, so far as I have 
 noticed, the following instances of 
 aspirates in compounds of εἶδον occur : 
 Gen. xvi. 13, εφιδων A; Gen. xxxi. 49, 
 εφιδοι A; Ps. xxx. ὃ, edbesdes A; Ps. 
 xci. 12, epidey A; Ps. cxi. ὃ, εφιδη ἐξ; 
 Jer. xxxi. 19, egide NS: Jonah iv. 5, 
 αφειδὴ 8; I Mac. iii. 59, εφιδειν ἐξ A; 
 2 Mace. i. 27, ἐφειδε (for eid imper.) A; 
 2 Mace. viii. 2, εφιδειν (εφιδὴ) A; Deut. 
 XXVi. 15, καθιδε B; Judith vi. 19, 
 καθειδε (for katie) A. It must be re- 
 membered that in the Vatican ms 
 
122 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 
 
 [II. 24, 25 
 
 > 4 ΕΣ “ ry 24 ΄ θ τ" 3 K / c/ \ > A 
 EME, ἐξαυτῆς TETOLA O€ EV χυριῷ Οτι Καὶ AUTOS Τας- 
 
 vA 2 ᾿ \ [2 > 25 > ~ \ € , 
 χέως ἐλεύσομαι [πρὸς ὑμᾶς]. “ἀναγκαῖον δὲ ἡγησάμην 
 3 A ὃ \ \ 8 \ A Ε 
 Ἐπαφρόδιτον τὸν ἀδελφὸν καὶ συνεργὸν καὶ συνστρα- 
 
 ε ΄σ \ 3 / \ \ ΄σ 
 τιώτην μον, ὑμῶν δὲ ἀπόστολον καὶ λειτουργὸν τῆς 
 
 almost all the book of Genesis is lost 
 and that the Sinaitic contains less 
 than half of the Old Testament. The 
 collations of other Mss in Holmes’ and 
 Parsons’ LXx supply many additional 
 examples both in these and other pas- 
 sages. Similarly eAms is sometimes 
 preceded by an aspirate (αφελπίζοντες 
 Luke vi. 35, ἐφ᾽ ἐλπίδι, Rom. viii. 20, 
 1 Cor. ix. 10, ἀφελπικὼς Hermas Vis. 
 iii. 12); when naturalised in Coptic it 
 is always so written, and we frequently 
 find Helpis is a proper name in Latin. 
 In both cases the anomaly is support- 
 ed by inscriptions: E®EIAE Boeckh 
 πὸ. 3333; HEATIIAA no. 170; the lat- 
 ter being as old as the 5th century B.c. 
 The aspirates are doubtless to be ex- 
 plained as remnants of the digamma, 
 which both these words possessed : 
 see Curtius Griech. Elym. pp. 217,238 
 (2nd ed.). It is less easy to account 
 for οὐχ ὄψεσθε Luke xvii. 22, οὐχ 
 ὀλίγος Acts xii. 18 (in which passages 
 however the aspirate is not well sup- 
 ported), though there are some in- 
 dications that orropa had adigamma. 
 On οὐχ ἸΙουδαικῶς, Gal. ii. 14, see the 
 note there. 
 
 24. With St Paul’s language here 
 compare 1 Cor. iv. 17, 19, ἔπεμψα 
 ὑμῖν Τιμόθεον ὅς ἐστίν pov τέκνον κιτιλ. 
 ἐλεύσομαι δὲ ταχέως πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἐὰν ὁ 
 Κύριος θελήσῃ. 
 
 ταχέως] It the view taken in the 
 introduction (p. 31 sq.) of the date of 
 this epistle be correct, St Paul’s 
 release was delayed longer than he at 
 this time expected. We havea choice 
 between supposing him disappointed 
 in the anticipation expressed here 
 or in the anticipation implied in the 
 injunction to Philemon (ver. 22). 
 
 25—30. ‘Meanwhile, though I pur- 
 pose sending Timotheus shortly, though 
 
 I trust myself to visit you before very 
 long, I have thought it necessary 
 to despatch Hpaphroditus to you at 
 ence; Epaphroditus, whom voz com- 
 missioned as your delegate to minister 
 to my needs, in whom J have found a 
 brother and a fellow-labourer and a 
 conirade in arms. I have sent him, 
 because he longed earnestly to see 
 you and was very anxious and troubled 
 that you had heard of his illness. Nor 
 was the report unfounded. He was 
 indeed so ill that we despaired of his 
 life. But God spared him in His 
 mercy; mercy not to him only but to 
 myself also, that I might not be 
 weighed down by a fresh burden of 
 sorrow. For this reason I have been 
 the more eager to send him, that 
 your cheerfulness may be restored by 
 seeing him in health, and that my 
 sorrow may be lightened by sympathy 
 with your joy. Receive him therefore 
 in the Lord with all gladness, and 
 hold such men in honour; for in his 
 devotion to the work, he was brought 
 to death’s door, hazarding his life, 
 that he might make up by his zeal 
 and diligence the lack of your personal 
 services to supplement your charitable 
 gift? 
 
 25. ἀναγκαῖον κιτ.λ.] The same ex- 
 pression occurs 2 Cor. ix. 5. ἡγησά- 
 μὴν is here the epistolary aorist, like 
 
 ἔπεμψα (ver. 28); for Hpaphroditus 
 
 seems to have been the bearer of the 
 letter. See the introduction p. 37 and 
 the note on Gal, vi. 11. 
 ’Exadpodirov| On Epaphroditus see 
 the introduction p. 61 sq. He is not 
 mentioned except in this epistle. The 
 name (corresponding in meaning to the 
 Latin ‘venustus’) was extremely com- . 
 mon in the Roman period. It was as- 
 sumed by the dictator Sylla himselfin 
 
11. 26, 27] 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 
 
 123 
 
 , , \ Cs 26 2 on ’ 5 > 
 
 χρείας μου, πέμψαι προς ὑμᾶς, "“ἐπειδὴ ἐπιποθῶν ἣν 
 Ἐν > ΄σ ΄ > , ν > 
 
 πάντας ὑμᾶς, Kal ἀδημονῶν, διότι ἠκούσατε ὅτι ἠσθέ- 
 
 7 27 \ \ ’ , , θ / A > A 
 
 γησεν. “Kat yap ἠσθένησεν παραπλήσιον θανάτῳ" αλλα 
 
 writing to the Greeks (Aevxtos Κορνήλιος 
 Σύλλας "Eradpodiros, Plut. Syll. 34; 
 comp. Appian. Civ. i. 97). It was 
 borne by a frecdman of Augustus 
 (Dion Cass. li. 11, 13); by a favourite 
 of Nero, likewise a freedman (Tac. 
 Ann. xv. 55 etc.); by a grammarian 
 of Cheeroneia residing at Rome during 
 this last emperor’s reign (Suidas s. v.); 
 by a patron of literature (possibly the 
 same with one of those already men- 
 tioned) who encouraged Josephus 
 (Antig. procem. 2, Vit. 76). The name 
 occurs very frequently in inscriptions 
 - both Greek and Latin, whether at full 
 length Epaphroditus, or in its con- 
 tracted form Epaphras. 
 
 ἀδελφὸν κιτ.λ.)] The three words 
 are arranged in an ascending scale ; 
 common sympathy, common work, 
 common danger and toil and suffering. 
 Συνστρατιώτης occurs again Philem. 2. 
 Tne metaphor is naturally very com- 
 mon: see esp. 2 Cor. x. 3, 4, 1 Tim. i. 
 18, 2 Tim. ii. 3, 4. 
 
 ὑμῶν δέ] This prominent position is 
 given to ὑμῶν, both to contrast it with 
 
 the immediately preceding μου, and to’ 
 
 bind together the words following ; 
 for ἀπόστολον καὶ λειτουργὸν τῆς χρείας 
 pov form one idea, ‘a messenger sent 
 to minister to my need.’ Epaphrodi- 
 tus was the bearer of the contributions 
 from Philippi (iv. 18), which just below 
 are designated λειτουργία (ver. 30): 
 comp. Rom. xv. 27 ἐν τοῖς σαρκικοῖς 
 λειτουργῆσαι αὐτοῖς. For this sense of 
 ἀπόστολος, ‘a delegate or messenger of 
 a church,’ see 2 Cor. viii. 23 ἀπόστολοι 
 ἐκκλησιῶν. The interpretation which 
 makes Epaphroditus an apostle or 
 bishop of Philippi will be considered 
 in the Dissertation on the Christian 
 Ministry. 
 
 τῆς χρείας pov] as iv. 16; comp. 
 Acts xx. 34, Rom, xii, 13. 
 
 ᾿ἀδήμων, ἀδῆσαι. 
 
 26. ἐπιποθῶν] ‘eagerly longing af- 
 ter’: see the note on i. 8. Here the 
 expression is still further intensified 
 by the substitution of ἐπιποθῶν ἣν for 
 ἐπεπόθει. While the external evidence 
 for and against ἰδεῖν is very evenly 
 balaneed, the language seems to gain 
 in force by the omission. It may have 
 been added because ἐπιποθεῖν ἰδεῖν 
 was a well-remembered expression in 
 St Paul; Rom. i. 11, 1 Thess. iii, 6, 
 2) Tims is 4.0 9 
 
 ἀδημονῶν] ‘distressed.’ The word is 
 used in connexion with ἀπορεῖν, ἰλιγ- 
 γιᾶν (Plato Theet. p.175 Ὁ), with Eevo- 
 παθεῖν (Plut. Mor. 601 6), and the like. 
 It describes the confused, restless, 
 half-distracted state, which is pro- 
 duced by physical derangement, or by 
 mental distress, as grief, shame, dis- 
 appointment, etc. For its sense here 
 comp. Dion. Hal. A. 20, i. 56 ἀδημο- 
 νοῦντι τῷ ἀνδρὶ Kal παρεικότι TO σῶμα 
 ὑπὸ λύπης. The derivation οἵ ἀδη- 
 μονεῖν suggested by Buttmann (Lezil. 
 p. 29), from ἄδημος ‘away from home’ 
 and so ‘beside oneself’ (in which how- 
 ever he seems not to have been aware 
 that he was anticipated by Photius 
 Lex. Ὁ. 9: see Steph. Thes. 8. v.), is 
 almost universally accepted. But to 
 say nothing else, the form of the word 
 is a serious obstacle; and Lobeck, 
 Pathol. pp. 160, 238, is probably right 
 in returning to the older derivation 
 In this case the pri- 
 mary idea of the word will be loath- 
 ing and discontent. The word oc- 
 curs in Symmachus, Ps. cxv. 2 (ἐν τῇ 
 ἐκστάσει LXX), Ps. Ix. 2 (ἀκηδιάσαι 
 Lxx), Eccl. vii. 16 (ἐκπλαγῇς LXXx) ; and 
 in Aquila, Job xviii. 20 (ἐστέναξαν 
 LXXx). 
 
 27. καὶ γάρ] ‘for indeed? The 
 καὶ implies that the previous ἡ σθένη- 
 σεν understates the case. 
 
124 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 
 
 [1]. 28—30 
 
 A ΤΑ , \ A / Α 
 ὁ Θεὸς ἠλέησεν αὐτόν, οὐκ αὐτὸν δὲ μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ 
 " ay A \ / \ / a 7 > 
 ἐμέ, ἵνα μη λύπην ἐπὶ λύπην σχώ. *® σπουδαιοτέρως ouy 
 6 , ef 207 \ , a \ 
 ἔπεμψα αὐτόν, iva ἰδόντες αὐτὸν πάλιν χαρῆτε, κἀγὼ 
 > 7 53 29 δέ θ iy > \ 3 / A 
 ἀλυπότερος ὦ. mpocdexerVe οὖν αὐτὸν ἐν Κυρίῳ peta 
 
 ib Ss \ \ , 7, , 7 
 πάσης χαρᾶς, καὶ τοὺς τοιούτους ἐντίμους ἔχετε, *°OTL 
 
 ἐπὶ λύπην] So all the best copies, 
 while the received text reads ἐπὶ λύπῃ. 
 In such cases the dative is more com- 
 mon in classical authors, but the ac- 
 cusative is supported by several pas- 
 sages in the Lxx, e.g. Ezech. vii. 26 
 ἀγγελία ἐπὶ ἀγγελίαν, Ps. Ixviii. 28 
 ἀνομίαν ἐπὶ τὴν ἀνομίαν, Is. Xxvili. 10 
 (where both constructions are com- 
 bined) θλίψιν ἐπὶ θλίψιν, ἐλπίδα ἐπ᾽ 
 ἐλπίδι. Comp. Matt. xxiv. 2, and see 
 A. Buttmann p. 291. 
 
 28. σπουδαιοτέρως] ‘with increased 
 eagerness’ on account of this circum- 
 stance: see for the comparative Winer 
 § ΧΧΧΥ. p. 304, and compare the note 
 On περισσοτέρως i. 14. 
 
 ἔπεμψα] i.e. with the letter, as in 
 RHphes. vi. 22, Col. iv. 8, Philem. 11, 
 and perhaps also 2 Cor. ix. 3. On this 
 aorist see above, ver. 25. 
 
 πάλιν χαρῆτε] ‘may recover your 
 cheerfulness, which had been marred 
 by the news of Epaphroditus’ illness: 
 for the order suggests the connexion 
 of πάλιν with χαρῆτε rather than with 
 ἰδόντες. 
 
 ἀλυπότερος ὦ] ‘my sorrow may be 
 lessened? The expression is purpose- 
 ly substituted for πάλιν χαρῶ, for a 
 prior sorrow will still remain unremov- 
 ed; comp. ver. 27 λύπην ἐπὶ λύπην. 
 
 29. προσδέχεσθε κ-τ.λ.1] Comp. Rom. 
 ὙΥ1 2. 
 
 30. τὸ ἔργον] Comp. Acts xv. 35 
 Παῦλος δὲ ἠξίον τὸν ἀποστάντα ar 
 αὐτῶν ἀπὸ Παμφυλίας καὶ μὴ συνεὰ- 
 θόντα αὐτοῖς εἰς τὸ ἔργον, μὴ συν- 
 παραλαμβάνειν τοῦτον, Where we seem 
 to have St Paul’s very words. So too 
 Tgnat. Ephes. 14 οὐ yap ἐπαγγελίας τὸ 
 ἔργον, Rom. 3 οὐ πεισμονῆς τὸ ἔργον 
 ἀλλὰ μεγέθους ἐστὶν ὁ χριστιανισμός. 
 
 Thus τὸ ἔργον is used absolutely, like 
 ἡ ὁδός, TO θέλημα, τὸ ὄνομα (see On 
 ver. 9), etc. Though one only of the 
 oldest Mss has τὸ ἔργον alone, this 
 must be the correct reading. The 
 others add Κυρίου, Χριστοῦ, τοῦ Κυρίου, 
 τοὐ Χριστοῦ, ΟΥ̓ τοῦ Θεοῦ, οἵ which the 
 two first are highly supported; but the 
 authorities, being very evenly divided, 
 neutralise each other. All alike are 
 insertions to explain τὸ ἔργον. 
 παραβολευσάμενος] ‘having gambled 
 with his life’? From παραβάλλεσθαι, 
 to throw down a stake, to make a 
 venture (6. g. Polyb. ii. 94. 4 οὐδαμῶς 
 κρίνων ἐκκυβεύειν οὐδὲ παραβάλλεσθαι 
 τοῖς ὅλοις) COMES παράβολος, ‘gambling, 
 rash, reckless,’ whence παραβολεύεσθαι 
 ‘to play the gambler, formed on the 
 analogy of ἀσωτεύεσθαι, διαλεκτικεύ- 
 εσθαι, περπερεύεσθαι, πονηρεύεσθαι, ‘to 
 play the spendthrift, quibbler, brag- 
 gart, scoundrel, etc.’?: see Lobeck 
 Phryn. p. 67. With the use here 
 
 ‘compare the ecclesiastical sense of 
 
 parabolani, brotherhoods who at the 
 risk of their lives nursed the sick and 
 buried the dead. For the expression 
 compare Diod. Sic. iii, 35 ἔκριναν 
 παραβαλέσθαι ταῖς ψυχαῖς, Hom. 771. 
 ix. 322 αἰεὶ ἐμὴν ψυχὴν παραβαλλό- 
 μενος. While παραβάλλεσθαι takes 
 either an accusative or a dative of the 
 thing staked, παραβολεύεσθαι from its 
 nature can have only the latter. The 
 original meaning of the English word 
 ‘hazard’ is the same, ‘a game of 
 chance’: see for the derivation Diez 
 Etymol. Worterb. der Rom. Spr. Ὁ. 
 33 8. v. azzardo, BE. Miller Htym. 
 Worterb. der Eng. Spr.s.v. Noone 
 who has felt the nervous vigour of St 
 Paul’s style will hesitate between zrapa- 
 
 —— . 
 
 | 
 
111. 1] 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 125 
 
 διὰ τὸ ἔργον μέχρι θανάτου ἤγγισεν παραβολευσαμε- 
 νος τῇ ψυχῇ; ἵνα ἀναπληρώσῃ τὸ ὑμῶν ὑστέρημα τῆς 
 
 πρὸς με λειτουργίας. 
 
 ΤῊ. 
 
 βολευσάμενος and παραβουλευσάμενος. 
 The latter, which would mean ‘ having 
 consulted amiss,’ stands in the re- 
 ceived text: but the evidence is 
 strongly in favour of the former. Both 
 words alike are very rare. 
 
 ἀναπληρώσῃ x.t.A.] ag in I Cor. xvi. 
 17 χαίρω ἐπὶ τῇ παρουσίᾳ Srepava 
 κιτιλ. ὅτι τὸ ὑμέτερον ὑστέρημα αὐτοὶ 
 ἀνεπλήρωσαν : comp. Clem. Rom. ὃ 38 
 dv οὗ ἀναπληρωθῇ αὐτοῦ τὸ ὑστέρημα. 
 So also ἀνταναπληροῦν in Col. i. 24 
 and προσαναπληροῦν in 2 Cor. xi. 9. 
 
 TO ὑμῶν ὑστέρημα κ-.τ.λ.] 1.6. ‘what 
 your services towards me lacked to be 
 complete, in other words ‘ your per- 
 sonal ministrations, as in 1 Cor. xvi. 
 17 just quoted. It seems plain from 
 this expression that Epaphroditus’ 
 ilmess was the consequence not of 
 persecution but of over-exertion. 
 
 III. 1. ‘And now, my brethren, 
 I must wish you farewell. Rejoice in 
 the Lord. Forgive me, if I speak once 
 more on an old topic. It is not irk- 
 some to me to speak, and it is safe for 
 you to hear,’ 
 
 τὸ λοιπόν] ‘for the rest, i.e. ‘finally, 
 in conclusion” With λοιπὸν or τὸ 
 λοιπὸν St Paul frequently ushers in 
 the concluding portion of his letters 
 containing the practical exhortations; 
 1 Thess. iv. 1, 2 Thess. iii. 1, 2 Cor. 
 xiii. 11, Ephes. vi. 10 (where however 
 τοῦ λοιποῦ should probably be read). 
 Sometimes this concluding portion is 
 prolonged, as in the First Epistle to 
 the Thessalonians, where it extends 
 over two chapters. In the present 
 instance the letter is interrupted, a 
 fresh subject is introduced, the con- 
 clusion is for a time forgotten, and 
 St Paul resumes his farewell injunc- 
 tions later at iv. 8 τὸ λοιπόν, ἀδελφοὶ 
 κατὰ, See the introduction, p. 69 sq. 
 
 ‘TO λοιπόν, ἀδελφοί μον, χαίρετε ἐν Κυρίῳ: 
 
 In other passages λοιπὸν and τὸ λοιπὸν 
 occur in reference to the approaching 
 end of all things; as 1 Cor. vii. 29 ὁ 
 καιρὸς συνεσταλμένος ἐστίν, TO λοιπὸν 
 ἵνα κιτιλ.. Ign. Ephes. 11, Smyrn. 9. 
 
 χαίρετε] ‘farewell’ At the same 
 time the word conveys an injunction te 
 rejoice ; see ii, 18, iv. 4, and the note 
 on the latter passage. 
 
 τὰ αὐτά] ‘the same things’ But 
 to what does St Paul refer? To his 
 own personal intercourse with the 
 Philippians? To messages delivered 
 by his delegates? To previous letters 
 not now extant? To some topic con- 
 tained in this present ,epistle? The 
 expression itself ra αὐτὰ γράφειν seems 
 to limit the range of choice to written 
 communications. The theory of an 
 earlier letter or letters, which seems 
 to be supported by an expression of 
 Polycarp (ὃ 3 ἀπὼν ὑμῖν ἔγραψεν ἐπι- 
 στολάς), will be considered in the 
 detached note. At present it is suf- 
 ficient to say that if the epistle itself 
 supplies the requisite allusion, it is 
 much more naturally sought here than 
 elsewhere. On what subject then does ze 
 this epistle dwell repeatedly ? 
 
 Two answers will suggest them- 
 selves. (1) The duty of rejoicing. 
 This topic is very prominent in the 
 epistle: see the note on i. 4. It has 
 occurred more than once already. It 
 has the advantage also of appearing 
 in the immediate context, χαίρετε ἐν 
 Κυρίῳ. Nevertheless it seems in- 
 adequateto explain St Paul’s language 
 here. Such an injunction has no very 
 direct bearing on the safety of the 
 Philippians; its repetition could hardly 
 be suspected of being irksome to the 
 Apostle. The words seem obviously 
 to refer to some actual or threatened 
 evil, against which a reiterated warn- 
 
126 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 
 
 (IIL. 1 
 
 κ > \ 4 ἘΠ᾿ σα 3 \ \ 3 > , eon \ 
 Ta αὕτα γραφειν ὑμῖν EOL μὲν οὐκ OKYNPOV, ὑμιν δὲ 
 
 ἀσφαλές. 
 
 ing was necessary. (2) Such an evil 
 existed in the dissensions among the 
 Philippians. This topic either directly 
 or indirectly has occupied a very con- 
 siderable portion of the letter hitherto ; 
 and it appears again more than once 
 before the close: see the introduction 
 p. 67 sq. It is the Apostle’s practice 
 to conclude with a warning against 
 the prevailing danger of his cor- 
 respondents. The Corinthians are 
 again reminded that ‘the Lord cometh’ 
 (1 Cor. xvi. 22); the Galatians are 
 told once more that ‘circumcision 
 is nothing and uncircumcision is 
 
 nothing’ (Gal. vi. 15); the Thessalonians 
 receive a parting injunction against 
 the spirit of restlessness and disorder 
 spreading among them (1 Thess. v. 14, 
 2 Thess. iii. 14). The Apostle there- 
 fore would naturally lay stress on this 
 point here, intending, as he appears 
 to have done, to bring his letter to 
 a speedy close. See the note on iii. 2. 
 
 ὀκνηρόν)] ‘irksome, tedious.” The 
 word generally signifies ‘dilatory, 
 sluggish, as in the Lxx frequently ; 
 but here it is active, ‘ causing ὄκνος, 
 as in Soph. Gd. T. 834 ἡμῖν μέν, ὦναξ, 
 
 a 3 
 ταῦτ᾽ ὀκνηρά. 
 
 
 
EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 12 
 
 The synonymes μορφὴ and σχῆμα". 
 
 The word σχῆμα corresponds exactly in derivation, though but partially Classical 
 in meaning, to the old English ‘haviour’ In its first sense it denotes the sense of 
 figure, shape, fashion, of a thing. Thence it gathers several derived mean- °X74* 
 ings. It gets to signify, like the corresponding Latin ‘ habitus, sometimes 
 the dress or costume (as Aristoph. Hg. 1331 τεττιγοφόρας ἀρχαίῳ σχήματι 
 λαμπρός), sometimes the attitude or demeanour (as Eur. Jon 238 τρόπων 
 τεκμήριον TO σχῆμ᾽ ἔχεις τόδε). It is used also for a ‘figure of speech,’ as the 
 dress in which the sense clothes itself or the posture which the language 
 assumes. It signifies moreover pomp, display, outward circumstance (as 
 Soph. Ant. 1169 τύροννον σχῆμ᾽ ἔχων), and frequently semblance, pretence, as 
 opposed to reality, truth (as Plat. Hpin. p. 989 ¢ οὐ σχήμασι τεχνάζοντας ἀλλὰ 
 ἀληθείᾳ τιμῶντας ἀρετήν, Plut. Vit. Galb. 15 ἀρνήσεως σχῆμα τὴν ἀναβολὴν 
 εἶναι φάσκοντες, Hur. Fragm. «Φποῖ. 18 οὐδὲν ἄλλο πλὴν ὄχλος καὶ σχῆμα). 
 Altogether it suggests the idea of something changeable, fleeting, unsub- 
 stantial. 
 
 Μορφή, like σχῆμα, originally refers to the organs of sense. If σχῆμα and of 
 
 inay be rendered by ‘figure, ‘fashion,’ μορφὴ corresponds to ‘form. It μορφή. 
 comprises all those sensible qualities, which striking the eye lead to the 
 conviction that we seé such and such a thing. The conviction indeed may 
 be false, for the form may be a phantom; but to the senses at all events the 
 representation of the object conceived is complete. The word has not and 
 cannot have any of those secondary senses which attach to σχῆμα, as ges- 
 ture or dress or parade or pretext. In many cases indeed the words are 
 used convertibly, because the sense is sufficiently lax to include either. 
 But the difference between the two is tested by the fact that the μορφὴ 
 of a definite thing as such, for instance of a lion or a tree, is one 
 only, while its σχῆμα may change every minute. Thus we often find μορφῆς 
 σχῆμα, as in Latin ‘figura forme,’ but rarely, if ever, σχήματος μορφή 
 (Eur. Iph. Taur, 292 οὐ ταὐτὰ μορφῆς σχήματα, Ton 992 ποῖόν τι μορφῆς 
 σχῆμα). The σχῆμα is often an accident of the μορφή. 
 
 1 The following note is founded on 
 some remarks which appeared several 
 years ago (in the Journal of Class. and 
 Sacr. Philol. no. vit. p. 113 sq., 121), 
 enlarged and modified. The distinction 
 of μορφὴ and σχῆμα has since been 
 _ drawn out by Archbishop Trench (N. 7. 
 Syn. ὃ lxx) in his pointed and instruc- 
 tive manner. 
 
 2 1 have purposely avoided the ques- 
 tion of its derivation, feeling that I have 
 no right to an opinion on the subject. 
 Benfey, Wurzcl-lex. τι, p. 309, connects 
 
 it with the Sanscrit ‘ varpas,’ ‘ form.’ 
 
 3 As e.g. Lucr. iv. 69 ‘formai ser- 
 vare figuram.’ Compare the account 
 of ‘forma’ and ‘ figura’ given by Dé- 
 derlein, Lat. Syn. 11. p. 25 sq. (refer- 
 red to by Trench, 1]. 6. p. 93). His dis- 
 tinction corresponds to that which is 
 here given of μορφὴ and σχῆμα. ‘The 
 form (Gesialt),’ he says, ‘so far as it has 
 definite outlines is figura; so far as 
 it is the visible impression and the 
 stamp of the inner being and corre- 
 sponds thereto, it is forma.’ 
 
Tis philo- 
 sophical 
 meaning. 
 
 Plato. 
 
 Aristotle. 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 
 
 From the primary popular sense of μορφὴ. we pass to its secondary 
 philosophical meaning. And here the older philosophers do not render much 
 assistance. In Parmenides indeed (μορφὰς γὰρ κατέθεντο δύο, ver. 112 Kar- 
 sten) the word signifies ‘ natures,’ ‘essences, for he is speaking of two ele- 
 mental principles of the universe. But without the light thrown upon its 
 use here by the phraseology of later thinkers, no inference could safely be 
 drawn from this solitary instance. In Plato we first meet with a clear 
 example of its philosophical sense. In the Pheedo (p. 103 EB, 104 A) So- 
 crates, eliciting the doctrine of ideas by question and answer after his 
 wont, concludes that ‘not only is the same name always claimed for the 
 εἶδος: itself, but also for something else which is not the εἶδος and yet has 
 its μορφὴ always whenever it exists.’ And in illustration of his meaning he 
 adduces the example of the odd and the number three, the latter being 
 always called odd and being inseparable from oddness, though not the odd 
 itself. Thus in Plato’s language the μορφὴ is the impress of the idea on the 
 individual, or in other words the specific character. It need not therefore 
 denote any material sensible quality, as in the instance quoted it does not. 
 In Plato however the philosophical sense of μορφὴ is very rare. On the other 
 hand Aristotle uses it commonly. But its relation to εἶδος has undergone a 
 
 change, corresponding to the difference in his metaphysical views. As he 
 
 discards Plato’s doctrine of ideas wholly, as he recognises no eternal self- 
 existent archetype distinct from the specific character exhibited in the indi- 
 viduals, it follows as a matter of course that with him εἶδος and μορφὴ are 
 identical... There are, according to his teaching, two elements or principles 
 or causes of things; the matter, the substratum supporting the qualities, 
 and the form, the aggregate of the qualities?» The form he calls indiffer- 
 ently εἶδος or poppy’. He moreover designates it by various synonymes. 
 It is sometimes ‘the abstract conception realised ’ (τὸ τί ἣν εἶναι“), sometimes 
 ‘the essence corresponding to the definition’ (ἡ οὐσία ἡ κατὰ τὸν doyor), 
 
 1 Here the εἶδος is plainly the ἐδέα. 
 Plato seems to have used both words 
 alike to denote the eternal archetype, as 
 for instance in the passages in Trende- 
 lenburg, Platon. de ideis doctr. p. 33 
 544. Where however especial accuracy 
 was aimed at, ἰδέα would naturally be 
 preferred to εἶδος : see Thompson’s 
 note on Archer Butler’s Lectures τι, -p. 
 128. 
 
 2 A large number of passages is col- 
 lected by Waitz, Organon τι. p. 401 
 sq. See also Heyder Aristot. u. He- 
 gel. Dialektik p. 182 sq., and especially 
 Ritter and Preller Hist. Phil. p. 324 
 sq. (ed. 2). In other places Aristotle 
 speaks of four causes, the efficient, the 
 material, the formal, and the final. The 
 final and the efficient causes however 
 may be conceived as involved in the 
 formal: see esp. G. Schneider, De Causa 
 
 Finali Aristotelea (Berol, 1865), p. 15 
 8q. 
 3 See Waitz Organon τι. p. 405. 
 There are exceptional eases where either 
 word is used in its popular rather than 
 its philosophical sense, referring direct- 
 ly to the organs of vision: but Biese, die 
 Philosophie des Aristoteles 1. p. 439, 18 
 not justified in his general distinction 
 that μορφὴ is ‘ die atisserliche sichtbare 
 Form der Dinge,’ and εἶδος ‘das die 
 Dinge von innen heraus Gestaltende.’ 
 This distinction may suit one passage, 
 but it is contradicted by twenty others. 
 Thesame remark applies to theattempts 
 made by the old commentators on Ari- 
 stotle to distinguish μορφὴ and εἶδος. 
 
 4 On this term see Trendelenburg, 
 Rhein. Mus. τι. Ὁ. 457 Sq., esp. pp. 
 469, 481 (1828); comp. his note on de 
 Anima i, 1, 2, p. 192 Sq. 
 
EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 129 
 
 sometimes ‘the definition of the essence’ (ὁ λόγος τῆς οὐσίας), sometimes 
 ‘the definition’ alone, sometimes ‘the essence’ alone. He calls it also ‘the 
 actuality’ (ἐνέργεια) or ‘the perfection’ (evredéyera)', matter being desig- 
 nated ‘the potentiality’ (δύναμις). ‘So rich in wealth and titles, said a 
 later writer of a rival school half in irony, ‘is the εἶδος with Aristotle*’ 
 The significance of his μορφὴ or εἶδος will appear also from the fact that he 
 elsewhere identifies it with the final cause (τέλος or ov évexa)?, because the 
 end or purpose is implicitly contained in the qualities. It is still more evi- 
 dent from the intimate connexion which he conceives to exist between the 
 form and the nature. ‘The term nature,’ he says, ‘is used to signify three 
 things; sometimes it is equivalent to the matter, sometimes to the form, 
 sometimes to both combined. Of the nature according to matter and the 
 nature according to form, the latter is the more influential (κυριωτέρα) 
 i.e. it has a more important function in making the thing what it is. 
 
 It will appear mereover from this account, that the term μορφή, 
 though δύσις tie from the organs of sense like εἶδος, and referring — 
 to external conformation, has in the language of Aristotle a much wider 
 application, being not only applied to physical qualities generally, but also 
 extended to immaterial objects. Thus he says in one passage that skin, 
 vein, membrane, and all such things, belong to the same μορφὴδ ; in ano- 
 ther, that courage and justice and prudence have the same μορφὴ in a: 
 state as in an individual®; in a third, that science and health may be called 
 the μορφὴ and εἶδος of the scientific and the healthy respectively’; while in 
 a fourth, criticising the saying of Democritus that ‘anybody could see what 
 was the form (μορφή) of a man, meaning that he might be known by his 
 shape and colour, he replies that ‘a corpse has the form (μορφή) of the - 
 human shape (σχήματος) and yet nevertheless is not a man’’ The form of 
 a man therefore in Aristotle’s conception was something more than his 
 sensible appearance. 
 
 This sense of μορφή, as the specific character, was naturally transmitted Later 
 from these great original thinkers to the philosophers of later ages. It is philoso- 
 found for instance in Plutarch®. It appears very definitely in the Neopla- P4¢ts. 
 
 
 
 1 On the form regarded as the évép- 
 yea and the ἐντελέχεια see Trendelen- 
 burg de Anima ii. 1, p. 295 sq. 
 
 2 A Platonist in Stobeus Hel. i. 6. 
 13 οὕτως αὐτῷ πλούσιόν τε Kal πολυώ- 
 γυμόν ἐστι τὸ εἶδος. 
 
 3 See Schneider de Caus. Fin. Ari- 
 stot. p. 10 sq. and the passages quoted 
 p. 12. 
 
 4 Phys. Ausc. ii. 1, p. 192 A (Bek- 
 ker), de Part. An. i. 1, p. 640 B. See 
 below, note 8. 
 
 _ > de Anim. Gen. ii. 3, p. 737 B. 
 
 6 Polit. Vii. 1, p. 1323, B. 
 
 7 de Anima ii. 2, p. 414 A. 
 
 8 de Part. An.i. 1, p. 640 B, 7 γὰρ 
 κατὰ τὴν μορφὴν φύσις κυριωτέρα τῆς 
 ὑλικῆς φύσεως, εἰ μὲν οὖν τῷ σχήματι 
 
 PHIL. 
 
 καὶ τῷ χρώματι ἕκαστόν ἐστι τῶν Te ξῴων 
 καὶ τῶν μορίων, ὀρθῶς ἂν Δημόκριτος 
 λέγοι" φαίνεται γὰρ οὕτως ὑπολαβεῖν. 
 φησὶ γοῦν παντὶ δῆλον εἶναι οἷόν τι τὴν 
 μορφήν ἐστιν ὁ ἄνθρωπος, ὡς ὄντος αὐτοῦ 
 τῷ τε σχήματι καὶ τῷ χρώματι γνωρί- 
 μου. καίτοι καὶ ὁ τεθνεὼς ἔχει τὴν αὐτὴν 
 τοῦ σχήματος μορφήν, ἀλλ’ ὅμως οὐκ 
 ἔστιν ἄνθρωπος (i.e. the corpse has the 
 μορφὴ of the human σχῆμα, but it has 
 not the μορφὴ of a man). 
 
 9 Mor. p. 1013 © αὐτός τε γὰρ ὁ 
 κόσμος οὗτος Kal τῶν μερῶν ἕκαστον av- 
 τοῦ συνέστηκεν ἔκ τε σωματικῆς οὐσίας 
 καὶ νοητῆς, ὧν ἡ μὲν ὕλην καὶ ὑποκείμενον, 
 ἡ δὲ μορφὴν καὶ εἶδος τῷ γενομένῳ παρ- 
 ἔσχε x.T.X. Comp. p. 1022 E. For 
 these references and the passage in the 
 
 9 
 
130 
 
 Popular 
 language. 
 
 New 
 Testament 
 usage 
 
 of σχῆμα 
 
 and μορφή. 
 
 the effect. 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 
 
 tonists': And what is more to our purpose, it is recognised by Philo, the 
 chief representative of Alexandrian Judaism’. 
 
 Nor can it have been wholly without influence on the language of every- 
 day life. Terms, like ideas, gradually permeate society till they reach its 
 lower strata. Words stamped in the mint of the philosopher pass into 
 general currency, losing their sharpness of outline meanwhile, but in the 
 main retaining their impress and value. The exclusive technicalities of the 
 scholastic logic are the common property of shopmen and artisans in our 
 own day. 
 
 Do we then find in the New Testament any distinction between μορφὴ 
 and σχῆμα corresponding to that which appears to have held roughly in the 
 common language of the Greeks and to have been still further developed in 
 the technical systems of philosophers ? 
 
 A review of the passages where σχῆμα and its derivatives are used will 
 not, I think, leave any doubt on the mind that this word retains the notion 
 of ‘instability, changeableness, quite as strongly as in classical Greek. 
 Thus ‘the fashion of this world” which ‘passeth away,’ is τὸ σχῆμα τοῦ 
 κόσμου τούτου (1 Cor. vii. 31). ‘To fall in with the fashion of this world’ is 
 συνσχηματίζεσθαι τῷ αἰῶνι τούτῳ (Rom. xii. 2). ‘To follow the capricious 
 guidance of the passions’ is συνσχηματίζεσθαι ταῖς ἐπιθυμίαις (1 Pet. i. 14). 
 The fictitious illusory transformation whereby evil assumes the mask ot 
 good—the false apostles appearing as the true, the prince of darkness as an 
 angel of light, the ministers of Satan as ministers of righteousness—is 
 described by the thrice repeated word μετασχηματίζεσθαι (2 Cor. xi. 13, 14, 
 15). The significance of σχῆμα will be felt at once, if in any of these pas- 
 sages we attempt to substitute μορφὴ in its stead. 
 
 On the other hand the great and entire change of the inner life, other- 
 wise described as being born again, being created anew, is spoken of as a 
 conversion of μορφὴ always, of σχῆμα never. Thus ‘ He fore-ordained them 
 conformable (συμμόρφους) to the image of His Son’ (Rom. viii. 29); ‘ Being 
 made conformable (συμμορφιζόμενος) to His death’ (Phil. iii. 10); ‘ We are 
 transformed (μεταμορφούμεθα) into the same image’ (2 Cor. iii. 18); ‘To be 
 transformed by the renewal of the mind’ (Rom. xii. 2); ‘ Until Christ be 
 formed (μορφωθῇ) in you’ (Gal. iv. 19). In these passages again, if any one 
 doubts whether μορφὴ has any special force, let him substitute σχῆμα and try 
 In some cases indeed, where the organs of sense are concerned 
 
 “and where the appeal lies to popular usage, either word might be used. Yet 
 
 I think it will be felt at once that in the account of the transfiguration pera- 
 
 next note I am indebted to Wytten- 
 
 ταῖς ἀσωμάτοις δυνάμεσιν, ὧν ἔτυμον 
 
 bach’s note on Plato, Phed. p. 103 E. 
 
 1 See e.g. Plotin. Ennead. i. 6, p. 
 52 A, especially the expression οὐκ dva- 
 σχομένης τῆς ὕλης TO πάντη κατὰ TO εἶδος 
 μορφοῦσθαι. 
 
 2 de Vict. Off. § 13, p. 261 M, τὸ 
 τεθλασμένον ἀφήρηται τὴν ποιότητα καὶ 
 τὸ εἶδος καὶ οὐδὲν ἕτερόν ἐστιν ἢ κυρίως 
 εἰπεῖν ἄμορφος ὕλη, and lower down, 
 
 ὄνομα αἱ ἰδέαι, κατεχρήσατο πρὸς τὸ γένος 
 ἕκαστον τὴν ἁρμόττουσαν λαβεῖν μορφήν. 
 For other references see Diihne Jii- 
 disch-Alex. Religionsphilosophie τ. p. 
 185. 
 
 3 Ini Cor. iv. 6 ταῦτα μετεσχημάτισα 
 els ἐμαυτὸν κιτ.λ. the word refers to a 
 rhetorical σχῆμα, and here μετεμόρφωσα 
 would of course be out of place. — 
 
EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 131 
 σχηματίζεσθαι would have been out of place and that μεταμορφοῦσθαι alone 
 is adequate to express the completeness and significance of the change 
 (Matt. xvii. 2, Mark ix. 2). Even in the later addition to St Mark’s Gospel 
 where our Lord is described as appearing to the two disciples ἐν ἑτέρᾳ 
 μορφῇ, though μορφὴ here has no peculiar force, yet σχῆμα would perhaps 
 be avoided instinctively, as it might imply an illusion or an imposture. It 
 will be observed also that in two passages where St Paul speaks of an 
 appearance which is superficial and unreal, though not using σχῆμα, he still 
 avoids μορφὴ as inappropriate and adopts μόρφωσις instead (Rom. ii. 20 τὴν 
 μόρφωσιν τῆς γνώσεως καὶ τῆς ἀληθείας, 2 Tim. iii. 5 μόρφωσιν εὐσεβείας). 
 Here the termination denotes the aiming after or affecting the μορφή. 
 
 And the distinction, which has thus appeared from the review of each Concur- 
 word separately, will be seen still more clearly from those passages where they on of 
 occur together. In Rom. xii. 2 μὴ συνσχηματίζεσθαι τῷ αἰῶνι τούτῳ sige 
 ἀλλὰ μεταμορφοῦ σθαι τῇ ἀνακαινώσει τοῦ νοὸς the form of the sentence calls 
 attention to the contrast, and the appropriateness of each word in its own 
 connexion is obvious : ‘ Not to follow the fleeting fashion of this world, but 
 to undergo a complete change, assume a new form, in the renewal of the 
 mind.’ On the other hand in Phil. iii. 21 μετασχηματίσει τὸ σῶμα τῆς τα- 
 πεινώσεως ἡμῶν σύμμορφον TO σώματι τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ, the difference is not 
 obvious at first sight. The meaning however seems to be, ‘will change the 
 Jashion of the body of our humiliation and jix it in the form of the body of 
 His glory’ Here I think it will be clear that a compound of σχῆμα 
 could not be substituted for σύμμορφον without serious detriment to the 
 sense : while on the other hand μεταμορφώσει might possibly have stood for 
 μετασχηματίσει, : 
 
 I now come to the passage in the Epistle to the Philippians out of Phil. ii. 6, 
 which this investigation has arisen. But before attempting to discover 7- 
 what is implied by μορφὴ Θεοῦ, it will be necessary to clear the way by dis- 
 posing of a preliminary question. Does the expression ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ 
 ὑπάρχων refer to the pre-incarnate or the incarnate Christ? Those who The pre- 
 adopt the latter view for the most part explain the words of the super- incarnate 
 natural or divine power and grace manifested by our Lord during His Chzist is 
 earthly ministry. ‘Thus in ancient’ times the Ambrosian Hilary, ‘Deus meant 
 apparet, dum mortuos excitat, surdis reddit auditum, leprosos mundat, 
 et alia’: thus in a later age Erasmus, ‘ Ipsis factis se Deum esse declara- 
 ret etc’; and Luther, ‘Dass gittliche Gestalt nichts anderes sei denn 
 sich erzeigen mit Worten und Werken gegen andere als ein Herr und 
 Gott’ Against this view De Wette, though himself referring the ex- 
 pression to Christ incarnate, urges with justice that the point of time 
 marked by ὑπάρχων is evidently prior to our Lord’s actual ministry, 
 
 1 Of the two words μετασχηματίζειν 
 would refer to the transient condition 
 from which, μεταμορφοῦν to the perma- 
 nent state to which, the change takes 
 place. Archbishop Trench however sup- 
 poses that μετασχηματίζειν is here pre- 
 ferred to μεταμορφοῦν as expressing 
 
 ‘transition but no absolute solution of 
 continuity,’ the spiritual body being 
 developed from the natural, as the 
 butterfly from the caterpillar; N. 7. 
 Syn. 2nd ger. p. 91. 
 
 2 Postill.ad. Epist. Domin. Palm.(xu. 
 p. 630 ed. Hall), quoted by De Wette. 
 
 Oe 
 
Thus 
 μορφὴ 
 refers to 
 the divine 
 attributes. 
 
 — 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 
 
 the period of this ministry itsclf being a period of humiliation. He 
 therefore explains it as describing the glory dwelling potentially in Christ, 
 at the moment when He commenced His ministry. The meaning of St Paul, 
 he thinks, is best illustrated by the account of the temptation (Matt. iv. 8), 
 where our Lord rejects Satan’s offer of ‘all the kingdoms of the world 
 and their glory” At that moment and in that act of renunciation it might 
 be said of Him that ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ ὑπάρχων οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι 
 ἴσα Θεῷ ἀλλὰ ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν. But this is quite as unsatisfactory as the 
 explanation which he rejects, The point of time is clearly prior not only 
 to our Lord’s open ministry, but also to His becoming man. Even if the 
 words μορφὴν δούλου λαβὼν did not directly refer to the incarnation, as 
 they appear to do, nothing else can be understood by ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώ- 
 Tov yevouevos, We cannot suppose St Paul to have meant, that our Lord 
 was not in the likeness of men before His baptism and ministry, and 
 became so then for the first time. On the contrary all accounts alike agree 
 in representing this (so far as regards His earthly life) as the turning- 
 point when He began to ‘manifest forth His glory (John ii. 11)” It was 
 an exaggeration indeed when certain early heretics represented His bap- 
 tism as the moment of His first assumption of Deity: but only by a 
 direct reversal of the accounts in the Gospel could it be regarded in any 
 sense as the commencement of His humanity. The whole context in St 
 Paul clearly implies that the being born as man was the first step in His 
 humiliation, as the death on the Cross was the last. In other words, it 
 requires that ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ ὑπάρχων be referred to a point of time prior to 
 the incarnation. 
 
 This being so, what meaning must we attach to ‘the form of God’ in 
 which our Lord pre-existed? In the Clementine Homilies St Peter is 
 represented as insisting upon the anthropomorphic passages in the Scrip- 
 tures and maintaining therefrom that God has a sensible form (μορφή). To 
 the objection of his opponent that if God has a form (μορφή), He must have 
 a figure, a shape (σχῆμα) also, the Apostle is made to reply by accepting the 
 inference : ‘God has a σχῆμα; He has eyes and hands and feet like a man ; 
 nevertheless He has no need to use them!’ Not such was St Paul's con- 
 ception of God. Not in this sense could he speak of the μορφή, not in 
 any sense could he speak of the σχῆμα, of Him who is ‘ King of kings and 
 Lord of lords, who only hath immortality, who dwelleth in light unapproach- 
 able, whom no man hath seen or can see (1 Tim. vi. 15, 16). It remains 
 then that μορφὴ must apply to the attributes of the Godhead. In other 
 words, it is used in a sense substantially the same which it bears in Greek 
 philosophy2 It suggests the same idea which is otherwise expressed in 
 
 1 Clem. Hom. xvii. 3, 7, 8. 
 
 2 A passage in Justin Martyr (4pol. 
 i. 9) fairly illustrates the distinction of 
 μορφὴ and σχῆμα in St Paul. He says 
 that Christians do not believe the idols 
 formed by men’s hands to have the 
 form (μορφήν) of God; they have only 
 the names and the shapes (σχήματα) of 
 
 demons; the form of God is not of this 
 kind (οὐ τοιαύτην ἔχειν τὴν μορφήν) ; 
 His glory and form are ineffable (ἄρρητον 
 δόξαν καὶ μορφὴν ἔχων). He thus ap- 
 pears to contrast the visible σχήματα of 
 demons with the insensible immaterial 
 μορφὴ of God. A corresponding dis- 
 tinction also seems to hold in the Pistis 
 
EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 133 
 
 St John by 6 Adyos τοῦ Θεοῦ, in Christian writers of succeeding ages by 
 vids Θεοῦ ὧν Θεός, and in the Nicene Creed by Θεὸς ἐκ Θεοῦ. 
 
 In accepting this conclusion we need not assume that St Paul con- St Paul’s 
 sciously derived his use of the term from any philosophical nomenclature. ccc 
 There was sufficient definitencss even in its popular usage to suggest this ἕο, 
 meaning when it was transferrred from the objects of sense to the concep- » 
 tions of the mind. Yet if St John adopted Adyos, if St Paul himself adopted 
 εἰκὼν, πρωτότοκος, and the like, from the language of existing theological 
 schools, it seems very far from improbable that the closely analogous ex- 
 pression μορφὴ Θεοῦ should have been derived from a similar source. The ““ 
 speculations of Alexandrian and Gnostic Judaism formed a ready chamnel, 
 by which the philosophical terms of ancient Greece were brought within 
 reach of the Apostles of Christ. 
 
 Thus in the passage under consideration the μορφὴ is contrasted with General 
 the σχῆμα, as that which is intrinsic and essential with that which is acci- result. 
 dental and outward. And the three clauses imply respectively the true 
 divine nature of our Lord (μορφὴ Θεοῦ), the true human nature (μορφὴ δού- 
 λου), and the exter nals of the human nature (σχήματι ὡς dvOparros)". 
 
 Vptr-ee. WG 7 hotop ν Lisrv20 offi Zin G22 C2 διε: ἐς Ἔα 
 
 ρα Cth May γυζοξκζ κάξωςς 
 
 Different interpretations of ovy ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο. 
 
 it will appear from the notes, that two principal interpretations of οὐχ Two inter- 
 
 ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο have been proposed, depending on the different senses pretations 
 assigned to ἅρπαγμός. In the one the prominent idea is the assertion, in 
 the other the surrender, of privileges. The one lays stress on the majesty, 
 the other on the humility, of our Lord. These two interpretations may 
 conveniently be considered side by side and discussed at greater length. 
 
 rm AE ἁρπαγμὺς ‘plandering’ is taken to mean ‘robbery, ‘usurpation, (1) dp- 
 then the expression asserts that the equality with God was the natura] παγμὸς 
 possession, the inherent right, of our Lord. This interpretation suits the 7°PPeY- 
 
 Sophia, where both words occur several 
 times, pp. 38, 184, 226, 246, 253, 272, 
 273,274,277; the former especially in 
 the phrase ἀλήθεια μορφῆς opposed to 
 similitude or copy (παράδειγμα, see p. 
 253), the latter in connexion with τύποι 
 and παραδείγματα (see esp. 272 8q.). 
 
 1 Τὴ the controversies of the fourth 
 and fifth centuries great.stress was laid 
 by Catholic writers on the force of 
 μορφὴ here. See for instance Hilary of 
 Poitiers de Trin. viii. 45 (11. p. 245), 
 Psalm exxxviii. (I. p. 569), Ambrose 
 Epist. 46 (τι. p. 986), Greg. Nyss. 
 c, Hunon. iv. p. 566 (ἡ δὲ μορφὴ τοῦ Θεοῦ 
 
 ταὐτὸν τῇ. οὐσίᾳ πάντως ἐστίν), and the 
 commentators Victorinus, Ambrosias- 
 ter, Chrysostom, and Theodoret, on this 
 passage. St Chrysostom especially dis- 
 cusses the matter at some length. Itis 
 not surprising that they should have 
 taken this view, but they could hardly 
 have insisted with such confidence on 
 the identity of μορφὴ and οὐσία, unless 
 they had at least a reasonable case 
 on their side. I trust the investiga- 
 tion in the text will show that their 
 view was not groundless, though their 
 language might be at times over- 
 strained, 
 
134 
 
 The con- 
 text lost 
 sight of. 
 
 Influence 
 of the 
 Latin 
 fathers. 
 
 (2) ἀρ- 
 παγμος 
 ‘a prize.’ 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 
 
 words themselves well enough, when isolated from their context, and so 
 far is free from objection. But it takes no account of the clauses which 
 immediately precede and follow. (1) It neglects the foregoing words. 
 For the Apostle is there enforcing the duty of humility, and when he adds 
 ‘Have the mind which was in Jesus Christ, we expect this appeal to our 
 great Example to be followed immediately by a reference, not to the right 
 which He claimed, but to the dignity which He renounced. The dis- 
 location of thought caused by this interpretation is apparent ; ‘ Be ye hum- 
 ble and like-minded with Christ, who partaking of the divine nature 
 claimed equality with God’ The mention of our Lord’s condescension 
 is thus postponed too late in the sentence. (2) And again this interpretation 
 wholly disregards the connexion with the words following. For in the 
 expression οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο K.T.A. ἀλλὰ ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν, the particles 
 οὐχ and ἀλλὰ obviously correspond, ‘not the one but the other’; so that 
 ἐκένωσεν ἑαυτὸν must contain the idea which directly contrasts with 
 ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο. On the other hand the interpretation in question ren- 
 ders ἀλλὰ as equivalent to ἀλλ᾽ ὅμως. Besides being unnatural in itself 
 after οὐχ, this rendering fails entirely to explain the emphatic position 
 Of ἁρπαγμόν. 
 
 This sense, which is adopted in our own English Version and has been 
 extensively received in modern times, may probably be traced to the in- 
 fluence of the Latin fathers, who interpreted the rendering of the Latin 
 Version without reference to the original. The Latin phrase ‘rapinam 
 arbitrari’ did not convey the secondary meaning which was at once sug- 
 gested by ἁρπαγμὸν (ἅρπαγμα) ἡγεῖσθαι ; nor perhaps would the Latin par- 
 ticles ‘non...sed’ bring out the idea of contrast so strongly as ovy...dAXa. 
 At all events it should be noticed, that while this interpretation is most 
 common (though not universal) among Latin writers, it is unsupported 
 by a single Greek father, unless possibly at a very late date. 
 
 Such is the interpretation of TeRTULLIAN de Resurr. Carn. 6, adv. Praz. 
 7, adv. Mare. γ. 20; of the AMBrostAN Hinary here; of St AmBrose de 
 Fid. ii. 8 (u. p. 483 ed. Bened.) ‘Quod enim quis non habet, rapere cona- 
 tur; ergo non quasi rapinam habebat eequalitatem cum Patre ete.’; of 
 Priasius here; and above all of St Augustine who again and again 
 quotes and explains the passage in his Sermons, 92 (v. p. 500 ed. Bened.), 
 118 (p. 587), 183 (p. 875), 186 (p. 835), 213 (p. 937), 244. (p. 1019), 264 (p. 
 1075), 292 (p. 1170), 304 (p. 1235); comp. i Psalm. xe (IV. p. 972). The 
 distinctness with which this interpretation was enunciated by the greatest 
 teacher of the Western Church would necessarily secure for it a wide 
 reception. 
 
 2. Ifon the other hand ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγεῖσθαι is considered equivalent to 
 the common phrase ἅρπαγμα ἡγεῖσθαι, so that ἁρπαγμὸς will signify ‘a prize,’ 
 ‘a treasure,’ then the logical connexion with the context before and after 
 is strictly preserved: ‘Be humble as Christ was humble: He, though 
 existing before the worlds in the form of God, did not treat His equality 
 with God asa prize, a treasure to be greedily clutched and ostentatiously 
 displayed: on the contrary He resigned the glories of heaven.’ The only 
 objection to this rendering, the form ἁρπαγμὸς in place of ἅρπαγμα, has 
 been considered in the notes. 
 
EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 135 
 
 This is the common and indeed almost universal interpretation of the The sense 
 Greek fathers, who would have the most lively sense of the requirements ΤῊΣ ny 
 of the language. So it is evidently taken in the earliest passage where it yee: 
 is quoted, in the Epistle of the CaurcuEs or Gaun (Huseb. H. 1. v. 2), 
 where praising the humility of the martyrs they say ἐπὶ τοσοῦτον ζηλωταὶ ee 
 kal μιμηταὶ Χριστοῦ ἐγένοντο, ὃς ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ ὑπάρχων οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν © 8 
 ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσα Θεῷ, evidently thinking this clause to contain in itself ἃ 
 statement of His condescension. So Oricen clearly takes it; in Joann. Origen. 
 vi. ὃ 37 (IV. p. 156 D) μέχρι θανάτου καταβαίνειν ὑπὲρ ἀσεβῶν, οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν 
 ἡγούμενον τὸ εἶναι ἴσα Θεῷ, καὶ κενοῦν ἑαυτὸν k.t.r.;.in Matth. Comm. Ser. 
 
 (111. p. 916 c) ‘ Vere Jesus non rapinam arbitratus est esse se zequalem Deo, 
 
 et non semel sed frequenter pro omnibus seipsum humiliavit’ ; in Rom. 
 
 γ. ὃ 2 (Iv. p. 553 A) ‘Nec rapinam ducit esse se zequalem Deo, hoc est, non 
 
 sibi magni aliquid deputat quod ipse quidem zequalis Deo et unum cum 
 
 patre sit’; 7b. x. § 7 (iv. p. 672 6) ‘Christus non 5101 placens nec rapinam 
 arbitrans esse se zqualem Deo semetipsum exinanivit.’ So too MetHopivus ; Methodius. 
 Fragm. p. 105 (Jahn) αὐτὸς ὁ Κύριος, ὁ vids τοῦ Θεοῦ, τιμῶν αὐτὸ [τὸ 
 μαρτύριον] ἐμαρτύρησεν, οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγησάμενος τὸ εἶναι ἴσα Θεῷ, ἵνα καὶ 
 
 τούτῳ τὸν ἄνθρωπον τῷ χαρίσματι εἰς ὃν κατέβη στέψῃ. So again EUSEBIUS Eusebius. 
 unmistakeably ; &ccl. Proph. iii. 4 ἐγενήθη πένης, οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγούμενος 
 
 TO εἶναι ἴσα Θεῷ GAN ἑαυτὸν ταπεινῶν κιτιλ.; Hecles. Theol, i. 13 (p. 57) 
 mpotndapywr, θεότητι πατρικῆς Ooéns τετιμημένος" ov μὴν ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγούμενος 
 
 τὸ εἶναι ἴσα Θεῷ ἑαυτὸν δ᾽ οὖν κενώσας κιτιλ.; comp. tb. i. 20 (p. 94). So 
 
 also ΤΉΞΟΡΟΠΕ or MopsurstiA (Raban. Maur. Op. νι. p. 488 B ed. Migne) Theodore. 
 ‘Non magnam reputavit illam que ad Deum est eequalitatem et elatus in 
 
 sua permansit dignitate, sed magis pro aliorum utilitate preeelegit humiliora 
 
 etc.’ ; and after him THzoporzt, interpreting the passage, τὴν πρὸς τὸν πα- Theodo- 
 τέρα ἰσότητα ἔχων ov μέγα τοῦτο ὑπέλαβε. SO moreover the Pseupo-ATHANA- Fret. 
 
 stus Hom. de Sem. (Athan. Op. τι. p. 49 ed. Bened.) χρισθεὶς δὲ ὁ Δαυεὶδ εἰς pene 
 βασιλέα οὐχ ἅμα ἥρπασε τὴν βασιλείαν ἀλλ᾽ ἠνείχετο πολλοῖς χρόνοις Sov- ging. 
 λεύων τῷ Σαούλ᾽ καὶ ὁ σωτὴρ ἡμῶν γεννηθεὶς βασιλεὺς πρὸ τῶν αἰώνων... ἠνεί- 
 
 χετο, οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσα Θεῷ κιτιλ. So in like manner 
 
 ismore ΟΡ PELusium Lpisé. iv. 22 εἰ ἕρμαιον ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσον οὐκ ἂν Isidore of 
 ἑαυτὸν ἐταπείνωσεν. .«δοῦλος μὲν γὰρ καὶ ἐλευθερωθεὶς καὶ υἱοθεσίᾳ τιμηθεὶς ἅτε Pelusium. 
 ἅρπαγμα ἢ εὕρημα τὴν ἀξίαν ἡγησάμενος οὐδ᾽ ἂν ὑποσταίη οἰκετικὸν ἔργον 
 
 ἀνύσαι" 6 δὲ γνήσιος υἱὸς κιτιλ.; and ΟὝὟΒΙΠ, or ALEXANDRIA 6. Jud. vi Cyril of 
 (vi. p. 195 ed. Aubert.) ὁ μὲν yap τῶν ὅλων σωτὴρ καὶ Κύριος, καίτοι μετὸν Alex- 
 αὐτῷ τὸ ἐν μορφῆ καὶ ἰσότητι τῇ κατὰ πᾶν ὁτιοῦν ὁρᾶσθαι πρὸς τὸν πατέρα andria. 
 καὶ τοῖς τῆς θεύτητος ἐναβρύνεσθαι θάκοις, οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο k.T.d. 
 
 (where the καίτοι is decisive). In addition to this positive testimony it 
 
 should be noticed, that throughout the important controversies of the fourth 
 
 and fifth centuries it does not seem once to have occurred to any Greek 
 
 father to put forward the other explanation of the passage, though so 
 eminently favourable to the orthodox helief!. 
 
 1 Jt is not clear what interpreta- ἥρπασε γάρ, φησίν, οὐκ ἔλαβε τὸ ἴσον 
 _ tion was adopted by Didymus of Alex- εἶναι τῇ φύσει τῷ Θεῷ καὶ πατρί" καὶ 
 andria de Trin. i. 26 (p. 73), Τί τῆς δὴ 6 μὴ bm’ ἄλλου κενωθεὶς ἑαντὸν δὲ 
 ἰσότητος ταύτης εὑρίσκεται ἄνισον; οὐχ κενώσας αὐθέντην δεσπότην ὁμοῦ καὶ 
 
136 
 
 Also by 
 Hilary 
 
 and Je- 
 rome, 
 
 The two 
 senses 
 compared. 
 
 A middle 
 course 
 taken by 
 Chryso- 
 stom. 
 
 Objection 
 to his ex- 
 planation. 
 
 “ 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 
 
 Nor is the interpretation thus generally adopted by Greek writers con- 
 fined to them alone. Some of the most acute and learned of the Latin 
 fathers explain it in the same way. 
 
 Thus perhaps Hitary or Porrrers de Trin. viii. 45 (11. p. 246 ed. 
 Bened.) ‘ Non 5101 rapiens esse se zequalem Deo, ad susceptionem se formes 
 servilis per obedientiam exinanivit...non tamen zequalem se Deo per rapi- 
 nam existimans quanivis in forma Dei et sequalis Deo per Deum Deus sig- 
 natus exstaret’’; and more clearly JeRomME ad Hedib. Q. 9 (Epist. 120, τ. 
 p. 837) ‘Pro quibus non rapinam arbitratus est se esse zequalem Deo sed 
 semetipsum exinanivit’ ; see also his notes on Gal. iv. 12, v. 14% 
 
 In comparing these two interpretations, it will be seen that while the 
 former makes οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο a continuation and expansion of the 
 idea already contained in ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ ὑπάρχων, ‘ He existed in the form 
 of God and so did not think it usurpation to be equal with God’; the 
 latter treats the words as involving a contrast to this idea, ‘He existed 
 in the form of God but nevertheless did not eagerly assert His equality 
 with God.’ In short the two interpretations of the clause, as I have said 
 before, are directly opposed, inasmuch as the one expresses our Lord’s asser- 
 tion, the other His cession, of the rights pertaining to His divine majesty. 
 
 And between these two explanations—the one which interprets ap7ay- 
 pov by ἀδικίαν, and the other which interprets it by ¢pyacov—our choice 
 must be made. A middle interpretation however was maintained by 
 St Chrysostom, and has been adopted with more or less distinctness by 
 others, especially in recent times. It agrees very nearly with the first in 
 the-sense assigned to dpmaypos, and yet approaches to the second in the 
 general drift of the clause. ‘Being in the form of God, He did not con- 
 sider that He was plundering, when He claimed equality with God. He 
 did not therefore look upon His divine prerogatives as a booty of which 
 He feared to be deprived and which therefore it was necessary to guard 
 jealously. He reigned not asa tyrant but as a lawful sovereign, He could 
 therefore divest himself of the outward splendours of His rank without 
 fear®.” 
 
 As an indirect doctrinal inference from the passage, this account is 
 admissible ; but as a direct explanation of its bearing, it is faulty because 
 it wnderstands too much, requiring links to be supplied which the con- 
 nexion does not suggest and which interrupt the sequence of thought. 
 
 ἀΐδιον ἑαυτὸν ἀπέδειξεν : comp. ib. {1.17 interpretation combining features of 
 (p. 377). The expression οὐχ ἥρπασε both. 
 however seems to point to an interme- 2 This is probably the view also of 
 diateinterpretation liketheoneadopted Victorinus in his commentary on the 
 by Chrysostom, as given in the text. passage, ‘Ergo nunc Paulus, Non, in- 
 Nothing can be inferred from thetan- quit, Christus rapinam credidit, id est, 
 guage of St Basil adv. Eunom. iv. hoe sibi vindicavit, tantum haber 
 (. p. 294 E, 295 A), or from Liturg. voluit ut forma Dei esset, sed etiam se 
 S. Bas. p. 158 (Neale). ipsum exinanivit etc.’; but his lan- 
 1 Yet in another passage c. Const. guage is not distinct. See again his 
 Imper. § 19 (11. p. 577) he says, ‘Nonra- treatise c. Ariwm i. g, Galland Bibl. 
 pit quod erat Christus,’ which pointsto Vet. Patr. vu. Ὁ. 155. 
 
 the other sense of ἁρπαγμός. Perhaps 3 Op. xI. p. 245. E haye abridged 
 
 he, like Chrysostom, adopted a middle _ his explanation, 
 
 ee 
 
 7 
 
EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 
 
 All similar attempts to mediate between the two opposing explanations fail 
 in the same way and tend only to confuse the interpretation of the passage. 
 : Of the two explanations then, between which our choice lies, the con- 
 text, as I have shown, seems imperatively to require the second ; and if 
 authority count for anything, the list of names, by which it is maintained, 
 sufficiently refutes the charge of being ‘liable to grave suspicion on theclo- 
 gical grounds” We should do wisely however to consider its doctrinal 
 bearing, without reference to authority. 
 
 Now while the other explanation directly asserts our Lord’s divinity, Theologi- 
 this confessedly does not. Yet on the other hand the theological difference cal bearing 
 is only apparent. For, though we miss the direct assertion in this par- of the in- 
 ticular clause, the doctrine still remains. It is involved in the preceding pel gs on 
 
 » ; preceaing tion adopt- 
 words, for the ‘ pre-existeuce in the form of God,’ as will appear I think ed, 
 from the last note, means substantially this. It is indirectly implied more- 
 over in this very clause taken in connexion with the context. For how 
 could it be a sign of humility in our Lord not to assert His equality with 
 God, if He were not divine? How could such a claim be considered 
 otherwise than arrogant and blasphemous, if He were onlya man? If St 
 Chrysostom’s interpretation must be rejected as faulty and confused, his 
 argument at least is valid; ‘No one wishing to exhort to humility says, 
 Be humble and think less of yourself than of your compeers (ἔλαττον φρόνει 
 τῶν ὁμοτίμων), for such and such a person being a slave did not set himself 
 up against his master ; therefore imitate him. Nay, one might reply, here 
 is a question not of humility, but of infatuation (ἀπονοίας) ; ‘It is no 
 humility for the inferior not to set himself up against his superior’; ‘ If 
 being a man, He washed the feet of men, He did not empty, did not 
 humble Himself; if being a man, He did not grasp at equality with God, 
 
 - He deserves no praise!’ 
 
 One who refuses to claim some enviable privilege may be influenced by y; goog not 
 
 either of two motives, by a feeling of humility or by a sense of justice, favour hu- 
 according as he has or has not a right to this privilege. Those who hold manita- 
 humanitarian views of the Person of Christ necessarily take the latter T@2 Views. 
 view of the motive in this instance. The equality with God, they argue, 
 was not asserted, because it would have been an act of usurpation to do so. 
 To this view it may fairly be objected, that it overlooks the true signi- 
 ficance of ἁρπαγμὸν (ἅρπαγμα) ἡγεῖσθαι, which as a recognised phrase is 
 equivalent to ἕρμαιον ἡγεῖσθαι and therefore refers to the destrableness of the 
 possession or acquisition. But its fatal condemnation is this, that it treats 
 the clause as isolated and takes no account of the context. The act ex- 
 pressed by οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο is brought forward as an example of 
 humility, and can only be regarded as such, if the expression τὸ εἶναι ἴσα 
 Θεῷ refers to rights which it was an act of condescension to waive’, 
 
 a6 
 
 Op. XI. pp. 236; 237, 247. 
 
 2 One other interpretation put for- 
 ward by recent commentators deserves 
 attention. Meyer (followed by Dean 
 Alford), desirous of giving ἁρπαγμὸν 
 the active sense which its termination 
 suggests, translates the words, ‘Did not 
 
 look upon His being on an equality 
 with God, as a means of self-enrich- 
 ment.’ In answer to the mechanical ob- 
 jection urged against this sense, that a 
 state (τὸ εἶναι) cannot be regarded as an 
 action (ἁρπαγμον), he justly appeals to 
 1 Tim. vi. 5 νομιζόντων πορισμὸν εἶναι. 
 
138 
 
 Supposed 
 reference 
 to such in 
 the Epi- 
 stle itself 
 
 and in 
 Polycarp. 
 
 Probabi- 
 lities con- 
 sidered. 
 
 - gerved, ‘the world itself could not contain the books that should be written, 
 
 ν 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 
 
 Lost Epistles to the Philippians ? 
 
 Tt has been maintained by some, that a passage in the Epistle to the 
 Philippians implies a more or less sustained correspondence between 
 St Paul and his converts, so that the extant letter is only a single link in 
 a long chain. ‘To write the same things,’ says St Paul, ‘to me is not irk- 
 some, while for you itis safe. The reference, it is urged, cannot be ex- 
 plained from the epistle itself, since it does not supply any topic which 
 satisfies the two conditions, of occurring in the immediate context, and of 
 being repeated elsewhere in the course of the letter. 
 
 Moreover the inference thus suggested is thought to be confirmed by an 
 allusion in the Epistle of Polycarp. Writing to these same Philippians, he 
 says (δ 3); ‘Neither I nor another like me can attain to the wisdom of the 
 blessed and glorious Paul; who coming among you taught the word of 
 truth accurately and surely before the men of that day; who also when 
 absent wrote letters (ἐπιστολάς) to you, into which if ye search ye can be 
 builded up unto the faith given to you,’ 
 
 Against this view no objection can be taken from the probabilities of 
 the case. On the contrary it is only reasonable to suppose, that during the 
 ten or eleven years which elapsed between the epoch of their conversion 
 and the date of this epistle, the Apostle, ever overflowing with love and 
 ever prompt to seize the passing opportunity, would have written not 
 once or twice only to converts with whom his relations were so close and 
 affectionate. And—to consider the broader question—if we extend our 
 range of view beyond the Philippians to the many churches of his founding, 
 if we take into account not these ten years only but the whole period of his 
 missionary life, we can hardly resist the conclusion that in the epistles of our 
 Canon we have only a part—perhaps not a very large part—of the whole 
 correspondence of the Apostle either with churches or with individuals. 
 
 But, if there be any reluctance to allow that the letter of an inspired 
 Apostle couid have been permitted to perish, a moment’s thought will dis- 
 sipate the scruple. Any theory of inspiration, which would be eonsistent 
 with historical fact, must find a place for this supposition. It is true of 
 Him who ‘spake as never man spake,’ that if all His words had been pre- 
 
 Yet His recorded sayings may be read through in a very few hours. And 
 
 τὴν εὐσέβειαν, which presents an exact 
 parallel in this respect. This interpre- 
 tation suits the context very fairly, but 
 jt seems tome to be somewhat strained; 
 and the fact that ἅρπαγμα ἡγεῖσθαι 
 (ποιεῖσθαι) is ἃ common phrase mean- 
 ing ‘to prizehighly, to welcome eagerly,’ 
 and that ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγεῖσθαι (ποιεῖσθαι), 
 wherever else it occurs, has also this 
 sense, would appear to be decisive. 
 Meyer indeed attempts to force his own 
 
 meaning on ἁρπαγμὸν in the passage of 
 Cyril, de Ador. τ. p. 25, quoted above 
 (in the notes, p. 111); but when this 
 writer, speaking of Lot’s renewal of the 
 offer of hospitality when declined by 
 the angels, describes this importunity 
 by οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν τὴν παραίτησιν ἐποιεῖτο, 
 it is difficult to conceive that the phrase 
 can mean anything else but ‘did not 
 eagerly close with, did not gladly wel- 
 come their refusal.’ 
 
EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 
 
 on the ground of inspiration we cannot assuredly claim for the letters of 
 the Apostle an immunity from the ravages of time, which was denied to 
 the words of the Saviour Himself. The ‘litera scripta’ indeed has a firmer 
 hold on life. But the difficulty of multiplying copies, the strife of parties 
 within the Church, and the perils assailing the brotherhood from without, 
 are sufficient to explain the loss of any documents in the earlicr ages. And 
 from the nature of the case the letters of the Apostles could not have been 
 so highly prized by their contemporaries, as by later generations. History 
 confirms the suggestion which reason makes, that the writings of the first 
 teachers of the Gospel grew in importance, as the echo of their voice died 
 away. <A letter from a dear friend is a poor substitute for the free inter- 
 change of conversation. But when he is taken from us, we know not how 
 to value his correspondence highly enough}, 
 
 139 
 
 Atall events indications are not wanting of other letters besides those Tpdiea- 
 which have been preserved for the instruction of the Church. The two tions of 
 short Episties to the Thessalonians stand alone in a period which extends other lost 
 
 over at least twenty years before and after2, Yet in one of these the 
 
 ness, which occurred ‘in every epistle’ written by him’, Such an expres- 
 sion would be conclusive, even if unsupported by other allusions, which 
 suggest at least the suspicion that several letters may have passed between 
 St Paul and his Thessalonian converts*. Again, his written communica- 
 
 letters. 
 
 2 3 Thessalo- 
 Apostle calls attention to his mode of signature, as a guarantee of genuine- nica, 
 
 tions with the Corinthians seem to have extended beyond the two extant Corinth. 
 
 episties. In a passage in the First Epistle, according to the most pro- 
 bable interpretation, he directly alludes to a previous letter addressed to 
 them®: and the acknowledgment of the Corinthians, which he elsewhere 
 mentions, that his ‘letters are weighty and powerful,” together with his 
 own reply ‘Such as we are by letters when absent οἷο. cannot be ex- 
 
 1 Prof. Jowett, Epistles of St Paul 
 I. p. 195 (2nd ed.), has an imstructive 
 essay on the probability of many epi- 
 stles having been lost. Withsomeof his 
 special criticisms however I venture to 
 disagree. He supposes for instance that 
 1 Cor. v. g refers to the First Hpistle to 
 the Corinthians itself, and that Col. iv. 
 16 does not refer to the Epistle to the 
 Ephesians, 
 
 2 Fourteen years at least, probably 
 seventeen (see notes Gal. ii. 1), elapsed 
 between St Paul’s conversion and the 
 third visit to Jerusalem (a.p. 51). The 
 
 _Hpistles to the Corinthians, which pro- 
 bably follow next in order after the 
 Epistles to the Thessalonians, were not 
 written till a.p. 57,58. Thus the whole 
 period will be 20 or 23 years, according 
 to the reckoning adopted. 
 
 3 2 Thess. iii. 17., 
 
 2) SUSE Sh OF ee 
 
 5 y Cor, v. 9 ἔγραψα ὑμῖν ἐν τῇ 
 ἐπιστολῇ μὴ συναναμίγνυσθαι πόρνοις. 
 The real difficulty in referring this allu- 
 sion to the First Epistle itself lies not 
 in ἔγραψα, which might be explained as 
 an epistolary aorist, but in ἐν τῇ ém- 
 στολῇ ‘in my letter,’ which is thus ren- 
 dered meaningless: see Journal of 
 Class. and Sacr. Phil. 11. Ὁ. 196 (note). 
 Twoindependentreasons have probably 
 conspired to promote the unnatural ex- 
 planation by whichit is referred to the 
 First Epistle. (1) Ontheological grounds 
 commentators have been unwilling to 
 admit that an epistle of St Paul could 
 have perished: while (2) they have been 
 mnisled critically by the context, ver. 11 
 νῦν δὲ ἔγραψα x.7.r., taking νῦν in its 
 primary temporal sense, whereas it ap- 
 pears to mean, ‘under these circum- 
 stances,’ ‘the world being what it is.’ 
 
 δ᾽ ΣΙ ΟΣ X. 10, UIs 
 
140 
 
 [Laodi- 
 cea. | 
 
 Explana- 
 tions of 
 Phil. iii. 1 
 examined. 
 
 Allusionin 
 Polycarp 
 consider- 
 ed, 
 
 ἐπιστολαὶ 
 used of a 
 single 
 letter. 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 
 
 plained quite satisfactorily (though the explanation might pass) by the 
 single extant epistle written before this date. On the other hand the 
 ‘letter from Laodicea,’ which the Apostle directs the Colossians to procure 
 and read!, must not be classed among these lost letters, as there is very 
 good reason for supposing that he there refers to the circular letter to the 
 Asiatic Churches, sent to Laodicea as one of the great centres and thence 
 cummunicated to the neighbouring town of Colossz, but circulated in the 
 Church at large through the metropolis of Asia and therefore generally 
 known as the Epistle to the Ephesians. Whether to these lost letters to 
 Thessalonica and to Corinth we are required to add one or more addressed 
 to the Philippians, I propose now to consider, The general question has 
 only been introduced to prepare the way for this investigation. 
 
 1. The passage in the Epistle to the Philippians itself has been 
 variously explained. Some have interpreted it ‘to repeat in writing the 
 same injunctions which I gave you myself by word cf mouth, or ‘which 
 I charged you by my messengers. But such amplifications receive no 
 encouragement from the words themselves, which mean simply ‘to write 
 the same things again and again. To written communications therefore 
 our attention must be confined. 
 
 Even with this limitation, three solutions are offered. Either (1) The 
 extant epistle itself consists of two separate letters welded together; or 
 (2) A lost letter must be assumed in which the same subject was introduced ; 
 or (3) The often repeated topic must be discovered in the extant letter. 
 The first of these solutions has been already considered and set aside?; 
 nor indeed does it contribute anything towards the interpretation of this 
 passage (though it would explain the plural in Polycarp), for no new topie 
 is introduced by the disintegration of the existing letter. The second 
 might very fairly be accepted in default of a better: but there is nothing 
 in the words which suggests a reference to any incident external to the 
 letter itself, and it is therefore simpler not to look elsewhere for the 
 allusion. The third view then seems preferable, if any topic can be found 
 which satisfies the conditions. And in the notes on the passage I have 
 attempted to show that such a topic is not wanting. 
 
 2. But the reference in the Epistle of Polycarp still remains to be ex- 
 plained. What account must be given of the ‘letters, which St Paul wrote 
 to the Philippians? Does Polycarp, as some have thought, include the 
 Thessalonian Epistles, which as being addressed to a neighbouring Church 
 would be known and read at Philippi also? This is possible ; but a simpler 
 solution offers itself. Notwithstanding the plural ἐπιστολαί, the reference 
 may be satisfied by the one extant Epistle to the Philippians. Of this 
 usage of the plural ἐπιστολαί, applying to a single letter’, there can be no 
 doubt. This will appear plainly from Thucyd. viii. 51 ὅσον οὐ παροῦσαν 
 ἀπὸ τοῦ ᾿Αλκιβιάδου περὶ τούτων ἐπιστολήν, compared with ai δὲ παρὰ τοῦ 
 ᾿Δλκιβιάδου ἐπιστολαὶ οὐ πολὺ ὕστερον ἧκον ; from Joseph. Ant. xil. 4. 10 
 
 1 Gol. iv. 16. I hope to consider 2 See the introduction, page 69 
 the question of the ‘epistle from Lao- note. 
 dicea’ in the introduction to the Epis- 3 Thom. Mag. p. 384 καὶ ἐπιστολὴ 
 
 tle to the Ephesians: see also Colos- καὶ ἐπιστολαὶ πληθυντικῶς" ῥητορικόν. 
 sians p. 274 54. 
 
EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 
 
 6 Λακεδαιμονίων βασιλεὺς [Ἄρειος πρεσβείαν τε ἔπεμπε καὶ ἐπιστολὰς ὧν τὸ 
 ἀντίγραφόν ἐστι τοιοῦτον, compared with ἡ μὲν οὖν ἐπιστολὴ ἡ πεμφθεῖσα 
 παρὰ τοῦ Λακεδαιμονίων βασιλέως τοῦτον περιεῖχε τὸν τρόπον! : and from 
 Alciphron Epist. ii. 4 ὡς διεπέμψω μου τοῦ βασιλέως τὰς ἐπιστολάς, εὐθὺς 
 ἀνέγνων, compared with σοβοῦσα ταῖς χερσὶν ἐμαυτῆς τὴν ἐπιστολὴν σὺν 
 αὐτῇ τῇ βασιλικῇ σφραγῖδι; the singular in each case standing in the 
 immediate neighbourhood of the plural and referring to the same writing. 
 1 have placed these instances side by side, because the context in all three 
 cases determines the sense, and because being taken from writers of differ- 
 ent epochs they show that the usage was not confined to any one period. 
 The following references also, which might be multiplied many times, serve 
 to illustrate its occurrence in classical writers at different stages of the 
 language: Eur. Iph. Taur. 589, 767, Iph. Aul, 111, 314, Thucyd. i. 132, 
 iv. 50, Polyb. v- 43. 5, Lucian. Amor. 47 (Π. p. 450), Julian. Epist. 73 
 (comp. Epist. 44). Nor is this usage confined to classical Greek. In 
 Esth. iii. 14 ἐπιστολαὶ is a translation of a singular substantive (32) ; 
 while in 1 Mace. v. 14, X. 3, 7, Xi. 29, xii. 5 etc., it plainly refers to a single 
 document. And in ecclesiastical writers of a later date examples are found. 
 Husebius (7. £. vi.1) for instance, like the authors first quoted, uses ἐπιστολὴ 
 _ and ἐπιστολαὶ in the same context when speaking of one and the same 
 letter 3, 
 
 121 
 
 If therefore we find that in another place Polycarp, referring again to Singular 
 the Epistle to the Philippians, uses the singular (ἐπιστολή), this circum- and plural 
 
 stance will present no difficulty; for we have seen similar variations of nee ΕΠ 
 ged, 
 
 usage in the passages of Thucydides and Alciphron, of Josephus and Euse- 
 bius, where the anomaly is rendered more striking by the fact that in these 
 authors the singular and plural occur in close proximity. 
 
 But a later passage of this same father has been quoted to show that he Polycarp’s 
 carefully distinguishes between the singular and the plural of this word. ‘The usage else- 
 
 letters (ἐπιστολάς) of Ignatius,’ he writes, ‘which were sent to us by him 
 and such others as we had by us, we have sent to you, as ye commanded ; 
 all which (αἵτινες) are appended to this letter (ἐπιστολῇ); from which ye may 
 derive great advantage’ (§ 13). The plural here has been explained as 
 referring to the two letters, the one to the Smyrnzeans, the other to Poly- 
 carp, contained in the short Greek recension. This explanation, it will be 
 seen, supposes either the genuineness of the short Greek recension of the 
 Ignatian letters or the spuriousness of this portion of Polycarp’s epistle. 
 Into these questions it would be beside the purpose to enter here. I 
 would only say that here again the ἐπιστολαί may very well be used of a 
 single letter, and that on this supposition there is a certain propriety in the 
 
 1 Comp. also Antiq. xiii. 4. 8. 4 Polye. Phil. 11 ‘qui estis in prin- 
 2 T owe a few of these references to  eipio epistola ejus,? where some word 
 Rettig Quest. Phil. p. 38. like ‘laudati’ should perhaps be sup- 
 
 3 Comp. also H. HE. vi. 43, quoted plied. Others however suppose the ori- 
 by Cotelier on Polye. Phil. 3. The ginal Greek to have been of ὄντες ἐν 
 plural ‘epistole’ in Latin is used in ἀρχῇ ἐπιστολαὶ αὐτοῦ, comparing for 
 the same way; Justin xi. 8,12, Plin. ἐν ἀρχῇ. Phil. iv. 15, and for ἐπιστολαὲ 
 Ν. H. xxxili, 12, quoted by Fabric. Bibl. αὐτοῦ 2 Cor. 111. 2, 2. 
 Gree. Iv. p. 804 (ed. Harles), 
 
 where con- 
 ’ sidered. 
 
142 
 
 He does 
 not refer 
 to a lost 
 letier. 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 
 
 change from the plural to the singular, when the writer has occasion to 
 speak of himself. For the plural ἐπιστολαί, which signifies properly ‘ direc- 
 tions, injunctions,’ whenever it occurs in prose of a single epistle, seems to 
 denote a missive of importance, such as a king’s mandate or a bishop’s 
 pastoral;’ and its employment by Polycarp to designate his own letter 
 would have jarred strangely with his pervading tone of humility, though it 
 would fitly describe the Cat CaTONS of the blessed Apostle Paul 6 3) 
 or the holy martyr Ignatius (δ 13} 
 
 On the whole ἘΠΕ it would gupear probable that Polycarp refers solely 
 to the extant Epistle to the Philippians ; for though the existence of other 
 letters was seen to be in itself antecedently probable, yet it seems very 
 unlikely that an epistle of St. Paul, which had survived the opening of 
 the second century and was then known to the Churches of Smyrna and 
 Philippi, should so soon afterwards have passed wholly out of memory. 
 Trenzus, the pupil of Polycarp, is evidently acquainted with only. one 
 Epistle of St Paul to the Philippians”. 
 
 1 By a curious coincidence Maximus 
 uses the plural of Polycarp’s own epi- 
 stle: Dion. Areop. Op. τι. p. 93 (ed. 
 Corder.), ἔχει δὲ καὶ ἐπιστολὰς ὁ αὐτὸς 
 θεῖος Πολύκαρπος πρὸς Φιλιππησίους. 
 
 2 Georgius Syncellus indeed (Chron. 
 I. p. 651 ed. Dind., a passage which I 
 owe to Rettig Quest. Phil. p. 38) speak- 
 ing of St Clement of Rome writes, 
 τούτου Kal ὁ ἀπόστολος ἐν τῇ πρὸς Φιλιτ- 
 πησίους μέμνηται πρώτῃ ἐπιστολῇ εἰπών, 
 
 7 ᾿ nD 
 
 Μετὰ καὶ Κλήμεντος k.7.d.: but it seems 
 wholly incredible that Syncellus him- 
 self, and very unlikely that any autho- 
 rity quoted by him, should have been 
 acquainted with more than one Epistle 
 to the Philippians: and I can only ac- 
 count for the reading by supposing that 
 a superfluous a crept into the text 
 and was afterwards written out in full 
 πρώτῃ. 
 
Ti: 2] 
 
 I \ / 
 Βλέπετε τοὺς κύνας, 
 
 111. 2—6. ‘Be on your guard. Shun 
 these shameless dogs, these workers 
 of mischief, these mutilators of the 
 flesh. I call it mzzttlation, for we are 
 the true circumcision, we offer the 
 genuine service; Wwe—you and [— 
 Gentile and Jew alike—who serve by 
 the Spirit of God, who place our boast 
 in Christ Jesus and put no trust in the 
 flesh. And yet, whatever be the value 
 of this confidence in the flesh, I assert 
 it as well: If any other man claims 
 to put trust in the flesh, my claim is 
 _ greater. I was circumcised on the 
 eighth day, a child of believing pa- 
 rents. I am descended of an old 
 Israelite stock. I belong to the loyal 
 and renowned tribe of Benjamin. I 
 _am of a lineage which has never con- 
 ‘formed to foreign usages, but has 
 preserved throughout the language 
 and the customs of the fathers. Thus 
 much for my inherited privileges ; and 
 now for my personal carecr. Do they 
 speak of law? -I belong to the Pha- 
 risees, the strictest of all sects. Of 
 zeal? I persecuted the Church. This 
 surely is enough! Of righteousness ? 
 In such righteousness as consists in 
 obedience to law, I have never been 
 found a defaulter,’ 
 
 2. A probable account of the ab- 
 rupt introduction of this new topic is 
 given in the introduction p. 69. As 
 the Apostle is on the point of refer- 
 ring once more to the divisions in the 
 Philippian Church before concluding, 
 he is interrupted. Whether the in- 
 terruption was momentary, or whether 
 some hours or even days elapsed be- 
 fore the letter was resumed, it is vain 
 to conjecture. But it has diverted, 
 or at least modified, the current of 
 his thoughts. He speaks no longer of 
 the social dissensions actually pre- 
 valent among the Philippians ; but he 
 warns them against a much more 
 serious though hitherto distant peril 
 —the infection of Judaism. It seems 
 probable therefore that he had mean- 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 
 
 143 
 ’ \ \\ > 
 βλέπετε τοὺς κακοὺς ἐρ- 
 
 while been apprised of some fresh 
 outbreak or reminded of some old 
 antagonism on the part of his Judaiz- 
 ing opponents in Rome ; see p. 17. 
 
 The thrice repeated ‘ mark ye, to- 
 gether with the recurrence of the defi- 
 nite article in the three clauses—the 
 dogs, the evil workers, the concision— 
 shows that St Paul is alluding to a 
 well-known and well-marked party in 
 or out of the Church. 
 
 Βλέπετε] ‘look to, be on your guard 
 against, mark and watch.’ Comp. Mark 
 lv. 24 βλέπετε τί ἀκούετε, 2 Joh. 8 
 βλέπετε ἑαυτούς : 80 frequently βλέπετε 
 ἀπό (e.g. Mark viii. 15) and βλέπετε 
 py (e.g. Luke xxi. 8). 
 
 τοὺς κύνας] St Paul retorts upon 
 the Judaizers the term of reproach, 
 by which they stigmatized the Gen- 
 tiles as impure. In the Mosaic law 
 the word is used to denounce the foul 
 moral profiigacies of heathen worship 
 (Deut. xxiii. 19 οὐ προσοίσεις μίσθωμα 
 πόρνης οὐδὲ ἄλλαγμα κυνός). Among 
 the Jews of the Christian era it was 
 acommon designation of the Gentiles, 
 involving chiefly the idea of ceremo- 
 nial impurity ; see esp. Clem. Hom. ii. 
 19 εἶπεν Οὐκ ἔξεστιν ἰᾶσθαι τὰ ἔθνη 
 ἐοικότα κυσὶν διὰ τὸ διαφόροις χρῆσθαι 
 τροφαῖς καὶ πράξεσιν, ἀποδεδομένης τῆς 
 κατὰ τὴν βασιλείαν τραπέζης τοῖς υἱοῖς 
 Ἰσραήλ᾽ ἡ δὲ τοῦτο ἀκούσασα, καὶ τῆς 
 αὐτῆς τραπέζης ὡς κύων ψιχίων ἀπο- 
 πιπτόντων συμμεταλαμβάνειν [δεομένη], 
 μεταθεμένη ὅπερ ἦν, τῷ ὁμοίως διαιτᾶσ- 
 θαι τοῖς τῆς βασιλείας υἱοῖς τῆς εἰς τὴν 
 θυγατέρα, ὡς ἠξίωσεν, ἔτυχεν ἰάσεως. 
 The writer thus interprets from a 
 Judaizing point of view the incident 
 in Matt. xv. 22 sq., where our Lord 
 uses the Jewish phraseology of the 
 day to test the faith of the Canaanite 
 woman. See the rabbinical quotations 
 in Schéttgen 1. p. 1145. St John 
 applies the term to those whose moral 
 impurity excludes them from the new 
 Jerusalem, the spiritual Israel, Apoc. 
 xxii. 15. As a term of reproach the 
 
‘ 
 
 144 
 
 , , A 7 
 aTas AEWETE τὴν κατατομῆν. 
 Ψ 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 
 
 [III. 3 
 
 ἡμεῖς γάρ ἐσμεν ἡ 
 
 / y ΄σ i, \ 7 
 περιτομή, OL πνεύματι Θεοῦ NaTpEVOYTES καὶ καυχώμενοι 
 
 word on the lips of a Jew signified 
 chiefly ‘impurity’; of a Greek, ‘impu- 
 dence.’ The herds of dogs which prowl 
 about eastern cities, without a home 
 and without an owner, feeding on the 
 refuse and filth of the streets, quarrel- 
 ling among themselves, and attacking 
 the passer-by, explain both applications 
 of the image. To the Jew more especi- 
 ally the comparison of the heathen toa 
 dog would commend itself,as describing 
 his indiscriminate use of meats whether 
 clean or not. Thus St Paul’s language 
 here is strikingly significant: ‘They 
 speak of themselves as God’s children; 
 they boast of eating at God’s table ; 
 they reproach us as dogs, as foul and 
 unclean, as outcasts from the cove- 
 nant, because forsooth we eat meat 
 bought at the shambles, because we 
 do not observe the washing of cups 
 and platters. I reverse the image. 
 We are the children, for we banquet 
 on the spiritual feast which God has 
 spread before us: they are the dogs, 
 for they greedily devour the garbage 
 of carnal ordinances, the very refuse 
 of God’s table’? See the note on σκύ- 
 Bada ver. ὃ. 
 
 κακοὺς ἐργάτας] So again he says 
 of the Judaizing teachers 2 Cor. xi. 
 13 οἱ τοιοῦτοι ψευδαπόστολοι, ἐργάται 
 δόλιοι. The proselytizing zeal of the 
 party has been already noticed by St 
 Paul, i. 15, 16. There he contemplates 
 it as exerted upon heathendom, and 
 with very mixed feelings he constrains 
 himself to rejoice: here on the other 
 hand he apprehends its assaults on a 
 more liberal Christianity, and an un- 
 qualified condemnation is pronounced 
 upon it. The Pharisaic party (Acts 
 xv. 5) which ‘compassed sea and land 
 to make one proselyte’ (Matt. xxiii. 15) 
 had carried its old leaven into the 
 Christian Church. There was the 
 same zealous activity in the pursuit 
 of its aims (ἐργάτας), and there were 
 
 the same pernicious consequences in 
 the attainment (κακούς). 
 
 τὴν κατατομήν] ‘the concision, the 
 mutilation.’ The corresponding verb 
 κατατέμνειν is used in the Lxx only 
 of mutilations and incisions forbidden 
 by the Mosaic law; Levit. xxi. 5 ἐπὶ 
 τὰς σάρκας αὐτῶν ov κατατεμοῦσιν ἐν- 
 τομίδας, I Kings xviii. 28 κατατέμνοντο 
 κατὰ τὸν ἐθισμὸν αὐτῶν, Is. yy. 2, Hos. 
 xvii. 14. Hence the appropriateness 
 here: ‘This circumcision, which they 
 vaunt, is in Christ only as the gashings 
 and mutilations of the idolatrous hea- 
 then’: comp. Gal. v. 12 ὄφελον καὶ 
 ἀποκόψονται, with the note. Thus it 
 carries out the idea of κύνας. For the 
 paronomasia of κατατομή, περιτομή, 
 compare 2 Thess, ili. 11 μηδὲν ἐργαζο- 
 μένους ἀλλὰ περιεργαζομένους, Rom. xii. 
 3 μὴ ὑπερφρονεῖν παρ᾽ ὃ δεῖ φρονεῖν 
 ἀλλὰ φρονεῖν εἰς τὸ σωφρονεῖν : 866 
 Winer § Ιχν]]]. p. 793 sq. See the 
 monograph by J. F. Béttcher de 
 Paron. etc. Paulo freg. (ips. 1823) ; 
 and for instances inthe Old Testament 
 Glass. Phil. Sacr. v. ii. 2, p. 926. But, 
 though especially frequentin the Bible, 
 they arenaturally common everywhere. 
 The saying of Diogenes, that the school 
 of Euclides was not σχολὴ but χυλὴ 
 and the discourse of Plato not δια- 
 τριβὴ but κατατριβή (Diog. Laert. vi. 
 24), may be matched in English by the 
 ainbassador’s complaint that he had 
 been sent not to Spain but to Pain, 
 or Leicester’s report of the English 
 troops in the Netherlands that the 
 Queen’s ‘poor subjects were no better 
 than abjects,’ or Coleridge’s descrip- 
 tion of French philosophy as ‘ psilo- 
 sophy,’ or again in Latin by the taunt 
 of pope against antipope that he was 
 not ‘consecratus’ but ‘execratus,’ or 
 the common proverb ‘ compendia dis- 
 pendia.’ See also Farrar’s Chapters 
 on Language p. 265 sq. 
 
 3. ἡμεῖς κιτιλ)] ‘We are the true 
 
 
 
II. 4] 
 
 > m~:) ~ \ ᾽ ᾽ \ 
 ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ καὶ οὐκ ἐν σαρκὶ πεποιθότες. 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 145 
 
 4 / 
 Καίπερ 
 
 > Ni hol. / Ἂ 5 / ᾽ -“σν» 
 ἐγὼ ἔχων πεποίθησιν καὶ ἐν σαρκί: εἴ τις δοκεῖ ἀλλος 
 
 circumcision; we, who have put off 
 the impurity of the heart and have 
 put on Christ, whether belonging to 
 the outward circumcision, as I, or to 
 the outward uncircumcision, as you.’ 
 ἡ περιτομή] The contrast of the 
 material and the spiritual circum- 
 cision occurs more than once else- 
 where in St Paul: Rom. ii. 25—29, 
 Col. ii. 11, comp. Ephes. ii. 11 οἱ λεγό- 
 μενοι ἀκροβυστία ὑπὸ τῆς λεγομένης 
 περιτομῆς ἐν σαρκὶ χειροποιήτου. In 
 this respect, as in so many others, St 
 -Stephen’s speech contains an anticipa- 
 tion of St Paul: Acts vii. 51 ἀπερίτμη- 
 τοι καρδίαις καὶ τοῖς ὠσίν. The use 
 made of the image of circumcision, as 
 a metaphor for purity, in the Old Tes- 
 tament had prepared the way for the 
 Apostle’s application: e.g. the cir- 
 cumcision of the heart, Levit. xxvi. 41, 
 Deut. x. 16, xxx. 6, Ezek. xliv. 7; of 
 the ear, Jer. vi. 10; of the lips, Exod. 
 vi. 12, 30; comp. Jer. ix. 25,26. Thus 
 too Philo discusses at some length the 
 significance of this rite, as a symbol of 
 moral purgation, de Circum. 11. p. 211 
 M, comp. de Vict. Off. τι. p. 258 M. 
 So too Justin. Dial. 12, p. 229 © dev- 
 τέρας ἤδη χρεία περιτομῆς, καὶ ὑμεῖς 
 ἐπὶ τῇ σαρκὶ μέγα φρονεῖτε (comp. ὃ 19, 
 p. 236 ©), ὃ 43, Ρ-. 261 © οὐ ταύτην τὴν 
 κατὰ σάρκα περιλάβομεν περιτομὴν 
 ἀλλὰ πνευματικήν, Barnab. § 9. 
 πνεύματι Θεοῦ] ‘by the Spirit of 
 God, and not with the ordinances 
 and traditions of men. Thus Θεοῦ, 
 besides being the better supported 
 reading, is also more emphatic than 
 Θεῷ. The latter however presents a 
 closer parallel to Rom. i. 9 ὁ Θεὸς ᾧ 
 λατρεύω ἐν τῷ πνεύματί pov. See the 
 next note. 
 
 λατρεύοντες] The terms λατρεία, 
 λατρεύειν, had got to be used in a very 
 special sense to denote the service 
 rendered to Jehovah by the Israelite 
 race, as His peculiar people: see espe- 
 cially Rom. ix. 4 ὧν ἡ υἱοθεσία κιτιλ. 
 
 PHIL. 
 
 καὶ ἡ λατρεία καὶ αἱ ἐπαγγελίαι, 
 Acts xxvi. 7 εἰς ἦν τὸ δωδεκάφυλον 
 ἡμῶν ἐν ἐκτενείᾳ νύκτα καὶ ἡμέραν λα- 
 τρεῦον κατιλ.; comp. Heb. ix. I, 6. 
 Hence the significance of St Paul’s 
 words here; ‘We possess the true 
 περιτομή, the circumcision not of the 
 flesh but of the heart, and we also offer 
 the true λατρεία, the service not of ex- 
 ternal rites but of a spiritual worship’: 
 comp. Joh, iv. 23, 24. The same op- 
 position between the external and the 
 spiritual λατρεία is implied again in 
 Rom. xii. 1 παραστῆσαι τὰ σώματα 
 ὑμῶν θυσίαν ζῶσαν ἁγίαν εὐάρεστον τῷ 
 Θεῷ, τὴν λογικὴν λατρείαν ὑμῶν, 
 besides Rom. i. 9 quoted in the pre- 
 vious note. Compare Athenag. Leg. 
 13 προσφέρειν δέον ἀναίμακτον θυσίαν 
 καὶ τὴν λογικὴν προσάγειν λατρείαν, 
 and see the note on iv. 18. This defi- 
 nite sense of Aarpevew explains how it 
 is used absolutely without any case of 
 the object following, as in Luke ii. 37, 
 Acts xxvi. 7. The substitution of 
 Θεῷ for Θεοῦ here was probably an 
 attempt to relieve the apparent awk- 
 wardness of this absolute use. 
 καυχώμενοι κιτ.λ.}] in accordance 
 with the precept in Jer. ix. 23, 24, 
 twice quoted in a condensed form by 
 St Paul, 1 Cor. i. 31, 2 Cor. x. 17, ὁ 
 καυχώμενος ἐν Κυρίῳ καυχάσθω. 
 
 οὐκ ἐν σαρκί] Comp. 2 Cor. xi. 18, 
 Gal. vi. 13, 14. The expression ἐν 
 σαρκὶ extends beyond περιτομὴ to all 
 external privileges. 
 
 4. καίπερ ἐγὼ κιτ.λ.] ‘though hav- 
 ing myself confidence.’ The Apostle 
 for the moment places himself on the 
 same standing ground with the Ju- 
 daizers and, adopting their language, 
 speaks of himself as having that which _ 
 in fact he had renounced : comp. 2 Cor. 
 xi. 18 ἐπεὶ πολλοὶ καυχῶνται κατὰ [τὴν] 
 σάρκα, κἀγὼ καυχήσομαι. The proper 
 force οἵ ἔχων πεποίθησιν must not be 
 explained away. The καίπερ ἐγὼ 
 singles out the Apostle (comp. 1 Thess. 
 
 Io 
 
146 
 
 , > 3 \ ~ 
 πεποιθέναι ἐν σαρκί, ἐγὼ μάλλον" 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 
 
 fells 5 
 
 r 9 7 
 "περιτομή ὀκταη- 
 
 μερος, ἐκ γένους Ἰσραήλ, φνλῆς Βενιαμείν, Ἑβραῖος ἐξ 
 
 ' ii. 18), for the Philippians did not 
 likewise possess these claims. 
 
 καὶ ἐν σαρκί] ‘in the flesh as well 
 as in Christ; as if forsooth this one 
 topic did not cover the whole field of 
 boasting.’ 
 
 δοκεῖ πεποιθέναι] ‘thinks to have 
 confidence’; ‘seems to himself’ rather 
 than ‘seems to others’; for the former, 
 besides being the more common mean- 
 ing in St Paul (1 Cor. iii. 18, vii. 40, x. 
 12, xi. 16 etc.), is also more forcible. 
 With ἐγὼ μᾶλλον we must understand 
 δοκῶ πεποιθέναι in the same sense; 
 ‘If they arrogate to themselves these 
 carnal privileges, I also arrogate them 
 to myself” St Paul is using an argu- 
 mentum ad hominem; in his own 
 language, he is for the moment ‘speak- 
 ing foolishly, is ‘speaking not after 
 the Lord, 2 Cor. xi. 17. See the pre- 
 ceding note. 
 
 5. This passage has a close parallel 
 in 2 Cor. xi. 21; and the comparison 
 is instructive. With the same depth 
 of feeling and the same general pur- 
 port, the form of expression in the 
 two passages differs widely. The tu- 
 multuous eagerness of the Apostle’s 
 earlier style, which appears in the 
 letter to the Corinthians, is replaced 
 here by a more subdued, though not 
 less earnest, tone of remonstrance. 
 Compare also Rom. ix. 3—5, xi. 1. 
 
 The four clauses at the beginning 
 of the fifth verse, which describe the 
 privileges inherited by the Apostle 
 apart from his own act or will, are 
 arranged in an ascending scale. (1) 
 The due performance of the rite of 
 circumcision shows that his parents 
 were neither heathens nor sons of 
 Ishmael. (2) But as this is consist- 
 “ent with their being proselytes, he 
 specifies his direct Israelite descent. 
 (3) Again, his ancestors might have 
 been descendants of Israel and yet 
 have belonged to a renegade tribe. 
 Against this possibility he guards by 
 
 naming the faithful tribe of Benjamin. 
 (4) Lastly, many of those, whose de- 
 scent was unimpeachable and who in- 
 herited the faith of the Mosaic law, 
 yet as living among heathens adopted 
 the language and conformed to the 
 customs of the people around them. 
 Not such were the forefathers of Saul 
 of Tarsus. There had been no Helle- 
 nist among them; they were all strict 
 Hebrews from first to last. 
 
 περιτομῇ oxtanpepos| Converts to 
 Judaism would be circumcised in 
 mature age; Ishmaelites in their thir- 
 teenth year. Concerning the latter 
 see Joseph. Ant, i. 12. 2. For the 
 dative περιτομῇ ‘in respect of circum- 
 cision’ comp. ii. 7 σχήματι εὑρεθείς, 
 and see Winer § xxxi. p. 270, The 
 nominative περιτομή, read in some 
 texts, is hardly translatable. For ὀκ- 
 tajpepos ‘eight days old’ compare 
 τριήμερος (M. Anton, iv. 50), τετραήμε- 
 pos (Arist. Pol. ili, 15), πενθήμερος 
 (Xen. #/ell. vii. 1. 14), Sexnpepos 
 (fhucyd. v. 26, 32), ete. The passages 
 quoted show that the words denote 
 properly not interval but duration, 
 so that ‘on the eighth day’ is not a 
 very accurate translation. The broken 
 days at the beginning and end are of 
 course counted in to makeup the eight. 
 
 ἐκ γένους Ἰσραήλ] i.e. his parents 
 were not grafted into the covenant 
 people, but descended from the origi- 
 nal stock. On the significance of 
 ‘Israel, Israelite” as implying the 
 privileges of the theocratic covenant, 
 see the note on Gal. vi. 16. 
 
 φυλῆς Βενιαμείν] As Benjamin gave 
 to the Israelites their first king, as 
 Benjamin alone was faithful to Judah 
 at the disruption, so also this tribe 
 had from the earliest times held the 
 post of honour in the armies of the 
 nation. ‘ After thee, O Benjamin’ was 
 a battle-cry of Israel; Judges v. 14, 
 Hos. v. 8. The glory of the Benjamite 
 however did not end here. He re- 
 
 
 
 
 
III. 6] 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS, 
 
 147 
 
 , ΄ δ Pees ’ 
 Ἑβραίων, κατὰ νόμον Φαρισαῖος, “κατὰ ζῆλος διώκων 
 
 \ 7 \ > / Ζ 
 τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, κατὰ δικαιοσύνην τὴν ἐν νόμῳ γενόμενος 
 
 membered with pride that his fore- 
 father alone of the twelve patriarchs 
 was born in the land of promise (see 
 the words put into the mouth of Mor- 
 decai in Megill. Esth. iii. 4, quoted by 
 Weitstein). He would also recal the 
 great national deliverance wrought by 
 means of a Benjamite, which was com- 
 memorated in the yearly festival of 
 Purim. St Paul mentions his descent 
 from Benjamin again Rom. xi.1. He 
 doubtless derived his name ‘Saul’ di- 
 rectly or indirectly from the Benja- 
 mite king, to whom he himself refers 
 With marked emphasis (Acts xiii. 21). 
 At a very early date the prediction 
 
 _in Jacob’s blessing of Benjamin (Gen. 
 xlix. 27), ‘In the morning he shall 
 devour the prey and at night he shall 
 divide the spoil,’ was applied to the 
 persecuting zeal and later conversion 
 of St Paul; Zest. ait Patr. Benj. 11, 
 Tertull.adv. Marc.v.1, Hippol. Fragm. 
 50 (p. 140 Lagarde), Ephr. Syr. rv. pp. 
 114; 193, (comp. Ὁ. 288) ; see Galatians 
 Ῥ. 321. On the character of Saul of 
 Tarsus in connexion with the cha- 
 racter of the tribe see Stanley Jewish 
 Church τι. p. 40. 
 
 ‘EBpaios ἐξ “Εβραίων] As Ἰουδαῖος 
 is opposed to Ἕλλην in the New Tes- 
 tament (e.g. Rom. i. 16), so is ‘EBpatos 
 to λληνιστής (Acts vi. 1). In other 
 words, while the former pair of terms 
 expresses a contrast of race and re- 
 ligion, the latter implies difference of 
 language and manners. Within the 
 pale of the Jewish Church a man was 
 ᾿Ιουδαῖος, who traced his descent from 
 Jacob and conformed to the religion 
 of his fathers, but he was not Ἑβραῖος 
 also, unless he spoke the Hebrew 
 tongue and retained Hebrew customs: 
 see Trench NV. 7. Syn. ὃ xxxix. p. 129. 
 Hence here, as in 2 Cor. xi. 22, ‘He- 
 brew’ implies something which is not 
 expressed in ‘Israclite’ Though St 
 Paul was born in Tarsus, he was yot 
 
 brought up under a great Hebrew 
 teacher in the Hebrew metropolis 
 (Acts xxii. 3); he spoke the ‘Hebrew’ 
 language fluently (xxi. 40, xxii. 2); he 
 quotes frequently from the Hebrew 
 Scriptures which he translates for him- 
 self, thus contrasting with his contem- 
 poraries the Jewish Philo and the 
 Christian writer of the Epistle to the 
 Hebrews, who commonly use the Hel- 
 lenistic version of the Seventy. The 
 tradition mentioned by Jerome on 
 Philem. 23 (vu. p. 762, ed. Vallarsi), 
 that St Paul’s- parents lived in the 
 Galilean town of Gischala and were 
 driven thence by the Roman invasion, 
 contains its own refutation in a mani- 
 fest anachronism; but it seems to 
 illustrate St Paul’s statement here, for 
 it may rest on a reminiscence of the 
 long residence of his family in those 
 parts. For the form of expression 
 “EBpaios ἐξ Ἑβραίων, ‘a Hebrew and of 
 Hebrew ancestry’, comp. Herod. ii. 143 
 πίρωμιν ἐκ πιρώμιος, Demosth. Andr. 
 Ῥ. 614 δούλους ἐκ δούλων καλῶν ἑαυτοῦ 
 βελτίους καὶ ἐκ βελτιόνων, Polyb. 11. 50.1 
 οὐ μόνον γεγονέναι τύραννον ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐκ 
 τυράἀννωνπεφυκέναι, With other passages 
 collected in Wetstein and Kypke. 
 
 Having thus enumerated his in- 
 herited privileges, the Apostle goes 
 onto speak of matters which depended 
 on his own personal choice. Here are 
 three topics of boasting. (1) As re- 
 gards law, he attached himself to the 
 sect which was strictest in its ritual 
 observance. (2) As regards zeal, he 
 had been as energetic as any of his 
 countrymen in persecuting the Church. 
 (3) As regards righteousness, he had 
 left nothing undone which the law 
 required. 
 
 νόμον] ‘law, not ‘the law’; for 
 though the Mosaic law is meant, yet 
 it is here regarded in the abstract, as 
 a principle of action, being coordinated 
 with ζῆλος and δικαιοσύνην. For the 
 
 10-2 
 
148 
 
 af . 
 ἄμεμπτος. 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 
 
 7 ἀλλὰ] ἅτινα ἦν μοι κέρδη, ταῦτα ἥγημαι 
 
 διὰ τὸν Χριστὸν ζημίαν. δ ἀλλὰ μὲν οὖν [καὶ] ἡγοῦμαι 
 > \ a , ΠΝ 
 πάντα ζημίαν εἶναι διὰ τὸ ὑπερέχον τῆς γνώσεως Χρισ- 
 
 γ. ἅτινά μοι ἣν κέρδη. 
 
 distinction of νόμος and ὁ νόμος see 
 the notes on Gal. ii. 19, iv. 4,5 21, 
 v. 18, Vi. 13. 
 
 Φαρισαῖος) Acts xxiii. 6 ἐγὼ Φαρι- 
 σαῖός εἰμι υἱὸς Φαρισαίων (where vids 
 Φαρισαίων perhaps refers rather to his 
 teachers than to his ancestors, being 
 a Hebraism like ‘the sons of the pro- 
 phets’; comp. Amos vii. 14), xxvi. 5 
 κατὰ THY ἀκριβεστάτην αἵρεσιν τῆς ἡμέ- 
 τέρας θρησκείας ἔζησα. Φαρισαῖος, xxii. 
 3 πεπαιδευμένος κατὰ ἀκρίβειαν τοῦ 
 πατρῴου νόμου. Similarly St Paul calls 
 himself ζηλωτὴς τῶν πατρικῶν παρα- 
 δόσεων in Gal. i. 14: see the note there. 
 
 6. κατὰ ζῆλος κιτ.λ.] An expression 
 of intense irony, condemning while he 
 seems to exalt his former self: ‘I was 
 zealous above them all; I asserted my 
 principles with fire and sword; I perse- 
 cuted, imprisoned, slew these infatuat- 
 ed Christians; this was my great claim 
 to God’s favour. This condensed irony 
 is more common in the earlier epi- 
 stles: e.g. 1 Cor. iv. 8, 2 Cor. xi. 1, 7, 
 19. The correct reading is (jos (not 
 ζῆλον), for which form see Winer 
 § ix. p. 76, A. Buttmann p. 20. In 
 Clem. Rom. §§ 3, 4, 5, 6, where the 
 word occurs frequently, the masculine 
 and neuter seem to be interchanged 
 without any law, 
 
 διώκων] The references to his per- 
 secution of the Church are frequent in 
 St Paul: see the note on Gal. i. 13 καθ᾽ 
 ὑπερβολὴν ἐδίωκον τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ 
 Θεοῦ. 
 
 τὴν ἐν νόμῳ] added to qualify and 
 explain δικαιοσύνην; ‘Such righteous- 
 ness as consists in law, in obedience to 
 formal precepts’, but not the true 
 righteousness: see ver. 9. Here ἐν 
 νόμῳ is used without the article for 
 the same reason as in ver. 5. 
 
 γενόμενος ἄμεμπτος) ‘showing my- 
 
 ἀλλὰ μενοῦνγε [καὶ] ἡγοῦμαι. 
 
 self blameless’, i.e. I omitted no ob- 
 servance however trivial’, for μέμφεσ- 
 θαι applies to sins of omission. 
 
 ἅτινα k.t.A.] ‘All such things which 
 I used to count up as distinct items 
 with a miserly greed and reckon to my 
 credit—these I have massed together 
 under one general head as loss’. This 
 paraphrase is intended to bring out, 
 though with a necessary exaggeration, 
 the idea faintly expressed by the 
 change from the plural (κέρδη) to the 
 singular (ζημίαν). Otherwise there 
 would be a natural tendency to make 
 both plural or both singular : comp. 
 Menand. Mon. 301 (Meineke tv. p. 348) 
 κέρδος πονηρὸν ζημίαν ἀεὶ φέρει with 
 δ. 496 (p. 354) τὰ μικρὰ κέρδη ζημίας 
 μεγάλας φέρει. For ἅτινα, denoting 
 ‘the class of things’, see the notes on 
 Gal. iv. 24, v. 19. 
 
 διὰ τὸν Χριστόν] ‘for Christ’, i.e. as 
 it is explained below (ver. 8), ἵνα Χρι- 
 στὸν κερδήσω. To this end it was ne- 
 cessary first to renounce all other 
 claims to righteousness: see especially 
 Gal, νυ. 4. 
 
 8. ἀλλὰ μὲν οὖν κιτιλ.] ‘nay more- 
 over I do count all things οὐο.; see 
 Winer ὃ liii. p. 552. ‘This combi- 
 nation of particles introduces the 
 present statement as an amendment 
 and extension of the former. The 
 
 advance consists in two points; (1) The | 
 substitution of the present for the | 
 
 perfect (ἡγοῦμαι for ἥγημαι); (2) The 
 expansion of ταῦτα into πάντα. 
 
 διὰ τὸ ὑπερέχον k.T.A.] The prepo- | 
 sition may mean either ‘for the sake | 
 
 of’ (as in διὰ τὸν Χριστὸν above and 
 
 δὲ ὃν below); or, as the sense of | 
 
 ὑπερέχον suggests, ‘by reason of’, sig- 
 
 nifying that the surpassing worth of | 
 
 this knowledge eclipses and annihi- 
 lates all other gains in comparisor ; 
 
 
 
 | 
 
 (III. 7,8 | 
 
 
 
III. 9] 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 
 
 149 
 
 ar) - ΄σ 7 »γ ἃ \ / 3 ’ 
 τοῦ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ Κυρίου μου, ov ὃν τὰ πάντα ἐζημιώθην 
 
 ε ΄σ Is ε ΄- 
 καὶ ἡγοῦμαι σκύβαλα, ἵνα Χριστὸν κερδήσω 9 καὶ εὑρεθώ 
 
 > > o NY of. > A i \ > / > \ 
 εν αὕτῳ μὴ EXWV ἐμὴν δικαιοσύνην THY ἐκ νομον, ἀλλα 
 
 as 2 Cor. iii. 10 οὐ δεδόξασται τὸ δεδο- 
 ξασμένον ἐν τούτῳ τῷ μέρει εἵνεκεν 
 τῆς ὑπερβαλλούσης δόξης. 
 
 τοῦ Κυρίου μου] See the note on 
 ee 
 
 τὰ πάντα ἐζημιώθην] “1 suffered the 
 confiscation, was mulcted, of all things 
 together.” For ra πάντα, which is 
 somewhat stronger than πάντα, comp. 
 Rom. viii. 32, xi. 36, 1 Cor. viii. 6, etc. 
 
 σκύβαλα] The word seems to sig- 
 nify generally ‘refuse’, being applied 
 most frequently in one sense or other 
 to food, as in Plut. Mor. p. 352 Ὁ περίτ- 
 τῶμα δὲ τροφῆς καὶ σκύβαλον οὐδὲν ἁγνὸν 
 οὐδὲ καθαρόν ἐστι ἐκ δὲ τῶν περιττω- 
 μάτων ἔρια καὶ λάχναι καὶ τρίχες καὶ 
 ὄνυχες ἀναφύονται. The two significa- 
 tions most common are: (1) ‘ Excre- 
 ment,’ the portion of food rejected by 
 the body, as not possessing nutritive 
 qualities: e.g. Joseph. B. J. v. 13. 7. 
 This sense is frequent in medical wri- 
 ters. (2) ‘The refuse or leavings of 
 a feast, the food thrown away from 
 the table: e.g. Leon. Alex. 30 (Anthol. 
 IL. p. 196) ὡς ἀποδειπνιδίου yevoopevos 
 σκυβάλου, Aristo 2 (2b. τι. p. 258) δεῖπνον 
 συχνὸν ἀπὸ σκυβάλων, Adesp. 13 (1D. iii. 
 Ῥ.253)ἐρρίφθω ξηροῖς φυρόμενον σκυβά- 
 λοις, Q. Meee. ὃ (2b. 11. p. 238), Adesp. 
 386 (ib. 11. p. 233); and metaphori- 
 cally Heges. 4 (ib. I. p. 254) ἐξ ἁλὸς 
 ἡμίβρωτον ἀνηνέγκαντο σαγηνεῖς ἄνδρα 
 πολύκλαυτον ναυτιλίης σκύβαλον. So 
 again σκυβάλισμα, Pseudo-Phocyl. 144 
 μηδ᾽ ἄλλου παρὰ δαιτὸς ἔδῃς σκυλβά- 
 λισμα τραπέζης. 
 
 -As regards derivation, it is now 
 generally connected with σκῶρ, σκατός 
 (Benfey Wurzel. τ. p. 628, τι. p. 172, 
 Lobeck Pathol. p. 92). This deriva- 
 tion countenances the former of the 
 two senses given above; but Suidas 
 explains the word, τὸ τοῖς κυσὶ Baddo- 
 μενον κυσίβαλόν τι ὄν (comp. Ktym. 
 
 Mag. p. 719, 53); and so Pott, Etym. 
 Forsch, IL Ὁ. 295, taking oxv- to repre- 
 sent és κύνας and comparing σκορα- 
 κίζειν. This account of the word seems 
 at least as probable as the other; but 
 whether correct or not, it would ap- 
 pear to have been the popular deriva- 
 tion, and from this circumstance the 
 second of the two meanings would 
 become more prominent than the 
 first. 
 
 At all events this meaning, which is 
 well supported by the passages quoted, 
 is especially appropriate here. The 
 Judaizers spoke of themselves as 
 banqueters seated at the Father’s 
 table, of Gentile Christians as dogs 
 greedily snatching up the refuse meat 
 which -fell therefrom. St Paul has 
 reversed the image. The Judaizers 
 are themselves the dogs (ver. 2); the 
 meats served to the sons of God are 
 spiritual meats ; the ordinances, which 
 the formalists value so highly, are the 
 mere refuse of the feast. 
 
 The earnest reiteration of St Paul’s 
 language here expresses the intensity 
 of his desire to produce conviction : 
 κέρδη, κερδήσω---ἥγημαι, ἡγοῦμαι, ἡγοῦ- 
 μαι--- (μίαν, ζημίαν, ἐζημιώθην---διά, διά, 
 δια--- πάντα, τὰ πάντα--- Χριστόν, Χρισ- 
 τοῦ, Χριστόν ; see above i. 9, 14, 27, 
 112: 
 
 9. εὑρεθῶ] ‘may be found’ ; per- 
 haps at the great day of revelation 
 (2 Cor. v. 3), perhaps more generally 
 (1 Cor. iv. 2). For the frequent use 
 of this word in Aramaised Greek see 
 the note on Gal. ii. 17. 
 
 ἐν αὐτῷ] ‘in Christ’, as part of 
 Christ, as a member of His body. It 
 is only by becoming one with Christ, 
 that Christ’srighteousness can become 
 our righteousness. ‘ 
 
 ἐμὴν δικαιοσύνην] “ΔΙΗΥ righteous- 
 ness that I may have or not have, 
 
150 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 
 
 [III. τὸ 
 
 lon \ co , \ 
 τὴν διὰ πίστεως Χριστοῦ, τὴν ἐκ Θεοῦ δικαιοσυνὴην ἐπὶ 
 
 τή πίστει, 
 
 ~ ΄. \ A ’ ΄ 
 ἴοτοῦ eee αὐτὸν Kal τὴν δύναμιν τῆς ἀνα- 
 
 στάσεως αὐτοῦ καὶ κοινωνίαν [τῶν] παθημάτων αὐτοῦ, 
 
 It is ἐμήν, ποὺ τὴν ἐμήν ; for the latter 
 would seem to assume the existence 
 of such personal righteousness. Comp. 
 Rom. x. 3 ἀγνοοῦντες yap τὴν τοῦ Θεοῦ 
 δικαιοσύνην καὶ τὴν ἰδίαν ἱ δικαιοσύνην] 
 (ytovvres στῆσαι τῇ δικαιοσύνῃ τοῦ 
 Θεοῦ οὐχ ὑπετάγησαν. St Paul is ap- 
 plying and extending the language of 
 the Old Testament: comp. Ps. lxxi, 16, 
 Is. xiv. 6. 
 
 τὴν ἐκ νόμου] See above ver. 6; 
 comp. Gal. ii. 16—21, iii. 10—12, 21, 
 Rom. iii. 2I—31, iv. 13, 14, ix. 30—32, 
 X. 4, 5. 
 
 ἀλλὰ k.7.A.] Here διὰ πίστεως Χρισ- 
 τοῦ is opposed to ἐκ νόμου, and ἐκ 
 Θεοῦ to ἐμήν, of the preceding clause. 
 
 διὰ πίστεως Χριστοῦ |‘ through jaith 
 in Christ’ The ἐκ of the former 
 clause is changed into διὰ here, be- 
 cause faith is only the means, not 
 the source, of justification: see tle 
 note on Gal. ii. 16. 
 
 ἐπὶ τῇ πίστει] ‘on the condition of 
 faith’ ; as Acts iii. 16. The article (τῇ 
 πίστει) is used here, because πίστεως 
 has gone before; ‘the faith thus sup- 
 posed’, 
 
 10. ‘That I may know Him. And 
 when I speak of knowing Him, I mean, 
 that I may feel the power of His resur- 
 rection; but to feel this, it is first 
 necessary that I should share His suf- 
 ferings.’ The essence of knowing Christ 
 consists in knowing the power of His 
 resurrection ; hence the words καὶ τὴν 
 δύναμιν τῆς ἀναστάσεως αὐτοῦ are added 
 by way of explanation. But these words 
 again suggest another thought; no 
 one can participate in Hisresurrection, 
 who has not first participated in His 
 death. Hence a further addition καὶ 
 κοινωνίαν τῶν παθημάτων αὐτοῦ, which 
 logically precedes τὴν δύναμιν κιτὰλ'., 
 as appears from the explanation fol- 
 lowing, ,συμμορφιζόμενος τῷ θανάτῳ 
 αὐτοῦ, εἴ πως κιτιὰ, 
 
 τοῦ γνώναι] ποῦ simply ‘know’ 3 but 
 ‘recognise, feel, appropriate’. On γινωώσ- 
 kew sce the notes to Gal. iii. 7, iv. a. 
 This intense sense of γινώσκειν, and 
 even of εἰδέναι (e.g. 1 Thess. v. 12), is 
 the more common in Biblical Greek, 
 because both words are used in the 
 LXx as renderings of 7° which. fre- 
 quently has this sense. 
 
 τὴν δύναμιν κιτ.λ.] ‘the power of 
 ITis resurrection’; a3 the assurance 
 of immortality (Rom. viii. 11, 1 Cor. 
 xv. 14 sq.), a8 the triumph over sin 
 and the pledge of justification (Rom. 
 iy. 24, 25), as asserting the dignity and 
 enforcing the claims of the human body 
 (1 Cor. vi. 13—15, Phil. iii. 21) ; thus 
 quickening and stimulating the whole 
 moral and spiritual being (Rom. vi. 4 
 sq., Gal. ii. 20, Ephes. ii. 5, Col. ii. 12). 
 On this see Westcott’s Gospel of the 
 Resurrection ii. § 31 86. 
 
 καὶ κοινωνίαν K.T.A.| The participa- 
 tion in Christ’s sufferings partly fol- 
 lows upon and partly precedes the 
 power of His resurrection. It follows, 
 as the practical result on our life ; 
 it precedes, as leading upto the fulland 
 final appreciation of this power. In 
 this latter aspect it is taken up in 
 the explanatory clause which comes 
 immediately after, συμμορφιζόμενος 
 κιτιλ. For the expression τὴν κοινω- 
 νίαν κιτιλ. Comp. 2 Cor. i. 5 περρισεύει 
 τὰ παθήματα τοῦ Χριστοῦ eis ἡμᾶς k.T.A., 
 1 Pet. iv. 13 κοινωνεῖτε τοῖς τοῦ Χριστοῦ 
 παθήμασιν, Col. i. 24, Polye. Phil. 9 
 παρὰ τῷ Κυρίῳ ᾧ καὶ συνέπαθον. See 
 also for the idea the passages quoted in 
 the next note. The τὴν before κοινωνίαν 
 in the received text, besides being 
 deficient in authority, severs the close 
 connexion between ‘ the power of His 
 resurrection’ and ‘the participation 
 in His sufferings.’ 
 
 ἔνε sacs i και] See Rom. 
 
 . 5 εἶ γὰρ σύμφυτοι γεγόναμεν τῷ 
 
ΠΤ 23, 12] 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 
 
 151 
 
 eer 55:5}. θ , I ΄σ΄ II > , 
 συμμορφιζόμενος τῷ θανάτῳ αὐτοῦ, “El πως KaTavTH- 
 
 > \ , \ 5 ΄ 
 ow εἰς τὴν ἐξανάστασιν τὴν ἐκ νεκρῶν. 
 
 ὁμοιώματι τοῦ θανάτου αὐτοῦ, ἀλλὰ καὶ 
 τῆς ἀναστάσεως ἐσόμεθα, 2 Cor. iv. 10 
 πάντοτε THY νέκρωσιν τοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ ἐν TO 
 σώματι περιφέροντες, ἵνα καὶ ἡ ζωὴ τοῦ 
 ᾿Ιησοῦ φανερωθῇ ἐν τῇ θνητῆ σαρκὶ ἡμῶν 
 «7.3; comp. Rom. viii. 17, 2 Tim. ii. 11; 
 12. The conformity with the sufferings 
 of Christ implies not only the endurance 
 of persecution for His name, but all 
 pangs and all afflictions undergone in 
 the struggle against sin either within 
 or without. The agony of Gethsemane, 
 not less than the agony of Calvary, 
 will be reproduced however faintly in 
 the faithful servant of Christ. For 
 συμμορφιζόμενος see the detached note 
 on μορφὴ and σχῆμα above p. 130. 
 
 εἴ πως καταντήσω] ‘if so be L may 
 αἰαὶ. The Aposiie states not a 
 positive assurance but a modest hope. 
 For εἴ πως see Acts xxvii, 12 (optat.), 
 Rom. i. 10 (fut.), xi. 14 (fut. or conj.). 
 Here καταντήσω is probably the con- 
 junctive, as εἰ καὶ καταλάβω follows 
 immediately. The conjunctive with εἰ, 
 barely tolerated in Attic prose (though 
 less rare in poetry), is hardly more 
 common in the Greek Testament. 
 The only decisive instance seems to 
 be εἰ καὶ καταλάβω below, ver. 12. 
 In other passages (as Luke ix. 13, 
 i Cor. ix. 11, xiv. 5, 1 Thess. v. Io, 
 Rey. xi. 5) the possibility of error or 
 the existence of various readings ren- 
 ders it more or less doubtful. 
 
 τὴν ἐξανάστασιν κιτ.λ.)} The ‘resur- 
 rection from the dead’ is the final 
 resurrection of the righteous to a 
 new and glorified life. This meaning, 
 which the context requires, is implied 
 by the form of expression. The general 
 resurrection of the dead, whether 
 good or bad, is ἡ ἀνάστασις τῶν νεκρῶν 
 (e.g. 1 Cor. xv. 42); on the other hand 
 the resurrection of Christ and of those 
 who rise with Christ is generally 
 [7] ἀνάστασις [ἡ] ἐκ νεκρῶν (Luke xx. 
 35, Acts iv. 2,1 Pet. i. 3). The former 
 
 3 « af 
 ?ouy ὅτι ἤδη 
 
 includes both the ἀνάστασις ζωῆς and 
 the ἀνάστασις κρίσεως (Joh. v. 29); the 
 latter is confined to the dvacrac:s 
 ζωῆς. The received reading τῶν νεκρῶν 
 for τὴν ἐκ νεκρῶν, besides being feebly 
 supported, disregards this distinction. 
 Here the expression is further in- 
 tensified by the substitution of ἐξ- 
 ἀνάστασις for ἀνάστασις, the word not 
 occurring elsewhere in the New Tes- 
 tament. 
 
 12. In the following verses, though 
 St Paulspeaks of himself, his language 
 seems really to be directed against the 
 antinomian spirit, which in its rebound 
 from Jewish formalism perverted 
 liberty into license. It is necessary to 
 supply a corrective to such false infer- 
 euces drawn from the doctrine of grace 
 broadly stated. This he does by point- 
 ing to his own spiritual insecurity, his 
 own earnest strivings, his own onward 
 progress. ‘To continue insin that grace 
 may abound’ gains no countenance 
 either from his doctrine or from his 
 example. Having thus prepared the 
 way, he in the 18th verse directly 
 condemns those professed followers 
 who thus dragged his teaching in the 
 dust. See the introduction p. 70. 
 
 12—16. ‘Do not mistake me, I 
 hold the language of hope, not of 
 assurance. I have not yet reached 
 the goal; Iam not yet made perfect. 
 But I press forward in the race, eager 
 to grasp the prize, forasmuch as Christ 
 also has grasped me. My brothers, 
 let other men yaunt their security. 
 Such is not my language. I do not 
 consider that I have the prize already 
 in my grasp. This, and this only, is 
 my rule. Forgetting the landmarks 
 already passed and straining every 
 nerve and muscle in the onward race, 
 I press forward ever towards the 
 goal, that I may win the prize of my 
 heavenly rest whereunto God has call- 
 ed mein Christ Jesus. Let ws therefore, 
 
152 EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 
 
 af N IS , / \ > \ 7ὔ 
 
 ἔλαβον ἢ ἤδη τετελείωμαι, διώκω δὲ εἰ Kal καταλάβω, 
 es he de et \ / ε \ ~ 32 , > 4 
 ἐφ᾽ ᾧ καὶ κατελήμφθην ὑπὸ Χριστοῦ. ἀδελφοί, ἐγὼ 
 > \ 9 7 / 14 Δ δέ Α ᾿Ὶ ΕῚ , 
 ἐμαυτὸν ov λογίζομαι κατειληφέναι" “ev δέ, τὰ μὲν ὀπί- 
 
 / a \ af > / 
 ow ἐπιλανθανόμενος Tots δὲ ἔμπροσθεν ἐπεκτεινόμενος 
 
 who have put away childish things, 
 who boast that we are men in Christ, 
 so resolve. Then, if in any matter 
 we lose our way, God will at length 
 reveal this also to us. Only let us 
 remember one thing. Our footsteps 
 must not swerve from the line in 
 which we have hitherto trodden.’ 
 
 12. οὐχ ὅτι κιτ.λ.}] The change of 
 tense is not accidental. The aorist 
 ἔλαβον points to a past epoch, to 
 which ἐζημιώθην, κατελήμφθην, also 
 refer ; ‘not asthough by my conversion 
 I did at once attain’. The perfect rere- 
 λείωμαι describes his present state; 
 ‘not as though I were now already 
 perfected” For οὐχ ὅτι compare 2 
 Cor. iil. 5, vii. 9, 2 Thess. iii. 9, and 
 below iv. 11, 17. 
 
 διώκω κιτ.λ.}] For the connexion of 
 διώκειν and καταλαμβάνειν see Herod. 
 ix. 58 διωκτέοι εἰσὶ εἰς ὁ καταλαμ- 
 φθέντες κιτιλ., Lucian Hermot. 77 
 ὠκύτεροι παραπολὺ διώκοντες οὐ κατέ- 
 λαβον: compare Lxx Exod. xy. 9, 
 Eccles. xi. 10. For the meaning of 
 these two words see the note on ἐπεκ- 
 τεινόμενος Ver. 14; for the conjunctive 
 καταλάβω, thenote on karavrno Ver. 10, 
 
 ἐφ᾽ ᾧ] may mean either (1) ‘ Where- 
 fore, whereunto,’ thus fulfilling God’s 
 purpose; or (2) ‘ Because,’ thus fulfil- 
 ling his own duty. In this second sense 
 ἐφ᾽ ᾧ is apparently used Rom. v. 12, 
 2 Cor. v. 4. The former meaning seems 
 more appropriate here, though the 
 latter is better supported by St Paul’s 
 usage elsewhere. On the different 
 senses of ἐφ᾽ ᾧ see Fritzsche on Rom. 
 1. p. 299. Others, as the English Ver- 
 sion, understand an antecedent, κατα- 
 λάβω ἐκεῖνο ἐφ᾽ 6 (comp. Luke ν. 25) ; 
 but καταλάβω, like κατειληφέναι below, 
 seems to be used absolutely, as ἔλαβον 
 and διώκω also are used, 
 
 13. ἀδελφοί] ‘my brothers, with 
 a view of arresting attention ; see the 
 notes on Gal. ili. 15, vi. 1, 18. 
 
 ἐγὼ ἐμαυτόν] ‘Facile hoc alii de 
 Paulo existimare possent,’ says Bengel. 
 This however seems hardly to be the 
 point of the expression. St Paul is 
 not contrasting his own estimate of 
 himself with other people’s estimate 
 of him, but his estimate of himself 
 with others’ estimate of themselves. 
 He is in fact protesting against the 
 false security, the antinomian reckless- 
 ness, which others deduced from the 
 doctrine of faith: see the notes on 
 τέλειοι Ver. 15, and on vy. 12, 19, and 
 the introduction p. 70. 
 
 14. ἕν δέ] This usage may be illus- 
 trated by the classical expression 
 δυοῖν θάτερον. It is difficult to say 
 whether ἕν is a nominative or an 
 accusative. If (with Winer § Ixvi. p. 
 774) we may compare 2 Cor. vi. 13, itis 
 the latter. 
 
 τὰ ὀπίσω] i.e. the portion of the 
 course already traversed. Compare 
 Lucian Calumn. 12 οἷόν τι καὶ ἐπὶ 
 τοῖς γυμνικοῖς ἀγῶσιν ὑπὸ τῶν δρομέων 
 γίγνεται" κἀκεῖ γὰρ ὃ μὲν ἀγαθὸς δρομεὺς 
 τῆς ὕσπληγος εὐθὺς καταπεσούσης, μόνον 
 τοῦ πρόσω ἐφιέμενος καὶ τὴν διάνοιαν 
 ἀποτείνας πρὸς τὸ τέρμα K.T.A. 
 
 ἐπεκτεινόμενος | ‘ supereatensus : OCU- 
 lus manum, manus pedem preevertit 
 et trahit, is Bengel’s paraphrase. The 
 metaphor may possibly be derived from 
 the chariot races in the Circus, as the 
 epistle was written from Rome. On 
 this supposition the meaning of ἐπεκτει- 
 νόμενος has been aptly illustrated by 
 Virgil's ‘Instant verbere torto Εὖ 
 proni dant lora’ (Georg. iii. 106). To 
 this view διώκω lends some support, 
 for it is frequently said of charioteers 
 (e.g. Soph, £7. 738); but all the terms 
 
 
 
 
 
III. 15] 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 
 
 153 
 
 Ἁ le A σ΄ amd af 7 
 κατὰ σκοπὸν διώκω εἰς TO βραβεῖον THs ἄνω κλήσεως 
 
 τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ. 
 
 15 oS ny / 4 
 ὅσοι οὖν τέλειοι, TOUTO 
 
 ΄- ᾽ a \ ~ e \ 
 φρονώμεν" Kal εἴ τι ἑτέρως φρονεῖτε, Kat τοῦτο ὁ Θεος 
 
 15. 
 used are equally appropriate to the 
 foot-race, and there seems no reason 
 for departing from St Paul’s usual 
 metaphor. Moreover the not looking 
 back, which showed a right temper 
 in a runner (Lucian 1]. 6.), would be 
 fatal to the charioteer; see Themist. 
 Orat. xv. p. 196 B ἀνδρὶ δὲ ἡνιοχοῦν- 
 τι.. «ἀνάγκη. ..«τὰ μὲν πρόσω μὴ πάνυ ὁρᾶν 
 ὀπίσω δὲ ἀεὶ τετράφθαι τῇ γνώμῃ πρὸς 
 τοὺς διώκοντας κιτιλ. Tae word occurs 
 Iren. 1. 11. 3 (comp. i. 2. 2). 
 
 eis TO βραβεῖον] ‘unto the prize’ ; 
 comp. 1 Cor. ix. 24. This preposition 
 is used, because the prize marks the 
 position of the goal. The emi of the 
 common text is an obvious substitution 
 for a more difficult reading. 
 
 τῆς ἄνω κλήσεως] ‘our heavenward 
 calling’ ; so Philo Plant. ὃ 6 p. 333 M 
 πρὸς yap τὸ θεῖον ἄνω καλεῖσθαι θέμις 
 τοὺς ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ καταπνευσθέντας, COMP. 
 Heb. iii. 1. The words ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ 
 must be taken with κλήσεως ; sco 
 1 Cor. vii. 22, 1 Pet. v. 10. 
 
 15. ὅσοι οὖν τέλειοι] The τέλειοι 
 are‘grown men’ as opposed to children ; 
 e.g. 1 Cor. xiv. 20, Ephes. iv. 13, Heb. 
 v.14. They are therefore those who 
 have passed out of the rudimentary 
 discipline of ordinances (Gal. iv. 3, 4), 
 who have put away childish things 
 (1 Cor. xiii. 1o—12), who have assumed 
 the Apostle’s ground respecting the 
 law. The τέλειοι in fact are the same 
 with the πνευματικοί: comp. 1 Cor. 
 li. 6 with iii, 1. But these men, who 
 were proud of their manhood, who 
 boasted their spiritual discernment, 
 were often regardless of the scruples 
 of others and even lax in their own 
 lives. Hence the stress which St 
 Paul here lays on the duty of moral 
 and spiritual progress, as enforced by 
 his ownexample. Thus in ὅσοι τέλειοι, 
 ‘all we who attained our manhood, our 
 
 τοῦτο φρονοῦμεν. 
 
 independence, in Christ’, there is the 
 same reproachful irony as in 1 Cor. 
 Vili. I οἴδαμεν ὅτι πάντες γνῶσιν ἔχομεν, 
 in Rom. xv. I ἡμεῖς οἱ δυνατοί, and 
 possibly also in Gal. vi. I ὑμεῖς of 
 πνευματικοί. The epithet τέλειοι Seems 
 to have been especially affected by 
 the party both at this time and later ; 
 comp. Barnab. 4 γενώμεθα πνευματικοί, 
 γενώμεθα ναὸς τέλειος τῷ Θεῷ, Iren. 
 i. 6. 4 ἑαυτοὺς δὲ ὑπερυψοῦσι, τελείους 
 ἀποκαλοῦντες καὶ σπέρματα ἐκλογῆς 
 (comp. § 3, where οἱ τελειότατοι 18 said 
 in irony, and sce also 1.13. 5,1. 18. 1, iii. 
 13.5), Clem. Alex. Pavd.i. 6 (p. 128 Pot- 
 ter) ἐμοὶ δὲ καὶ θαυμάζειν ἔπεισιν ὅπως 
 σφᾶς τελείους τινὲς τολμῶσι καλεῖν καὶ 
 γνωστικοὺς, ὑπὲρ τὸν ἀπόστολον dpo- 
 νοῦντες, φυσιούμενοί τε καὶ φρυαττόμενοι 
 κιτιλ., Hippol. Her. v. ὃ οὐδεὶς τούτων 
 τῶν μυστηρίων ἀκροατὴς γέγονεν εἶ μὴ 
 μόνοι οἱ γνωστικοὶ τέλειοι, ποὺ without 
 a reference to the secondary sense of 
 the word, ‘ instructed in the mysteries.’ 
 See Clem. Hom. iii. 29 τελείως ἐκφαί- 
 yew τὸν μυστικὸν λόγον... τοῖς ἤδη 
 τελείοις ἔφη. 
 
 τοῦτο φρονῶμεν) ‘let us have this 
 mind’, i.e. let us make it our rule to 
 forget the past and press ever for- 
 ward. 
 καὶ et τι ἑτέρως κιτ.λ.] ‘Then, Ponty 
 you hold this fundamental principle, 
 if progress is indeed your rule ; though 
 you are at fault on any subject, God 
 will reveal this also to you’ ; comp. 
 Joh. vii. 17 ἐάν tis θέλῃ τὸ θέλημα 
 αὐτοῦ ποιεῖν, γνώσεται περὶ τῆς διδαχῆς 
 πότερον ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐστὶν κιτιλ. Here 
 ἑτέρως seems to have the meaning 
 ‘amiss’: see the note on Gal.i. 6. It 
 may however be ‘otherwise,’ in refer- 
 ence to τοῦτο φρονῶμεν ; in which case 
 εἴτι will mean ‘in any minor point’: ‘ If 
 you are sound at the core, God will 
 yemoye the superficial blemishes, 
 
154 
 
 EPISTLE TO TH PHILIPPIANS. 
 
 [11]. 16, 17 
 
 OM ics 3 , 6 \ > \ , “ ΄- 
 ὑμῖν ἀποκαλύψει: ““πλὴν εἰς ὃ ἐφθάσαμεν, τῷ αὐτῷ 
 
 στοιχεῖν. 
 
 ne » , 2d , \ ~ 
 ἸΣυνμιμηταίῖ μον γίνεσθε, αδελῴοι, καὶ σκοπεῖτε 
 
 Comp. Herm. Vis. iii. 13 ἐάν τι δὲ 
 δέῃ, ἀποκαλυφθήσεταί σοι. 
 
 16. πλὴν εἰς ὃ κιτιλ.] “ only we must 
 walk by the same rule whereunto we 
 atiained? What is meant by this same 
 rule? Is it (1) The rule of moral 
 progress? or (2) The rule of faith as 
 opposed to works? In the former case, 
 the words would simply enforce the 
 preceding τοῦτο φρονῶμεν ; in the latter, 
 they are added as a parting caution 
 against ‘the dogs, the base workers, 
 the concision.’ The latter seems pre- 
 ferable, as on the whole the reference 
 to the Judaizers is the more probabie, 
 both because St Paul’s earnestness 
 would naturally prompt him to recur 
 to this subject, and because the 
 phrase. is elsewhere used in the 
 same connexion; Gal. vi. 16 ὅσοι τῷ 
 κανόνι τούτῳ στοιχήσουσιν, COMP. V. 25. 
 The words after στοιχεῖν in the re- 
 ceived text (κανόνι, τὸ αὐτὸ φρονεῖν) 
 are interpolated from Gal. vi. τό, 
 Phil. ii. 2. Of these κανόνι is a correct 
 gloss, while τὸ αὐτὸ φρονεῖν expresses 
 an idea alien to the context. Though 
 πλὴν is now generally connected with 
 πλέον, πλεῖν, aS if it signiffed ‘more 
 than, beyond’ (e.g. Klotz Devar. τι. 
 p. 724, Curtius Griech. Etym. Ὁ. 253), 
 the etymology which connects it with 
 πέλας seems to offer a better explana- 
 tion of its usage. It will then signify 
 ‘besides,’ and hence, in passages like 
 the present, ‘ apart from this,’ ‘ setting 
 this aside’; so that it is conveniently 
 translated ‘only’: comp. i. 18, iv. 14. 
 In this case it has an accusatival form, 
 like δίκην, ἐπίκλην, or the Latin ‘clam,’ 
 ‘palam,’ etc. For the dative of the 
 rule or direction (τῷ αὐτῷ) see the 
 notes on Gal. v. 16, 25, vi. 16. The 
 infinitive στοιχεῖν is equivalent to an 
 emphatic imperative; see Fritzsche 
 Rom. 11. Ὁ. 85, and Winer § xliii. 
 Ὁ. 398 For φθάνειν εἰς, ‘to reach 
 
 to’ see Dan. iv. 19, Rom. ix. 31. 
 
 17—21. ‘ My brethren, vie with each 
 other in imitating me, and observe 
 those whose walk of life is fashioned 
 after our example. This is the only 
 safe test. For there are many, of 
 whom I told you often and now tell 
 you again even in tears, who profess- 
 ing our doctrine walk not in our 
 footsteps. They are foes to the cross 
 of Christ; they are doomed to per- 
 dition ; they make their appetites their 
 god; they glory in their shame; they 
 are absorbed in earthly things. Not 
 such is ovr life. In heaven wehave even 
 now our country, our home; and from 
 heaven hereafter we look in patient 
 hope for a deliverer, even the Lord 
 Jesus Christ, who shall change the 
 fleeting fashion of these bodics—the 
 bodies of our earthly humiliation—so 
 that they shall take the abiding form 
 of His own body—the body of His 
 risen glory: for such is the working 
 of the mighty power whereby He is 
 able to subdue all things alike unto 
 Himself? 
 
 17. Συνμιμηταί pov] i.e. ‘ Vie with 
 each other in imitating me,’ ‘one and 
 all of you imitate me’: so συμμιμεῖσθαι 
 Plat. Polit. Ὁ. 274. Compare 1 Cor. 
 iv. 16, xi. 1, 1 Thess. i. 6, 2 Thess. iii. 
 7,9, wa ἑαυτοὺς τύπον δῶμεν ὑμῖν εἰς τὸ 
 μιμεῖσθαι ἡμᾶς. In 1 Cor. xi. 1 the 
 injunction μιμηταί μου γίνεσθε is ad- 
 dressed, as here, to the party of re- 
 action against Judaism. 
 
 σκοπεῖτε] ‘mark and follow, not as 
 generally ‘mark and avoid’, e.g. Rom. 
 xvi. 17. Under ἡμᾶς are included 
 Timotheus, Epaphroditus, and other 
 faithful companions known to the 
 Philippians. - Shrinking from the ego- 
 tism of dwelling on his own personal ex- 
 ample, St Paul passes at once from the 
 singular (μου) to the plural (ἡμᾶς). 
 
 18. πολλοὶ γάρ] If the view which 
 
III. 18] 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 
 
 155 
 4 
 
 ε a \ ' / Chie 
 τοὺς οὕτω περιπατοῦντας καθὼς ἔχετε τύπον ἡμᾶς. 
 ΄σ a , af ΠΑ ας 
 "ὃ πολλοὲὶ γὰρ περιπατοῦσιν, οὺς πολλάκις ἔλεγον ὑμῖν, 
 ΄- Ὰ / \ > \ la) ΄σ ΄σ 
 νῦν δὲ καὶ κλαίων λέγω, τοὺς ἐχθροὺς τοῦ σταυροῦ τοῦ 
 
 I have taken be correct, the persons 
 here denounced are not the Judaizing 
 teachers, but the antinomian- re- 
 actionists. This view is borne out by 
 the parallel expression, Rom. xvi. 
 18 τῷ Κυρίῳ ἡμῶν Χριστῷ οὐ Sovdev- 
 ουσιν ἀλλὰ τῇ ἑαυτῶν κοιλίᾳ, Where 
 the same persons seem to be in- 
 tended; for they are described as 
 creating divisions and offences (ver. 
 17), as holding plausible language 
 (ver. 18), as professing to be wise 
 beyond others (ver. 19) and yet not 
 innocent in their wisdom; this last 
 reproach being implied in the words 
 θέλω δὲ ὑμᾶς σοφοὺς εἶναι εἰς τὸ ἀγαθὸν 
 ἀκεραίους δὲ εἰς τὸ κακόν. They appear 
 therefore to belong to the same party 
 to which the passages vi. I—23, xiv. 
 I—xy. 6, of that epistle are chiefly 
 addressed. For the profession of 
 ‘wisdom’ in these faithless disciples 
 of St Paul see 1 Cor. i. 17 8q,, iv. 18 
 8q., Vili. I sq., x. 15. Compare the 
 note on τέλειοι above. 
 
 περιπατοῦσιν] An adverbial clause, 
 such as οὐκ ὀρθῶς, might have been 
 expected : but in the earnestness of 
 expression the sentence is uninter- 
 rupted, the qualifying idea being for 
 the moment dropped. It reappears 
 in a different form in the words τοὺς 
 €xOpovsx.r.d. attached to thedependent 
 sentence ovs πολλάκις ἔλεγον k.T.A. 
 
 νῦν δέ] ‘but now’, for the evil has 
 grown meanwhile. 
 
 καὶ κλαίων] The stress of St Paul’s 
 grief would lie in the fact, that they 
 degraded the true doctrine of liberty, 
 so as to minister to their profligate 
 and worldly living. They made use 
 of his name, but did not follow his 
 example. 
 
 τοὺς ἐχθροὺς Tov σταυροῦ] See Polye. 
 Phil. § 12. These words do not in 
 themselves decide what persons are 
 
 here denounced; for the enemies of 
 the cross may be twofold; (1) Doc- 
 trinal. The Judaizers, who deny the 
 efficacy of the cross and substitute 
 obedience to a formal code in its 
 piace; comp. Gal. v. 11, vi. 12, 14. 
 (2) Practical, The Antinomians, who 
 refuse to conform to the cross (iii. 10, 
 2 Cor. i. 5, 6) and live a life of self- 
 indulgence; comp. 1 Cor. i. 17. If 
 the view, which I have adopted and 
 which the context seems to require, 
 is correct, the latter are here meant ; 
 see the last note. In the passages, 
 Polye. Phil. 7 ὃς av μὴ ὁμολογῇ τὸ 
 μαρτύριον τοῦ σταυροῦ, Ignat. Trail. 
 11 ἐφαίνοντο ἂν κλάδοι τοῦ σταυροῦ, 
 the reference is apparently to doce- 
 tism, as denying the reality of the 
 passion. But belonging to a later 
 generation, these passages throw no 
 hght on St Paul’s meaning here. 
 
 19. τὸ τέλος ἀπώλεια] Comp. Rom. 
 Vi. 21 τὸ τέλος ἐκείνων θάνατος : see also 
 2 Cor. xi. 15, Hebr. vi. 8. 
 
 ὁ θεὸς ἡ κοιλία] See Rom. xvi. 18 
 already quoted: comp. Seneca de 
 Benef. vii. 26 ‘ Alius abdomini servit’, 
 Eur. Cycl. 335 θύω...τῇ μεγίστῃ γαστρὶ 
 τῇδε δαιμόνων᾽ ὡς τοὐμπιεῖν ye καὶ 
 φαγεῖν troup’ ἡμέραν Ζεὺς οὗτος ἀνθρώ- 
 ποισι τοῖσι σώφροσιν. So in attacks 
 on Epicurean ethics ‘venter’ commonly 
 appears as the type of sensual appe- 
 tites generally, 6. g. Cic. Wat. Deor. i. 
 40, Senec. Vit. Beat. ix. 4, xiv. 3. The 
 Apostle elsewhere reminds these lax 
 brethren, that ‘the kingdom of God 
 is not eating and drinking, Rom. xiv. 
 17; comp. I Cor. viii. 8. The self- 
 indulgence, which wounds the tender 
 conscience of others and turns liberty 
 into license, is here condemned. 
 
 ἡ δόξα κιτ.λ.] The unfettered liberty, 
 of which they boast, thus perverted 
 becomes their deepest degradation. 
 
156 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 
 
 [1II. 19, 20 
 
 - Oe A , ΄ © ‘ 
 Χριστοῦ, “wv τὸ τέλος ἀπώλεια, ὧν ὁ θεὸς ἡ κοιλία, 
 
 καὶ ἡ δόξα ἐν TH αἰσγύνη αὐτῶν. οἱ τὰ ἐπίγεια 
 ἡ ἢ αἰσχύνῃ , γεια Ppo- 
 
 VOUVTES. 
 
 2 e ΄σ δὴ \ ἢ > "κι ε / 
 οἡμῶν yap TO πολίτευμα ἐν οὐρανοῖς ὑπαρ- 
 
 χει, ἐξ οὗ καὶ σωτῆρα ἀπεκδεχόμεθα Kupiov Ἰησοῦν Χρισ- 
 
 20. ἡμῶν δὲ τὸ πολίτευμα. 
 
 Comp. Hosea vii. 8 τὴν δόξαν αὐτῶν 
 eis ἀτιμίαν θήσω. 
 
 οἱ τὰ ἐπίγεια κιτιλ] ‘Men whose 
 minds are set on earthly things’! For 
 the abrupt nominative occurring with- 
 out any grammatical connexion and 
 expressing amazement, comp. Mark 
 xii. 38—40; see Winer § xxix. Ὁ. 228. 
 
 20. ἡμῶν γὰρ κι.λ.] ‘Their souls 
 are mundane and grovelling. They 
 have no fellowship with us; for wwe 
 are citizens of a heavenly common- 
 wealth’. The emphatic position of 
 ἡμῶν contrasts the false adherents of 
 St Paul with the true. About the con- 
 necting particle there issome difficulty. 
 While the earliest mss all read yap, the 
 earliest citations (with several versions) 
 have persistently δέ. I have there- 
 fore given δὲ as a possible alternative ; 
 although it is probably a substitution 
 for yap, of which the connexion was 
 not very obvious. 
 
 τὸ πολίτευμα!ς This may mean 
 either (1)‘ The state, the constitution, 
 to which as citizens we belong’, e.g. 
 Philo de Jos. ii. p. 51 M ἐγγραφῆς τῆς 
 ἐν τῷ μεγίστῳ καὶ ἀρίστῳ πολιτεύματι 
 τοῦδε τοῦ κόσμου, de Confus. i. p. 
 421 M ἐγγράφονται τῷ τῆς προτέρας 
 πολιτεύματι, 2 Mace. xii. 7 τὸ σύμπαν 
 τῶν Ἰοππιτῶν πολίτευμα ; Or (2) * The 
 functions which as citizens we per- 
 form’, e.g. Demosth. de Cor. p. 262 
 πάντα τὰ τοιαῦτα προῃρούμην πολιτεύ- 
 ματα κοιτιλ., Lucian Prom. 15 ἐπὶ τῷ 
 πολιτεύματι τούτῳ, Tatian ad αγώο. 
 19. The singular points to the former 
 meaning, which is also more frequent. 
 In either case ἐξ ov ‘ whence’ will refer 
 not to πολίτευμα, but to οὐρανοῖς. On 
 the metaphor see above i. 27. Compare 
 also Philo de Confus. i. p. 416 M πατρί- 
 
 a 2 
 δα μὲν τὸν οὐράνιον χῶρον ἐν ᾧ πολιτεύ- 
 
 ονται ξένον δὲ τὸν περίγειον ἐν ᾧ παρῴ- 
 κησαν νομίζουσαι, Lpist. ad Diogn. 
 § 5 ἐπὶ γῆς διατρίβουσιν ἀλλ᾽ ἐν οὐρανῷ 
 πολιτεύονται, Clem. Hom. i. 16 αὐτὴ σε 
 ἡ ἀλήθεια ξένον ὄντα τῆς ἰδίας πόλεως 
 καταστήσει πολίτην. See also M. Anton. 
 iii. 11 πολίτην ὄντα πόλεως τῆς ἀνωτάτης 
 ἧς αἱ λοιπαὶ πόλεις ὥσπερ οἰκίαι εἰσίν. 
 It was a favourite metaphor with the 
 Stoics, Clem. Alex. Strom. iv. 26 (p. 
 642 Potter) λέγουσι yap καὶ οἱ Stwikol 
 τὸν μὲν οὐρανὸν κυρίως πόλιν τὰ δὲ ἐπὶ 
 γῆς ἐνταῦθα οὐκ ἔτι πόλεις, λέγεσθαι μὲν 
 γάρ, οὐκ εἶναι δέ κιτιλ. ; see below, p. 
 303 sq. Somewhat similarly Plato says 
 of his ideal state (esp. ix. p. 592 B) 
 ἐν οὐρανῷ ἴσως παράδειγμα [τῆς πόλεως] 
 ἀνάκειται τῷ βουλομένῳ ὁρᾶν καὶ ὁρῶντι 
 ἑαυτὸν κατοικίζειν. But the reply of 
 Anaxagoras (Diog. Laert. ii. 7) to one 
 who reproached him with indifference 
 to his countrymen, εὐφήμει, ἐμοὶ yap 
 καὶ σφόδρα μέλει τῆς πατρίδος (δείξας 
 τὸν οὐρανόν), Ought not to be quoted 
 in illustration, as it refers to his astro- 
 nomical studies. 
 
 ὑπάρχει] ‘is even now’, for the 
 kingdom of heaven is a present king- 
 dom; so Ephes. ii. 19 οὐκέτι ἐστὲ 
 ξένοι καὶ πάροικοι ἀλλὰ ἐστὲ συνπο- 
 λῖται τῶν ἁγίων k.T.A. (comp. ver. 6). 
 
 σωτῆρα ἀπεκδεχόμεθα] ‘ we eagerly 
 await as ὦ saviour’, On ἀπεκδέ- 
 χεσθαι see Gal. v. 5, together with 
 the note on ἀποκαραδοκία above, i. 20. 
 
 21. μετασχηματίσει) ‘will change 
 the fashion’. For μετασχηματίσει and 
 cippoppov see the detached note on 
 μορφὴ and σχῆμα, p. 130. 
 
 τῆς ταπεινώσεως ἡμῶν] ‘of our hu- 
 miliation’, i.e. the body which we 
 bear in our present low estate, which 
 is exposed to all the passions, suffer- 
 ings, and indignities of this life. The 
 
 —---” ~~ 
 

 
 MAL 2, TV. 1] 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 
 
 157 
 
 « 7 A ΄ ~ , 
 
 TOV, “OS μετασχηματίσει TO σῶμα τῆς ταπεινώσεως 
 a > / ΄σ , ’ a \ \ 
 ἡμῶν σύμμορφον τῷ σωματι τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ, κατα τὴν 
 ΄- J \ \ ς , > a \ 
 
 ἐνέργειαν ποῦ δύνασθαι αὐτὸν καὶ ὑποτάξαι αὐτῷ Ta 
 
 ’ 
 σπαντΤα.- 
 
 ‘English translation, ‘our vile body’, 
 seems to countenance the Stoic con- 
 tempt of the body, of which there is no 
 tinge in the original. 
 
 σύμμορφον] ‘so as to be conform- 
 able’, see Winer § lxvi. p. 779. The 
 words εἰς τὸ γενέσθαι αὐτὸ, occurring 
 before σύμμορφον in the received 
 text, must be struck out as a gloss, 
 though a correct one. This trans- 
 formation is described at greater 
 length and in other language, 1 Cor. 
 XV. 35—53. 
 
 τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ] i.e. with which 
 He is clothed in His glorified estate. 
 
 τὴν ἐνέργειαν τοῦ dvvacba] ‘ The 
 exercise of the power which He pos- 
 sesses. This expression involves the 
 common antithesis of δύναμις aud évép- 
 yea ; comp. Ephes. i. 19. “ Potentia 
 arbor, efficacia fructus, says Calvin. 
 Comp. Herm. Mand. vi. I τίνα δύναμιν 
 ἔχει Kal ἐνέργειαν. 
 
 καὶ ὑποτάξαι] ‘also to subject’; for 
 this power of subjugating the human 
 body is only one manifestation of the 
 universal sovereignty of Christ. On the 
 subjection of all things to the Son see 
 I Cor. xv. 25—27. For ra πάντα with 
 the article see the note above ver. 8. 
 
 αὐτῷ] 1.6. τῷ Χριστῷ, referring to 
 the subject of the principal verb, as 
 e.g. in, Acts xxv. 21, Ephes. i. 4. In 
 such connexions the reflexive pronoun 
 ἑαυτοῦ would be required in Classical 
 Greek. In the later language however 
 we find αὐτοῦ ete. in place of ἑαυτοῦ 
 etc. in almost every case, except where 
 it stands as the direct object, the 
 immediate accusative of the verb. See 
 the excellent account of the usage of 
 αὐτὸς and ἑαυτοῦ in A. Buttmann 
 p. 97. In this passage there is not 
 sufficient authority for the reading 
 ἑαυτῷ. The forms αὑτοῦ, αὐτῷ, αὑτόν, 
 
 ε > , > \ 
 IV. ‘wore, ἀδελφοί μου ἀγαπητοὶ καὶ ἐπι- 
 
 have no place in the Greek Testament, 
 a3 is clearly shown by A. Buttmann Le. 
 Winer, ὃ xxii. p. 188 sq., speaks hesi- 
 tatingly. 
 
 IV. 1. ὥστε] ‘therefore’ ‘Bearing 
 these things in mind, living as citizens 
 of a heaveuly polity, having this hope 
 of a coming Saviour.’ 
 
 ἐπιπόθητοι] This adjective does not 
 occur elsewherein the New Testament : 
 comp. Clem. Rom. 59, Appian. Wisp. 
 43. The Apostle’s love finds expres- 
 sion in the accumulation and repeti- 
 tion of words. In the final ἀγαπητοὶ 
 he seems to linger over this theme, as 
 if unable to break away from it. 
 
 χαρὰ καὶ στέφανός pov] He uses 
 the same language in addressing the 
 other great Macedonian church, 1 
 Thess. 11. 19. The word στέφανος ‘a 
 chaplet’ must be carefully distin- 
 guished from διάδημα ‘a regal or 
 priestly diadem’. ΤῸ the references 
 given in Trench N. 7. Syn. ὃ xxiii, 
 p- 74, add Is. lxii. 3 στέφανος κάλλους 
 ...kal διάδημα βασιλείας, Test. xii Patr. 
 Levi ὃ 6 ἕκτος στέφανόν pot τῇ κεφαλῇ 
 περιέθηκεν, ὁ ἕβδομος διάδημα τῇ κε- 
 φαλῇ μοι ἱερατείας περιέθηκε, Diod. Sic. 
 XX. 54 διάδημα μὲν οὐκ ἔκρινεν ἔχειν, 
 ἐφύρει yap ἀεὶ στέφανον. Thus the idea 
 conveyed by στέφανος is not dominion, 
 but either (1) victory, or (2) merri- 
 ment, as the wreath was worn equally 
 by the conqueror and by the holiday- 
 maker. Without excluding the latter 
 notion, the former seems to be promi- 
 nent in this and in the parallel pas- 
 sage ; for there, as here, the Apostle 
 refers in the context to the Lord’s 
 coming. His converts will then be 
 his wreath of victory, for it will ap- 
 pear that he οὐκ eis κενὸν ἔδραμεν (ii. 
 16), and he will receive the successful 
 athlete’s reward ; comp. 1 Cor. ix. 25. 
 
158 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 
 
 [EV 2,3 
 
 / \ \ if , ε ’ 
 πόθητοι, χαρὰ καὶ στεῴανος μου, οὕτως στήκετε ἐν 
 
 , 3 3 
 Κυρίῳ, ἀγαπητοῖ. 
 
 9 A“ iA ΄-“ 
 "Εὐοδίαν παρακαλῶ καὶ Συντύχην παρακαλῶ τὸ 
 
 ΝΑΙ ~ 3 , 3 Nei 7 \ , / , 
 αὐτο φρονεῖν εν Κυρίῳ. Val ECOTW καὶ CE, YYHOLE σὺν- 
 
 οὕτως στήκετε] ‘stand fast so, as you 
 are guided by my precept and my ex- 
 ample, as becomes citizens of a hea- 
 venly kingdom” On στήκετε see the 
 notes, i. 27, Gal. v. I. 
 
 2. The Apostle at length returns 
 from his long digression (see the notes 
 on iii. I, 2) to the subject of the dis- 
 sensions at Philippi. His injunctions 
 here take the form of a direct perso- 
 nal appeal to those chiefly at fault; 
 and two ladies especially are mention- 
 ed by name. 
 
 2, 3. ‘Il appeal to Euodia, and I ap- 
 peal to Syntyche, to give up their dif- 
 ferences and live at peace in the Lord. 
 Yes I ask you, my faithful and true 
 yokefellow, who are now by my side, 
 who will deliver this letter to the Phil- 
 ippians, to reconcile them again: for 
 I cannot forget how zealously they 
 seconded my efforts on behalf of the 
 Gospel. I invite Clement also, with 
 the rest of my fellow-labourers, whose 
 names are enrolled in the book of life, 
 the register of God’s faithful people, 
 to aid in this work of reconciliation, 
 
 Evodiav «.t.A.] Both these names 
 occur in the inscriptions : Euhodia or 
 Euodia for instance in Gruter p. 695. 
 4, p. 789. 5, Muratori p. 107. 9, p. 932. 
 Rap ἸΤΟῚ; 4, Ps TIS567,.p. 1310. 8; 
 p. 1362. 2, p. 1671. 3, 5 (comp. Tertull. 
 ad Scap. 4); Syntyche, Suntyche, or 
 Syntiche, in Gruter p. 890. 7, Ὁ. 987. 8, 
 Muratori, p. 857. 7, p. 972. 5, p. 1315. 
 17, p. 1569. 4, p- 1664. 4. The Engli:h 
 Version treats the first as a man’s 
 name; and others have in like manner 
 interpreted the second. No instance 
 however of either ‘ Euodias’ or ‘ Syn- 
 tyches’ has been found in the inscrip- 
 tions. The former indeed might be 
 considered a contraction of Euodianus 
 which occurs occasionally: but the 
 
 masculine form of the latter is Synty- 
 chus, a very rare name (Gruter p. 
 372. 5). But, thoughit were possible 
 to treat the words in themselves as 
 masculine, two female names aro 
 clearly required here, as there is 
 nothing else in the sentence to which 
 αὐταῖς can be referred. Euodia and 
 Syntyche appear to have been ladies 
 of rank, or possibly (like Phoebe, Rom. 
 xvi. 1) deaconesses in the Philippian 
 church. On the position of women in 
 Macedonia and on their prominence 
 in the history of the Gospel there, see 
 the introduction, p. 55 sq. 
 
 παρακαλῶ] St Paul repeats the word 
 as if, says Bengel, ‘coram adhortans 
 seorsum utramvis. 
 
 3. ναί] ‘yea, introducing an affec- 
 tionate appeal, as Philem. 20 vai, ddeA- 
 dé, ἐγώ σου ὀναίμην. The καὶ of the 
 received text must be considered a 
 misprint, or a miswriting of a few late 
 MSS. 
 ἐρωτῶ] ‘I ask’; a late use of the 
 word which in the classical language 
 signifies not ‘rogo’ generally, but ‘in- 
 terrogo’ specially. In this late sense 
 of ‘requesting,’ ἐρωτῷ differs from ai- 
 τῷ, as ‘rogo’ from ‘peto’; the two 
 former being used towards an equal, 
 the two latter towards a superior ; see 
 Trench WV. 7. Syn. ὃ xl. p. 135. 
 
 γνήσιε σύνζυγε] ‘true yoke-fellow, 
 comp. Alsch. Ag. 842; so 2 Cor. vi. 14 
 ἑτεροζυγοῦντες. It is doubtful whom 
 the Apostle thus addresses. On the 
 whole however it seems most probable 
 that Epaphroditus, the bearer of the 
 letter, is intended; for in his case 
 alone there would be no risk of making 
 the reference unintelligible by the sup- 
 pression of the name. Different com- 
 mentators have explained it of Barna- 
 bas, of Luke, of Silas, of Timotheus, of 
 
 ᾿ 
 
 
 
_ proper name. 
 
 ny; 4] 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 
 
 159 
 
 « "A ΄σ 4 > ΄- > 
 
 ζυγε, suvAapfZavov αὐταῖς, αἵτινες ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ 
 7 7 Ά \ / \ ΄σ ~ 
 
 συνηθλησαν pot, μετὰ καὶ Κλήμεντος καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν 
 
 ΄σ- “ \ > / > , ΄σ 
 
 συνεργῶν μου, ὧν τὰ ὀνόματα ἐν βίβλῳ ζωῆς. 
 4 y 9 / / Ν / 2 od Ἢ nee 
 Χαίρετε ev Κυρίῳ πάντοτε; πάλιν ἐρώ, χαίρετε. 
 
 the chief presbyter or bishop of Phil- 
 ippi. Others again have taken Σύν- 
 ζυγος itself as a proper name, explain- 
 
 ing γνήσιε ‘truly called’ The case 
 
 for this interpretation is well stated 
 by Laurent Neztest. Stud. p. 134. It 
 would be plausible, if Σύνζυγος occur- 
 red commonly, or occurred at all, in 
 the inscriptions. The passage would 
 then present a parallel to the play on 
 the name Onesimus in Philem. 11. 
 Less can be said in favour of another 
 expedient which makes Τνήσιος the 
 A very ancient inter- 
 pretation again (Clem. Alex. Strom. 
 ili. p. 535 Potter, Orig. Rom. τ. p. 461 
 Delarue) takes ‘yokefellow’ to mean 
 St Paul’s wife; but the Apostle would 
 doubtless have written γνησία in this 
 case, and it seems clear moreover from 
 1 Cor, vii. ὃ that he was either unmar- 
 ried or a widower. The grammatica 
 objection applies equally to Renan’s 
 suggestion (δὲ Paul p. 148) that Lydia 
 is meant. For γνήσιε comp. Ecclus. vii. 
 18, and see the note on γνησίως ii. 20. 
 συνλαμβάνου, K.t.d.] ‘assist them, 
 Euodia and Syntyche, since they la- 
 boured with me etc? They may have 
 belonged to the company of women to 
 whom the Gospel was first preached 
 at Philippi, Acts xvi. 13 rats συνελθού- 
 cas γυναιξίν. For αἵτινες, ‘inasmuch 
 as they, comp. e.g. Acts x. 41, 47, 
 Rom. ii. 15, vi. 2, etc. While ὃς simply 
 marks the individual, ὅστις places him 
 in a class, and thus calls attention to 
 certain characieristic features; hence 
 the meaning ‘ quippe qui.’ On the 
 distinction of és and ὅστις see the 
 notes on Gal. iv. 24, 26, v.19. The 
 rendering adopted by the English ver- 
 sion, ‘ Help those women who laboured 
 etc.’ is obviously incorrect, and would 
 require ἐκείναις at συνήθλησαν. 
 
 pera καὶ Κλήμεντος κιτιλ.] ‘aith 
 Clement also” These words ought 
 perhaps to be connected rather with 
 συνλαμβάνου αὐταῖς than with συνήθλη- 
 σάν μοι. The Apostle is anxious to 
 engage all in the work of conciliation, 
 On the Clement here meant see the 
 detached note p. 168. -The καὶ before 
 Κλήμεντος seems to be retrospective 
 (referring to γνήσιε σύνζυγε) rather 
 than prospective (referring to καὶ τῶν 
 λοιπῶν συνεργῶν pov); asin John ii. 2. 
 For its position comp. Clem. Rom. § 59 
 σὺν καὶ Φορτουνάτῳ. 
 
 ὧν τὰ ὀνόματα κ-τ.λ.] ‘whose names, 
 though not mentioned by the Apostle, 
 are nevertheless in the book of life? 
 The ‘book of life’ in the figurative 
 language of the Old Testament is the 
 register of the covenant people : comp. 
 Is. iv. 3 οἱ γραφέντες εἰς ζωὴν ἐν Ἱερου- 
 σαλήμ, Hzek. xili. 9 ἐν παιδείᾳ τοῦ λαοῦ 
 μου οὐκ ἔσονται οὐδὲ ἐν γραφῇ οἴκου 
 Ἰσραὴλ οὐ γραφήσονται. Hence ‘to 
 be blotted out of the book of the liy- 
 ing’ means ‘to forfeit the privileges 
 of the theocracy, ‘to be shut out from 
 God’s favour,’ Ps. lxix.28; comp. Exod. 
 XXxil. 32. But the expression, though 
 perhaps confined originally to tempo- 
 ral blessings, was in itself a witness 
 to higher hopes; and in the book of 
 Daniel first (xii. 1 sq.) it distinctly re- 
 fers to a blessed immortality. In the 
 Revelation τὸ βιβλίον τῆς ζωῆς is a 
 phrase of constant recurrence, iii. 5, 
 MPS, VIL 8, MK 12,00 Sy MEL 275 AML 
 19; comp. Hermas Vis. i. 3. See also 
 Luke x. 20, Heb. xii. 23. It is clear 
 from the expression ‘ blotting out of 
 the book’ (Rev. iii. 5), that the image 
 suggested no idea of absolute predes- 
 tination. For the use of the phrase 
 in rabbinical writers see Wetstein here. 
 
 4. χαίρετε] This word combines a 
 
160 
 
 \ A ΄σ he ΄σ΄ > , 
 Sro ἐπιεικὲς ὑμῶν γνωσθήτω πᾶσιν ἀνθρωποις. 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 
 
 [TV. 5-==7 
 o Kv- 
 
 9 , 6 A a 9 >’ » \ a 
 plos evyyus. μηδὲν μεριμνατε, αλλ ἐν παντὶ TH προσ- 
 ΄ \ A / > > , \ 3 ‘ ε = 
 εὐχῇ Kal TH δεήσει MET εὐχαριστίιας τὰ αἰτημᾶτα υμῶν 
 
 γνωριζέσθω πρὸς τὸν Θεόν. 
 
 parting benediction with an exhorta- 
 tion to cheerfulness. It is neither 
 ‘farewell’ alone, nor ‘ rejoice’ alone. 
 Compare for this same combination of 
 senses the dying words of the Greek 
 messenger χαίρετε καὶ χαίρομεν quoted 
 above on li. 18; see the notes on ii. 18, 
 Ui.) 5 
 
 πάλιν ἐρῶ] ‘again I will say’; for 
 ἐρῶ seems to be always a future in the 
 New Testament as in Attic Greek. 
 Compare Aisch. Hum. 1014 χαίρετε, 
 χαίρετε δ᾽ αὖθις, ἐπανδιπλοίζω. See the 
 notes on i. 4. 
 
 5—7. ‘Let your gentle and for- 
 bearing spirit be recognised by all 
 men. The judgment is drawing near. 
 Entertain no anxious cares, but throw 
 them all upon God. By your prayer 
 and your supplication make your every 
 want known to Him. If you do this, 
 then the peace of God, far more effec- 
 tive than any forethought or contriv- 
 ance of man, will keep watch over 
 your hearts and your thoughts in 
 Christ Jesus.’ 
 
 5. τὸ ἐπιεικὲὲ ὑμῶν] ‘your for- 
 bearance, the opposite to a spirit of 
 contention and self-seeking. The ἐπι- 
 εικὴς Stands in contrast to the ἀκριβο- 
 δίκαιος, aS being satisfied with less 
 than his due, Arist. Hth. Nic. v. το. 
 The word is connected with ἄμαχος, 
 πᾶσαν ἐνδεικνύμενος πραὔτητα (Tit. iii. 2, 
 comp. 1 Tim. iii. 3), with εἰρηνικός, ev- 
 πειθής, μεστὸς ἐλέους κιτιλ. (James iii. 
 17), with χρηστός, πολυέλεος (Ps. Ixxxv. 
 5), with ἀγαθός (‘kind’, 1 Pet. ii, 18), 
 with φιλάνθρωπος (2 Macc.ix. 27). This 
 quality of ἐπιείκεια Was signally mani- 
 fested in our blessed Lord Himself 
 (2 Cor. x. 1). 
 
 6 Κύριος ἐγγύς] The nearness of 
 the Lord’s advent is assigned as a rea- 
 son for patient forbearance. So simi- 
 
 Ν ε 3 - ΄- ε 
 Ἴκαὶ ἡ εἰρήνη Tov Qeou ἡ 
 
 larly in St James y. 8, μακροθυμήσατε 
 καὶ ὑμεῖς...ὅτι ἡ παρουσία τοῦ Κυρίου ἤγ- 
 ytxev καιιλ. The expression ὁ Κύριος 
 ἐγγὺς is the Apostle’s watchword. In 
 1 Cor. xvi. 22 an Aramaic equivalent is 
 given, Μαρὰν aa, whence we may infer 
 that it was a familiar form of mutual 
 recognition and warning in the early 
 Church. Compare Barnab. ὃ 21 ἐγγὺς 
 ἡ ἡμέρα ἐν ἣ συναπολεῖται πάντα τῷ πο- 
 νηρῷ, ἐγγὺς ὁ Κύριος καὶ ὁ μισθὸς αὐτοῦ. 
 See also Luke xxi. 31, 1 Pet. iv. 7. 
 Thus we may paraphrase St Paul’s lan- 
 guage here: ‘To what purpose is this 
 rivalry, this self-assertion? The end 
 is nigh, when you will have to re- 
 sign all. Bear with others now, that 
 God may bear with you then.’ On the 
 other hand a different interpretation 
 is suggested by such passages as Ps. 
 ΟΧΙΧ. 151 ἐγγὺς εἶ Κύριε, exly. 18 ἐγγὺς 
 Κύριος πᾶσι τοῖς ἐπικαλουμένοις αὐτόν 
 (comp. xxxiv. 18), Clem. Rom. § 21 
 ἴδωμεν πῶς ἐγγύς ἐστιν κιτιλ. (Comp. 
 Hermas Vis. ii. 3; Clem. Alex. Quis 
 div. 41, p. 958); but this is neither 
 so natural nor so appropriate here. 
 
 6. - μηδὲν μεριμνᾶτε] ‘have no anxi- 
 eties’ ; for μέριμνα is anxious harassing 
 care. See Trench, On the Authorized 
 Version p. 13 sq. (on Matt. vi. 25): 
 and comp. 1 Pet. v. 7, where μέριμνα 
 is used of human anxieties, μέλει of 
 God’s providential care. 
 
 τῇ προσευχῇ K.T.A.] While προσευχὴ 
 is the general offering up of the wishes 
 and desires to God, δέησις implies spe- 
 cial petition for the supply of wants. 
 Thus προσευχὴ points to the frame of 
 mind in the petitioner, δέησις to the 
 act of solicitation. The two occur to- 
 gether alsoin Ephes. vi. 18, 1 Tim, ii. 1, 
 v. 5. In αἰτήματα again the several 
 objects of δέησις are implied. More on 
 the distinction of these words may be 
 
IV. 8] 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 
 
 161 
 
 , ΄ ’ \ , ~ 
 
 ὑπερέχουσα πάντα νοῦν φρουρήσει Tas καρδίας ὑμῶν καὶ 
 \ / ς ~ > ma > ΄. 
 Ta νοήματα ὑμῶν ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ. 
 
 ’ , Sf 3 \ 3 ~ / ’ 
 
 δ Τὸ λοιπόν, ἀδελφοί, ὅσα ἐστὶν ἀληθῆ, ὅσα σεμνά, 
 
 «“ ΄ J « / 4 > ef 7 ot) 
 
 ὅσα δίκαια, ὅσα ὧγνα, ὅσα προσφιλῆ, ὅσα εὔφημα, εἴ 
 
 seen in Trench, WV. 7. Syn. § li. p. 
 177 sq. 
 
 πρὸς τὸν Θεόν] ‘before God,’ ‘to 
 Godward,’ not simply τῷ Θεῷ. 
 
 per εὐχαριστίας] Since thankfulness 
 for past blessings is a necessary condi- 
 tion of acceptance in preferring new 
 petitions. Great stress is laid on the 
 duty of εὐχαριστία by St Paul; eg. 
 Rom. i, 21, xiv. 6, 2 Cor. i. 11, iv. 15, 
 ix. 11, 12, Ephes. v. 20, Col. ii. 7, iii. 17, 
 1 Thess. v. 18, 1 Tim. ii. 1. All hisown 
 letters addressed to churches, with the 
 sole exception of the Epistle to the 
 Galatians, commence with an em- 
 phatic thanksgiving. In this epistle 
 the injunction is in harmony with the 
 repeated exhortations to cheerfulness 
 (χαρά) which it contains; see the note 
 on i. 4. 
 
 7. καὶ ἡ εἰρήνη. κιτιλ ‘then the 
 peace of God’; again an indirect allu- 
 sion to their dissensions. So too in 
 ver. 9 ὁ Θεὸς τῆς εἰρήνης. Compare 2 
 Thess. iii. 16 αὐτὸς δὲ ὁ Κύριος τῆς εἰρή- 
 νης δώῃ ὑμῖν τὴν εἰρήνην K.T.r. 
 
 ὑπερέχουσα κ.τ.λ.}] ‘surpassing 
 every device or counsel’ of man, i.e. 
 which is far better, which produces 
 a higher satisfaction, than all puncti- 
 lious self-assertion, all anxious fore- 
 thought. This sense seems better 
 adapted to thecontext, than the mean- 
 ing frequently assigned to the words, 
 ‘ surpassing all intelligence, transcend- 
 ing all power of conception.’ In favour 
 of the latter however may be quoted 
 Ephes. iii. 20 τῷ δυναμένῳ ὑπὲρ πάντα 
 ποιῆσαι ὑπερεκπερισσοῦ ὧν αἰτούμεθα ἢ 
 νοοῦμεν. 
 
 φρουρήσει κιτλ.} A verbal para- 
 dox, for φρουρεῖν is a warrior’s duty ; 
 
 _*God’s peace shall stand sentry, shall 
 keep guard over your hearts.’ Compare 
 I Thess. iv. 11 φιλοτιμεῖσθαι ἡσυχάζειν 
 
 PHIL. 
 
 for a similar instance. The νοήματα 
 reside in and issue from the καρδίαι 
 (comp. 2 Cor. iii. 14, 15); for in the 
 Apostle’s language καρδία is the seat 
 of thought as well as of feeling. 
 
 8. Τὸ λοιπόν] ‘ Finally” Again the 
 Apostle attempts to conclude; see the 
 note on τὸ λοιπὸν iii, 1, and the intro- 
 duction, p. 69 sq. 
 
 ὅσα ἐστὶν ἀληθῆ κιτ.λ] Speaking 
 roughly, the words may be said to be 
 arranged in a descending scale. The 
 first four describe the character of the 
 actions themselves, the two former 
 ἀληθῆ, σεμνά, being absolute, the two 
 latter δίκαια, ἁγνά, relative; the fifth 
 and sixth προσφιλῆ, εὔφημα, point to 
 the moral approbation which they con- 
 ciliate; while the seventh and eighth 
 ἀρετή, ἔπαινος, in which the form of 
 expression is changed (εἴτις for ὅσα), 
 are thrown in as an afterthought, that 
 no motive may be omitted. 
 
 ἀληθὴ] not ‘veracivus,’ but ‘ true’ 
 in the widest sense. So St Chryso- 
 stom, ταῦτα ὄντως ἀληθῆ ἡ ἀρετή, ψεῦδος 
 δὲ ἡ κακία. In like manner the most 
 comprehensive meaning must be given 
 to δίκαια (‘righteous,” not simply 
 ‘just’), and to ayva (‘ pure, stainless’ 
 not simply ‘ chaste’): comp. Cic. Fin. 
 iii. 4 ‘Una virtus, unum istud, quod 
 honestum appellas, rectum, laudabile, 
 decorum, erit enim notius quale sit, 
 pluribus notatum yocabulis idem de- 
 clarantibus,’ 
 
 προσφιλῆ] ‘amiable, lovely’; see 
 Ecclus, iv. 7, xx. 13. It does not oc- 
 cur elsewhere in the New Testament. 
 Comp. Cic. Lal. 28 ‘ Nihil est amabi- 
 lius virtute, nihil quod magis alliciat 
 ad diligendum.’ 
 
 εὔφημα] not ‘well-spoken of, well- 
 reputed, for the word seems never to 
 have this passive meaning ; but with 
 
 II 
 
162 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 
 
 ΠΥ. 9, 10 
 
 > \ \ γ᾽ , “- y 6 SY) “Ὁ \ 
 τις ἀρετή καὶ EL τις ἔπαινος, ταῦτα λογίζεσθε: %a Kal 
 4 , \ ΄ \ ᾽ ΄ \ I 3 
 ἐμάθετε καὶ παρελάβετε καὶ ἠκούσατε καὶ εἴδετε ἐν 
 δ as , \ A a 31.2 a 
 ἐμοί, ταῦτα πράσσετε, Kal ὁ Θεὸς τῆς εἰρηνῆς ἔσται 
 
 μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν. 
 τ χαρην δὲ ἐν Κυρίῳ 
 
 its usual active sense, ‘fair-speaking, 
 and so ‘winning, attractive.’ Com- 
 pare Plut. Vit. Thes. 20 ἃ δὲ εὐφημό- 
 rata τῶν μυθολογουμένων, Mor. 84D 
 τιμὴν εὔφημον, Lucian Prom. 3 πρὸς τὸ 
 εὐφημότατον ἐξηγούμενος τὸ εἰρημένον, 
 i.e. putting the most favourable con- 
 struction on the account. 
 
 εἴ τις ἀρετή] St Paul seems studi- 
 ously to ayoid this common heathen 
 term for moral excellence, for it occurs 
 in this passage only. Neither is it 
 found elsewhere in the New Testa- 
 ment, except in 1 Pet. ii. 9, 2 Pet. i. 
 3, 5, in all which passages it seems to 
 have some special sense. In the Old 
 Testament it always signifies ‘glory, 
 praise’ (asin 1 Pet. ii.g); thoughin the 
 Apocrypha (e.g. Wisd. iv. 1) it has its 
 ordinary classical sense. Its force here 
 is doubtful. Some treat εἴ τις ἀρετή, 
 εἴ τις ἔπαινος, aS comprehensive ex- 
 pressions, recapitulating the previous 
 subjects under two general heads, the 
 intrinsic character and the subjective 
 estimation. The strangeness of the 
 word however, combined with the 
 change of expression εἴ τις, will sug- 
 gest another explanation; ‘ Whatever 
 value may reside in your old heathen 
 conception of virtue, whatever consi- 
 deration is due to the praise of men’; 
 as if the Apostle were anxious not to 
 omit any possible ground of appeal. 
 Thus Beza’s remark on ἀρετὴ seems to 
 be just; ‘Verbum nimis humile, si 
 cum donis Spiritus Sancti comparetur,’ 
 With this single occurrence of ἀρετή, 
 compare the solitary use of τὸ θεῖον in 
 the address on the Areopagus, Acts 
 XYli. 29. 
 
 g. In the former verse the proper 
 subjects of meditation (AoyiferGe) have 
 been enumerated; in the present the 
 
 ΄ / "7 \ 3 
 μεγάλως, ὅτι ἤδη ποτὲ ἀνε- 
 
 proper line of action (πράσσετε) is in- 
 
 dicated. The Philippians must obcy ἢ 
 
 the Apostle’s precepts (ἃ ἐμάθετε καὶ 
 παρελάβετε) and follow his example (ἃ 
 ἠκούσατε kal εἴδετε ἐν ἐμοί). 
 
 καὶ ἐμάθετε κιτ.λ.] The verbs should 
 probably be connected together in 
 pairs, so that the καὶ before ἐμάθετε is 
 answered by the καὶ before ἠκούσατε. 
 With ἐμάθετε καὶ παρελάβετε We may 
 understand παρ᾽ ἐμοῦ from the ἐν ἐμοὶ 
 of the next clause. The word παρελά- 
 Bere adds little to ἐμάθετε, except the 
 reference to the person communicat- 
 ing the instruction : comp. Plat. Thewt. 
 Ῥ. 198 B παραλαμβάνοντα δὲ μανθάνειν. 
 
 ἐν ἐμοί] to be attached to ἠκούσατε, 
 as well as to εἴδετε; ‘heard when I was 
 away, and saw when I was with you’: 
 comp. i. 30 οἷον εἴδετε ἐν ἐμοὶ καὶ νῦν 
 ἀκούετε ἐν ἐμοί. 
 
 10--ὶο. ‘It was ἃ matter of great 
 and holy joy to me that after so long 
 an interval your care on my behalf 
 revived and flourished again. I do 
 not mean that you ever relaxed your 
 care, but the opportunity was want- 
 ing. Do not suppose, that in saying 
 this I am complaining of want; for I 
 have learnt to be content with my 
 lot, whatever it may be. I know how 
 to bear humiliation, and I know also 
 how to bear abundance. Under all cir- 
 cumstances and in every case, in plenty 
 and in hunger, in abundance and in 
 want, I have been initiated in the 
 never-failing mystery, I possess the 
 true secret of life. I can do and 
 bear all things in Christ who inspires 
 me with strength. But, though Γ am 
 thus indifferent to my own wants, I 
 commend you for your sympathy and 
 aid in my affliction. I need not re- 
 mind you, my Philippian friends ; you 
 
ΤῊΣ 175/12] 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 
 
 163 
 
 \ ’ ΄ ς at δὰ ἈΦ δι 59 A 3 
 θάλετε τὸ ὑπερ ἐμοῦ φρονεῖν: eh w καὶ ἐφρονεῖτε, ἠκαι- 
 
 ρεῖσθε δέ. 
 ἔμαθον ἐν 
 
 ΄σ > \ / 
 νοῦσθαι, οἶδα καὶ περισσεύειν. 
 
 t-yourselves willremember; that in the 
 
 ἡ 
 
 first days of the Gospel, when I left 
 Macedonia, though I would not re- 
 ceive contributions of money from 
 any other Church, I made an excep- 
 tion in your case. Nay, even before 
 I left, when I was still at Thessalo- 
 nica, you sent more than once to sup- 
 ply my wants. Again I say, I do not 
 desire the gift, but I do desire that 
 the fruits of your benevolence should 
 redound to your account. For my- 
 self, I have now enough and more 
 than enough of all things. The pre- 
 sents which you sent by Epaphro- 
 ditus have fully supplied my needs. 
 I welcome them, as the sweet savour 
 of a burnt-offering, as a sacrifice ac- 
 cepted by and well-pleasing to God. 
 And I am confident that God on my 
 behalf will recompense you and sup- 
 ply all your wants with the prodigal 
 wealth which He only can command, 
 in the kingdom of His glory, in Christ 
 Jesus.’ 
 
 10. ἐχάρην δὲ κιτιλ.] So Polycarp 
 writing to these same Philippians be- 
 gins (δ 1) συνεχάρην ὑμῖν μεγάλως ἐν 
 Κυρίῳ ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ κιτιλ. The δὲ 
 arrests a subject which is in danger of 
 escaping: see Gal. iv.20, It is as if 
 the Apostle said: ‘I must not forget 
 to thank you for your gift” 
 
 ἤδη ποτὲ ἀνεθάλετε κ,. τ.λ. “αἱ 
 length ye revived your interest in 
 me. For ἤδη ποτέ ‘at length’ (not 
 necessarily referring to present time) 
 sce Rom. i. 10, with the passages 
 quoted in illustration by Kypke. For 
 this construction of ἀναθάλλειν, ‘to 
 put forth new shoots, with an accu- 
 sative of the thing germinated, com- 
 pare Ezek. xvii. 24 (ξύλον ξηρόν), 
 Keclus. i. 18 (εἰρήνην, ὑγίειαν), xi. 22 
 (εὐλογίαν), 1. 10 (καρπούς). As the 
 
 “τ ΞΡΡΓΩΝ ? / OF 
 OLS ELL αὐυταρκῆς εἰναι. 
 
 / , / 
 “ovy ὅτι καθ᾽ ὑστέρησιν λέγω: ἐγὼ γὰρ 
 
 τα οἶδα καὶ ταπει- 
 9 \ \ > ΄ 
 εν παντὶ καὶ ἐν πᾶσιν 
 
 two expressions ἤδη ποτὲ and ἀνεθά- 
 Aere combined might seem to convey 
 a rebuke, the Apostle hastens to re- 
 move the impression by the words 
 which follow, ἐφ᾽ 6 καὶ éeppoveire and 
 οὐχ ὅτι καθ᾽ ὑστέρησιν λέγω. 
 
 ep ᾧ κιτιλ.] ‘in which ye did in- 
 deed interest yourselves” The ante- 
 cedent to ᾧ is ‘my wants, my inter- 
 ests, being involved in, though not 
 identical with, τὸ ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ φρονεῖν. 
 Such grammatical irregularities are 
 characteristic of St Paul’s style: com- 
 pare for instance ii, 5. To obviate 
 the fancied difficulty, it has been pro- 
 posed to explain the previous clause 
 [ὥστε] φρονεῖν τὸ ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ, in which 
 case τὸ ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ would form a strict 
 antecedent to 6. But the separation 
 of τὸ ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ from φρονεῖν is harsh 
 and unnatural. 
 
 ἠκαιρεῖσθε] ‘ye had no opportu- 
 nity’; a late and rare word. The 
 active ἀκαιρεῖν is found in Diod. Sic. 
 Ewe. p. 30 (Mai). 
 
 11. οὐχ ὅτι] ‘It is not that 7 speak, 
 ete.” For οὐχ ὅτι comp. iii. 12, iv. 17: 
 see A. Buttmann p. 319. For καθ᾽ 
 ὑστέρησιν, ‘in language dictated by 
 want,’ comp. Rom. x. 2 κατ᾽ ἐπίγνωσιν, 
 Acts iii. 17 κατὰ ἄγνοιαν, ete: see 
 Winer § xlix. p. 501 sq. 
 
 ev ois εἰμὶ κιτ.λ.] ‘in the position 
 in which I am placed? The idea of 
 αὐτάρκεια is ‘independence of external 
 circumstances.’ Compare 2 Cor. ix. 
 ὃ ἐν παντὶ πάντοτε πᾶσαν αὐτάρκειαν 
 ἔχοντες, I Tim. vi. 6. Socrates, when 
 asked ‘Who was the wealthiest,’ re- 
 plied, ‘He that is content with least, 
 for αὐτάρκεια is nature’s wealth’ (Stob. 
 flor. v. 43). The Stoics especially laid 
 great stress on this virtue: see Senec. 
 Ep. Mor. 9 (passim). So M. Anton. i. 
 16 τὸ αὔταρκες ἐν παντί, where also an- 
 
 11: - ὦ 
 
164 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS, 
 
 [TV..13, 14 
 
 ip \ , \ > \ ΄ 
 μέμνημαι, Και χορτάζεσθαι καὶ TWELVAY, Και περισσευειν 
 
 ε ΄ / 3 / > es ΄σ΄ , 
 καὶ ὑστερεῖσθαι. “παντα ἰσχύω ἐν τῷ ἐνδυναμοῦντί με. 
 
 ΄σ Ψ , , ΄- ͵, 
 τά πλὴν καλῶς ἐποιήσατε συνκοινωνήσαντες μου τη θλί- 
 
 other phrase found in St Paul (2 Tim. 
 iv. 5) occurs in the context, νῆφον ἐν 
 πᾶσι. See the notes on πολίτευμα iii. 
 20, and on ἀπέχειν iv. 18, and the dis- 
 sertation on ‘St Paul and Seneca.’ 
 
 12. καὶ ταπεινοῦσθαι] This clause 
 seems to be shaped in anticipation of 
 the καὶ περισσεύειν which follows, so 
 that the one καὶ would answer the 
 other, ‘both to be abased and to 
 abound’; but the connexion is after- 
 wards interrupted by the repetition 
 of οἶδα for the sake of emphasis. So 
 too perhaps 1 Cor. xv. 29, 30 τί καὶ 
 βαπτίζονται...τί καὶ ἡμεῖς K.T.A.; COMP. 
 Rom. i. 13. 
 
 ἐν παντὶ καὶ ἐν πᾶσιν] A general 
 expression corresponding to the Eng- 
 lish ‘all and every’; ἐν παντὶ ‘in 
 every case’ singly, ἐν πᾶσιν ‘in all 
 cases’ collectively: comp. 2 Cor. xi. 6 
 ev παντὶ φανερώσαντες ἐν πᾶσιν εἰς ὑμᾶς. 
 
 μεμύημαι] ‘IL have been initiated, 
 I possess the secret, as Plut. Mor. Ὁ. 
 795 Ἑ τὰ μὲν πρῶτα μανθάνων ἔτι πο- 
 λιτεύεσθαι καὶ μυούμενος, τὰ δὲ ἔσχατα 
 διδάσκων καὶ μυσταγωγῶν, Alciphr. 
 Epist. ii. 4 πρωρατεύειν μυηθήσομαι. 
 The same metaphor is employed by 
 St Paul in μυστήρια applied to reveal- 
 ed truths, and perhaps also in odpa- 
 γίζεσθαι (Eph. i. 13). And St Igna- 
 tius also addresses the Ephesians (§ 12) 
 as Παύλου συμμύσται τοῦ ἡγιασμένου, 
 thus taking up the Apostle’s own 
 metaphor. 
 
 χορτάζεσθαι)] The word χορτάζειν, 
 properly ‘to give fodder to animals,’ 
 is in the first instance only applied to 
 men as ἃ depreciatory term, e.g. 
 Plat. Resp. ix. Ὁ. 586 A βοσκημάτων 
 dixnv...xopra¢opevot. Hence the ear- 
 lier examples of this application are 
 found chiefly in the Comic poets, as 
 in the passages quoted by Athenzeus, 
 111, Ὁ. 99 8q., where the word is dis- 
 
 cussed. In the later language how- 
 ever χορτάζεσθαι has lost the sense of 
 caricature, and become a serious equi- 
 valent to κορέννυσθαι, being applied 
 commonly to menand directly opposed 
 to πεινᾶν, e.g. Matt. v. 6. On xop- 
 τάζειν see Sturz de Dial. Mac. p. 200. 
 A parallel instance of a word casting 
 off all mean associations in the later 
 language is ψωμίζειν, 1 Cor. xiii. 3. 
 πεινᾶν) On this form see A. Butt- 
 mann p. 38, Lobeck Phryn. p. 61. 
 
 13. τῷ ἐνδυναμοῦντί με] ‘in Him 
 that infuses strength into me,’ i.e. 
 Christ: comp. 1 Tim. i. 12. The word 
 occurs several times in St Paul. 
 
 14. πλήν] ‘nevertheless, though I 
 could have dispensed with your con- 
 tributions.’ 
 
 συνκοινωνήσαντες KT.A.] Le. ‘by 
 making common cause with my afflic- 
 tion, by your readiness to share 
 the burden of my troubles.’ It was 
 not the actual pecuniary relief, so 
 much as the sympathy and compa- 
 nionship in his sorrow, that the Apo- 
 stle valued. On the construction of 
 κοινωνεῖν see the note on Gal. vi. 6. 
 
 15. The object of this allusion 
 seems to be not so much to stimulate 
 them by recalling their former zeal 
 in contributing to his needs, as to 
 show his willingness to receive such 
 contributions at their hands. ‘Do 
 not mistake my meaning,’ he seems to 
 say, ‘do not imagine that I receive 
 your gifts coldly, that I consider them 
 intrusive. You yourselves will recol- 
 lect that, though it was my rule not 
 to receive such contributions, I made 
 an exception in your case.’ 
 
 καὶ ὑμεῖς] ‘ye too, ye yourselves, 
 without my reminding you’: comp. 1 
 Thess. ii. 1 αὐτοὶ yap οἴδατε, ἀδελφοί. 
 
 Φιλιππήσιοι] StephanusByzant. says, 
 ‘O πολίτης Φιλιππεύς, Φιλιππηνὸς δὲ 
 
FY. 15] 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 
 
 165 
 
 wen, « ~ Wi ε͵ ~ ΄σ 
 We. "οἴδατε δὲ καὶ ὑμεῖς, Φιλιππήσιοι, ὅτι ἐν ἀρχῆ τοῦ 
 
 « 
 
 > ΄σ > \ , / 
 εὐαγγελίου, ὅτε ἐξῆλθον ἀπὸ Μακεδονίας, οὐδεμία μοι 
 ᾽ 7, " , > 7 , \ 7 
 ἐκκλησία ἐκοινώνησεν εἰς λογον δόσεως καὶ λήμψεως, 
 
 παρὰ Πολυβίῳ. The passage of Poly- 
 bius to which he refers is not extant. 
 Though Stephanus does not mention 
 the form Φιλιππήσιος, it occurs in the 
 heading of Polycarp’s letter (Iren. iii. 
 3. 4) as well as of this epistle. Φιλιπ- 
 mevs is found three times ina Beeotian 
 inscription in Keil p. 172 (see Dindorf’s 
 Steph. Thes.s. v.). 
 
 ἐν ἀρχῇ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου] ‘in the ear- 
 liest days of the Gospel, especially in 
 reference to Macedonia. Similarly, 
 writing to the Thessalonians soon 
 after his first visit, St Paul says (2 
 Thess. ii. 13) εἵλατο ὑμᾶς ὁ Θεὸς ἀπαρ- 
 χὴν (ν.]. ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς) εἰς σωτηρίαν. The 
 expression occurs in Clem. Rom. ὃ 47 
 τί πρῶτον ὑμῖν ἐν ἀρχῇ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου 
 ἔγραψεν, and possibly this is the mean- 
 ing of Polycarp § 11 ‘qui estis in 
 principio epistole ejus’: see above, 
 p- 141, note 4. 
 
 ὅτε ἐξῆλθον ἀπὸ Μακεδονίας] ‘when 
 I departed from Macedonia’ may 
 mean either (1) ‘at the moment of 
 my departure,’ or (2) ‘after my de- 
 parture.’ This latter meaning is jus- 
 tified by the pluperfect sense which 
 the aorist frequently has (see Winer 
 § xl. p. 343); though in fact this is 
 no peculiarity of Greek, but a loose- 
 ness of expression common to all lan- 
 guages. If this meaning be adopted, 
 the allusion is explained by the con- 
 tributions sent from Macedonia to 
 Corinth (2 Cor, xi. 8, 9). If on the 
 other hand the former sense were 
 rigorously pressed (though this is un- 
 reasonable), contributions might well 
 have been conveyed to him through 
 ‘the brethren’ who escorted him from 
 Macedonia to Athens, Acts xvii. 14, 
 15. The ‘undesigned coincidence’ be- 
 tween the history and the epistles in 
 the matter of these contributions is 
 well put by Paley (Hor. Pau. vii.no. 1). 
 
 eis λόγον x.7.A.] ‘as regards’ ; liter- 
 ally ‘to the account or score of’; 
 comp. Thue. iii. 46 és χρημάτων λόγον 
 ἰσχυούσαις, Demosth. #. L. p. 385 εἰς 
 ἀρετῆς λόγον καὶ δόξης ἣν οὗτοι χρημά- 
 των ἀπέδοντο, Polyb. xi. 28. 8 εἰς ἀργυ- 
 ρίου λόγον ἀδικεῖσθαι. In the passages 
 quoted, as here, the original applica- 
 tion to a money transaction is kept 
 more or less distinctly in view; but 
 this is not always the case, e.g. Polyb. 
 v. 89. 6 ξύλα eis σφηκίσκων λόγον. 
 With the expression here compare 
 Cic. Lal. 16 ‘ratio acceptorum et da- 
 torum.’ 
 
 δόσεως καὶ λήμψεως) ‘giving and 
 taking, ‘credit and debit, a general 
 expression for pecuniary transactions, 
 derived from the two sides of the 
 ledger: see Ecclus. xlii. 7 καὶ δόσις καὶ 
 λῆμψις παντὶ ἐν γραφῇ, xli. 19 ἀπὸ σκο- 
 ρακισμοῦ λήμψεως καὶ δόσεως, Arrian. 
 Epict. ii. 9 τὸν φιλάργυρον [ἐπαύξου- 
 σιν] αἱ ἀκατάλληλοι λήψεις καὶ δόσεις, 
 Hermas Mand. v. 2 περὶ δόσεως ἢ λή- 
 ψεως ἢ περὶ τοιούτων μωρῶν πραγμάτων. 
 The phrase refers solely to the pass- 
 ing of money between the two. The 
 explanation given by St Chrysostom 
 and followed by many later writers, 
 eis λόγον δόσεως τῶν σαρκικῶν καὶ 
 λήψεως τῶν πνευματικῶν (the Philip- 
 pians paying worldly goods and re- 
 ceiving spiritual),is plainly inappropri- 
 ate; for the intermingling of different 
 things destroys the whole force of the 
 clause eis λόγον δόσεως καὶ λήμψεως, 
 which is added to define the kind of 
 contributions intended. 
 
 εἰ μὴ ὑμεῖς μόνοι] So, speaking of 
 this same period, he asks the Corinth- 
 jians whether he did them a wrong 
 in taking no contributions from them 
 and preaching the Gospel to them 
 gratuitously (2 Cor. xi. 7). The limit- 
 ation ἐν ἀρχῇ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου perhaps 
 
166 EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. [1V. 16—19 
 
 > Nii vbieres 5 os , τόν Sab , δ ἡ 
 
 εἰ μή ὑμεῖς μόνοι, "ὅτι καὶ ἐν Θεσσαλονίκη καὶ ἅπαξ 
 ΠΥ ᾽ \ , SE 17.2 J rer 
 καὶ ous [ets] THY χρείαν μοι ἐπέμψατε. “Tovy ὅτι ἐπι- 
 
 ΄σ \ / ’ \ > > \ \ \ 
 (Tw TO δόμα, αλλὰ ἐπιζητώ TOV καρπὸν TOY πλεο- 
 
 / ε “ > / \ / \ 
 νάζοντα εἰς λόγον ὑμῶν. “dréxyw δὲ πάντα Kal περισ- 
 / , / \ 3 OL A 
 σεύω, πεπλήρωμαι δεξάμενος mapa ᾿Επαφροδίτου τὰ 
 e - \ , \ 1. a 
 Tap ὑμῶν, ὀσμὴν εὐωδίας, θυσίαν δεκτὴν εὐάρεστον TH 
 
 Θεῴ. 
 
 19 ε δὲ Θ / / > / ε o 
 ὁ δὲ Geos μου πληρώσει πᾶσαν χρείαν ὑμών 
 
 κατὰ τὸ πλοῦτος αὐτοῦ ἐν δοξη ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ. 
 
 implies that he relaxed his rule later, 
 when he became better known and 
 understood. 
 
 16. ὅτι καὶ κ-ιτ.λ.}] ‘for not only 
 did you contribute to my wants after 
 my departure from Macedonia, but 
 alsoin Thessalonica, before I left etc. 
 So St Paul himself reminds the Thes- 
 salonians (1 Thess. ii. 5, 2 Thess. iii. 8) 
 that he did not burden them at all. 
 At the same time it appears from 
 those passages, that his bodily wants 
 were supplied mainly by the labours 
 of his ownhands. Thus it would seem 
 that the gifts of the Philippians were 
 only occasional, and the same may be 
 gathered from the words καὶ ἅπαξ καὶ 
 dis here. On the abbreviated expres- 
 sion ἐν Θεσσαλονίκῃ ‘when I was in 
 
 Thessalonica’ see Winer § 1, p. 5153- 
 
 comp. below, ver. 19. 
 
 καὶ ἅπαξ καὶ δίς] ‘more than once’: 
 comp. I Thess. ii. 18. The double καὶ 
 is common in such cases, e.g. καὶ dis 
 καὶ τρίς, Plat. Phaed. p. 63 ν. 
 
 εἰς τὴν χρείαν] ‘to relieve my want, 
 the preposition indicating the object ; 
 see Winer § xlix. p. 495. The omission 
 of εἰς in some old copies is probably 
 due to the similar ending of the pre- 
 ceding word. Otherwise the reading 
 might claim to be adopted, though in 
 this sense the plural ras χρείας would 
 be more natural. 
 
 17. Again the Apostle’s nervous 
 anxiety to clear himself interposes. 
 By thus enlarging on the past liber- 
 ality of the Philippians, he might be 
 
 thought to covet their gifts. This 
 possible misapprehension he at once 
 corrects. 
 
 οὐχ ὅτι ἐπιζητῶ] For οὐχ ὅτι see 
 the notes on ver. Ir and on iii. 12; 
 for the indirectly intensive force of the 
 preposition in ἐπιζητῶ, the note on 
 ἐπιποθῶ 1. 8. The repetition of ἐπι- 
 ζητῶ 18 emphatic; ‘I do not want 
 the gift, I do want the fruit ete.’ 
 Compare the repetition of παρακαλῶ 
 ver. 2, and of οἶδα ver. 12. 
 
 τὸν καρπὸν κιτιλ.] ‘i.e. the recom- 
 pense which is placed to your account 
 and increases with each fresh demon- 
 stration of your love.’ 
 
 18. ἀπέχω xt.d.] ‘IL have all 
 things to the full, as Matt. vi. 2, 5, 
 16, Luke vi. 24. For the phrase ἀπ- 
 έχειν πάντα compare Arrian. Epict. iii. 
 2. 13 ἀπέχεις ἅπαντα, iii. 24. 17 τὸ γὰρ 
 εὐδαιμονοῦν ἀπέχειν δεῖ πάντα ἃ θέλει 
 πεπληρωμένῳ τινὶ ἐοικέναι : Comp. Diog. 
 Laert. vii. 100 καλὸν δὲ λέγουσι τὸ 
 τέλειον ἀγαθὺν παρὰ τὸ πάντας ἀπέχειν 
 τοὺς ἐπιζητουμένους ἀριθμοὺς ὑπὸ τῆς 
 φύσεως κιτιλ. See also Gataker on 
 M. Anton. iv. 49. Like αὐτάρκεια, it 
 seems to have been a favourite Stoic 
 word: see the note on ver. 11. Asin 
 dro\apBavew(see Gal. iv. 5), the idea of 
 ἀπό in this compound is correspond- 
 encei.e. of the contents to the capacity, 
 of the possession to the desire, etc., so 
 that it denotes the ju? complement. 
 ‘the following word περισσεύω ex- 
 presses an advance on ἀπέχω; ‘not 
 only full, but overflowing,’ 
 
IV. 20—23] 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 
 
 167 
 
 a \ - \ « ΄ ε VA > A IA ΄ 
 rw δὲ Θεῷ Kal πατρὶ ἡμῶν κἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰώνας τῶν 
 
 LY 4 5 4 
 αιώνῶν, αἀμῆν- 
 
 “ῬΑσπάσασθε πάντα ἅγιον ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ. ἀ- 
 
 aA \ , \ 3 / 
 σπάζονται ὑμᾶς οἱ σὺν ἐμοὶ ἀδελφοί. 
 
 tis 
 35 ἀσπαζονται 
 
 ε lo 7 ε J , A ε > ΄σ fe 
 ὑμᾶς TAaVTES OL ἅγιοι, μαλιστα δὲ οἱ ἐκ τῆς Καίσαρος 
 
 ΡΝ 
 OLKLAS. 
 
 3Ὴ χάρις τοῦ Κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ μετὰ Tov 
 
 ’ ε > > / 
 πνεύματος UMW). [ἀμήν.] 
 
 mapa ᾿Ἐπαφροδίτου x.7-A.] ‘at the 
 hands of Epaphroditus the gifts trans- 
 mitted from you.” On the preposi- 
 tion παρὰ see the note Gal. i. 12. 
 
 ὀσμὴν εὐωδίας} A very frequent ex- 
 pression in the Lxx for the smell of 
 sacrifices and. offerings, being a ren- 
 dering of An) n> (e.g. Gen. viii. 21, 
 ixod, xxix. 18, etc.). St Paul employs 
 it as a metaphor likewise in Ephes. v. 
 2; comp. 2 Cor. ii. 15, 16. So too 
 Test. xii Patr. Levi 3 προσφέρουσι 
 Κυρίῳ ὀσμὴν εὐωδίας λογικὴν καὶ θυσίαν 
 ἀναίμακτον. 
 
 θυσίαν δεκτὴν κιτ.λ.}] So Rom. xii. 1 
 παραστῆσαι τὰ σώματα ὑμῶν θυσίαν 
 ζῶσαν ἁγίαν εὐάρεστον τῷ Θεῷ κιτιλ. 
 comp. 1 Pet. ii. 5, Heb. xiii. 16. The 
 expression εὐάρεστος τῷ Θεῷ Occurs 
 Wisd. iv. 10 (comp. Clem. Rom. 49, 
 Ign. Smyrn. 8), and evapecreiv τῷ Θεῷ 
 is common in the Lxx. 
 
 19. ὁ Θεύς μου] ‘my God’: comp. 
 i. 3. The pronoun is especially ex- 
 pressive here: ‘You have supplied all 
 my wants (vv. 16, 18), God on my 
 behalf shall supply all yours. 
 
 ev δόξῃ) These words show that 
 the needs here contemplated are 
 not merely temporary. Πληρώσει ἐν 
 δόξῃ seems to be a pregnant phrase, 
 signifying ‘shall supply by placing you 
 in glory’; comp. ver. 16 ἐν Θεσσαλονίκῃ. 
 This is still further explained by ἐν 
 Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, ‘through your union 
 with, incorporation in, Christ Jesus.’ 
 
 20. ἡ Soéa, See the notes Gal. i. 5. 
 
 ἡμῶν] It is no longer μου, for the 
 reference is not now to himself as dis- 
 tinguished from the Philippians, but 
 as united with them. 
 
 21. ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ! probably to 
 be taken with ἀσπάσασθε ; comp. Rom. 
 xvi. 22, 1 Cor. xvi. 19. 
 
 of σὺν ἐμοὶ ἀδελφοί] Apparently 
 the Apostle’s personal companions 
 and fellow-travellers are meant, as 
 distinguished from the Christians re- 
 sident in Rome who are described in 
 the following verse: see the note on 
 Gal. i. 2. On St Paul’s companions 
 during or about this time see the in- 
 troduction p. 11. 
 
 22. πάντες οἱ ἅγιοι] All the Chris- 
 tians in Rome, not his personal at- 
 tendants only. 
 
 οἱ ἐκ τῆς Καίσαρος οἰκίας] “ The 
 members of Cesar’s household, pro- 
 bably slaves and freedmen attached 
 to the palace: see the detached note 
 p. 171, and the introduction pp. 14, 19. 
 The expression οἰκία Καίσαρος corre- 
 sponds to ‘familia’ or ‘domus Ceesaris’ 
 (Tac. Hist. ii. 92) and might include 
 equally the highest functionaries and 
 the lowest menials. Compare Philo 
 Flace. p. 522 M εἰ δὴ μὴ βασιλεὺς ἦν 
 ἀλλά τις τῶν ἐκ τῆς Καίσαρος οἰκίας, 
 οὐκ ὠφειλε προνομίαν τινὰ καὶ τιμὴν 
 ἔχειν; Hippol. Har. ix. 12 οἰκέτης 
 ἐτύγχανε Καρποφόρου τινὸς ἀνδρὸς 
 πιστοῦ ὄντος ἐκ τῆς Καίσαρος οἰκίας. 
 
 See St Clement of Rome, Appendiz, 
 p. 256 sq. 
 
168 
 
 Identical 
 with Cle- 
 ment of 
 Rome? 
 
 Authori- 
 ties for the 
 identifica- 
 tion. 
 
 Difficulties 
 of place 
 
 and date. 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 
 
 ‘Clement my fellow-labourer,’ 
 
 E have seen the Christians of Philippi honourably associated with 
 
 two Apostolic Fathers, Ignatius and Polycarp!. But were they even 
 
 more intimately connected with the third name of the triad? Is there 
 
 sufficient ground for identifying Clement St Paul’s fellow-labourer, saluted 
 
 in this epistle, with Clement the writer of the letter to the Corinthians, 
 
 the early bishop of Rome, the central figure in the Church of the succeed- 
 ing generation ? 
 
 Of the Roman bishop Irenzeus says, that he ‘had seen the blessed 
 Apostles and conversed with them and had the preaching of the Apo- 
 stles still ringing in his ears and their tradition before his eyes*’? From 
 his silence about St Paul it may perhaps be inferred that he did not 
 see any direct mention of the Roman Clement in the epistles of this 
 Apostle. Origen however very distinctly identifies the author of the Co- 
 rinthian letter with the person saluted in the Epistle to the Philippians’. 
 And, starting from Origen, this view was transmitted through Eusebius 
 to later writers’. Nor does the supposition do any violence to character. 
 The epistle of the Roman Clement was written to heal a feud in a distant 
 but friendly Church: and in like manner St Paul’s fellow-labourer is here 
 invoked to aid in a work of reconciliation. 
 
 Nevertheless the notices of place and time are opposed to the identi- 
 fication of the two. For (1) the author of the letter to Corinth was a 
 leading member of the Roman Church, while St Paul’s fellow-labourer 
 seems clearly to be represented as resident at Philippi®, And again (2) 
 the date interposes a serious though not insuperable difficulty. Historical 
 evidence‘ and internal probability’ alike point to the later years of Do- 
 mitian (about A.D. 96), as the time when the Epistle of Clement was 
 written. If Eusebius is correct, the author died soon after, in the 
 third year of Trajan, 4.D. 100%. But in the list of the early bishops of 
 Rome, where even the order is uncertain, the dates may fairly be con- 
 sidered conjectural or capricious; and there is some ground for supposing 
 that he may have lived even longer than this. If the received chronology 
 be only approximately true, the Shepherd of Hermas can hardly have 
 been written much earlier than a.p. 140°. Yet the author there represents 
 
 1 See the introduction, p. 62 sq. 
 
 Seren 1: 2. 3 
 
 3 In Joann. i. 29 (IV. Ῥ. 153, Dela- 
 rue). 
 
 4 Huseb. H. EH. iii. 4, 15, Epiphan. 
 Her, xxvii. 6 (where however by a slip 
 of memory the Epistle to the Romans is 
 mentioned), Hieron. Vir. Ill. 15, adv. 
 Jovin, i. 113 comp. Apost. Const. vi. 8. 
 
 5 The name VALERIVS . CLEMENS 0C- 
 curs in a Philippian inscription, Corp. 
 
 Inscr. Lat. ii. p. 121. 
 
 6 Hegesippus in Euseb. H.E£. 111. 16; 
 comp. iv. 22. 
 
 7 See St Clement of Rome p. 4, with 
 the references. 
 
 8 Kuseb. H,H.iii.34. The date in the 
 Chronicon of the same writer is A.D. 95, 
 
 9 The statements in the text are 
 founded on two data; (1) The assertion 
 in the Muratorian Fragment (West- 
 cott Canon p. 480, 2nd ed.), ‘Pastorem 
 
EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 169 
 
 himself as divinely commissioned to deliver the book to Clement’. It Notice in 
 is true we may place the imaginary date of the vision many years be- the Shep- 
 fore the actual writing and publication of the Shepherd: yet even then ea 
 
 the difficulty does not altogether vanish; for the author describes him- ; 
 self as a married man with a family of children grown or growing up? 
 
 at the time when Clement is living. On these grounds it would appear 
 
 that we cannot well place the death of Clement earlier than s.D. 110 
 
 i.e. nearly 50 years after the date of the Epistle to the Philippians. And 
 
 it is not likely, though far from impossible, that St Paul's fellow-labourer 
 
 should still be living and active after the lapse of half a century. 
 Another objection also has been urged against the identity. Early Connexion 
 radition almost uniformly represents St Clement of Rome as a disciple with St 
 
 not of St Paul but of St Peter’. 
 
 On this however I cannot lay any 
 stress. The tradition may be traced to the influence of the Clementine 
 
 Homilies and Recognitions: and it belongs to the general plan of these 
 Judaic writings to transfer to St Peter, as the true Apostle of the Gen- 
 tiles, the companionships and achievements of St Paul, On the other 
 hand St Clement’s letter itself, though it shows a knowledge of the First 
 Epistle of St Peter, bears yet stronger traces of St Paul’s influence. It 
 is at least possible that St Clement knew both Apostles, as he quotes the 
 writings of both and mentions both by name’. 
 
 All these difficulties however might be set aside, if Clement were a Clement a 
 
 rare name, 
 
 But this is far from being the case. 
 five Clements mentioned by Tacitus alone®: and extant inscriptions woul 
 supply still more convincing proofs of its frequency’. 
 
 Though common 
 
 cnough before, its popularity was doubtless much increased under the 
 Flavian dynasty, when it was borne by members of the reigning house. 
 
 eter. 
 
 Lipsius enumerates common 
 q name, 
 
 A strange destiny has pursued the name of Clement of Rome. The Recent 
 romance of story, which gathered about it in the earliest ages of the criticism, 
 Church, has been even surpassed by the romance of criticism of which 
 
 vero nuperrime temporibus nostris in 
 urbe Roma Hermasconscripsit, sedente 
 cathedra urbis Rom# ecclesiw Pio epi- 
 scopo fratre ejus’; (2) The received date 
 of the episcopate of Pius (A.D. 142—157, 
 Kuseb, H.E. iii. 15, 34; A.D. 138—152, 
 EKuseb. Chron.). But on the other hand 
 it must be said (1) That as the Murato- 
 rian Fragment is obviously a transla- 
 tion from the Greek, we cannot feel 
 any certainty that the original stated 
 the book to have been written during 
 the episcopate of Pius, though the Latin 
 sedenteseemstoimply this ; and (2) That 
 noconfidence can be placed in the dates 
 of the early Roman bishops; for while 
 Kusebius himself has two different lists, 
 the catalogues of other writers differ 
 from both. Hermas may have wriiten 
 before his brother’s episcopate, or Pius 
 
 may have become bishop at an earlier 
 date than Eusebius supposes. If either 
 or both these suppositions be true, the 
 interval between the death of Clement 
 and the writing of the Shepherd may be 
 considerably diminished, and the chro- 
 nological difficulty which I have sug- 
 gested in the text vanishes. See Sé 
 Clement of Rome, p. 315 56. 
 
 1 Hermas Vis. il. 4. 
 
 I [Alas ae 65 11..5. 
 
 3 See especially Tertull. Prescr. 
 Her. 32, Origen Philoc. 22: and con- 
 suit Lipsius de Clem. Rom. p. 172 8q- 
 
 4 See Galatians, p. 329- 
 
 5 Clem. Rom. § 5. See Galatians, 
 pp. 338, 358. 
 
 6 Lipsius, p. 168. 
 
 7 See St Clement of Rome, Ὁ. 264 54. 
 
170 
 
 Baur’s 
 theory. 
 
 Schwegler. 
 
 Volkmar. 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 
 
 it has been the subject in these latest days. Its occurrence in the Epistle 
 to the Philippians has been made the signal for an attack on the genuine- 
 ness of this letter. The theory of Baur! is as follows. The conversion 
 of Flavius Clemens, the kinsman of Domitian, is the sole foundation in 
 fact, upon which the story of Clement the Roman bishop has been built?. 
 The writer of the Clementine Homilies, an adherent of the Petrine or 
 Jewish party in the Church, bent on doing honour to his favourite Apo- 
 sue, represents Clement as the disciple or successor of St Peter. In order 
 to do this, he is obliged to throw the date of Clement farther back and 
 thus to represent him as the kinsman not of Domitian, but of Tiberius. The 
 forger of the Philippian Epistle writes at a later date when this fiction 
 has been generally received as an accredited fact. Though himself a 
 Pauline Christian, he is anxious to conciliate the Petrine faction and for 
 this purpose represents this imaginary but now all-famous disciple of St 
 Peter, as a fellow-labourer of St Paul. The whole epistle in fact is written 
 up to this mention of Clement. The przetorium, the household of Cesar, 
 are both introduced to give an air of probability to the notice. In this 
 criticism, unsubstantial as it is, one element of truth may be recognised. 
 The Roman Clement, as he appears in his extant letter and as he may be 
 discerned through the dim traditions of antiquity, is a man of large sym- 
 pathies and comprehensive views, if not a successful reconciler, at all events 
 a fit mediator between the extreme parties in the Church. The theory 
 itself it will not be necessary to discuss seriously. The enormous diffi- 
 culties which it involves will be apparent at once. But ‘it may be worth 
 while to call attention to the hollow basis on which it rests. Baur omits 
 to notice that the Clement here mentioned appears as resident at 
 Philippi and not at Rome: though on this point the supposed forger 
 would have been scrupulously exact, as supplying the key to his whole mean- 
 ing. To these speculations Schwegler’, following up a hint thrown out 
 by Baur, adds his own contribution. Euodia and Syntyche, he maintains, 
 are not two women but two parties in the Church, the ‘true yoke- | 
 fellow’ being none other than St Peter himself. Were they the names of 
 historical persons, he writes, it would give the passage ‘an extremely 
 strange character. It may be inferred from this that he considers his 
 own interpretation entirely simple and natural. Schwegler however stops 
 short of explaining why the one party is called Euodia and the other 
 Syntyche. It is left to a later and bolder critic to supply the deficiency. 
 Volkmar‘ finds the solution in the Apostolic Constitutions, where it is 
 stated that Euodius was made bishop of Antioch by St Peter and Ignatius 
 by St Paul®. As Euodius is the Petrine bishop, so Euodia will represent 
 the Petrine party. The names, he supposes, are adopted with a view to - 
 their significance. Euodia, ‘taking the right path,’ is a synonyme for ortho- 
 doxy, and therefore aptly describes the Jewish community: while Syntyche, 
 
 1 Paulus, Ὁ. 469 sq. Clemens as a proselyte to Judaism. His 
 2 See above, p. 22. own speculations are equally extrayva- 
 3 Nachapost. Zeit. τι. Ὁ. 135. gant: Gesch. der Juden Iv. p. 435 
 
 4 Theolog. Jahrb. xv. p. 311 sq. (ed. 2), Monatsschr. f. Gesch, τι. Wiss. ὦ, 
 (1856), XVI. p. 147 54. (1857). Graetz Judenth. April 1869, p. 169. 
 answers Volkmar by claiming Flavius 5 Apost. Const. vii. 46. 
 
 
 
EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 
 
 ‘the partner (consors), is an equally fit designation of the later associated 
 Gentile Church This last story completes the building thus piled by 
 three successive hands. Meanwhile it will be obvious to all, that a writer 
 could not more effectually have concealed his meaning and thereby 
 frustrated his own designs, than by wearing the impenetrable veil of enigma 
 thus ascribed to him. But indeed it is needless to waste time on this 
 learned trifling, which might be overlooked if the interests indirectly 
 involved were less serious. In dealing with such theories the bare 
 statement is often the best refutation* 
 
 Cesar’s Household. 
 
 HE mention of certain members of Czesar’s household at the close of 
 the Philippian Epistle has given rise to much speculation and formed 
 the groundwork of more than one capricious theory. It has been assumed 
 that this phrase must designate persons of high rank and position, powerful 
 minions of the court, great officers of state, or even blood relations of the 
 emperor himself. On this assumption, maintained in a more or less 
 exaggerated form, it has been inferred that some time must have elapsed 
 between St Paul’s arrival at Rome and the date of this epistle, to account 
 for this unwonted triumph of the Gospel. And extreme critics have even 
 taken the expression as the starting-point for an attack on the genuineness 
 of the letter, charging the writer with an anachronism and supposing him 
 to refer to Clemens and Domitilla, the kinsman and kinswoman of Domi- 
 tian, who suffered for the faith at the close of the century ὃ, 
 
 All such inferences are built on a misconception of the meaning of the 
 term. The ‘domus’ or ‘familia Czesaris’ (represented by the Greek οἰκία 
 Καίσαρος) includes the whole of the imperial household, the meanest slaves 
 as well as the most powerful courtiers, On the character and constitution 
 of this household we happen to possess more information than perhaps on 
 any other department of social life in Rome. The inscriptions relating 
 thereto are so numerous, that a separate section is assigned to them in all 
 good collections. And almost every year is adding to these stores of inform- 
 ation by fresh discoveries. In Rome itself, if we may judge by these 
 inscriptions, the ‘domus Augusta’ must have formed no inconsiderable 
 fraction of the whole population ; but it comprised likewise all persons in 
 the emperor’s service, whether slaves or freemen, in Italy and even in the 
 provinces. 
 
 The monuments to which I have referred are chiefly sepulchral. Co- 
 lumbaria have been discovered from time to time, whose occupants be- 
 
 1 When I wrote the above, I should 
 not have thought it possible to outbid 
 in extravagance the speculations men- 
 tioned in the text; but Hitzig, Zur 
 Kritik Paulinischer Briefe, Ὁ. 7 54. 
 (1870), far exceeds them all. The re- 
 futation of Hilgenfeld, Zeitschr. 1871, 
 Pp. 331 Sq., was quite unnecessary. 
 
 2 Other recent speculations relating 
 to the history of the Roman Clement, 
 more innocent but equally unsubstan- 
 tial, will be found in Lagarde’s intro- 
 duction to his Clementina, p. (12) sq. 
 (1865). 
 
 3 See above, pp. 22, 170. 
 
 171 
 
 Baseless 
 theories. 
 
 Extent of 
 the house- 
 
 Sourees of 
 informa- 
 
 tion 
 
μι 
 N 
 Ὁ] 
 
 List of 
 offices in 
 the house- 
 hold, 
 
 Bearing 
 on the re- 
 ference in 
 
 St Paul. 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 
 
 longed principally, if not solely, to this class. In 1726 one of these places 
 of sepulture was exhumed on the Appian way. Its contents will appear 
 from the title of a work published the following year, and giving an account 
 of the discovery: Monumentum sive Columbarium Libertorum et Ser- 
 vorum Livie Auguste et Cwsarum, etc., ab A. F. Gorio. More recent 
 excavations have added to our knowledge on this subject. Since the year 
 1840 several other sepulchral dove-cotes, situated also near the Appian 
 way, have been brought to light. Accounts of these, more or less complete, 
 with copies of inscriptions will be found in Canina’s Prima Parte della 
 Via Appia τ. p. 217 8q., in the Dissertaziont della Pontificia Accademia 
 Romana di Archeologia xi. p. 317 8q. (1852), and in the Monumenti ed 
 Annali pubblicati dal? Instituto di Corrispondenza Archeologica nel 
 1856 (a paper by Henzen). The occupants of these recently excavated 
 columbaria again are almost all freedmen or slaves of the emperors. The 
 frequency of the name Ti. Claudius suggests a date not earlier and not 
 much later than the second and fourth Ceesars: and this date is confirmed 
 by the mention of other members of the imperial family at this time, as 
 Messalina, Octavia, Agrippina, Drusus, etc. Though here and there a 
 name points to a later emperor, the great majority must be assigned to the 
 reign of Nero or his immediate predecessors and successors, and thus the 
 persons to whom they refer were mostly contemporaries of St Paul. Be- 
 sides these special sources of information, a vast number of isolated inscrip- 
 tions relating to the servants and dependents of the emperors have been 
 discovered from time to time, and will be found in the general collections 
 of Muratori, Gruter, Orelli, and others. By these means we obtain some 
 insight into the names and offices of the ‘household of Czesar’ at the date 
 when the expression was used in the Epistle to the Philippians. 
 
 The following list will give some idea of the number and variety of 
 places which the ‘domus Augusta’ included: ‘psedagogus puerorum, dis- 
 pensator rationis private, exactor tributorum, preepositus velariorum, pro- 
 curator przegustatorum, przepositus auri escarii, procurator balnei, villicus 
 hortorum, etc.; a lapidicinis, a pendice cedri, a frumentis, ἃ commentariis 
 equorum, a veste regia, a cura catellz, ab argento potorio, a supellectile 
 castrensi, a veste forensi, a libellis, a studiis, ab epistulis, a rationibus, a 
 bibliotheca Latina Apollinis, a bibliotheca Greeca Palatina, etc.; architectus, 
 tabellarius, castellarius, chirurgus, ocularius, disetarchus, nomenclator, 
 tesserarius, designator, vicarius, symphoniacus, musicarius, pedissequus, 
 lecticarius, cocus, argentarius, sutor, cubicularius, triclinarius, ostiarius, 
 ornator, unctor, etc. ; tonstrix, sarcinatrix, obstetrix, etc.’ This very im- 
 perfect list suggests a minute subdivision of offices. When we find several 
 distinct functions in the single department of the wardrobe or the plate- 
 chest, when even the ‘tasters’ form a separate class of servants under their 
 own chief, the multitude and multiplicity thus exhibited forbid us to spe- 
 culate on the exact office or rank which may have been held by these friends 
 of St Paul. Least of all are we encouraged to assume that they were persons 
 of great influence or distinguished rank. At the same time the connexion 
 with Ceesar’s household doubtless secured even to the lowest grades of 
 slaves and freedmen substantial though undetined privileges and immuni- 
 ties, and conferred on them a certain social importance among their equals, 
 
EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 173 
 
 which made them value their position’. Hence we may account for the 
 scrupulous care with which an office in the household, however mean, is 
 always recorded on monumental inscriptions. At the time when St Paul 
 wrote, the influence of the emperor’s slaves and dependents had about 
 reached its climax. The reigns of Claudius and Nero have been described 
 as the saturnalia of the imperial freedmen?. 
 
 Now, if I am right in supposing that the Epistle to the Philippians was Members 
 written soon after St Paul’s arrival in the metropolis, it would seem to of the 
 follow that the members of Czesar’s household who sent their salutations to bousehold 
 
 were pro- 
 Philippi were earlier converts, who did not therefore owe their knowledge of bably early 
 the Gospel to St Paul’s preaching in Rome®. Under any circumstances converts. 
 this supposition best explains the incidental character of the allusion. For 
 St Paul obviously assumes that his distant correspondents know all about 
 the persons thus referred to. If so, we are led to look for them in the long 
 list of names saluted by St Paul some three years before in the Epistle to 
 the Romans. 
 
 Nor is there any prior improbability in this supposition. The earliest Foreigners 
 converts in Rome would naturally be drawn from the classes of foreigners named in 
 sojourning or permanently resident there’, Greeks, Syrians, and especially es 
 Jews. Accordingly one of the persons thus saluted is described as a ‘first- 9 Rome 
 fruit of Asia’®, Aquila and Priscilla also, who are mentioned in this list, 
 appear residing at one time at Corinth, at another at Ephesus®, Of several 
 others again St Paul speaks as personal acquaintances, though he had not 
 as yet visited Rome. Of these Mary bears a Jewish name’, and others 
 besides plainly belonged to the same race®, though their names do not 
 directly proclaim their origin. Now, though Greeks and Orientals formed 
 a numerous and active portion of the general population of Rome, it was 
 especially about the palace and the court that their numbers and in- 
 fluence were felt®. History reveals not Greeks only, of whom the Romans and found 
 
 were ἃ little less intolerant, but Syrians, Samaritans, Philistines, and Jews, een the 
 court, 
 
 1 Plin. N. H. xiii. 5 ‘Marcelli Aiser- 
 nini libertus sed qui se potentia causa 
 Cesaris libertis adoptasset,’ Hist. Aug. 
 Pertinax 8 ‘Reddidit preterea domi- 
 nis eos qui se ex privatis domibus in 
 aulam contulerant.’ 
 
 2 See Friedlander Sittengeschichte 
 Roms τ. pp. 65, 68 (ed. 2). In the 2nd 
 chapter of this work much important 
 information respecting the court of the 
 early Cesars is collected and arranged. 
 The references in the last note are taken 
 thence (p. 62). 
 
 3 See above, pp. 19, 32. 
 
 4 Seneca (adv. Helv. Cons. 6) says of 
 the population of Rome at this time, 
 ‘ Jube istos omnes ad nomen citari et 
 unde domo quisque sit quere: videbis 
 majorem partem esse que relictis sedibus 
 suis venerit in maximam quidem et pul- 
 cherrimam urbem, non tamen suam.’ 
 
 5 Rom. xvi. 5 (the correct reading). 
 
 6 Acts xvili. 2, 18, 26, xr Cor. xvi. 
 1g. 
 
 °; Rom. xvi. 6. Probably Jewish, 
 
 though not certainly, for the form is 
 indecisive. The best mss read Ma- 
 ρίαν (not Μαριάμ), and ‘Maria’ is a 
 good Latin name also. 
 
 8 xvi. 7, 10, those whom St Paul 
 calls his ‘kinsmen’ (comp. ix. 3). 
 
 9 See above, p. 14, and comp. espe- 
 cially Friedlander 1. p. 60 sq. 
 
 10 Thallus a Samaritan under Tibe- 
 rius (Joseph. Ant. xviii. 6. 4), and A- 
 pelles an Ascalonite under Caius (see 
 below, p. 174), will serve as examples 
 of these two minor races. Syrians and 
 Jews very commonly rose to power at 
 court. The case of the Jewish actor 
 Aliturus mentioned above (p. 6) illus- 
 trates the influence of this latter people. 
 
174 
 
 Inference. 
 
 Amplias. 
 
 Urbanus, 
 
 Stachys. 
 
 Apelles. 
 
 Household 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 
 
 holding places of influence about the emperors at thistime. And, for every 
 one who succeeded in attaining to distinction, there must have been tens 
 and hundreds of Orientals about the court who never emerged from obscurity. 
 For, independently of other causes, the success of the few would draw 
 around them crowds of their fellow-countrymen. Thus the household of the 
 Czesars would supply in the greatest abundance the material from which 
 the conversions mentioned in the Epistle to the Romans would probably be 
 wrought. 
 
 Following this clue, it may be useful to consult the inscriptions with 
 a. view to ascertaining whether the information thence derived throws any 
 additional light on the subject. And for this purpose I shall take in order 
 those names in the salutations of the Epistle to the Romans which give 
 promise of yielding a result. 
 
 1. AMPLtAs isa contraction of Ampliatus, which is read in some of the 
 best copies. A common name in itself, it occurs several times in connexion 
 with the imperial household. Thus AMPLIATUS . HILARI. AUGUSTOR . LIBERTI, 
 SER. VILIcus (Grut. p. 62. 10). We meet with it also attached to the names 
 ‘Ti, Claudius’ (Murat. p. 1249, 14, comp. p. 1150.7). Again two persons bear- 
 ing the name are mentioned in the inscriptions of columbaria specially ap- 
 propriated to the household (Acc. di Arch. x1. pp. 359, 374). At a later 
 date we read of one Ampliatus, a freedman of Hadrian (Grut. p. 591. 10). 
 
 2. The name URBANUs is equally common with Ampliatus, and in the 
 following inscriptions designates members of the household: TI. cLauDr. 
 URBANI. SER. MENSORIS. AEDIFICIORUM (Murat. p. 924. 8): CLAUDIAE. PHI- 
 LETI. AUG. L. LIBERTAE. HEURESI. URBANUS. ET. SURUS . FRATRES . SORORI. 
 PIIssIMAE (Murat. p. 996. 5): URBANUS. LYDES. AUG.L. DISPENS. INMUNIS. 
 DAT. HERMAE. FRATRI. ete. (Murat. 920. 1): π΄. FLAVIUS. AUG. LIB. URBA- 
 nus (Grut. p. 580. 10). Accordingly the name C. Julius Urbanus is found 
 more than once (Grut. p. 574. I, p. 981. 3). On an inscription A.D. 115, 
 Urbanus and Ampliatus occur next to each other in a list of imperial 
 freedmen connected with the mint (Grut. p. 1070. I). 
 
 3. The next name Sracuys is comparatively rare. Yet at least one 
 person so called held an important office in the household near the time 
 when St Paul wrote: STACHYS. MARCELLAE. MEDICUS, whose name occurs 
 on the same monument with one TI, JULIUS. FIDES (Henzen in the Jnstit. di 
 Oorrisp. Archeol. 1856, p. 15, ΠΟ. 44). Again in another inscription, 
 
 ‘where one Stachys is mentioned, and where the names of his relations, 
 
 Julius, Julia, Claudia, are also given, we may safely infer some connexion 
 with the court (Grut. p. 689. 1). Compare also Grut. p. 587. 2. 
 
 4. APELLES again is a name belonging to the imperial household, It 
 was borne for instance by a famous tragic actor, a native of Ascalon, who at 
 one time stood high in the favour of the emperor Caius, and is described 
 as inheriting a national antipathy to the Jews (Philo Leg. ad Cai. p. 576M; 
 see Friedlinder Sittengesch. Roms τ. p. 98). One CL. APELLES again is 
 mentioned as ἃ member of the household (Orell. 2892) and the name ΤΊ. 
 CLAUDIUS APELLA occurs in an inscription of the age of Vespasian (Grut, 
 
 . 240). 
 5. ARISTOBULUS surnamed the younger, a grandson of Herod the Great, 
 was educated in the metropolis, together with his brothers Agrippa and 
 
 
 
EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 175 
 
 Herod. While his two brothers became kings, the one of Judea, the other of Aristo- 
 of Chalcis, Aristobulus himself ended his days in a private station, and as it bulus, 
 appears, in Rome (Joseph. Bell. Jud. ii. 11.6). The date of his death is 
 uncertain, but he was still living in the year 45 (Antig. xx. τ. 2). The 
 emperor Claudius, writing at this time, speaks of Aristobulus as entertain- 
 ing most dutiful and friendly sentiments towards himself. When the slaves 
 of a household passed into the hands of a new master, by cession or inhe- 
 ritance or confiscation, they continued to be designated by the name of 
 their former proprietor. Thus a slave whom the emperor had inherited by 
 the will of the Galatian king Amyntas is described as CAESARIS. SER. 
 AMYNTIANUS (Grut. p. 577. 5). In the same way in the imperial houschold 
 we meet with Mecenatiani, Agrippiani, Germaniciani, ete., where in like 
 manner the names preserve the memory of their earlier masters!. _ Now it 
 seems not improbable, considering the intimate relations between Claudius 
 -and Aristobulus, that at the death of the latter his servants, wholly or in 
 part, should be transferred to the palace. In this case they would be de- 
 signated Aristobuliani, for which I suppose St Paul’s οἱ ἐκ τῶν ᾿Αριστοβού- 
 λου to be an equivalent. It is at least not an obvious phrase and demands 
 explanation. And, as the household of Aristobulus would naturally be 
 composed in a large measure of Jews, the Gospel would the more easily 
 be introduced to their notice. Moreover it is worth observing that after 
 saluting ‘them of the household of Aristcbulus,” St Paul immediately 
 singles out one whom he designates his kinsman, i.e. his fellow-countryman2, 
 and whose name Hrropion we might expect to find among the slaves or 
 freedmen of a distinguished member of the Herodian family. This inter- 
 pretation of the expression τοὺς ἐκ τῶν ᾿Αριστοβούλου will, 1 think, be con- 
 firmed by the salutation which follows. 
 
 6. For immediately after St Paul uses the same form of expression in Household 
 
 speaking of the household of Narcissus. The name Narcissus indeed is ἐφ ἀρ ο 
 common enough, and we mect with it several times where a connexion — 
 with the household seems probabie, e.g. Ti. Claudius Narcissus (Murat. 
 Ῥ. 1325. 5, comp. p. 1452. 8), Ti. Julius Narcissus (Murat. p. 1362. 2, 4). 
 But here, as in the case of Aristobulus, the expression seems to point to some 
 famous person of the name. And the powerful freedman Narcissus, whose 
 wealth was proverbial (Juv. Sat. xiv. 329), whose influence with Claudius 
 was unbounded, and who bore a chief part in the intrigues of this reign, 
 alone satisfies this condition. He was put to death by Agrippina shortly 
 after the accession of Nero (Tac. Ann. xiii. 1, Dion Cass. Ix. 34), abous 
 three or four years before the Hpistle to the Romans was written. As was 
 usual in such cases, his household would most probably pass into the hands 
 of the emperor, still however retaining the name of Narcissus. A mem- 
 ber of this household apparently is commemorated in an extant inscription, 
 TI. CLAUDIO .SP.F . NARCISS{ANO (Murat. p. 1150. 4; comp. p. 902. 5). 
 These Narcissiani I suppose to be designated by St Paul’s of ἐκ τῶν 
 Napkiogov. 
 
 7. In TrypHmNa‘and TrypHmosa we may recognise two sisters or at Tryphena 
 least near relatives, for it was usual to designate members of the same 
 
 1 See Ephemeris Epigraphica τι. p. 29. 2 See above, p. 16, note 2. 
 
and Try- 
 phosa. 
 
 Rufus. 
 
 Hermes. 
 
 Hermas. 
 
 Patrobas, 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 
 
 family by derivatives of the same root. The name Tryphzena, though not 
 common, was found in the imperial household at or about the time when 
 St Paul wrote. On an inscription in the columbaria chiefly appropriated 
 to the emperor’s servants we read, D . M. TRYPHAENAE. VALERIA. TRYPHAE- 
 NA. MATRI.B.M.F.ET. VALERIUS . FUTIANUS (Acc. di Archeol. XI. Ὁ. 375); 
 where the direct connexion with the household is established by a neigh- 
 bouring inscription, D . M.CLAUDIAE. AUG . LIB .NEREIDI . M. VALERIUS. FU- 
 TIANS (sic) . MATRI. CARISSIMAE (ib. p. 376). The names Valerius, Valeria, 
 very frequently occur in connexion with Claudius, Claudia, the former 
 having doubtless been introduced into the imperial household through the 
 empress Messalina, a daughter of M. Valerius Messalat, The combination 
 of these two gentile names fixes the date approximately. Another Valeria 
 Trypheena, if it be not the same, is mentioned elsewhere; Q. VALERIO. SA- 
 LUTARI. AUG. PUTEOLIS .ET . CUMIS. ET VALERIAE. TRIFENAE . HEREDES (Grut, 
 p. 481. 2). The name of one Claudia Tryphzena also is preserved : CLAUDIA, 
 TRYPHAENA . FECIT. ASIATICAE . FILIAE . SUAE (Murat. p. 1150. 3). 
 
 The name Tryphosa also, which occurs more frequently, is found several 
 times in connexion with the household : AGRIAE . TRYPHOSAE . VESTIFICAE . 
 LIVIUS . THEONA. AB. EPISTULIS . GRAEC . SCRIBA. A. LIB. PONTIFICALIBUS . 
 CONJUGI . SANCTISSIMAE . B.D.S.M. (Grut. p. 578. 6, comp. ib. p. 446. 6): DIS - 
 MANIBUS. JULIAE . TRYPHOSAE. Τὶ FLAVIUS . FORTUNATUS . CoNJUarI ete. (Grut. 
 p. 796. 3, comp. ib. p. 1133. 1). In another inscription again it is found 
 connected with the name Valerius: VALERI. PRIMI. ET. JUN . TRYPHOSAE. 
 Viva . FEC. (Grut. p. 893. 2). 
 
 8, Rurus is a very ordinary name, and would not have claimed notice 
 here but for its occurrence in one of the Gospels. There seems no reason 
 to doubt the tradition that St Mark wrote especially for the Romans ; and, 
 if so, it is worth remarking that he alone of the evangelists describes Simon 
 of Cyrene, as ‘ the father of Alexander and Rufus’ (xy. 21). A person of 
 this name therefore seems to have held a prominent place among the Ro- 
 man Christians ; and thus there is at least fair ground .for identifying the 
 Rufus of St Paul with the Rufus of St Mark. The inscriptions exhibit 
 several members of the household bearing the names Rufus and Alexander, 
 but this fact is of no value where both names are so common. 
 
 9. Of the group which follows, Hermes is among the commonest slave- 
 names. In the household alone probably not less than a score of persons 
 might be counted up from the inscriptions, who bore this name at or about 
 the time when St Paul wrote. HerMas again, being a contraction of several 
 different names, such as Hermagoras, Hermeros, Hermodorus, Hermo- 
 genes, etc., though not quite so common as the former, is still very frequent. 
 The remaining three are rare. Yet ParrosBas, an abbreviated form of 
 Patrobius, was borne by a wealthy and powerful freedman of Nero, who 
 was put to death by Galba (Tac. Hist. i. 49, 11. 95). But though the in- 
 frequency of the name would suggest his identity with the person saluted 
 by St Paul, his character accords ill with the profession of a disciple of 
 
 1 This inscription will serve as anil- vino (Orelli, 4492). This Octavia is 
 lustration; VALERIA. HILARIA. NUTRIX. the unhappy daughter of Claudius and 
 OCTAVIAE . CAESARIS . AUGUSTI. REQUI- Messalina, who was afterwards married 
 ESCIT . CUM. TI. CLAUDIO. FRUcTO.  toNero. SeealsoClem. Rom: ὃ 59 (note). 
 
“I 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 17 
 
 Christ, unless history has done him a cruel wrong. The Patrobas of St Paul 
 
 however might well have been a dependent of this powerful freedman. To 
 ν some member of the household, possibly to this notorious Patrobius, the 
 __ following inscription refers: TI. cL. AUG. L.PATROBIUS (Grut. p. 610. 3), 
 where doubtless ‘ Patrobius’ is correctly read for ‘ Patronus’: comp. Murat. 
 Ῥ. 1329. 3, ΤΙ. CLAUDIO . PATROBIO. 
 
 το. PxiLoLocus and JULIA appear to have been man and wife, or bro- Philologus 
 
 ther and sister. The latter name points to a dependent of the court. The and Julia. 
 former also occurs more than once in connexion with the imperial house- 
 - hold: c.svLio.c.L.PHILOLoGo (Murat. p. 1586. 3): DAMA .LIVIAE.L. CAS. 
 PHOEBUS. PHILOLOGI (Mon. Liv. p. 168): TI. CLAUDIUS . AUGUSTI. LIB. PHILO- 
 LOGUS . AB. EPISTOLIS (Murat. p. 2043. 2)!: TI. CLAUDIUS. AUGUSTI . LIB. 
 PHILOLOGUS . LIBERALIS (Grut. p. 630. 1). 
 
 11. Immediately after Philologusand Julia are mentioned NErxEvs and Nereus 
 his sister. For Nereus compare this inscription found at Ancyra; nury- 27d his 
 CHUS . NEREI. CAESARIS. AUG. SER. VIL. FILIO (Murat. p. 899.7). The sister's SUSU 
 name is not given, but one Nereis was a member of the household about 
 this time, as appears from an inscription already quoted (p. 176). 
 
 As the result of this investigation, we seem to have established a fair General 
 7 presumption, that among the salutations in the Epistle to the Romans some Tesult. 
 ~ members at least of the imperial household are included. The inscriptions 
 
 indeed cannot generally be taken to show more than the fact that the same 
 
 names occurred there. A very faint probability of the identity of persons 
 
 may in some instances be added, though even with the rarer names the 
 
 identification must be held highly precarious. But a combination, such as 
 
 Philologus and Julia, affords more solid ground for inference: and in other 
 
 cases, aS in the household of Narcissus, the probable cireumstaices suggest 
 
 # connexion with the palace. If so, an explanation has been found of the 
 
 reference to members of Czesar’s household in the Philippian letter. At all 
 
 events this investigation will not have been useless, if it has shown that 
 
 the names and allusions at the close of the Roman Epistle are in keeping 
 
 with the circumstances of the metropolis in St Paul’s day; for thus it 
 
 will have supplied an answer to two forms of objection; the one denying 
 
 the genuineness of the last two chapters of this letter, and the other 
 
 alluwing their genuineness but detaching the salutations from the rest and 
 
 assigning them to another epistle?, 
 
 
 
 1 Jt has been supposed that the of the r4th, in others at the end of the 
 
 name Philologus was given by the mas- 
 ter to the freedman mentioned in this 
 inscription, as being appropriate to 
 his office; Friedlinder, 1. pp. 89, 160. 
 The followinginscription may bealleged 
 in support of this conjecture; PUDENS. 
 M . LEPIDI . L . GRAMMATICUS . etc. 
 ATTEIUS . PHILOLOGUS DISCIPULUS 
 (Grut. p. 653. 2). If so, some light is 
 thrown on the probable occupation of 
 the Philologus of St Paul. 
 
 3 The doxology (Rom. xvi. 25, 26, 
 27) is found in some copies at the end 
 
 PHIL. 
 
 16th chapter, and in others in both 
 places, while others again omit it en- 
 tirely. Moreover in Marcion’s copy the 
 last two chapters of the epistle were 
 wanting. All these variations are easily 
 explained by the hypothesis that the 
 Epistle to the Romans was circulated 
 at a very early date in two forms, the 
 personal matter being omitted in the 
 shorter. Baur however condemns the 
 last two chapters as spurious (Paulus 
 Ῥ. 398sq.), though the mind of St Paulis 
 apparent in almost every phrase. Other 
 
 12 
 
I 
 
 EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 
 
 less extravagant critics have found dif- ~ 
 
 ficulties in one or two historical no- 
 tices which these chapters contain: and 
 Ewald, whose opinion always deserves 
 consideration, solves these difficulties 
 
 ‘by severing xvi. 3—20 from the rest, 
 
 and treating it as a fragment of a lost 
 Epistle to theHphesians(DieSendschrei- 
 ben etc. p. 428). By this means he ex- 
 plains the reference to Epenetus as the 
 first-fruit of Asia (ver, 5 where ᾿Ασίας, 
 not ’Ayatas, is the right reading), and 
 accounts also for the presence of Aquila 
 and Priscilla (ver. 3), who were found 
 not long before at Ephesus (1 Cor. xvi. 
 19). This view is far preferable to the 
 former, inasmuch as it recognises St 
 Paul’s authorship; but on the other 
 hand it loses all support from the phe- 
 nomena of the mss, which require the 
 two chapters to be treated as a whole, 
 and lend no countenance to this ar- 
 bitrary dissection. The novel theory 
 started by Renan (Saint Paul p. lxxiii), 
 who supposes that an editor has com- 
 bined four copies of the same encyclical 
 letter of St Paul, each addressed to a 
 different church and having a different 
 ending, has the same advantage over 
 Baur’s view, but is condemned by its 
 own complexity. Nor in fact are the 
 difficulties serious enough to justify any 
 
 such treatment. ‘Ata time when the 
 court and city of Rome swarmed with 
 Asiatics (Friedlander 1. p. 5g sq.), it is 
 no surprise to encounter one Christian 
 convert among the crowd. And again, 
 as Rome wasthe head-quartersof Aquila 
 and Priscilla, and they had been driven 
 thence by an imperial edict (Acts xviii. 
 2), itis natural enough that they should 
 have returned thither, as soon as it was 
 convenient and safe to doso. The year 
 which elapses between the two notices 
 of this couple (1 Cor. xvi. 19; Rom, xvi. 
 3—5) allows ample time for them to 
 transfer themselves from Ephesus to 
 Rome, and for the Apostle to hear of 
 their return to their old abode. The 
 results of the investigation in the text 
 (whatever other value it may have) seem 
 sufficient to counterbalance any such 
 difficulties, for it has been shown that 
 the notices are in keeping with Rome, 
 and the same degree of coincidence pro- 
 bably could not be established in the 
 case of any other place. A fuller re- 
 futation of Renan will be found in the 
 Journal of Philology, ττ. Ὁ. 264 sq. 
 In this and a later article (ib. m1. 
 p. 193 sq.) I have suggested a theory 
 to account for the documentary facts, 
 more especially the varying position of 
 the doxology. 
 
Nat). 
 ἡ nen i! 
 
 ae 
 A yy ἡ 
 ON 
 i 
 
 fal) 
 ib je 
 
 > ia aps, Ly 7 Sa 
 ΤΙΝ ety) ee 
 
 
 
Ι. 
 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 
 
 ἘΠ 
 ST PAUL AND SENECA, 
 
THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 
 
 HE kingdom of Christ, not being a kingdom of this world, is Idealofthe 
 not limited by the restrictions which fetter other societies, poli- Gores 
 
 tical or religious. It is in the fullest sense free, comprehensive, 
 universal. It displays this character, not only in the acceptance of 
 all comers who seek admission, irrespective of race or caste or sex, 
 but also in the instruction and treatment of those who are already 
 its members. It has no sacred days or seasons, no special sanctu- 
 aries, because every time and every place alike are holy. Above all 
 it has no sacerdotal system. It interposes no sacrificial tribe or class 
 between God and man, by whose intervention alone God is recon- 
 ciled and man forgiven. ach 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. 
 
 It is most important that we should keep this ideal definitely Necessary 
 in view, and I have therefore stated it as broadly as possible. Yet Fae ia 
 the broad statement, if allowed to stand alone, would suggest a false 
 impression, or at least would convey only a half truth. It must be 
 evident that no society of men could hold together without ofticers, 
 without rules, without institutions of any kind; and the Church of 
 Christ is not exempt from this universal law. The conception in 
 short is strictly an ideal, which we must ever hold before our eyes, The idea 
 which should inspire and interpret ecclesiastical polity, but which Beare 
 nevertheless cannot supersede the necessary wants of human society, 
 and, if crudely and hastily applied, will lead only to signal failure. 
 
 As appointed days and set places are indispensable to her efficiency, 
 
182 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 
 
 so also the Church could not fulfil the purposes for which she exists, 
 without rulers and teachers, without a ministry of reconciliation, 
 in short, without an order of men who may in some sense be de- 
 signated a priesthood. In this respect the ethics of Christianity pre- 
 sent an analogy to the politics. Here also the ideal conception and 
 the actual realization are incommensurate and in a manner con- 
 tradictory. The Gospel is contrasted with the Law, as the spirit 
 with the letter. Its ethical principle is not a code of positive ordi- . 
 nances, but conformity to a perfect exemplar, incorporation into a 
 divine life. The distinction is most important and eminently fertile 
 in practical results. Yet no man would dare to live without laying 
 down more or less definite rules for his own guidance, without 
 yielding obedience to law in some sense ; and those who discard or 
 attempt to discard all such aids are often farthest from the attain- 
 ment of Christian perfection. 
 
 This qualification is introduced here to deprecate any misunder- 
 standing to which the opening statement, if left without compensa- 
 tion, would fairly be exposed. It will be time to enquire hereafter 
 in what sense the Christian ministry may or may not be called a 
 
 Special priesthood. But in attempting to investigate the historical de- 
 character- 
 istic of 
 
 Christian- gested itself than the characteristic distinction of Christianity, as 
 
 ity. : 
 ᾿ ΤῊ _ declared occasionally by the direct language but more frequently by 
 25] 
 
 velopment of this divine institution, no better starting-point sug- 
 
 the eloquent silence of the apostolic writings. 
 
 For in this respect Christianity stands apart from all the 
 older religions of the world. So far at least, the Mosaic dispensa- 
 tion did not differ from the religions of Egypt or Asia or Greece. 
 
 TheJewish Yet the sacerdotal system of the Old Testament possessed one im- 
 pastagoes portant characteristic, which separated it ‘from heathen priesthoods 
 and which deserves especial notice. The priestly tribe held this 
 peculiar relation to God only as the representatives of the whole 
 nation. As delegates of the people, they offered sacrifice and made 
 atonement. The whole community is regarded as ‘a kingdom of 
 priests,’ ‘a holy nation.’ When the sons of Levi are set apart, 
 their consecration is distinctly stated to be due under the divine 
 guidance not to any inherent sanctity or to any caste privilege, 
 but to an act of delegation on the part of the entire people. The 
 Levites are, so to speak, ordained by the whole congregation. ‘ The 
 
THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 183 
 
 children of Israel,’ it is said, ‘shall put their hands upon the 
 Levites’.’ The nation thus deputes to a single tribe the priestly 
 functions which belong properly to itself as a whole. 
 
 The Christian idea therefore was the restitution of this immediate Itsrelation 
 to the 
 Christian 
 abolished by the appointment of a sacerdotal tribe. The Levitical priesthood. 
 
 and direct relation with God, which was partly suspended but not 
 
 priesthood, like the Mosaic law, had served its temporary purpose, 
 The period of childhood had passed, and the Church of God was 
 now arrived at mature age. ‘The covenant people resumed their 
 sacerdotal functions. But the privileges of the covenant were no 
 longer confined to the limits of a single nation. Every member of 
 the human family was potentially a member of the Church, and, as 
 such, a priest of God. 
 
 The influence of this idea on the moral and spiritual growth of Infuence 
 the individual believer is too plain to require any comment; but oe 
 its social effects may call for a passing remark. It will hardly ideal. 
 be denied, I think, by those who have studied the history of 
 modern civilization with attention, that this conception of the 
 Christian Church has been mainly instrumental in the emancipation 
 of the degraded and oppressed, in the removal of artificial barriers 
 between class and class, and in the diffusion of a general phil- 
 anthropy untrammelled by the fetters of party or race; in short, 
 that to it mainly must be attributed the most important advan- 
 tages which constitute the superiority of modern societies over 
 ancient. Consciously or unconsciously, the idea of an universal 
 priesthood, of the religious equality of all men, which, though not 
 untaught before, was first embodied in the Church of Christ, has 
 worked and is working untold blessings in political institutions and 
 in social life. But the careful student will also observe that this 
 idea has hitherto been very imperfectly apprehended ; that through- 
 out the history of the Church it has been struggling for recognition, 
 at most times discerned in some of its aspects but at all times wholly 
 ignored in others; and that therefore the actual results are a very 
 inadequate measure of its efficacy, if only it could assume due pro- 
 minence and were allowed free scope in action. 
 
 This then is the Christian ideal; a holy season extending the 
 
 1 Nom, vii. 10. 
 
184 
 
 Practical 
 organiza- 
 tion. 
 
 Fixed days 
 and places 
 of worship; 
 
 but the 
 idea kept 
 in view. 
 
 Appoint- 
 ment of a 
 ministry. 
 
 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 
 
 whole year round—a temple confined only by the limits of the habit- 
 able world—a priesthood coextensive with the human race. 
 
 Strict loyalty to this conception was not held incompatible with 
 practical measures of organization. As the Church grew in num- 
 bers, as new and heterogeneous elements were added, as the early 
 fervour of devotion cooled and strange forms of disorder sprang 
 up, it became necessary to provide for the emergency by fixed 
 rules and definite officers. The community of goods, by which the 
 infant Church had attempted to give effect to the idea of an universal 
 brotherhood, must very soon have been abandoned under the pres- 
 sure of circumstances. The celebration of the first day in the week 
 at once, the institution of annual festivals afterwards, were seen to be 
 necessary to stimulate and direct the devotion of the believers, The 
 appointment of definite places of meeting in the earliest days, the 
 erection of special buildings for worship at a later date, were found 
 indispensable to the working of the Church. But the Apostles never 
 lost sight of the idea in their teaching. They proclaimed loudly 
 that ‘God dwelleth not in temples made by hands.’ They indig- 
 nantly denounced those who.‘ observed days and months and seasons 
 and years.’ This language is not satisfied by supposing that they 
 condemned only the temple-worship in the one case, that they repro- 
 bated only Jewish sabbaths and new moons in the other. It was against 
 the false principle that they waged war ; the principle which exalted 
 the means into an end, and gave an absolute intrinsic value to subor- 
 dinate aids and expedients. These aids and expedients, for his own 
 sake and for the good of the society to which he belonged, a Christian 
 could not afford to hold lightly or neglect. But they were no part of 
 the essence of God’s message to man in the Gospel: they must not 
 be allowed to obscure the idea of Christian worship. 
 
 So it was also with the Christian priesthood. For communi- 
 cating instruction and for preserving public order, for conducting 
 religious worship and for dispensing social charities, it became 
 necessary to appoint special officers. But the priestly functions and 
 privileges of the Christian people are never regarded as transferred 
 or even delegated to these officers. They are called stewards or 
 messengers of God, servants or ministers of the Church, and the 
 like: but the sacerdotal title is never once conferred upon them. 
 The only priests under the Gospel, designated as such in the New 
 
THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 185 
 
 Testament, are the saints, the members of the Christian brother- 
 
 hood’, 
 As individuals, all Christians are priests alike. As members Two pas- 
 
 of a corporation, they have their several and distinct offices. The Paee a 
 Similitude of the human body, where each limb or organ performs aa 
 its own functions, and the health and growth of the whole frame are 
 promoted by the harmonious but separate working of every part, was 
 chosen by St Paul to represent the progress and operation of the 
 Church. In two passages, written at two different stages in his 
 apostolic career, he briefly sums up the offices in the Church with 
 reference to this image. In the earlier? he enumerates ‘first apostles, 
 secondly prophets, thirdly teachers, then powers, then gifts of heal- 
 
 g, helps, governments, kinds of tongues,’ In the second passage* 
 the list is briefer; ‘some apostles, and some prophets, and some 
 evangelists, and some pastors and teachers.’ The earlier enumera- 
 tion differs chiefly from the later in specifying distinctly certain 
 miraculous powers, this being required by the Apostle’s argument 
 which is directed against an exaggerated estimate and abuse of such 
 
 gifts. Neither list can have been intended to be exhaustive. In both They refer 
 chiefly to 
 
 the tempo- 
 holds the foremost place, while the permanent government and in- rary minis- 
 
 alike the work of converting unbelievers and founding congregations 
 
 struction of the several churches is kept in the background. This 
 prominence was necessary in the earliest age of the Gospel. The 
 apostles, prophets, evangelists, all range under the former head, |/But 
 the permanent ministry, though lightly touched upon, is not forgot- 
 ten; for under the designation of ‘teachers, helps, governments’ 
 in the one passage, of ‘pastors and teachers’ in the other, these 
 officers must be intended. Again in both passages alike it will be 
 seen that great stress is laid on the work of the Spirit. The faculty 
 of governing not less than the utterance of prophecy, the gift of heal- 
 ing not less than the gift of tongues, is an inspiration of the Holy 
 
 1 y Pet. ii. 5, 9, Apoc. i. 6, ν. 10,xx.6. Ephes. iv. 12). The whole passage, 
 
 The commentator Hilary has express- to which I shall have occasion to refer 
 
 ed this truth with much distinctness: again, contains a singularly apprecia- 
 
 ‘In lege nascebantur sacerdotes ex ge- _ tive account of the relation of the mi- 
 nere Aaron Levit: nunc autem omnes __nistry to the congregation. 
 
 ex genere sunt sacerdotali, dicente 2 1 Cor. xii. 28. 
 
 Petro Apostolo, Quia estis genus regale SSHiphess ive ΠΕ ν» ει 
 
 . fade τ ξξε 
 
 et sacerdotale etc.’ (Ambrosiast. on _ é = τι ; ; 
 
 7 " th ¥ ς χω, a5 π oC 7 lGe ἡ Ch Lee v 
 
 (I) Rother ο.. bole oped!» Prot Li fle | rele. | Ue 4 " 22° γοκΟ ¢ δ: ἐς 
 
 γώ δὲ ᾿μεέί. Ly hice ara Docu χα Vy Gack 3 lUtike por Wie O° chads rH Vhs ) 
 
 - ᾿ μ εἰ ze § ren. ‘ 
 (pat? hod Liaenek Vite > | we, sii a Ladl 2 δ᾽ 4 PeeTe πο 7: bad F- 
 
 sof aS 3 : 
 oe > a eee t Gay Ἄν. ΜΕΝ ᾿Ξ Ree Ae Γ a ον a A SNS Sf 
 
186 
 
 Growing 
 import- 
 
 ance of the 
 
 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 
 
 Ghost. But on the other hand in both alike there is an entire 
 silence about priestly functions: for the most exalted office in the 
 Church, the highest gift of the Spirit, conveyed no sacerdotal right 
 which was not enjoyed by the humblest member of the Christian 
 community. 
 
 From the subordinate place, which it thus occupies in the notices 
 of St Paul, the permanent ministry gradually emerged, as the Church 
 
 permanent assumed a more settled form, and the higher but temporary offices, 
 
 ministry. 
 
 Definition 
 of terms 
 necessary. 
 
 ‘ Priest’ 
 and ‘ pres- 
 byter.’ 
 
 Different 
 views on 
 the origin 
 of the 
 threefold 
 ministry. 
 
 such as the apostolate, fell away. This progressive growth and 
 development of the ministry, until it arrived at its mature and 
 normal state, it will be the object of the following pages to trace. 
 
 But before proceeding further, some definition of terms is neces- 
 sary. On no subject has more serious error arisen from the con- 
 fusion of language. The word ‘priest’ has two different senses. In 
 the one it is a synonyme for presbyter or elder, and designates the 
 minister who presides over and instructs a Christian congregation : 
 in the other it is equivalent to the Latin sacerdos, the Greek ἱερεύς, 
 or the Hebrew jn3, the offerer of sacrifives, who also performs other 
 mediatorial offices between God and man. How the confusion 
 between these two meanings has afiected the history and theology of 
 the Church, it will be instructive to consider in the sequel. At 
 present it is sufficient to say that the word will be used throughout 
 this essay, as it has been used hitherto, in the latter sense only, so 
 that priestly will be equivalent to ‘sacerdotal’ or ‘ hieratic.” Etymo- 
 logically indeed the other meaning is alone correct (for the words 
 priest and presbyter are the same); but convenience will justify its 
 restriction to this secondary and imported sense, since the English 
 language supplies no other rendering of sacerdos or ἱερεύς. On the 
 other hand, when the Christian elder is meant, the longer form ‘ pres- 
 byter’ will be employed throughout. 
 
 History seems to show decisively that before the middle of the 
 second century each church or organized Christian community had 
 its three orders of ministers, its bishop, its presbyters, and its 
 deacons. On this point there cannot reasonably be two opinions, 
 But at what time and under what circumstances this organization 
 was matured, and to what extent our allegiance is due to it as an 
 authoritative ordinance, are more difficult questions. Some have 
 
THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 
 
 recognised in episcopacy an institution of divine origin, absolute and 
 indispensable ; others have represented it as destitute of all apostolic 
 sanction and authority. Some again have sought for the archetype of 
 the threefold ministry in the Aaronic priesthood; others in the 
 arrangements of synagogue worship. In this clamour of antagonistic 
 opinions history is obviously the sole upright, impartial referee ; and 
 the historical mode of treatment will therefore be strictly adhered to 
 in the following investigation. The doctrine in this instance at all 
 
 events is involved in the history’. 
 
 187 
 
 St Luke’s narrative represents the Twelve Apostles in the earliest Ministry 
 
 days as the sole directors and administrators of the Church. Fox 
 
 , appointed 
 to relieve 
 
 the financial business of the infant community, not less than for its ae Apo- 
 st 
 
 spiritual guidance, they alone are responsible. This state of things 
 could not last long. By the rapid accession of numbers, and still 
 more by the admission of heterogeneous classes into the Church, the 
 work became too vast and too various for them to discharge unaided. 
 To relieve them from the increasing pressure, the inferior and less 
 important functions passed successively into other hands: and thus 
 each grade of the ministry, beginning from the lowest, was created 
 
 in order. 
 
 1. The establishment of the diaconate came first. Complaints 1. Dza- 
 
 had reached the ears of the Apostles from an outlying portion of the appoint. 
 
 community. The Hellenist widows had been overlooked in the ment of 
 
 daily distribution of food and alms. ΤῸ remedy this neglect a new 
 office was created. Seven men were appointed whose duty it was 
 to superintend the public messes”, and, as we may suppose, to provide 
 in other ways for the bodily wants of the helpless poor. Thus 
 relieved, the Twelve were enabled to devote themselves without 
 interruption ‘to prayer and to the ministry of the word.’ The 
 Apostles suggested the creation of this new office, but the persons 
 were chosen by popular election and afterwards ordained by the 
 Twelve with imposition of hands. Though the complaint came from 
 the Hellenists, it must not be supposed that the ministrations of the 
 
 1 The origin of the Christian minis- more recent works on the subject with 
 try is ably investigated in Rothe’s which I am acquainted, and to both of 
 Anfdnge der Christlichen Kirche ete. them I wish to acknowledge my obliga- 
 (1837), and Ritschl’s Entstehung der tions, though in many respects I have 
 Altkatholischen Kirche (2nd ed. 1857). _ arrived at results different from either. 
 These are the most important of the 2 Acts vi. 2 διακονεῖν τραπέζαις. 
 
 the Seven. 
 
188 
 
 The Seven 
 were dea- 
 
 cons, 
 
 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 
 
 Seven were confined to this class’, The object in creating this new 
 office is stated to be not the partial but the entire relief of the Apostles 
 from the serving of tables. This being the case, the appointment of 
 Hellenists (for such they would appear to have been from their 
 names”) is a token of the liberal and loving spirit which prompted 
 the Hebrew members of the Church in the selection of persons to fill 
 the office. 
 
 I have assumed that the office thus established represents the 
 later diaconate ; for though this point has been much disputed, I do 
 not see how the identity of the two can reasonably be called in 
 question®. If the word deacon does not occur in the passage, yet 
 the corresponding verb and substantive, διακονεῖν and διακονία, are 
 repeated more than once. The functions moreover are substantially 
 those which devolved on the deacons of the earliest ages, and which 
 still in theory, though not altogether in practice, form the primary 
 duties of the office. 
 
 which St Luke dwells on the new institution, that he looks on 
 
 Again, it seems clear from the emphasis with 
 
 the establishment of this office, not as an isolated incident, but as 
 the initiation of a new order of things in the Church. It is in 
 short one of those representative facts, of which the earlier part of 
 his narrative is almost wholly made up. Lastly, the tradition of 
 the identity of the two offices has been unanimous from the earliest 
 times. Ireneus, the first writer who alludes to the appointment of 
 the Seven, distinctly holds them to have been deacons*. The Roman 
 Church some centuries later, though the presbytery had largely in- 
 creased meanwhile, still restricted the number of deacons to seven, 
 thus preserving the memory of the first institution of this office’, 
 
 p. 189,note 1)asfavouringhisview. With 
 strange perversity Bohmer (Diss. Jur. 
 
 1 So for instance Vitringa de Synag. 
 Ill. 2. 5, Ῥ. 928 sq., and Mosheim de 
 
 Reb. Christ. p. 119, followed by many 
 later writers. 
 
 2 This inference however is far from 
 certain, since many Hebrews bore 
 Greek names, e. g. the Apostles An- 
 drew and Philip. 
 
 3 It is maintained by Vitringa 111. 2. 
 5, p. 920 sq., that the office of the 
 Seven was different from the later diaco- 
 nate. He quotes Chrysost. Hom. 14 in 
 Act. (tx. p. 115, ed. Montf.) and Can. 
 το of the Quinisextine Council (comp. 
 
 Eccl. p. 349 54.) supposes them to be 
 presbyters, and this account has been 
 adopted even by Ritschl, p. 355 sq. 
 According to another view the office of 
 the Seven branched out intothetwolater 
 orders of the diaconate and the presby- 
 terate, Lange Apost. Zeit. 11. i. p. 75. 
 4 Tren. i. 26. 3, iii. 12. 10, iv. 15. I. 
 5 In the middle of the third century, 
 when Cornelius writes to Fabius, Rome 
 has 46 presbyters but only 7 deacons, 
 Euseb. H. EL. vi. 43; see Routh’s Rel. 
 
THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 189 
 
 And in like manner a canon of the Council of Neoczsarea (A.D. 315) 
 enacted that there should be no more than seven deacons in any 
 city however great’, alleging the apostolic model. This rule, it is 
 
 true, was only partially observed ; but the tradition was at all events 
 
 so far respected, that the creation of an order of subdeacons was 
 
 found necessary in order to remedy the inconvenience arising from 
 
 the limitation’. 
 
 The narrative in the Acts, if I mistake not, implies that the The office 
 office thus created was entirely new. Some writers however have Barrer ce 
 explained the incident as an extension to the Hellenists of an institu- 
 tion which already existed among the Hebrew Christians and is im- 
 plied in the ‘younger men’ mentioned in an earlier part of St Luke’s 
 history*. This view seems not only to be groundless in itself, but 
 also to contradict the general tenour of the narrative. It would 
 appear moreover, that the institution was not merely new within the 
 Christian Church, but novel absolutely. There is no reason for con- 9 
 necting it with any prototype existing in the Jewish community. 
 
 The narrative offers no hint that it was either a continuation of 
 the order of Levites or an adaptation of an office in the synagogue. 
 The philanthropic purpose for which it was established presents no 
 
 direct point of contact with the known duties of either. The Levite, not bor- 
 rowed from 
 the Leviti- 
 away the blood and offal of the sacrifices, to serve as porter at the cal order, 
 
 temple gates, and to swell the chorus of sacred psalmody, bears no 
 
 whose function it was to keep the beasts for slaughter, to cleanse 
 
 strong resemblance to the Christian deacon, whose ministrations lay 
 among the widows and orphans, and whose time was almost wholly 
 spent in works of charity. And again, the Chazan or attendant in nor from 
 the synagogue, whose duties were confined to the care of the building pee 
 and the preparation for service, has more in common with the 
 modern parish clerk than with the deacon in the infant Church of 
 
 Sacr. 111. p. 23, with his note p. 61. 
 Even in the fourth and fifth centuries 
 
 Sacr. tv. Ὁ. 185): see Bingham’s Antiq. 
 i. 20. 19. At the Quinisextine or 2nd 
 
 the number of Roman deacons still re- 
 mained constant: see Ambrosiast. on 
 1 Tim. iii. 13, Sozom. vii. 19 διάκονοι δὲ 
 παρὰ Ῥωμαίοις εἰσέτι νῦν εἰσὶν ἑπτα... 
 παρὰ δὲ τοῖς ἄλλοις ἀδιάφορος ὁ τούτων 
 ἀριθμός. 
 
 1 Concil. Neoces. 6. 14 (Routh Rel. 
 
 Trullan council (4. p. 692) this Neocw- 
 sarean canon was refuted and rejected: 
 see Hefele Consiliengesch. 111. Ὁ. 304, 
 and Vitringa p. 922. 
 
 2 See Bingham 111, 1. 3. 
 
 3 Acts vy. 6, ro. This is the view of 
 Mosheim de Reb. Christ. Ὁ. 114. 
 
190 
 
 Teaching 
 only inci- 
 dental to 
 
 the office. 
 
 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 
 
 Christ’. It is therefore a baseless, though a very common, assump- 
 tion that the Christian diaconate was copied from the arrangements 
 of the synagogue. The Hebrew Chazan is not rendered by deacon in 
 the Greek Testament ; but a. different word is used instead*. We 
 may fairly presume that St Luke dwells at such length on the esta- 
 blishment of the diaconate, because he regards it as a novel creation. 
 
 Thus the work primarily assigned to the deacons was the relief 
 of the poor. Their office was essentially a ‘serving of tables,’ as 
 distinguished from the higher function of preaching and instruction. 
 But partly from the circumstances of their position, partly from the 
 personal character of those first appointed, the deacons at once 
 assumed a prominence which is not indicated in the original creation 
 of the office. Moving about freely among the poorer brethren and 
 charged with the relief of their material wants, they would find 
 opportunities of influence which were denied to the higher officers of 
 the Church who necessarily kept themselves more aloof. The devout 
 zeal of a Stephen or a Philip would turn these opportunities to the 
 best account ; and thus, without ceasing to be dispensers of alms, 
 they became also ministers of the Word. The Apostles themselves 
 had directed that the persons chosen should be not only ‘men of 
 honest report,’ but also ‘full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom’: and 
 this careful foresight, to which the extended influence of the diacon- 
 ate may be ascribed, proved also the security against its abuse. But 
 still the work of teaching must be traced rather to the capacity of 
 the individual officer than to the direct functions of the office. 
 St Paul, writing thirty years later, and stating the requirements of the 
 diaconate, lays the stress mainly on those qualifications which would 
 be most important in persons moving about from house to house 
 and entrusted with the distribution of alms. While he requires that 
 they shall hold the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience, in other 
 words, that they shall be sincere believers, he is not anxious, as in the 
 
 —gase of the presbyters, to secure ‘aptness to teach,’ but demands 
 
 especially that they shall be free from certain vicious habits, such as 
 
 1 Vitringa (111. 2. 4, Pp. 9148q., 1%. view, the fact that as a rule there was 
 2.22, Ὁ. 11308q.) derives the Christian only one Chazan to each synagogue 
 deacon from the Chazan of the syna- must not be overlooked. 
 gogue, Among other objections tothis 2 ὑπηρέτης, luke iy. 20. 
 
THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. IQI 
 
 a love of gossiping, and a greed of paltry gain, into which they might 
 easily full from the nature of their duties’. A) { 
 
 From the mother Church of Jerusalem the institution spread to Spread of 
 Gentile Christian brotherhoods. By the ‘helps*’ in the First Epistle ἐκ Ὁ" 
 to the Corinthians (A.D. 57), and by the ‘ministration®’ in the Epistle pride ᾿ 
 to the Romans (4.D. 58), the diaconate solely or chiefly seems to be 
 intended; but besides these incidental allusions, the latter epistle 
 bears more significant testimony to the general extension of the 
 
 ‘office. The strict seclusion of the female sex in Greece and in some 
 Oriental countries necessarily debarred them from the ministrations 
 of men: and to meet the want thus felt, it was found necessary at 
 an early date to admit women to the diaconate. A woman-deacon 
 belonging to the Church of Cenchres is mentioned in the Epistle to 
 the Romans*. As time advances, the diaconate becomes still more 
 ‘prominent. In the Philippian Church a few years later (about A.p. 
 62) the deacons take their rank after the presbyters, the two orders 
 together constituting the recognised ministry of the Christian society 
 there®/ Again, passing over another interval of some years, we ° 
 find St Paul in the First Epistle to Timothy (about a.p. 66) giving 
 express directions as to the qualifications of men-deacons and women- 
 deaconslalike’. From the tenour of his language it seems clear that 
 in the Christian communities of proconsular Asia at all events the 
 institution was so common that ministerial organization would be 
 considered incomplete without it. On the other hand we may perhaps 
 infer from the instructions which he sends about the same time to 
 Titus in Crete, that he did not consider it indispensable; for while he 
 mentions having given direct orders to his delegate to appoint pres- 
 byters in every city, he is silent about a diaconate’. 
 
 2. While the diaconate was thus an entirely new creation, called 2. Prus- 
 forth by a special emergency and developed by the progress of events, Say Ὁ 
 
 the early history of the presbyterate was different. If the sacred 
 historian dwells at length on the institution of the lower office but is 
 silent about the first beginnings of the higher, the explanation seems 
 to be, that the latter had not the claim of novelty like the former. 
 
 1 7 Tim, iii. 8 eq. Leta ead 
 το τι xii, 28. $y, lim), it. 5.56. 
 3 Rom. xii. 7. 1 Tit. 1. 5 8. 
 
 4 Rom. xvi. 1. 
 
 (a) ΑΡΝΩΝ grein Dy SONY Shand me“? 
 ἱ Ray | rt: es Ss 
 (i) ἐπ γι. Uy te ‘hoped Att wel fi52) vis fe γί a "ἀπε ee ' Kila ,. ή 
 Doe por Sup caf Ie Vee om sie aie ZY Athi ΄ “Ζ, Ζφϑω.- i y2 
 
 (2) 4 SN deo thn, 1, (Pe aflori 2 fe th ASA EES pe Baby Kad aces ee eae 
 
192 
 
 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 
 
 not anew The Christian Church in its earliest stage was regarded by the body 
 
 office, 
 
 but adopt- for the most part they were careful to observe. 
 edfrom the 
 
 syna- 
 gogue. 
 
 Occasion 
 
 of its adop- 
 
 tion. 
 
 of the Jewish people as nothing more than a new sect springing up 
 by the side of the old. This was not unnatural: for the first disciples 
 conformed to the religion of their fathers in all essential points, 
 practising circumcision, observing the sabbaths, and attending the 
 temple-worship. The sects in the Jewish commonwealth were not, 
 properly speaking, nonconformists. They only superadded their own 
 special organization to the established religion of their country, which 
 The institution of 
 synagogues was flexible enough to allow free scope for wide diver- 
 gences of creed and practice. Different races as the Cyrenians and 
 Alexandrians, different classes of society as the freedmen', perhaps 
 also different sects as the Sadducees or the Essenes, each had or 
 could have their own special synagogue’, where they might indulge 
 their peculiarities without hindrance. As soon as the expansion of 
 the Church rendered some organization necessary, it would form a 
 ‘synagogue’ of its own. The Christian congregations in Palestine 
 long continued to be designated by this name’, though the term 
 ‘ecclesia’ took its place from the very first in heathen countries, 
 With the synagogue itself they would naturally, if not necessarily, 
 adopt the normal government of a synagogue, and a body of elders or 
 presbyters would be chosen to direct the religious worship and partly 
 also to watch over the temporal well-being of the society. 
 
 Hence the silence of St Luke. 
 
 byters, he introduces them without preface, as though the institution 
 
 When he first mentions the pres- 
 were a matter of course. But the moment of their introduction 
 is significant. I have pointed out elsewhere* that the two persecu- 
 
 tions, of which St Stephen and St James were respectively the chief 
 
 victims, mark two important stages in the diffusion of the Gospel./// | 
 
 Their connexion with the internal organization of the Church is not 
 
 less remarkable. 
 
 1 Acts vi. 9. 
 
 2 Ti is stated, that there were no less 
 than 480 synagogues in Jerusalem. 
 The number is doubtless greatly ex- 
 aggerated, but must have been very 
 considerable: see Vitringa prol. 4, 
 pis; δρᾶ Tar. τ. ΤΣ 253. 
 
 3 James ii. 2. Epiphanius (xxx. 18, 
 p. 142) says of the Ebionites, cuvayw- 
 
 aa 2“ ΡΣ ( Ox fr p fic ζω 
 
 / eae 
 (i) fle Nes : 
 We 
 
 4 () | ἢ 
 . σοεδ τσ AEC A ne 
 CHL) f 
 
 The first results directly from the establishment of 
 
 γὴν οὗτοι καλοῦσι THY ἑαυτῶν ἐκκλησίαν, 
 καὶ οὐχὶ ἐκκλησίαν. See also Hieron. 
 Epist. cxii. 13 (1. p. 746, ed. Vall.) 
 ‘per totas orientis synagogas,’ speaking 
 of the Nazareans ; though his meaning 
 is not altogether clear. Comp. Test. 
 xii Patr. Benj. 11. 
 4 See Galatians pp. 298, 303. 
 
 fey 4 
 
 ἐν Pai fy: " i 
 οί δ σεχνυ: 
 
 
 
 | 
 i! 
 ] 
 Ϊ 
 | 
 | 
 | 
 | 
 
 
 
 
 
THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 193 
 
 the lowest order in the ministry, the diaconate. To the second may 
 probably be ascribed the adoption of the next higher grade, the pres- 
 bytery. This later persecution was the signal for the dispersion of 
 the Twelve on a wider mission. Since Jerusalem would no longer be 
 their home as hitherto, it became necessary to provide for the perma- 
 nent direction of the Church there; and for this purpose the usual 
 government of the synagogue would be adopted. Now at all events 
 for the first time we read of ‘presbyters’ in connexion with the 
 Christian brotherhood at Jerusalem’. (", 
 
 From this time forward all official communications with the Presbytery 
 of Jerusa- 
 
 mother Chureh are carried on through their intervention. To the), 
 
 presbyters Barnabas and Saul bear the alms contributed by the 
 Gentile Churches’. The presbyters are persistently associated with 
 the Apostles, in convening the congress, in the superscription of the 
 decree, and in the general settlement of the dispute between the 
 Jewish and Gentile Christians*. By the presbyters St Paul is 
 received many years later on his last visit to Jerusalem, and to them 
 he gives an account of his missionary labours and triumphs‘. 
 
 But the office was not confined to the mother Church alone. Extension 
 Jewish presbyteries existed already in all the principal cities of the oe 
 dispersion, and Christian presbyteries would early occupy a not less Churches. 
 wide area. On their very first missionary journey the Apostles 
 Paul and Barnabas are described as appointing presbyters in every 
 church*®, Thesame rule was doubtless carried out in all the brother- 
 hoods founded later; but it is mentioned here and here only, 
 because the mode of procedure on this occasion would suffice as a 
 type of the Apostles’ dealings elsewhere under similar circumstances. 
 
 The name of the presbyter then presents no difficulty. But what Presbyters 
 must be said of the term ‘bishop’? It has been shown that in the SEA: 
 apostolic writings the two are only different designations of one and 
 the same office’. How and where was this second name originated? 
 
 To the officers of Gentile Churches alone is the term applied, as a but only in 
 
 synonyme for presbyter. At Philippi’, in Asia Minor’, in Crete’, Cae 
 
 1 Acts xi. 30. On the sequence of 5 Acts xiv. 23. 
 events at this time see Galatians p. 5 See above, p. 96 sq. 
 124. Τ Phil. i. 3. 
 2 Acts xi. 30. 8 Acts xx. 28, τ Tim. ili, 1, 2; comp. 
 3 Acts xv. 2, 4, 6, 22, 23, xvi. 4. 1 Pet. ii. 25, v. 2. 
 4 Acts xxi. 18. cnet! WY Fae 
 
 PHIL. Ἐ3. 
 ψ Wned Mote ΚΟ ULE γ055: γ 7VE Corre lo- Prt n1tr¢24€# ς. Chicere// cae 
 
 i gert Lad i Whee (fu gr of Fete Chie Doe Fase! 725: 2 lyf, «δειξε. γ fee Tl 
 | 
 
 v 
 
194 
 
 Possible 
 origin of 
 the term. 
 
 Twofold 
 duties of 
 the presby- 
 ter. 
 
 The func. 
 tion of 
 teaching. 
 
 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 
 
 the presbyter is so called. In the next generation the title is 
 employed in a letter written by the Greek Church of Rome to the 
 Greek Church of Corinth’. 
 
 Beyond this we are left to conjecture. 
 
 Thus the word would seem to be espe- 
 But if we 
 may assume that the directors of religious and social clubs among the 
 
 cially Hellenic. 
 
 heathen were commonly so called’*, it would naturally occur, if not to 
 the Gentile Christians themselves, at all events to their heathen 
 associates, as a fit designation for the presiding members of the new 
 society. The infant Church of Christ, which appeared to the Jew as 
 a synagogue, would be regarded by the heathen as a confraternity °. 
 But whatever may have been the origin of the term, it did not alto- 
 gether dispossess the earlier name ‘presbyter,’ which still held its 
 And, when at 
 length the term bishop was appropriated to a higher office in the 
 
 place as a synonyme even in Gentile congregations*. 
 
 Church, the latter became again, as it had been at first, the sole 
 designation of the Christian elder’. 
 
 The duties of the presbyters were twofold. They were both rulers 
 and instructors of the congregation. This double function appears 
 in St Paul’s expression ‘pastors and teachers’*, where, as the form of 
 the original seems to show, the two words describe the same office 
 under different aspects. Though government was probably the first 
 conception of the office, yet the work of teaching must have fallen 
 to the presbyters from the very first and have assumed greater 
 With the growth of the Church, the 
 
 visits of the apostles and evangelists to any individual community 
 
 prominence as time went on, 
 
 must have become less and less frequent, so that the burden of in- 
 struction would be gradually transferred from these missionary 
 
 preachers to the local officers of the congregation, Hence St Paul 
 
 
 
 1 Clem. Rom. 42, 45. 
 
 2 The evidence however is slight: 
 see above p. 95, note 2. Some light is 
 thrown on this subject by the fact that 
 the Roman government seems first to 
 have recognised the Christian brother- 
 hoods in their corporate capacity, as 
 burial clubs: see de Rossi Rom. Sotterr. 
 ΤΡ. 71: ἢ 
 
 3 Ontheseclubs or confraternities see 
 Renan Les Apétres p. 351 86: ; comp. 
 Saint Paul p. 239. 
 
 4 Acts xx, 17, 1 Tim. v. 17, Tit.i. 5, 
 1 Pet. v. 1, Clem. Rom. 21, 44. 
 
 > Other more general designations in 
 the New Testament are of προιστάμενοι 
 (x Thess. vy. 12, Rom, xii. 8: comp. 
 1 Tim. v. 17), or of ἡγούμενοι (Hebr. 
 xiii. 7, 17, 24). For the former comp. 
 Hermas Vis. ii. 4, Justin. Apol. i. 67 
 (ὁ mpoeorws); for the latter, Clem. Rom. 
 1, 21, Hermas Vis. ii. 2, ili. g (οἱ προη- 
 γούμενοι). 
 
 6 Hphes. iv. rr τοὺς δὲ ποιμένας καὶ 
 διδασκάλους. For ποιμαίνειν applied 
 to the ἐπίσκοπος or πρεσβύτερος see 
 Acts xx. 28, 1 Pet. v. 2; comp. 1 Pet. 
 ii. 25. 
 
 a, 
 
 
 
 
 
THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY, 195 
 
 in two passages, where he gives directions relating to bishops or 
 presbyters, insists specially on the faculty of teaching as a qualifica- 
 
 Yet even here this work seems to be regarded 
 In the one 
 
 tion for the position’. 
 rather as incidental to than as inherent in the office. 
 epistle he directs that double honour shall be paid to those pres- 
 byters who have ruled well, but especially to such as ‘labour in 
 as though one holding this office might de- 
 cline the work of instruction., In the other, he closes the list of 
 qualifications with the requirement that the bishop (or presbyter) 
 hold fast the faithful word in accordance with the apostolic teaching, 
 ‘that he may be able both to exhort in the healthy doctrine and to 
 confute gainsayers,’ alleging as a reason the pernicious activity and 
 growing numbers of the false teachers. Nevertheless there is no 
 ground for supposing that the work of teaching and the work of 
 governing pertained to separate members of the presbyteral college*. 
 As each had his special gift, so would he devote himself more or less 
 exclusively to the one or the other of these sacred functions. (/ 
 
 3. It is clear then that at the close of the apostolic age, the two 
 lower orders of the threefold ministry were firmly and widely esta- 
 blished ; but traces of the third and highest order, the episcopate pro- 
 perly so called, are few and indistinct. 
 
 For the opinion hazarded by -Theodoret and adopted by many The office 
 
 word and doctrine’,’ 
 
 3. BISHOPS. 
 
 later writers*, that the same officers in the Church who were first ee 
 1; Tim. ii. 2, Tit. 1 9. 4 On x Tim. iii. 1, τοὺς δὲ νῦν καλου- 
 2 1 Tim. v. 17 μάλιστα of κοπιῶντες μένους ἐπισκόπους ἀποστόλους ὠνόμα ζον" 
 ἐν λόγῳ καὶ διδασκαλίᾳ. At a much τοῦ δὲ χρόνου προϊόντος τὸ μὲν τῆς ἀπο- 
 later date we read of ‘presbyteri doc- στολῆς ὄνομα τοῖς ἀληθῶς ἀποστόλοις 
 tores,’ whence it may perhaps be in- κατέλιπον, τὸ δὲ τῆς ἐπισκοπῆς τοῖς πάλαι 
 ferred that even then the work of καλουμένοις ἀποστόλοις ἔπέθεσαν. See 
 teaching was not absolutely indispens- also his note on Phil.i.1. Comp. Words- 
 able to the presbyteral office; Act. worth Theoph. Angl. ὁ. x, Blunt First 
 Perp. et Fel. 13, Cyprian. Epist. 29: Three Centuries p. 81. Theodoret, as 
 see Ritschl p. 352. usual, has borrowed from Theodore of 
 3 The distinction of lay or ruling Mopsuestia on 1 Tim. ili. 1, ‘Qui vero 
 elders, and ministers proper orteaching nune episcopi nominantur, illi tune 
 elders, was laid down by Calvin and apostoli dicebantur...Beatis vero apo- 
 has been adopted as the constitution of | stolis decedentibus, illi qui post illos 
 several presbyterian Churches. This  ordinati sunt ... grave existimaverunt 
 interpretation of St Paul’s language is apostolorum sibi vindicare nuncupatio- 
 refuted by Rothe p. 224, Ritschl p.352 nem; diviserunt ergo ipsa nomina etc.’ 
 Ἢ and Schaff Hist. of Apost. Ch. τι. (Raban. Maur. vi. p. 604 ν, ed. Migne). 
 . 312, besides older writers such as. Theodore however makes a distinction 
 , Viting and Mosheim. Lamy ofl α between the two oflices : nor does he, : 
 κεφ ίαϊων my es ὧφ Sell reel. hat Woe. re COZ / hebe3—CIB Be See) ole i“ Ζ 
 aS etm ca 13 ey Ke M, Ou. δ ων lr On γᾷ a | oe? Lic σ΄ 79}9}}2ι::-ς. 
 tin οἴνου (ey ie leek ae iff fener x GLE fick lez a ὲ 
 Dh VARS A. Sf (L (eet a =A? (ae »o JALece “22 Ls tt= re cor cee 
 
196 
 
 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 
 
 of the apo- called apostles came afterwards to be designated bishops, is baseless. 
 
 stolate. 
 
 If the two offices had been identical, the substitution of the one name 
 for the other would have required some explanation. But in fact 
 the functions of the Apostle and the bishop differed widely. The 
 Apostle, like the prophet or the evangelist, held no local office. 
 He was essentially, as his name denotes, a missionary, moving about 
 from place to place, founding and confirming new brotherhoods. 
 The only ground on which Theodoret builds his theory is a false 
 interpretation of a passage in St Paul. At the opening of the 
 Epistle to Philippi the presbyters (here called bishops) and deacons 
 are saluted, while in the body of the letter one Epaphroditus 15 
 
 Phil. ii. 25 mentioned as an ‘apostle’ of the Philippians. If ‘apostle’ here had 
 
 wrongly 
 explained. 
 
 The epis- 
 copate de- 
 veloped 
 out of the 
 presby- 
 tery. 
 
 the meaning which is thus assigned to it, all the three orders of the 
 ministry would be found at Philippi. But this interpretation will 
 not stand. The true Apostle, like St Peter or St John, bears this 
 title as the messenger, the delegate, of Christ Himself : while Epaphro- 
 ditus is only so styled as the messenger of the Philippian brother- 
 hood ; and in the very next clause the expression is explained by the 
 statement that he carried their alms to St Paul’. The use of the 
 word here has a parallel in another passage’, where messengers (or 
 apostles) of the churches are mentioned. It is not therefore to the 
 apostle that we must look for the prototype of the bishop. How 
 far indeed and in what sense the bishop may be called a successor of 
 the Apostles, will be a proper subject for consideration: but the 
 succession at least does not consist in an identity of office. 
 
 The history of the name itself suggests a different account of the 
 origin of the episcopate. If bishop was at first used as a synonyme 
 for presbyter and afterwards came to designate the higher officer under 
 whom the presbyters served, the episcopate properly so called 
 would seem to have been developed from the subordinate office. 
 In other words, the episcopate was formed not out of the apostolic 
 order by localisation but out of the presbyteral by elevation : and 
 the title, which originally was common to all, came at os eM to be 
 appropriated to the chief among them*. 
 
 like Theodoret, misinterpret Phil.ii.25. 2 2 Cor. viii. 23, see Galatians p. 96, 
 ThecommentatorHilaryalsoonKphes. note 3. 
 ἦγ, 11, says ‘apostoli episcopi sunt.’ 3 A parallel instance from Athenian 
 
 1 See Phil. ii. 25, with the note. institutions will illustrate this usage. 
 
 
 
 
 
THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 
 
 Tf this account be true, we might expect to find in the mother 
 Church of Jerusalem, which as the earliest founded would soonest 
 ripen into maturity, the first traces of this developed form of the 
 ministry. Nor is this expectation disappointed. James the Lord’s 
 brother alone, within the period compassed by the apostolic writings, 
 can claim to be regarded as a bishop in the later and more special 
 sense of the term. In the language of St Paul he takes precedence 
 even of the earliest and greatest preachers of the Gospel, St Peter and 
 St John’, where the affairs of the Jewish Church specially are con- 
 cerned, In St Luke’s narrative he appears as the local representa- 
 tive of the brotherhood in Jerusalem, presiding at the congress, whose 
 decision he suggests and whose decree he appears to have framed’, 
 receiving the missionary preachers as they revisit the mother Church’®, 
 acting generally as the referee in communications with foreign 
 brotherhoods. 
 _ where he is represented as supreme arbiter over the Church universal 
 
 The place assigned to him in the spurious Clementines, 
 
 in matters of doctrine, must be treated as a gross exaggeration. This 
 kind of authority is nowhere conferred upon him in the apostolic 
 writings: but his social and ecclesiastical position, as it appears in 
 St Luke and St Paul, explains how the exaggeration was possible. 
 And this position is the more remarkable if, as seems to have been 
 the case, he was not one of the Twelve‘. 
 
 197 
 
 St James 
 was the 
 earliest 
 bishop, 
 
 On the other hand, though especially prominent, he appears in the but yet 
 
 Acts as a member of a body. When St Peter, after his escape from 
 
 not isolat- 
 edfrom hig 
 
 prison, is about to leave Jerusalem, he desires that his deliverance presby- 
 
 shall be reported to ‘James and the brethren’.’ When again St 
 Paul on his last visit to the Holy City goes to see James, we are 
 told that all the presbyters were present®. If in some passages St 
 James is named by himself, in others he is omitted and the presbyters 
 ‘alone are mentioned’. From this it may be inferred that though 
 
 The ἐπιστάτης was chairman of a body 
 of ten πρόεδροι, who themselves were 
 appointed in turn by lot to serve from 
 a larger body of fifty πρυτάνεις. Yet we 
 find the ἐπιστάτης not only designated 
 πρύτανις par excellence (Demosth. Ti- 
 mocr. § 157), but even addressed by 
 this name in the presence of the other 
 πρόεδροι (Thue. vi. 14). 
 
 1 Gal. ii. 9; see the note. 
 
 2 Acts xy. 13 8q. St James speaks 
 
 last and apparently with some degree 
 of authority (ἐγὼ κρίνω ver. 19). The 
 decree is clearly framed on his recom- 
 mendations, and some indecisive coin- 
 cidences of style with his epistle have 
 been pointed out. 
 
 3 Acts xxi. 18; comp. xii. 17. See 
 also Gal. i. 19, ii. 12. 
 
 4 See Galatians p. 252 sq. 
 
 5 Acts xii. 17. 6. Acts xxi. 18, 
 
 7 Acts xi. 30; Comp, XY. 4, 23, XVi. 4. 
 
 tery. 
 
‘198 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 
 
 holding a position superior to the rest, he was still considered as a 
 member of the presbytery ; that he was in fact the head or president 
 of the college. What power this presidency conferred, how far it 
 was recognised as an independent official position, and to what de- 
 gree it was due to the ascendancy of his personal gifts, are questions 
 which in the absence of direct information can only be answered by 
 conjecture. But his close relationship with the Lord, his rare energy 
 of character, and his rigid sanctity of life which won the respect 
 even of the unconverted Jews’, would react upon his office, and 
 may perhaps have elevated it to a level which was not definitely 
 contemplated in its origin. 
 
 Nobishops But while tha episcopal office thus existed in the mother Church 
 
 es ani of Jerusalem from very early days, at least in a rudimentary form, the 
 
 Churches, New Testament presents no distinct traces of such organization in 
 the Gentile congregations. The government of the Gentile churches, 
 
 Twostages as there represented, exhibits two successive stages of development 
 Bee . op: tending in this direction; but the third stage, in which episcopacy 
 definitely appears, still lies beyond the horizon. 
 
 (1) Ocea- (1) We have first of all the Apostles themselves exercising the 
 sional su- 
 pervision 
 by the son and on the spot, sometimes at a distance by letter or by message. 
 
 ae The imaginary picture drawn by St Paul, when he directs the pun- 
 
 superintendence of the churches under their care, sometimes in per- 
 
 selves. — ishment of the Corinthian offender, vividly represents his position in 
 this respect. The members of the church are gathered together, the | 
 elders, we may suppose, being seated apart on a dais or tribune; he 
 himself, as president, directs their deliberations, collects their votes, 
 pronounces sentence on the guilty man®,’ How the absence of the 
 apostolic president was actually supplied in this instance, we do ποῦ 
 know. But a council was held; he did direct their verdict ‘in spirit | 
 though not in person’; and ‘the majority’ condemned the offender®. _ 
 In the same way St Peter, giving directions to the elders, claims ἃ 
 place among them. The title ‘fellow-presbyter,’ which he applies to | 
 himself‘, would doubtless recal to the memory of his readers the 
 occasions when he himself had presided with the elders and guided 
 
 their deliberations. 
 
 1 See Galatians p. 365 sq. 3 2 Cor. il. 6 ἡ ἐπιτιμία αὕτη ἡ ὑπὸ 
 ..2 1 Cor, v. 3 sq. ᾿ τῶν πλειόνων, ; 41 Pet. veut. “| 
 \) Yrw Acrreakal pp ΣΕ: at De enceg bar de. ἢ L Me, Abepe pape Lo ( δ, 
 
 ἵ aise in Thee | poeceb in ta ate Se tZ ae ἀδι, pese? Jor Nie can 
 fez. he “7: Lt. sy 
 Vee Keanere J oe hare Meee factor γ 92,7 
 
 Cotl® a a fea) ΟΣ 
 
 
 
 
 
THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 
 
 (2) As the first stage then, the Apostles themselves were the 
 superintendents of each individual church, But the wider spread of 
 the Gospel would diminish the frequency of their visits and impair the 
 efficiency of such supervision. In the second stage therefore we find 
 them, at critical seasons and in important congregations, delegating 
 some trustworthy disciple who should fix his abode in a given place 
 The Pastoral 
 
 Epistles present this second stage to our view. It is the conception 
 
 for a time and direct the affairs of the church there. 
 
 of a later age which represents Timothy as bishop of Ephesus and 
 Titus as bishop of Crete’. St Paul’s own language implies that the 
 position which they held was temporary. In both cases their term 
 of office is drawing to a close, when the Apostle writes’; But the 
 conception is not altogether without foundation. With less perma- 
 nence but perhaps greater authority, the position occupied by these 
 apostolic delegates nevertheless fairly represents the functions of the 
 bishop early in the second century. They were in fact the link 
 between the Apostle whose superintendence was occasional and gene- 
 ral and the bishop who exercised a permanent supervision over an 
 individual congregation. 
 
 Beyond this second stage the notices in the apostolic writings do 
 not carry us. The angels of the seven churches indeed are frequently 
 alleged as an exception’®. 
 suggest such an explanation*, nor is this view in keeping with the 
 highly figurative style of this wonderful book. Its sublime imagery 
 
 1 Const. Apost. vii. 46, Euseb. H. ΕἸ. 
 iii. 4, and later writers. 
 
 2 See 1 Tim. i. 3, ii, 14, 2 Tim. iv. 9; 
 21, Tit. 1. 5, iii. 12. 
 
 3 See for instance among recent wri- 
 ters Thiersch Gesch. der Apost. Kirche 
 p. 278, Trench Epistles to the Seven 
 Churches p. 47 8q., with others. This 
 explanation is as old as the earliest 
 commentators. Rothesupposesthatthe 
 word anticipates the establishment of 
 episcopacy, being a kind of prophetic 
 symbol, p. 423 sq. Others again take 
 the angel to designate the collective 
 ministry, i.e. the whole body of priests 
 and deacons. For various explanations 
 see Schaff Hist. of Apost. Ch. 11. p. 223. 
 
 Rothe (p. 426) supposes that Dio- 
 trephes ὁ φιλοπρωτεύων αὐτῶν (3 Joh. g) 
 
 was a bishop. This cannot be pro- 
 nounced impossible, but the language 
 is far too indefinite to encourage such 
 an inference, 
 
 4 It is conceivable indeed that a 
 bishop or chief pastor should be called 
 an angel or messenger of God orof Christ 
 (comp. Hag. i. 13, Mal. ii. 7), but he 
 would hardly be styled an angel of the 
 church over which he presides, See the 
 parallel case of ἀπόστολος above, p. τού. 
 Vitringa (τι. 9, p. 550), and others after 
 him, explain ἄγγελος in the Apocalypse 
 by the mov, the messenger or deputy 
 of the synagogue. These however were 
 only inferior officers, and could not be 
 compared to stars or made responsible 
 for the well-being of the churches; see 
 Rothe p. 504. « 
 
 199 
 () Resi- 
 
 ence of 
 apostolic 
 delegates. 
 
 The angels 
 
 in the Apo- 
 ὃ calypsenot 
 But neither does the name ‘angel’ itself bishops. 
 
200 
 
 True ex- 
 planation. 
 
 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 
 
 seems to be seriously impaired by this interpretation. On the other 
 hand St John’s own language gives the true key to the symbolism. 
 ‘The seven stars,’ so it is explained, ‘are the seven angels of the seven 
 churches, and the seven candlesticks are the seven churches’.’ This 
 contrast between the heavenly and the earthly fires—the star shining 
 steadily by its own inherent eternal light, and the lamp flickering and 
 uncertain, requiring to be fed with fuel and tended with care— 
 cannot be devoid of meaning. ‘The star is the suprasensual counter- 
 part, the heavenly representative ; the lamp, the earthly realisation, 
 the outward embodiment. Whether the angel is here conceived as an 
 actual person, the celestial guardian, or only as a personification, the 
 idea or spirit of the church, it is unnecessary for my present purpose 
 to consider. But whatever may be the exact conception, he is identi- 
 fied with and made responsible for it to a degree wholly unsuited to 
 any human officer. Nothing is predicated of him, which may not be 
 predicated of it. To him are imputed all its hopes, its fears, its 
 graces, its shortcomings. He is punished with it, and he is rewarded 
 with it. In one passage especially the language applied to the angel 
 seems to exclude the common interpretation. In the message to 
 Thyatira the angel is blamed, because he suffers himself to be led 
 astray by ‘his wife Jezebel’.’ In this image of Ahab’s idolatrous 
 queen some dangerous and immoral teaching must be personified ; 
 for it does violence alike to the general tenour and to the individual 
 expressions in the passage to suppose that an actual woman is meant. 
 Thus the symbolism of the passage is entirely in keeping. Nor 
 again is this mode of representation new. ‘The ‘princes’ in the pro- 
 phecy of Daniel® present a very near if not an exact parallel to the 
 angels of the Revelation. Here, as elsewhere, St John seems to 
 adapt the imagery of this earliest apocalyptic book. 
 
 Indeed, if with most recent writers we adopt the early date of the 
 Apocalypse of St John, it is scarcely possible that the episcopal 
 organization should have been so mature when it was written. In 
 this case probably not more than two or three years have elapsed 
 from the date of the Pastoral Epistles*, and this interval seems quite 
 
 1 Rey. i. 20. a correct reading, it seems to be a cor- 
 2 Rey. ii. 20 τὴν γυναῖκά cov’ Τεξάβελ. rect gloss. 
 The word gov should probably be re- 3 Dan. x. 13, 20, 21. 
 
 tained in the text: or at least, if not 4 The date of the Pastoral Epistles 
 
THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 
 
 insufficient to account for so great a change in the administration 
 of the Asiatic churches. 
 
 As late therefore as the year 70 no distinct signs of episcopal go- Episcopa- 
 cy esta- 
 
 vernment have hitherto appeared in Gentile Christendom. Yet unless 
 
 blished in 
 we have recourse to a sweeping condemnation of received documents, peat 
 ι A churches 
 it seems vain to deny that early in the second century the episcopal before the 
 : eee . pn, closeof the 
 office was firmly and widely established. Thus during the last three century. 
 
 decades of the first century, and consequently during the lifetime of 
 the latest surviving Apostle, this change must have been brought 
 about. But the circumstances under which it was effected are 
 shrouded in darkness; and various attempts have been made to read 
 the obscure enigma. Of several solutions offered one at least deserves 
 
 special notice. If Rothe’s view cannot be accepted as final, its ex- Rothe’s 
 solution, 
 
 amination will at least serve to bring out the conditions of the 
 problem: and for this reason I shall state and discuss it as briefly 
 as possible’. For the words in which the theory is stated I am 
 myself responsible. 
 
 ‘The epoch to which we last adverted marks an important crisis Import- 
 Ὶ ance of the 
 
 in the history of Christianity. The Church was distracted and 
 dismayed by the growing dissensions between the Jewish and 
 Gentile brethren and by the menacing apparition of Gnostic heresy. 
 So long as its three most prominent leaders were living, there had 
 been some security against the extravagance of parties, some guaran- 
 tee of harmonious combination among diverse churches. But St 
 Peter, St Paul, and St James, were carried away by death almost at 
 the same time and in the face of this great emergency. Another 
 blow too had fallen: the long-delayed judgment of God on the once 
 Holy City was delayed no more. With the overthrow of Jerusalem 
 the visible centre of the Church was removed. The keystone of the 
 fabric was withdrawn, and the whole edifice threatened with ruin. 
 There was a crying need for some organization which should cement 
 together the diverse elements of Christian society and preserve it 
 from disintegration.’ 
 
 may be and probably is as late as A.D. — episcopacy is assailed (on grounds. in 
 
 66 or 67; while the Apocalypse on many respects differing from those 
 
 this hypothesis was written not later which I have urged) by Baur Ursprung 
 
 than A.D. 70. des Episcopats Ὁ. 39 sq., and Ritschl 
 1 See Rothe’s Anfiinge etc. pp. 354— Ῥ. 410 584. 
 
 392. Rothe’s account of the origin of 
 
 crisis. 
 
202 
 
 Origin of 
 the Catho- 
 lie Church. 
 
 Agency of 
 the surviv- 
 ing Apo- 
 stles. 
 
 Evidence 
 of a se- 
 cond Apo- 
 stolie 
 Council. 
 
 Hegesip- 
 pus. 
 
 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 
 
 ‘Out of this need the Catholic Church arose, Christendom had 
 hitherto existed as a number of distinct isolated congregations, drawn 
 in the same direction by a common faith and common sympathies, 
 accidentally linked one with another by the personal influence and 
 apostolic authority of their common teachers, but not bound together 
 in a harmonious whole by any permanent external organization. 
 Now at length this great result was brought about. The magnitude 
 of the change effected during this period may be measured by the 
 difference in the constitution and conception of the Christian Church 
 as presented in the Pastoral Epistles of St Paul and the letters of St 
 Ignatius respectively.’ 
 
 ‘By whom then was the new constitution organized? ΤῸ this 
 This great work must be 
 St John especially, who built 
 up the speculative theology of the Church, was mainly instrumental ~ 
 in completing its external constitution also; for Asia Minor was the 
 St John however 
 was not the only Apostle or early disciple who lived in this pro- 
 St Philip is known to have settled in Hierapolis’, St 
 Andrew also seems to have dwelt in these parts". The silence of 
 history clearly proclaims the fact which the voice of history but 
 faintly suggests, 
 
 question only one answer can be given. 
 ascribed to the surviving Apostles. 
 
 centre from which the new movement spread. 
 
 vince. 
 
 If we hear nothing more of the Apostles’ mission- 
 ary labours, it is because they had organized an united Church, to 
 which they had transferred the work of evangelization.” ~ 
 
 ‘Of such a combined effort on the part of the Apostles, resulting 
 in a definite ecclesiastical polity, in an united Catholic Church, 
 no direct account is preserved: but incidental notices are not want- 
 
 ing ; 
 
 g; and in the general paucity of information respecting the whole 
 
 period more than this was not to be expected *.’ 
 ‘(1) Eusebius relates that after the martyrdom of St James 
 and the fall of Jerusalem, the remaining Aposties and personal dis- 
 
 1 Papias in Euseb. H. EL. iii. 39; 
 Polycrates and Caius in Euseb. H. E. 
 iil, 21. 
 
 2 Muratorian Canon (circ. 170 A.D.), 
 Routh Rel. Sacr. τ. p. 394. 
 
 3 Besides the evidence which I have 
 stated and discussed in the text, Rothe 
 also brings forward a fragment of the 
 Predicatio Pauli (preserved in the tract 
 
 de Baptismo Hereticorum, which is 
 included among Cyprian’s works, app. 
 p. 30, ed. Fell; see Galatians p. 353 
 note), where the writer mentions a 
 meeting of St Peter and St Paul in 
 Rome. The main question however is 
 so slightly affected thereby, that I have 
 not thought it necessary to investigate 
 the value and bearing of this fragment, 
 
THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 
 
 ciples of the Lord, with his surviving relations, met tcgether and 
 after consultation unanimously appointed Symeon the son of Clopas 
 to the vacant see’. It can hardly be doubted, that Eusebius in 
 this passage quotes from the earlier historian Hegesippus, from 
 whom he has derived the other incidents in the lives of James and 
 Symeon: and we may well believe that this council discussed 
 larger questions than the appointment of a single bishop, and that 
 the constitution and prospects of the Church generally came under 
 deliberation. It may have been on this occasion that the surviving 
 Apostles partitioned out the world among them, and ‘Asia was 
 assigned to John*’ 
 
 ‘(2) A fragment of Irenzeus points in the same direction. 
 Writing of the holy eucharist he says, ‘They who have paid atten- 
 tion to the second ordinances of the Apostles know that the Lord 
 
 Trenzus. 
 
 appointed a new offering in the new covenant®,.’ By these ‘second 
 ordinances’ must be understood some later decrees or injunctions 
 than those contained in the apostolic epistles: and these would 
 naturally be framed and promulyated by such a council as the notice 
 of Kusebius suggests.’ 
 
 “(2) Τὸ the same effect St Clement of Rome writes, that the Clementof 
 Apostles, having appointed elders in every church and foreseeing POE, 
 the disputes which would arise, ‘afterwards added a codicil (supple- 
 mentary direction) that if they should fall asleep, other approved 
 men should succeed to their office*,’ 
 ‘their, must refer, not to the first appointed presbyters, but to 
 the Apostles themselves. Thus interpreted, the passage contains a 
 
 distinct notice of the institution of bishops as successors of the Apo- 
 
 Here the pronouns ‘they,’ 
 
 stles ; while in the word ‘afterwards’ is involved an allusion to the 
 later council to which the ‘second ordinances’ of Irenzeus also refer®.’ 
 
 1 Kuseb. H. F. iii. rr. the persons intended in κοιμηθῶσιν and 
 
 2 According to the tradition reported 
 by Origen as quoted in Euseb. H. EH. 
 Wi. Ts 
 
 3 One of the Pfaffian fragments, no. 
 XXXVili, p. 854 in Stieren’s edition of 
 Treneus. 
 
 4 Clem. Rom. § 44 κατέστησαν τοὺς 
 προειρημένους (Sc. mpecBurépous) καὶ μετ- 
 acd} ἐπινομὴν δεδώκασιν, ὅπως, ἐὰν κοιμη- 
 θώσιν, διαδέξωνται ἕτεροι δεδοκιμασμένοι 
 ἄνδρες τὴν λειτουργίαν αὐτῶν. The in- 
 terpretation of the passage depends on 
 
 αὐτῶν (see the notes on the passage). 
 
 > A much more explicit though 
 somewhat later authority may be 
 quoted in favour of his view. The 
 Ambrosian Hilary on Ephes. iy. 12, 
 speaking of the change from the pres- 
 byteral to the episcopal form of govern- 
 ment, says ‘immutata est ratio, pro- 
 spictente concilio, ut non ordo ete.’ If 
 the reading be correct, I suppose he 
 was thinking of the Apostolic Constitu- 
 tions. See also the expression of St 
 
204 
 
 Results of 
 the Coun- 
 
 cil, 
 
 Value of 
 
 4 
 
 : Rothe’s 
 theory. 
 
 The eyi- 
 dence ex- 
 amined. 
 Hegesip- 
 
 pus. / 
 lfo- 
 
 Trenzus 
 
 (60 
 
 {50}. 
 
 (720 
 
 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 
 
 ‘These notices seem to justify the conclusion that immediately 
 after the fall of Jerusalem a council of the apostles and first 
 teachers of the Gospel was held to deliberate on the crisis, and to 
 frame measures for the well-being of the Church. The centre of 
 the system then organized was episcopacy, which at once secured the 
 compact and harmonious working of each individual congregation, 
 and as the link of communication between separate brotherhoods 
 formed the whole into one undivided Catholic Church. Recom- 
 mended by this high authority, the new constitution was immedi- 
 ately and generally adopted.’ 
 
 This theory, which is maintained with much ability and vigour, 
 attracted considerable notice, as being a new defence of episcopacy 
 advanced by a member of a presbyterian Church. On the other 
 hand, its intrinsic value seems to have been unduly depreciated ; for, 
 if it fails to give a satisfactory solution, it has at least the merit of 
 stating the conditions of the problem with great distinctness, and of 
 pointing out the direction to be followed. On this account it seemed 
 worthy of attention. 
 
 It must indeed be confessed that the historical notices will not 
 (1) The account 
 of Hegesippus (for to Hegesippus the statement in Eusebius may 
 fairly be ascribed) confines the object of this gathering to the 
 appointment of a successor to St James. If its deliberations had 
 exerted that vast and permanent influence on the future of the 
 Church which Rothe’s theory supposes, it is scarcely possible that 
 this early historian should have been ignorant of the fact or knowing 
 (2) The genuineness of the 
 Inde- 
 pendently of the mystery which hangs over their publication, the very 
 
 bear the weight of the inference built upon them. 
 
 it should have passed it over in silence. 
 Pfaffian fragments of Ireneus must always remain doubtful’. 
 
 passage quoted throws great suspicion on their authorship; for the ex- 
 
 pression in question’ seems naturally to refer to the so called Apostolic 
 Constitutions, which have been swelled to their present size by the 
 
 Jerome on Tit. i. 5 (quoted below p. 
 206) ‘in toto orbe decretum est.’ 
 
 1 The controversial treatises on either 
 side are printed in Stieren’s Irenzus 11. 
 p. 381 sqq. It is sufficient here to 
 state that shortly after the transcrip- 
 tion of these fragments by Pfaff, the 
 Turin ms from which they were taken 
 
 disappeared; so that there was no 
 means of testing the accuracy of the 
 transcriber or ascertaining the charac- 
 ter of the ms. 
 
 2 The expression al δεύτεραι τῶν ἀπο- 
 στόλων διατάξεις closely resembles the 
 language of these Constitutions; see 
 Hippol. p. 74, 82 (Lagarde). 
 
THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 
 
 accretions of successive generations, but can hardly have existed even 
 in-a rudimentary form in the age of Irenzus, or if existing have 
 ’ been regarded by him as genuine. If he had been acquainted with 
 such later ordinances issued by the authority of.an apostolic coun- 
 cil, is it conceivable that in his great work on heresies he should 
 have omitted to quote a sanction so unquestionable, where his main 
 object is to show that the doctrine of the Catholic Church in his day 
 represented the true teaching of the Apostles, and his main argu- 
 ment the fact that the Catholic bishops of his time derived their 
 
 205 
 
 office by direct succession from the Apostles? (3) The passage in Clement. 
 
 the epistle of St Clement cannot be correctly interpreted by Rothe: 
 for his explanation, though elaborately defended, disregards the pur- 
 pose of the letter. The Corinthian Church is disturbed by a spirit 
 of insubordination, Presbyters, who have faithfully discharged their 
 duties, have nevertheless been ruthlessly expelled from office. St 
 Clement writes in the name of the Roman Church to correct these 
 irregularities. He reminds the Corinthians that the presbyteral 
 office was established by the Apostles, who not only themselves 
 appointed elders, but also gave directions that the vacancies caused 
 from time to time by death should be filled up by other men of cha- 
 racter, thus providing for a succession in the ministry. Conse- 
 quently in these unworthy feuds they were setting themselves in 
 opposition to officers of repute either actually nominated by Apo- 
 stles, or appointed by those so nominated in accordance with the 
 apostolic injunctions, There is no mention of episcopacy, properly 
 so called, throughout the epistle; for in the language of St Clement, 
 ‘bishop’ and ‘presbyter’ are still synonymous terms’, Thus the 
 pronouns ‘they,’ ‘their,’ refer naturally to the presbyters first ap- 
 pointed by the Apostles themselves. Whether (supposing the read- 
 ing to be correct*) Rothe has rightly translated ἐπινομήν ‘a codicil,’ 
 it is unnecessary to enquire, as the rendering does not materially 
 affect the question. 
 
 ea 
 
 Nor again does it appear that the rise of episcopacy was 50 Episcopa- 
 
 sudden and so immediate, that an authoritative order issuing from 
 
 cy not a 
 sudden 
 
 an apostolic council alone can explain the phenomenon, In the creation, 
 
 mysterious period which comprises the last thirty years of the first 
 
 1 See above, PP. 97, 98. μονήν ; see the notes on the passage. 
 2 The right reading is probably ἐπι- 
 
206 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 
 
 century, and on which history is almost wholly silent, episcopacy 
 must, it is true, have been mainly developed. But before this period 
 its beginnings may be traced, and after the close it is not yet fully 
 matured. It seems vain to deny with Rothe’ that the position of 
 St James in the mother Church furnished the precedent and the 
 pattern of the later episcopate. It appears equally mistaken to main- 
 tain, as this theory requires, that at the close of the first and the 
 beginning of the second century the organization of all churches 
 alike had arrived at the same stage of development and exhibited 
 the episcopate in an equally perfect form. 
 
 but ma- On the other hand, the emergency which consolidated the epi- 
 tured by 
 a critical 
 emergency remarked long ago by Jerome, that ‘before factions were introduced 
 
 scopal form of government is correctly and forcibly stated. It was 
 
 into religion by the prompting of the devil,’ the churches were 
 governed by a council of elders, ‘but as soon as each man began to 
 consider those whom he had baptized to belong to himself and not to 
 Christ, it was decided throughout the world that one elected from 
 among the elders should be placed over the rest, so that the care of 
 the church should devolve on him, and the seeds of schism be 
 removed’. And again in another passage he writes to the same 
 effect; ‘When afterwards one presbyter was elected that he might be 
 placed over the rest, this was done as a remedy against schism, that 
 each man might not drag to himself and thus break up the Church 
 of Christ®.’ To the dissensions of Jew and Gentile converts, and to 
 the disputes of Gnostic false teachers, the development of episcopacy 
 may be mainly ascribed, 
 
 and in Nor again is Rothe probably wrong as to the authority mainly 
 
 Asia Minor 
 
 under the 
 
 influence home of more than one Apostle after the fall of Jerusalem. Asia 
 of StJohn. ς : : : 
 Minor too was the nurse, if not the mother, of episcopacy in the 
 
 instrumental in effecting the change. Asia Minor was the adopted 
 
 Gentile Churches. So important an institution, developed in a 
 Christian community of which St John was the living centre and 
 guide, could hardly have grown up without his sanction: and, as 
 will be seen presently, early tradition very distinctly connects his 
 name with the appointment of bishops in these parts, 
 
 But to the question how this change was brought about, a some- 
 
 p. 264 sq. 3 Epist. exlvi ad Evang. (I. Pp. 
 On Tit. i. 5 (vir. p. 694, ed. Vall.). 1082). 
 
 1 
 2 
 
THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 
 
 what different answer must be given. 
 needs of the Church and the ascendancy of his personal character 
 placed St James at the head of the Christian brotherhood in Jeru- 
 salem. Though remaining a member of the presbyteral council, he 
 was singled out from the rest and placed in a position of superior 
 responsibility. His exact power it would be impossible, and it is 
 unnecessary, to define. When therefore after the fall of the city 
 St John with other surviving Apostles removed to Asia Minor and 
 found there manifold irregularities and threatening symptoms of dis- 
 ruption, he would not unnaturally encourage an approach in these 
 Gentile Churches to the same organization, which had been signally 
 blessed, and proved effectual in holding together the mother Church 
 amid dangers not less serious. The existence of a council or col- 
 lege necessarily supposes a presidency of some kind, whether this 
 presidency be assumed by each member in turn, or lodged in the 
 hands of a single person’, It was only necessary therefore for him 
 to give permanence, definiteness, stability, to an office which already 
 There is no reason however for supposing that 
 The evident 
 utility and even pressing need of such an office, sanctioned by the 
 
 existed in germ, 
 any direct ordinance was issued to the churches. 
 
 most venerated name in Christendom, would be sufficient to secure 
 its wide though gradual reception. Such a reception, it is true, 
 supposes a substantial harmony and freedom of intercourse among 
 the churches, which remained undisturbed by the troubles of the 
 times ; but the silence of history is not at all unfavourable to this 
 supposition, In this way, during the historical blank which ex- 
 tends over half a century after the fall of Jerusalem, episcopacy 
 
 was matured and the Catholic Church consolidated ", 
 
 1 The Ambrosian Hilary on Ephes. 
 iv. 12 seems to say that the senior 
 member was president; but this may 
 be mere conjecture. The constitution 
 of the synagogue does not aid mate- 
 rially in settling this question. In the 
 New Testament at all events ἀρχισυνά- 
 Ὕωγος is only another name for an elder 
 of the synagogue (Mark v. 22, Acts 
 wii. 15, xviii. 8,17; comp. Justin Dial. 
 c. Tryph. § 137), and therefore corre- 
 sponds not to the bishop but to the 
 presbyter of the Christian Church. 
 Sometimes however ἀρχισυνάγωγος ap- 
 
 pears to denote the president of the 
 council of elders: see Vitringa 11. 2. Ὁ. 
 586 sq., 111. I. p. 610 sq. The opinions 
 of Vitringa must be received with cau- 
 tion, as his tendency to press the re- 
 semblance between the government of 
 the Jewish synagogue and the Chris- 
 tian Church is strong. The real like- 
 ness consists in the council of presby- 
 ters; but the threefold order of the 
 Christian ministry as a whole seems to 
 have no counterpart in the synagogue. 
 
 2 The expression ‘Catholic Church’ 
 
 is found first in the Ignatian letter to {. 
 
 207 
 
 We have seen that the Manner of 
 its deve- 
 lopment. 
 
208 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 
 This view At all events, when we come to trace the early history of the © 
 supported 
 
 by the no- Office in the principal churches of Christendom in succession, we 
 pee Oe shall find all the facts consistent with the account adopted here, 
 In 
 
 churches. While some of them are hardly reconcileable with any other. 
 
 this review it will be convenient to commence with the mother 
 Church, and to take the others in order, as they are connected either 
 by neighbourhood or by political or religious sympathy. /// 
 
 TeeusA- 1. The Church of JERUSALEM, as I have already pointed out, 
 
 ag presents the earliest instance of a bishop. 
 
 A. certain official pro- 
 minence is assigned to James the Lord’s brother, both in the Epi- 
 stles of St Paul and in the Acts of the Apostles. And the inference 
 drawn from the notices in the canonical Scriptures is borne out by 
 the tradition of the next ages. 
 
 century all parties concur in representing him as a bishop in the 
 
 St James. 
 
 As early as the middle of the second 
 strict sense of the term’. In this respect Catholic Christians and 
 Ebionite Christians hold the same language: the testimony of 
 Hegesippus on the one hand is matched by the testimony of the 
 On his death, which is recorded 
 
 as taking place immediately before the war of Vespasian, Symeon 
 
 Clementine writings on the other. 
 
 Symeon. 
 
 was appointed in his place*. Hegesippus, who is our authority for 
 this statement, distinctly regards Symeon as holding the same office 
 with James, and no less distinctly calls him a bishop. This same 
 historian also mentions the circumstance that one Thebuthis (ap- 
 parently on this occasion), being disappointed of the bishopric, raised 
 a schism and attempted to corrupt the virgin purity of the Church 
 with false doctrine. As Symeon died in the reign of Trajan at an 
 advanced age, it is not improbable that Hegesippus was born during 
 
 Minter his lifetime. Of the successors of Symeon a complete list is preserved 
 
 bishops. py Eusebius*, The fact however that it comprises thirteen names 
 
 within a period of less than thirty years must throw suspicion on 
 
 the Smyrneans § 8. In the Martyr- 
 dom of Polycarp it occurs several 
 times, inscr. and 88 8, 16, 19. On its 
 meaning see Westcott Canon p. 28, 
 note (4th ed.). 
 
 1 Hegesipp. in Euseb. H. ΠΕ]. ii. 23, 
 iv. 22; Clem. Hom. xi. 35, Hp. Petr. 
 init., and Ep. Clem. init.; Clem. 
 Recogn. i. 43, 68, 73; Clem. Alex. 
 in Euseb. ii. 1; Const, Apost. v. 8, Vi. 
 I4, Vili. 35, 46. 
 
 2 Hegesipp. in Euseb. H. E. iv. 22. 
 
 3H. E. iy. 5. The episcopate of 
 Justus the successor of Symeon com- 
 mences about a.D. 108: that of Marcus 
 the first Gentile bishop, a.p.136. Thus 
 thirteen bishops occupy only about 
 twenty-eight years. Even after the 
 foundation of Ailia Capitolina the suc- 
 cession is very rapid. In the -period 
 from Marcus (a.D. 136) to Narcissus 
 (A.D. 190) we count fifteen bishops. , 
 
 ; ' MM in) py Ya ἧς 
 | 1) ho Πφῆιυλι ell Meck pice eas οι. Tae ὧν aDleceed ot le Mex Wo 7 
 
 , σ΄ WZ 
 y ag Le The rene Y Tha eblten sire ὦ oF, 
 0 
 
THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 
 
 its accuracy. A succession so rapid is hardly consistent with the 
 known tenure of life offices in ordinary cases: and if the list be cor- 
 rect, the frequent changes must be attributed to the troubles and 
 uncertainties of the times’.” If Eusebius here also had derived his 
 information from Hegesippus, it must at least have had some solid 
 foundation in fact ; but even then the alternation between Jerusalem 
 and Pella, and the possible confusion of the bishops with other pro- 
 minent members of the presbytery, might introduce much error, 
 It appears however that in this instance he was indebted to less 
 trustworthy sources of information®. The statement that after 
 the foundation of Aelia Capitolina (A.D. 
 over the mother Church, as its first Gentile bishop, need not be 
 questioned ; and beyond this point it is unnecessary to carry the 
 
 136) Marcus presided 
 
 investigation ὃ, 
 
 209 
 
 Of other bishops in PALESTINE and the neighbourhood, before the Other sees 
 latter half of the second century, no trustworthy notice is preserved, eee ἢ 
 
 so far as I know. 
 
 During the Roman episcopate of Victor however neighbour- 
 
 (about A.D. 190), we find three bishops, Theophilus of Czesarea, Cas- ΡΝ (ἢ 
 
 5105 of Tyre, and Clarus of Ptolemais, in conjunction with Narcissus 
 of Jerusalem, writing an encyclical letter in favour of the western 
 view in the Paschal controversy*. If indeed any reliance could be 
 placed on the Clementine writings, the episcopate of Palestine was 
 matured at a very early date: for St Peter is there represented as 
 appointing bishops in every city which he visits, in Cesarea, Tyre, 
 Sidon, Berytus, Tripolis, and Laodicea®. And though the fictions 
 of this theological romance have no direct historical value, it is 
 
 preserved in the archives of Edessa 
 (H. E. i. 13) shows how treacherous 
 such sources of information were. 
 
 The repetition of the same names 
 however suggests that some conflict 
 was going on during this interval. 
 
 1 Parallels nevertheless may befound 
 in the annals of the papacy. Thus from 
 A.D. 882 to A.D. go4 there were thirteen 
 popes: and in other times of trouble 
 the succession has been almost as 
 rapid.((/ 
 
 2 This may be inferred from a com- 
 parison of H. Εἰ. iv. 5 τοσοῦτον ἐξ éyypd- 
 φων παρείληφα with H. E. v. 12 αἱ τῶν 
 αὐτόθι diadoxal περιέχουσι. His infor- 
 mation was probably taken from a list 
 kept at Jerusalem; but the case of the 
 spurious correspondence with Abgarus 
 
 PHIL. iy Med Cee, os 
 , s/f ἐκεςε αι. 1. 
 oe” as Ζ > 
 
 δ΄ 1.6 [΄ ΡΝ 
 ? ἜΤ bth. bi Center "ἢ Fi Ce Gory deere ὦ eet 
 
 ι 
 
 ΟΣ εν τ. ΣΟ ΣΝ ΖΞ, 
 
 3 Narcissus, who became bishop of 
 Jerusalem in 190 A.D., might well have 
 preserved the memory of much earlier 
 times. His successor Alexander, in 
 whose favour he resigned A.p. 214, 
 speaks of him as still living at the ad- 
 vanced age of 116 (Huseb. ἢ. ΕἸ. vi. 11). 
 
 4 Kuseb. H. Ε. v. 25. 
 
 5 Clem. Hom. 111. 68 sq. (Cxsarea), 
 vii. 5 (Tyre), vii. 8 (Sidon), vii. 12 
 (Berytus), xi. 36 (Tripolis), xx. 23 
 (Laodicea): comp. Clem. Recogn. iii. 65, 
 66, 74, Vi. 15, X. 68, 
 
 diecez2 Ou [ὃ Brig Upon ja yen 7 vA eke, 
 litceee | ΄σζαιαςεζᾷ ὦ bfrcehia ll 
 4 ᾿ 4 Tes 4, ὦ 
 Ζε.« Ly A fitce+ fe. ώ ςἀ)φ] ¥ OY τα Jha 
 
210 
 
 ANTIOCH. 
 
 Evodius. 
 
 Ignatius. 
 
 oh (/ 
 
 Later 
 bishops. 
 
 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 
 
 hardly probable that the writer would have indulged in such state- 
 ments, unless an early development of the episcopate in these parts 
 had invested his narrative with an air of probability. The institu- 
 tion would naturally spread from the Church of Jerusalem to the 
 more important communities in the neighbourhood, even without the 
 direct intervention of the Apostles. 
 
 2. From the mother Church of the Hebrews we pass naturally 
 to the metropolis of Gentile Christendom. Anrroc#H is traditionally 
 reported to have received its first bishop Evodius from St Peter’. 
 The story may perhaps rest on some basis of truth, though no confidence 
 can be placed in this class of statements, unless they are known to 
 have been derived from some early authority. But of Ignatius, who 
 stands second in the traditional catalogue of Antiochene bishops, 
 we can speak with more confidence. He is designated a bishop by 
 very early authors, and he himself speaks as such. He writes to 
 one bishop, Polycarp; and he mentions several others. Again and 
 again he urges the duty of obedience to their bishops on his cor- 
 respondents. And, lest it should be supposed that he uses the 
 term in its earlier sense as a synonyme for presbyter, he names 
 in conjunction the three orders of the ministry, the bishop, the 
 presbyter, and the deacons*, Altogether it is plain that he looks 
 upon the episcopal system as the one recognised and authoritative 
 form of government in all those churches with which he is most 
 directly concerned. It may be suggested indeed that he would 
 hardly have enforced the claims of episcopacy, unless it were ‘an 
 object of attack, and its comparatively recent origin might there- 
 fore be inferred: but still some years would be required before it 
 could have assumed that mature and definite form which it has in 
 his letters. It seems impossible to decide, and it is needless to 
 investigate, the exact date of the epistles of St Ignatius: but we 
 cannot do wrong in placing them during the earliest years of the 
 second century. The immediate successor of Ignatius is reported 
 to have been Hero*: and from his time onward the list of 
 Antiochene bishops is complete*. If the authenticity of the list, 
 
 1 Const. Apost. vii. 46, Huseb. H.E. alleged, because it is found in the 
 
 iii. 22. Syriac. See below, p. 234. 
 2 e.g. Polyc. 6. I single out this 3 Huseb. H. E. iii. 36. 
 passage from several{/which might be 4 Kuseb. H. Εἰ. iv. 20. 
 
 ΠΩ tt, Prod ὁ», 
 
THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 211 
 
 as a whole, is questionable, two bishops of Antioch at least during 
 the second century, Theophilus and Serapion, are known as his- 
 torical persons. 
 
 If the Clementine writings emanated, as seems probable, from Clemen- 
 Syria or Palestine’, this will be the proper place to state their attitude ae 
 with regard to episcopacy. Whether the opinions there advanced 
 exhibit the recognised tenets of a sect or congregation, or the private 
 views of the individual writer or writers, will probably never be 
 ascertained ; but, whatever may be said on this point, these heretical 
 books outstrip the most rigid orthodoxy in their reverence for the 
 episcopal office. Monarchy is represented as necessary to the peace 
 of the Church*®. . The bishop occupies the seat of Christ and must be 
 honoured as the image of God*®. And hence St Peter, as he moves 
 from place to place, ordains bishops everywhere, as though this were 
 the crowning act of his missionary labours*. The divergence of the 
 Clementine doctrine from the tenets of Catholic Christianity only. 
 renders this phenomenon more remarkable, when we remember the 
 very early date of these writings; for the Homilies cannot well be 
 placed later than the end, and should perhaps be placed before the 
 iniddle of the second century. 
 
 3. We have hitherto been ‘concerned only with the Greek Syrian 
 Church of Syria. Of the early history of the Syrian Cuurcu, CHURCH: 
 strictly so called, no trustworthy account is preserved. The documents 
 which profess to give information respecting it are comparatively 
 late: and while their violent anachronisms discredit them as a whole, 
 
 It should 
 
 be remarked however, that they exhibit a high sacerdotal view of 
 
 it is impossible to separate the fabulous from the historic’. 
 
 the episcopate as prevailing in these churches from the earliest times 
 of which any record is preserved’®. 
 
 1 See Galatians pp. 340 84. 
 
 2 Clem. Hom. iii. 62. 
 
 3 Clem. Hom. iii. 62, 66, 70. 
 below, p. 238. 
 
 4 See the references given above p. 
 209, note 5. 
 
 5 Ancient Syriac Documents (ed. 
 Cureton). The Doctrine of Addai has 
 recently been published complete by 
 Dr Phillips, London 1876. This work 
 at all events must be old, for it was 
 found by Eusebius in the archives of 
 Edessa (H. E, i. 13); but it abounds 
 
 See 
 
 in gross anachronisms and probably 
 is not earlier than the middle of the 
 3rd century: see Zahn Gétt. Gel. Anz. 
 1877, p. τότ sq. 
 
 6 See for instance pp. 13, 16, 18, 21, 
 23, 24, 26, 29, 30, 33, 34: 35, 42, 71 
 (Cureton). The succession to the 
 episcopate is conferred by the ‘Hand 
 of Priesthood’ through the Apostles, 
 who received it from our Lord, and is 
 derived ultimately from Moses and 
 Aaron (p. 24). 
 
 14—2 
 
212 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 
 
 Asta Μι- 4. Asta Muivor follows next in order; and here we find the 
 
 aes widest and most unequivocal traces of episcopacy at an early date. 
 
 Ais ἢ /7 Clement of Alexandria distinctly states that St John went about from 
 city to city, his purpose being ‘in some places to establish bishops, in 
 
 Activity of others’ to consolidate whole churches, in others again to appoint to 
 St John in 
 proconsu- 
 ΣΝ εν Spirit’ ‘The sequence of bishops,’ writes Tertullian in like manner 
 22 
 
 the clerical office some one of those who, had been signified by the 
 
 of Asia Minor, ‘traced back to its origin will be found to rest on 
 
 the authority of John®.’ And a writer earlier than either speaks of 
 
 of. St John’s ‘fellow-disciples and bishops*’ as gathered about him. The 
 
 τω conclusiveness even of such testimony might perhaps be doubted, if 
 
 it were not supported by other more direct evidence. At the begin- 
 
 rl f/@ ning of the second century the letters of Ignatius, even if we accept 
 
 as genuine only the part contained in the Syriac, mention by name 
 
 Onesimus. two bishops in these parts, Onesimus of Ephesus and Polyearp of 
 
 Belyearp: Smyrna*, Of the former nothing more is known: the latter evi- 
 
 dently writes as a bishop, for he distinguishes himself from his 
 
 presbyters’, and is expressly so called by other writers besides 
 
 Ignatius. His pupil Irveneus says of him, that he had ‘not 
 
 pf “20 only been instructed by Apostles and conversed with many who had 
 
 seen Christ but had also been established by Apostles in Asia as 
 
 bishop in the Church at Smyrna*.’ Polycrates also, a younger con- 
 
 temporary of Polycarp and himself bishop of Ephesus, designates him 
 
 by this title’; and again in the letter written by his own church 
 
 and giving an account of his martyrdom he is styled ‘bishop of 
 
 the Church in Smyrna®.’ As Polycarp survived the middle of 
 
 the second century, dying at a very advanced age (A.D. 155 or 156), 
 
 the possibility of error on this point seems to be excluded: and 
 
 indeed all historical evidence must be thrown aside as worthless, if 
 testimony so strong can be disregarded. 
 
 Tgnatian It is probable however, that we should receive as genuine not 
 
 eee only those portions of the Ignatian letters which are represented in 
 
 1 Quis Div. Salv. 42 (p- 959)- 4 Polyc. inser., Ephes. τ. 
 
 2 Adv. Mare. iv. 5. 5 Polye. Phil. init. 
 
 3 Muratorian Fragment, Routh Rel. 6 Tren. iii, 3. 4. Comp. Tertull. de 
 Sacr. τ. p. 394. Irenzus too, whose Prescr. 32. 
 experience was drawn chiefly from 7 In Euseb. v. 24. 
 Asia Minor, more than once speaks of 8 Mart. Polyc.16. Polycarp is eall- 
 
 bishops appointed by the Apostles, iii, ed ‘bishop of Smyrna’ also in Mart, 
 3. 1.00. 20. Te Ignat, Ant. 3. 
 
THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 213 
 
 the Syriac, but also the Greek text in its shorter form. Under 
 any circumstances, this text can hardly have been made later than 
 the middle of the second century’, and its witness would still be 
 highly valuable, even if it were a forgery. The staunch advocacy of 
 the episcopate which distinguishes these writings is well known and 
 will be considered hereafter, At present we are only concerned with 
 the historical testimony which they bear to the wide extension and 
 authoritative claims of the episcopal office. Besides Polycarp and 
 Onesimus, mentioned in the Syriac, the writer names also Damas 
 bishop of Magnesia? and Polybius bishop of Tralles’; and he urges 
 on the Philadelphians also the duty of obedience to their bishop’, 
 though the name is not given. Under any circumstances it seems 
 probable that these were not fictitious personages, for, even if he 
 were a forger, he would be anxious to give an air of reality to his 
 writings: but whether or not we regard his testimony as indirectly 
 affecting the age of Ignatius, for his own time at least it must be 
 regarded as valid. 
 
 But the evidence is not confined to the persons and the churches 
 already mentioned. Papids, who was a friend of Polycarp and had Bishops of 
 conversed with personal disciples of the Lord, is commonly desig- aig 
 nated bishop of Hierapolis’; and we learn from a younger contem- 
 porary Serapion®, that Claudius Apollinaris, known as a writer 
 against the Montanists, also held this see in the reign of M. Aurelius. 
 Again Sagaris the martyr, who seems to have perished in the early Sagaris. 
 years of M. Aurelius, about A.D. 165’, is designated bishop of Lao- 
 dicea by an author writing towards the close of the same century, who 
 also alludes to Melito the contemporary of Sagaris as holding the Melito. 
 see of Sardis®. The authority just quoted, Polycrates of Ephesus, Polycrates 
 who flourished in the last decade of the century, says moreover that bats ae 
 he had had seven relations bishops before him, himself being the 
 eighth, and that he followed their tradition®, When he wrote he 
 had been ‘sixty-five years in the Lord’; so that even if this period 
 
 1 See below, p. 234, note. see Colossians p. 63. 
 
 ~2 Magn. 2. 8 Polycrates in Euseb. H. E. v. 24. 
 3 Trail. τ. Melito’s office may be inferred from the 
 4 Philad. τ. contrast implied in περιμένων τὴν ἀπὸ 
 5 Huseb. H. LH. iii. 36. τῶν οὐρανῶν ἐπισκοπήν. 
 6 In Kuseb. A. Ε΄. ν. το. 9 In Euseb. H.E.v. 24. See Gala- 
 
 7 On the authority of his contempo- __ tians p. 362 note. 
 rary Melito in Huseb. H. EL. iv. 26; 
 
214 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 
 
 date from the time of his birth and not of his conversion or baptism, 
 he must have been born scarcely a quarter of a century after the 
 death of the last surviving Apostle, whose latest years were spent in 
 the very Church over which Polycrates himself presided. It appears 
 moreover from his language that none of these relations to whom he 
 refers were surviving when he wrote. 
 Thus the evidence for the early and wide extension of episcopacy 
 throughout proconsular Asia, the scene of St John’s latest labours, 
 Bishops in May be considered irrefragable. And when we pass to other districts 
 oe al of Asia Minor, examples are not wanting, though these are neither 
 Minor. _so. early nor so frequent. Marcion a native of Sinope is related to 
 have been the son of a Christian bishop’: and Marcion himself had 
 elaborated his theological system before the middle of the second 
 century. Again, a bishop of Eumenia, Thraseas by name, is stated 
 by Polycrates to have been martyred and buried at Smyrna’; and, as 
 he is mentioned in connexion with Polycarp, it may fairly be sup- 
 posed that the two suffered in the same persecution. Dionysius of 
 Corinth moreover, ‘writing to Amastris and the other churches of 
 Pontus (about A.D. 170), mentions Palmas the bishop of this city*: 
 and when the Paschal controversy breaks out afresh under Victor of. 
 Rome, we find this same Palmas putting his signature first to a cir- 
 cular letter, as the senior of the bishops of Pontus*. An anonymous 
 writer also, who took part in the Montanist controversy, speaks of 
 two bishops of repute, Zoticus of Comana and Julianus of Apamea, 
 Episcopal 48 having resisted the impostures of the false prophetesses®’, But 
 synods. indeed the frequent notices of encyclical letters written and synods 
 held towards the close of the second century are a much more power- 
 ful testimony to the wide extension of episcopacy throughout the 
 provinces of Asia Minor than the incidental mention of individual 
 names. On one such occasion Polycrates speaks of the ‘crowds’ of 
 bishops whom he had summoned to confer with him on the Paschal 
 question ®, ( 
 Maceno- 5: As we turn from Asia Minor to Maceponta and GREECE, 
 
 ea the evidence becomes fainter and scantier. This circumstance is no 
 1 [Tertull.] adv. omn. heres. 6. amea on the Mxander is mentioned at 
 
 In Euseb. H. H. v. 24. the end of the chapter, probably this 
 
 In Euseb. H. E. iv. 23. is the place meant. 
 
 4 Kuseb. H. E. v. 23. 6 In Euseb. H, E. v. 24 πολλὰ πλήθη. 
 
 5 In pence. H. H. y. 16. As Ap- ir SAT ©: 
 
 Leto Woh [thf ay te artchea yall (pevinetiac? berhefs 
 
 Se 19 
 
THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 215 
 
 doubt due partly to the fact that these churches were much less 
 active and important during the second century than the Christian 
 communities of Asia Minor, but the phenomena cannot perhaps be 
 
 wholly explained by this consideration. When Tertullian in one of Later de- 
 velopment 
 of episco- 
 apostolic churches, where ‘the very sees of the Apostles still pre- P&°Y- 
 
 his rhetorical flights challenges the heretical teachers to consult the 
 
 side,’ adding, ‘If Achaia is nearest to you, then you have Corinth ; if 
 
 you are not far from Macedonia, you have Philippi, you have‘ the 
 Thessalonians ; if you can reach Asia, you have Ephesus’’: his main 
 argument was doubtless just, and even the language would commend 
 
 itself to its own age, for episcopacy was the only form of government 
 
 known or remembered in the church when he wrote: but a careful 
 investigation scarcely allows, and certainly does not encourage us, 
 
 to place Corinth and Philippi and Thessalonica in the same category 
 
 with Ephesus as regards episcopacy. The term ‘apostolic see’ was 
 appropriate to the latter; but so far as we know, it cannot be 
 strictly applied to the former. During the early years of the second 
 century, when episcopacy was firmly established in the principal 
 churches of Asia Minor, Polycarp sends a letter to the Philippians. Philippi. 
 He writes in the name of himself and his presbyters; he gives 
 
 advice to the Philippians respecting the obligations and the autho- 
 
 rity of presbyters and deacons; he is minute in his instructions 
 respecting one individual presbyter, Valens by name, who had been 
 
 guilty of some crime; but throughout the letter he never once refers 
 
 to their bishop; and indeed its whole tone is hardly consistent with 
 
 the supposition that they had any chief officer holding the same pro- 
 
 minent position at Philippi which he himself held at Smyrna. We 
 
 are thus led to the inference that episcopacy did not exist at all 
 
 among the Philippians at this time, or existed only in an elementary 
 
 form, so that the bishop was a mere president of the presbyteral 
 council. At Thessalonica indeed, according to a tradition mentioned Thessalo- 
 by Origen’, the same Caius whom St Paul describes as his host τος 
 at Corinth was afterwards appointed bishop; but with so common 
 
 a name the possibilities of error are great, even if the testimony 
 were earlier in date and expressed in more distinct terms. When 
 from Macedonia we pass to Achaia, the same phenomena present 
 
 1 Tertull. de Preser. 37. traditione majornm’ (rv. p. 86, ed. Des 
 ἡ On Rom. xvi..235 ‘Fertur sane . larue) κ΄ Ὁ“ 
 
 2 jt 
 
216 
 
 Corinth. 
 
 Athens. 
 
 (( ἢ Cre Hote nb 
 
 Cone ΤΡΕΙ͂Σ Ὁ ¥ “01 
 
 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 
 
 themselves. At the close of the first century Clement writes to 
 
 Corinth, as at the beginning of the second century Polycarp writes to 
 Philippi. As in the latter epistle, so in the former, there is no allu- 
 sion to the episcopal office : yet the main subject of Clement’s letter 
 is the expulsion and ill treatment of certain presbyters, whose au- 
 thority he maintains as holding an office instituted by and handed 
 down from the Apostles themselves. If Corinth however was with- 
 out:a bishop in the strict sense at the close of the first century, 
 she cannot long have remained so. When some fifty years later 
 Hegesippus stayed here on his way to Rome, Primus was bishop 
 of this Church ; and it is clear moreover from this writer’s language 
 that Primus had been preceded by several occupants of the see’. 
 Indeed the order of his narrative, so far as we can piece it together 
 from the broken fragments preserved in Eusebius, might suggest 
 the inference, not at all improbable in itself, that episcopacy had 
 been established at Corinth as a corrective of the dissensions and 
 feuds which had called forth Clement’s letter*. Again Dionysius, 
 one of the immediate successors of Primus, was the writer of several 
 letters of which fragments are extant*; and at the close of the 
 century we meet with a later bishop of Corinth, Bacchyllus, who 
 When from 
 Corinth we pass on to Athens, a very early instance of a bishop 
 confronts us, on authority which seems at first sight good, Eusebius 
 
 takes an active part in the Paschal controversy*. 
 
 represents Dionysius of Corinth, who wrote apparently about the 
 year 170, as stating that his namesake the Areopagite, ‘having been 
 brought to the faith by the Apostle Paul according to the account 
 in the Acts, was the first to be entrusted with the bishopric (or 
 supervision) of the diocese (in the language of those times, the parish) 
 
 of the Athenians*’.’ Now, if we could be sure that Eusebius was 
 
 1 Τῇ Kuseb. H. E. iv. 22, καὶ ἐπέμενεν 
 ἡ ἐκκλησία ἣ Κορινθίων ἐν τῷ ὀρθῷ λόγῳ 
 μέχρι Tipo ἐπισκοπεύοντος ἐν ἹΚορίνθῳ 
 k.7.A. Alittle later he speaks of ἑκάστη 
 diadox7, referring apparently to Corinth 
 among other churches. 
 
 2 Hegesippus mentioned the feuds in 
 the Church of Corinth during the reign 
 of Domitian, which had occasioned the 
 writing of this letter (H. H. iii. 16); 
 and then aiver some account of Cle- 
 ment’s epistle (μετά τινα περὶ 7s Κλή- 
 
 Dky Lee prope % 
 
 HIB eS «-. 
 
 ἡ ἥωα. ἴω: “7 frre 
 wh ofa Lee /t 129 les 
 
 pevros πρὸς Ἱζορινθίους ἐπιστολῆς αὐτῷ 
 εἰρημένα, H. H. iv. 22) he continued in 
 the words which are quoted in the last 
 note (ἐπιλέγοντος ταῦτα, Kat ἐπέμενεν 
 ἡ ἐκκλησία x.7.A.). On the probable 
 tenor of Hegesippus’ work see below, 
 p- 220. 
 
 3 The fragments of Dionysius are 
 found in Euseb. H. E. iv. 23. See 
 also Routh Rel. Sacr. τ. p. 177 58. 
 
 4 Euseb, H. FE. v. 22, 23. 
 
 hal Kuseb. A, E, iv. 23. 
 
 tial (io 
 
 bbe Mb fics 2142, "Woop Li Ah Mee Jr τ ΓΕ ule thagteg ht 
 
THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 217 
 
 here reporting the exact words of Dionysius, the testimony though 
 not conclusive would be entitled to great deference. In this case the 
 easiest solution would be, that this ancient writer had not unnatu- 
 rally confounded the earlier and later usage of the word bishop. 
 But it seems not improbable that Eusebius (for he does not profess 
 to be giving a direct quotation) has unintentionally paraphrased and 
 interpreted the statement of Dionysius by the light of later ecclesias- 
 tical usages. However Athens, like Corinth, did uot long remain 
 without a bishop. The same Dionysius, writing to the Athenians, 
 reminds them how, after the martyrdom of Publius their ruler (τὸν 
 προεστῶτα), Quadratus becoming bishop sustained the courage and 
 stimulated the faith of the Athenian brotherhood’. If, as seems 
 more probable than not, this was the famous Quadratus who pre- 
 sented his apology to Hadrian during that emperor’s visit to Athens, 
 the existence of episcopacy in this city is thrown back early in the 
 century; even though Quadratus were not already bishop when 
 Hadrian paid his visit. 
 
 6. The same writer, from whom we learn these particulars about Cretz. 
 episcopacy at Athens, also furnishes information on the Church in 
 Crete. He writes letters to two different communities in this island, 
 the one to Gortyna commending Philip who held this see, the other to 
 the Cnossians offering words of advice to their bishop Pinytus’. The 
 first was author of a treatise against Marcion’: the latter wrote a 
 reply to Dionysius, of which Eusebius has preserved a brief notice*. 
 
 7. Of episcopacy in THRACE, and indeed of the Thracian Church Trace. 
 generally, we read nothing till the close of the second century, when 
 one Adlius Publius Julius bishop of Debeltum, a colony in this pro- 
 vince, signs an encyclical letter*, The existence of a see at a place so 
 unimportant implies the wide spread of episcopacy in these regions. 
 
 8. As we turn to Roms, we are confronted by a far more per- Rome. 
 plexing problem than any encountered hitherto. The attempt to 
 decipher the early history of episcopacy here seems almost hopeless, 
 where the evidence is at once scanty and conflicting. It has been 
 
 1 Euseb. H. E. iv. 23. Roman usage, suggests the suspicion 
 2 Kuseb. Η E. iv. 25. that the signatures of three distinct 
 3 Euseb. H. E.v. 19. Thecombina- persons have got confused. The error 
 tion of three gentile names in ‘Alius however, if error it be, does not affect 
 Publius Julius’ is possible at this late the inference in the text, 
 epoch; but, being a gross violation of 
 
 Ἷ pote nts, 
 
218 
 
 The pre- 
 vailing 
 spirit not 
 
 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 
 
 often assumed that in the metropolis of the world, the seat of imperial 
 rule, the spirit which dominated in the State must by natural pre- 
 
 monarchi- disposition and sympathy have infused itself into the Church alsv, so 
 
 cal. 
 
 that a monarchical form of government would be developed more 
 rapidly here than in other parts of Christendom. This supposition 
 seems to overlook the fact that the influences which prevailed in the 
 early church of the metropolis were more Greek than Roman’, and 
 that therefore the tendency would be rather towards individual 
 liberty than towards compact and rigorous government. But indeed 
 such presumptions, however attractive and specious, are valueless 
 against the slightest evidence of facts. And the most trustworthy 
 sources of information which we possess do not countenance the idea. 
 
 Bearing of The earliest authentic document bearing on the subject is the Epistle 
 
 Clement’s 
 
 epistle. 
 
 from the Romans to the Corinthians, probably written in the iast 
 decade of the first century. I have already considered the bearing of 
 this letter on episcopacy in the Church of Corinth, and it is now 
 time to ask what light it throws on the same institution at Rome. 
 Now we cannot hesitate to accept the universal testimony of anti- 
 quity that it was written by Clement, the reputed bishop of Rome: 
 and it is therefore the more surprising that, if he held this high 
 office, the writer should not only not distinguish himself in any way 
 from the rest of the church (as Polycarp does for instance), but that 
 even his name should be suppressed*. It is still more important to 
 observe that, though he has occasion to speak of the ministry as an 
 institution of the Apostles, he mentions only two orders and is silent 
 about the episcopal office. Moreover he still uses the word ‘bishop’ 
 in the older sense in which it occurs in the apostolic writings, as a 
 synonyme for presbyter*, and it may be argued that the recogni- 
 tion of the episcopate as a higher and distinct office would oblige 
 the adoption of a special name and therefore must have synchro- 
 nized roughly with the separation of meaning between ‘bishop’ and 
 ‘presbyter.’ Again not many years after the date of Clement’s 
 
 Testimony letter, St Ignatius on his way to martyrdom writes to the Romans. 
 
 of Ignatius Tho 
 
 ugh this saint is the recognised champion of episcopacy, though 
 the remaining six of the Ignatian letters all contain direct injunc- 
 tions of obedience to bishops, in this epistle alone there is no allu- 
 
 a See above, ἢ. 20 86. 2 See S. Clement of Rome Ὁ. 252 sq. Appendix. 
 5 See above, p. 96 84. 
 
THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 219 
 
 sion to the episcopal office as existing among his correspondents. 
 
 The lapse of a few years carries us from the letters of Ignatius to the and 
 Shepherd of Hermas. And here the indications are equivocal. Hee 
 Hermas receives directions in a vision to impart the revelation to the 
 presbyters and also to make two copies, the one for Clement who shall 
 communicate with the foreign churches (such being his duty), the 
 
 other for Grapte who shall instruct the widows. Hermas himself is 
 charged to ‘read it to this city with the elders who preside over the 
 church’, 
 
 And again, in an enumeration of the faithful officers of the churches 
 
 Elsewhere mention is made of the ‘rulers’ of the church”. 
 
 past and present, he speaks of the ‘apostles and bishops and teachers 
 Here most probably the word ‘bishop’ is used in its 
 later sense, and the presbyters are designated by the term ‘teachers.’ 
 
 and deacons*.’ 
 
 Yet this interpretation cannot be regarded as certain, for the ‘ bishops 
 and teachers’ in Hermas, like the ‘ pastors and teachers’ in St Paul, 
 might possibly refer to the one presbyteral office in its twofold aspect. 
 Other passages in which Hermas uses the same terms are indecisive. 
 Thus he speaks of ‘apostles and teachers who preached to the whole 
 world and taught with reverence and purity the word of the Lord*’; 
 of ‘deacons who exercised their diaconate ill and plundered the life 
 (τὴν ζωήν) of widows and orphans”; of ‘ hospitable bishops who at all 
 times received the servants of God into their homes cheerfully and 
 without hypocrisy,’ ‘who protected the bereaved and the widows 
 in their ministrations without ceasing®’ From these passages it 
 seems impossible to arrive at a safe conclusion respecting the minis- 
 try at the time when Hermas wrote. In other places he condemns 
 the false prophet ‘ who, seeming to have the Spirit, exalts himself and 
 would fain have the first seat”’; or he warns ‘those who rule over 
 the church and those who hold the chief-seat,’ bidding them give up 
 
 their dissensions and live at peace among themselves®; or he de- 
 
 4 Sim. ix. 25. 
 
 5 Sim. ix. 26. 
 
 S Sim. 1κ. 27> 
 
 7 Mand. xi. 
 
 8 Vis. ili. g ὑμῖν λέγω τοῖς προηγου- 
 
 1 Vis. ii. 4 ypdwers οὖν δύο βιβλιδάρια 
 καὶ πέμψεις ἕν Κλήμεντι καὶ ἕν Τραπτῇ. 
 πέμψει οὖν Κλήμης εἰς τὰς ἔξω πόλεις" 
 ἐκείνῳ γὰρ ἐπιτέτραπται Τραπτὴ δὲ 
 νουθετήσει τὰς χήρας καὶ τοὺς ὀρφανούς" 
 
 σὺ δὲ ἀναγνώσεις εἰς ταύτην τὴν πόλιν 
 
 μετὰ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων τῶν προϊσταμένων.. 
 
 τῆς ἐκκλησίας. 
 2 Vis. ii, 2, iii. 9. 
 BIS: Wiley. 
 
 μένοις τῆς ἐκκλησίας Kal τοῖς πρωτοκαθε- 
 δροίταις, k.T.A. For the form πρωτοκα- 
 θεδρίτης see the note on συνδιδασκαλί- 
 ταις, Ignat. Ephes. 3. 
 
220 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 
 
 nounces those who have ‘emulation one with another for the first 
 ae place or for some honour'.’ If we could accept the suggestion that 
 rante " a » So ΗΝ . 
 coh βρῇ in this last class of passages the writer condemns the ambition which 
 
 aimed at transforming the presbyterian into the episcopal form of 
 government’, we should have arrived at a solution of the difficulty : 
 but the rebukes are couched in the most general terms and apply at 
 least as well to the ambitious pursuit of existing offices as to the 
 arrogant assertion of a hitherto unrecognized power®. This clue 
 failing us, the notices in the Shepherd are in themselves too vague 
 to lead to any result. "Were it not known that the writer’s own 
 brother was bishop of Rome, we should be at a loss what to say 
 
 about the constitution of the Roman Church in his day*. 
 But while the testimony of these early writers appears at first 
 sight and on the whoie unfavourable to the existence of episcopacy in 
 Rome when they wrote, the impression needs to be corrected by im- 
 Testimony portant considerations on the other side. Hegesinpus, who visited 
 ΠΩ Rome about the middle of the second century during the papacy of 
 Anicetus, has left it on record that he drew up a list of the Roman 
 As the list is not preserved, we can only 
 conjecture its contents; but if we may judge from the sentence imme- 
 diately following, in which he praises the orthodoxy of this and other 
 churches under each succession, his object was probably to show that 
 the teachings of the Apostles had been carefully preserved and handed 
 down, and he would therefore trace the episcopal succession back to 
 Such at all events is the aim and method of Ire- 
 neeus who, writing somewhat later than Hegesippus and combating 
 
 bishops to his own time’. 
 
 and of Ire- apostolic times®. 
 
 neus. 
 
 Gnostic heresies, appeals especially to the bishops of Rome, as depo- 
 
 fl /€0 sitaries of the apostolic tradition’, The list of/Irenzeus\commences 
 Sex "Fishewe of/y° 3° Cmdr fay 
 
 -1 Sim. viii. 7. 
 
 2 So Ritschl pp. 403, 535. 
 
 3 Comp. Matt. xxiii. 6, ete. When 
 Ireneus wrote, episcopacy was cer- 
 tainly a venerable institution: yet 
 his language closely resembles the 
 reproachful expressions of Hermas: 
 ‘Contumeliis agunt reliquos et princi- 
 palis consessionis (MSS concessionis) 
 tumore elati sunt’ (iv. 26. 3). 
 
 4 See above, p. 168, note 9, and 
 S. Clement of Rome p. 316, Appendix. 
 
 5 In Euseb. H. E. iy. 22. 
 
 6 The words of Hegesippus ἐν ἑκάστῃ 
 διαδοχῇ καὶ ἐν ἑκάστῃ πόλει K.T.A. have a 
 parallel in those of Irenzeus (iil. 3. 3) τῇ 
 αὐτῇ τάξει καὶ τῇ αὐτῇ διδαχῆ (Lat. 
 ‘hac ordinatione et successione’) 4 τε 
 ἀπὸ τῶν ἀποστόλων ἐν TH ἐκκλησίᾳ πα- 
 ράδοσις καὶ τὸ τῆς ἀληθείας κήρυγμα 
 κατήντηκεν εἰς ἡμᾶς. May not Irenzus 
 have derived his information from the 
 διαδοχὴ of Roman bishops which Hege- 
 sippus drew up? See below, p. 240. 
 
 7 Tren ils. 
 
THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 221 
 
 with Linus, whom he identifies with the person of this name men- fists of 
 tioned by St Paul, and i a states to have been ‘entrusted with ΩΝ 
 the office of the bishopric’ by the Apostles. The second in succession 
 is Anencletus of whom he relates nothing, the third Clemens whom 
 
 he describes jas a hearer ove Apostles and as writer of the letter to 
 
 the Corinthians. THe others in order are Evarestus, Alexander, 
 Xystus, Telesphorus, Hyginus, Pius, Anicetus, Soter, and Eleuthe- 
 Eusebius in different 
 
 works gives two lists, both agreeing in the order with Irenzus, 
 
 rus during whose episcopacy Lrenzus writes. 
 though not according with each other in the dates. Catalogues are 
 also found in writers later than Irenzus, transposing the sequence of 
 the earliest bishops, and adding the name Cletus or substituting it 
 for Anencletus’. 
 two distinct churches in Rome—a Jewish and a Gentile community 
 or they may have arisen from a confusion of the 
 
 These discrepancies may be explained by assuming 
 
 —in the first age ; 
 earlier and later senses of ἐπίσκοπος ; or the names may have been 
 transposed in the later lists owing to the influence of the Clementine 
 Homilies, in which romance Clement is represented as the immediate 
 
 disciple and successor of St Peter*, With the many possibilities of Linus, 
 error, no more can safely be assumed of Linus and ANENCLETUS than oe 
 that they held some prominent position in the Roman Church. But ane es 
 °°. 
 
 nt, 
 A.D. 92. 
 
 the reason for supposing CLEMENT to have been a bishop is as strong Gee 
 as the universal tradition of the next ages can make it. Yet, while 
 calling him a bishop, we need not suppose him to have attained the 
 same distinct isolated position of authority which was occupied by 
 his successors Hleutherus and Victor for instance at the close of the 
 second century, or even by his contemporaries Ignatius of Antioch 
 and Polycarp of Smyrna. He was rather the chief of the presbyters 
 than the chief over the:presbyters. 
 episcopacy of St Clement be reconciled with the language of his own 
 
 Only when thus limited, can the 
 
 Documents p. 71) is doubtless due to 
 the fact that the names Cletus, Cle- 
 mens, begin with the same letters. In 
 the margin I have for convenience 
 given the dates of the Roman bishops 
 
 1 On this subject see Pearson’s Dis- 
 sertationes due de serie et successione 
 primorum Rome episcoporum in his 
 Minor Theological Works 11. p. 296 sq. 
 (ed. Churton), and especially the recent 
 
 work of Lipsius Chronologie der rimi- 
 schen Bischiéfe, Kiel 1869. The earliest 
 list which places Clement’s name first 
 belongs to the age of Hippolytus. The 
 omission of his name in a recently 
 discoyered Syriac list (Ancient Syriac 
 
 from the Ecclesiastical History of Eu- 
 sebius, without however attaching any 
 weight to them in the case of the 
 earlier names. See above, p. 169. 
 
 2 See Galatians p. 329. 
 
222 
 
 Evarestus, 
 
 A.D. 100. 
 
 Alexander, 
 
 A.D. 109. 
 Xystus, 
 A.D. IIQ. 
 
 Telespho- 
 rus, 
 A.D. 128. 
 Hyginus, 
 A.D. 130. 
 
 Pius, 
 A.D. 142. 
 
 Anicetus, 
 
 A.D. 157+ 
 
 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 
 
 epistle or with the notice in his younger contemporary Hermas. At 
 
 the same time the allusion in the Shepherd, though inconsistent with — 
 
 any exalted conception of his office, does assign to him as his special 
 province the duty of communicating with foreign churches’, which in 
 the early ages was essentially the bishop’s function, as may be seen 
 by the instances of Polycarp, of Dionysius, of Irenzeus, and of Poly- 
 crates. Of the two succeeding bishops, EvarEstus and ALEXANDER, 
 no authentic notices are preserved. Xystus, who follows, is the re- 
 puted author of a collection of proverbs, which a recent distinguished 
 critic has not hesitated to accept as genuine*®. He is also the earliest 
 of those Roman prelates whom Irenzus, writing to Victor in the 
 name of the Gallican Churches, mentions as having observed Easter 
 after the western reckoning and yet maintained peace with those 
 who kept it otherwise*, The next two, TeLEsPpHORUS and Hyeinus, 
 are described in the same terms. The former is likewise distin- 
 guished as the sole martyr among the early bishops of the metro- 
 polis*; the latter is mentioned as being in office when the peace of 
 the Roman Church was disturbed by the presence of the heretics 
 Valentinus and Cerdon®. With Prus, the next in order, the office, 
 if not the man, emerges into daylight. An anonymous writer, treat- 
 ing on the canon of Scripture, says that the Shepherd was written 
 by Hermas ‘quite lately while his brother Pius held the see of the 
 Church of Rome®.’! This passage, written by a contemporary, be- 
 sides the testimony which it bears to the date and authorship of the 
 Shepherd (with which we are not here concerned), is valuable in its 
 bearing on this investigation ; for the use of the ‘chair’ or ‘see’ as 
 a recognised phrase points to a more or less ieee existence 
 of episcopacy in Rome, when this writer lived!! In Pius succeeds 
 Anicetus. And now Rome becomes for the moment the centre of 
 interest and activity in the Christian world’, During this episcopate 
 Hegesippus, visiting the metropolis for the purpose of ascertaining 
 
 1 See above, p. 219, note 1. 4 Tren. iii. 3. 3. At least Ireneus 
 2 Hwald, Gesch. des V.I. vit. p. 321 mentions him alone as a martyr. Later 
 sq. On the other hand see Zeller stories confer the glory of martyrdom 
 Philos. der Griechen 111. τ. Ὁ. 601 note, on others also. 
 and Singer in the Jiidische Zeitschrift 5 Tren. iii. 4. 3. 
 
 (1867) p. 29 sq. It has recently been 6 See above, p. 168, note 9, where the 
 
 edited by Gildemeister, Sexti Senten- passage is quoted. 
 tie, 1873. 7 See Westcott Canon p. τοι, ed. 4. 
 
 3 Tren, in Euseb. H, EH. v. 24. 
 fa Marea rofyra lr ἃ dale of ene, hes lish hatte Te He 
 
 Ce Ke Te ly ᾿ Hix 2 
 
 εἰν 5. Ὁ Ἔνι. ce 
 
 yy Seay ee 
 
 \ fie rr fe bo see hers ra eee py be “ἢ σε, 
 
 ‘0 
 
 4 
 
THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 
 
 and recording the doctrines of the Roman Church, is welcomed by the 
 bishop’. About the same time also another more illustrious visitor, 
 Polycarp the venerable bishop of Smyrna, arrives in Rome to confer 
 with the head of the Roman Church on the Paschal dispute? and 
 
 there falls in with and denounces the heretic Marcion*, These facts 
 
 233. 
 
 are stated on contemporary authority. Of Sorer also, the next in Soter, 
 
 succession, a contemporary record is preserved. Dionysius of Corinth, 
 writing to the Romans, praises the zeal of their bishop, who in his 
 fatherly care for the suffering poor and for the prisoners working 
 in the mines had maintained and extended the hereditary fame of 
 his church for zeal in all charitable and good works’. 
 THERUS, who succeeds Soter, we have the earliest recorded instance 
 of an archdeacon. When Hegesippus paid his visit to the metro- 
 polis, he found Eleutherus standing in this relation to the bishop 
 Anicetus, and seems to have made his acquaintance while acting in 
 this capacity®. Eleutherus however was a contemporary, not only of 
 Hegesippus, but also of the great writers Irenzeus and Tertullian °, 
 who speak of the episcopal succession in the churches generally, and 
 in Rome especially, as the best safeguard for the transmission of the 
 true faith from apostolic times’. 
 Eleutherus, a new era begins. Apparently the first Latin prelate 
 who held the metropolitan see of Latin Christendom’, he was more- 
 over the first Roman bishop who is known to have had intimate 
 
 1 Hegesipp. in Huseb. H. EL. iv. 22. 
 
 2 Tren. in Kuseb. H. ΕἸ. v. 24. 
 
 3 Tren. ili. 3. 4; comp. iii. 4. 4. 
 
 4 In Kuseb. H. ΕΠ. iv. 23. 
 
 > In Euseb. H. Εἰ. iv. 22 μέχρις ᾿Ανι- 
 κήτου ov διάκονος ἣν ᾿Ελεύθερος. 
 
 6 He is mentioned by Irenezus iii. 3. 
 3 viv δωδεκάτῳ τόπῳ τὸν τῆς ἐπισκοπῆς 
 ἀπὸ τῶν ἀποστόλων κατέχει κλῆρον ᾿Ελεύ- 
 θερος, and by Tertullian, Prescr. 30 
 ‘sub episcopatu Eleutheri benedicti.’ 
 
 7 Tren. iii. 3. 2,°Tertull. de Prescr. 
 32, 36, adv. Mare. iv. 5. 
 
 8 All the predecessors of Victor bear 
 Greek names with two exceptions, Cle- 
 mens and Pius; and even these appear 
 not to have been Latin. Clement 
 writes in Greek, and his style is wholly 
 unlike what might be expected from a 
 Roman. Hermas, the brother of Pius, 
 not only employs the Greek language 
 
 in writing, but bears a Greek name also. 
 It is worth observing also that Tertul- 
 lian (de Preser. 30), speaking of the 
 episcopate of Eleutherus, designates 
 the church of the metropolis not ‘ec- 
 clesia Romana,’ but * ecclesia Roma- 
 nensis,’ i.e. not the Church of Rome, 
 but the Church in Rome. The tran- 
 sition from a Greek to a Latin Church 
 was of course gradual; but, if a defi- 
 nite epoch must be named, the episco- 
 pate of Victor serves better than any 
 other. The two immediate successors 
 of Victor, Zephyrinus (202—219) and 
 Callistus (2 19—223), bear Greek names, 
 and it may be inferred from the ac- 
 count in Hippolytus that they were 
 Greeks; but from this time forward 
 the Roman bishops, with scarcely an 
 exception, seem to have been Latins. 
 
 A.D. 168. 
 
 In ELev- Eleuthe- 
 rus, 
 
 Ἀ Ὡς Cis 
 
 With Victor, the successor of Victor, 
 
 A.D. 189. 
 
GavL. 
 
 A¥RICA, 
 
 p20 
 
 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 
 
 relations with the imperial court’, and the first also who advanced 
 those claims to universal dominion which his successors in later ages 
 have always consistently and often successfully maintained’, ‘I 
 hear,’ writes Tertullian scornfully, ‘that an edict has gone forth, aye 
 and that a peremptory edict ; the chief pontiff, forsooth, I mean the 
 bishop of bishops, has issued his commands*.’ At the end of the 
 first century the Roman Church was swayed by the mild and peaceful 
 counsels of the presbyter-bishop Clement; the close of the second 
 witnessed the autocratic pretensions of the haughty pope Victor, 
 the prototype of a Hildebrand or an Innocent. 
 
 9. The Churches of Gaut were closely connected with and pro- 
 bably descended from the Churches of Asia Minor. If so, the episco- 
 pal form of government would probably be coeval with the founda- 
 tion of Christian brotherhoods in this country. It is true we do not 
 meet with any earlier bishop than the immediate predecessor of 
 Trenzeus at Lyons, the aged Pothinus, of whose martyrdom an account 
 is given in the letter of the Gallican Churches*, But this is also the 
 first distinct historical notice of any kind relating to Christianity 
 in Gaul. 
 
 10. AFRICA again was evangelized from Rome at a compara- 
 tively late date. Of the African Church before the close of the 
 second century, when a flood of light is suddenly thrown upon it by 
 the writings of Tertullian, we know absolutely nothing. But we need 
 not doubt that this father represents the traditions and sentiments of 
 his church, when he lays stress on episcopacy as an apostolic institu- 
 tion and on the episcopate as the depositary of pure Christian 
 doctrine. If we may judge by the large number of prelates assem- 
 bled in the African councils of a later generation, it would appear 
 that the extension of the episcopate was far more rapid here than in 
 most parts of Christendom’, 
 
 1 Hippol. Her. ix. 12, pp. 287, 288. 
 
 2 See the account of his attitude in 
 the Paschal controversy, Huseb. H. E. 
 V. 24. 
 
 3 Tertull. de Pudic. 1. The bishop 
 here mentioned will be either Victor or 
 Zephyrinus; and the passage points to 
 the assumption of extraordinary titles 
 by the Roman bishops about this time. 
 See also Cyprian in the opening of the 
 Concil. Carth. Ὁ. 158 (ed. Fell) ‘neque 
 
 enim quisquam nostrum episcopum se 
 episcoporum constituit etc.,’ doubtless 
 in allusion to the arrogance of the 
 Roman prelates. 
 
 4 The Epistle of the Gallican Churches 
 in Huseb. H. EH. v. 1. 
 
 5 At the African council conyoked 
 by Cyprian about 50 years later, the 
 opinions of as many as 87 bishops are 
 recorded ; and allusion is made in one 
 of his letters (Epist. 59) to a council 
 
THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 225 
 
 The Church of ALEXANDRIA, on the other hand, was pro- AuExan- 
 
 11. 
 ; DRIA. 
 Nor is there any reason to doubt 
 
 bably founded in apostolic times’. 
 the tradition which connects it with the name of St Mark, though the 
 
 authorities for the statement are comparatively recent. Neverihe- 
 less of its early history we have no authentic record. Eusebius 
 indeed gives a list of bishops beginning with St Mark, which here, as 
 in the case of the Roman see, is accompanied by dates?; but from 
 what source he derived his information, is unknown. The first con- 
 temporary notice of church officers in Alexandria is found in a 
 
 The emperor Hadrian, writing to the consul Servi- Hadrian’s 77- Vi 
 
 heathen writer. 
 letter. 
 
 anus, thus describes the state of religion in this city : ‘I have become 
 perfectly familiar with Egypt, which you praised to me ; it is fickle, 
 uncertain, blown about by every gust of rumour. Those who worship 
 Serapis are Christians, and those are devoted to Serapis who call 
 themselves bishops of Christ. There is no ruler of a synagogue there, 
 no Samaritan, no Christian presbyter, who is not an astrologer, a 
 soothsayer, a quack. The patriarch himself whenever he comes to 
 Egypt is compelled by some to worship Serapis, by others to worship 
 Christ®.’ In this letter, which seems to have been written in the 
 
 held before his time, when go bishops 2 Euseb. H. H. ii. 24, iti. 14, ete. 
 
 assembled. For a list of the African 
 bishoprics at this time see Miinter 
 Primord. Eccl. Afric. p. 31 sq. The 
 enormous number of African bishops a 
 few centuries later would seem incredi- 
 ble, were it not reported on the best 
 authority. Dupin (Optat. Milev. p. lix) 
 
 counts up as many as 690 African sees7@ 
 
 compare also the Notitia in Ruinart’s 
 Victor Vitensis p. 117 sq., with the 
 notes p.215 sq. These last references 
 I owe to Gibbon, 6. xxxvii and 6. xli. 
 
 1 Independently of the tradition re- 
 lating to St Mark, this may be inferred 
 from extant canonical and uncanonical 
 writings which appear to have emanated 
 from Alexandria. The Epistle to the 
 Hebrews, even if we may not ascribe 
 it to the learned Alexandrian Apollos 
 (Acts xviii. 24), at least bears obvious 
 marks of Alexandrian culture. The so- 
 called Epistle of Barnabas again, which 
 may have been written as early as the 
 reign of Vespasian“and can hardly date 
 later than Nerva, must be referred to 
 the Alexandrian school of theology. 
 
 PHIt. 
 cap AB 0-78. Javea 77. 
 (a) haw 7 “:02 twas 
 
 ., 49 irre uf 
 
 See Clinton’s Fasti eae II. Pp. 544. 
 3 Preserved in Vopiscus Vit. Saturn. 
 
 8. The Jewish patriarch (who resided 
 at Tiberias) is doubtless intended ; for 
 it would be no hardship to the Christian 
 bishop of Alexandria to be ‘ compelled 
 to worship Christ.’ Otherwise the ana- 
 chronism involved in such a title would 
 alone have sufficed to condemn the let- 
 ter as spurious, Yet Salmasius, Casau- 
 bon, and the older commentators gene- 
 rally, agree in the supposition that the 
 bishop of Alexandria is styled patriarch 
 here. The manner in which the docu- 
 ment is stated by Vopiscus to have 
 been preserved (‘ Hadriani epistolam ex 
 libris Phlegontis liberti ejus proditam ’) 
 is favourable to its genuineness; nor 
 does the mention of Verus as the em- 
 peror’s ‘son’ in another part of the 
 letter present any real chronological 
 difficulty. Hadrian paid his visit to 
 Egypt in the autumn of 130, but the 
 letter is not stated to have been written 
 there. The date of the third consul- 
 ship of Servianus is a.p. 134, and the 
 
 15 
 
226 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 
 
 year 134, Hadrian shows more knowledge of Jewish ecclesiastical 
 polity than of Christian: but, apparently without knowing the exact 
 value of terms, he seems to distinguish the bishop and the presbyter 
 in the Christian community’, From the age of Hadrian to the age 
 of Clement no contemporary or nearly contemporary notices are 
 found, bearing on the government of the Alexandrian Church. The . 
 Clementof language of Clement is significant; he speaks sometimes of two 
 Alexan; oe : 
 dria. #2/70rders of the ministry, the presbyters and deacons*; sometimes of 
 three, the bishops, presbyters, and deacons*. Thus it would appear 
 that even as late as the close of the second century the bishop of 
 Alexandria was regarded as distinct and yet not distinct from the 
 presbytery*. And the language of Clement is further illustrated by 
 the fact, which will have to be considered at length presently, that 
 at Alexandria the bishop was nominated and apparently ordained by 
 the twelve presbyters out of their own number’, The episcopal 
 office in this Church during the second century gives no presage of 
 the world-wide influence to which under the prouder name of patri- 
 The Alexandrian 
 succession, in which history is hitherto most interested, is not the 
 
 succession of the bishops but of the heads of the catechetical school. 
 
 archate it was destined in later ages to attain. 
 
 account of Spartianus (Ver. 3) easily 
 admits of the adoption of Verus before 
 or during this year, though Clinton 
 (Fast. Rom. τ. Ὁ. 124) places it as late 
 as A.D. 135. Gregorovius (Kaiser Ha- 
 drianp.71) suggests that ‘filium meum’ 
 may have been added by Phlegon or by 
 some one else, The prominence of the 
 Christians in this letteris not surprising, 
 when we remember how Hadrian inter- 
 ested himself in their tenets on another 
 occasion (at Athens). This document 
 is considered genuine by such opposite 
 authorities as Tillemont (Hist.des Emp. 
 II. p. 265) and Gregorovius (]. ὁ. p. 41), 
 and may beaccepted without hesitation. 
 
 1 At this time there appears to have 
 been only one bishop in Egypt (see 
 below, p. 232). But Hadrian, who would 
 have heard of numerous bishops else- 
 where, and perhaps had no very precise 
 knowledge of the Egyptian Church, 
 might well indulge in this rhetorical 
 flourish, At all events he seems to 
 
 mean (different offices, when speaking 
 of the bishop and the presbyter. 
 
 2 Strom. vil. 1 (p. 830, Potter) ὁμοίως 
 δὲ καὶ κατὰ τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, τὴν μὲν βελ- 
 τιωτικὴν οἱ πρεσβύτεροι σώζουσιν εἰκόνα, 
 τὴν ὑπηρετικὴν δὲ οἱ διάκονοι. 
 
 3 Strom. vi. 13 (p. 793) αἱ ἐνταῦθα 
 κατὰ Thy ἐκκλησίαν προκοπαί, ἐπισκόπων, 
 πρεσβυτέρων, διακόνων, μιμήματα οἵμαι 
 ἀγγελικῆς δόξης, Strom. iii. 12 (p. 552), 
 Ped, iii. 12 (see the next note): see 
 Kaye’s Clement of Alexandria p. 463 sq. 
 
 4 Yet in one passage he, like Irenmus 
 (see above p. 98), betrays his ignorance 
 that in the language of the new Testa- 
 ment bishop and presbyter are syno- 
 nymes; see Ped. 111. 12 (p. 309) μυρίαι 
 δὲ ὅσαι ὑποθῆκαι els πρόσωπα ἐκλεκτὰ 
 διατείνουσαι ἐγγεγράφαται ταῖς βίβλοις 
 ταῖς ἁγίαις, αἱ μὲν πρεσβυτέροις ai 
 δὲ ἐπισκόποις αἱ δὲ διακόνοις, ἄλλαι 
 χήραις κιτ.λΔ. 
 
 5 See below, p. 231. 
 
THE CIIRISTIAN MINISTRY. 227 
 
 ‘The first bishop of Alexandria, of whom any distinct incident is 
 recorded on trustworthy authority, was a contemporary of Origen. — 
 
 The notices thus collected' present a large body of evidence Inferences. 
 establishing the fact of the early and extensive adoption of epi- The gene- 
 
 ral preva- 
 lence of ο- 
 
 not be complete, unless attention were called to such indirect testi- piscopacy. 
 
 scopacy in the Christian Church. The investigation however would 
 mony as is furnished by the tacit assumptions of writers living 
 towards and at the close of the second century. Episcopacy is so 
 inseparably interwoven with all the traditions and beliefs of men 
 like Ireneus and Tertullian, that they betray no knowledge of a ot, 220 
 time when it was not. Even Irenzus, the earlier of these, who was 
 
 certainly born and probably had grown up before the middle of the 
 
 century, seems to be wholly ignorant that the word bishop had 
 
 passed from a lower to a higher value since the apostolic times®. 
 
 Nor is it important only to observe the positive though indirect 
 testimony which they afford. Their silence suggests a strong nega- 
 
 tive presumption, that while every other point of doctrine or practice 
 
 was eagerly canvassed, the form of Church government alone 
 
 scarcely came under discussion. 
 
 But these notices, besides establishing the general prevalence of Gradual 
 and un- 
 even devye- 
 cate that the sclution suggested by the history of the word ‘bishop’ lopment of 
 
 ᾿ A ν᾿ the office. 
 and its transference from the lower to the higher office is the true 
 
 episcopacy, also throw considerable light on its origin. They indi- 
 
 solution, and that the episcopate was created out of the presbytery. 
 They show that this creation was not so much an isolated act as a 
 progressive development, not advancing everywhere at an uniform 
 rate but exhibiting at one and the same time different stages of 
 growth in different churches. They seem to hint also that, so far as 
 this development was affected at all by national temper and charac- 
 teristics, it was slower where the prevailing influences were more 
 purely Greek, as at Corinth and Philippi and Rome, and more rapid 
 where an oriental spirit predominated, as at Jerusalem and Antioch 
 
 1 Tn this sketch of the episcopate in _ several names to the list; but this evi- 
 thedifferentchurchesIhavenotthought dence is not trustworthy, though in 
 it necessary to carry the lists later than many cases the statements doubiless 
 the second century. Nor (exceptin a rested on some traditional basis. 
 very few cases) has any testimony been 2 See above, p. 98. Thesame is true 
 accepted, unless the writer himself flon- of Clement of Alexandria: see p. 226, 
 rished before the close of this century. noite 4. 
 
 The Apostolic Constitutions would add 
 
 2 
 
Original 
 relation of 
 the two 
 offices not 
 forgotten. 
 
 A biskop 
 still called 
 a presby- 
 ter by Ire- 
 neus 
 
 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 
 
 and Ephesus. Above all, they establish this result clearly, that its 
 maturer forms are seen first in those regions where the latest surviv- 
 ing Apostles (more especially St John) fixed their abode, and at a 
 time when its prevalence cannot be dissociated from their influence 
 or their sanction. 
 
 The original relation of the bishop to the presbyter, which this 
 investigation reveals, was not forgotten even after the lapse of 
 centuries. Though set over the presbyters, he was still regarded 
 as in some sense one of them. JIrenzeus indicates this position of the 
 episcopate very clearly. In his language a presbyter is never desig- 
 nated a bishop, while on the other hand he very frequently speaks 
 of a bishop as a presbyter. In other words, though he views the 
 episcopate as a distinct office from the presbytery, he does not 
 regard it as a distinct order in the same sense in which the diaco- 
 nate is a distinct order. Thus, arguing against the heretics he says, 
 ‘But when again we appeal against them to that tradition which is 
 derived from the Apostles, which is preserved in the churches by 
 successions of presbyters, they place themselves in opposition to it, 
 saying that they, being wiser not only than the presbyters but even 
 than the Apostles, have discovered the genuine truth’. Yet just 
 below, after again mentioning the apostolic tradition, he adds, ‘We 
 are able to enumerate those who have been appointed by the 
 Apostles bishops in the churches and their successors down to our 
 own time*’; and still further, after saying that it would take up too 
 much space if he were to trace the succession in all the churches, 
 he declares that he will confound his opponents by singling out the 
 ancient and renowned Church of Rome founded by the Apostles 
 Peter and Paul and will point out the tradition handed down to his 
 own time ‘by the succession of bishops,’ after which he gives a list 
 from Linus to Eleutherus*. So again in another passage he writes, 
 ‘ Therefore obedience ought to be rendered to the presbyters who are 
 in the churches, who have the succession from the Apostles as we 
 have shown, who with the succession of the episcopate have also 
 received the sure grace of truth according to the pleasure of the 
 Father’ ; after which he mentions some ‘who are believed by many 
 to be presbyters, but serve their own lusts and are elated with the 
 
 1 Tren. lil, 2. 2. 2 Tren. ili, 3. 1. 
 J luessay 11 Si, 54) 5: 
 
THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 
 
 pomp of the chief seat, and bids his readers shun these and seek 
 such as ‘together with the rank of the presbytery show their speech 
 sound and their conversation void of offence,’ adding of these 
 latter, ‘Such presbyters the Church nurtures and rears, concerning 
 whom also the prophet saith, “I will give thy rulers in peace and 
 thy bishops in righteousness'”’, Thus also writing to Victor of 
 Rome in the name of the Gallican churches, he says, ‘It was not so 
 observed by the presbyters before Soter, who ruled the Church which 
 thou now guidest, we mean Anicetus and Pius, Hyginus and Teles- 
 
 229 
 
 phorus and Xystus®.’ And the same estimate of the office appears and Cle- 
 
 ment of 
 
 in Clement of Alexandria: for, while he speaks elsewhere of the ajexan. 
 
 three offices in the ministry, mentioning them by name, he in one ‘a. 
 
 passage puts forward a twofold division, the presbyters whose duty 
 it is to emprove, and the deacons whose duty it is to serve, the 
 Church*. 
 garded as substantially the same in kind, though different in degree, 
 
 The functions of the bishop and presbyter are thus re- 
 
 while the functions cf the diaconate are separate from both, More 
 than a century and a half later, this view is put forward with the 
 greatest distinctness by the most learned and most illustrious of 
 the Latin fathers. 
 tator Hilary, ‘of the bishop and the presbyter ; for either is a priest 
 but the bishop is first. 
 byter is not a bishop: for he is bishop who is first among the pres- 
 
 Every bishop is a presbyter, but every pres- 
 
 ‘There is one ordination,’ writes the commen- Testimony 
 of Ambro- 
 ? siaster, 
 
 byters*.’ The language of St Jerome to the same effect has been Jerome, 
 
 quoted above®. To the passages there given may be added the fol- 
 lowing: ‘This has been said to show that with the ancients pres- 
 
 byters were the same as bishops: but gradually all the responsibility 
 
 Tren. iv. 26. 2, 3, 4, 5- 
 
 2 In Kuseb. H. HE. v. 24. In other 
 places Ireneus apparently uses πρεσβύ- 
 τεροι to denote antiquity and not office, 
 as in the letter to Florinus, Euseb. 
 H. E. vy. 20 of πρὸ ἡμῶν πρεσβύτεροι 
 of καὶ τοῖς ἀποστόλοις συμφοιτήσαντες 
 (comp. ii. 22. 5); im which sense the 
 word occurs also in Papias (Huseb. H.H. 
 iii. 39; see Contemporary Review, Aug. 
 1875, p- 379 Sq.); but the passages quo- 
 ted in the text are decisive, nor is there 
 any reason (as Rothe assumes, p. 414 
 sq.) why the usage of Irenzus should 
 
 throughout be uniform in this matter. 
 
 3 See the passage quoted above, p. 
 226, note 2. So alsoin the anecdote of 
 St John (Quis div. salv. 42, p. 959) we 
 read τῷ καθεστῶτι προσβλέψας ἐπι- 
 σκόπῳ, but immediately afterwards ὃ 
 δὲ πρεσβύτερος ἀναλαβών κ.τ.λ., and 
 then again ἄγε δή, ἔφη, ὦ ἐπίσκοπε, 
 of the same person. ‘Thus he too, like 
 Trenzus, regards the bishop as a pres- 
 byter, though the converse would not 
 be true. 
 
 4. Ambrosiast. on 1 Tim. iii. 10. 
 
 > See p. 98. 
 
ss 
 Us 
 oO 
 
 and Au- 
 gustine. 
 
 Bishops 
 styled 
 them- 
 selves fel- 
 low-pres- 
 byters. 
 
 The 
 bishop of 
 Alexan- 
 dria cho- 
 sen and 
 
 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 
 
 was deferred to a single person, that the thickets of heresies might 
 be rooted out. Therefore, as presbyters know that by the custom of the 
 Church they are subject to him who shall have been set over them, 
 so let bishops also be aware that they are superior to presbyters 
 more owing to custom than to any actual ordinance of the Lord, ete. : 
 Let us see therefore what sort of person ought to be ordained pres- 
 byter. or bishop’’ In the same spirit too the great Augustine 
 writing to Jerome says, ‘Although according to titles of honour 
 which the practice of the Church has now made valid, the episcopate 
 is greater than the presbytery, yet in many things Augustine is less 
 than Jerome’? To these fathers this view seemed to be an obvious 
 deduction from the identity of the terms ‘bishop’ and ‘presbyter’ 
 in the apostolic writings; nor indeed, when they wrote, had usage 
 entirely effaced the original connexion between the two offices. Even 
 in the fourth and fifth centuries, when the independence and power 
 of the episcopate had reached its maximum, it was still customary 
 for a bishop in writing to a presbyter to address him as ‘fellow- 
 presbyter’,’ thus bearing testimony to a substantial identity of order. 
 Nor does it appear that this view was ever questioned until the era 
 of the Reformation. In the western Church at all events it carried 
 the sanction of the highest ecclesiastical authorities and was main- 
 tained even by popes and councils*. 
 
 Nor was it only in the language of the later Church that the 
 memory of this fact was preserved. Even in her practice indica- 
 tions might here and there be traced, which pointed to a time when 
 the bishop was still only the chief member of the presbytery. The 
 case of the Alexandrian Church, which has already been mentioned 
 casually, deserves special notice. St Jerome, after denouncing the 
 audacity of certain persons who ‘would give to deacons the prece- 
 
 dress. See the Quest. Vet. et Nov. Test. 
 ci (in Augustin. Op. ur. P. 2, p. 93) 
 
 1 On Tit. i. 5 (vit. p. 696). 
 2 Upist. Ixxxii. 33 (11. p.202,ed. Ben.). 
 
 3 So for instance Cyprian, Hpist. 14, 
 writes ‘compresbyteri nostri Donatus 
 et Fortunatus’; and addressing Corne- 
 lius bishop of Rome (pist. 45) he 
 says ‘cum ad me talia de te et com- 
 presbyteris tecum considentibus scripta 
 venissent.’? Compare also Hpist. 44, 45, 
 71, 76. Augustine writes to Jerome in 
 the same terms, and in fact this seems 
 to have been the recognised form of ad- 
 
 ‘Quid est enim episcopus nisi primus 
 presbyter, hoc est summus sacerdos? 
 Denique non aliter quam compresbyte- 
 ros hic vocat et consacerdotes suos, 
 Numquid et ministros condiaconos suos 
 dicit episcopus?’, where the writer is 
 arguing against the arrogance of tho 
 Roman deacons. See above, p. 96. 
 
 4 See the references collected by 
 Giescler 1. p. 105, sq. 
 
 
 
THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 231 
 
 dence over presbyters, that is over bishops,’ and alleging scriptural created by 
 the pres- 
 
 proofs of the identity of the two, gives the following fact in illus- bytery 
 
 tration: ‘At Alexandria, from Mark the Evangelist down to the 
 times of the bishops Heraclas (A.D. 233—249) and Dionysius (A.p. 
 249—265), the presbyters always nominated as bishop one chosen 
 out of their own body and placed in a higher grade: just as if an 
 army were to appoint a. general, or deacons were to choose from 
 their own body one whom they knew to be diligent and call him 
 archdeacon’.’ Though the direct statement of this father refers only 
 to the appointment of the bishop, still it may be inferred that the 
 And 
 
 ‘In Egypt,’ writes 
 
 function of the presbyters extended also to the consecration. 
 this inference is borne out by other evidence. 
 an older contemporary of St Jerome, the commentator Hilary, ‘the 
 presbyters seal (1.6, ordain or consecrate), if the bishop be not pre- 
 sent*.’ This however might refer only to the ordination of pres- 
 But even the latter 
 is supported by direct evidence, which though comparatively late 
 
 byters, and not to the consecration of a bishop. 
 
 deserves consideration, inasmuch as it comes from one who was him- 
 
 self a patriarch of Alexandria. Hutychius, who held the patriarchal Testimony 
 see from A.D. 933 to A.D. 940, writes as follows: ‘The Evangelist Sea ‘ 
 Mark appointed along with the patriarch Hananias twelve presbyters 
 
 who should remain with the patriarch, to the end that, when the 
 patriarchate was vacant, they might choose one of the twelve pres- 
 
 byters, on whose head the remaining eleven laying their hands should 
 
 bless him and create him patriarch.’ The vacant place in the pres- 
 
 bytery was then to be filled up, that the number twelve might be 
 
 ‘This custom,’ adds this writer, ‘did not cease till the 
 
 He 
 however forbad that henceforth the presbyters should create the 
 
 patriarch, and decreed that on the death of the patriarch the bishops 
 
 constant*. 
 time of Alexander (A.D. 313—326), patriarch of Alexandria. 
 
 1 Epist. exlvi ad Evang. (1. p. 1082). 
 
 2 Ambrosiast. on Kphes. iv. 12. So 
 too in the Quest. Vet. et Nov. Test. ci 
 (falsely ascribed to St Augustine), Au- 
 gust. Op. ur. P. 2, Ὁ. 93, ‘Nam in 
 Alexandria et per totam Agyptum, 
 si desit episcopus, consecrat (v. 1. con- 
 signat) presbyter.’ 
 
 3 Butychii Paty. Alexandr. Annales 1. 
 P- 331 (Pococke, Oxon. 1656). The in- 
 
 ferences in the text are resisted by Abra- 
 ham Kechellensis Zutychius vindicatus 
 p. 22 sq. (in answer to Selden the trans- 
 lator of Eutychius), and by Le Quien 
 Oriens Christianus 11. p. 342, who urge 
 all that can be said on the opposite side. 
 The authority of a writer so inaccurate 
 asKutychius,ifit had been unsupported, 
 would haye had no weight; but, as we 
 have seen, this is not the case, 
 
232 
 
 Increase 
 of the 
 Egyptian 
 episco- 
 pate. 
 
 Decree of 
 the Coun- 
 cil of An- 
 cyra. 
 
 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 
 
 1? 
 
 should meet to ordain the (new) patriarch, etc.’’ It is clear from this 
 
 passage that Eutychius considered the functions of nomination and 
 ordination to rest with the same persons. ~~ 
 
 If this view however be correct, the practice of the Alexandrian 
 Church was exceptional; for at this time the formal act of the 
 bishop was considered generally necessary to give validity to ordi- 
 At the close 
 
 of the second century, when every considerable church in Europe 
 
 nation. Nor is the exception difficult to account for. 
 and Asia appears to have had its bishop, the only representative of 
 the episcopal order in Egypt was the bishop of Alexandria, It was 
 Demetrius first (A.D. 1g0—233), as Eutychius informs us’, who ap- 
 pointed three other bishops, to which number his successor Heraclas 
 (A.D. 233249) added twenty more. This extension of episcopacy 
 to the provincial towns of Egypt paved the way for a change in the 
 
 But 
 
 before this time it was a matter of convenience and almost of neces- 
 
 mode of appointing and ordaining the patriarch of Alexandria, 
 
 sity that the Alexandrian presbyters should themselves ordain their 
 chief. 
 
 Nor is it only in Alexandria that we meet with this peculiarity. . 
 Where the same urgent reason existed, the same exceptional practice 
 seems to have been tolerated. A decree of the Council of Ancyra 
 (A.D. 314) ordains that ‘it be not allowed to country-bishops (xwpe- 
 πισκόποις) to ordain presbyters or deacons, nor even to city-presby- 
 ters, except permission be given in each parish by the bishop in 
 
 39 
 
 writing*’ Thus while restraining the existing license, the framers 
 
 1 Between Dionysius and Alexander 
 four bishops of Alexandria intervene, 
 Maximus (A.D. 265), Theonas (A.D. 283), 
 Peter I (a.p. 301), and Achillas (A.p. 
 312). It will therefore be seen that 
 there is a considerable discrepancy be- 
 tween the accounts of Jerome and Ku- 
 tychius as to the time when the change 
 was effected. But we may reasonably 
 conjecture (with Ritschl, p. 432) that the 
 transition from the old state of things 
 to the new would be the result of a pro- 
 longed conflict between the Alexandrian 
 presbytery who had hitherto held these 
 functions, and the bishops of the re- 
 cently created Egyptian sees to whom 
 it was proposed to transfer them. 
 
 Somewhat later one Ischyras was 
 
 deprived of his orders by an Alexan- 
 drian synod, because he had been or- 
 dained by a presbyter only: Athan. 
 Apol. 6. Arian. 75 (I. p. 152). From 
 this time at all events the Alexandrian 
 Church insisted as strictly as any other 
 on episcopal ordination. 
 
 2 Butych. Ann. 1. 6. p. 332. Hera- 
 clas, we are informed on the same 
 authority (p. 335), was the first Alex- 
 andrian prelate who bore the title of 
 patriarch ; this designation being equi- 
 valent to metropolitan or bishop of 
 bishops. 
 
 3 Concil. Ancyr. ean, 13 (Routh Rel. 
 Sacr. Iv. p. 121) χωρεπισκόποις μὴ ἐξεῖ- 
 vat πρεσβυτέρους ἢ διακόνους χειροτον εἶν, 
 ἀλλὰ [μὴν] μηδὲ πρεσβυτέροις πόλεως 
 
THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 
 
 of the decree still allow very considerable latitude. 
 
 And it is espe- 
 
 cially important to observe that they lay more stress on episcopal 
 
 sanction than on episcopal ordination. 
 
 Provided that the former ig 
 
 secured, they are content to dispense with the latter, 
 As a general rule however, even those writers who maintain a Ordina- 
 
 substantial identity in the offices of the bishop and presbyter reserve 
 
 the power of ordaining to the former’. 
 
 be regarded as a settled maxim of Church polity in the fourth and 
 
 later centuries. 
 
 And when Aerius maintained the equality of the 
 
 bishop and presbyter and denied the necessity of episcopal ordina- 
 
 χωρὶς τοῦ ἐπιτραπῆναι ὑπὸ τοῦ ἐπισκό- 
 που μετὰ γραμμάτων ἐν ἑκάστῃ παροικίᾳ. 
 The various readings and interpreta- 
 tions of this canon will be found in 
 Routh’s note, p. 144 sq. Routh him- 
 self reads ἀλλὰ μὴν μηδὲ πρεσβυτέρους 
 πόλεως, making πρεσβυτέρους πόλεως 
 the object of χειροτονεῖν, but to this 
 there is a twofold objection: (1) he 
 necessarily understands the former 
 πρεσβυτέρους to mean πρεσβυτέρους χώ- 
 pas, though this is not expressed: (2) 
 he interprets ἀλλὰ μὴν, μηδὲ ‘much 
 less,’ a sense which μηδ ἐ seems to ex- 
 clude and which is not borne out by 
 his examples. 
 
 The name and office of the ywpert- 
 σκοπὸς appear to be reliques of the time 
 when ἐπίσκοπος and πρεσβύτερος were 
 synonymes. While the large cities had 
 their college of presbyters, for the vil- 
 lages a single πρεσβύτερος (or ἐπίσκοπος) 
 would suffice; but from his isolated 
 position he would be tempted, even if 
 he were not obliged, to perform on his 
 own responsibility certain acts which 
 in the city would only be performed by 
 the bishop properly so called, or at least 
 would not be performed without his 
 consent. Out of this position the office 
 of the later χωρεπίσκοπος would gra- 
 dually be developed; but the rate of 
 progression would not be uniform, and 
 the regulations affecting it would be 
 determined by the circumstances of the 
 particular locality. Hence, at a later 
 date, it seems in some places to have 
 been presbyteral, in others episcopal. 
 in the Ancyran canon just quoted a 
 
 chorepiscopus is evidently placed below 
 the city presbytery; but in other notices 
 he occupies a higher position. For the 
 conflicting accounts of the χωρεπίσκοπος 
 see Bingham 11. xiv. 
 
 Baur’s account of the origin of the 
 episcopate supposes that each Christian 
 congregation was presided over, not 
 by a college of presbyters, but by a 
 single πρεσβύτερος or ἐπίσκοπος, i.e. 
 that the constitution of the Church 
 was from the first monarchical: see 
 Pastoralbriefe Ὁ. 81 sq., Ursprung des 
 Episcopats p. 84 sq. This view is 
 inconsistent alike with the analogy of 
 the synagogue and with the notices in 
 the apostolic and early ecclesiastical 
 writings. But the practice which he 
 considers to have been the general rule 
 would probably hold in small country 
 congregations, where a college of pres- 
 byters would be unnecessary as well as 
 impossible, 
 
 1 St Jerome himself (Epist. exlvi), 
 in the context of the passage in which 
 he maintains the identity of the two 
 orders and alleges the tradition of the 
 Alexandrian Church (see above, p. 231), 
 adds, ‘Quid enim facit excepta ordina- 
 tione episcopus quod presbyter non 
 faciat?’ So also Const. Apost. viii. 28 
 ἐπίσκοπος χειροθετεῖ χειροτονεῖ...πρεσβύ- 
 τερος χειροθετεῖ οὐ χειροτονεῖ, Chrysost, 
 Hom. xi on τ Tim. iii. 8 τῇ χειροτονίᾳ 
 μόνῃ ὑπερβεβήκασι καὶ τούτῳ μόνον δο- 
 κοῦσι πλεονεκτεῖν πρεσβυτέρους. See 
 Bingham 11. iii, 5, 6, 7, for other re- 
 ferences, 
 
 233 
 
 tion cons 
 fined to 
 
 This distinction in fact may the 
 bishops. 
 
Causes of 
 the deve- 
 lopment 
 of episco- 
 pacy. 
 
 Three 
 names 
 connected 
 with its 
 progress. 
 
 1. IGNA- 
 TIUB. 
 
 ΠΡ 
 
 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 
 
 tion, his opinion was condemned as heretical, and is stigmatized as 
 ‘frantic’ by Epiphanius’. 
 
 It has been seen that the institution of an episcopate must be 
 placed as far back as the closing years of the first century, and that 
 it cannot, without violence to historical testimony, be dissevered 
 from the name of St John. But it has been seen also that the earli- 
 est bishops did not hold the same independent position of supremacy 
 It will 
 
 therefore be instructive to trace the successive stages by which the 
 
 which was and is occupied by their later representatives. 
 
 power of the office was developed during the second and third centu- 
 ries. Though something must be attributed to the frailty of human 
 pride and love of power, it will nevertheless appear that the pressing 
 needs of the Church were mainly instrumental in bringing about the 
 result, and that this development of the episcopal office was a provi- 
 dential safeguard amid the confusion of speculative opinion, the dis- 
 tracting effects of persecution, and the growing anarchy of social 
 life, which threatened not only the extension but the very existence 
 of the Church of Christ. Ambition of office in a society where pro- 
 minence of rank involved prominence of risk was at least no vulgar 
 and selfish passion. 
 his development will be conveniently connected with three 
 great names, each separated from the other by an interval of more 
 than half a century, and each marking a distinct stage in its progress. 
 Ignatius, Ireneus, and Cyprian, represent three successive advances 
 towards the supremacy which was ultimately attained. 
 τ. Ienarrus of Antioch is commonly recognized as the staunch- 
 
 est advocate of episcopacy ‘in the early ages. Even, though we 
 
 The Syriac should refuse to accept as genuine any portions which are not 
 
 Version. 
 
 contained in the Syriac Version’, this view would nevertheless be 
 amply justified. Confining our attention for the moment to the 
 Syriac letters we find that to this father the chief value of episcopacy 
 lies in the fact that it constitutes a visible centre of wiity in the con- 
 
 1 Heres. \xxv. 3; comp. Augustine form. I am now convinced that this 
 
 Heres.§ 53. See Wordsworth Theoph. 
 Angl.c. X. 
 
 2 In the earlier editions of this work 
 I assumed that the Syriac Version 
 published by Cureton represented the 
 Epistles of Ignatius in their original 
 
 is only an abridgment and that the 
 shorter Greek form is genuine; but 
 for the sake of argument I have kept 
 the two apart in the text. I hope be- 
 fore long to give reasons for this change 
 of opinion in my edition of this father. 
 
THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 235 
 
 gregation. He seems in the development of the office to keep in view Thebishup 
 
 the same purpose which we may suppose to have influenced the last seu 
 
 surviving Apostles in its institution. The withdrawal of the autho- of unity. 
 
 7 
 
 ritative preachers of the Gospel, the persenal disciples of the Lord, had 
 severed one bond of union. ‘The destruction of the original abode of 
 Christendom, the scene of the life and passion of the Saviour and of 
 the earliest triumphs of the Church, had removed another. Thus de- 
 prived at once of the personal and the local ties which had hitherto 
 bound individual to individual and church to church, the Christian 
 brotherhood was threatened with schism, disunion, dissolution. 
 ‘Vindicate thine office with all diligence,’ writes Ignatius to the 
 bishop of Smyrna, ‘in things temporal as well as spiritual. Have a 
 care of unity, than which nothing is better’.’ ‘The crisis requires 
 thee, as the pilot requires the winds or the storm-tossed mariner a 
 haven, so as to attain unto God®.’ ‘Let not those who seem to be 
 plausible and teach falsehoods dismay thee; but stand thou firm as 
 an anvil under the hammer: ’tis the part of a great athlete to be 
 bruised and to conquer®.’ ‘Let nothing be done without thy con- 
 sent, and do thou nothing without the consent of God‘. He adds 
 directions also, that those who decide on a life of virginity shall dis- 
 close their intention to the bishop only, and those who marry shall 
 obtain his consent to their union, that ‘their marriage may be accord- 
 ing to the Lord and not according to lust’. And turning from the 
 bishop to the people he adds, ‘Give heed to your bishop, that God ᾿ 
 also may give heed to you. I give my life for those who are obedient 
 to the bishop, to presbyters, to deacons. With them may I have my 
 portion in the presence of God°.” Writing to the Ephesians also he 
 says that in receiving their bishop Onesimus he is receiving their 
 whole body, and he charges them to love him, and one and all to be 
 in his likeness’, adding, ‘Since love does not permit me to be silent, 
 therefore I have been a in exhorting you to conform to the 
 will of God’ (heen urd of (ajo bm 42. Ufc De Renee χ 
 
 From these passages it will be seen that St Ignatius values the 
 episcopate chiefly as a security for good discipline and harmonious 
 
 1 Polyc. τ Paine ats 5 Polyc. 5. 
 2 Polye. 2 ἐγ prasr 5 Polye. 6. 
 a ἸΡΟΪ 8. 5. 7 Ephes. τ. 
 
 = ies 8 Ephes. 3. 
 
 sNeoka Logs Wperdh πο ΣΝ ἐκ κου 2 
 
 ΞΔ. 
 
236 
 
 The Greek 
 letters. 
 
 Their ex- 
 travagant 
 exaltation 
 of the 
 episcopate. 
 
 ~ 
 
 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 
 
 working in the Church. And, when we pass from the Syriac let- 
 ters to the Short Greek, the standing ground is still unchanged. 
 At the same time, though the point of view is unaltered, the Greek 
 letters contain far stronger expressions than are found in the 
 Syriac. Throughout the whole range of Christian literature, no 
 more uncompromising advocacy of the episcopate can be found 
 than appears in these writings. This championship indeed is 
 extended to the two lower orders of the ministry’, more espe- 
 cially to the presbyters*. But it is when asserting the claims of the 
 episcopal office to obedience and respect, that the language is strained 
 to the utmost. ‘The bishops established in the farthest parts of 
 the world are in the counsels of Jesus Christ®.’ ‘Every one whom 
 the Master of the house sendeth to govern His own household we 
 ought to receive, as Him that sent him; clearly therefore we ought 
 to regard the bishop as the Lord Himself*.’” Those ‘live a life after 
 Christ,’ who ‘ obey the bishop as Jesus Christ®.’ ‘It is good to know 
 God and the bishop; he that honoureth the bishop is honoured of 
 God; he that doeth anything without the knowledge of the bishop 
 serveth the devil®.’ He that obeys his bishop, obeys ‘not him, but 
 the Father of Jesus Christ, the Bishop of all.’ On the other hand, 
 he that practises hypocrisy towards his bishop, ‘not only deceiveth 
 the visible one, but cheateth the Unseen’.” ‘As many as are of God 
 and of Jesus Christ, are with the bishop®.’ Those are approved 
 who are ‘inseparate [from God], from Jesus Christ, and from the 
 bishop, and from the ordinances of the Apostles®.’ ‘Do ye all, says 
 this writer again, ‘follow the bishop, as Jesus Christ followed the 
 Father ’’.’ The Ephesians are commended accordingly, because they 
 are so united with their bishop ‘as the Church with Jesus Christ 
 and as Jesus Christ with the Father.’ ‘If, it is added, ‘the prayer 
 of one or two hath so much power, how much more the prayer of the 
 bishop and of the whole Church".’ ‘Wherever the bishop may 
 appear, there let the multitude be, just as where Jesus Christ may 
 
 1 Magn. 13, Trall. 3, 7, Philad. 4,7, ° © Smyrn. 9. 
 
 Smyrn. 8, 12. 7 Magn. 3. 
 2 Ephes. 2, 20, Magn. 2, 6, Trall. 13. 8 Philad. 3. 
 2 Ephes. 3. 9 Trail. 7. 
 4 Ephes. 6. 10 Smyrn. 8, comp. Magn. 7. 
 5 Trall, 2. 1 Ephes. 5. 
 
THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 237 
 
 be, there is the universal Church'’ ‘Therefore ‘let no man do 
 anything pertaining to the Church without the bishop’.’ ‘It is 
 not allowable either to baptize or to hold a love-feast without the 
 bishop: but whatsoever he may approve, this also is well pleasing to 
 God, that everything which is done may be safe and valid’. ‘ Unity 
 of God,’ according to this writer, consists in harmonious co-operation 
 with the bishop *. 
 And yet with all this extravagant exaltation of the episcopal The pres- 
 
 office, the presbyters are not put out of sight. They form a council’, ane 
 a ‘worthy spiritual coronal®’ round the bishop. It is the duty of Ree 
 gotten. 
 
 every individual, but especially of them, ‘to refresh the bishop unto 
 the honour of the Father and of Jesus Christ and of the Apostles’, 
 They stand in the same relation to him, ‘as the chords to the lyre®.’ 
 If the bishop occupies the place of God or of Jesus Christ, the pres- 
 byters are as the Apostles, as the council of God’. If obedience 
 is due to the bishop as the grace of God, it is due to the presbytery 
 as the law of Jesus Christ”. 
 
 It need hardly be remarked how subversive of the true spirit of Considera- 
 tions sug- 
 gested by 
 
 quent suppression of direct responsibility to God in Christ, is the this lan- 
 guage. 
 
 Christianity, in the negation of individual freedom and the conse- 
 
 crushing despotism with which this language, if taken literally, 
 would invest the episcopal office. It is more important to bear in 
 mind the extenuating fact, that the needs and distractions of the 
 age seemed to call for a greater concentration of authority in the 
 episcopate ; and we might well be surprised, if at a great crisis the 
 defence of an all-important institution were expressed in words care- 
 fully weighed and guarded. 
 
 Strangely enough, not many years after Ignatius thus asserted The same 
 
 3 : views ad- 
 the claims of the episcopate as a safeguard of orthodoxy, an- vanced in 
 other writer used the same instrument to advance a very dif- ὑπὸ pee 
 
 ests 0 - 
 
 ferent form of Chistianity. The organization, which is thus em- pionism. 
 ployed to consolidate and advance the Catholic Church, might 
 
 1 Smyrn. 8. the Ignatian Epistles, 
 
 2 ib.; comp. Magn. 4, Philad. 7. 6 Magn. 13. 
 
 3 Smyrn. 8. 7 Tralt. 12. 
 
 4 Polyc. 8 ἐν ἑνότητι Θεοῦ καὶ ἐπισκό- 8. Ephes. 4; comp. the metaphor in 
 mou (Υ. 1. ἐπισκοπῇ) : comp. Philad. 3,8. Philad. τ. 
 
 5 The word πρεσβυτέριον, which oc- 9 Trall. 2, 3, Magn. 6, Smyrn. 8, 
 
 curs 1 Tim. iv. 14, is very frequent in 10 Magn, 2. 
 
238 
 
 Monta- 
 nism, a 
 reaction 
 against 
 this extra- 
 vagance. 
 
 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 
 
 serve equally well to establish a compact Ebionite community. I 
 have already mentioned the author of the Clementine Homilies as 
 a staunch advocate of episcopacy’. His view of the sanctions and 
 privileges of the office does not differ matevially from that of 
 Ignatius. ‘The multitude of the faithful,’ he says, ‘must obey 
 a single person, that so it may be able to continue in har- 
 mony.’ Monarchy is a necessary condition of peace; this may be 
 seen from the aspect of the world around: at present there are many 
 kings, and the result is discord and war ; in the world to come God 
 has appointed one King only, that ‘by reason of monarchy an inde- 
 structibie peace may be established: therefore all ought to follow 
 some one person as guide, preferring him in honour as the image of 
 God ; and this guide must show the way that leadeth to the Holy 
 City*’ Accordingly he delights to speak of the bishop as occupying 
 the place or the seat of Christ*, Every insult, he says, and every 
 honour offered to a bishop is carried to Christ and from Christ is 
 taken up to the presence of the Father; and thus it is requited 
 manifold*, Similarly another writer of the Clementine cycle, if he 
 be not the same, compares Christ to the captain, the bishop to the 
 mate, and the presbyters to the sailors, while the lower orders and 
 the laity have each their proper place in the ship of the Church’. 
 
 It is no surprise that such extravagant claims should not have 
 been allowed to pass unchallenged. In opposition to the lofty 
 hierarchical pretensions thus advanced on the one hand in the 
 Ignatian letters on behalf of Catholicism and on the other by 
 the Clementine writer in the interests of Ebionism, a strong spiritual- 
 ist reaction set in. If in its mental aspect the heresy of Montanus 
 must be regarded as a protest against the speculative subtleties 
 of Gnosticism, on its practical side it was equally a rebound from 
 the aggressive tyranny of hierarchical assumption. Montanus taught 
 that the true succession of the Spirit, the authorized channel of 
 Divine grace, must be sought not in the hierarchical but in the pro- 
 phetic order. For a rigid outward system he substituted the free 
 inward impulse. Wildly fanatical as were its manifestations, this 
 reaction nevertheless issued from a true instinct which rebelled 
 
 1 See above, p. 209. 4 ib. ili. 66, 70. 
 = Clem. Hom. iii. 61, 62. 5 ib. Ep. Clem. 15. 
 
 3 ib. iii, 60, 66, 70. 
 
a Ὁ 
 
 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 239 
 
 against the eppressive yoke of external tradition and did battle for 
 the freedom of the individual spirit. Montanus was excommuni- 
 cated and Montanism died out; but though dead, it yet spake; for 
 a portion of its better spirit was infused into the Catholic Church, 
 which it leavened and refreshed and invigorated. 
 
 2. Irnsenzus followed Ignatius after an interval of about two 2. Inz- 
 generations. With the altered circumstances of the Church, the Ai atid 
 aspect of the episcopal office has also undergone a change. The 
 religious atmosphere is now charged with heretical speculations of 
 all kinds. Amidst the competition of rival teachers, all eagerly bid-. 
 ding for support, the perplexed believer asks for some decisive test 
 by which he may try the claims of the disputants. To this question 
 Irenzeus supplies an answer. ‘If you wish,’ he argues, ‘to ascertain Thebishop 
 the doctrine of the Apostles, apply to the Church of the Apostles. pene 
 In the succession of bishops tracing their descent from the primitive ρου ἢ 
 age and appointed by the Apostles themselves, you have a guarantee 
 for the transmission of the pure faith, which no isolated, upstart, 
 self-constituted teacher can furnish, There is the Church of Rome 
 for instance, whose episcopal pedigree is perfect in all its links, and 
 whose earliest bishops, Linus and Clement, associated with the 
 Apostles themselves: there is the Church of Smyrna again, whose 
 bishop Polycarp, the disciple of St John, died only the other day’ 
 
 Thus the episcopate is regarded now not so much as the centre 
 of ecclesiastical unity but rather as the depositary of apostolic 
 tradition. 
 
 This view is not peculiar to Ireneus, It seems to have been The same 
 view held 
 ays by Hege- 
 stress on the succession of the bishops at Rome and at Corinth, car and 
 . . . er u τ 
 adding that in each church and in each succession the pure faith was lian. 
 
 advanced earlier by Hegesippus, for in a detached fragment he ] 
 
 preserved’; so that he seems here to be controverting that ‘ gnosis 
 falsely so called’ which elsewhere he denounces*. It is distinctly 
 maintained by Tertullian, the younger contemporary of Irenzus, 
 who refers, if not with the same frequency, at least with equal 
 emphasis, to the tradition of the apostolic churches as preserved 
 by the succession of the episcopate*. 
 
 1 See especially iii. cc. 2, 3, 4, iv. 26. Ὀ. 220. 
 2 Sq.5 νι 325 Ty Wo Pre, Vs 20.).1, 2. 3 Huseb, H. i. iii. 32. 
 
 o 
 2 In Euseb, H. EL. iv. 22. See above, 4 Tertull, de Preser. 32. 
 
240 
 
 3. Cr- 
 PRIAN. 
 
 The 
 bishop the 
 vicegerent 
 of Christ. 
 
 Influence 
 of Cyprian 
 on the epi- 
 scopate. 
 
 First con- 
 troversy. 
 
 THY CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 
 
 3. As two generations intervened between Ignatius and Ire- 
 nus, so the same period roughly speaking separates Irenzeus from 
 Cyprian. If with Ignatius the bishop is the centre of Christian 
 unity, if with Irenzus he is the depositary of the apostolic tradition, 
 with Cyprian he is the absolute vicegerent of Christ in things 
 spiritual. In mere strength of language indeed it would be difficult 
 to surpass Ignatius, who lived about a century and a half earlier. 
 With the single exception of the sacerdotal view of the ministry which 
 had grown up meanwhile, Cyprian puts forward no assumption which 
 this father had not advanced either literally or substantially long 
 before. This one exception however is all important, for it raised 
 the sanctions of the episcopate to a higher level and put new force 
 into old titles of respect. Theoretically therefore it may be said 
 that Cyprian took his stand on the combination of the ecclesiasti- 
 cal authority as asserted by Ignatius with the sacerdotal claim 
 which had been developed in the half century just past. But 
 the real influence which he exercised in the elevation of the episco- 
 pate consisted not in the novelty of his theoretical views, but in his 
 practical energy and success. The absolute supremacy of the bishop 
 nad remained hitherto a lofty title or at least a vague ill-defined 
 assumption: it became through his exertions a substantial and patent 
 and world-wide fact. The first prelate whose force of character 
 vibrated throughout the whole of Christendom, he was driven not 
 less by the circumstances of his position than by his own tempe- 
 rament and conviction to throw all his energy into this scale. And 
 the permanent result was much vaster than he could have antici- 
 pated beforehand or realized after the fact. Forced into the epi- 
 scopate against his will, he raised it to a position of absolute inde- 
 pendence, from which it has never since been deposed. The two 
 great controversies in which Cyprian engaged, though immediately 
 arising out of questions of discipline, combined from opposite sides 
 to consolidate and enhance the power of the bishops’. 
 
 The first question of dispute concerned the treatment of such 
 as had lapsed during the recent persecution under Decius. Cyprian 
 
 1 The influence of Cyprian on the sq. (1857). See also Rettberg Thascius 
 episcopate is ably stated in two vigor- _ Céicilius Cyprianus p. 367 sq., Huther 
 ous articles by Kayser entitled Cyprien Oyprian’s Lehre von der Kirche p. 59 
 ou VAutonomie de l'Episcopat in the sq. For Cyprian’s work generally see 
 Revue de Théologie xv. pp. 138 sq.,242 Smith's Dict. of Christ. Biogr. 8. v. 
 
 
 
THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 241 
 
 found himself on this occasion doing battle for the episcopate against Treatment 
 | of the 
 
 a twofold opposition, against the confessors who claimed the right of lapsed. 
 
 absolving and restoring these fallen brethren, and against his own 
 presbyters who in the absence of their bishop supported the claims of 
 the confessors. From his retirement he launched his shafts against 
 this combined array, where an aristocracy of moral influence was 
 leagued with an aristocracy of official position. With signal deter- 
 mination and courage in pursuing his aim, and with not less sagacity 
 and address in discerning the means for carrying it out, Cyprian had 
 on this occasion the further advantage, that he was defending the 
 cause of order and right. He succeeded moreover in enlisting in his 
 cause the rulers of the most powerful church in Christendom. The 
 Roman clergy declared for the bishop and against the presbyters 
 of Carthage. Of Cyprian’s sincerity no reasonable question can be 
 entertained. In maintaining the authority of his office he believed 
 himself to be fighting his Master’s battle, and he sought success as 
 the only safeguard of the integrity of the Church of Christ. In this 
 lofty and disinterested spirit, and with these advantages of position, 
 he entered upon the contest. 
 
 It is unnecessary for my purpose to follow out the conflict in 
 detail: to show how ultimately the positions of the two combatants 
 were shifted, so that from maintaining discipline against the cham- 
 pions of too great laxity Cyprian found himself protecting the fallen 
 against the advocates of too great severity; to trace the progress 
 of the schism and the attempt to establish a rival episcopate ; or to 
 unravel the entanglements of the Novatian controversy and lay open 
 the intricate relations between Rome and Carthage’. It is sufficient Power of 
 to say that Cyprian’s victory was complete. He triumphed over the ee 
 oonfessors, triumphed over his own presbyters, triumphed over the church de- 
 schismatic bishop and his party. It was the most signal success aes 
 hitherto achieved for the episcopate, because the battle had been 
 fought and the victory won on this definite issue. The absolute 
 supremacy of the episcopal office was thus established against the two 
 antagonists from which it had most to fear, against a recognised aris- 
 
 _ } The intricacy of the whole proceed- _nists, varying and even interchanged 
 ing is a strong evidence of the genuine- _ with the change of circumstances, are 
 ness of the letters and other documents very natural, but very unlike the in- 
 
 which contain the account of the con- _vention of a forger who hasa distinct 
 troversy. The situations ofthe antago- side to maintain. 
 
 PHIL, 16 
 
242 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 
 
 tocracy of ecclesiastical office and an irregular but not less powerful 
 aristocracy of moral weight. 
 The position of the bishop with respect to the individual church 
 over which he ruled was thus defined by the first contest in which 
 Second Cyprian engaged. The second conflict resulted in determining his 
 Se ΤΗ͂Ν relation to the Church universal. The schism which had grown up 
 oe of during the first conflict created the difficulty which gave occasion to 
 the second. A question arose whether baptism by heretics and 
 schismatics should be held valid or not. Stephen the Roman 
 bishop, pleading the immemorial custom of his church, recognised 
 its validity. Cyprian insisted on rebaptism in such cases, Hitherto 
 the bishop of Carthage had acted in cordial harmony with Rome: 
 but now there was a collision. Stephen, inheriting the haughty 
 temper and aggressive policy of his earlier predecessor Victor, excom- 
 municated those who differed from the Roman usage in this matter. 
 These arrogant assumptions were directly met by Cyprian. He 
 summoned first one and then another synod of African bishops, who 
 declared in his favour. He had on his side also the churches of 
 Asia Minor, which had been included in Stephen’s edict of excom- 
 munication. Thus the bolt hurled by Stephen fell innocuous, and 
 the churches of Africa and Asia retained their practice. The prin- 
 Relations ciple asserted in the struggle was not unimportant. As in the 
 ones to former conflict Cyprian had maintained the independent supremacy 
 the Uni- of the bishop over the officers and members of his own congregation, 
 versal ἐς ; 
 Church 80 now he contended successfully for his immunity from any inter- 
 defined. ference from without. At a later period indeed Rome carried the 
 victory, but the immediate result of this controversy was to establish 
 the independence and enhance the power of the episcopate. More- 
 over this struggle had the further and not less important conse- 
 quence of defining and exhibiting the relations of the episcopate 
 to the Church in another way. As the individual bishop had been 
 pronounced indispensable to the existence of the individual commu- 
 nity, so the episcopal order was now put forward as the absolute 
 indefeasible representative of the universal Church. Synods of 
 bishops indeed had been held frequently before ; but under Cyprian’s 
 guidance they assumed a prominence which threw all existing prece- 
 dents into the shade. A ‘one undivided episcopate’ was his watch- 
 word. The unity of the Church, he maintained, consists in the 
 
 
 
THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 243. 
 
 unanimity of the bishops’. In this controversy, as in the former, he 
 acted throughout on the principle, distinctly asserted, that the exist- 
 ence of the episcopal office was not a matter of practical advantage or, 
 ecclesiastical rule or even of apostolic sanction, but an absolute in- 
 controvertible decree of God. The triumph of Cyprian therefore was 
 the triumph of this principle. 
 
 The greatness of Cyprian’s influence on the episcopate is indeed Cyprian’s 
 due to this fact, that with him the statement of the principle pre- Ee. ue 
 Of the sharpness and pate. 
 distinctness of his sacerdotal views it will be time to speak pre- 
 sently ; but of his conception of the episcopal office generally thus 
 much may be said here, that he regards the bishop as exclusively the 
 representative of God to the congregation and hardly, if at all, as 
 the representative of the congregation before God. The bishop is 
 
 the indispensable channel of divine grace, the indispensable bond of 
 
 cedes and necessitates the practical measures. 
 
 Christian brotherhood. The episcopate is not so much the roof 
 as the foundaticn-stone of the ecclesiastical edifice ; not so much the 
 legitimate development as the primary condition of a church’. 
 The bishop is appointed directly by God, is responsible directly to 
 God, is inspired directly from God*. This last point deserves espe- 
 Though in words he frequently defers to the established 
 usage of consulting the presbyters and even the laity in the appoint- 
 ment of officers and in other matters affecting the well-being of the 
 
 community, yet he only makes the concession to nullify it imme- 
 
 cial notice. 
 
 diately. 
 
 1 De Unit. Eccl. 2 ‘Quam unitatem 
 firmiter tenere et vindicare debemus 
 maxime episcopi qui in ecclesia presi- 
 demus, ut episcopatum quoque ipsum 
 unum atque indivisum probemus’; and 
 again ‘Episcopatus unus est, cujus a 
 singulis in solidum pars tenetur: ee- 
 clesia quoque una est etc.’ So again he 
 argues (Epist. 43) that, as there is one 
 Church, there must be only ‘unum al- 
 tare et unum sacerdotium (i.e. one epi- 
 scopate)’. Comp. also Epist. 46, 55,67. 
 
 2 Epist. 66 ‘Scire debes episcopum 
 inecclesia esse et ecclesiam in episcopo, 
 et si quis cum episcopo non sit, in eccle- 
 sia non esse’; Epist. 33 ‘Ut ecclesia 
 super episcopos constituatur et omnis 
 actus ecclesie per eosdem prepositos 
 
 He pleads a direct official inspiration* which enables him 
 
 gubernetur.’ Hence the expression ‘nee 
 episcopum nec ecclesiam cogitans,’ 
 Epist. 41; hence also ‘honor episcopi’ 
 is associated not only with ‘ecclesixe 
 ratio’ (Epist. 33) but even with ‘timor 
 dei’ (Epist. 15). Compare also the 
 
 language (Hpist. 59) ‘Nec ecclesia istic - 
 
 cuiquam clauditur nec episcopus alicui 
 denegatur’, and again (Epist. 43) 
 ‘Soli cum episcopis non sint, qui con- 
 tra episcopos rebellarunt.’ 
 
 5 See esp. Epist. 3, 43, 55» 59) 73: 
 and above all 66 (Ad Pupianwm). 
 
 4 Epist. 38 ‘Expectanda non sunt 
 testimonia humana, cum precedunt 
 divina sufiragia’; Hpist. 39 ‘Non hu- 
 mana suffragatione sed divina digna- 
 tione conjunctum’; Epist. 4o ‘Ad- 
 
 16—2 
 
244 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 
 
 to dispense with ecclesiastical custom and to act on his own respon- 
 sibility. Though the presbyters may still have retained the shadow 
 of a controlling power over the acts of the bishop, though the 
 courtesy of language by which they were recognised as fellow-pres- 
 byters' was not laid aside, yet for all practical ends the independent 
 supremacy of the episcopate was completely established by the prin- 
 ciples and the measures of Cyprian. 
 
 The power In the investigation just concluded I have endeavoured to trace 
 ἜΗΝ 4 the changes in the relative position of the first and second orders 
 ae of the ministry, by which the power was gradually concentrated in 
 conveni- the hands of the former. Such a development involves no new prin- 
 fo? ciple and must be regarded chiefly in its practical bearings. It is 
 plainly competent for the Church at any given time to entrust a 
 particular office with larger powers, as the emergency may require. 
 And, though the grounds on which the independent authority of 
 the episcopate was at times defended may have been false or ex- 
 aggerated, no reasonable objection can be taken to later forms of 
 ecclesiastical polity because the measure of power accorded to the 
 bishop does not remain exactly the same as in the Church of the 
 subapostolic ages. Nay, to many thoughtful and dispassionate minds 
 even the gigantic power wielded by the popes during the middle 
 ages will appear justifiable in itself (though they will repudiate the 
 false pretensions on which it was founded, and the false opinions 
 which were associated with it), since only by such a providential 
 concentration of authority could the Church, humanly speaking, have 
 andun- braved the storms of those ages of anarchy and violence. Now how- 
 eed ever it is my purpose to investigate the origin and growth of a new 
 dotalism. principle, which is nowhere enunciated in the New Testament, but 
 which notwithstanding has worked its way into general recognition 
 and seriously modified the character of later Christianity. The pro- . 
 gress of the sacerdotal view of the ministry is one of the most 
 striking and important phenomena in the history of the Church. 
 No sacer- It has been pointed out already that the sacerdotal functions and 
 ape privileges, which alone are mentioned in the apostolic writings, per- 
 
 clang tain to all believers alike and do not refer solely or specially to the 
 ment. 
 
 monitos nos et instructos sciatis digna- adscribatur presbyfterorum efc.’ 
 tione divina ut Numidicus presbyter 1 See above p. 230, note 3. 
 
THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 245 
 
 If to this statement it be objected that the 
 inference is built upon the silence of the Apostles and Evangelists, 
 
 ministerial office. 
 
 and that such reasoning is always precarious, the reply is that an 
 exclusive sacerdotalism (as the word is commonly understood)’ con- 
 tradicts the general tenour of the Gospel. But indeed the strength 
 or weakness of an argument drawn from silence depends wholly 
 on the circumstance under which the silence is maintained. And 
 In the Pas- 
 toral Epistles for instance, which are largely occupied with questions 
 
 in this case it cannot be considered devoid of weight. 
 
 _ relating to the Christian ministry, it seems scarcely possible that this 
 aspect should have been overlooked, if it had any place in St Paul’s 
 teaching. The Apostle discusses at length the requirements, the 
 responsibilities, the sanctions, of the ministerial office: he regards 
 
 the presbyter as an example, as a teacher, as a philanthropist, as 
 
 a ruler. How then, it may well be asked, are the sacerdotal func- 
 
 If 
 
 these claims were recognised by him at all, they must necessarily 
 
 tions, the sacerdotal privileges, of the office wholly set aside ? 
 
 have taken a foremost place! IThe same argument again applies with 
 
 not less force to those passages in the Epistles to the Corinthians, 
 
 where St Paul asserts his apostolic authority against his detractors. 
 Nevertheless, so entirely had the primitive conception of the Chris- Its rapid 
 tian Church been supplanted by this sacerdotal view of the ministry, Sa δι 
 before the northern races were converted to the Gospel, and the date. 
 dialects derived from the Latin took the place of the ancient tongue, 
 
 that the languages of modern Europe very generally supply only 
 
 one word to represent alike the priest of the Jewish or heathen 
 
 ceremonial and the presbyter of the Christian ministry’. 
 4 
 
 1 In speaking of sacerdotalism, I as- 
 sume the term to have essentially the 
 same force as when applied to the Jew- 
 ish priesthood. In a certain sense (to 
 be considered hereafter) all officers ap- 
 pointed to minister ‘for men in things 
 pertaining toGod’ may be called priests; 
 and sacerdotal phraseology, when first 
 applied to the Christian ministry, may 
 have borne this innocent meaning. But 
 at a later date it was certainly so used 
 as to imply a substantial identity of 
 character with the Jewish priesthood, 
 1.6. to designate the Christian minister 
 
 atonement for the sins of others. 
 
 2 It is a significant fact that in those 
 languages which have only one word to 
 express thetwoideas,this word etymolo- 
 gically represents ‘presbyterus’ and not 
 ‘sacerdos,’ e.g. the French prétre, the 
 German priester,and the English priest; 
 thus showing that the sacerdotal idea 
 was imported and not original. In the 
 Italian, where two words prete and 
 sacerdote exist side by side, there is no 
 marked difference in usage, except that 
 prete is the mere common. Ifthe lat- 
 ter brings out the sacerdotal idea more 
 
 as one who offers sacrifices nd makes prominently, the former is also applied ς J 
 ἊΣ ἿΞ cer Crvck tec tn 
 ἢ νι i? ih aad ΗΜ Ux CHCl re a ete τ: oc call Won εφέ =e ae 
 5 an, nace / ye Ba cae es lace G i 
 Piece fom x 
 ξιγέσχο Frog οἱ Wpreye oes Fee Let pese ua Lisa Uy VLE S 22 1 
 
246 
 
 Distinc- 
 
 tion of the 
 elergyfrom 
 
 the laity 
 
 ‘THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 
 
 For, though no distinct traces of sacerdotalism are visible in the 
 
 ages immediately after the Apostles, yet having once taken root 
 in the Church it shot up rapidly into maturity. Towards the 
 
 close of the second century we discern the first germs appearing above 
 the surface: yet, shortly after the middle of the third, the plant has 
 all but attained its full growth. The origin of this idea, the progress 
 
 of its development, and the conditions favourable to its spread, will 
 
 be considered in the present section of this essay. 
 
 A separation of orders, it is true, appeared at a much earlier 
 
 date, and was in some sense involved in the appointment of a 
 
 special ministry. This, and not more than this, was originally con- 
 
 tained in the distinction of clergy and laity. If the sacerdotal view 
 of the ministry engrafted itself on this distinction, it nevertheless 
 
 was not necessarily implied or even indirectly suggested thereby. 
 
 notderived The term ‘clerus,’ as a designation of the ministerial office, did not 
 
 from the 
 Levitical 
 priest- 
 hood. 
 
 owing to any existing associations convey the idea of sacerdotal 
 
 functions. 
 
 The word is not used of the Aaronic priesthood in any 
 
 special sense which would explain its transference to the Christian 
 
 ministry. It is indeed said of the Levites, that they have no 
 *clerus’ in the land, the Lord Himself being their ‘clerus’’, But the 
 
 Jewish priesthood is never described conversely as the special ‘ clerus’ 
 
 of Jehovah: while on the other hand the metaphor thus inverted is 
 
 more than once applied to the whole Israelite people’. 
 
 Up to 
 
 this point therefore the analogy of Old Testament usage would 
 
 to Jewish and Heathen priests and 
 therefore distinctly involves this idea. 
 Wiclif’s version of the New Testament 
 naturally conforms to the Vulgate, in 
 which it seemsto be therule to translate 
 'πρεσβύτεροι by ‘presbyteri’ (in Wiclif 
 ‘preestes’) where it obviously denotes 
 the second order in the ministry (e.g. 
 Acts xiv, 23, 1 Tim. v. 17, 19, Tit. i. 5, 
 James v. 14), and by ‘seniores’ (in 
 Wiclif ‘eldres’ or ‘elder men’) in other 
 passages: but if so, this rule is not 
 always successfully applied (e.g. Acts 
 Xi, 30, xxi. 18, 1 Pet. v. 1). A doubt 
 about the meaning may explain the 
 anomaly that the word is translated 
 ‘presbyteri,’ ‘preestes,’ Acts xv. 2, and 
 ‘seniores,’ ‘elder men,’ Acts xv. 4, 6, 
 22, xvi. 4; though the persons intended 
 are the same. In Acts xx. 17, it is 
 
 rendered in Wiclif’s version ‘the eret- 
 tist men of birthe,’ a misunderstanding 
 of the Vulgate ‘majores natu.’ The 
 English versions of the reformers and 
 the reformed Church from Tyndale 
 downward translate πρεσβύτεροι uni- 
 formly by ‘elders.’ 
 
 1 Deut. x. g, xviii. 1,2; comp. Num. 
 xxvi. 62, Deut. xii. 12, xiv. 27, 29, Josh. 
 xiv. 3. Jerome (Hpist. lii. 5, 1. p. 258) 
 says, ‘Propterea vocantur clerici, vel 
 quia de sorte sunt Domini, vel quia ipse 
 Dominus sors, id est pars, clericorum 
 est.’ The former explanation would be 
 reasonable, if it were supported by the 
 language of the Old Testament: the 
 latter is plainly inadequate. 
 
 2 Deut. iv. 20 εἶναι αὐτῷ λαὸν ἔγκλη- 
 pov: comp. ix. 29 οὗτοι λαός σου καὶ 
 κλῆρός σου. 
 
THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 247 
 
 have suggested ‘clerus’ as a name rather for the entire body of 
 the faithful than for the ministry specially or exclusively. Nor do 
 other references to the clerus or lot in connexion with the Levitical 
 priesthood countenance its special application, The tithes, it is true, 
 were assigned to the sons of Levi as their ‘clerus’'; but in this 
 there is nothing distinctive, and in fact the word is employed 
 much more prominently in describing the lands allotted to the 
 whole people. Again the courses of priests and Levites selected 
 to conduct the temple-service were appointed by lot’; but the mode 
 adopted in distributing a particular set of duties is far too special 
 to have supplied a distinctive name for the whole order. If indeed 
 it were an established fact that the Aaronic priesthood at the time 
 of the Christian era commonly bore the name of ‘ clergy,’ we might 
 be driven to explain the designation in this or in some similar 
 way ; but apparently no evidence of any such usage exists’, and it 
 is therefore needless to cast about for an explanation of a fact which 
 itself is only conjectural. The origin of the term clergy, as ap- 
 plied to the Christian ministry, must be sought elsewhere. 
 
 And the record of the earliest appointment made by the Origin of 
 Christian Church after the Ascension of the Lord seems to supply me Re 
 the clue. Exhorting the assembled brethren to elect a successor the Chris- 
 in place of Judas, St Peter tells them that the traitor ‘had been mainte 
 numbered among them and had received the lot (κλῆρον) of the 
 ministry’: while in the account of the subsequent proceedings it 
 is recorded that the Apostles ‘distributed dots’ to the brethren, 
 and that ‘the ἰού fell on Matthias and he was added to the eleven 
 Apostles*.’ The following therefore seems to be the sequence of 
 meanings, by which the word κλῆρος arrived at this peculiar sense: 
 
 (1) the lot by which the office was assigned; (2) the office thus 
 assigned by lot; (3) the body of persons holding the office, The 
 first two senses are illustrated by the passages quoted from the 
 
 1 Num. xviii. 21, 24, 26. 
 
 4 x Chron. xxiv. §, 7, 31; xxv. 8, 9. 
 
 3 On the other hand λαὸς is used of 
 the people, as contrasted either with 
 the rulers or with the priests. From 
 this latter contrast comes λαϊκός, ‘laic’ 
 or ‘profane,’ and λαϊκόω ‘to profane’; 
 which, though not found in the xxx, 
 occur frequently in the versions of 
 Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion 
 
 (λαϊκός, τ Sam. xxi. 4, Ezek. xlviii. 15; 
 λαϊκόω, Deut. xx. 6, xxviii. 30, Ruth i. 
 12, Ezek. vii. 22); comp.Clem. Rom. 40. 
 
 4 Acts i. 17 ἔλαχεν τὸν κλῆρον, 26 
 ἔδωκαν κλήρους αὐτοῖς καὶ ἔπεσεν ὁ κλῆ- 
 pos ἐπὶ Μαθθίαν. In ver. 25 κλῆρον is 
 a false reading. The use of the word 
 in τ Pet. v. 3 κατακυριεύοντες τῶν κλή- 
 ρων (i.e. of the flocks assigned to them) 
 does not illustrate this meaning. 
 
248 
 
 No sacer- 
 dotal idea 
 conveyed 
 by the 
 term. 
 
 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 
 
 Acts; and from the second to the third the transition is easy and 
 natural. It must not be supposed however that the mode of 
 appointing officers by lot prevailed generally in the early Church. 
 Besides the case of Matthias no other instance is recorded in the 
 New Testament ; nor is this procedure likely to have been commonly 
 adopted. But just as in the passage quoted the word is used 
 to describe the office of Judas, though Judas was certainly not 
 selected by lot, so generally from signifying one special mode of 
 appointment to office it got to signify office in the Church gene- 
 rally". Τῇ this account of the application of ‘clerus’ to the Chris- 
 tian ministry be correct, we should expect to find it illustrated 
 by a corresponding progress in the actual usage of the word. And 
 this is in fact the case. The sense ‘clerical appointment or office’ 
 chronologically precedes the sense ‘clergy’. 
 occurs several times in Irenzus. 
 
 The former meaning 
 He speaks of Hyginus as ‘ holding 
 the ninth clerus of the episcopal succession from the Apostles*’ ; and 
 of Eleutherus in like manner he says, ‘He now occupies the clerus 
 of the episcopate in the tenth place from the Apostles*.’ On the 
 other hand the earliest instance of ‘clerus’, meaning clergy, seems 
 to occur in Tertullian*, who belongs to the next generation, 
 
 It will thus be seen that the use of ‘clerus’ to denote the 
 ministry cannot be traced to the Jewish priesthood, and is there- 
 fore wholly unconnected with any sacerdotal views. The term 
 
 does indeed recognise the clergy as an order distinct from the laity; 
 
 but this is a mere question of ecclesiastical rule or polity, and 
 
 1 See Clem. Alex. Quis div. salv. 42, 
 where xAnpodv is ‘to appoint to the 
 ministry’; and Iren. iii. 3. 3 κληροῦσθαι 
 τὴν ἐπισκοπήν. A similar extension of 
 meaning is seen in this same word κλῆ- 
 pos applied to land. Signifying origi- 
 nally a piece of ground assigned by lot, 
 it gets to mean landed property gene- 
 rally, whether obtained by assignment 
 or by inheritance or in any other way. 
 
 3 Tren. i. 27. 1. 
 
 3 Tren. iii. 3. 3. In this passage how- 
 
 ᾿ ever, as in the preceding, the word is 
 
 explained by a qualifying genitive. In 
 Hippol. Her, ix. 12 (p. 290), ἤρξαντο 
 
 ‘'érloxorot καὶ πρεσβύτεροι καὶ διάκονοι 
 
 δίγαμοι καὶ τρίγαμοι καθίστασθαι εἰς κλή- 
 
 ρους, it is used absolutely of ‘clerical 
 offices.” The Epistle of the Gallican 
 Churches (Euseb. H. ΕἸ. v. 1) speaks 
 more than once of the κλῆρος τῶν μαρ- 
 TUpwy, i.e. the order or rank of mar- 
 tyrs: comp. Test. xii Patr. Levi8. See 
 Ritschl p. 390 sq., to whom I am in- 
 debted for several of the passages which 
 are quoted in this investigation. 
 
 4 6,5. de Monog. 12 ‘Unde enim 
 episcopi et clerus?’ and again ‘Extolli- 
 mur et inflamur adversus clerum.’ Per- 
 haps however earlier instances mayhave 
 escaped notice. In Clem. Alex. Quis 
 div. salv. 42 the word seems not to be 
 used in this sense. 
 
THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 249 
 
 involves no doctrinal bearings. The origin of sacerdotal phraseology 
 and ideas must be sought elsewhere. 
 
 Attention has been already directed to the absence of any Silence of 
 appeal to sacerdotal claims in the Pastoral Epistles. The silence pana 
 of the apostolic fathers deserves also to be noticed. Though the a on 
 genuine letters of all three may be truly said to hinge on questions dotalism. 
 relating to the ministry, no distinct traces of this influence are 
 visible. St Clement, as the representative of the Roman Church, Clement. 
 writes to the Christian brotherhood at Corinth, offering friendly 
 counsel in their disputes and rebuking their factious and unworthy 
 conduct towards certain presbyters whom, though blameless, they 
 had ejected from office. He appeals to motives of Christian love, 
 to principles of Christian order. He adduces a large number of 
 examples from biblical history condemnatory of jealousy and in- 
 subordination. He urges that men, who had been appointed directly 
 by the Apostles or by persons themselves so appointed, ought to have 
 received better treatment. Dwelling at great length on the subject, 
 he nevertheless advances no sacerdotal claims or immunities on 
 
 behalf of the ejected ministers, He does, it is true, adduce the Import of 
 his compa- 
 rison with 
 has appointed set persons and set places and will have all things the a ae 
 done in order. He had before illustrated this lesson by the sub- ne τ ἔ 
 ordination of ranks in an army, and by the relation of the different 
 members of the human body: he had insisted on the duties of 
 
 the strong towards the weak, of the rich towards the poor, of the 
 
 wise towards the ignorant, and so forth: he had enforced the 
 
 appeal by reminding his readers of the utter feebleness and insig- 
 
 Aaronic priesthood and the Temple service as showing that God 
 
 nificance of man in the sight of God, as represented in the Scriptures 
 of the Old Testament; and then follows the passage which contains 
 the allusion in question: ‘He hath not commanded (the offerings 
 and ministrations) to be performed at random or in disorder, but 
 at fixed times and seasons; and where and through whom He 
 willeth them to be performed, He hath ordained by His supreme 
 will. They therefore who make their offerings at the appointed 
 seasons are acceptable and blessed, since following the ordinances of 
 the Master they do not go wrong. For to the high priest peculiar 
 services are entrusted, and the priests have their peculiar office 
 assigned to them, and on Levites peculiar ministrations are imposed: 
 
250 
 
 Ignatius. 
 
 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 
 
 the layman is bound by lay ordinances, Let each of you, brethren, 
 in his own rank give thanks to God, retaining a good conscience, 
 not transgressing the appointed rule of his service (λειτουργίας) etc."’ 
 Here it is clear that in St Clement’s conception the sanction pos- 
 sessed in common by the Aaronic ‘priesthood and the Christian 
 ministry is not the sacerdotal consecration, but the divinely ap- 
 pointed order. He passes over in silence the numerous passages 
 in the Old Testament which enjoin obedience to the priests; while the 
 only sentence (§ 42) which he puts forward as anticipating and 
 enforcing the authority of the Christian ministry is a misquoted and 
 misinterpreted verse from Isaiah; ‘I will establish their overseers 
 (bishops) in righteousness and their ministers (deacons) in faith*’, 
 Again a little later he mentions in illustration the murmuring of 
 the Israelites which was rebuked by the budding of Aaron’s rod*. 
 But here too he makes it clear how far he considers the’ analogy 
 to extend. He calls the sedition in the one case ‘jealousy con- 
 cerning the priesthood’, in the other strife concerning the honour 
 of the episcopate*’. He keeps the names and the offices distinct. 
 The significance of this fact will be felt at once by comparing his 
 language with the expressions used by any later writer, such as 
 Cyprian, who was penetrated with the spirit of sacerdotalism’. 
 
 Of St Ignatius, as the champion of episcopacy, much has been said 
 already. It is sufficient to add here, that he never regards the 
 ministry as a sacerdotal office. This is equally true, whether we 
 accept as genuine the whole of the seven letters in the short Greek, 
 While these 
 
 or only those portions contained in the Syriac version, 
 
 1 Clem.Rom. 4o, 41. Neander (Church 
 History, τ. Ὁ. 272 note, Bohn’s transla- 
 tion) conjectures that this passage is 
 an ‘interpolation from a hierarchical 
 interest,’ and Dean Milman (Hist. of 
 Christianity, 11. p. 259) says that it is 
 ‘rejected by all judicious and impartial 
 scholars.’ At the risk of forfeiting all 
 claim to judiciousness and impartiality 
 one may venture to demur to this arbi- 
 trary criticism. Indeed the recent 
 discovery of a second independent mus 
 and of a Syriac Version, both contain- 
 ing the suspected passage, may be re- 
 garded as decisive on this point. 
 
 2 Is. Ix. 17, where the A. V. cor- 
 rectly renders the original, ‘I will algo 
 
 make thy officers (lit. magistrates) peace 
 and thine exactors (i.e. task-masters) 
 righteousness’; i.e. there shall be no 
 tyranny or oppression. The uxx de- 
 parts from the original, and Clement 
 has altered the uxx. By this double 
 divergence a reference to thetwo orders 
 of the ministry is obtained. 
 
 3 Clem. Rom. 43. 
 
 4 Contrast § 43 ζήλου ἐμπεσόντος 
 περὶ τῆς ἱερωσύνης With ὃ 44 ἔρις ἔσται 
 ἐπὶ τοῦ ὀνόματος τῆς ἐπισκοπῆς. The 
 common feature which connects the two 
 offices together is stated in the words, 
 § 43 ἵνα μὴ ἀκαταστασία γένηται. 
 
 5 See below p. 259. 
 
THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 
 
 letters teem with passages enjoining the strictest obedience to bishops, 
 while their language is frequently so strong as to sound almost pro- 
 fane, this father never once appeals to sacerdotal claims’, though 
 such an appeal would have made his case more than doubly strong. 
 If it be ever safe to take the sentiments of an individual writer as 
 expressing the belief of his age, we may infer from the silence which 
 
 pervades these letters, that the sacerdotal view of the ministry had 
 
 not yet found its way into the Christian Church, (/ 
 When we pass on to the third apostolic father, the same pheno- 
 
 251 
 
 menon is repeated. Polycarp, like Clement and Ignatius, occupies Polycarp. 
 
 much space in discussing the duties and the claims of Christian mi- 
 nisters, He takes occasion especially to give his correspondents ad- 
 vice as to a certain presbyter who had disgraced his office by a grave 
 offence’, Yet he again knows nothing, or at least says nothing, of 
 any sacerdotal privileges which claimed respect, or of any sacerdotal 
 sanctity which has been violated. 
 
 Justin Martyr writes about a generation later. 
 length and with emphasis on the eucharistic offerings. 
 we might expect to find sacerdotal views of the Christian ministry 
 propounded, Yet this is far from being the case. He does indeed 
 lay stress on sacerdotal functions, but these belong to the whole body 
 of the Church, and are not in any way the exclusive right of the 
 
 Here at least 
 
 clergy. 
 ‘who through the name of Jesus have believed as one man in God 
 
 He speaks at Justin 
 Martyr 
 
 ‘So we,’ he writes, when arguing against Trypho the Jew, maintains 
 9 ᾽ δ oO Oo ’ 
 
 an univer- 
 sal priest- 
 
 the maker of the universe, having divested ourselves of our filthy hood. 
 
 garments, that is our sins, through the name of His first-born Son, 
 and having been refined (πυρωθέντες) by the word of His calling, are 
 the true high-priestly race of God, as God Himself also beareth wit- 
 ness, saying that in every place among the Gentiles are men offering 
 
 sacrifices well-pleasing unto Him and pure (Mal. i. 11). Yet God 
 
 through whom the whole Church has 
 
 1 Some passages are quoted in Green- 
 access to God, over the old dispensa- 
 
 wood Cathedra Petri τ. p. 73 85 tending 
 
 in this direction, e.g. Philad. 9 καλοὶ 
 καὶ οἱ ἱερεῖς, κρεῖσσον δὲ ὁ ἀρχιερεύς 
 κιτιλ. But rightly interpreted they do 
 not favour this view. In the passage 
 quoted for instance, the writer seems 
 to be maintaining the superiority of the 
 new covenant, as represented by the 
 great High-Priest (ἀρχιερεύς) in and 
 
 tion of the Levitical priesthood (ἱερεῖς). 
 If this interpretation be correct, the 
 passage echoes the teaching of the Epi- 
 stle to the Hebrews, and is opposed 
 to exclusive sacerdotalism. On the 
 meaning of θυσιαστήριον in the Ignatian 
 Epistles see below p. 265, note 2. 
 
 ἢ 
 
 tn «ζ΄ Stee “e 
 
 * See aboyeyp. 63 sq. | 
 Pg doce he’ Nite Vee he Δ KR τ κεζΖοοξε 
 i] How Munk Yer ΠΤ ihr, GLa “6766 
 
252 
 
 Trenzus 
 
 acknow- 
 
 ledges only 
 
 a moral 
 priest- 
 hood. 
 
 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 
 
 doth not receive sacrifices from any one, except through His priests. 
 Therefore God anticipating all sacrifices through this name, which 
 Jesus Christ ordained to be offered, I mean those offered by the 
 Christians in every region of the earth with (ἐπὶ) the thanksgiving 
 (the eucharist) of the bread and of the cup, beareth witness that 
 they are well-pleasing to Him; but the sacrifices offered by you and 
 through those your priests he rejecteth, saying, “And your sacrifices 
 I will not accept from your hands ete. (Mal.i. το)", The whole 
 Christian people therefore (such is Justin’s conception) have not only 
 taken the place of the Aaronic priesthood, but have become a nation 
 of high-priests, being made one with the great High-Priest of the new 
 covenant and presenting their eucharistic offerings in His name. 
 Another generation leads us from Justin Martyr to Ivrenzus. 
 When Irenzeus writes, the second century is very far advanced. Yet 
 still the silence which has accompamed us hitherto remains un- 
 broken. And here again it is important to observe that Irenzus, if 
 he held the sacerdotal view, had every motive for urging it, since the 
 importance and authority of the episcopate occupy a large space in 
 his teaching. Nevertheless he not only withholds this title as a spe- 
 cial designation of the Christian ministry, but advances an entirely 
 different view of the priestly office. He recognises only the priest- 
 hood of moral holiness, the priesthood of apostolic self-denial. Thus 
 commenting on the reference made by our Lord to the incident in 
 David's life where the king and his followers eat the shew-bread, 
 ‘which it is not lawful to eat save for the priests alone,’ Irenzus 
 remarks*?; ‘He excuseth His disciples by the words of the law, and 
 signifieth that it is lawful for priests to act freely. For David had 
 been called to be a priest in the sight of God, although Saul carried 
 on a persecution against him; for all just men belong to the sacer- 
 dotal order*. Now all apostles of the Lord are priests, for they in- 
 herit neither lands nor houses here, but ever attend on the altar and 
 on God’: ‘Who are they’, he goes on, ‘that have left father and 
 
 represented in the Latin and does not 
 
 1 Dial. c. Tryph. ¢. 116, 117, Ῥ. 344- 
 suit the context. The close conformity 
 
 2 Har. iv. 8. 3. 
 
 3 This sentence is cited by John Da- 
 mascene and Antonius πᾶς βασιλεὺς 
 δίκαιος ἱερατικὴν ἔχει τάξιν; but the 
 words were quoted doubtless from me- 
 mory by the one writer and borrowed 
 by the other from him. βασιλεὺς is not 
 
 of their quotations from the Ignatian 
 letters is a sufficient proof that these 
 two writers are not independent au- 
 thorities; see the passages in Cureton’s 
 Corp. Ignat. p. 180 sq. 
 
_—- 
 
 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 
 
 mother and have renounced all their kindred for the sake of the 
 word of God and His covenant, but the disciples of the Lord? Of 
 these Moses saith again, “But they shall have no inheritance; for 
 the Lord Himself shall be their inheritance”; and again, “The 
 priests, the Levites, in the whole tribe of Levi shall have no part nor 
 inheritance with Israel: the first-fruits (fructificationes) of the Lord 
 are their inheritance; they shall eat them.” For this reason also 
 Paul saith, ‘I require not the gift, but I require the fruit.” The 
 disciples of the Lord, he would say, were allowed when hungry to 
 take food of the seeds (they had sown): for “The labourer is worthy 
 of his food.” ’ Again, striking upon the same topic in a later passage’ 
 and commenting on the words of Jeremiah (xxxi. 14), “I will intoxi- 
 cate the soul of the priests the sons of Levi, and my people shall be 
 filled with my good things,” he adds, ‘we have shown in a former 
 book, that all disciples of the Lord are priests and Levites: who also 
 profaned the Sabbath in the temple and are blameless.’ Thus Ire- 
 nzeus too recognises the whole body of the faithful under the new dis- 
 pensation as the counterparts of the sons of Levi under the old. The 
 position of the Apostles and Evangelists has not yet been abandoned. 
 A few years later, but still before the close of the century, Poly- 
 crates of Ephesus writes to Victor of Rome. Incidentally he speaks 
 of St John as ‘having been made a priest’ and ‘wearing the mitre’’; 
 and this might seem to be a distinct expression of sacerdotal views, 
 for the ‘mitre’ to which he alludes is doubtless the tiara of the 
 Jewish high-priest. But it may very reasonably be questioned if this 
 is the correct meaning of the passage. Whecher St John did actually 
 wear this decoration of the high-priestly office, or whether Polycrates 
 has mistaken a symbolical expression in some earlier writer for an 
 actual fact, or whether lastly his language itself should be treated as 
 But 
 in any case the notice is explained by the language of St John him- 
 
 a violent metaphor, I have had occasion to discuss elsewhere’, 
 
 self, who regards the whole body of believers as high-priests of the 
 new covenant*; and it is certain that the contemporaries of Poly- 
 
 TSR Ν 54: 3. 
 
 2 Τὴ Euseb. H. E. v. 24 ὃς ἐγενήθη 
 ἱερεὺς τὸ πέταλον medopexws. Comp. 
 Tertull. adv. Jud. 14 ‘exornatus podere 
 et mitra’, Test. xii Patr. Levi 8 ἀνα- 
 στὰς ἔνδυσαι τὴν στολὴν τῆς ἱερατείας... 
 τὸν ποδήρη τῆς ἀληθείας καὶ τὸ πέταλον 
 
 τῆς πίστεως K.T.X. See also, as an illus- 
 tration of the metaphor, Tertull. Monog. 
 12 ‘Cum ad perequationem discipline 
 sacerdotalis provocamur, deponimus in- 
 fulas.’ 
 
 3 See Galatians p. 362 note. 
 
 4 Rev. ii. 17; see the commentators, 
 
 253 
 
 Explana- 
 tion of a 
 passage in 
 Poly- 
 crates. 
 
254 
 
 Clement 
 of Alexan- 
 dria. 
 
 His ‘ gnos- 
 tic’ priest- 
 hood. 
 
 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 
 
 erates still continued to hold similar language’. As a figurative ex- 
 pression or as a literal fact, the notice points to St John as the vete- 
 ran teacher, the chief representative, of a pontifical race. On the 
 other hand, it is possible that this was not the sense which Poly- 
 erates himself attached to the figure or the fact: and if so, we have 
 here perhaps the eariiest passage in any extant Christian writing 
 where the sacerdotal view of the ministry is distinctly put forward. 
 Clement of Alexandria was a contemporary of Polycrates. 
 Though his extant writings are considerable in extent and though 
 they are largely occupied with questions of Christian ethics and 
 social life, the ministry does not hold a prominent place in them. 
 In the few passages where he mentions it, he does not betray any 
 tendency to sacerdotal or even to hierarchical views. The bias of his 
 mind indeed lay in an opposite direction. He would be much more 
 inclined to maintain an aristocracy of intellectual contemplation than 
 of sacerdotal office. And in Alexandria generally, as we have seen, 
 the development of the hierarchy was slower than in other churches. 
 How far he is from maintaining a sacerdotal view of the ministry 
 and how substantially he coincides with Ireneus in this respect, — 
 will appear from the following passage. ‘It is possible for men 
 even now, by exercising themselves in the commandments of the 
 Lord and by living a perfect gnostic life in obedience to the Gospel, 
 to be inscribed in the roll of the Apostles. Such men are genuine 
 presbyters of the Church and true deacons of the will of God, if they 
 practise and teach the things of the Lord, being not indeed ordained 
 by men nor considered righteous because they are presbyters, but 
 enrolled in the presbytery because they are righteous: and though 
 here on earth they may not be honoured with a chief seat, yet shall 
 they sit on the four and twenty thrones judging the people®’ Ii 
 is quite consistent with this truly spiritual view, that he should 
 elsewhere recognise the presbyter, the deacon, and the layman, as 
 distinct orders*, But on the other hand he never uses the words 
 ‘priest,’ ‘ priestly,’ ‘priesthood,’ of the Christian ministry. In one 
 passage indeed he contrasts laity and priesthood, but without 
 any such reference. Speaking of the veil of the temple and as- 
 1 So Justin in the words already quoted below p. 257. 
 quoted (p. 250), Dial. 6. Tryph. ὃ 116 2 Strom. vi. 13, Pp. 702. 
 
 ἀρχιερατικὸν TO ἀληθινὸν γένος ἐσμὲν τοῦ 3 Strom. ili. QO, Pp. 552- 
 Θεοῦ. See also the passage of Origen 
 
eS ee 
 
 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 
 
 signing to it a symbolical meaning, he describes it as ‘a barrier 
 against laic unbelief,’ behind which ‘the priestly ministration 15 
 hidden’.’ Here the laymen and the priests are respectively those 
 who reject and those who appropriate the spiritual mysteries of the 
 Gospel. Accordingly in the context St Clement, following up the 
 hint thrown out in the Epistle to the Hebrews, gives a spiritual 
 meaning to all the furniture of the holy place. 
 
 255 
 
 His younger contemporary Tertullian is the first to assert direct Tertullian 
 
 sacerdotal claims on behalf of the Christian ministry. Of the heretics 
 
 holds a 
 sacerdotal 
 
 he complains that they impose sacerdotal functions on laymen®, ‘The View of the 
 
 right of giving baptism,’ he says elsewhere, ‘belongs to the chief priest 
 (summus sacerdos), that is, the bishop*’” ‘No woman,’ he asserts, 
 ‘ought to teach, baptize, celebrate the eucharist, or arrogate to her- 
 self the performance of any duty pertaining to males, much less 
 of the sacerdotal office*.’ And generally he uses the words sacer- 
 dos, sacerdotium, sacerdotalis, of the Christian ministry. It seems 
 plain moreover from his mode of speaking, that such language was 
 not peculiar to himself but passed current in the churches among 
 which he moved. Yet he himself supplies the true counterpoise to 
 this special sacerdotalism in his strong assertion of the universal priest- 
 
 ministry, 
 
 hood of all true believers. ‘We should be foolish,’ so he writes when yet quali- 
 
 arguing against second marriages, ‘to suppose that a latitude is 
 
 fies it by 
 his asser- 
 
 allowed to laymen which is denied to priests. Are not we laymen tion of an 
 
 also priests? It is written, “He hath also made us a kingdom and 
 
 priests to God and His Father.” It is the authority of the Church }°4- 
 
 which makes a difference between the order (the clergy) and the 
 people—this authority and the consecration of their rank by the 
 assignment of special benches to the clergy. Thus where there is no 
 bench of clergy, you present the eucharistic offerings and baptize and 
 are your own sole priest. For where three are gathered together, 
 there is a church, even though they be laymen. Therefore if you 
 exercise the rights of a priest in cases of necessity, it is your duty 
 also to observe the discipline enjoined on a priest, where of necessity 
 you exercise the rights of a priest®.’ And in another treatise he 
 
 1 Strom. v. 33 8q., p. 665 sq. Bp. 2 de Prescr. Her. 41 ‘Nam et laicis 
 Kaye (Clement of Alexandria p. 464) sacerdotalia munera injungunt.’ 
 incorrectly adduces this passage as an 3 de Baptismo 17. 
 express mention of ‘the distinction be- 4 de Virg. vel. 9. 
 
 tween the clergy and laity.’ 5 de Exh. Cast. 7. See Kaye’s Tertul- 
 
 universal 
 
256 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 
 
 writes in bitter irony, ‘When we begin to exalt and inflame our- 
 selves against the clergy, then we are all one; then we are all 
 priests, because “‘ He made us priests to God and His Father”: but 
 when we are required to submit ourselves equally to the priestly 
 discipline, we throw off our fillets and are no longer equal’.’ These 
 passages, it is true, occur in treatises probably written after Ter- 
 tullian had become wholly or in part a Montanist: but this con- 
 sideration is of little consequence, for they bear witness to the fact 
 that the scriptural doctrine of an universal priesthood was common 
 ground to himself and his opponents, and had not yet been obscured 
 by the sacerdotal view of the Christian ministry*. 
 Sacerdotal 2 incidental expression in Hippolytus serves to show that a 
 language few years later than Tertullian sacerdotal terms were commonly 
 aie used to designate the different orders of the clergy. ‘We,’ says 
 the zealous bishop of Portus, ‘being successors of the Apostles and 
 partaking of the same grace both of high-priesthood and of teaching 
 and accounted guardians of the Church, do not close our eyes 
 drowsily or tacitly suppress the true word, etc.*’ 
 The march of sacerdotal ideas was probably slower at Alexandria 
 Origen in- than at Carthage or Rome. Though belonging to the next gene- 
 aca. ration, Origen’s views are hardly so advanced as those of Tertul- 
 hood spiri- lian. In the temple of the Church, he says, there are two sanc- 
 tually; tuaries: the heavenly, accessible only to Jesus Christ, our great 
 High-Priest ; the earthly, open to all priests of the new. covenant, 
 that is, to all faithful believers. For Christians are a sacerdotal 
 race and therefore have access to the outer sanctuary. There they 
 must present their offerings, their holocausts of love and self-denial. 
 From this outer sanctuary our High-Priest takes the fire, as He 
 enters the Holy of Holies to offer incense to the Father (see 
 
 lian p. 211, whose interpretation of iv. 9, adv. Jud. 14. Again, he uses 
 ‘honor per ordinis consessum sanctifi-  ‘sacerdos’ in a moral sense, de Spectac. 
 catus’ I have adopted. 16 ‘sacerdotes pacis,’ de Cult. Fem. ii. 
 1 de Monog. 12. I have taken the 12 ‘sacerdotes pudicitie,’ ad Uxor. i. 
 reading ‘impares’ for ‘pares,’ as re- 6 (comp. 7) ‘virginitatis et viduitatis 
 quired by the context. sacerdotia,’ On the other hand in de 
 2 Tertullian regards Christ,our great Pall. 4 he seems to compare the Chris- 
 High-Priest, as the counterpart under tian minister with the heathen priests, 
 thenew dispensation ofthe priest under but too much stress must not be laid 
 the old, and so interprets the text ona rhetorical image, 
 ‘Show thyself to the priest’ ; adv. Mare. 3 Her. procem. p. 3. 
 
THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 257 
 
 Lev, xvi. 12)'. Very many professed Christians, he writes else- 
 where (I am here abridging his words), occupied chiefly with the 
 concerns of this world and dedicating few of their actions to God, 
 are represented by the tribes, who merely present their tithes and 
 first-fruits. On the other hand ‘those who are devoted to the divine 
 word, and are dedicated sincerely to the sole worship of God, may not 
 unreasonably be called priests and Levites according to the differ- 
 ence in this respect of their impulses tending thereto.’ Lastly ‘those 
 who excel the men of their own generation perchance will be high- 
 priests.’ They are only high-priests however after the order of 
 Aaron, our Lord Himself being High-Priest after the order of Mel- 
 chisedek’. 
 
 that are made like unto the Apostles, being priests after the order of 
 
 Again in a third place he says, ‘The Apostles and they 
 
 the great High-Priest, having received the knowledge of the worship 
 of God and being instructed by the Spirit, know for what sins they 
 
 3? 
 
 ought to offer sacrifices, etc.*.’ In all these passages Origen has 
 
 taken spiritual enlightenment and not sacerdotal office to be the 
 
 Christian counterpart to the Aaronic priesthood. Elsewhere how- putapplies 
 sacerdotal 
 i ae ᾿ : . terms to 
 Church*; and in one place distinguishes the priests and the Levites the minis- 
 try. 
 
 ever he makes use of sacerdotal terms to describe the ministry of the 
 
 as representing the presbyters and deacons respectively °. 
 
 Hitherto the sacerdotal view of the Christian ministry has not 
 been held apart from a distinct recognition of the sacerdotal func- 
 tions of the whole Christian body. The minister is thus regarded The priest- 
 as a priest, because he is the mouthpiece, the representative, of a hoodof the 
 Such appears to be the conception of Tertullian, who pee ον 
 
 — eee. from tl 
 speaks of the clergy as separate from the laity only because the pease a 
 
 priestly race. 
 
 1 Hom. iz in Lev. 9, τὸ (11. p. 243 
 Delarue). 
 
 * In Joann. i. § 3 (Iv. p. 3). 
 
 3 de Orat. 28 (1. p. 255). See also 
 Hom. iv in Num. 3 (u. p. 283). 
 
 4 Hom. v in Lev. 4 (τ. p. 208 sq.) 
 ‘Discant sacerdotes Domini qui eccle- 
 siis presunt,’ and also ib. Hom. ii. 4 
 (11. p. 191)" Cum non erubescit sacerdoti 
 Domini indicare peccatum suum et 
 querere medicinam’ (he quotes James 
 v. 14 in illustration). But Hom. x in 
 Num. 1, 2 (i. p. 302), quoted by Rede- 
 penning (Origenes 11. p. 417), hardly 
 
 PHIL. 
 
 bears this sense, for the ‘pontifex’ ap- 
 plies to our Lord; and it is clear from 
 Hom. in Ps. xxxvii. § 6 (11. p. 688) that 
 in Origen’s opinion the confessor to 
 the penitent need not be an ordained 
 minister, The passages in Rede- 
 penning’s Origenes bearing on this 
 subject are 1. p. 357, Il. pp. 250, 417, 
 436 sq. 
 
 > Hom. xii in Jerem. 3 (tl. Ὁ. 196) 
 ‘If any one therefore among these 
 priests (I mean us the presbyters) or 
 among these Levites who stand about 
 the people (I mean the deacons) etc,” 
 
 lod 
 
 17 
 
258 
 
 of the con- 
 gregation. 
 
 Cyprian 
 the cham- 
 pion of un- 
 disguised 
 sacerdo- 
 talism. 
 
 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 
 
 Church in the exercise of her prerogative has for convenience 
 entrusted to them the performance of certain sacerdotal functions 
 belonging properly to the whole congregation, and of Origen, 
 who, giving a moral and spiritual interpretation to the sacerdotal 
 office, considers the priesthood of the clergy to differ from the priest- 
 hood of the laity only in degree, in so far as the former devote their 
 time and their thoughts more entirely to God than the latter. So 
 long as this important aspect is kept in view, so long as the priest- 
 hood of the ministry is regarded as springing from the priesthood of 
 the whole body, the teaching of the Apostles has not been directly 
 violated. But still it was not a safe nomenclature which assigned 
 the terms sacerdos, ἱερεύς, and the like, to the ministry, as a special 
 designation. The appearance of this phenomenon marks the period of 
 transition from the universal sacerdotalism of the New Testament 
 to the particular sacerdotalism of a later age. 
 
 If Tertullian and Origen are still hovering on the border, 
 Cyprian has boldly transferred himself into the new domain. It 
 is not only that he uses the terms sacerdos, sacerdotium, sacer- 
 dotalis, of the ministry with a frequency hitherto without parallel. 
 But he treats all the passages in the Old Testament: which refer 
 to the privileges, the sanctions, the duties, and the responsibilities 
 of the Aaronic priesthood, as applying to the officers of the Christian 
 Church. His opponents are profane and sacrilegious; they have 
 passed sentence of death on themselves by disobeying the com- 
 mand of the Lord in Deuteronomy to ‘hear the priest’; they 
 have forgotten the injunction of Solomon to honour and reverence 
 God’s priests’; they have despised the example of St Paul who 
 regretted that he ‘did not know it was the high priest”; they 
 have been guilty of the sin of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram’*. 
 These passages are urged again and again. They are urged morc- 
 over, aS applying not by parity of reasoning, not by analogy of 
 circumstance, but as absolute and immediate and unquestionable. 
 As Cyprian crowned the edifice of episcopal power, so also was 
 he the first to put forward without relief or disguise these sacer- 
 
 1 Deut. xvii. 12; see Hpist. 3, 4, 43, 3 Acts xxiii. 4; see Epist. 3, 59, 
 59, 66. 66. 
 
 2 Though the words are ascribed to 4 De Unit. Eccl. p. 83 (Fell), Epist, 
 Solomon, the quotation comes from 4, 67, 69, 73. 
 Keclus, vii. 29, 31; see Epist. 3. 
 
THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 259 
 
 dotal assumptions; and so uncompromising was the tone in which 
 he asserted them, that nothing was left to his successors but to 
 enforce his principles and reiterate his language’. 
 
 After thus tracing the gradual departure from the Apostolic 
 teaching in the encroachment of the sacerdotal on the pastoral and 
 ministerial view of the clergy, it will be instructive to investigate 
 the causes to which this divergence from primitive truth may 
 be ascribed. To the question whether the change was due to Were 
 Jewish or Gentile influences, opposite answers have been given. ᾿υβυβῃ ee 
 To some it has appeared as a reproduction of the Aaronic priest- τι ou 
 hood, due to Pharisaic tendencies, such as we find among St Paul’s tile in- 
 converts in Galatia and at Corinth, still lingering in the Church: sien Gee 
 to others, as imported into Christianity by the ever increasing 
 mass of heathen converts who were incapable of shaking off their 
 sacerdotal prejudices and appreciating the free spirit of the Gospel. 
 
 The latter view seems correct in the main, but requires some 
 modification. 
 
 At all events so far as the evidence of extant writings goes, The 
 there is no reason for supposing that sacerdotalism was especially oe 
 rife among the Jewish converts. The Testaments of the Twelve ee 
 Patriarchs may be taken to represent one phase of Judaic Chris- contain no 
 tianity ; the Clementine writings exhibit another. In both alike pincer a 
 there is an entire absence of sacerdotal views of the ministry. ism. 
 The former work indeed dwells at length on our Lord’s office, 
 as the descendant and heir of Levi*, and alludes more than once 
 to his institution of a new priesthood; but this priesthood is 
 spiritual and comprehensive. Christ Himself is the High priest’, 
 and the sacerdotal office is described as being ‘after the type of 
 the Gentiles, extending to all the Gentiles*’ On the Christian 
 ministry the writer is silent. In the Clementine Homilies the 
 case is somewhat different, but the inference is still more obvious. 
 
 Though the episcopate is regarded as the backbone of the Church, 
 though the claims of the ministry are urged with great distinct- 
 
 ness, no appeal is ever made to priestly sanctity as the ground 
 
 1 The sacerdotal language in the well be placed earlier than Cyprian. 
 
 Apostolical Constitutions is hardly less 2 See Galatians p. 319. 
 strong, while it is more systematic; 3 Ruben 6, Symeon 7, Levi 18. 
 but their date is uncertain and cannot 4 Levi 8. 
 
 17—2 
 
260 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 
 
 of this exalted estimate’. Indeed the hold of the Levitical priest- 
 hood on the mind of the pious Jew must have been materially 
 weakened at the Christian era by the development of the synagogue 
 organization on the one hand, and by the ever growing influence 
 of the learned and literary classes, the scribes and rabbis, on the 
 other. The points on which the Judaizers of the apostolic age 
 insist are the rite of circumcision, the distinction of meats, the 
 observance of sabbaths, and the like. The necessity of a priest- 
 hood was not, or at least is not known to have been, part of their 
 programme. Among the Essene Jews especially, who went so far 
 as to repudiate the temple sacrifices, no great importance could 
 have been attached to the Aaronic priesthood’: and after the 
 Apostolic ages at all events, the most active Judaizers of the Dis- 
 persion seem to have belonged to the Essene type. But indeed 
 the overwhelming argument against ascribing the growth of sacer- 
 dotal views to Jewish influence lies in the fact, that there is a 
 singular absence of distinct sacerdotalism during the first century 
 and a half, when alone on any showing Judaism was powerful 
 enough to impress itself on the belief of the Church at large. 
 
 Sacerdo- It is therefore to Gentile fecling that this development must 
 
 talism was 
 due to . . . . . 
 Gentile in- sacrifices, and depending on the intervention of some priest for 
 
 fluences, 1] the manifold religious rites of the state, the club, and the 
 
 be ascribed. For the heathen, familiar with auguries, lustrations, 
 
 family, the sacerdotal functions must have occupied a far larger 
 Space in the affairs of every day life, than for the Jew of the 
 Dispersion who of necessity dispensed and had no scruple at dis- 
 pensing with priestly ministrations from one year’s end to the 
 other. With this presumption drawn from probability the evidence 
 of fact accords. In Latin Christendom, as represented by the 
 Church of Carthage, the germs of the sacerdotal idea appear first 
 and soonest ripen to maturity. If we could satisfy ourselves of 
 the early date of the Ancient Syriac Documents lately published, 
 we should have discovered another centre from which this idea 
 
 1 See the next note. good, the false to the true, like Cain to 
 ? See Galatians pp. 323, 326, Colos- Abel, Ishmael to Isaac, ete. In the 
 sians pp. 89, 371. In the syzygies of Recognitions the estimate of the high- 
 the Clementine Homilies (ii. 16, 33) priest’s position is still unfavourable 
 Aaron is opposed to Moses, the high- (1. 46, 48). Compare the statement 
 priest to the lawgiver, asthe badtothe in Justin, Dial. c. Tryph. 117. 
 
THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 261 
 
 was propagated, And so far their testimony may perhaps be 
 accepted. Syria was at least a soil where such a plant would 
 thrive and luxuriate. In no country of the civilized world was 
 sacerdotal authority among the heathen greater. The most im- 
 portant centres of Syrian Christianity, Antioch and Emesa, were 
 also the cradles of strongly-marked sacerdotal religions which at 
 different times made their influence felt throughout the Roman 
 empire’. This being so, it is a significant fact that the first instance 
 of the term ‘priest’, applied to a Christian minister, occurs in a 
 heathen writer. At least I have not found any example of this 
 application earlier than Lucian’. 
 
 But though the spirit, which imported the idea into the Church but sought 
 of Christ and sustained it there, was chiefly due to Gentile education, ΠΡΟ τ ἢ 
 yet its form was almost as certainly derived from the Old Testament. eee 
 And this is the modification which needs to be made in the state- 
 ment, in itself substantially true, that sacerdotalism must be traced 
 to the influence of Heathen rather than of Jewish converts. 
 
 In the Apostolic writings we find the terms ‘ offering’, ‘ sacrifice’, (1) Meta- 
 
 applied to certain conditions and actions of the Christian life. ΒΡῈ Ρ : 
 These sacrifices or offerings are described as spiritual *; they fices,’ 
 consist of praise*, of faith®, of almsgiving’, of the devotion of the 
 body’, of the conversion of unbelievers’, and the like. Thus whatever 
 is dedicated to God’s service may be included under this metaphor. 
 In one passage also the image is so far extended, that the Apostolic 
 writer speaks of an altar’ pertaining to the spiritual service of the 
 Christian Church. If on this noble Scriptural language a false super- 
 structure has been reared, we have here only one instance out of 
 many, where the truth has been impaired by transferring state- 
 ments from the region of metaphor to the region of fact. 
 
 These ‘sacrifices’ were very frequently the acts not of the 
 
 1 The worship of the Syrian goddess Sy Pet. ii. 5. 
 of Antioch was among the most popu- 4 Heb. xiii. 15. 
 lar of oriental superstitions under the Ὁ PHal dian. 
 earlier Cesars; the rites of the Sun- § Acts xxiv. 17, Phil. iv. 18; comp, 
 god of Hmesa became fashionable un- Heb. xiii. τό. 
 der Elagabalus. 7 Rom. xii. 1. 
 2 de Mort. Peregr. 11 τὴν θαυμαστὴν 8 Rom. xv. 16. 
 σοφίαν τῶν Χριστιανῶν ἐξέμαθε περὶ τὴν 9 Heb, xiii, 10. See below p, 265, 
 
 Hadaorivny τοῖς ἱερεῦσι καὶ ypapmared- note 2, 
 σιν αὐτῶν ξυγγενόμενος. 
 
LS) 
 ON 
 bo 
 
 Offerings 
 presented 
 by the 
 mainisters. 
 
 Special 
 reference 
 of the me- 
 taphor to 
 the eucha- 
 rist. 
 
 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 
 
 individual Christian, but of the whole congregation. Such for 
 instance were the offerings of public prayer and thanksgiving, or the 
 collection of alms on the first day of the week, or the contribution 
 of food for the agape, and the like. In such cases the congregation 
 was represented by its minister, who thus acted as its mouthpiece 
 and was said to ‘present the offerings’ to God. So the expression 
 is used in the Epistle of St Clement of Rome’. But in itself it 
 involves no sacerdotal view. This ancient father regards the sacri- 
 fice or offering as the act of the whole Church performed through 
 its ,presbyters. The minister is a priest in the same sense only 
 in which each individual member of the congregation is a priest. 
 When St Clement denounces those who usurp the functions of the 
 presbyters, he reprobates their conduct not as an act of sacrilege 
 but as aviolation of order. He views the presbytery as an Apostolic 
 ordinance, not as a sacerdotal caste. 
 
 Thus when this father speaks of the presbytery as ‘presenting 
 the offerings,’ he uses an expression which, if not directly scriptural, 
 is at least accordant with the tenour of Scripture. But from such 
 language the transition to sacerdotal views was easy, where the 
 sacerdotal spirit was rife. From being the act of the whole con- 
 gregation, the sacrifice came to be regarded as the act of the minister 
 who officiated on its behalf. 
 
 And this transition was moreover facilitated by the growing 
 tendency to apply the terms ‘sacrifice’ and ‘offering’ exclusively or 
 chiefly to the eucharistic service. It may be doubted whether, even as 
 used by St Clement, the expression may not have a special reference 
 to this chief act of Christian dedication®. It is quite certain that 
 
 especially Heb. xiii. 10, 15, 16, ἔχομεν 
 θυσιαστήριον ἐξ οὗ φαγεῖν οὐκ ἔχουσιν 
 [ἐξουσίαν] οἱ τῇ σκηνῇ λατρεύοντες... Δι᾿ 
 
 1 Clem. Rom. 44 τοὺς ἀμέμπτως καὶ 
 ὁσίως προσενεγκόντας τὰ δώρα. What 
 sort of offerings are meant, may be 
 
 gathered from other passages in Cle- 
 ment’s Epistle; e.g. ὃ 35 θυσία αἰνέσεως 
 δοξάσει με, ὃ 52 θῦσον τῷ Θεῷ θυσίαν 
 αἰνέσεως καὶ ἀπόδος τῷ ὑψίστῳ τὰς εὐχάς 
 σου, ὃ 36 εὕρομεν τὸ σωτήριον ἡμῶν 
 ᾿Ιησοῦν Χριστὸν τὸν ἀρχιερέα τῶν προσ- 
 φορῶν ἡμῶν τὸν προστάτην καὶ βοηθὸν 
 τῆς ἀσθενείας ἡμῶν, and ὃ 41 ἕκαστος 
 ὑμῶν, ἀδελφοί, ἐν τῷ ἰδίῳ τάγματι εὐχα- 
 ριστείτω τῷ Θεῷ ἐν ἀγαθῇ συνειδήσει 
 ὑπάρχων, μὴ παρεκβαίνων τὸν ὡρισμένον 
 τῆς λειτουργίας αὐτοῦ κανόνα, Compare 
 
 αὐτοῦ οὖν ἀναφέρωμεν θυσίαν αἰνέσεως 
 διὰ παντὸς τῷ Θεῷ, τουτέστιν, καρπὸν 
 χειλέων ὁμολογούντων τῷ ὀνόματι αὐτοῦ" 
 τῆς δὲ εὐποιΐας καὶ κοινωνίας μὴ ἐπιλαν- 
 θάνεσθε, τοιαύταις yap θυσίαις εὐαρεσ- 
 τεῖται ὁ Θεός. 
 
 The doctrine of the early Church re- 
 specting ‘ sacrifice’ is investigated by 
 Hofling die Lehre der iiltesten Kirche 
 vom Opfer (Erlangen 1851). 
 
 2 On the whole however the language 
 of the Epistle to the Hebrews quoted 
 
 
 
 
 
THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 263 
 
 writers belonging to the generations next following, Justin Martyr 
 and Ireneus for instance’, employ the terms very frequently with 
 this reference. We may here reserve the question in what sense the 
 celebration of the Lord’s supper may or may not be truly called a 
 
 sacrifice. The point to be noticed at present is this; that the of- 
 
 fering of the eucharist, being regarded as the one special act of 
 
 sacrifice and appearing externally to the eye as the act of the offi- 
 
 ciating minister, might well lead to the minister being called a priest 
 
 and then being thought a priest in some exclusive sense, where the 
 
 religious bias was in this direction and as soon as the true position 
 
 of the minister as the representative of the congregation was lost 
 
 sight of. 
 
 But besides the metaphor or the analogy of the sacrifice, there (2) Ana- 
 was another point of resemblance also between the Jewish priesthood poe 
 and the Christian ministry, which favoured the sacerdotal view of one 3 
 the latter. As soon as the episcopate and presbytery ceased to be cal priest- 
 regarded as sub-orders and were looked upon as distinct orders, the poet. 
 correspondence of the threefold ministry with the three ranks of the 
 Levitical priesthood could not fail to suggest itself. The solitary 
 bishop represented the solitary high-priest; the principal acts of 
 Christian sacrifice were performed by the presbyters, as the principal 
 acts of Jewish sacrifice by the priests; and the attendant ministra- 
 
 tions were assigned in the one case to the deacon, as in the other to 
 
 the Levite. 
 
 spondence however there was one grave impediment. 
 
 in the last note seems to be the best 
 exponent of St Clement’s meaning, as 
 he very frequently follows this Apos- 
 tolic writer. If εὐχαριστείτω has any 
 special reference to the holy eucharist, 
 as it may have, δῶρα will nevertheless 
 be the alms and prayers and thanks- 
 givings which accompanied the cele- 
 bration of it. Compare Const. Apost. 
 ii. 25 αἱ τότε θυσίαι νῦν εὐχαὶ Kal δεήσεις 
 καὶ εὐχαριστίαι, αἱ τότε ἀπαρχαὶ καὶ 
 δεκάται καὶ ἀφαιρέματα καὶ δῶρα νῦν 
 προσφοραὶ αἱ διὰ τῶν ὁσίων ἐπισκό- 
 πων προσφερόμεναι Κυρίῳ x.7.d.,§ 27 
 προσήκει οὖν καὶ ὑμᾶς, ἀδελφοί, τὰς θυσίας 
 ὑμῶν ἤτοι προσφορὰς τῷ ἐπισκόπῳ προσ- 
 φέρειν ὡς ἀρχιερεῖ K.7.A2, § 34 τοὺς 
 
 Thus the analogy seemed complete. To this corre- 
 
 The only 
 
 καρποὺς ὑμῶν καὶ τὰ ἔργα τῶν χειρῶν 
 ὑμῶν εἰς εὐλογίαν ὑμῶν προσφέροντες 
 αὐτῷ (sc. τῷ ἐπισκόπῳ)...τὰ Sdpa ὑμῶν 
 διδόντες αὐτῷ ὡς ἱερεῖ Θεοῦ, ὃ 53 δῶρον δέ 
 ἐστι Θεῷ ἡ ἑκάστου προσευχὴ καὶ εὐχα- 
 ριστία : comp. also § 35. These passages 
 are quoted in H6fling, p. 27 sq. 
 
 1 The chief passages in these fa- 
 thers relating to Christian oblations 
 are, Justin. Apol. i. 13 (p. 60), i. 65, 
 66, 67 (Ρ. 97 8q.), Dial. 28, 29 (p. 246), 
 41 (p. 2598q.), 116, 117 (p. 34484.), 
 dmensHer. lvelCC. 17; 18; 10... 2. 3» 
 [Fragm. 38, Stieren]. The place occu- 
 pied by the eucharistic elements in their 
 view of sacrifice will only be appreciated 
 by reading the passages continuously. 
 
204 
 
 Question 
 sugested. 
 
 Silence of 
 the Apo- 
 stolic wri- 
 ters. 
 
 Epistle to 
 the He- 
 brews; 
 
 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 
 
 High Priest under the Gospel recognised by the apostolic writings, 
 is our Lord Himself. Accordingly in the Christian remains of the 
 ages next succeeding this title is reserved as by right to Him’; and 
 though belonging to various schools, all writers alike abstain from 
 applying it to the bishop. Yet the scruple was at length set aside. 
 When it had become usual to speak of the presbyters as ‘ sacerdotes’, 
 the designation of ‘pontifex’ or ‘summus sacerdos’ for the bishop 
 was far too convenient and too appropriate to be neglected. 
 
 Thus the analogy of the sacrifices and the correspondence of the 
 threefold order supplied the material on which the sacerdotal feeling 
 worked. And in this way, by the union of Gentile sentiment with 
 the ordinances of the Old Dispensation, the doctrine of an exclu- 
 sive priesthood found its way into the Church of Christ. 
 
 How far is the language of the later Church justifiable? Can 
 the Christian ministry be called a priesthood in any sense? and 
 if so, in what sense? The historical investigation, which has 
 suggested this question as its proper corollary, has also supplied the 
 means of answering it. 
 
 Though different interpretations may be put upon the fact that 
 the sacred writers throughout refrain from applying sacerdotal terms 
 to the Christian ministry, I think it must be taken to signify this 
 much at least, that this ministry, if a priesthood at all, is a priest- 
 hood of a type essentially different from the Jewish. Otherwise we 
 shall be perplexed to explain why the earliest Christian teachers 
 should have abstained from using those terms which alone would 
 adequately express to their hearers the one most important aspect 
 of the ministerial office. It is often said in reply, that we have here 
 a question not of words, but of things. This is undeniable: but 
 words express things; and the silence of the Apostles still requires 
 an explanation. 
 
 However the interpretation of this fact is not far to seek. The 
 Epistle to the Hebrews speaks at great length on priests and sacri- 
 {ices in their Jewish and their Christian bearing. It is plain from 
 this epistle, as it may be gathered also from other notices Jewish 
 
 1 See Clem. Rom. 36, 58, Polyec. Patr. Rub. 6, Sym. 7, etc., Clem. 
 Phil. 12, Ignat. Philad. 9, Test. wii Recogn. 1. 48. 
 
THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 
 
 and Heathen, that the one prominent idea of the priestly office at 
 
 this time was the function of ofering sacrifice and thereby making ; 
 
 atonement. Now this Apostolic writer teaches that all sacrifices 
 had been consummated in the one Sacrifice, all priesthoods absorbed 
 in the one Priest. The offering had been made once for all: and, 
 All 
 
 former priesthoods had borne witness to the necessity of a human 
 
 as there were no more victims, there could be no more priests’. 
 
 mediator, and this sentiment had its satisfaction in the Person and 
 Office of the Son of Man. All past sacrifices had proclaimed the 
 need of an atoning death, and had their antitype, their realisation, 
 their annulment, in the Cross of Christ. This explicit statement 
 supplements and interprets the silence elsewhere noticed in the 
 
 Apostolic writings. 
 
 265 
 
 its doctri- 
 nal teach- 
 ing, 
 
 Strictly accordant too with the general tenour of his argument and spivi- 
 
 is the language used throughout by the writer of this epistle. He 
 speaks of Christian sacrifices, of a Christian altar; but the sacrifices 
 are praise and thanksgiving and well-doing, the altar is appa- 
 
 rently the Cross of Christ’. If the Christian ministry were a 
 
 1 The epistle deals mainly with the 
 oftice of Christ as the antitype of the 
 High Priest offering the annual sacri- 
 fice of atonement: and it has been 
 urged that there ig still room for a 
 sacrificial priesthood under the High 
 Priest. The whole argument however 
 is equally applicable to the inferior 
 priests: and in one passage at least it 
 is directly so applied (x. 11, 12), " And 
 every priest standeth daily (καθ᾽ ἡμέραν) 
 ministering and offering the same sacri- 
 fices, etc.’; where the v.1. ἀρχιερεὺς for 
 ἱερεὺς seems to have arisen from the 
 desire to bring the verse into more exact 
 conformity with what has gone before. 
 This passage, it should be remembered, 
 is the summing up and generalisation 
 of the previous argument. 
 
 .* It is surprising that some should 
 have interpreted θυσιαστήριον in Heb. 
 xill. 10 of the Lord’s table. There 
 may be a doubt as to the exact signifi- 
 cance of the term in this passage, but 
 an actual altar is plainly not intended. 
 This is shown by the context both be. 
 fore and after: e.g. ver. 9 the opposi- 
 tion of χάρις and βρώματα, ver. 15 the 
 
 contrast implied in the mention of 
 θυσία αἰνέσεως and καρπὸς χειλέων, and 
 ver. 16 the naming εὐποιΐα καὶ κοινωνία 
 as the kind of sacrifice with which God 
 is well pleased. In my former editions 
 i interpreted the θυσιαστήριον of the 
 congregation assembled for worship, 
 having been led to this interpretation 
 by the Christian phraseology of suc- 
 ceeding ages. So Clem. Alex. Strom. 
 Vil. 6, p. 848, ἔστι γοῦν τὸ παρ᾽ ἡμῖν 
 θυσιαστήριον ἐνταῦθα τὸ ἐπίγειον τὸ ἄ- 
 θροισμα τῶν ταῖς εὐχαῖς ἀνακειμένων. 
 The use of the word in Ignatius also, 
 though less obyious, appears to be sub- 
 stantially the same, Hphes. 5, Trall. 
 7, Philad. 4 (but in Magn. 7 it seems 
 to be a metaphor for our Lord Him- 
 self); see Hofling Opfer ete. p. 32 sq. 
 Similarly too Polyearp (§ 4) speaks 
 of the body of widows as θυσιαστήριον 
 Θεοῦ. But I have since been con- 
 vinced that the context points to the 
 Cross of Christ spiritually regarded, 
 as the true interpretation. 
 
 {Since my first edition appeared, a 
 wholly different interpretation of the 
 passage has been advocated by more 
 
 tual analo- 
 gies, 
 
Christian 
 ministers 
 are priests 
 in another 
 sense; 
 
 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 
 
 sacerdotal office, if the holy eucharist were a sacerdotal act, in 
 the same sense in which the Jewish priesthood and the Jewish 
 sacrifice were sacerdotal, then his argument is faulty and his language 
 misleading. Though dwelling at great length on the Christian coun- 
 terparts to the Jewish priest, the Jewish altar, the Jewish sacri- 
 fice, he-omits to mention the one office, the one place, the one act, 
 which on this showing would be their truest and liveliest coun- 
 terparts in the every-day worship of the Church of Christ. He has 
 rejected these, and he has chosen instead moral and spiritual analo- 
 gies for all these sacred types’. Thus in what he has said and 
 
 in what he has left unsaid alike, his language points to one and 
 
 the same result. 
 
 If therefore the sacerdotal office be understood to imply the 
 
 offering of sacrifices, then the Epistle to the Hebrews leaves no place 
 
 for a Christian priesthood. 
 
 Tf on the other hand the word be taken 
 
 in a wider and looser acceptation, it cannot well be withheld from the 
 
 ministry of the Church of Christ. 
 
 Only in this case the meaning 
 
 of the term should be clearly apprehended: and it might have been 
 
 than one writer. It is maintained 
 that ἔχομεν θυσιαστήριον should be 
 understood ‘we Jews have an altar,’ 
 and that the writer of the epistle is 
 here bringing an example from the 
 Old Dispensation itself (the sin-offering 
 on the day of atonement) in which the 
 sacrifices were not eaten. ‘This inter- 
 pretation is attractive, but it seems to 
 me inadequate to explain the whole 
 context (though it suits parts well 
 enough), and is ill adapted to indi- 
 vidual expressions (6.5. θυσιαστήριον 
 where θυσία would be expected, and 
 οἱ τῇ σκηνῇ λατρεύοντες which thus 
 becomes needlessly emphatic), not to 
 mention that the first person plural 
 and the present tense ἔχομεν seem 
 unnatural where the author and his 
 readers are spoken of, not as actual 
 Christians, but as former Jews. In 
 fact the analogy of the sacrifice on 
 the day of atonement appears not to 
 be introduced till the next verse, ὧν 
 yap εἰσφέρεται ζώων K.T.d.] ὶ 
 
 Some interpreters again, from a com- 
 parison of 1 Cor. ix. 13 with 1 Cor. x. 
 18, have inferred that St Paul recog- 
 
 . 
 
 nises the designation of the Lord’s 
 table as an altar. On the contrary it 
 is a speaking fact, that in both pas- 
 sages he avoids using this term of the 
 Lord’s table, though the language of 
 the context might readily have sug- 
 gested it to him, if he had considered 
 it appropriate. Nor does the argu- 
 ment in either case require or en- 
 courage such an inference, In x Cor. 
 ix. 13, 14, the Apostle writes ‘ Know 
 ye not that they which wait at the 
 altar are partakers with the altar? 
 Kyen so hath the Lord ordained that 
 they which preach the gospel sheuld 
 live of the gospel.’ The point of resem- 
 blance in the two cases is the holding 
 a sacred office; but the ministering on 
 the altar is predicated only of the 
 former. So also in 1 Cor. x. 18 sq., 
 the altar is named as common to Jews 
 and Heathens, but the table only as 
 common to Christians and Heathens; 
 i.e. the holy eucharist is a banquet 
 but it is not a sacrifice (in the Jewish 
 or Heathen sense of sacrifice). 
 
 1 For the passages see above, pp. 
 261, 262. 
 
THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 267 
 
 better if the later Christian vocabulary had conformed to the silence 
 of the Apostolic writers, so that the possibility of confusion would 
 have been avoided. 
 According to this broader meaning, the priest may be defined as 
 one who represents God to man and man to God. It is moreover 
 indispensable that he should be called by God, for no man ‘taketh 
 this honour to himself.’ The Christian ministry satisfies both these 
 _ conditions. 
 Of the fulfilment of the latter the only evidence within our cog- as having 
 nisance is the fact that the minister is called according to a divinely παῖσαι 
 appointed order. If the preceding investigation be substantially ment, 
 correct, the three-fold ministry can be traced to Apostolic direction 3 // 
 and short of an express statement we can possess no better assurance 
 of a Divine appointment or at least a Divine sanction. If the facts 
 do not allow us to unchurch other Christian communities differently 
 organized, they may at least justify our jealous adhesion to a polity 
 derived from this source. 
 
 And while the mode of appointment satisfies the one condition, 
 the nature of the office itself satisfies the other; for it exhibits the 
 doubly representative character which is there laid down. 
 
 The Christian minister is God’s ambassador to men: he is charged as repre- a’ 
 with the ministry of reconciliation ; he unfolds the will of heaven ; ane 
 he declares in God’s name the terms on which pardon is offered; man, 
 and he pronounces in God’s name the absolution of the pauient 
 This last mentioned function has been thought to invest the ministry 
 with a distinctly sacerdotal character. Yet it is very closely con- 
 nected with the magisterial and pastoral duties of the office, and is 
 only priestly in the same sense in which they are priestly. As 
 empowered to declare the conditions of God’s grace, he is empowered 
 also to proclaim the consequences of their acceptance. But through- 
 out his office is representative and not vicarial’, He does not inter- 
 pose between God and man in such a way that direct communion 
 with God is superseded on the one hand, or that his own mediation 
 becomes indispensable on the other. 
 
 Again the Christian minister is the representative of man to and ag το: 
 God—of the congregation primarily, of the individual indirectly as Presenting 
 
 man to 
 1 The distinction 1 is made in Maurice’s Kingdom of Christ τι. p. 216. > God. A ER aaa 
 rec e ως; gee licze 7 
 
 t 
 ΟΣ Mee. TERE on Ute πα τις nab τ we 
 , Υ̓» ἐνμαῤνδρρι.. ͵“6.:ι- 7 
 hier heck ἐσ decline /reec2ctz Ζ.75 hee (po : 
 hy, (LR γές, 2 { Ζ΄ 
 7 2 f y FE ey: jhew Ζ 267. “πωξείι 
 
 thé, ἐφ («ὦ Lex Let1+3 a Ghkee ; 
 
268 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 
 
 a member of the congregation. The alms, the prayers, the thanks- 
 givings of the community are offered through him. Some represen- 
 tation is as necessary in the Church as it is in a popular govern- 
 ment: and the nature of the representation is not affected by the 
 fact that the form of the ministry has been handed down from 
 Apostolic times and may well be presumed to have a Divine sanction. }) 
 For here again it must be borne in mind that the minister’s function 
 is representative without being vicarial. He is a priest, as the 
 mouthpiece, the delegate, of a priestly race. His acts are not his 
 own, but the acts of the congregation. Hence too it will follow that, 
 viewed on this side as on the other, his function cannot be absolute 
 and indispensable. It may be a general rule, it may be. under 
 ordinary circumstauces a practically universal law, that the highest 
 acts of congregational worship shall be performed through the 
 principal officers of the congregation. But an emergency may arise 
 when the spirit and not the letter must decide, The Christian ideal 
 will then interpose and interpret our duty. The higher ordinance 
 of the universal priesthood will overrule all special limitations, The 
 layman will assume functions which are otherwise restricted to the 
 ordained minister’. 
 
 The preva. | Yet it would be vain to deny that a very different conception 
 
 lence of 
 
 sacerdotal- 
 
 ismcon-  gtolic ideal was set forth, and within a few generations forgotten. 
 sidered, 
 
 prevailed for many centuries in the Church of Christ. The Apo- 
 
 The vision was only for a time and then vanished. A strictly 
 sacerdotal view of the ministry superseded the broader and more 
 spiritual conception of their priestly functions. From being the 
 representatives, the ambassadors, of God, they came to be regarded 
 His vicars. Nor is this the only instance where a false conception 
 has seemed to maintain a long-lived domination over the Church. 
 For some centuries the idea of the Holy Roman Empire enthralled 
 the minds of men. For a still longer period the idea of the Holy 
 Roman See held undisturbed sway over Western Christendom. To 
 those who take a comprehensive view of the progress of Christianity, 
 even these more lasting obscurations of the truth will present no 
 serious difficulty. They will not suffer themselves to be blinded 
 
 1 For the opinion of theearlyChurch passage of Tertullian quoted above, 
 on this subject see especially the Ps 250. 
 
 4 pat Ne QfertAer rc Je 26]] 3 ee aS yf ae: 
 ¥ Ὁ ' ( Ζ ΄ ee? Ae Ζ άἀ΄Ζέτε Bis JF pai’ A 
 dS Cerce ick 4 Be λον eee Bod, aa Mala 
 fin cass fr ehh ae. ce date of Howser’ Boe 
 t τς 
 Se See Loe ὉΠ) "A 275 ἈΝ reas Le Ce ie ae Leff 
 
THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 
 
 thereby to the true nobility of Ecclesiastical History : they will not 
 fail to see that, even in the seasons of her deepest degradation, the 
 Church was still the regenerator of society, the upholder of right 
 principle against selfish interest, the visible witness of the Invisible 
 God; they will thankfully confess that, notwithstanding the pride 
 and selfishness and dishonour of individual rulers, notwithstanding 
 the imperfections and errors of special institutions and develop- 
 ments, yet in her continuous history the Divine promise has been 
 signally realised, ‘Lo I am with you always, even unto the end of 
 the world,’ 
 
 269 
 
Seneca tra- 
 ditionally 
 accounted 
 a Chris- 
 tian, 
 
 IT. 
 
 ST PAUL AND SENECA. 
 
 HE earliest of the Latin fathers, Tertullian, writing about a 
 
 century and a half after the death of Seneca, speaks of this 
 philosopher as ‘often our own'.’ Some two hundred years later 
 St Jerome, having occasion to quote him, omits the qualifying ad- 
 verb and calls him broadly ‘our own Seneca’.’ Living midway 
 between these two writers, Lactantius points out several coincidences 
 with the teaching of the Gospel in the writings of Seneca, whom 
 nevertheless he styles ‘the most determined of the Roman Stoics*.’ 
 From the age of St Jerome, Seneca was commonly regarded as 
 standing on the very threshold of the Christian Church, even if he 
 had not actually passed within its portals. In one Ecclesiastical 
 Council at least, held at Tours in the year 567, his authority is 
 quoted with a deference generally accorded only to fathers of the 
 Church*. And even to the present day in the marionetie plays of his 
 native Spain St Seneca takes his place by the side of St Peter and 
 St Paul in the representations of our Lord’s passion’. 
 
 Comparing the language of Tertullian and Jerome, we are able 
 to measure the growth of this idea in the interval of time which 
 separates the two. One important impulse however, which it re- 
 ceived meanwhile, must not be overlooked. When St Jerome wrote, 
 
 1 Tertull. de Anim. 20‘Seneca sepe  fuit’: comp. ii. 9, vi. 24, etc. 
 noster.’ 4 Labbei Concilia v. p. 856 (Paris, 
 2 Adv. Jovin.i. 49 (τι. p. 318) ‘Scrip- 1671) ‘Sicut ait Seneca pessimum in eo 
 serunt Aristoteles et Plutarchusetnos- _vitium esse qui in id quo insanit cete- 
 ter Seneca de matrimonio libros etc.’ ros putat furere.’ See Fleury Saint 
 3 Div. Inst. i. 5 ‘Anneus Seneca Paul et Sénéquel. p. 14. 
 qui ex Romanis vel acerrimus Stoicus 5 So Fleury states, 1. p. 289. 
 
ST PAUL AND SENECA. 271 
 the Christianity of Seneca seemed to be established on a sounder The forged 
 A correspondence, purporting to Genco of 
 
 have passed between the heathen philosopher and the Apostle of the ae 
 
 basis than mere critical inference. 
 
 Gentiles, was then in general circulation; and, without either affirm- 
 ing or denying its genuineness, this father was thereby induced to 
 If the 
 letters of Paul and Seneca, which have come down to us, are the 
 
 give a place to Seneca in his catalogue of Christian writers’. 
 
 same with those read by him (and there is no sufficient reason for 
 doubting the identity’), it is strange that he could for a moment 
 have entertained the question of their authenticity. The poverty of 
 thought and style, the errors in chronology and history, and the 
 whole conception of the relative positions of the Stoic philosopher 
 and the Christian Apostle, betray clearly the hand of a forger. Yet 
 this correspondence has without doubt been mainly instrumental 
 in fixing the belief on the mind of the later Church, as it was even 
 sufficient to induce some hesitation in St Jerome himself. How far 
 the known history and the extant writings of either favour this idea, 
 it will be the object of the present essay to examine. The enquiry 
 into the historical connexion between these two great contemporaries 
 will naturally expand into an investigation of the relations, whether 
 of coincidence or of contrast, between the systems of which they were 
 the respective exponents. And, as Stoicism was the only philosophy 
 
 which could even pretend to rival Christianity in the earlier ages of 
 
 the Church, such an investigation ought not to be uninstructive*. 
 
 Like all the later systems of Greek philosophy, Stoicism was the Later phi- 
 offspring of despair. Of despair in religion: for the old mythologies rue is 
 had ceased to command the belief or influence the conduct of men. dren of 
 Of despair in politics: for the Macedonian conquest had broken the io 
 independence of the Hellenic states and stamped out the last sparks 
 of corporate life. Of despair even in philosophy itself: for the older 
 
 1 Vir, Illustr.12‘Quem nonponerem earlier and contemporary systems of 
 
 in catalogo sanctorum, nisi me ille epi- 
 stole provocarent que leguntur a pluri- 
 mis, Pauli ad Senecam et Senece ad 
 Paulum.’ 
 
 2See the note at the end of this dis- 
 sertation. 
 
 3 In the sketch, which I have given, 
 of the relation of Stoicism to the cir- 
 cumstances of the time and to other 
 
 philosophy, I am greatly indebted to 
 the account in Zeller’s Philosophie der 
 Griechen Th. ut. Abth. 1 Die nach- 
 aristotelische Philosophie (2nd ed.1865), 
 which it is impossible to praise too 
 highly. See also the instructive essay of 
 Sir A. Grant on ‘The Ancient Stoics’ 
 in his edition of Aristotle’s Ethics τ. 
 p. 243 8q. (2nd ed.). 
 
272 ST PAUL AND SENECA. 
 
 thinkers, though they devoted their lives to forging a golden chain 
 which should link earth to heaven, appeared now to have spent their 
 strength in weaving ropes of sand. The sublime intuitions of Plato 
 had been found too vague and unsubstantial, and the subtle analyses 
 of Aristotle too hard and cold, to satisfy the natural craving of man 
 for some guidance which should teach him how to live and to die. 
 
 Greece ᾿ Thus the soil of Greece had been prepared by the uprooial of 
 Hi apa past interests and associations for fresh developments of religious and 
 
 eee of philosophic thought. When political life became impossible, the 
 
 phy. moral faculties of man were turned inward upon himself and concen- 
 trated on the discipline of the individual soul. When speculation 
 had been cast aside as barren and unprofitable, the search was di- 
 rected towards some practical rule or rules which might take its 
 place. When the gods of Hellas had been deposed and dishonoured, 
 some new powers must be created or discovered to occupy their 
 vacant throne. 
 
 Coinci- Stimulated by the same need, Epicurus and Zeno strove in dif 
 
 Henopgand «cont ways to solve the problem which the perplexities of their age 
 
 contrasts: 
 of the Epi- presented. Both alike, avoiding philosophy in the proper sense of | 
 
 curean and 
 
 Stoic phi. the term, concentrated their energies on ethics: but the one took 
 
 aospphies. happiness, the other virtue, as his supreme good, and made it the 
 starting point of his ethical teaching. Both alike contrasted with 
 the older masters in building their systems on the needs of the indi- 
 vidual and not of the state: but the one strove to satisfy the cravings 
 of man, as a being intended by nature for social life, by laying stress 
 on the claims and privileges of friendship, the other by expanding 
 his sphere of duty and representing him as a citizen of the world or 
 even of the universe. Both alike paid a certain respect to the waning 
 beliefs of their day: but the one without denying the existence 
 of the gods banished them from all concern in the affairs of men, 
 while the other, transforming and utilising the creations of Hellenic 
 mythology, identified them with the powers of the physical world. 
 Both alike took conformity to nature as their guiding maxim: but 
 nature with the one was interpreted to mean the equable balance of 
 all the impulses and faculties of man, with the other the absolute 
 supremacy of the reason, as the ruling principle of his being. And 
 lastly ; both alike sought refuge from the turmoil and confusion of 
 the age in the inward calm and composure of the sonl. If Serenity 
 
ST PAUL AND SENECA. 276 
 
 (ἀταραξία) was the supreme virtue of the one, her twin sister Passion- 
 lessness (ἀπαθία) was the sovereign principle of the other. 
 
 These two later developments of Greek philosophy both took root Orientai 
 
 and grew to maturity in Greek soil. But, while the seed of the one ones 
 was strictly Hellenic, the other was derived from an Oriental stock. 
 Epicurus was a Greek of the Greeks, a child of Athenian parents. 
 Zeno on the other hand, a native of Citium, a Pheenician colony in 
 Crete, was probably of Shemitic race, for he is commonly styled ‘ the 
 Phenician’.’ Babylon, Tyre, Sidon, Carthage, reared some of his 
 most illustrious successors. Cilicia, Phrygia, Rhodes, were the homes 
 of others. Not a single Stoic of any name was a native of Greece 
 proper’. 
 
 To Eastern affinities Stoicism was without doubt largely in- tts moral 
 debted for the features which distinguished it from other schools of ae 
 Greek philosophy. To this fact may be ascribed the intense moral rived 
 earnestness which was its most honourable characteristic. If the °° 
 later philosophers generally, as distinguished from the earlier, busied 
 themselves with ethics rather than metaphysics, with the Stoics this 
 was the one absorbing passion. The contrast between the light 
 reckless gaiety of the Hellenic spirit and the stern, unbending, almost 
 fanatical moralism of the followers of Zeno is as complete as could 
 well be imagined. The ever active conscience which is the glory, 
 and the proud self-consciousness which is the reproach, of the Stoic 
 school are alike alien to the temper of ancient Greece. Stoicism 
 breathes rather the religious atmosphere of the East, which fostered 
 on the one hand the inspired devotion of a David or an Isaiah, and 
 on the other the self-mortification and self-righteousness of an Egyp- 
 tian therapeute or an Indian fakir. A recent writer, to whom we 
 are indebted for a highly appreciative account of the Stoic school, 
 describes this new phase of Greek philosophy, which we have been 
 reviewing and of which Stoicism was the truest exponent, as ‘the 
 transition to modernism*.’ It might with greater truth be described as 
 the contact of Oriental influences with the world of classical thought. 
 
 1 See Diog. Laert. vii. 3, where So again ii. 114 Ζήνωνα τὸν Φοίνικα. 
 Crates addresses him τί φεύγεις, ὦ Φοι- 2 See below, pp. 299, 303- 
 νικίδιον; comp. § 15 Φοίνισσαν; § 25 3 Grant, 1. c. p. 243. Sir A. Grant 
 Φοινικικῶς; § 30 εἰ δὲ πάτρα Φοίνισσα, ris however fully recognises the eastern 
 
 ὁ φθόνος. We are told also ὃ 7 dvre- element in Stoicism (p. 246). 
 ποιοῦντο δ᾽ αὐτοῦ Kal of ἐν Σιδῶνι Κιτιεῖς. 
 
 PHIL, 18 
 
274 
 
 Union of 
 oriental 
 with clas- 
 sical 
 thought. 
 
 Exclusive 
 attention 
 to ethics. 
 
 Practical 
 neglect of 
 physics 
 
 ST PAUL AND SENECA. 
 
 Stoicism was in fact the earliest offspring of the union between the 
 religious consciousness of the East and the intellectual culture of 
 the West. 
 
 sense of personal responsibility, the habit of judicial introspection, 
 
 The recognition of the claims of the individual soul, the 
 
 in short the subjective view of ethics, were in no sense new, for 
 they are known to have held sway over the mind of the chosen peo- 
 ple from the earliest dawn of their history as a nation. But now 
 for the first time they presented themselves at the doors of Western 
 civilization and demanded admission. The occasion was eminently 
 favourable. The conquests of Alexander, which rendered the fusion 
 of the East and West for the first time possible, also evoked the 
 moral need which they had thus supplied the means of satisfying. 
 By the overthrow of the state the importance of the individual 
 was enhanced. In the failure of political relations, men were thrown 
 back on their inward resources and led to examine their moral wants 
 and to educate their moral faculties. 
 
 Tt was in this way that the Eastern origin of Stoicism com- 
 bined with the circumstances and requirements of the age to give it 
 an exclusively ethical character. The Stoics did, it is true, pay 
 some little attention to physical questions: and one or two leading 
 representatives of the school also contributed towards the systematic 
 treatment of logic. But consciously and expressly they held these 
 branches of study to be valueless except in their bearing on moral 
 questions. Representing philosophy under the image of a field, they 
 compared physics to the trees, ethics to the fruit for which the trees 
 exist, and logic to the wall or fence which protects the enclosure’. 
 Or again, adopting another comparison, they likened logic to the 
 shell of an egg, physics to the white, and ethics to the yolk*. As 
 the fundamental maxim of Stoical ethics was conformity to nature, 
 
 and as therefore it was of signal importance to ascertain man’s rela- 
 
 1 Diog. Laert. vil. 40, Philo de 
 Agric. 3, p. 302 m. See also de Mut. 
 Nom. ὃ 10, p. 589 M, where Philo after 
 giving this comparison says οὕτως οὖν 
 ἔφασαν καὶ ἐν φιλοσοφίᾳ δεῖν τήν τε φυ- 
 σικὴν καὶ λογικὴν πραγματείαν ἐπὶ τὴν 
 ἠθικὴν ἀναφέρεσθαι κ.τ.λ. 
 
 2 Sext. Emp. vii. 17. On the other 
 hand Diog. Laert. l.c. makes ethics the 
 white and physics the yolk. See Zeller 
 1.6. Ὁ. 57, and Ritter and Preller Hist. 
 
 Phil. § 396. But this is a matter of 
 little moment; for, whichever form of 
 the metaphor be adopted, the ethical 
 bearing of physics is put prominently 
 forward. Indeed as ancient naturalists 
 were not agreed about the respective 
 functions of the yolk and the white, the 
 application of the metaphor must have 
 been influenced by this uncertainty. The 
 inferiority of logic appears in all the 
 comparisons. 
 
ST PAUL AND SENECA. 275 
 
 tion to the world around, it might have been supposed that the study 
 of physics would have made great progress in the hands of Zeno’s 
 disciples. But, pursuing it for the most part without any love for the 
 study itself and pursuing it moreover only to support certain foregone 
 ethical conclusions, they instituted few independent researches and 
 discovered no hidden truths. To logic they assigned a still meaner 
 part. The place which it occupies in the images already mentioned and depre- 
 clearly points to their conception of its functions. It was not so Cae. Ἢ 
 much a means of arriving at truth, as an expedient for protecting 
 truth already attained from external assaults. An extreme repre- 
 sentative of the school went so far as to say that ‘Of subjects of 
 philosophical investigation some pertain to us, some have no relation 
 to us, and some are beyond us: ethical questions belong to the first 
 class ; dialectics to the second, for they contribute nothing towards 
 the amendment of life ; and physics to the third, for they are beyond 
 the reach of knowledge and are profitless withal'.’ . This was the 
 genuine spirit of the school*, though other adherents were more 
 guarded in their statements. Physical science is conversant in eapert- 
 ment ; logical science in argumentation. But the Stoic was impa- 
 tient alike of the one and the other ; for he was essentially a philo- 
 sopher of intwitions. 
 
 And here again the Oriental spirit manifested itself. The Greek Prophetic 
 moralist was a reasoner: the Oriental for the most part, whether oe oe 
 inspired or uninspired, a prophet. Though they might clothe their 
 systems of morality in a dialectica] garb, the Stoic teachers belonged 
 essentially to this latter class. Even Chrysippus, the great logician 
 and controversialist of the sect, is reported to have told his master 
 Cleanthes, that ‘he only wanted the doctrines, and would himself 
 find out the proofs*.’ This saying has been condemned as ‘ betraying 
 a want of earnestness as to the truth*’; but I can hardly think that it 
 ought to be regarded in this light. Flippant though it would appear 
 at first sight, it may well express the intense faith in intuition, or 
 what I have called the prophetic® spirit, which distinguishes the 
 
 1 Ariston in Diog. Laert. vii. 160, 3 Diog. Laert. vii. 179 πολλάκις ἔλεγε 
 Stob. Flor. lxxx. 7. See Zeller 1.6. μόνης τῆς τῶν δογμάτων διδασκαλίας χρή- 
 
 Pp. 50. few τὰς δ᾽ ἀποδείξεις αὐτὸς εὑρήσειν. 
 5 “Quiequid legeris ad mores statim 4 Grant L.c. p. 253. 
 referas,’ says' Seneca Hp. Mor. lxxxix. 5 Perhaps the use of this term needs 
 
 See the whole of the preceding epistle some apology; but I could not find 
 138—2 
 
276 
 
 Parallel to 
 Christian- 
 ity in the 
 westward 
 
 progress of 
 
 ST PAUL AND SENECA. 
 
 school. Like the other Stoics, Chrysippus had no belief in argumen- 
 tation, but welcomed the highest truths as intuitively apprehended. 
 Logic was to him, as to them, only the egg-shell which protected the 
 germ of future life, the fence which guarded the fruitful garden. As 
 a useful weapon of defence against assailants and nothing more, it 
 was regarded by the most perfect master of the science which the 
 school produced. The doctrines did not derive their validity from 
 logical reasoning: they were absolute and self-contained. Once stated, 
 they must commend themselves to the innate faculty, when not 
 clouded by ignoble prejudices of education or degrading habits of life. 
 
 But though the germ of Stoicism was derived from the East, its 
 systematic development and its practical successes were attained by 
 
 transplantation into a western soil. In this respect its career, as it 
 
 Stoicism. travelled westward, presents a rough but instructive parallel to the 
 
 Influence 
 of Greece 
 
 and of 
 Rome. 
 
 progress of the Christian Church. The fundamental ideas, derived 
 
 from Oriental parentage, were reduced to a system and placed on an 
 
 The 
 schools of Athens and of Tarsus did for Stoicism the same work 
 
 intellectual basis by the instrumentality of Greek thought. 
 
 which was accomplished for the doctrines of the Gospel by the con- 
 troversial writings of the Greek fathers and the authoritative decrees 
 Zeno and Chrysippus and Panztius are the 
 But, while the 
 systematic expositions of the Stoic tenets were directly or indirectly 
 
 of the Greek councils. 
 counterparts of an Origen, an Athanasius, or a Basil. 
 
 the products of Hellenic thought and were matured on Greek soil, 
 It 
 must be allowed that the Roman representatives of the school were 
 
 the scene of its greatest practical manifestations was elsewhere. 
 
 very inadequate exponents of the Stoic philosophy regarded as a spe- 
 culative system: but just as Latin Christianity adopted from her 
 Greek sister the creeds which she herself was incapable of framing, 
 and built thereupon an edifice of moral influence and social organi- 
 zation far more stately and enduring, so also when naturalised in its 
 Latin home Stoicism became a motive power in the world, and ex- 
 hibited those practical results to which its renown is chiefly due. 
 This comparison is instituted between movements hardly comparable 
 
 a better. I meant to express by it tinct belief in a personal God, was not 
 
 the characteristie of enunciating moral 
 truths as authoritative, independently 
 of processes of reasoning. The Stoic, 
 being a pantheist and having no dis- 
 
 a prophet in the ordinary sense, but 
 only as being the exponent of his own 
 inner consciousness, which was his su- 
 preme authority. 
 
ST PAUL AND SENECA. 
 
 in their character or their effects; and it necessarily stops short of 
 the incorporation of the Teutonic nations. But the distinctive feature 
 of Christianity as a Divine revelation and of the Church as a Divine 
 institution does not exempt them from the ordinary laws of pro- 
 gress: and the contrasts between the doctrines of the Porch and the 
 Gospel, to which I shall have to call attention later, are rendered 
 only the more instructive by observing this parallelism in their out- 
 ward career. 
 
 277 
 
 It is this latest or Roman period of Stoic philosophy which has attention 
 
 chiefly attracted attention, not only because its practical influence 
 
 directed to 
 the Roman 
 
 then became most manifest, but also because this stage of its history period. 
 
 alone is adequately illustrated by extant writings of the school. On 
 the Christian student moreover it has a special claim; for he will 
 learn an instructive lesson in the conflicts or coincidences of Sto- 
 icism with the doctrines of the Gospel and the progress of the 
 Church. And of this stage in its history Seneca is without doubt 
 the most striking representative. 
 
 Seneca was strictly a contemporary of St Paul. Born probably geneca 
 
 within a few years of each other, the Christian Apostle and the 
 Stoic philosopher both died about the same time and both fell vic- 
 tims of the same tyrant’s rage. Here, it would have seemed, the 
 parallelism must end, One might indeed indulge in an interesting 
 speculation whether Seneca, like so many other Stoics, had not 
 Shemitic blood in his veins. The whole district from which he came 
 was thickly populated with Pheenician settlers either from the mo- 
 ther country or from her great African colony. The name of his 
 native province Betica, the name of his native city Corduba, are 
 both said to be Pheenician. Even his own name, though commonly 
 derived from the Latin, may perhaps have a Shemitic origin ; for it 
 is borne by a Jew of Palestine early in the second century’. This 
 
 however is thrown out merely as a conjecture. Otherwise the Stoic contrasted 
 
 philosopher from the extreme West and the Christian Apostle from 
 the extreme East of the Roman dominions would seem very unlikely 
 to present any features in common. The one a wealthy courtier and 
 statesman settled in the metropolis, the other a poor and homeless 
 
 1 The name Σεννεκᾶς or Levexds word is usually connected with ‘sencx.’ 
 occurs in the list of the early bishops  Curtius Griech. Etym. § 428. 
 of Jerusalem, Kuseb, H. E.iv.5. The ; 
 
 with St 
 
278 
 
 Coinci- 
 dences of 
 thought 
 and lan- 
 guage, 
 
 ST PAUL AND SENECA. 
 
 preacher wandering in distant provinces, they were separated not 
 less by the manifold influences of daily life than by the circum- 
 stances of their birth and early education. Yet the coincidences of 
 thought and even of language between the two are at first sight so 
 striking, that many writers have been at a loss to account for them, 
 except on the supposition of personal intercourse, if not of direct 
 plagiarism’. The inference indeed appears unnecessary: but the facts 
 are remarkable enough to challenge investigation, and I propose 
 now to consider their bearing. 
 
 Though general resemblances of sentiment and teaching will 
 carry less weight, as compared with the more special coincidences of 
 language and illustration, yet the data would be incomplete without 
 
 taking the former into account’. Thus we might imagine ourselves 
 
 1 The connection of St Paul and Se- 
 neca has been a favourite subject with 
 French writers. The most elaborate of 
 recent works is A. Fleury’s Saint Paul 
 et Séneque (Paris 1853), in which the 
 author attempts to show that Seneca 
 was a disciple of St Paul. It is inter- 
 esting and full of materials, but extra- 
 vagant and unsatisfactory. Far more 
 criticalis C. Aubertin’s Htude Critique 
 sur les rapports supposés entre Seneque et 
 Saint Paul (Paris 1857), which appears 
 intended as an answer to Fleury. Au- 
 bertin shows that many of the parallels 
 are fallacious, and that many others 
 prove nothing, since the same senti- 
 ments occur in earlier writers. At the 
 same time he fails to account for other 
 more striking coincidences. It must be 
 added also that he is sometimes very 
 careless in his statements. For instance 
 (p. 186) he fixes an epoch by coupling 
 together the names of Celsus and Julian, 
 though they are separated by nearly 
 two centuries. Fleury’s opinion is com- 
 bated also in Baur’s articles Seneca und 
 Paulus, republished in Drei Abhand- 
 lungen ete. p. 377 sq. (ed. Zeller, 1876). 
 Among other recent French works in 
 which Seneca’s obligations to Christian- 
 ity are maintained, may be named those 
 of Troplong, De Vinjfluence du Chris- 
 tianisme sur le droit civil des Romains 
 p- 76 (Paris 1843), and C, Schmidt 
 Essai historique sur lasociété civile dans 
 temonde Romain et sur sd transformation 
 
 par le Christianisme (Paris 1853). The 
 opposite view is taken by C. Martha 
 Les Moralistes sous VEmpire Romain 
 (2™ ed. Paris 1866). Le Stoicisme ἃ 
 Rome, by P. Montée (Paris, 1865), is a 
 readable little book, but does not throw 
 any fresh light on the subject. Seekers 
 after God, a popular and instructive 
 work by the Rey. F. W. Farrar, ap- 
 peared about the same time as my first 
 edition. Still later are the discussions 
 of G. Boissier La Religion Romaine 11. 
 p. 52 84. (Paris, 1874) and K. Franke 
 Stoicismus u. Christenthum (Breslau, 
 1876). The older literature of the sub- 
 ject will be found in Fleury 1. p. 2 sq. 
 In reading through Seneca I have been 
 able to add some striking coincidences 
 to those collected by Fleury and others, 
 while at the same time I have rejected 
 a vast number as insufficient orillusory. 
 
 2 No account is here taken of cer- 
 tain direct reproductions of Christian 
 teaching which some writers have found 
 in Seneca. Thus the doctrine of the 
 Trinity is supposed to be enunciated by 
 these words ‘Quisquisformator universi 
 fuit, sive ille Deus est potens omnium, 
 sive incorporalis ratio ingentium ope- 
 rum artifex, sive divinus spiritus per 
 omnia Maxima ac minima xquali in- 
 tentione diffusus, sive fatum et inmuta- 
 bilis causarum inter se coherentium 
 series’ (ad Helv. matr. 8). Fleury (1. 
 p-97), who holds this view, significantly 
 ends his quotation with ‘ diffusus,’ omit- 
 
ST PAUL AND SENECA. 279 
 
 listening to a Christian divine, when we read in the pages of 
 
 Seneca that ‘God made the world because He is good,’ and that Goodness 
 ‘as the good never grudges anything good, He therefore made every- oe 
 thing the best possible’? Yet if we are tempted to draw a hasty 
 inference from this parallel, we are checked by remembering that it is 
 
 a quotation from Plato. Again Seneca maintains that ‘in worshipping Relation 
 the gods, the first thing is to believe in the gods, and that ‘he who Catt fe 
 has copied them has worshipped them adequately*’; and on this duty 
 
 of imitating the gods he insists frequently and emphatically*®. But 
 
 here too his sentiment is common to Plato and many other of the 
 
 older philosophers. ‘No man,’ he says elsewhere, ‘is good without 
 
 God*.’ ‘Between good men and the gods there exists a friendship— 
 
 a friendship do I say? nay, rather a relationship and a resemblance”; 
 
 and using still stronger language he speaks of men as the children of 
 
 God°. But here again he is treading in the footsteps of the older 
 
 Stoic teachers, and his very language is anticipated in the words quoted 
 
 by St Paul from Cleanthes or Aratus, ‘We too His offspring are’. 
 
 From the recognition of God’s fatherly relation to man im- Fatherly 
 portant consequences flow. In almost Apostolic language Seneca a 
 describes the trials and sufferings of good men as the chastisements God. 
 of a wise and beneficent parent: ‘God has a fatherly mind towards 
 good men and loves them stoutly; and, saith He, Let them be 
 harassed with toils, with pains, with losses, that they may gather 
 
 true strength®’ ‘Those therefore whom God approves, whom He 
 
 singulis enim et Genium et Junonem 
 
 ting the clause ‘sive fatum, etc.’ Thus 
 again some writers have found an allu- 
 sion to the Christian sacraments in 
 Seneca’s language, ‘Ad hoc sacramen- 
 tum adactisumus ferremortalia,’ de Vit. 
 beat. 15 (comp. Ep. Mor. lxv). Such 
 criticisms are mere plays on words and 
 do not evendeserve credit for ingenuity. 
 On the other hand Seneca doesmention 
 the doctrine of guardian angels or de- 
 mons; ‘Seponé in presentia que qui- 
 busdam placent, unicuique nostrum 
 pedagogum dari deum,’ Hp. Mor. ex; 
 but, as Aubertin shows (p. 284 sq.), this 
 was a tenet common to many earlier 
 philosophers; and in the very passage 
 quoted Seneca himselfadds, ‘Ita tamen 
 hoe seponas volo, ut memineris majores 
 nostros, qui crediderunt, Stoicos fuisse, 
 
 dederunt.’ See Zeller p. 297 sq. 
 
 1 Hp. Mor. \xv. το. 
 
 2 Ep. Mor. xcv. 50. 
 
 3 de Vit. beat. 15 ‘Habebit illud 
 in animo yetus preceptum: deum se- 
 quere’; de Benef.iv. 25 ‘Propositum 
 est nobis secundum rerum naturam vi- 
 vere et deorum exemplum sequi’; ib. 
 i. 1 ‘Hos sequamur duces quantum 
 humana imbecillitas patitur’; Hp. Mor. 
 exxiy. 23 ‘Animus emendatus ac purus, 
 zmulator dei.’ 
 
 4 Ep. Mor. xli; comp. Ixxiii. 
 
 5 de Prov.1; comp. Nat. Quest. prol., 
 etc. 
 
 6 de Prov. 1, de Benef. ii. 29. 
 
 “ 
 
 7. Acts xvii. 28. <a. 2 J Hy - να 
 [3 3 
 
 5 de Prov. 2. 
 
280 
 
 The in- 
 dwelling 
 spirit of 
 God. 
 
 Universal 
 dominion 
 of sin, 
 
 ST PAUL AND SENECA. 
 
 loves, them He hardens, He chastises, He disciplines’.’ Hence the 
 ‘sweet uses of adversity’ find in him an eloquent exponent. ‘ No- 
 thing,’ he says, quoting his friend Demetrius, ‘seems to me more 
 unhappy than the man whom no adversity has ever befallen*’ ‘The 
 life free from care and from any buffetings of fortune is a dead sea*.’ 
 Hence too it follows that resignation under adversity becomes a 
 plain duty. ‘It is best to endure what you cannot mend, and 
 without murmuring to attend upon God, by whose ordering all 
 things come to pass. He is a bad soldier who follows his captain 
 complaining*.’ 
 
 Still more strikingly Christian is his language, when he speaks 
 of God, who ‘is near us, is with us, is within, of ‘a holy spirit 
 residing in us, the guardian and observer of our good and evil 
 deeds*.’ ‘By what other name,’ he asks, ‘can we call an upright 
 and good and great mind except (a) god lodging in a human body*?’ 
 The spark of a heavenly flame has alighted on the hearts of men’. 
 They are associates with, are members of God. The mind came 
 from God and yearns towards God’. 
 
 From this doctrine of the abiding presence of a divine spirit 
 ‘So live with men, as 
 ‘What 
 profits it, if any matter is kept secret from men? nothing is hidden 
 from αοα 
 
 But even more remarkable perhaps, than this devoutness of tone 
 in which the duties of man to God arising out of his filial relation 
 are set forth, is the energy of Seneca’s language, when he paints 
 
 the practical inferences are not less weighty. 
 if God saw you; so speak with God, as if men heard γοιι 
 
 ‘The gods are witnesses of everything™.’ 
 
 the internal struggle of the human soul and prescribes the disci- 
 pline needed for its release. The soul is bound in a prison-house, is 
 
 weighed down by a heavy burden”. Life is a continnal warfare”. 
 
 1 de Prov. 4; comp. ib. § 1. 
 
 2 de Prov. 3. 
 
 3 Ep. Mor. \xvii. This again is a say- 
 ing of Demetrius. 
 
 4 Ep. Mor. cvii; comp. ib. Ixxvi. 
 
 5 Ep. Mor. xli; comp. ib. lxxiii. 
 
 6 Ep. Mor. xxxi. The want of the 
 definite article in Latin leaves the exact 
 meaning uncertain ; but this uncertain- 
 ty is suited to the vagueness of Stoic 
 theology. In Ep. Mor.xli Seneca quotes 
 
 the words ‘Quis deus, incertum est; 
 habitat Deus’ (Virg. dn. viii. 352), and 
 applies them to this inward monitor, 
 
 7 de Otio 5. 
 
 8 Ep. Mor. xcii. 
 
 9 Ep. Mor. x. 
 
 19 Ep. Mor. lxxxiii; comp. Fragm. 14 
 (in Lactant. vi. 24). 
 
 11 Ep. Mor. cii. 
 
 12 Ad Helv. matr. 11, Ep. Mor. 1xv,cii. 
 
 13 See below, p. 287, note 9. 
 
ST PAUL AND SENECA. 281 
 
 From the terrors of this struggle none escape unscathed. The 
 Apostolic doctrine that all have sinned has an apparent counterpart 
 in the teaching of Seneca ; ‘We shall ever be obliged to pronounce 
 the same sentence upon ourselves, that we are evil, that we have 
 been evil, and (I will add it unwillingly) that we shall be evil’’ 
 ‘Every vice exists in every man, though every vice is not promi- 
 nent in each’.’ ‘If we would be upright judges of all things, let 
 us first persuade ourselves of this, that not one of us is without 
 fault*’.’ ‘These are vices of mankind and not of the times. No age 
 has been free from fault*.’ ‘Capital punishment is appointed for 
 all, and this by a most righteous ordinance.’ ‘No one will be found 
 who can acquit himself; and any man calling himself innocent has 
 regard to the witness, not to his own conscience®.’ ‘Every day, 
 every hour,’ he exclaims,’ ‘shows us our nothingness, and reminds us 
 by some new token, when we forget our frailty’.’ Thus Seneca, in Office of 
 common with the Stoic school generally, lays great stress on the baa 
 office of the conscience, as ‘making cowards of us all.’ ‘It reproaches 
 them,’ he says, ‘and shows them to themselves®.’ ‘The first and 
 greatest punishment of sinners is the fact of having sinned’.’ ‘The 
 
 beginning of safety is the knowledge of sin.’ ‘I think this,’ he adds, 
 
 ‘an admirable saying of Epicurus”’.’ 
 Hence also follows the duty of strict self-examination. If-ex 
 as thou canst, accuse thyself, try thyself: discharge the office, first of paren 
 
 a prosecutor, then of a judge, lastly of an intercessor".’ Accordingly fession. 
 
 * As far Self-exa- 
 
 he relates at some length how, on lying down to rest every night, he 
 follows the example of Sextius and reviews his shortcomings during 
 the day : ‘When the light is removed out of sight, and my wife, who 
 is by this time aware of my practice, is now silent, I pass the whole 
 
 1 de Benef,i. το. 
 
 2 de Benef. iv. 27. 
 
 3 de Ira ii. 28; comp. ad Polyb. τι, 
 Ep. Mor, xiii.. 
 
 4 Ep. Mor. xevii. 
 
 5 Qu. Nat. ii. 59. 
 
 6 de Irai. τὰ. 
 
 7 Ep. Mor, ci. 
 
 8 Ep. Mor. xcvii. 15. 
 
 370. τὰς 
 
 10 Ep. Mor. xxviii. g ‘Initium est 
 salutis notitia peccati.’ For conve- 
 nience I have translated peccatum here 
 
 as elsewhere by ‘sin’; but it will be 
 evident at once that in a saying of Epi- 
 curus, whose gods were indifferent to 
 the doings of men, the associations con- 
 nected with the word must be very dif- 
 ferent. See the remarks below, p. 296. 
 Fleury (1. p. 111) is eloquent on this 
 coincidence, but omits to mention that 
 it occurs ina saying of Epicurus. His 
 argument crumbles into dust before 
 our eyes, when the light of this fact is 
 admitted. 
 11 7D. 10. 
 
282 
 
 Duties 
 towards 
 others. 
 
 ST PAUL AND SENECA. 
 
 of my day under examination, and I review my deeds and words. 
 I hide nothing from myself, I pass over nothing’.’ Similarly he 
 describes the good man as one who ‘has opened out his conscience to 
 the gods, and always lives as if in public, fearing himself more than 
 others*.’ In the same spirit too he enlarges on the advantage of 
 having a faithful friend, ‘a ready heart into which your every secret 
 can be safely deposited, whose privity you need fear less than your 
 own*’; and urges again and again the duty of meditation and self- 
 converse’, quoting on this head the saying of Epicurus, ‘Then retire 
 within thyself most, when thou art forced to be in a crowd®,’ 
 
 Nor, when we pass from the duty of individual self-discipline to 
 the social relations of man, does the Stoic philosophy, as represented 
 by Seneca, hold a less lofty tone. He acknowledges in almost Scrip- 
 tural language the obligation of breaking bread with the hungry’. 
 ‘You must live for another,’ he writes, ‘if you would live for your- 
 5617, 
 
 with all the extravagance of Stoic selfrenunciation, ‘That I may 
 
 ‘For what purpose do I get myself a friend?’ he exclaims 
 
 have one for whom I can die, one whom I can follow into exile, one 
 whom I can shield from death at the cost of my own life’’ ‘I will 
 so live,’ he says elsewhere, ‘as if I knew that I was born for others, 
 and will give thanks to nature on this score’®,’ 
 
 Moreover these duties of humanity extend to all classes and 
 ranks in the social scale. The slave has claims equally with the 
 freeman, the base-born equally with the noble. ‘They are slaves, 
 you urge ; nay, they are men. ‘They are slaves; nay, they are com- 
 
 rades. They are slaves; nay, they are humble friends. They are 
 slaves ; nay, they are fellow-slaves, if you reflect that fortune has 
 ‘Let some of them,’ be adds, ‘dine 
 
 with you, because they are worthy ; others, that they may become 
 
 the same power over both.’ 
 
 ‘He is a slave, you say. Yet perchance he is free in 
 Will this harm him ? 
 
 worthy.’ 
 
 spirit. He is a slave. Show me who is not. 
 
 1 de Ira iii. 36. 
 
 2 de Benef. vii. τ. 
 
 3 de Trang. Anim. 7. Comp. Ep. 
 Mor. xi. 
 
 4 Ep. Mor. vii ‘Recede in teipsum 
 quantum potes,’ de Otio 28 (1) ‘ Prode- 
 rit tamen per se ipsum secedere; me- 
 liores erimus singuli’: comp. ad Mare. 
 23. 
 
 5 Ep. Mor. xxv. 
 
 6 Hp. Mor. xev ‘Cum esuriente pa- 
 nem suum dividat’: comp. Is. lviii. 7 
 (Vulg.) ‘Frange esurienti panem tuum, 
 Ezek. xviii. 7, 16. 
 
 7 Ep. Mor. xviii. 
 
 8 Hp. Mor. ix. 
 
 9 de Vit. beat. 20: comp. de Otio 
 30 (9). 
 
ST PAUL AND SENECA. 283 
 
 One is a slave to lust, another to avarice, a third to ambition, all 
 
 alike to fear’.’ 
 But the moral teaching of Seneca will be brought out more Parallels 
 
 clearly, while at the same time the conditions of the problem before bigeye 
 us will be better understood, by collecting the parallels, which are theMount. 
 scattered up and down his writings, to the sentiments and images 
 in the Sermon on the Mount. 
 ‘The mind, unless it is pure and holy, comprehends not God*” — Matt. v. 8, 
 ‘A man is a robber even before he stains his hands ; for he is y, 21 sq. 
 already armed to slay, and has the desire to spoil and to Κι] 
 ‘The deed will not be upright, unless the will be upright*.’ 
 ‘Cast out whatsoever things rend thy heart: nay, if they could v. 29. 
 not be extracted otherwise, thou shouldst have plucked out thy 
 heart itself with them’.’ 
 ‘What will the wise man do when he is buffeted (colaphis per- v. 39. 
 cussus)? He will do as Cato did when he was smitten on the 
 mouth. He did not burst into a passion, did not avenge himself, 
 did not even forgive it, but denied its having been done’.’ 
 ‘TI will be agreeable to friends, gentle and yielding to enemies’.’ v. 44. 
 ‘Give aid even to enemies.’ 
 ‘Let us follow the gods as leaders, so far as human weakness Υ- 45. 
 allows: let us give our good services and not lend them on usury... 
 How many are unworthy of the light: and yet the day arises... 
 This is characteristic of a great and good mind, to pursue not the 
 fruits of a kind deed but the deeds themselves’.’ ‘We propose 
 to ourselves...to follow the example of the gods...See what great 
 
 (υ.1. senili) manu’: comp. also de Benef. 
 v. 1 (fin.), vil. 31, de Jra i. 14. Such 
 however is not always Seneca’s tone 
 
 1 Ep. Mor. xlvii. 15, 17. 
 2 Ep. Mor. 1xxxvii. 21. 
 3 de Benef. v. 14. So also de Const. 
 
 Sap. 7 he teaches that the sin consists 
 in the intent, not the act, and instances 
 adultery, theft, and murder. 
 
 4 Ep. Mor. lvii ‘ Actio recta non erit, 
 nisi recta fuerit voluntas,’ de Benef. v. 
 19 ‘Mens spectanda est dantis.’ 
 
 5 Ep. Mor. li. 13. 
 
 6 de Const. Sap. 14. 
 
 7 de Vit. beat. 20 ‘Ero amicis ju- 
 cundus, inimicis mitis et facilis.’ 
 
 8 de Otio 28 (1) ‘Non desinemus com- 
 muni bono operam dare, adjuvare sin- 
 gulos, opem ferre etiam inimicis miti 
 
 with regardto enemies: comp. Ep. Mor. 
 Ixxxi‘Hoe certe, inquis, justitie con- 
 venit, suum cuique reddere, beneficio 
 gratiam, injurie talionem aut certe 
 malam gratiam. Verum erit istud, 
 cum alius injuriam fecerit, alius bene: 
 ficium dederit etc.’ This passage shows 
 that Seneca’s doctrine was a very feeble 
 and imperfect recognition of the Chris- 
 tian maxim ‘Love your enemies.’ 
 
 9 de Benef.i.1. See the whole con- 
 text. 
 
284 
 
 Vi. το. 
 
 vi. 16. 
 
 Vi. 19. 
 
 Vil. 3 sq. 
 
 ST PAUL AND SENECA. 
 
 things they bring to pass daily, what great gifts they bestow, with 
 what abundant fruits they fill the earth...with what suddenly falling 
 showers they soften the ground...All these things they do without 
 reward, without any advantage accruing to themselves...Let us be 
 ashamed to hold out any benefit for sale: we find the gods giving 
 gratuitously. If you imitate the gods, confer benefits even on the 
 unthankful : for the sun rises even on the wicked, and the seas are 
 open to pirates’.’ 
 
 Τὸ is not 
 giving or receiving to transfer to the right hand from the left? 
 
 ‘One ought so to give that another may receive. 
 
 ‘This is the law of a good deed between two: the one ought at 
 once to forget that it was conferred, the other never to forget that 
 it was received®.’ 
 
 ‘ Let whatsoever has been pleasing to God, be pleasing to man*.’ 
 
 ‘Do not, like those whose desire is not to make progress but 
 to be seen, do anything to attract notice in your demeanour or 
 mode of life. 
 carelessly kept beard and professed hatred of money and a bed laid 
 
 Avoid a rough exterior and unshorn hair and a 
 
 on the ground and whatever else affects ambitious display by a 
 perverse path...Let everything within us be unlike, but let our 
 outward appearance (frons) resemble the common people’.’ 
 
 ‘Apply thyself rather to the true riches. It is shameful to de- 
 pend for a happy life on silver and gold®.’ ‘ Let thy good deeds be 
 invested like a treasure deep-buried in the ground, which thou canst 
 not bring to light, except it be necessary.’ 
 
 ‘Do ye mark the pimples of others, being covered with countless 
 ulcers? This is as ifa man should mock at the moles or warts on the 
 most beautiful persons, when he himself is devoured by a fierce scab*.’ 
 
 tatem Stoice sectx preferebat habitu et 
 
 1 de Benef. iv. 25, 26. See the con- efere 
 ore ad exprimendam imaginem honesti 
 
 text. Compare also de Benef. vii. 31. 
 
 2 de Benef. v. 8. 
 
 3 de Benef. ii. το. 
 
 4 Ep. Mor. Ἰχχῖν. 20. 
 
 5 Ep. Mor. v.1, 2. Other writers 
 are equally severe on the insincere pro- 
 fessors of Stoic principles. ‘Like their 
 Jewish counterpart, the Pharisees, they 
 were formal, austere, pretentious, and 
 not unfrequently hyprocritical’; Grant 
 p. 281. Of the villain P. Egnatius 
 Tacitus writes (Ann. xvi 32), ‘Auctori- 
 
 exercitus.’ Egnatius, like somany other 
 Stoics, was an Oriental, a native of 
 Beyrout (Juy. iii. 116). Τί the phi- 
 losopher’s busts may be trusted, the 
 language of Tacitus would well describe 
 Seneca’s own appearance: but proba- 
 bly with him this austerity was not 
 affected. 
 
 6 Ep. Mor. cx. 18. 
 
 7 de Vit. beat. 24. 
 
 8 de Vit. beat. 27. 
 
ST PAUL AND SENECA. 285 
 
 «Expect from others what you have done to another’.’ ‘Let us vii, r2, 
 So give as we would wish to receive’®.’ 
 
 ‘Therefore good things cannot spring of evil...good does not γῇ, τό, 17. 
 grow of evil, any more than a fig of an olive tree. The fruits cor- 
 respond to the seed’*.’ 
 
 ‘Not otherwise than some rock standing alone in a shallow vii. 26. 
 sea, which the waves cease not from whichever side they are 
 driven to beat upon, and yet do not either stir it from its place, 
 etc....Seek some soft and yielding material in which to fix your 
 darts*,’ 
 
 Nor are these coincidences of thought and imagery confined to Other co- 
 ] incidences 
 : : with our 
 Pharisees to whited walls, and contrasts the scrupulously clean Lord’slan- 
 guage. 
 
 the Sermon on the Mount. If our Lord compares the hypocritica 
 
 outside of the cup and platter with the inward corruption, Seneca 
 also adopts the same images: ‘ Within is no good: if thou shouldest 
 see them, not where they are exposed to view but where they 
 are concealed, they are miserable, filthy, vile, adorned without like 
 their own walls...Then it appears how much real foulness beneath 
 the surface this borrowed glitter has concealed’.’ If our Lord 
 declares that the branches must perish unless they abide in the 
 vine, the language of Seneca presents an eminently instructive 
 parallel: ‘As the leaves cannot flourish by themselves, but want 
 a branch wherein they may grow and whence they may draw sap, 
 so those precepts wither if they are alone: they need to be 
 grafted in a sect’.’ Again the parables of the sower, of the mustard- 
 seed, of the debtor forgiven, of the talents placed out at usury, 
 of the rich fool, have all their echoes in the writings of the Roman 
 Stoic: ‘Words must be sown like seed which, though it be small, 
 yet when it has found a suitable place unfolds its strength and 
 from being the least spreads into the largest growth... They are few 
 things which are spoken: yet if the mind has received them well, 
 they gain strength and grow. The same, I say,.is the case with 
 precepts as with seeds. They produce much and yet they are 
 scanty’. ‘Divine seeds are sown in human bodies. If a good 
 
 1 Ep. Mor. xciv. 43. This is a quo- 5 de Provid. 6. 
 
 tation. δ Ep. Mor. xev. 59. See the remarks 
 2 de Benef. ii. 1. below, p. 326, on this parallel. 
 3 Ep. Mor. 1xxxvii, 24, 25. 7 Ep. Mor. xxxviii. 2. 
 
 4 de Vit. beat. 27. 
 
286 
 
 ST PAUL AND SENECA. 
 
 husbandman receives them, they spring up like their origin...; if a 
 bad one, they are killed as by barren and marshy ground, and 
 then weeds are produced in place of grain’? ‘We have received 
 our good things as a loan. The use and advantage are ours, and 
 the duration thereof the Divine disposer of his own bounty regu- 
 lates. We ought to have in readiness what He has given us for 
 an uncertain period, and to restore it, when summoned to do so, 
 without complaint. He is the worst debtor, who reproaches his 
 creditor’.’ ‘Ag the money-lender does not summon some creditors 
 whom be knows to be bankrupt...So I will openly and persistently 
 pass over some ungrateful persons nor demand any benefit from 
 them in turn®’ ‘O how great is the madness of those who embark 
 on distant hopes: I will buy, I will build, I will lend out, I will 
 demand payment, I will bear honours: then at length I will 
 resign my old age wearied and sated to rest. Believe me, all 
 things are uncertain even to the prosperous. No man ought to 
 promise himself anything out of the future. Even what we hold 
 slips through our hands, and fortune assails the very hour on 
 which we are pressing*.” If our Master declares that ‘it is more 
 blessed to give than to receive,’ the Stoic philosopher tells his 
 readers that he ‘would rather not receive benefits, than not confer 
 them®, and that ‘it is more wretched to the good man to do 
 an injury than to receive one®.’ If our Lord reminds His hearers 
 of the Scriptural warning ‘I will have mercy and not sacrifice,’ 
 if He commends the poor widow’s mite thrown into the treasury as 
 a richer gift than the most lavish offerings of the wealthy, if His 
 whole life is a comment on the prophet’s declaration to the Jews 
 that God ‘cannot away with their sabbaths and new moons,’ so 
 also Seneca writes: ‘Not even in victims, though they be fat and 
 their brows glitter with gold, is honour paid to the gods, but in the 
 pious and upright intent of the worshippers’.’ The gods are ‘ wor- 
 shipped not by the wholesale slaughter of fat carcasses of bulls nor 
 by votive offerings of gold or silver, nor by money poured into 
 their treasuries, but by the pious and upright intent®’ ‘Let us 
 
 1 Ep. Mor. Ixxiii. 16. 6 Ep. Mor. χουν. 52: comp. de Benef. 
 2 Ad Mare. to. Ἵν: 12 ΜΠ 2.1: 92: 
 
 3 de Benef. ν. 21. 7 de Benef.i. 6. 
 
 * Ep. Mor. ci. 4. 8 Ep. Mor. cxv. 5. 
 
 5 de Benef.i. 1. 
 
 
 
ST PAUL AND SENECA. 
 
 forbid any one to light lamps on sabbath-days, since the gods 
 do not want light, and even men take no pleasure in smoke...he 
 worships God, who knows Him',’ And lastly, if the dying prayer 
 of the Redeemer is ‘Father, forgive them, for they know not what 
 they do,’ some have discovered a striking counterpart (1 can only see 
 a mean caricature) of this expression of triumphant self-sacrifice in 
 the language of Seneca: ‘There is no reason why thou shouldest be 
 angry: pardon them; they are all mad’.’ 
 
 287 
 
 Nor are the coincidences confined to the Gospel narratives. Coinci- 
 
 The writings of Seneca present several points of resemblance also 
 to the Apostolic Epistles. 
 love casteth out fear*’ has its echo in the philosopher's words, 
 ‘Love cannot be mingled with fear*.’ The metaphor of St Peter, 
 also, ‘ Girding up the loins of your mind be watchfnl and hope’, 
 reappears in the same connexion in Seneca, ‘Let the mind stand 
 ready-girt, and let it never fear what is necessary but ever expect 
 what is uncertain’. And again, if St James rebukes the pre- 
 sumption of those who say, ‘To-day or to-morrow we will go into 
 such a city, when they ought to say, If the Lord will, we shall live 
 and do this or that’,’ Seneca in a similar spirit says that the wise 
 man will ‘never promise himself anything on the security of fortune, 
 but will say, I will sail unless anything happen, and, I will be- 
 come pretor unless anything happen, and, My business will turn 
 out well for me unless anything happen’®,’ 
 
 dences 
 
 with the 
 The declaration of St John that ‘perfect Apostolic 
 Epistles, 
 
 The coincidences with St Paul are even more numerous and andespeci- 
 
 not less striking. It is not only that Seneca, like the Apostle of 
 the Gentiles, compares life to a warfare’, or describes the struggle 
 after good as a ‘contest with the flesh” or speaks of this present 
 
 1 Ep. Mor. xev. 47. 
 
 2 de Benef. v. 17. See the remarks 
 below, p. 297. 
 
 3 τ Joh. iv. 18. 
 
 4 Ep. Mor. xvii. 18. 
 
 5 1 Pet. i. 13. 
 
 ὁ ad Polyb. 11 ‘In procinctu stet 
 animus etc.’ 
 
 7 James iv. 13. 
 
 8 de Trang. Anim. 33. 
 
 9 Ep. Mor. xevi ‘Vivere, Lucili, 
 militare est’; 7b. li ‘Nobis quoque mi- 
 litandum est et quidem genere militix 
 
 quo numquam quies, numquam otium, 
 datur’; ib. Ιχν ‘Hoe quod vivit stipen- 
 dium putat’; ἐδ. exx. 12 ‘Civem se esse 
 universi et militem credens.’ The com- 
 parison is at least as old as the Book of 
 Job, vii. 1. 
 
 10 ad Mare. 24 ‘Omne illi eum hae 
 carne grave certamen est.’ The flesh 
 is not unfrequently used for the carnal 
 desires and repulsions, e.g. Ep. Mor. 
 lxxiv ‘Non est summa felicitatis nostre 
 in carne ponenda.’ This use of σὰρξ 
 has been traced to Epicurts. 
 
 ally with 
 St Paul. 
 
2 Cor. xil. 
 os 
 
 Tit. i, 15. 
 
 1 ΟΥΥ, 1x, 
 25. 
 
 ST PAUL AND SENECA. 
 
 existence as a pilgrimage in a strange land and of our mortal bodies 
 as tabernacles of the soul’. Though some of these metaphors are 
 more Oriental than Greek or Roman, they are too common to suggest 
 any immediate historical connexion. It is more to the purpose to 
 note special coincidences of thought and diction. The hateful flattery, 
 first of Claudius and then of Nero, to which the expressions are 
 prostituted by Seneca, does not conceal the resemblance of the 
 following passages to the language of St Paul where ie occur in 
 a truer and nobler application. Of the former emperor he writes 
 to a friend at court, ‘In him are all things and he is instead of 
 all things to thee*’: to the latter he says, ‘The gentleness of thy 
 spirit will spread by degrees through the whole body of the empire, 
 and all things will be formed after thy likeness: health passes 
 from the head to all the members*.’ Nor are still closer parallels 
 wanting. Thus, while St Paul professes that he will ‘gladly spend 
 and be spent’ for his Corinthian converts, Seneca repeats the same 
 striking expression, ‘Good men toil, they spend and are spent.’ 
 While the Apostle declares that ‘unto the pure all things are 
 pure, but unto the defiled and unbelieving nothing is pure, it is 
 the Roman philosopher’s dictum that ‘the evil man turns all 
 things to evil®.’ While St Paul in a well-remembered passage 
 compares and contrasts the training for the mortal and the immortal 
 crown, a strikingly similar use is made of the same comparison 
 in the following words of Seneca; ‘What blows do athletes receive 
 in their face, what blows all over their body. Yet they bear all 
 the torture from thirst of glory. Let us also overcome all things, 
 for our reward is not a crown or a palm branch or the trumpeter 
 proclaiming silence for the announcement of our name, but virtue 
 and strength of mind and peace acquired ever after®”’ 
 
 The coincidence will be further illustrated by the following 
 
 1 Ep. Mor. cxx ‘Nec domum esse 
 hoe corpus sed hospitium et quidem 
 breve hospitium,’ and again ‘Magnus 
 animus...nihil horum quae circa sunt 
 suum judicat, sed ut commodatis utitur 
 peregrinus et properans.’ So also Ep. 
 Mor. cii. 24 ‘Quicquid circa te jacet 
 rerum tamquam hospitalis loci sarcinas 
 specta.’ In this last letter (§ 23) he 
 speaks of advancing age as a ‘ripening 
 to another birth (in alium maturesei- 
 
 mus partum),’ and designates death by 
 the term since consecrated in the lan- 
 guage of the Christian Church, as the 
 birth-day of eternity: ‘Dies iste, quem 
 tamquam supremum reformidas, eterni 
 natalis est’ (§ 26). 
 
 2 ad Polyb. 7. 
 
 3 de Clem. il. 2. 
 
 4 de Provid. 5. 
 
 5 Ep. Mor. xcviii. ὃ. 
 
 5 Hp. Mor. lxxviii. 26. 
 
ST PAUL AND SENECA. 289 
 
 passages of Seneca, to which the corresponding references in St Paul 
 are given in the margin. 
 
 ‘They consecrate the holy and immortal and inviolable gods Rom. i. 23. 
 in motionless matter of the vilest kind: they clothe them with the 
 forms of men, and beasts, and fishes’,’ 
 
 ‘They are even enamoured of their own ill deeds, which is the Rom.i. 28, 
 last ill of all: and then is their wretchedness complete, when shame- >” 
 ful things not only delight them but are even approved by them’*.’ 
 
 ‘The tyrant is angry with the homicide, and the sacrilegious man Rom.ii.2r, 
 
 22. 
 
 punishes thefts*.’ 
 
 ‘ Hope is the name for an uncertain good*,’ om ὑπ 
 : : : ἊΣ “ 
 ‘Pertinacious goodness overcomes evil men*.’ Rom, xii, 
 
 ‘TI have a better and a surer light whereby I can discern the ἀν ΕΓΒ 
 
 true from the false. The mind discovers the good of the mind®,’ 
 ‘Let us use them, let us not boast of them: and let us use them 1 Cor. vii. 
 
 sparingly, as a loan deposited with us, which will soon depart.’ Ἵν 
 ‘To obey God is liberty®*.’ 2 Cor, iii. 
 ‘Not only corrected but transfigured?.’ ΠΣ iii 
 
 18, 
 
 ‘A man is not yet wise, unless his mind is transfigured into those 
 things which he has learnt”*.’ 
 
 ‘What is man? A cracked vessei which will break at the least 2 Cox iv. 7. 
 fall" 3 
 
 ‘This is salutary; not to associate with those unlike ourselves 2 Cor. vi. 
 and having different desires ”’.’ 
 
 ‘That gift is far more welcome which is given with a ready than 2 Cor. ix.y. 
 
 that which is given with a full hahd’’.’ a ae 
 ‘ Gather up and preserve the time™.’ Eph. v. τό. 
 ‘T confess that love of our own body is natural to us*.’ Eph, ν. 28, 
 
 20. 
 
 1 de Superst. (Fragm. 31) in August. 
 Civ. Det vi. το. 
 
 2 Ep. Mor. xxxix. 6. 
 
 3 de Ira ii. 28. 
 
 4 Ep. Mor. x, § 2. 
 
 5 de Benef. vii. 31. 
 
 6 de Vit. beat..2. 
 
 7 Ep. Mor. Ἰχχῖν, 18. 
 
 that true liberty may fall to thy 
 lot.’ 
 
 9 Ep. Mor. vi. τ. 
 
 10 Ep. Mor. xciv. 48. 
 
 Ἢ ad Mare. 11. So Ps. xxxi. 14 “1 
 am’ become like a broken vessel.’ 
 
 12 Hip. Mor. xxxii. 2. 
 
 13 de Benef. i. 7. 
 
 8 de Vit. beat. 15. Compare the lan- 
 guage of our Liturgy, ‘ Whose service is 
 perfect freedom.’ Elsewhere (Ep. Mor, 
 vii) he quotes a saying of Epicurus, 
 ‘Thou must be the slave of philosophy, 
 
 PHIL. 
 
 14 Ep. Mor.i. τ. So also he speaks 
 elsewhere (de Brev. Vit. 1) of ‘investing’ 
 time (conlocaretur). 
 
 15 Ep. Mor. xiv. τ. 
 for love is ‘ caritas,’ 
 
 The word used 
 
 19 
 
290 ST PAUL AND SENECA. 
 
 Col. ii. 22. | ¢ Which comes or passes away very quickly, destined to perish in 
 the very using (in ipso usu sui periturum)*.’ } 
 
 1Tim.iig. | ‘ Neither jewels nor pearls turned thee aside*’ 
 
 1Tim.iv.8. ‘1 reflect how many exercise their bodies, how few their minds*,’ 
 
 ‘It is a foolish occupation to exercise the muscles of the arms.... 
 
 Return quickly from the body to the mind: exercise this, night and 
 
 day *.’ 
 
 1Tim.v.6. ‘Do these men fear death, into which while living they have 
 buried themselves’ ?’ ‘He is sick: nay, he is dead®.’ 
 
 2 Tim. iii, ‘They live ill, who are always learning to live’.’ ‘How long 
 
 Ms wilt thou learn? begin to teach*.’ 
 
 In the opening sentences of our Burial Service two passages 
 
 1 Tim. vi. of Scripture are combined: ‘We brought nothing into this world 
 
 jr, and it is certain we can carry nothing out. The Lord gave and 
 the Lord hath taken away: blessed be the name of the Lord.’ 
 Both passages have parallels in Seneca: ‘ Non licet plus efferre quam 
 intuleris® ;’ ‘ Abstulit (fortuna) sed dedit”.’ . 
 
 In the speech on the Areopagus again, which was addressed 
 partly to a Stoic audience, we should naturally expect to find 
 parallels. The following passages justify this expectation. 
 
 ee eee ‘The whole world is the temple of the immortal gods”.’ ‘ Temples 
 ἐὔερες are not to be built to God of stones piled on high: He must be 
 
 consecrated in the heart of each man’’,’ 
 
 xvit. 25. ‘God wants not ministers) How so? He Himself ministereth 
 to the human race. He is at hand everywhere and to all men”™.’ 
 
 xvii. 27. ‘God is near thee: He is withsthee ; He is within ἢ 
 
 xvii. 20. ‘Thou shalt not form Him of silver and gold: a true likeness 
 of God cannot be moulded of this material “ν᾽ 
 
 The first The first impression made by this series of parallels is striking. 
 
 impression 
 
 from these Lhey seem to show a general coincidence in the fundamental prin- 
 parallels ginles of theology and the leading maxims in ethics: they exhibit 
 moreover special resemblances in imagery and expression, which, it 
 
 1 de Vit. beat. 7. 9 Hp. Mor. cii. 25. 
 
 2 ad Helv. matr. 16. 10 Hp. Mor. 1xiii. 7. 
 
 3 Ep. Mor. 1xxx. 2. 11 de Benef. vii. 7. 
 
 4 Ep. Mor. XV. 2,-5. 12 Fragm. 123, in Lactant. Div. Inst. 
 5 Ep. Mor. exxii. 3. Vi. 25. 
 
 6 de Brev. Vit. 12. 13 Hp. Mor. ΧΟΥ. 47. 
 
 7 Ep. Mor, xxiii. 9. 14 Ep. Mor. xli. τ. 
 
 8 Ep. Mor. xxxiii. g. 15 Ep, Mor. xxxi. 11. 
 
ST PAUL AND SENECA, 201 
 
 would seem, cannot be explained as the result of accident, but must needs tobe 
 point to some historical connexion. rg 
 
 Nevertheless a nearer examination very materially diminishes the 
 force of this impression. In many cases, where the parallels are 
 most close, the theory of a direct historical connexion is impossible ; 
 in many others it can be shown to be quite unnecessary ; while in not 
 a few instances the resemblance, however striking, must be con- 
 demned as illusory and fallacious. After deductions made on all 
 these heads, we shall still have to consider whether the remaining coin- 
 cidences are such as to require or to suggest this mode of solution. 
 
 τ. In investigating the reasonableness of explaining coinci- Difficulty 
 dences between two different authors by direct obligation on the flicking 
 one hand or the other, the dates of the several writings are ob- the rela- 
 
 : Ξ : ἜΣ tive chro- 
 viously a most important element in the decision. In the present nology. 
 instance the relative chronology is involved in considerable difficulty, 
 
 It is roughly true that the literary activity of Seneca comprises 
 about the same period over which (with such exceptions as the 
 Gospel and Epistles of St John) the writings of the Apostles and 
 Evangelists extend. But in some cases of parallelism it is difficult, 
 and in others wholly impossible, to say which writing can claim 
 priority of time. Jf the Epistles of St Paul may for the most 
 part be dated within narrow limits, this is not the case with the 
 Gospels: and on the other hand the chronology of Seneca’s writings 
 is with some few exceptions vague and uncertain. In many cases The prior- 
 however it seems impossible that the Stoic philosopher can have ewe 
 
 derived his thoughts or his language from the New Testament. eae to 
 eneca, 
 
 ἡ 
 
 Though the most numerous and most striking parallels are found in 
 his latest writings, yet some coincidences occur in works which must 
 be assigned to his earlier years, and these were composed certainly 
 before the first Gospels could have been circulated in Rome, and 
 * perhaps before they were even written, Again several strong 
 resemblances occur in Seneca to those books of the New Testament 
 which were written after his death. Thug the passage which dwells 
 on the fatherly chastisement of God’ presents a coincidence, as re- 
 markable as any, to the language of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Thus 
 again in tracing the portrait of the perfect man (which has been 
 
 1 See above, p. 279 sq. Compare 11,12, which is quoted there, 
 Hebrews xii. 5 sq., and see Prov. iii- 
 
 I9—2 
 
292 
 
 x 
 
 Seneca’s 
 obliga- 
 tions to 
 previous 
 writers. 
 
 ST PAUL AND SENECA. 
 
 thought to reflect many features of the life of Christ, delineated in 
 
 the Gospels) he describes him as ‘shining like a light in the dark- 
 
 ness’; an expression which at once recalls the language applied to 
 the Divine Word in the prologue of St John’s Gospel. And again in 
 the series of parallels given above many resemblances will have 
 been noticed to the Pastoral Epistles, which can hardly have been 
 written before Seneca’s death. These facts, if they do not prove 
 much, are at least so far valid as to show that the simple theory 
 of direct borrowing from the Apostolic writings will not meet all 
 the facts of the case. 
 
 2. Again; it is not sufficient to examine Seneca’s writings by 
 themselves, but we must enquire how far he was anticipated by the 
 older philosophers in those brilliant flashes of theological truth or 
 of ethical sentiment, which from time to time dazzle us in his 
 writings. If after all they should prove to be only lights reflected 
 from the noblest thoughts and sayings of former days, or at best 
 old fires rekindled and fanned into a brighter flame, we have found 
 a solution more simple and natural, than if we were to ascribe them 
 to direct intercourse with Christian teachers or immediate acquaint- 
 ance with Christian writings. We shall not cease in this case to 
 regard them as true promptings of the Word of God which was from 
 the beginning, bright rays of the Divine Light which ‘was in the 
 world’ though ‘the world knew it not,’ which ‘shineth in the 
 darkness’ though ‘ the darkness comprehended it not’: but we shall 
 no longer confound them with the direct effulgence of the same Word 
 made flesh, the Shechinah at length tabernacled among men, ‘ whose 
 glory we beheld, the glory as of the only-begotten of the Father.’ 
 
 And this is manifestly the solution of many coincidences which 
 have been adduced above. Though Seneca was essentially a Stoic, 
 yet he read widely and borrowed freely from all existing schools of 
 philosophy’. To the Pythagoreans and the Platonists he is largely ° 
 indebted ; and even of Epicurus, the founder of the rival school, he 
 speaks with the deepest respect*. It will have been noticed that 
 several of the most striking passages cited above are direct quo- 
 
 1 Ep. Mor. exx.13‘Non aliter quam —_ sententia sum, invitis hoc nostris popu- 
 
 in tenebris lumen effulsit.’ laribus dicam, sancta Epicurum et recta 
 2 See what he says of himself,de Vit. prcipere et, si propius accesseris, tris- 
 beat. 3, de Otio 2 (29). tia’: comp. Ep. Mor. ii. 5, vi. 6, villi. 
 
 3 de Vit. beat. 13 ‘In ea quidem ipsa 8, xx. 9. 
 
ST PAUL AND SENECA. 293 
 
 tations from earlier writers, and therefore can have no immediate 
 connexion with Christian ethics. The sentiment for instance, which 
 approaches most nearly to the Christian maxim ‘Tove your ene- 
 mies,’ is avowedly based on the teaching of his Stoic predecessors’. 
 
 And where this is not the case, recent research has shown that (with Parallels 
 as striking 
 found in 
 
 ful in sentiment, but often very similar in expression and not less earlier 
 authors. 
 
 some exceptions) passages not only as profound in feeling and truth- 
 
 striking in their resemblance to the Apostolic writings, can be pro- 
 duced from the older philosophers and poets of Greece and Rome’. 
 One instance will suffice. Seneca’s picture of the perfect man has 
 been already mentioned as reflecting some features of the ‘Son of 
 Man’ delineated in the Gospels. Yet the earlier portrait drawn by 
 Plato in its minute touches reproduces the likeness with a fidelity 
 so striking, that the chronological impossibility alone has rescued him 
 from the charge of plagiarism: ‘Though doing no wrong,’ Socrates 
 is represented saying, ‘he will have the greatest reputation for 
 wrong-doing,’ ‘he will go forward immovable even to death, ap- 
 pearing to be unjust throughout life but being just,’ ‘he will be 
 scourged,’ ‘last of all after suffering every kind of evil he will be 
 crucified (ἀνασχινδυλευθήσεται)". Not unnaturally Clement of Alex- 
 andria, quoting this passage, describes Plato as ‘all but foretelling 
 the dispensation of salvation*.’ 
 
 3. Lastly: the proverbial suspicion which attaches to statistics Many co- 
 incidences 
 
 ? are falla- 
 
 and often are, equally fallacious. An expression or a maxim, which ©10us. 
 
 ought to be extended to coincidences of language, for they may be 
 
 detached from its context offers a striking resemblance to the theo- 
 logy or the ethics of the Gospel, is found to have a wholly different 
 bearing when considered in its proper relations. 
 
 This consideration is especially important in the case before us. Stoicism 
 
 Stoicism and Christianity are founded on widely different theological nee 
 
 conceptions ; and the ethical teaching of the two in many respects opposed. 
 presents a direct contrast. St Jerome was led astray either by his 
 ignorance of philosophy or by his partiality for a stern asceticism, 
 
 1 de Otio τ (28). See above, p. 283, _ collection of passages in R. Schneider 
 note 8. See also Schneider Christliche  Christliche Kliinge aus den Griechischen 
 Kliinge p. 327 sq. und Rimischen Klassikern(Gotha,1865). 
 
 2 Such parallels are produced from 3 Plato Resp. ii. pp. 361, 362. See 
 older writers by Aubertin (Sén@que et Aubertin p. 254 sq. 
 
 Saint Paul), who has worked out this 4 Strom. Vv. 14 μονονουχὶ προφητεύων 
 line of argument. See also the-large τὴν σωτήριον οἰκονομίαν, 
 
294 
 
 Senecawas 
 
 a true 
 Stoic. 
 
 His pan- 
 theistic 
 material- 
 ism. 
 
 ST PAUL AND SENECA. 
 
 when he said that ‘the Stoic dogmas in very many points coincide 
 with our own’.’ It is in the doctrines of the Platonist and the Py- 
 thagorean that the truer resemblances to the teaching of the Bible are 
 to be sought. It was not the Porch but the Academy that so many 
 famous teachers, like Justin Martyr and Augustine, found to be the 
 vestibule to the Church of Christ. 
 philosophy comes in contact with the Gospel; but Stoicism moves 
 
 Again and again the Platonic 
 
 in another line, running parallel indeed and impressive by its paral. 
 lelism, but for this very reason precluded from any approximation. 
 Only when he deserts the Stoic platform, does Seneca really ap- 
 proach the level of Christianity. Struck by their beauty, he adopts 
 and embodies the maxims of other schools: but they betray their 
 foreign origin, and refuse to be incorporated into his system. 
 
 For on the whole Lactantius was right, when he called Seneca 
 a most determined follower of the Stoics*, It can only excite our 
 marvel that any one, after reading a few pages of this writer, 
 should entertain a suspicion of his having been in any sense a Chris- 
 tian. If the superficial colouring is not seldom deceptive, we can- 
 not penetrate skindeep without encountering some rigid and in- 
 
 flexible dogma of the Stoic school. In his fundamental principles 
 
 he is a disciple of Zeno ; and, being a disciple of Zeno, he could not 
 
 possibly be a disciple of Christ. 
 
 Interpreted by this fact, those passages which at first sight strike 
 us by their resemblance to the language of the Apostles and Evan- 
 gelists assume a wholly different meaning. The basis of Stoic theo- 
 logy is gross materialism, though it is more or less relieved and 
 compensated in different writers of the school by a vague mysticism. 
 The supreme God of the Stoic had no existence distinct from ex- 
 ternal nature. Seneca himself identifies Him with fate, with neces- 
 sity, with nature, with the world as a living whole*, The different 
 elements of the universe, such as the planetary bodies, were inferior 
 
 1 Hieron. Comm. in Isai. tv. c. τὶ _ partibusque ejus inserta?...Hune eun- 
 
 ‘Stoici qui nostro dogmati in plerisque 
 concordant’ (Op. Iv. p. 159, Vallarsi). 
 
 2 See above, p. 270. 
 
 3 See especially de Benef. iv. 7, 8 
 ‘Natura, inquit, hocmihiprestat, Non 
 intellegis te, cum hoe dicis, mutare 
 nomen deo? quid enim aliud est natura 
 quam deus et divina ratio toti mundo 
 
 dem et fatum si dixeris, non mentieris... 
 Sic nune naturam voca, fatum, fortu- 
 nam, omnia ejusdem dei nomina sunt 
 varie utentis sua potestate’; de Vit. 
 beat. 8 ‘Mundus euncta complectens 
 rectorque universi deus.’ Occasionally 
 amore personal conception of deity ap- 
 pears: e.g. ad Helv. Matr. 8. 
 
ST PAUL AND SENECA. 295 
 
 gods, members of the Universal Being’. With a bold consistency 
 
 the Stoic assigned a corporeal existence even to moral abstractions. 
 Here also Seneca manifests his adherence to the tenets of his school. 
 Courage, prudence, reverence, cheerfulness, wisdom, he says, are all 
 bodily substances, for otherwise they could not affect bodies, as they / 
 manifestly do*. 
 
 Viewed by the light of this material pantheism, the injunction His lan- 
 to be ‘followers of God’ cannot mean the same to him as it does Steno ΒΕ 
 even to the Platonic philosopher, still less to the Christian Apostle. porurciod 
 In Stoie phraseology ‘imitation of God’ signifies nothing deeper tenets, 
 than a due recognition of physical laws on the part of man, and a 
 conformity thereto in his own actions. It is merely a synonyme for 
 the favourite Stoic formula of ‘accordance with nature.’ 
 be a useful precept; but so interpreted the expression is emptied of 
 In fact to follow the world and to follow 
 Again in like manner, 
 
 This may 
 
 its religious significance. 
 God are equivalent phrases with Seneca’. 
 the lesson drawn from the rain and the sunshine freely bestowed 
 
 upon all*, though in form it coincides so nearly with the language of 
 
 the Gospel, loses its theological meaning and becomes merely an ap- 
 
 peal to a physical fact, when interpreted by Stoic doctrine. 
 
 Hence also language, which must strike the ear of a Christian as Consistent 
 shocking blasphemy, was consistent and natural on the lips of a Stoic, pers 
 Seneca quotes with approbation the saying of his revered Sextius, speaking 
 that Jupiter is not better than a good man; he is richer, but riches satiety 
 do not constitute superior goodness; he is longer-lived, but greater 
 longevity does not ensure greater happiness*. ‘The good man,’ he 
 says elsewhere, ‘differs from God only in length of time®’ ‘He is 
 like God, excepting his mortality’ In the same spirit an earlier 
 Stoic, Chrysippus, had boldly argued that the wise man is as useful 
 to Zeus, as Zeus is to the wise man®. Such language is the legi- 
 
 timate consequence of Stoic pantheism. 
 
 5 Ep. Mor. lxxiii. 12, 13. 
 8 de Prov. 1. 
 
 1 de Clem. i. 8. 
 2 Ep. Mor. evi: comp. Ep. Mor. exvii. 
 
 3 de Iraii. 16 ‘Quid est autem cur 
 hominem ad tam infelicia exempla re- 
 voces, cum habeas mundum deumque, 
 quem ex omnibus animalibus ut solus 
 imitetur, solus intellegit.’ 
 
 4 See the passages quoted above, p. 
 
 283 56. 
 
 7 de Const. Sap. 8: comp. Ep. Mor. 
 xxxi ‘Par deo surges.’ Nay, in one 
 respect good men excel God, “1116 extra 
 patientiam malorum est, vos supra 
 patientiam,’ de Prov. 6. 
 
 8 Plut. adv. Stoic. 33 (Op. Mor. p. 
 1078). 
 
290 ST PAUL AND SENECA. 
 
 Hehasno Hence also the Stoic, so long as he was true to the tenets of his 
 a eae school, could have no real consciousness of sin. Only where there is 
 a distinct belief in a personal God, can this consciousness find a rest- 
 ing-place. Seneca and Tertullian might use the same word peccatum, 
 but its value and significance to the two writers cannot be compared. 
 The Christian Apostle and the Stoic philosopher alike can say, and 
 do say, that ‘ All men have erred’’; but the moral key in which the 
 saying is pitched is wholly different. With Seneca error or sin is 
 nothing more than the failure in attaining to the ideal of the perfect 
 man which he sets before him, the running counter to the law of the 
 universe in which he finds himself placed. He does not view it as 
 an offence done to the will of an all-holy all-righteous Being, an 
 unfilial act of defiance towards a loving and gracious Father. The 
 Stoic conception of error or sin is not referred at all to the idea of 
 God’. His pantheism had so obscured the personality of the Divine 
 Being, that such reference was, if not impossible, at least unnatural. 
 Meaning And the influence of this pantheism necessarily pervades the 
 ie a Y Stoic vocabulary. The ‘Sacer spiritus’ of Seneca may be translated 
 Seneca. —_Jiterally by the Holy Spirit, the πνεῦμα ἅγιον, of Scriptural language; 
 but it signifies something quite different. His declaration, that we 
 are ‘members of God,’ is in words almost identical with certain ex- 
 pressions of the Apostle ; but its meaning has nothing in common. 
 Both the one and the other are modes of stating the Stoic dogma, 
 that the Universe is one great animal pervaded by one soul or prin- 
 ciple of life, and that into men, as fractions of this whole, as limbs of 
 this body, is transfused a portion of the universal spirit®. It is almost 
 purely a physical conception, and has no strictly theological value. 
 His moral Again, though the sterner colours of Stoic morality are fre- 
 ope? quently toned down in Seneca, still the foundation of his ethical 
 
 has all the 
 
 ee ε System betrays the repulsive features of his school. His funda- 
 eatures 0 ; 
 Stoicism. mental maxim is not to guide and train nature, but to overcome 
 
 it*. The passions and affections are not to be directed, but to be 
 crushed. The wise man, he says, will be clement and gentle, but he 
 will not feel pity, for only old women and girls will be moved by 
 
 1 See the passages quoted above, Virgil, #n. vi. 726 ‘Spiritus intus alit 
 p. 284. totamque infusa per artus mens agitat 
 
 2 See the remarks of Baurl.c.p. 190 molem et magno se corpore miscet.’ 
 sq., on this subject. 4 de Brev. Vit. 14 ‘Hominis naturam 
 
 3 Compare the well-known passage in cum Stoicis vincere.’ 
 
ST PAUL AND SENECA. 
 
 tears; he will not pardon, for pardon is the remission of a deserved 
 penalty; he will be strictly and inexorably just’. 
 
 It is obvious that this tone leaves no place for repentance, for for- 
 giveness, for restitution, on which the theological ethics of the Gospel 
 are built. The very passage*, which has often been quoted as a 
 parallel to the Saviour’s dying words, ‘ Father, forgive them, for they 
 know not what they do,’ really stands in direct contrast to the spirit 
 of those words: for it is not dictated by tenderness and love, but 
 expresses a contemptuous pity, if not a withering scorn. 
 
 In the same spirit Seneca commits himself to the impassive calm 
 which forms the moral ideal of his school*, He has no sympathy 
 with a righteous indignation, which Aristotle called ‘the spur of 
 
 297 
 
 virtue’; for it would disturb the serenity of the mind*. He could Its impas- 
 
 only have regarded with a lofty disdain (unless for the moment the 
 
 siveness 
 contrasts 
 
 man triumphed over the philosopher) the grand outburst of passion- With the 
 
 ethics of 
 
 ate sympathy which in the Apostle of the Gentiles has wrung a tri- theGospel. 
 
 bute of admiration even from unbelievers, ‘Who is weak, and I am 
 not weak? Who is offended, and I burn ποὺ He would neither 
 have appreciated nor respected the spirit which dictated those touch- 
 ing words, ‘I say the truth...I lie not...I have great heaviness and 
 continual sorrow of heart...for my brethren, my kinsmen according to 
 the flesh®” He must have spurned the precept which bids the Chris- 
 tian ‘rejoice with them that do rejoice, and weep with them that 
 weep’, as giving the direct lie to a sovereign maxim of Stoic philoso- 
 ‘phy. To the consistent disciple of Zeno the agony of Gethsemane could 
 not have appeared, as to the Christian it ever will appear, the most 
 sublime spectacle of moral sympathy, the proper consummation of a 
 Divine life: for insensibility to the sorrows and sufferings of others 
 was the only passport to perfection, as conceived in the Stoic ideal. 
 These considerations will have shown that many even of the 
 most obvious parallels in Seneca’s language are really no parallels at 
 
 1 de Clem. ii. 3—7, where he makes 
 a curious attempt to vindicate the 
 Stoies, 
 
 2 Τὸ is quoted above, p. 287. 
 
 3 Ep. Mor. Ἰχχῖν. 30 ‘Non adfligitur 
 sapiens liberorum amissione, nen ami- 
 corum : eodem enim animo fert illorum 
 mortem quo suam exspectat. Non 
 
 magis hance timet quam illam dolet.., 
 Inhonesta est omnis trepidatio et. solli- 
 citudo.’ And see especially Ep. Mor. 
 Cxvi. 
 
 4 de Ira iii. 3. 
 
 5 2 Cor. xi. 29. 
 
 SRO ἔπους 25.35 
 
 7 Rom. xii. 15. 
 
298 
 
 Inconsist- 
 encies of 
 Seneca 
 and of Sto- 
 icism., 
 
 Coinci- 
 dences 
 still re- 
 main to be 
 explained. 
 
 ST PAUL AND SENECA. 
 
 all. They will have served moreover to reveal the wide gulf which 
 separates him from Christianity. It must be added however, that 
 his humanity frequently triumphs over his philosophy; that he often 
 writes with a kindliness and a sympathy which, if little creditable to 
 his consistency, is highly honourable to his heart. In this respect 
 however he does not stand alone. Stoicism is in fact the most incon- 
 gruous, the most self-contradictory, of all philosophic systems. With 
 a gross and material pantheism it unites the most vivid expressions of 
 the fatherly love and providence of God: with the sheerest fatalism 
 it combines the most exaggerated statements of the independence 
 and self-sufficiency of the human soul: with the hardest and most 
 uncompromising isolation of the individual it proclaims the most ex- 
 pansive view of his relations to all around. The inconsistencies of 
 Stoicism were a favourite taunt with the teachers of rival schools’. 
 The human heart in fact refused to be silenced by the dictation of a 
 rigorous and artificial system, and was constantly bursting its philo- 
 sophical fetters. 
 
 But after all allowance made for the considerations just urged, 
 some facts remain which still require explanation. It appears that 
 the Christian parallels in Seneca’s writings become more frequent 
 as he advances in life*. It is not less true that they are much more 
 striking and more numerous than in the other great Stoics of the 
 Roman period, Epictetus and M, Aurelius; for though in character 
 these later writers approached much nearer to the Christian ideal 
 than the minister of Nero, though their fundamental doctrines are 
 as little inconsistent with Christian theology and ethics as his, yet 
 the closer resemblances of sentiment and expression, which alone 
 would suggest any direct obligations to Christianity, are, I believe, 
 decidedly more frequent in Seneca*, Lastly: after all deductions 
 
 made, a class of coincidences still remains, of which the expression 
 
 think, be found substantially true. 
 3 J have read Epictetus and M. Au- 
 
 1 See for instance the treatise of Plu- 
 tarch de Repugnantiis Stoicorwm (Op. 
 
 Mor. p. 1033 8q.). 
 
 2 Among his more Christian works 
 are the de Providentia, de Otio, de Vita 
 beata, de Beneficiis, and the Epistole 
 Morales; among his less Christian, the 
 de Constantia Sapientis and de Ira. In 
 some cases the date is uncertain; but 
 
 what I have said in the text will, I 
 
 relius through with a view to such coin- 
 cidences, and believe the statement in 
 the text to be correct. Several of the 
 more remarkable parallels in the former 
 writer occur in the passages quoted be- 
 low, p. 314 Sq., and seem to warrant 
 the belief that he was acquainted with 
 the language of the Gospel. 
 
ST PAUL AND SENECA. 299 
 
 ‘spend and be spent’ may be taken as a type’, and which can hardly 
 be considered accidental. If any historical connexion (direct or 
 indirect) can be traced with a fair degree of probability, we may 
 reasonably look to this for the solution of such coincidences. I shal] Historical 
 content myself here with stating the different ways in which such Sua 
 a connexion was possible or probable, without venturing to affirm 
 
 what was actually the case, for the data are not sufficient to justify 
 
 any definite theory. 
 
 1. The fact already mentioned is not unimportant, that the (1) The 
 principal Stoic teachers all came from the East, and that therefore ΕἘ το 
 their language and thought must in a greater or less degree have Stoicism. 
 borne the stamp of their Oriental origin. We advance a step further 
 towards the object of our search, if we remember that the most 
 famous of them were not only Oriental but Shemitic, Babylonia, 
 Pheenicia, Syria, Palestine, are their homes. One comes from 
 Scythopolis, a second from Apamea, a third from Ascalon, a fourth 
 from Ptolemais, two others from Hierapolis, besides several from 
 Tyre and Sidon or their colonies, such as Citium and Carthage’. 
 
 What religious systems they had the opportunity of studying, and 
 
 how far they were indebted to any of these, it is impossible to say. 
 
 But it would indeed be strange if, living on the confines and even Its possi- 
 
 within the borders of the home of Judaism, the Stoic teachers escaped peng 
 all influence from the One religion which, it would seem, must have Judaism. 
 
 attracted the attention of the thoughtful and earnest mind, which 
 
 even then was making rapid progress through the Roman Empire, 
 
 and which afterwards through 
 
 1 See above p. 288. Aubertin has at- 
 tacked this very instance (p. 360 sq.), 
 but without success. He only shows 
 (what did not need showing) that ‘im- 
 pendere’ is used elsewhere in this same 
 sense. The important feature in the 
 coincidence is the combination of the 
 active and passive voices. 
 
 2 T have noted down the following 
 homes of more or less distinguished 
 Stoic teachers from the Kast; Seleucia, 
 Diogenes (p. 41); Epiphania, Euphrates 
 (p. 613); Scythopolis, Basilides (p. 614); 
 Ascalon, Antibius, Eubius (p. 615); 
 Hierapolis in Syria (?), Serapio (p. 612), 
 Publius (p. 615); Tyre, Antipater, Apol- 
 lonius (p. 520); Sidon, Zeno (p. 36), 
 
 the Gospel has made itself far 
 
 Boethus? (p. 40); Piolemais, Diogenes 
 (p. 43); Apamea in Syria, Posidonius 
 (p. 509); Citium, Zeno (p. 27), Perseus 
 (Ρ. 34); Carthage, Herillus (p. 33); 
 Cyrene, Kratosthenes (p. 39). The Cili- 
 cian Stoics are enumerated below p. 303. 
 Of the other:famous teachers belong- 
 ing to the School, Cleanthes came from 
 Assos (p. 31), Ariston from Chios (p. 32), 
 Dionysius from Heraclea (p. 35), Sphe- 
 rus from Bosporus (p. 35), Panetius 
 from Rhodes (p. 500), Epictetus from 
 Hierapolis in Phrygia (p. 660). The 
 references are to the pages of Zeller’s 
 work, where the authorities for the 
 statements will be found. 
 
300 
 
 (2) Sene- 
 ca’s possi- 
 ble know- 
 ledge of 
 Christian- 
 ity. 
 
 (3) His 
 supposed 
 
 ST PAUL AND SENECA. 
 
 more widely felt than any other throughout the civilised world. 
 Τ have already ventured to ascribe the intense moral earnestness of 
 the Stoics to their Hastern origin. It would be no extravagant 
 assumption that they also owed some ethical maxims and some 
 theological terms (though certainly not their main doctrines) directly 
 or indirectly to the flourishing Jewish schools of their age, founded 
 on the teaching of the Old Testament. The exaggerations of the 
 early Christian fathers, who set down all the loftier sentiments of 
 the Greek philosophers as plagiarisms from the lawgiver or the 
 prophets, have cast suspicion on any such affiliation: but we should 
 not allow ourselves to be blinded by reactionary prejudices to the 
 possibilities or rather the probabilities in the case before us. 
 
 2. The consideration which I have just advanced will explain 
 many coincidences: but we may proceed a step further. Is it 
 impossible, or rather is it improbable, that Seneca was acquainted 
 with the teaching of the Gospel in some rudimentary form? His 
 silence about Christianity proves nothing, because it proves too 
 much. If an appreciable part of the lower population of Rome 
 had become Christians some few years before Seneca’s death’, if the 
 Gospel claimed converts within the very palace walls’, if a few 
 (probably not more than a few) even in the higher grades of society, 
 like Pomponia Greecina*, had adopted the new faith, his acquaintance 
 with its main facts is at least a very tenable supposition. If his 
 own account may be trusted, he made a practice of dining with his 
 slaves and engaging them in familiar conversation*; so that the 
 avenues of information open to him were manifold®. His acquaint- 
 ance with any written documents of Christianity is less probable ; 
 but of the oral Gospel, as repeated from the lips of slaves and others, 
 he might at least have had an accidental and fragmentary know- 
 ledge. This supposition would explain the coincidences with the 
 Sermon on the Mount and with the parables of our Lord, if they 
 are clear and numerous enough to demand an explanation. 
 
 3. But the legend goes beyond this, and connects Seneca directly 
 
 1 See above, p. 17 54.» 25 Sq. 6, quoted by Friedliinder, 111. p. 535) 
 2 Phil, iv. 22; see p. 171 Βα. mentions one M. Anneus Paulus Pe- 
 3 See above, p. 21. trus, obviously a Christian. Was he 
 4 Ep. Mor. xlvii. descended from some freedman of Se- 
 
 ® An early inscription at Ostia (de  neca’s house? 
 Rossi Bull. de Archeol. Crist. 1867, p. 
 
ST PAUL AND SENECA. 301 
 
 with St Paul. The Stoic philosopher is supposed to be included connexion 
 among the ‘members of Czesar’s household’ mentioned in one of the μὰν τὸν 
 Apostle’s letters from Rome. The legend itself however has no value 
 
 as independent evidence. The coincidences noted above would suggest 
 
 it, and the forged correspondence would fix and substantiate it. We 
 
 are therefore thrown back on the probabilities of the case; and it 
 
 must be confessed that, when we examine the Apostle’s history 
 
 with a view to tracing a historical connexion, the result is not 
 
 very encouraging. St Paul, it is true, when at Corinth, was brought 
 before Seneca’s brother Gallio, to whom the philosopher dedicates Gallio. 
 more than one work and of whom he speaks in tenderly affectionate 
 language’; but Gallio, who ‘cared for none of these things,’ to 
 whom the questions at issue between St Paul and his accusers 
 
 were merely idle and frivolous disputes about obscure national 
 customs”, would be little likely to bestow a serious thought upon 
 
 a case apparently so unimportant, still less likely to communi- 
 
 cate his experiences to his brother in Rome. Again it may be 
 urged that as St Paul on his arrival in Rome was delivered to 
 Burrus the prefect of the pretorian guards*, the intimate friend Burrus, 
 of Seneca, it might be expected that some communication between 
 
 the Apostle and the philosopher would be established in this way. 
 
 Yet, if we reflect that the pretorian prefect must yearly have been 
 receiving hundreds of prisoners from the different provinces, that 
 
 St Paul himself was only one of several committed to his guardian- 
 
 ship at the same time, that the interview of this supreme magistrate 
 
 with any individual prisoner must have been purely formal, that 
 
 from his position and character Burrus was little likely to discrimi- 
 
 nate between St Paul’s case and any other, and finally that he 
 appears to have died not very long after the Apostle’s arrival in 
 Rome’, we shall see very little cause to lay stress on such a supposi- 
 
 tion. Lastly; it is said that, when St Paul was brought before Nero Nero, 
 for trial, Seneca must have been present as the emperor’s adviser, 
 
 and being present must have interested himself in the religious 
 opinions of so remarkable a prisoner. But here again we have only 
 
 1 Nat. Qu. ἵν. pref. § 10‘Gallionem comp. Ep. Mor. civ ‘domini mei Gal- 
 fratrem meum quem nemo non parum __lionis.’ 
 amat, etiam qui amare plus non potest,’ 2 Acts xviii. 14, 45. 
 and again § 11 ‘Nemo mortalium uni 3 See above, p. 7 sq. 
 tam dulcis est, quam hic omnibus’: 4 See above, pp. 5, 8, 39. 
 
303 
 
 Summary 
 of results. 
 
 Stoicism, 
 like Alex- 
 andrian 
 Judaism, 
 a prepara- 
 tion forthe 
 Gospel. 
 
 ST PAUL AND SENECA. 
 
 a series of assumptions more or less probable. It is not known under 
 what circumstances and in whose presence such a trial would take 
 place; it is very far from certain that St Paul’s case came on before 
 Seneca had retired from the court; and it is questionable whether 
 amid the formalities of the trial there would have been the oppor- 
 tunity, even if there were the will, to enter into questions of religious 
 or philosophical interest. On the whole therefore it must be con- 
 fessed that no great stress can be laid on the direct historical links 
 which might connect Seneca with the Apostle of the Gentiles. 
 
 I have hitherto investigated the historical circumstances which 
 might explain any coincidences of language or thought as arising out 
 of obligations on the part of Seneca or of his Stoic predecessors. It 
 has been seen that the teachers of this school generally were in all 
 likelihood indebted to Oriental, if not to Jewish, sources for their re- 
 ligious vocabulary ; that Seneca himself not improbably had a vague 
 and partial acquaintance with Christianity, though he was certainly 
 anything but a Christian himself; and that his personal intercourse 
 with the Apostle of the Gentiles, though not substantiated, is at least 
 not an impossibility. How far the coincidences may be ascribed to 
 one or other of these causes, I shall not attempt to discriminate: but 
 there is also another aspect of the question which must not be put 
 out of sight. In some instances at least, if any obligation exist at 
 all, it cannot be on the side of the philosopher, for the chronology 
 resists this inference: and for these cases some other solution must be 
 found. 
 
 As the speculations of Alexandrian Judaism had elaborated a new 
 and important theological vocabulary, so also to the language of Sto- 
 icism, which itself likewise had sprung from the union of the religious 
 sentiment of the East with the philosophical thought of the West, 
 was due an equally remarkable development of moral terms and 
 images. ΤῸ the Gospel, which was announced to the world in ‘the 
 fulness of time,’ both the one and the other paid their tribute. As 
 St John (nor St John alone) adopted the terms of Alexandrian theo- 
 sophy as the least inadequate to express the highest doctrines of 
 Christianity, so St Paul (nor St Paul alone) found in the ethical lan- 
 guage of the Stoics expressions more fit than he could find elsewhere 
 
 
 
 
 
ST PAUL AND SENECA. 
 
 ‘to describe in certain aspects the duties and privileges, the struggles 
 and the triumphs, of the Christian life. But though the words and 
 symbols remained substantially the same, yet in their application 
 they became instinct with new force and meaning. This change in 
 either case they owed to their being placed in relation to the central 
 fact of Christianity, the Incarnation of the Son. The Alexandrian 
 terms, expressing the attributes and operations of the Divine Word, 
 which in their origin had a purely metaphysical bearing, were trans- 
 lated into the sphere of practical theology, when God had descended 
 among men to lift up men to God. The Stoic expressions, describing 
 the independence of the individual spirit, the subjugation of the un- 
 ruly passions, the universal empire of a triumphant self-control, the 
 cosmopolitan relations of the wise man, were quickened into new life, 
 when an unfailing source of strength and a boundless hope of victory 
 had been revealed in the Gospel, when all men were proclaimed to be 
 brothers, and each and every man united with God in Christ. 
 
 303. 
 
 It is difficult to estimate, and perhaps not very easy to overrate, Wide in- 
 
 the extent to which Stoic philosophy had leavened the moral vocabu- 
 
 fiuence of 
 the ethieal 
 
 lary of the civilised world at the time of the Christian era. To take language 
 
 a single instance; the most important of moral terms, the crownin 
 triumph of ethical nomenclature, συνείδησις, conscientia, the inter- 
 nal, absolute, supreme judge of individual action, if not struck in the 
 maint of the Stoics, at all events became current coin through their 
 influence. To a great extent therefore the general diffusion ‘of Stoic 
 language would lead to its adoption by the first teachers of Chris- 
 tianity ; while at the same time in St Paul’s own case personal cir- 
 cumstances might have led to a closer acquaintance with the diction 
 ‘of this school. 
 
 of Sto- 
 S icism. 
 
 Tarsus, the birth-place and constant home of St Paul, was at this Stoicism 
 
 time a most important, if not the foremost, seat of Greek learning. 
 Of all the philosophical schools, the Stoic was the most numerously 
 and ably represented at this great centre. Its geographical position, 
 as a hali-way house, had doubtless some influence in recommending it 
 to a philosophy which had its birth-place in the East and grew into 
 maturity in the West. At all events we may count up six or more’ 
 
 1 Strabo (xiv. 13, 14. p. 673 54.) named Cordylion, and Athenodorus son 
 mentions five by name, Antipater, Ar- of Sandon. To these may be added 
 chedemus, Nestor, Athenodorus sur- Zeno (Zeller, p. 40: Diog. Laert. viie 
 
 at Tarsus. 
 
ST PAUL AND SENECA. 
 
 well-known Stoic teachers whose home was at Tarsus, besides Chry- 
 sippus and Aratus who came from the neighbouring Soli’, and three 
 others who resided at Mallos, also a Cilician town’. If St Paul’s 
 early education was Jewish, he was at least instructed by the most 
 liberal teacher of the day, who, unlike his stricter countrymen and 
 contemporaries, had no dread of Greek learning; and during his 
 repeated and lengthened sojourns in Tarsus, he must have come in 
 contact with Stoic maxims and dogmas. But indeed it is not mere 
 conjecture, that St Paul had some acquaintance with the teachers or 
 
 St Paul’s the writings of this school. The speech on the Areopagus, addressed 
 
 cig partly to Stoics, shows a clear appreciation of the elements of truth 
 ae Ἶ contained in their philosophy, and a studied coincidence with their 
 “modes of expression®. Its one quotation moreover is taken from a 
 Stoic writing, the hymn of Cleanthes, the noblest expression of hea- 
 
 then devotion which Greek literature has preserved to us*. 
 
 And I think we may find occasionally also in St Paul’s epistles 
 sufficiently distinct traces of the influence of Stoic diction. A few 
 instances are set down in the notes to this epistle. Many more 
 might be gathered from his other letters, especially the Pastoral Epi- 
 
 Twoin- stles. But I will content myself with giving two broad examples, 
 
 a where the characteristic common-places of Stoic morality seem to be 
 adopted and transfigured in the language of the Christian Apostle. 
 
 1. The 1. The portrait of the wise man, the ideal of Stoic aspiration, 
 
 eis ΦᾺΣ has very distinct and peculiar features—so peculiar that they pre- 
 man, sented an easy butt for the ridicule of antagonists. It is his promi- 
 nent characteristic that he is sufficient in himself, that he wants 
 
 2 Crates (Zeller, p. 42), the two Pro- 
 
 35 enumerates eight of the name), and 
 cluses (ib. p. 615). 
 
 Heracleides (Zeller, p. 43). Of Atheno- 
 
 dorus son of Sandon, Strabo adds ov 
 καὶ Kavavirny φασὶν ἀπὸ κώμης τινός. 
 If Strabo’s explanation οἵ Kavavirns be 
 correct, the coincidence with a surname 
 of one of the Twelve Apostles is acci- 
 dental. But one is tempted to suspect 
 that the word had a Shemitic origin. 
 
 1 The fathers of both these famous 
 men appear to have migrated from 
 Tarsus. For Chrysippus see Strabo xiy. 
 8, p. 671; of Aratus we are told that 
 ‘Asclepiades Ταρσέα φησὶν αὐτὸν yeyové- 
 vat ἀλλ᾽ οὐ-Σολέα (Arati Opera τι. p. 429 
 d. Buhle). 
 
 3 See above, p. 290. 
 
 4 Acts xvii. 28. The words in Clean- 
 thes are ἐκ σοῦ yap γένος ἐσμέν. The 
 quotation of St Paul agrees exactly 
 with a half-line in Aratus another Stoic 
 poet, connected with his native Tarsus, 
 τοῦ yap καὶ γένος ἐσμέν. Since the 
 Apostle introduces the words as quoted 
 from some of their own poets, he would 
 seem to have both passages in view. 
 By οἱ καθ᾽ ὑμᾶς ποιηταὶ he probably 
 means the poets belonging to the same 
 school as his Stoic audience. 
 
ST PAUL AND SENECA. 305 
 
 nothing, that he possesses everything. This topic is expanded with a 
 fervour and energy which often oversteps the proper bounds of Stoic 
 calm. The wise man alone is free: he alone is happy: he alone is 
 beautiful. He and he only possesses absolute wealth. He is the 
 true king and the true priest’. 
 
 Now may we not say that this image has suggested many expres- 
 sions to the Apostle of the Gentiles? ‘Even now are ye full,’ he 1 Cor.iv.8, 
 exclaims in impassioned irony to the Corinthians, ‘even now are ye 
 rich, even now are ye made kings without us’; ‘we are fools for 1Cor.iv.1o. 
 Christ, but ye are wise in Christ; we are weak, but ye are strong; 
 ye are glorious, but we are dishonoured.’ ‘All things are yours,’ he x Cor. iii, 
 says elsewhere, ‘all things are yours, and ye are Christ’s, and Christ 7” 73° 
 is God’s.’ So too he describes himself and the other Apostles, ‘ As 2 Cor, vi. 
 being grieved, yet always rejoicing; as beggars, yet making many rich; *™ 
 as having nothing, and yet possessing all things.’ ‘In every thing 2 σον. ix. 
 at every time having every self-sufficiency (avrdpxevav)...in every thing les 
 being enriched.’ “1 have learnt,’ he says again, ‘in whatsoever circum- Phil iy 11, 
 stances I am, to be self-sufficing, I have all strength in Him that 13 18: 
 giveth me power. I have all things to the full and to overflowing.’ 
 
 If the coincidence of imagery in these passages is remarkable, Coinci- 
 dence and 
 contrast 
 
 nion, this boundless inheritance, is promised alike by the Stoic with Sto- 
 : ‘ τ icism in St 
 
 philosopher to the wise man and by the Christian Apostle to the Paul’scon- 
 
 believer. But the one must attain it by self-isolation, the other by °P4- 
 
 incorporation. The essential requisite in the former case is a proud 
 
 the contrast of sentiment is not less striking. This universal domi- 
 
 independence ; in the latter an entire reliance on, and intimate union 
 with, an unseen power. It is ἐν τῷ ἐνδυναμοῦντι that the faithful 
 becomes all-sufficient, all-powerful; it is ἐν Χριστῷ that he is crowned 
 a king and consecrated a priest. All things are his, but they are 
 only his, in so far as he is Christ’s and because Christ is God’s. 
 Here and here only the Apostle found the realisation of the proud 
 ideal which the chief philosophers of his native Tarsus had sketched 
 in such bold outline and painted in these brilliant colours. 
 2. The instance just given relates to the development of the 2, Thecos- 
 individual man. The example which I shall next take expresses ™Poltan 
 1 See esp. Seneca de Benef. vii. 3,4, 3. 124 8q.) will be remembered. See 
 
 6, το, Ep. Mor. ix. Compare Zeller also the passages from Plutarch quoted 
 p. 231. The ridicule of Horace (Sat.i, ἴῃ Orelli’s Exeursus (11. p. 67). 
 
 PHIL. 20 
 
306 
 
 teaching 
 of the 
 Stoics 
 
 illustrated 
 
 by the 
 language 
 
 of Seneca. things human and divine, is one. 
 
 ST PAUL AND SENECA. 
 
 his widest relations to others. The cosmopolitan tenets of the 
 Stoics have been already mentioned. They grew out of the history 
 of one age and were interpreted by the history of another. Nega- 
 tively they were suggested by the hopeless state of politics under 
 the successors of Alexander. Positively they were realised, or 
 rather represented, by the condition of the world under the Roman 
 Empire’. In the age of the Seleucids and Ptolemies, when the 
 old national barriers had been overthrown, and petty states with 
 all their interests and ambitions had crumbled into the dust, the 
 longing eye of the Greek philosopher wandered over the ruinous 
 waste, until his range of view expanded to the ideal of a world-wide 
 state, which for the first time became a possibility to his intellectual 
 Α few 
 
 generations passed, and the wide extension of the Roman Empire, 
 
 vision, when it became also a want to his social instincts. 
 
 the far-reaching protectorate of the Roman franchise*, seemed to 
 give a definite meaning, a concrete form, in some sense a local 
 habitation, to this idea which the Stoic philosopher of Greece had 
 meanwhile transmitted to the Stoic moralist of Rome. 
 
 The language of Seneca well illustrates the nature of this cosmo- 
 politan ideal. ‘All this, which thou seest, in which are comprised 
 We are members of a vast body, 
 Nature made us kin, when she produced us from the same things 
 and to the same ends®*.’ ‘I will look upon all lands as belonging 
 to me, and my own lands as belonging to all. I will so live as if 
 I knew that I am born for others, and on this account I will give 
 thanks to nature...She gave me alone to all men and all men to me 
 alone*.’ ‘I well know that the world is my country and the gods 
 its rulers; that they stand above me and about me, the censors of 
 
 io : : : 
 my deeds and words’.’ ‘Seeing that we assigned to the wise man 
 
 1 Plutarch (Op. Mor. p. 329 B) says 
 that Alexander himself realised this 
 ideal of a world-wide polity, which Zeno 
 only delineated as a dream or a phan- 
 tom (ὥσπερ ὄναρ ἢ εἴδωλον ἀνατυπωσά- 
 pevos). If Plutarch’s statement be cor- 
 rect that Alexander looked upon him- 
 self as entrusted with a divine mission 
 to.‘ reconcile the whole world,’ he cer- 
 tainly had the conception in his mind ; 
 
 ‘but his actual work was only the be- 
 
 ginning of the end, and the realisation 
 
 of the idea (so far as it was destined to 
 be realised) was reserved for the Ro- 
 mans. ‘Fecisti patriam diversis gen- 
 tibus unam,’ ‘ Urbem fecisti quod prius 
 orbis erat,’ says a later poet addressing 
 the emperor of his day; Rutil. de Red. 
 1. 63, 66. 
 
 2 See Cicero pro Balb. 13, Verr. v. 
 57, 65. 4 
 
 > Ep. Mor. xcv. 52. 
 
 4 de Vit. beat. 20. 
 
 5 ibid. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
—— er 
 
 ST PAUL AND SENECA. 307 
 
 a commonwealth worthy of him, I mean the world, he is not beyond 
 the borders of his commonwealth, even though he has gone into 
 retirement, Nay, perhaps he has left one corner of it and passed 
 into a larger and ampler region; and raised above the heavens he 
 understands (at length) how lowly he was seated when he mounted 
 the chair of state or the bench of justice’.’ ‘Let us embrace in our 
 thoughts two commonwealths, the one vast and truly named 
 common, in. which are comprised gods and men, in which we 
 look not to this corner or to that, but we measure the boundaries 
 of our state with the sun; the other, to which the circumstances 
 of our birth have assigned us’.’ ‘Virtue is barred to none: she 
 is open to all, she receives all, she invites all, gentlefolk, freed- 
 men, slaves, kings, exiles alike*.’ ‘Nature bids me assist men; and 
 whether they be bond or free, whether gentlefolk or freedmen, 
 whether they enjoy liberty as a right or as a friendly gift, what 
 matter? Wherever a man is, there is room for doing good*,’ ‘This 
 mind may belong as well to a Roman knight, as to a freedman, as 
 to a slave: for what is a Roman knight or a freedman or a slave ? 
 Names which had their origin in ambition or injustice’®.’ 
 
 Did St Paul speak quite independently of this Stoic imagery, Its Chris- 
 when the vision of a nobler polity rose before him, the revelation emer 
 of a city not made with hands, eternal in the heavens? Is there the hea- 
 
 pais ς 2 aie venly citi- 
 not a strange coincidence in his language—a coincidence only the zenship of 
 more striking because it clothes an idea in many respects very δὴ Paul. 
 different? ‘Our citizenship is in heaven.’ ‘God raised us with Phil.iii.2o. 
 Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ ptmuae 
 Jesus.’ ‘Therefore ye are no more strangers and sojourners, but Ephes. ii. 
 fellow-citizens with the saints and members of God’s household, *” 
 ‘Fulfil your duties as citizens worthily of the Gospel of Christ.’ Phil, i. 27. 
 ‘We being many are one body in Christ, and members one of Rom. xii. 
 another.’ ‘For as the body is one and hath many members, and all oe eer 
 the members of the body being many are one body, so also is 12, 13, 27. 
 Christ : for we all are baptized in one Spirit into one body, whether [Ephes.iv. 
 Jews or Greeks, whether bond or free. Ye are the body of Christ 75’ ¥ 3% 
 
 1 Ep. Mor. \xviii. 3 de Benef. iii. 18. 
 
 2 de Otio 4 (31). ‘Glaubt man hier 4 de Vit. beat. 24. 
 nicht,’ asks Zeller (p. 275), ‘fast Au- 5 Ep. Mor. xxxi. 11. 
 gustin De Civitate Dei zu héren?’ 
 
308 ST PAUL AND SENECA. 
 
 Gal. iii.28. and members in particular.” ‘There is neither Jew nor Greek; 
 there is neither bond nor free ; there is no male and female: for ye 
 
 Col. 111. 11. all are one in Christ Jesus.’ ‘Not Greek and Jew, circumcision and 
 uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, bond, free; but Christ is all 
 things and in all’,’ 
 
 Here again, though the images are the same, the idea is trans- 
 figured and glorified. At length the bond of coherence, the missing 
 principle of universal brotherhood, has been found, As in the 
 former case, so here the magic words ev Χριστῷ have produced the 
 change and realised the conception. A living soul has been breathed 
 into the marble statue by Christianity ; and thus from the ‘much 
 admired polity of Zeno”’ arises the Civitas Dei of St, Augustine. 
 
 Summary. It has been the aim of the investigation just concluded to point 
 out how far the coincidences between Seneca and St Paul are real, 
 and how far fallacious ; to show that these coincidences may in some 
 cases be explained by the natural and independent development of 
 religious thought, while in others a historical connexion seems to be 
 required ; and to indicate generally the different ways in which this 
 historical connexion was probable or possible, without however at- 
 tempting to decide by which of several channels the resemblance in 
 each individual instance was derived. | 
 
 Christiani- Tn conclusion it may be useful to pass from the special connexion 
 
 ty and 
 Stoicism 
 compared. Christianity and Stoicism, and to compare them very briefly in their 
 
 between St Paul and Seneca to the more general relation between 
 
 principles, their operations, and their results. 
 
 Stoicism has died 
 
 out, having produced during its short lifetime only very transient 
 
 1 Ecce Homo p. 136 ‘The city of God, 
 of which the Stoics doubtfully and 
 feebly spoke, was now set up before the 
 eyes of men. It was no unsubstantial 
 city such as we fancy in the clouds, no 
 invisible pattern such as Plato thought 
 might be laid up in heaven, but a visible 
 corporation whose members met toge- 
 ther to eat bread and drink wine, andin- 
 to which they were initiated by bodily 
 immersion in water. Here the Gentile 
 met the Jew whom he had been accus- 
 tomed to regard as an enemy of the 
 human race: the Roman met the lying 
 Greek sophist, the Syrian slave, the 
 
 gladiator born beside the Danube. In 
 brotherhood they met, the natural birth 
 and kindred of each forgotten, the bap- 
 tism alone remembered in which they 
 have been born again to God and to 
 each other.’ See the whole context. 
 
 2 Plut. Op. Mor. Ὁ. 329 ἡ πολὺ θαυ- 
 μαζομένη πολιτεία τοῦ τὴν Στωϊκὴν alpe- 
 σιν καταβαλομένου Zijvwvos. 
 markable that this ideal is described in 
 the context under a scriptural image, 
 els δὲ βίος ἢ καὶ κόσμος, ὥσπερ ἀγέλης συν- 
 νόμου νομῷ κοινῷ συντρεφομένης : Comp. 
 Joh. x. 16 καὶ γενήσεται μία ποίμνη, εἷς 
 ποιμήν. d 78 
 
 It is re- 
 
ST PAUL AND SENECA. 309 
 
 and partial effects; Christianity has become the dominant religion 
 ‘of the civilised world, and leavened society through its whole mass. 
 ‘The very coincidences, on which we have been dwelling so long, 
 throw into relief the contrast between the failure of the one and 
 the triumph of the other, and stimulate enquiry into the causes of 
 this difference. 
 
 To some it may seem sufficient to reply that the one is a mere ate ates 
 human philosophy, the other a Divine revelation. But this answer gye gtated. 
 shelves without solving the problem; for it is equivalent to saying 
 that the one is partial, defective, and fallacious, while the other is 
 absolutely true. The question therefore, to which an answer is — 
 sought, may be stated thus: What are those theological and ethical 
 principles, ignored or denied by Stoicism, and enforced by the Gos- 
 pel, in which the Divine power of the latter lies, and to which it 
 owes its empire over the hearts and actions of men? ‘This is a very 
 wide subject of discussion ; and I shall only attempt to indicate a 
 few more striking points of contrast. Yet even when treated thus 
 imperfectly, such an investigation ought not to be useless. 
 age when the distinctive characteristics of Christianity are regarded 
 as a stumblingblock by a few, and more or less consciously ignored 
 as of little moment by others, it is a matter of vast importance to en- 
 quire whether the secret of its strength does or does not lie in these ; 
 and the points at issue cannot be better suggested, than by comparing 
 it with an abstract system of philosophy so imposing as the Stoic. 
 
 Indeed our first wonder is, that from a system so rigorous.and Meagre re- 
 unflinching in its principles and so heroic in its proportions the di- Bee 
 rect results should have been marvellously little. It produced, or at 
 least it attracted, a few isolated great men’: but on the life of the 
 masses, and on the policy of states, it was almost wholly powerless. 
 
 Of the founder and his immediate successors not very much is The oliler 
 f Stoies. 
 
 In an 
 
 known ; but we are warranted in believing that they were men o 
 earnest aspirations, of rare self-denial, and for the most part (though 
 the grossness of their language seems hardly reconcilable with this 
 
 view’) of moral and upright lives. Zeno himself indeed cannot be 
 
 1 It is impossible to speak with any 
 confidence on this point. The language 
 held by Zeno and Chrysippus was gross- 
 ly licentious, and might be taken to 
 show that they viewed with indifference 
 
 and even complacency the most hateful 
 forms of heathen impurity (see Plu- 
 tarch Op. Mor. p. 1044, Clem. Hom. v. 
 18, Sext. Emp. Pyrrh. iii. 200 8q.). 
 But it is due to the known character 
 
310 
 
 Stoicism 
 in Rome. 
 
 ST PAUL AND SENECA. 
 
 set down to the credit of the school. 
 was ‘not made by it. 
 
 He made the philosophy and 
 But Cleanthes was directly moulded by the 
 influence of his master’s teaching: and for calm perseverance, for 
 rigorous ‘self-discipline, and for unwavering devotion to a noble 
 ideal, few characters in the history of Greek philosophy are com- 
 Yet Cleanthes, like Zeno, died a suicide. The ex- 
 ample, not less than the precept, of the first teachers of the sect 
 
 parable to him, 
 
 created a fatal passion for self-murder, which was the most indelible, 
 if not the darkest, blot on Stoic morality. 
 
 It was not however among the Greeks, to whose national temper 
 the genius of Stoicism was alien, that this school achieved its proud- 
 est triumphs. The stern and practical spirit of the Romans offered 
 a more congenial sphere for its influence. And here again it is 
 worth observing, that their principal instructors were almost all East- 
 
 erns. Posidonius for instance, the familiar friend of many famous 
 
 Its obliga- Romans and the most influential missionary of Stoic doctrine in 
 
 tions tothe 
 
 East. 
 
 Cato the 
 younger, 
 
 Rome, was a native of the Syrian Apamea. From this time forward 
 it became a common custom for the Roman noble to maintain in 
 his house some eminent philosopher, as the instructor of his children 
 and the religious director of himself and his family’; and in this 
 Thus Cato the 
 
 younger had at different times two professors of this sect domesti- 
 
 capacity we meet with several Oriental Stoics. 
 
 cated in his household, both of Eastern origin, Antipater of Tyre 
 and Athenodorus of Tarsus*. In Cato himself, whom his contem- 
 poraries regarded as the ‘most.perfect Stoic*,” and in whom the sect 
 at large would probably have recognised its most illustrious repre- 
 
 sentative, we have a signal example alike of the virtues and of the 
 
 and teachivg of these men, that we 
 should put the most favourable con- 
 struction on such expressions ; and they 
 may perhaps be regarded as theoretical 
 extravagances of language, illustrating 
 the Stoic doctrine that externals are 
 indifferent (see Zeller, p. 261 sq.). Yet 
 this mode of speaking must have been 
 highly dangerous to morals; and the 
 danger would only be increased by the 
 fact that such language was held by 
 men whose characters were justly ad- 
 mired in other respects. 
 
 1 Seneca.ad Marc. 4 ‘Consol [atori se] 
 Areo philosopho viri sui prebuit et mul- 
 
 tum eamrem profuisse sibi confessa est,’ 
 where he is speaking of Livia after the 
 death of her son Drusus. This philo- 
 sopher is represented as using the fol- 
 lowing words in his reply to her: ‘Kgo 
 adsiduus viri tui comes, cui non tantum 
 que in publicum emittuntur nota, sed 
 omnes sunt secretiores animorum yves- 
 trorum moius.’ For another allusion 
 to these domestic chaplains of heathen- 
 dom see de Trang. Anim. 14 ‘Proseque- 
 batur illum philosophus suus.’ 
 
 2 Plutarch Vit. Cat. 4, 10, 16. 
 
 3 Cicero Brut, xxxi, Parad, prowm. 2. 
 
ST PAUL AND SENECA. 311 
 
 defects of the school. Honest, earnest, and courageous even to death, His excel- 
 but hard, stolid, impracticable, and almost inhuman, he paralysed aoe 
 the higher qualities of his nature by his unamiable philosophy, so 
 that they were rendered almost useless to his generation and country. 
 “A recent Roman historian has described him as ‘one of the most 
 melancholy phenomena in an age so abounding in political carica- 
 tures.’. ‘There was more nobility, he writes bitterly, ‘and above 
 all more judgment in the death of Cato than there had been in his 
 life” ‘It only elevates the tragic significance of his death that he 
 was himself a fool’’ Exaggerated as this language may be, it is 
 yet not wholly without truth; and, were the direct social and poli- 
 tical results of Cato’s life alone to be regarded, his career must be 
 pronounced a failure. But in fact his importance lies, not in what 
 he did, but in what he was. It was a vast gain to humanity, that 
 in an age of worldly self-seeking, of crooked and fraudulent policy, 
 of scepticism and infidelity to all right principle, one man held his 
 ground, stern, unbending, upright to the last. Such a man may 
 fail, as Cato failed, in all the practical aims of life: but he has left 
 a valuable legacy to after ages in the staunch assertion of principle ; 
 he has bequeathed to them a fructifying estate, not the iess produc- 
 tive because its richest harvests must be reaped by generations yet 
 unborn. Cato was the true type of Stoicism in its striking excel- 
 lence, as in its hopeless weakness. The later Roman Stoics are ater Ro- 
 feeble copies, more or less conscious, of Cato. Like him, they were ἘΔ δέον 
 hard, impracticable, perverse, studiously antagonistic to the nena 
 ing spirit or the dominant power of their age: but, like him also, 
 they were living protests, when protests were most needed, against 
 the dishonesty and corruption of the times; and their fearless demean- 
 our was felt as a standing reproach alike to the profligate despot- 
 ism of the ruler and to the mean and cringing flattery of the sub- 
 ject. Yet it is mournful to reflect how much greater might have 
 been the influence of men like Thrasea Petus and Helvidius Priscus 
 on their generation, if their strict integrity had been allied to a more 
 sympathetic creed. Ε 
 In these men however there was an earnest singleness of pur- 
 pose, which may condone many faults. Unhappily the same cannot 
 be said of Seneca. We may reject as calumnies the grosser charges gencca, 
 
 1 Mommsen’s History of Rome, tv. pp. 156, 448 sq. (Eng. trans.). 
 
312 
 
 His faults. 
 
 ST PAUL AND SENECA. 
 
 with which the malignity of his enemies has laden his memory; but 
 enough remains in the admissions of his admirers, and more than 
 enough in the testimony of his own writings, to forfeit his character 
 as a high-minded and sincere man. No words are too strong to 
 condemn the baseness of one who could overwhelm the emperor 
 Claudius, while living, with the most fulsome and slavish flattery, 
 and then, when his ashes were scarcely cold, turn upon him and 
 poison his memory with the venom of malicious satire’. , From this 
 charge there is no escape; for his extant writings convict him. 
 We may well refuse to believe, as his enemies asserted, that he coun- 
 selled the murder of Agrippina; but it seems that he was in some 
 way implicated with the matricide, and it is quite certain that he 
 connived at other iniquities of his imperial pupil. We may indig- 
 nantly repudiate, as we are probably justified in doing, the grave 
 charges of moral profligacy which were brought against him in his 
 lifetime and after his death; but the man who, while condemning, 
 can. describe at length the grossest forms of impurity (as Seneca does 
 occasionally) had surely no very sensitive shrinking from sins ‘of 
 which it is a shame even to speak.’ We may demur to accepting 
 the account of his enemies, that his wealth was amassed by fraud 
 and violence; but there is no doubt that, while preaching a lofty 
 indifference to worldly advantages, he consented to be enriched by a 
 profligate and unscrupulous tyrant, and that the enormous property 
 thus accumulated exposed him to the reproaches of his contempo- 
 raries, A portrait which combines all these features will command 
 no great respect. Yet, notwithstanding a somewhat obtrusive rhe- 
 toric, there is in Seneca’s writings an earnestness of purpose, a 
 yearning after moral perfection, and a constant reference to an ideal 
 standard, which cannot be mere affectation. He seems to have been 
 a rigorous ascetic in early life, and to the last to have maintained a 
 severe self-discipline. Such at least is his own statement; nor is 
 it unsupported by less partial testimony’. 
 
 For all this incensistency however we must blame not the creed 
 but the man. He would probably have been much worse, if his 
 
 1 The treatise ad Polybium de Conso- Οἱ the extravagant panegyric pronounc- 
 latione would be disgraceful, if it stood | ed by Nero over his predecessor (Tac. 
 alone; but contrasted with the Ludus Ann. xiii. 3). 
 de Morte Claudii it become odious. To 2 See Ep. Mor. 1xxxvii. 2, eviii. 14; 
 complete his skame, he was the author comp. Tac. Ann. xiv. 53, xv. 45, 63. 
 
ST PAUL AND SENECA. 313 
 
 philosophy had not held up to him a stern ideal for imitation. His own 
 Is it genuine or affected humility—a palliative or an aggravation oe 
 of his offence—that he himself confesses how far he falls short of this weakness. 
 ideal? To those taunting enemies of philosophy, who pointing to his 
 
 luxury and wealth ask ‘Why do you speak more bravely than you 
 
 live?’, he replies: ‘I will add to your reproaches just now, and 
 
 I will bring more charges against myself than you think. For the 
 present I give you this answer: I am not wise, and (to feed your 
 malevolence) I shall not be wise. Therefore require of me, not that 
 
 I should equal the best men, but that I should be better than the 
 
 bad. It is enough for me daily to diminish my vices in some de- 
 
 gree and to chide my errors.’ ‘These things,’ he adds, ‘I say not 
 
 in my own defence, for J am sunk deep in all vices, but in defence 
 
 of him who has made some progress’.’ ‘The wise man,’ he writes 
 apologetically, ‘does not think himself unworthy of any advantages 
 
 of fortune. He does not love riches but he prefers them. He 
 receives them not into his soul but into his house. Nor does he 
 
 spurn them when he has them in his possession, but retains them 
 
 and desires ampler material for his virtue to be furnished thereby’.’ 
 
 ‘I am not now speaking to you of myself,” he writes to Lucilius, 
 
 ‘for I fall far short of a moderate, not to say a perfect man, but 
 
 of one over whom fortune has lost her power®.’ Seneca, more than 
 
 any man, must have felt the truth of the saying, ‘ How hardly shall 
 
 they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God*,’ 
 
 From Seneca it is refreshing to turn to Epictetus. The lame Epictetus, 
 slave of Epaphroditus is a far nobler type of Stoic discipline than the 
 wealthy courtier of Epaphroditus’ master. Here at all events, we 
 feel instinctively that we have to do with genuine earnestness. His 
 motto ‘bear and forbear®’ inspires his discourses throughout, as it 
 appears also to have been the guide of his life. But more striking still 
 is the spirit of piety which pervades his thoughts. ‘When ye have 
 shut the doors,’ he says, ‘and have made all dark within, remem- 
 
 1 de Vit. beat. 17; comp, ad Helv. tion in the letters to Lucilius seems 
 
 Matr. 5. ; exaggerated. I wish I could take as 
 2 de Vit. beat. 21. favourable a view of Sencca’s character 
 8. Ep. Mor. lWvii. 3. as this writer does. 
 1 The account of Seneca in Martha’s 5 ἀνέχου καὶ ἀπέχου, Λα]. Gell. xvii. 
 
 Moralistes p. τ 54. 15 wellworth reading, το, where the words are explained. 
 though the idea of the spiritual direc- - 
 
2314 
 
 Tixpres- 
 sions of 
 piety inhis 
 writings. 
 
 ST PAUL AND SENECA. 
 
 ber never to say that ye are alone, for ye are not; but God is within 
 and so is your angel (δαίμων); and what need of light have these to 
 see what ye do? To this God ye also ought to swear allegiance, as 
 soldiers do to Ceesar’.’ 
 
 else both in public and in private but praise and honour the divine 
 
 ‘If we had sense, ought we to do anything 
 
 being (τὸ θεῖον) and recount bis favours?......What then? Since ye, 
 the many, are blinded, should there not be some one to fill this 
 station and to sing for all men the hymn to God? For what else 
 can J, a lame old man, do but sing hymns to God? Nay, if I were 
 a nightingale, I had done the work of a nightingale ; if a swan, the 
 work of a swan. So being what Iam, a rational creature, I must sing 
 hymns to God. This is my task, and I perform it; nor will I ever 
 desert this post, so far as it is vouchsafed me: and you I exhort to 
 
 ? How then dost thou appear? As a witness 
 
 join in this same song’. 
 called by God: Come thow and bear witness to me... What witness 
 dost thou bear to God? Lam in wretched plight, O Lord, and I am 
 auserable; no one cures for me, no one gives me anything; all men 
 blame me, all.men speak ill of me. Wilt thou bear this witness, and 
 disgrace the calling wherewith He hath called thee, for that Ee ho- 
 noured thee and held thee worthy to be brought forward as a witness 
 in this great cause*?’ ‘When thou goest to visit any great person, 
 remember that Another also above seeth what is done, and that thou 
 ‘Thou art an off- 
 
 shoot (ἀπόσπασμα) of God ; thou hast some part of Him in thyself. 
 
 oughtest to please Him rather than this one*.’ 
 
 ~ Why therefore dost thou not perceive thy noble birth? Why dost 
 
 Thou bearest God about 
 Thinkest 
 thou that I mean some god of silver or gold, without thee? Within 
 thyself thou bearest Him, and thou dost not feel that thou art 
 defiling Him with thy impure thoughts and thy filthy deeds, If 
 
 thou not know whence thou art come? 
 with thee, wretched man, and thou dost not perceive it. 
 
 1 Diss. i. 14. 13 Sq.3 comp. Matt. 
 XXii. 21. 
 
 2 Diss, 1. τό. 15 Βα: 
 
 3 Diss. i. 29. 46 8q. The words τὴν 
 κλῆσιν ἣν κέκληκεν appear from the 
 context to refer to citing witnesses, but 
 they recall a familiar expression of St 
 Paul; 1 Cor. vii. 20, Ephes. iv. 1, comp. 
 2 Tim.i.g. The address Κύριε, used 
 
 in prayer to God, is frequent in Epic-- 
 
 tetus, but does not occur (so far as Tam 
 aware) in any heathen writing before 
 the Apostolic times. Sometimes we 
 find Κύριε ὁ Θεός, and once he writes 
 Κύριε ἐλέησον (ii. 7. 12). It is worth 
 noting that all the three cities where 
 Epictetus is known to have lived— 
 Hierapolis, Rome, Nicopolis—occur in 
 the history of St Paul. 
 4 Diss. i. 30. 1. 
 
ST PAUL AND SENECA. 
 
 an image of God were present, thou wouldest not dare to do any of 
 these things which thou doest: but, God Himself being present 
 within thee, and overlooking and overhearing all, thou art not 
 ashamed to think and to do these things, O man, insensible of thine 
 own nature, and visited with the wrath of God'.’ ‘Remember that 
 thou art a son. What profession is due to this character? To 
 consider all that belongs to Him as belonging to a father, to obey 
 Him in all things, never to complain of Him to any one, nor to say 
 or do anything hurtful to Him, to yield and give way to Him in all 
 things, working with Him to the utmost of thy power’.’ ‘Dare to 
 look up to God and say, Use me henceforth whereunto thou wilt, 
 I consent unto Thee, Iam Thine. I shrink from nothing that seem- 
 eth good to Thee. Lead me where Thou wilt: clothe me with what 
 garments Thou wilt. Wouldest Thou that I should be in office or 
 out of office, should live at home or in exile, should be rich or poor ? 
 I will defend Thee for all these things before men’.’ ‘These (vices) 
 thou canst not cast out otherwise than by looking to God alone, by 
 setting thine affections (προσπεπονθότα) on Him alone, by being con- 
 secrated to His commands*”’ ‘When thou hast heard these words, 
 O young man, go thy way and say to thyself, It is not Epictetus who 
 has told me these things (for whence did he come by them 2), but 
 some kind God speaking through him. For it would never have 
 entered into the heart of Epictetus to say these things, seeing it is 
 not his wont to speak (so) to any man. Come then, let us obey 
 God, lest God’s wrath fall upon us (iva μὴ θεοχόλωτοι ὦμεν"). § Thus 
 much I can tell thee now, that he, who setteth his hand to so 
 great a matter without God, calls down God’s wrath and does 
 but desire to behave himself unseemly in public. For neither in 
 a well-ordered household does any one come forward and say to 
 himself I must be steward. Else the master, observing him and 
 seeing him giving his orders insolently, drags him off to be scourged. 
 So it happens also in this great city (of the world); for here too 
 there is a householder, who ordereth everything®.’ ‘The cynic (ie. 
 
 1 Diss. ii. 8. 11 sq. We are reminded 4 Diss. ii. 16. 46. 
 of the surname θεοφόρος, borne by a ὅ Diss. iii. τ. 36 sq. 
 Christian contemporary of Epictetus; ὁ Diss. 111. 22.2 sq. The passage 
 see the notes onIgnat. Ephes.inscr.,9. bears a strong resemblance to our 
 2 Diss. ii. to. 7. Lord’s parable in Matt. xxiv. 45 sq., 
 
 3 Diss, ii.:16. 42: Luke xii. 41 sq. The expressions, 6 
 
 “315 
 
Improved 
 tone of 
 Stoic theo- 
 
 logy. 
 
 ST PAUL AND SENECA. 
 
 the true philosopher) ought to know that he is sent a messenger 
 ‘He 
 must be wholly given without distraction to the service of God, 
 
 from God to men, to show them concerning good and evil’ 
 
 free to converse with mankind, not tied down by private duties, nor 
 entangled in relations, which if he transgresses, he will no longer 
 keep the character of a noble and good man, and if he observes, 
 he will fail in his part as the messenger and watchman and herald 
 of the gods.’ 
 
 The genuine piety of these passages is a remarkable contrast to 
 the arrogance and blasphemy in which the older Stoics sometimes 
 Stoic 
 theology, as represented by Epictetus, is fast wiping away its re- 
 
 indulged and which even Seneca repeats with approval ἥν 
 
 proach ; but in so doing it has almost ceased to be Stoic. The pan- 
 theistic creed, which identifies God with the world, is kept in the 
 background ; and by this subordination greater room is left for the 
 expansion of true reverence. On the other hand (to pass over graver 
 
 defects in his system) he has not yet emancipated himself from the 
 
 ‘austerity and isolation of Stoical ethics, 
 
 There still remains a 
 
 hardness and want of sympathy about his moral teaching, which 
 
 betrays its parentage. 
 
 But enough has been said to account for the 
 
 fact that the remains of Epictetus have found a place in the library 
 of the Church, and that the most pious and thoughtful Christian 
 divines have listened with admiration to his devout utterances*. 
 
 οἰκονόμος, ὁ κύριος, ὁ οἰκοδεσπότης, Occur 
 in both the philosopher and the Evan- 
 gelists. Moreover the word ἔτεμεν in 
 Epictetus corresponds to διχοτομήσει 
 in the Gospels, and in both words the 
 difficulty of interpretation is the same. 
 I can hardly believe that so strange a 
 coincidence is quite accidental. Com- 
 bined with the numerous parallels in 
 Seneca’s writings collected above (p. 
 281 sq.), it favours the supposition that 
 our Lord’s discourses in some form or 
 other were early known to heathen 
 writers. For other coincidences more 
 or less close see 1. 9. 19, 1. 25. 10, i. 29. 
 51, iii. 21. τύ, iil. 22. 35, iv. 1. 79 (ὧν 
 δ᾽ ayyapela ἢ κ.τ.λ., comp. Matt, 
 v. 41), iv. 8. 36. 
 
 1 Diss, ili. 22, 23. 
 
 2 Diss. iii. 22. 69. I have only been 
 able to give short extracis, but the 
 
 whole passage should be read. Epicte- 
 tus appears throughout to be treading 
 in the footsteps of St Paul. His words, 
 ἀπερίσπαστον εἶναι δεῖ ὅλον πρὸς τῇ δια- 
 κονίᾳ τοῦ Θεοῦ, correspond to the Apo- 
 stle’s expression, εὐπάρεδρον τῷ Κυρίῳ 
 ἀπερισπάστως (1 Cor. vii. 35), and the 
 reason given for remaining unmarried 
 is the same. Another close coincidence 
 with St Paul is ὃ μὲν θέλει οὐ ποιεῖ (ii. 
 26. 1). Again such phrases as νομίμως 
 ἀθλεῖν (iii. το. 8), γράμματα συστατικά 
 (ii. 3. 1), ταῦτα μελέτα (iv. I. 170), οὐκ 
 εἰμὶ ἐλεύθερος ; (iii. 22. 48), recall the 
 Apostle’s language. Other Scriptural 
 expressions also occur, such as Θεοῦ 
 ζηλωτής (11. 14. 13), τροφὴ στερεωτέρα 
 (ii. 16, 39), etc. 
 
 3 See above p. 295- 
 
 4 ‘Epictetus seems asif he hadcome 
 after or before his time; too late for 
 
ST PAUL AND SENECA. 317 
 
 As Epictetus gives a higher tone to the theology of the school, M. Aureli- 
 so the writings of M. Aurelius manifest an improvement in its “" 
 ethical teaching. The manifold opportunities of his position would 
 cherish in an emperor naturally humane and sensitive wider sym- 
 pathies, than were possible to a lame old man born and bred a slave, 
 whom cruel treatment had estranged from his kind and who was Improved 
 still further isolated by his bodily infirmity. At all events it is in qe! 
 this point, and perhaps in this alone, that the meditations of M. morality. 
 Aurelius impress us more favourably than the discourses of Epicte- 
 tus. As a conscious witness of God and a stern preacher of right- 
 eousness, the Phrygian slave holds a higher place: but as a kindly 
 philanthropist, conscientiously alive to the claims of all men far and 
 near, the Roman emperor commands deeper respect. In him, for the 
 first and last time in the history of the school, the cosmopolitan 
 sympathies, with which the Stoic invested his wise man, become 
 more than a mere empty form of rhetoric. His natural disposition 
 softened the harsher features of Stoical ethics. The brooding melan- 
 choly and the almost feminine tenderness, which appear in his me- 
 ditations, are a marked contrast to the hard outlines in the por- 
 Cato was the most perfect type of the 
 school : but M. Aurelius was the better man, because he was the worse 
 Stoic. 
 
 this emperor, which the accidents of his position throw into stronger 
 
 traiture of the older Stoics. 
 Altogether there is a true beauty and nobleness of character in 
 
 relief. Beset by all the temptations which unlimited power could 
 create, and sorely tried in the most intimate and sacred relations of 
 life—with a profligate wife and an inhuman son—he neither sullied 
 nor hardened his heart, but remained pure and upright and amiable 
 to the end, the model of a conscientious if not a wise ruler, and the 
 best type which heathendom could give of a high-minded gentleman. 
 With all this it is a more than ‘tragical fact,’ that his justice and his perseen- 
 
 : : : : - τῷ tion of the 
 humanity alike broke down in one essential point, and that by his Chsistant 
 
 philosophy, too early for religion. We direct and genuine language, about 
 
 are tempted continually to apply to his 
 system the hackneyed phrase: It is all 
 very magnificent, but it is not philoso- 
 phy—it is too one-sided and careless of 
 knowledge for its own sake; and it is 
 not religion—it isinadequate and wants 
 a basis. Yet for all. this, as long as 
 men appreciate eleyated thought, in 
 
 human duties andhumanimprovement, 
 Epictetus will have much to teach those 
 who know more than he did both of 
 philosophy and religion. It is no won- 
 der that he kindled the enthusiasm of 
 Pascal or fed the thought of Butler.’ 
 Saturday Review, Vol. xxu. p. 580. 
 
~ 
 
 References 
 to Christi- 
 
 anity in 
 Epictetus 
 and M. Au- 
 relius. 
 
 ST PAUL AND SENECA. 
 
 bigotry or through his connivance the Christians suffered more widely 
 and cruelly during his reign than at any other epoch in the first. 
 century and a half of their existence’. Moreover the inherent and, 
 vital defects of the school, after all the modifications it had under- 
 gone and despite the amiable character of its latest representative, 
 are still patent. ‘The Stoicism of M. Aurelius gives many of the 
 moral precepts of the Gospel, but without their foundation, which 
 can find no place in his system. It is impossible to read his re- 
 flections without emotion, but they have no creative energy. They 
 are the last strain of a dying creed®.’ 
 
 It is interesting to note the language in which these two ee 
 Once 
 and once only is the now numerous and rapidly growing sect men- 
 
 and noblest representatives of Stoicism refer to the Christians, 
 
 tioned by either philosopher, and in each case dismissed curtly with 
 ‘Is it possible,’ asks Epictetus, ‘that a 
 man may be so disposed under these circumstances from madness, or 
 
 an expression of contempt. 
 
 from habit like the Galileans, and can no one learn by reason and 
 demonstration that God has made all things which are in the world??’ 
 ‘This readiness to die,’ writes M. Aurelius, ‘should follow from in- 
 dividual judgment, not from sheer obstinacy as with the Christians, 
 but after due consideration and with dignity and without scenic dis- 
 play (ἀτραγῴδως), so as to convince others also*,’ The justice of such 
 contemptuous allusions may be tested by the simple and touching 
 narrative of the deaths of this very emperor’s victims, of the Gallic 
 martyrs at Vienne and Lyons: and the appeal may confidently be 
 made to the impartial judgment of mankind to decide whether 
 there was more scenic display or more genuine obstinacy in their 
 last moments, than in the much vaunted suicide of Cato and Cato’s 
 
 imitators. 
 
 1 Martha, Moralistes p.212, attempts 
 to defend M. Aurelius against this 
 charge; but the evidence of a wide 
 persecution is irresistible. For the mo- 
 tives which might lead M. Aurelius, 
 both as a ruler and as a philosopher, to 
 sanction these cruelties, see Zeller Mar- 
 cus Aurelius Antoninus in his Vortrdge 
 p. ror sq. If it were established that 
 this emperor had intimate relations with 
 a Jewish rabbi, as has been recently 
 
 maintained (M. Aurelius Antoninus als 
 Freund u. Zeitgenosse des Rabbi Jehuda 
 ha-Nasi by A. Bodek, Leipzig 1868), 
 he would have an additional motive 
 for his treatment of the Christians; 
 but, to say the least, the identification 
 of the emperor is very uncertain. 
 
 2 Westcott in Smith’s Dictionary of 
 the Bible 11. Ὁ. 857, 8. v. ghee ots 
 
 3 Diss. iv. 7. 6. 
 
 4 Μ, Anton, xi. 3. 
 
 
 
 
 
ST PAUL AND SENECA. 319 
 
 1 have spoken of Epictetus and M. Aurelius as Stoics, for so Eelecti- 
 they regarded themselves ; nor se could ies be assigned to any ee 
 other school of philosophy. But their teaching belongs to a type, Stoics. 
 
 which in many respects would hardly have been recognised by Zeno 
 
 or Chrysippus. Stoicism during the Roman period had been first 
 
 attaching to itself, and then assimilating, diverse foreign elements, 
 Platonic, Pythagorean, even Jewish and Christian. In Seneca these 
 appear side by side, but distinct ; in Epictetus and M. Aurelius they 
 are more or less fused and blended. Roman Stoicism in fact 
 presents to us not a picture with clear and definite outlines, but 
 a dissolving view. It becomes more and more eclectic. The mate- 
 rialism of its earlier theology gradually recedes; and the mystical 
 element appears in the foreground’. At length Stoicism fades away ; Stoicism 
 and a new eclectic system, in which mysticism has still greater pre- by Neon 
 dominance, emerges and takes its place. Stoicism has fought the bat- tonism. 
 tle of heathen philosophy against the Gospel, and been vanquished. 
 Under the: banner of Neoplatonism, and with weapons forged in the 
 armoury of Christianity itself, the contest is renewed, But the day 
 of heathendom is past. This new champion also retires from the con- 
 flict in confusion, and the Gospel remains in possession of the field. 
 
 In this attempt to sketch the progress and results of this school, The 
 
 ἢ ἱ : ᾿ . masses 
 J have not travelled beyond a few great names. ΝΟΥ has any in- ἘΝ ΡΙΘΩ 
 
 justice been done to it by this course, for Stoicism has no other by Stoic- 
 
 history, except the history of its leaders. It consisted of isolated ey 
 individuals, but it never attracted the masses or formed a com- 
 munity. It was a staff of professors without classes. This sterility Causes of 
 must have been due to some inherent vicious principles: and I 7 a ao 
 propose now to consider its chief defects, drawing out the ae 
 
 with Christianity at the same time. 
 
 1. The fundamental and invincible error of Stoic peasy αν Its pan- 
 was its theological creed. Though frequently disguised in ἄπ ἐν 
 language which the most sincere believer in a personal God might 
 have welcomed as expressing his loftiest aspirations, its theology 
 was nevertheless, as dogmatically expounded by its ablest teachers, 
 nothing better than a pantheistic materialism. This inconsistency 
 between the philosophic doctrine and the religious phraseology of 
 
 1 On the approximation of the later _lius,to Neoplatonism, see Zeller’s Nach- 
 
 ‘Stoies, and more especially of M. Aure- _aristotelische Philosophie 11. p. 201 sq. 
 
320 
 
 Hymn of 
 Cleanthes. 
 
 Contradic- 
 tion be- 
 tween. Sto- 
 ie dogma 
 and Stoic 
 hymnolo- 
 gy: 
 
 ST PAUL AND SENECA. 
 
 the Stoics is a remarkable feature, which perhaps may be best 
 explained by its mixed origin. The theological language would be 
 derived in great measure from Eastern (I venture to think from 
 Jewish) affinities, while the philosophical dogma was the product 
 of Hellenized thought. Heathen devotion seldom or never soars 
 higher than in the sublime hymn of Cleanthes. ‘Thine offspring 
 are we, so he addresses the Supreme Being, ‘therefore will I hymn 
 Thy praises and sing Thy might for ever. Thee all this universe 
 which rolls about the earth obeys, wheresoever Thou dost guide it, 
 and gladly owns Thy sway.’ ‘No work on earth is wrought apart 
 from Thee, nor through the vast heavenly sphere, nor in the sea, 
 save only the deeds which bad men in their folly do” ‘Unhappy 
 they, who ever craving the possession of good things, yet have no 
 eyes or ears for the universal law of God, by wise obedience where- 
 unto they might Jead a noble life” ‘Do Thou, Father, banish fell 
 ignorance from our soul, and grant us wisdom, whereon relying Thou 
 rulest all things with justice, that being honoured, we with honour 
 may requite Thee, as beseemeth mortal man: since neither men nor 
 gods have any nobler task than duly to praise the universal law for 
 aye’ If these words might be accepted in their first and obvious 
 meaning, we could hardly wish for any more sublime and devout 
 expression of the relations of the creature to his Creator and Father. 
 But a reference to the doctrinal teaching of the school dispels the 
 splendid illusion. Stoic dogma empties Stoic hymnology of half its 
 sublimity and more than half its devoutness. This Father in hea- 
 ven, we learn, is no personal Being, all righteous and all holy, of 
 whose loving care the purest love of an earthly parent is but a 
 shadowy counterfeit. He—or It—is only another name for nature, 
 for necessity, for fate, for the universe. Just in proportion as the 
 
 _ theological doctrine of the school is realised, does its liturgical lan- 
 
 guage appear forced and unnatural. Terms derived from human 
 relationships are confessedly very feeble and inadequate at best to 
 express the person and attributes of God; but only a mind prepared 
 by an artificial training could use such language as I have quoted 
 with the meaning which it is intended to bear. To simple people 
 it would be impossible to address fate or necessity or universal 
 
 1 Tyragm. Philos. Gree, τ. p. 151 (ed. Mullach), 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Ww 
 μι 
 
 ST PAUL AND SENECA. : 3 
 
 nature, as a Father, or to express towards it feelings of filial obe- 
 
 dience and love. 
 
 And with the belief in a Personal Being, as has been already No con- 
 sciousness 
 
 remarked, the sense of sin also will stand or fall’. Where this δὲ ἘΠ 
 
 belief'is absent, error or wrong-doing may be condemned from two 
 points of view, irrespective of its consequences and on grounds of 
 independent morality. It may be regarded as a defiance of the 
 law of our being, or it may be deprecated as a violation of the 
 principles of beauty and propriety implanted in the mind. In other 
 words it may be condemned either from physical or from esthetic 
 considerations. The former aspect is especially common with the 
 Stoies, for indeed conformity with nature is the groundwork of 
 Stoical ethics. The latter appears occasionally, though this point 
 of view is characteristic rather of the Academy than of the Porch. 
 These are important subsidiary aids to ethical teaching, and should 
 not be neglected: but the consciousness of sin, as sin, is distinct 
 from both. It is only possible where there is a clear sense of a 
 personal relation to a Personal Being, whom we are bound to love 
 and obey, whose will must be the law of our lives and should be , 
 the joy of our hearts. Here again the Stoic’s language is treacher- 
 ous. He can talk of sin, just as he can talk of God his Father. 
 But so long us he is true to his dogma, he uses terms here, as before, 
 in a non-natural sense. Only so far as he deserts the theological 
 standing-ground of his school (and there is much of this happy 
 inconsistency in the great Stoic teachers), does he attain to such 
 an apprehension of the ‘exceeding sinfulness of sin’ as enables him 
 to probe the depths of the human conscience. 
 
 2. When we turn from the theology to the ethics of the Stoical 2, Defects 
 school, we find defects not less vital in its teaching, Here again ps 
 Stoicism presents in itself a startling and irreconcilable contra- 
 diction. The fundamental Stoic maxim of conformity to nature, 
 though involving great difficulties in its practical application, might 
 at all events have afforded a starting-point for a reasonable ethical 
 code. Yet it is hardly too much to say that no system of morals, 
 which the wit of man has ever devised, assumes an attitude so 
 fiercely defiant of nature as this. It is mere folly to maintain that Péfiance 
 
 pain and privation are no evils. The paradox must defeat its own οἷ Bature. 
 
 1 See above, p. 296. 
 
 ἊΣ 
 
 PHIL. 21 
 
Want of 
 sympathy. 
 
 Stoicism 
 exclusive 
 and not 
 proselytiz- 
 ing. ᾿ 
 
 4. No dis- 
 
 tinct belief 
 
 in man’s 
 immor- 
 tality. 
 
 ST PAUL AND SENECA. 
 
 ends. ‘True religion, like true philosophy, concedes the point, and 
 sets itself to counteract, to reduce, to minimise them. Our Lord 
 ‘divides himself at once from the ascetic and the Stoic. They had 
 said, Make yourselves independent of bodily comforts: he says, Ye 
 have need of these things’.’ Christianity itself also preaches an 
 αὐτάρκεια, a moral independence, but its preaching starts from a due 
 recognition of the facts of human life. us 
 
 And, while Stoicism is thus paradoxical towards the individual, 
 its view of the mutual relations between man and man is a still 
 greater outrage on humanity. ‘In every age the Christian temper 
 has shivered at the touch of Stoic apathy’.’ Pity, anger, love—all 
 the most powerful social impulses of our nature—are ignored by 
 the Stoic, or at least recognised only to be crushed. There is no 
 attempt to chasten or to guide these affections: they must simply be 
 rooted out. The Stoic ideal is stern, impassive, immovable. As a 
 natural consequence, the genuine Stoic is isolated and selfish: he 
 feels no sympathy with others, and therefore he excites no sympathy 
 in others. Any wide extension of Stoicism was thus rendered im- 
 possible by its inherent repulsiveness. It took a firm hold on a 
 few solitary spirits, but it was wholly powerless with the masses, 
 
 Nor indeed can it be said in this respect to have failed in its 
 aim. The true Stoic was too self-contained, too indifferent to the 
 condition of others, to concern himself whether the tenets of his 
 school made many proselytes or few. He wrapped himself up in his 
 self-conceit, declared the world to be mad, and gave himself no more 
 trouble about the matter. His avowal of cosmopolitan principles, 
 his tenet of religious equality, became inoperative, because the springs 
 of sympathy, which alone could make them effective, had been frozen 
 at their source. Where enthusiasm is a weakness and love a delusion, 
 such professions must necessarily be empty verbiage. The temper of 
 Stoicism was essentially aristocratic and exclusive in religion, as it 
 was in politics. While professing the largest comprehension, it was 
 practically the narrowest of all philosophical castes. 
 
 3. Though older philosophers had speculated on the immortality 
 of the soul, and though the belief had been encouraged by some 
 schools of moralists as supplying a most powerful motive for well- 
 doing, yet still it remained for the heathen a vague theory, unascer- 
 
 1 Ecce Homo p. 116. 2 Ecce Homo p. 110. 
 
ST PAUL AND SENECA. 
 
 tained and unascertainable. To the Christian alone, when he ac- 
 cepted the fact of Christ’s resurrection, did it become an established 
 and incontrovertible truth. Stoicism does not escape the vagueness 
 which overclouds all mere philosophical speculation on this subject: 
 On one point alone were the professors of this school agreed, An 
 eternal existence of the human soul was out of the question. At the 
 great periodic conflagration, when the universe should be fused and 
 the manifold organizations dissolved into chaos, the souls of men 
 must necessarily be involved in the common destruction’. But 
 within this limit much diversity of opinion prevailed. Some main- 
 
 tained a longer, some a shorter, duration of the soul. Cleanthes said 
 
 that all men would continue to exist till the conflagration ; Chrysip- 
 pus confined even this limited immortality to the wise’. The lan- 
 guage of Seneca on this point is both timid and capricious. ‘If there 
 
 be any sense or feeling after death’ is his cautious hypothesis, fre- 
 
 323 
 
 Diversity 
 of opinion 
 among the 
 Stoics. 
 
 Seneca’s 
 
 inconsist- 
 
 ency and 
 
 quently repeated®. ‘I was pleasantly engaged, he writes to his vagueness. 
 
 friend Lucilius, ‘in enquiring about the eternity of souls, or rather, I 
 should say, in trusting. For I was ready to trust myself to the opi- 
 nions of great men, who avow rather than prove so very acceptable 
 a thing. I was surrendering myself to this great hope, I was begin- 
 ning to be weary of myself, to despise the remaining fragments of a 
 broken life, as though I were destined to pass away into that illimit- 
 able time, and into the possession of eternity ; when I was suddenly 
 aroused by the receipt of your letter, and this beautiful dream 
 vanished *,’ 
 has no better words of comfort to offer than these: ‘Why do I 
 
 When again he would console the bereaved mourner, he 
 
 waste away with fond regret for one who either is happy or does not 
 exist at all? It is envy to bewail him if he is happy, and madness if 
 he does not exist’*.’ ‘Bear in mind that no evils affect the dead ; that 
 the circumstances which make the lower world terrible to us are an 
 ‘ Death is the release and end of all pains.’ ‘ Death is 
 neither a good nor an evil: for that only can be good or evil which 
 
 idle story.’ 
 
 1 See e.g. Seneca ad Mare. 26, ad 
 Polyd, τ. (20). 
 
 ? Diog. Laert. vii. 157. 
 
 3 De Brev. Vit. 18, ad Polyd. 5, 9, 
 Ep. Mor. xxiv. 18, Ixy. 24, Ixxi. τό. 
 Tertullian (de Resurr. Carn. 1, de Anim. 
 42) quotes Seneca as saying ‘ Omnia 
 
 post mortem finiri, etiam ipsam.’ 
 
 4 Ep. Mor. cii. 2; comp. Ep. Mor. 
 exvii. 6 ‘Cum animarum eternitatem 
 disserimus, non leve momentum apud 
 nos habet consensus hominum aut ti- 
 mentium inferos aut colentium.’ 
 
 5 Ad Polybd. 9. 
 
 21—2 
 
 =< 
 
Import- 
 
 ance of the 
 doctrine to 
 Christian- 
 
 ity. 
 
 Tis indif- 
 ference to 
 Stoicism. 
 
 ST PAUL AND SENECA. 
 
 is something.’ ‘ Fortune can retain no hold, where nature has given 
 a release: nor can one be wretched, who does not exist at all’. 
 Afterwards indeed he speaks in a more cheerful strain : ‘ Eternal rest 
 awaits him leaving this murky and troubled (earth) and migrating to 
 the pure and liquid (sky)*”’: but such expressions must be qualified 
 by what has gone before. Again in this same treatise, as in other 
 places*, he promises after death an enlarged sphere of knowledge 
 But the pro- 
 
 mise which he gives in one sentence is often modified or retracted 
 
 and a limitless field of calm and pure contemplation. 
 
 in the next ; and even where the prospects held out are the brightest, 
 it is not always clear whether he contemplates a continuance of con- 
 scious individual existence, or merely the absorption into Universal 
 Being and the impersonal participation in its beauty and order*. 
 The views of Epictetus and M. Aurelius are even more cloudy and 
 cheerless than those of Seneca. Immortality, properly so called, has 
 no place in their philosophies. 
 
 Gibbon, in his well-known chapter on the origin and growth 
 of Christianity, singles out the promise of eternal life as among 
 the chief causes which promoted its diffusion, Overlooking much 
 that is offensive in the tone of his remarks, we need not hesitate 
 to accept the statement as substantially true. It is indeed more 
 than questionable whether (as Gibbon implies) the growth of the 
 Church was directly due to the inducements of the offer ; for (looking 
 only to self-interest) it has a repulsive as well as an attractive side : 
 but without doubt it added enormously to the moral power of the 
 Gospel in commending it to the hearts and consciences of men. 
 Deterring, stimulating, reassuring, purifying and exalting the inward 
 and outward life, ‘the power of Christ’s resurrection’ extends over 
 the whole domain of Christian ethics. 
 
 On the other hand it was a matter of indifference to the Stoic 
 whether he doubted or believed or denied the immortality of man ; 
 
 for the doctrine was wholly external to his creed, and nothing 
 
 1 Ad Mare. 19; comp. Hp. Mor. 
 xxxvi. τὸ ‘Mors nullum habet incom- 
 modum: esse enim debet aliquis, cujus 
 sit ncommodum,’ with the context. 
 
 2 Ad Mare. 24. 
 
 3 Comp. e.g. Ep. Mor. Ixxix. 12, 
 
 ‘ Ixxxvi. 1, cli. 22, 28 sq. 
 
 4 Holzherr Der Philosoph L. Anneus 
 
 Seneca τι. p. 58 sq. (1859) endeavours 
 to show that Seneca is throughout con- 
 sistent with himself and follows the 
 Platonists rather than the Stoies in his 
 doctrine of the immortality of the soul. 
 I do not see how it is possible, after 
 reading the treatise ad Marciam, to ac- 
 quit him of inconsistency. 
 
ST PAUL AND SENECA, 325 
 
 Not life but death was 
 
 His religious director was 
 
 could be lost or gained by the decision. 
 the constant subject of his meditations. 
 summoned to his side, not to prepare him for eternity, but to teach 
 him how to die’. This defect alone would have rendered Stoicism 
 utterly powerless with the masses of men: for the enormous’ de- 
 mands which it made on the faith and self-denial of its adherents 
 could not be sustained without the sanction and support of such 
 a belief. The Epicurean motto, ‘Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow Conse- 
 we die,’ base though it was, had at least this recommendation, that peas 
 the conclusion did seem to follow from the premisses: but the moral 2nd per- _ 
 : ἃ Ξ ᾿ β plexities of 
 teaching of the Stoic was practically summed up in the paralogism, Stoicism. 
 ‘Let us neither eat nor drink, for to-morrow we die,’ where no wit 
 of man could bridge over the gulf between the premisses and the 
 conclusion. A. belief in man’s immortality might have saved the 
 Stoic from many intellectual paradoxes and much practical per- 
 plexity: but then it would have made him other than a Stoic. 
 He had a profound sense of the reign of moral order in the universe. 
 Herein he was right. But the postulate of man’s immortality alone 
 reconciles this belief with many facts of actual experience; and, 
 refusing to extend his views beyond the present life, he was obliged 
 to misstate or deny these facts in order to save his thesis. He 
 staunchly maintained the inherent quality of actions as good or bad 
 (irrespective of their consequences), and he has deserved the grati- 
 tude of mankind as the champion of a morality of principles. But he 
 falsely supposed himself bound in consequence to deny any force to 
 the utilitarian aspect of ethics, as though it were irreconcilable 
 with his own doctrine; and so he was led into the wildest paradoxes, 
 calling good evil and evil good. The meeting-point of these two 
 distinct lines of view is beyond the grave, and he refused to carry 
 his range of vision so far. It was inconsistent with his tenets to 
 hold out the hope of a future life as an incentive to well-doing anda 
 dissuasive from sin; for he wholly ignored the idea of retribution. 
 
 1 Socrates (or Plato) said that true 
 philosophers οὐδὲν ἄλλο αὐτοὶ ἐπιτηδεὺύ - 
 ουσιν ἢ ἀποθνήσκειν τε καὶ τεθνάναι 
 (Phedo 64 4). The Stoic, by accept- 
 ing the ἀποθνήσκειν and forgetting the 
 τεθνάναι, robbed the saying of its vir- 
 tue. * 
 
 2 Butler argues from the fact that 
 
 ‘the divine government which we ex- 
 perience ourselves under in the present 
 state, taken alone, is allowed notto be 
 the perfection of moral government.’ 
 The Stoic denied what the Christian 
 philosopher assumes, and contradicted 
 experience by maintaining that is is 
 perfect, taken alone. 
 
326 ST PAUL AND SENECA. 
 
 So far, there was more substantial truth and greater moral power 
 in the crude and gross conceptions of an afterworld embodied in 
 the popular mythology which was held up to scorn by him, than in 
 the imposing philosophy which he himself had devised to supplant 
 them. 
 
 4. Abseneo 4. Attention was directed above to an instructive parallel 
 
 torical which Seneca’s language presents to our Lord’s image of the vine- 
 
 basis, and the branches’. Precepts, writes the philosopher, wither un- 
 less they are grafted in a sect. By this confession Seneca vir- 
 tually abandons the position of self-isolation and_ selfsufliciency, 
 which the Stoic assumes. He felt vaguely the want of some his- 
 torical basis, some bond of social union, in short some principle 
 of cohesion, which should give force and vitality to his ethical 
 teaching. No mere abstract philosophy has influenced or can in- 
 
 Asacred fluence permanently large masses of men. A Bible and a Church— 
 record and 
 a religious 
 ema of extensive and abiding success. An isolated spirit here and there 
 nity neces- ῃ ; ‘ : 
 
 sary. may have dispensed with such aids; but, as a social power, as a 
 
 a sacred record and a religious community—are primary conditions 
 
 continuous agency, mere doctrine, however imposing, will for the 
 most part be ineffective without such a support. 
 
 So far we have been speaking of conditions of success which were 
 wanting indeed to Stoicism, but which nevertheless are not peculiar 
 to Christianity. All creeds, which have secured any wide and lasting 
 allegiance, have had their sacred books and their religious organi- 
 
 Christian- zation. But our Lord’s language, of which Seneca’s image is a 
 ity centres 
 in a Per- 
 
 son. feature of Christianity. It is not a record nor a community, but a 
 
 partial though unconscious echo, points to the one distinguishing 
 
 Person, whence the sap spreads to the branches and ripens into the 
 rich clusters. I have already alluded to Gibbon’s account of the 
 causes which combined to promote the spread of the Church. It 
 will seem strange to any one who has at all felt the spirit of the 
 Gospel, that a writer, enumerating the forces to which the dissemi- 
 nation and predominance of Christianity were due, should omit all 
 
 Christ the mention of the Christ. One might have thought it impossible to 
 source of 
 the moral 
 power of martyrs of the first ages or of the saints and heroes of the later 
 Christian- 
 ity. 
 
 study with common attention the records of the Apostles and 
 
 Church, without seeing that the consciousness of personal union with 
 
 1 See above, p. 285. 
 
 
 
 
 
ST PAUL AND SENECA. 327 
 
 Him, the belief in His abiding presence, was the mainspring of their 
 actions and the fountain of all their strength. This is not a precon- 
 ceived theory of what should have happened, but a bare statement 
 of what stands recorded on the pages of history. In all ages and 
 under all circumstances, the Christian life has ever radiated from 
 this central fire. "Whether we take St Peter or St Paul, St Francis 
 -of Assisi or John Wesley, whether Athanasius or Augustine, Anselm 
 or Luther, whether Boniface or Francis Xavier, here has been the 
 impulse of their activity and the secret of their moral power. Their 
 lives have illustrated the parable of the vine and the branches. 
 It is this which differentiates Christianity from all other reli- Distinctive 
 Ξ : : feature of 
 gions, and still more from all abstract systems of philosophy. Those Christian- 
 who assume the entire aim and substance of the Gospel to have ἴδ: 
 been the inculcation of moral precepts, and who therefore rest 105 Not a mor- 
 claims solely or chiefly on the purity of its ethical code, often find alcede 
 themselves sorely perplexed, when they stumble upon some noble 
 and true utterance of Jewish or Heathen antiquity before the coming 
 of Christ. A maxim of a Stoic philosopher or a Rabbinical school- 
 man, a saying of Plato or Confucius, startles them by its resem- 
 blance to the teaching of the Gospel. Such perplexity is founded on 
 a twofold error. On the one hand they have not realised the truth 
 that the same Divine Power was teaching mankind before He was 
 made flesh: while on the other they have failed to see what is 
 involved in this incarnation and its sequel. To those who have 
 felt how much is implied in St John’s description of the pre-incarnate 
 Word as the life and light of men; to those who allow the force of 
 Tertullian’s appeal to the ‘witness of a soul naturally Christian’ ; 
 to those who have sounded the depths of Augustine’s bold saying, 
 that what we now call the Christian religion existed from the dawn 
 of the human race, though it only began to be named Christian when 
 Christ came in the flesh’; to those who can respond to the senti- 
 ment of the old Euglish poem, 
 
 ‘Many man for Cristes love 
 
 Was martired in Romayne, 
 
 Er any Cristendom was knowe there 
 Or any cros honoured’ ; 
 
 it cannot be a surprise to find such flashes of divine truth in men 
 
 Το ας i. 13s 
 
but a prin- 
 ciple of life 
 centred in 
 a Person. 
 
 ST PAUL AND SENECA. 
 
 who lived before the coming of our Lord or were placed beyond 
 the reach of the Gospel. The significance of Christ’s moral precepts 
 does not lose but gain by the admission: for we learn to view Him 
 no longer as one wholly apart from our race, but recognising in His 
 teaching old truths which ‘in manhood darkly join,’ we shall only be 
 the more prompt to 
 
 “Yield all blessing to the name 
 
 Of Him that made them current coin.’ 
 
 But the mere ethical teaching, however important, is the least 
 important, because the least distinctive part of Christianity. If 
 there be any meaning in the saying that Christ appeared to ‘bring 
 life and immortality to light,’ if the stedfast convictions of St Peter 
 and St Paul and St John were not a delusion, and their lives not 
 built upon a lie, then obviously a deeper principle is involved. The 
 moral teaching and the moral example of our Lord will ever have 
 the highest value in their own province ; but the core of the Gospel 
 does not lie here. Its distinctive character is, that in revealing a 
 Person it reveals also a principle of life—the union with God in 
 Christ, apprehended by faith in the present and assured to us here- 
 after by the Resurrection. This Stoicism could not give; and there- 
 fore its dogmas and precepts were barren. Its noblest branches 
 bore neither flowers nor fruit, because there was no parent stem 
 from which they could draw fresh sap. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ST PAUL AND SENECA. 329 
 
 The Letters of Paul and Seneca. 
 
 ἡ Mee spurious correspondence between the Apostle and the philosopher The corre- 
 to which reference is made in the preceding essay, consists of fourteen spondence 
 letters, the 1st, 3rd, sth, 7th, 9th, r1th, 12th, and 13th written in the name described. 
 of Seneca, and the 2nd, 4th, 6th, 8th, 10th, and 14th of St Paul. In the 
 
 address of the 6th the name of Lucilius is added to that of Seneca, and in 
 
 the same way in the address of the 7th Theophilus is named along with 
 
 St Paul. 
 
 I have not thought it worth while to reprint these letters, as they may Editions 
 be read conveniently in the recent edition of Seneca’s works by Εἰ, Haase of the 
 (ut. p. 476 sq.) included in Teubner’s series, and are to be found likewise in ‘eters. 
 several older editions of this author. They have been printed lately also 
 in Fleury’s St Paul et Sénéque (1. p. 300 sq.) and in Aubertin’s Séneque et 
 St Paul (p. 409 sq.), and still more recently in an article by Kraus, entitled 
 Der Briefwechsel Pauli mit Seneca, in the Theologische Quartalschrifi 
 XLIX. p. 601 (1867). 
 
 The great popularity of this correspondence in the ages before the The mss 
 Reformation is shown by the large number of extant mss. Fleury, and colla- 
 making use of the common catalogues, has enumerated about sixty; and #025: 
 probably a careful search would largely increase the number. The major- 
 ity, as is usual in such cases, belong to the thirteenth, fourteenth, and 
 fifteenth centuries, but two at least are as early as the ninth. Haase used 
 some fresh collations, from which however he complains that little was to 
 be got (p. xxii); and Fleury also collated three mss from Paris and one 
 from Toulouse. Haase directed attention to the two most ancient, Ambro- 
 sianus C. 90 and Argentoratensis C. vi. 5, both belonging to the ninth 
 century (which had not yet been examined), but had no opportunity of 
 collating them himself. Collations from these (together with another later 
 Strassburg ms, Argentoratensis C. vi. 7) were afterwards used by Kraus 
 for his text, which is thus constructed of better materials than any other. 
 
 But after all, it remains in an unsatisfactory state, which the worthlessness 
 of the letters themselves may well excuse. 
 
 This correspondence was probably forged in the fourth century, either Probable 
 to recommend Seneca to Christian readers or to recommend Christianity to Motive of 
 students of Seneca. In favour of this view may be urged the fact that το 
 in several mss these spurious letters precede the genuine works of ~~ 
 Seneca, Nor does any other motive seem consistent with the letters them- 
 selves ; for they have no doctrinal bearing at all, and no historical interest of 
 
 1 As for instance Argent. C. vi. 5 Seneca, being themselves preceded by 
 described by Kraus. So in Burn. 25: the notice of Jerome and followed by 
 (British Museum), which I have ex- _ the first of the epistles to Lucilius. It 
 amined, they are included in acollee- 15 not uncommon to find them imme- 
 tion of genuine and spurious works of diately before the genuine epistles. 
 
Reference 
 to the let- 
 ters by 
 Jerome, 
 
 Augustine, 
 
 and later 
 writers. 
 
 These let- 
 ters a 
 manifest 
 forgery. 
 
 Yet the 
 writer is 
 not igno- 
 rant nor 
 wholly 
 careless. 
 
 ST PAUL AND SENECA. 
 
 sufficient importance to account for the forgery. They are made up chiefly 
 of an interchange of compliments between the Apostle and the philoso- 
 pher; and the only historical thread which can be said to run through 
 them is the endeavour of Seneca to gain the ear of Nero for the writings 
 of St Paul. 
 
 It is commonly said that St Jerome, who first mentions these letters, 
 had no suspicion that they were spurious. This statement however is 
 exaggerated, for he does not commit himself to any opinion at all about 
 their genuineness. He merely says, that he ‘should not have given a place 
 to Seneca in a catalogue of saints, unless challenged to do so by those 
 letters of Paul to Seneca and from Seneca to Paul which are read by very 
 many persons’ (de Vir. Jil. 12 ‘nisi me ills: epistole provocarent quee 
 leguntur a plurimis’). When it is remembered how slight an excuse 
 serves to bring other names into his list, such as Philo, Josephus, and 
 Justus Tiberiensis, we cannot lay any stress on the vague language which 
 he uses in this case. The more probable inference is that he did not deli- 
 berately accept them as genuine. Indeed, if he had so accepted them, 
 his profound silence about them elsewhere would be wholly inexplicable. 
 St Augustine, as generally happens in questions of historical criticism, 
 repeats the language of Jerome and perhaps had not seen the letters 
 (£pist. οἰ. 14 ‘Seneca cujus queedam ad Paulum apostolum leguntur 
 epistolz?!’). Throughout the middle ages they are mentioned or quoted, 
 most frequently as genuine, but occasionally with an expression of doubt, 
 until the revival of learning, when the light of criticism rapidly dispelled 
 the illusion?. 
 
 As they are now universally allowed to be spurious, it will be unneces- 
 sary to state at length the grounds of their condemnation. It is sufficient 
 to say that the letters are inane and unworthy throughout; that the style 
 of either correspondent is unlike his genuine writings; that the relations 
 between the two, as there represented, are highly improbable; and lastly, 
 that the chronological notices (which however are absent in some important 
 Mss) are wrong in almost every instance. Thus, independently of the 
 unbroken silence of three centuries and a half about this correspondence, 
 internal evidence alone is sufficient to condemn them hopelessly. 
 
 Yet the writer is not an ignorant man. He has read part of Seneca 
 and is aware of the philosopher’s relations with Lucilius ; he is acquainted 
 with the story of Castor and Pollux appearing to one Vatinius (or 
 Vatienus) ; he can talk glibly of the gardens of Sallust ; he is acquainted 
 with the character of Caligula whom he properly calls Gaius Czesar; he is 
 even aware of the Jewish sympathies of the empress Poppzea and makes 
 her regard St Paul as a renegade’; and lastly, he seems to have had 
 before him some account of the Neronian fire and persecution* which is no 
 
 1 Another passage quoted above, p. 3° Hp. 5 ‘Indignatio domine, quod a 
 29, note 2,in which Augustine remarks _ritu et secta veteri recesseris et [te] 
 onSeneca’ssilenceaboutthe Christians, aliorsum converteris’; comp. Hp. 8, 
 is inconsistent with a conviction of the where however the reading is doubt- 
 genuineness of these letters. ful. 
 
 2 See Fleury 1. p. 269 sq. for a 4 Yet there must be some mistake in 
 catena of references. the numbers, which appear too small. 
 
ST PAUL AND SENECA. 331 
 
 longer extant, for he speaks of ‘ Christians and Jews’ being punished as the 
 authors of the conflagration and mentions that ‘a hundred and thirty-two 
 houses and six insulee were burnt in six days.’ 
 
 Moreover I believe he attempts, though he succeeds ill in the attempt, 
 to make a difference in the styles of Seneca and St Paul, the writing of 
 the latter being more ponderous. Unfortunately he betrays himself by 
 representing Seneca as referring more than once to St Paul’s bad style; 
 and in one letter the philosopher mentions sending the Apostle a book 
 de Copia Verborum, obviously for the purpose of improving his Latin. 
 
 I mention these facts, because they bear upon a theory maintained by Theory of 
 some modern critics!, that these letters are not the same with those to Some mo- 
 which Jerome and Augustine refer ; that they had before them a genuine © 
 correspondence between St Paul and Seneca, which has since perished; and 
 that the extant epistles were forged later (say about the ninth century), 
 being suggested by the notices in these fathers and invented in conse- 
 quence to supply their place. The only specious arguments advanced in 
 favour of this view, so far as I know, are these: (1) A man like Jerome The argu- 
 could not possibly have believed the extant correspondence to be genuine, ments for 
 for the forgery is transparent ; (2) The de Copia Verborum is a third title this view 
 to a work otherwise known as de Formula Honest Vitw or de Quatuor stater 
 Virtutibus, written by Martinus Bragensis or Dumiensis (+ circ. A.D. 580), 
 but ascribed in many Mss to Seneca. Sufficient time therefore must have 
 elapsed since this date to allow the false title and false ascription to take 
 the place of the true and to be generally circulated and recognised? 
 
 To both these arguments a ready answer may be given: (1) There is no and an- 
 reason to suppose that Jerome did believe the correspondence to be swered. 
 genuine, as I have already shown. He would hardly have spoken so 
 vaguely, if he had accepted them as genuine or even inclined to this belief. 
 
 (2) A much better account can be given of the false title and ascription 
 
 of Martin’s treatise, if we suppose that they arose out of the ailusion in 
 
 the letters, than on the converse hypothesis that they were prior to and 
 suggested this allusion. This Martin, whose works appear to have had Martinus 
 a very large circulation in the middie ages, wrote on kindred subjects Bragensis. 
 and seems occasionally to have abridged and adapted Seneca’s writings. 
 
 For this reason his works were commonly bound up with those of Seneca, 
 
 and in some instances came to be ascribed to the Stoic philosopher. This 
 
 is the case at all events with the de Moribus, as well as the de Quatuor 
 Virtutibus, and perhaps other spurious treatises bearing the name of 
 
 Seneca may be assigned to the same author. A copy of the de Quatwor Account of 
 Virtutibus, either designedly abridged or accidentally mutilated, and on de Copia 
 this account wanting the title, was bound up so as to precede or follow Verborum. 
 the correspondence of Paul and Senec&?; and, as Seneca in one of these 
 
 1 An account of these views will be 
 found in Fleury mu. p. 225 sq. He 
 himself holds that the letters read by 
 these fathers were not the same with 
 our correspondence, but questions whe- 
 ther those letters were genuine. 
 
 * This argument is urged by Fleury 
 
 1. p. 267 sq. The de Formula Hones- 
 te Vite is printed in Haase’s edition of 
 Seneca (111. p. 468) together with other 
 spurious works. 
 
 3 It is found’ in some extant mss 
 (e.g. Flor. Pl. xlv. Cod. iv)immediately 
 before the letters, and if may perhaps 
 
Direct 
 reasons a- 
 gainst this 
 theory. 
 
 ST PAUL AND SENECA. 
 
 letters mentions sending the de Copia Verborum, a later transcriber as- 
 sumed that the neighbouring treatise must be the work in question, and 
 without reflecting gave it this title, Whether the forger of the corre- 
 spondence invented an imaginary title, or whether a standard work bearing 
 this name, either by Seneca himself or by some one else, was in general 
 circulation when he wrote, we have no means of deciding ; but the motive 
 in the allusion is clearly the improvement of St Paul’s Latin, of which 
 Seneca more than once complains. On the other hand the de Quatuor 
 
 Virtutibus is, as its name implies, a treatise on the cardinal virtues, An 
 
 allusion to this treatise therefore would be meaningless; nor indeed has 
 any reasonable explanation been given, how it got the title de Copia Ver- 
 borum, on the supposition that this title was prior to the allusion in the 
 correspondence and was not itself suggested thereby, for it is wholly 
 
 alien to the subject of the treatise. 
 
 But other strong and (as it seems to me) convincing arguments may be 
 brought against this theory: (1) Extant mss of the correspondence date 
 from the ninth century, and in these the text is already in a corrupt state. 
 (2) The historical knowledge which the letters show could hardly have 
 
 occur in some others immediately after 
 them. [Since the first edition appeared, 
 in which this conjecture was hazarded, 
 I have found the treatise immediately 
 after the letters, Bodl. Laud. Misc. 383, 
 fol. 77 a, where it is anonymous. ] 
 
 1 The work, when complete, consists 
 of (1) A dedication in Martin’s name 
 to Miro king of Gallicia, in which he 
 mentions the title of the book Formula 
 Vite Honeste ; (2) A short paragraph 
 enumerating the four cardinal virtues ; 
 (3) A discussion of these several virtues 
 and the measure to be observed in each, 
 In the mss, so far as I have learnt 
 from personal inspection and from no- 
 tices in other writers, it is found in 
 three different forms; (1) Complete 
 (e.g. Cambridge Univ. Libr. Dd. xv. 
 21; Bodl. Laud. Misc. 444, fol. 146), 
 in which case there is no possibili- 
 ty of mistaking its authorship; (2) 
 Without the dedicatory preface, so that 
 it begins Quatuor virtutum species ete. 
 In this form it is generally entitled 
 de Quatuor Virtutibus and ascribed to 
 Seneca. So it is for instance in three 
 British Museum mss, Burn. 251 
 fol. 33 a (σιτία cent.; the treatise 
 being mutilated at the end and con- 
 cluding ‘In has ergo maculas pruden- 
 tia immensurata perducet’), Burn. 360, 
 fol. 35 a (xivth cent.?), and Harl. 233 
 (xiuith or xivth cent.?; where how- 
 
 ever the general title is wanting and 
 the treatise has the special heading 
 Seneca de prudentia). The transcriber 
 of Arund. 249 (xvth cent.) also gives 
 it in this form, but is aware of the true 
 author, for the heading is Incipit trac- 
 tatus libri honeste vite editus a Martino 
 episcopo Qui a multis intitulatur de 
 quatuor virtutibus et attribuitur Senece ; 
 but he ends it Explicit tractatus de 
 quatuor virtutibus Annet Senece Cordu- 
 ensis, as he doubtless found it in the 
 copy which he transcribed. In Bodl. 
 Laud. Lat. 86, fol. 58 a, where it 
 occurs in this form, itis ascribed to its 
 rightauthor; whileagainin Bodl. Laud. 
 Misc. 280, fol. 117 a, it is anonymous. 
 These mss [have examined. (3) It occurs 
 without either the dedicatory preface or 
 the general paragraph on the four vir- 
 tues, and some extraneous matter is 
 added at the end. Only in this form, so 
 far as I can discover, does it bear the 
 strange title de Verborum Copia. Soin 
 one of the Gale mss at Trinity College 
 Cambridge (0. 3. 31) it begins ‘ Senece de 
 quatuor virtutibus primo(?) deprudentia. 
 Quisquis prudentiam...’ and ends‘... 
 jactura que per negligentiam fit. Ha- 
 plicit liber Senece de verborum copia’ ; 
 and the ms described by Haase (111. p. 
 xxii) belongs to the sametype. These 
 facts accord with the account of the title 
 which I have suggested in the text. 
 
 
 
ST PAUL AND SENECA. 
 
 - been possessed, or turned to such account, by a writer later than the 
 fourth or fifth century. (3) Jerome quotes obliquely a passage from the 
 letters, and this passage is found in the extant correspondence. To this it 
 is replied, that the forger, taking the notice of Jerome as his starting- 
 point, would necessarily insert the quotation to give colour to his forgery. 
 But I think it may be assumed in this case that the pseudo-Seneca would 
 have preserved the words of Jerome accurately or nearly so; whereas, 
 though the sense is the same, the difference in form is considerable?. It 
 may be added also that the sentiment is in entire keeping with the per- 
 vading tone of the letters, and has no appearance of being introduced for 
 a distinct purpose. (4) It is wholly inconceivable that a genuine corre- 
 spondence of the Apostle could have escaped notice for three centuries 
 and a half; and not less inconceivable that, having once been brought to 
 light at the end of the fourth and beginning of the fifth century, it should 
 again have fallen into oblivion and been suffered to disappear. This theory 
 therefore may be confidently rejected. 
 
 1 The reference in St Jerome is  tianos.’ The words stand in the letters 
 ‘ (Seneca) optare se dicit ejus esse loci (no. 11), ‘ [Uti] nam qui meus, tuusapud 
 * apud suos, cujus sit Paulus apud Chris- ἐδ locus, qui tuus, velim ut meus.’ 
 
 G2 
 
pel th whe: hi varia εἴ 
 0 ἵ ΩΝ 
 ' ΤΙ Alas ld 
 Ἰϑιοχ σιν, arty. be ὍΝ ΟῚ μι. 
 ban ἀμμὲ 0 oon’. 
 
 eu ey 
 
 
 
INDEX. 
 
 Aarontc priesthood; see priesthood 
 
 accumulated expressions in St Paul, 
 Ga ΤῊΣ 25; 27, 11:2. Ws Ὁ} ΤΥ} 1; 2; Τὴ 
 
 Acte, p. 21 
 
 Acts of the Apostles; passages ex- 
 plained, p. 50 (xvi. 12), 52 (xvi. 13), 
 304 (xvii. 28), 35 (xxvii. 2), 7, 103 
 (xxviii. 16), 9 (xxviii. 30); ending not 
 abrupt, p. 3; last chapters authentic, 
 p. 15; account of St Paul compared 
 with his epistles, Ὁ. 2, 38 sq.; account 
 
 ’ of Philippi, p. 50 
 
 advent of Christ; its nearness, i. 6, 10, 
 ii, 17, ii. 1, Iv. 5 
 
 Aelius Publius Julius, p. 217 
 
 Aerius, p. 233 
 
 Africa, episcopacy in, p. 224; synods 
 of, p.224, 242; sacerdotalism in, p. 260 
 
 Agrippa (Herod, I); his imprisonment 
 and release, p. 103 sq. 
 
 Agrippa (Herod, II); his dispute with 
 the Jews and relations with Festus, 
 p. 7 
 
 Alexander (the Great); his view of his 
 mission, p. 306; effects of his con- 
 quests, p. 274, 306 
 
 Alexander (of Alexandria), p. 231 
 
 Alexander (of Rome), p. 221 sq. 
 
 Alexandria, early foundation of the 
 Church of, p. 225; state of religion 
 in, ib. ; ordination at, p. 226; episco- 
 pacy in, p. 225 sq., 231 sq.; patriarch 
 of, 231 sq.; sacerdotalism at, p. 254, 
 256 
 
 Alexandrian Judaism and the Gospel, 
 Ῥ. 302 sq. . 
 
 Aliturus, p. 6, 173 
 
 altar, use of the word, p. 251, 261, 
 265 
 
 Ambrosiaster (Hilary) ; on the Divinity 
 of Christ, p. 131; on the priesthood, 
 p. 185; on the identity of ‘ bishops’ 
 and ‘presbyters,’ p. 99; on episco- 
 pacy, p. 203 8q., 207, 229; on the 
 Alexandrian episcopate, p. 231 5 pre- 
 serves a tradition about St Paul, 
 Pp. 103 
 
 amphitheatre, metaphor from the, i. 
 27, 28 
 
 Amplias, p. 10, 174 
 
 Ancient Syriac Documents, Ὁ. 76, 211, 
 221, 260 
 
 Ancyra, Council of, p. 232 sq. 
 
 Andrew (St) in Asia Minor, p. 202 
 
 Andronicus and Junias, p. 10, 11, 17 
 
 Anencletus, p. 221 sq. 
 
 angels; of a synagogue, p. 199; in the 
 Apocalypse, p. 199 sq. 
 
 Anicetus, p. 220, 222 86. 
 
 anthropomorphism, p. 132 
 
 Antichrist, p. 1 
 
 antinomianism rebuked, p. 68, 70, iii. 
 12. 15, ΕΠ 19 
 
 Antioch, bishops of, p. 210 sq. 
 
 Antonia, p. 103 84: 
 
 Antonius Melissa, p. 252 
 
 aorist ; epistolary, p. 37, 139, Ul. 25, 
 28; participle of, ii. 7; pluperfect 
 sense of, iv. 15 ; with perfect, iii, 12 
 
 Apelles, p. 17, 173, 174 
 
 Apocalypse, angels in the, p. 199 8q.; 
 date of, p. 200; reference to persecu- 
 tion in, Ὁ. 25; ii. 20 interpreted, 
 p. 200. 
 
330 
 
 Apostles; not bishops, p. 196; super- 
 vision of churches by, p. 198; Second 
 Council of the, p. 202 sq. 
 
 Apostolic Constitutions, p. 259, 263 
 
 Apostolic delegates, p. 199 
 
 appeals to Cesar, p. 4, 31 
 
 appellatio, p. 7 
 
 Appian way, monuments of the, p. 
 171 Sq. 
 
 Aquila and Priscilla; their movements, 
 p. 178; in Rome, p. 10, 16, 173 
 
 Aratus, p. 304 
 
 Archippus, p. 31 
 
 Areopagus ; see Paul (St) 
 
 Aristarchus, p. 11, 18, 35, 37 
 
 Aristobulus, p. 17, 174 
 
 Aristotle’s use of μορφή and synonymes, 
 p. 128 sq. 
 
 article (the definite); omission of, i. 1, 
 5, 6, iii. g; type denoted by, p. 97: 
 uses Of, ii. 6, 21, 30, iil. 9 
 
 Asia Minor; Apostles settled in, p. 202 ; 
 episcopacy in, p. 212 sq.; sides with 
 Cyprian, p. 242 
 
 aspirates (anomalous), ii. 23 
 
 Atheism,aname of Christianity, p. 22,23 
 thens; episcopacy at, p. 216 sq. 
 
 Attic dialect exceptional, ii. 14 
 
 Aubertin (C.), Sénéque et St Paul, p. 
 278, 299 
 
 Augustine (St); on Seneca, p. 29; on 
 episcopacy, p. 230; on pre-Christian 
 Christianity, p. 327 
 
 Augustus; his policy as to Philippi, 
 Ῥ. 50, 51 
 
 Aurelius (M. Antoninus); his charac- 
 ter, p.298, 317; his modified Stoicism, 
 Ῥ. 317, 318 sq.; defects of his teach- 
 ing, p. 318; persecution of the Chris- 
 tians, p. 317 Sq.; supposed relations 
 with rabbi Jehuda, p. 318; notice of 
 Christianity, p. 28, 318; on immor- 
 tality, p. 324 
 
 ἅγιοι, 1.1 
 
 ἁγνός, p. 64, iv. 8 
 
 ἀγών, 1. 30 
 
 ἀδελφοί (emphatic), iii. 13 
 
 ἀδημονεῖν, li. 26 
 
 αἴσθησις, αἰσθητήρια, 1. 9 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 αἰσχύνη, παρρησία, 1. 20 
 
 ἀκαιρεῖν (-ρεῖσθαι), iv. 10 
 
 ἀκέραιος, 11. 15 
 
 ἀληθής, iv. 8 
 
 ἀλλὰ μὲν οὖν, iil. 8. 
 
 ἅλυσις (δεσμός, πέδη), Ῥ- 8 
 
 ἄμεμπτος, 111. 6 
 
 ἄμωμος (- μητοΞ), ll. 15 
 
 ἀναθάλλειν (transitive), iv. 10 
 
 ἀναλύειν, 1. 23 
 
 ἀναπληροῦν, li. 30 
 
 ἀνάστασις (ἐξανάστασι5), 111. τα 
 
 ἄνω, 111. 15 
 
 ἁπαξ καὶ δίς, iv. 16 
 
 ἀπεκδέχεσθαι, iii. 20 
 
 ἀπέχειν, iv. 18 
 
 ἀποθανεῖν, 1. 21 
 
 ἀποκαραδοκία, i. 20 
 
 ἀπολογία, i. 7 
 
 ἀπόστολος (delegate), ii. 25, p. 196 
 
 ἀπρόσκοπος, i. 10 
 
 ἀρετή, iv. 8 
 
 ἅρπαγμα (ἁρπαγμὸν) ἡγεῖσθαι etc., il. 6, 
 p- 133 84. 
 
 ἀρχισυνάγωγος, Ὁ. 207 
 
 αὐτάρκεια, iv. 11 
 
 αὐτὸ τοῦτο, i. 6; τὸ αὐτό, li. 18 
 
 αὐτοῦ etc. (αὑτοῦ etc.), use of, ili, 21 
 
 ἀφελπίζειν, li. 23 
 
 ἀφορᾶν (-ιδεῖν), 11. 23 
 
 Bacchanalian conspiracy, p. 26 
 
 Bacchyllus, p. 216 
 
 Barnabas, Hpistle of p. 225 
 
 Baur (C. F.), p. 74, 170, 177s 233, 218, 
 296 
 
 Benjamin, tribe of, iii: 5 
 
 bishops; see episcopate 
 
 book of life, iv. 3 
 
 Bruttius, p. 22 
 
 Burrus, the prxtorian prefect, p. 3, 5; 
 8, 301 
 
 Butler (Bp.), p. 325 
 
 BeBalwous, 1. 7 
 
 βλέπετε, 111. 2 
 
 Cesarea; evangelization οἵ, p. 31; St 
 Paul’s captivity at, p. 30, 31 
 
 Cesar’s household, p. 19, 30, 33, 100, 
 171 84.» lv. 22 
 
INDEX. 
 
 Caius or Gaius (the emperor) and Agrip- 
 pa, p. 103 sq. 
 
 Caius or Gaius (St Paul’s host), p. 215 
 
 Caius or Gaius (of Macedonia), p. 62 
 
 Callistus, p. 223 
 
 Calvin's distinction of lay and teaching 
 elders, p. 195 
 
 Carthage; see Africa 
 
 Cassius of Tyre, p. 209 
 
 Catholie-Church, p. 204, 207 
 
 Cato the younger ; his character, p. 310 
 sq. 
 
 chains of prisoners, p. 8 
 
 chazan, his duties, etc., p. 189 sq. 
 
 chiasm, i. 16 
 
 Chrestus, Chrestianus, p. 16 
 
 Christ; divinity and pre-existence of, ii. 
 6 sq., p. 131 54., 1373 Universal sove- 
 reignty of, iii. 21; high priesthood of, 
 p. 2513 an object of worship, ii. 10; 
 
 _ the Word, p. 292, 303, 327; the true 
 vine, p. 326 sq., 328; obedience of, 
 ii. 8, 12; righteousness in, li. 9; 
 membership in, ii. 19, p. 307 Sq. ; com- 
 munion with His suiferingsand death, 
 iii, 10; see Christianity, Church, Re- 
 surrection, etc. 
 
 Christian ministry, priesthood, etc.; see 
 ministry, priesthood, etc. 
 
 Christianity, distinguishing feature of, 
 p. 326 sq.; its true character, p. 327 
 sq. 
 
 Christians, accusations against, p. 24, 
 26; silence of heathen writers about, 
 p. 27, 28, 29 
 
 chorepiscopi, p. 232 Sq. 
 
 Chrysippus, p. 275 8q., 309, 323 
 
 Chrysostom (St); on bishops and pres- 
 byters, p. 99; on pretorium, {ὖ. ; 
 confused interpretation of, 136 sq.; 
 misunderstood, p. 96 - 
 
 Church of Christ; ideal of, p. 181 sq. ; 
 its practical limitations, ib.; influence 
 of this ideal, Ὁ. 183; false ideas pre- 
 vailing in, p. 268 
 
 Cicero’s letters, rate of travelling in, 
 p. 38 
 
 circumcision, metaphor of, iii. 3 
 
 citizenship ; St Paul’s metaphor of the 
 
 PHIL. 
 
 397 
 
 heavenly, p. 52, 307 56.» i. 27, lil. 20; 
 rights of Roman, ii. 8, p. 306 
 
 Clarus (of Ptolemais), p. 209 
 
 Claudian, his religious indifference, p. 
 27 
 
 Claudius Apollinaris, p. 213 
 
 Cleanthes, character of, p. 310; hymn 
 of, p. 304, 320; on immortality, p. 
 323 
 
 Clemens (Alexandrinus) ; on the minis- 
 try, Pp. 212, 226, 229, 254 8q.; no 
 sacerdotalism in, p. 254 
 
 Clemens (Flavius); see Flavius 
 
 Clemens (Romanus); character of; p. 
 168, 170; his date, p. 168; connexion 
 with St Peter and St Paul, p. 169; 
 recent criticisms on, p. 169 sq.; a 
 Greek, p. 223; his office, p. 218 sq., 
 221; occasion of his letter, p. 216; 
 its purport and contents, p. 205, 216, 
 249 Sq.; passages discussed, p. 203, 
 205, 249 8q.; resemblances to Philip- 
 pians in, p. 75; no sacerdotalism in, 
 p. 249 sq.; use of term ‘ offerings’ 
 in, p. 262; bishops and presbyters 
 identified in, p. 97 8q., 205, 218 
 
 Clement, St Paul’s fellow-labourer, 
 p- 168 sq.; the name common, p. 
 169 
 
 Clementine Homilies, etc. ; anthropo- 
 morphism in, p. 132; not sacerdotal, 
 p. 260; on episcopacy, p. 209, 211, 
 238; position of St James in, p. 197, 
 208; on the Canaanitish woman, 
 lili. 2 
 
 clergy, distinguished from laity, p. 246 
 8q., 248; origin of the term, p. 245 
 864. ; see κλῆρος 
 
 Cletus, p. 221 
 
 clubs; see confraternitics 
 
 collection of alms; see Macedonia, Phi- 
 lippians 
 
 colonies (Roman), p. 51 
 
 Colossians, Epistle to the; written from 
 Rome, p. 12; not from Casarea, p. 
 30, 31; date of, 31 sq.; later than 
 Philippians, p. 45; genuineness of, 
 Ῥ. 18; Judaizers mentioned in, p. 17 
 sq.; Gnosticism refuted in, p. 42 
 
 22 
 
338 
 
 comparative; force of, ii. 28 ; accumu- 
 lated, i. 23 
 
 compresbyterus, p. 230 
 
 confraternities, p. 95, 194 
 
 conscientia, p. 303 
 
 Corinth, the Church of; St Paul’s 
 dealings with, p. 198; episcopacy in, 
 p. 216 sq.; lost letters to, p. 139; see 
 Clemens Romanus 
 
 Corinthians, Epistles to the ; no sacer- 
 dotalism in, p. 245; passages inter- 
 preted (1 Cor. v. 3 sq., 2 Cor. ii. 6), 
 p. 198 
 
 Crenides, p. 47, 52 
 
 Crete, episcopacy in, p. 217 
 
 crucifixion, horroys of, 11. 8 
 
 custodia, kinds of, p. 7, 8, 103 sq. 
 
 Cyprian ; his mode of addressing pres- 
 byters, p. 230; view of the episco- 
 pate, p. 240 8q., 243 Sq.; contro- 
 versies of, p. 240 sq.; his character 
 and work, p. 240 sq.; genuineness of 
 his letters, p. 241; sacerdotalism of, 
 p. 258 sq. 
 
 Cyril (of Alexandria), wrongly inter- 
 preted, p. 138 
 
 καθιδεῖν, ii. 23 
 
 καί, answering to ὡς, i. 20; after εἰ etc. 
 i. 22; displaced, iv. 12; doubled, iv. 16 
 
 Kavavirns, p. 304 
 
 καρδία, iv. 7. 
 
 καρπὸς δικαιοσύνης, 1. 11 
 
 κατά, iV. τι 
 
 καταλαμβάνειν, iii, 12 
 
 Kararéuvew (-τομή), 111. 2 
 
 κατεργάζεσθαι, ll. 12 
 
 καυχᾶσθαι, καύχημα, etc., i. 26 
 
 κεῖσθαι εἰς, 1. τό 
 
 κενοδοξία, 11. 3 
 
 κλῆρος (κληροῦν, ete.), p. 246 sq. 
 
 κοιλία, 111. τὸ 
 
 κοινωνία, 1. 5 
 
 κοπιᾶν, il. 16 
 
 κόσμος, li. 15 
 
 κύνες, lil. 2 
 
 κύριος, a title of Jesus, ii. 9, 11; κύριε, 
 in heathen writers, p. 314 
 
 χαίρειν, li. 8, iii. 1, iv. 4 
 
 χάρις (ἡ), 1. 7 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 χορτάζειν, iv. 12 
 χωρεπίσκοπος, Pp. 232 
 
 Damascene (John), p. 252 
 
 dative (of relation), iii. 5 
 
 Datos or Daton, p. 47 
 
 deaconesses, p. 101 
 
 deacons ; see diaconate 
 
 Demas, p. 12 
 
 Demetrius of Alexandria, p. 232 
 
 De Wette; false interpretations of, p. 
 131, 132 
 
 diaconate; its establishment, Ὁ. 187 ; 
 its novelty, p. 189 sq.; limitation to 
 seven, p. 188 sq.; its functions, p. 
 189 sq.; teaching incidental to, p. 190; 
 extension to Gentile Churches, p. 
 101 Sq. 
 
 Dionysius, of Alexandria, p. 231 
 
 Dionysius the Areopagite, p. 216 sq. 
 
 Dionysius of Corinth quoted, p. 214, 
 216 8q., 223 
 
 Divinity of Christ ; see Christ 
 
 dogs, a term of reproach, ili. 2, 8 
 
 Domitian, persecution of, p. 22 
 
 Domitilla; see Flavia 
 
 Drusus, imprisonment of, p. 103 
 
 duumviri, p. 51 
 
 δέ, iy. 10 
 
 δέησις (προσευχή), iv. 6 
 
 διά, with accus., Ui. 7, 8; διὰ φθόνον, 
 1. 153 διὰ (ἐκ) πίστεως, 111. 9 
 
 διάδημα (στέφανοΞ), iv. 1 
 
 διαλογισμός, ii. 14 
 
 διαφέροντα (τά), i. τὸ 
 
 διεστραμμένος, Ue 15 
 
 διὸ καί, 11. 9 
 
 διώκειν (καταλαμβάνεω), iii, 12 
 
 δοκεῖν, 111. 4 
 
 δοκιμή, ii. 22 
 
 δόσις καὶ λήῆμψιξ, ἵν. 15 
 
 δύναμις (ἐνέργεια), iii. 21 
 
 Ecce Homo quoted, p. 308, 321, 322 
 Egnatian road, p. 35, 37, 38, 49 
 Eegnatius the Stoic, p. 284 
 
 Egypt, episcopate of, 232 
 Eleutherus, p. 223 
 
 ellipsis, i, 22, li. 3, iii. 13 
 
INDEX. 
 
 Epenetus, p. 10, 178 
 
 Epaphras, p, 11; see Epaphroditus 
 
 Epaphroditus (Nero’s freedman), p. 21, 
 313 
 
 Epaphroditus (St Paul’s friend); his 
 journeys between Rome and Philippi, 
 36 sq.; bears alms to St Paul, p. 11, 
 61, ii. 25 sq.; his sickness, etc., Ὁ. 37, 
 61, 62, il. 30; distinguished from Epa- 
 phras, p. 61; a common name in 
 Macedonia, and elsewhere, p. 62, il. 
 25; probable allusion to, iv, 3 
 
 Ephesians, Epistle to the; a cireular 
 letter, p. 12, 140; written from Rome, 
 p. 12; not from Cesarea, p. 30, 31; 
 date of, p. 31 sq.; later than Philip- 
 pians, p. 45 sq.; Gnosticism refuted 
 in, p. 42; hymn quoted in, p. 45; 
 genuineness of, p. 42, 45 ; supposed 
 fragment of another epistle, p. 178 
 
 Epictetus; his earnestness and piety, 
 p. 313 8q.; his theology and ethics, 
 p- 316; modified Stoicism of, p. 319 ; 
 his places of abode, p. 314; coinci- 
 dences with the N.T., p. 298, 314 
 sq.; especially St Paul, p. 314, 316; 
 his notice of Christianity, p. 318; 
 said to be a Christian, p. 21; views 
 of immortality, p. 324 
 
 Epicurus ; sayings of, p. 281, 287, 289; 
 admired by Seneca, p. 292; his sys- 
 tem, p. 272 sq.; its Greek origin, p. 
 273; Epicurean ethics basely consist- 
 ent, p. 325 
 
 episcopate ; bishops not the same as 
 Apostles, p. 195 sq.; episcopate de- 
 veloped from presbytery, p. 196 sq., 
 207, 227 sq.; preparatory steps to- 
 wards, p. 198 sq.; causes of develop- 
 ment, p. 201, 206, 234 s8q.; gradual 
 progress of, p. 205 sq., 227, 234 56.; 
 first matured in Asia Minor, p. 202, 
 206 Sq., 212 8q., 227; episcopate of 
 Jerusalem, p. 197, 208 sq.; of other 
 churches, p. 201, 209 Sq. ; prevalence 
 of episcopacy, p. 2273 ordination 
 confined to bishops, 232 sq.; foreign 
 correspondence entrusted to them, p. 
 222; their mode of addressing pres- 
 
 339 
 
 byters, p. 96 sq., 230; they represent 
 the universal Church, p. 242; their 
 increased power involves no principle, 
 Pp. 244; See ἐπίσκοπος, synods, Cle- 
 mentine Homilies, ete. 
 
 Essenes, not sacerdotal, p. 260 
 
 Evarestus, p. 221, 222 
 
 Eyodia, iv. 2, p. 170 
 
 Kvodius, p. 170, 210 
 
 Eusebius ; on 2nd Apostolic Council, 
 p- 202 sq.; his list of bishops of Je- 
 rusalem, p. 208 sq.; of Rome, p. 168, 
 221; of Alexandria, p. 225 
 
 Kutychius (patriarch of Alexandria); 
 his testimony, p. 231 sq. 
 
 Ewald ; on Philippians, p. 69; on Ro- 
 mans, p. 178 
 
 Ἑβραῖος (Ἰουδαῖος), 111. 5 
 
 εἰ interrogative, i. 22; with conjunctive, 
 111. 11; εἴ πως, ib, 
 
 εἶδος (μορφή, ἰδέα), p. 128 54. 
 
 εἰλικρινής, 1, 10 
 
 εἰς, uses Of, iii. 14, iv. 16 
 
 εἴτε... εἴτε with participles, i. 27 
 
 ἐκ, uses of, i. 23, 11]. 5 
 
 ἕκαστος, ἕκαστοι, 11. 4 
 
 ἑλπίς (aspirated), ii. 23 
 
 ἐν, repeated, i. 26; pregnant use of, iv. 
 τὸ 
 
 ἕν δέ, 111. 13 
 
 ἐνάρχεσθαι, 1. 6 
 
 ἐνέργεια (δύναμις), iil. 21 
 
 ἐνεργεῖν, li. 12 
 
 ἔντερα (σπλάγχνα), 1. 8 
 
 ἐξανάστασις, ili. τα 
 
 ἐξομολογεῖσθαι, li. τα 
 
 ἐπεκτείνεσθαι, 111. 14 
 
 ἐπέχειν, ii. τό 
 
 ἐπί, uses οὗ, li. 17, 27 
 
 ἐπίγνωσις, 1. 9 
 
 ἐπιεικής, ΤΥ. 5 
 
 ἐπιζητεῖν, iv. 17 
 
 ἐπιμένειν With dative, i. 24 
 
 ἐπιποθεῖν, 1. 8, 11. 26, p. 2 
 
 ἐπιπόθητος, iv. I 
 
 ἐπισκοπή, Pp. 96 
 
 ἐπίσκοπος ; various uses Of, p. 95, 1943 
 Ξεπρεσβύτερος, Ῥ. 95 SG., 193 8q., 
 233; see episcopate 
 
340 
 
 ἐπιστολή (ἐπιστολαί), p. 140 84. 
 ἐπιτελεῖν, 1. 6 
 
 ἐπιχορηγία, i. 19 
 
 ἔργον (τό), ll. 30 
 
 ἐριθεία, i. 17, li, 3 
 
 ἐρῶ (future), iv. 4 
 
 ἐρωτᾶν, iv. 3 
 
 ἑτέρως, 111. 15 
 
 εὐάρεστος τῷ Θεῷ, iv. 18 
 εὐδοκία, 1. 15, ii. 13 
 
 -εύεσθαι (termination), ii. 30 
 Evodia, iv. 2 
 
 εὑρίσκεσθαι, il. 9 
 
 εὔφημος, iv. 8 
 
 εὐψυχεῖν, 11. 19 
 
 ἐφιδεὶν, li. 23 
 
 ἐφ᾽ ᾧ, li. 12 
 
 ἤδη πότε, iv. 10 
 
 ἡμέρα Χριστοῦ, i. 6, ii. 16 
 -ήμερος (compounds ending in), iii. 5 
 
 Family, religion of the, p. 57 
 
 Felix accuses Jewish priests, p, 4 54. 
 
 Festus and Agrippa, p. 7 
 
 figura; see forma 
 
 Flavia Domitilla; her history, p. 22, 
 23; confusion respecting, p. 22 
 
 Flavius Clemens; his history, p. 22; 
 Baur on, p. 170, 171 
 
 Fleury’s Saint Paul et Sénéque, p. 278, 
 281, 329, 331 56. 
 
 forma, figura, p. 127 
 
 freedmen of Cesar, p. 172 sq, 
 
 future after iva, 11. 11 
 
 Gaius; see Caius 
 
 Gallio, 8t Paul before, p. 301; Seneca’s 
 account of, ib. 
 
 Gangites, p. 47, 48, 52 
 
 Gaul, episcopacy in, p. 224 
 
 genitive, i. 7, 19 
 
 Georgius Syncellus on Philippians, p. 
 142 
 
 Gibbon; on the Neronian persecution, 
 p- 23, 24; on the spread of Chris- 
 tianity, p. 324, 326 
 
 Gischala, iii. 5 
 
 gladiator ; see amphitheatre 
 
 Gnosticism ; refuted by St Paul, p. 42; 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 serves to develope episcopacy, Ὁ. 
 201 Βα. 
 Graetz on Flavius Clemens, p. 170 
 gratia preveniens, cooperans, ii. 13 
 γινώσκειν, 111. τὸ 
 γνήσιος, 1V. 3; γνησίως, ii. 20 
 γνωρίζειν, i. 22 
 γογγυσμός, ii. 14 
 
 Hadrian, letter of; its authenticity, p. 
 225 Sq. 
 
 Hananias, p. 231 
 
 Hebrew ; see ‘ESpatos 
 
 Hebrews, Epistle to the; its Alexan- 
 drian origin, p. 225; absence of sa- 
 cerdotalism in and general argument 
 of, p. 264 8q. 
 
 Hegesippus; on St James, p. 208; on 
 Symeon, p. 203 sq., 208; on the Co- 
 rinthian Church, p. 216; on the Ro- 
 man Church and bishops, p. 220, 222; 
 his acquaintance with Eleutherus, p. 
 223; aim of his work, p, 220, 239 
 
 Hellenists, p. 187 sq. 
 
 Heraclas of Alexandria, p. 231, 232 
 
 heretics, rebaptism of, p. 242 sq. 
 
 Hermas; the name in St Paul, p. 176 
 
 Hermas, the Shepherd of; its date, p. 
 168 sq.; its author, p. 169, 222; his 
 language, p. 223; on Church officers, 
 etc., p. 219 8q.; on Clement, p. 169, 
 219, 2223; possible acquaintance with 
 Philippians, Ὁ. 75 
 
 Hermes, p. 176 
 
 Hero of Antioch, p. 210 
 
 Herodion, p. 10, 17, 175 
 
 Hierapolis ; its bishops, p. 213 
 
 high-priests ; mitre of, p. 253; Chris- 
 tians, so called, p. 251, 253, 2503 see 
 Christ 
 
 Hilary; see Ambrosiaster 
 
 Hippolytus; use of κλῆρος in, Ὁ. 248; 
 sacerdotal terms in, p. 256 
 
 Holzherr, p. 324 
 
 Huber and Perizonius, p. 102 
 
 humility, a Christian virtue, ii. 4 
 
 Hyginus, p. 222 
 
 Jacob’s blessing on Benjamin, iii. 5 
 
INDEX. 341 
 
 James (St); a bishop, p. 197, 208; but 
 one of the presbytery, p. 197 84 
 
 -ianus (the termination), p. 175 
 
 Jehuda-ha-Nisi, p. 318 
 
 Jerome (St) ; on the identity of bishops 
 and presbyters, p. 98, 99; on the 
 origin of episcopacy, p. 206, 229 8q.; 
 on Church polity in Alexandria, p. 
 230 8q.; on episcopal ordination, p. 
 233; on Seneca, p. 270 8q., 293, 330 
 Βα. ; on St Paul’s birth-place, iii. 5; 
 quotes Theophilus, p. 76 
 
 Jerusalem; bishops of, p. 197, 208 sq.; 
 presbytery of, p. 197 
 
 Jesus Justus, p. 12, 18, 32, 34 
 
 Jewish Christians in Rome, p. 16 sq. 
 
 Jewish priesthood; see priesthood 
 
 Jews, in Rome, p. 14 8q., their Mes- 
 sianic hopes, p. 16; confused with 
 Christians, p. 24, 27; at Philippi, 
 p. 52 
 
 Ignatian letters (short Greek), p. 234;0n 
 episcopacy, p. 212 8q., 236 sq.; on 
 presbyters, p. 237; unchristian doc- 
 trine of, p. 237 sq.; not sacerdotal, 
 p. 250; use of ‘altar’ in, p. 266; pas- 
 sagemisinterpreted (Philad.9),p. 251 
 
 Ignatius (St) ; his bonds, p. 8; his jour- 
 ney to Rome, p. 35; sojourn at Phil- 
 ippi, p. 62, 63; Polycarp’s reference 
 to, p. 63, 65, 141; on the Roman 
 Christians, p. 218; on episcopacy, 
 P.210, 2348q.; recognises three orders, 
 Ῥ. 98; not sacerdotal, p. 250; remi- 
 niscences of our epistle, p. 75 
 
 immortality of man, p. 322 sq. 
 
 infinitive for imperative, iii. 16 
 
 John Damascene, p. 252 
 
 John (St); in Asia Minor, p. 202; 
 matures episcopacy, p. 201, 207, 212 
 
 Josephus; his mission to Rome, p. 4, 
 5; account of Agrippa’s confinement, 
 Pp. 103. 
 
 Jowett (Prof.) on lost epistles of St 
 Paul, p. 139 
 
 Irenzus; Pfaffian fragments of, p. 204; 
 his honesty vindicated, p. 98; his use 
 of terms ‘presbyter’ and ‘bishop,’ p. 
 98, 228 sq.; of ‘oblations,’ p. 263; 
 
 of κλῆρος, p. 248 sq.; list of Roman 
 bishops, p. 220 sq.; on Clemens Ro- 
 manus, p. 168; on episcopacy, p. 227, 
 239 54.; on priesthood, p. 252; on 
 and Apostolic Council, p. 203; his 
 relation to Hegesippus, p. 220 
 
 Ischyras, p. 232 
 
 Israelite, ili. 5 
 
 Judaizers; not sacerdotal, p. 259; their 
 activity in Rome, p. 17, 18, 69, i. 15 
 Sq., 111. 2 
 
 Julia, p. 177 
 
 Julianus (of Apamea), p. 214 
 
 Junia or Junias ; see Andronicus 
 
 Justin Martyr; use of μορφή, σχῆμα, 
 p- 132; of ‘oblations,’ p. 263; not 
 sacerdotal, p. 251 
 
 ἰδέα, εἶδος, p. 128 
 
 ἵνα, i. g, li. 2; (future with), 11. rr 
 
 ἴσα (ἴσος), 11. 6 
 
 ἰσόψυχος, ii. 20 
 
 Lactantius on Seneca, p. 268, 294 
 
 laity; see λαός, ete, 
 
 Laodicea, St Paul’s Epistle to, p. 140 
 
 Latin Version, influence of the, p. 134 
 
 lapsed, controversy about the, p. 240 
 sq. 
 
 law and the law; see νόμος 
 
 Levites; ordination of, p. 182; duties 
 of, p. 189 
 
 libations, Jewish and heathen, ii. 17 
 
 Linus, p. 221 sq. 
 
 lots, use of, p. 247 
 
 Lucan, p. 21 
 
 Lucian, on the Christians, p. 28; sacer- 
 dotal language of, p. 261 
 
 Luke (St); in Rome, p. 11, 36; at Phil- 
 ippi, P. 49, 52, 59 
 
 λαός, λαϊκός, λαϊκοῦν, Ὁ. 247 
 
 λατρεία, λατρεύειν, 111. 3 
 
 λειτουργία, 11. 17 
 
 λόγος (εἰς λόγον), iv. 15 
 
 λοιπόν (τὸ λοιπόν), 111.1, iv. 8 
 
 facedonia; Roman provinces of, p. 50; 
 collections of alms in, p. 59, 60; epi- 
 stles written from, p. 60; epistles 
 written to, i, 1, 28, p. 66; episcopacy 
 
342 
 
 in, p. 274 8q.; position of women in, 
 p- 56 
 
 Macro, p. 103 sq. 
 
 Marcion; his parentage, p. 214; his 
 copy of Romans, p. 177 
 
 Marcus Aurelius; see Aurelius 
 
 Mark (St), p. 12, 18, 225, 231 
 
 Marsyas, p. 104 
 
 Martinus Bragensis: his relation to 
 Seneca, p. 331; words of, ib.; recen- 
 sions, titles, and mss of the Formula 
 Honeste Vite of, p. 331 sq. 
 
 Mary, (a Roman Christian), p. τό, 173 
 
 Matthias (St), appointment of, p. 247 
 
 Melito, p. 76, 213 
 
 Merivale (Dr); on the persecution of 
 Nero, p. 24; on pretorium, Ὁ. 100 
 
 Messianic expectations in Rome, p. 16 
 
 metronymics, p. 56 
 
 Milman (Dean), p. 250 
 
 ministry (the Christian); three orders 
 of, p. 96, 186, 265 sq.; not sacerdotal, 
 p. 184; St Paul on, p. 185; the tem- 
 porary and the permanent, p. 185 sq.; 
 views of the origin of, p. 186 sq.; 
 how far a priesthood, p. 264 sq.; re- 
 presentative, not vicarial, p.267 sq. ; 
 see sacerdotalism, priesthood, episco- 
 pate, ete. 
 
 Mommsen on Cato, p. 311 
 
 Montanism; a reaction, p. 238 
 
 mystery, the metaphor of, iv. 12 
 
 -μα, -μός, (terminations), 11. 6 
 
 μεριμνᾶν, ἵν. 6 
 
 μέσον (adverbial), ii. 15 
 
 μετασχηματίζεσθαι (-μορφοῦσθαι), p. 130 
 sq. 
 
 μή, μηδὲν (ellipsis after), ii. 3 
 
 μίσθωμα, Pp. 9 
 
 μόνον, 1. 27 
 
 μορφή (ὁμοίωμα, σχῆμαν, li. 6 54., p. 127 
 sq.; (εἶδος), p. 128 sq. 
 
 μυεῖσθαι, iv. 12 
 
 Name of God, ii. 9; of Jesus, ii. 10 
 
 Narcissus (Nero’s freedman), p. 21; his 
 household, p. 175 
 
 Narcissus (of Jerusalem), p. 208, 209 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Neander, criticism on, p. 250 
 
 Neapolis, p. 48, 49, 50 
 
 Neoplatonists, their use of μορφή, p. 
 129; conflict with Christianity, p. 
 319 
 
 Nereus and his sister, p. 177 
 
 Nero; administration of, p. 2, 3, 4; 
 guilty acts of, p. 5; his persecution, 
 p. 2; attempts to explain it away, 
 p- 23 sq.; causes of it, p. 26; silence 
 of heathen writers about it, p. 27, 
 28, 29; account of it in the letters of 
 Paul and Seneca, p. 330 sq. 
 
 nominative (irregular), i. 30, 111. 19 
 
 Novatian schism, Ὁ. 241 
 
 val, Iv. 3 
 
 νόμος and ὁ νόμος, 111. 5, 6, 9 
 
 Oblation, offering; see sacrifice 
 
 Onesimus (Philemon’s slaye), p. 12, 31 
 
 Onesimus (of Ephesus), p. 212 
 
 ordination by presbyters, p. 231, 232 
 sq.; restricted to bishops, p. 232 sq. 
 
 Oriental characteristics, p..273 
 
 Origen; on Clement of Rome, p. 168; 
 on Gaius, p. 215; onthe priesthood, 
 Ῥ. 256 sq. 
 
 οἶδα, 1. 25 
 
 ὀκνηρός, iii. 1 
 
 ὀκταήμερος, 111. 5 
 
 ὄνομα; τὸ ὄνομα, ii. 9; ἐν (τῷ) ὀνόματι, 
 11. 10 
 
 ὀπίσω, iii, 14 
 
 ὀσμὴ εὐωδίας, iv. 18 
 
 ὅστιξ, i. 28, ii. 20, lil. 7, iv. 3 
 
 οὐχ ὅτι, ii. 12, iv. ΤΙ, 17 
 
 ws, pleonastic, ii. 12 
 
 ws av, temporal, ii. 23 
 
 Palestine (bishops of), p. 209 sq. 
 
 Palmas, p. 214 
 
 pantheism admits no consciousness of 
 sin, p. 296, 321 
 
 papacy, power of the, p. 244 sq. 
 
 Papias, p. 213, 229 ἡ 
 
 parabolani, ii. 29 
 
 parodox (verbal), iv. 7 
 
 paranomasia, ili. 2 
 
 Pastoral Epistles; Gnosticism attacked 
 
INDEX. 
 
 in, p. 42; quotations in, p. 45; late 
 date of, ib.; no sacerdotalism in, p. 
 
 2 
 
 Peery (Jewish), p. 225; (Alexan- 
 drian), p. 226, 231, 232 
 
 Patrobas, p. 176 
 
 Paul (St); his birth-place, iii. 5; his 
 tribe, ib.; his name Saul, ib.; a He- 
 brew and a Pharisee, ib.; his kins- 
 men, p. 16 sq., 1733; not married, 
 iv.3; his persecution of the Church, 
 iii. 6; his means of support, iv. 16 ; 
 speech on Areopagus, p. 290, 304; 
 his visit to Rome, p.1sq., 31; voyage 
 thither, Ῥ. 35; length of stay, p. 3, 
 30; his first captivity, 7 sq.; his 
 bonds, p. 8, 9; his abode in Rome, 
 Ῥ. 9, το, 102; his comparative li- 
 berty, p. 9; his associates and friends, 
 Ῥ. Io 8q., 34 8q.; correspondence 
 from Rome, p. 12, 408q.; preaching 
 and success there, p. 13 56.; imter- 
 view with the Jews, p. 14 sq.; his 
 feelings and sorrows at Rome, p. 
 39 sq.; hopes of release, p. 40 8q., 
 ii. 24; trial, etc., p. 3, 4, 301; his 
 silence about political events, p.6sq.; 
 tradition of his death, ii. 8; chrono- 
 logy of his epistles, p. 139; lost 
 letters of, p. 138 sq.; his irony, iii. 6; 
 his acquaintance with Stoic diction, 
 etc., p. 303 54. ; his use of hyperbole, 
 Ῥ. 33; irregular constructions, 1. 27, 
 20, 30, 1. τὸ 5, 12, 22, 111. 18, Iv. fo, 
 12; mode of closing his epistles, p. 
 126; see accumulated expressions, citi- 
 zenship,Corinthians, Philippi, Philip- 
 pians, Seneca, ete. 
 
 peccatum, p. 296, 321 
 
 Pelagius, on bishops and presbyters, p. 
 99 
 
 Perizonius on ‘preetorium,’ p. 102 
 
 Persis, p. 10 
 
 Peshito Syriac, the; identifies the titles 
 ‘bishop’ and ‘presbyter,’ p. 97 
 
 Peter (St), in prison, p. 8; appoints 
 bishops, p. 209, 210; styles himself 
 ‘fellow-presbyter,’ p. 198 
 
 Philemon, Evistle to, Ὁ. 12 ; not written 
 
 343 
 from Cesarea, p. 30, 31; date of, p. 
 31 Sq. 
 
 Philip (St) at Hierapolis, p. 202 
 
 Philip of Gortyna, p. 217 
 
 Philippi, former names of, p. 47; its 
 site and natural advantages, p. 47, 
 48; its mines, p. 48, 49; site of the 
 battle of, p. 48 ; mixed population of, 
 p- 49; ἃ Roman colony, p. 50, 51, 
 i. 27; Jews at, p. 52 8q.; length of 
 journey from Rome to, p. 38; St 
 Paul’s first visit to, p. 49 sq.; his 
 conversions at, p. 53 sq.; their typi- 
 eal character, p. 54 sq.; women at, 
 Ῥ. 55 Sq., iv. 2, 3; his sufferings at, 
 p. 58, 59, i. 30; grandeur of the in- 
 cidents, p. 58; his second and third 
 visits, p. 59, 60; later visits, p. 62; 
 crime of Valens, p. 64; subsequent 
 history of the Church of, p. 65; epi- 
 scopacy at, p. 215 
 
 Philippians, the; their communications 
 with St Paul, p. 36 sq., 59; absence 
 of Judaism among, p. 53, 68; their 
 fidelity to St Paul, p. 53, 58; they 
 send relief to him, p. 61, i. 5, 7, iv. 
 15 56. ; his affection for them, p. 66, 
 67, i. 1; their sufferings, p. 58, 59; 
 their strife, p. 67, 68, i. 4, iii. 1, iv. 
 28q., 7; Communications with Igna- 
 tius, p. 62, 63; correspondence with 
 Polycarp, p. 63, 64; lost letters (Ὁ) of 
 St Paul to them, 111. 1. p. 138 sq. 
 
 Philippians, Epistle to the; written 
 from Rome, p. 12, 30 sq.; date of, 
 Ῥ. 31 8q., 62, 173; circumstances at 
 the time, p. 33, 34; its motivé, p. 
 66 sq.; structure and contents, p. 68 
 sq.; interruption of, p. 69, iii. 2, iv. 
 2; integrity of, p. 69, iii. 1; genuine- 
 ness of, p. 74 sq.; allusion to Juda- 
 izers in, p.17, 69, 1. 15 Sq., ill. 2 sq.; 
 its characteristics, p. 42, 66 sq., 73 
 sq.; its cheerful tone, p. 66, i. 1, 4, 
 25, li. 18,. iii. 1, iv. 4, 6; compared 
 with Acts, p. 38 sq.; with Col, 
 Ephes. Philem., p. 38, 41 sq.; with 
 Romans, p. 42 sq.; with Thessalo- 
 nians, p. 66, 67, i. 1, 28, iv. 1,15, 
 
344 
 
 16; with Galatians, i. τ. 153 with 
 2 Corinthians, iii. 5; public reading 
 of, p. 65; lessons to be derived irom, 
 Pp. 73 
 
 Philippopolis confused with Philippi, 
 p. 65 
 
 Philistines in Rome, p. 173 
 
 Philo, on the Word, ii. 2; his use of 
 μορφή, Ῥ. 130 
 
 Philologus, p. 177 
 
 philosophy, later Greek, p. 271 54. 
 
 Phlegon, p. 100 
 
 Piers Ploughman, p. 327 
 
 Pinytus, p. 217 
 
 Pistis Sophia, μορφή and σχῆμα in, p. 
 132 Sq. 
 
 Pius (I of Rome), p. 169, 222 
 
 Plato (Platonists), ethics of, li. 4; use 
 of μορφή, εἶδος, etc. in, p. 128 sq.; his 
 portrait of the just man, p. 293 
 
 Plutarch ; his silence about Christians, 
 p. 28; his use of μορφή, p. 129 
 
 Polycarp ; a bishop, p. 210, 212 ; visits 
 Rome, p. 222 ; analysis of his epistle, 
 Ῥ. 63 sq.; its date, p. 63; passages 
 in it explained, p. 63, 64, 140 8q., 
 iv. 15; recognises three orders, p. 
 98; adopts St Paul’s language, p. 
 78, i. 27, iv. 10; speaks of Hpistle 
 (or Epistles) to Philippians, p. 138, 
 140 sq.; mentions no bishop of 
 Philippi, p. 215 ; has not sacerdotal 
 views, p. 251 8q. 
 
 Polycrates (of Ephesus), and his rela- 
 tions, p. 213; passages quoted from 
 him, p. 212, 214; notice of St John 
 in*p. 253; is he sacerdotal? p. 253 
 
 Pompeius, p. 14 
 
 Pomponia Grecina, probably a Chris- 
 tian, p. 21 
 
 Poppa; her character, p. 5; relations 
 with the Jews, p. 5, 6, 330; supposed 
 antagonism to St Paul, p. 39; 41, 3393 
 reported a Christian, p. 21 
 
 Posidonius the Stoic, p. 310 
 
 Pothinus, p. 224 
 
 Preedicatio Pauli, p. 202 
 
 pretor, another name for duumyir,p. 51 
 reoborian camp, p. 9) 101 sq. 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Praetorian guards, p. 7, 9, 19, 100 56.; 
 prefect of the, p. 7, 8, 301 
 pretorium ; see πραιτώριον 
 presbyter (elder), among the Jews, p. 
 96, 192; ἐπίσκοπος a synonyme of, 
 Ῥ. 95 54., 193 54. ; Christian presby- 
 ters derived from the synagogue, p. 
 192 8q.; in the mother Church, Ὁ. 
 193; in Gentile Churches, p. 193 sq.; 
 their duties, p. 194 sq. ; their names, 
 p. 194; bishops so called, p. 228 sq. ; 
 how addressed by bishops, p. 96 sq., 
 230; ‘presbyteri doctores,’ Ὁ. 195; 
 see ministry, priest, etc. 
 present tense, force of, 11.°17 
 priest distinguished from presbyter, p. 
 186; the two confused in many lan- 
 guages, p. 186, 246 
 priesthood; idea common to Jewish 
 and heathen, p. 182, 265; the Chris- 
 ‘tian, p. 183, 184 8q., 264 sq.; uni- 
 versal, ii. 17, p. 268; the Jewish, p. 
 182; not called κλῆρος, p. 2475 ana- 
 logy with Christian ministry, 263 sq.; 
 see ministry, sacerdotalism, etc. 
 Primus of Corinth, p. 216 
 Priscilla; see Aquila 
 proseucha, p. 52 
 provocatio, p. 7 
 Publius of Athens, p. 217 
 Puteoli, p. 26, 33 
 pythoness at Philippi, p. 54 
 πάλιν (its position), 1. 26 
 παλλαντιανός, Pp. 100 
 παραβολεύεσθαι (-Bovreter Gas), 11. 30 
 παράκλησις, li, 1 
 παραμένειν (μένειν), 1, 25 
 παραμύθιον, ii. I 
 παρρησία, 1. 20 
 mas; οἱ πάντες, ii, ατ; τὰ πάντα, iii. 8; 
 ἐν παντί, ἐν πᾶσι, iv. 12 
 πεινᾶν, lv. 2 
 πεποιθέναι with dative, i. 14. 
 περισσοτέρως, 1. 14 
 πίστις (ἡ) personified, i. 27 
 πλεονεξία, Ὁ. 64 
 πληροῦσθαι With accus., i. Ik 
 πλήν, 111. 16; πλὴν ὅτι, 1. 18 
 πνεῦμα (ψυχή), 1. 27 
 
INDEX. 
 
 πολιτεύεσθαι, i. 27 
 
 πολίτευμα, iil. 20 
 
 πραιτώριον, Ὁ. 9, 29, 39, 99 54.» i. 12 
 πρεσβύτερος ; see presbyter 
 
 προκοπή, 1, 12 
 
 προσευχή (dénacs), iv. 6 
 
 προσφιλής, iv. 8 
 
 πρόφασις, i, 18 
 
 πρύτανις, Ῥ. 197 
 
 πρωτοκαθεδρίτης, Ὁ. 219 
 
 πρῶτος (without article), i. 5 
 πτύρεσθαι, i. 28 
 
 φαίνειν, φαίνεσθαι, ii. 15 
 
 φθάνειν els, iii. 16 
 
 Φιλιππήσιοι (and other forms), iv. 15 
 φόβος καὶ τρόμος, ii. 12 
 
 φρονεῖν τὸ ἕν, τὸ αὐτό, li. 2 
 
 φωστήρ, ii. 15 
 
 ψυχή, 1. 27, i. 2 
 
 Quadratus, p. 217 
 Quinisextine Council, p. 188, 189 
 quinquennalis, p. 51 
 
 Rebaptism of heretics, p. 242 
 
 resurrection, power of the, iii. ro, p. 
 323, 324 
 
 Revelation; see Apocalypse 
 
 righteousness by faith and by law, i. rr, 
 iii. 9 
 
 Ritschl’s theories, p. 188 
 
 Roman Empire; its relations to Chris- 
 tianity, p. 1, 243 cosmopolitan idea 
 realised in, p. 306 
 
 Romans, Epistle to the; salutations in, 
 p- τό, 17, 20, 173 8q.3 conciliatory 
 tone of, p. 17; integrity of, p. 177; 
 its resemblance to Philippians, p. 
 42 86. 
 
 Rome, Jews in, p. 14, 173; Greeks and 
 Orientals in, p. 173 sq., 178 
 
 Rome, the Church of, p. 13 8q.; its 
 composition and character, p. 13; 
 Jewish Christians in, p. 16 sq.; Gen- 
 tile Christians in, p. 18; earliest con- 
 verts foreigners, p. 173; at first 
 Greek, not Latin, p. 19, 20, 223; 
 transition to a Latin Church, p. 223; 
 social rank of, p. 20 sq.; rapid growth 
 
 PHIL. 
 
 345 
 
 of, p. 25, 32 8q.; deacons limited to 
 seven, p. 188 sq.; episcopacy and 
 Church government in, p. 217 sq. ; 
 succession and chronology of bishops, 
 Ῥ. 169, 2208q.; communications with 
 Cyprian, p. 241 sq.; see Clemens Ro- 
 manus, Nero, Paul (St), ete. 
 
 Rothe, on the angels of the Apocalypse, 
 p. 199; on the origin of episcopacy, 
 p. 201 sq, 
 
 Rufus, p. 10, 176 
 
 Sacerdotalism; the term defined, p. 245; 
 its absence in the N.T., p. 181, 183, 
 2448q., 264 8q.; rapid growth, p. 245; 
 progress of development, p. 253 sq. ; 
 how far innocent, p, 257; whether 
 due to Jewish or Gentile influences, 
 Ῥ. 259 8q.; see priesthood 
 
 sacrifice (offering); use of the term in 
 the N. T., p. 261 sq. 
 
 Sagaris, p. 213 
 
 ‘saints,’ i. 1 
 
 Samaritans in Rome, Ὁ. 173 
 
 Saul and Paul, iii. 5 
 
 Schwegler, criticisms on, p. 15, 170 
 
 Seneca; possibly of Shemitic race, p. 
 277; his personal appearance, p. 284; 
 relations with Nero, p. 3, 312; his 
 retirement, p. 5; chronology of his 
 writings, p. 291, 298; spurious work 
 
 , ascribed to, p. 331 sq.; Haase’s edi- 
 tion of, p. 329, 331; his character, 
 p. 311 8q.; his own confessions of 
 weakness, Ὁ. 312 8q.; on the Jews, 
 p- 14; silence about the Christians, 
 p. 28,29; on the population of Rome, 
 p. 173; accounted a Christian, p. 
 270; supposed connexion with St 
 Paul, p. 270, 300 sq.; literature on 
 the subject, p. 278; compared and 
 contrasted with St Paul, p. 277 sq.; 
 coincidence of thought and language 
 with the Bible, p. 278 sq.; nature of 
 God, p. 278 sq.; relation of man to 
 God, p. 279 sq.; guardian angels, p. 
 279; an indwelling spirit, p. 280; 
 universality of sin, p. 280 sq.; the 
 conscience, p. 281; self-examination, 
 
 23 
 
346 INDEX. 
 
 etc., p. 281 sq.; duties towards others, 
 p.2828q.; parallels to the Sermon on 
 the Mount and to the Gospels, p. 
 283 sq.; to the Apostolic Epistles, 
 p. 287; to St Paul, p. 287 8q., ii. 17; 
 fallacious inferences therefrom, p. 
 291; his obligations to earlier writers, 
 p. 292 sq.; portrait of the wise man, 
 
 : p. 201 8q., 293; & true Stoic in his 
 theology and his ethics, p. 294 sq.; 
 his possible knowledge of Christian- 
 ity, p. 300 Sq.; his cosmopolitanism, 
 p. 306 sq.; his vague ideas of immor- 
 tality, p. 323 8q.; his sense of the 
 need of a historic basis, p. 326; see 
 Stotcism 
 
 Seneca and Paul, the letters of; de- 
 scribed, p. 271, 329, 330 Sq.5 MSS 
 and editions of, p. 329; motive of the 
 forgery, p. 329; opinion of St Jerome 
 about them, p. 271, 330, 331; men- 
 tioned by St Augustine and later 
 writers, p. 330; their sptriousness, 
 Ῥ. 271, 330; a theory respecting them 
 discussed, p. 331 8q.; de Copia Ver- 
 borum mentioned in them, p. 331 86. 
 
 Serapion, p. 211, 213 
 
 Seven, appointment of the, Ὁ. 187 sq. ; 
 they were deacons, p. 188 
 
 Silas, p. 49 
 
 simplicity, stress laid on, li. 15 
 
 sin; see peccatum . 
 
 slaves; their position raised by Chris- 
 tianity, p. 57; transfer of, p. 175 
 
 ‘Soerates, on αὐτάρκεια, lv. 11; On pre- 
 paration for death, p. 325 
 
 Soter, p. 223 
 
 Stachys, p. 10, 174 
 
 stadium, metaphor of the, i. 27, il. τύ, 
 111, 14, ἵΥ.1 
 
 state after death, i. 23 
 
 Stephen of Rome, p. 242 
 
 Stcecheus, p. 104 
 
 Stoicism; rise of, p. 271 sq.; Oriental 
 origin and character of, p. 273 sq., 
 275 8q., 299 864.» 310, 319, 3225 eX- 
 clusive attention to ethics, p. 2748q.5 
 neglect of physics and logic, p. 274 
 sq. ;its propheticcharacter, p. 275 8q.; 
 
 its westward progress, p. 276; the 
 older Stcies, p. 309 sq.; Stoicism at 
 Tarsus, p. 303 sq.; in Rome, p. 276, 
 310; native places of its great teach- 
 eYrs, Pp. 299, 303 Sq.; its obligations 
 to Judaism, p. 299 sq.; a prepara- 
 tion for the Gospel, p. 302 sq.; wide 
 influence of its vocabulary, p. 303; 
 contrast to Christianity, p. 293 86.» 
 308; its materialistic pantheism, p. 
 294, 3198q.; consistent blasphemies, 
 Ῥ. 295, 316; no consciousness of sin, 
 p. 296, 321 56. ; ‘sacer spiritus,’ p. 
 280, 296; faulty ethics of, p. 296 Βα.» 
 321 sq.; apathy of, p. 297, 322; de- 
 fiance of nature in, p. 321 ; inconsis- 
 tencies of, p. 298, 321; paradoxes and 
 paralogisms of, p. 325; its cosmopo- 
 litanism, iii. 20, p. 305 8q.; contempt 
 of the body, 111. 20; αὐτάρκεια, iv. τα; 
 the wise man, p. 304 84.; diverse and 
 vague ideas about man’s immortality, 
 p. 322 8q.; no idea of retribution, 
 p. 328 sq.; want of a historic basis, 
 τ. 326 sq.; religious directors, p. 3103 
 improved theology in Epictetus, p, 
 316; improved ethies in M. Aurelius, 
 p-317; modifications and decline of, 
 p- 319; hymnology of, p. 320; ex- 
 clusiveness of, p. 322; meagre results 
 of, p. 309 854.» 319; causes of failure, 
 p. 319 8q.;see Epictetus, M. Aurelius, 
 Seneca, Zeno, ete, 
 
 subdeacons, p. 189 
 
 Suetonius, on the Jews in Rome, p. 16; 
 on Clemens and Domitilla, p. 22 
 
 Symbolum, pass of, p. 48 
 
 Symeon (Bp. of Jerusalem), p. 203, 208 
 
 synagogues ; character and number of, 
 Ῥ. 192; adopted by the Christians, 
 p. 207; angels of, p. 199; rulers of, 
 p. 1021 chazan of, p. 189 sq. 
 
 synods (episcopal), p. 214, 224, 242 
 
 Syntyche, iv. 2, p. 170 
 
 Syrian Church, p.211; sacerdotalism 
 in, p. 261; see Ancient Syriac Docu- 
 ments 
 
 Syrians in Rome, p. 173 
 
 σάρξ, Ὁ. 287 
 
INDEX. 
 
 σκοπεῖν, li, 4; σκοπεῖτε, iii. 17 
 
 σκύβαλα, ete., 111. 8 
 
 σπένδομαι, ii. 17 
 
 σπλάγχνα (σπλαγχνίζεσθαι),ἷ, 8, ii. I 
 
 στέφανος (διάδημα), iv. 1 
 
 στήκειν, 1. 27, iv. 1 
 
 στρατήγιον, P. ΤΟΙ 
 
 στρατοπεδάρχης, Pp. 7, IOI 
 
 συγχαίρειν, ii. 17 
 
 συμμόρφος (-φοῦσθαι, -φίζεσθα), Ὁ. 130 
 Βα. 
 
 συναθλεῖν, i. 27 
 
 συναιχμάλωτος, P. Il 
 
 συνείδησις, Pp. 303 
 
 σύνζυγος, iv. 3 
 
 συνμιμηταί, 111. 17 
 
 συνσχηματίζεσθαι, p. 130 Sq. 
 
 Συντύχη, iv. 2 
 
 σχῆμα (μορφή, ὁμοίωμα), 11. 6 Sq., P. 127 
 sq. 
 
 Tacitus on the Christians, p. 24 
 Tarsus, Stoicism at, p. 303 sq. 
 Telesphorus, p. 222 
 tent, metaphor from a, i. 23 
 Tertullian; on the Philippian letter, 
 p. 65, 773 on episcopacy, p. 212, 215, 
 227,239; on the Church and bishops 
 of Rome, p. 223 sq.; on Seneca, 
 p. 270; on natural Christianity, p. 
 327; use of ‘clerus’ in, p. 248; sa- 
 cerdotal views of, p. 255 sq. 
 Testaments of the Twelve Patriachs; 
 no sacerdotalism in, p. 259 sq.; re- 
 semblances to Philippians in, p. 75 
 thanksgiving, duty of, iv. 6 
 Thebuthis, p. 208 
 Theodore of Mopsuestia ; a passage cor- 
 rected and explained, p. 97; on 
 bishops and presbyters, p. 99; on 
 bishops and Apostles, p. 195; on pra- 
 torium, p. 99 
 Theodoret, on bishops and presbyters, 
 p-99; on bishops and Apostles, p. 195 
 8q.; on pretorium, p. 100 
 Theophilus of Antioch, p. 211 
 Theophilus of Cxsarea, p. 209 
 Thessalonians, Epistles to the; see Phi- 
 lippians, Epistles to the 
 
 347 
 
 Thessalonica, mistake respecting, p. 50; 
 lost letters to, p. 139; episcopacy at, 
 p. 215 
 
 Thomas, Acts of; reference to Philip- 
 pians, p. 76 
 
 Thrace, episcopacy in, p. 217 
 
 Thraseas of Eumenia, p. 214 
 
 thundering legion, p. 29 
 
 Thyatira, Lydia of, p. 54 
 
 Tiberius; his treatment of Agrippa, 
 p. 103 sq.; of Drusus, p. 103; prae- 
 torian camp built by, p. ror 
 
 Tigellinus, p. 5, 41 
 
 Timotheus; his character, ii. 20 sq.; 
 in Rome, p. 11; at Philippi, p. 49, 
 59, 62, 1. 1, ii. 19 sq.; his position at 
 Ephesus, p.199 Ὁ 
 
 Titus; his position in Crete, p. 199 
 
 transcribers, fidelity of, ii. 1 
 
 travelling, rate of ancient, p, 38 
 
 Tryphena, p. 175 sq. 
 
 Tryphosa, ib. 
 
 Tiibingen school, p. 74, 170 sq. 
 
 Tychicus, p. 11, 31, 32 
 
 Tyndale and other versions, rendering 
 of πρεσβύτερος in, p. 246 
 
 τὰ κατ᾽ ἐμέ, 1. 12 
 
 ταπεινόφρων, etc., li. 4 
 
 τέλειοι, iii. 15 
 
 τί γάρ; 1. 18 
 
 τὸ αὐτό, i. 18 
 
 τοῦτο ἵνα, i. g 
 
 Θεός, ὁ Θεός, ii. 6 
 
 θεοσεβής, Ῥ. 5 
 
 θεοφόρος, Ῥ. 315 
 
 θλίψις, 1. 17 
 
 θυσία, ii. 17 
 
 θυσιαστήριον; see altar 
 
 Valens (the Philippian); his crime, p. 
 64, 215; the name common in Ma- 
 cedonia, p. 64 
 
 Victor of Rome, p. 223 sq. 
 
 vine, parable of the, p. 326 sq. 
 
 Vitringa, criticisms on, p. 188, 199, 207 
 
 Volkmar, criticisms on, p. 170 
 
 Urbanus, p. 10, 174 
 
 Vulgate rendering of πρεσβύτερος, Ὁ. 246 
 
 ὑμᾶς repeated, i. 7 
 
348 
 
 ὑμῖν ete, (for ἑαυτοῖς etc.), 11. 5 
 ὑπακοή, li. 12 
 
 ὑπάρχειν, 11. 6, iii. 20 
 Umepuour, i. 9 
 
 Wiclif’s version, p. 246 
 
 Wieseler on pretorium, p. 103 
 
 woman; raised by Christianity, p. 55, 
 56; her influence in Macedonia, p. 56 
 
 Word of God, the; see Christ 
 
 work, the, ii. 30 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Xystus, p. 221, 222; proverbs ascribed 
 to, p. 222 
 Eevla, p. 9 
 
 Zeno; his system compared with that 
 of Epicurus, p. 272 sq.3 aPhoenician, 
 p. 273; his character, p. 309; his ad- 
 mired polity, p. 306, 311; see Stotcism 
 
 Zephyrinus, p. 223 sq. 
 
 Zoticus, p. 214 
 
 ζῆλος, iii. 6 
 
 Car, 
 
 
 
 CAMBRIDGE: PRINTED BY C. J. CLAY, M,A. AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS. 
 
ΠΝ 
 ὯΝ 
 
 ἢ 
 
 
 

 

 
DATE DUE 
 
 - cre | 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 DEMCO 38-297 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Asn) 
 i 
 Mh 
 
 
 

 
 BS2705 .L724 1878 
 Saint Paul's Epistle to the 
 
 Princeton Theological Se 
 
 TY 
 
 Philippians 
 
 012 00064 7448