peepee on ‘4 δ , eye Sat) ν᾽ » ΜΥΎΧΧΣ 3s verte’ Ἐν νλεεἷν Dh? vy es vy ’ my > DAN , , ie BC ICA phe ve a ve δ vy ve hry pre a per a) ey A ν᾽ » ᾿ γον νιν La eye Oe rea . rey vy Ἦν “ yee ἦν a) ’ [ΧΑ] ν * y , ᾿ , ” ve ny ree. Pee be ΎΧ ἊΣ, FP Pye D εἶ ’ , ἡ , vy aad) RAE Lae [ἊΣ eo vy ἣν ἣν ν , » ᾿ ἐν ? on , r ’ ν᾿ KS ἤ LAMA ΓᾺ) 66606 ᾿ > vey γ i) ν᾿ Ψ' Py? Lad » Me er a a, s »᾿-ς, ona = ee a ἵν ͵ ΩΣ per "ἤν Ρ ‘ ’ OOS tf wee + OO ἮΝ ot the Ἔν Sem; τὴν ἀνὰ ni PRINCETON, N. J. BV 4010 .L43 Lefroy, William, 1836-1909. The Christian ministry ~~~ feo CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. THE DONNELLAN LECTURES; DELIVERED BEFORE THE UNIVERSITY OF DUBLIN, 1887-8. THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY: dts Origin, Constitution, Hature, and ork. A CONTRIBUTION TO PASTORAL THEOLOGY, BY WILLIAM: LEFROY, D.D,, DEAN OF NORWICH. London: HODDER AND STOUGHTON, 27, PATERNOSTER ROW. MDCCCXC. ? ‘Fontes adire remotos.’ Pn Ea Cs HESE Lectures are offered as a contribution to the study of Pastoral Theology. They were delivered, for the most part, before the Uni- versity of Dublin, in my discharge of a sacred trust, which is known as the Donnellan Lectureship. Their subject is one of the questions of the day. The Christian Ministry: Its Origin, its Constitution, its Nature, its Work,—is at present invested with an interest which it has not hitherto obtaimed, and which shows no signs of abatement. Whatever may be our theological bias, it will, I think, be generally and even readily conceded, that this interest is largely due to the demands which are made for the Ministry, by those who claim to exercise sacerdotal functions and to administer sacerdotal authority. The theory, of which these are expressions, was formulated within our own Church by the Tractarians. It was espoused by three Anglican Bishops,—a former Lord Bishop of Exeter, a former Lord Bishop of Salisbury (Dr. vi Preface. W. K. Hamilton), and the present Lord Bishop of Lincoln. ‘Thus influentially and even officially expounded and defended, it has gained many adherents amongst the Clergy; it has produced remarkable changes, in worship, in terminology, and in devotional literature; it has created or- ganised antagonisms within the Church; it has affected the Nonconformist bodies beyond the Church; and even the Church of Rome has not been untouched by the wash of the ‘Tractarian wave. The excursus of the late lamented and most learned Bishop of Durham, on The Christian Ministry, and published more than twenty years ago, made a profound impression in England. It is a digest of history, gathered from the ecclesi- astical life of different countries, and of different ages. It is a masterly exposition of the spirit, as well as of the letter, of such sacred Scriptures as bear upon the sacerdotal claims—claims which that exhaustive work discredits. Ten years later, in 1880, Lectures on The Or- gamisation of the Harly Christian Churches were delivered, on the Bampton Foundation, by the late Rev. Edwin Hatch, M.A. These Lectures were published in 1882. It is not too much to say that they exhibit unsparing diligence, wide and varied research, and intrepid devotion to the principles to which the learned lecturer’s investiga- Preface. Vil tions seemed to lead him. Alas—may we reverently say it—that he should have been removed, and that, too, when the strength of manhood was yet unworn, and when all he had done gave to students, even though they differed from him, promise of further gleanings from some fields of history which are, even still, pathless! With the principle of his work I am in hopeless conflict. But disagreement, even of this kind, is no hindrance to my acknowledgment of indebtedness: more perhaps, in the way of incentive than in any other—and it does not assuredly interfere with respect for intellectual independence. With sacer- dotalism Dr. Hatch had not even an approach to sympathy. He has left it as his solemn con- viction, that ‘‘an exaggerated conception of the place and functions of the Christian Ministry has operated, more than any other single cause, to alienate the minds of men from the faith of Christ.”” That ‘ exaggerated conception’ has been frequently and even powerfully formulated. Its latest advocate issued his apology on its behalf at the close of the year 1888. The Church and the Ministry, by the Rev. Charles Gore, M.A., Principal of the Pusey House, Oxford, and Examining Chap- lain to the Lord Bishop of Lincoln, has, if I may be allowed to say so, many conspicuous merits. Its facts are well marshalled. Its abounding hypo- theses are commended by rare plausibility. Its Vill Preface. conclusions are stated “clearly and strongly. It is pervaded by an admirable spirit. But the adop- tion by the author of the hypothetic method is disappointing, and he appears to me to revel in the ‘‘free use of unproved assumptions.” Some of these I have ventured to indicate. The first of the Lectures here published en- deavours to vindicate the claim which is made for the Society which Jesus Christ founded, as supernatural in its origin, and as possessed of a Ministry, by Divine appointment, and with Divine authority. The second Lecture shows that, assuming the inspiration of the Acts of the Apostles and of the Epistles, the divinely appointed and authorised ministry, was recog- nised in the Churches which were planted and organised, and that the general obligations of either the address of our risen Lord on the first Easter Day, or of the Gallean Commission, are not in the least inconsistent with His institution of the Christian Ministry. The third Lecture shows the difference there is, in the history, between an itinerant and a residential Ministry. It is an at- tempt, and I humbly believe, the first attempt, to work out the theory of Professor Harnack, respecting the ministry of the ‘apostle, prophet, and teacher.” This has been traced through the missionary journeys which are recorded in the Acts of the Apostles ; it reappears in the Didacheé ; Preface. 1X and conspicuously in Hermas. The fourth Lecture shows that, from a very early period, there are indications of the presence in the Church of a Ministry, which was local, permanent, and unequal. Here I have been obliged to recur, more than once, to the same set of facts which I appealed to in the third Lecture. The same incidents show the presence in these early times of both the itinerant and the permanent Ministry. The latter I believe to be represented by Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons. The transition of the itinerant to the permanent Ministry has a very important bearing upon the theory of the Apostolic Succession, but I have, for reasons which appear to me to be sufficient and constraining, declined to avail myself of the argument which “the period of transition ”’ obviously supplies; and whoever takes the trouble to read and to weigh what has been written in an Appendix upon κυβερνήτης will see that there are cogent reasons for assigning the highest au- thority to Episcopal Government. But I do not believe the grace of God is limited to Episcopacy. If, for instance, through some terrible accident, or visitation, or plague, all the Bishops in the world died, the loss would be, I sincerely believe, in- calculable. We should lose the great and spiritual influence of their piety, their devotion, and their conspicuous self-denial. We should lose their vast learning, and their varied, patient, and studied x Preface. moderation. We should, sorrowfully, and relue- tantly, have been severed from the remote past, and from historic connection with an antiquity compared with which the oldest thrones in Europe are but as yesterday. But I do not believe the calamity would affect either the flow or the fulness of the grace of God. I do not believe the Church, to which the Eternal Presence has been promised, would thereby come to an end. The fifth Lecture states the work of the Ministry; and the sixth, the evidential effects of that work, as showing the help which is rendered by the moral argument to the historical and to the philosophical arguments on behalf of Christianity. The seventh Lecture is on Apostolic Succession. That theory underlies all the controversies which gather round the sacerdotal claim. It has been discussed without even such reference as the Rev. Charles Gore has made to the moral obliquities and even enormities which called down the literary lightning of Lord Macaulay. The argument which I have submitted does not require such emphasis or such auxiliaries as were thus suggested, although they do surely touch the subject at one point. But I have designedly discarded even a reference to them. And while I reject, without reserve, the doctrine as Mr. Gore and others have stated it, I hold, ea animo, the rights of the Divine Society, and the Divine origin of the Christian Ministry. Preface. XI But it is a Ministry of Order and of Authority. No man may reject its message or derange its executive without sin. The Church lacks no inspiration more sorely now than the Divine Ideal of Order. The eighth Lecture is on Sacerdotalism. Here let me say, my prayer is that the Church may, through God’s overruling mercy as against man’s exaggerated claims, realise her sacerdotal character. If every true believer in our Blessed Lord devoted himself to the sacrifice of his time, of his talents, of his sympathy, of his substance, to the advance- ment of the Kingdom of Christ, and in accordance with the needs and in sympathy with the labours of the Ministry, the spurious claims of a caste Clergy would be cancelled by the moral weight of individual and of corporate sanctification. And if the sorrowful strife of our age cause us to look more earnestly and prayerfully into the privileges which are ours in Christ, and equally ours; if, perceiving them, all men are organised to work them out in the “ . . . loveliness of perfect deeds, More strong than all poetic thought,” then the keen sorrow which all must feel because o our unhappy divisions will be turned into joy. Christian believers will be actually the high-priestly race of God. Christian ministers can claim no more. ‘hey are no less. X11 Preface. It remains for me to say that these Lectures were prepared amid the thronging duties which pressed upon me—not only as Incumbent of St. Andrew’s, Liverpool, but as Archdeacon of War- rington. In this latter position, there came to me, and necessarily, ceaseless demands, and as ceaseless interruptions. To render help to the Lord Bishop of Liverpool, in initiating, expanding, and strength- ening diocesan organisation; to gather funds for the Churches, Schools, and Diocesan Societies in which his lLordship’s diocese is so strong, was amongst the brightest joys of a busy life. But such work was hardly conducive to that calmness and concentration which a University Lectureship demands. But I have done what I could. And yet, not all I ought. For I am deeply indebted to many, amongst the dead as amongst the living. These I desire to thank if I could. Amongst the latter, I acknowledge the counsel and the help which I have received from the Rey. George H. St.P. Garrett, B.D., Vicar of Widnes. His scholarship, varied and accurate, was of great use to me. Amid the manifold calls upon his time, he read the proofs and compiled the index. My warmest thanks are his. THE DEANERY, NorwicuH, January 31st, 1890. ΓΤ ΤΥ Ne . LECTURE I. THE DIVINE ORIGIN OF THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. PAGE The Ages between the Advents—The Church survives the Centuries— Theme of the Saviour’s Converse—The Grand Proclamation—Power from on High—Apostolic Consciousness of Corporate Life—No Life without the Life-Giver—Witness of Holy Scripture, Church, Creeds— * Evolution “ἢ corrective of Sublime Exaggeration—Can a Tribal Cult evolve a Universal Creed ?—Judaism, without Jesus, unconscious of Catholicity —Apostles Ignorant of Nature of Kingdom—Ministry not Financial—Modern Perplexities Ministerial Opportunities—Priest- hood Common to Polytheism and Monotheism—The Pastoral Office Creation of Christ : : : : : : : : ᾿ . 1-41 LECTURE II. THE CONSTITUTION OF THE MINISTRY.—Part I. Patient Inquiry or “ Prospective Belief ”’—The Great Enunciation—The Great Commission, to whom addressed—Apostles distinguished from Adherents—Position that of Government—Authority invoked on Behalf of Saul—Evidence of First Missionary Journey—First Church Council—An Apostolic Ministry recognised in Epistles to Corinthians, Ephesians, etc.—Alleged Structureless Character of Pauline Churches — Precarious Theory—Incredible according to Analogies of Apostolic Organisation—Witness of St. Peter to Christian Ministry . ; . 42-80 LECTURE III. THE CONSTITUTION OF THE MINISTRY.—Part II. Nee Ministry is Gift of Ascended Saviour—Apostles, Prophets, Teachers— Joel’s Prediction—Ministry of Proclamation, Power, Administration— Consciousness of Unity and Recognition of Order—Prophets and Teachers authorised to Ordain—Itinerancy, Permanence—Philippi, Apostle, Prophet, Evangelist—Resident Ministry in Thessalonian Chureh—Corinthian Church not structureless, but organised— Spiritual Gifts bestowed—Evidence of the Epistle, Necessities of the City—xu8epvnrns—Localisation of Presbyters—From Pentecost to 58 —Ministry, Itinerant, yet Local—Itinerancy of Apostles, Prophets, Teachers—Deacons and Presbyters Local—In Ignatius, Ministry Tripartite and Permanent—Period of Transition indicated in Didache . : - : ; Σ : * : : : . 81-126 ΧΙν Contents. LECTURE IV. THE CONSTITUTION OF THE MINISTRY.—Parrt III. PAGE Apostolic Miracles Provisional — Permanent Ministry, a Reasonable Appointment—A postolic Institution of the Diaconate—Difficulties of Dr. Cunningham’s Theory—Institution of the Order from Above— Deacons distinct from Bishops—Deacons not allowed to Ordain nor to Rule—Dissatisfied with their Position—Presbyteral Office promi- nent in Judaism—Presbyters held Intermediate Position—Place and Influence in First Council—Doctrinal Question then raised and decided—Were Ministers of the Word rather than Officers of Disci- pline—Chief Duty of Presbyters—Witness of the Church of Ephesus —Restrictions upon Presbyters—Episcopacy—St. James in Jerusalem —St. Timothy in Ephesus—St. Titus in Crete—Bishop Chief Minister of a Spiritual Society—Not so prominent in Primitive Times as now —Witness of Sub-Apostolic Literature—Apostolic Order—Divine Appointment . . 5 - . . : . : . 127-189 LECTURE V. THE MORAL SPHERE OF MINISTERIAL WORK. Universality of Sin and Death—Aberglaube and M. Arnold—Sinful Sphere for Sacred Labour—Concord of Scripture and Classical Literature— Sin coincident with Individual Life—Christ compares Moral to Physical Death—Awful Reality of Analogy—Sin, Original, Actual— The Great Deception— Moral Symmetry of the Saviour’s Mission— Spirit, Soul, Body—Sacrament of the New Birth—Baptism and Spiritual Life not always synchronous—Spiritual Life may precede Baptism—Multiplied Experience connects it with Baptism—Baptism the Crisis of Confession—Spiritual Life generated by the Word—The Charactevistics of Spiritual Life to be observed—Christ brought Peace — Magnified Law in Love— Pardon through Atonement proclaimed in Lord’s Supper—Penalty attached to Sin annulled by Christ—Minis- terial Offices, administrative, liturgical, didactic—Importance of Didactic Office, established from New Testament, Patristic Writings— Preaching equally prominent in Anglican Ordinal—Sacerdotalism prominent in Roman—Moral Supremacy of Holy Writ—To be jealously guarded, fully published—Comte and Newman—Christ, the Light of all Time, Thought, Scripture—Redemption universal— Election of Grace, not Reprobational—St. Chrysostom on Study of Scripture—Conquests of Primitive Church due to Preaching . 190-271 LECTURE VI. THE EVIDENTIAL VALUE OF MINISTERIAL WORK. The Witness of the Church to Jesus Christ—Spiritual Life mysterious— Justification by Faith taught by Clement of Rome, Hooker, etc.— Spiritual Peace precedes Spiritual Work—Conquest of Sin, the Problem of the Awakened—The Great Perplexity of the Gnostics— Contents. XV Sin unsubdued by Knowledge or Culture—Christ alone can conquer Bs Sin—Christian Sanctity and Heathen Society—Witness borne by Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Libanius—Great Disproportion between Workers and Work—Moral Adaptability of Gospel to Human Needs— Organic Unity of Spiritual Life—To be accounted for—Spiritual Life One, Continuous, Universal—Great Importance of Moral Argument— Increases Difficulties of Materialism—Helps Philosophical Argument —Trinity associated with Ministerial Commission—Herbert Spencer’s Data of Ethics—Christians the Best Evidences of Christianity . 272-325 LECTURE VII. NATURE OF CHRISTIAN MINISTRY—APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION.-— PART I. Apostolic Succession undiscoverable in the Official Language of the Church —Nature and Vastness of the Theory—Significance of the Church’s Silence—Sense in which Succession is true—Sacerdotal Succession obtained in Judaism—It was Hereditary, yet violated—Apostolic Suc- cession an Individual Claim—a 519-521 ΠῚ THE ESSENTIALS OF APOSTOLICITY . ᾿ 5 : : ᾿ . 521-525 ΤΠ. THE WITNESS OF THE SAMARITAN MISSION OF SS. PETER AND JOHN To CHURCH ORDER, TO SACRAMENTAL INITIATION, TO CON- FIRMATION, AND TO UNITY. ὃ 5 ἢ : : : . 525-580 Ve THE JERUSALEM COUNCIL AND THE PLYMOUTHISM OF THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH . : 5 : ᾿ ὶ ᾿ Ε . 530-532 V. Tue “ CRITICAL METHOD” AND THE FIRST SIX CHAPTERS OF ACTS 532-534 ᾿ Vale THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE WORD κυβερνήσεις, AS USED BY ST. PAUL AND BY ST. IGNATIUS. , : ; Γ j ὦ : . 534-536 VIL. THE CONNOTATION OF ποίμαινειν 536-539 VIII. THE PROPHECY OF MALACHI: ITS EUCHARISTIC SIGNIFICANCE AND PATRISTIC APPLICATION . 5 : : 5 7 2 . 539-555 IX, INSPIRED ANTICIPATIONS OF MODERN SCIENCE . : : . 555, 556 LECTURE. I. “Speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God.’—AcrtTs i. 3, ΝΥ" enter to-day’ upon that season of the Christian year which is designed to pre- pare us, in a spirit of humility, of gratitude, and of adoring faith, to contemplate the Incarnation. Our minds are drawn aside from the acts of Christ, as recorded in the Holy Gospels, to His entrance into this mortal life, in a condition of weakness, of poverty, of lowliness. Every return of Advent Sunday reminds us of the approach of that day on which we re-assert our belief in the most tremendous fact in human history, a fact which is indelibly inscribed upon the mind of Christendom, and which, from ten thousand times ten thousand voices, is repeated as often as the ancient Creed of Nicea is rehearsed: ‘‘ Who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven.” The observance of this season serves another purpose than that which is indicated by a profes- sion of faith, or by individual edification. It asserts the corporate and the continuous life of the 1 Advent Sunday. 2 The Christian Ministry. Church of Jesus Christ. For twelve centuries at least, this sacred period has been specialized, in the West.’ It is true, that in the sixth century the time of its celebration was not uniform; in- deed ‘‘the Nestorians in the Hast were the first who changed the commencement of the year from Easter to Advent.”* But there is no debate respecting the utility or the dogmatic significance of the season. The spiritual life—individual, or- ganic, progressive, and perpetual—of the kingdom of Christ is indicated by the ancient observance of Advent, under such varied religious, moral, social, and political conditions as are represented by the history of twelve centuries. But the con- templation of the first coming of Christ most naturally suggests His second coming; and a contrast is presented between His state in the one and His state in the other. ‘“‘He came to visit us in great humility;” ‘‘He shall come again in His glorious majesty.”’ This latter truth is also confessed, and even emphasized at this 1 “The observation of Advent as a season of preparation for Christmas, can- not be certainly traced to an earlier date than the sixth century, at least in the West”’ (Procter, p. 271). But Philastius or Philaster, the Bishop of Brixia (Brescia), mentions the “ fast of December, or the tenth month ” in connection with the Nativity of Christ : “ Nam per annum quatuor jejunia in ecclesia cele- brantur: in Natali primum,” etc. And as to the purpose these seasons were designed to serve, the testimony of Bingham is clear. ‘ These (fasts) were at first designed . . . to return thanks for the benefits received in each of them,” etc. (vide Bingham, Book xxi., c. ii., 1). The observance of the season is thus traced, in the West, to the episcopate of Philaster. He was present at Aquileia, at the Council, in 381, and 387 is regarded as the year in which he died. These circumstances suggest even an earlier date than the sixth century for the observance of Advent. ? Procter, History of the Book of Common Prayer, Ὁ. 271. The Ages between the Advents. 3 time. Thus, as every Advent Sunday returns, we own our assent and consent to two leading verities of Christianity. We declare our belief in the fact that Christ has come. We declare our faith in the promise that Christ shall come. This dual declaration was first made by angels to the affrighted and bereaved followers of the Redeemer on the great Ascension day. Christ has come. This isa fact. It is the basis of intelligent faith. It is the substratum of the fabric of Chris- tianity, historic, dogmatic, experimental, operative. To deny it, is to place oneself beyond the range of reasoning. Christ shall come. This is a prophecy. It appeals to faith. It inspires hope. It inflames love. Millions have lived and laboured and died, having accepted the fact, and in full assurance of the completion of the prophecy. Like other pre- dictions in the sacred Scriptures, it will yet become history. Between these two poles of the personal history of Christ nearly nineteen centuries already lie. No such centuries have passed over this planet. They include the rise and the growth of influences which have changed the face of society. They exhibit the perennial power of laws which, if Savigny is to be trusted, show no sign of ex- haustion. They tell the solemnizing story of vicissitudes which rocked in the throes of pitiless revolution, the noblest consolidations of strength, of conquest, of statesmanship. They have witnessed the fall of Rome, after a decade of centuries of 4 The Christian Ministry. dominion, and the survival of human society, not- withstanding the wide-spread conviction of the fourth century, as recorded -by Lactantius,! that the overthrow of the Empire introduced the end of all things. They proclaim to the politician the unwelcome but stern doctrine, that those dreams of perished grandeur, which haunt the fancy of the poet, and which intrude upon the imagination of the historian, like the hand of a corpse penning the doom of a kingdom, whilst its courtiers are in the height of their revelry, may each be realized, until a glorious and an imperial polity, preaches in sepulchral silence the saddest sermon the ears of men can hear. These centuries have witnessed, too, the re-casting of the map of Hurope, I dare not say how frequently ; for in this period how many countries have changed masters, modes of govern- ment, and dynasties! They have witnessed the discovery of a new world, vast in area, vigorous in life, and to-day the home to which our superfluous populations are attracted. And time would fail me 1 «“ De signis, que predicta sunt a prophetis, licet noscere. Praedixerunt enim nigna, quibus consummatio temporum et exspectanda sit nobis in singulos dies et timenda. Quando tamen compleatur hzc summa, docent ii, qui de tempori- bus scripserunt, colligentes ex literis sanctis, et ex variis historiis, quantus sit numerus annorum ab exordio mundi. Qui licet varient, et aliquantum numeri eorum summa dissentiat, omnis tamen exspectatio non amplius, quam ducen- torum videtur annorum. L[tiam res ipsa declarat, lapsum ruinamque rerum breyi fore ; nisi quod incolumi urbe Roma nihil istiusmodi videtur esse metuen- dum. At vero quum caput illud orbis occiderit, et ῥύμη esse coeperit, quod Syballe fore aiunt: quis dubitet venisse jam finem rebus humanis, orbique terrarum? Illa, illa est civitas, que adhuc sustinat omnia: precandusque nobis et adorandus est Deus cceli, si tamen statua ejus et placita differi possunt, ne citius, quam putemus, tyrannus ille abominandus yeniat, qui tantum facinus moliatur, ac lumen illud effodiat cujus interitu mundus ipse lapsurus est.” —Lactantii Firm., Znstitutionum, lib. vii., de Vita Beata, cxxy. (Lipsiz). The Church survives the Centurves. 5 to even summarise the achievements which the later centuries have witnessed in literature, in science, in enterprise. What further enterprises, what larger discoveries, what stiJl mightier achieve- ments, what still vaster vicissitudes may remain to be recorded as falling within the period which is limited by the angelic prophecy, who can tell ? Looking back through these centuries, we are impressed by the fact that there is no earthly kingdom in the nineteenth which is the lineal successor of its ancestor in the first. One society which began then exists now, and but one One kingdom alone can claim to have unbroken, historic, and vital continuity. This is the kingdom of Christ. This is “the Church of the living God.’’? It is the new and Divine society, which was in its origin contemporaneous with the great Empire. These two represented the opposites of majesty and of meanness, of splendour and of sorrow. The giant shadow of imperial Rome, was cast over the cradle of the European nationalities. It fell far forward upon the then tenantless spaces of iil-known regions. But there is a vaster shadow. It belongs to a still more colossal and enduring creation. It is the shadow of the Church of Christ. It has fallen upon the kingdoms of Europe; upon the teeming masses and millions of Asia; upon the tribes and the countries of Africa ; upon the unworn populations of the New World; upon the savages of the islands of every sea. PAS Lim) τὴν 18; 6 The Christian Ministry. The origin and the nature of that kingdom; its temporal and eternal prospects; its apparent in- significance and its actual momentousness; 108 unwearied aggression upon wrong—whether in thought, in word, or in deed; its protection of the helpless and of the poor; its prolonged struggle and its ultimate victory ; the absence of the King, yet His invisible and omnipotent Presence; the duration and the universality of His dominion— these are indicated in typology, foretold in prophecy, and chanted in song. The indications grow in number and in clearness in the pages of the Pen- tateuch, and in the representative characters of Hebrew history, until the eye of faith discerns them burning in the firmament of the Psalter, and glowing, in splendour, in the Apocalypse. How largely the kingdom of Christ entered into the teaching of the Saviour, the Gospel of the King! ' St. Matthew's Gospel is emphatically and evidentially the Gospel of the King. The keynote is struck in the opening clause: βίβλος γενέσεως ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, υἱοῦ Δαβὶδ, υἱοῦ ᾿Αβραάμ. Its echoes are heard in the prophecies which are cited as being exhausted by the Incarnation (St. Matt. i. 22, 23), by the place of the Messiah’s birth (St. Matt. ii. 6), by the nature of His rule (éd.), by the flight into and by the deliverance from Egypt (St. Matt. ii, 15), and by a long series of Scriptures, every passage being quoted to strengthen the faith of Jewish con- verts in the Messiahship of Jesus Christ. The visit of the Magi,—recorded only by this writer,—the inquiry made by them, and most suggestively made in another form by the Governor, in the Roman trial of the rejected King (comp. St. Matt. ii. 2 and St. Matt. xxvii. 11), the lengthy details supplied in this Gospel, of the mission and of the message of the Forerunner, as the herald of the kingdom ; the proclamation of its laws, the catholicity of its blessings, the nature, range, and intensity of its conflict ; the rejection of the King by the children of the kingdom, the crucifixion, the resurrection, and the royal declaration, "Ed66y μοι πᾶσα ἐξουσία ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς, are all in the same tone. The Galilean proclamation is the grand *‘Amen”’ of the whole. Like each Gospel, that by St. Matthew is an organism. Its parts are related to each other, and while it is not intended to be a systematic treatise on the kingdom of Christ, it does The Theme of the Risen Saviour’s Converse. 7 abundantly shows, and those who have studied St. Matthew’s history will not be surprised to find that “‘the things pertaining to the kingdom of God” formed the theme of the Redeemer’s post- resurrection converse with His disciples. The suggestiveness of this statement will appear if we remember but some of the topics upon which the Risen Saviour might have addressed His followers, as well as His own unique position. He had returned from the invisible world. The gates of Hades could not prevail against Him. He had preached to the spirits which were there imprisoned. The antediluvian apostates heard ‘‘ the word of the kingdom” from the lips of the King.’ nevertheless set forth, as does no other Gospel, the Royalty of the Redeemer, and the objective character of the society which He established. The oneness of this Gospel serves another end, which is indicated with characteristic power and lucidity by the Archbishop of York, in his Introduction to a volume of the Speaker's Commentary. It destroys the theory of Reuss, according to which this Gospel is little else than a mere pragmatic compilation, How prominent is the idea of the kingdom in this sacred book appears from the fact—noted by Liddon, in his incomparable work on the Deity of Christ, as well as by the Archbishop of York—that βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν occurs thirty-two times in St. Matthew’s Gospel, to which it is peculiar ; βασιλεία τοῦ Θεοῦ five times. ' It is difficult to understand how any other meaning can be extracted from language so explicit as is that which is found in 1 St. Peter iii, 18-20. The passage is amongst the most hotly contested in the New Testament, and the heat has been increased by the translation of the Authorised Version, to which, moreover, Bishop Harold Browne attributes the view which was taken of these verses by Hammond, by Pearson, and by Barrow. With truer instinct and with unstrained criticism Bishop Bickersteth thus expands them; and if the reader has not seen the use to which this exposition has been applied in the Bishop’s exalted poem, ‘‘ Yesterday, To-day, and for Ever,” he will thank me for tran- scribing the paraphrase here: “ Because even Christ suffered once on account of sins (περὶ ἀμαρτιῶν, ὁ.6., an atoning sacrifice for sins, the usual name for the sin-offerings in the LXX. version being τὰ περὶ ἁμαρτιῶν), the just on behalf of the unjust—a Sinless Victim in the stead of sinful mankind—having been put to death in (His human) flesh, but quickened in spirit (πνεύματι, omit τῷ with best MSS.), 7.¢., this disembodied human spirit—in which (human spirit) also He 8 The Christian Mintstry. Several topics are suggested by the fact of His descent into Hades and by His return. He might have spoken to His disciples of the possibility of evangelisation going forward, amongst those who hereafter might be in the same moral category as these, who were so mysteriously selected to be went a journey (πορευθείς, compare πορευθεὶς εἰς οὐρανόν, ver. 22), and preached (ἐκήρυξεν, as a herald proclaiming tidings) to the spirits in prison (φυλακῇ, compare Job xiv. 13, ἐν ἅδῃ με ἐφύλαξας, LXX.), which (spirits) were sometime disobedient—refusing to repent before the door of the ark was shut—when the long-suffering of God was waiting (ἀπεξεδέχετο, so the best MSS.) in the days of Noah, while the ark was‘a preparing, whereinto (εἰς ἥν) entering few persons, that is eight souls were saved (διεσώθησαν, ‘ thoroughly saved,’ perhaps implying both in body and soul), by means of water, for the water which buried the rest of the worid upbore the ark of their salvation.’’ This comment is on the same lines as that of Bishop Horsley, as well as Dean Alford, whose exegesis of these verses is fair, and full, and an admirable digest of much that has been written upon the subject. For a painful illustration of the way in which even good men may err in forcing their own mind into Scripture instead of faithfully endeavouring to gather God’s mind out of Scripture, the reader is referred to Matthew Henry’s exposition. The spirit of Christian antiquity is almost unanimous upon this doctrine. It shows the prevalence of the primitive belief that the spirit or soul of Christ preached the gospel to the dead. ‘True, Irenzeus does not quote this passage in connection with the descent into hell, but deduces that fact from an Old Testament interpolation, ‘‘ which he cites four times” (Dr. Salmon, Zntroduction, p. 459 n.), yet the prominence of the belief which M, Henry describes as “a popish exposition ” appears from the incidental references in some of the ancient Gnostic systems to the liberation of souls from Hades as the great purpose of the Atonement. Dr. Salmon (Lntroduction to the New Testament, p. 541), believes “that the stories concerning the Redeemer’s liberation of souls from Hades were suggested by 1 St. Peter iii. 19.” He repro- duces Eznig’s account of the Marcionite doctrine in the same connection, “ Hades is deceived into regarding the Redeemer as one of the ordinary dead, and so admitting the Spoiler who was to depopulate his kingdom.” The good God * took compassion on those who were plagued and tortured in the fire of hell, and He sent down His Son to deliver them. ‘Go down,’ He said, ‘ take on Thee the form of aservant, and make Thyself like the sons of the law. Heal their wounds, give sight to their blind, bring their dead to life, perform without reward the greatest miracles of healing; then will the God of the Law be jealous, and will instigate His servants to crucify Thee. Then go down to hell, which will open her mouth to receive Thee, supposing Thee to be one of the dead. Then liberate the captives whom Thou shalt find there, and bring them up to Me.’ This plan was carried out. Hell was deceived and admitted Jesus, Merciful Possibilities for the Ignorant ? 9 His hearers.‘ He might have instructed them upon the possible effects of the completion of His Atone- ment upon the countless throng of expectant spirits. He might have assured them that those who died in ignorance of His salvation, then, and in all the ages, would, because of His ministry in the who emptied it of all the spirits that were therein, and carried them up to His Father.’ This idea appears also in the writings of Macarius Magnes, who lived at the end of the fourth century (Dict. Chris. Bio., vol. iii, pp. 768, 822). However these eccentric imaginations may be dispelled, they attest the only point on behalf of which they are here referred to, viz., the prominent place which was given thus early, and thus constantly, to the doctrine of the Descent into Hades, Still earlier we find fragmentary references to the same truth. The Bishop of Durham’s note on παρῶν ἤγειρεν αὐτοὺς ἐκ νεκρῶν (Ignat. ad Ep, Maq., ix., p. 131) is copious and clear. He refers to Hermas (Sim., ix., 16), Clement of Alexandria (Stv'om., ii., 9), Hippolytus, Origen, and Justin Martyr (Dial., 72), as indicating the hold which the belief had on men’s minds. It was, as we should expect, used against both the Arians and the Apollinarians. The doctrine is essentially connected with belief in the Intermediate State—a belief which is assuredly scriptural, reasonable, historical,—and would that one might add, authoritative——and, so far as the Anglican Church is concerned, ecclesiastical. This latter it was. For the third Article, as published in 1553, ran thus: Quemadmodum Christus pro nobis mortuus est et sepultus, ita est etiam credendus ad inferos descendisse. Vam corpus usque ad resurrectionem in sepulchro jacuit, Spiritus ab illo emissus cum spiritibus qui in carcere sive inferno detinebantur, fuit, illisque predicavit; quemadmodum testatur Petri locus (vide Hardwick, second ed., appendix iii., p. 279-80). The mind of the Church is, however, indicated by the place which this extract from St. Peter's Epistle occupies as the Epistle on Easter Even. The omission of the words italicised above from the third Article, is thus noticed by Dr. Boultbee : “Tt must be confessed that we are happily freed from the obligation of main- taining such a comment on that passage” (Zhe Theology of the Church of England, by T. P. Boultbee, M.A., p. 30). Nevertheless, the liturgical position of the passage in the office for Easter Even is suggestive. It has not, however, the prominence which it once had, probably from faithless fear lest its promul- gation should appear to countenance the Romish novelty of purgatory upon the one hand, or of universalism upon the other,—with neither of which it has any essential connection. (For some suggestive remarks upon Purgatory, see by all means Dr. Salmon’s Jnfallibility of the Church, pp. 133, 206-14). 1 This great and suggestive subject, which is the -very heart of Christian eschatology, is treated with reason and with reverence in an ill-known work, Der Tod, das Todenreich und der Zustand der von hier absgeschiedenen Seelen. Dargestellt aus dem Wort Gottcs, von Val. Ulrich Maywablen (Berlin : 1854). 10 The Christian Ministry. invisible world, and the abiding efficacy of His sacrifice, be made acquainted with His redemptive work, and would have an opportunity mercifully afforded them of receiving it or of rejecting it.’ These, and kindred subjects relating to the invisible world, might well, one would reverentially say, be amongst the themes on which the Risen Saviour would address His apostles. And they may have been. They are not excluded from the range of “the things pertaining to the kingdom of God.” So far from this being the case, they fall, naturally and rightly, into that department of the kingdom which is represented by eschatology. On this theme —so high and elevating—the lowly labourers of the Lord could bear but little instruction. The theme was beyond them. But they were summoned to present duties. They were called by a Divine voice, to a Divine work, which included all people in its prosecution, which covered all place in its operation, and which occupied, and shall continue to occupy, all the ages which le between the Pentecostal Effusion and the Second Advent. ‘These ‘‘ things concerning the kingdom ”’ were the subjects of prophetic adumbration. The choral harmonies of Solomon’s temple celebrated them. The softer melodies of a shrine less majestical than was his, re-echoed them. The predictions of Isaiah, of Daniel, of Joel, and of Zechariah anticipated them. The dream of a Babylonian monarch depicted them. And thus revealed, in vision and in dream, in 1 1St. Peter iv. 6. Loving Wisdom for Lowly Workers. ΤῚ prophecy and in pean, is the conclusion violent, is the inference strained, that during these forty days, Christ, the Head of the Church, taught His apostles what prophet and psalm had said and sung of the Church, which is His Body? Is it improbable that He spake of His kingdom as continuing the work, which the holy evangelist so emphatically describes as having been by Him begun, the record of which is in the synoptics, and the continuance of which, no less by Him, is in the Acts?* May we not reasonably believe, that the establishment, the organisation, and the constitu- tion of the Church would be the subject of His converse, and the more so, when we remember the loving wisdom of Christ, the conspicuous incapacity and frailty of His followers, and the magnitude of the work to which they were called? That work was the subject of the great Commission. It was announced under circumstances which imply its supreme importance. Jor of all the manifesta- tions of the Risen Christ, that which was vouchsafed ' ἤρξατο, Actsi.1. This word is not redundant. It is by its position emphatic ; by its significance, essential ; by its teaching, suggestive. It implies that in the Gospel, St. Luke had stated all that Jesus Himself “began both to do and teach, until the day in which He was taken up ;” whereas in the Acts of the Apostles, he was about to set forth all that Jesus continued to do, through the apostles, under the influence of the Holy Ghost. Meyer recognises the emphatic position of ἤρξατο, yet reduces its force. He says: ‘‘ Jesus began—the apostles carried on.’ But this sentence ignores the idea, primary and essential, which is conveyed by the verb, viz., Jesus Himself began—Jesus continues, through His apostles. This word is of superlative moment. It is the germ of the doctrine respecting the Church which is expounded by St. Paul in the Epistle to the Ephesians. Bengel’s words, though they do not occur in his treatment of this verse, are clear and strong: ‘“ Libri evangelici agunt de capite, Christo: Acta ostendunt, easdem res geri in corpore ejus, quod Spiritu ejus vegetatur, a mundo vexatur, a Deo defenditur et exaltatur. Summa habetur Eph, i. 20, 22.” 12 The Christian Ministry. on the unknown Galilean mountain was the most significant. It was the only appearance which was emphasized by Christ Himself, before His cruci- fixion.' It was communicated by the angel to the holy women, on the great Haster Day. It was again announced by Christ, to these women, who were by Him commissioned to tell the brethren that they were to go into Galilee, and there see their Risen Lord. The importance of this manifestation is, moreover, heightened by its publicity. Jesus Christ had appeared to St. Peter,’ to assure him of His unchanged love notwithstanding the fisher- man’s startling perfidy. He had appeared to Mary Magdalene,’ to transfigure her ardent affection for her dead Master into reverent adoration of her living Lord. He had appeared to two disciples,* to con- sole them in their sorrow, to inform them of what they ought to have known, and to give them larger blessings than those on which their hearts were set. He had entered the room in which His trembling ' μετὰ δὲ TO ἐγερθῆναί με, προάξω ὑμᾶς εἰς τὴν Γαλιλαίαν. St. Matt. xxvi. 32 ; comp. St. Matt. xxviii. 7, 10, 16. “This very appearance was the most solemn of all, being the one which our Lord had promised before His Passion.” Heng- stenberg (Christol., vol. iy., p. 114), Schaff (Lange, Matt., p. 478), and Alford (following Schréder) regard our Lord’s announcement as made with the con- cluding words of Zechariah’s prophecy in His mind, the point of connection between the prediction and the promise being zpodéw, which is, as Bengel acutely remarks, a verbwm pastorale. If the prediction of Zechariah is thus in touch with the promised movement of the Shepherd to Galilee, then that appearance of the Risen Saviour is signalised by its being (a) the subject of prophecy ; (2) of Christ’s pre-crucifixion intimation ; (6) of angelic announcement; (() of Christ’s command, after His resurrection ; and (6) of the disciples’ obedient resort to the place “ where Jesus had appointed them.” 2 St. Luke xxiv. 34; 1 Cor. xv. 5. 3 St. John xx. 14-18. * St. Luke xxiv. 13, 25, 26, 32. The Grand Proclamation. 12 disciples sought safety from the vengeance of the Jews,’ yea, later on He repeated His visit to bring the joy of certainty to a sceptical disciple,? and by the Sea of Tiberias He was beheld by the seven.° But these appearances were to single individuals, or were to His apostles, or were to ‘‘ the women also”’ and ‘‘the other women with them.’’* And they were vouchsafed in comparative secrecy. They were by the lonely sepulchre, or on a road, and in the evening, or within closed doors, or in the early morning by the seaside. But the appear- ance on the Galilean mountain was, in its very nature, demonstrative. ‘There was a natural corre- spondence between the publicity which was here adopted and the proclamation which was here made. It is the proclamation of a King. It appears in the King’s Gospel. It reveals Christ’s possession of sovereign power, in heaven and in earth. As a consequence of that possession, the gift® of the Eternal Father to the Eternal Son, a command is there issued, a Commission is there given: “ Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.” ‘The fragmentary character of the Resurrection records is admitted by all who have studied them. The Synoptic writers supply ' St. John xx. 19. 4 St. Luke xxiii. 55, xxiv. 10. 2 St. John xx. 26-9. 5 "E6607. 2 St. John xxi. 2. 14 The Christian Ministry. some details which must be recognised alike in the study and in the practical working out of the Commission. St. Mark, for instance, emphasizes the conditions upon which the blessing depends, and the penalty of rejecting the message.’ St. Luke, recording the words of Christ upon a different occasion, accentuates as much the im- portance of repentance as he does the remission of sins, and he names Jerusalem as the centre from which the work is to radiate.” But St. Matthew is formal. He alone records Christ’s possession of absolute authority. He alone fully reports the conditions upon which discipleship depends. He alone announces the abiding presence of the In- visible, but Omnipotent Christ, with His Church. The more carefully the great Commission is studied, the clearer becomes the conviction that neither the duties which it imposes, nor the blessing which it promises could be exclusively discharged or enjoyed by those who were then addressed. The range of the evangelistic enterprise was ‘‘all the world.’”” But even though the apostles, and others, consecrated their every moment and their every power to this work, the ground which they covered would be as nothing to that which they must necessarily leave untouched ; moreover, nothing less than personal immortality would be required for their enjoyment of the promised blessing of the Presence of Christ. Hither, then, the Com- mission was a rhapsody, the terms of which went * St. Mark xvi. 16. ? St. Luke xxiv. 47, Its Audacity, Range. and Significance. 15 beyond the capacity of those to whom it was addressed, or it had a meaning, pregnant, far- reaching, and designed. But if it were a rhapsody, then we have, as a result, the most aggressive society known to mankind resting upon an enthu- siastic fiction, and the missionary enterprise which has invaded and which is invading the countries of the East, the continents of the West, and the islands of all the oceans, and which is conquering their old cults, originating in and operating by the ecstatic dream of a Galilean peasant! Such a theory needs but to be mentioned to be discredited. It disappears in the presence of the doctrine that, in these words, spoken so publicly and under condi- tions which give them unique emphasis, Christ, the King, spoke for all time. When He addressed the apostles whom He had chosen, He addressed in them the Ministry of the Church which He founded. That Church was to be as wide as all the nations, and to every nationality Christian discipleship be- came henceforth a possibility. That discipleship depended upon baptism into the name of the Holy Trinity, coupled with such instruction as inculcated obedience to ‘‘all things whatsoever”? Christ ‘“ had commanded.” To the Church as the centre of evangelisation, as the new society, which bestowed, and was in turn blessed by sacramental incep- tion, obligation, sustenance, and testimony; to her as inculcating individual obedience to the command of the King, the perpetual Presence of Christ is promised. In this Commission, then, we 16 The Christian Muinestry. have the Divine origin of the Christian ministry ; the Divine declaration of its Message; the divinely appointed Sacrament of Initiation, together with its momentous formula, by which sacrament the Church’s numbers are increased; her members are blessed, and are bound ; and we have here, moreover, the Divine obligations to obedience,’ and the re-assur- ing promise of the perpetuity of the Divine Presence. The magnitude of the work, as thus defined, must have overwhelmed those who were summoned to undertake it. Under the most advantageous circumstances human insufficiency must have been the prevailing thought in the minds of the Eleven and their adherents. But there were special con- siderations which were calculated to increase their apprehension and to strain their faith. They themselves had discredited their Master. They had betrayed His cause by treachery, by cowardice, by desertion, by denial. This was known. And it was known to those who were not likely to forget it, especially when the leaders of the new society advocated their Lord’s claims. But besides this, they clung to the traditional and popular view of a restored kingdom to Israel.”? Their 1 The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, as an abiding Institution of the Church, is also assuredly implied by the terms of this Commission, Τοῦτο ποιεῖτε els THY ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν was the last command which Christ uttered before His arrest and crucifixion; and the place which this command held in the memory and in the heart of the Church is, I think, clear from Acts ii, 42, This, the sacramental obedience of the Church, reflects the sacramental in junction of the Christ. The thousands of Pentecost ‘‘ observed ” what the apostles were “ commanded ” to “ teach them to observe,’ amongst which the last Memorial Mandate of the Lord held a first place. 2 ΔΟΙβΒ 1. 0. Power from on Fligh. 17 spiritual sight was clouded with the cataract’ of worldliness. They were thus morally dull; mentally ill-informed; socially uninfluential; and with a past which might at any moment colour the cheek with the flush of shame. ‘Their need was indi- vidual, was absolute, was urgent. They needed power. This had been promised them by their Lord. ‘Tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high,’* and one phrase in the Acts of the Apostles tells us when and how this Power was to be bestowed: “Ye shall receive Power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you,’’*—a command which teaches the moral debility even of apostles, and their dependence, although called, experienced, instructed, and commissioned, upon the Holy Ghost. No natural force is this. It is supernatural. The Spirit of the Living God must be given if the work of the Living God is to be done. In full reliance upon the promise of the Father, and in obedience to the command of Christ, they tarry in Jerusalem, waiting for the Power by which the Commission is to be realised. While so waiting, St. Peter addresses the assembly, and makes a suggestion which is full of instruction. Judas had acquired immortal infamy by the betrayal of his Lord. He had committed suicide, and the apostolic number became incomplete. The vacancy must be filled. There was a suggestive scripture as old as the days of David. It foretold that 1 St. Luke xxiy. 49, 2 Acts i. 8. 2 18 The Christian Ministry. another should take the office which Judas had desecrated. There was a moral necessity’ for a successor to be appointed, who should represent qualifications which were clearly stated. The assembly selected two, but the choice between them was made on High, and the lot having fallen ‘“‘upon Matthias, he was numbered with the eleven apostles,’ to take part with them ‘‘in the ministry and apostleship.” The significance of this proceeding is great. ᾿ It reveals clearly the growing appreciation of organisa- tion by the apostles and by their companions. It proves their sense of the desirability of complete- ness, and from St. Peter’s reference to the prophetic Psalter, we learn the place which this election had in the mind of God. This is the more credible when we remember the reasons which might have been given for permitting that vacancy to remain unfilled. One might have argued that it was not necessary to supply a successor to the unhappy apostate, because their number would be sufficient for their work, when Power from on high was imparted. A second might have said that with the place of Judas ever vacant, there would be an abiding admonition to his brethren of the peril of covetousness, and an enduring warning, in all the ages, against deception, duplicity, or against that precipitancy which would dare to hasten the purposes of an all-patient God. And a third 1 Vide Appendix on ‘“ Messianic Prophecy, the Incentive and Authority for the Election of St. Matthias.” Apostolic Consctousness of Corporate Life. το might have urged that Christ had visited them, from time to time, during the forty days, but He had not called upon any of their company to take the place which was vacated by the sordid wretch whose conduct, to this hour, is regarded as the blackest treachery of which man can be guilty. Christ knew their number was defective. On one occasion, He saw they were but ἔθη. On another occasion they were but eleven.” Surely it might be argued, if Christ intended the vacancy to be suppled, He who called them, in the first instance, would have supplied that vacancy on one of the occasions when He had visited them. If any such reflections arose in the minds of those who were then assembled, they would be reasonable and even natural. If having arisen, they were expressed, few would be surprised. But the important fact; is, that whether they were experienced or were expressed, there is no record. We are informed of what occurred. St. Peter grasps the situation. Such is its importance that it is the subject of predictive revelation. ‘‘The Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas,’ ὃ and predicting his doom, the gap in their ranks, and the necessity of its being filled, He further said, ‘‘ His bishopric let another take.”* In this we recognise the Divine approval of order, of completeness, and of corporate life. In this we observe the first step taken by the apostles in 1 St. John xx. 24, 3 Acts i. 16: 2 St. John xx. 26. 4 Psalm cix. 8. 20 The Christian Ministry. organisation. It had the authority of the Holy Scriptures and the sympathy and co-operation of the whole assembly. And if we claim for it the approbation of Jesus Christ, we are but availing ourselves of those instructive counsels which are imparted by the genius and drift of predictive writings; by the probable exposition of these passages in the Psalter by Christ Himself; and by the result which followed the supplication of St. Peter—viz., the selection of St. Matthias. But although their number is now complete, they must await the gift of the promised ‘‘ power from on high.”!? That gift is bestowed. The Holy Ghost descends upon the apostles and the disciples. The Church of Christ was born of the Spirit of Life. Its birthday was Pentecost. The account which was given by St. Peter of the occurrence which men then ‘saw and heard’”’ is most instructive. They were—and his address is the first result of the didactic office of the Spirit of God—the fulfilment of the prophecy of Joel, and the direct consequence of the ascension of Christ, which was foretold by David in the Psalter. Nor is there any feature in the Apostle’s address more prominent than the place which is assigned to the Holy Ghost as the cause of the Pentecostal manifestation ;? as a gift which may be imparted to the individual;* and as the enabling qualification of the minister.* δύ. Peter, 1 St. Luke xxiv. 49. 3 Acts li. 38, 39. 2 Acts ii, 16-18. + Acts ii. 18, No Life without the Life-Giver. 21 when replying to the indignant inquiry which the authorities made about the history of the lame man, was, St. Luke is careful to state, ‘‘ filled with the Holy Ghost.”’ When that apology was followed by more active hostility, which appears to have intensified the spirit of prayer, we are again informed “the apostles were filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word of God with boldness,” yea ““ with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them 81]. 5 The first overt act of sin within the Church, was a sin against the Holy Ghost—a tempting of the Spirit of the Lord.* The administration of the alms, so expres- sive of the generous love of the Church, may not be undertaken by men unless their other qualifi- cations are sustained by their being ‘full of the Holy Ghost.”* St. Stephen and St. Barnabas are thus described,’ and it is the essential and the enabling gift which Ananias announces as _ abso- Iutely necessary to Saul of Tarsus.© And in various scenes, under various circumstances, the Holy Spirit of God appears in the Acts of the Apostles, and in apostolic literature, as occupying the same position towards individuals, whether in isolation or in groups, as He so prominently occupied on the birth-day of the Church of Christ at Pentecost. These occasions need not be here recited. For my immediate purpose I am content 1 Acts iv. 8. 4 Acts vi. 3. 2 Acts iv. 31, 33. 5 Acts vi. 5, xi, 24. 8 Acts v. 3. 6 Acts ix. 17. 22 The Christian Ministry. to quote but one definite and undebateable instance. It ascribes to the Holy Ghost the origin of spiritual life. From that source, we may, by the light of other Scriptures, learn the element in which the spiritual life thus originated is sustained, the service in which it is exercised, and the end for which it developes. ‘‘ No man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but in the Holy Ghost.”* To say that “ Jesus is the Lord,” and to say it ‘‘in the Holy Ghost,” is the confession of a renewed heart. It implies that spiritual life is bestowed, is imparted, is originated, by the Holy Ghost. The life thus given is sus- tained in living, congenial affinity and union with God. The life thus sustained, is expressed in loving and in lightsome service,” in a world which is all too dark and loveless, because it is apart from Him. The life thus exercised, thus sustained, shall at last rest for ever with Him by whom it was begun, and continued, and for whose glory it was exercised. This is religion as Pentecost proclaimed it This is the religion of the Redeemer of man- kind. It is a life from God,? in God,* for God,°® with God. That life is the vital principle of the Church. It is, let us re-assert it, the supernatural gift of the Holy Spirit; and whether its recipients be a group of affrighted converts worshipping in a house; or one hundred and twenty expectant ΤῊ Cor, xii. 3 (&.Y.) 2 Vide a great sermon by Archer Butler (first series). $ St. John iii. 3, 7; 1 St. John ii. 9, v. 1. 4 Col. ili, 3. iL Cfo <5 GIES CONE mus ΤΠ ® Rom. viii. 17; 2 Tim. ii. 11, 12. The Witness of Holy Scripture. 23 souls gathered together in an upper chamber; or the larger census of three thousand; of this the Divine oracles and their infallible teachings re- specting human nature assure us—the Holy Ghost was not more necessary to perfect the manifesta- tion of the mystery of the Incarnation than He was necessary to originate spiritual life in “ the Church,’ which is His Body,’ or to begin the great work of regeneration in its loftiest or in its lowliest member. It is as true of the Church as it is true of the individual, neither can be ‘the habitation of God” without the Spirit” The in- dividual or the society to which he belongs is unable to say that Jesus is the Lord, but in or by the Holy Ghost. Each is born “not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of Οἷα." This is the testimony of Scripture; and its inspired declarations, whether in the way of explicit state- ment, or of solemnising exhortation, or when supplying a motive to ministerial perseverance or to ministerial humility, are of the first order. On a theme of such fundamental and far-reaching importance, the voice of Scripture must have the first and the final hearing. On this subject, its utterance is distinct, is mani- fold, is authoritative. Its echoes are heard in the ereeds of the Church. The “1 believe in the Holy Ghost” is followed by the affirmation of belief in ! Eph. i. 22 23; 1 Cor. xii. 27. 2 Eph. ii. 22, comp. 1 Cor. xii, 3. 3 St. John i. 13. 24 The Christian Ministry. the society which He created, ‘‘the Holy Catholic Church,” and, by a still larger belief respecting its range, as including the immensities of the invi- sible, and as involving between the seen and the unseen a fellowship, which is the ““ Communion of Saints.’ ὁ For fifty generations of human life the Constantinopolitan Creed has re-affirmed the same primary truth. Through all these centuries, its witnessing voice is heard, raised in righteous pro- test against the heresies which were thus early associated with the semi-Arianism of Macedonius. 1 The origin of the Apostles’ Creed, which “no national Church has repudiated ” (Swainson, Creeds of the Church), is involved in impenetrable obscurity. Theory after theory has been suggested, and accepted, and exploded. Canon Swainson’s hypothesis connects it with Marcellus, Bishop of Ancyra, in Galatia. Marcellus was present at the synod held in Ancyra in 315. He was present ten years later at the Council of Nice, and did good service for Catholic truth as against the Arians. Later on he was charged with holding and with teach- ing the heretical doctrines which are associated with Sabellianism and with Paul of Samosata, and he was deposed from his see, to which Basil succeeded. Marcellus made his way to Rome, where he stayed a year and a quarter, and he addressed a letter to “ his fellow minister Julius,’ in which he fully explained his views. Whether this letter was written in Latin or in Greek, Dr. Swainson says, “we are not informed.’ Epiphanius has preserved it in Greek. In that letter we have, “quod yulgo appellatur,” the Apostles’ Creed, except the words “Father, Maker of heaven and earth ;” “He descended into hell ;” “ Catholic” as descriptive of the Church; “the Communion of Saints,” and the words ‘eternal life,” after “the resurrection of the flesh.” In the com- pilation of Marcellus the sequence between belief in the Holy Ghost and in the Church is maintained. The designation ‘ Catholic” is omitted, as is also the “Communion of Saints.” The same omissions mark the Creed of Rome, the last clauses of which ran thus: “Credo... et in Spiritum Sanc- tum, Sanctam Ecclesiam, Remissionem peccatorum, carnis Resurrectionem.” But the addition—catholicam—appears in the Creed of Aquileia (3890) (vide Bingham, Book x., sec. 13), and Canon Swainson mentions it as found in a creed which is in the British Museum, and which is attributed to the eighth century. It is also in the Spanish creed of Hildefonsus, Arch- bishop of Toledo, who died in 669. In neither of these do we find “Com-. munionem Sanctorum.” These words appear in the creed attributed by Dr. Heurtley to Eusebius Gallus, but attributed also to Faustus of Reji, or Riez, in the Province of Arles, about 490, This Dr. Swainson pronounces to be: The Witness of the Church in the Creeds. 25 Did men say that the Holy Ghost was external to, or separate from, or a ministration of, the Godhead ? The Constantinopolitan Creed affirms His sove- reignty, His procession, and consequently His right, equally with the eternal Father and with the eternal Son, to adoration. He is “the Lord, who _ pro- ceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified.’’ Did men say that ‘‘He was but a mere instrument, by which the gift of life was conveyed”’? The creed, asserting His sovereignty, next asserts its highest expression, as the ‘‘Giver of life;”’ and gathering up the testimony of Christ and the teaching of the apostles, it further declares that ‘‘ He spake by the prophets.” Hach clause is, however, preparatory to the grand enunciation. Hach is a step which the ascending faith of the disciple is taught to take, until he rests within the mountain of the Lord’s house, ‘‘ the one Catholic and Apostolic “the greatest step yet observed, since Marcellus, towards our present text.” They are also found, later still, in the Creed of the Mozarabic Liturgy, in the service for Palm Sunday. Professor Westcott, in referring to the Holy Catholic Church, as possessing an influence ‘not limited by time or space,” says : “So our Western Fathers added, as late perhaps as the eighth century, a fresh clause to the Creed, in order to give clear expression to this characteristic thought, and taught us to declare our belief-in the Communion of Saints” (Lhe Hist. Faith, p.123). But the Communio Sanctorum appears as early as 490, It is as well, perhaps, to transcribe Bingham’s words upon “the Church,” and ‘“‘the Communion of Saints.” “The article of ‘The Church, Dr. Grabe thinks, was not originally in the Creed, but added in the latter end of the first century, or beginning of the second, upon occasion of heretics separating from the Church.” He then refers to Tertullian’s well-known words: “ Quum autem sub tribus et testatio fidei et sponsio salutis pignerenter, necessario adjicitur ecclesiz mentio ; quoniam ubi tres, id est, Pater, et Filius, et Spiritus Sanctus, ibi ecclesia que trium corpus est ” (De Bapt., c. 6). The article of the “Communion of Saints,” Dr, Grabe says, was never in any creed before the fourth century, 26 The Christian Ministry. Church.” In this he: believes as the expression of the energy of, yea, as the creation of, the sovereign Life-giver, the Holy Ghost.’ This doctrine I submit to you under somewhat special conditions. I submit it, as the revelation of God; as an integral and as an essential part of the historic depositum of the faith; as endorsed by the uniform experience—varied, wide, and perpetual—of the Church. And this doctrine is thus submitted, and thus submitted now, because another and a different, and, as I believe, an incom- patible doctrine is offered for our acceptance. If its acceptance produced results which were purely personal or purely intellectual, the consequences would, of course, be grave, even though they might be limited. But when we remember that, except in the ideal sciences, the tendency of intellectual conceptions is always in the direction of practical life; when we remember that, in the ministry of the Church of Christ we have to do with the most influential propaganda known to mankind, then the interest of intellect is quickened and is intensified. It rises into anxiety, lest the theories of the hour should re-act upon the ministers of Christ, and through them upon those for whose souls “they must give account.”’? We are now told the Church of Christ had a very different parentage ' Vide Epiphanius, Jn Anchorato ; Suicer, sub voce σύμβολον; Bingham, Book x., cap. iv., sect. 15,16 ; Newman’s Arians, cap. v.; Swainson’s Creeds, cap. Viii. This latter is a chapter of great interest. It raises some important questions about Aétius, and his statement at the Council of Chalcedon, in 451. 2 Heb πα 17 “ Evolution” Corrects ‘Sublime Exaggeration.” 27 from that which is claimed for it by the inspired enthusiasm of the Psalter; by holy prophets, whose predictions glow amid the gathering darkness of the Captivity ; by St. John the Divine in the Isle of Patmos, and after these by the splendid genius of the author of the De Civitate Dei. We are told “that not only did the elements of the Christian societies exist, but that also the forces which welded them together, and gave them shape, are adequately explained by existing forces of human society.” ’ We are told that ‘the confederation of those societies which we commonly speak of in a single phrase as ‘the visible Church of Christ,’ were formed without any special interposition of that mysterious and extraordinary action of the Divine volition which, for want of a better term, we speak of as ‘supernatural,’’’? yea, that “ out of elements, and by the action of forces, analogous to those which have resulted in other institutions of society, and other forms of government, came into being that widest and strongest and most enduring of institutions which bears the name of the Holy Catholic Church.”*? ‘True, the learned and gifted author of these novel sentiments con- cedes, somewhat reluctantly, ‘‘as you will,” ‘the breathing of the Divine Breath,”’* and _ the “control of Providence;’’ but even when these grudged concessions are allowed, the fact remains 1 The Organisation of the Early Christian Churches. By Edwin Hatch, M.A., Vice-Principal of St. Mary Hall, and Grinfield Lecturer in the Septuagint, Oxford (second ed., rev.), p. 18, Intro. 2 Ibid., p. 18. 8 Ibid. p. 20. 4 χροὶ. p. 19. 28 The Christian Ministry. that, according to this theory, the Church of Christ was originated and was consolidated, without the Holy Ghost. There is no place, in this scheme, for the Lord, the Life-giver (τὸ Κύριον, καὶ τὸ ζωοποιόν) There is no room, because there is no need, for the Pentecostal Effusion. Like the Ephesian converts, ‘‘we have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.”? But if the contention with which I am now dealing be tenable, then there must have been, in the ‘‘ existing forces of human society,’ and in its ‘‘ elements,” the germs of all that is, in its highly developed condition, known to us as ‘‘the Holy Catholic Church.” Human society, Jewish and pagan, was consequently the protoplasm of the Christian Church as well as its formative factor. If so, then we ought to be able to discern in Judaism, or in paganism, the germs of the notes of the Church, even though we rigidly restrict our expectation to those which, it is admitted, still mark the Holy Catholic Church, ‘‘that widest and strongest and most enduring of institutions.”* Let us _ for width, read universality; and for strength, read apostolicity, as involving apostolic origin, together with the promulgation of apostolic doctrine. Was Judaism, then, the protoplasm of Universality? Were its laws, civil or ceremonial, bestowed by God upon other races, or were the Jews commanded to publish them among contiguous or distant 1 Acts xix. 2. * The Organization of the Early Christian Churches, p. 20. Can a Tribal Cult evolve a Universal Creed? 29 peoples? Was their knowledge of God, in itself, such a moral enthusiasm that its possessors felt they were entrusted with a revelation, which so enriched mankind, that they must proclaim to the far-off lands the enactments of Sinai, its sacrificial cere- monial, the unfoldings of Providence through the unweaving of history, or even the bright prospects of humanity, as they illuminate the pages and the prophecies of the Psalter? The Jews were the sole depositaries of monotheism.’ This invigorating belief was specially revealed to them, although Auguste Comte says they received it from the Egyptian priests.” They were, through all their 1 Deut. vi. 4 ; Amos iii. 2. * “Tl est certes impossible de méconnaitre la vocation, egalement spéciale et spontanée, de la petite theocratie Juive, dérivation accessoire de la théocratie Egyptienne, et peut-étre aussi Chaldéene, d’ou elle émanait trés probablement par une sorte de colonisation exceptionnelle de la caste sacerdotale, dont les classes supérieures, dés longtemps parvenues au monothéisme par leur propre développement mental, ont pu étre conduites ἃ instituer, ἃ titre d’asile ou dessai, une colonie pleinement monothéique, or, malgré l’antipathie per- manente de la population inférieure contre un établissement aussi prématuré, le monotheisme a du cependant conserver une existence pénible, mais ipure et ayouée, du moins aprés avoir consenti ἃ perdre la majeure partie de ces élus par la célébre séparation des dix tribus (Phil. Pos., tome v., p. 291, 292). The main assertions of Comte above, are that the Egyptian priests were monotheists, and became so, by intellectual growth; and that the Israelites, through the colonisation of Egyptian priests, received and conserved the faith of their founders. It is now very generally believed that the Egyptians, in some sense, were monotheists, ὁ.6., they held the unity of God. The Rig Veda (quoted by Bonwick, Lyyptian Belief and Modern Thought), says, “The Nilemen praised the pure God with an ancient song.” Jamblichus: ‘“ Egypt believed in an only God”; so, too, Asclepiades, Damascius, and Proclus, Cudworth, and Cory, may also be quoted. The latter said, ‘‘ The higher we ascend the more the numbers (of the gods) diminish ; and upon the oldest monuments the most frequent delineation is that of Amoun Ra alone.” It may be safely assumed that monotheism, as it was represented by those named, was known in Egypt, and was held by the Egyptian priests. But it is equally certain that nature worship was popular and prevalent, so much so that pantheism was regarded as the religion of the Egyptians (vide Kenrick, Hardwicke, and Chabas in Egyptian 30 The Christian Ministry. history, in contact with polytheism, to which, again and again, they apostatised. Is there, in all their annals, as we know them, a single instance of an effort made by the Hebrews to engage in missionary enterprise in order that they might win converts to monotheism, or as indicating their consciousness of catholicity ? So far from this being the case, we can truly say that in the life and times of Jesus Christ, they were as sectarian, as_ self- Belief and Modern Thought). Sir G. Wilkinson shows how this was, “The fundamental doctrine was the unity of God.” ‘‘ But the attributes of this being were represented under positive forms; and hence arose a multiplicity of gods, that engendered idolatry, and caused a total misconception of the real nature of the Deity. . . . The division of God into His attributes was in this manner. The Egyptians gave to each of His attributes a particularname. They separated them, and to the uninitiated they became distinct gods.” Thus, their deities were attributive, yet vicarious, and topical. ‘A balance of power,” as of honour, was thus established for the principal gods; minor deities being satis- fied with towns of minor importance” (Ancient Eqyptians, Wilkinson, c. v.). Thus the popular belief was pantheistic. Nor is it doubtful that it was incul- cated by the priests. The question now arises—Was the monotheism, as held by the sacerdotal caste in Egypt, the same as that which Scripture shows was held by the Jews? The former was tolerant, and even distributive. It accepted what Wilkinson designates ‘‘the sub-division of the Deity.” The latter was exclusive, intolerant, rigid, ‘Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve.” The Hebrew law, moreover, defined idolatry, as (1) the worship of any other than the One True God ; and (2) as the worship of the One True God, under any representation. We thus see that Jewish monotheism differed from Egyptian monotheism in the very point in which, for the purpose of Comte’s theory, it is necessary they should agree. Nor is this the only difficulty with which the theory is weighted. Monotheism, which tolerated popular pantheism, was “an intellectual development,” though ad- mittedly it was a lower form of belief than the rigorous monotheism of the Hebrews. Is it credible that the highest form of monotheism should have been held for hundreds of years by colonists who laboured in brick fields, while a low form of monotheism was held by their sacerdotal superiors? It must not be forgotten that Mr. Herbert Spencer has given finality to all speculation about Egyptian religion. His decision is somewhat magisterial: ‘“ One would have thought that such an accumulation of proofs, congruous with the proofs yielded by multitudinous other societies, would have convinced everyone that the Egyptian religion was a developed ancestor-worship ” (eelesrastical Insti- tutions, p. 693). On Comte’s theory, see Jellett’s Moral Difficulties of the Old Testament, p. 103. Judaism, without Jesus, unconscious of Catholicity. 31 contained, as narrow as ever. He proclaimed a doctrine which shocked their religious sensibilities ; cancelled their exclusive claims; contradicted, as they thought, the registrations of a Divine history, and elevated the doomed Gentiles to the heart of God. This doctrine was, God so loved the world! No, they exclaimed, God loves the Jew, but the world—never. Ay, and through all the Acts of the Apostles ; through primitive Christian history ; through the ages which have since intervened ; up to the day we meet, Judaism is as rigid, as inflexible, as narrow, as tribal, as it was when the Church of Christ was born. Is it credible that a religion, the ordinary life of which was expressed by the synagogue, brought into being, directly or indirectly, that catholicity which, in range and in dogma, specialises the Christian Church? Nor is our investigation less disappointing when we endeavour to discern the germ of apostolicity in ‘‘the existing forces of human society,” as we know it from the pages of sacred or of secular literature. The apostolicity of a Church depends upon its recogni- tion and its possession of three elements, each of which is essential to the validity of this high and holy claim. These elements are its origin, its doctrinal expression, and its authorised executive. Its origin must be according to the words of the great epistle to the Ephesians, which more than any other contains the doctrine of the Church, “the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner stone.” Its 20 The Christian Ministry. expression, the utterance of its life, whether it be in the adoration of God in worship, by praise, by thanksgiving, by supplication; or its message to mankind by proclamation, by symbol, by sacra- ment, must be the doctrine which the apostles taught, the faith in which they lived, for which they ‘‘resisted unto blood,” and the influence of which so over-mastered prejudice, power, and passion, that, its enemies themselves being judges, it revolutionized contemporaneous society. Its executive must be that which the apostles insti- tuted, and recognised, and approved.’ Whether these three constituent elements of apostolicity existed in human institutions prior to the day of Pentecost, may be the subject of inquiry. If they did, we ought to be able to discern them in each of the two great divisions, which, when united, represent the society of the first Christian era, Jewish-Christian and Gentile-Christian. That Christ was not regarded as the foundation of His Church by the Jews generally, is established by the fact of His having been rejected, and even murdered. The crucifixion of the Lord of Glory is, to all time, and to all men, the demonstration afforded by Jewish opinion of the resentment aroused by His claims; of the impatience provoked by the proclamation of His kingdom; and of the power possessed by prejudice to harden the heart, to blind the eye of reason, yea, and to stifle the authoritative announcements of revelation. Of that high crime, 1 Vide Appendix on “ The Essentials of Apostolicity.” Apostles Ignorant of Nature of the Kingdom. 33 the apostles were at least innocent. They loved their Master. They heard His instruction. They witnessed His miracles. They beheld the moral splendour of a stainless life. How low were the views which they entertained of Him as the founder of a world-wide, a spiritual, an imperish- able fabric, most of us are aware. They are heard in the somewhat petuiant complaint of the Emmaus wanderers, whose simple confession shows the distance between their highest conception of the mission of Christ, and the Divine ideal of that mission.’ Later on, when their Risen Lord assured the apostles of the baptism of the Holy Ghost, their inquiry was as to the revival of a royalty which alternated, even in its palmiest days, between sin and splendour, between glory and shame, between material wealth and moral woe.” Not that God left Himself without witness, respecting the nature and the range of His purpose. The prophecies of Isaiah and the dream of Nebuchadnezzar lay in their Scriptures. The great Hallel was chanted amid the solemnities of a season which, to us, is an objective portrayal of the sacrifice of the Saviour. Christ Himself, when speaking of the kingdom which was thus typified, appropriated the language of Isaiah. Besides all this, the apostles heard their Master declare, ‘‘On this rock I will build My Church.” Yet who can say that Jewish opinion, whether represented by the enemies or by the friends of Christ, recognised in Him the foundation Y St. Luke xxiv. 21. * Acts i. 6. 9 34 The Christian Ministry. upon which the temple of God would be erected ? Nor was Gentile-Christian society, as we know it, at all likely to reverse this conclusion. And he would be a bold and a successful investigator who could discover apostolic doctrine in the lhcte religiones of the Empire. It requires rare courage and still rarer discrimination, to find, amid the moral morass represented by the Corpus poetarum Latinorum, the protoplasm of the life, which the Pentecostal day proclaimed to be the gift of the Spirit of God to the Holy Catholic Church. But, it is maintained, the ministry of the visible Church of Christ is a transcript of certain offices which, it is notorious, existed in ancient civil society. The chief of these was the ἐπίσκοπος. This office was primarily financial, and a literature of a varied and most instructive kind is cited to establish this idea. With such a theory I am not now concerned further than to say that St. Paul addressed the elders of Ephesus in language which consumes it to ashes: ‘‘Take heed, therefore, unto yourselves, and to all the flock, in the which the Holy Ghost hath made you bishops, to feed the Church of God, which He purchased with His own blood.”' Is this the warn- ing of an apostle, full of holy concern for the souls of men, and solicitous even to anguish, for the fidelity of a ministry, appointed by the Holy Ghost ? or is it the Laban-like anxiety of a man of 1 προσέχετε οὖν ἑαυτοῖς καὶ παντὶ τῷ ποιμνίῳ ἐν ᾧ ὑμᾶς τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ "Αγιον ἔθετο ἐπισκόπους, ποιμαίνειν τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἣν περιεποιήσατο διὰ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ δίου (Acts xx. 28). The Ideal and Apostolic Ministry not Financial. 35 the world, who, with itching palm, with an eye keen for coin, and with a mind quick in the calculations of arithmetic, warns the men whom, in all probability, he himself had ordained, to look after the finances of the Church? Would such a direction be expressed by such language? St. Peter—in an epistle which recognises a duly or- dained ministry and also the priesthood of believers —speaks of Jesus Christ as “the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.”' Is this a financial title ἢ If it be, then by all means let the servant be as his Lord. If it be not, then it is but reasonable to require that the spiritual significance of the term be preserved when we are dealing with a spiritual kingdom and with spiritual work. If the Church of Christ was, either ideally or actually, a huge poor- law system, the oversight of finances would probably fall to the bishop. But not such is its function. It is the divinely instituted society, by which the salvation of souls is proclaimed, and by which the kingdom of Christ is advanced amongst mankind. In that kingdom an apostolic ministry labours. The earliest ancestors of that ministry were ap- pointed by the Holy Ghost, by Whose utterance, as well as by the title given under His direction to Him whom He glorifies, the sphere of their over- sight is proved to be not financial, but spiritual. Their Master’s office is the bishopric of souls. Their ministry is, thus far, the perpetuation of His. Such a ministry was unknown before the Pentecostal 1 τὸν ποιμένα καὶ ἐπίσκοπον τῶν ψυχῶν ὑμῶν (1 St. Peter ii. 25). 36 The Christian Muintstry. era. It was the “gift of the ascended Christ ‘to the Church, which is His Body.” To this belief the Church of England is committed. For centuries she has affirmed it, under the most impressive conditions. In the Ordinal, it appears in the inquiry which the Bishop makes of the candidate- deacon, and the place which that inquiry occupies indicates the mind of the Church to be that “ the inward moving by the Holy Ghost”’ is the first quali- fication for ministerial office." The same doctrine is affirmed again and yet again, when the deacon is advanced to the priesthood, and when the priest is advanced to the episcopate.” The supplications of the faithful, the counsels of the bishop, and the most solemn antiphonal in the liturgy, the Veni Creator Spiritus, proclaim, in prayer, in praise, in exhorta- tion, the Holy Ghost to be, as He was in the 1 Tt is significant that the first reference to the ministry of the Church, in the Litany, is the prayer for spiritual illumination. The Litany is appointed to be said or sung at every ordination of deacons or priests, and at every episcopal con- secration. In each such service a special supplication is ordered, which appears to be expletive of the ordinary suffrage, “that it may please Thee to illuminate all Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, with true knowledge and understanding of Thy word,” etc. The first inquiry to be made by the Bishop, “in the presence of the people,” is: “ Do you trust that you are inwardly moved by the Holy Ghost to take upon you this Office and Ministration, to serve God for the pro- moting of His glory, and the edifying of His people?” (For a most searching exposition of this inquiry, see Wilberforce’s Ordination Addresses.) 2 The Collect, in the office for ‘‘ the Ordering of Priests,” which is also used in the office for the Consecration of Bishops, reiterates the doctrine thus: ‘“ Al- mighty God, giver of all good things, who by Thy Holy Spirit hast appointed divers Orders of Ministersin the Church.” The necessity—absolute, imperative, and individual—of the Blessed Spirit to those about to be “ ordered” is again implied by the injunction of the Bishop, “ that you will continually pray to God the Father, by the Mediation of our only Saviour Jesus Christ, for the heavenly assistance of the Holy Ghost.” The “ Veni Creator Spiritus,” and the Declara- tion at the Imposition of hands, witness in supplication and in symbol, to the same essential truth. Modern Perplexities are Ministertal Opportunities. 37 beginning, is now, and ever shall be, the Life of the Ministry, the Life of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. The bearing of this doctrine—scriptural, historical, and experimental—upon the work to which many of those I now address will soon give themselves, is obvious, is personal, is emphatic. You, my brethren, members of one of the oldest branches of the Church catholic, will in due time be admitted to the ranks of the ministry. You will soon take your place amongst the commissioned ambassadors of the Kingdom of Christ. Bear with me if I entreat you to remember that seldom, if ever, have the conditions of the holy war which the Church wages against evil been so trying. Never have such vast, such splendid opportunities for service been so abundant. ‘The moral, the intellec- tual, the social problems of the day will require from you sympathetic treatment. The difficulties of belief and the larger difficulties of unbelief; the paralysing influences of materialism; the self-sufficiency of a spiritual transcendentalism; the intrepid interroga- tions of scepticism, impatient, unreasonable, though useful; the vain assumption of gnosticism which underlies the heartless creed of the agnostic and the atheist: these will test your education, will appeal to your sympathy, will even strain your faith. And besides these, you will surely have to cope with the demands of socialism; with their relationship, if any, to all that is involved in the brotherhood of men, as Christ revealed it, as His Church proclaims it, as the age requires it. Men will ask you to endeavour 38 The Christian Muntstry. to rectify the wrongs which one class inflicts upon another, or to justify or to condone the greater wrongs, which precipitate infatuation and violence inflict, in the vain hope of securing immediate and even hasty redress. These, the expressions of human life, saddened by sin, exasperated by intense social strain, strengthened by the ever-widening influences of democracy, of disintegration, and of economic unrest, will appeal to you as the ministers of a Master who has touched the world at all points. To such appeals you will return an intelligent, a sympathetic, and a righteous reply. As you give it, never forget Whose you are, and Whom you serve. Be true to your mission, to your message, to your Master. You represent a feature which is peculiar to Christianity, because it is the especial creation of Christ. He first, He alone, He for ever instituted the pastoral office. He has given to it the inspiration of His example, the moral strength of His authority, and the evidential and infinite criterion of His blessing. There is no other reigion known to mankind which possesses this feature. The ritual of old cults represents sacer- dotalism in its incipient, as well as in its advancing and advanced stages. We can trace the existence of a priesthood in most places where the religious idea has been expressed. It has been found in Kegypt, where sacerdotal succession was pursued down to the twenty-sixth dynasty ; and in Babylon, and in Assyria, where Tiglath Puileser combined the priesthood and the sceptre, a combination Priesthood common to Polytheism and Monothetsm. 39 which appears among the Aryan peoples, the Spartan, the Greeks, and even the primitive Scan- dinavians. Similar evidence is supplied by the ancient history of the Japanese, the Chinese, the Mexicans, and the Peruvians. Rome, in particular, had an elaborate hierarchy. There were the pontiffs and the augurs. ‘There were the rex sacrificulus and the sacrificers and the vestal virgins. There were the salii, with their sacred shields, and the feciales with their gory spears. There were the curiones, the representatives of popular election, of personal purity, and of the religious presidency of their respective tribes. Nor is it otherwise in these venerable systems in the Hast which are yielding all along the line, to the patience and to the faith of the missionary army which is beleaguering the Jerichos of India and Ceylon, of China, of Japan, of Africa, and the islands of the sea. Buddhism, Brahminism, Mahommedanism, and even demon worship have their priests, and similar sacred officialism is recog- nised in that system of Positive Philosophy, which arrogates to itself the title of the Religion of Humanity.t The other and the older systems were anterior to Christ. Some of them contain age- long anticipations of His evangel. But the religion of the rich salons of the West, which has Paris for its holy city, and Comte for its Christ, has 1 “Toute la hiérarchie théorique subit immediatement l’impulsion continue du Grand-Pretre de !Humanité, qui nomme, déplace, suspend, et méme révoque sous sa seule responsabilité, ses membres quelconques. La résidence normale du pontife doit rester annexée ἃ la métropole Parisienne, sans que jamais il par- ticipe au gouvernement de la sainte cité” (Politique Positive, chapitre quatriéme, t. 4). The following passage appears in a letter which Comte addressed to his 40 The Christian Mintstry. stolen some of its noblest conceptions from the Nazarene, and it declines to acknowledge the theft. It, too, has a ministry of three orders,—aspirants, and vicars, and priests... The offices assigned to these and to the class as such, vary with the nature of the system to which they belong; with the moral sense of the people; with the intellectual gerade of the age; with the numerical strength of their adherents. They were medicine men, exorcists, sorcerers, or rain-makers. ‘They were heads of tribes, warriors, rulers, and even kings. They offered sacrifices; they burnt incense; they declared war; they were the mediators of belligerent societies; they composed hymns; they appointed sacred seasons, places, feasts, and fasts. The living oracles record for our learning the offices which were assigned by Divine authority to the Hebrew priests who were ‘‘taken from among men” and ‘‘ordained for men in things pertaining to God.’”’? Thus official sacerdotalism, in some form, is universal, is ancient, and is common alike to monotheism and polytheism. But popular sacer- dotalism, or the priesthood of believers, is peculiar to Christianity, while the pastoral office is the unique institution of Christ. In no other religious wife, in the belief that he had won M. Armand Mazrast to his views. It appears in M. Guizot’s Meditations on the Actual State of Christianity : “ Marrast no longer feels any repugnance in admitting the indispensable fact of my intellec- tual superiority ; he is, in this respect, in my opinion, especially influenced by Mill, whom he holds, and with reason, in high account. To speak plainly, and in general terms, I believe that, at the point at which 1 have now arrived, I have no oceasion to do more than to continue to exist; the kind of preponderance which I covet cannot, henceforth, fail to devolve upon me.” SPROUL OS ΟΡ ἀν Ὁ; A:. SEED Viele The Pastoral Office the Creation of Christ. 41 system does it exist. No other master requires of his servants that personal, individual search for souls, which is at once the expression of His love and of their infinite value. The office is amongst the manifestations of the Divine Life imparted to the Church by the Holy Ghost. There is nothing analogous to it in the range, ancient and vast, of non-Christian systems. Bear this thought in your hearts. Glorify it by the unanswerable argu- ments of devoted lives. Let the visible rhetoric of unwearied self-sacrifice establish your connection with the Bonus Pastor. And of all the principles which will compete for supreme recognition in your heart, in your chamber, in your life, there is no principle so likely to quicken your spiritual pulse, to purify your motive, to adorn your utterance with abiding results which will glorify your Lord, by bringing immortal and increasing blessmg to the souls He died to save, as that principle which, like a ray of light travelling through the abysmal depths of space to illumine a far-off world, unites the Church of Pentecost with the Church of our age; and maintains in the one the continuity of the life which was originated in the other. That principle is as essential to the individual believer, as it was to the Church which the Holy Ghost created. It comes to us, like a breath of violets from a far-off land of sunshine: ‘“Not by might, nor by power, but by My Spirit, saith the Lord of Hosts.’’? 1 Zech. iv. 6. LECTURE, EE “Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables. Where- fore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word. And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch, whom they set before the apostles : and when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them.”—ACTS vi. 2-6. MONGST the compensations afforded by the perils which belong to a period of active theological controversy, is the critical inspection of premises from which momentous conclusions are drawn. Many who are interested in the subject under review, whether it is social, or moral, or political, or scientific, or religious, will consent to re-consider the whole question, and will welcome any additional evidence which may be contributed. This disposition may not be as general as one could wish. It will not be shared by those who hold that ques- tions once considered settled may not be re-opened. It may be even denounced by some who suspect that renewed investigation may prove their possessions, or their privileges, to be no longer tenable. The Patient Inquiry or “ Prospective Belief.’ 45 candid inquirer will not sympathise with such pre- judice, any more than he can respect such dwarfing selfishness. He will welcome information from any quarter, listening patiently to every new theory, even at the cost of intellectual unrest. The theologian, of all men, must foster this disposition, especially in this age, and for reasons which need not be stated in a seat of learning.* The bearing of this principle upon the existence of the Christian ministry, as a Divine institution, is obvious when we remember the ' The doctrine advocated in these phrases is irreconcileably opposed to another which has the powerful sanction of Cardinal Newman. In his Grammar of Assent, he leads us, step by step, up to the high conclusion which is expressed by “ the indefectibility of certitude.” The plain English of this novel and even opportunist theory is stated in the section (8, c. v.) which treats of “Belief in Dogmatic Theology.” He there says: “ In the act of believing the Catholic Creed at all, we forthwith commit ourselves by anticipation to believe truths which at present we do not believe, because they have never come before us ; we limit henceforth the range of our private judgment in prospect by the conditions, whatever they are, of that dogma. ... All that he knows now as revealed, and all that he shall know, and all that there is to know, he embraces it all in his intention by one act of faith; otherwise, it is but an accident that he believes this or that, not because it is a revelation. This virtual, interpretative, or prospective belief is called to believe implicite.” This theory the author applies to the “word of the Church” as the interpreter of Revelation. ‘That the Church is the infallible oracle of truth is the fundamental dogma of the Catholic religion ; and ‘I believe what the Church proposes to be believed’ is an act of real assent, including all particular assents, notional and real; and, while it is possible for unlearned as well as learned, it is imperative on learned as well as unlearned.” This plea is opportunist. The author has in his mind the doctrine of the Infallibility of the Church. Her utterances command certitude. She herself is indefectible. Nor can there be a reasonable doubt, that if this could be established, even “ prospective belief” would make great bounds at her bidding. But this indefectibility of certitude has a very forbid- ding likeness to the open-your-mouth-and-shut-your-eyes logic of the nursery. Memory, clear, and keen, and frequent, associates it with both pain and pleasure, neither being the less real because they were associated with infancy, and both experiences being influential in the formation of the habit of inquiry, which the training of the nursery seemed intended to frustrate, but which it assuredly fostered. In the same way, the ecclesiastical version of the same sort of reasoning, exercised, too, with respect to Halley’s comet, in 1456, and the 44 The Christian Ministry. claims which good men have made for that ministry upon the authority of the words which Christ ad- dressed to His followers. When our Risen Lord appeared to them on the evening of the first great Easter Day, He said to them, ‘‘ Peace be unto you: as My Father hath sent Me, even so send I you. And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are τού θα. ἢ These words, with which controversy, painful and prolonged, has made us familiar, have been regarded as conferring upon the apostles the most tremendous “false Pythagorean doctrine of the mobility of the earth and the immobility of the sun,” in 1616 (wide Tyndall’s Fragments of Science, p. 553}, was intended to clog inquiry. It gave it a powerful impetus. It has taught mankind that the claims of the Church rest, ultimately, upon probability. If so, then, since no conclusion can be stronger than the premises from which it is deduced ; and since demonstration is stronger than probability, men cannot extract demonstra- tive certainty from probable premises, which is only another way of saying that attention is to be paid to fresh evidence; that every belief which reposes upon eyen the very highest probability, is to be held as still open to question. This is required by the nature of probability; by the imperfection of language ; by the ever widening area of investigation ; by the fresh and frequent contributions which are being made to knowledge; by the law of correlation. The indefecti- bility of certitude, applied to doctrine, would ignore these requirements, For the opposite error, the reader is referred to the late Professor Clifford’s Ethics of Belief. “ Inquiry into the evidence of a doctrine is not to be made once for all, and then taken as finally settled. It is never lawful to stiflea doubt.... * But,’ says one, ‘I am a busy man; I have no time for the long course of study which would be necessary to make me in any degree a competent judge of certain questions, or even able to understand the nature of the arguments.’ Then he should have no time to believe.” This rather magisterial prohibition exhibits a rare amount of ignorance of the conditions which govern the life of millions, and of that probability which He “ who knoweth whereof we are made” has permitted to be the rule of life. Professor Clifford is as unreasonable and as erroneous as Cardinal Newman. 1 §t. John xx. 21-23. The Great Enunciation. 45 powers conceivable by man. They are accounted as the Apostolic Ordinal. They are employed in the solemnities of ordination in the Church of England, when a deacon is admitted to the second order of the ministry. They were cited by St. Ambrose in the famous Novatian controversy, and St. Jerome’s reference to them is well known. Later on Bishop Jeremy Taylor, Bishop Beveridge, and others appeal to them as conferring spiritual authority whereby sin is remitted or retained.’ Richard Hooker’s opinion is on this wise: ‘It is true that our Saviour by those words, ‘Whose sins ye remit, they are re- mitted,’ did ordain judges over sinful souls, give them authority to absolve from sin, and promise to ratify in heaven whatsoever they do in earth in execution of this their office: to the end that hereby, as well His ministers might take encouragement to do their duty with all faithfulness, as also His people admonition, gladly with all reverence to be ordered by them.”’” Now, however the significance of Hooker’s words may be toned down by remembering the connection in which they are used, the restraints which he recognises, and the illustration with which he safe- guards the doctrine, they appear to favour the belief that by them Christ ordained ‘judges over sinful souls,’ and, in fact, all Romish and some Anglican authorities accept them in this sense. But this belief, and the sacerdotal theory which expresses 1 Vide Lecture VII. on “ Apostolic Succession.” * ¥£ec. Pot., Bk. Vi., οὐ Vi; 3: 46 The Christtan Ministry. it, raises a crucial question, viz. To whom were these words addressed? If they were addressed to the apostles alone, to them alone was the awful authority given. If, on the other hand, they were addressed to others besides the apostles —to disciples who believed in Christ, such as the seventy, or even to women—then, unless good reason can be shown for limiting their application, the privileges which some believe them to bestow belong to all tio whom they were addressed. Others who heard them from the lips of the Risen Lord, even though not aposties, were ordained ‘‘ judges of human souls,” in which case, the apostles had no peculiar sacerdotal authority, possessed no exclusive power of absolution, and enjoyed no judicial func- tions. Thus, it might be argued, our Lord, on the eve of the first Haster Day, abolished the distinction which three years’ training had emphasized, between the apostles and the disciples, between those whom He had chosen to ‘‘be with Him,’ and those amongst whom they laboured; and in doing so He rendered it extremely difficult to establish an official claim for the Christian ministry. If the apostle was merged in the adherent, He rather discredited, by anticipation, the later distinction between clergy and laity... The same inference is drawn, and upon similar grounds, from the account which St. Matthew gives of the proclamation of the great Commission. For a considerable period, the great evangel, which proclaims the universality of the 2 Vide Collected Writings of J. N. Darby, vol. iv., p. 4. The Great Commtssion: to whom addressed? 47 Christian Church, the conditions of membership, and the perpetuity of Christ’s Presence, was regarded as addressed to the apostles alone, and to those who succeeded them in the work of the ministry. Many thoughtful men, however, give to these words a larger reference. They do so, because they believe that, as others than the apostles were present in the upper room, when the Saviour appeared to them on the evening of the Easter Day, and from Him received the salutation of peace, and the commission for service, and the gift of the Holy Ghost, and the announcement that by them sins were remitted or were retained, so when, by appointment, He met His disciples in Galilee, there were present, besides the eleven who worshipped, ‘‘some who doubted.’’ It is argued that doubt was impossible to any of the eleven, since the only one who had doubted, had, through the merciful sympathy of Christ, accepted the evidence which brought luminous conviction and unreserved confession. Who, then, were the “ some who doubted’”’? They were, it is answered, amongst the five hundred brethren, of whom St. Paul writes as having seen the Christ. If so, then to the five hundred as well as to the eleven, the great Commis- sion was addressed. To them the universal range of evangelization was entrusted. To them sacramental administration was committed. To them the office of teaching was, by Christ, assigned. Now, no question need be raised here! respecting either the significance of the words which are regarded as the Vide Lecture VII., ut supra. 48 The Christian Ministry. Apostolic Ordinal, or as to whether others than the eleven were present on the occasion or not. Neither am I careful to discern, amongst the five hundred brethren, those who, according to St. Matthew, ‘‘ doubted.” Yea, I am willing to admit that in that upper room, consecrated by the sweetest and by the saddest memories, there were assembled the holy women, the distracted and terrified dis- ciples, the ten apostles, and the Emmaus wanderers. I am willing to believe that all were greeted with the blessing of the Son of Peace; that all heard from the Lord’s lps the Great HEnunciation — in- dividual, imperative, universal—namely, Peace, the starting-point for work; that all felt the breath of the Prince of Life, and received a special spiritual blessing; that all heard the glorious words which constitute the charter of the Christian society—to remit and to retain sins. Larger admissions the most uncompromising advocate of modern Mon- tanism on the one hand, or the most thorough-going antagonist to the theories of Cyprian on the other, will hardly require one to make. But I will go further. J am willing to allow that the Proclamation upon the mount in Galilee was heard by others than the apostles, and that to these the command of the departing Christ was addressed. These concessions are made, because they in no wise invalidate the claims which arise out of the place which Christ’s training of the twelve and subsequent sacred history presumably and actually assign to the apostolic body. If the words addressed by Christ to, say, the Apostles distinguished from Adherents. 49 hundred and twenty in the upper room, abolish or reduce the distinction between the apostles and His ordinary adherents, then the prominence which the former receive, throughout the ministry of the Redeemer, and in the Acts of the Apostles, is in- explicable. Ifthe Galilean proclamation was limited to the apostles, then those who “ were scattered abroad,” consequent upon the great persecution which arose after the martyrdom of St. Stephen, and who ‘‘ went everywhere preaching the word,” exer- cised an unauthorized function, usurped privileges which were apostolic, and very shortly after the Ascension set a conspicuous example of disobedience or of impatience. But we are told that these very men were blessed in their work. They were Cypriots and Cyrenians. ‘‘ The hand of the Lord was with them: and a great number believed, and turned unto the Lord,’’* and the apostolic body did not hesitate to sympathise with their evangelistic enterprise.® Once again, if the Galilean Commission equalized all, by giving to each common authority to preach, to administer sacraments, and to communicate instruc- tion, then the history of the apostolic Church, as 1 Ol μὲν οὖν διασπαρέντες διῆλθον, εὐαγγελιζόμενοι τὸν λόγον (Acts viii. 4). The reader will notice that the action of Philip is described differently: ἐκήρυσσεν αὐτοῖς τὸν Χριστόν. This difference is recognised in the Rey. Vers., which de- scribes the evangelistic act as preaching, and the official act as proclaiming. The difference appears in the Vulgate. The scattered disciples are described as “‘evangelizantes verbum Dei,” but of Philipit is said, ‘‘preedicabat illis Christum.” “ Different words are used in the original for preaching in this and the following verse. There it means ‘bearing the glad tidings of the Word ;’ and does not necessarily imply any official character in the bearer” (Cook, in Joc.). ? Acts xi. 19-21. * Acts xi, 22. 4 50 The Christian Ministry. recorded by St. Luke, is apparently a studied and elaborate historical contradiction to that theory. Nothing can be clearer than the fact that, whether the five hundred brethren were the recipients of an official commission or not, the apostles of Jesus Christ, as representing the ministry of His Church, occupied a position of government,’ of authority,’ of supervision,’ of peril*—a position which is not only not incompatible with what would now be regarded as authorized voluntary agency, but which watched over the work of such fellow-helpers to the truth with the heartiest love.’ When the Saviour had ascended into heaven, and when the disciples had returned, in obedience to His command, to Jerusalem, the historian gives for the second time a lst of the apostles’ names.° The 1 Acts i. 15, 26, vi. 6. 5. INGIS Ins BY Vals 25 Bs thin 15 By Bik: 3 Acts νυν. 1-11, vi. 1-6, viii. 14, 25, ix. 27. ‘ Acts iv. 1-3, v. 18, 40. 5 Acts xi. 22, 23. 6 The significance of this, the fourth New Testament list of the apostles, and the second list recorded by St. Luke, will appear if due consideration be given to the evangelist’s general and particular purpose in penning the Gospel which bears his name (St. Luke i. 1-4). This general purpose is historical completeness and order, based upon larger information than others possessed. ‘‘ Significat igitur, . . . ceteros vero scriptores, eum vy. gr. qui Evangelium secundum Aegyptios scripserit, minus facere ad ἀσφάλειαν ac firmitudinem” (Bengel). His particular purpose concerned Theophilus, wa ἐπιγνῷς περὶ ὧν κατηχήθης λόγων τὴν ἀσφάλειαν. In the Gospel, there is a list of the apostles. With their names Theophilus was probably familiar. Their repetition, in the Acts, could hardly have been in his interest. Why, then, is this list a second time given? To indicate St. Luke’s consciousness of apostolic continuity, and to mark his sense of the permanence of that body which Christ had chosen, and called, and trained, and commissioned. The apostles of the Ministry were now, in the writer’s estimate, the apostles of an invisible Master, to whose service they were dedicated. They were now incorporated. True, they were the same men as when they had been called, but with a vastness of purpose, and a universality Their Posttion that of Government. 51 period of their training had closed. The period of their labour had begun; and, their dulness, their desertion, their cowardice, and their unworthiness notwithstanding, they were the holy apostles still. They were destined to govern the Church of the Resurrection. When St. Peter realized the ulterior purpose of God; when he recognised the importance of organisation, and desired to perfect the unity which had been broken by ambition or by aggrandise- ment, he accentuates the peculiar position which had been assigned to the apostles,—for although addressing the one hundred and twenty, he says Judas ‘was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry.”’' When his successor was to be chosen by Jesus Christ, the choice in heaven, to be ratified on earth, was ‘‘that he might take part of this ministry and apostleship.”” When the lot fell upon Matthias, ‘‘he was numbered with the eleven apostles.”* The descent of the Holy Spirit upon of range, and a sense of permanence which justifies the republication of the list. The difference in their present position from that which they occupied during the Ministry of their Master is foreshadowed in the magnetic mandate which drew the first group to their Lord’s side: “ Follow Me, and I will make you fishers of men” (St. Matt. iv. 19). This summons was a command and a promise. Their ready obedience to the command covered a period of three years. Now, they “followed” still, but the promise was warming up into light and into labour. The Pentecostal blessing was about to capacitate them for becoming ‘fishers of men.” The command and the promise thus corresponded to the two sections of their lives, and it united the Galilean seaside with τὸ ὑπερῷον. Obedience and spiritual power met together in the same hearts, and St. Luke, by repeating the apostolic roll, shows his consciousness of continuity, of organisation, of completeness, and of corporate life. For the same idea, as influencing St. Peter, see note 1, p. 18. δ ΟΝ, 17. 5 Acts i, 25. * Acts i. 26. 52 The Christian Muntstry. the Day of Pentecost preserves the distinction. The curse of Babel becomes the blessing of Christ. The wonderful works of God are spoken by various men, in many tongues. Unity amid variety as the grand law of the Church’s life is proclaimed by Pentecostal speech. Amazement, scepticism, and mockery—the three attitudes which to this hour are assumed by men in the presence of spiritual phenomena—divide the opinion of the day respecting what men saw and what men heard. St. Peter traces the phenomena, not to ‘‘ antecedent and lower forms,’ not to deliver- ance from the bonds of lower life, but to the direct power of God the Holy Ghost. In doing so, the historian is careful to note that the apostle is ‘‘stand- ing up with the eleven.” * When his great sermon— the first Pentecostal homily—was concluded, the appeal of men whose consciences were alarmed, was ‘“to Peter, and to the rest of the apostles.”? That appeal was not in vain. The response is the first practical commentary we have upon the great Com- mission. ‘The gospel had been preached to the men of Judea, to all that dwelt at Jerusalem, and the promise is said to have an interest even ‘‘ to all that are afar off.”* The glad reception of the message was followed by the administration of baptism and by steadfast continuance ‘“‘in the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, and in the breaking of bread and the prayers.” * The census of the believers rises in one day by three thousand souls. 1 Acts ii. 14. 3 Acts ii. 39. ? Acts ii. 37. * Acts ii. 42 (R.V.). Apostles assailed, as Leaders of the New Society. 53 The apostles still continue their mission, occupying, among larger numbers, and probably with more nume- rous aids, as prominent a position as before. Amid the first indications of sacerdotal jealousy and of sacerdotal hostility, ‘the apostles ’’ witnessed to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, ‘‘ with great power.’ ! When the enthusiasm of early love consecrated indi- vidual possessions to the general welfare, and the efflorescence of primitive charity made ‘all things common,’’ so that, for a while, economic law was suspended, in the absence of poverty, it was “at the apostles’ feet’ the offerings were laid,’ whether they were presented by the Levite Joses, who from them received the name of Barnabas, or by Ananias and Sapphira,? who to all time have acquired a miserable immortality, through duplicity and through covetousness. It was, at this time, moreover, the evangelist announces “that by the hands of the apostles were many signs and wonders wrought among the people. It was then they were arrested, and imprisoned, and miraculously released, and brought before the Sanhedrim. It was then that Gamaliel so counselled his coadjutors that the apostles, having been beaten, ‘‘departed from the pre- sence of the council,” ἢ and having been prepared, by varied experiences, both of instruction and of inci- dent, they were enabled to cope with new difficulties which arose out of their success, both spiritually and numerically. ! Acts iv. 33. 3. ΑΘ Ὁ Ῥ. 5 Acts v. 17-42, * Acts iv. 34-7. 4 Acts v. 12. 54 The Christian Muntstry. The benefactions of the new society were appa- rently very generous. ‘They were bestowed upon the desolate, and they were, up to this time, administered by the apostles, but not in such a way as to prevent dissatisfaction. The jealousy and the suspicion of favouritism which prevail in ordinary parochial life, wherever bounty is administered, distracted the peace which prevailed in the Church of the Pentecost. The apostles, as the constituted and recognised rulers of the Christian community, at once take the initiative. “The twelve called the multitude of the disciples ” together. They declare their resolution to retain the ministry which is officially theirs, and to commit to others a ministry from which they desire to be relieved. The apostolic proposition is accepted. The disciples chose men in numerical and in moral correspondence with the directions of the apostles. By the apostles they were ordained to their office with prayer ana by imposition of hands.. When the great persecution burst upon the Church which was at Jerusalem—a persecution which is ever connected with the spiritual power and martyrdom of St. Stephen, the first of the Seven, and with the name of Saul of Tarsus —all the disciples were scattered abroad ‘‘ except the apostles.” ? The official and authoritative centre of the Church’s unity was still maintained, and hence it was that when Philip went to the city of Samaria—reaping probably what His Master sowed*—and when the Samaritans ‘‘believed Philip preaching the things concerning the Kingdom of 1 Acts vi. 1-6. 2 Acts viii. 1. 3 St. John iv. 40, 41. Their Authority respected outside the Local Centre. 55 God,” the apostles at Jerusalem were enabled to show their sympathy with the evangelist’s work. They despatched St. Peter and St. John,' who con- firmed the Samaritans in their faith, and having thus indicated the unity of the Church, they returned to the apostolic body by whom they had been sent. About this time, Saul of Tarsus was miraculously converted, and he was subsequently baptized. He was the guest of the disciples in the northern city of Damascus, where he did good service to ‘the faith which once he destroyed.” Years after this, he came to Jerusalem, and “the assayed to join himself to the disciples, but they were all afraid of him, and believed not that he was a disciple.” ἢ Thus spurned by timidity, his admission to the con- fidence of the believers in Jerusalem was extremely unlikely. ‘But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles.” * This indicates the influence that they still retained in the Christian society. The same fact appears from the way in which evangelistic progress is communicated to the “‘apostles’’ in Judea, whether it is Samaria, or Cesarea, or Phenice, or Cyprus, or Antioch. Nor was this influence always expressed in the same way. With regard to Samaria it was manifested in apostolic supervision of missionary work. In the case of Cesarea, it took the form of acquiescing in ' Vide Appendix on “The Witness of the Samaritan Mission of SS. Peter and ai Church Order, to Sacramental Initiation, to Confirmation, and tc 2 Acts ix. 96. PACs ix, 27. 56 The Christian Ministry. requiring an explanation from an apostle of what seemed to be inconsistency,’ and even a compro- mising irregularity, and when the noble city on the Orontes became a centre of life and of labour, the authorities at Jerusalem commissioned Barnabas to visit a Church,’ which, with true tact, they remem- bered had been planted by men of his own island.° So far, then, we see that even though the words uttered by our Risen Lord on the evening of Easter Day, were addressed to others besides the apostles, and allowing that the doubters, mentioned later on by St. Matthew, belonged to the five hundred brethren, and that to them as well as to the eleven the great Commission upon the Galilean mountain was given, nevertheless the Acts of the Apostles prove that the distinction which existed between apostles and adherents before the Resurrection was continued after it ;* it was not only not obliterated by Pentecost, it was deepened, and it was accepted by Churches which were planted by independent action, and in places which were widely distant from each other. The apostles realized the Divine necessity of organisation. They were the commissioned apologists of the Pentecostal Church. They were the recognised guides to whom men turned in their moral agony, and in their spiritual perplexity. They were considered by St. Luke the depositaries of doctrine, and the perils of an exaggerated in- dividualism were averted by continuance in their 1 Acts xi, 2-18. 3 Acts iv. 36, xi. 20. ESA Cts Xi, 22; 4 St. Luke xxiv. 9. It was invoked by Barnabas on Behalf of Saul. 57 “fellowship.” They were entrusted with property which ardent love ungrudgingly consecrated to the common weal. They administered disciphne. The sick and the paralysed and the possessed were healed by their hands. They were the first to suffer. They were the last to flee. The solemni- ties of ordination, involving supplication and im- position of hands, were thus early reserved for them. ‘Their representative delegates visited regions in which the gospel had been received. ‘The visitation was at the initiative of the apostolic body. It was respected and it was welcomed by those to whom they went. When completed, the delegates returned to those by whom they had been despatched. Nor is it an exaggeration to say that the sympathy which was denied to St. Paul by the disciples, but which was extended to him by the apostles, was one of the turning-points in his history. It was nothing less than the recog- nition, by the authority of the Church, central and constituted, of him of whom the disciples were afraid. It dispelled their fear. It quickened their confidence. It consolidated the society. Indeed, whoever studies the important period which lies between the Ascension of Christ and the founda- tion of the Church in the crowded city on the Orontes, will admit that during that period, cover- ing probably some ten years, every phase of Church life was manifested. There are the Presence and the Effluence of God the Holy Ghost. There is vigorous and sympathetic corporate life. There is 58 The Christian Ministry. organisation. There is the ministry of the word, of the sacraments, and of substance. There are the supervision of evangelistic work; the administration of discipline; the endurance of suffering ; the multi- plication of the disciples; the institution of the diaconate ; and the official recognition, reception, and confirmation of converts. Hach shows how broad and how deep was the line which was drawn by the hand of Christ between the apostolic executive and the body of believing adherents. This line continues in the experience of the Church after the great crisis had been passed, in Antioch and in Jerusalem. It appears, again and again, in apostolic literature. The obscurity which prevails over the beginnings of Church organisation in Antioch does not affect the distinction which the Spirit of God recognises and approves between the ‘‘ prophets and teachers,” and those who were taught, ‘‘in the Church.”! To the former, amid their public ministrations® and their fasts, the Holy Ghost spoke. ‘To them His commission for the ordination of Barnabas and Saul was given. By them, these missionaries were set apart, with fasting, with prayer, with imposition of hands. By them they were ‘‘sent away,” and yet ‘“‘by the Holy Ghost.”* Thus duly ordained, the first missionary journey through Asia Minor is under- taken. After their departure from Selucia, they WAGE. 2 λειτουργούντων δὲ αὐτῶν τῷ Κυρίῳ καὶ νηστευόντων : Acts xiii. 2. 3 Acts xiii, 4. The Evidence of the First Missionary Journey. 59 reached the birthplace of Barnabas, and _ the spiritual birthplace of Sergius Paulus. They then sail for Perga in Pamphylia, and make their way to Antioch in Pisidia, and thence to Iconium, to Lystra, and to Derbe. At this point, the inspired historian informs us that Paul and Barnabas re- traced their steps until, reaching Attalia, they sailed back to Antioch, ‘‘from whence they had been recommended to the grace of God, for the work which they fulfilled.”’! The evangelist gives, in this connection, a summary of their work, evangel- istic and constructive: ‘‘ When they had ordained them elders in every Church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed.” ? Thus in Derbe, in Lystra, in Iconium, and in Antioch in Pisidia, there were Churches, for which the apostles ordained elders. Antioch on the Orontes was nearly three hundred miles from Jerusalem, and Antioch in Pisidia was about as much again, and Derbe, Lystra, and Iconium were about fifty miles from each other. Thus the first missionary journey shows us a series of mission stations, with an ordained ministry in each, and all deriving their orders from Paul and Barnabas, who themselves had been ordained under the special direction which the Holy Ghost had given to “certain prophets and teachers’’ in the Church at Antioch, the prophets having in all probability come from the mother Church of Jerusalem.’ 1 Acts xiv. 26. 2 Acts xiv. 23. SUACtS Xi.)27,/C2 SAL. 60 The Christian Mincstry. The Church of Antioch has many remarkable features. Amongst them there is the fact that it was owing to the presence of heretical teachers there that the first Council of Jerusalem sat; that the decision then announced by the Church of the Holy City was there first accepted, and that we are able to see, in the language then used, still further proof of the exis- tence in Jerusalem and in Antioch of that distinction between the ministry and those who were ministered to, even after the apostles had, through the growth of the Church, and through the expansion of its organization, and with a view to its future adminis- tration, ceased to be its sole governors. The Church of Antioch, whose peace was broken by the teaching of false brethren, referred the doctrine in dispute to ‘“‘the apostles and elders’’ in Jerusalem. When St. Paul and St. Barnabas visited the Holy City, as the mother Church, they were publicly received,’ but, as the Hpistle to the Galatians leads us to suppose, they were privately received by ‘‘the apostles and elders.” The doctrine, so dear to the Judaising party, does not seem to have been submitted for discussion to ‘“‘the brethren.’’ It was rather ‘‘ the apostles and elders’ who ‘‘ came together to consider the ques- tion,’ * and yet, it would appear, in the presence of others beside.* To the constituted authorities of the mother Church——“‘ the apostles and elders ” —the question was referred. By the constituted ' Acts xv. 4. 2 Gal. ii. 2, κατ᾽ ἰδίαν δὲ τοῖς δοκοῦσι (vide Alford, in loc.). 3 Acts xv. 6, of ἀπόστολοι καὶ οἱ πρεσβύτεροι ἰδεῖν περὶ τοῦ λόγου τούτου. 4 Acts xv. 7, 12, "Ανδρες ἀδελφοί. ᾿Εσίγησε δὲ πᾶν τὸ πλῆθος. Of the First Church Councett. 61 authorities of the Church—‘‘the apostles and elder brethren’’’—the question was settled. By them alone the decree, which affected doctrine, was promulgated. Hence when St. Paul was prosecuting his second missionary journey, through Syria and Cilicia, and when he revisited Derbe, and Lystra, and Iconium, and probably Antioch in Pisidia, he delivered to the Churches, which he and Barnabas had there planted and organised, the ‘‘decrees”’ of the great Council in Jerusalem ‘‘ to keep’’—decrees which St. Luke is careful to describe as having been “ordained by the apostles and elders,’ as well as approved by the Holy Ghost, and accepted with acclamation by the multitudes of the Church at Antioch, where the decree was publicly read,’ was publicly received, as giving finality to the first doctrinal dispute which had troubled the Church, and as bringing a message of peace to those who had been distraught by false brethren. The second missionary journey of the great Apostle brings before us a new and most valuable depart- ment of evidence on the point now under considera- tion. The literature of the period which stretches from the Council of Jerusalem to the date generally assigned to the Epistle to the Hebrews shows, with indisputable clearness, that the Christian ministry was in existence, as a recognised institution of the Church, and that the line which defined the apostles 1 Acts xv. 23. Οἱ ἀπόστολοι καὶ of πρεσβύτεροι ἀδελφοί. 3 ἀναγνόντες, ver. 31, i.e., publice (vide ver. 21, Μωῦσῆς . . . τοὺς κηρύσσοντας αὐτὸν ἔχει... dvaywwoxouevos, and 1 Tim. iv. 13, and Bingham, Book xiii, 4,2; Hermas, Vis., 11, iv.) 62 The Christian Ministry. from believers, before the Council of Jerusalem, defined the ministry from the people, in various Churches, provinces, and conditions, after the Council. The first Epistle to the Thessalonians was the first epistle St. Paul ever wrote. Before he wrote it, he and Barnabas had appointed “ elders ” for the various Churches already named,’ and having revisited them, SS. Paul and Timothy gave them the decrees agreed upon by the ‘‘ apostles and elders ”’ of the mother Church. St. Paul was, therefore, a living witness to the existence as well as to the importance of order, of organization, of capacity, of unity. To these he stood committed, in the presence of every Christian community which then existed. In this his first letter, he indicates the presence in the Thessalonian Church of « body of men, who were labouring amongst the people, who were over them, with the authority of the Lord, whose especial duty was admonition, and for whom he sought affectionate appreciation, because of work which in a definite sense was ‘“‘theirs.’’? In his second epistle to the 1 χειροτονήσαντες δὲ αὐτοῖς πρεσβυτέρους κατ᾽ ἐκκλησίαν (Acts xiv. 23). 2 ᾿Ἐρωτῶμεν δὲ ὑμᾶς, ἀδελφοί, εἰδέναι τοὺς κοπιῶντας ἐν ὑμῖν καὶ προϊσταμένους ὑμῶν ἐν ἸΚυρίῳ καὶ νουθετοῦντας ὑμᾶς, καὶ ἡγεῖσθαι αὐτοὺς ὑπὲρ ἐκ περισσοῦ ἐν ἀγάπῃ διὰ τὸ ἔργον αὐτῶν (1 Thess. v. 12). The transition here made from a general to a special appeal is easy and natural (Hi/lic. in loc.). The entreaty teaches, (a) there was in the Thessalonian Church a class of men whose toil was exhausting ; (0) its sphere was the Thessalonians (inter vos, Vulg.), (1 Tim. γ. 17, ἐν λόγῳ καὶ διδασκαλίᾳ) ; (0) they occupied a position of presidency, which carried (1) authority, and (2) the duty or the right to administer admonition ; (@) their presidency was spiritual; its signs, manifestation, and support were from above (ἐν Kuplw) ; (6) they were entitled to ardent love, on account of the work (τὸ ἔργον). Where practical expression is given to these principles, the following precept—elpyvetsre ἐν éavrots—will be the normal experience of the faithful (vide Bishop Patrick, vol. viii., 5, 6). On the Of the First Pauline Epistle. 63 same Church, he associates Silvanus and Timotheus with himself in the opening address, as he did in the first. All three are united in the publication of a “command,’’?' which presupposes the possession of authority. All three claim ‘‘ power” to live of that hire of which ‘‘the labourer is worthy,” and which reposed upon the express sanction of Christ, given more than twenty years before.” Both these epistles were written from Corinth—a not unimportant fact when we come to consider the conclusions which have been rather hastily drawn respecting the unor- dered condition of the Corinthian Church. St. Paul spent one year and a half in that great commercial centre. In his first Epistle to the Corinthians, written from Ephesus, we have some of the strongest statements which are contained in the principle of the passage, Calvin says: ‘‘ Hoc additum videtur ad notandum spirituale regimen ; tametsi enim reges quoque et magistratus Dei ordinatione presunt, quia tamen ecclesie gubernationem Dominus peculiariter vult suam agnosci, ideo nominatim presse in Domino dicuntur, qui Christi nomine et mandato ecclesiam gubernant.” 1 Παραγγέλλομεν δὲ ὑμῖν (2 Thess. iii. 6, 14). 2 οὐχ ὅτι οὐκ ἔχομεν ἐξουσίαν (2 Thess. iii. 9). The Apostle speaks clearly, but cautiously. There is a ministerial right. He and his coadjutors have not exercised it. They have, for moral and prudential reasons, allowed it to lie in abeyance. But his procedure is not binding upon others, nor fatal to the principle. The right survives. He reiterates it when addressing the Corinthians (1 Cor. ix. 12-14), οὐκ ἐχρησάμεθα τῇ ἐξουσίᾳ ταύτῃ. He there appeals to the analogy indicated by the maintenance of the Jewish priesthood. The priests and the Levites of the Hebrew economy were maintained, by Divine com- mand (Num. xviii. 8-32; Deut. x. 9, xviii. 1-8; Josh. xiii. 14, 33). The preachers of the gospel were to be similarly maintained. Their right (ἐξουσία) to support reposes upon an ordinance of the Lord (ὁ Κύριος διέταξε), with which St. Paul had, somehow, become acquainted (St. Matt. x. 10; St. Luke x. 8). This principle presupposes the existence of the Christian ministry, as (4) an institute of Christ ; (4) of the apostles; and (6) in places widely apart. The principle is vindicated by analogy, and by the Apostle’s re-assertion of its moral fitness, at the time he voluntarily declines to exercise it. 64 The Christian Mintstry. New ‘Testament, in favour of the existence of the Christian ministry. The prevalence of party spirit amongst the Corinthians is not without evi- dential value on this point. But it need not now be appraised, for St. Paul’s language is clear, is emphatic, is reiterated, and is conclusive. ΑἹ], ‘““whether St. Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas,” or Sosthenes, were alike ‘‘ ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God,” ’ of whom the cardinal requirement is, as in the humbler oifices of secular life, fidelity. Later on, in his epistle, St. Paul rises from personal considerations, to the announce- ment of a principle, which was recognised in the Jewish system. ‘‘Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? and they which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar? Hven so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel.”’> When he refers to the various modes in which the Spirit of God operates, and, from the analogy of the human frame, concludes that inter- dependence is the great law of the Church of Christ, he is careful to remind the Corinthians that, however generally spiritual gifts may be possessed, they are to be exercised in the remembrance of the Divine appointment of the Christian ministry. ‘‘God hath set some in the Church, first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then eifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of 1 ὑπηρέτας Χριστοῦ καὶ οἰκονόμους μυστηρίων Θεοῦ (1 Cor. iy. 1). 2 Vide note 2, p. 68. An Apostolic Ministry recognised in the Epistles to 65 tongues. Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers ?’’? The second Epistle to the Corinthians bears similar witness. It reveals the intense anguish of a soul overwhelmed by a sense of ministerial and official responsibility. The publication of the gospel is, as it is received or as it is rejected, the adminis- tration of life or of death.” The moral position of every hearer is altered by the fact of his having heard the message. The contemplation of the ever- lasting consequences which hang upon the minister’s work fills the Apostle with such concern that he exclaims, ‘“‘ Who is sufficient for these things ?”’ while he is careful to seek and to find consolation where alone it can be found, in the eternal truth that ‘‘ our sufficiency is of God.’’* The ministry is a ‘‘ministry of the new testament.” It is carried on, not in painful obedience to written laws, or precepts, or enactments, but in accordance with the spiritual needs of man, and the spiritual nature of God. The proclamation of the gospel by ‘‘this ministry,’ is a treasure in earthen vessels, which emphatically is entrusted to them.* The burden of the message, ‘‘ reconciliation,”’ has given the name to the ministry by which it is announced.° ' 1 Cor. xii. 28, 29 : “‘ With the desire of eliciting a negative reply ” (Ellicott in loe.). ΕΣ ΟἿΣ, i. 16, 16. 5. 2 Cor. iii. 4, 5. **Exouev δὲ τὸν θησαυρόν. The emphasis is instructive. 2 Cor. iv. 7. ἢ καὶ δόντος ἡμῖν τὴν διακονίαν τῆς καταλλαγῆς (2 Cor. v. 18). The closing sentence of this great passage teaches that the word of reconciliation was “placed ”’ in the apostles by an “‘ appointment” as definite as that by which the 5 66 The Christian Ministry. The ministers of reconciliation are ‘‘ ambassadors for Christ;’’ are ‘‘ ministers of God;’’ are to be sensitive to the approach of anything which might discredit their glorious theme, or bring the dark shadow of blame to ‘‘ the ministry,’ who are ‘the apostles of the Churches, and the glory of Christ.” The Galatians are reminded that the teacher is to be sustained by the taught.’ In the Epistle to the Romans, St. Paul, when referring to the evangelisa- tion of Israel, incidentally recognises the necessity of being ‘‘sent”’ as the qualification of the official preacher.? The address to the elders of the Church at Ephesus regards their appointment (ἔθετο) as the act of the Holy Ghost ; their work as the feeding of the Church of God, and it emphasizes the distinction between the overseers and the flock.’ In the Epistle ministry was “appointed in the Church.” καὶ θέμενος ἐν ἡμῖν τὸν λόγον τῆς καταλλαγῆς (2 Cor. v. 19). Kal ods μὲν ἔθετο ὁ Θεὸς ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ (1 Cor. xii. 28). In the Epistle to the Ephesians, a different thought is presented. There the ministry is amongst the δόματα which the ascended Christ gave (ἔδωκε). Eph. iv. 8,11. The work of the Holy Ghost, in the same sphere, is taught in Acts xx. 28, τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ Λγιον ἔθετο ἐπισκόπους. : ΠΝ ΑΙ vino: * πῶς δὲ κηρύξουσιν, ἐὰν μὴ ἀποσταλῶσι ; (Rom. Χ. 15). It is important to remember the ideas which such words represent in the mind of a Jew, especially when he himself was sent (Acts xxii. 21), and yet respected the authority of those who were in Christ before him (Acts xxi. 18), Contrast with these facts words which can hardly have been absent from the mind of St. Paul, and which explain what being “ sent”’ is. Οὐκ ἀπέστελλον τοὺς προφήτας, Kal αὐτοὶ ἔτρεχον" οὐδὲ ἐλάλησα πρὸς αὐτοὺς, καὶ αυτοὶ ἐπροφήτευον (Jer. Xxiii. 21). The possession of a Divine commission justifies and authorises evangelistic activity and utter- ance. The passage from Isaiah (lii. 7) shows (a) the moral beauty of the arrange- ment ; (2) the place which evangelisation had in the mind of God; (6) the ripening of prophecy into history ; and (d) the recognition by St. Paul of the heralds of the cross in the ancient prediction. Admit that questions may be raised as to the nature of the Divine commission, there cannot be any question as to the separate- ness of the ambassador, or herald, or evangelist, from those to whom he is “ sent.” 3 προσέχετε οὖν ἑαυτοῖς καὶ παντὶ τῷ ποιμνίῳ, ἐν ᾧ ὑμᾶς τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ Αγιον ἔθετο ἐπισκόπους, ποιμαίνειν τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ (Acts xx. 28). the Corinthians, the Ephesians, the Churches of the 67 to the Ephesians is the full development of the germ which we recognise in the address at Miletus. It was written in the Roman prison. ‘The Church which God hath purchased with His own blood ”’ is ““His body.”* When Christ ascended He “gave gifts unto men. ... He gave some apostles; and some prophets; and some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the Body of Christ.” ἢ These gifts, as thus declared, are amongst the inspired assurances which we possess that the mission and the ministry of the apostolic Church are the inheritances of succeeding ages. They show us that the ministerial organisation which Christ gave to His Church after His Ascension, and by the operation of the Holy Ghost, is the priceless gift of Christ to the Church, and to the Church in every age. The existence of the ministry is only limited by the arrival of that era, which is indicated by the Holy Ghost: “ Till® we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ.” 1 Acts xx. 28, cf. Eph. i. 21-3. 2 Eph. iv. 8, 11, 12. % μέχριι This word defines the chronological limit of the Christian ministry, “Tt specifies the time up to which this spiritual constitution was designed to last ” (Ellicott, in loc.). “St. Paul regards the Church as one; he declares its issue and destination as ἑνότης and τελειότης ἢ; on the realisation of this, whensoever and wheresoever, the functions of the Christian ministry will cease” (Ellic., in loc.). For an interesting speculation on εἰς μέτρον ἡλικίας, connected, too, with St. Thomas Aquinas, see Martensen’s Christian Dogmatics, sec. 290, obsery. p. 487. 68 The Christian Ministry. The Churches in the valley of the Lycus were planted and were watered by the faith, by the love, and by the prayers of Epaphras, the whole-hearted Colossian, (whom St. Paul describes as a “ faithful minister of Christ,’’) the representative’ both of St. Paul and St. Timothy to the Colossian con- verts. Archippus is counselled to ‘‘ take heed to the ministry’? which he had received “in the Lord.”* The salutation which opens the Epistle to the Philippians is addressed ‘‘ to all the saints ‘in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons,”* and it would be rash to exclude Hpaphroditus* from the official ministry. The Pastoral Epistles supply abundant and varied proof of the organisation of the primitive Church ; the existence of the Christian ministry; and the care taken by St. Paul to ensure the continuity of Christian doctrine, through the ordination of Christian men. The first Epistle of St. Peter bears, directly though undesignedly, the same wit- ness. While the Epistle to the Hebrews, having dealt with some of the most important doctrines in the Christian system, emphasizes duty and prac- tice, and amongst the closing phrases we find the most solemn appeal contained in the New Testa- 1 καθὼς ἐμάθετε ἀπὸ ᾿Βπαφρᾶς τοῦ ἀγαπητοῦ συνδούλου ἡμῶν, ὅς ἐστιν πιστὸς ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν διάκονος τοῦ Χριστοῦ ((ΟἹ], 1. 7). Vide Lightfoot, Hp. Col., note, on some various readings in the Epistle, p. 810. He regards ἡμῶν as beyond much doubt the correct reading. Hence Epaphras is described in the text as representing St. Paul and St. Timothy. 2 Coll ive Nie J 12lopill 1. 4 Phil. 11. 25, λειτουργύν. Lycus, the Hebrews, the Pastoral Epistles, etc. 69 ment, on behalf of that obedience which is due to the commissioned servants of Christ, an appeal which is all the more instructive when we remember the conditions under which this letter was written, the spiritual dangers, to the counteraction of which the epistle was addressed, and that the Jewish hierarchy was still in existence, the representatives of which assuredly received that respect which the holy Apostle here desires to be accorded to those who were connected with a still higher system. In urging this appeal, the writer has the keenest sense of present duty and of future accountability. His mind speeds on to the day of judgment. He discerns the existence even then of the connection which is represented by the pastoral office: ‘‘ Re- member them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God.’ . . . Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account.’’? This imperfect review shows the place which the Christian ministry holds in the apostolic Church, and in the different Churches which were planted, in different places, and at different periods. Incomplete as the sketch is, it establishes the important con- clusion that the general application of the great Commission is no disparagement to the Christian ministry. The testimony of the sacred writers is ' Μνημονεύετε τῶν ἡγουμένων ὑμῶν, οἵτινες ἐλάλησαν ὑμῖν τὸν λὸγον τοῦ Θεοῦ (Heb. xiii. 7). * Πείθεσθε τοῖς ἡγουμένοις ὑμῶν, καὶ ὑπείκετε. αὐτοὶ yap ἀγρυπνοῦσιν ὑτὲρ τῶν ψυχῶν ὑμῶν, ὡς λόγον ἀποδώσοντες (Heb. xiii. 17). 70 The Christian Mintstry. only what we might expect from those who were acquainted with the teachings of Christ, and who would regard them, as they have ever been regarded, as the utterances of the Head of the Church, even as St. Paul considered the ministry as given by the Ascended Saviour. This is, doubtless, but elementary truth, and one is disposed to apologise for its reproduction. But when I remember how few are the truths of which we cannot afford to be reminded, as well as the strange doctrines which have been recently propounded, I feel no distress for having invited your attention to the teachings, authoritative, explicit, and incidental, of the Word of God. We are told that in the Pauline Churches there were, for a time at least, no specially appointed officials at all, and that in the epistles addressed to the Church at Corinth, ‘office bearers of any kind are never once mentioned.”* The Corinthian Church was, when St. Paul’s first epistle was written, ‘almost structureless,” “little more than an aggre- gate of individuals, with no bishop, presbyter, or deacon,’ and hence there was no ministry. ‘The possession of the gift was the only appointment and the only ordination, and beyond this all stood upon the same level.”* ‘In the Hpistle to the Galatians there is the same remarkable absence of any allusion to Church organization or Church office- bearers. . . . If office-bearers existed they must ' The Growth of the Church in its Organization and Institution, being the Croall Lectures for 1886, p.17. By Professor Cunningham. Vide Appendix on “ The Jerusalem Council and the Plymouthism of the Corinthian Church,” 2 Tbid., p. 18. 3 Ibid., p. 19. Alleged Structureless Character of Pauline Churches. 71 have been referred to. As they are not referred to, we must conclude they did not exist.”' The same statements are made respecting the Roman Church. The whole body of Christians was upon a level: “all ye are brethren.’ ‘The distinctions which St. Paul makes between Christians are based not upon office, but upon varieties of spiritual power. They are caused by the diversity of the operations of the Holy Spirit. They are consequently personal and individual. They do not mark off class from class, but one Christian from another.’’* Now there is uo need to warn you of the dangers which wait upon those who draw large and positive conclusions from the silence of a writer. If, because a doctrine, or a duty, or an institution is not mentioned, “‘ we must conclude they did not exist,” our estimate of early Churches, yea of sacred writers, would place many outside the pale of orthodoxy. The name of God does not appear in the Book of Esther. There is no mention of the Eucharist in twelve of the Pauline epistles. It is also omitted by St. Peter, by St. James, and by St. John the Divine, from the epistles which bear their respective names. The Resurrection of the Redeemer is not mentioned by St. James, no more than is the Ascension or even the Atonement. It is certain that women were not present when the Holy Eucharist was instituted, and there is no command committed to the Church 1 The Growth of the Charch in its Organization and Institution, being the Croall Lectures for 1886, p. 20. * The Organization of the Early Churches (Bampton Lectures), p.121. By Edwin Hatch, M.A. 72 The Christian Ministry. requiring their presence at its celebration now. Instances of omissions, from other books, of other doctrines or practices might easily be multiplied. Would it be right or even reasonable to reject these doctrines or to disregard these practices because they were omitted by some one writer ? Are we to conclude that the author of the Book of Esther was an agnostic or an atheist? that the Kucharist was unknown to the Churches of Thessa- lonica, of Galatia, of Rome, of Ephesus, or Philippi, or of the valley of Lycus? Shall we declare that, because the Sacraments are not mentioned in the Pastoral Epistles, they have no place in the so- lemnities which are associated with the Christian ministry ? Surely not. We shall rather be care- ful to ascertain the object which the writer of each book had in view, and then we shall be able to see the significance of its contents with regard to that object. If, for instance, it had been St. Paul’s object, in addressing the Corinthian believers, to give explicit directions upon Church government, then the comparative silence of the epistle upon this point, would strengthen the contention of Baur, of Dr. Cunningham, of Dr. Hatch, and of others. But this question was not raised. The first epistle shows clearly enough what questions were raised. These questions reveal the internal condition of the Church.. A contentious spirit permeated the Chris- tian society. The moral inflexibility which ought to mark Christian discipline was so pliant that sins were condoned which should have been condemned, Theory rests on Precarious Argumentum e silentio. 73 and sacramental irregularities occurred which were visited by Divine displeasure. St. Paul had been consulted concerning the position which believers should take up on certain questions, which arose out of the normal conditions of Corimthian society and the restraint placed upon these conditions by the religion of Christ. He had been consulted about their attitude with regard to meats offered to idols; whether their women should be veiled in the public gatherings of the Church; and the exercise of spiritual gifts. Upon these themes, the Apostle speaks, and clearly. Nor can there be a reasonable doubt that his own apostolic position, and authority, and influence, were challenged by vigorous and jealous false teachers. That position and authority he defends by reminding them that he was their father in God; that he had begotten them through the gospel; that he had seen the Lord Jesus; that he was an apostle; that they were the seal of his apostleship in the Lord. Such a line of defence was unanswerable. It was historic, personal, relative, demonstrative. But no question was raised respecting the Christian ministry; the position of Church officers ; or their attitude towards Church discipline. Had any such questions arisen in Corinth they would have been dealt with as were those already specified. The argument e silentio is, accordingly, not only precarious, but in this par- ticular case it is especially weak. This weakness is due to antecedent circumstances, as well as to internal evidence. 74 The Christian Ministry. St. Paul’s first missionary journey was undertaken from that centre of Christian life, organization, and influence, the great city of Antioch on the Orontes. In this journey he was accompanied by St. Barnabas, and after they had evangelized Antioch in Pisidia, they came to Iconium, to Lystra, to Derbe. From Derbe, they resolved to retrace their steps, but not without making arrangements for the consolidation of their work. ‘‘ When they had ordained (appointed for, Rev. Ver.) them elders in every Church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed.’ Thus, then, there were at least four Churches to which elders had been ordained. Various dates are assigned for this journey and for the organisation of these Churches. They range from 42 at the earliest, to 51 at the latest; the year 45, however, is that which has the strongest body of opinion. But whatever the date, the fact is full of significance. These Churches were not left to organise themselves. “Truth was truth,” but for its perpetuation and for its progress St. Paul considered organisation necessary. The Apostle’s second missionary journey is more remarkable. It is signalised by the issue of apostolic literature and by the extension of the Church. It was during this journey the great Corinthian Church was founded, about the year 52 or 53—a considerable time after St. Paul had organised the Churches of the first journey. Now consider the character and the numerical conditions of Corinth, Lncredible by Analogies of Apostolic Organization, 75 and let us inquire, Is it credible that St. Paul would leave Corinth without the Church officers which he had deliberately appointed for the Churches of Derbe, Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch? Is it credible that, in a huge community, like Corinth, where the need was greatest, he would neglect that which he had observed in cities where the need was less ? Is it credible that he would omit the ordination of elders, when he had experience of their importance in and their recognition by the mother Church of Jerusalem, by the Church of Antioch, as well as by the Churches of Derbe and of Lystra, to whom he gave the decrees which had been drawn up by not only the apostles, but by elders? This is rendered extremely unlikely when we remember that the publication of apostolic literature began from Corinth. It was when St. Paul was sojourning there he wrote the Epistles to the Thessalonians. In these epistles, St. Paul recognises the presence amongst the Thessalonians of those who were “ over them, in the Lord,” whose solemn and especial duty was admonition, and who were entitled to signal regard for a work, which unless it was, as he describes it, in a special sense ‘ theirs,” robs his appeal not only of value, but of intelligence. Here, again, we inquire, Is it possible that St. Paul would accentuate the importance of obedience to the ministry amongst the Thessalonians, and send his letter from a city in which there was no ministry at all? Would he recognise from Corinth, the existence and the importance of the Thessalonian 76 The Christian Ministry Church officers, while no such persons were known in the very place from which the letter was sent? This is, at least, improbable. It is the more so, when we remember that the first Epistle to the Corinthians was written during the three years St. Paul spent at Ephesus, where his ministry was so blessed ‘‘ that all they which dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus, both Jews and Greeks.”’ The Ephesian Church possessed a duly ordained ministry, ‘‘the elders of the Church.” They had the spiritual oversight of the flock. They were, according to St. Paul, appointed by the Holy Ghost. The solemnity of their office is indicated by the most impressive consideration known to the Apostle. This is gathered from his address, delivered under most affecting circumstances, at Miletus. It proves, amongst other things, that in Ephesus, from which the first Epistle to the Corinthians was despatched, there were those who felt it to be their duty or their privilege to respond to an apostolic call; to under- take, unitedly, a journey, at his bidding; to accept the counsel which he gave; to admit the accuracy of the language in which their vast obligations were described, and to tolerate his intimation of future troubles arising from amongst themselves. These Ephesian elders were well known to St. Paul. His warm sympathy, his rare power of individualisation, his marked capacity for detail, and his prolonged stay amongst them render this absolutely certain. While he was thus going in and out amongst them, ‘“‘at all seasons,’ he wrote the Epistle to the by the Moral Symmetry of Apostolic Writing. 77 Corinthians. And we are invited to believe that the organisation which existed in the Church of Ephesus was unknown in the Church of Corinth. We are assured that ‘‘the elders,’ who were placed by the Holy Ghost in an official position which aroused an anxious apostolic appeal, were unknown in a much larger Church to which from Ephesus St. Paul addressed a letter. We are asked to believe that St. Paul was acquainted with elders, whom in all probability he had ordained; that, during his three years’ ministry, he was frequently in communion with them, and that while thus originating, and observing, and strengthening, the organisation of the Church of Ephesus, he wrote a letter to the Church of Corinth, which had no organisation at all! This is surely unreasonable, and even improbable. The improbability is still further increased by the internal evidence of both the Corinthian epistles. The same unordered, inorganic, structureless con- dition is said to characterise the Church of Rome: “From beginning to end there is not the slightest reference to any one who bore oftice.”! But there is the inquiry, which presupposes the authorisation of a commission, as justifying the office of the preacher as the official ambassador of the King: “How shall they preach, except they be sent?” and in the Epistle to the Ephesians, written from the imperial city, St. Paul declares the origin of the Christian ministry to be the work of the Ascended Christ. Are we to exclude from its operations the 1 The Growth of the Chureh, p. 20. 78 The Christian Ministry. very Church in the midst of which he asserted its origin, recognised its existence, defined its work, and noted its temporal range? ‘There were, within the Roman Church, “saints to be perfected ;”’ “work of the ministry,” and members of ‘‘ the body of Christ’? who were to be edified. We cannot doubt that those who were set apart for their high and holy work in Ephesus represented similar officers in Rome, unless we are prepared to adopt the startling proposition that where the need is greatest the supply is least; or, to revert to a simile which from the earliest ages is consecrated to illustrate the work of the Ministry, that where the flock is most numerous, the shepherds are not only few, but are utterly unknown! Such a theory is, I submit, as unreasonable as the principle upon which it rests, viz., that an inspired apostle would entreat men to extend their heartiest appreciation to the repre- sentatives of an institution, existing in one city, while no such institution was known or was needed, in another city, from which his appeal was made. Men do not usually seek for general appreciation of that which they themselves systematically dis- parage. The theory is weighted, even to death, by the evidence, cumulative, diversified, and incidental, of Pauline literature, which is again sustained by the appeal—as solemn as it is searching—which St. Peter makes to the elders “to feed the flock of God.” The value of that appeal, as evidence for the contemporaneous and widespread existence of the Christian ministry, is very great. Its greatness The Evidence of St. Peter. 79 is in proportion to the simplicity of the statement and to the vastness of the area which that state- ment covers. That area includes Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia.! As we look at the territory thus described, the eye is led by the light of inspiration along the shores of the Euxine. It moves with gladdening hope and keen amazement over rushing river and mountain pass and winding valley, until it pauses in the city of Nicomedia. We pursue the broadening beams of spiritual illumination further still to the Bosphorus. We look around, and the glare of glory bathed the Churches of Galatia in its golden light. Here was a region in which history rises into the fascination of romance. It tells of migration, undeterred by difficulties which even the facilities of our age would account considerable. It tells of conquest, of swarming life, of courageous adventure, of rare individuality. It tells of Pessinus, of Angora, of Tavium—the probable centres of the Churches of Galatia to which St. Paul addressed his epistle, and in which St. Peter undesignedly assures us there were presbyters. From Galatia, we are led to Cappadocia, thence to proconsular Asia, with its seething life, its sickly pomp, its frightful pas- times, its laws, its idolatries, its pagan hierarchies. Yet here there were seven Churches with their ἄγγελοι and their πρεσβύτεροι. Nor may we omit Bithynia, within whose area was Nicea—which had probably its Church and its ministry. 1 1 St. Peter i. 1, cf. v. 1, 2. 80 The Christian Ministry. Thus, looking at the field in which the apostles and the elders toiled, we see that in addition to the mother Church of Jerusalem, and of Antioch on the Orontes, in the area which was bounded by the Mediterranean on the south, by the Huxine on the north, by Armenia on the east, and by the blue Aigean, yea by the Ionian Sea on the west, there were Churches planted by apostolic hands; organised by apostolic wisdom; and ministered to by those who accepted apostolic counsel. Other topics of a cognate kind present themselves for examination. Amongst them may be reckoned the solidarity of the primitive Church as contrasted with the alleged isolation and independence of local communities... Nor can we exclude from view the constitution and the functions of that Ministry which the New Testament declares to be the ex- pression of the mind of the Risen Christ. To this study we shall next address ourselves. ' Vide Appendix on “ The Witness of the Samaritan Mission of 5S. Peter and John,” etc. LECTURE III. “ God hath set some in the Church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.”—1 Cor. xii. 28. HIS remarkable passage, which, however im- portant because of its bearing upon the organic or inorganic condition of the Corinthian Church, or because of the stress laid upon it in recent times by Edward Irving,’ is rendered still more so through the happy discovery of Bryennios,? and through the intrepid penetration of Professor Harnack, even though his unveiled rationalism causes the keenest regret, and qualifies the admira- tion with which he is regarded by those who acknowledge their indebtedness to his learning, to his thoroughness, and to his patience.’ The passage appears to me to declare that the appointments which God has made in His Church are threefold. They are, first, ministerial. They include apostles, prophets, and teachers. To these God committed, in the first instance, the proclamation of the kingdom 1 Writings of Edward Irving, vol. i., p. 433, Eph. iv, 11. 2 Διδαχὴ τῶν Δώδεκα ᾿Αποστόλων (Schaff’s ed., 1885). 3 Vide Appendix on “ ‘ The Critical Method’ applied to the First Six Chapters of the Acts of the Apostles.” 6 82 The Christian Ministry. of Christ, the announcement of the glad tidings which had been the burden of Old Testament pre- diction, type, ceremony, and song. The work was chiefly to publish the Proclamation. The second appointment which St. Paul here attributes to God, was evidential. It included miracles, gifts of healings, and diversities of tongues. ΤῸ these the apostles, the prophets, and the teachers appealed. They were vouchsafed to comfort the frail; to bless the miserable; to appeal to the awakening conscience of the sufferer or of the witnesses ; to demonstrate the presence in the missionaries of the new society, of a Power beyond all that had ever been produced by natural causes, as well as to be a sign to those who would reject their message. They were thus signatures to un- believers and also to apostles. They were spiritual dynamics which sustained the declaration. They were Evidential. The third appointment which is here attributed to God is ancillary, administrative, or executive. It assumes the prevalence of need. It provides the necessary help. It indicates that the procla- mation, though sustained by power, may welcome such aid as would be compatible with the author of the appointment; with the character of the proclamation; with the nature of the power; and with the necessities of the individual, the occasion, the society. It implies, besides, that the skilled experience of a pilot, a steersman, a master mariner? Ἰ κυβερνήτης. The Ministry rs the Gift of the Ascended Saviour. 83 is needed and is supplied in the ship of the Church of Christ. Thus in these three categories, each of Divine institution, we have, in the first rank, the ministry of Proclamation; in the second rank, the ministry of Power or of evidence; in the third rank, the ministry of Aid, of administration, of guidance. The Epistle to the Ephesians—which Harnack, with characteristic temerity, denies to be the work of St. Paul’—declares the ministry—enlarged, but still of the first rank—to be the gift of Christ, consequent upon His Ascension. This leads us to expect a fuller manifestation of the ministry of Proclamation, than was made before the Ascension. Apostolic history justifies the expectation. Before the departure of Christ, the title ‘‘ apostle ” appears very seldom in the Gospels, viz. :—once in St. Matthew ;? once in St. Mark ;* and six times in St. Luke. After the Ascension, it occurs with instructive frequency in the writings of St. Luke, in the epistles of St. Paul, St. Peter, St. Jude, and the Revelation of St. John the Divine. Nor can there be any reasonable doubt, that while the term was at one time of limited application, it was at another and a later time used in a more general sense. This opened the door to pretence, to self- assertion, to imposture, to falsehood. If the ' Expositor, No. xxix., p. 331. 2 St. Matt. x. 2. 5. St. Mark vi. 30. 4 St. Luke vi. 13, ix. 10, xi. 49, xvii. 5, xxii. 14, xxiv. 10. ° ψευδαπόστολοι (2 Cor. xi. 13). 84 The Christian Ministry. original qualification had been observed, viz., per- sonal acquaintance with Christ, time, which tries all things, would have so tested the pretentious and the false that even a glance would have been sufficient to settle the right or the wrong of the claim. But when the term became of freer ap- plication, that test was removed, and craft and falsehood were introduced, against which we have some earnest and even indignant protests. Thus the general application of the term appears to be established by the prevalence of false apostles, and by the application of the term to those who had not seen Christ, and this by a writer who himself rests his right to the title upon this very privilege.' In this general sense the term is applied here.? The time when Christ dispensed the gift (Hph. iv. 11) enlarges the application of the title to others than those who were designated as the Twelve, whom He had chosen ‘‘to be with Him,’ and whom He had ‘sent forth to preach.’’ The Twelve were the companions of the ministering, the suffering, the rejected Christ. They were the ‘ witnesses 1 Οὐκ εἰμὶ ἐλεύθερος ; οὐκ εἰμὶ ἀπόστολος ; οὐχὶ ᾿Ιησοῦν τὸν Κύριον ἡμῶν ἑώρακα ; (1 Cor. ix. 1), Ellicott, in loc. cum ch. xy. 5, “ where, after recounting these appearances, the Apostle specifies with solemn emphasis, ὥφθη κἀμοί. This was, on the Divine side, the credential to his apostolate.” 2 “The term ἀποστόλους here, as in the parallel passage, Eph. iv. 11, is used in its highest and most special sense’’ (Hllic., im loe.), by which we are to under- stand the sense in which it was applied to the Twelve. If this be so, St. Paul excludes himself in the twelfth chapter, after having vindicated his right to the title in the ninth. He was also aware, no doubt, that St. Barnabas had, for a considerable time, borne the designation, and had certainly borne it before the passage under review was written. This seems to widen the sense in which the word is here used (agst. Ellicott, but see Alf.), vide Acts xiv. 14 ; 2 Cor. viii. 23 ; 1 Thess. ii. 6 (comp. 1 Thess, i. 1). Apostles, Prophets, Teachers. 85 chosen before of God’ for this especial office. But the more general group of apostles, including St. Matthias, and St. Barnabas, and St. Paul, and St. James and others, were the gift of the Ascended Christ. They are associated with the prophets of the rising dispensation. The ‘ fellow citizens with the saints” and ‘‘of the household of God are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets.”’ ‘The mystery of Christ,” unknown in previous ages ‘“‘to the sons of men,” is now revealed unto ‘holy apostles and prophets by the Spuit.”” Thus the Ephesian epistle, written in 62, preserves the order of ministry which was declared to be of Divine appointment, in the first Corinthian epistle, written from Ephesus, about 57. But the question now arises—how far were prophets and teachers associated with apostles in ministerial labour? Have we any information which will justify the hypothesis that the ministry of Proclam- ation appealed to and exercised the ministry of Evidence, and recognised the ministry of Aid, of administration, of guidance ? How will this classification bear upon the theories, first, of a general and itinerant ministry; and secondly, upon a fixed, because a local ministry ? and what is the witness of Patristic literature ? What do we learn upon these points from Clement of Rome, from the Didaché, from Barnabas, from Hermas, from ‘The order in which the words occur indicates rank and priority, and strengthens the belief that the prophets belonged to the New Testament dispensation (Eph. ii. 20, 111, 5, iv. 11), 36 The Christian Ministry. fenatius, from Polycarp? Our first appeal must be to the sacred Scriptures. It will include the period which lies between the Pentecostal birthday of the Church and the ordination of St. Barnabas and St. Paul to their Gentile ministry. It will in- clude the first missionary journey of St. Paul, which began and concluded at Antioch. It will include his second missionary journey, wider and more varied than the first, which began and concluded at the same centre. It will include his third missionary journey, which was still broader in its range, resumed from Antioch and prosecuted until he was arrested in Jerusalem. (a2) When the Holy Ghost was bestowed upon the Church, St. Peter was the first to engage in the ministry of Proclamation. Amongst the earliest announcements, which he was inspired to make, was the fulfilment of the prophecy of Joel, by the spiritual phenomena which were then manifested. The prediction had lain, in hopeless obscurity in the folios of Joel, for eight hundred years. During these centuries the kingdoms of Israel and of Judah had been rocked in revolution, blasted by war, and de- nationalised by captivity. Isaiah had lived, and his mental vision had been enlarged and enriched by glimpses of the spiritual splendour which belongs to the light inapproachable, to the revelation of the moral glory of redemption, to the entrancing spec- tacle of a world renewed by Divine Life, bathed in Divine Light, and blessed by Divine Love. Jeremiah had wept over the sins and the sorrows of his The Fulfitment of Joel’s Prediction. 87 countrymen. lHzekiel, and Daniel, and the minor prophets had delivered their testimony, some in tears, others in burning malediction, but all by the Spirit of God. Yea, the centuries of silence had passed, and with them mighty nationalities had ceased to make history. Babylon, and Persia, and Macedon, and Greece, were each and all behind the giant power which, in her pride and in her prowess, was the heir of all the ages. Who would have thought that a prediction which was inoperative for eight centuries would now find fulfilment? Who even amongst the apostles would have dared to hope that within six weeks of the Resurrection that agelong announce- ment of an obscure seer would have been cited to refute a calumny, to explain a fact, and to establish continuity between the purpose of God in the past and the performance of that purpose in the present ? But soit was. St. Peter sees in the phenomena of Pentecost the realization of Joel’s prediction. The Spirit of God was expressed in prophetic gifts. This is, with instructive fitness and with moral propriety, the introduction to the first sermon preached within the Church of Christ. It is an admonition—in- spired, enduring, authoritative—to the Christian ministry in all ages. St. Peter then leads his hearers, from the life and the labours of Jesus, sus- tained by the approval of God, which was indicated by miracles and wonders and signs, to His cruel death, to His predicted and triumphant resurrection, to His exaltation by the right hand of God, and to intercession, which was manifested by ‘the Holy 88 The Christian Ministry. Ghost which ye now see and hear.” The Apostle then urges the appeal which these facts make upon his hearers. The appeal is answered by the conver- sion and baptism of three thousand souls, and in St. Luke’s statement, ‘‘many wonders and signs were done by the apostles,” we have the ministry of evidence sustaining the ministry of announcement. The display of power reinforces the divinely ordered proclamation. The same spiritual and dynamical succession are associated in the healing of the lame man at the gate of the temple. And amid the menacing which that miracle aroused, the apostles are most explicit in their statement of the connection between the ministry of utterance and the ministry of evidence— and God was pleased to honour that statement by afresh sign.’ Nor is it otherwise when we consider the wretched record of the first danger which was exhibited within the new society. Achan reappears in the spirit of the guilty Ananias and Sapphira. The Church is, in St. Peter’s consciousness, the habitation of God the Holy Ghost. Falsehood, duplicity, greed, were sins not only unto men, “ but unto God,” and they were visited with death. The sign—supernatural and salutary—produced ‘‘ great fear upon the whole Church, and upon as many as heard these things,’’” and St. Luke adds, in this con- nection, an extraordinary manifestation of miraculous energy, which went out upon the sick in the narrow streets, which summoned them from the retirement ? Acts iv. 29-31. 2 Acts v. 11, The Ministries of Proclamation, Power, etc. 89 of frailty, to the publicity of a thoroughfare, because even the shadow of the Apostle was health and blessing. The greatness of the miracles evidently impressed the mind of the medical evangelist. He emphasizes the number who were cured. He dwells upon the wide range in which the miracles operated. He defines the nature of some of them as being ‘“‘vexed with unclean spirits.’’ He, with the calm dig- nity which is ever associated with a conscious reserve of strength, states, ‘“‘ they were healed every one.’ ! This led to the first imprisonment of the apostles. They were miraculously released, and they were commanded to ‘‘speak in the temple to the people all the words of this life.’ The numerical and spiritual strength of the Church were at this time beyond all doubt. The reality and the power of love appear in the voluntary communism which then pre- vailed. It cheerfully provided for the wants of the necessitous, and it developed, in a very natural way, a crisis, the effects of which are amongst the most far-reaching events of the apostolic period. The Twelve—the apostles—still appear as the leaders of the Church. The work has grown beyond their ability to overtake it. The ministry of the Word and the ministry of tables are not compatible. They concede to the people the selection of ‘“‘seven men of honest report.’’ They reserve to themselves the right to appoint the men thus selected; ‘‘ whom they set before the apostles, and when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them.” 1 Acts vy. 12-16. 90 The Christian Ministry. So far, then, we have glanced through the first six chapters of the Acts of the Apostles. They record a series of origins, following upon the initiating and enabling Effusion. They contain the history of the first preaching of the gospel of Christ; the first growth of the Church through that preaching, to- gether with sacramental initiation ; the first strength- ening of the souls of the baptized by apostolic doctrine, by eucharistic communion, by common prayers; the first consecration of substance, as ex- pressive of love and of brotherhood ; the first miracle; the first hostile demonstration ; the first danger from within the Church; the first suffering from without ; and the first murmuring. All these lie within the first year of the Church’s life, and within the city of Jerusalem. The history so far assures us that the ministry of Proclamation was exercised by the apostles. It was strengthened by the ministry of Hvidence,' with a regularity which allows of no disjunction. It instituted the ministry of Help and government. The apostles were appointed by God ‘in the Church.” The deacons were ‘ helps,” appointed, no doubt, by the apostles, but also by God. Two of them were enabled to exercise the ministry of Evidence, for St. Stephen and St. Philip wrought miracles. (G6) The next section of the history is not less clear as to the existence of the ministries which we are now endeavouring to trace. The martyrdom of St. Stephen was followed by a great outburst of ’ Acts ii. 43. Consciousness of Unity and Recognition of Order. 91 persecution against the Church. The apostles alone were enabled to remain in Jerusalem. ‘T'wo separate lines of investigation are presented by the two routes along which Philip and the great body of evangelists travelled. Philip, a deacon, and later on designated an ‘evangelist,’ proceeded to the heart of Samaria, and reached Sebaste. There he preached Christ. There he wrought miracles. The masses beheld the signs which were done. The apostles sent forth St. Peter and St. John, who by prayer and by laying on of hands, bestow the Holy Ghost upon those who had been blessed by the preaching of the deacon-evangelist, who, though he could perform miracles, was not permitted to engage in the imposition of hands. The apostolic delegates return to Jerusalem, having ‘‘ preached the gospel in many villages of the Samaritans.” The mission in Samaria indicates the inclusion of an evangelist in the ministry of Proclamation; his exercise of the ministry of Power; the exclusion from his office of the imposition of hands—an exclusion which did not exist in the case of the apostles, who here, as in Jerusalem, exercised the ministry of government, which even St. Peter and St. John recognised and obeyed. “They that were scattered abroad went everywhere preaching the word,’’ are described in terms which mark them out as evangelists." They entered upon the ministry of Proclamation with an enthusiasm ' Acts viii. 4, εὐαγγελιζόμενοι τὸν λόγον. Comp. xi. 19, λαλοῦντες τὸν λόγον : εὐαγγελιζόμενοι τὸν Κύριον ᾿Ιησοῦν, ver. 20. 92 The Christian Ministry. which dared all the “difficulties of the age and of their enterprise. They visited the cities near at hand to the metropolis, as well as other and more distant cities in the centre of the Holy Land. They made their way to the narrow stretch of land along the seaboard of the Mediterranean, the inhabitants of which touched the most ancient genealogies of the Bible, and the most intrepid and prosperous efforts of old-world enterprise, commerce, and industry. Within this range of primitive missionary effort, the evangelists visited Ptolemais and Tyre, Sarepta and Sidon. They reached Antioch on the Orontes. They even crossed to Cyprus, the insular home of Barnabas. Here, again, the ministry of evidence followed, in a spiritual form, upon the ministry of evangelisation.* Barnabas is despatched by the authorities of the Church in Jerusalem to Antioch. He enters upon the work of a prophet.2 Spiritual blessing accrues to the society, Saul had, meanwhile, been con- verted. He had in obedience to duly constituted authority gone to Tarsus,’ from which he returned in company with Barnabas to Antioch, where for one year both worked in the Church as teachers. It was at this time that ‘prophets came from Jerusalem to Antioch.’’* This brings us to one of the most pregnant periods and events, in all the annals of the early Church. We have hitherto seen the prophet, probably in the person of Barnabas, 1 Acts xi. 20, 21. 3 ἐξαπέστειλαν (Acts ix. 30). 2. Acts xiii. 1, comp. xi. 22-4. 4 Acts xi. 27. Prophets and Teachers authorised to Ordain. 93 certainly represented by those who came from Jerusalem to Antioch. But now, with the apostles still in Jerusalem, the ‘‘prophets and teachers” receive a special commission from Heaven to ‘‘separate Barnabas and Saul for the work where- unto”’ they are called. They are engaged in the public ministry’ of the Church. ‘The solemn ser- vice which they were commanded to undertake was preceded by fasting and by prayer. Hands are imposed after the manner of the apostles. They are “sent away,” yet ‘‘sent forth by the Holy Ghost.” John Mark, possibly a deacon, but certainly an evangelist, was in Antioch, and probably was present at the ordination; but it is noticeable that he took no part in the official investiture of the two great missionaries to the Gentiles. The mission in Samaria has already shown that Philip, the deacon- evangelist, was not allowed to engage in the im- position of hands. The ordination in Antioch 1 λειτουργούντων δὲ αὐτῶν (ibid. xiii. 2). These words refer to the προφήται καὶ διδάσκαλοι, as against Lechler, who while admitting that λειτουργεῖν designates in sacred literature the performance of priestly offices (πᾶς μὲν ἱερεὺς ἕστηκε Kad’ ἡμέραν λειτουργῶν, Heb. v. 11), insists that αὐτῶν includes the whole congrega- tion of Antioch, to whom the Holy Ghost addresses the ᾿Αφορίσατε δή μοι (Against Baumgarten, vol. i. § xxi.), and by whom hands were imposed, and the missionaries sent forth. The language of the passage will not bear this strain. The pronoun represents the persons who are described as λειτουργούντων. They were engaged in the public work of their λειτουργία, and τῷ Κυρίῳ. Suicer sub voce, says, “Nam λειτουργεῖν significat publico munere fungi: hie vero agitur de ministris ecclesiz, unde recte versio Gallica, illis sacram suam func- tionem obeuntibus, nempe functionem docendi et prophetandi, ut bene censet ipse Cajetanus ; et patet ex collatione cum vy. 1, ubi ministri illi dicnntur fuisse doctores et prophet.” He then refers to Chrysostom’s view, which is quoted by Alford. Baumgarten’s (Apos. His., § xxi.) review of the origin of the mission in the Church in Antioch, and of the significance of the order in which the names are given, is most thoughtful and suggestive. 94 The Christian Ministry. indicates that the same restriction lay upon the evangelist John, whose surname was Mark. This solemn scene in the Antiochene Church preceded the first missionary journey of St. Barnabas and St. Paul, who, it is remarkable and instructive, were henceforward designated ‘‘apostles.”* Prior to their ordination, this title is never given to either. Accompanied by John Mark, they under- take the work to which they had been called by God, and commissioned by the Church. Cyprus— the home of Barnabas—is the scene of their ministry. There and in Antioch in Pisidia, without, however, the help of John Mark in the latter city, they preach the gospel. Expelled from Antioch, they reach Iconium, where their ministry was so blessed that they were encouraged to prolong their stay. There, as in Cyprus, their message was sustained by miracles,” and the same account may be given of their first visit to the cities of Lycaonia,— Lystra, in particular, being the scene of an extra- ordinary miracle, even as it was the city within whose walls the Apostle was ‘once well-nigh stoned.”* The apostles resumed their ministry in Derbe. There they appear as evangelists and as teachers.* There they administered the sacrament of Holy Baptism,’ as the initial act of disciple- 1 Acts xiv. 4, 14. 2 Acts xiv. 9. 3 ἅπαξ ἐλιθάσθην (2 Cor. xi. 25). Ὁ εὐαγγελισάμενοί τε τὴν πόλιν ἐκείνην, καὶ μαθητεύσαντες ἱκανούς (Acts xiv. 21). 5 μαθητεύσαντες, cf. Matt. xxviii. 19, 20. The history of Philip’s mission amongst the people of Samaria, and the action of St. Paul and St. Barnabas in their first missionary journey, show the prominence thus early given to The Witness borne by the First Misstonary Journey. 95 ship, while in Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch they exercised the gifts which especially marked the prophetic order. In each of these cities, indeed in each Church, the apostles appointed elders.1. The general body of the believers may, as the original seems to hint, have indicated, by show of hands,’ their desire for the appointment of individuals to this office. But the appoimtment lay with the apostles. The language of the text places this beyond debate, and the prayer and the fasting which characterised this, the first office of its kind, in the first missionary journey amongst Gentile populations, seems to place this event in the same category as the ordination of the deacons by the apostles, and the more special ordination of Paul and Barnabas by the prophets and teachers. But whatever difference of opinion there may be about the exercise of the popular suffrage, there cannot be any, with regard to the exercise by the apostles of the ministry of ‘‘helps” or of ‘‘ governments.” Indeed, the first missionary journey exhibits the apostles as evangelists, as prophets, and as teachers. It is marked by the manifestation of miracles, and wonders, and signs, and gifts of healing. It is also characterised by the appointment and the accept- ance of ‘ helps,’’ as well as by the exercise of the the command of the Redeemer, and their obedience to His institution of the sacrament of Baptism, as the “ceremony of initiation into a divine so- ciety.” Yet Dr. Hatch says that its use, in this connection, is “an unproved assumption.” 1 Acts xiv. 23. * χειροτονήσαντες. 96 The Christian Ministry. prerogative represented by the institution of fixed “governments.” There is, accordingly, in this round of apostolic enterprise, the threefold and God- appointed ministries of Proclamation, of Power, and of Administration. There was general and itinerant evangelisation. There were evidential charisms, punitive, promis- cuous, and personal. There were—as there was at Jerusalem, in the case of the deacons—‘ helps,’’ ordained presbyters, not general, but to every Church. These were fixed and local. (y) The second missionary journey of St. Paul was preceded by the Council of Jerusalem. The reference of the doctrine in dispute tio the ‘ apostles and elders’? in Jerusalem shows the recognition, by the Antiochene Church, of the finality which belonged to the apostolic body, and also the presence in Jerusalem thus early of a number of localised presbyters. To the ‘apostles and elders’”’ the controversy was referred. Separate audience was given to the Antiochene delegates by ‘‘ the Church,” and by ‘‘the apostles and elders,’’ who assembled to consider the question. They are again associated in the publication of the conciliar decision, while the congregation of believers, ‘‘ the whole Church,” together with the “ apostles and elders,’ resolve to despatch Judas and Silas to the Church of Antioch, St. Paul and St. Barnabas having sought the authoritative guidance of the Church in Jerusalem. Judas and Silas are described by words, which The Council of Jerusalem. 97 indicate a position of leadership,! although they do not appear to have taken any part either in the debate which ensued upon the question or in the formulation of this primary conciliar decree. There appears, however, to be a peculiar fitness in their selection and despatch. Their work was to declare orally* the decision which was transmitted in writing. The written word was to be reiterated by the living voice. The decision was the deci- sion of the Holy Ghost, and of the Church, which He created, and quickened, and inhabited. The delegates spoke by His inspiration. They repre- sented the sense of the Church in Jerusalem as to the paramount importance of the prophetic order. They impressed upon the Churches of Antioch the important thought that the decision at which the mother Church arrived, through the guidance of the Holy Ghost, would be re-affirmed by those who, as prophets, were under the influence of His super- natural gifts. These gifts were exercised by them upon their arrival in Antioch. And while they remained in that city, there were present two of the ministerial orders which were of Divine ap- pointment. ‘There were apostles and prophets who were itinerant, the former exercising here, as they did before, the didactic and the evangelistic office. There were also presbyters who were, as others were in Jerusalem, localised. Judas appears to 1 ἄνδρας ἡγουμένους ἐν Tots ἀδελφοῖς (Acts xy. 22). * καὶ αὐτοὺς διὰ λόγου ἀπαγγέλλοντας τὰ αὐτά (Acts xv. 27). 3. καὶ αὐτοὶ προφῆται ὄντες (Acts xv. 52). 4 Acts xiv. 28. 98 The Christian Ministry. have returned to Jerusalem, while Silas remained at Antioch, where John Mark had arrived from Jerusalem. The second missionary journey is now about to be undertaken, when a difference of opinion arose respecting the wisdom of the evangelist accompany- ing the apostles. This led to the separation of St. Barnabas from St. Paul, and to the selection by the latter of Silas. The language of the historian indicates the importance which was attached to the presence, at this critical period, of Timothy, who in all probability had been converted during the first missionary journey. The absence of St. Barnabas from St. Paul, in view of the desire of the latter to revisit the Churches which they had been enabled to plant, and in some degree to organise, would, doubtless, provoke considerable criticism. The loss of his experience, his love, his gifts, his tact, must have weighed somewhat upon the heart of St. Paul, especially as he was about to cover a wider circuit than ever. This loss was, in part, supplied by St. Timothy, who appears to have been ordained in Lystra, by the imposition of the hands, certainly of St. Paul and of the local presbytery,’ and possibly of the prophets, or at least 1 Timothy was, there is good reason for believing, one of St. Paul’s converts when the latter visited Lystra (Acts xiv. 8, 14; cf. γνησίῳ τέκνῳ ἐν πίστει, 1Tim. 1,2; ἀγαπητῷ τέκνῳ, 2 Tim. i. 2). Although the fact is not mentioned, it is most probable St. Timothy was ordained at Lystra, on St. Paul’s second journey. There the ἐπιθέσεως τῶν χειρῶν τοῦ mpecBurepiov (1 Tim. iv. 14) was conjoined with the ἐπιθέσεως τῶν χειρῶν μου (2 Tim. i. 6) of St. Paul. Suicer says “ἐ πρεσβυτέριον denotat ccetum, congregationem et collegium presbyterorum in ecclesia Christiana.” We find the word used in the epistle of Ignatius ὁ χωρὶς ἐπισκόπου καὶ πρεσβυτερίου καὶ διακόνων πράσσων TL, οὗτος οὐ καθαρός ἐστιν Philippi—Apostle, Prophet, Evangelists. 99 of Silas. The party thus strengthened is still further increased by the arrival of St. Luke.’ Thus, then, the mission to Europe is commenced by an apostle, a prophet, and by two evangelists, each of whom represented one side of the evangelist’s office. As they enter upon their new sphere, the ministry of Proclamation is strengthened by the ministry of Power. The Philippian imprisonment of the apostle and of the prophet was the occasion for fresh proclamation, and in the form of praise, to be honoured by corresponding demonstrations of the presence of power’; and when we observe the opening phrases of St. Paul’s letter to the Philippian Church, we see that the ministry of helps and of governments was there established.* Whether the τῇ συνειδήσει (ad Trall., vii.). Again, Ignatius exhorts the Trallians to obedience both to the bishop, ὁμοίως καὶ τῷ πρεσβυτερίῳ (ad Trall., xiii.). So again, ad Phil. vii. The appearance of τὸ πρεσβυτέριον in 1 Tim. iv. 14 is important. It looks back to what we believe occurred in the period which is represented by Acts xvi. 1-3, and which is regarded as the ordination of Timothy. This was (following Wieseler) about 50, or some five years after St. Paul’s first missionary journey to Lystra, when probably Timothy was converted. If this be so, then that in the year 50 there should be a body known as τὸ πρεσβυτέριον, who would co-operate with St. Paul in the solemnities of ordination, is evidence of the organisation which was developed in the Lystran Church. Nor is this deduc- tion at all affected by Prof. Harnack’s suspicion as to the late date at which the Pastoral Epistles were composed, “in the middle of the second century.” Dr. Hatch shares Harnack’s view (Bampton Lectures, p. 82 n.). But whoever desires the largest and the latest information on this subject will find it, both powerfully and pleasantly given, in Dr. Salmon’s Introduction (Lect. xx., third edition). ' ἐζητήσαμεν (Acts xvi. 10), quesita nave. Incipit hic sermo in prima persona plurali numero. Interfuit igitur scriptor hujus itinerarii, Lucas (Bengel). 2 ἔργον ποίησον εὐαγγελιστοῦ (2 Tim. iv. 5). ‘He that writes the story of the gospel is an evangelist,” and “they that planted the gospel ‘first’ in any country were evangelists.” Jeremy Taylor, Hpis. Ass., sec. 14. Vide Eph. iv. 11 (Ellicott, in loc.). 3. Acts xvi. 25-7. syle avd ne “ale 100 The Christian Ministry. stay of St. Luke in Philippi, subsequent to the departure of the apostle, the prophet, and the evangelist, had any influence upon the organization of the Church, we cannot tell. This, however, is clear, that in the first European Church, planted by a ministry of itinerancy in the year 52, there was, some ten years later, a localised ministry of bishops, with whom were associated deacons, even as five and twenty years before they were in Jerusalem associated with the apostles. This dual ministry was, in each centre, fixed and _ local. Apostles and deacons in Jerusalem; bishops and deacons in Philippi. The apostle, the prophet, and the evangelist resume their journey. They make for Thessalonica, where their ministry was abundantly blessed, and where the proclamation of the Gospel was made ‘‘in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance,’ and where the ministry of ‘‘ govern- ments’’ was exercised. The first epistle which was addressed by St. Paul to this Church, and which was, moreover, the first epistle written by the Apostle, contains two significant statements. The one is a direct recognition of the presence in the Thessalonian Church of ‘“‘ those who were over them in the Lord,’’ and for whom the Apostle and his coadjutors besought very high esteem ‘“‘ for their work’s sake.t. The other is the well-known appeal, ‘‘Despise not prophesyings.” ‘This plea does not refer to the predictive phase of the prophetic office. 1 Vide note 2, p. 62. A Resident Ministry in the Thessalonian Church. 101 It refers rather to ‘varied declarations of the Divine counsels and expositions of God’s oracles, immediately inspired by and emanating from the Holy Spirit.” It leads us to believe there was a tendency amongst the Thessalonians to disparage the gifts of spiritual exposition, as possessed by converts, in favour of the more brilliant glossolalia. But it is not this which I desire to emphasize. It is the obvious, though incidental, distinction which is drawn by the Apostle between the resident ministry and the unofficial recipients of spiritual eifts. It is the first indication, in the first epistle ever penned by the Apostle, of the high position to which the localised ministry had already attained. Nor do I think the injunction, ‘‘ Prove all things,” which follows the imperative rule, ‘‘ Despise not prophesyings,” is without significance, especially even when “the proving” of prophets, and the ‘““trying”’ of ‘ spirits,’ are enjoined as amongst the duties devolving upon believers. But, however that may be, the Thessalonian Church was founded by, and it flourished under, a threefold and divinely- appointed ministry. There was the ministry of announcement, which was certified by the ministry of evidence. These led up to the ministry of governments. But we pass on with our inquiry, limiting it to Corinth in the second missionary journey, and to Ephesus in the third. Silas, the prophet, and Timotheus, the evangelist, were detained at Berea. St. Luke, it is believed, remained behind at Philippi. St. Paul accordingly 102 The Christian Ministry. entered Athens alone. . Directions were, however, conveyed to his ministerial coadjutors, to jo him speedily. They did so at Corinth, and hence the official ministry with which the work was here begun was represented by an apostle, a prophet, and an evangelist.. As each journey of the great missionary covered a wider area than the preceding one, so the duration of each mission in the greater centres of life was more and more prolonged. Before his separation to the apostolate, he gave one year, as a teacher, to Antioch. After his ordination, and with all the advantages of varied toil, undergone in his first journey, he gave one year and six months to Corinth,* while later on, he spent three years in Ephesus.* It is very difficult to appraise the relative interest which belongs to each of the Pauline Churches, and this difficulty would be intensified if our information. were limited to the history of each, so far as it is recorded by St. Luke. His account of St. Paul’s connection with the Church of Corinth might be easily written on an ordinary sheet of note paper. This would include all he has communicated respecting St. Paul’s arrival ; his employment; his associates; his preaching and its results; his encouragement by a vision; an envious and futile appeal to law; and his departure. If our knowledge of St. Paul’s Corinthian work ' SS. Paul, Silas (Acts xv. 32), Timotheus (2 Tim. iv. 5). * ἐνιαυτὸν ὅλον (Acts xi. 26). 3 ἐκάθισε δὲ ἐνιαυτὸν καὶ μῆνας ἕξ (Acts xviil. 11). 1 διὸ γρηγορεῖτε, μνημονεύοντες ὅτι τριετίαν νύκτα καὶ ἡμέραν, etc. (Acts xx. 31). The Corinthian Church in the Corinthian Epistles. 103 depended entirely upon St. Luke, we should, doubt- less, know that he was assisted by the prophet and by the evangelist ; we might even know of the pre- sence there οἵ the able and eloquent Alexandrian, and we should also learn the moral and numerical growth of the Church. But we should know nothing of ‘‘the signs of an apostle,” which ‘ were wrought amongst”? them ‘in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds;”’ nothing of the ministry of ‘“‘helps”’ or of ‘‘ governments’’ which were there instituted; nothing of the strife which manifested vitality, but which marred the unity of the Church; nothing of the extraordinary bestow- ment of spiritual gifts by which its moral life was presumably enlarged and even’ enriched; nothing of the deliberate and emphatic dictum of the Apostle, respecting that simplicity in preaching the gospel of his Lord, which was such an offence to the intellectualism of this many-sided city ; nothing of the contrast exhibited by the shudder- ing horror, which was felt by a holy man over revolting and repulsive sin, and the toleration which was extended to the man who committed it; nothing of the noble and elevating ethics, which adjusted petty disputations and unworthy quibbles, by the resolving force of Christian principle ; nothing of the Eucharist, as the subject of special revelation to the holy apostle, its simple elements, its Divine institution, its perpetual obligation, its evidential value, its moral restriction, and its penal sanctions ; nothing of those charisms, which included the 104 The Christian Ministry. rapturous rhetoric of the prophet; which edified some, exhorted others, and consoled many ; nothing of the exact and dogmatic didactics of the teacher ; the burning appeal of the evangelist; and the witnessing words of the glossolalia; nothing of the decalogue of charity, and of its pre-eminence and duration, when prophecy shall have ripened into history, and when tongues too shall cease ; nothing of that thrilling vindication of the doctrine of the Resurrection, which satisfies the reason, while it deepens and expands faith, in its appreciation of the infinite issues which wait upon the work of Christ. Considerations such as these show us, at a glance, the necessity there is of illuminating the record of St. Luke, by the larger and more luminous letter of St. Paul. St. Luke’s account is historical —terse, clear, cold. St. Paul’s letter is alive. Its characters and its conditions seem to move across the field of devout contemplation. For our purpose it is of the very highest importance that the history be studied in the light of the epistle, especially when we remember the confident statements which have been made respecting the inorganic condition of the Corinthian Church, and the difficulties which are thereby created about St. Paul’s estimate of its privileges, together with the purpose of God towards His Church in general. For our text is the most explicit statement contained in the New Testament of the constitution of the Christian ministry. It appears in an epistle addressed to Not “ Structureless,” but Organised. 105 a Church which Professor Cunningham describes as ‘structureless,’ and as ‘‘almost without any organisation,” for ‘‘office-bearers of any kind are never once mentioned.” It is reasonable to suppose that the Corinthians were not unacquainted with both the persons and the gifts which are here declared to be the direct appointment of Almighty God. Assuming that St. Paul desired his converts to understand his communication, we have some reason to believe that when they read this announce- ment—so solemn, and so emphatic—they knew who were meant by apostles, by prophets, by teachers; and they were equally familiar with miracles, gifts of healings, helps, governments, and diversities of tongues. ‘This renders it extremely probable that the Christian ministry, as thus de- scribed, existed in the Corinthian Church. If it did not so exist, we are met by a series of per- plexities which it would be difficult either to resolve or to dilute. The Apostle has stated the Divine appointment both of officers and of gifts, within the Church, which must be understood as a declaration of the general sphere in which the Divine purpose operated. Why should Corinth be excluded from the range of that purpose? It was a city of commanding importance, whether we regard its geographical position, its pre-eminence in the annals of Greece and of Rome, its com- mercial enterprise, its manufacturing industry, its vast wealth, its inquisitive thought, its miscel- laneous masses, its audacious pyrofligacy. Here, 106 The Christian Mincstry. amid a population of a hundred thousand souls, the sanctuary of Neptune attracted its stalwart devotees. Here ‘ Greek art, Greek culture, and alas Greek license and sensuality ’’ were revived in the Colonia Julia Corinthus, even as they abounded before the flames of Mummius reduced the city to ashes. Here vice stared decency out of counte- nance. Yet here God announced to St. Paul: “1 have much people in this city.” Surely there is no justification in the history or in the condition of Corinth for excluding its early Christians from the benefits of an appointment which is declared to be general. Speaking after the manner of men, we should imagine that Corinth was, of all cities, the very place in which the Divine appointment would be most manifest, emphatic, because most necessary. And this expectation is strengthened by the deliberate record of the Apostle in the opening phrases of his letter. In everything they were enriched by the Lord Jesus Christ. The testimony of Christ was confirmed among them “by the gifts of the Holy Ghost vouchsafed” to them, ‘‘ whether in the form of inward graces and deepened faith, or of outwardly manifested power,”’? so that they were as richly endowed as any other Christian community. If the ministry, as here described, existed in Corinth, then the statement of the apostle respecting the plenitude of spiritual gifts? bestowed upon the Corinthians agrees with 1 Ellicott, 1 Cor. i. 6, 7. 2 ὥστε ὑμᾶς μὴ ὑστερεῖσθαι ἐν μηδενὶ χαρίσματι (1 Cor. i. 7). Spiritual Gifts bestowed upon Corinth. 107 the assumption that they understood what he meant, when he declared the ministry to be a Divine appointment operating in the Church. In this case, the Corinthian Church was not ‘“ structure- less.” On the other hand, if there was no ministry as it is here described, then we are driven to the conclusion that the Corinthian Church was not as richly endowed with spiritual blessing as St. Paul asserts. They came behind in that gift which was, in magnitude and in moment, only second to the initial gifts of God the Holy Ghost. He gave to other communities what He withheld from Corinth. In this case, St. Paul used language which it is hard to think the Corinthians com- prehended ; and it is in obvious antagonism to his own account of the spiritual endowments with which in everything he had declared the Corinthians to be enriched. ‘Thus, then, we are driven to this dilemma: If the existence of a Christian ministry in the Corinthian Church, as herein indicated, be denied, belief in the inspiration of the epistle is imperilled. If belief in the inspiration of the epistle be retained, then the existence of the Christian ministry, in such form as it is here described, must be received. But here it is alleged that spiritual gifts ‘‘ existed in the Church, but they were such gifts as might be possessed by anyone.”* The Apostle ‘makes it as clear as possible that there was this diver- sity of offices because there was a corresponding ' Growth of the Chureh, p. 19. 108 The Christian Ministry. diversity of gifts, and that anyone who possessed or thought he possessed the gift, might exercise it in the Church, and was indeed bound to do so.”? Now amongst the gifts which St. Paul here declares to have God for their author, and His Church for their sphere, is that described as ‘‘ governments.” This is the only place in the New Testament where the word occurs, and when we remember that there are but few other words employed by St. Paul to connote the idea of leadership, of rule, or of guidance,” it seems rational to conclude there was some special reason for the use of κυβερνήσεις here.* The term is a nautical one. It would be keenly appreciated by the inhabitants of a seaport city, in which, in early times, Greek shipbuilding was carried on. They would understand at once, the supreme importance of steering, and the obedience which was due to and the responsibility which devolved upon the κυβερνήτης. The pilot of the vessel had complete control. In St. Luke’s account of St. Paul’s voyage to Rome, the κυβερνήτης takes precedence of the ναύκληρος. He is called in the Revelation the shipmaster.° He was supposed to be acquainted with the rocks which render every coast- line dangerous, and which required the extremest ’ Growth of the Church, p.19; Hatch, Bampton Lectures, Ὁ. 121. 2 Hatch gives these as ot ἡγούμενοι (Heb. xiii. 7, 17, 24) ; ot προϊστάμενοι, οἱ προεστῶτες (1 Thess. v. 12; 1 Tim. v. 17). 3 Vide Appendix on “ The Significance of the Word κυβερνήσεις, as used by St. Paul and by St. Ignatius.” 4°O δὲ ἑκατόνταρχος τῷ κυβερνήτῃ Kal τῷ ναυκλήρῳ μᾶλλον ἐπείθετω (Acts ΧΧΥΙ͂Ί, 11). 5 Rey. xviii. 17. Evidence of the Epistle, and Necessities of the City. 109 caution, when making intricate passages between the islands which are so thickly clustered in the Aigean. He would sound, when darkness, or storm, or undercurrent diverted a vessel from its course. I do not mention fog, because fog is almost un- known in the Mediterranean or in its confluent seas. We must remember, too, that the steersman had no compass to guide him, and but very imperfect charts or instruments by which to estimate his position. When, therefore, the inspired apostle asserts that God appointed pilots or steersmen in His Church, he revives and perpetuates a figure which the Lord had already glorified, and upon which Christian art, from the earliest eras, has loved to expend its genius, its prayers, and its holy patience. But in using this term he was led further than this. He was led to indicate the presence in the sacred vessel of those who were charged with the guidance of the ship, who had peculiar responsi- bility, who exercised official authority, to whose direction the crew and the passengers were sub- ordinate. This, I am fully aware, may be denied. I shall be told that this is a metaphor, a picture, a figure. And I admit this to be true, but I must add that it is used by the Holy Ghost to illustrate a fact. To deny this is only another way of saying that what that infallible Spirit selected to illuminate was calculated to obscure. ' Vide c, xxiii. (Conybeare and Howson), and an instructive appendix on “ Currents in the Mediterranean,” by Captain Spratt, in Travels and Researches in Crete. 110 The Christran Ministry. There is another consideration which can hardly be considered unimportant. Titus brought St. Paul intelligence respecting the effect produced by this epistle upon those to whom it was addressed. We do not read of any question having been raised respecting their knowledge of the ministry of Pro- clamation, the ministry of Evidence, or the ministry of Aid or of Administration. They seem to have understood ‘‘ governments,’ and ‘ helps,’’ as much as they did ‘signs and wonders and mighty deeds ;’’ or ‘apostles, prophets, and teachers.” And when we remember that St. Paul organised the Churches of Lycaonia, and that the older Church of Philippi had its local ministry, the presumption is strong that tne itinerant ministry of St. Paul, and Silas, and Timotheus was perpetuated in Corinth by those who, because they preached the gospel, lived of the gospel. The presumption, suggested by the language of this instructive epistle, and strengthened by the apostolic procedure hitherto observed, as well as by conspicuous local necessity, is, that in Corinth there was a fixed and a local ministry. (5) Attention must now be turned to the metropolis of Asia Minor. The Ephesian Church was planted by the apostle, and although the history is silent about Silas, it bears witness to Timothy. The evangelist laboured there with St. Paul, who upon his second visit found a number of disciples whose spiritual condition became a concern to the apostle, even though they may have profited by the instruc- The Ephesian Church—Localtsation of Presbyters. 111 tion given by Aquila, Priscilla, and Apollos. These disciples had not received, at their baptism, such special spiritual gifts as attested the presence of the Spirit of God. The sacrament, if such it could be called, was defective. They were baptized into John’s baptism. St. Paul baptized the disciples, into “the name of the Lord Jesus.”” This was followed by imposition of hands, and ‘‘the Holy Ghost came on them: and they spake with tongues and prophesied.” * There is nothing unreasonable in supposing that these prophets preached the kingdom of God, and worked, under apostolic orders, during the prolonged stay of the apostle in this metropolis. It is surely likely that they would aid him in his arduous enterprise, and so bring about the fact which the historian records, ‘‘that all they which dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus, both Jews and Greeks.’’ Here, once more, we meet with the order which has been so frequently noticed. Here the ministry of Power reinforces the ministry of Proclamation,” and when his three years have passed, and his journey towards the holy city is undertaken, we gather, from his address at Miletus, that, ere he left Ephesus, there was a_ localised ministry of ‘‘ helps” or of ““ governments.” There were “‘elders”’ attached to that Church. They had been appointed bishops by the Holy Ghost. They lived among the flock which they were charged to tend and to feed. This address was delivered 1 Acts xix. 1-6. 2 Acts xix, 11, 12. 3 προσέχετε ἑαυτοῖς kal παντὶ τῳ ποιμνίῳ, ἐν ᾧ ὑμᾶς τὸ. Πνεῦμα τὸ Δγιον ἔθετο ἐπισκόπους, ποιμαίνειν τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ (Acts xx, 28). rane The Chrestian Ministry. to them about the year 58. About four years after, in 62, St. Paul sends the Epistle to the Ephesians by Tychicus, the deacon, from Rome.’ In that letter he declares the ministry to be the gift of the Ascended Christ. ‘‘ He gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists ; and some, pastors and teachers.” Representatives of the first three branches of ministerial order were known to the Ephesians. There was St. Paul. There were his dis- ciples, of the prophetic order. There was Timothy— the latter having been left behind in Ephesus.? There were itinerants. By their aid, it is reasonable to pre- sume, Asia ‘‘ heard the word of God.” The ‘‘ pastors and teachers’ were the Ephesian elders, who were the settled ministers of the Church. They were of the same order as the elders of Jerusalem, who were present when St. Paul, at the close of this, his third missionary journey, accompanied by St. Luke, ‘declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry.”*? The declaration was heard by the elders, but it was made formally to St. James, as the resident official principal of the Church in Jerusalem. And now, it may be helpful to endeavour to esti- mate the evidence which our inquiry seems to supply. We have followed the movements of the apostles from the Day of Pentecost, in the year 33, to the ' Eph. vi. 21, 22, Harnack, with unqualified confidence, says, ‘‘ The Epistle to the Ephesians was not written by Paul, but a considerable time after the apostle’s death.” Vide note ', p. 83. 2. 1 Witt, 1, Sh 3 Acts xxi. 19, Apostolic Flistory, from Pentecost to A.D. 58. 113 day on which St. Paul and his companions appeared before St. James in the city of Jerusalem, about 58. We have thus glanced at a period of the Church’s history which is represented by some twenty-five years. We have observed the enterprises of the earliest missionaries of the Lord Christ, in centres of life which were as varied in their social, moral, religious, and historical conditions, as Jerusalem differed from Antioch, and as that crowded city on the rushing Orontes did from the inland Antioch, or from Iconium, or from Derbe, or from Lystra. We have seen the courageous servants of the Most High God moving steadily to larger and still larger scenes of life; facing keener and graver perils; enduring imprisonment, experiencing deliverance, and witnessing the expansion of their cause, not- withstanding persecution, and even high-handed tyranny and injustice. Philippi and Corinth in Europe; Ephesus, the glory and the shame of Asia —have come within the range of our investigation ; and as we stand, in imagination, in the presence of St. James in Jerusalem, what do we gather from the period which has elapsed since the brother of the Lord stood in the upper room five and twenty years before? What lessons may we learn respecting the organisation of the Church of Christ during that period? What message do they bear, in the name and with the authority of our Ascended Lord, to the Church, respecting the primary constitution of the Christian ministry ? 1 Vide Acts i. 14. 114 The Christian Ministry. The history of the mother Church of Jerusalem shows that it was founded by apostles, and adminis- tered by ‘“‘ helps,” or deacons. Later on there were prophets, and there were presbyters. There was also St. James who presided over all. The Church of Antioch appears to have had a residential ministry, which consisted of prophets and teachers. The Churches of lLycaonia were founded by apostles, but they were consolidated by presbyters, who were ordained and localised. The European Churches of Philippi and Corinth were planted by an apostle, a prophet, and the one by two evangelists, the other by one; Philippi had in later days a ministry, which consisted of bishops and deacons. Ephesus was blessed by the labours of an apostle, a prophet, and an evangelist. There were also localised presbyters. Cesarea is remarkable as the scene of the labours of Philip, the deacon-evangelist, for a period of at least eighteen years. With the solitary exception of Antioch, the apostles and the prophet represented a ministry which was general, was temporary, was itinerant, and, except in the case of Philip at Cesarea, the evan- gelist’s office may be placed in the same category. With the same exception, the deacon and the elder represented a ministry of “help” and of “ὁ government,” which was ordained, and permanent, and local. The Ministry Ltinerant, yet Local. 115 Besides this, we must remember that St. James occupied a position of pre-eminence, which was accepted by the apostles and prophets and elders of the Church of Jerusalem, as well as by the laborious and itinerant apostles of the Gentiles, who were the authorised delegates of the Church at Antioch, and it was in earlier days recognised by St. Peter. And more need not here be stated, than that St. Timothy in Ephesus, and St. Titus in Crete appear to have been entrusted with somewhat similar responsibilities. Thus, then, the history, continuous, varied, and clear, shows that the hypothesis of an itinerant as distinguished from a permanent ministry, is not only workable, but credible. It shows also that the ministry of Proclamation was generally sustained by the ministry of supernatural Powers, and that, in addition to these, there was the ministry of Aids, of administration, of guidance, all tending to pro- eress and to perpetuity. Hach was the expression of the will, the purpose, of God. In this scheme we can trace a design, which is as vast as the terri- tory of Christ’s universal kingdom. It is in view of this, that the solidarity of the Church is here implied, yea taught. ‘Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular. And God hath set some in the Church: first, apostles; secondarily, prophets ; thirdly, teachers ; after that miracles; then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.”’ We now turn to Patristic literature, bearing in mind the manifold testimony, both in the way of 116 The Christian Ministry. prediction and of history, to the existence in the apostolic period of false apostles, false prophets, and false teachers. Against these emissaries of the Evil One, even though they appeared as angels of light, and imposed upon the faithful by reason of their exercise of Satanic energies, the Church was warned by the antecedent experience of Hebrew history ; by the all-seeing prescience of her Lord ; by the express statements of St. Paul, of St. Peter, of St.John. The presence of false apostles in the Church of Ephesus, a prediction in the year 58, was history in 96. The detection and demonstration of their imposture had the approval of the Lord, whose commission they forged, and whose truth they falsified. Their appear- ance was not confined, as we shall see, to the Church of Ephesus. They intensified the grave difficulties of the Church in other quarters. The testimony of Clement of Rome, or rather of the Church of Rome, given in the epistle which bears his name, is extremely scant. The ““ prophets”’ are said to be meant in one particular passage, but the reference is so general that I hesitate to adopt it. The Epistle of Barnabas is even less informing. In one sentence he says: ‘The Lord hath made known to us by the prophets, both the past and the present.” In the next sentence, he speaks of himself, ‘‘ not as your teacher.’’ But the discovery of the learned Bryennios contains some references of a very in- teresting as well as instructive kind. They are the more so, when we remember that if this early Church manual was published about the year 100, there was Itinerancy of Apostles, Prophets, Teachers. 117 but one, if one, of the original apostles alive. The treatise is entitled, ‘‘ The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles.”’ The designation is here special. There is nevertheless a chapter upon ‘‘apostles and prophets,’’ in which the wider sense is attached to the former term.’ ‘‘ The apostle is to be received as the Lord.’’ His sojourn in any house is limited to one day. Necessity may permit a second, but if he remain three days he is a false prophet.2 Upon his departure he is allowed to take one day’s bread, but to solicit money is fatal to his character. Avarice is an infallible sign of imposture.* ‘The prophet who speaks in the spirit is self-manifestative. No test is to be applied, provided his behaviour corresponds to his utterance.* Inconsistency of life, fastidious- ness of appetite, or the degradation of the Hucharist to the pleasures of the table, and the like, indicate the false prophet.’ The true prophet who is asso- ciated with the true teacher, may reside with a con- gregation. Hach is to be maintained. The prophets are ‘‘ your chief priests,’ and the first-fruits which 1 Πᾶς δὲ ἀπόστολος ἐρχομενὸς πρὸς ὑμᾶς δεχθήτω ws Kuplos (Διδαχὴ, c. xi., 4). 2 Οὐ μένει δὲ ἡμέραν μίαν, ἐὰν δὲ 7 χρεία, καὶ τὴν ἄλλην, τρεῖς δὲ ἐὰν μείνῃ, ψευδο- προφήτης ἐστι (101α., c. xi., 5). 3 "'Ἐξερχόμενος δὲ ὁ ἀπόστολος μηδὲν λαμβανέτω εἰ μὴ ἄρτον ἕως οὗ αὐλισθῃ" ἐὰν δὲ ἀργύριον αἰτῇ ψευδοπροφήτης ἐστι (Ibid., c. xi., 6). 4 Οὐ πᾶς δὲ ὁ λαλῶν ἐν πνεύματι προφήτης ἐστιν, ἀλλ᾽ ἐὰν ἔχῃ τοὺς τρόπους Κυρίου, ᾿Απὸ οὖν τῶν τρόπων γνωσθήσεται ὁ ψευδοπροφήτης καὶ ὁ προφήτης (Ibid., ο. xi., 8). 5 Kal πᾶς προφήτης ὁ ῥιζῶν τράπεζαν ἐν πνεύματι οὐ φάγεται dm’ αὐτὴς, εἰδὲ μήγε ψευδοπροφήτης ἐστι. There is considerable difference of opinion about the meaning of this sentence. Schaff regards it (ὁ ῥιζῶν) as referring to a lovefeast ordered in a state of ecstasy, and as if the meaning was, “ the true prophet will not profane a sacred ordinance to personal uses by making a meal of the Eucharist.” Against this, however, is the fact that the Eucharist is not treated until the author comes to deal with the Lord’s Day and the sacrifice. 118 The Christian Ministry. the Mosaic law prescribed are to be bestowed upon them.’ Their ministry is combined with that of teachers, and the last days shall witness the multi- plication of ‘‘false prophets.”? In the Didachée, then, the apostle is mentioned thrice, the prophets thirteen times. The teacher seems to be a general term applicable to either, but the prophetical office is apparently the most prominent position in the ministry of the age and of the place in which this document was known. From the manual it may be reasonably concluded that imposture was prevalent ; that the gift known as ‘‘ discerning of spirits’’ had been locally withdrawn ; that the writer was much better acquainted with the moral conditions which marked a faithful apostle, prophet, or teacher than his readers; that the Church of the period and of the place in which the document circulated, was in a very incipient state*; and that apostles and prophets were itinerants, with occasional liberty to the latter to become resident. We now come to Hermas. The apostles are very 1 Πᾶς δὲ προφήτης ἀληθινός, θέλων Kab oat πρὸς ὑμᾶς, ἄξιός ἐστι THs τροφῆς αὐτοῦ. Ὡσαύτως διδάσκαλος ἀληθινός, οἴο.. .. Πᾶσαν οὖν ἀπαρχὴν γεννημάτων ληνοῦ καὶ ἅλωνος βοῶν τε καὶ προβάτων λαβὼν δώσεις τὴν [ἀπαρχὴν] τοῖς προφήταις, αὐτοὶ γάρ εἰσιν οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς ὑμῶν (Ibid., c. xiii., 1, 2, 3). 2. Ἔν yap ἐσχάταις ἡμέραις πληνθυνθήσονται οἱ ψευδοπροφήται Kai οἱ φθορεῖς καὶ στραφήσονται τὰ πρόβατα εἰς λύκους καὶ ἡ ἀγάπη στραφήσεται εἰς μῖσος (Ibid., ὍΣ ΨΙ:,, 3); * “There is an archaic simplicity, I had almost said a childishness, in its practical directions, which is only consistent with the early infancy of a Church” (Bishop Lightfoot). Schaff quotes the opinion of Dr. Caspari, of Christiania, whom he recognises as a first-class judge of ancient Christian documents, and which is to this effect: “‘ Mit neutestamentlich-evangelischem Maasstab gemessen steht sie (die Dida.) nicht hoch, und repriisentirt so recht die νηπιότης der ersten nachapostolischen Zeit, zamal ihrer juden-christlichen Kreise.” The Didaché and Hermas. 119 seldom mentioned. But the prophetic office is emphasized. Its representatives are numerous. Their imitators are “false prophets, ruining the minds of the servants of God.’’* The chapter which treats of the trial of prophets by their works, is the longest chapter which the work contains, including the Visions and the Similitudes. It regards the false prophet as a fortune teller.” He answers inquiries according to the wishes of those who make them. He is venal, and proud, and loqua- cious, and luxurious, and furtive. He is silent and fearful in the assembly of the righteous. But the true prophet, ‘‘ who has the ‘Divine Spirit proceed- ing from above, is meek, and peaceable, and humble, and refrains from all iniquity, and the vain desire of this world, and contents himself with fewer wants than those of all men. He speaks as the Divine Spirit suggests. He is in full sympathy with those who meet in assembly for prayer. He speaks to the multitude as the Lord wishes.” * The false prophet is resorted to by doubters, who inquire of him what will happen to them. The true prophet has a message from Heaven. He speaks independently of external suggestion. The spirit of the prophet is | ἀπόλλων τὴν διάνοιαν τῶν δούλων τοῦ Θεοῦ (Mand., xi.). ® Οὗτοι οὖν οἱ δίψυχοι ὡς ἐπὶ μάντιν ἔρχονται (Ibid.), 3 Τιρῶτον μὲν ὁ ἔχων τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἄνωθεν mpails ἐστι καὶ ἡσύχιος καὶ ταπεινόφρων. καὶ ἀπεχόμενος ἀπὸ πάσης πονηρίας καὶ ἐπιθυμίας ματαίας τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου, καὶ ἑαυτὸν ἐνδεέστερον ποιεῖ πάντων τῶν ἀνθρώπων... “Ὅταν οὖν ἔλθῃ ὁ ἄνθρωπος ὁ ἔχων τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ θείον εἰς συναγωγὴν ἀνδρῶν δικαίων τῶν ἐχόντων πίστιν θείου πνεύματος, καὶ ἔντευξις γένηται πρὸς τὸν θεὸν τῆς συναγωγῆς τῶν ἀνδρῶν ἐκείνων, τότε ὁ ἄγγελος τοῦ προφήτου ὁ κείμενος πρὸς αὐτὸν πληροῖ τὸν ἀνθρώπον, καὶ πληρω- θεὶς ὁ ἄνθρωπος τῷ πνεύματι τῷ ἁγίῳ λαλεῖ εἰς τὸ πλῆθος καθὼς ὁ κύριος βούλεται (Ibid.). 120 The Christian Ministry. subject to the prophet... He speaks from above. In this chapter Hermas is in touch with the Didache. Both appeal to the life as the test of the prophet.* In the Similitudes, the shepherd explains to Hermas what the stones are, which were taken out of the pit of suffering, and fitted into the building of the Church. ‘The forty are the apostles and teachers of the preaching of the Son of God.”? They ‘preached to the whole world.’’® Contrasted with this statement, made in a perfectly natural way, we find the Saviour described, in connection with His Second Coming, as ‘“‘ The Lord of the Flocks,” * from which sheep may stray, and for which the shepherds shall be held responsible. If the apostles and the prophets and the teachers were itinerant, and were accordingly enabled to preach ‘‘to the whole world,” there were also separate flocks, with separate shep- herds, attached to them, and accountable for them. These represented the localised ministry. These were the presbyters. Their duty, as teachers, is implied in the inquiry made of Hermas, by the woman who represents the Church, as to whether «Ἢρ had yet given the book to the presbyters.”° It is still further emphasised by the fact, that when the mysterious visitant announces that some additions 1 ἸΑπὸ οὖν τῶν τρόπων γνωσθήσεται ὁ ψευδοπροφήτης Kai ὁ προφήτης (Did., c. xi., 8). “Amd τῆς ζωῆς δοκίμαζε τὸν ἄνθρωπον τὸν ἔχοντα τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ θεῖον (comp. Matt. vii. 15,16). Προσέχετε ἀπὸ τῶν ψευδοπροφητῶν... ἀπὸ τῶν καρπῶν αὐτῶν ἐπιγνώσέσθε αὐτούς. 3. οἱ δὲ μ ἀπόστολοι καὶ διδάσκαλοι τοῦ κηρύγματος τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ (Sim.,ix., 15). 3 ἀπόστολοι καὶ διδάσκαλοι οἱ κηρύξαντες εἰς ὅλον τὸν κόσμον (Sim., ix., 25). 4 με Ut dominus pecorum gaudeat de vobis; gaudebit autem, si omnia in- venerit sana” (Sim., ix., 310. Dressel, Lipsiz, 1863). 5 τοῖς πρώτοις = senioribus, qui preesunt ecclesiz (Dressel). Deacons and Presbyters Local. τ have to be made to the revelation, she says that “all the elect will become acquainted with all the words through’? Hermas. And then she adds how this is to be effected. It is not by Hermas reading the book to those she desires to have the fullest intelli- gence, but it is by Hermas reading the words “ in the city along with the presbyters who preside over the Church.”! Thus showing, beyond all doubt, that teaching, or at least public reading, was amongst the duties of the presbyters; that these were local and were stationary, even as they and deacons were in Ephesus, in Philippi, and in Jerusalem. Deacons and bishops, besides, are implied by Hermas,’ as they are mentioned by the compiler of the Didache. But in Hermas the prophetical office is the most promi- nent feature in the Church, and if it be stated that in the locality to which Hermas belonged the ministry of Proclamation was thus represented, we shall not go beyond the just limit which is afforded by the evidence, nor shall we make an unreasonable state- ment in asserting that the same ancient document sustains, what earlier authorities teach and establish as prevailing elsewhere, that the prophet was an itinerant. Further into Hermas it is unnecessary to go. 1 Σὺ δὲ ἀναγνώσεις els αὐτὴν τὴν πόλιν μετὰ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων τῶν προϊσταμένων τῆς ἐκκλησίας (Visio, ii., iv.). 2 Οἱ μὲν NOx . . . εἰσιν οἱ ἀπόστολοι καὶ ἐπίσκοποι Kai διδάσκαλοι οἱ πορευθέντες κατὰ τὴν σεμνὴν διδασκαλίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ ἐπισκοπήσαντες καὶ διδάξαντες καὶ δια- κονήσαντες, etc. (Hermas, Vis., iii., ὅ, and Sim., ix., 26). The latter reference indicates the localisation of the diaconate. Complaint is laid against mal- administration by deacons. They plundered widows and orphans. But who would entrust the local administration of funds to itinerants? 122 The Christian Ministry. Our next witness is Ignatius. His letters indicate the existence in the Churches to which they were addressed, of the permanent ministry of bishops, of presbyters, and of deacons. The Churches of Antioch, in the far off land of Syria; of Ephesus, on the flowing Cayster; of Magnesia, on the Meander; of Tralles and of Philadelphia, in Asia; of Smyrna— immortalised by the episcopacy of Polycarp—these were administered, within the first twenty years of the second century, by those orders, which, whether we regard them as “helps” or as ‘‘ governments,” were of Divine appointment. Nor shall I hesitate to express my conviction, that this conclusion receives considerable countenance from the way in which the organisation of the Church in Ephesus and Antioch, as Ignatius knew them, appears to lnk on to, yea to continue the organisation which existed in the same Churches, when the one was administered by St. Timothy, and when the other was known to St. Paul, some thirty years before. Time was when these precious fragments were discussed in prejudice, and were discarded in passion. ‘hey were said to be both ‘altered and perverted,’’ and ‘‘ the alterations were made so far as to render these epistles more conform- able to the views of prelacy.’’* If they were, such a device was base in itself, as well as unnecessary, unwarrantable, and unworthy. The more reasonable and the more direct course is to inquire, with what object were the Ignatian letters penned? ‘To this inquiry there is but one reply: They were ' Vide Smyth On Presbytery. In lenatius the Ministry Tripartite and Permanent. 123 not written to advance episcopacy. They were written to enforce the cardinal importance of unity, as an important and even an essential mark of the Church of Christ... To this end, Ignatius never wearies of emphasising the office and the work and the spiritual position of the bishop. To this end, he regards him as surrounded by his presbyters, and as aided by his deacons. They were, in his mind, and in his experience, the localised officers of the Churches which he addressed. They were, as we shall find them ever after, the permanent ministry which God originally ordained. To that ministry, then, Ignatius appealed in the interests of unity, and to condemn schism. In these circum- stances, I am able to appreciate the silence of the 1 “* Have a care for union’ is the writer’s charge to Polycarp (Polyc., 1); and this idea runs throughout the notices (Ephes., 2-5, 20; Magn., 6, 13 ; Trall., 7; Philad. inscr., 3,4, 7,8; Smyrn., 8, 9). Heresies are rife; schisms are imminent. To avert these dangers, loyalty to Church rulers is necessary. There is no indication that he is upholding the episcopal against any other form of Church government, as for instance the presbyteral. The alternative which he contemplates is lawless isolation and self-will” (Zpisties of St. Ignatius, part ii., vol. i, p. 382, Bishop Lightfoot.) ‘The object of Ignatius is... rather to forbid the making of schisms or the holding of private conventicles. . . . The bishop is mentioned because he is the recognised head of the Church, on the duty of union with which the writer is anxious to insist. If the exaltation of the episcopate had been the writer’s primary object, we should not meet the strange phenomenon that the letter to the Church of Rome makes no mention of its bishop” (vide Dr. Salmon, Expositor, vi. 13). “The chief purpose of these much controverted, and most valuable, monuments of early Christianity seems to be, not, as has sometimes been supposed, to exalt the episcopate at the expense of the presbyterate, but, accepting the episcopate as an established institution in the Asiatic Churches, to urge those who called themselves Christians to become, or to continue to be, or to be more zealously than before, members of the associations of which the bishops were the head” (Dr. Hatch, Bampton Lectures, p. 30). Ina note on the above sentence, Dr. Hatch refers to the letters of Ignatius, addressed to the Christian communities at Ephesus, at Magnesia, at Tralles, at Philadelphia, and at Smyrna, as showing that “there were Christians in those cities who did not come to the general assembly 124 The Christian Minestry, great martyr bishop of Antioch, with regard to the itinerants. The very condition and characteristic of their office rendered it unlikely that the purpose which Ignatius esteemed so essential could ever be served by them, even if they existed in his day. But, I am prepared to go farther, and to say that with the holy apostles now all departed; with the glossolalia withdrawn, and inspired interpreters but a memory; with the discerning of spirits dependent not upon supernatural gifts, but upon an appeal to the living rhetoric of a holy life; with but scant testimony to miracles, as amongst the last powers of an abnormal pneumatical condition, the prophetical office had all but ceased. The time of transition precedes the age of Ignatius. As transition advanced, extraordinary gifts expired ; itinerancy gave place to permanency, and a general to local ministry. The period of transi- tion appears to be indicated in the Didache. ‘The or recognise the authority of the bishop, presbyters, or deacons; it is also clear from Ephes., 20, 2; Philad., 4 ; Smyrn., 7, 2, that this separation from the assembly and its officers went to the extent of having separate Hucharists ; it is consequently clear that attachment to the organisation of which the bishop was the head, was not yet universally recognised as a primary duty of the Christian life.” If this was not the case, then the urgent appeal of Ignatius to unity loses much of its weight, if not of its reasonableness. But Dr. Hatch’s conclusion is weakened when reference is made to Ephes., § vii. (Εἰώθασιν γάρ τινες δόλῳ πονηρῷ τὸ ὄνομα περιφέρειν, ἄλλα τίνα πράσσοντες ἀνάξια Θεοῦ. ods δεῖ ὑμᾶς ὡς θηρία ἐκκλίνειν. εἰσὶν γὰρ κύνες λυσσῶντες. λαθροδῆκται, ods δεῖ ὑμᾶς φυλλάσσεσθαι ὄντας δυσθεραπευτοῦς). The descent of these heretics upon the Ephesian Church was to be met, not by association with the assembly of which the bishop was the head and the centre, as if this was a novelty, but by more frequent assembly (wide ὃ xili. Σπουδάζετε οὖν πυκνότερον συνέρχεσθαι εἰς εὐχαριστίαν Θεοῦ καὶ εἰς δόξαν). The “having separate Eucharists” may be evidence of separation from the society. But the condemnation of them by Ignatius is evidence that the chief authority of the Church neither could nor did acquiesce in the separation as the normal condition of Christian communion. The Period of Transition. 125 bishops and the deacons minister the ministry of the prophets and teachers.”’* But the latter were extraordinary, were itinerant, were general. The former were local, were fixed, were normal. When the writer of the Didaché states, as he does in a perfectly incidental and natural way, that the one performed the public services of the other, he suggests the period during which the change was effected ; he enables us to discern the time when, with the ministry of powers no longer in manifest operation in the way in which they once were, the ministry of Proclamation survived, and was represented by prophets and teachers, who were then about to vanish away, as they had already in some quarters ; and he states, simply and strongly, because unde- signedly, that the ministry of Proclamation is passing, has passed over to the ministry of helps and of governments. And of all the important purposes which this epoch-making discovery of Bryennios may yet serve, there is not, in my judgment, one more momentous than that which is thus sug- gested. It shows the time and it establishes the fact, if not the mode of transition. To quote the suggestive simile of Dr. Sanday, ‘‘The bird is on the wing.” Looking back now upon the facts which have been submitted, I believe the hypothesis of a general and an itinerant ministry is scriptural, is historical, is 1 ἐπισκόπους καὶ διακόνους... λειτουργοῦσι καὶ αὐτοὶ τὴν λειτουργίαν τῶν προφη- τῶν καὶ διδασκάλων (c. xy., 1). “The apostles and the prophets were passing away or not always present, and the bishops and deacons gradually took their place” (Schaff). 126 The Christian Mintstry. credible, is workable.. And I hope, in the next Lecture, to reach the same conclusion respecting the local and permanent ministry. Hach was the appointment of Almighty God. The one was provisional. The other was permanent. LECTURE IV. “God hath set some in the Church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.’—1 Cor. xii. 28. HE classification of the ministry of the Church of Christ which I have already ventured to submit, I regard as a ministry of Proclamation, en- trusted to apostles, to prophets, to evangelists, and to teachers. It was sustained and characterised by extraordinary manifestations of spiritual power, which operated in both the mental and the physical orders. It was strengthened, expanded, and perpetuated by the ministry of helps, and of governments. Whether the classification be complete or not, all that is represented thereby is of Divine appointment; and when we remember that before the great Apostle penned these words, Churches were founded and were organised in Jerusalem, in Antioch, in Pamphylia, in Pisidia, in Lycaonia, in Galatia, in Philippi, in Corinth, and in Ephesus, we learn, amongst other things, that the sphere in which the divinely ordered ministry was to operate was ‘‘an aggregation of visible societies,” which was described by the Holy Ghost as ‘‘the Church.’’ The theory of a three- fold ministry of announcement, of evidence, of aid 128 The Chrestian Ministry. and of administration, has been regarded as an hy- pothesis, the working of which I have endeavoured to trace and to estimate. Looking back over the ground which has been covered, and through the years which intervene between the Day of Pentecost and, say, the publica- tion of the Pastor of Hermas, which I regard as early in the second century,’ I humbly claim to have established that, during that period, the ministry of Proclamation was general, was itinerant, was transitional; and, without a desire to prejudge an untried case, it is nevertheless legitimate to say, thus early, that the ministry of extraordinary Powers by which the ministry of Proclamation was sustained, was as provisional and as temporary, as were the order of apostles and the prophetical office. Miracles, cifts of healing, and the glossolalia gradually dis- appear at a very early period in the history of the Christian Church.” It is indisputable that the 1 Vide Introduction to New Testament, Lectures v., xxvi., and Dict. Christ. Biog., articles “ Muratorian Fragment,” “ Montanism,” by Dr. Salmon. 2 «The Fathers, while they refer to extraordinary Divine agency going on in their own day, also with one consent represent miracles as haying ceased since the apostolic era. But what was this but to confess that though events which pointed to the special hand of God, and so approximated to the nature of the miraculous, were still of frequent occurrence in the Church, miracles of that decisive and positive character that they declared themselves certainly to be miracles no longer took place” (Mozley, On Miracles, p. 165). This is, also, Newman’s idea. ‘“ The Fathers speak of miracles as having in one sense ceased with the apostolic period’? (Hssay on Miracles, p. 135). Dr. Kaye is more explicit, and speaks inthe samestrain. ‘For fifty years after the Ascension of Christ, none of the Fathers made any pretensions to the possession of miraculous powers. It is an historical truth not to be omitted, that not one of those pious men (Ignatius, Polycarp, Barnabas, Hermas), though they were the principal governors of the Church, and the immediate successors of the Apostles in that government (as well as their companions and friends) ever speaks of himself as capable of counteracting the ordinary powers of nature. . . . We must not Apostolic Miracles Provisional. 129 decline of ministerial itinerancy was synchronous with the development of ministerial permanence. It is beyond debate that the ministry of Proclamation was reinforced by the ministry of helps and of governments ; and that the ministry of power which, in the incipient stages of the Church’s history sus- tained the former, operating in the physical order, was manifested in a less conspicuous, but a more abiding and more intense form in the ministry of the latter; in, for instance, the law of the Spirit of Life which delivered men from the law of sin and of death ; in those inner graces, gifts, and blessings absolutely say that no miracles have ever been said to be wrought about the time they lived ; because there is a very celebrated letter extant from the Church of Smyrna, giving an account of the martyrdom of Polycarp, which is said to have been attended with circumstances sufficiently miraculous” (Kaye’s Tertullian, p. 165). These circumstances are the voice from heaven, encourag- ing Polycarp, and exhorting him to “play the man:” Τῷ δὲ Πολυκάρπῳ εἰσιόντι els τὸ στάδιον φωνὴ ἐξ οὐρανοῦ ἐγένετο, Ἴσχυε ἸΠολύκαρπε καὶ ἀνδρίζου ; the dome of fire around and above the martyr, the flame swelling out, asa sail filled with wind: θαῦμα εἴδομεν. ols ἰδεῖν ἐδόθη, of καὶ ἐτηρήθημεν εἰς τὸ ἀναγγεῖλαι τοῖς λοιποῖς τὰ γενόμενα. τὸ γὰρ πῦρ καμάρας εἶδος ποιῆσαν, ὥσπερ ὀθόνη πλοίου ὑπὸ πνεύματος πληρουμένη, κύκλῳ περιετείχισεν τὸ σῶμα τοῦ μάρτυρος, καὶ ἦν μέσον, οὐχ ὡς σὰρξ καιομένη, ἀλλ᾽ ὡς ἄρτος ὀπτώμενος, ἢ ὡς χρυσὸς καὶ ἄργυρος ἐν καμίνω πυρούμενος. καὶ γὰρ εὐωδίας τοσαύτης ἀντελαβόμεθα, ὡς λιβανωτοῦ πνέοντος ἢ ἄλλου τινὸς τῶν τιμίων ἀρωμάτων ; and the dove issuing from the wounded side of the Martyr : ἐξῆλθε [περιστερὰ καὶ] πλῆθος αἵματος (Letter of the Smyrnzans, 9, 15, 16). These are the “sufficiently miraculous circumstances” which are referred to by Dr. Kaye. Each of them, the voice from heaven, the swelling out of the flame, the aroma of the wood, may be accounted for without any reference whatever to miracu- lous interposition. And the appearance of the dove rests upon words which are now proved to be interpolated (vide Lightfoot, Hp. Poly., 598, 627,975). Blunt (Lect. vi., Harly Fathers) refers to some phrases in Clement and in Ignatius as implying the presence in very early sub-apostolic times of miraculous powers. The Church of Corinth is described as πλήρης πνεύματος ἁγίου ἔκχυσις ἐπὶ πάντας éylvero. The connection in which these words are found is against the sense imputed to them. The writer refers to the ἔκχυσις πνεύματος ἁγίου as explaining why they are μεστοΐ τε ὁσίας βουλῆς, etc. The reference in the Ignatian Letter to the Smyrneans is much stronger. Ignatius described the Church of Smyrna as ἠλεηυένη ἐν παντὶ χαρίσματι, aud a little further on as ἀνυστερήτω οὔση παντὸς 9 130 The Christian Ministry. which transform life,. which transfigure character, and which, in their normal results, transcend all the effects produced upon human nature by rival causes. The evidential value of sanctification is as high as is that of the glossolalia, gifts of healings, or miracles; and, when we bear in mind that these latter were partial in the range of their operation ; were temporary in their duration, and were discontinuous ; and that evangelisation, sanctification of life, and moral beauty of character are universal, we may claim for the Holy Spirit’s power, by which alone these are produced, all the pre-eminence which of right belongs to that which is universal, and continuous, and permanent. ‘This is the normal χαρίσματος. This appears to include miraculous gifts, especially when the passage is illuminated by the light of 1 Cor.i.7. Bishop Kaye’s view is that which is adopted in the text. It is quoted from his Tertullian. At the same time, Irenzeus refers to the operation of χαρίσματα, as known in the Church of his day (Adv. Her., B. ii., 6. xxxii., 4, 5), and Augustine (Civ. Det., xxii, 8), records a number of miracles as having been wrought “in the name of Christ, whether by His sacraments, or by the prayers or relics of His saints.” Nor were they limited to one locality. They were said to have been wrought at Milan, at Carthage, at Cornubis, at Victoriana, at Hippo, at Calama, etc. These remind one of the wonders which are connected with the name and with the work of Wesley (vide Southey’s Life, p. 277 ; vol. ii., pp. 135, 199, and Christ- lieb’s Moderne Zweifel am christlichen Glauben, Lect. v.). Looking back over the record of God’s dealings with mankind, we observe the occasional manifes- tation of miraculous powers, at apparently very important periods. They were vouchsafed to Moses, to Joshua, to Elijah and to Elisha, to Daniel. These miracles prepared men for the many miracles, wonders, and signs, which were wrought by the Redeemer, of whose ministry every preceding ministry of law- giver, of priest, of prophet, and of divinely commissioned statesman, was an anticipation. They were by Him bestowed upon the apostles. That they were occasional is clear (vide Phil. ii. 26 27 ; 2 Tim. iv. 20). Signs were promised to follow them that believe. The promise may refer to many merciful energies which from time to time reappear amid what are known as ecclesiastical miracles. The blessing has been, like other blessings, abused by superstition, by avarice, by fraud. The remembrance of this is so grievous that the utmost reserve ought to be placed upon the statements even of Augustine. A Permanent Ministry a Reasonable Appointment. 131 ministry of Power. It follows the ministry of Proclamation, and we have now to see how the hypothesis of such a ministry, local, permanent, and unequal, is justified by apostolic action, by the records of apostolic history, as well as by sub- apostolic literature. If such a ministry fall within the range of what is here described as ‘“ helps” and ‘governments,’ it has all the authority and all the obligation which belongs to Divine appointment. That the holy apostles and their inspired coadjutors would arrange to give permanence to the work which their itinerant evangelisation initiated, is only what would be expected from reasonable men, and is surely what would be expected from prudent ones. The descent upon any locality, of those who believed that they alone were, in a special sense, the servants of the Most High God, who held a commission to show unto men the way of salvation, and their departure from that scene without making arrange- ments for the prosecution of a work which their utterance had begun, is in the highest degree incredible. To spend their lives in a series of preachments, of missions, of evangelistic efforts, and to discard everything which in common hfe is calculated to give permanence to what is of abiding value, and continuity to what has manifestly the essentials of duration, is to attribute to the apostles of Jesus Christ a line of action which is inconsistent with the analogy of the Hebrew polity, with the procedure of human enterprises of various kinds, £32 The Christian Mintstry. with what we know their Lord’s example to have been, and with the moral and spiritual glory of the message which they alone possessed. If their gospel reached only to the margin of a new and even of a higher benevolence, which might, in the ages, be superseded by a nobler and more beneficent and loftier ideal ; if its affairs were only such as appertain to this life, involving such considerations as mutual regard, social righteousness, cementing sympathy ; if their message to the world was an evangel of intelligence, of culture, of liberty, then it is con- ceivable that such men as the Twelve would not in the earlier ages of our era be over anxious about organisation. ‘They would probably trust to the dictates of an enlightened self-interest. They would be free of the obligations which inevitably control those who are inspired by the imperative laws of a Divine continuity. They would lose the enthusiasm which overwhelms prejudice, opposition, and even power, when those who are inflamed by it are conscious of their possession of the only remedy which God has revealed for universal ruin. With the publication of such a gospel they were entrusted. There was ‘‘no other name under heaven given amongst men whereby they could be saved.” ' There was no other society charged with the world-wide declaration of this message, nor was there any other body within whose pale the blessings which belong to and which flow from membership of the Church of Christ, were procurable. Conscious of this, the 1 Acts iv. 12. Results of the Pentecostal Effusion. 198 life and the labours of the pioneers of the Christian ministry are intelligible, are reasonable, are harmo- nious ; and all that we read of division of labour, of authoritative supervision, of permanent ministers appointed in every region which was_ penetrated by itinerants who believed themselves to be the depositories of the faith, is consistent—consistent in all its parts; consistent with the mutual relation of these emissaries; and consistent, too, with that continuity of ministry and of message, which was destined, in the purpose of God, to work out both the perpetuity and the universality of the kingdom of Christ. The vacancy in the apostolic number having been filled up, and prophecy having thereby ripened into history, the Holy Ghost was in due time be- stowed upon the Church. The Hffusion was followed by manifold indications of spiritual life, growth, and fructivity. There was conviction of sin, deep and wide. There was sacramental initiation, individual and indispensable. ‘There was reception of the tid- ings of forgiveness. There was numerical strength, such that the Church of Christ became at once a visible society. Moreover, there were the elements, sacramental, doctrinal, devotional, and communica- tive, of a corporation which was the outward expression of a heavenly and a spiritual life. The earlier chapters of the Acts of the Apostles record a series of movements, the energy and the opera- tion of which are indicated by the agonising exclamation of the president of the Sanhedrim to 134 The Christian Ministry. the apostles: ‘‘ Ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine.’ ! One immediate result was the expansion of the work of the Church to such a degree that the apostles were unable to cope with it. Their inability was publicly confessed by them, when the murmur- ing of the Hellenist widows against their Hebrew sisters became an occasion of heartburning. Seven men were then, at the bidding of the apostles, selected, and by them they were appointed and ordained. The name by which they have ever since been known is not even once applied to them in Holy Writ, but the verb which expresses the service to which they were set apart occurs again and again ; and in Pauline literature διακονία is very frequently used to express ministry of various kinds.” But the prevailing consensus of opinion—ancient and modern —regards this incident as the apostolic institution of the order of deacons. The cause of the institution was the growth of the Church. Its occasion was the discontent which marred the administration of alms then, as unhappily it does now. But even if that occasion had not arisen, the extension of the Church would have necessitated that division of labour, which had an ancient precedent in the Mosaic economy, and which may be recognised as in the mind of God, and as amongst His appointments in the Church, as ‘Helps. The importance of remembering this appears when we consider the 1 Acts v. 28. 2. Acts xx. 24° 1 Thess. iii.2; 1 Cor. ui. 5, xvi. 15; 2 Cor. iii. 6-9, iv. 1, vi. 3, 4, xi. 8, 23; Rom. xi 13, xii. 7, xvi. 1; Eph. iii. 7; Col. i. 7, 23, 25, iv. 7. Apostolic Institution of the Diaconate. 135 contention of Professor Cunningham. “It was the need for the office that created it. There is nothing inherently good or bad, in the Church or out of it, in haying a company of serving men; but where serving men are needed, they should certainly be employed. ‘That was the common-sense principle upon which the apostles acted when, in the circum- stances which had arisen, they recommended the Christian converts to elect seven men to minister to the poor. There seems, then, to be no other jus divinum attached to the office of the diaconate than this—that where deacons are wanted they ought to be created, and where they are not wanted they ought to be let alone.”’ Now there is an air of sound sense about this theory which commends it. But when we look down the annals of the Church, and see the prevalence of the diaconate, in places widely apart, and under conditions which are the opposite of those which were the occasion of its inception, though not its first cause; when we remember, too, what the theory appears to require, as well as the obvious solemnity and gravity of the ordination, the plausibility which attracts in the first instance vanishes under keener inspection. The deacons were instituted and were ordained in Jerusalem—a Church in which, by the strange moral perplexities of life, poverty seemed to be chronic. But there were deacons in the European Church of 1 Growth of the Church (Lect. i., p. 15). This theory revives the view which was taken at the Council of Trullo (A.D, 692) : ἩΗμεῖς τῷ ἀποστολικῷ ῥητῷ τὸν νοῦν ἐφαρμόσαντες τῶν πατέρων, εὕρομεν ws ὁ λόγος αὐτοῖς οὐ περὶ τῶν τοῖς μυστηρίοις διακονουμένων ἣν ἀνδρῶν, ἀλλὰ περὶ τῆς ἐν ταῖς χρείαις τῶν τραπέζων ὑπουργίας. 136 The Christian Ministry. Philippi, which seems to have been well-to-do, and so blessed with means that the faithful were enabled again and again to send help to St. Paul. There were deacons in Ephesus, concerning whose personal and official qualifications explicit directions were given to the head of that Church, and through him to the Church for all time.” And the order of deacons as such is recognised by the Church of Rome when addressing the Church of Corinth.’ They are spoken of as though they were as well known in the Grecian as they were in the imperial city. They appear in the same organic order in the Didaché,* in the Pastor of Hermas,°’ in the epistles of Ignatius,‘ in the letters of Polycarp.’ This includes a period, which, beginning at, say 34, concludes at 116. It covers an area which extends from the Holy City to Philippi, from Philippi to Ephesus, from Ephesus to Rome; from Rome back again to Troas, to Smyrna, and to Antioch. And Professor Cunningham asks us to believe that chronic poverty prevailed in the churches of Jerusalem, Philippi, Corinth, Ephesus, Rome, Antioch, Troas and Smyrna. He requires us 1 σὺν ἐπισκόποις καὶ διακόνοις (Phil. i. 1). Vide ch. iv. 15,16, 12; περισσεύειν καὶ ὑστερεῖσθαι, abundare et penuriam pati longiori tempore. Repetita mentio τοῦ abundare congruit cum statu Pauli, qui ex Philippensium liberalitate tum abundabat (Beng., in loc.). 51 Tim. iii. 8-13. 3 els ἐπισκόπους Kal διακόνους τῶν μελλόντων πιστεύειν; . .. ἔγέγραπτο περὶ ἐπισκόπων καὶ διακόνων (Hp. Clem. ad Cor., xlii.). 4 Ch. xv., of μὲν... διάκονοι... ἑαυτοῖς περιποιησάμενοι ἐκ τῆς διακονίας ἧς ἔλαβον διακονήσαντες. It will be observed that the διάκονοι are said to have received their ministry (ἔλαβον). δ᾽ Hermas, Sim., ix., 26. ὁ Ep. ad Eph., ii.; Ep. ad Mag., ii., xiii.; Ep. ad Trall., ii., iii., vii. ; Ep. ad Phil, Inscr., iv., x., xi. ; ad Smyr., viii., x. (vide Lightfoot, in loc.), xii. 7 Ep. ad Phil., v. Difficulties of Accepting Dr. Cunningham's Theory. 137 to think that in each of these Churches the need created the officers, and men were elected ‘to minister to the poor.’’ He requires us to forget that deacons were attached to Churches in which economic or pecuniary pressure was not only un- known, but in which ample means were afforded by which the necessities of others should be relieved. Such a line of argument is arbitrary in the extreme. It requires a series of improbabilities, and a mono- tonous category of dead-level conditions, which are, no doubt, conceivable, but which have no parallel in the experience of ordinary life. To say that deacons are only to be appointed where poverty is to be relieved is, under the circumstances, as reasonable as to say, as the Church of Rome appears to have done, that their number is never to exceed seven,’ or that no man can be a deacon unless his name be Stephen, or Philip, or Prochorus, or Nicanor, or Timon, or Parmenas, or Nicolas. To such a theory of hap-hazard opportunism the greatness of the crisis, the solemnity which gathered round the occasion, the historic continuity of the order, and the declaration of the text are each and all opposed. And the opposition will be the more 1 “There are but seven deacons at Rome, answering precisely to the number ordained by the apostles, of whom Stephen was the first martyr ; whereas in other Churches the number is unlimited ” (Sozomen, B, vii., c. xix.). Dr. Salmon says (Infall. Church, Lect. xix. n.), this regulation bas been so far modified that the Roman deacons are now reckoned as fourteen. The Council of Neo- Cesarea (314) limited the number of deacons to seven, whatever the dimensions of the place in which they laboured, and evidently regarded the Acts of the Apostles as establishing a precedent. Διάκονοι ἑπτὰ ὀφεῖλουσιν εἶναι κατὰ τὸν κανόνα, κἂν πάνυ μεγάλη ἢ ἡ πόλις. Πεισθείσῃ δὲ ἀπὸ τῆς βίβλου τῶν Πράξεων (Can, 15). 138 The Christian Ministry. glaring when we consider the disparity there is between the circumstances of the case and the solemnity of the means which were taken to meet it. The apostles were overwhelmed with work. They were now, for the first time in their experience, face to face with one of the gravest ministerial perils, the peril of success. Like all similar ex- periences, it created other dangers. Amongst these there was that of secularisation. If the ideas represented by the theory with which one is now dealing had any place in the minds of the apostles, the crisis might have been met in a very direct mode. There were in the new society men who were capable, experienced, and believing. There was Barnabas, and Barsabas, and Nicodemus, and Joseph of Arimathza, and Luke. There were the seventy who had been, a short time before, sent out by the Christ, upon a ministry of preparation. Upon these, we cannot doubt, the Holy Ghost had come. They were, presumably, the recipients of eifts and of graces. Why not appeal for assistance to these? Why did not the apostles meet this crisis by invoking the aid of those who were known, and trusted, and experienced, and even gifted? If the murmuring of the widows was the sole occasion of the helps thus sought by the apostles, then the occasion would have been easily and instantly met by invoking the voluntary aid in which we know the society was strong. In this case there was no necessity for such serious preliminaries as marked the event, no more than there was for subsequent The Institution of the Order from Above. 139 ordination. But if—admitting the immediate occa- sion of the institution to be as the history informs us—we look more deeply into the crisis; if we find the apostles passing by aid which was at hand, and men who would have loved to render it; if we see them impressed by the gravity of the crisis, and so impressed that the chosen men are set before them, are the objects of public prayer, and of imposition of hands, we are, if not bound to conclude, yet assuredly we are justified in concluding that the holy apostles were here led by the Holy Ghost ; that their action was at His high suggestion; that they then, under His guidance, founded the order of the diaconate ; and that it was, in the sphere of the visible, the external, and the historic, the realization within the Church of one phase of the ‘helps,’ which, no less than the apostolate, were of Divine appointment. The duties which were attached to the diaconate are not regularly catalogued in holy Scripture. Nor need this statement be revised if it be made of other ministerial offices. But it is clear from the history as recorded by St. Luke, that St. Stephen was empowered and was permitted to engage in the ministry of the word, although ordained for the ministry of tables. St. Philip, who was a deacon- evangelist, preached Jesus Christ to the Samaritans, and like St. Stephen, he wrought miracles, and he also baptized. What other duties devolved upon the deacon may be gleaned from the official quali- fications which are found in the Pastoral Epistles. 140 The Christian Ministry. They may be disciplinary, and such as require, in a peculiar degree, that blamelessness of life which is emphasised. They may be eleemosynary, as indeed from the first they were. But early records reveal a variety of offices which were served by the primitive diaconate. Holy Scripture shows us that, to them, administration was imperative; preaching and baptizing were permissive, and various services of trust, of responsibility, and of importance, were rendered by those who were in Jerusalem associated with the apostles; in Philippi with the bishops; in Ephesus, with Timothy and with those presbyter- bishops, whose qualification and whose special pre- rogatives are described in the epistle which was addressed to him. They are found in the same company in sub- apostolic literature. Clement of Rome, in manifest reference to the great Commission, refers to the apostles ‘‘ having received a charge, and having been fully assured through the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ and confirmed in the word of God with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth with the glad tidings that the kingdom of God should come. So preaching everywhere in country and town, they appointed their first fruits, when they had proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons unto t hem that should believe.” * They appear in the same connection in the Didache. They are probably meant, although Τ παραγγελίας οὖν λαβόντες καὶ πληροφορηθέντες διὰ τῆς ἀναστάσεως τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ πιστωθέντες ἐν τῷ λόγῳ τοῦ Θεοῦ μετὰ πληροφορίας πνεύμα- Their Official Association in the Eprstles. 141 not actually named, in a passage in Hermas, in which specific work seems to be assigned to specific workers. ‘‘ Those white square stones which fitted exactly into each other, are apostles, bishops, teachers, who have lived in godly purity, and have acted as bishops, and teachers, and deacons, chastely and reverently to the elect of God.’’! Ignatius rejoices in the presence of Onesimus, as representing the Ephesian Church; prays that those to whom his epistle is addressed may be like him; thanks God for having given the Ephesians such a bishop, and in the next sentence names his “fellow servant Burrhus, who by the will of God is your deacon blessed in all things,” and then prays ‘‘that he may remain with me to the honour of yourselves and of your bishop.” * Further it is not necessary to pursue this testimony. It shows conclusively that the relations between the ἐπισκόποι and the διάκονοι were close, and for a considerable period they were constant. They represented, never- theless, two different orders in the Christian ministry. Their functions were different, as their names express, and under no circumstances is it conceivable that Tos ἁγίου ἐξῆλθον, εὐαγγελιζόμενοι τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ Θεοῦ μέλλειν ἔρχεσθαι. Kara χὼρας οὖν καὶ πόλεις κηρύσσοντες, καθίστανον τὰς ἀπαρχὰς αὐτῶν, δοκιμάσαντες τῷ πνεύματι, εἰς ἐπισκόπους καὶ διακόνους τῶν μελλόντων πιστεύειν (Clem., ad Cor., xlii.). ' Οἱ μὲν λίθοι of τετάγμενοι καὶ λευκοὶ καὶ συμφωνοῦντες ταῖς ἁρμογαῖς αὐτῶν, οὗτοί εἰσιν οἱ ἀπόστολοι καὶ ἐπίσκοποι καὶ διδάσκαλοι, οἱ πορευθέντες κατὰ τὴν σεμνὴν διδασκαλίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ ἐπισκοπήσαντες καὶ διδάξαντες καὶ διακονήσαντες ἁγνῶς καὶ σεμνῶς τοῖς δούλοις τοῦ Θεοῦ τὸν λόγον (Vis., 111., 5). The Latin version (Dressel, Lips., 1863) differs somewhat from the Greek (Tisch., 1856): ‘‘apostoli, et episcopi et doctores (magistri, A) et ministri .. . electis Dei.” an official term, vide 1 Tim. iii. 13. * Vide note ", p. 136. On διακονήσαντες as 142 The Christian Ministry. the office of the ἐπίσκοπος could be discharged by the διάκονος. True, it is asserted that ‘“‘in the Pastoral Epistles the qualifications of the one are difficult to distinguish from the qualifications of the other; and it is not until we pass from the apostolic age to that which succeeded it, that the nature of the division of labour between them becomes clearly defined.”’* Now the difficulty of distinguishing the qualifications for one office from those which belong to another and a different office, depends upon a variety of considerations or of conditions. The difficulty referred to is very great, if the organ of discernment be absent or be dormant. It is only less so, if while neither absent nor dormant, the power to discern is dulled by inattention, by carelessness, or, perhaps, by rapturous devotion to a theory, the advocate of which, while soaring in the fields of imagination, becomes blind to ordinary facts. To you, I humbly suggest an experiment which will test the difficulty. When you leave this chapel, take your Greek Testament and open it at the Pastoral Epistles. Then take a sheet of paper. Place on the one side of your page a column in which to write the qualifications of the bishop as therein described. Place upon the other side, ' Organisation of the Early Christian Churches (Hatch, Bampton Lecture, p. 49). ‘“ Dass der Unterschied von Episkopen und Diakonen nach der kurzen Schilderung ihrer Functionem kein merklicher ist” (Die Gesellschaft-verfass- ung der christlichen Kirchen im Alterthum : Hatch, autorisirte Uebersetzung mit Excursen, von D. Adolf Harnack: Giessen, 1883, p. 232). ‘“ Die fiir die Diakonen geforderten Qualitiiten sind fast dieselben, wie die fiir die Episkopen verlangten ” (p. 242). Deacons distinct from Bishops. 143 the qualifications of the deacon.t The former will run to about fifteen, some of which seem to over- : ἐπίσκοπος : (1 Tim. iii. 1-7). διάκονος : (1 Tim. ili, 8-12). 1. ἀνεπίληπτον. 1. σεμνούς. 2. μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα. 2. μὴ διλόγους. 8. νηφάλιον. 8. μὴ οἴνω πολλῷ προσέχοντας. 4. σώφρονα. 4. μὴ αἰσχροκερδεῖς. 5. κόσμιον. 5. ἔχοντας τὸ μυστήριον τῆς πίστεως ἐν καθαρᾷ συνειδήσει. 6. φιλόξενον. 0. ανέγκλητοι. 7. διδακτικόν. 7. μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρες. 8. μὴ πάροινον. 8. τέκνων καλῶς προϊστάμενοι καὶ τῶν ἰδίων οἴκων. 9. μὴ πλήκτην. 10, ἐπιεικῆ. 11, ἄμαχον. 12. ἀφιλάργυρον. 18. τοῦ ἰδίου οἴκου καλῶς προϊστάμενον, τέκνα ἔχοντα ἐν ὑποταγῆ μετὰ πάσης σεμνότητος (εἰ δέ τις τοῦ ἰδίου οἴκου προστῆναι οὐχ οἷδε, πῶς ἐκκλησίας Θεοῦ ἐπιμελήσεται) ; 14. μὴ νεόφυτον, 15. δεῖ δὲ καὶ μαρτυρίαν καλὴν ἔχειν ἀπὸ τῶν ἔξωθεν. The word φιλόξενον, as inter alia, characteristic of the ἐπίσκοπος, suggests a reference to the conclusions which are drawn by Harnack from the appearance of this word in Hermas, Sim., ix., ο. 27 : “" ἐπίσκοποι καὶ φιλόξενοι, οἵτινες ἡδέως εἰς τοὺς οἴκους ἑαυτῶν πάντοτε ὑπεδέξαντο τοὺς δούλους τοῦ Θεοῦ ἄτερ ὑποκρίσεως. οἱ δὲ ἑπίσκοποι πάντοτε τοὺς ὑστερημένους καὶ τὰς χήρας τῇ διακονίᾳ ἑαυτῶν ἀδιαλείπτως ἐσκέπασαν καὶ ἁγνῶς ἀνεστράφησαν πάντοτε." Harnack, in his text, distinguishes between the ἐπίσκοποι and the φιλόξενοι. He does so because of the καί. But the Versio Palatina omits the καί, nor is its Latin equivalent found in Dressel’s Hermas (vide Patrum Apostolicorum Opera, p.559). The translators have omitted to render καί, because they regarded it, not as does Harnack, as distinguishing ἐπίσκοποι from φιλόξενοι, but as epexegetic ; nor is there any grammatical difficulty—as suggested by Harnack (Analecten, p. 232, τ. 8)—because of the following “ οἱ δὲ ἐπίσκοποι, which might be rendered “and such bishops,” ete. (‘‘ Das epexe- getische, niiher bestimmende καί [ist] niéimlich”: Winer, Gram., ὃ 53, 3 6). Upon the conjunction, which may be epexegetic and which is omitted from Latin versions, Harnack builds the following conclusions, which he regards, like the passage, of vast importance,”’ “ Wichtigkeit : 1. Dassin Rom noch um 140 die Functionem der Episcopen mit der freien Thitigkeit der ‘ Gastfreund- lichen’ parallelisirt hat. 2. Dass die wichtigste Aufgabe der Episcopen in der Pflege der Nothleidenden und Wittwen bestanden hat. 3. Dass die Sorge fiir die Zureisenden damals noch nicht zu den regelmiissigen Pflichten der Episcopen gehérte. The didactic office of the bishop emphasised by St. Paul, is entirely ignored by Harnack. He sustains the theory of Hatch that the 144 The Christian Ministry. lap. ‘The latter will run to about eight. Five of these are common to both—thus leaving ten quali- fications to the bishop and three qualifications to the deacon. Of the former there are two which are special to the bishop. They are emphatic and prominent. The bishop is to be διδακτικός. Didactic power in him is essential and imperative. The bishop is, like the deacon, to rule his own house well, but in his case, there is the glaring adden- dum, conjoined, moreover, in the emphatic form of the apostolic interrogation—“ For if a man know not original functions of the bishops were those of guardians (Pfleger), They received and they administered the funds of the society, as apparently their primary duty (Armenpflege, Cultus, Correspondenz). The chief proof which Harnack adduces in support of this position is drawn from St. Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians, in which only bishops and deacons are mentioned. ‘“ Denn dieser Brief ist in Anlass einer Geldunterstiitzung geschricben, welche die philippische Gemeinde dem Paulus geschickt hatte (4, 108). Diese Spende ging ohne Zweifel durch die Hiinde der Episcopen und Diakonen” (Analecten, p. 233). It is unfortunate for this view, that the gift (Spende) of the Philippian Church was, according to St. Paul, who received it, presented through Epaphroditus. But it must not be forgotten that Harnack says it came “ through the hands of the bishops and deacons,” for which statement, however, no proof is vouchsafed, beyond their conjunction in the epistle! Later on Harnack states that “ Die Natur des Amtes der Episkopen und Diakonen muss urspriinglich wesentlich identisch gewesen sind; aber es wurde differenzirt durch das Alter des die Amtspflichten Versehenden. Hin und dasselbe Amt erscheint als ein Amt der Dienstleistung, sofern es ein Jiingerer versah, und als ein Amt der Verwaltung und Leitung, sofern es ein Aelterer versah, oder, die Unterschiede bleiben dabei stets quantitative ; die Aelteren tibernahmen in der Oekonomie der Gemeinde mer solche Functionem, welche fiir das Alter passend waren und die Jiingeren in der Regel solche, in denen sie Diener in vollen Sinne waren. Diese Hypothese erklirt alle hierher gehorigen Thatsachen. Sie erklirt vor allem die aus der iltesten Zeit uns entgegentretenden ”’ (Analecten, p. 245). This large and radical hypothesis is drawn by Harnack from the order in which Polycarp in the Epistle to the Philippians enumerates both officers and persons. If the bishops and the deacons were identical, only differing through age (durch das Alter), why are they differentiated in St. Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians, as well as in Polycarp’s epistle, in Ignatius, and in Hermas? MHarnack says the difference between them is quantitative. History will not sustain this statement. Deacons not Permitted to Ordain, nor to Govern. 145 how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the Church of God?” This has no place in the qualifications of the deacon. From this, then, you will see that there are, at least, two distinctions between the office of the bishop and that of the deacon. He must ‘hold fast the faithful word, as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gain- sayers.” The bishop must be apt to teach. The bishop must be able to rule. The potestas docendi and the potestas regendi must mark the bishop. And yet we are informed that ‘in the Pastoral Epistles the qualifications of the bishop are diffi- cult to distinguish from the qualifications of the deacon.” Nor is this all. The mission of Philip, the deacon-evangelist, to Samaria, shows that while, as in his case, he was enabled to exercise both the ministry of Proclamation and the ministry of Power, he was not permitted to engage in the imposition of hands. The same disability affected John Mark in Antioch. Evangelist though he was, and in the first rank of the pneumatical and itinerant ministry, he was omitted by the Holy Ghost from the ordination of St. Paul and St. Barnabas to their ministry among the Gentiles. When St. Paul wrote to St. Timothy, and en- couraged him to cultivate the gifts which were associated with his ordination, he couples the presbyters with himself as having taken part in that solemn service. If there were deacons at Lystra it is improbable the procedure at Samaria 10 146 The Christian Ministry. and at Antioch would be altered, by their joming in the imposition of hands. And before the official ministry was thus strengthened, by the public admission of St. Timothy to its ranks, the first council had sat at Jerusalem, and so far as the only historical record which we possess enables us to form an opinion, it does not appear that deacons were either recognised by the Church of Antioch, as entitled to have the question there debated referred to them, or that they were recognised by the Church of Jerusalem as being entitled to discuss the question, and cer- tainly not to publish the decree. Yet there is the highest probability that there were then deacons attached to the Church in which they were first instituted. It is incredible that years after they should be associated with bishops in the Church of Philippi, and that their qualifications should be registered by the Apostle in his first Epistle to St. Timothy, if they were extinct as an order in the Church of Jerusalem a few years after their institution. Thus, then, we see that the evi- dence which has been examined justifies these conclusions :— The diaconate was localised. It was permanent. It was subordinate. Upon those who were admitted to its ranks, the duty of administration was imperative; they were permitted to preach and to baptize; but the power of ordination and the power of jurisdiction were reserved to others. That the deacons were dissatisfied with the Deacons Dissatisfied with their Position. 147 primitive position which they held we have abund- ant authority for believing. Harnack has done good service in calling attention to their early and prolonged efforts to gain power and prominence at the expense of the presbyters. They did so, prob- ably, because of their association with the bishops, who, however, were unable to elevate the deacons in the ratio of their own official advancement. The intensity and the duration of their struggle are indicated by Canon xvii. of the Council of Nice. “Tt has come to the knowledge of the holy and great synod that, in some districts and cities, the deacons administer the eucharist to the presbyters, whereas noither canon nor custom permits that they who have no right to offer, should administer the Body of Christ to them that do offer. And this also has been made known, that certain deacons now receive the eucharist even before their bishops. Let all such practices be utterly done away; and let the deacons remain within their own bounds, knowing that they are the ministers of the bishop, and the inferiors of the presbyters. Let them receive the eucharist according to their order, after the presbyters; and let either the bishop or the presbyter administer to them. Furthermore, let not the deacons sit among the presbyters, for that is contrary to canon and order. And if, after this decree, any one shall refuse to obey, let him be deposed from the diaconate.’’? 1 (1) Ἦλθεν εἰς τὴν ἁγίαν καὶ μεγάλην σύνοδον, ὅτι ἔν τισι τόποις Kal πόλεσι, τοῖς πρεσβυτέροις τὴν εὐχαριστίαν οἱ διάκονοι διδόασιν" ὅπερ οὔτε ὁ κανὼν, οὔτε ἡ συνήθεια 148 The Christian Mincstry. We come now to the evidence which is afforded by sacred and by sub-apostolic history, in order that we may see the position and the duties which belonged to the office of the presbyter. Throughout the Gospels, as well as in the Acts of the Apostles, elders occupy a very prominent place. Nor is their position less prominent if we include in our inves- tigation the earlier history of the Hebrew people. They were associated with Moses, with Aaron, with Joshua, with Jephthah, with Boaz, and with Samuel. They are found amid the rising glories of the kingdom during the reign of Saul, and of David. They maintain their ancient honours and their historic influence, amid the splendours of Israel’s golden age. And when at length accumulated transgression brought down the righteous judgment of God, the elders appear at one time in counsel with the national authorities; at another time, abased in the humbling discipline of exile; and again, they are seen in activity and in courage bearing the burden of a people brave, chastened, repentant, and building again the walls of Zion. παρέδωκε, τοὺς ἐξουσίαν μὴ ἔχοντας προσφέρειν, τοῖς προσφέρουσιν διδόναι TO σῶμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ. ἹΚακεῖνο δὲ ἐγνωρίσθη, ὅτι ἤδη τινὲς τῶν διακόνων καὶ πρὸ τῶν ἐπι- σκόπων τῆς εὐχαριστίας ἄπτονται. Ταῦτα οὖν πάντα περιῃρείσθω, καὶ ἐμμενέτωσαν οἱ διάκονοι τοῖς ἰδίοις μέτροις, εἰδότες, ὅτι τοῦ μὲν ἐπισκόπου ὑπηρέται εἰσι, τῶν δὲ πρεσβυτέρων ἐλάττους: Λαμβανέτωσαν δὲ κατὰ τὴν τάξιν τὴν εὐχαριστίαν μετὰ τοὺς πρεσβυτέρους, ἢ τοῦ ἐπισκόπου μεταδιδόντος αὐτοῖς, ἢ τοῦ πρεσβυτέρου. ᾿Αλλὰ μηδὲ καθῆσθαι ἐν μέσῳ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων ἐξέστω τοῖς διακόνοις. παρὰ κανόνα γὰρ, καὶ παρὰ τάξιν ἐστι τὸ γινόμενον. Hi δέ τις μὴ θέλοι πειθαρχεῖν καὶ μετὰ τούτους τοῦς ὅρους, πεπαύσθω τῆς διακονίας (Can. xviii. Nica, 2) Canonum, Fulton). (2) “ Die Episkopen haben nicht vermocht, die Diakonen mit sich hinaufzuziehen zu der obersten Stufe” (Analec., p. 248). (8) For the duties of the diaconate, vide Bingham, Antig., Book ii., 20 ; Suicer, Zhes., v., i., p. 869. The Presbyteral Office Prominent in Judaism. 149 The elders of Israel, and the system which they represented, and the history which they conserved entered into the fibres of the political and religous life of the Jews. Attached to both city and syna- gogue, they were emphatically localised and _ per- manent officers. Like the chazzan, they were admitted to the body to which they belonged by laying on of hands." The first reference to presbyters in the history of the Christian Church if not disappointing, is assuredly perplexing. ‘There is no account of their introduction, of their ordination, of the necessity that may have been the immediate occasion for their services, or even of the duties which they were instituted to perform. It may be that the ministry of Proclamation found this Jewish organisa- tion ready to hand, and when its members accepted the message of the Gospel, they continued their work, enlarging it by the peculiarities of the Christian scheme. By abandoning that which was ‘“‘ready to vanish away,” and by adopting that which steadily took its place, they would represent at once conservatism, in the maintenance of their order, and Christian thought, progressive and pervasive, in publishing the new truth under the authority of the apostles. Much, however, of this is conjecture. This much is clear and certain: we have no account of the way in which the presbyteral body came into existence in the mother Church of Jerusalem. The earliest notice shows them to have been the 1 Vitringa, p. 836. 150 The Christian Ministry. treasurers of the relief sent to the Church of Jeru- salem from the wealthier Church of Antioch, by means of St. Barnabas and of St. Paul.’ This notice is somewhat perplexing, especially because of the institution of the deacons. Why should the latter have been overlooked? Was the Church of Antioch ignorant of the existence of the diaconate in Jerusalem ? Why not send the alms to the apostles ? Bishop Wordsworth’s reply is ‘‘ the apostles were not now at Jerusalem.’ But there is no evidence to justify this idea. There is evidence to justify the belief that the apostles were still in Jerusalem when St. Barnabas and St. Paul conveyed thither the alms of the Antiochene believers. St. James and St. Peter were certainly there. The reason these gifts were not presented to the apostles is gathered from the preceding history. The apostles had declared their resolve to have no more dealings with finance. They were burdened with work, which increased beyond their strength. They had received the abounding gene- rosity of the new society. Barnabas converted his land into money, and like others he lovingly laid all at the apostles’ feet. But he must have now known that the apostolic purpose was inflexible, and this was the reason the alms of the people of Antioch were not presented to them. They were borne by one who had, in all probability, witnessed the ordination of the deacons. He would know that it was their duty to administer, 1 Acts xi. 30. Presbyters held an Intermediate Position. 151 rather than to receive. May not this account for the presentation of the alms, not to apostles, nor to deacons, but to those whom subsequent history shows to have held an intermediate ministerial position? The deacons would disburse what the presbyters, as the next in authority to the apostolic body, had received. In this incident we see, first, the point at which the recognised officialism of the synagogue passes into the officialism of the Christian Church. Here, we see, secondly, the presbyters, recog- nised by the Antiochene Church, as the next in order to accept a trust which a short time before would have fallen to the apostles, and recognised by the Jerusalem Church in the same connection. The presbyters were thus the treasurers of the bounty which the deacons distributed. So far, the organisation of the mother Church was at this time represented by the apostles, the presbyters, the deacons, with St. James, as president. Of these, the apostles were itinerant. The deacons, the presbyters, and St. James represented the ministry, local, permanent, and unequal. Between this period, which the prevailing chrono- logical opinion fixes as a.p. 44, and the Council of Jerusalem, some eight years passed. During their progress the first missionary journey of St. Paul had been completed. Presbyters had been ap- pointed by the itinerating apostles in every Church, in Lycaonia and in Pisidia. The local ministry 152 The Christian Ministry. conserved and extended the blessed work which the itinerants were enabled to initiate. Of this we have satisfactory proof in the fact that when St. Paul revisited the Lycaonian Churches, in probably the year 52, accompanied by St. Silas, as repre- senting the prophetic order, he found at Lystra, Timotheus, a convert, and the fruit of his first mission, who ‘‘ was well reported of by the brethren which were at Lystra and Iconium.” There pres- byters assisted in the ordination of St. Timothy —affording a further proof of the localisation, and of the permanence of the order. Of both we have an earlier proof in their presence, with the apostles, at the Council of Jerusalem, and a still later one in their presence there, before St. Paul’s arrest, in the year 58. Their co-operation with the apostles, in the Council of Jerusalem, is full of interest and of instruction, not only because it helps to establish their localisation and their permanence, but because a flood of light is thus thrown upon the nature of their duties and upon their future position in the Christian ministry. The question which had been referred to ‘‘ the apostles and elders” was of the supremest moment. The Judaizing party had perceived the spiritual victory of the itinerants all along the line. They had heard the doctrines of grace expounded, illustrated, enforced, and defended. They had listened to the gladdening proclamation of ‘forgiveness of sins”? through the man Christ Jesus. They had seen the thronging crowds, Their Place and Influence in the First Council. 153 throbbing with a heaven-born anxiety, when the Apostle rang out in their hearing the tidings, uni- versal in their range, and unlimited in their appli- cation and effect: “ΒΥ Him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.’’ They were aware, too, that the gospel was as attractive, as influential, and as elevating in societies which were enslaved by the superstitions and by the enormities of polytheism, as it was in quarters which were bound by the inflexible bands of formalism, of legalism, or of literalism. The Judaizing party saw all this, and in their ardent devotion to an expiring system they started the theory, that salvation was only procurable through adhesion to Mosaism. Their creed was ‘through circumcision to Christ;”’ ‘“‘except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses ye cannot be saved.” The crisis was high. There were strained relations in Antioch, and in Jerusalem. ‘The occasion was one of vast importance. The issues were those of life and of death. The history, brief though it be, witnesses to the historian’s appreciation of its gravity. Similar testimony is borne by the Church of Antioch in the despatch of their deputation, and by the Church of Jerusalem, in the mode of their meeting the delegates ; in the manifest and profound interest displayed; in the great debates which ensued ; in the addresses of St. Peter, St. Barnabas, St. Paul; in the judicial declaration of St. James ; in the promulgation of the earliest official document 154 The Christian Ministry. of the Church; in the despatch of the prophets to sustain orally the decree which was sent in writing ; and in the solemn and unreserved declara- tion that, in the conclusion arrived at, the Holy Ghost and the Church which He created were at one. | These evidences of the greatness of the occasion, lead one to believe that the question to be settled would be submitted to those who were best qualified to deal with it. If the Church of Antioch was perplexed by the energetic persuasion of false teachers, it is surely reasonable to suppose that when they remitted the new doctrine to Jerusalem it would there be discussed by those who were capable of grappling with the theory. If the matter in dispute involved the doctrines of the gospel, those whose souls were subverted would be the first to claim, that it be laid before those who knew what these doctrines were; who saw, in a wide and varying experience, the effects which followed their publication, and whose official pre- eminence would be recognised alike by the Judaizing party, who came from Jerusalem to Antioch, by their adherents in the latter city, and by the orthodox believers in each community. It may be accepted, as though it were demonstrated, that if the conservative element could question the right of either apostles or elders to give authoritative finality to the question in dispute, the decree would have lost much of its weight, and St. Paul and his companions would have been probably deterred from A Doctrinal Question Raised and Decided. 155 circulating a document which, however important, lacked the first essential to importance; viz., the right of those who promulged it to pronounce finally upon the question. That question was doctrinal. It involved the admission of the Gentiles to the blessings of Pente- cost; the purifying power of the faith; the deliver- ance of mankind from the bondage of ceremonialism as an essential privilege of salvation; and the recognition and the reception of the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ as the sinner’s ground of accept- ance with God. St. Paul declared the question to be nothing less than the possession of ‘‘ the liberty which we have in Christ Jesus,” or submission to the bondage from which spiritual religion emanci- pates the soul. He declined to tolerate the theory of the disturbers, the false brethren, for an hour. The truth of the gospel was at stake, and he offered to those who would adulterate it the most tenacious resistance, because the continuity of its proclamation was an abiding necessity, and a perpetual obligation. Moreover, the ministry of Announcement was sus- tained by the ministry of Evidence. ‘‘ God had wrought among the Gentiles miracles and wonders’’ by St. Barnabas and by St. Paul. The doctrinal character of this debate is still further accentuated by the presidential utterance of St. James, and by the terms of the Conciliar Decree. And now we are face to face with the inquiry: Were the elders competent to decide this question of doctrine? Were they entitled to be associated with the 156 The Christian Ministry. ministry of Proclamation, as here represented by the holy apostles? Had they such experience as true teachers, that their judgment would discomfit the false and would edify the faithful? The replies to these inquiries depend upon the elders being entrusted, or not, with the ‘‘ ministry of the word.” That ministry was the highest duty which de- volved upon the apostles. To enable them to engage in it, with undiminished force and fervour, the diaconate was instituted. These elders were either ministers of the word or they were not. If they were, then their association with the apostles, in the settlement of this question, is in accordance with their official duty; with the reference by the believers in Antioch of the question to them; with the accept- ance by them of the question thus referred; with the attitude of the whole council towards them ; with the acquiescence of St. Peter, St. Barnabas, St. Paul, and St. James, in their official co-operation with the apostles; with the promulgation of the decree, and with its general acceptance by the Church of Antioch, whose disciples ‘rejoiced for the consolation.’’ If, on the other hand, the presbyters were not entrusted with the ministry of the word, then we have a lower ministry adjudicating upon a higher; we have men pronouncing upon a question of supreme doctrinal importance who had no official connection with the publication of dogma ; we find them usurping a position of authority to which they were not entitled, but which was never- theless accepted by the apostles, acknowledged by Presbyters were, thus early, Ministers of the Word, 157 the whole Church, promulgated in the decree, welcomed by those whose souls had been harassed by heresy, and, beyond and above all, the presbyters’ assumption and usurpation were accepted without a challenge by the party to whom the one and the other would have been a welcome reason for im- peaching the pronouncement, for censuring the un- warrantable pretentiousness, which seized upon a prominent place in the synod, and for tearing the dogmata to tatters. We have little difficulty, I humbly submit, in making our choice between these positions. We are led to believe that the presbyters were thus early entrusted with the ministry of the word, and in their association with the apostles, I see the beginning of that transition, which passed on to the permanent ministry the essential work of the itinerants. The importance of remembering the duties of the presbyters, with reference to teaching, is obvious when we refer to the statements which have been recently made. ‘The learned authority with whose view we are dealing, says ‘‘ the elders of the Jewish community which had become Christian were, like the elders of the Jewish communities which re- mained Jewish, officers of administration and of discipline.” * In the course of the second century, the Jewish conception of the nature of the govern- ing council undoubtedly became dominant.’’? ‘The Christian council of presbyters’’ and its ‘main functions’’ were closely analogous to those of the 1 Hatch, Bampton Lectures, p. 62. 2 Tbid., p. 67. 158 The Christian Ministry. Jewish synedria. ‘‘They exercised discipline’”’ in a society which was ‘diseased and decaying.” They were the ‘‘ custodians of the moral purity of each community.’’' And “ the Christian like the Jewish presbyters exercised a consensual jurisdiction in matters of dispute between Christian and Chris- tian,’’® two passages being cited to justify the recognition of such a jurisdiction, ‘‘ exercised by the Christian presbyters”’ having no connection what- ever with such an official limitation. These state- ments are, however, preparatory. They prepare us for the announcement, made by Harnack, that ‘the presbyters as such have nothing to do with the cult. It is one of the most perspicuous corrobora- tions of the conception indicated by Hatch that according to all old witnesses, which we possess, not the presbyters, but always and only the bishops and deacons, or the presbyters as bishops, were officers of the cult, and that the presbyters are altogether not mentioned as individuals but always as a collegium.”* Nor is Hatch less emphatic in his estimate of the secular character of the presby- ter’s office. He says ‘‘the ancient conception of the presbyter’s office, as essentially disciplinary and collegiate, has been superseded by a conception of 1 Hatch, B.L., p. 69, 70. 2 Ibid, p. 72. 3“ Die Presbyter haben als solche mit dem Cultus nichts zu thun. Hs ist eine der eclatantesten Bestiitigungen der von Hatch angedeuteten Auffassung, dass nach allen alten Zeugnissen, die wir besitzen, nicht die Presbyter, sondern immer und nur die Episkopen und Diakonen, resp. die Presbyter als Episkopen, Cultusbeamte waren, und dass die Presbyter iiberhaupt nicht als Kinzelne, sondern stets als Collegium erwiihnt werden” (Anal., 236). Hatch, B. L., p. 77. —_ —_—--, ν.ν.- rather than Officers of Discipline. 159 it, in which . . . . the presbyter’s functions are primarily not those of discipline, but the ministra- tion of the word and Sacraments. ‘‘In regard to the first of these functions it is clear that the presbyters of the primitive Churches did not neces- sarily teach.” ‘‘In the numerous references to presbyters in sub-apostolic literature there is not one to their being teachers, even when such a reference might be expected, as for example in the enumeration of the duties of presbyters which is given by Polycarp in the form of an exhortation to fulfil them.” "ἢ Now, I am not careful to examine the appeal which has been made to Polycarp further than to say, that when that venerable bishop sketches the duties of the presbyters, he employs a phrase which is pastoral, and which surely covers the didactic office. It is this: ‘‘ Turning back the sheep that are gone astray.”” Nor shall I do more than express some measure of amazement at the rather ' Hatch, B.L., p. 78. 2 ἐπιστρέφοντες τὰ ἀποπεπλανήμενα, sc. pdBara—an obvious allusion to Ezek. XXXiv. 4, καὶ τὸ πλανώμενον οὐκ ἀπεστρέψατε, which is, too, the ground text of 1 Pet. ii. 25, ἦτε yap ὡς πρόβατα πλανώμενα, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπεστῥάφητε viv ἐπὶ τὸν ποιμένα καὶ ἐπίσκοπον τῶν ψυχῶν ὑμῶν. The didactic side of the pastoral office is implied in the prophetic incrimination, as well as in the apostolic description of the sinner’s return to the Good Shepherd. (Lightfoot refers to Ecclus. xviii. 13, διδάσκων καὶ ἐπιστρέφων ws ποιμὴν τὸ ποίμνιον αὐτοῦ.) Kai μὴ μόνον ἄρτι δοκῶμεν προσέχειν καὶ πιστεύειν ἐν τῷ νουθετεῖσθαι ἡμᾶς ὑπὸ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων, ἀλλὰ καὶ ὅταν εἰς οἶκον ἀπαλλαγῶμεν, μνημονεύωμεν τῶν τοῦ Κυρίου ἐνταλμάτων. καὶ μὴ ἀντιπαρελ- χώμεθα ἀπὸ τῶν κοσμικῶν ἐπιθυμιῶν (Anc. Hom., xvii.). Bishop Lightfoot says, “The presbyters delivered their exhortation after the reading of the Scriptures.”’ He refers to another passage in the same document, by which this fact is illus-’ trated. The Homily is, moreover, regarded as the work of a presbyter (against Harnack, who believes it to be the work of a layman) (vide Lightfoot’s Clement of Rome, Ap., pp. 304-334). 160 The Chrestian Ministry. bold than accurate statement, that sub-apostolic literature is without even a reference to presbyters as teachers. There is a clear and conclusive refer- ence in the ‘‘ Ancient Homily, commonly called the Second Epistle of St. Clement.” ‘Let us not think,”’ the writer urges, ‘‘to give heed and believe now only, while we are admonished by the presbyters ; but likewise when we have departed home, let us remember the commandments of the Lord, and not suffer ourselves to be dragged off the other way by our worldly lusts.” The exhortation of the presby- ters followed the reading of the word of God. That it was hortatory and spiritual the language of the Homily places beyond debate. Nor is this the only place in which the didactic office of the presbyter is implied. There is another and an impressive refer- ence in the Pastor of Hermas. The woman, who there represents the Church, asks Hermas, who was of the prophetic order, if he “had yet given the book to the presbyters.”” Upon the woman inform- ing Hermas that additions were to be made to the book, she desires him to ‘‘ write two books, the one for Clement, the other for Grapte.”’ And the woman adds, ‘‘ You will publicly read the words in the city, along with the presbyters who preside over the Church ’’ '—a phrase which appears to me to link on to the kindred and earlier phrase of the Pastoral Epistles, ‘‘ Let the elders who rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour 1 Τράψεις οὖν δύο βιβλιδάρια, καὶ πέμψεις ἕν Κλήμεντι καὶ ἕν Τραπτῃ. .. . Σὺ δὲ ἀναγνώσεις εἰς αὐτὴν τὴν πόλιν μετὰ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων τῶν προϊσταμένων τῆς ἐκκλησίας (Vis., 11., 4). The Chief Duty of Presbyters. 161 in the word and doctrine,” and to imply that teach- ing—labouring in the word and doctrine—was amongst the duties, at this period, of the presbyter. And if the Ignatian conception of the Church, as found in the Epistle to the Trallians, and as drawn by Harnack, be carefully studied in all its parts and its analogies, the presbyters being regarded ‘as the council of God and as the college of apostles,” the conclusion now contended for will be drawn. The apostles were preachers. Those who are re- garded by Ignatius as representing them were preachers also (‘‘sofern die Gemeinde das Presby- tercollegium hat, ist sie ein Abbild und die Fortzetz- ung der von den Aposteln gestifteten empirischen Gemeinden’’).’ These points are, however, subsidiary. My main contention is, that the official constitution and the solemn proceedings of the Council at Jerusalem establish the fact, that presbyters were enabled to adjudicate upon other and higher matters than those which were represented by litigation, or by discipline. They were permitted to share, with the holy apostles, the supremest duty which may be discharged by man —the promulgation, in council, of the doctrine of God. They were allowed to do so, and they were recognised as rightly discharging this high and holy function, because a series of presumptions which cumulatively are equal to moral certainty, allow us to believe they were entrusted from an early period ' Die Gesellschaftsverfassung der Christlichen Kirchen im Alterthum ; Analecten von A. Harnack, p. 243, 1 162 The Christian Ministry. with ‘the ministry of the Word.” The denial of this ministry to them, as a primary and essential duty, would all but constrain us to believe that between the year 45, when St. Paul founded the Churches in Lystra, in Iconium, and in Antioch, and the year 51, when he revisited these Churches, there were neither regular ministrations of the Word nor of the Sacraments; and that in the scant and hap- hazard opportunities afforded for both, the Church of Christ grew upon sterility; flourished upon barren- ness; increased without a Eucharist; multiplied without baptism; advanced without preaching; and resisted all the aggressions of an idolatrous society, and all the solicitations to easy compliance with life-long associations, without any higher, without any holier ministry than that which is represented by a ministry of discipline and a ministry of arbitration ! But we must now turn our attention to the Church of Ephesus. The permanency and the localisation of presbyters there appear upon the face of the history. At Miletus St. Paul “sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the Church.” These he afterwards recognises as bishops, appointed in the flock by the Holy Ghost; and it is well to bear in mind that this weighty utterance was heard by the youthful Timothy. ‘To him, at a later period, directions were given respecting the qualifications for the diaconate. The words of the great mis- sionary have given rise to sharp and sustained controversy: ‘‘'Take heed therefore unto yourselves, The Witness of the Church of Ephesus. 163 and to all the flock, in the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the Church of God, which He hath purchased with His own blood.” These words seem to me to imply, first, the localisa- tion of the presbyters; secondly, the oversight of those committed to their care; and thirdly, the duty which is represented by the command to “ feed the Church of God.” This duty is manifestly re- lated to localisation. Hach fold is to have its shepherd. ‘This idea is an anticipation of the fuller and later thought which we find in the epistle addressed to the Church here officially represented. In announcing the gifts of the Ascended Christ, the Apostle includes “‘ pastors and teachers.’’ And the question now before us is as to the significance of the command ‘‘to feed,’’ addressed to presbyters who are also designated bishops and pastors. In the Pastoral Epistles the identity of the bishop and of the presbyter is beyond argument, and the same conclusion is derivable from the address now before us. In two of these epistles the teaching function of the bishop is specialized,’ but in each case the language employed has no verbal connection with that which forms the burden of the command, “to feed the Church of God.’ But it shows, never- theless, that teaching was amongst the duties of the presbyter-bishop. And probably we should be correct in saying that, normally, every presbyter should be a teacher (διδάσκαλος), so that he might discharge the office of the permanent or localised Ye fim. τ 2); Titusi129; 164 The Christian Ministry. ministry, while the teacher need not be a presbyter (πρεσβύτερος), because his ministry was itinerant. The word here rendered ‘“‘feed” is as full in its significance as is the word ‘‘tend.” It is not adequately rendered by ‘“‘ rule,” as if it only implied administration or guidance. Nor is it exhausted by ‘“‘feed,” if that word be supposed to have ex- clusive reference to the distribution of food. Both these ideas are in the word. God promises to His ancient people, “1 will give you pastors according to Mine heart, which shall feed you with knowledge and understanding.” The fulfilment of such a promise involves the dispensation of mental and spiritual food among the sheep of the Divine pasture. This food would be dispensed by their spiritual leaders, whose labours would show them to be pastors after a Divine ideal. Many other passages might be cited in this connection. Hence, when St. Paul declares it to be the duty of the presbyters to ‘‘feed”’ the Church of God, it includes the ad- ministration of spiritual food; the communication, by the ministry, of the living oracles of the broken bread of the gospel of Christ; the individual guid- ance, sympathy, and succour of souls; the guarding them from false teaching, as the shepherd guards his flock from the devouring wolves, or from the sudden descent of the leopard. In fact, every duty which is comprised in the word ‘ tend” is implied by the word rendered ‘“‘feed.’’ Each is related to the pastoral office. That office was of Divine 1 Vide Appendix on the connotation of ποΐμαινειν. Restrictions upon Presbyters. 165 appointment. It fell into the category of ‘‘ govern- ments.’ It was amongst the purposes of the Eternal Father, to be performed “in the Church.” The expression of that purpose was represented by the ‘‘spiritual pastor,” as the gift of the Ascended Christ. The episcopal side of that solemn ministry was the appointment of the Holy Ghost. The appointment of the Father, the gift of the Son, the operative ordinance of the Spirit, are combined in the ministry of the Church, which St. Paul announced to the Ephesian elders, ‘‘God hath purchased with His own blood.” lHphesus, like Jerusalem, bears witness that there the munistry was local, was permanent, was unequal. Nor do I see why the Churches of Pisidia, and of Lycaonia, and of Crete, should be excluded from the range of a similar statement. But there were restrictive ‘‘ governments’’ which the presbyters were not permitted to initiate. These, no less than the ‘helps,’ were “set in the Church”? by God. We are thus led to inquire, in the last place, what these restrictions were. This inquiry will lead us to consider that subject which was never more ardently debated than it is to-day, viz. the existence, the position, and the duties of the episcopate. With regard to the existence of this, or indeed of any office, it would be a mistake to date its beginning from the period of its first mention. Historical record does not necessarily synchronize with initial institution, or with primary executive, 166 The Christian Ministry. or even with the more advanced steps of organisa- tion. We should be unreasonable if we supposed the Acts of the Apostles, or even the Holy Gospels, defined the exact period in which an office began, when the society to which that office belonged was still inchoate. Such being its condition, we ought not to expect the rigid chronology of the London Gazette to mark the initiation of executive in an era which lacked the formatives of the nineteenth century. Just as the constituent elements of dogma existed prior to their formulated expression, so the essential elements of the office of the ἐπίσκοπος, existed before that title was given to those by whom, in regions wide apart, and time out of mind, certain special duties have ever been performed. Bearing this in mind, we turn to these sacred pages to which the first as well as the final appeal must ever be made, and from these we turn to sub-apostolic history. We inquire whether there is in either, any evidence which will contradict or confirm the theory that in, and during, and after, apostolic times there was, in the ministry of the Christian Church, an official whose position and whose duties differed from those of other officers in the same society? What, if any, were the restrictions which were imposed upon them, from which he was free? The history of the Churches of Jerusalem, of Ephesus, and of Crete, supply us with evidence which gives an answer to these inquiries; and I believe the testimony to be the more conclusive, Lprscopacy. 167 important, and valuable, because it is gathered from the Holy Scriptures, not so much in the form of explicit direction, as ‘‘in the same way as natural knowledge is come at: by particular persons attending to, comparing and pursuing, intimations scattered up and down in it, which are overlooked and disregarded by the generality of the world. For this is the way in which all improvements are made; by thoughtful men’s tracing on obscure hints, as it were, dropped in by nature accidentally, or which seem to come into our minds by chance.”? These sober phrases seem to describe, with rare accuracy and fitness, the attitude of an inquirer with regard to the data upon which he has to work, in connection with the position of St. James in the Church of Jerusalem, St. Timothy in the Church of Ephesus, and St. Titus in the Church of Crete. St. James was not one of the Twelve. He is designated by St. Paul “the Lord’s brother,” and St. John assures us that the mental attitude of his brethren towards the Redeemer was unbelief. To him, our Lord vouchsafed to appear after His Resurrection, and it is by no means improbable that the appearance won his faith and changed the whole current of his life.? The Acts of the Apostles show that his position in the mother ' Butler’s Analogy, part ii., c. 3. "Ἰάκωβον τὸν ἀδελφὸν τοῦ Κυρίου (Gal. i. 19 ; St. Mark vi. 3). οὐδὲ γὰρ οἱ ἀδελφοὶ αὐτοῦ ἐπίστευον εἰς αὐτόν (St. John vii. 5). ὠφθη ᾿Ιακώβῳ (1 Cor. xv. 7). The fact of this appearance is recorded by St. Paul only. Its alleged details are found in the Nazarene Gospel, for which see Dr. Salmon’s Jntvod., Lect. x., p. 178. 168 The Christian Ministry. Church of the holy .city was one of importance. St. Peter desired the earliest announcement of the miracle by which he was released from prison to be made to ‘‘ James, and to the brethren.” ὁ If he and the brethren were equal, it is difficult to under- stand why he should be thus specialised. At the Council of Jerusalem, held some years after St. Peter’s release, we find St. James still at Jerusalem, and occupying, apparently, the same pre-eminent position. His address is the language of conscious authority; of comprehensive and conclusive summing up of the case before the Council; of judicial or presidential finality; while the conciliar decree is the authoritative reflection of his pronouncement.” No speaker seems to have interposed between his utterance and the action which appears to have immediately followed,’ and debaters, divested of official authority or presidential supremacy, seldom seek to commend their views by such a prefatory imperative as “‘hearken unto me,’ or by such a closure as ‘‘ my sentence is.’’ Nor is the fact to be forgotten that if St. James here usurped a position ' Acts xii. 17. 35 διὸ ἐγὼ κρίνω (propter quod ego judico), Acts xv.19. The suggestion of St. James was adopted, ἐπιστεῖλαι αὐτοῖς. The selection and despatch of the deputation was the act of the Council (see ver. 22). The thought and even language of St. James appear in the decree: μὴ παρενοχλεῖν is reflected in érdp- αξαν ὑμᾶς λόγοις : ἀπέχεσθαι ἀπὸ τῶν ἀλισγημάτων τῶν εἰδώλων. .. Kal TOD πνικτοῦ καὶ τοῦ αἵματος, is suggested by St. James and is adopted in the circular letter, ἀπέχεσθαι εἰδωλόθυτων καὶ αἵματος καὶ πνικτῶν (vide Acts xxi. 25). Bengel regards the circular as the composition of the president: ‘‘epistolam hance ab Jacobo esse contextam in concilio, cum Jacobi sermone inprimis consonam, v.g., παρενοχλεῖν obturbare, et ταράττειν, turbare, ver. 19, 20; ἀπέχεσθαι absti- nere, vers. 20, 29.” 3 Tore, vy. 21, 22. St. James in Jerusalem. 169 to which he was not fully entitled, the Judaizing party would, in all probability, have objected to the obtrusion, have exposed the pretence, and have disregarded the decree. They would hardly have hesitated to point out the glaring deficiencies of the president’s position. He had up to a late date disbelieved the mission of his Lord. There were others who had higher claims than had he. There was St. Peter, who had spoken. There was St. Paul, who had loved and laboured and suffered. There was St. Barnabas. The Judaizing party could thus have made out a strong case against St. James, had he usurped the office, which the whole harmony of the position seems to assign him. But no such argument appears to have been raised. There is no discordant note sounded. We listen in vain for its echo through the ages which follow. But we hear other echoes, and from other voices. They assure us of an unbroken strain, clear, strong, sus- tamed. It tells us that St. James occupied a position of presidency, as far back as the year 44, as far forward as the year 51, and the same position is retained still later in the year 58, and this position was localised. The incidents associated with this latter period are instructive. Soon after St. Paul’s arrival in the holy city, he and St. Luke the evangelist, and they that were of St. Paul’s company ‘“‘ went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present.” ! This simple and undesigned statement reveals the 1 Acts xxi. 17-20. 170 The Christian Ministry. presence in Jerusalem of a number of elders. Harlier still there were deacons. And now, after St. Paul had given an account of ‘‘what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry,” we are informed, and again quite incidentally, that there were ‘‘many myriads of the Jews” which were believers. This establishes, and thus early, a distinctive line, drawn in the mother Church, between believers and presbyters, while these latter and the deacons represent the two orders of our ministry. All were under the guidance, the authority, the presidency of St. James, traditionally the first bishop of Jerusalem. And if we see in him and in his ecclesiastical surroundings what the evidence appears to establish, then we see in the the Lord’s brother, the first instance of episcopacy local and permanent, if not diocesan.’ The evidence which is supplied by the connection of St. Paul and St. Timothy with Ephesus is of a different kind, but it is not less important, and certainly not less conclusive. We gather it from St. Paul’s address to the Ephesian elders, which was, persumably, heard by St. Timothy, and from St. Paul’s epistles to St. Timothy, which were written to " The testimony of antiquity to the episcopate of St. James in Jerusalem is unanimous. Eusebius (H. Z, Book ii., c. 1), speaks of him as “the first that received the episcopate of the Church at Jerusalem,” and he refers to Clement as saying that he was chosen for the see by Peter and John, neither of whom desired the office. Eusebius speaks of him as ‘‘ the first bishop,” who with the greater part of the apostles and disciples remained at Jerusalem during the forty years which intervened between the Ascension and destruction of the city (Book iii., ο. 7). He is the first bishop in the list of fifteen which he gives (in Book iv., c. 5), and he also states that “ James received the dignity of the episcopate at Jerusalem from our Saviour Himself” (Book vii., c. 19). St. Timothy in Ephesus. 171 guide the latter in his defence of Christian doctrine and in his administration of the Ephesian Church.’ We have thus the same apostle addressing a body of presbyters, and a single individual. It is rea- sonable to expect that each address would reveal something of the position, the duties, the responsi- bilities of those addressed. The advantage of having these stated by the same authority is obvious. We find, then, that to the presbyters the injunction is, ** Take heed unto yourselves : 2 to St. Timothy it is, “Take heed unto thyself and unto the doctrine;’’* yea, he is to ‘‘ hold fast the form of sound words.”’ Vigilance is thus enjoined as the spiritual habit of both. But St. Timothy is the custodian of the faith. To him the doctrinal deposit is entrusted. The presbyters are to “watch.’’* St. Timothy is to “ἐς charge,” “to command,” ‘to rebuke.’ Yea, the “elders” are within the range of his jurisdiction, and in the interests of impartiality and of justice, he is bound by the historical and sacred restriction ‘“‘against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses.’”’® The especial duties 1 This appears from 1 Tim. iii. 14, 15. If this purpose of the epistles be correctly stated, it involves the truth of their Pauline authorship, and conse- quently their publication about, probably, the traditional period, 66 to 68. The documentary evidence to their authenticity and canonicity is simply enor- mous. Yet Harnack says “Ich kann nicht davon iiberzeugen, dass die Briefe von der hadrianischen Zeit geschrieben sind” (Analecten, Die Gesellschafts- verfassung Hatch, n. 13, p. 235). Hatch is evidently inclined to accept a later date for the Pastoral Epistles than that which regards them as written during the lifetime of St. Paul (vide B.Z., n. p. 82). ® Acts xx, 28, * 1 Tim. iv. 16. * Acts xx. 31. Beeb i, 3, ἵν. 11) v. 20, vi. 13, 17, 20. eet Tim. vy. 19. 172 The Christian Ministry. of St. Timothy are not less clearly inferred. The growth and the perpetuity of the Church are pre- supposed. The multiplication of believers is assumed as certain. The continuity of the Christian ministry is regarded as necessary. Hence St. Timothy is counselled to “lay hands suddenly upon no man.” And whatever doubt may linger around the application of these words to the solemnities of episcopal ordination, there is no doubt about the significance of the later passage: ‘‘ the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.” They imply the possession by St. Timothy of official prerogatives, which were not possessed by the Ephesian elders. If they were, his stay there was unnecessary ; the declared purpose of these directions was made void, and the recital of the qualifications for the presbyterate and for the diaconate need hardly have been given to him. If the Ephesian elders had power to ordain, then the qualifications might have been communicated to them. But they were not. And being addressed to St. Timothy, we are led to conclude, aided by cognate expressions in the same letter, that he and not they possessed the power to admit to ministerial office. The epistle addressed to St. Titus, who was con- nected with the Church of Crete, is in the same spirit. St. Paul left St. Titus in Crete, ‘‘ to set in order the things that are wanting, and to ordain elders in U2 Lim ae 26 St. Titus in Crete. 178 every city.’’' True, we have no account in the Acts of the Apostles or elsewhere of the Church in Crete, and therefore we are not able to say anything positively as to the presence there of an official ministry. But this does not invalidate the purpose for which St. Titus was left there. That purpose is clear, both from the passage which records it, and from another consideration. Presbyters were either in Crete before the arrival of Titus or they were not. If they were, they were unable to ordain others, because Titus was sent to do that, which had they been able to do, would have rendered his despatch unnecessary. If they were not, then Titus was to proceed with the ordination, which in either case was his prerogative. The distinction as to duty is quite as clear here as we have found it in the Church of Ephesus. Thepresbyter is to ‘‘exhort and convince.’’? Titus is to ‘‘rebuke with all authority.’’? So far then, as the investigation of the evidence before us goes, we are enabled to see that in the Apostolic Church there was an office, to which duties belonged which might not be discharged by presbyters, even though the occupants of that office were, like presbyters, localised and permanent. These duties were, in the main, represented by the power of ordination ; the power of jurisdiction ; and the official custody of the faith. They gave him to whom they were intrusted official superiority over both presbyters and deacons. They are found, in some degree, associated with the position of St. James, in ' Tit. i. 5. SO lah 1.9: eT. 1. 16; 174 The Christian “77 τη15{77. Jerusalem ; of St. Timothy, in Ephesus; of St. Titus, in Crete. That position, thus again- and again localised, was permanent. It was the third order in that imparity which characterises the Christian ministry. It falls into the category of ‘‘ govern- ments,’ which were, equally with the apostolate, the appointment of Almighty God, in His Church. That office is episcopal. And for episcopacy, it may be reasonably, because scripturally claimed, that it is ab apostolis, in apostolis, sub apostolis. To bishops, presbyters, and deacons, the Ministry of Proclama- tion, of Powers, and of Aid and Administration was gradually transferred. That ministry, representing and conserving all that is essential in the office of the ‘‘ apostles,” the ‘‘ prophets,” the ‘ evangelists,” the ‘pastors and teachers,” will endure “till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ.’” From this point, many lines of thought radiate. Each of them is luminous, and some of them are invested with all the interest and even the fascination that belongs to romance. I might, for instance, ask you to follow me, while we trace the bearing of apostolic organisation in the ministry of the Christian Church, upon the vigorous system which was initiated by Calvin in Geneva, modified by John Knox in Scotland, and adopted by Melville, not yet three hundred years ago. I might show you, from apos- 1 Eph. iv. 18. EE Ὁ Presbytertanism. 175 tolic, sub-apostolic, and subsequent literature, that presbyterianism was not the constitution of the Church in the first or in many subsequent centuries. I might ask your attention to that incident in the life of Zwinglius, in which, in the city of Zurich, he began what D’Aubigne terms ‘the presbyterian system in the age of the Reformation,’’ and which that great historian regards as “the founding on this idea of the flock, of the Christian assembly, a new ecclesiastical constitution.”’ Or I might ask you to recall that phrase in the Pastoral Hpistles in which St. Paul counsels St. Timothy ‘‘ to take heed unto the doctrine,’ and compare that counsel and the fact which it implies with the assertion that ‘in the Clementines, for the first time, the president of the community is regarded in the light of the custodian of the rule of faith.” What Zaccheus was, 1 Zwingle was withdrawing Zurich from the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Constance, separating it from the Latin hierarchy, and founding on this idea of the flock, of the Christian assembly, a new ecclesiastical constitution, to which other countries were afterwards to adhere ” (D’Aubigne, Book xi., ο. 3). ἢ ἔπεχε σεαυτῷ καὶ τῇ διδασκαλίᾳ (1 Tim. iv.-16), The sense assigned to τῇ διδασκαλίᾳ above is, Admittedly, debatable. Alford regards it, after Calvin, as an appeal to conjoin personal sanctity with public teaching, and no doubt it is of the last importance that exposition and example should ever be combined. Ellicott holds the same opinion. ‘ Give heed to thyself (thy demeanour and conduct, ver. 12), and to the doctrine which thou dost deliver” (ver. 13). It is with unfeigned diffidence I dissent from this view, and I doso because St. Paul appears to be emphasising certain special obligations which bind St. Timothy, in a special way. These are indicated in verses 12-16, μηδείς σου τῆς νεότητος κατα- φρονείτω, ἀλλὰ τύπος γίνου τῶν πιστῶν, etc. This appeal is personal. The youthful bishop is to be a living model of the graces which mark the Christian life. His character is to commend his creed. Having urged this, St. Paul next recognises St. Timothy’s public duties—which are, moreover, to be discharged : ἕως ἔρχομαι, πρόσεχε τῇ ἀναγνώσει, τῇ παρακλήσει, TH διδασκαλίᾳ (1 Tim. iv. 13). These duties place the bishop in the presence of the people They assume that he is publicly reading the word of God, and strengthening his homiletics by public instruction, and now St. Paul advances to the solemnities 176 The Christian Ministry. in the Church of Cesarea, according to the Reeog- nitions,’ St. Timothy was, in the Church of Ephesus, according to St. Paul, in or about 63; and all of official administration. He refers to (4) ordination; (2) introspection; (6) manifested holiness of life. The importance of the latter is emphasised, and it is still further intensified by reminding St. Timothy that he is official custodian τῇ διδασκαλίᾳ. This appeal is, moreover, further reinforced by (a) the assurance with which the verse closes, τοῦτο yap ποιῶν Kal σεαυτὸν σώσεις Kai TOUS ἀκούοντάς σου, and by (0) the official injunctions with which the next chapter opens and which close with words enforcing obligation and implying personal authority : Tatra παράγγελε᾽ (ver.7). Looking, then, at the section which lies between these words (iv. 12—y. 7), St. Paul seems to regard St. Timothy in the discharge of personal, public, and episcopal obligations, and amongst these latter, the official custody of the faith is prominent. If the view taken by Calvin, Ellicott, Alf, and others be adopted, it is difficult to ignore a somewhat insipid instance of tautology, and the regularity and ascensive order of the passage are broken. That the custody of the faith, as a sacred and official trust, was recognised thus early does not depend upon this passage alone. There is a far stronger phrase, and one used in a still more solemn mode. Ὦ Τιμόθεε, τὴν παραθήκην φύλαξον (vide 1 Tim, vi. 20; 2 Tim, 1. 14, and n. b. ὑποτύπωσιν ἔχε ὑγιαινόντων λόγων, ver. 13). Here the παραθήκην is the deposit, or ἡ πίστις, τὸ κήρυγμα, the doctrine delivered to Timothy, to preach, and which is in such contrast to that from which he is to turn aside (1 Tim. vi. 20). This appeal may be regarded as justifying the claim made above. The bishop of Ephesus was surely considered by St. Paul as the authorised guardian of the faith—an office which Dr. Hatch sees ‘‘for the first time ” in the Clementine Recogni- tions! ‘In the Clementines, for the first time, the president of the community is regarded in the light of the custodian of the rule of faith” (Hatch, B. L., p. 98). The historical inaccuracy of this contention is manifest from the passage just quoted. That, moreover, the Clementines fail to prove what Dr. Hatch gathers from them is clear from an examination of the words them- selves. The passage cited from the Clementines (book 3, c. 65) is: “I have ordained you this Zaccheus as a bishop . . . hear him therefore with all atten- tion, and receive from him the doctrine of the faith ; and from the presbyters the monitions of life; and from the deacons the order of discipline.” There is nothing here about the custody of the depositum. ‘There is nothing here which might not be predicated of even a presbyter who declared the doctrine, save the sharp line drawn between the duty assigned to Zaccheus and that assigned to the presbyters. But that duty is not necessarily the guardianship of doctrine. It is rather its proclamation. Thus, even accepting with Hatch, the Clementines as historical, they fall far short of the clear, vigorous, and solemnising language used by St. Paul to the bishop of Ephesus, which recognises the duty and the position of the latter, fully a hundred years, at the least, before the Clementines were written. 1 The episcopacy of Zaccheus, as an historical fact, is not quite above suspicion, Eprscopacy—Finance not its Primary Function. 177 will allow more importance to the teaching of an inspired document than to an effusion, which is rhapsodical, and may be fictitious. Any one of these lines of thought, which radiate from our previous investigation, would hardly be other than interesting, and, possibly, might be instructive, But I shall not be tempted now or here to follow their leading, because I desire to dwell, for a few moments, upon the principle which appears to me to underle the contention that financial administration was the primary function of the bishop. ᾿Επίσκοπος was the title of financial officers in ‘‘ contemporary non-Christian associations of Asia Minor and Syria.” It was ‘‘ used of the financial officer of an association in the Theran inscription ;”’ of the financial officers of a temple in several inscriptions which have been found in the Hauran, and in ‘ private associations ” as well as in “municipalities’’ the same use of the word is found. Now there cannot be any reasonable objection to the recognition of the principle that where the sense of any term is in dispute, the import of that term should be gathered from its employment. But that principle must be governed by another, viz. that careful attention must be given to the He isnamed (Hom., ii. 1 ; Recog., iii. 68) with his brother Sophonias, as the first two of the sixteen attendants of St. Peter, and in the Homily (ii. 1) he is described as “once a publican,” the reference being, probably, to St. Luke xix. 1-9. This is legendary. No such bishop is named by Eusebius as having been connected with Czsarea. Canon Venables (Dic. Chr. Bio.) says the same of every early writer. If Ruffinus of Aquilea be considered an early writer, the statement is incorrect. He names Zaccheus, as bishop of Cesarea, appointed by St. Peter, in his preface to the Recognitions, addressed to Gaudentius. δ Hatch (2. L.), p. 36, n. 26. 12 178 The Christian Ministry. subject with regard to which the word is used. To transfer to one office the conditions or the duties of another, because some one word or official designa- tion is common to both, would reduce history to fiction, order to anarchy, and religion itself could scarcely survive. A single illustration, borrowed from the Vulgate, will make this transparent, and will exhibit the literary vice against which protest is now made. The illustration is, in the first instance, borrowed from the Sermon on the Mount. It may be seen in other and in later Scriptures. In the Sermon, the Redeemer of the world appeals to nature, and to the reign of Providence in that realm, to dispel that anxious distraction which is incompatible with wholehearted trust in God. His appeal is to the lilies of the field. ‘‘ Considerate lia agri quomodo crescunt.’’ St. Luke enlarges the Redeemer’s appeal, and extends the care of the Father to the homeless pilgrims of the air: ‘ con- siderate corvos.’’ But considerare is an astrological term. It is a literary relic, in which is enshrined a curious and a solemnising literature. It expresses, clearly and indisputably, the ancient faith which men exercised in the study of the stars. And it might be argued that our Saviour here encouraged astrology. He said, Study the stars with respect to the hlies, and Study the stars with respect to the crows. And this His counsel was exemplified by apostolic practice. St. Peter saw the vision at Joppa, and we are assured that ‘‘he considered ”’ (considerabam). When released by a miracle from The Bishop the Chief Minister of a Spiritual Soctety. 179 prison, he came to the house of Mary, the mother of John Mark, but not until he had ‘“ considered the thing ”’ (consideransque), that is, not until he had consulted the stars. Now suppose, because of the place which this verb occupies in the Latin record of the teachings of Christ and in the practice of His apostle, it were to be argued that astrology was a part of primitive and orthodox Christianity, and that since it was omitted from the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church, the latter presented to Christendom a mutilated form of the faith. Such an argument might be sustained by most welcome additions to our knowledge, gathered from primitive times, from ancient and modern discoveries, and even from debatable inscriptions. To such reasoning it would be sufficient to reply that, men occasionally and even frequently transfer to an officer, in one department, the mental and even the official attitude of another, and of a different department, without at the same time transferring the essential or even accidental con- ditions of either. Christ here encourages contem- plation, but not necessarily the contemplation of the stars. St. Peter contemplated the significance both of the vision and of the miracle without an appeal to stellary influences. And so, granted the ἐπίσκοπος was, in Other societies, an officer whose primary duty was oversight, it does not follow that in the Christian society the objects of his oversight were necessarily or primarily either the poor, or the 180 The Christian Ministry. funds, or the food by which the destitute were sustained. The nature of the organisation to which he belonged ; the purpose for which the Church of Christ was founded; the application of the term to our absent and invisible Lord; together with other considerations, justify the belief that the ἐπίσκοπος was the chief pastor of the Society which the Holy. Ghost created, and in which He has appointed a pastorate ‘‘for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ.” But we must now pass to sub-apostolic records. In doing so, we enter a region of gloom. We make our way timidly and uncertainly. Our progress is but slow. The cry of the dying Goethe rings in our ears and echoes round our hearts. ‘‘ More light, more light,” is our plea and our prayer. One brief word from St. James, of Jerusalem; or from St. Timothy, of Ephesus, who was still young when he received the epistle from St. Paul the aged; or from St. Titus, of Crete ; and our devious way would become direct, our darkness would be lightened; and the heart-burnings of sectarian strife would be for ever banished. Of the length of the episcopate of either of these we have no authentic account. If we had, we might gain much; yet even then we should not be able to prove the synchronous establishment of the threefold ministry, in either Asia Minor, or Europe. We can produce powerful evidence of the growth of the episcopate in one part of Christendom more rapidly than in another. We may minimise many Not so Prominent 1n Primitive Times as Now. 181 difficulties by remembering, what Clement’s epistle appears to attest, that the bishop of the sub-apostolic period was by no means as prominent a personage as he is in our own day. We may even reasonably believe that we lose a great deal of moral strength, in consequence of the absence in this age, of what was, in the primitive period, so potent a factor. I mean the solidarity of the Church. Then corporate life, and the sense of it, was vigorous, was comprehensive, was inspiriting. Individualism was strong. But strong men ‘kept rank.” All moved together, in service, in suffering, or in joy. Such unity and consolidation gladdened an apostle’s heart, and called forth his warmest commendation, before Clement’s epistle was penned.' But with the fullest regard to all the conditions of the problem, there is much to be cleared, much to be discovered, much to be tolerated. Clement’s letter, which by general consent is as early as the last decade of the first century, shows that in the Church to which he wrote, the bishop and the presbyter were interchangeable. But we must ever bear in mind that the difference in the title must represent something, and the passages which indicate the identity of these persons, also establish their localisation, and their permanence. “It will be no light sin for us, if we thrust out those who have offered the gifts of the bishop’s office un- blamably and holily. Blessed are those presbyters who have gone before, seeing that their departure 1 Vide Col. ii. 5. 182 The Christian Ministry. was fruitful and ripe;» for they have no fear lest any one should remove them from their appointed place.’ And again, Clement pleads, ‘“‘only let the flock of Christ be at peace with its duly appointed presbyters.”? They were appointed either by the apostles themselves, or by those whom they appointed. They were living witnesses to the fact the apostles had complete foreknowledge of feuds arising about the episcopacy. Influenced by this prescience they provided for a duly ordained min- istry to succeed to their ministration. These ministers have been previously named. They were bishops and deacons.” The evidence of the Didaché is the most impor- tant testimony which the Church has had placed in her hands for generations. If Clement is assigned. to the last decade of the first century, the Didache is now believed to belong to the year 100 or a little later. In Clement the bishop and the presbyter are identical. The prophet is not mentioned. In the Didaché the presbyter is either merged in, or 1 ἁμαρτία yap οὐ μικρὰ ἡμῖν ἔσται, ἐὰν τοὺς ἀμέμπτως Kal ὁσίως προσενεγκόντας τὰ δῶρα τῆς ἐπισκοπῆς ἀποβάλωμεν. μακάριοι οἱ προσδοιπορήσαντες πρεσβύτεροι, οἵτινες ἔγκαρπον καὶ τελείαν ἔσχον τὴν ἀνάλυσιν, οὐ γὰρ εὐλαβοῦνται μή τις αὐτοὺς μεταστήσῃ ἀπὸ τοῦ ἱδρυμένου αὐτοῖς τόπου (Clement, 1., 44). 2 μόνον τὸ ποίμνιον τοῦ Χριστοῦ εἰρηνεύτω μετὰ τῶν καθεσταμένων πρεσβυτέρων (Clem., 1., 54). 3. καὶ of ἀπόστολοι ἡμῶν ἔγνωσαν διὰ τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ὅτι ἔρις ἔσται ἐπὶ τοῦ ὀνόματος τῆς ἐπισκοπῇς. Διὰ ταύτην οὖν τὴν αἰτίαν πρόγνωσιν εἰληφότες τελείαν κατέστησαν τοὺς προειρημένους, καὶ μεταξὺ ἐπινομὴν δεδώκασιν ὅπως, ἐὰν κοιμηθῶσιν, διαδέξωνται ἕτεροι δεδοκιμασμένοι ἄνδρες τὴν λειτουργίαν αὐτῶν. Tods οὖν κατασταθέντας ὑπ᾽ ἐκείνων ἢ μεταξὺ ὑφ᾽ ἑτέρων ἐλλογίμων ἀνδρῶν συνευδοκησάσης τῆς ἐκκλησίας πάσης, etc. .. . (Clem.,i. 44.) Οἱ ἀπόστολοι... κατὰ χώρας οὗν καὶ πόλεις κηρύσσοντες καθίστανον Tas ἀπαρχὰς αὐτῶν, δοκιμάσαντες τῷ πνεύματι. εἰς ἐπισκόπους καὶ διακόνους τῶν μελλόντων πιστεύειν (Lbid., 1., 42). The Witness of the Didaché to Bishops and Deacons. 183 is obscured by, the bishop. He is not even once mentioned. But the deacon is, as he is in Clement’s epistle, and in apostolic writing, associated with the bishop. The connection in which both appear is most suggestive. The writer has given directions about the Lord’s Day, and as I believe about the Eucharist. He refers to the well-known prophecy of Malachi as justifying, on the authority of Scrip- ture, his rigid exclusion from that sacrament of those who are at enmity with each other. And following upon the writer’s reference to the prophecy are the words, ‘“ Elect, therefore, for yourselves bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord... for they minister to you the ministry of the Prophets and Teachers. Therefore despise them not, for they are those that are the honoured among you with the Prophets and Teachers.”’”? This passage is of the highest significance. The reference to the Eucharist is established by the terms used; by the connection of the rite here referred to with public worship on the Lord’s Day; by its associa- tion with the Agape; by the exclusion of the unreconciled; and by the application of the Old 1 Διδ., ©. XV. 2 κατὰ κυριακὴν δὲ κυρίου συναχθέντες κλάσατε ἄρτον καὶ εὐχαριστήσατε προσεξο- μολογησάμενοι τὰ παραπτώματα ὑμῶν ὅπως καθαρὰ ἡ θυσία ἡμῶν ἧ. Πᾶς δὲ ἔχων τὴν ἀμφιβολίαν μετὰ τοῦ ἑταίρου αὐτοῦ μὴ σννελθέτω ὑμῖν ἕως οὗ διαλλαγῶσιν ἵνα μὴ κοινωθῇ ἡ θυσία ἡμῶν. Αὕτη γάρ ἐστιν ἡ ῥηθεῖσα ὑπὸ Κυρίο' Ἔν παντὶ τόπῳ καὶ χρόνῳ προσφέρειν μοι θυσίαν καθαράν, ὅτι βασιλεὺς μέγας εἰμί, λέγει Κύριος, καὶ τὸ ὄνομά μου θαυμαστὸν ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσι. Χειροτονήσατε οὖν ἑαυτοῖς ἐπισκόπους καὶ διακόνους... λειτουργοῦσι καὶ αὐτοὶ τὴν λειτουργίαν τῶν᾿ προφητῶν καὶ διδασκάλων. Μὴ οὖν ὑπερίδητε αὐτούς" αὐτοὶ γάρ εἰσιν οἱ τετιμημένοι ὑμῶν μετὰ τῶν προφητῶν καὶ διδασκάλων (Add., ο. 14, 15). 184 The Christian Mintstry. Testament predictions And now we can see the force of the ‘therefore.’ For the administration of the: Eucharist, the bishop’s presence was neces- sary, and he and the deacon should take part in this Lord’s Day worship; the former, as later on in Justin Martyr’s time, consecrating, the latter assisting. Such services, thus performed, would be those public ministrations which did not belong to the prophets and teachers. The appeal of the writer, ‘‘ despise them not,’’ implies that the bishops and the deacons were unsustained by the glossolalia, by the discerning of spirits, by the minis- try of extraordinary powers which, at an earlier period, belonged to both prophets and teachers, and in consequence, those who did not possess them were likely to be disparaged. But they were, nevertheless, entrusted with the ministry of Pro- clamation. ‘‘ They minister to you the ministry of the prophets and teachers.” This passage indicates the point of transition. The prophets are passing away. ‘The itinerants are declining. The congre- gations could not look to them for the constituted ordinances. Occasional ministrations are inadequate wherever spiritual society is organised, expansive, and aggressive. The permanent ministry 18 growing. The ministry of Proclamation and the ministry of spiritual Power are steadily moving in the direction of fixity and of localisation. Both are passing over to the divinely appointed ‘‘helps” and ‘“‘governments.” 1 Vide Appendix, on “ The Prophecy of Malachi ; its Eucharistic Significance and Patristic Application.” Flermas recognises Bishops, Presbyters, Deacons. 185 But, it may be asked, How can this be, when Hermas gives such prominence to the prophetical order? The reply is obvious. Hermas was con- nected with the imperial city. He shows us that there the prophets were in full force. But we cannot say to what Church the writer of the Didaché was attached, nor in what province or country he lived and wrote. ‘The prophets might be gradually dying out where he was. They might be permitted to continue still longer in Rome. But although the prophets were empowered to exercise their ministry, as Hermas shows, there was also in the city a regular order of rulers, who presided over the Church. There were presbyters who read publicly.’ There were deacons who discharged their duty ill.” There were bishops ‘given to hospitality, who always gladly received into their houses the servants of God, without dissimulation.’® From Hermas, we might pass to the famous Ignatian epistles. With the study of the first page, we find ourselves once again in the dry lght of history. The bishop has separated himself from the presbyter, as the presbyter has from the first been separated from the deacon. We continue our investigation forward to the close of the second century. As we move, in the society now of ' Vide note ', p. 121. * οἱ μὲν τοὺς σπίλους ἔχοντες διάκονοί εἰσι κακῶς διακονήσαντες καὶ διαρπάσαντες χηρῶν καὶ ὀρφανῶν τὴν ζωὴν καὶ ἑαυτοῖς περιποιησάμενοι ἐκ τῆς διακονίας ἧς ἔλαβον διακονήσαντες (Sim., ix., 26). ® ἐπίσκοποι καὶ φιλόξενοι οἵτινες ἡδέως εἰς τοὺς οἴκους πάντοτε ὑπεδέξαντο τοὺς δούλους τοῦ Θεοῦ ἄτερ ὑποκρίσεως (Sim., ix., 27). 186 The Christian Ministry. Ignatius, now of Polycarp, now of Ireneus, we find ourselves in the presence of men who knew nothing of presbyterian equality; nothing of the neology which regards the Church of Christ as the outcome of a society which was reeking with vice, which was rotten to the very core, and which was cursed by selfishness, by despotism, by lust ; nothing of the rationalism which, in the name of culture, and even religion, disparages the Scrip- tures of God. We listen to their counsel. We follow, humbly and reverently in their train. We conserve the doctrine with which they were en- trusted, and, while the fluctuations of opinion, and the impatience of narrowness, and the indifference of unbelief may depreciate organisation, and may chafe at historical continuity, let us humbly but heartily endeavour to do our Lord’s work in our Lord’s way, and on the lines of a ministry, which can cite for itself everything short of His explicit appointment. To this end, let us be mindful of the witness, varied, general, and consentient, of Holy Scripture ; of sub-apostolic history; and of the conflict, ancient, energetic, and prolonged of the earlier centuries. These assure us that the agony in which each one is to have his share is as keen, and as close, and as momentous as ever. The area of the battle widens with every reach of science; with every contrivance of invention ; with every penetration of commerce. The kingdom of man cannot be enlarged without inspiring the members of the Church of Christ with Abiding Order and Enduring Conflict. 187 a high-born ambition to bring the new province under the dominion of the kingdom of God. This involves us in struggle. This provokes the perpetual waging of that warfare which ere the fourth century was well begun, issued in the cross of Christ ascending the throne of the Cesars. From this warfare ‘‘ there is no discharge.”’ The essential and undying antagonisms of the conflict proclaim it. The inspiration of the oracles of God predicts it. The tremendous claims made by Christ to universal sovereignty and to immortal supremacy imply it. The annals of apostolic labour, danger, and suffer- ing reveal it. Yea, even legend illustrates both its duration and its intensity. The pictured page of Gibbon describes one of ‘the four decisive battles of history.’” The Romans and the Visigoths were on the one side. The innumerable hordes of Attila were on the other. Upon the plains of Chalons—so reads the story—the nations from the Volga to the Atlantic were assembled, and Attila was defeated. The broad acres were. soaked with the bravest blood in Europe. The fields were covered with countless dead. The sighs and the shrieks of the dying were, in the darkness, hushed in the oppressive solitude of death. But, says the legend, for one, for two, for three long nights, the spirits of the slain—victorious and vanquished—continued the conflict in the air. High above the reddened plains, the strife and the strategy ; the desperate hand to hand encounter ; the death grip and the death blow—the clash—the shock—the wheeling movements—and the flying 188 The Christian Ministry. javelins—were seen The belligerent forces still fought in aerial plains, high in the firmament. And so it is with the holy war which the Church of Christ wages wherever the foot of man has trod. Attila and his hordes, the Visigoths, and the Romans, have long since ceased to make history. But the kingdom of Christ survives and shows no signs of decrepitude. The conflict in which she was victorious in the earlier centuries is now continued in the higher planes of a civilisation which has advanced, is advancing, and shall still advance. We are in the very thick of it to-day. If so, woe be to us if we abandon our order ; woe be to us if we disparage our leader! Woe be to us if we despise governments ! Rather let us believe that, with the old weapon in our hands; with unfaltering obedience in our hearts ; with whole-hearted loyalty to the Captain of our Salvation as the abiding principle of our service ; with the patience which generally comes of length of days, and which is not unmindful that a crisis in the life of an individual, is but a second in the life of a corporate and of a perpetual society; ultimate victory shall be to those who, through all the ages of a chequered and of a straining conflict, maintained an order—a ministry—which is adapted to all con- ditions ; which has survived, notwithstanding trying — pressure, both sudden and prolonged; which was accepted, without challenge, by the saintly spirits of the martyr band, in the earliest and the least artificial of all ages; and which was approved and recognised by men who were taught by those who Apostolic Order and Divine Appointment. 189 had seen and had conversed with the first followers of Christ. That ministerial order—threefold, unequal, historic —I believe to have been initiated, accepted, adopted by the holy apostles. It is therefore apostolic, and if it be regarded as falling under the head of ‘“‘helps”’ and of “‘governments,” it is not only apostolic, but it is amongst the appointments which Almighty God made ‘in the Church.” CHAP THR V. “For we must needs die, and are as water spilt on the ground, which cannot be gathered up again; neither doth God respect any person; yet doth He devise means that His banished be not expelled from Him.’’—2 SAM. xiy. 14. HESE profound phrases are connected with one of the saddest scenes in Hebrew history. They recall the horrors, loathsome, unnatural, and eruel, which are associated with the infamy of Amnon, the ruin of Tamar, the vengeance of Ab- salom, the flight of the fratricide, and the restless love of their royal father. ‘They were uttered by the wise woman of Tekoah. They were designed to accomplish, by a persuasive appeal to pity, the stratagem of Joab, in the working out of which she was the chief actress. Like some other sayings, which are recorded for our learning, there is here much more than the speaker intended. Indeed, if I could bring myself to abandon the obligations of the incident with which the passage is connected, and to ignore the truer representation of one sen- tence in the original,' I should unhesitatingly regard this verse as a prophetical compendium of Pauline 1 Vide Var. Read (Cheyne, etc.), Lange, Speaker's Commentary. Universal Prevalence of Sin and Death. τοι theology. Without, however, proceeding to that length, one may accept the opinion of Philipson, who says, ‘‘this is one of the noblest and pro- foundest declarations of the Scripture.” It declares the certainty and even the necessity of death It implies that for that death there is a cause. ‘We must needs die,” for “in Adam all die.” It recognises the universality of this disaster, and it includes all ranks and conditions of men in the humiliation. ‘‘ Neither doth God respect any person,” for ‘“‘all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.” It proclaims restoration which is as widespread as the ruin: ‘‘ Yet doth He devise means that His banished be not expelled from Him”’—an announcement of which St. Paul’s message to the Colossians is but the inspired and evangelical expansion: ‘‘ You that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath He reconciled in the body of His flesh through death.”’ As we place these phrases side by side, we are reminded that but One Hternal Spirit has spoken through the ages; that the great principles of Redemption are not mere afterthoughts, conceived without preparation, announced in utter disregard of their relationship to the past, to the present, to the future; and performed—if they were performed —through operative evolution, without an Evolver. Rather, let us believe in the unity of the revela- tion; in the continuity of its expression; in the occasional anticipation of its noblest ideas by those 192 The Christian Ministry. who knew not the fulness of their own phrases; ἢ in the doctrine, that in Him with Whom we have to do, the vastest topical, chronological, and _his- torical reaches are near as is dawn to the day: yea, that even here, Tekoah is morally as well as geographically, very nigh unto Bethlehem. If so, it is scarcely conceivable that either evangelist or apostle would hesitate to adapt the more ancient sentiment respecting salvation. St. Matthew or St. Paul or St Peter would, I am persuaded, grate- fully and confidently aver: ‘‘God hath devised means that His banished be not expelled from ama?” ' This may fairly be regarded as amongst the strongest proofs we have of the inspiration of Holy Scripture. How differently the fact is viewed by those who reject revelation and, by consequence Christianity, two quotations of a typical kind, will show. The following passage is found in the writings of one of our ablest, and but recently deceased, writers : ‘‘ Aberglaube is the poetry of life. That men should, by help of their imagination, take short cuts to what they ardently desire, whether the triumph of Israel or the triumph of Christianity, should tell themselves fairy-tales about it, should make these fairy-tales the basis for what is far more sure and solid than the fairy-tales, the desire itself,— all this has in it, we repeat, nothing which is not natural, nothing blameable . . . Extra-belief is in itself no matter, assuredly, for blame. The object of religion is conduct; and ifa man helps himself in his conduct by taking an object of hope and presentiment as if it were an object of certainty, he may even be said to gain thereby an advantage. And yet there is always a draw- back to a man’s advantage in thus treating . . . what is extra-belief and not certain as if it were matter of certainty, and in making it his ground of action. He pays for it. The time comes when he discovers that it is not certain ; and then the whole certainty of religion seems discredited, and the basis of conduct gone” (Literature and Dogma, M. Arnold, pp. 111, 112). This danger, M. Arnold considers, attends reliance upon prophecy and miracles as evidential to Christianity. The spirit of enlightenment will, he believes, dispose of both— a theory whichis somewhat prophetic. But Aberglaube, or over-belief—“ the poetry of life’ —characterises to a large extent the Messianic predictions of the Old Testament, and the extraordinary correspondence between these predictions and the history which fulfilled them, has compelled unbelief to take its last stand upon a theory, from which it has been again and again dislodged, viz. _ Sinful Sphere for Ministerial Labour. 193 The sacred Scriptures contain authoritative, in- fallible, and sufficient information respecting these merciful arrangements. Before these Scriptures were gathered into their present shape and volume, the Church of Christ, alone of all societies, was enabled to state what these Divine arrangements were. To the apostolic ministry of the Church Catholic, in which God set the Ministry of Pro- clamation, was entrusted the great Evangel. ‘To that Church there was given a work to do; a sphere in which that work was to be prosecuted ; and we come now to inquire, What was the practical work of the ministry? Before we are enabled, by an appeal to Scripture and to sub-apostolic history, to reply to this inquiry, it will be well to re-affirm the nature of the sphere in which the ministry was that the predictions were written after the events to which they pointed. To regard such predictions as “ fairy-tales ”’ is assuredly to trifle with words. The whole subject is connected with a great inquiry—Did the prophets themselves grasp fully and understand exactly their own utterances? This inquiry has been most ably dealt with by Archdeacon Lee in his work on Inspiration. Referring to this question, he says: “That this question must be answered in the negative is so obvious, that the fact has furnished sceptics with an argument —superficial, it is true, but an argument—against the evidence which prophecy supplies. A late writer (W. Rathbone Greg), for example, of the modern school of disbelievers, observes, with respect to the proof of Christianity founded upon the fulfilment in Christ’s Person of predictions uttered long previously to His coming: ‘This is true, and the argument would have all the force which is attributed to it, were the objectors able to lay their finger on a single Old Testament prediction clearly referring to Jesus Christ, intended by the utterers of it to relate to Him, prefiguring His character and career, and manifestly fulfilled, in His appearance on earth. 715 they cannot do. The fallacious character of such reasoning has been long since exposed by Bishop Butler : “ΤῸ say that the Scriptures, and the things contained in them, can have no other or farther meaning than those persons thought or had, who first recited and wrote them, is evidently saying that those persons were the original, proper and sole authors of those Books ; that is, that they are not inspired’ (Analogy Part ii., c. 7). 13 194 The Christian Ministry. designed to labour. Let us see what was the spiritual condition of ‘‘the banished,’’ for whose restoration God had ‘‘ devised means,” the publica- tion of which was amongst the thronging duties by which the ministry was pressed. What was, what is, the moral condition of the nature with which this spiritual organisation has to deal? Upon this point, Holy Scripture speaks clearly, con- tinuously, and finally. It teaches us, that through all the vicissitudes of individual, of social, of national life; through each successive step and stage in the education of mankind; through dispensations, local, punitive, political, and moral; through the strange minutiz of elementary, of objective and of provisional religion; through the startling defection of patri- archs, of leaders, of inspired prophets, of elect kings ; mankind, amid every variety of condition, of circumstance, of opportunity, was characterised by weakness, by failure, by evil, by sin. Moral ruin reduced the social and the religious disparities of Jew and Gentile to the common level of death. This unwelcome, but indisputable doctrine underlies the progress of history. It is the ““ Miserere” of all religions. Every cult has had its penitential psalms. Hivery age has had its requiem. Every phase of religious thought this world has known, has had its origin in the consciousness of a sorrow. un- relievable, universal, and inexplicable apart from the presence and from the power of sin. The historian of the Pentateuch—the first book of which is a compendium of all history, opening with the Concord of Scripture and Classical Literature. 195 noblest birth and closing with ‘a coffin in Egypt ’”’— and the writer of the Psalter, together with Isaiah, and Jeremiah, the minor prophets, and other holy men of old, agree in the same sad testimony respect- ing human nature. If in the infancy of history, “God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually,” ἢ the perpetuity of this fallen condition 185 re- asserted by the royal poet, amid the auxiliaries of revelation, of worship, of discipline, and of hope: “They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one’’*—an incrimination which swept even the culture of Greece and the prowess of Rome within the range of its dark indictment, since the great apostle of the Gentiles cites this phrase when em- phasizing the doctrine of universal depravity. The same witness is borne by the varied voices of classi- cal literature.* It is re-asserted by the prevalence 1 Gen. vi. 5. Pets; XIV. 3. 3 Rom. iii. 9-12. * This fact has been established by references drawn from both Greek and Latin writers. They are now so numerous that they form a literature, and they are used in many modern apologies for Christianity. Amongst the ablest of these Luthardt’s works may be reckoned. In 716 Fundamental Truths of Christianity (Lect. Il., note 14 ; Lect. VII., note 9), the authorities to whom he appeals are brought together. They include Homer, Sophocles, Pindar, Pliny, Plutarch, Bacchylides, Theognis, and others. For the various concep- tions which some of the profoundest thinkers have formed of sin, whether as the negation of good, or as selfishness, or as pride, or as disobedience, reference may be made to the notes to the Archbishop of York’s work on Zhe Atoning Work of Christ (Bampton Lectures, 1853). They are full of thought, of learn- ing, and of Scripture. The classical work on the subject is, of course, Miiller’s Die ehristliche Lehre von der Siinde. It is both exhaustive and exhausting, but whoever has patience to grapple with it will never regret the toil. 196 The Christian Ministry. of sacrifice, in all ages, and in all countries. ἢ And in our own day the Scriptural doctrine of sin has no more powerful witness than the disciple of Schopenhauer or of Von Hartmann. The gospel of despair, as it comes from the icy lips of the apostle of pessimism and of suicide, has an evidential value for the Christian apologist of which hopeless philosophy little dreams.” Thus, Scripture, experi- ence, philosophy, and history assure us, as with one voice, that human nature is a moral ruin. And however conflicting opinion, or thought, or theory may be as to the prime and powerful cause of this ruin, the word of God declares the cause is sin. In Holy Scripture sin is portrayed in one or other of two aspects. It is original. It is ante- cedent to individual birth. It precedes the awaken- ing of infant consciousness. There is, in every child born into the human family, an evil principle, which the moral sense, however early it is educated, or however rapidly it is developed, or however ad- vantageous may be its surroundings, finds already in possession.” This evil principle is not a tenant at will. Itis aresident prior to will. It maintains possession to the latest hour of earthly activity, in 1 Vide Nicolas, ii., 52; Voltaire (Hssai sur les Maurs); Magee On the Atonement (note 5, etc.) ; Archbishop of York’s Bampton Lectures (Lect. ii., note 23, etc.). 2 For an instructive sketch of Pessimism, see Study of Origins (Pressense, book ii., chap. iv.) ; and an able article by M. Caro (Revue des Deux Mondes, Aug., 1882). The Ultimatum of Pessimism: an ethical study, by J. W. Barlow, F.T.C. D., is a masterpiece of analysis, of thought, and of reasoning. 3 “Tt is the fundamental article of Christianity that Iam a fallen creature . .. that an evil ground existed in my will, previously to any given act, or assignable moment of time, in my consciousness ; I am born a child of wrath. Sin Coincident with Individual Life. 197 spite of will. Notwithstanding all that has been sung and all that has been said of ‘‘ consecration,” of ‘‘surrender,”’ of ‘‘ freedom from conscious sin,” the dogmatic teaching of the Church needs neither retractation nor revision. ‘‘ This infection of nature doth remain, yea, in them that are regenerated.” ἢ This, the ‘‘ plague”’ of each one’s heart, is the burden of the royal penitent’s exclamation, when the word of God, as spoken by the prophet, revealed his ac- tions to him, from whose moral sight sin had long concealed them. Up to the day on which Nathan arraigned the monarch at the bar of an alarmed conscience, David had been cursed by that most fearful law of sin, which involves the deadening of the conscience in proportion to the gratification of the passion. The more men sin, the less they know or even think of its guilt. But when the prophet fulfilled his mission, and the awful awaken- ing took place in the dormitory of his soul, then step by step the mind of the king moves from mercy to its expression in pardon; from pardon to a supplication for spiritual cleansing; from this to the confession of actual sin against the Most High and the Most Holy God—transgression so hnge that all human wrongs were lost in its abysmal depths, and at length the seared and saddened heart of David traces all back to its source— This fearful mystery I pretend not to understand. I cannot even conceive the possibility of it; but I know that it is so... and what is real must be possible.” Omniana: Samuel Taylor Coleridge (quoted in Zhe New Birth, by H. C. G. Moule, M.A., Principal of Ridley Hall). ' “Manet etiam in renatis hec nature depravatio” (Art. IX.). 198 The Christian Mintstry. original sin: ‘‘ Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.’’* But iniquity cannot be otherwise than displeasing to the All-Holy. The Divine displeasure cannot, with even human regard to the moral harmony of perfect attributes, remain quiescent. The prolonged tolera- tion of iniquity by God is not compatible with even man’s ideal of His character. Hence iniquity must be condemned. Those in whom it is found are liable to condemnation. They are, ‘by nature, the children of wrath.” They are exposed to God’s holy hatred of sin, which reveals itself in His punitive justice. This terrible downfall is, by revelation, placed within the limits of history. St. Paul refers it to Adam: “ΒΥ one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.”? The Redeemer of mankind assumed the truth of this doctrine when, in an instructive and encouraging fragment of His teaching, He described His hearers, and in them doubtless the race which they represented, as ‘‘being evil.” The Hebrew Psalter, which en- shrined the greatest thoughts of Jewish theology respecting God, sin, and deliverance, is full of phrases which assume and assert its universality. ‘““'The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.” ὅ “In Thy sight shall no man living be justified.’’* ὙΠ ΒΕ, ΠΡ ΤῈ SSP ery variate ZeRomnvelie. 4 PS) exit. 2s Christ Compares a Dead Soul to a Dead Body. 199 “The Lord looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God. They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy; there is none that doeth good, no, not οὔθ. ὁ And when we remember how frequently physical uncleanness is regarded as a symbol of moral taint, and physical death as a type of spiritual death, we may learn sufficient to teach us that, in the estimate of God, sin is regarded as disease in the moral constitution of man. This principle underlies the application of death to man’s spiritual state. It helps us to understand the meaning of many of the miracles of Christ. They were wrought upon men’s bodies to indicate His power to work higher, greater, mightier miracles upon men’s souls. It is to spiritual resurrection the Redeemer refers when in the hearing of His countrymen He exclaimed: “‘Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.”* Thus we are taught that a dead body is an image of a dead soul. The use of the language establishes an analogy between the one and the other. The senses, the powers, the capacities of a man from whom life has departed, are dead. The rosy rise of the early morning; the brilliant glory of the high noon; the mellowed softness of the evening are no joy, no health, no brightness to the eye now closed, and sealed with the enamel ΡΣ χινο ; Oc 2. St. John v. 25. 200 The Christian Ministry. of death. The sound of the wail of bereavement, the sigh or the shriek of agony may be heard by others, but not by the dead. The march of triumph or the requiem of sorrow are alike unable to affect the tympanum, now dead to sound. The provisions of food, varied and constant, are no longer necessary. The fruits of every land cannot entice the appetite. The love of loving hearts can no longer seek the simplest form of gratification, in the forced enjoyment of even a fragment of what has been procured by affectionate and thoughtful anticipation. Death reigns. His dreary dominion is amid perpetual famine, unbroken gloom, and sepulchral silence. And so it is in the spiritual world. A dead soul is surrounded by the spiritual illuminations of Hebrew type and Gospel miracle; of infallible pro- mise and unerring guidance ; of prophetic utterance and historic fulfilment. The radiance which shines from the Sun of Righteousness is above and around. There is light from His every utterance. There is a message in His every miracle. ‘There is glory in His Person. There is reconciliation in His work, while the splendour of a day which knows no ending arose upon the world with the glancings of the Easter sun. All this is unper- ceived by those who are ‘dead in trespasses and in sins.” ‘It is veiled in them that are perish- ing,” for they have ‘‘ the understanding darkened.” The same deprivation is implied by the inability of the dead soul to hear the voice of the Son of God. The message of entreaty, of expostulation, of love, Awful Reality of the Analogy. 201 of reconciliation, of warning, is delivered; yet it is unheard, and it is disregarded. The counsels of history ; the lessons of discipline, gathered from indi- viduals, from societies, from nations, from Churches ; the encouragements of inspiration, preserved in influential examples and in assured promises; the admonitions of the future, ringing in our ears, from the word of God, from the restlessness of souls, from the startling inequalities of the Divine ad- ministration of human affairs, and the wonderful disparities which mark conduct and consequence, vice, virtue, and the lke—all these vocalize the Presence and the Presidency of God. They proclaim individual accountability ; righteous adjustment, and the re-hearing of many a cause. But by souls deaf to God, and dead to spiritual life, they are as unheard as are the wailing winds which fore- tell the gathering storm, by the corpse which is immobile, insensate, still, Nor is the analogy wanting with regard to the participation, and enjoy- ment, and assimilation of food. As a dead body cannot partake, nor enjoy, nor assimilate the ordinary provision, which requires life as its pre- condition, so the dead soul is powerless to enjoy spiritual food, whether in sacred Scripture or in eucharistic sacrament: each demands the possession of life as the primary condition of assimilation, of nutrition, of enjoyment. Sin is thus a disease, universal and mortal, in the moral constitution of man. It has darkened his understanding. It has beclouded his perception of his Father’s Wisdom, 202 The Christian Ministry. and Power, and Presence. It has deranged the moral order which is alone compatible with holiness, and with communion with God; and such is the anarchy which sin has introduced that he, the Divine masterpiece—of whom God spake these high words, ‘‘ very good’’—can now ““ 081] evil good, and good evil.” He even loathes what God loves, and he loves what God loathes. Yea, it has enfeebled and enslaved his will. The noble power of purpose, the lofty capacity of resolve, the high imperative of the conscience, and the sacred gift of choice, are weakened, are degraded, are mastered by this inner, subtle, pervasive principle. Thus, with a will to do right, feeble and prostrate, yea, reduced to greater debility, the more the wrong is gratified; with affections “‘alienated’’ from God, and lavished upon objects unworthy, transient, unsatisfying; we may have some idea of sin as a disease, dire and deep- seated, in the noblest departments of man’s nature, marvellously mixed. It is with this doctrine before his mind, as revealed in the Israel of God, the Hebrew prophet exclaims, in the name of Jehovah, ““The whole head is sick, and the whole heart faint. From the sole of the foot even unto the head, there is no soundness in it; but wounds, and bruises, and putrifying sores; they have not been closed, neither bound up, neither mollified with ointment.” ἢ But sin is also actual. It is overt disobedience to Divine law. It is the practice of what is pro- IeTsary ios Sin also Actual. 595 hibited. ‘‘ Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law; for sin is the transgression of the law.’’? It is the omission of what is enjoined. ‘To him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin,”’* and every conception, every expression, every action, which is, in any degree whatsoever, in conflict with the law of the All Holy, is a violation of right, and ‘all unrighteousness is sin.”* This Divine law is written in the conscience. It suggests to individuals, whether in isolation or in society, their obligations to God and to man. It is also imprinted upon creation. Its recognition therein conveys instruction upon the nature and the power of Deity, which when regarded will save men from idolatry, and from the lusts, and law- lessnesses, and cruelties which are _ propagated thereby. It is also revealed in legislation, moral and ceremonial. The grand theme of Jewish cere- monialism was the holiness of law and the sinful- ness of man. True, the element of hope was not excluded, but it was not brilliant. The predictions of the seers; the pregnant prophecies of the poets, and the dazzling light of their vision, flashed hope upon many a contemplative soul. These rather than the ceremonial sacrifices kept hope alive. The latter taught men the awfulness of God’s holiness and the correlative awfulness of his creature’s sin. Their number, their multiplicity, their variety, together with all the prefatory ritual; all the preliminary attention to details, and all culminating in pain, in 1Ὶ St. John iii. 4. 2 St. Jas. iv. 17. 21 St. John ν 17. 204 The Christian Ministry. blood, and in death, were designed to educate the chosen race into the estranging influence, the intolerable hideousness, the penal consequences of actual sin. In the degree in which this lesson was learned, in that degree were men assured of the holiness of God. Nor was any one sacrifice adequate to the expression of the glory of the one or the guilt of the other. Each sacrifice unfolded one essential idea. The totality of the sacrifices was necessary to proclaim, even to the faithful Israelite, the fulness of the pardon and the foulness of sin. Bat it is amid the glory of the moral law that we learn the hideousness of selfishness and the heinous- ness of sin. That law had two grand sections. Man was bound, by the conditions of creatureliness, to love God perfectly. ‘‘Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.”* He was also bound, by the conditions of fraternity, which arose out of a common Fatherhood, to love man perfectly. ‘‘Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.’’? Hach obligation was imperative, yet impossible, because of the reign of selfishness, and because of the resistance which a sinful nature offers to Almighty God. That resist- ance is rebellion, to which, moreover, death is attached. The fearful character of actual sin appears from the way in which men sometimes ignore, and at other times disparage and misrepresent God. - Occasionally, the believer’s confession is to some extent adopted in the half-truth which is expressed 1 Deut. vi. 5. 2 Lev. xix. 18. The Great Deception. 205 by a stricken conscience. A man is, say, laid low by pining sickness. ‘The silence of his chamber; the opportunity thereby afforded to conscience to raise his buried sins from the sepulchre of his dead soul ; the weakness of his frame; the rapidly decreasing tenure of life; the unwelcome apparition of a guilty past, these conspire to arouse an acknowledgment which may prove a great step towards repentance or amendment, or even pardon. Yet how often is it marred by a phrase which shows how far the invalid is from the Biblical conception of his guilt in the sight of God ?”’ ‘‘ He has never wronged any man.” ‘“‘ He is but his own enemy,” and in some instances, the commandments are condensed, so as to show how successfully the speaker has avoided the sins and the crimes of that portion of the decalogue which refers to humanity. But there is no apparent reference to his guilt in the sight of God! Selfishness has, by the fatal influence of habitual sin, ignored God, taken no reckoning whatever of His holy will, made no account of His published, inflexible, and righteous law! ‘To have avoided injury to man is some salve to the troubled conscience. Sin against God is seemingly not considered. There is, too, a condition of thought which Asaph records, and which suggests the recognition by the sinner of God, but in a sense which would be incredible, but for the clear state- ment of Scripture and the sustaining testimony of experience. Actual sin—assuredly the sin which the Hebrew poet is accentuating—deceives transgressors into the belief that because God is silent, He either 206 Lhe Christian Ministry. condones the disobedience, or regards it very much as does the man who commits it. ‘‘ These things hast thou done, and I kept silence; thou thoughtest that I was altogether such an one as thyself.”* It may be doubted whether any man, really conscious of the Eternal Presence, can live in the habitual commission of sin, without in some way, and to some extent, disparaging the character of God. It may be by ignoring His omniscience. ‘He hideth away His face, and He will never see it.’’? It may be by falsifying, for the time, or for the occasion, the truth of God respecting His mercy, imagining that He will condone transgression because the sinner is weak, as if the Omniscience which observed weakness could defile the Holiness which loathes sin, or could corrupt the Justice which condemns it. But in whatever way this mental or moral process is brought about, actual sin ignores the obligation of the trans- gressor to his own being; to fraternal relationship ; to constituted society ; to sacred law; to the Most High God. ‘Tried by the moral law, whether it be but imperfectly revealed, or legibly proclaimed, to Jew or to Gentile, ‘‘ the whole world is guilty before God.’’ Applied to every individual, as the authorised, universal, and essential test of moral good, it becomes the vehicle by which ‘‘ the knowledge of sin”’ is com- municated; for where is he among the sons of men who can contemplate the perfect love of God and the perfect love of man as his abiding obligation, and truly assert that he has discharged it ? Who, but lesa IG All δέσει lls Moral Symmetry of the Redeemer's Mission. 207 Christ, could declare “1 love God with all my heart, and all my soul, and all my mind, and all my strength?” Who, but Christ, could say ‘‘I love my neighbour as myself”’ ‘The Scripture hath concluded all under sin,’’' and God hath said, ‘‘ The soul that sinneth, it shall die.’” The mission of the Lord Jesus Christ recognised both these phases of universal sin. Amongst the characteristics of His addresses, there is not one more prominent than Christ’s constant, emphatic, and unmistakeable assumption that the nature to which He appealed, was, in some sense, dead. Speaking in the Holy City, when it was crowded with thronging worshippers, He claimed the tremendous prerogative of bestowing life according to His own sovereign choice. ‘‘ The Son quickeneth whom He will.’ On the same occasion, He announced that reception of His word, and belief in the Father Who sent Him, was to the individual the possession of eternal life ; freedom from the suspense of judgment; yea, it involved the greatest transition conceivable by man, or revealed by God. It was the passage from death to life.* The greatness and the glory of the change are suggested by the sorrow which sobs in the Lord’s 1 Gal. iii. 22. 2 Ezek. xviii. 4. 3. St. John v. 21. * ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, ὅτι ὁ τὸν λόγον μου ἀκούων καὶ πιστεύων τῳ πέμψαντι με ἔχει ζωὴν αἰώνιον, καὶ εἰς κρίσιν οὐκ ἔρχεται, ἀλλὰ μεταβέβηκεν ἐκ τοῦ θανάτου εἰς τὴν ζωήν (St. John ν. 24). Eternal life, as the present possession of the faithful, is one of the cardinal verities of Christian doctrine. It is now preached with a fulness and a freshness which is in marked contrast to the hard legalism of other days. The evangelistic spirit, now so vigorous in the Church, has won for this great truth its rightful place. 208 The Christian Ministry. lamentation over dead souls. ‘‘ Ye will not come to Me that ye might have life.” Thus, in this dis- course, whether the Saviour asserts His prerogatives, or declares the results of accepting Him, or mourns over the obduracy which rejects Him, the broad fact remains—Christ claimed to be the Life of men. The same high claim is reiterated in that chapter of St. John’s Gospel in which we have the ideal of the Good Shepherd. ‘‘I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.’” Here Christ declares it to be the purpose of His mission to bestow life, even as the evangelist in his opening sentences states, as a fact, ‘‘In Him was life.” Both fact and purpose raise an inquiry as to the nature of the life which Christ came to bestow. This we shall see by excluding such species of life as are known to be independent of His mission. It could not, with due regard to the chronology of Christ’s appearance; or to the circumstances of His discourses ; or to the physical condition of those who heard them, be maintained that Christ came to give physical life. Millions lived and died prior to the Incarnation, and so far as experience enables us to judge, their lives were lived uninfluenced thereby. The populations of the world increase and multiply, and the great laws by which they settle, they roam, they intermix, work on and work out, muscular vitality being unaffected by the mission of Christ. Nor can it be held that Christ came to give mental 1 St. John y. 40. 2 St. John x. 10. fle gives Life, Spiritual, Supernatural. 209 life. There was much intellectual power in the world before the Christian era. There is much more since. It was no part of Christ’s great work to deepen the philosophy of Greece; to enlarge the jurisprudence of Rome; to give wings to the imagination of the poet, or grace or beauty or skill to the conception and to the execution of the painter, the sculptor, the musician ; or to bestow profundity and brilliancy upon the orator; or the grasp of generalisation, which included kingdoms and continents in _ its range, upon the statesman. Hach of these depart- ments of intellectualism has been elevated, and enriched, and influenced by the mission of Christ. The house which is reared to His honour and glory is incomplete unless beneath its shadow there is erected the school, the college, the university. These are, however, the natural consequences of the prevalence of His work. They testify to the way in which Redemption affects the whole man. But their construction was not the direct purpose for which the Redeemer came. Scholarship was not the end which the Saviour had in view. It may prevail, alas, where His claims are challenged, | and where those who urge them are contemned. The life which Christ came to give was, then, neither physical nor mental. It was spiritual. And although this supernatural gift has much that is, like the lower forms of life, inscrutable, yet we may gather much from Scripture respecting the Divine society within which, normally, spiritual life becomes possible; the characteristics which it displays ; 14 210 The Christian Ministry. the means of its bestowal, and the sphere of its origin. Spiritual life is the life of the spirit of man, which, by nature, is dead to God. The spirit is the shrine of Deity. It is the holy of holies in the temple of being. It is unreached by any influence save that of Him who knows whereof we are made. It is untouched by the subtleties of sense. It is in- accessible to the most exquisite searchings of sound or of scene. ‘‘ The spirit of man is the candle of the Lord.” ? Its light was extinguished by sin. The fire by which it is rekindled burns on no earthly altar. It needs the light of Him, who being ‘the Life”’ is also ‘‘the Light of men.”’ The life thus bestowed is inward, is progressive, is pervasive, is eternal. Its home is in the innermost recesses of the immaterial being. Its vitality is manifested in new and spiritual outgoings, which concern persons and themes and realities which before the new life was given were either of no interest at all, or were matters of mourn- ful curiosity. Its power pervades the whole man. Working from within, its energy, silent, but strong, brings the soul and the body into subjection.” The SIERO χα: 9.7: 2 “Tt is the spirit which is the medium of communication with the Eternal Spirit, and it is the spirit more especially in which or with which the Holy Ghost has vouchsafed to dwell.” “The spirit is the higher power within us, the medium of our communication with, and the very temple of the Holy Ghost” (Destiny of the Creature, Ellicott, p. 121). This practical truth is connected with the tripartite nature of man, and is one of the most important phases of biblical psychology. The tripartite nature of man is scriptural. It is implied in the Old Testament, and with growing clearness as the Christian era was reached. It is taught in the New Testament (St. Luke 1. 46, 47; 1 Thess. v. 23 ; Heb. iv. 12, vide Bengel, in loc.). It was held by Irenzus (Adv. ΠΩ", Spirit, Soul, Body. 211 great principle, associated with the noble name of Chalmers, has its loftiest illustration in the holy war which is waged within and without by the supernatural life of the quickened spirit. ‘ The expulsive power of a new affection’’ is, of all in- fluences, the most intolerant, jealous, and, in the instance before us, righteous. Hvery opposing object, principle, association, must either retire or yield. Like the ointment which love outpoured upon the feet of Christ, the house of the human body, the temple of the Holy Ghost, must be filled with the odour. Then, ‘the understanding,” once “‘darkened,’’ is illuminated. To this end, the Apostle, in his great prayer for the Ephesians, prayed “that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of Him: the eyes of your understanding being enlightened.’ The will, once weak, and wayward, and lawless, becomes obedient, and strong; so that the believer may adopt apostolic language and say, ‘‘I can do all things through Christ who strengtheneth me within.”’? The affections are exercised upon their rightful object. Spiritual love is consequent upon spiritual life. To generate this life is the prerogative of the Book y., ὁ. 6, 1); by Justin Martyr (fragmenta Resur., 6. x.), and others, and although it was allowed to drop out of sight, andiman’s nature was re- garded as a dualism, the older view is steadily gaining ground, a result which Bishop Ellicott attributes to ‘‘the influence of our great English divines, by several of whom—Hammond, Jackson, and Bull—it has been emphatically asserted.” Delitzsch’s Biblical Psychology is a profound and most penetrating work on this subject. ? Eph. i. 17. ἢ ἐνδυναμοῦντί με (Phil. iv. 13). 212 The Christian Mintstry. Holy Ghost. In the exercise of His office He glorifies Christ, who is ‘‘ our life.” And He Who is thus glorified, has taught His Church His mind and His will respecting the means, which He has consecrated to be the ordinary agencies, by which the Holy Ghost operates to communicate spiritual life. We must never forget the well-nigh impenetrable mystery which, with awful and humbling regularity, hangs around the beginnings of all things. Yet God has been pleased to intimate the normal initiation by which ‘we are made partakers of the Divine nature,’ and by which fallen man ‘‘ sees,” and ‘enters into the kingdom of God.’’ Our Lord has spoken upon this theme: ‘Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Again, He says: ‘‘Hxcept a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God,” yea, He adds—‘‘ Marvel not that I said unto thee, ‘Ye must be born again.’” That, in the words, ‘‘born of water,’’ the Saviour refers to baptism is, in the highest degree probable, if not certain. This is doubted by many. But if the contemporaneous and widely known ministry of the Baptist be remembered; if the student endeavour to place himself in the position which was occupied by the inquirer to whom Christ communicated this essential doctrine ; he will find it difficult to resist the conclusion that the Saviour’s reference to water was baptismal, and the difficulty will be increased when he remembers the place which that element held‘in the symbolical ritual of the Jewish economy; The Sacrament of the New Birth. 213 and the fact that the preparatory character of the initial rite was publicly preached by the Fore- runner, and was publicly accepted, approved, yet limited by our Blessed Lord. Given these factors, and the reference to the Sacrament becomes all but certain. Whatever may be lacking, notwith- standing, to produce this conviction, has not de- terred the Church from indicating her mind on the subject. The place which this Scripture holds, being read in the Office for Baptism of such as are of Riper Years, suggests, assuredly, what the mind of the Church is; and the language of the succeeding exhortation is clear and even confident. ‘‘ Beloved, ye hear in this Gospel the express words of our Saviour Christ, that except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. Whereby ye may perceive the great necessity of this Sacrament, where it may be had.” The same thought is found, in another and in a later form, in St. Paul’s Epistle to Titus, where the inspired writer refers to the ‘“laver of regenera- tion,’ and to the ‘‘ renewing of the Holy Ghost.” The Apostolic Commission, uttered by the Sovereign Saviour of mankind, enjoins baptism and teaching as the essential conditions of discipleship. Hvery individual who is to be brought into the kingdom of God, must become a disciple. To become a disciple, he must, according to the Lord Christ, be baptized and be taught. Apostolic language, view- ing the rite both from the human and the Divine side, regards it as the “laver of regeneration,” 214 The Christian Mincestry. and ‘‘the renewing of the Holy Ghost,” which is a reflection of the earlier teaching of Christ, re- specting being “born of water and the Spirit.” There are obviously two parts to the Sacrament ; the outward and the visible, the inward and the spiritual. These are correlative to the dual aspects, in which, from the imperfection of our vision and from the prevalence of sin, the Church of Christ is viewed, as visible, and as mystical. By holy baptism, by the water of regeneration, all are ad- mitted into anew and Divine society, with abounding blessings, individual obligation, and present and eternal prospects. By the birth of the Spirit, which is the renewal of the Holy Ghost, all are made living members of Christ, by the Lord the Life- giver. That both may be conjoined and synchronize at the administration of the Sacrament of the New Birth is the prayer of the Church. Her cry is, for every child brought to her fonts, ‘that he may be baptized with water and the Holy Ghost, and received into Christ’s Holy Church, and be made a lively member of the same.’’ When faithful prayer obtains its object, the highest ideal of baptism is attained. The Sacrament then ‘is not only a sign of profession, and mark of difference, whereby Christian men are discerned from others that be not christened, but it is also a sign of Regeneration or new Birth, whereby, as by an in- strument,' they that receive baptism rightly are ‘ Per quod tanquam per instrumentum (“ De Baptismo,” Art. xxvii.). Jnstru- mentum isa technical term. The ‘“ instrumentorum traditio ” designated the- transfer to a person on ordination of some vessel or some yestment which was. Baptism and Spiritual Life not always Synchronous. 215 grafted into the Church; the promises of forgiveness of sins, and of our adoption to be the sons of God by the Holy Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed ; faith is confirmed, and grace increased by virtue of prayer unto God.” If the lofty ideal of baptism by water and the Holy Ghost was always realized, eternal life would be always bestowed. If bestowed, its criteria would be always manifest in the baptized. The signs of its possession are indicated by St. John and by St. Paul.’ The gift so signified is the subject of a great prophecy, in which the bestowal of the gift is reserved for God Himself.2 Does this gift always accompany sacramental administra- tion? Does baptism by water invariably ensure baptism by the Holy Ghost? Are the parts of the sacrament inseparable? ‘The answer to these in- quiries may be gathered from Scripture and from experience, to which latter, let us remember, our Lord freely appealed when He desired His hearers to verity a theory, or to test a claim. Holy Scrip- ture shows that men may be admitted by baptism “into Christ’s holy Church” without, at the same time, being made “lively members of the same.”’ The mission of the deacon-evangelist, Philip, to Samaria, shows that people may believe ‘“ the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of used in his office. It had no spiritual import. It was purely official and cere- monial. The word in the Article is legal and technical. Baptism admits the baptized to a new and a divinely initiated society. It is the title deed to the blessings which Christ has committed to His Church. 1St. John ii, 29, 111, 9, iv. 7, v. 1, 4, 6, 18; 2 Cor. v.17; Gal. ii. 20, vi. 15. * Ezek. xxxvi. 25-27. 216 The Christian Ministry. Jesus Christ,” and be ‘‘ baptized,’ and yet be without the essential blessing of God the Holy Ghost. Simon Magus ‘believed also,” and was “baptized. Yet he had “neither part nor lot in the matter,” and so far from Simon having experi- enced any ‘‘change of heart and affections, repent- ance, faith, life, and love” in baptism, St. Peter, by supernatural insight, pierced the mercenary spirit of the pretender through and through, and declared him to be ‘“‘in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity.’’*® The history of the Church of Corinth, so far as it may be learned from St. Paul’s first epistle, is no less instructive upon this point. These converts had been baptized, some by unknown ministers ; others by St. Paul, who, in referring to the rite, says: “1 thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius,” and ‘“‘ the household of Stephanas.”* But—apart altogether from the spiritual defection which the context suggests—how are we to regard the thankfulness of an apostle for not having baptized converts generally, if baptism implied actual goodness, and generated eternal life? While a similar inquiry is suggested by the Apostle’s ignorance of his having ‘‘ baptized any other,’ as well as by his direct reference to his higher work as a preacher of the gospel. And the pastoral experience of the Christian ministry in all ages, in all lands, sustains what apostolic experience and inspired Scripture thus show, that spiritual life, the gift of God the 1 Acts viii. 12, 13, 15, 16. 2 Acts viii. 23. 8.1 Cor. i. 14, 16. Spiritual Life may Precede Baptism. 217 Holy Ghost, is not always bestowed where baptism is administered. But Scripture also shows that spiritual life may precede baptism. St. Paul was ‘‘a new creature” before the visit of Ananias. He had surrendered himself to his Lord in his memorable appeal re- specting service.’ His supplication, so remarkable, so sincere, was addressed to Him to Whom no sin- stricken soul has ever cried in vain. ‘“ He had called Jesus Lord,’’ his Master, Possessor, Despot. He had breathed the vital breath of prayer: “Behold, he prayeth.” No man can so adore, acknowledge, and supplicate, but ‘‘by the Holy Ghost.” ? This doctrine—revealed later on by him- self—is the explanation of his own experience. If it be, then, since he was not baptized until the visit of Ananias, his surrender to Jesus, his conversion, his prayer, preceded his baptism. That baptism brought to him still larger spiritual blessing. It was the public declaration of his separation from the past. It was, by a vigorous and graphic symbol, ‘‘the washing away of his sins.’’* The same moral order appears in connection with the visit of St. Peter to Cwsarea. ‘‘ While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. And they of the circum- cision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost; for they heard them speak with tongues, and 1 Acts ix. 6. = Ie Core Xiao 3 Acts xxii. 16. 218 The Christian Ministry. magnify God. Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid water that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord.’ Thus, then, we see that spiritual life may be imparted before baptism, and that where it is, there the outward and the visible sign is nevertheless as necessary as apostolic pro- cedure proclaims it to be. ‘Do not wonder,” observed Peter Lombard, “that the Thing some- times precedes the Sacrament, since sometimes it follows long after.” ° Once again, the witness of experience, extending over the area which is covered by the history and by the ever expanding activities of the Church, shows that where faith and prayer and obedience are found, there we may expect the outward and the visible sign to be accompanied by the inward and the spiritual grace. ‘The nature of the case precludes the conception that the element of this sacrament becomes the vehicle by which the soul is quickened. Spiritual life cannot be generated by material things alone. To all time, ‘that which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” ὁ The Holy Ghost does, as the Saviour has taught us that He would, bestow Divine life, when the conditions upon which most Divine gifts are bestowed, are observed ; and the spiritual history * Acts x. 44-8, * Sententia, lib. iv. Dist. iv. § 7 (quoted in The New Birth, by H. C.G.Moule, M.A., Principal of Ridley Hall). * St. John iii. 6. at Mi i i ee ee εν @r νυ Multipled Experience connects tt with Baptism. 219 of countless thousands shows that they cannot point to a period of sudden change, no more than they can name a place where the change took place, in which they were ‘‘ turned from darkness to light.” They are “born again.” The criteria mark their lives. The fruits of the Spirit abound.' They go “from strength to strength.” Ask them what ac- count they have to give of their growth in grace. They will tell you, as with one voice, that in holy baptism, the ministry of intercession prevailed. Humble obedience was rendered to the command of Christ. Faith in the promises of God was strong. The sympathy of the Redeemer with the lambs of His flock was unfailing. They were “ baptized with water and the Holy Ghost.’’ They were ‘received into Christ’s holy Church.’’ They were ‘ made lively members of the same.’ This, as the normal condition of the baptized, the Church mercifully allows, upon that rule of ‘supposition, presump- tion, anticipation,’? which, as an able writer has conclusively shown, is “ΠΟ peculiar and unusual one, but is an old and recognised form, universal in society and in human language, and applied in the Old and New Testament to the Church.”” In accordance with the same general principle, the Order of Confirmation places, in the supplication of the Bishop, the assumption on behalf of those about to be confirmed, that God ‘‘ hast vouchsafed to regenerate these Thy servants by water and the Holy Ghost.”’ 1 Vide The New Birth, by H. C. G. Moule, M.A., Ridley Hall. * The Baptismal Controversy, by J. B. Mozley, D.D. 220 The Christian Ministry. If it be, then, conceded that the passage in St. John’s Gospel refers to baptism, it is of universal obligation. The same conclusion must be drawn from the Commission of our departing Lord. [08 importance appears from its having been observed, even where spiritual life preceded its administration, and from its position, in connection with ‘‘one Lord,” and ‘‘one faith.’’! Apostolic practice—so far as the New Testament enables us to observe it—shows its prevalence, as ‘‘ the ceremony of initiation into a Divine society.’’ The thousands at Pentecost, although ‘‘they gladly received”’ the Apostle’s words, ‘““were baptized,” and as if to suggest that the acceptance of the rite was regarded as the point of admission to the Divine society, the evangelist adds : ‘“‘and the same day there were added about three thousand souls.’’ Nor can any other theory find support, from the incidents already referred to. Hach shows the importance of baptism. Similar evidence is afforded by the compressed statements which we have respecting St. Paul’s first missionary journey. When the apostles ‘‘ had preached the gospel,” in Derbe, they administered baptism to their converts. Why should it be assumed that this was done, only when the fact is mentioned?” Once admit that it ' εἷς Κι ύριος, μία πίστις, ἕν βάπτισμα (Eph. iv. 5), i.e. Christ : placed prominently forward as the Head of His one body the Church, and the one Divine object towards whom faith is directed, and into whom all Christians are baptized (Ellicott, in loc.). The three thoughts seem to be: The one Lord Christ; one subjective appropriation of that which is objectively confessed ; one outward expression of admission, association, and obligation. * Vide Appendix, on “ The Witness of the Samaritan Mission of SS. Peter and John,” etc. OO OO ee eee eee SS Oe SS a ee” HS. eae Se es se See Baptism the Crisis of Confession. 221 was enjoined by Christ, and the presumption of its observance by His followers is in the ratio of their general obedience to His word, while the mention of it by the historian diminishes, probably in proportion to its general adoption. But, beside these considerations, the Sacrament is mentioned in the Epistles in a connection which exhibits it ‘‘as a sign of discipleship.’”’ The strong language which is used in the Epistles shows that when baptism was administered, it was regarded as the outward act by which men declared themselves members of the Christian Church, and so severed themselves from their heathen associations. And the mode in which the rite was administered was a pictorial lesson to the world. The disciple going down into the water died to sin. His coming up from the water illustrated the resurrection to a new life. In both he was united with Christ. ‘We are buried with Him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.”* ‘‘As many of you as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ.”? Thus regarded, baptism became the crisis of confession. It was the public and personal severance from the sin and from the societies of the past. It was the manifestation of the believer’s entrance into the kingdom of God. It was the ceremony, Divinely appointed, and Divinely blessed, by which men were initiated into the Church of Christ. It was then, it 1 Rom. vi. 4. 2 Gal. 111. 27. 222 The Christian Ministry. is still, one of the means which Jesus Christ owned, for the dispensation of spiritual life, by God the Holy Ghost. ‘‘ Except a man be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom οἱ God. The other agency employed by God as a means by which spiritual life is produced and nourished is His word. If frequency of mention be any indication of frequency of use then the word of God is assuredly most generally employed for this great purpose: Referring to spiritual resurrection, Christ declares that “the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and they that hear shall live.” Addressing the same audience, he assures them that their rejec- tion of Him, and their spiritual death are alike due to not having ‘‘ His word abiding” in them. Nor could it be otherwise, because His ‘‘ words are spirit and are life.”* St. Stephen described the law as ‘‘ living oracles.”’* δύ. Paul in a remarkable and well-known passage describes the word of God as alive.t St. James shows us the work which God designs His word to accomplish: ‘‘ Of His own will begat He us with the word of truth.’ This its power is implied in apostolic literature as well as in the special phrases by which the word is itself described. St. Peter, on a memorable occasion, startled by the suggestive inquiry of His omniscient 1 St. John v. 25. 2 τὰ ῥήματα. .. πνεῦμά ἐστι kai ζωὴ ἐστιν (St. John vi. 63). 3 λόγια ζῶντα (Acts Vii. 38). + ζῶν νγὰρ ὁ λύγος τοῦ Θεοῦ (Heb. iv. 12) ; comp. Isa. xi. 4. > βουληθεὶς ἀπεκύησεν ἡμᾶς λόγῳ ἀληθείας (St. James. i. 18). Spiritual Life also Associated with the Word. 223 Master, ‘‘ Wiil ye also go away?” replied, with wonder and with perplexity, which seemed to him so strong as to render the inquiry incredible, ‘‘ Lord to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life.” * This same St. Peter was, with his brethren, imprisoned in the year of our Lord’s Ascension. The angel of God opened the prison doors, set the apostles free, and commanded them to continue the proclamation of the gospel, which the angel described as ‘‘ words of this life.” The Philippians are exhorted to shine as lights in the world, “holding forth the word of 116. And these passages might easily be increased. They appear to teach that the word of God is the living agency which the Lord of Life employs to create a life which, produced by its potency, is conformed to its law; is moulded by its mind; is nourished by its teaching, and is illumi- nated by its light. The word of life and the life en- gendered by the word proceed from the same source. It is but reasonable to suppose that between these there would be essential affinity. The characteristics of this life in the spirit of man are, in part, revealed. It is progressive. Christ has spoken great words about its possession ‘‘ more abundantly.’’ His holy apostle appeals to his readers to “‘ grow in grace.’’! Thus it is marked by growth, which is the law of all life, and is accordingly capable of progress. It is St. John vi. 67, 68, 2 πάντα τὰ ῥήματα τῆς ζωῆς ταύτης (Acts v. 20), “id est, hee verba vite. 5. Phil. ii. 16. * καὶ περισσὸν ἔχωσιν (St.John x. 10) : αὐξάνετε δὲ ἐν χάριτι καὶ γνώσει τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (2 St. Pet. iii. 18), 1 St. Pet. ii. 2; Col. i. 9-11. 224 The Christian Mintstry. perpetual. Its duration is measured by one great word, ‘“‘eternal.”” It is the gift of Christ, who ever gives largely, and He says so: “1 give unto them eternal life.”! It is imperishable. ‘ They shall never perish.” Such, then, is the life which the Lord Jesus Christ declared it to be His mission to bestow upon a world dead to God. It is, in its sphere, spiritual. The agencies employed by God to communicate it are Sacramental, or Verbal. Its characteristics are pro- gress, perpetuity, and indestructibility. Its end is the restoration of man, spirit, soul, and body, to perfect and eternal communion with God. This is one phase of that work which the Church of Christ is to do. Within the supernatural society which the Ascending Christ commissioned, which the Holy Ghost quickened, empowered, and directed, spiritual life becomes a possibility. It is the kingdom of God on earth. It is the organisation, known to mankind, within which universal disease, radical and mortal, may be healed. The Church of Christ, and the Church of Christ alone, has the Remedy. Her Head is, by His Person, and by His Work, the Good Physician. His voice rings and echoes through the centuries as in the souls of men: “I am the Resurrection and the Life: he that believeth in Me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: and whosoever liveth and believeth in Me, shall never die.”’? 1 ὁ πιστεύων els τὸν υἱὸν ἔχει ζωὴν αἰώνιον (St. John iii. 36), bid. vy. 24, vi. 27, 40, 47, x. 28. ΠΕΣ di@leval a 90, 90. Christ brought Peace—Law magnified in Love. 225 But the mission of Christ had a further message to the human race, banished, like its original ancestor, from the Divine Presence, and made amenable to law. The race is not only fallen. It is considered ‘“‘suilty before God,” and exposed to ‘the judgment that was by one to condemnation.” Actual sin in- volves man in condemnation. It is rebellion against the law of the All-holy God. Christ’s work is both morally remedial and righteously restorative. But it is restoration in a particular way, designed and revealed, and wrought by Almighty God. Christ is the life of men. Christ is also the peace of men. As “our peace,’ He manifests love and He magnifies law. He maintains its sovereignty; He illustrates its righteousness, while His Incarnation demon- strates the universality of its range, even as it is the expression of love. This law condemned the human family. Christ totalised, in His sacred Person, the human race. ‘Their liabilities became His. This doctrine is gathered from directions of Divine authority, in connection with the sacrificial ceremonial of Hebrew typology. It is stated, with growing ciearness, as the ages advance. Isaiah’s prediction of the suffering Messiah is startling in the irregularity which marks the construction of the prophecy. ‘“‘ All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way’—and if a modern prophet were finishing the sentence, it would probably run thus: ‘‘and nature, or heredity, or retribution, has laid upon each the consequences 1 Isa. lili. 6. 15 226 The Christian Ministry. of individual iniquity,’’ or ‘‘these consequences are entailed upon posterity.” And there is a sense, awful, real, and just, in which the addendum would be true. But the inspired writer of this old fragment —mind and heart being influenced and educated by ceremonial ritual—is taught to pen the doctrine which has its highest and most awful illustration in ‘‘the Man of Sorrows ;’’ and so, having asserted the universality of our wandering, yet the indi- viduality of each one’s way, he adds the un- expected but redemptive doctrine, ‘‘ And the Lord hath laid upon Him the iniquity of us all.’ The Redeemer Himself asserts the same truth: ‘ The Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give His life a ransom for many.’’? Whatever curious questions may be raised by the statement, there can be but little, if any, doubt about its significance when used by a Jew, and in the hearing of Jews. Under these conditions, it would most assuredly be regarded as recording the mysterious principle of life for life, or of salva- tion by sacrifice. When after this, Christ’s solitary, but all-sufficient statement upon the redemptive Ὁ ὁ vids τοῦ ἀνθρώπου οὐκ ἦλθε διακονηθῆναι, ἀλλὰ διακονῆσαι, καὶ δοῦναι τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ λύτρον ἀντὶ πολλῶν (Matt. xx. 28; Mark x. 45). The only passage in the Gospels in which our Lord states the sacrificial and vicarious nature of His death. λύτρον ἀντί here = ἀντίλυτρον ὑπὲρ παντῶν (1 Tim. ii. 6; vide Stier, Alf., in loc., Atoning Work of Christ, by Archbishop of York, Lecture VI.; ‘‘ Death of Christ,” in Aids to Fwith). For the use of ἀντί see Matt. xvii. 27; Heb. xii. 16. The other words which are used to indicate the efficacy of the death of Christ are ὑπέρ, περί, and διά. (For the bearing of these words on the doctrine of vicarious sacrifice, see Magee On the Atonement, τι. xxx.) The Constantinopolitan creed has σταυρώθεντὰ τε ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν = “ crucifixus etiam pro nobis.” Pardon through Atonement proclaimed in Eucharist. 227 purpose of His mission, He and His disciples sat down to the Passover meal, which issued in the institution of the Lord’s Supper, they would re- member the principle, when he indicated the mode in which it would become operative, and the merey which was thus secured to mankind. “This,” said the Saviour, “is My blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the re- mission of sins.” In these two sentences the Saviour expresses His consciousness of the atoning character of His death, and of the blessings which accrue to mankind thereby. When He laid down His life, yea, when He took it again, the promulga- tion of these mercies became the privilege of those to whom His earler Resurrection announce- ments were made, even as they were implied in His last authoritative proclamation, before His Ascension. The charter of the society which He incorporated is the remission and the retention of sins. The privilege is peculiar to the society. The society is the sole depository of the privilege. Christ alone had the power, as He possessed the right, to institute the society and to bestow the privilege. Entrusted with this unique and extraordinary charter, its publication becomes the burden of the great Commission. It is implied in that essential and pic- torial Sacrament, which is the only rite that proclaims the doctrine of individual and of universal depravity : of symbolical and of spiritual cleansing ; and of that newness of life which, where it is manifested, is the expression of the new birth. The evidential value of 228 The Christian Ministry. holy Baptism is of the first order in Christian apologetics. Remission of sins is again recognised as the central fact of the Commission by St. Mark, while St. Luke repeats the doctrine, declares its range to be world-wide, and its starting poimt the Holy City.’ When the Holy Ghost was outpoured upon the day of Pentecost, this great truth receives that promi- nence which Christ Himself gave to it. It is the eladdening announcement to which St. Peter’s searching sermon led up.” It is the last sentence in one of the most persuasive appeals recorded in the New Testament.’ It is heard again in the council chamber of the Sanhedrim ; while later on St. Peter re-asserts the doctrine at Cesarea, with a weight of prophetic anticipation and of royal authority, which suggests its supreme importance.* Nor is it otherwise when we pass from the utter- ᾿ ances of St. Peter to those of St. Paul. His first missionary journey includes a proclamation of the gospel in Antioch in Pisidia. ‘The echoes of that announcement—so clear, so full, so strong—are heard in Galatia, in Philippi, in Thessalonica, in Athens, in Corinth, in Ephesus, in Jerusalem, in Rome. In the belief of the great evangelist, his messsage has an interest for men who represent every variety of thought, of custom, of civilisation, and of race. Thus iar, man’s liability under Divine law is met by the authoritative proclamation of that act in the moral 1 St. Mark xvi. 16; St.*Luke’xsiv. 47. 3 Acts ii. 38. 2 Acts ili. 26, 4 Acts x. 43, Penalty attached to Sin annulled by Christ. 229 government of God, which we know as pardon, as forgiveness, as remission. But the pardon of sin in- volves deliverance from the penalty which is attached to its commission. The bestowal of pardon com- bined with the infliction of penalty is neither conceiv- able nor compatible. The granting of pardon involves the abrogation of the penalty. Both are effected, finally and fully, by the work of the Redeemer. Hence St. Paul describes Christ as ‘having delivered us from the wrath to come,’’? as ““ having redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us’ >—a fact which is used by the Apostle as the basis of an appeal for whole-hearted service to Christ. ““ We thus judge, that one died for all, therefore all died; and He died for all, that they which live should no longer live unto themselves, but unto Him who for their sakes died and rose again.” * The language which St. Paul addressed to the Church of Rome is equally explicit, and emphatic, and hortatory. It shows the place which the sin of man and the salva- tion by Christ occupied in the realm of Law. ‘Trans- gression was met by remission, and remission carried with it deliverance from death. The proclamation of this is, according to St. Paul, “the ministry of Reconciliation.” * To this ministry is entrusted ‘ the word of reconciliation’’—a word which announces pardon, full, free, and final, and which involves the 1 1 Thess. i. 10. 2 Gal. iii. 13. (RB. V.) ΕΒ σον. v.15. (CR. V.) ‘ καὶ δόντος ἡμῖν τὴν διακονίαν τῆς καταλλαγῆς. .. καὶ θέμενος ἐν ἡμῖν τὸν λόγο της καταλλαγης (2 Cor. v. 18, 19). 230 The Christian Ministry. annulling of the penalty by the act which, at the same time, illustrates the hemnousness of human sin, the majesty of the Divine Law, and the mercy which rejoices against judgment. By whatever word this, the stupendous work of Christ, is described, whether it be called Redemption, or Atonement, or Propitia- tion, or Salvation, the blessings which are offered are conditioned upon their personal appropriation. Faith, individual, intelligent, and heartfelt is, according to the analogies which are furnished by the place which it occupies in the miracles of Christ, according to the explicit teaching of the holy apostles, and according to its general influence, the means by which the work of Christ is appropriated. The proclamation of that work, for the individual, redemptive; for the society, corporate, aggressive, and perpetual, is one of the highest offices of the Christian ministry. There are, doubtless, other departments of sacred service. There is adminis- tration. This is common to both worlds. It is ἢ the Invisible no less than it is in the Visible Church of Christ, and the certainty of its prevalence in the Unseen should solemnise the humblest act of earthly service done in the Redeemer’s name. Administration includes the arrangements which are necessary to the expression of sympathy, to the adjustment or to the re-adjustment of ministerial labour to the necessities of human life, to local or to social change. It includes the assertion of holy discipline as an essential factor of the kingdom of Christ, together with the solemnities of ordination. Ministry, Administrative, Liturgical, Didactic. 231 There is also the liturgical office. This brings before us that highest exercise of man’s powers, quickened by the Divine Life which is communi- cated by the Holy Ghost, and which has its end in adoration of the Eternal, whether it be in the humilities of supplication; in the Magnificats of praise ; in the loving activities of unselfish service ; in the holy joyousness, and in the proclamations, present and prospective, of the Kucharist; or in the administration of Baptism, as assertive of original sin, of clinging guilt, of purifying pardon, of newness of life, and of that universal kingdom, to which it is the introduction, and within which its symbolised blessings are realised, to which blessings the rite itself is the title deed. There is also the didactic office. This includes the instruction to be given to the ignorant ; the read- ing of the word of God in the public ministrations of the Church or in house to house visitation—the unique feature of the Christian system; as well as the preaching of that word which announces Christ as the life to the spiritually dead, and as the peace to those who, apart from Him, are unreconciled to God, and exposed to the sentence of Law. Of these three phases of ministerial work, the liturgical is the most comprehensive. It touches administration, since alms-giving is sacrificial. It touches didactics, since the word of God, whether publicly read or expounded, is one element in liturgical service, and has so been from the first day until now. In the Apostolic Church we find 232 The Christian Ministry. their present order reversed. The primary function which the apostles discharged was the didactic. It followed immediately upon the Pentecostal effusion. St. Peter’s sermon was so blessed that ‘‘ they that gladly received his word were baptized.” ‘This leads up to the liturgical office of the apostles: ‘‘ They continued steadfastly in the ... breaking of the bread and in the prayers.” And in the succeeding sentences we have the most remarkable occasion which the history of the Church of Christ records of the necessity for administration. The Acts of the Apostles show us, and in various centres, the modes in which these three sides of the ministerial office were presented to mankind in the actual advance- ment of the kingdom. But in its initial stage, in its aggression upon the conservative elements of Judaism, or upon the idolatries of polytheism, whether in the Hast or in the West, the burden of this was placed upon the Didactic office. And while it was not by the act of preaching,' but by the mes- sage which the preacher delivered, that the world was saved, yet the whole position, from centre to circum- ference, gave to the didactic work of the missionary an importance which is of the highest order. This work was the theme of ancient prophecy. Seven hundred years before the voice of the Seer of Judea broke the stillness of the centuries, Isaiah saw the ministry of the Redeemer, and he apostrophised it in words which, with the Epistle to the Romans before us, justify us in identifying the King with 1 εὐδόκησεν ὁ Θεὸς διὰ τῆς μωρίας τοῦ κηρύγματος (1 Cor. 1. 21). Didactic Work most Prominent. 23% His heralds: ‘‘ How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of Him that bringeth good tidings ; that publisheth peace ; that bringeth good tidings of good, that publisheth salvation ’’—a sentence which St. Paul applies in part to the official ministry of the Christian Church.’ The importance of the public declaration of truth is further proved by the example of John the Baptist, and by the con- spicuous and constant teaching of the Lord Jesus Christ. In the numerous synagogues which were scattered all over the Holy Land; in the narrow streets of Eastern towns; in the villages, in the cities, by the seaside, on mountain slopes, and in the great temple, reared to the glory of God, Jesus Christ appeared as a teacher. Nor was His preaching narrower in its range. Again and again, the individuality of instruction, which is implied in teaching, is sustained and is succeeded by the royal proclamation of the gospel of the kingdom. The mission of the Twelve is in accordance with the King’s line of action. Their commission is, “As ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand.” St. Mark’s account is still more explicit.?” It reveals the three grand elements of the apostolic and of the ministerial office. He “calleth whom He would.” Here is Divine elec- tion. He appointed twelve, “that they should be with Him.” Here is Divine association. ‘‘ He sent them forth to preach.” Here is Divine work to be done. And although the official word,’ 1 Tsaiah lii. 7 ; Rom. x. 15. 2 St. Mark iii. 13, 14. 3 κηρύσσειν. 234 The Christian Ministry. which is generally used, is not applied to the work of the seventy, yet their work, too, is covered by that term. They were heralds of the kingdom of God. So far, then, the pre-resurrection life of Christ shows the importance attached to the didactic ministry. And as if in anticipation of the tendency to disparage the messenger and his work, Christ adds the most solemn sentences which ever fell from His lips on this theme. ‘‘He that heareth you, heareth Me: and he that despiseth you, despiseth Me, and he that despiseth Me, despiseth Him that sent Me.’’? Church history, from the Pentecostal period on to the close of the first century, illustrates the con- tinuity which we have every right to expect would characterise a function which (so far as it 1s devoted to the proclamation of the Gospel) is the subject of prophecy, was discharged by the Baptist, was committed to the Twelve, and was even glorified by Christ. The passages in apostolic literature which exhibit this continuity, are so numerous that but a small collection can be made. In these, the message of the preacher appears in well-nigh every aspect. It is the vehicle by which the power of the Holy Ghost influenced the hearts of men, as distinguished from the influence of language upon the reason, and as working out that ‘‘ much assurance,’ which is one of the most precious of all spiritual gifts. The reception of the message aroused affliction, and even persecution; but the 1 St. Luke x. 16. Emphasized amid Suffering. 228 consolations of religion were abundant. The law- less tyranny which flung the freedmen of Heaven into the Philippian prison was no deterrent to them. ‘‘ We were bold in our God to speak unto’”’ the Thessalonians “the Gospel of God with much contention.” Such was felt to be the value of an apostolic tract which bore upon the doctrines of the cross and the duties and the beliefs of Christians, that the language of authority, yea, the language of asseveration is employed, to secure the public reading of the Thessalonian letter.’ In the same year in which St. Paul penned this, the first epistle he ever wrote, he sent a second to the same Church. In this he regards the Gospel, though preached by him, as the voice of God, which called them ‘unto the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ ”’ ; and when from a heart so sensitive to love, and so solicitous for sympathetic prayer he appeals to his converts for the ministry of intercession, the plea is conjoined with the object dearest to his soul, ‘“‘that the word of the Lord may have free course and be glorified.’’” Addressing the Corimthians about four years later, conscious of those ‘“ who possibly injuriously contrasted the plainness of speech of the Apostle with the eloquence and rhetorical power of Apollos,” he declares that his mission was “ποὺ to baptize, but to preach the Gospel: not with wisdom of 1 ἐνορκίζω ὑμᾶς τὸν Κύριον ἀναγνωσθῆναι τὴν ἐπιστολὴν πᾶσι τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς (1 Thess. v.27). 2 2 Thess. iii. 1. 236 The Christian Ministry. words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect,”’ and the reason which he assigned is at once one of the greatest encouragements to the minister of Christ and the most searching test to the unbeliever. The declaration of the ‘testimony of God” is the proclamation of ‘‘ Jesus Christ, and Him crucified.’ The unaffected, unadorned sim- plicity which characterised St. Paul’s statement of Divine truth was, he appears to say, designed by his Master, ‘‘ who so conditioned and foreordered’’ his preaching that the confidence of the Corinthians might rest upon the truth itself, rather than upon the uncertain auxiliaries of human genius. The official servants of Christ are ‘‘stewards of the mysteries of God.’ Their cardinal qualification is, not brilliancy of diction; not varied learning; not intellectual power. These may adorn, if anything can “adorn, the doctrine of God our Saviour.” But they give place to fidelity. A faithful message is a fruitful message ; and he to whom God had said, in an hour of sore apprehension, passed in the city to whose Church this epistle was addressed, ‘“‘T have much people in this city,” knew full well the absolute necessity of truth for the purposes of spiritual vivification. It was with this before his mind that he wrote the words, ‘‘ In Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the Gospel,” or as St. Luke phrases it, ‘‘ he continued there a year and six months teaching the word of God among them.” THC Ors 1 ΤΥ. The Work Designated the Workers. aay, When insisting upon the practical recognition of the principle laid down by Christ—‘‘the labourer is worthy of his hire’’—he designated the class which was thus early devoted to the ministry thus: *‘they which preach the Gospel’’ This is his own special work. There is, according to the will of God, a ‘‘necessity”’ laid upon him, of which he is so conscious that he exclaims, ‘‘ Woe is unto me if I preach not the gospel.’’ The prophetic order of the apostolic Church was of pre-eminent value, because their ministries tended to convict men of sin; to arouse dormant souls; to cast them down before God in an agony of self-abasement, to learn, in that humbling state, the rudiments of acceptable worship. It also edified the body of believers. In that chapter—consecrated by our saddest memories, yet quickening our highest hopes —the word of the Gospel as preached, as received, as enjoyed, is that by which men are being saved. Nor is the moral influence of the ‘‘ word of life’’ lower or less, as the preacher becomes enriched by wider experience, whether of sorrow, or of suffering, or of joy. The more he sees of men, the stronger is his confidence in his message. Vacillation has no place in his mind; fickleness is no factor in his mode. The living, the personal, the Divine Christ is the grand theme of his utterance. ‘The Son of God, Jesus Christ, who was preached among you by us, even by me and Silvanus, and Timotheus, was not yea and nay, but in Him was yea.’’ The proclamation of Christ’s Gospel was the avowed 238 The Christian Mintstry. object for which he went to Troas. This he must make known, even though he is overwhelmed by the consciousness that the moral position of every hearer is altered by his having listened to the word. The messengers of the cross deal out life and death to those whom they address. No man, after hearing the Gospel, can, by effort, by volition, by resolution, revert to the exact position in moral responsibility which he occupied before he became acquainted with the message. The solemnity of this thought is indicated in the inquiry, ‘‘ Who is sufficient for these things?’’ Thus oppressed, thus concerned for the souls of men and for his own share in their loss or in their life he is sustained by the con- viction, ‘‘Our sufficiency is of God.’’ The ministry of the New Testament is essentially spiritual in its nature, and vital in its operation. The presence of the Spirit of the Lord is the presence of life and liberty. To be entrusted with such a ministry is both an incentive to courageous utterance and an appeal to fidelity, unwavering, unpurchaseable, unmistakeable, to the truth of God. Such an appeal is charged with the most obliging constraint, because truth alone is-quickening. Truth alone is the radiance which, rising out of the darkness of sinful hearts, at the Divine bidding, reflects, yea reveals ‘“‘the light of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.’’ This treasure, heavenly in its origin, heavenly in its issue, is committed to an earthly ministry, which receives its designation from the message which it is Message adapted to every Moral Condition. 239 commissioned to bear to mankind. Nor has the messenger any reason to be depressed as he surveys the fortresses and the ramparts of the opposing forces. The panoply of God is his defence. The weapons of his warfare are, even in the estimate of their Omnipotent Origin, mighty to the reduction of the stoutest stronghold. Thus assured of the influence of the Gospel, the Apostle would not weary in proclaiming it. ‘‘The regions beyond”’ should hear, and although false teachers would seek to seduce converts from principles and to attach them to persons, yea, would even boast of their success, the faithful messenger was ever true to that essential principle of genuine Christian work —the ascription of all glory to His Master. The Epistle to the Romans is regarded as the masterwork of St. Paul. Written from the city of Corinth, we find the same prominence given to the doctrines which were to be defined and defended by the didactic office. As the glories of the imperial city rise before the apostolic mind, he is, notwithstanding, ‘“‘ready to preach the gospel” there. He describes it as ‘“‘the power of God” unto salvation—words which are never applied to the holy law with which, as a Jew, he had such intellectual and practical acquaintance. The salva- tion of his compatriots, who still lived in and under that law, is, perhaps, the burning desire of his spirit. Their adherence to its literalism, and their devotion to a system which was rendered obsolete by the Redeemer’s sacrifice, resurrection, 240 The Christian Ministry. and ascension, indicated their ignorance of the only righteousness which could avail with God. That righteousness was out of faith, as its spring. Faith was out of the publication of the Gospel, which was by means of the word of Christ. Their reception of the message enabled him, in the discharge of his official service, to present the Gentiles as an offermg to God, acceptable and sanctified by the Holy Ghost. This was the joy of his life. It was an inspiration. The evangel which effected it was the good news of God, and his delight was to tell it out, constantly, fervently, faithfully, prayerfully, and lovingly, from Jerusalem unto Illyricum; and his assurance is high, that his visit to the Roman Church will be made by him and for them ‘‘in the fulness of the blessing of the gospel of Christ.” For them, that fulness was exhibited in the revelation of the mystery which St. Paul was authorised to publish. It was the admission of the Gentiles to the blessings of the Gospel. The contemplation of these mercies arouses the doxology, in which, while glorifying the power which accomplished redemption, and the wisdom which planned it, he recognises the need of strength for the Church. This the Gospel supplies. It was in the message of the ambassador. It was in the proclamation of the King. The letters of the first Roman captivity endured by St. Paul sustain the conclusion which is being thus strengthened by accumulating evidence. The wrongs which were inflicted upon him contributed to the Burden of St. Paul's Life and Labour. 241 circulation of the doctrines for the publication of which he was imprisoned. The persecution which he endured contributed to the more extensive preaching of Christ, and it aroused the spirit of rejoicing. The Colossians—whom he had not seen when the epistle was addressed to them—are reminded of the moral fertility of the Gospel of grace. The range of the message was the measure of its fruitfulness. Of that message, widely preached, accepted, and fertile, St. Paul was made a minister. His ministrations have to do with the Personal Christ. They are individual in the utterance of the word of warning; they are individual in the communication of instruction, in order that, indi- vidually, men may be presented to God. The mystery of Christ is as a fire in his bones. He craves intercession that ‘‘God would open unto us a door of utterance.” The Epistle to the Ephesians is, confessedly, one of the profcundest portions of Holy Scripture. The message of the Gospel and its official heralds are here again indirectly men- tioned. ‘The word of truth, the gospel of your salvation,’ was announced, and was heard. It was followed by the repose of the soul in Christ, Who ‘‘came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh.’’* The contem- plation of the abounding mercies of redeeming love by which “the Gentiles became fellow heirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ, by the gospel,’* causes the imprisoned 1 Eph. ii. 17. 2 Eph. iii 6. 16 242 The Christian Muntistry. evangelist to contrast the moral splendour of grace with his own personal demerit, and conscious of his unworthiness, he exclaims, ‘‘ Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ.’’’ Indeed, in this passage he seems as if flushed with holy pride as he remembers that of such a Master he is the minister, the prisoner, the slave. In a passage in the next chapter, the official designations of the ministry are given. They are declared to be the gift of the Ascended Christ to the Church, for the working out of purposes which embrace eternity in their momentous issues. Every designation is correlative to the publication, in some mode, of the Gospel. The panoply of the Christian soldier is, in the same way, correlative to the reception of the Gospel. And of all the disabilities under which the great missionary laboured; of all the objects then dear to his loving and_to his large heart; of all the concerns that claimed regard from him, there was no concern so great, there was no object so essential, there was no disability so agonising as that which is exhibited even in the dim light of a Roman prison, by the litany of love which he places upon the lips of his Ephesian converts: ‘‘And for me, that utterance may be given unto me, that I may open my mouth boldly, to make known the mystery of the Gospel, for which I am an ambassador in 1 Eph. iii, 8, Pastoral Epistles magnify Didactics. 243 bonds: that therein I may speak boldly, as I ought to speak.’’? The Pastoral Epistles are the latest records which we possess from the pen of the Apostle. They concern the government of the Church of God. They were written, as their contents show, under the solemnising apprehensions which are inseparable from the close of life, and under the scarcely less solemnising conviction that the truth of God would be corrupted by the weakness and by the way- wardness of men. Hence his authoritative ad- monition to St. Timothy, to ‘charge some that they teach no other doctrine.’* Hence, too, his suggestion that unwholesome doctrine is to be tested by the ‘‘ glorious gospel of the blessed God,” with which he was entrusted, and of which, he seems to rejoice in reiterating, he was ‘‘ordained a preacher, and an apostle, a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.”’* This didactic office is to be discharged by the bishop, and St. Timothy is enjoined to give attention to ‘‘ public reading, to exhortation, to doctrine.” Presbyters who especially “labour in the word and doctrine’’ are to be ‘‘accounted worthy of double honour.’’* The height of holy solemnity is reached when the aged apostle charges his son in the faith, to ‘‘ preach the word.’’ Later on, when describing the duties of the bishop, he emphasizes this: ‘‘ Holding fast the faithful word, as he hath been taught, that he 1 Eph. vi. 19, 20. bls 1 7. OAS EY br a Ss f 1 1 1 Ὑ oli 244 The Christian Ministry, may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.”’ From this review of some of the incidental references to the place which the word of God and its publication occupy in the Church, we gather the supreme importance of the message, and the prominence of the didactic office by which the message was circulated. Nor is it otherwise in sub-apostolic writings, if allowance be made for the scanty records of an obscure and transitional period. The epistle which is attributed to St. Clement of Rome contains statements which imply the prominence which was then assigned to knowledge of the Scriptures and to the didactic office of the ministry. The Corin- thians are described as ‘‘ giving heed to His (God’s) words,’ and as having ‘‘laid them up diligently in your hearts.’”’? Appeals are made to the Scriptures to indicate the cause of spiritual defection; to condemn jealousy, strife and _ self-assertion ; to stimulate souls to penitence, to obedience, to faith, to humility, and to peace. When the writer refers to St. Paul it is to mention that his work as a preacher brought to him persecution, and even death. ‘‘ After that he had been seven times in bonds, had been driven into exile, had been stoned, had preached in the Hast and in the West, he won the noble renown which was the reward of his faith, having taught righteousness unto the whole world, and having reached the farthest bounds of Titus 119: 2 καὶ προσέχοντες τοὺς λόγους αὐτοῦ ἐπιμελῶς ἐνεστερνισμένοι Fre τοῖς σπλάγχνοις (1 Clem., 11.). Same Prominence given by Clement. 245 the West.’ In a section of the epistle which has created much controversy, the writer emphasizes the didactic office again and again. ‘‘ The apostles received the Gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ was sent forth from God. So then Christ is from God, and the apostles are from Christ. Both, therefore, came of the will of God in the appointed order. Having, therefore, received a charge, and having been fully assured through the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and confirmed in the word of God with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth with the glad tidings that the kingdom of God should come. So preaching everywhere, in country and town, they appointed their first fruits, when they had proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons to them that should believe.’* In ‘an ancient homily,” an incidental reference indicates the order and the mode of Christian worship—reminding us of the well-known passage in Justin Martyr, and the place which the “exhortation ”’ occupied in personal as well as in social religion. ‘‘ After the ' Διὰ ἕῆλον καὶ ὁ Παῦλος ὑπομενῆς βραβεῖον ὑπέδειξεν, ἑπτάκις δεσμὰ φορέσας, φυγαδευθείς, λιθασθείς, κήρυξ γὙ[ενόἡμενος ἔν τε τῇ ἀνατολῇ καὶ ἐν τῇ δύσει, τὸ γενναῖον τῆς πίστεως αὐτοῦ κλέος ἔλαβεν, δικαιοσύνην διδάξας ὅλον τὸν κόσμον καὶ ἐπὶ τὸ τέρμα τῆς δύσεως ἐλθών (1 Clem., ν.). 2 Οἱ ἀπόστολοι ἡμῖν εὐηγγελίσθησαν ἀπὸ τοῦ Κυρίου ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ᾿Ιησοῦς ὁ Χριστὸς ἀπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐξεπέμφθη" ὁ Χριστὸς οὖν ἀπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ, καὶ οἱ ἀπόστολοι ἀπὸ τοῦ Χριστοῦ. ἐγένοντο οὖν ἀμφότερα εὐτάκτως ἐκ θελήματος Θεοῦ. παραγγελίας οὖν λαβόντες, καὶ πληροφορηθέντες διὰ τῆς ἀναστάσεως τοῦ Kupiod ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ πιστωθέντες ἐν τῷ λόγῳ τοῦ Θεοῦ μετὰ πληροφορίας πνεύματος ἁγίου ἐξῆλθον, εὐαγγελιζόμενοι τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ Θεοῦ μέλλειν ἔρχεσθαι. κατὰ χώρας οὖν καὶ πόλεις κηρύσσοντες καθίστανον τὰς ἀπαρχὰς αὐτῶν, δοκιμάσαντες τῷ πνεύματι, εἰς ἐπισκόπους καὶ διακόνους τῶν μελλοντων πιστεύειν (1 Clem., xlii.). 246 The Christian Muntistry. God of truth hath been heard” (in the portion of Scripture publicly read), “1 read to you an exhortation to the end that ye may give heed to the things which are written, so that ye may save both yourselves and him that readeth in the midst of you.”’ Barnabas, in the same level of thought, speaks of ‘‘a soul being saved by the word.” Ὁ Ignatius is traditionally regarded as having ‘‘enlightened every one’s understanding by his expositions of the Holy Scriptures.”* Polycarp— pious, consistent, and beloved—was beyond every- thing else, a teacher. Born, probably, in the year in which Jerusalem fell, a.p. 70, he was acquainted with some of the holy apostles, by whom Irenzus states he was instructed, and even appointed to the office of the episcopate. Little as we have of the literature of the period, we have some reason to believe that Polycarp was diligent in the didactic side of his ministry. In one ancient fragment which has come down to us, he is stated to have preached at great length, and to have discoursed 1 μετὰ τὸν Θεὸν τῆς ἀληθείας ἀναγινώσκω ὑμῖν ἔντευξιν els τὸ προσέχειν τοῖς γεγραμμένοις, ἵνα καὶ ἑαυτοὺς σώσητε καὶ τὸν ἀναγινώσκοντα ἐν ὑμῖν (2 Clem., xix.), 2 Ἐκζητήσεις καθ᾿ ἑκάστην ἡμέραν τὰ πρόσωπα τῶν ἀγιῶν, ἢ διὰ λόγου σκοπῶν καὶ πορευόμενος εἰς τὸ παρακαλέσαι, καὶ μελετῶν εἰς τὸ σῶσαι ψυχὴν τῷ λόγῳ (Barn. Kp., xix.). This text is sadly confused. The note is extracted from Dressel (Lips., 1863). Ina note to the above, he says, “ forte διὰ λόγου κοπιῶν, 1.6. instituendo et edocendo operam navans (sudans).” 3 ὅθεν ἔτεσιν ὁλίγοις ἔτι παραμένων τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ, [ καὶ] λύχνου δίκην θεϊκοῦ τὴν ἑκάστου φωτίζων διάνοιαν διὰ τῆς τῶν γραφῶν ἐξεγήσεως (Martyr. Ign., Antiochene Acts, 1.). Hven though the Antiochene as well as the Roman Acts may be regarded as far from authentic history, the passage quoted is not without such value as may be fairly claimed for even traditional literature. Lenatius, Polycarp, Ireneus. 247 with effect upon the portion of Scripture which was read during the service. Reference is made to his great descriptive power; to his voice; to his gesture; to his look. ‘This account is, however, generally discredited. But while its every state- ment may not be regarded as authentic, the reference herein made to his public work is probably true, because it is sustained by what is, undoubtedly, history. Ireneus, the disciple of Polycarp, as Polycarp was of St. John, has left us a very simple sketch of the martyr bishop. It appears in the well-known letter which Irenzus addressed to his pupil Florinus, the former companion and _ fellow- student of Polycarp, after he had lapsed into heresy. This letter is quoted by Eusebius. ‘‘ Ireneus, who, in A.D. 177, became bishop of Lyons, writes to rebuke his old friend, and appeals to their common reminiscences, still so vivid, of the aged bishop of Smyrna.” ‘I can tell,’ he writes, ‘‘the very place in which the blessed Polycarp used to sit when he discoursed, and his goings out, and his comings in, and his manner of life, and his personal appearance, and the discourses which he held before the people, and how he would describe his inter- course with John and with the rest of those who had seen the Lord, and how he would relate their words. And whatsoever things he had heard from them about the Lord, and about His miracles, and about His teaching, Polycarp, as having received them from eyewitnesses of the life of the Word, would relate altogether in strict agreement with the 248 The Christian Ministry. Scriptures.”? An earlier work of Irenzeus contains a passage to the same effect. Polycarp ‘‘ always taught the things which he had learnt from the apostles, and which the Church had handed down, and which alone are true. ‘To these things all the Asiatic Churches testify, as do also these men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time—a man who was of much greater weight, and a more stedfast witness of truth than Valentinus, and Marcion, and the rest of the heretics. He it’ was who, coming to Rome in the time of Anicetus, caused many to turn away from the aforesaid heretics to the Church of God, proclaiming that he had received this one and sole truth from the apostles—that, namely, which is handed down by the Church.”? Meagre as are the materials which have come to us for forming a full opinion about Polycarp, they sre sufficient to show that he was a devout rather than a great man; that he was diligent in his study of the Scriptures; that what- ' “TYiocum dicere possim, in quo sedens beatus Polycarpus disserebat, pro- cessus quoque ejus et ingressus, vitzeque modum et corporis speciem, sermones denique quos ad multitudinem habebat; et familiarem consuetudinem, que illicum Joanne, ac reliquis qui Dominum viderant, intercessit, ut narrabat, et qualiter dicta eorum commemorabat ; queeque de Domino ex ipsis audiverat, de miraculis illius etiam ac de doctrina, que ab iis, qui verbum vite ipsi con- spexerant, acceperat Polycarpus, qualiter referebat, cuncta Scripturis consona.” (Frag. Ep. ad Flor. ex Euseb. lib. v. Εἰ. H., c. 20, Grabe). * “Hee docuit semper que ab apostolis didicerat, que et ecclesia tradidit, et sola sunt vera. Et testimonium his perhibent que sunt in Asia ecclesiz omnes, et qui usque adhuc successerunt Polycarpo: qui vir multo majoris authoritatis, et fidelior veritatis est testis, quam Valentinus et Marcion, et reliqui qui sunt perverse sententiz. Is enim est qui sub Aniceto cum advenisset in urbem, multos ex his quos preediximus, hereticos convertit in ecclesiam Dei, unam et solam hanc veritatem annuncians ab apostolis per- cepisse, quam et ecclesia tradidit.”’ (Iren. ady. Haer., lib. iii., c. 3, Grabe.) Preaching equally prominent in Anglican Ordinal. 249 ever else he may have been as a bishop, he was habitually employed in teaching the word of God, to which he referred in defence of truth and in rejection of error; and that when visiting Rome, he boldly contended for the faith once for all delivered to the saints; and by publicly preaching the Word of Life, rescued many from the subtleties of heresy. The works of Ivenzus assign the same prominence to the didactic office, but, without any further primitive references, I ask you to observe the high position which is assigned to the didactic side of ministerial labour in our own Church. This is manifest from the Ordinal. In the office for the ordering of deacons, when the Bishop has laid his hands, ‘‘ severally upon the head of every one of them humbly kneeling before him,” and after the authorisation, ‘‘then shall the Bishop deliver to every one of them the New Testament, saying, Take thou authority to read the Gospel in the Church of God, and to preach the same, if thou be thereto licensed by the Bishop himself.” When the deacon has purchased to himself a good degree, and is about to be admitted to the second order of the Christian ministry, immediately after the imposition of hands, the Church enjoins: ‘‘ then the Bishop shall deliver to every one of them kneel- ing, the Bible into his hand, saying, Take thou authority to preach the Word of God, and to minis- ter the holy sacraments in the congregation, where thou shalt be lawfully appointed thereto.” Like- wise, in the ordinal for the consecration of bishops, 250 The Christian Ministry. after the same solemn function has been performed upon the newly consecrated bishop, the rubric en- joins, ‘‘Then the Archbishop shall deliver him the Bible.” Now, this ritual is an object lesson given by the Church. It indicates at least two truths of primary importance, viz., the publication of the doctrine, and the custody of the record. The ritual is aS old as the Apostolic Constitutions. In the section which treats of the election and ordination of bishops, these words are found: ‘‘ Silence being made, let one of the principal bishops, together with two others, stand near to the altar, the rest of the bishops and presbyters praying silently, and the deacons holding the divine gospels open upon the head of him that is to be ordained.’’ This act symbolises the didactic office as the especial work of either presbyter or bishop. The same significant rite was decreed by the Fourth Council of Carthage. The bishop was to testify before the congregation to the purity, the faith, and the conversation of the candidate. Then, in their presence, he is to place a Bible in his hands with these words: ‘‘ Take thou this book and be, thou a reader of the Word of God, which office if thou discharge faithfully and profit- ably thou shalt have part with those who have ministered the Word of God.’’? This, the earlier 1 σιωπῆς γενομένης, els τῶν πρώτων ἐπισκόπων ἅμα Kal δυσὶν ἑτέροις, πλησίον τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου ἐστὼς, τῶν λοιπῶν ἐπισκόπων καὶ πρεσβυτέρων σιωπῇ προσευχομένων, τῶν δὲ διακόνων τὰ θεῖα εὐαγγέλια ἐπὶ τῆς τοῦ χειροτονουμένου κεφαλῆς ἀνεπτυγμένα κατεχόντων, λεγέτω πρὸς Θεον (περὶ χειροτονιῶν, lib. viil., c. 4). 2 Lector cum ordinatur, faciat de illo verbum episcopus ad plebem indicans ejus fidem ac vitans, atque ingenium. Post hac, spectante plebe tradat ei codicem, de quo lecturus est, dicens ad eum: Accipe, et esto lector [margin Sacerdotalism prominent in Roman Ordinal. 251 use in both the East and West, is in marked contrast to the Roman form. In the Roman Catholic ordinal, the candidate priests are anointed, then the vessels which belong to the celebration of the Mass are delivered to the candidate, with the words ‘ Re- ceive thou power to offer sacrifices to God, and to celebrate masses for the living and for the dead.’’? The sacerdotal character of the Roman ordinal is in emphatic contrast to the didactic character of the Anglican. The former is a novelty. The latter is scriptural and apostolic. It preserves the truth which God has again and again revealed in Holy Writ. It assures us that the weight of the living oracles is entirely on the side of the theory which regards “ the Word of Truth”’ as the normal means by which He wills to generate eternal life in the souls of men. This theory invests the ministry of the word with awful solemnity. It is a perpetual incentive to holy, to painful, to unsparing anxiety to maintain the most scrupulous fidelity towards the message itself. That fidelity must maintain its claims; must publish its contents ; must realize the universality of its range ; and it will be strengthened for the toil implied by “relator” ] verbi Dei, habiturus, si fideliter et utiliter impleveris officium, partem cum eis qui verbum Dei ministraverint. (Sac. Conc. Phil. Labbe et Gabr. Cossart, S. J., Florentiz, MDCCLIX, t. ter., c. vili., p, 951.) ' Then he delivers to each one successively a chalice with wine and water, and a paten with a host lying upon it ; they receive the latter (the host) between the fore and middle fingers ; and they touch, at the same time, the bowl of the chalice, and the paten, while the Pontiff says to each one : “ Accipe potestatem offerre sacrificium Deo, missasque celebrare, tam pro vivis, quam pro defunctis, Innomine Domini. R. Amen.” This delivery of the vessels and the words are the essential ordaining act. Prior to this point, the candidates are described as ordinandi, They are now ordinati. (omish Rites, Offices, etc., p. 50. Foye, London: 1851). 252 The Christian Muintistry. these obligations through the personal faith of the minister in the Divinity, in the authority, and in the sufficiency of the message. 1. The Word of God, as it is now possessed by His ministry, and as it is now witnessed to and guarded by His Church, claims to be the revela- tion of His will and the expression of the Holy Ghost. It is the Divine message to mankind. It speaks with the voice of conscious authority. It addresses man as if it came fresh from the Personal God. ‘Thussaith the Lord” announces in the same breath the origin and the nature of the message. The contents of the word sustain this suggestion of its origin. In no other volume is there such a revelation of the nature, the character, the attributes of God. In no other volume is there such an exposition of the nature, the character, the needs of man. With regard to these, the lapse of ages; the ever new yet ever old experiences of humanity ; the records of history, the most ancient or the most recent, show that no feature of human life, no subtlety of the sinful soul, no inner or outer phase of being, is omitted from the pages of this revelation. It is a summary of human thought. It is a thesaurus in which men may discern the germs of the noblest philosophies, the subtlest systems, the most in- fluential principles, the simplest truths. It is as rich in its anticipations of the hopes of the philosophic optimist, as it is in its explanations of all that perplexes and bewilders the philosophic pessimist. Herein the disciple of Leibunitz may find encourage- Bible reveals Deity and Humanity. 253 ment. Herein the disciple of Hartmann may find the solution of his problem, and the solvent of his despair. ‘‘ Read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest” the word of God, and as you observe its acquaint- ance with the workings of the human heart; with the sorrows, the subtleties, the sins of human life ; with the vanities which cheat us, with the principles which govern us; with the motives which actuate us, in all ages of individual life; in all periods of human history; in all eras and epochs of social progress, you will be led to adopt the conclusion with regard to the word written, which men of old adopted with regard to the Word Incarnate: ‘‘ He knew what was in man’’; or, to put the thought in a way which asserts the production of the revelation to be equally beyond man’s capacity and his disposition : “ΠῚ 6 Bible is not such a book as man would have written if he could; or could have written, if he would.”’ It is inspired by Almighty God. This authority of Revelation is sustained by its anticipations of modern science,’ by its consonance with the ever-multiplying discoveries which intrepid penetration is making in stones, in monuments, in inscriptions; by the increasing wealth of docu- mentary evidence, and by the growing testimony which is borne by history to the fulfilment of prophecy. Viewing these contributions cumu- latively, one may adopt the sagacious language of Butler, with regard to the evidence of Christianity, ' Henry Rogers. * Vide Note on Inspired Anticipations of Modern Science. 254 The Christian Munistry. and, applying it to the Inspiration of Holy Scripture, we may say: ‘‘ The evidence of Inspiration will be a long series of things, reaching, as it seems, from the beginning of the world to the present time, of great variety and compass, taking in both the direct and also the collateral proofs, and making up, all of them together, one argument: the conviction arising from which kind of proof may be compared to what they call the effect in architecture, or other works of art.’”? The minister of the Church of Christ, in the prosecu- tion of his didactic work, must never lower the claim thus made by the Holy Scripture. Inspiration is the fundamental doctrine upon which the “ sufficiency ”’ and the supremacy of Holy Writ reposes. 2. He must also be faithful in the publication of its contents. These admit of neither addition nor subtraction. In the period which is represented by the Pentateuch, God issued that prohibition which speaks to the Christian Church, with trumpet tongue, to-day. It was of His holy law that He said: “‘ Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish aught from 10." The reason which Jehovah assigned implies the profound and practical affinity there is between Divine truth and human obedience. Man acquires aid, in the way of natural consequence, from obedience to Divine command, by which larger demands upon his obedience may be made and a heartier obedience may be rendered. Later on, the prohibition has a wider range. It extends to ‘‘ what thing soever I 1 Analogy, Part ii., ¢. vii. 2 Deut. iv. 2. To be Jealously Guarded, yet Fully Published. 255 command you observe to do it, thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.”' The Psalter rings with stanzas and with songs, the theme of which is the word of God. ‘The utterances of Jeremiah are sanctioned and are strengthened by the reiteration of the legal prohibition. We may reasonably assume that the New Testament is to be guarded by a similar restraint. ‘The authority of the Redeemer, the witness of the Church, and the nature of the case, forbid us to consign the New Testament to the keeping of looser safeguards than those which so faith- fully preserved the record of the Old. We may not add to, nor diminish aught from, the revelation of God. Nor may it be corrupted. As early as the days which are covered by the preface to St. Luke’s Gospel, and as late as those which are represented by the Epistle to the Thessalonians, or, later still, by that to the Corinthians, there were men who adulterated its truth. Admonished by the voice of expostulation ; deterred by the remembrance of the schisms and of the heresies which, through a partial and even frac- tional publication of the word of God, have again and again broken the unity of the Church, the minister of Christ must be faithful to the fulness of that word. If he would be “free of the blood of all men,” he must ‘‘ prophesy according to the proportion of faith.’* He must not shun ‘to declare all the counsel of God.”* He will remem- ber that organic unity is no less a mark of the living oracles than it is of a living man. Scrip- > Deut. xib 32. 2? Rom, xii. 6, SACS χει SN. 256 The Christian Muintstry. ture is not like a sand heap, from which grain after grain may be withdrawn, and it is a sand heap still. It is rather like a chronometer, with pivots, screws, wheels, chains, dial-plate, figures, and hands, each and all related to the other, the removal of any one of which is to disintegrate the unity and to imperil the utility of the whole. Bearimg this in mind, the minister of God will have no sympathy with any system which narrows the Gospel of Christ to the announcement of one class of truths. He will be warned by the way in which Comte on the one hand, and Newman on the other, presented a defective religion. Auguste Comte admitted but two factors in his conception of religion. This is implied with sufficient clearness in the account which he gives of the term. ‘‘ Religion,” he says, ‘‘ expresses that state of complete harmony peculiar to human life, in its collective as well as in its individual form, where all the parts of life are ordered in their natural relations to each other.’ Individuality and collec- tivity are the dual phases of life, each implying a special quality in religion. The grand task of religion is to regulate the individual, and to com- bine different individual lives. ‘This combination is the ideal Great Being. This is the Humanity which the individual is to apostrophise and adore. Of God, Comte knows nothing. Newman, in his earlier, and, it may have been, happier experiences, wellnigh touched the philosophy of the great Frenchman. He too, accepted a dualistic religion. Let him be heard in his own sad words :—‘‘ One of the first books I Comte and Newman. 257 read was a work of Romaine’s; I neither recollect the title nor the contents, except one doctrine, which of course I do not include among those which I believe to have come from a Divine source—viz., the doctrine of final perseverance. I received it at once, and believed that the inward conversion of which I was conscious (and of which I am still more certain than that I have hands and feet), would last into the next life, and that I was elected to eternal glory. I have no consciousness that this belief had any tendency whatever to lead me to be careless about pleasing God. I retained it till the age of twenty- one, when it gradually faded away; but I believe that it had some influence on my opinions, in the direction ot those childish imaginations which I have already mentioned—viz., in isolating me from the objects which surrounded me, in confirming me in my mistrust of the reality of material phenomena, and making me rest in the thought of two, and two only, absolute and luminously self-evident beings, myself and my Creator, for while I considered myself predestined to salvation, my mind did not dwell upon others, as fancying them simply passed over, not predestined to eternal death. I only thought of the mercy to myself.’ Many and serious thoughts are suggested by this melancholy exposure of spiritual isolation; and by the rejection of a doctrine which many profound thinkers have read out of the Redeemer’s language ; have found in the nature of the life which He 1 Apologia, p, 4. 17 258 The Christian Ministry. bestows; in the sympathetic hallelujahs of the heavenly host over the penitent, and in the strong consolations of apostolic assurance. But these ideas must be now ignored in favour of the point which justifies the citation. Newman’s religion was dual. It was God and his own soul. ‘‘ My mind did not dwell upon others.” ‘Thus, as it has been acutely observed, ‘‘as Comte leaves out the Deity from his elementary conceptions, another school leaves out’ the! world... 22% The one system passes into Secularism ; the other into Mysticism. The fulness of truth springs from the co-ordination of both.’ The Gospel of Christ, as the revelation of ‘ the whole counsel of God,” supplements the deficiency of Positivism by the revelation of God in Christ. It further asserts the position of the ‘ world,” as within the range of Redemption, and thus supple- ments the deficiency of which Newman writes in his Apologia. In doing both it places religion upon a perfect basis. It makes man the unit of its influence; the world as the society in which it is to operate; God as the Being to Whom both tend and by Whom both are drawn. It is the work of the ministry to exhibit the relationship of Christ Jesus to each. The indication of that relationship is seen to shimmer amid the darkness of the ante- diluvian days. It flashes, meteor like, across the firmament which hung over the Hebrew people, gleaming amid the gloom of smoking furnace, of fiery pillar, of kindly hght. It becomes brighter Gospel of the Resurrection (Westcott), p. 254. Christ, the Light of all Time, Thought, Scripture. 259 and broader, like an Alpine sunrise, as the day grows apace, until, in the fulness of time, the high noon of heaven’s light bathes a weary world with the beams of the Sun of Righteousness. To those who have eyes to see Him, Christ is the Light of all the ages, even as He is the Light of all Scripture; be it historical, or ritual, or martial, or proverbial, or poetical, or predictive, each receives illumination from the ‘“‘ Sun of our Souls.” And he who preaches Christ, as Christ is ‘‘ preached in the Scriptures,’’ can never be reproached with the sin of sectarianism; can never be charged with a narrowness, which practically disparages a vast amount of the revelation of God; can never be guilty of the blood of men; can never be dwarfed by the reactionary influences which always take revenge upon a preacher of Divine truth by making him the antitype of his dwarfed declaration. For the salvation of the souls of men; for the advance- ment of the Kingdom of Christ; for the glory and for the praise of God, preach Christ. Your message will never lack variety. There is not a field of thought or of enterprise which He has not touched. Do you want to preach creation? Then preach Christ, for ‘without Him was not anything made that was made.’’? Do you want to preach philosophy ? Then preach Christ, Who “‘is the wisdom of God.” ” Do you want to preach the unity of the human race as the conclusion of ethnology; or the limitations of national boundaries; or the reign and the ruin of 1 St. Johni. 3. 21 Cor 1 24. 260 The Christian Ministry. empires; or the dependence of the meanest and of the mightiest upon a sovereign will? Then preach Christ, ‘‘Who hath made of one blood all nations of men to dwell on all the face of the earth ; and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation.” * Above all preach Him as the sole expression of the love of God; as the unique and accepted and final Propitiation for the sins of the whole world; as the Life and as the Light of men; as the ‘‘ Head of the Church, which is His Body.” Thus will His commissioned ambassador be faithful to the contents of that revelation with which he is en- trusted. Thus will he deliver, expound, and enforce dogmatic truth.’ 3. He must be faithful to the universality of its range. Every man has an interest in the Word Incarnate. Every man has a redemptive right to be informed of that interest. The announcement of this intelligence is entrusted to the Church of Christ, who commissioned and constituted the Christian Ministry for this especial purpose. This width of range is implied in the Person of Christ. He total- ised humanity. This is declared in Holy Scripture. The Abrahamic promises are inclusive of every ? Acts xvii. 26. 2“ Hvery effective preacher must do more than preach mere morals. The human race has hitherto been led, not by precept, but by dogma. It is not the example of a holy life, but the assertion of a separate creed, of new privileges, resting on new beliefs, which has reformed the world once and again. Τῇ, therefore, in the present times of discussion, of historical criticism, of speculative interest in religion, a preacher avoids dogma, he is not likely to produce any permanent effect.”—(Modern Preaching, by Professor Mahaffy, sec. xxv., p. 79.) Redemption Universal. 261 variety of race. In Christ ‘all the families of the earth are blessed.”” The words of the Lord Jesus are to the same purport. He came “to seek and to save that which was lost,’ and He came as the gift of everlasting love. This doctrine is assumed and asserted by the apostles. St. Paul considers “ the universality of the dispensation is proved by the unity of the Dispenser. The existence of different dispensations for different portions of the human race would seem inconsistent with the conception of one supreme all ruling Creator.’ ’ The writer of the Hpistle to the Hebrews says that Jesus, ‘‘by the grace of God, tasted death for every man,’’* a doctrine which reiterates the sentiment of the Pastoral Epistles, where universal redemption is traced up to the will of God. This, the world-wide sphere in which the message is to run, and in which the ministry is to toil, is in strong contrast with other systems, which are either topical, or tribal, or national. It charges the Christian minister with a peculiar responsibility. This is the nerve of pastoral visitation. The lan- guage of the Good Shepherd is heard through the Church, and in all the ages. ‘‘ He calleth His own sheep by name.”’* This individuality of sympathy reappears in apostolic life. 1 St. Luke xix. 10, * ὃς πάντας ἀνθρώπους θέλει σωθῆναι καὶ els ἐπίγνωσιν ἀληθείας ἐλθεῖν. els yap Θεός, εἷς καὶ μεσίτης Θεοῦ καὶ ἀνθρώπων ἄνθρωπος Χριστὸς ᾿Ιησοῦς (1 Tim. ii. 4).— Vide Ellicott, in loc. * Heb. ii. 9. 4 St. John x. 8. 262 The Christian Mintstry. It is implied by the conditions under which the ministry laboured in apostolic and in subsequent times, as well as by the varied character of the message itself. The Christian preacher will find in the word of God every mode of address; every moral stimulant to decision, to action, to self- sacrifice; every form of appeal is adjusted to the tone, to the temper, and to every variety of in- dividual character. Revelation has its woes and it has its warnings. It has its entreaties, and its expostulations. It has its menacings, retributive, judicial, and certain. It has its invitations, its promises, its prospects. It has its laws, its precepts, its restraints, its incentives. These imply individual adaptation. There is no phase of character, in the infinite variety of the human family, omitted from, or un- recognised by, the morals or by the ethics of the Scriptures. The whole human family has, conse- quently, a share in the literature of God’s mighty love. The herald who proclaims that love must be as varied in his announcement as is the message. He must not dilute its declarations, nor relax its restraints, nor narrow the area in which its glorious tidings are to circulate. Publicly and from house to house, the whole counsel of God is to be taught and preached. In the publication of His message, he will bear in mind that ‘“‘the grace of God which bringeth salvation hath appeared unto all men,’’? and therefore, grace, as he proclaims it, knows. Mbt ati ΠῚ The Election of Grace, not Reprobational. 263 nothing of a doctrine which is the counterpart of the physical hypothesis of ‘‘ natural selection.”’ God has His electing right. It is exercised ‘‘ according to the election of grace.’’ Its exercise may be recognised and accepted and rejoiced in, when the word of God is received. But this need not narrow the Christian doctrine, which is implied by the Person, as well as involved in the work of the Redeemer, which was practically adopted by the apostles, and is scattered broadcast upon the pages of the sacred Scriptures. There are, there ever have been, those who would limit the work as well as the words of eternal Love. There were the Jews who would have tolerated the Christ, had He said ‘‘ God so loved the Jew that He gave to them His only begotten Son.’’ There are the Reprobationists who practically revise the Redemptive Evangel of the Lord Christ, and who represent Him as declaring ‘“God so loved the elect.” Thus, the universality of the range of the message is abridged; a series of heresies are generated; a series of Scriptures are cancelled; and the labours of the ministry are sub- ject to hemiplegia. These are fearful results, but they belong to the issues of a dreadful doctrine—a doctrine so dreadful that I hesitate not to say that, if the umbrage of the tropical forests were crushed into the dryness and into the deadness of an autumn leaf; if every constellation that burns in the infinite immensities of space were by some pheno- menal convulsion reduced to darkness or to nothing- ness; if the laughter of the ocean’s waves, the 264 The Christian Ministry. rippling of the rills, and the roar of all the Niagaras were hushed into the silence and the stillness of death, the reduction of the infinitely great into the infinitely tiny would not be as wonderful, as start- ling, shall I add as shocking, as the reduction of all the entreaties and the promises which burn along the moral firmament of the Gospel to the icy heart- lessness of a system, whose highest virtue is the temporal triumph of human logic over the eternal declaration of Divine love. 4. Furthermore. The minister must have faith in his message. When St. Paul described his official position, with respect to the Gentiles, he declares that his work was prosecuted ‘‘in faith and in verity.” He believed this message to be equal to every strain to which it would be submitted. It was ‘‘the power of God unto salvation.” Thus persuaded, he spoke as if he was possessed of and as if he was possessed by an indubitable truth, Hence his heart was at rest. His conviction was intelligent, was vigorous, was aggressive. His utter- ance was clear, was cogent, was complete. His work was the practical counterpart of his message. Hearers are always helped by the ‘ much assur- ance” of their teacher. Conviction in a speaker is a powerful auxiliary towards its reproduction in a hearer. ‘‘ Unless the minister that preacheth be on fire, he inflameth not him to whom he preacheth.’’} But without pursuing this line of reflection any i “ Nisi enim ardeat minister predicans, non accendit eum cui predicat ” (Augustine, Ps, ciii.). The ‘Foolishness of the Proclamation.” 265 further, and yet without travelling far afield from my special theme, I may say, finally, that the pub- lication of the Gospel of Christ, in accordance with the conditions which have been suggested, was the magnum opus of the Christian ministry in apostolic times. That work contributed enormously to the spread and ultimately to the triumph of Christianity. It is, curiously enough, omitted by Gibbon from his category of the causes which produced such an un- paralleled result. Yet, what history of the progress of the Kingdom of Christ would be complete which omitted the results that followed the faithful and the prayful exercise of the didactic office, as the chief agency by which the means that God hath devised “that His banished be not expelled from Him” should be universally proclaimed? It is recognised as the prominent feature in the episcopacy of Ignatius, when he governed the Church of Antioch. Expository preaching is stated to be the means whereby, like a lamp of God, he illuminated the mind of everyone. Polycarp, the venerable, the blessed, the courageous, ‘‘ was found an apostolic and prophetic,” yea, ‘‘a distinguished teacher.” It is implied by the suggestion of Ireneus that in his day many barbarous nations had the traditional faith of the Church written in their hearts by the Holy Spirit, without the instrumentality of paper and ink. Nor may we omit that Husebius, and Origen, and Jerome, name the various places in which the holy apostles laboured as preachers of the everlasting Gospel. Time would fail me to tell of 266 The Chrestian Ministry. Chrysostom,’ in Antioch, where his expositions of God’s word attracted the masses; aroused their consciences; changed the current of their lives; desolated the theatres; emptied the circus; filled the churches, and glorified God. Constantinople was soon to be at his feet. ‘There again, by the power of his didactic gifts, adorned by the still higher power of the Gospel which he daily preached, the great city was moved. And it may be accepted as axiomatic that wherever didactics hold their rightful place in the work of the ministry, there Holy Scripture will be honoured. Of this the Homilies of St. Chrysostom afford abundant and telling illustration. The anxiety of the preacher that his hearers should be familiar with Holy Writ 1 The life and the labours of St. John Chrysostom are amongst the most powerful vindications we possess of the supreme importance of expository preaching. His ten years’ residence at Antioch was given in the main to this work. His habit was to take a sacred book, and expound it, verse by verse, from the beginning to the end. Suidas and Cassiodorus state that he wrote commentaries on the whole Bible. If he did, many of them are lost, and, judging by what we possess, most of them were probably homiletical. “Two points,” we are told, “ cannot fail to arrest the notice of anyone who reads these homilies through. First, the profound acquaintance of their author with Holy Scripture; extending apparently with equal force to every part of the sacred volume. Secondly, upon Scripture all his arguments are based ; in none of his controversial homilies does Chrysostom take his stand upon the platform of existing tradition, or rely on the authority of the Church alone; “ To the law and to the testimony is always the way with him.” (Vide, Life of St. John Chrysostom, by Stephens, p. 122.) He always preached twice, and occasionally even as frequently as five timesa week. His “ occasional” sermons are exuberant, grand, lengthy. His expositions are clear and practical and hortatory. St. Thomas Aquinas is said (Dict. Christ. Bio.) to have stated that he would rather possess Chrysostom’s ninety homilies on St. Matthew “than be the master of all Paris.” The First Homily, “a fruitful exhortation to the reading and knowledge of Holy Scripture,” mentions St. Chrysostom as “ the great clerk and godly preacher ” who ‘saith, whatsoever is required to salvation of man is fully con- tained in the Scripture of God.” St. Chrysostom on Study of Scripture. 267 breaks out again and again. ‘‘I desire,’’ he exclaims, “to ask one favour of you all, before I touch on the words of the Gospel; do not you refuse my request, for I ask nothing heavy or burdensome, nor, if granted, will it be useful only to me who receive, but also to you who grant it, and perhaps far more so to you. What, then, is it that I require of you? That each of you take in hand the section of the Gospels which is to be read among you on the first day of the week, or even on the Sabbath, and before the day arrive, that he sit down at home, and read it through, and often carefully consider its contents, and examine all its parts well. . . . And when you have tried, in a word, every point, so go to hear it read.”"* He then expatiates upon the advantage such a habit would be to him as a preacher and to them as hearers. He deals, in the most incisive way, with the excuses which were made by those who neglected the reading and the study of the Scriptures. He taunts them with having time for business, for social appointments, for loitering in the theatres, and for horse races. He never hears a complaint of want of time for these. Another excuse, which would occur to us as remarkable, because printing was then unknown, is regarded by him as the ‘“ most foolish of these sluggards; that they have not the books in their possession. Now as to the rich, it is ludicrous that we should regard this excuse; but because I imagine that many of the poorer sort continually use it, I would gladly ask, if every one of them does not ' In Joannem, Homilia xi. (Montfaucon, Parisiis). 268 The Christian Muntstry. have all the instruments of the trade which he works at, full and complete, though poverty stand in his way? Is it not then a strange thing, in that case, to throw no blame on poverty, but to use every means that there be no obstacle from any quarter but when we might gain such great advantage, to lament our want of leisure and our poverty ?”! In another exposition he boldly advances an opinion which will be read by some with impatience. Every- thing else is a bywork compared with the superlative duty of hearing the Scriptures. ‘‘ Let us,’ he pleads, ‘‘learn to consider all things secondary to the hearing the word of God, and to deem no season unseasonable.”* ‘* Let food and baths and dinner and the other things of this life have their appointed time, but let the teaching of heavenly philosophy have no separate time. Let every season belong to it.”* The holy Gospels and the Divine words of the prophets should be the theme of general con- versation ; and he pours a flood of ridicule upon the staple topics of frivolity and of gossip. The eagerness of the woman of Samaria to hear the teaching of Christ is contrasted with the carelessness and indifference around him. ‘‘ Which of you when in his house takes some Christian book in hand, and goes over its contents, and searches the Scriptures ? None can say that he does so, but with most we shall find draughts and dice, but books nowhere, except 1 In Joannem, Homilia xi. (Montfaucon, Parisiis). 2 Οὐκ οὖν καὶ ἡμεῖς ἐντεῦθεν διδαχθῶμεν πάντα πάρεργα τίθεσθαι τῆς θείας ἀκροά- σεως καὶ μηδένα καιρὸν ἄκαιρον εἷναι νομίζειν (Hom. xviii. 4). 3 Hom, xviii. 4. Scriptures are Divine Charms. 269 among a few. And even these few have the same dispositions as the many, for they tie up their books, and keep them always in fine cases, and all their care is for the fineness of the parchments, and the beauty of the letters, not for reading them... . I do not hear any one glory that he knows the contents, but that he hath a book written in letters of gold. And what gain, tell me, is this? The Scriptures were not given us for this only, that we might have them in books, but that we might engrave them on our hearts. For this kind of possession, the keeping the commandments merely in letter, belongs to Jewish ambition; but to us the Law was not so given at all, but in the fleshly tables of our hearts. And this I say not to prevent you from procuring Bibles ; on the contrary, I exhort and earnestly pray that you do this, but I desire that from these books you convey the letters and sense into your understand- ing, that so it may be purified when it receiveth the meaning of the writing. For if the devil will not dare to approach a house where a Gospel is lying, much less will any evilspirit even touch or enter a soul which bears about with it such senti- ments asit contains. Sanctify then thy soul, sanctify thy body, by having these ever in thy heart and on thy tongue. ... The Scriptures are Divine charms. Let us then apply to ourselves and to the passions of our souls the remedies to be derived from them. For if we understand what it is that we read, we shall hear it with much readiness. I am always saying this, and will not 270 The Christian Mintstry. cease to say it.”? Sanctification is by “the gift of the Spirit,” and ‘by the word.” ‘As also Paul saith concerning the Church, that he hath sanctified it by the word. For the word of God is wont also to cleanse.” In this connexion, he is expounding the sacred prayer of our Lord, ‘‘ Sanctify them through Thy truth.’’? ‘It seems,” he adds, “to signify something else, such as this: ‘Set them apart for the word, and for preaching.’”*® In truth St. Chrysostom’s estimate of the Holy Scriptures is of the very highest kind. They elevate the soul. They refine the mind. They exalt hope, strengthen faith, and minister to spiritual progress. They safe- euard the believer from satanic assault. They draw down the grace of the Spirit. They chase away anger. They are the only means whereby heresy can be overcome. ‘‘ Had you given heed to the Scrip- tures; had you sharpened yourselves each day, I would not have advised you to flee the combat with the heretics, but would have counselled you to grapple with them; for strong is truth. But since you know not how to use the Scriptures, I fear the struggle, lest they take you unarmed and cast you down. For there is nothing, there is nothing weaker than those who are bereft of the aid of the Spirit.”* Such utterances as to Holy Scripture might be easily multiplied. They show the importance 1 Hom, xxxii. 3. 2 St. John xvii. 17. 5 δοκεῖ δέ μοι καὶ ἕτερον δήλουν τὸ ἁγίασον αὐτούς, οἱονεὶ τὸ ἀφύρισον αὐτοὺς τῳ λόγῳ καὶ τῷ κηρύγματι (Hom. 1xxxii. 1). 4 Hom, ἸΧΥὶ. 3. Conquests of Primitive Church due to Preaching. 271 which thus early was attached to revelation. They vindicate—if anything be required to vindicate— the official language and the liturgical use of the Anglican Church with regard to the paramount position of Holy Writ, in theology, in asto ral work, in personal religion. They explain the secret of Chrysostom’s power. They justify the claim which is here made for the idactic side of minis- terial work. Nor was it otherwise with Basil and the Gregories in the East, and with St. Ambrose and St. Augustine in the West. Indeed, for the first four centuries of the Church’s history, the didactic office was, as God designed it to be, the effective agency by which the knowledge of His love was to be promulgated ;* and, whether we turn to the attitude of the Church towards the catechumens, comprising the audientes or the competentes ; or towards the baptized; or towards the masses of the population, the verdict of history is that for at least twelve generations of human life the word of the Risen and Returning Redeemer was implicitly obeyed. The Gospel was preached to every creature. The effects of this work, so far as I may be enabled to trace them, shall engage us when next I address you. 1 «*Not only do the parting words of our Lord specially enjoin it (preaching), but the great conquests of the early Church, so far as they can be ascribed to any human effort, are commonly ascribed to it” (Modern Preaching, by Professor Mahaffy). LECTURE VI. “ The works which the Father hath given Me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of Me, that the Father hath sent Me.’—Sr. JouHN νυ. 36. HE relationship which exists between Christ and His Church implies the repetition, through all the ages, of the ministerial experiences of the Master, by the Body which has been quickened by, and which is the expression of, the Holy Spirit. There is a sense—assured, awful, perpetual—in which apostolic language may be appropriated by the members of the Body of Christ. They may say, as with one voice, and that the voice of the Church, ‘‘as He was so we are in this world.’’ Of the many and varied experiences in which the Church thus perpetuates the earthly life of her Lord, there is not one in which this solemn privilege is more apparent than that which is represented by our Lord’s appeal to evidence, in vindication of His claims, and in the rejection of these claims by those to whom the appeal is made. The chapter from which the passage which has just been read is found, illustrates the truth of both statements. It serves many purposes in theology and in morals. It is sufficient for my purpose to remember that it Christ Appeals to Evidence. 273 contains a distinct declaration that the Redeemer appealed to His works as so many proofs of the Divinity of His Mission. ‘‘ The very works that I do, bear witness of Me, that the Father hath sent Me.” ?! The bearing which this doctrine has upon the apologetic aspect of ministerial labour is manifest. The work of the Church of Christ is, as I have endeavoured to establish, largely didactic. The message which He bears to a world morally diseased and legally condemned is one of Reconciliation to God, and of Eternal Life through His Son. The evangel is both ‘‘ the word of life’’ and the ‘ word of peace.” It is both, so far as it proclaims Christ as ‘‘Life,”’ and Christ as ‘‘ Peace.” And if the Christian ministry was instituted to perpetuate amongst mankind the Mission, Redemptive and Remedial, of the Lord Jesus Christ, every faithful steward of the ‘‘ mysteries of God” ought, in full consciousness of the Presence and of the Power of Christ, to be ready to say, ‘‘ The works that I do bear witness of me.” Such a statement would be an appeal to evidence. It would be an invitation to men to inquire into the nature of the works to which the appeal was made, with the view of ascertaining whether or not they sustain the claim which they were cited to substantiate. In making this appeal, the individual minister will never forget that the Word is not His. Itis God’s. Neither dare he for- ᾿ αὐτὰ τὰ ἔργα ἃ ἐγὼ ποιῶ, μαρτυρεῖ περὶ ἐμοῦ ὅτι ὁ πατήρ με ἀπέσταλκε (St. John y. 36). 18 274 The Christian Munistry. get Whose commission he holds. His unworthiness will abase him. His sinfulness will humble him. His limited opportunity will energize him. His abiding consciousness that he is the sole represen- tative, in human society, of the eternal realities and possibilities of an invisible world, will inflame his love ; will inspire him with sacred jealousy for the truth of God ; with unwearied solicitude for the souls of men; and with loyalty to the high claims which the kingdom of Christ makes upon mankind. The very loftiness of these demands will quicken inquiry into the nature of the evidence upon which, occa- sionally, these demands are made. The “ signs”’ by which ‘‘ the word’”’ is confirmed do not, and ought not to, elude examination. Of all the signs which follow the didactic ministry, and which are, under God, the product of His word, the first is the highest. This is spiritual life. ‘Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the Word of God.” ' It shares with all life that mystery in which, ultimately, all life is hidden. There is nothing which so successfully defies the inquiries, patient, prolonged, and intrepid, made by men in all ages, and in all ranges of thought, as life. Whether it be life vegetable, physical, mental, moral, spiritual, corporate,—there are recesses which are impenetrable; there are depths that no human plummet can sound; there are heights to which no wing can soar. It is, in the nature of the case, not only that spiritual life 11 St. Pet. i. 23, Spiritual Life Mysterious. pa should be thus mysterious, but that, just because it is spiritual, it should be more difficult to diagnose than a humbler species of vitality. We are led to believe this, because spiritual life makes its possessor a partaker of the Divine Nature, and human nature participating in the Divine Nature is the renewal of the mystery, and is a reflection of the majesty of the Incarnation. The perplexities which are represented by the ancient and numerous heresies which gathered round that essential of Catholic Truth, arose, in part, from forgetfulness of the mystery of spiritual life, and from a desire to denude the dogma of that inscrutability which indicates its origin, which appeals to faith, and which meets us on every hand, where even lower forms of life are presented. And the perplexities, the mysteries, if you will, which characterize the Incarnation are, in due degree, around “spiritual regeneration.’’ They hover over every indication of the union of that which is human with that which is Divine. They perplex and even bewilder men, because they cannot see how the Divine can be really and perfectly divine, and yet the human can be really and perfectly human. Hence it is that men ask: How can the individual spirit be the actual sphere in which spiritual life is produced, and which is accordingly recognised as subject to the laws which rule all life, when that same life is said to be a participa- tion “ of the Divine Nature”? ‘Christ in you the hope of glory” ?? ‘ Yet not I, but Christ liveth in 1 Col. i. 27. 276 The Christian Ministry. me’’?! ‘Abide in Me, and I in you” ?? Amd our answer is, the remembrance of the inscruta- bility of all life in general, and of spiritual life in particular. The Divine and the Human were combined in the Incarnation. They were not com- mingled. They are combined again in all spiritual life which the Life-Giver generates by the word or by the birth ‘“‘ of water and the Spirit.” Both must be recognised. To disregard the Divine is to accept the heresies of the Pelagians. To disregard the human is to be brought by the treacherous flatteries of pietistic transcendentalism, within the dark and deadly shades of ancient Gnosticism and of modern Perfectionism.? But, meanwhile, the careful student of the Word of Life will remember, that amid the mysteries of life, which are both numerous and im- penetrable, there are the manifestations of life, which are clear; there are the effects of life which are evidential. ‘To these latter, as bearing the burden of the appeal which the Christian apologist makes in the name of His Master, attention is now directed. ' Gal. ii. 20. ? St. John xv. 4. * These are not by any means the only issues which ensue upon the accept- ance or promulgation of false doctrine respecting the association of the Divine and the Human, in the New Birth. Such is the position of the believer, in and through Christ, that the four great heresies of the first centuries may lead to debate about him, as they did about his Lord. The Arian may deny the divinity of his life ; the Apollinarian may maim and misinterpret his humanity; the Nestorian may assert a dual personality ; indeed, some saddening and humbling experiences of our own day show that, when sinlessness is claimed, and sin is nevertheless committed, personality is divided ; and the Eutychean confounds natures which should be distinguished. This idea will bear expansion. For its original and highest application, vide Hooker, Book v., ς. liv. 10. Justification by Faith taught by Clement. 277 And first, one of the declared effects which indi- cates the presence of Divine life in the spirit of man is individual consciousness of peace with God. To this men are exhorted by every consideration of prudence, of reason, of religion, natural and revealed. This priceless possession is offered in the Gospel in the name and for the sake of what Christ has done and suffered for us. Condemned by the law of the All- Holy, ‘there is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus.”! The act of God, in the administration of His moral government, by which condemnation is cancelled, is described as ‘‘ pardon,” ‘remission,’ ‘‘forgiveness of sins.’”’ But pardon is in its nature negative. Itis the negation of a sentence which stood against us. It is the cancelment of a penalty, to which we were, in the estimate of the All-Merciful and Omniscient, exposed. It is not the possession of such righteousness as the law de- manded, and demanded as clearly as that which announced: ‘‘ The soul that sinneth it shall die.” This righteousness becomes ours by faith in our Redeemer. Its acceptance places us in the position described by St. Paul as that of ‘‘ being justified by faith,” or, if the matter be referred back to its ulti- mate and even eternal Cause, we shall be willing to allow Clement of Rome to be our expositor, for his words are: ‘‘ And so we, having been called through His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified through ourselves, or through our own wisdom, or understand- ing, or piety, or works which we wrought in holiness 1 Rom. viii. 1. 278 The Christian Ministry. of heart, but through faith, whereby the Almighty God justified all men that have been from the beginning.”? The anonymous epistle to Diognetus, now generally referred to the first part of the second century, speaks in the same doctrinal strain: ‘“‘ What other thing,’ inquires the ancient writer, ‘‘ was capable of covering our sins than His righteousness ? By what other One was it possible that we, the wicked and the ungodly, could be justified than by the only Son of God? O sweet exchange! O un- searchable operation! O benefits surpassing all expectation! that the wickedness of many should be hid in a single righteous One, and that the righteousness of One should justify many trans- gressors!’’? If pardon be acquittal, and negative, it is but a portion of the notion contained in justifica- tion. The larger and the complete idea, is that the justified is considered as never having broken Divine law. Yea, as having keptit. This is righteousness. It is positive. It is the theme of Isaiah’s praise.’ ΤῸ establish it as the revelation of the New Testament, St. Paul states the doctrines of universal depravity, of free grace, of redeeming love; of personal, of pre- valent faith. He defends it against errors which 1 Καὶ ἡμεῖς of, διὰ θελήματος αὐτοῦ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ κληθέντες, οὐ Ov ἑαυτῶν δικαιούμεθα οὐδὲ διὰ τῆς ἡμετέρας σοφίας ἢ συνέσεως ἣ εὐσεβείας ἣ ἔργων ὧν κατειργασάμεθα ἐν ὁσιότητι καρδίας, αλλὰ διὰ τῆς πίστεως, δι᾽ ἧς πάντας τοὺς ἀπ’ αἰῶνος ὁ παντοκράτωρ Θεὸς ἐδικαίωσεν (1 Clem, ad Cor., χαχ ἢ). 2 Ti γὰρ ἄλλο τὰς ἀμαρτίας ἡμῶν ἠδυνήθη καλύψαι ἢ ἐκέινου δικαιοσύνη ; Ἔν τίνι δικαιωθῆναι δυνατὸν τοὺς ἀνόμους ἡμᾶς καὶ ἀσεβεῖς ἢ ἐν μόνω τῷ ὑιῷ τοῦ Θεοῦ; "Ὦ τὴς γλυκείας ἀντιλλαγῆς, ὦ τῆς ἀνεξιχνιάστου δημιουργίας, ὦ τῶν ἀπροσδοκήτων εὐεργεσιῶν" ἵνα ἀνομία μὲν πολλῶν ἐν δικαίῳ ἑνὶ κρυβῇ, δικαιοσύνη δὲ ἑνὸς πολ- λοὺς ἀνόμους δικαιώσῃ (Cc. ix.) 5. Tsaiah 1xi. 10. Enforced by Representative of Anglican Theology. 279 assail it on different sides. He cites illustrations of the prevalence of the principles, which manifest the sense in which he used the words in which the doctrine is implied. Thus asserted, thus defended, thus enforced, the conclusion to which his pre- mises lead is clear. The justified man has peace with God.’ And it is surely a remarkable fact that the boldest exposition of this doctrine which is to be found in the whole range of religion is from the pen of that theologian who is regarded by the disciples of most schools as the wisest and the truest repre- sentative of Anglican theology.” Hooker's voice in England is the echo of St. Clement’s from Rome. St. Clement’s echoes St. Paul’s. Hach rejoiced in the publication of what each had experienced. Peace with God, as the personal possession of a be- lever, is a fact of the supremest importance. Jesus Christ announced peace to His beloved and affrighted 1 ἔχομεν A.S.M., or ἔχωμεν, the practical issue of the doctrine is not touched by the later reading. ? “Christ hath merited righteousness for as many as are found in Him. In Him God findeth us, if we be faithful; for by faith we are incorporated into Him. Then, although in ourselves we be altogether sinful and unrighteous, yet even the man which in himself is impious, full of iniquity, full of sin ; him being found in Christ through faith, and having his sin in hatred through repentance ; him God beholdeth with a gracious eye, putteth away his sin by not imputing it, taketh quite away the punishment due thereunto, by pardoning it; and accepteth him in Christ Jesus, as perfectly righteous, as if he had fulfilled all that is commanded him in the law; shall I say more perfectly righteous than if himself had fulfilled the whole law? I must take heed what I say ; but the Apostle saith, ‘God made Him which knew no sin, to be sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him.’ Such are we in the sight of God the Father, as is the very Son of God Himself. Let it be counted folly, or phrensy, or fury, or whatsoever. It is our wisdom, and our comfort ; we care for no knowledge in the world but this, that man hath sinned, and God hath suffered ; that God hath made Himself the sin of men, and that men are made the righteousness of God ” (Hooker, Serm. ii. 6). 280 The Christian Muintstry. followers in a connection which is transcendent in its significance. When He appeared to them on the evening of the first Easter Day, it will be remem- bered that He greeted them with two salutations, of each of which ‘ Peace’’ was the initial, and in every sense the primary, word and the principal factor. ‘‘ Peace be unto you.” This was to restore confidence, to dispel the guilt of conscious cowardice, to banish and to drive away fear and misgiving and moral apprehension. But confidence could not be restored, ‘‘ peace” could not be to them unless the speaker were their loved and Risen Master, and this He graciously proceeds to prove. ‘‘ When He had so sald He showed unto them His hands and His side.’’ His identity is now established. Confidence is renewed. Peace is restored. ‘‘ The disciples are glad.” A second salutation follows. Peace still holds its primary place. But it is followed by an intimation of work, together with its qualification and its awful nature. ‘‘ Peace be unto you; as My Father hath sent Me, even so send I you.” The circumstances under which these words were spoken, the charter to which they belong, and the solace which they have brought to the servants of the Christ, invest them with a gravity and even with a grandeur which the stern prose of conflict, of time, of unbelief, has failed to dissipate. Controversy has raged again and again around this sacred Sunday evening scene. Language has run so high, and ran- cour has unhappily raged so vehemently, that many have missed the initial sense of this second saluta- S| Oe (ae Spiritual Peace must precede Spiritual Work. 281 tion, which assuredly is that peace is the starting- point of work. And if it be, then there is no work which is worthy of the name apart from the pos- session of peace. ‘To say there is no acceptable, cer- tainly there can be no enjoyable, communion with God without it, is a proposition so manifest that not a moment need be spent in debating it. But we are thus lovingly led by our Risen Master to believe that peaceful communion with God follows upon peaceful reconciliation to God. The personal appropriation of the manifold blessings of redeeming love in Christ precedes the personal adoration of God by the Christian. Sonship is anterior to service. Devotion, whether active or contemplative, must have as its preliminary, peace with God. And, in the second place, the peace of reconciliation and the joy of communion bring before the newly-born spirit one of the gravest problems in the range, wide and varied, of the Christian ministry. This problem arises out of the conditions which are represented by the old life of the convent and by the nature, the laws, the claims, of the new life of which he is the recipient. His old life has been spent in obedience to the law of sin. Habits have been thus formed which are strong in the citadel of the soul. They demand the allegiance of the passions. They rely upon the acquiescence of the affections. They refuse to hear the protestations of the conscience. They even plead, as most sins are capable of pleading, their innocent or indifferent nature, or their popular character. And, in the realities of spiritual conflict, 282 The Christtan Ministry. there are few phenomena so surprising as the stout resistance which even a mere foible, scarcely con- sidered by some to be a sin, can render when once the process of ejectment is undertaken. Mere ‘“‘trifles’’ arise, clad in the armour of association, sum- moning all the forces which lie in their environment, and expostulating for the “little one,” and give battle in most unexpected ways, and fight in unlikely modes. But when the case is not such as is now suggested—when the conflict is between old asso- ciations which have to be abandoned, old practices which have to be shunned, old habits, tempers, vices, which by the very law of their commission have become ‘‘ second nature,” the struggle is fierce, is straining, is prolonged. The moral agony is poi- gnant. It is, in some natures, as if two lives wrestled for existence on the edge of a precipice. The one claims not only indulgence, and pleads pos- session. It arrays on its side the whole forces of time, of nature, of society, and of precedent. The other is equally imperative in its demands. Its strength lies in the invisible God, and in the fact that the Unseen has been brought within the range of individual anxiety, and in the imperious conviction that prolonged enjoyment of sin is not compatible with personal communion with the Saviour. The law of heaven is written in the Word, is ringing in the voice of the Church, is rising alike from the gyaves of the holy dead and from the guilty souls of the doomed: ‘Have no fellowship with the un- fruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.”’ EEE νυν ννμονυυυναυμμμ ον. τ Ὁ... , Conquest of Sin—Problem of the Awakened. 283 The conflict, which is thus intensified, is not peculiar to the newly awakened. The seventh chapter of the Epistle to the Romans shows that it may rage in a heart well acquainted with the law and with the love of God. The biographies of some of the saintliest souls exhibit traces of the struggle. The agony of the combat is none the less fierce because the arena and the antagonists are unseen. In all great efforts after evangelization, in the experiences of missionary work —at home, in our crowded parishes; and abroad, in the vast fields already white to harvest—the problem which is presented most frequently for solution is: How shall men conquer sin, indulgence in which is positively hateful where new life has been im- parted, and where peace has been enjoyed? ‘‘ Who shall deliver me from the body of this death ?” This question the Christian Ministry must be prepared to answer. ‘The answer must, moreover, take full cognisance of the fact that the question is but part of an older one, the reply to which recalls the history of the Essenes, or that of a still earlier philosophy, associated with Pythagoras ; and which also appears in the germinant Gnosticism, which assailed the churches in the valley of the Lycus, and is referred to at length by Iveneus, by Hip- polytus, and by Eusebius. The grand problem both of the philosophy and of the most fertile heresy was evil—its origin, sphere, and prevalence. Matter was its principle. Matter was its stronghold. For the soul there was salvation, but not for the body. “There would be no resurrection of the body.’’ It 284 The Christian Ministry. was the base part of man’s nature. It was ‘the prison,’ in which the soul was incarcerated. From its contaminating influences the soul may be freed in one or other of two ways. Asceticism was the sovereign remedy. Flesh meat, wine, fruit, every- thing even remotely associated with appetitive enjoyment, was abandoned. Permanent spareness of diet was to characterise the disciples of the higher life. Marriage was forbidden. Thus evil would be overcome, if it could not be annihilated, by rigorous rules, prohibitory, permanent, and approved by a philosophy which was not without the support of great names. Such a system, however, was doomed to failure. Men soon found that evil was otherwise than material. It was spiritual. The ascetic might escape from the defilement of actual indulgence. He could not escape from spiritual assoilment. Envy, hatred, unworthy and even wicked conceptions, floated before his vision. They pursued him into the wilderness. They haunted him in the night. Asceticism could rear no fortress which would be impregnable to the invisible, but unwearied assault of spiritual foes. And even if this were not so, the laws of life, the obligations of existence, and the necessities of toil, of struggle, and of sympathetic association, discredit permanent asceticism as the solution of the problem now before us. Nor is it otherwise with another school of Gnostic thought, which is in hideous contrast with this. The licentious sect openly espoused a course which was opposed to rigorous asceticism. The ascetic lost — Se - ἂν πον παν νγ΄ ὌΝ » The Great Perplexity of the Guostics. 285 his independence. ‘The licentious asserted it. He was indifferent to the world of sense. He would prove his superiority, he would parade his in- dividuality, by laughing all prohibition to scorn. He abandoned as desperate any attempt to purify the hopelessly corrupt body. He taught that the instructed soul ought to hold itself unaffected by physical experiences of any kind. ‘It was a duty to set at nought restrictions only imposed by the commands of that Being who did the evil work of shutting up men’s souls in matter.” The results of such a theory are amongst the saddest records in the history of religion. The profligacy which is perpetrated in the name of piety has a terrible power of re-appearing in various forms, and at different times. Nor is there anything more humbling, or more admonitory, than the occasional appearance of the most revolting impurity side by side with the most ostentatious display of transcendent spirituality. In this matter, some nineteenth century experiences might be read in the history of the second. Whether these theories are preached or are practised by the followers of the older Essenes, or by the Encratites, or by those of the Ophites, the Car- pocratians, or the Cainites,’ licentiousness or per- manent asceticism are helpless and hopeless as enabling men to overcome sin. The Anchorites, the Flagellants, and their modern imitators, are in 1 For learned and readable exposition of the theories which these sects represent, and which were, in the main, the outcome of Gnosticism, see Dr. Salmon’s articles in the Dic. Chr. Bio, (* Gnosticism, Encratites ; Cainites, and Carpocratians; Ophites.’’) 286 The Christian Ministry. no better case. From each, from all, the old problem returns unsolved. But is it unsolved by the new Gospel of Modern Gnosticism? Is the evangel of the age equal to the sin of the age? Is culture, varied, widespread, and attractive, able to restrain passion, to reduce selfishness, to create all the virtues which abound where true religion thrives? If it be, culture must be as wide in its range as the sin which it is said to be able to subdue. But sin is universal. Culture is partial. Very few of the millions of our race have either the capac ty or the opportunity to acquire the knowledge, not to say the learning, which could be described as culture. The struggle of modern life in our large cities; the strain under which the masses, and even the millions of this century live; the social condition of the thronging multitudes in other countries, render it improbable, in the highest degree, for them to be able to do more than to acquire the humblest elements of knowledge. Even if they could, it is by no means certain that intellectual acquisition would be available for spiritual warfare. A drunkard will tell you that the knowledge which chemistry gives him of the destructive influence of alcohol upon the nervous system and other departments of his physical organisation, has no power to restrain his excess, not even when personal ruin is intensified by domestic degradation. De Quincey’s Confessions of an Opium- eater is a brilliant and even dazzling announcement of the hopelessness of intelligence to cope with ' Eclipse of Faith (H. Rogers), p. 170. Sin Unsubdued by Knowledge or Culture. 287 habitual sin. His reference to Coleridge is both memorable and unpitying. ‘The philosopher, he assures the world, professed to believe that opium- eating was criminal, yet he suffered himself to fall into captivity to this deadly drug. ‘A slave he was not less abject than Caliban to Prospero—his de- tested and yet despotic master. Like Caliban, he frets his very heartstrings against the rivets of his chain. Still, at intervals through the gloomy vigils of his prison, you hear muttered growls of impotent mutineering swelling upon the breeze.’ * The slave of impurity will own that his knowledge of nerve, of fibre, of brain, of muscle, of heredity, is no safety from the suddenness with which he is surprised into sin. The coroneted gambler reads the story of his ruin, by anticipation, in discredited accounts, in dismantled homes, in deserted halls, in blighted characters, in blasted escutcheons, in the indigence of the opulent, in the impoverishment of the inno- cent, in the early grave, and in the dishonoured name. Yet who will deny him culture? Or shall we descend to particulars, and turning to most popular forms of accomplishment, inquire if their ablest representatives are, in consequence of their gifts or of their skill, the most virtuous, the least vicious? Are musicians, or painters, or actors, or sculptors, the highest types of ethical theory? Experience will prove, and abundantly, that they are neither better nor worse than other people. Nor may we hope for a higher or for a happier conclusion * Confessions of an Opium-eater, p. 9. 288 The Christian Ministry, from the still wider promises of inventive progress, or of modern civilisation. True, ‘‘we have yoked horses of fire to our sea-chariots ; the wire-imprisoned lightning carries our messages round the globe, swifter than Ariel; the elemental forces themselves are our slaves, and slaves, strange to say, of the meanest as well as of the noblest, as the genius of the lamp became the slave of the African magician. What, after all, have these wonderful achievements done to elevate human nature? Human nature remains as it was. Science grows, but morality is stationary, and art is vulgarised. Not here lie the things ‘necessary to salvation,’ not the things which can give to human life grace, or beauty, or dignity.””"? While when we enlarge the question, and when we revert to the history of morals, pre- Christian and European, we find more than enough to justify the belief that culture is no match for sin. And now we may see what the true reply to the in- quiry is. That reply comes from the correspondence there is between the Person and the Work of Christ, and the needs of the nature which He came to re- deem. The voice of the Church is clear concerning the immanence, and, so far as our earthly life goes, the permanence, of the infection of nature, even in the regenerate. And if I might draw upon language which savours of naturalism or of physics, I would de- scribe the slavery of sin and the moral emancipation effected by the Redeemer, in two brief sentences: 1 Oceana (J. A. Froude), p. 68; and Discussions [and Arguments, iv. (J. H. Newman), Ρ. 254 ff. Christ Alone can conquer Sin. 289 Men sin, because sin is stronger than man. Christ makes a man stronger than his sin. With this message the Christian ministry addresses itself to the work which it is commissioned to discharge. The proclamation of peace, however welcome, is imperfect, unless accompanied by the promise of power, and it is important to remember that it is in connection with this latter feature of the Saviour’s work that He was called Jesus—‘“‘ for He shall save His people from their sins.’’? In the practical work of the ministry this mes- sage ought to have a very high place. Experience shows all too clearly that men are capable of hearing, sometimes without even an approach to concern, elaborate descriptions, fearful, but, thank God, fanciful, of material fire. Realistic orations respecting the region of the damned may ex- cite a momentary interest, which is almost certain to be followed by icy indifference. Men may continue this, regardless of the lesson which Euro- pean morals reads out to all audacious expositors of the invisible, for morals were never lower than when Dante’s Inferno was exercising its highest influence. But while proclaiming—gladly and faith- fully proclaiming — that ‘Christ hath delivered us from the curse of the law,” and “from the wrath to come,” the herald of the Cross will also proclaim that, in the world of will, of conduct, of ) Abros yap σῶσει τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν αὐτῶν, St. Matt. i. 22 (vide Alf.). ᾿Αμαρτία is not put for the punishment of sin, but is the sin itself, ‘the practice of sin in its most pregnant sense.’ 19 290 The Christian Ministry. character, there is no. remedy so powerful, there is no force so successful, there is no influence so certain to vanquish vice, and to foster virtue, and at the same time so preservative of the balance of those graces which, in their due proportion, display the spiritual symmetry of character, as the Resurrection Life of Christ, indwelling in the renewed spirit of the Christian. The effects of this power are visible. They are numerous. They are multiplying from the first day until now. Individual peace, and personal com- munion with God, are experiences which can hardly be influential as apologetics. ‘They are as true, as indisputable, as relative to cause, as is any result at which chemistry may lead the student to arrive when watching the progress of demonstration in the laboratory. Nevertheless, for and to the Christian, their testimony is limited. But the testimony of altered lives is obvious, and is evidential. That testimony is supplied to us, in ancient times, in a mode which is now so commonplace that I should hesitate to appeal to it but for the persuasion of its having suffered from the proverbial influences of familiarity. The Christian Church has long pos- sessed the Hpistles in the canon of the New Testament. It almost requires us to take a long step back to endeavour to look at the Bible anew, if we would realise all that is implied by the fact that there was a time when there was not one Christian in Thessalonica, in Galatia, in Corinth, in Rome, in Colosse, in Philippi, in Ephesus. Inspired letters Levidential Value of Apostolic Literature. 291 were addressed to the saints of these respective places, who, as converts to the Lord Jesus Christ, had once been polytheists. They were rescued from idolatry. They abandoned what was false in religion, and what was foul in morals, and what was fierce _ and revolting, and even shocking, in the society of the period. Of all the Epistles which bear the name, or which are attributed to the pen of St. Paul, there is but one the structure of which might admit of its having been written in an age or in a place in which the morals of Christianity were prevalent. This is the Hpistle to Philemon. Even ‘in this one case, the exception can hardly be allowed, for slavery as a social institution, and im- prisonment for the sake of Christ, are not character- istic of the prevalence of the Christian spirit. Both these are represented by this brief letter! The same statement may be made of the Hpistles of St. James and of St. Jude, as well as of the Petrine and the Johannine letters. All of them witness to Christian society, living and labouring, in the midst of contemporaneous heathen society. The Christians were environed by those from whose religion, and from whose habits of thought and of conduct, they had, at great personal sacrifice, separated. These Epistles bear witness to the frightful degradation which is compatible with enormous power, with abounding wealth, with an- cient philosophy, with varied culture, with even licite religiones. They bear witness to the presence " Παῦλος δέσμιος Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ (Philemon, 1,9, 22). Οὐκέτι ὡς δοῦλον (v. 16). 292 The Christian Ministry. and to the fearful liabilities of the slave. ‘‘ His feet in fetters, his arms in chains, his countenance branded with a hot iron, the slave toiled by day to cultivate those historic fields which once employed the sinews of the sturdy Sabine and Samnite rustics, who were in former times the pride of the republican legion, and more than once the saviours of the state ; and at night the Ergastulum awaited his weary limbs, with its iron manacles, its scourges, and its subterranean cells.’’? They bear witness to the gladiator. When St. Paul, referring to his Ephesian dangers, said in his letter to the Corinthians, ‘‘ I have fought with beasts at Ephesus,” he illuminates the history of the period with a side light which reveals the existence of a pastime which was little else than an alternation between debauch and blood. It was here that gentle maidens became inured to the shriek of the dying. It was here that Roman nobles and their mistresses became so accustomed to gashes and to gore, that, while more and more frenzied became the fight, and fiercer and fiercer still the struggle, those before whose guilty gaze a programme of murder preceded a programme of promiscuous lewdness, became by the inflexible operation of the law of sin as embru- talised as the beasts at which they stared. Other passages in the Epistles are frightfully suggestive. The sins which make God frown and good men weep are recorded with terrible plainness. They were 1 The Fall of Rome and the Rise of the New Nationalities (Sheppard) Ῥ- 91. Christian Sanctity amid Heathen Socrety. 293 designated by St. Paul, ‘‘the works of the flesh.” They were manifest. No man could mistake their character. No ancient optimist could ignore their existence. They include the basest passions which can consume the moral as well as the material life of man. They include those which have their sphere in the emotional part of our nature. They include the meanness which hates another for no higher reason than success or prosperity. They include the sacrifice of human life, the grovel- ling debauchery of what Milton terms ‘swinish gluttony,” intemperance, and the unprincipled action which, inspired by greed, is represented by the itching palm of the extortioner. But, hear the historian in his own language: ‘‘ Adultery, fornica- tion, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witch- craft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like.’’* The Corinthian list supplements this. It includes phases of vice which, even now, like insatiable cancers, are eating out the vitality of England’s manhood. But the ugly list is followed by the announcement, ‘‘ Such were some of you: but ye were washed, but ye ere sanctified, but ye were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the spirit of our God.”’? The Galatian Epistle is not less explicit. ‘They that are of Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with the passions and the lusts thereof.” ° These words assert that the sins which are 1 Gal. v. 19-21. 2 1 Cor. vi. 11. 8 Gal. v. 24 (BR.V.). 294 The Christian Mintstry. catalogued, once enslaved both Corinthians and Galatians. The European and the Asiatic were con- quered by the same fell principle. Society thought no ill of either the one or the other. The at- mosphere in which both drew their earliest and their latest breath was stifling. It was reeking with rottenness, and in some scenes the _ pestiferous putridities had the sanction of religion. Yet, from these scenes, men and women were withdrawn, and withdrawn through a path which was as a very gauntlet which they had to run, sentinelled on either side with ridicule, with violence, with domestic, with social estrangement, with cruelty; and closing with murder or with martyrdom. Ask them, if you will, how they broke with their old associations? Ask the drunkard how he conquered his craving? Inquire of the harlot how she became not alone chaste, but holy? Interrogate the slaves of that master-passion, impurity, how they won their freedom, and acquired a power which surprised them- selves and their guilty confederates. They will tell you they heard of the Lord Jesus. They will as- sure you they learned to trust in Him who took upon Him our nature, and suffered death upon the Cross. They will answer, as with one voice, that pardon was promised them, and they accepted it; that peace was procured for them and they possess it; that power over sin was given to them, and they exercise it; and that, in spite of detraction, of estrangement, of de- solation, of persecution, they publicly confessed their separation from sin and their adoption of sanctity, Witness borne by Justin Martyr. 295 when they were baptized into Jesus Christ. They attribute their moral vigour to living union with Him. They believed the power which enabled them to master sin is the power which had its highest demonstration in the Resurrection of the Saviour.’ Each could say ‘‘The law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.”’? It follows from this that every man in whom this power operates is a revelation of Jesus Christ, and, therefore, Christians are the evidences of Chris- tianity. They are ‘epistles known and read of all men.” To such epistles, living in the fierce lght which beat about them in an age against the vices of which they vehemently protested; suffering, on every side, for the Lord they dearly loved; in- creasing, amid adversity, and advancing without the aid of human patronage, no writer appealed with more confidence than Justin Martyr. In the middle of the second century he penned his famous Apology. In that work, he attributes the personal and social transformation of character which he observed, to the persuasive power of the Word of God. And he traces, in detail, the evidences of that alteration: ‘‘ We who formerly delighted in fornica- tion, now practise chastity alone. We, who for- merly used magical arts, dedicate ourselves to the good and unbegotten God. We, who valued above all things the acquisition of wealth and possessions, now bring what we have into a common stock, and ' Rom, i. 4; Eph. i. 18-20. ? Rom. viii. 2. 296 The Christian Ministry. communicate to every one in need. We who hated and destroyed one another, and, on account of their different manner, would not live with men of a different tribe, now, since the coming of Christ, live familiarly with them, and pray for our enemies, and endeavour to persuade those who hate us unjustly to live conformably to the good precepts of Christ, to the end that they may become partakers with us of the same joyful hope of a reward from God, the Ruler of all.’’* Towards the close of the same century, we have the brilliant testimony of Tertullian. Born of heathen parents; bred in heathen society ; of great intellectual capacity, he was overmastered by facts which, as he observed them, were the fruits of faith. He was staggered by the unpurchasable fidelity of Christians, under persecution. He was compelled to remark that those who began by denouncing fidelity as obstinacy, ended ‘‘in embracing the belief which dictated 10. When he accepted Christianity, and became its first Latin father and apologist, the lives of Christians were still the noblest expressions of visible rhetoric. ‘The rejection of the spec- tacles is the chief sign that a man has adopted the 1 Oi πάλαι μὲν πορνείαις χαίροντες, viv δὲ σωφροσύνην μόνην ἀσπαζομένοι" οἱ δὲ καὶ μαγικαῖς τέχναις χρώμενοι, ἀγαθῷ καὶ ἀγεννήτῳ Θεῷ ἑαυτοὺς ἀνατεθεικότες. χρημάτων δὲ καὶ κτημάτων οἱ πόρους παντὸς μᾶλλον στέργοντες, νῦν καὶ ἃ ἔχομεν εἰς κοινὸν φέροντες, καὶ παντὶ δεομένῳ κοινωνοῦντες. οἱ μισάλληλοι, δὲ καὶ ἀλλη- λοφόνοι, καὶ πρὸς τοὺς οὐχ ὁμοφύλους διὰ τὰ ἔθη καὶ ἑστίας κοινὰς μὴ ποιοῦμενοι, νῦν μετὰ τὴν ἐπιφάνειαν τοῦ Χριστοῦ, ὁμοδίαιτοι γινόμενοι, καὶ ὑπὲρ τῶν ἐχθρῶν εὐχόμενοι, καὶ τοὺς ἀδίκως μισοῦντας πείθειν πειρώμενοι, ὅπως οἱ κατὰ τὰς τοῦ Χριστοῦ καλὰς ὑποθημοσύνας βιώσαντες ed Amides ὦσι, σὺν ἡμῖν τῶν αὐτῶν παρὰ τοῦ παντῶν δεσπόζοντος Θεοῦ τυχεῖν (Apol. prima, Just. M., 14). Tertullian appeals to Society, to Criminal Statistics. 297 Christian faith.’’! <‘‘ All love those who love them : it is peculiar to the Christians alone to love those 9 who hate them.”” “You have never detected us— sacrilegious wretches though you reckon us to be—in any theft, far less in any sacrilege. But the robbers of your temples, all of them swear by your gods, and worship them; they are not Christians, and yet it is they who are found guilty of sacrilegious deeds.” * The Apologeticus of Tertullian is one of the most precious and powerful witnesses to the point which we are now endeavouring to establish. Referring to the regeneration of character which is only effected by the Gospel, he cites words which often fell from heathen lips: ‘‘ What a woman she was! how wanton! how gay!” ‘‘ What a youth he was! how profligate! how libidinous! They have become Christians!”* ‘Such sins as I have mentioned prevail among you, they have no existence among Christians.” 5 ‘‘ There are some who in a sense may ' Atquin hinc vel maxime intelligunt factum Christianum, de repudio spectaculorum (De Spectaculis, xxiv.). * Amicos enim diligere omnium est, inimicos autem solorum Christianorum (ad Scapulam, i.). 3 Tamen nos, quos sacrilegos existimatis nec in furto unquam deprehendistis necdum in sacrilegio. Omnes autem qui templa despoliant et per deos jurant et eosdem colunt, et Christiani non sunt et sacrilegi tamen deprehenduntur (ad Scapulam, ii.). ‘ Alii quos retro ante hoc nomen vagos, viles, improbos noverant, ex ipso denotant, quo laudant cecitate odii in suffragiumimpingunt. Que mulier ? quam lasciva, quam festiva. Qui juvenis? qui Lucius, quam amasius, facti sunt Christiani. Ita nomen emendationi imputatur (Apologeticus, iii.). 5 The principle of the White Cross is involved in this reference :—Nos ab isto eventu diligentissima et fidelissima castitas sepsit, quantumque ; ab stupris et ab omni post matrimonium excessu, tantum et ab incesti casu tuti sumus. Quidam multo securiores totam vim hujus erroris virgine continentia depellunt, senes, pueri.... Hee in vobis esse si consideraretis, proinde in Christianis non esse perspiceretis (Apol., ix.). 298 The Christian Muintstry. complain of Christians that they are a sterile race, as for instance pimps and panders and water carriers; assassins and poisoners and _ sorcerers ; soothsayers, too, diviners and astrologers. But it is a noble fruit of Christians that they have no fruits for such as these.’’* What a challenge is there in the following: ‘‘In your long lists of those accused of many and various atrocities, has any assassin, any cutpurse, any man guilty of sacrilege, or seduction, or stealing bathers’ clothes, his name entered as being a Christian too? Or when Christians are brought before you on the mere ground of their name, is there ever found among them an ill-doer of that sort? It is always with your folk the prison is steaming, the mines are sighing, the wild beasts are fed ; it is from you the exhibition of gladiatorial shows always get their herds of criminals to feed up for the occasion. You find no Christian there, except simply as being such; or if one is there as something else, a Christian he is no longer. We, then, alone are without crime. Is there aught wonderful in that, if it be a very necessity with us? For a necessity indeed it is.” ? And be it remembered and repeated, these effects were not limited to Carthage or to Rome. Nor were they peculiar to any period in the chequered history 1 Plane confitebor qui conqueruntur. Nam si qui forte vere de sterilitate, Christianorum conqueri possint, primi erunt lenones, perductores, aquarioli, tum sicarii, venenarii, magi item arioli, aruspices, mathematici. His infruc- tuosos esse magnus fructus est (Apol., xliii.). * Tot a vobis nocentes variis criminum elogiis recensentur, quis illic sicarius? quis manticularius ; quis sacrilegus, aut corruptor, aut lavantium predo? quis ex illis etiam Christianus adscribitur? aut cum Christiani suo titulo offeruntur, quis ex illis etiam talis, quales tot nocentes. De vestris semper estuat carcer, Width and Varvety of Christean Sanctity. 299 of the Church of Christ. They were manifest in Antioch as they were in Ephesus, and along the shores of the EKuxine, and in the islands of the blue Aigean, and in the eastern metropolis as well as in the imperial capital. That is surely a suggestive sentence, which is quoted in a letter written by St. John Chrysostom. Referring to the devotion of John’s mother, the heathen professor Libanius exclaimed : “Good heavens! what women these Christians have!” Nor is the social range of these effects less wonderful. They are exhibited in all ranks. They include ‘“‘ Sergius Paulus, proconsul of Cyprus; Publius, the Roman ruler in Malta; Flavius Clement, who held the office of consul at Rome; the Asiarchs, or chief officers of Asia at Ephesus; Dionysius, a member of the Council of Areopagus, at Athens ; Erastus, the public treasurer at Corinth; Cornelius at Caesarea; Luke the physician, and Theophilus, to whom he addressed his writings; Crispus, ruler of the Jewish Synagogue at Corinth; and among the Jews, members of the Sanhedrim, Pharisees, and priests.”’? Tertullian accentuates the extraordinary de vestris semper metalla suspirant, de vestris semper bestiz saginantur, de vestris semper munerarii noxiorum greges pascunt. Nemo illic Christianus nisi plane tantum Christianus, aut si et aliud, jam non Christianus, Nos ergo soli innocentes. Quid mirum si necesse est? Enimvero necesse est (Apul- xliv., xlv.). 1 “ Chrysostom himself informs us that when he began to attend the lectures of Libanius, his master inquired who and what his parents were ; and on being told that he was the son of a widow who at the age of forty had lost her husband twenty years, he exclaimed in a tone of mingled jealousy and admira- tion : ‘Heavens, what women these Christians have !’” (Life of St. Chrysostom, by W. R. Stephens, M.A. Vide, too, Dio. Chr. Bio.). 2 Fisher’s History of the Church, p. 35. 300 The Christean Muncestry. spread of the spiritual revolution: ‘‘ We,” he ex- claims, ‘‘are but of yesterday, and we have filled every place among you—cities, islands, fortresses, towns, market-places, the very camp, tribes, com- panies, palace, senate, forum—we have left nothing to you but the temples of your gods. . . . For now it is the immense number of Christians which makes your enemies so few—almost all the inhabitants of your various cities being followers of Christ.’’! Con- siderations of this character are always inspiriting. They establish the moral influence of the Gospel of Christ in an age when it was difficult to believe it, dangerous to preach it, and not unfrequently death to accept it. They show us, through a mist of years, the reality of the power of love in a world which was without it. They display, in altered lives, the adaptability of the heavenly spirit to all sorts and conditions of men. They suggest the wellnigh illi- mitable possibilities there are when ‘the grace of God which bringeth salvation” is proclaimed in the fulness of faith, in the ardour of a charity which is as catholic as the need for its exercise, and in the courageous assurance that Redemption and Life are the gifts of God, through the work of Christ. The proclamation of these, and of all that they imply is the duty of those who bear the burden of ' Hesterni sumus et vestra omnia implevimus, urbes, insulas, castella, municipia, conciliabula, castra ipsa, tribus, decurias, palatium, senatum, forum. Sola vobis relinquimus templa. ... Nunc enim pauciores hostes habetis pre multitudine Christianorum pene omnium civium, pene omnes cives Christianos habendo (Apol., xxxvii.). Great Disproportion between Workers and Work, 301 the Lord, in the ranks of the Christian Ministry. They are encouraged to commit themselves, body, soul, and spirit, to this labour. They will have various opponents to encounter—personal, social, moral, intellectual. But again reverting to the past, standing in the shadow of the first missionaries of the Cross, they hear the commands of their departing Master: ‘“‘Go ye into all the world, and disciple the nations.” The width of the circuit which was thus assigned was out of all proportion to the number of those who were commanded to traverse it, even when that number is increased to the figure which is given in the Acts of the Apostles. It was then but one hundred and twenty. At that time the population of the Roman Empire was possibly about one hundred and twenty millions, at which figure Gibbon estimates it at the close of the first century. The followers of an absent Saviour were instructed by the Holy Ghost. They preached with souls aglow with the salvation which their Master wrought for us men. They rang out the tidings of eternal love, and of eternal truth. They exorcised despair. They assured the guilty of pardon and of peace. They enabled men and women blighted by sin, scorched by the fires of lust and of cruelty, and dwarfed by selfishness, to wield a power which was unknow to the moral pharmacopeia of ancient philosophy. ‘Their language was alive. It was as the voice of the living God, a power, an inspiration, a deliverance. It rang on—on through the em- peror’s pretorium; on through the forum and the 302 The Christian Ministry. fortress and the camp; on over field and flood, and river and great sea, until, by the breathing of the Spirit of the Lord of Hosts, the one hundred and twenty disciples and their followers overcame the one hundred and twenty millions. Amongst these masses there were those who were unworthy of the high and holy name by which they were called. But there were also those whose lives were the reflection of the lght within, kindled by lght Divine. Their characters were conformed to no heathen or even social ideal. They humbly but heartily followed Christ. In them, their ‘‘ enemies themselves being judges,” a power was in living operation, which they ascribed to Christ. The expressions of that power were obvious and evi- dential. They were the effects of the Gospel. They were the criterion of a supernatural system, in the name of Him by whom alone they were produced. ‘The works that I do bear witness of Me, that the Father hath sent Me.” These works are still done. They encourage the same appeal. They sustain the same witness. Indeed, if the power of evidence be in the ratio of a unity that obtains amid variety which is well-nigh infinite, and in an area which is ever enlarging, the cumulative weight of the evidence which sustains the moral argument on behalf of Christianity, and which is gathered from observing the effects of the Gospel, is enormous. This is so, if we appraise the work of the ministry amid people of different tem- peraments, civilisations, conditions, or even climates. απ θη ὌΝ ΣΝ Moral Adaptability of Gospel Message. 5303 There is no proposition more capable of proof than that which recognizes in climate one of the factors which influence character. Morals are as surely touched by temperature as are muscles. Yea, the dispositions of a people living in a flat, open, and level plain are different from those of a people living in a country with its hills and dales, its mountain ranges, its dizzy crags, and its bee- tling precipices. The swarthy Nubian has temp- tations from which the Lapp is all but free. The Greenlander has passions in vigorous play, which in the organisation of the Malay islander seem half asleep, and are but occasionally aroused. But whether man be found in the Arctic or in the Torrid zones ; whether he live and labour in temperate or in tropical regions, the comprehensive didactics of the ministry of Christ include him within their sweep. They have a charm and a message for all. The word of reconciliation is unbound by the laws of fire, or by the laws of frost. It announces peace which is as needful in the icebound regions of the Pole as in the solitudes of the Saharas. It brings the interested and the anxious listener tidings of a new power to dwell within. It indicates the succour of a Power beyond, so that whether the plague of each one’s heart be falsehood, or indolence, or theft, or impurity, or intemperance, or treachery, or pride, the vice gives place to virtue; the plague is subdued by moral health; the sin is conquered by the Presence and by the Potency of the Indwelling Christ. Every variety of social condition exhibits the 304 The Christian Ministry. oneness of this influence. It is the common charac- teristic of believing humanity whether it be repre- sented by an ancient slave, or by a modern emperor. It is the secret by which a Grecian courtesan becomes chaste and saintly, or by which an English woman lays aside her lace, her velvet, and her luxury, and lives and dies in the service of the abandoned, the depraved, and the vicious. Ancient civilisation illustrates its power. Modern civilis- ation is its dependent and its witness. The influence restraining, yet progressive; prohibitory, yet rich in the loveliness of deeds whose moral glory is a very Shekinah amid the gloom of selfish- ness and of sin, and indicative of the living Christ, is the same to-day, in Japan’ as it was in the first 1 The moral growth of Japan is one of the most cheering signs in the many- sided life of the far Hast. The Japan Bishopric is, in itself, a fact of great significance, especially so to those who are acquainted with the penal edicts which prevailed there two centuries since, one of which prohibited the Japanese from leaving their country on any pretext whatever; another prohibited the entrance of anyone professing Christianity. The latter edict is as follows: “So long as the sun shall warm the earth, let no Christian be so bold as to come to Japan ; and let all know that the King of Spain himself, or the Christian’s God, or the great God of all, if he violate this command, shall pay for it with his head.” Within the last forty years, both edicts, though unrevoked, are practi- cally obsolete. Japanese students matriculate in the universities. English and American missionaries evangelise without hindrance. A young man, himself a Japanese convert, a student in John Hopkins University, speaking lately in Bethany Church, Philadelphia, said there was nothing left as it was thirty years ago, “except the natural scenery,” and that “ the Light of Asia is fading and waning: but while it is at its sunset, the Light of the World is rising on that island empire.” Α series of articles has recently appeared in the Jiji Shimpo, urging the adoption of Christianity by the Japanese, as the best thing for Japan ethically and socially. The writer, M. Fukuzawa, published a work three years ago, in which he advocated the exclusion of Christianity from the empire. As recently as 1873, the pagan calendar was displaced by Anno Domini. In 1876, the national day of rest, the fifth, gave way to one in seven (Crisis of Missions, Pierson). Organic Unity of Spiritual Life. 305 century in Judea. It is as prevalent now in Ceylon, or in Sierra Leone, as it was in Thessalonica, or in Corinth, or in Ephesus, or in Colosse, or Philippi, eighteen centuries ago. The same testimony is borne, in a thousand ways, by believers in Christ, whether their lot le in the parishes of the ancient Church of Ireland, or in the overcrowded cities of England, or in great capitals, such as New York, Berlin, St. Petersburg, or London. In each sphere, the fundamental facts of inner life are the same. Men are ruined by moral disease, and enslaved by the thraldom of sin. They are restored and emancipated by the spiritual life of Christ com- municated by the Holy Ghost. The language, in which any one of these witnesses of the moral and spiritual power of Christ, expresses sorrow for sin, or supplication for strength, or acknowledgments of mercies received, may be translated into any other language, and the believing speaker of that language will adopt it without revision. The penitential prayer and the eucharistic praise of the English Churchman is adopted without hesitation by the convert from Confucianism. The Christmas chorales, the Haster anthems, the joyous songs of our harvests, may be heard in mission stations where ignorance, cannibalism, and frightful atrocities once held men in cast-iron bondage. The Te Deum, the Ter Sanctus, and the hymnody asso- ciated with the names of Neale and of Newman; of Montgomery and of Wesley; of Watts, of Dodd- ridge, of Toplady, of Keble, of Wordsworth, of 20 306 The Christian Ministry. Bickersteth—are heard wherever the Kingdom of Christ has planted the standard of the Cross. Thus, men who have never seen each other in the flesh have a common joy, which is rendered in different dialects. They sigh out their sorrows in strains the language of which but few of them can understand. But the sorrow and the joy are common to all. Yea, the spiritual experience of men who live as far apart as the east is from the west, are yet so similar that the psalms of the one may be recited by the other, and even the hymns of the earliest centuries are sung by believers in our own day. And if this be so; if the spiritual experiences of the followers of Christ in any one nation have but to be translated into the languages spoken by believers in every other nation, as expressive of the inner trials of each and of all; if, amid the ever-varying condi- tions in which they live, they assure the world they possess a common peace and joy and hope, and exercise a common power; if they declare, some- times at the cost of suffering, ever at the cost of self, that that power is bestowed by a Person, and that Person the Lord Jesus Christ; if its influence is such that thereby the selfish become self-denying, the niggardly become generous, the impure become chaste and even holy, drunkards become both sober and saintly; the hard, the morose, the grasping, and the false become true and honest and hearty and tender; if the more the power be exercised, the more the character of the disciple reflects the outlines of One whose life, as recorded Unity to be accounted for. 307 in sacred literature, is the loftiest Example con- tained in the annals of mankind, in the intensity of its strength within, or in the width of its range without; if unwearied activities are undertaken in love to the unloving, to the unpromising, to the ungrateful, yet in obedience to the prevalent in- stincts of the inner life, in loyal devotion to an invisible Saviour, and in daily denial of personal merit; if, looking back through the centuries, these experiences abound in periods far apart, in countries which represent every variety of climate, of govern- ment, of civilization, and of religion; then is it unreasonable to require that these facts be accounted for? Is it too much to ask that men who admit Christ’s death, but who deny His Resurrection and His Ascension, will explain how it is that the moral life of Christians is the visible attestation of the Life of the Risen Christ, and that the denial of the Risen Life generally signifies the absence of the visible attestation? Can effects which are mani- fested, and which are multiplied, in every parish at home, in every nation on the Continent, in the great and thronging cities of the New World, among the tribes of Africa, the races of Asia, and the people who occupy the islands which are here and there in all the oceans, be produced, by One who is believed to be dead, or who only lives “in history ”’ ? Such a theory is the most startling illustration of the credulity of the incredulous which the history of opinion supplies. It eliminates some facts. It mutilates others. ‘To do either is as unreasonable, 308 The Christian Mintstry. as it is unscientific. .We decline to follow in such tracks. We rather weigh all the evidence, wherever found, and in whatever age or era. We discern an extraordinary unity of testimony scattered through variety of scene, of condition, of circumstance, which is almost infinite. We conclude that the life, the effects of which require explanation, is One. We trace these effects; we observe the expressions of this life. We find them characterized by the same spiritual features in every century which has passed over humanity, from the nineteenth back to that which was first known as the Year of our Lord. We go behind that first year, and well-nigh all is death and darkness, relieved only by the faint streaks which predict the rise of an Eternal Sun. As we journey forward towards one age, and backward through others, we find in the former mere sugges- tions of life. We find through the latter manifesta-. tions of the vitality. The life is Continmwows. We prosecute our inquiry. We are led from Judea to Samaria, and to the uttermost parts of the earth ; and even now, when war and rapine, and conquest and commerce, and brave adventure, have enlarged the spheres of industry; when science has made this planet a great neighbourhood,—men out of every nation under heaven acknowledge that, when they accept the Restorative and the Remedial principles which are in Christ, the same effects ensue, in every land. We conclude that the Life is Universal. And when we group these facts together, and observe that they are personal, are moral, are national, are The Life ts One, Continuous, Universal. 309 ethical, are independent, and proclaim, amid vast variety, that the Life which they express is One; when we retrace our steps through the great eras and epochs of history, and discover the same vital evidences in all ages, until, upon this point, modern parochial experience is similar to ancient, to patristic, to apostolic, and so find the Life to be Continuous; when we hear men, whose lives entitle them to credit, assert that their experiences are those of men in other lands, and, as we know, in other ages, we then conclude the Life is Universal; and if Universality be its range, and Con- tinuity be its duration, and Oneness be its Hssence, then we may, without an approach to rashness or to timidity, declare that the cumulative evidence which is thus supplied to the Existence of the Life-giving Christ is barely short, yet necessarily short, of demonstration. If this be so, I plead for the supreme importance of the Moral Argument. It is one through all the ages. The pathological evidences of ethnology, to a common origin for the human family, traced through pore, and cuticle, and artery, and fibre, and sinew, and bone, and brain, and fossil—yet of all animate life specialized by speech— are not stronger than are the evidences in pneuma- tical life, patiently traced in the world of thought, of conduct, of character, to the existence, to the operation, and to the Oneness of the Lord, who is the Spirit. It is growing with the growth, it is strengthening with the strength, it is widening with the width and with the effect of that work 310 The Christian Ministry. which the Church of. Christ is commissioned and is empowered to do. Every soul saved by grace, strengthened by the Spirit in the inner man, walking worthy of the voca- tion wherewith he is called, is an addition to the weight of the moral argument. The additions are increasing with the undoubted progress of missionary enterprise. As we hear of them year by year one is reminded of Gibbons’ brilliant reference to the triumph of the Empire in the days of Trajan. “Every day,’’ says the historian, ‘‘ the astonished senate received the intelligence of new names and new nations that acknowledged his sway. They were informed that the kings of Bosphorus, Colchos, Iberia, Albania, Osrhoene, and even the Parthian monarch himself, had accepted diadems from the hands of the Emperor; that the independent tribes of the Midian and Carduchian hills had implored his protection, and that the rich countries of Armenia, Mesopotamia, and Assyria were reduced into the state of provinces.’ It would surely be a strange example of correct reasoning if any one was to say that the reduction of these peoples to the rule of the Empire was a proof of its extinction. And when we survey the growth of the Kingdom of Christ, it is no less strange and unreasonable to pronounce the Christian religion to be effete. Such unreason appears at its height when candid observation recognises and pursues the contrast which is suggested by the closing sentence of the above quotation: ‘ But,’’ 1 Decline and Fall, c. 1. Great Importance of Moral Argument. 311 says Gibbon, ‘‘the death of Trajan soon clouded the splendid prospect; and it was justly to be dreaded that so many distant nations would throw off the unaccustomed yoke, when they were no longer restrained by the powerful hand which had imposed 10. Christ departed. Christ’s Kingdom has developed. His absence, His invisibility, is no hindrance to its progress. Military leaders have inspired battalions by their glance, by their voice, by their presence. The spiritual followers of the Redeemer adore Him ‘“‘ whom not having seen, they love.’ Though invisible, He is ever witb them, and His Presence is attested and manifested. Thus every Christian life witnesses to the living Christ. This is the moral argument. It is to-day being reinforced by thousands of believing souls. It sus- tains both the philosophical and the historical sides of Christian apologetics. The latter is associated chiefly with the name of Paley. To him the Church is under an obligation, which the lapse of time assuredly increases. Those of us who have examined his array of thousands of facts, gathered from the lives and from the labours of the first followers of Christ, will do well to emulate his patience, to observe his candour, and to be grateful for the signal service which he ren- dered, and which his work continues to render, as an historical apologetic. But we must also remember that the estimate of evidence depends, to some extent, upon the characteristics of the age, or even of the individual to whom it is addressed. If this 315 The Christian Ministry. be true, then the evidence which was persuasive in one period may fail to be so in another. The conviction of one generation may not be passed on, as an irresistible power, whereby the conviction of another may be won. Conviction through special evidence need not be disparaged. Both may lie, like weapons in an armoury, as indications of the modes in which warfare was waged in bygone days; and also as indications of the vast changes which have taken place in the methods of warfare, and by con- sequence, in the construction of armaments. The panoply of Paley was closely knit. It covered the Christian soldier from head to foot; and so long as Christianity was regarded as a religion, as a system, or as a code, his array of facts is clear, cogent, and convincing. But Christianity is a Life. It is the expression of Personal Being—yea, of none other than the Christ. He entered into history, and became thereby historical. In that connection Paley’s argument is invaluable. But it hardly touches the spiritual world which the Spirit of God creates in the spirit of man. Nor can we shrink from confessing to some mis- giving about the present value of an argument, which rests upon words which bear a very close resemblance to a petitio principu. To speak of the ‘‘satisfactory evidence of persons who _ pro- fessed to be the original witnesses of the Christian miracles’? was safe and reasonable in an age when doubt was discredited, when open unbelief was, as compared with the experience of our own day, Increases Dufficulties of Materialism. 313 limited in its circulation, and still more so in its influence. But now, all conclusions which repose upon the apparent assumptions made by witnesses to miracles, are rejected with scorn. Men no longer whisper their infidelity over rosewater. They proclaim it from the housetop. They preach it in the serial which lies upon our drawing-room tables. They thus openly, though undesignedly, contribute to that latest phase of the struggle between faith and unbelief—the domestication of infidelity. These considerations appear to me to render the moral argument, which is gathered from the effects of the word, as delivered by the didactic side of the ministry, of peculiar importance in an age, the especial fea- ture of which is Utilitarianism. They rebuke the Positivist who arranges facts, avoids their explana- tion, and is false to the universal tendency in man to inquire into the cause and object of every effect. They perplex the Materialist, for they proclaim a power over matter, yet somehow infused into matter, but not by or of matter. They remind the disciples of Feuerbach, of Moleschott, of Buchner, and of Vogt, that if man is but what he eats; or the sum total of his parents and his nurse; of wind, of ashes, and of phosphorus, there was One life, at least, in the world, which was characterized by other effects than those which observation or chemistry have ever assigned to phosphorus. Did phosphorus produce the Christ ? If it did, then there ought not to be any difficulty in the appearance of numerous Christs, for 314 The Christian Ministry. the supply of phosphorus is as large as ever. If it did not produce Christ, then what did? The question presses for areply, since the life of Christ is Universal, Continuous, and One. The answer is given by the moral argument, which is no less full and final when addressed to the agnostic. Whatever aid is thus afforded to the historical apology for Christianity, is rendered in equal measure to the philosophical—a line of defence which is associated with the name of the immortal Butler. His postulate is, unhappily, no longer allowed. Men now deny what he took as proved ‘‘ that there is an intelligent Author of nature and natural Governor of the world.’”! For some reasons, which are prevalent rather than convincing, this panoply of probabilities is being relegated to the literary tower of some academies, there to le amongst the armour, antiquated and rugged, of a rude past. Yet, it is noticeable, that a book, which makes some pretence to philosophic apology, and which has received an enormous amount of attention in these islands and in America, is ' Analogy, Intro. * Butler has been described as “one to whose deep sayings no thoughtful mind was ever yet introduced for the first time, without acknowledging the period an epoch in its intellectual history ” (Professor Archer Butler’s Letters on the Development of Christian Doctrine, p. 75). The late Dean Mansel, in his Preface to his Bampton Lectures, as if apprehensive of the action which removed Bishop Butler’s works from the Oxford course, uses these weighty sentences : “ Connected as the present author has been for many years with the studies of Oxford, of which those writings have long formed an important part, he feels that he would be wanting in his duty to the university to which he owes so much, were he to hesitate to declare, at this time, his deep-rooted and increasing conviction, that sound religious philosophy will flourish or fade within her walls, according as she perseveres, or neglects, to study the works Atds Philosophical Argument. 315 dependent upon Butler’s mode of thought for its life, its strength, and even worth.’ Few reasonable men will disparage Butler’s calm and cautious argument on behalf of revealed religion. For myself, I have the profoundest conviction that there is a greater future for that work than its past has ever been. This conviction rests upon the vast and varied fields of knowledge which the intrepidity of science is opening to our use and to our enjoyment. ‘There is not a department of nature whichis unexplored. The air we breathe ; the water of which we are largely com- posed, and by which we are surrounded; the earth on which we tread; heat, light, electricity, sound, each of these are yielding their age-long secrets to those whose patient courage is certain to be rewarded. The more the realm of nature is explored, and the more the religion of Him, “ without Whom was not anything made that was made,” is studied, the greater and the sharper will be the analogies between ‘‘religion natural and revealed to the constitution and the course of nature.’”’ Analogies within analogies will be discovered. They will and cultivate the spirit of her great son and teacher, Bishop Butler.” ‘“ As a matter of fact Butler’s immortal work has, of late years, been elbowed out from the Oxford curriculum, in favour of a system of teaching which leads directly to unbelief, if it does not actually profess it. Whatever plea may be urged for this retrograde course, it may not at 411 events be pretended that it is because Butler’s philosophy has kecome obsolete, whether half or wholly.”’ This allusion is to Professor Goldwin Smith’s opinion: “They counsel Oxford ill, even for her safety, who bid her bind herself to the stake of a philosophy now half obsolete in the middle of a rising tide.” This disparaging reference to Butler was severely criticized by the Right Hon. Joseph Napier, in the Preface to his Lectures on the Analogy (Burgon's Lives, vol. ii., p. 201). ᾿ Natural Law in the Spiritual World (Drummond). 316 The Christian Ministry. cultivate humility. -They will invigorate faith. They will arouse our reverence and our wonder. The noble work will then appear to be like one of those grand sonatas, which when heard for the first time is confusion, is chaos, is unordered, eccentric, and perhaps provoking. But when heard again the structure of the work appears in the world of sound. Later on, the listener has learned more of the science and loved more of the art. And now he is able to detect fugue, and phrase, counterpoint, and inner harmonies, until at last, from the first to the final chord, there is nothing but thought and beauty, and symmetry and concord. The sonata was a poem. So, I believe, Butler’s book will yet prove to be. It is a moral antiphonal, in which the voices of nature, on the one side, and the voices of religion on the other, chant, in ever widening alternation, the praises of Him who is the Author and the End of both. It is still the accepted exposition of the philosophical argument. To it, however, the moral argument renders service. Being thus complementary to both the historical and philosophical arguments, for this age I account it the most valuable of all. The historical and the moral arguments may be compared to two electric currents which are travelling in opposite directions. The historical current starts from the Christ. It penetrates the gloom of heathenism. It passes through the night of the dark ages. It scin- tillates along until, like a meteor, it flashes forth through the Renaissance, and through the Reforma- f{istorical, Moral, Philosophical Arguments. 317 tion period. Thence it illuminates Europe, America, Africa, the East, and the islands of the Sea. The moral current starts from the spirit of a believer. It is generated by Deity. Itis inner. It is spiritual. It is operative. It is the same through all the ages, and it has restored and irradiated all who have come out of great tribulation. We trace it back through all the centuries. Its course is, here and there, uncertain, and even obscure. It makes for a far-off grave. Itis lost at length in the splendour of the sunrise of the First Easter Day. Such is the continuity of Christian life, personal, spiritual, supernatural. This life begins in a miracle. It leads us back to the miracle of all miracles. It contributes to the strength by which the historical argument is advanced. It illustrates the adapta- tion which underlies the philosophical argument. This, the personal and general feature of spiritual criteria, is an abiding and ever intensifying incentive to the maintenance, inviolate and assured, of those principles which are revealed as the conditions upon which, in the mind of God, spiritual life is produced. They are each and all dependent upon the Presence and the Power of God the Holy Ghost. This is the testimony of the Scripture which He has inspired. This is the teaching of the Church which He has created. This would appear to be, in the highest degree, probable, in the nature of the case, even if the teaching of the Church were less explicit, and even if that of the Holy Scripture were less abundant and emphatic. 318 The Christian Munistry. To be the authorised messengers by whom the Spirit of the Living God may speak, either to con- vict, or to convert, or to comfort, or to remit sins, or to retain sins; to be, by His holy will, and by the attitude of men towards the word of the Truth of the Gospel, the administrators of life or of death ; to be the ambassadors of a King, who so associates Himself with His herald, that to despise the truth which he announces is accounted treason to the sovereign rights of Christ; all this is impressive in the extreme. It assigns responsibility the vastest ; solemnity the deepest; and honour the highest to the office of that ministry which is associated with the name of Christ. It appeals to us by every moral perception, to be painfully careful in the declaration of truth, lest the work, which truth alone can per- form, be hindered by those who are commissioned to help it. Many are the modes in which that work may be impeded. With these we become acquainted by experience, by observation, by study, by vigilant consciousness of the unwearied malevolence and the active hostility of the enemy of souls. Many, like- wise, are the modes in which this holy work may be advanced. Of them all, there is none more effectual than the argument which even the most untutored savage can draw from the life of the minister of the Lord Jesus Christ. Historical appeals may be beyond his grasp. Philosophical reasoning may be considered as more adapted to others who are better placed, with regard to education, to leisure, or to mental endowments. But there is no limit to Convergein Personal Ll xperience, Ministerial Work. 319 the power for God and for good, which is generated amongst mankind by a minister, who with even humble intellectual attainments, yet speaks with the power of the Holy Ghost, and whose labour of love is a psalm of life, ringing out the hallelujah of heaven upon earth: ‘‘ He hath put a new song in my mouth, even praise unto our God.” The results of such a life, predicted in the Psalter, are historic in ten thousand scenes of ministerial work: ‘ Many shall see it and fear, and shall trust in the Lord.” Such men are all too well acquainted with sin as a disease in the spiritual constitution of the human race. They are as well acquainted with the thraldom to which it has reduced, and is unwearied in its efforts still to reduce, the whole nature of man. But quickened by the Holy Ghost, either in the sacra- ment of the new birth of water and of the Spirit, or by the living word of the living God, they can speak experimentally of the new life which God has given, and of that liberty of heart which, in pro- portion to its victory over sin, enables them to run in the way of the Divine commandments. And of all the phrases which might be gathered from the sacred Scriptures to enforce this doctrine, there are none so significant as those which are found in the Hebrew record of Isaiah’s ordination to the prophetic office, which, it will be remembered, is the first lesson for Trinity Sunday. That vision is, perhaps, the sublimest picture which inspiration has ever drawn. ‘The Eternal Son is beheld enthroned in 320 The Christian Ministry. splendour. ‘‘ There He sat in kingly majesty, who covereth Himself with light as with a garment,’’ and surrounded by the seraphims, who, like the four living creatures beheld in vision by the prisoner of Patmos, recorded in the Apocalypse, ‘‘each one had six wings.”’ ‘With twain he covered his face,’ in reverent obedience and adoration; ‘‘ with twain he covered his feet,’ in conscious unworthiness; ‘‘ with twain he did fly,’’ in willing alacrity and service. The theme of the anthem in these two visions is the same, although well-nigh a thousand years le between them. It is the ‘“‘ Thrice Holy,” ‘‘ Holy Father,” “Holy High Priest,’’ the ever blessed Lord Jesus Christ, ‘‘ Holy Spirit,” the Holy One. No feeble chant is this. Its mighty vibrations and throbbings cause ‘‘ the posts of the door to shake, and the house was filled with smoke.” The brightness of the vision and the proclamation of the pean overwhelm the prophet. The moral significance of Hebrew cere- monialism oppresses him. The lessons of leprosy become instinct with life. ‘‘ Unclean, unclean,”’ is the human response to the seraphic song, and there is the consciousness that the impurity ,which cannot endure the presence of the All-holy extends to all those amongst whom he dwells. He and his people are diseased by spiritual leprosy. They are separated thereby from God. The apprehension of God’s holiness by Isaiah is the revelation of his own ruin.* But a seraph, having a live coal in his hand, taken from the 1 For another illustration of this thought, see Yesterday, To-day, and for iver (Bishop Bickersteth), book i., 50-60. The Message of Tsatah’'s Vision. 321 altar, lays it upon the mouth, and touches the lips of the prophet. As taken from the altar, we are taught that moral impurity is purged by the power of sacrifice; as applied to the lips, we are taught that the speech of the prophet thus purified is to be consecrated to the service of God by heavenly fire—a type, surely, of God the Holy Spirit. Thus pardoned, purified, inflamed, the inquiry falls upon the prophet’s ear: (1 heard the voice of the Lord saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? Then said I, Here am I, send me.’’? Now, whether we regard the trisagion hymn of the seraphim, or the fear, shame, and awe of the prophet, this revelation is full of teaching. But it may be reasonably doubted whether any conclusion can be drawn from it which is more assured, more instructive, more emphatic than that for the purpose of illustrating which it has been here referred to. The grand message which the vision delivers to the Church is the supreme importance of the prophet of Christ having personal experience of the remedial and restorative power of the message he is commissioned to deliver, and of the blessings communicated by the Holy Spirit. Without this, the labour of the preacher will be without the sustaining power which comes from love to God. His appeals will be, in spite of the auxiliaries of education, of influence, of office, undone by a conscious unreality, which will infect those to whom he ministers. His life will be the direst slavery to icy and to heartless professionalism. 1 Tsaiah vi. 7, 8. 21 922 The Christian Ministry. Yea, his very language will reek with that most offensive and most loathsome of all the putridities which are known to mankind—clerical cant. But, with personal iniquity purged by sacrifice, with per- sonal incapacity and unworthiness overcome by the spiritual fires of the Holy Ghost, the ‘‘ Who will go for us?’’ of the Lord Jehovah will have a humble yet a glad response from the heart of him, out of whose abundant experience the mouth can speak. The more so when we remember that God did not appeal, as He might have appealed, to the seraphim. They saw His glory. They sung His praise. They rejoiced in His presence. No sin, nor stain, nor guilty dread was theirs. Nor is their race extinct. Their ranks are unthinned by death or by defection. They are as ready as ever to do the will of the great King. Even now, God could send them on daily errands to announce His love to a lost world. Glo- rious beings, adorned in the splendours of sinless society ; with lightning glance, with seraphic voice, with lightsome robe, and attended by majestic phe- nomena, might appear in every holy house in the land, and undertake the evangelization which Christ, whom they adore, has committed to His Church. They might appeal to the careless, to the hardened, to the selfish, to the unbelieving. Such might be the width of the range over which their expostulation might run, and such might be the interpenetration of their searchings, that in the vastest throng every cha- racter would be discovered, and no sinner could escape. Yet, while their arguments were proceeding, and their The Holy Trinity and the Ministry. B23 appeals were being urged, their listeners would reflect that their angelic visitants were theorists after all. They never knew the persuasive influence of sin. They had never sighed over its guilt, nor groaned beneath its slavery, nor wondered at its power. How could they estimate the blessings of a life, or the joy of a freedom, or the munificence of a pardon, in their personal severance from the conditions which are necessary to such appreciation? It is in these thoughts we see the spiritual significance of Isaiah’s ordination. It is thus we recognise the moral great- ness of our own. Nor may we forget that as Isaiah’s call is in holy writ associated with the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, so the Christian Ministry is sanctified in like manner.’ [If this be so, then go your way, my brethren, in the name of the Trinity, Holy and Undivided. Receive your commission from a King, whose kingdom, though not of this world, is for this world. Its duration is eternity. Its dominion is from the flood unto the world’s end. Regard the constitution of that ministry, as it at pre- sent exists, as possessing everything short of explicit Divine authority for its Orders. Remember the sphere in which you are to work. Man is a fallen creature. Christ alone can raise him. The means whereby God has been pleased to order that this should be effected are entrusted to you, as ministers of His Church. Be faithful dispensers of the Word of God, and of His Holy Sacraments.? Let not the work to 1 1 Cor. xii. 28; Eph. iv. 8-11; Acts xx. 28. ? Ordering of Priests. 324 The Christian Ministry. which they are adapted suffer in your hands. ‘ Make full proof of your ministry.” Shun not to declare to all men the whole counsel of God. Let me implore of you to remember that the spirituality of the minister is the spiritualisation of morals. And morals, reposing upon, and regulated by, that revela- tion which constitutes the didactics of the ministry, would, if prevalent, produce the greatest era of blessing which this world has ever known, even though im- mortality should prove to be a myth, and though man’s hopes and fears were bounded by the grave. Your confidence in the message which Christ has committed to the keeping of His Church, is being justified, in proportion to the enlargement of His Kingdom, and to the acceptance of His benign rule. It stands out in contrast, clear and broad, with the confessed apprehension of the greatest living agnostic. Mr. Herbert Spencer hurried for- ward his work on the Data of Ethics. He tells his disciples why. A great fear has come to him. (1 am,” he says, ‘‘the more anxious to indicate in outline, if I cannot complete this work, because the establishment of rules of right conduct on a scientific basis is a pressing need.” Mr. Spencer may hasten his work. He may announce, in volume after volume, new laws by which life’s conduct may be regulated. As a Christian, I hope his bold scheme will be helpful to humanity. But whether it is or not, he and his school proclaim the glory, the grandeur, the unfading splendour of that Life, which to this hour is bestowed 1 2 Tim. iv. 5. Living Christians prove the Living Christ. 325 upon mankind by Him, who has given to mankind, incentives and safeguards to the highest morality, without having written a moral code. These come, not from a volume which has been hurried on to meet a crisis which unbelief has created, and which in its panic, appeals for help to science. They come from the living Christ. They are proclaimed within the Church, Holy, Catholic, Apostohe. Their an- nouncement is the burden of those who hold the King’s Commission. ‘Their realisation is amongst those ‘‘greater works,’’ which a departing Saviour predicted should be done, in His power, through His Spint, by His servants. They bear witness to the Divinity of our Message, even as their types, in the physical order, bore witness to the Divinity of His. LECTURE VII. “Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as My Father hath sent Me, even so send I you. And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost : Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them ; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained. But Thomas, one of the Twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came.”—ST. JOHN xx. 21-4. “The eleven gathered together, and them that were with them.”—StT. LUKE xxiv. 33. HE principle of the Apostolic Succession, as it is stated, explained, and vindicated by its advocates, 1s neither recognised nor implied in the official language of the Church of England. It is described, in a recent apology,’ as consisting in ‘‘a permanent and official apostolate ;’’? transmitted from its first depositaries;”* ‘‘an authoritative stewardship of the grace and truth which came by Jesus Christ;’’* “δὴ essential element of the cor- porate life of the Church;”’® yea, ‘“‘a permanent * The Church and the Ministry. By Charles Gore, M.A., Principal of the Pusey House, Fellow of Trinity College, Oxford, and Examining Chaplain to the Lord Bishop of Lincoln, * “The four Gospels certainly appear to warrant, if not to require, the position that Christ instituted in His Church a permanent and official apostolate.”— Ibid., p. 340. 3 Ibid., p. 70. * Tbed., p. 70. > Ibid., Preface. The Apostolical Succession. 327 and essential element of Christianity.’’! Bishops are regarded ‘‘as succeeding in an especial sense to the Apostles,” in virtue of which succession they are said to be ‘‘the guardians also, no doubt, of the grace by which Christians live,” a position to which the author commits Ireneus.’ These are large claims. They affect spiritual lite as the precious possession of the individual believer. They affect the development of that life, since the successors of the Apostles are accounted ‘ guardians of that grace” in which St. Peter exhorts the faith- ful to grow, and of which bishops are the stewards by transmission. They affect the existence of the ‘Church of Christ. Nor is any latitude allowed. The question is not open. It is not one about which men may either hold different views, or defer the formation of an opinion. ‘There is no Christianity without it. Of the Christian religion it is said to be, again and again, a ‘‘ permanent and essential element.”’ Assuming this doctrine to be fundamental, and accepting as true and as vital the stupendous spiritual issues, individual and corporate, which are said to belong to it, it is but reasonable to ex- pect that the Church of England, of the corporate life of which it is ‘‘an essential element,” would, in her formularies, emphasize a principle of such magnitude. If the expectation were larger, in- cluding not alone the mention of the doctrine, ' The Church and the Ministry, p. 337. ? “ Trenzeus regards the bishops in every Church as succeeding in an especial ‘sense to the Apostles.”’—Jdid., p. 120, 328 The Christian Ministry. but illustrations of its existence, moral evidences of its power, abundant gains from its continuity and presence, and losses through its absence, even these would not be beyond the requirements of reason or of religion. Instead of such authoritative informa- tion being either provided for us, or presented to us, the Church of England is silent. She has no inform- ation to give to her children respecting a principle upon which individual and corporate hfe, in the spiritual order, depend.' She is equally tacit upon the same high theme in her announcements to those about to be admitted to the sacred work of the ministry. Her language towards ‘the clergy’’ on the one hand, and towards ‘‘the people” on the other, is impressively silent respecting a primary condition, the presence of which is essential to the initiation of spiritual life, to its corporate expression, yea, to Christianity itself. This reserve is strange, disappointing, and even perplexing.” It is emphatically so, when we are assured that the doctrine is ‘‘a commonplace,’’ yea, 1“ The individual life can receive this fellowship with God only through mem- bership in the one body and by dependence upon social sacraments of regenera- tion, of confirmation, of communion, of absolution,—of which ordained ministers. are the appointed instruments. . . . The doctrine of the Apostolic Succession was. a commonplace among Christian ideas, and was bound up with the whole fabric of the life of the Catholic Church.”—The Church and the Ministry, pp. 94, 339. * The silence of the Church of England upon this theme was noticed long aco by Cardinal Newman. He referred to it in his well-known letter to “ My dear Father Coleridge,” dated from the Oratory, Birmingham, August 5th, 1868. In that letter he says; ‘‘ Apostolical succession, its necessity and its grace, is not an Anglican tradition, though it is a tradition found in the Anglican Church. By contrast, our Lord’s Divinity 7s an Anglican tradition—every one, high and low, holds it. It is not only in Prayer Book and Catechism, but it is in the mouths of all professors of Anglicanism. .. . Not such is the apostolical suc- cession ; and, considering the Church is the columna et firmamentum veritatis, Not recognised by Anglican Church. 329 when the lingering influence of a great name is introduced to impress us with the information that “in the latter part of the second century of the Christian era, the subject came into distinct and formal view; and from that time forward it seems to have been considered by the great writers of the Catholic body a fact too palpable to be doubted, and too simple to be misunderstood.’ If this be an accu- rate account of the position which was continuously assigned to the doctrine for sixteen centuries, then its absence from the authoritative literature of a Church which never disparages antiquity, 1s amazing ; the more so when the variety which marks the nature of her utterances is remembered—a variety which enables an inquirer to ascertain what is and what is not ‘‘essential’”’ doctrine. Her official language is Liturgical, Theological, Homiletical, and Constitutional. It includes the canons ecclesiastical; ‘‘The Book of Common Prayer, und Administration of the Sacraments, and other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church,” ‘‘ together with the Psalter,’’ ‘‘and the Form and Manner of Making, Ordaining, and Consecrating of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons.” It includes the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, and “‘ certain sermons or homi- lies, appointed to be read in churches in the time of Queen Elizabeth, of famous memory.” By these documents the ministers of the Church of England and is ever bound to stir up the gift that is in her, there is surely a strong presumption that the Anglican body has not what it does not profess to have "ἢ (Bssays, Crit. and His., vol. ii., n., p. 110, J. H. Newman). ! Church Principles, by W. E, Gladstone, c. v., p. 189. 330 The Christian Ministry. are bound. They are supposed to acknowledge their acquiescence in their plain and full meaning, under the most solemnizing conditions. From these obli- gations the laity are free. In this literature—ancient, vast, and varied—there is no recognition of the doc- trine which makes man a permanent or essential vehicle by which heavenly grace descends to the soul. Search is made in vain for the principle of official transmission of apostolic authority, through vital and individual connection with the ‘ apostolic fount.” Inquiry, whether made by the lay or clerical conscience, finds no affirmative response to an interrogation on behalf of this theory, ad- dressed to the authoritative expressions of Anglica doctrine. ; This silence would be explicable if it prevailed upon the whole subject of the Christian ministry. If the Homilies, the Articles, the Liturgy, and the Canons, made no mention whatever of the ‘divers orders which God hath appointed in His Church,’ it would, perhaps, be unreasonable to expect that special mention should be made of even an essential principle. The omission of the whole might justify the omission of a part, even though it should prove to be a vital part. The omission might be supplied in ways that are quite conceivable. An announcement might be made, under the most impressive conditions, to the bishop, who succeeds to the apostolic authority. He could reveal it to those amongst whom his power might, in some sort, be distributed. And thus the principle might be Clear as to Constitution of Ministry. 331 preserved, safeguarded, transmitted, and the uniform omission which is now accentuated might be ex- plained. But the muniments, to the acceptance of which the Church commits her clergy, and out of which, as Churchmen, they may justify such claims as the Church permits them to make, are not silent about the ministry. They are full of instruction respecting its origin, its constitution, its nature, and its work. But they take no account whatever of what is considered the essence of the ministry, even where it appears reasonable to expect an express statement. The third canon regards the Church of England as a true and apostolical Church. ‘‘ Whosoever shall hereafter affirm that the Church of England, by law established under the King’s Majesty, is not a true and apostolical Church—”’ here is an opening, reason- able and opportune, for the assertion of the claim now made for the ministry. The claim is neither made nor implied. Instead of the apostolicity of the Anglican Church being supposed to rest upon Apostolical Succession, the statement glides off, and fastens upon “ teaching and maintaining the doctrine of the Apostles”? as constituting the basis of the claim made for the apostolicity of the Church. References abound, in the canons, to the Ordering of Ministers, their function, charge, title, quality, examination, declaration, subscription, demeanour, and so forth.’ There is no mention whatever of the 1 Constitutions and Canons Ecclesiastical, 31-76. This canonical principle is accepted by Cardinal Newman. “An apostolical ministry necessarily involves an apostolical teaching ” (/ssays, ut supra, p. 78). 202 The Christian Ministry. principle which it is alleged is vital to the ministry. The Articles are equally silent. They treat “Οἵ the Church,’’ “Οἱ Ministering in the Congregation,” ‘‘ Of the Unworthiness of the Ministers which hinders not the effect of the Sacrament,’ and ‘‘ Of Conse- cration of Bishops and Ministers.’ Here, again, silence is maintained. Nor is it otherwise in the Ordinal. An inquirer, searching for authoritative opinion, might expect to discover it in the Preface, the language of which leads up to such an announcement. But it is not made. Bishops, priests, and deacons are regarded as Orders of ministers in Christ’s Church. They date from apostolic times. Such a ministry is historical, although each Order does not appear to be equally necessary.” No man may take the office without 1 Articles of Religion, XIX., XXIII., XXVI., XXXVI. * This conclusion is drawn from the official language of the Church, in positive statement, and from rubrical revision. A comparison of the first rubric, in “The Form and Manner of Making of Deacons,” as that rubric now reads, with what it was before 1662, will be helpful to the conclusion stated above— viz., the Church of England does not hold that each order is equally necessary in the Church of Christ. Before the last revision, 1662, that rubric ran thus: “ First, when the day appointed by the Bishop is come, there shall be an exhortation, declaring the dutie and office of such as come to be admitted Ministers, how necessary such orders are in the Church of Christ; and also how the people ought to esteem them in their vocation.” In 1662 (vide the Black Letter Prayer Book) the rubric was revised thus: “‘ When the day appointed by the Bishop is come, after Morning Prayer is ended, there shall be a Sermon or Exhortation, declaring the Duty and Office of such as come to be admitted Deacons ; how necessary that Order is in the Church of Christ, and also, how the people ought to esteem them in their Office.” The rubric thus revised has so stood since 1662. The alteration, though slight, was from a general to a special term, which described a definite office as “‘necessary.” It declared, for the first time in the Church of England, and with regard to the Diaconate, “how necessary that Order is in the Church of Christ.” Before the year 1662 there was no rubric corresponding to this before Emphatic as to tts Apostolicity. 333 preliminary preparation, public prayer, with imposition of hands, and admission by lawful authority. The continuity of these Orders, in the Church of England, is to be secured by the candidate being “ called, tried, examined, and admitted thereunto, according to the Form hereafter following, or hath had formerly Episcopal Consecration or Ordination.” ‘To this “the Form (“and Manner ”—these words were then first inserted) of Ordering of Priests.” The Priests and Bishops were probably covered by the generic term Ministers, which was in 1662 altered to Deacons. But the rubric, as it now stands—the word “ Deacons” being altered to “ Priests,” suitable to the service succeeding—was in 1662 then, and for the first time inserted where we now find it. The effect of this alteration and insertion was to declare, with regard to the Priesthood, “how necessary that Order is in the Church of Christ.” This rubric was not inserted before the service for “the Consecration of Bishops.” The title of the service was altered. The time of its performance was defined in the next line, by the insertion of the words “ which is always to be performed upon some Sunday or Holy Day.” The present rubric and the following collect were then also inserted. But the rubric which declared the Diaconate and the Priesthood to be necessary Orders in the Church of Christ was not inserted as regards the Episcopate. The omission is the more signifi- cant from the fact that the lines between which the rubric would naturally lie were, as I have stated, both altered, and it would be very rash to say that no suggestion respecting the insertion of the rubric, which, if inserted, would have declared “how necessary” the Episcopal “ Order is in the Church of Christ,” occurred to the revisers. The fact of the alteration from “ Ministers” to “ Deacons” in the Ordinal which affected the latter: the further fact of its having been written in the margin of the service for the Ordaining of Priests render it extremely probable that both verbal alteration and rubrical insertion were in the minds of the revisers. But they did not regard either. The non- insertion of a rubric, before the episcopal ordinal, corresponding to that which was inserted before the presbyteral ordinal, appears to indicate that they did not consider episcopacy as “necessary” an “ Order” “in the Church of Christ ” as either the diaconate or the priesthood. If the revisers held the view which is advocated by the Rev. Charles Gore, why did they not insert the rubric at the very place in which probably he would have made it a matter of life or death to have inserted it? The neglect was either accidental or inten- tional. If it was accidental, it exhibits carelessness about, not a matter of indifference, but of vital concern to the Church of Christ, since bishops are said to transmit grace from the apostolic fount, whatever that may mean. If it was intentional, then the revisers could not have held Mr, Gore’s opinion respecting bishops as vehicles of apostolic grace, But the neglect may have been due to ignorance. The revisers may not have 334 The Christian Ministry. ancient rule, traced up to apostolic times, without theorizing on the principle of Apostolic Succession, or pronouncing on the practice of other Christian bodies, the Church of England declares her steadfast adhesion—in this case as in all others desiring to follow the guidance of the primitive Church—and re- fuses to allow any to minister within her own borders, unless ordained according to that rule.’” known that episcopacy was regarded as a “necessary ” link in the chain which united bishops to the Apostles. They could not have been thus ignorant. Laud’s memorable contention was well known, It was circulated, not only because of its narrowness and of its novelty, but because of the powerful and prompt reply of Dr. Holland, the Regius Professor of Divinity. Laud, in his exercise for the degree of B.D., maintained there could be no true Church without diocesan bishops. Dr. Holland “openly reprehended him in the schools for a seditious person, who would unchurch the Reformed Protestant Churches beyond seas, and now sow division between us and them, who were brethren, by this novel Popish position” (Breviate of Life of Laud, Prynne, p. 2). Heylyn says that Laud “ was shrewdly rattled by Dr. Holland as one that did endeavour to cast a bone of discord betwixt the Church of England and the teformed Churches beyond the seas” (Life of Laud, Heylyn, p. 54). Hallam goes still further. He regards Dr. Holland as representing the University of Oxford, administering well-merited rebuke to Laud, who “ was reproved by the University of Oxford in 1604 for maintaining in his exercise for Bachelor of Divinity that there could be no true Church without bishops” (Constitutional History of England, vol, i., p. 396). How tenaciously Laud held to that theory the history of the period shows. Charles I. resolved to ‘‘ subject the whole Church of Great Britain and Ireland to the episcopal form of government, which he considered as of Divine appointment, and as affording the best security to the civil sovereign’ (vide Mosheim, b. iv., cent. XVII., sec. 11.) part ii.,c. 2, sec. 20). The king found in Laud a congenial prelate and states- man, to whom he entrusted the execution of his plan. Laud was consecrated Archbishop of Canterbury in 1633, and he held the see till his fall and execu- tion in 1644. His principles were well known, and they were influential. Their survival in high quarters gives peculiar weight to the omission which is here accentuated. (“The Black Letter Prayer Book, containing manuscript alterations and additions made in the year 1661,” is the book ‘‘ out of which was fairly written’ the Book of Common Prayer subscribed Dec, 20th, A.D. 1661, by the Convocations of Canterbury and York, and annexed to the Act of Uniformity, 13 & 14 Car. 11.. c. iv., A.D. 1662; vide Fac-simile of the Black Letter Prayer Book, photo-zincographed at the Ordnance Survey Office, South- ampton, published for the Royal Commission on Ritual, 1871). 1 Teacher's Prayer Book, by Bishop Barry, p. 263 ὁ, Indicates Help for Ministerial Insufficiency. 335 The Ordinal itself recognises the moral needs of the minister. There is no more searching exhorta- tion in its solemnities than that which is addressed by the bishop to those about to be admitted to the priesthood. It dwells upon the dignity and the gravity of the trust about to be committed to them. It reminds them that the sheep of Christ cost Him His life. It warns them of the danger of negligence, and ‘‘the horrible punishment’? which will surely overtake it. Itissolemnand tender. It is humbling, yet inspiring. It is faithful, but affectionate. It is designed to deepen the sense of ministerial need, and to proclaim the moral wealth of the Divine supply. To what does it direct the trembling soul of the slave of Jesus, who knows no rights save His? Upon what does the Church teach him to rely for support ‘‘ through all the fiery trials of failure, and disappointment, of weariness and weakness”? Is it upon “the open and external commission ’’ which is said ‘‘to support the internal sense of vocation ”’ ?? Does the Church strengthen the heart, fainting with ‘‘ weakness, and fear, and much trembling,” by assuring the ordinand that he has received trauns- mitted grace, by manual action, from apostolic depositaries? There is not even a reference to such a resort. There is counsel, clear and strong, as to the Source from which ministerial sufficiency is certain to come. ‘‘ We have good hope. . . that you will continually pray to God the Father by the mediation of our only Saviour Jesus Christ for 1 The Church and the Ministry, p. 82. 336 The Christian Ministry. the heavenly assistance of the Holy Ghost; that by daily reading and weighing of the Scriptures ye may wax wiser and stronger in your ministry.” ? Welcome, reliable, and certain as is the aid thus indicated as necessary to the Christian minister, the silence of the Church, respecting another auxiliary, is still maintained. Not a word comes from her lips about the principle ‘“ essential and permanent”’ of the Apostolic Succession. And yet it is as well that one passage be cited as somewhat qualifying the range of this statement. In the Homily against Wilful Rebellion, the Church warns mankind ‘‘that none have either more ambitiously aspired above emperors, kings, and princes, nor have more perniciously moved the ignorant people to rebellion against their princes, than certain persons which falsely challenge to themselves to be only counted and called ‘spiritual.’’’ The Homily pro- ceeds to point out that true spiritual men will not rebel against lawful princes; that Christ Himself and His holy Apostles were exemplary in rendering obedience to constituted authority, and in exhorting all other Christians to render the like reverence ; ‘‘whereby it is evident that men of the clergy and ecclesiastical ministers, as their successors, ought both themselves specially, and before others, to be obedient unto their princes, and also to exhort all others unto the same.”’ It will hardly be contended that the succession here recognised is the per- manent and essential factor in the corporate life of 1 Vide Bishop’s address in Ordering of Priests ; also Acts xx. 32. Silent about alleged “ Essential Principle.” 337 the Church, yea, of Christianity itself. If it be not, there is no reference to the doctrine, in the author- ized and accepted enouncements of the Anglican Communion. The Church of England has never formulated the claim on behalf of her clergy; nor has she ever submitted or explained or defended it, in the interests of the laity. This, surely, seems a grave omission. It is, at first sight, depressing. In mitigation of the apprehen- sion which may be aroused, it may be mentioned that, fortunately for us, spiritual life, whether in the individual believer, or in the corporate society of the Church of Christ, is largely independent of personal ability to explain or even fully to under- stand dogmatic definition. Many a follower of the Redeemer joys ‘‘in God through our Lord Jesus Christ,” who can give but a very imperfect account of the work of the Holy Spirit in his own soul, or of the stupendous miracles of the Incarnation or Atonement. Many a devoted saint has an intelligent apprehension of the doctrines of grace, a keen appreciation of their spiritual harmony, and their adaptation to every moral plane in the believer’s experience, who could not give a clear account of these doctrines to those who would welcome such an utterance from his lips. Nor are we without analogies to these conditions. They are found, and frequently, in physical life. The exercise of our limbs does not depend upon our knowledge of muscular action, nor of the strain to which certain muscles are occasionally subject. 22 338 The Christian Ministry. Vigorous health is the lot of thousands who have no acquaintance whatever with physiology; and it may be reckoned as absolutely indisputable that myriads of men pass through a large proportion of the years which are allotted to human life, in robust strength, who have the slenderest knowledge of animal mechanics. And so, while the absence of a dogmatic definition of Apostolic Succession from the authoritative literature of the Church may be strange, disappointing, and even depressing, apprehension may be reasonably allayed by such considerations as are now submitted. Permanently and universally silenced such apprehensions cannot, however, be- For, to refer once again to the analogy furnished by physical life. Suppose there was a manual of medi- cine, which was so constructed as to be expressive alike of professional work and of popular needs; suppose it treated, in various modes and ways, of that body, which is “fearfully and wonderfully made,” its diseases, its disasters, and its doom; suppose that for those diseases an unfailing remedy was discovered, the efficacy of which was regarded as dependent upon its administration under certain conditions, which were described as “ essential,” and therefore could not be abandoned ; as ‘“‘ permanent,” and therefore could never be suspended, indeed, as absolutely necessary to the healing art assuch. What conclusion would be drawn if no mention were made in the manual of the conditions which were necessary to give efficacy to the remedy? These conclusions would affect both the value of the manual and the The Omtssion ts most Suggestive. 339 alleged “essential and permanent’’ condition of the remedy. The manual would be considered grossly defective, provided the remedy, duly ad- ministered, was really “essential and permanent.” If, on the other hand, the manual was regarded and proved to be a monument of patience, of learning, and of wisdom, rich in fundamental principles, gathered from authorities which were indisputable, —then the omission of the condition, which affected the success of the remedy, would be easily accounted for. Most men would regard it as neither ‘“‘ essential” nor “‘ permanent.” They would reasonably urge that its advocates were within their rights in holding as a scientific opinion what the authorized text-book ignored, as essential or permanent physiological doctrine. They would probably suggest that the advocates of the new idea, actuated by the best of motives, had antedated its origin; had exaggerated its value; and had attributed its use to men whose language should have saved them from being cited as countenancing a theory which it would be found was as little in their writings as it was in the manual in which, the principle being essential, it ought to be recognised, as fundamental, indispensable, universal. The application of the case now submitted is manifest. The absence of the doctrine of Apostolic Succession from the authoritative expressions of Anglican religion raises suspicion respecting the validity of its claims to be considered either “ essen- tial’ or ‘“‘ permanent.’’ The omission is the graver, 340 The Chrostian Ministry. because of the prominence which is demanded for the principle, as compared with the prominence which the Church has accorded to the Orders of bishops, priests, and deacons. These are declared to have been in existence “from the Apostles’ time.” They are recognised in the literature of the Church—canonical, homiletical, theological, and devotional. It is, however, now contended that Apostolic Succession is to take precedence of apostolic ordering. ‘It is a matter of very great importance to exalt the principle of the Apostolic Succession above the question of the exact form of the ministry, in which the principle has expressed itself, even though it be by apostolic ordering.” This is the very course which the Church has not adopted. The Church has emphasized the apostolicity of the ministry. The claim thus made reposes upon the authority of ‘‘ Scripture and ancient authors.” The Church is strong about the Orders, but is silent about the succession. She emphasizes that which is of less importance. She ignores that which is accounted greater. Thus a course has been adopted, and has prevailed, which is, as nearly as is possible, the reverse of that which is now prescribed. These considerations, although but preliminary, are neither insignificant nor irrelevant. They lie across the path of inquiry. ‘They cause us to stumble, and to stay, when we would advance to the question which now presses, as to the nature of the Apostolic Succession ; its credibility, based upon the work which God has 1 The Church and the Ministry, pp. 72-3. Sense in which Succession ts True. 341 committed to His Church, upon the institution of the apostolate, and said to be powerfully attested by the witness of history. (a) There is a sense in which Apostolic Succession is indisputable. It is absolutely certain that the Christian ministry has existed in the Church since apostolic times. There have ever since been men separated to the performance of sacred duties. They have been so separated, after the manner which prevailed in apostolic times, by laying on of hands and by prayer. Hxceptions to this prevailing mode of ordination may be found, even as sacred duties have been discharged by those who were not specially ordained. These exceptions notwithstanding, history abundantly illustrates the fact that ministers have succeeded to the discharge of work, which was initiated by the Apostles. They did so after, and in consequence of well-known preliminaries. The nature of the case and history alike say, ‘‘No man taketh this honour to himself.” This succession—ministerial, corporate, historical —is as certain as any succession in civil, political, or monarchical life. It may be as readily admitted by Presbyterians as by Episcopalians. Presbyterians can trace presbyterian succession back through the Churches and through the generations which he between the closing decade of the nineteenth century and the date at which, according to D’Aubigné, ‘ a new ecclesiastical constitution” was presented to the Christian assembly. Succession in this sense is not peculiar to the Christian scheme. It belongs, as 342 The Christian Ministry. certainly and as historically to systems which were pre-Christian. It is found in the far-off haze of Egyptian history. It obtained in the Jewish economy, in which succession was guarded by pre- scribed limitation, and secured by hereditary descent. God directed Moses to invest Aaron and his sons with the sacerdotal order. They were to minister before the Lord ‘‘in the priest’s office.” The Divine regulations were abiding. They involved succession, for they were to be a statute ‘‘for ever unto him and his seed after him.’’! The rebellion of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram represented an earlier institution. Korah claimed Levitical privileges ; Dathan, Abiram, and On were Reubenites. The Kohathites and the Reubenites were neighbours. Contiguity afforded opportunity for interchange of sentiment. Their thoughts turned upon the traditional privileges of primogeniture, which were set aside by the Aaronic priesthood. The Divine order was vindicated by a terrible demonstra- tion. The cleaving earth closed upon those who had ‘¢nrovoked the Lord.” The descending fire devoured the defiant company that offered incense. Thus, by a fearful and punitive dispensation, God indicated His restriction of sacerdotal functions to the family of Aaron, and to the tribe of Levi, while the principle of succession was reasserted by a picture-miracle in Aaron’s budding rod. This symbol of sacerdotal succession was laid up before the tables of the law, and, there is good reason for believing, in the ark of 1 Exodus xxviii. 1, 41, 43. Sacerdotal Succession Obtained in Judaism. 343 the testimony.’ There it was concealed, by Divine injunction. There it bore silent and supernatural witness to the separation of Aaron’s family, and of the Levitical tribe, to sacerdotal functions. There it recalled the invasion of these functions through envy and jealousy, which moved men to open rebellion. There it was a token against the rebels.2 As the rebellion was but a transient ebullition, inspired probably by the memories or the traditions of the privileges of the firstborn, the rod disappeared. There is nothing in the history to indicate that God intended this rod to have a perpetual place within the ark. As a matter of fact, we know that it was not laid up in Solomon’s temple. ‘‘ There was no- thing in the ark save the two tables of stone which Moses put therein at Horeb.’’® It is conjectured that the Aaronic rod was lost when the ark was captured by the Philistines. The important purpose which the relic served was recorded in the Pentateuch, and the history is re- called by the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Yet we know how the restriction which it represented was violated long before the temple of Solomon was erected. As far back as the days of the Judges a strong current had set in against the restriction. Political trouble deranged religious order. For a time ‘‘the prerogative of the line of Aaron was in abeyance.” With alternations of succession and of schism the priestly line reflected the distraction and. } Numbers xvii. 10; comp. Heb. ix. 4. * Lbid., xvii. 10. 31 Kings viii. 9. 344 The Christian Mincstry. the debasement of the nation. The Book of Hzra shows the degradation to which the priesthood had descended. That faithful and fearless priest, pious and patriotic, fastened the new-born spirit of reformation upon his order. The sons of the priests had inter- married with heathen wives. Their predecessors were involved in the humbling announcement made through Jeremiah: ‘‘ Prophet and priest are profane; yea, in My house have I found their wickedness.’’? Later on the withering incriminations of Malachi exhibit an order depraved by venality, debased by the pettiest meannesses, and cursed by the reactionary moral petrifaction which ever haunts formalism. The Maccabean period was a happier and. a healthier era. There were noble spirits amongst the priests, although the succession was broken. Coming down to New Testament times, the Aaronic line was frequently disregarded. The priesthood was bestowed without any recognition of the tribal qualification. The office became an appanage of Roman conquest. It was, as the ruler pleased, allowed to lapse or to live. It was ‘transferred from one to another at the will of one who was an alien by birth and half a heathen in character.” Caiaphas was a living illustration of the capricious disregard of succession in our Lord’s day. He was the nominee of Valerius Gratus, and entered upon his office αν. 25. From that office he was. deposed by his patron a.p. 36. It is stated he achieved his appointment by bribery. At the time indicated by St. John’s mention of Caiaphas, who A Jers sexi, 1. Though Hereditary, yet Violated, and Broken. 345 presided when the Sanhedrin was panic-stricken by the influence which the resurrection of Lazarus brought to our Lord, ‘‘ there must have been at least five living high-priests and under-high-priests —Annas, Ismael Ben Phabi, Hleazar Ben Hanan, Simon Ben Kambith, and Caiaphas.”’ It is assuredly impressive that neither our Lord nor His Apostles challenged the position of Caiaphas, who held his office not by succession but by the will of the secular power, although succession amongst the Jews was a Divine institution. It was safeguarded by Divine authority. It was vindicated by miraculous intervention. It was symbolized by a supernatural instrument, and yet, even in the presence of our Lord, as well as for generations before His advent, it was violated. But, nevertheless, succession was the ideal of Hebrew sacerdotalism. But this is not the succession which is now con- sidered of greater importance than the form in which the ministry of the Church is expressed, and without which there is neither ministry nor message, since it is ‘‘ essential to Christianity.” This succession is individual. It is not corporate. It is theoretically independent of the voice of the Church. To be em- powered by the faithful to discharge sacred functions would be to receive orders ““ from below,” although how apostolic order can be from above and Church orders from below is not quite clear, especially since Christ is as certainly with His Church now as He was with the Apostles in the early days of Christianity. 1 Life of Christ, Farrar, vol. ii., p. 174. 346 The Christian Ministry. Such a succession— personal, charismatic, derivative —is schismatical in its tendency. Such a danger is guarded against in the Roman Catholic Church by the union of all the members of that body with its head, the Pope of Rome; but no such safeguard exists amongst those who, in the Anglican Church, advocate this charismatic claim. It connects a series of otherwise unconnected individuals. The bond of connection is consecration to the episcopal office. Hach individual receives his apostolic commission from his predecessor, as he did from his. The gift comes from hand to hand. The _ present episcopal possessors of it received it from their episcopal consecrators, as they did from theirs. It is said to be traceable back from bishop to bishop, until back through the recent centuries; back through the vicissitudes—violent, sudden, gradual, and great—of the Reformation; back through the periods of preparation, which inaugurated the Re- naissance ; back through the twilight which grew upon the horizon of liberty and of letters after the fall of Constantinople; back through the gloom and the grossness of the dark ages; back still through the epochs in which were generated the new and vigorous European nationalities, which succeeded to the territory of the Empire; back through the fusions and the separations; the faiths and the heresies, the hypocrisies and the frauds, the consolidations which were swept away by social cataclysms,— back, yea back through all European, African, and Asiatic Church history, Apostolic Successton an Individual Claim. 347 until the Anglican or the Romish bishop finds his commission, not from Christ, through the power, normal, guaranteed, authoritative, and heavenly of the society which He founded, but in the hands of some one of the Apostles, from whom it has come to him by “ regular devolution,” and without a flaw!’ This principle is fraught with consequences the gravest to the minister himself, to the individual believer, and to the Church. The man who claims to be “‘a guardian of the grace by which Christians live,” in virtue of his spiritual lineage, individual and unbroken, and derived from the holy Apostles— the primal “fount” of that unfailing grace—must be prepared to prove his pedigree. Men upon ' Cardinal Newman, in his own trenchant style, accentuates the perils which belong to a ministry which bases its claims upon being in the Apostolic Suc- cession, as Mr. Gore expounds and defends it. Cardinal Newman not only abandons the ground which Mr. Gore has taken up, but he occupies the far stronger position which makes the Divine Society the source of ministerial authority, He says: ‘That Anglicans can claim to have God’s ministers among them depends directly and solely upon the validity of their orders ; and to prove their validity, they are bound to trace their succession through a hundred intermediate steps, till at length they reach the apostles : till they do their claim is in abeyance. If it is improbable that the succession has no flaws in it, they have to bear the brunt of the improbability ; if it is presumable that a special Providence precludes such flaws, or compensates for them, they cannot take'the benefit of that presumption to themselves ; for to do so would be claiming to belong to the true Church, to which that high Providence is promised, and this they cannot do without arguing in a circle, first proving that they are of the true Church because they have valid Orders, and then that their Orders are valid because they are of the true Church.” In the following pas- sage, he claims for the Church the power to authorise her ministry : “ Nor is the apostolic descent of her priests the direct warrant of their power in the eyes of the faithful ; their warrant is her immediate, present, living authority; it is the word of the Church which marks them out as the ministers of God, not any historical or antiquarian research, or genealogical table” (Essays, vol. ii., p. 89). 348 The Christian Ministry. whom the claim is pressed, and to whom its bless- ings are Offered, will surely require reasonable erounds for recognising it. These the minister ought to be the first to produce, since it is amongst the primary and fundamental obligations of his office to bring the blessings of salvation, of which he is the steward, within reach of all. Nor will it suffice to say, in order to substantiate his demand, that Christ instituted the Christian society, established the Christian ministry, guar- anteed His Presence, omnipotent and abiding, to the Church; and that in virtue of that Presence, or in accordance with the institution of the ministry, the special power, which gives significance to the claim, is possessed. To such pleading it would be sufficient to reply, The claim you make is individual. It is derived through individuals, through all the ages of the recent and remote past. It takes its rise, originally and exclusively, in individual life. It is the possession of individual authority. It is transmitted by individual power. It is, as such, independent of the society, even though Christ instituted it. To vindicate an indi- vidual claim by referring to the fact of the Divine origin of the society is to abandon the principle contended for. It is to admit the origin of the office in the society. It is to establish the claim on the basis of powers given to the society by Christ. But this destroys the individual character of the claim which is set up. What would be thought of a claimant to the throne who, when challenged to ᾿ Bound by Obligations, Individual, Ancestral. 349 produce his pedigree, referred his interrogators to the fact that monarchy had been accepted by the country as the normal and constitutional mode of government? They would remind him that, since his claim was an individual one, and involved individuality in every stage of his pedigree, it would be, for that very reason, easy enough to trace the genealogy on which he relied. If he failed to do this, his demands, however sustained by conscien- tious conviction or by earnest assurances of public benefits being surrendered or secured, as men ad- mitted or rejected his claims, would be rightly denied. Nor is it otherwise with regard to Apo- stolic Succession. The man who claims personal succession is bound to produce his apostolic pedigree. It must be without a flaw. It must leave no room for doubt, for debate, for misgiving. The stupen- dous consequences, which concern no one more than the “ enduring apostle,’ imperatively and in- exorably demand certainty, without an approach to suspicion. Apostolic descent—official, individual, and continuous—ought to be exhibited. Furthermore, the special blessings belonging to the office, which represent the value of the claim, require the production of evidence correlative and resultant. If a successor of the Apostles have a special store of grace, greater than that which is possessed by those who are not successors of the Apostles, it must be manifested. The manifestation must be perceptible in himself and in those upon whom his exclusive prerogatives are exercised. And 350 The Christian Ministry. although no moral problem is more delicate in itself, or more dissonant to the ethics of the Gospel than ὃν comparison between individual representatives of spiritual theories, yet the problem is precipitated for discussion, by two considerations—first, the vast- ness of the claim made by those who are ‘the guardians of the grace by which Christians live; ” and, secondly, the fact that growth, manifestation, evidence, is the law of grace. Does the Apostolic Succession render its believers, or even its repre- sentatives, types of superior ethical order? Are they illustrations of peculiar grace? Are men ren- dered especially holy, or conspicuously active, or self-denying, or diligent, by Apostolic Succession ? Are they endowed with such grace thereby that they become faithful stewards of the mysteries of God, and, in addition, that they are kept so? He would be a bold man who could maintain such ἃ position. In real sadness it may be asserted that few hypotheses are more at variance with individual experience, not to refer to observation and to history. Nor is our investigation any more encouraging when we extend it to those for whose benefit this special priesthood of grace 186 exercised. Humanity, as most men know it, is ruined every- where on the same sad stock of human passion; and whether humanity be represented by a line which claims descent from those whose post- Pentecostal history is, for the most part, lost in oblivion, or by those amongst whom they labour, Produces Types of Ethical Excellence? 451 it cannot be said to exhibit such conspicuous types of ethical excellence as appear to render the claim reasonable, its exclusive blessings credible, or its evidences so unmistakable, that men ought to be- lieve in the outflow of apostolic grace by Apostolic Succession, unbroken, transmissible, operative, and exclusive. And what shall be said of the millions of Christians in this and other ages, countries, Churches, who, although without the inestimable blessings by which the Church of England is adorned, yet bring forth—blessed be God for it !— the fruits of holy living, and, in spite of the disad- vantages of an unhistorical position, a non-apostolic ministry, and even weakening and wasting disin- tegration, yet glorify God, through the salvation of souls, both at home and abroad ? The theory is not more acceptable when it is compared with the rights, natural and authoritative, of the Church. Every society has, in the nature of things, an indefeasible right in the executive by which it is administered. This axiom is common to all corporations, whether they be. literary, scientific, political, moral. The central authority, whatever that may be, may not ignore the rights of the society. The society may not ignore the prerogatives of authority. Tyranny will never insure order. Anarchy can never sustain authority. Self- assertion, on either side, provokes rebellion or internecine strife. The Christian society is not beyond the range of these principles. The claim now made for the ministry violates them. It 352 The Christian Ministry. ignores the powers of the society. It takes no notice whatever of its natural rights as a society. It takes as little notice of its Divine rights, which are implied in the perpetual Presence of Christ. A number of individuals may be ‘ elected” to office, by which ‘‘the representative principle’’’ is recognised. The authority by which they act is from a source which is absolutely independent of the existing society. If it is exercised unduly, the society has no power to restrain it. If it be relaxed irregularly, the society has no power to invigorate it. The successor of the Apostles, possessed of prerogatives which are personal and private, may ordain whom he pleases. He can give the authority to his nominee. The faithful may not need the exercise of the authority. They may even chafe under the existing rule. They have no power to restrain the individual, who is disconnected from them, and who derives his authority from a series of persons, every one of whom ruled in absolute independence of the natural rights which belong to any society, and in equal independence of the spiritual rights belonging to the Divine society. Such a theory, we are assured, makes the successor of the Apostles a centre of unity. The statement might be regarded as correct, if the succession was established, and if the unity was limited to the line, unbroken and continuous, of successive bishops. ' “Proper election was requisite; not for the authority itself, but for the success of the exercise of it."—Denton’s Grace of the Ministry, vide Gore, n., p- 71. Schismatical Tendency of Apostolical Succession. 353 It would thus be an illustration of united indivi- duals, or of episcopal succession. But since the powers bestowed by ‘regular devolution from the Apostles” are possessed by individuals; since they possess these powers, not as representing the con- gregation who elect them, but as private persons and apart from the congregation—powers which can neither be revoked nor abridged—this principle of Apostolic Succession is necessarily schismatical in its tendency." Who is to hinder any bishop from bestowing apostolic prerogatives upon anyone he chooses? What can restrain a bishop from endow- ing any individual with supernatural authority ? The presbyters dare not. The people cannot. The ' MGhler’s theory of the Church is practically the basis of Mr. Gore’s book. But the latter halts where Mohler advances boldly. Mohler, it need hardly be said, holds the doctrine of Apostolic Succession, in the sense in which it is advocated in The Church and the Ministry. “ As the Apostles were sent forth by the Saviour, they, in their turn, instituted bishops, and these appointed their successors, and so on, down to our own days.” But Mdhler sees the schismatical tendency of this principle, and provides againstit. ‘If the episcopacy is to form a corporation, outwardly as well as inwardly bound together, in order to unite all believers into one harmonious life, which the Catholic Church so urgently requires, it stands in need of a centre, whereby all may be held together and firmly connected. What a helpless, shapeless mass, incapable of all combined action, would the Catholic Church not have been . . . had she been possessed of no head, no supreme bishop, revered by all. She would, of necessity, have been split into an incalculable number of particular churches, devoid of all consistency, had not a strong, mighty bond united all, had not the successor of Peter firmly held them together ” (Mohler’s Symbolism, vol. ii., part 1, c. v., sec. 43). He also refers to the Synods of Constance (1414) and of Basle (1431), the proceedings at each of which illustrate the schismatical tendency of inordinate individualism, represented as it was by those who believed in both Apostolic Succession and in the Pope, as the Vicar of Christ. Each principle represented two parties—the episcopal and the papal : “the latter whereof, without questioning the Divine institution of bishops, exalted more particularly the papal power; while the former, with- out denying the Divine establishment of the primacy, sought to draw authority more particularly towards the circumference.” Mohler’s comment upon this is 23 354 The Christian Mintstry. restraint of authority is a higher function than the exercise of it. For the people to restrain, involves in the end their right to bestow. This is, practically, the destruction of any theory which localises Divine authority in the succession of Apostles. It is also the maintenance of the rights of the Divine society to which Christ has promised His Presence. The transmission of spiritual powers to those who receive them, in complete independence of the Church, instead of contributing to unity, contributes to schism—which is ever the danger which follows an exaggerated individualism. It reduces the rights of the Christian community to the lowest level. It can proceed without them. It thus appears to be, in painful truth, the lowest Church view of the Christian ministry which has, as yet, been pro- pounded. While assuming to itself whatever prestige attaches to the maintenance of what are termed ‘‘Church principles,” it denies to the Church one of the first of all the principles which belong to it as significant. He says, with reference to the bold demands of the episcopal party, on a cognate subject, that they were actuated by ‘a one-sided principle, which, when carried out to its legitimate consequences, threatened the Church with annihilation.” The Roman Catholic Church provides, as best she can, against this schismatical tendency of Apostolic Succession, by the “ successor of Peter” firmly holding all together. This is a reasonable provision, But what provision is made in the Anglican Church, where the necessity is far from being imaginary? Archbishop Whately saw this long ago. He made the following observation upon the point now treated: ‘As to the danger of schism, nothing can be more calculated to create or increase it, than to super- add to all the other sources of difference among Christians these additional ones, resulting from the theory (of Apostolical Succession). Besides all the divisions liable to arise relative to the essential doctrines of Scripture, and to the most important points in any system of Church government, schism, the most difficult to be remedied, may be created by that theory from individual cases of alleged irregularity ’’ (Kingdom of Christ, p. 182). Official Transmission of Grace and Truth. 355 a society, and which are intensified by the inviolable promise of the Presence of Christ. (8) It is contended, however, that Apostolic Succession is a consequence of the mission of Jesus Christ; of the Divine origin of the Church ; and is necessary for the work which that Church is commissioned to do.’ ‘‘ Let it be supposed that Christ, in founding His Church, founded also a ministry in the persons of His Apostles. These Apostles must be supposed to have had a temporary function in their capacity as founders under Christ. In this capacity they held an office by its very nature not perpetual—the office of bearing the original witness to Christ’s resurrection and making the original proclamation of the Gospel. But under- lying this was another—a pastorate of souls, a stewardship of Divine mysteries. This office insti- tuted in their persons was intended to become perpetual, and that by being transmitted from its first depositaries. It was thus intended that there should be, in every Church, in each generation, an authoritative stewardship of the grace and truth which came by Jesus Christ and a recognised power to transmit it, derived from above, by apostolic descent. The men who from time to time were to hold the various offices involved in the ministry and the transmitting power necessary for its continuance, might, indeed, fitly be elected by those to whom they were to minister. In this way, the ministry would ! Mohler’s Symbolism, vol. ii., part 1, 6. v. Gore’s The Church and the Ministry, pp. 340, 351, etc. 350 The Christian Ministry. express the representative principle. But their authority to minister in whatever capacity, their qualifying consecration, was to come from above, in such sense that no ministerial act could be regarded as valid—that is, as having the security of the Divine covenant about it—unless it was performed under the shelter of a commission, received by the transmission of the original pastoral authority which had been delegated by Christ Himself to His Apostles. This is what is understood by the Apostolic Succession of the ministry.’’? That the latter is “ἃ tenable proposition” is said to depend upon three facts, which constitute the finality of the religion of the Redeemer. ‘““This essential finality is expressed in the once for all delivered faith, in the fulness of the once for all given grace, in the visible society once for all instituted,’’’—a coherence of ideas which leads up to the hypothesis of ‘‘a once for all empowered and commissioned ministry.” But many grave questions arise at this point, questions which concern the moral danger which waits upon the “free use of unproved assumptions ” by a teacher of religion,’ and the unwarrantable ' The Church and the Ministry, pp. 69-71. ? Ibid., pp. 64-5. 3 “The free use of unproved assumptions.” This phrase is borrowed from Dr. Hatch’s Preface to the Second Edition of his work on The Organisation of the Early Christian Churches. With the pervading principle of that most in- teresting and instructive volume, I am in most unwelcome conflict. And the same statement may be made respecting my attitude to Mr. Gore’s work. But I subscribe, without reserve, to Dr. Hatch’s terse characteristic of a very promi- nent feature of Mr. Gore’s method. It indulges, almost to the extent of sur- feiting, ‘‘in the free use of unproved assumptions.” A few illustrations may be “ The Free Use of Unproved Assumptions.” 357 adaptation of Scriptural terms to commend these assumptions. ‘‘Once for all delivered faith” is a phrase momentous, instructive, and restrictive. Its message to the Church and to the world is as to the finality of revelation, and the duty of agonizing to preserve it inviolate. No other announcements of God’s will are to be expected. He has ‘spoken in these last days by His Son,’ and once for all. : But where is the phrase ‘‘once for all given grace’’ to be found? Where is the idea thus expressed in Christianity ? The connection appears to indicate that the words are intended to be used in the same sense as that which they bear when applied to the faith. If this be so, God’s grace is as final as His revelation. Hach is ‘‘ given once for 411. But the finality of revelation is an incentive to fidelity, a preservative against imposture, and an aid to certainty of conviction. The finality of grace is either a declaration that God Almighty has done with His Church, or, the grace being conserved as the revelation has been, that He has entrusted it to useful. ‘Once for all given grace” (p. 65) ; “social sacraments of . . . con- firmation . . . of absolution” (p. 94) ; the bishops “ are the guardians no doubt of the grace by which Christians live, of which as much as of the truth the Church is the ‘rich treasury’—‘ Depositorium dives’”—a thought borrowed from Irenzus, and applied by him to the depositum of truth, but not “no doubt ” to grace, to which Mr. Gore represents him as having applied it (Gore, p. 120, n. 2: Iren., lib. iii., 4, 1 : 24, 1); “a permanent and official apostolate ” {p. 340) ; an ‘office intended to become perpetual, and that by being trans- mitted from its first depositaries” (p. 70) ; “ἃ consecration from above comes upon the sacrament.” Many other illustrations of this “free use of unproved assumptions” abound. The reasoning of the author is rigid enough, if you grant his premisses. To challenge them will lead, I humbly say, to very different conclusions than those which he seeks to establish, Much might be said respecting his use of the hypothetical method. The discussion of this has been, however, avoided in favour of the vital parts of the book. 358 The Christian Ministry. the keeping of another “‘ depositorium dives.” That God has ceased to reveal His Mind—save as He speaks in Nature, in Providence, in History, in the Conscience—is beyond all debate. But has God ceased to succour His Church, as He has ceased to speak to it? Is there no more guidance, amid perplexity; mor deliverance from adversity, nor strength to support us in sudden or through pro- longed strain? Is there no further grace to be bestowed in an age of conflict, yet of progress; of worldliness paralysing the Church, yet of passionate. love throwing off the paralysis and putting the world- liness to open shame? Must we sue, on bended knee, to those who claim possession of the treasury of Heaven’s grace “once for all given”? Deism used to admit the being and the government of God, while it denied Him a place in the administra- tion of His own laws, lest logic should be affronted by His interference. The cosmos and its laws were made ‘once for all.” The same principle is now unexpectedly applied where its application must be joy and gladness to the lettered scepticism of our day. That jubilation must, however, be chastened. by the fact that the idea is as unscriptural as it is. theologically heretical. St. James, traditionally regarded as the first. Bishop of Jerusalem, and to whom, according to: the theory, now under examination, this ‘‘ once for all given grace”’ was entrusted, declares that God ‘giveth more grace,’’’ yea, that the humble and 1 St. James iv. 6. “Grace once for all Given” is Unscriptural. 359 the ‘‘lowly” are the recipients of His _ ever- increasing grace. St. Paul attributed his position as a saved man, as a preacher of the Gospel, as an unsparing and laborious worker in his Lord’s cause, to the same sovereign power: ““ By the grace of God I am what I am; and His grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain.’ He did not receive that transforming and trans- figuring power from the apostolic fount. It was not transmitted by apostolic devolution. The sup- ply which saved and sanctified him was direct from Christ, in which case ‘ grace’”’ was not ‘‘once for all given.’”’ When St. Paul was subject to the humbling discipline of ‘“ the thorn in the flesh,’ and when he “ besought the Lord thrice that it might depart from” him, the answer to the persevering entreaty of the Apostle was an assurance of the sustaining power of grace.” The condition in which the power operates, implies that even in St. Paul’s case ‘‘ grace was not once for all given,” since the perfection of the gift is in the ratio of the weakness to which it ministers. Self-consciousness, as a moral state, impedes the operation and imperils the presence of grace. The less reliance there is on self, as a resisting force, the more grace there is for the struggling soul. The same essential, though elementary, truth les broadcast upon the pages of the New Testament. Language is therein employed with regard to grace which excludes the notion of its having been ‘‘ once for all given.” 11 Cor. xv. 10. 252) Cor) xi1..9: 360 The Christian Ministry. In the year of our Lord’s Ascension, and after the Effusion, when the first external assault was made upon the Church, the historian assures us that ““ with great power gave the Apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ; and great grace was upon them all.”’ The same sacred book informs us of the evangelisation of Antioch by those Cypriots and Cyrenians, who were dispersed by the persecution which was connected with the proto-martyr. The blessing of heaven rested upon their efforts. Tidings of souls won for Christ reached ‘the ears of the Church which was in Jerusalem: and they sent forth Barnabas that he should go as far as Antioch. Who, when he came, and had seen the grace of God, was glad.”? But there is nothing in this history to lead us to believe this grace was derived from the “ apostolic fount.” It was exhibited independently of apostolic presence, or power, or intervention, in which case there was another supply, and consequently. grace could not have been “ once for all given.” The same con- clusion is impressed upon us by the assurance that “ abundant grace’’ redounds to the glory of God, who is ‘‘ able to make all grace abound,’ so that it may be ‘‘the exceeding grace of God.”*® The Hpistle to the Ephesians teaches us that in Christ ‘‘we have redemption through His blood, even the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His 1 χάρις τε μεγάλη ἣν ἐπὶ πάντας αὐτούς (Acts iv. 88). 2 Acts xi. 22-3. $ 2 Cor. iv. 15, ix. 8, 14. Is Opposed to the Prayer Book generally. 361 grace, wherein He hath abounded toward us,” but when the writer accentuates the purpose of God, in identifying the Church with her Head, in His Resurrection, it is ‘“‘ that in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace,’’' which towards himself, St. Paul declares, was ‘exceeding abundant.’’ The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews insists upon the power and the sympathy of our great High Priest. These, the attributes, abiding and essential of Him “ who is set on the right hand of the throne of the majesty in the heavens,” are the ground of the exhortation to “come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need’’°—an appeal which, like St. Peter’s prayer that grace may ‘be multiplied,” and like his con- cluding counsel to “ grow in grace,” it is safer not to describe if grace had been ‘‘ once for all given.” Nor is this theory compatible with the teaching of the Book of Common Prayer. ‘This, however, is only what we might expect. An unscriptural tenet is not hkely to find support in a manual which is, in all its parts, the reflection of the spirit, and very largely the republication of the letter of Holy Writ. So far from sustaining the figment, which seems to have been invented to suit the exigencies of an hypothesis, the Prayer | κατὰ τὸν πλοῦτον τῆς χάριτος αὐτοῦ (Eph. i. 7), comp. τὸν ὑπερβάλλον πλοῦτον τῆς χάριτος (Eph. ii. 7). 3 καὶ χάριν εὕρωμεν, εἰς εὔκαιρον βοήθειαν (Heb. iv. 10). “ Fideles apparatum gratiz non sentiunt simul in longa tempora ; sed quum incidit tempus, presen- tem eam inveniunt”’ (Bengel, in loc.). 362 The Chrestian Ministry. Book contradicts it, in supplication and in instruc- tion. Daily, throughout the year, there is a collect (ΟἼΟΥ grace’’; yea, there is a plea to Him, who alone workest great marvels, to ‘‘send down upon our bishops and curates and all congregations com- mitted to their charge, the healthful spirit of” His ‘“‘orace.” Hvery opportunity of public worship is regarded as a separate donation of grace. The Advent season has only dawned, when a prayer is addressed to ‘‘Almighty God” to ‘‘give us grace that we may cast away the works of darkness, and put upon us the armour of light.” The hindrances which harass us in our Christian course can best be overcome by God’s bountiful grace and mercy. Perception and knowledge of ‘‘ what things’’ we “ought to do” is conjoined with a prayer for an epiphany of enabling grace. The solemnities of Lent remind us of our dependence upon gifts of grace “to use such abstinence’’ as may tend to spiritual obedience. The glories of Haster are associated with God’s ‘special grace preventing us.’’ The mystery of the Trinity is not allowed to pass from our contemplation without a loving reminder that it is by Divine grace that we are enabled, ‘“‘by the confession of a true faith, to acknowledge the glory of the eternal Trinity, and in the power of the Divine Majesty to worship the Unity.” The consecration of separate days, in connection with the saints of apostolic times, are lovingly designed to impress us with the power Especially to Office of Holy Baptism, etc. 363 and the plenitude of that grace, which, magnified in them, may be obtained by us. The Office of Baptism is no less opposed to the idea now under review. In that blessed service, in which each individual life is introduced to a con- dition of grace, prayer is offered that Almighty God would increase the knowledge of His grace to those who bring either infant or adult publicly or privately to His Holy Baptism. The same suppli- cation is suggested to the child in the Catechism as occupying a prominent place in personal devotion ; and in an injunction, which emphasies moral debility, the youthful soldier and servant of Christ is taught that ““ special grace’’ is necessary for obedience; and lest there should be any doubt as to the means by which grace can be obtained, the Church informs the child, and clearly: ‘ which thou must learn at all times to call for by diligent prayer.” The Order of Confirmation is equally impressive. The promises of the confirmee are dependent for their performance upon the grace of God. Hence the prayer, offered by the bishop, on behalf of those before him, ‘‘ Strengthen them, we beseech Thee, O Lord, with the Holy Ghost the Comforter, and daily increase in them Thy manifold gifts of grace.’ The laying on of hands is accompanied with a similar supplication. And in ‘‘the Form of Solemnisation of Matrimony,” in ‘“‘ the Order for the Visitation of the Sick,’ fresh supplies of grace are besought, to increase the happiness of human life, and to strengthen spiritual vitality. 364 The Christian Ministry. In the Communion Office the petition is presented for those who, according to the system which is now before us, are ‘“‘ the stewards of the grace by which Christians live.” It is craved on behalf of bishops, curates, all the people of God, and especially those present. An increased supply is sought in order that the believer’s sacramental and sacrificial vows may be kept; yea, the constant assistance of Divine grace is considered necessary to continued membership in the mystical Body of Christ, and to the loving activities of service... And in the Ordinal, a special supplication is introduced in the Litany on behalf of those about to be ‘“‘ admitted to the order of deacons [or priests]. God is besought ‘‘ to pour’ His grace upon them. The same truth appears, in another form, in the Con- secration of Bishops. Whether, therefore, regard be rendered to the teaching of Holy Scripture, or to that of the Church of England, the idea that grace was ‘‘ once for all given,” in the way in which the ““ faith was once for all delivered,” is neither found nor taught in the one, nor is it assumed or asserted in the other. On the contrary, Holy Scripture and the authorised language of the Church of England are clear, and are consolatory in their reiterated assurance that for every need of the solitary disciple, or of the spiritual society to which he belongs, the truth revealed by the reputed chief of apostolic episcopacy 1 Vide Book of Common Prayer, Prayer for Church Militant, and Post- Communion Collects. A Logical Necessity to the Hypothesis. 365 stands firm: ‘“‘He giveth more grace.’’! And if it be further stated that His munificent and merciful donations are bestowed without the official in- tervention of any earthly intermediary, the assertion can be justified by abundant scriptural testimony ; by an appeal to the secret necessities of the soul ; to the compassionate power of Him who observes these necessities, and to the manifold experiences of the faithful. The hypothesis, that ‘ grace’’ has been ‘ once for all given,” although unscriptural, unhistorical, and un-Anglican, is, however, a logical necessity to the system of which it forms a part. Its apologist gives a reasonable account of its presence. If the believer accept his idea of the Church of Christ ; if the ministry of the Church be “ an enduring aposto- late,” to which Christ committed ‘‘a pastorate of souls, a stewardship of Divine mysteries,” ‘‘a fount”’ of grace; if the bishops have the “ guardianship, no doubt, of the grace by which Christians live,” then the ‘‘ once for all given grace’’ is not only credible, but it is necessary. Limit the transmission of grace to those to whom it has been committed; restrict its rise to the ‘‘ apostolic fount,’ and that it must have been ‘‘ once for all given” becomes an official as well as a logical necessity, in which case ‘‘ apos- tolic succession,” as it is now advocated, is in a fair way of being proved. The theory hangs well ᾽ 1 Vide a passage of great beauty in the anonymous epistle to Diognetus (c. xi.). It might be cited, but as doubt still prevails respecting its genuineness and authorship, it is safer to be content with a passing reference. 366 The Christian Ministry. together. The rhythm of the sentence already cited commends it to the ear. Careful examination shows that it reposes upon a series of assumptions. It accounts mere sugges- tions as wrought-out conclusions. It reads into the patristic language of the second century the ideas of the last half of the nineteenth, and under the cover of a great and a learned name, dear to the Papacy, it seeks to gain acceptance for views respecting the ministry, the work to be done, and the means to be employed, which are, like the theory already referred to, unsupported by the authority of Holy Scripture, or by the letter or the spirit of the Church of England. The adoption of Mohler’s view of the Church is suggestive. It gives a certain colouring to the whole apology, and it appears to disparage the authorised expression of the Church of England in favour of the unauthorised expression of the powerful advocate of the Church of Rome. The language of Mohler is clear and emphatic. ‘‘ By the Church on earth Catholics understand the visible community of believers, founded by Christ, in which, by means of an enduring apostleship, esta- blished by Hum and appointed to conduct all nations, in the course of ages, back to God, the works wrought by Him during His earthly life for the redemption and sanctification of mankind are, under the guidance of His Spirit, continued unto the end of the world.” * 1 Vide The Church and the Ministry, Gore, n., p. 69 (quoted from Mohler’s Symbolism, part i., c. 5, sec. 36). It is as well to note, the italics are not MoGhler’s. They are Mr. Gore’s. They indicate, apparently, Mr. Gore’s sense of the importance of the ideas expressed by the words he has emphasised. Adoption of Mohler's Theory of the Church. 367 There are many serious, and even thorny themes suggested by this definition. The object of this dispensation is involved in the purpose for which the ‘‘enduring apostleship’’ is said to have been “established.” Mohler and apparently Mr. Gore regard it as ‘“‘to conduct all nations, in the course of ages, back to God.” St. James, citing the language of St. Peter, under the most impressive, important, and significant circumstances, says, ‘‘ God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for His name,’’' a purpose which was still earlier implied by our Lord, in His memorable Olivet discourse, when He said, “This Gospel of the kingdom shall be preached for a witness unto all nations.” The universality of the proclamation is one thing, the purpose of the universal pro- clamation, or even of the ‘“ enduring apostleship,’’ is another and a far different thing. But the dis- cussion of this purpose is not pertinent to the claim which is here made for those to whom the prosecution of the purpose is entrusted. Nor need we now dwell at any length upon the confusion of thought which marks the account which the definition gives of the means to be employed by the ‘‘ enduring apostolate ”’ for the perfection of the purpose. ‘The works wrought by” Christ ‘‘ during His earthly life for the redemption and sanctification of mankind ”’ are not, whether by His Spirit or without His Spirit, ‘‘ con- tinued unto the end of the world.’’ These works are complete. They are final. They were “once ’ Acts xv. 14. 368 The Christian Ministry. for all.” The dying cry of the Divine Redeemer declared their end. The awful but all-embracing, yet much-concealing word, proclaims, from the throne of the Cross, the great consummation. “Τετέλεσται announces the fulfilment of that appointed course of humiliation, obedience, and suffering which the Lord Jesus had undertaken.” His works cannot be ‘‘continued.” He said they were completed, and He has the highest right to be believed, obeyed, and trusted. Our high priest ‘‘needeth not daily .. . to offer up sacrifice, . . . for the people: for this He did once for all when He offered up Him- self.’ ‘By His own blood, He entered in once for all into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.’ The triumph which He achieved, the celestial dignity to which He returned, and the sufficiency of His atonement, render it impossible and unnecessary “that He should offer Himself often.”’ He ‘‘ was once offered to bear the gins of many,” and ‘‘ by His one oblation of Himself once offered,” ‘“ He made a full, perfect, and suff- cient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world.’ This unique, mysterious, and potential work of Christ cannot, with any regard to Him, to His Word, to His work, be continued. It would be as futile to pretend to raise Christ from the tomb of Joseph as to pretend to repeat the sacrificial propitiation of Calvary. These works cannot be repeated. They are continually applied. But redemption is, on the Divine side, complete. As a complete work, it is proclaimed. It is com- Tridentine Doctrine incompatible with Anglican. 369 memorated. It is accepted. It is enjoyed, and, alas! it is rejected. Mohler’s theory, however,—advanced as it is in the apology which is now under examination,— states Tridentine doctrine. It is intelligible, and even reasonable, to those who believe in the Sacrifice of the Mass. It shows the necessity there is for the existence and the perpetuation of the sacerdotal system. But it contradicts the awful and emphatic enouncements of Christ. It ignores the assertions, manifold and merciful, of Holy Scripture. It is incompatible with the nature, the effect, and the message of the Eucharist. It is opposed to the teaching of the Church in primitive times, and the Articles of the Anglican Communion, interpreted by the spirit of her Liturgy, Homilies, and even a rather lengthy rubric, show, by a series of passages, the deliberate and reiterated conviction of the Church upon the subject. What we are now concerned with, however, is Modhler’s assertion, which is accepted and defended in the volume referred to, that Christ instituted ‘‘an enduring apostolate,”’ the institution involving all that is meant by the Apostolic Succession, as an essential feature of the Christian ministry. (y) This claim is made on the basis of what is designated the ‘‘ Apostolic Ordinal,’’ and its advo- cates have allowed it to rest upon that basis confi- dently and constantly. ‘‘ The priest’s commission,” says one, ‘‘runs in those awful words, which being but an enlargement of the original word of insti- 24 370 The Christian Ministry. J tution, seem to prolong the accents of His voice, Who breathed the grace of ordination on His Apostles.” ’ Again, “the Lord Jesus Christ gave His Spirit to the apostles; they in turn laid their hands on those who should succeed them, and these again on others; and so the sacred gift has been handed down to our present bishops, who have appointed us as their assistants, and in some sort representatives.”’ ‘I know that the grace of ordi- nation is contained in the laying on of hands, not in any form of words, yet in our own case (as has ever been used in the Church) words of blessing have accompanied the act. Thus we have confessed before God our belief that through the bishop who ordained us we received the Holy Ghost, the power to bind and loose, to administer the sacraments, and to preach. Now, how is he able to give the great eifts? Whence is his right? Has he any right except as having received the power from those who consecrated him to be a bishop? He could not give what he had never received. It is plain then that he transmits, and that the Christian ministry is a succession. Enlighten the people on this matter. Exalt our holy fathers the bishops as the representatives of the apostles.” * Again, the exclusive blessings which are dis- pensed, in virtue of this succession, are indicated thus: “ Why should we not seriously endeavour to impress our people with the plain truth that by 1 The Doctrine of the Priesthood, c. v., p. 31 (Carter). 2 Tracts for the Times, No. 1. The alleged ‘‘ Apostolic Ordinal.” 371 separating themselves from our communion they separate themselves not only from a decent, orderly, useful society, but from the only Church in this realm which has a right to be quite sure that she has the Lord’s body to give to His people.’ The course which I have prescribed to myself defers, for the present, the consideration of the spiritual significance of the gift bestowed by the Risen Christ, when He used the words quoted above. The same restriction applies to His decla- ration respecting the remission and the retention of sins. The latter is considered a sacerdotal power, and we are now concerned not with sacerdotalism, but with Apostolic Succession. And let the repeti- tion be endured. The advocates of the principle stake its origin and its continuity upon the fact of our Lord’s words being the Apostolic Ordinal; upon their containing the further and the essential principle of transmission; and upon the proposition that to bishops, the grace originally, and “once for all” bestowed upon the apostles, has been transmitted, and from them it has been individually, continu- ously, and officially derived. It appears, accord- ingly, that the principle of the Apostolic Succession requires three primary and essential factors: (1) The words of the Saviour, as reported by the evan- gelist, and as relied upon by the expositors and the advocates of the principle, must be proved to be the Ordinal by which the apostles were constituted a fount of authority, ‘stewards of the Divine 1 Tracts for the Times, No. 4. 372 The Chrestian Ministry. mysteries,’ and ‘‘guardians of the grace by which Christians live;”’ (2) the principle of trans- mission, by which each and all of these powers descend from their “first depositaries,’’ so as to secure an “‘ abiding apostolate,’’ must be asserted, implied, or revealed; and (3) the succession of the bishops to the powers thus transmitted must be proved. If these positions be established, the ‘“‘ apostolic succession’’ would and ought to be “a common place among Christian ideas.’’ It would be ‘“bound up with the whole fabric of the life of the Catholic Church.’”’! If they cannot be established, the principle of the Apostolic Succession must be regarded as not proved. ‘The argument in its favour will have broken down. The apologist will not have made out his case. If the case for Apostolic Succession is to be proved, the primary question to be settled is to whom were the words which are considered the Ordinal ad- dressed. This question is one of the gravest in the circle of theology. It concerns all that is involved in what is termed the ‘‘ sacramental system.” The validity of Baptism, of Confirmation, of Absolution, of the Eucharist, is said to depend upon the trans- mission of grace from the ‘‘ apostolic fount,” through the Apostolic Succession, to the official dispensers of apostolic grace. The pardon of sin; the peace of countless consciences; the development of spiri- tual life, through the dispensation of grace by the stewards to whom it is entrusted, in virtue of their 1 The Church and the Ministry, Ὁ. 339. Some Imperative Necessities, Moral, Historical. 373 being individual types of the ‘enduring apostle- ship ; ’’—these and many other solemnities, temporal in their initiation, eternal in their range, depend upon the answer to the inquiry raised respecting the audience to whom the Risen Lord addressed the words which are regarded as the Ordinal. With such consequences depending, suspicion must be excluded by transparent truth. Doubt must be rendered impossible by the most immutable certainty. The issues are those of life or death. Men whose eternal life is at stake must not be put off with a catena of perhapses. The dispensers of heavenly grace must show that these words were addressed to their predecessors, and this is impera- tive, not alone because of the awful and even eternal consequences which are involved, but because it is sought to establish a correspondence between Apostolic Succession, as the true conception of the Christian ministry, and ‘‘ the Incarnation and the Sacraments,’’’ and, indeed, the original creation of man. “In each of these cases we have the material offered from below, and the empowering consecration from above. It is just these two elements, then, that are present to constitute the ministry.” ἢ But surely the principle of the Incarnation, and of the Sacraments, and of original humanity, pro- ! Mohler long ago took this line. And it is to be regretted that he and others in our own day used language with regard to the Church as the perpetual Incarnation of Christ, which requires rather keen metaphysical acumen to distinguish from ecclesiastico-christological pantheism. ? The Church and the Ministry, pp. 71-2. 374 The Christian Ministry. ceeds upon the primary and essential condition of positive certainty as to the identity of the element ‘from below.” ‘Christ’s humanity is of the real physical origin of the stock of Adam,” and, let it be added, in the name of promise, and of prophecy, He is of the seed of David, the sinless Son of the ever- blessed Virgin. Any doubt upon these latter essen- tials would render the Incarnation of God in Christ open to question. True, the material would be of ‘the stock of Adam” in either case. But unless the predictive anticipations were realised in the Individual; unless promise and prophecy and super- natural conditions met in Immanuel, there would be room to doubt that he from whom they were absent ἐς assumed the humanity, and made it redemptive.” Thus the principle of the Incarnation proceeded upon the fact, unique and indubitable, that the humanity which was to express God corresponded to all the earlier anticipations, and presented the special features which rendered doubt unreasonable, and which enabled those who had eyes to see to identify Jesus, the Son of Mary, as the God-Man. It is this very certainty which is wanting to the original source from whom the succession is derived, and which is necessary before the succession can be said to ‘‘ corre- spond in principle to the Incarnation.” ‘‘ Jesus, we know, and Paul we know. But who are ye?” All the apostles were not present. Others than apostles were present. The principle of the Incarnation, applied to the Apostolic Succession of the ministry, demands, as the initial factor of the application, that Incarnation and Successtcon—no Correspondence. 375 there should be as much certainty about the identity of the individuals to whom these awful powers were entrusted, as, happily, there is about the identity of Jesus, with the adumbrations of type, of prophecy, of promise. This certainty there is not. Its loss is fatal to the application of the principle of the Incarnation to Apostolic Succession. The latter lacks the very condition which would justify the corre- spondence between the one and the other. It is by no means as certain that these words were addressed to the apostles alone, as it is certain that Jesus, the Son of Mary, was the Son of God. But it is upon the assumed correspondence between the Apostolic Succession and the Incarnation, a correspondence which fails in the very point which is essential to its maintenance—that the theory, in part, depends. The treasury of apostolic grace, now dispensed by its stewards and guardians, is thus depreciated, because an initial and abiding doubt hangs over the identity of those to whom the empowering Ordinal, which conferred the treasury, was addressed. This doubt is not only not dispelled, it is intensi- fied by some considerations which are suggested by Holy Scripture, and by ordinary experience, in ancient and in modern times. It is surely probable, that, assuming our Lord intended these words to be, as they are accounted, the Apostolic Ordinal, He would address them, exclusively and emphatic- ally, to those who were the trustees of spiritual potentialities, which, according to the theory, have operated, and shall continue to operate, ‘‘ Till He 376 The Christian Ministry. come.” It is equally probable that if the holy evangelist had the same official estimate of them, some intimation, limiting their application, would be given, if such a limit had been laid by the Saviour. Hach of these considerations is reason- able, if the accounts of the institution of the apostolate, given by the synoptic writers, be borne in mind. St. Mark tells us that before the separation, desig- nation, and dispatch of the Twelve, our Lord went up into a mountain, His purpose being, St. Luke informs us, ‘‘to pray;’’ and, the evangelist adds, “ΗΘ continued all night in prayer to God.’”’ When He descended with them, and ‘ stood in the plain,” they were, the historian indicates, separate from the body of the disciples.’ Thus, their selection, their designation, and their mission show the way in which the Saviour marked them off from even the seventy and from others, when the occasion was Official, when distinct duties were assigned, and when the range of their operation unfolded a prospect which was co-extensive with the world, both in space and in duration. Yet on the first Easter Day there is no such separation. The apostolic company is deficient, through the sm and suicide of one, and through the absence of another. There were those present who were not apostles. There were those who have no more special desig- nation than “all the rest,” or ‘‘them that were with” the eleven. To all in that room the Risen 1St. Luke vi. 17. Words not specially addressed to Apostles. 377 Saviour appeared. All were terrified, and all were affrighted. To all the reassuring and gracious salutation of ‘‘ Peace’? was given, as well as in- dubitable proof of the identity of their Risen Lord and their Crucified Master, which brought to them a higher joy than they had ever known before. And now words fall from His lips which are said to separate the ten from ‘all the rest,’ and to constitute them a ‘“‘fount of grace,” original, trans- missible, perpetual, exclusive, and individual. Yet in the sacred history there is not a trace of that separation in order to their being empowered or ordained. This is the more remarkable, when we remember that when their powers were more contracted, they were separated, identified, and commissioned. Yet now, when, according to the plea which is being urged, they are, in virtue of the Ordinal, the constituted depositaries of the grace through which, practically, the Kingdom of Christ is to subsist; now, when Christ must have known the tremendous importance of the powers thus bestowed, He neither utters a word to specify the limitation of these powers to the primary yet per- petual fount, nor lays a consecrating hand upon those whose successors claim the transmission of these powers by manual imposition. These omis- sions by our blessed Lord are so grave, that they appear to throw the highest discredit on any theory which either regards the «ccasion as individually official or the words as constituting the ‘‘ Ordinal.” 2γὃ The Christian Ministry. This discredit is deepened by the teaching which is supplied by apostolic history. The exactness which marks the election and appointment of St. Matthias is conspicuous. The same painful care pervades the selection of the seven deacons. - Their institution and ordination are so distinct, that mis- take regarding the person or the office to which they were ordained was impossible. The same solicitude for individual separation appears in the case of Barnabas and Saul. They are nominated by the Holy Ghost “to the work to which” He had called them. And sub-apostolic history illus- trates the anxiety which, from a very early period, governed the Church, lest authority to minister should be wrongfully bestowed, and that the same authority should be rightfully exercised. (5) Nor are the advocates of this theory in happier case when we come to consider the principle of devolution. Apostolic authority and the steward- ship of the ‘‘ once for all given grace” are said to be transmissible from their primary possessors to those who claim apostolic lineage. The basis of both authority and stewardship—individual, derived, and perpetual—is the principle of transmission, a prin- ciple which is said to be contained in the Saviour’s words: “As My Father hath sent Me, even so send Eyou."* These great words, obviously, must be restricted * “Dixit Christus apostolis ‘ Sicut misit me Pater, ita et ego mitto vos.’ Sicut ipse habuit a Patre mandatum docendi populum et ministros ad hoc necessarios necessaria auctoritate instructos deputandi, ita et apostoli habuerunt idem officium et mandatum cum eadem potestate ministros eligendi et ita successive Application of Principle of Limitation. 379 in their significance. The peculiar prerogatives of Christ imply what these restrictions are. There are senses in which the Father sent the Son which cannot be predicated of the apostles as sent by the Redeemer. The Father sent the ‘only begotten Son” to “‘declare’”” Him. Christ is as a reflecting surface, in which all the attributes of the Father are revealed. He was the Incarnate Son of God. The Father sent the Son to be “the Saviour of the world,’ and He gave the Spirit not by measure unto Him. Thus, in the sense in which the Father sent the Son to reveal Him in the Incarnation; to manifest His love for a lost world in Redemption ; to proclaim new truth, in the fulness of the Holy Ghost, the Son could not send the apostles. These essential restrictions are to be remembered as limiting the application of our Lord’s words.’ Nor can these words be fairly forced to say more than that the authority which the Father exercised in sending Christ, Christ exercised in sending those whom He addressed. ‘‘The Lord presents His usque ad consummationem szculi continuata successione. Est itaque apostolus episcopus extraordinarius, est episcopus apostolus ordinarius ; atque ita episco- patus fuit in apostolis a Christo institutus, in successoribus apostolorum ab apostolis derivatus.” (Vide Pearson, Determinatio Theol., Minor Works, i., pp. 283-4 ; quoted by Canon Liddon, in A Father in Christ; also by Gore, ut supra, τι. 1, p. 70.) ' “Our Saviour sent, indeed, His Apostles, as He Himself was sent by His Father ; and yet not in allipoints as Himself was sent; for to Him ‘the Spirit was given without measure,’ whereas they had only an occasional and stinted portion of it. In like manner they sent others as themselves were sent ; and yet not in all respects with the same privileges and powers wherewith they were themselves invested ; but with all which were expedient for planting and watering and governing the Church of Christ” (Pen. Discip. Prim. Church, Nathaniel Marshall, D.D., c. 1, sec. 2, p. 13). 380 The Christian Ministry. own mission as the one abiding mission of the Father; this He fulfils through His Church. His disciples receive no new commission, but carry out His.’’? But where, in these words, is the principle of charismatic transmission? ‘To ‘‘send” and to ‘“‘ transmit” are not convertible terms. Nor is trans- mission necessarily, or even naturally, involved in being sent. Transmission, as cognate to the theory in hand, presupposes the possession of the store of “once for all given grace’”’ by those who alone have the power to transmit it. ‘‘ Being sent” does not involve any such possession. ‘Transmission involves the individual derivation of grace as well as its individual transfer, continuity, perpetuity, exclusiveness, yet inexhaustibility. ‘‘ Being sent” requires no such series of assumptions. It involves the authority of the sender for the purposes of the mission. It appeals to the audience to be ad- dressed. It strengthens and consoles the messenger amid the difficulties and the trials of his work. Transmission, according to the theory to which it is essential, has no necessary affinity with any audience. It is an individual endowment. It exposes the individual who relies upon it to in- numerable anxieties concerning the authority, validity, regularity, and lineage of his immediate predecessor, and of each preceding individual, in the anterior and rather obscure pedigree of apostolic ancestry. ‘‘ Being sent” spares the messenger, as 1 Westcott, in loc. Exclusion of Principle of Transmission. 381 well as those to whom he ministers, such searching and infinite disquietude. Those so sent are de- spatched by Jesus Christ, whose promised Presence with His Church is the ultimatum of authority. These two ideas, the personal derivation and trans- mission of official grace, and the despatch of a messenger, bearing an authoritative announcement, from the abiding source of all authority, are, then, different in their nature, their significance, and their effect. There is also another difference between these two ideas which must be observed. Mission, as here committed to the disciples, is expressed by the language of Christ. Transmission is neither expressed nor discoverable. ‘‘As My Father hath sent Me, even so send I you.” Where is trans- mission here? It would be much easier to argue from this sentence that Christ intended those who heard these words to become, by His authority, the saviours of the world, or atoners for sin, than to argue that He intended their office to be perpetuated by the personal transmission of grace, infused, de- rived, or distributed. The words of the Lord have no affinity with the conclusion which is drawn from them. They halt where the conclusion requires them to proceed. They are clear in their announce- ment of one thing. Christ ‘“‘ sends’”’ those to whom they were spoken. They are silent with regard to another and a totally different thing. In fine, they tell us nothing of the principle of transmission. (ε) It is, nevertheless, urged, “The Christian 382 The Christian Ministry. ministry is a succession,’ and ‘the grace of ordina- tion is conveyed by the laying on of hands, not in any form of words.’' ‘True, evidence of Holy Scripture is all but continuous and consistent with regard to the laying on of hands in ordination. It is also instructive with respect to spiritual blessings being occasionally bestowed in this connection. But, be it remembered, neither of these admissions, nor the combination of them, is sufficient for the position which is assumed by the author. He holds the principle of the personal transmission of grace, from the apostolic store, by manual action. He bases this belief upon ‘the historical trustworthiness of the Acts and the Pastoral Epistles ;” and he justifies it by references to historical incidents in both the East aud West. The scriptural references have already been cited. They concern the ordination of the Seven, when the Apostles προσευξάμενοι ἐπέθηκαν αὐτοῖς τὰς χεῖρας. They concern the ordination of St. Paul and St. Barnabas, when they were despatched by the Holy Ghost and the Church upon their first missionary journey : νηστεύσαντες καὶ προσευξάμενοι καὶ ἐπιθέντες τὰς χεῖρας αὐτοῖς ἀπέλυσαν. ‘They concern the ordi- nation of St. Timothy by St. Paul and the assisting presbytery: δι᾿ ἣν αἰτίαν ἀναμιμνήσκω σε ἀναζωπυρεῖν τὸ χάρισμα τοῦ Θεοῦ, ὅ ἐστιν ἐν σοὶ διὰ τῆς ἐπιθέ- σεως τῶν χειρῶν μου: μετὰ ἐπιθέσεως τῶν χειρῶν τοῦ πρεσβυτερίον.υ But what has any one of these incidents to say on behalf of the official ' Tracts for the Times, No. 1. Ministerial Grace independent of Apostolic Fount. 383 transmission of individual grace? Did the Apostles transmit the grace of which they were “the first depositaries ’’ to the Seven deacons, whose selection by the Church was conditional upon their being “full of the Holy Ghost” before their ordination, au condition which was conspicuous in the person of St. Stephen prior to the imposition of hands ? Did the prophets and teachers of Antioch transmit “apostolic grace” to Barnabas? If they did, whence did they receive it? We have not a shred of authority for their being in the succession. And Barnabas is described as ‘‘ full of the Holy Ghost ”’ before the imposition of hands. Did St. Paul trans- mit apostolic grace to St. Timothy? Was it also imparted by the Lystran presbyters? But where did they acquire it? They were ordained by St. Barnabas and by St. Paul, who were not recipients from the apostolic fount. These references illustrate the connection between the laying on of hands and ordination. They have nothing whatever to say on behalf of the transmission of apostolic grace ‘“ once for all given” from ‘‘the apostolic fount.” The historical references are equally inconclusive.1 The ' It is but right to say that this strong conclusion will not be acceptable to those who regard with reverence, and receive as though they were authorita- tive, the ecclesiastical saint-lore of the fourth and fifth century. Mr. Gore asks (pp. 387-88), “What was the significance attached to this laying on of hands?” He replies: “It was conceived of as giving ministerial authority, and not only authority, but something which accompanied the authority—a. gift of special grace empowering a man for its exercise.” He then appeals to the East and West for historical illustrations of his answer, and he finds them in the fourth and fifth centuries, and pushes back through Cyprian— by which time apostolic truth had been adulterated—to Irenzeus, who also regards ‘‘ Church officers as endowed with special spiritual gifts,” to prove 384 The Christian Ministry. weightiest of them, emphatically Ireneus, is not only insufficient ; it is, as we shall see, as absolutely irrelevant as are the passages already cited from the Acts of the Apostles and from the Pastoral Epistles. (Ὁ But we now pass on to the third factor in the principle of the Apostolic Succession. This concerns the bishops as succeeding the apostles, and as pos- sessing the powers which have been by ordination transmitted to them. ‘The grace of the priesthood in its fulness resides in the bishop alone; and in passing through his hands, it is restrained or enlarged, according to certain known laws of the Church.’’? ‘‘ Apostolic Succession involves the truth that the bishops of the Catholic Church are clothed with a spiritual authority and a corresponding responsibility, as the guardians of Christian truth, and worship, and discipline,” ‘‘an authoritative stewardship of the which he quotes a passage which only proves the possession by the episcopal succession of the revelation which was transmitted as the depositum of the faith. Mr. Gore admits that Ivenzeus does not—any more than Clement or Hippolytus—trefer to ordination. Then if they do not, is it quite fair to quote them as though they did, especially when the point in dispute is the grace of ordination, through the laying on of hands? The reader will peruse, with profound regret, the first reference which Mr. Gore gives to illustrate his theory. “In the fifth century, Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus, believed that the laying on of hands conveyed a special grace of order. He believed this eyen when the rite was administered to a man without his knowledge. He records how a bishop, wishing to ordain a recluse, got into his cell by surreptitious means, and “laid his hand on him and performed the prayer, and then spoke at length to him, and made plain to him the grace which had come upon him.” But what becomes of the Christian principle of corre- spondence in teaching of this kind? Is the absence of individual faith atoned for by a pious fraud, perpetrated, too, by one in the succession? This debases the solemnity of the most sacred scene outside heaven to the level of impos- ture by manual thaumaturgy. (Whoever desires to become acquainted with the legends in which Theodoret was literally cradled, may have his interest gratified by an able article in the Die. Chr. Biv.). 1 The Doctrine of the Priesthood, c. v., p. 31 (T. T. Carter). Is Apostolic Succession represented by Episcopacy ? 385 erace and truth which came by Jesus Christ, and a recognised power to transmit it, derived from above by apostolic descent.” ‘‘ The various Presbyterian and Congregationalist organizations, however venerable on many and different grounds, have, in dispensing with the episcopal succession, violated a fundamental law of the Church’s life.’’? The powers thus claimed for, possessed, and trans- mitted by bishops become theirs through consecra- tion. This is asserted, accepted, and defended. A bishop-nominate possesses humbler and fewer powers and privileges before his consecration than he does after it. Consecration is thus a ceremony of the most profound importance. It raises grave and crucial inquiries about the Ordinal—inquiries which our investigation thus far has not made it necessary to open. Even now, it is not proposed to discuss the significance of the words which are considered the formula by which the Apostles were ordained, and by which they were charged with such tremen- dous powers. But the use of these words is pertinent to the principle of succession as it is expressed by the episcopal line. If that line possess, derivatively, these apostolic powers, in consequence of ordination, the question, What is the formula of ordination ? ascends into an inquiry of the first order. True, this position is denied. ‘‘I know,” says a powerful writer, referring to this point, ‘“‘that the grace of ordination is contained in the laying on of hands, not in any form of words.”’ And yet there must ' The Church and the Ministry, pp. 70, 344, 349. 5 Tracts for the Times, No.1. 25 386 The Christian Ministry. be some formula accepted, authorised, and even historical. Would any words be adequate, suitable, or sufficient Are the phrases to be employed in the most solemn, impressive, and overwhelmingly momentous office of but little account? Have they been left to the selection of saintly souls in simpler days, in less artificial ages, in periods when contro- versies were unstirred, when contemplation was strong and deep, and when every sigh was a prayer? What has history to tell us about this central point? Can the Scriptures of God help us ? The indifference as to the words used in the Ordinal, which is indicated by the writer cited above, is not consonant with the anxiety respecting the formula which is considered necessary to the due administration of Baptism or the Lord’s Supper. For each some formula is necessary. In the Office for the ministration of Private Baptism of Children in Houses, the minister is directed, under certain conditions, to make such inquiries as bear upon the point now raised. If, when the child is brought to be christened, the minister is informed ‘‘ that the’ same child is already baptized,” the Church directs certain further questions to be asked, and supplies reason for such questions. ‘‘ Because some things essential to this Sacrament may happen to be omitted, through fear or haste, in such times of extremity ; therefore I further demand of you, With what ... words was this child baptized?” Nor can we doubt that, with regard to the Sacrament Tractarians Disagree respecting Ordinal. 387 of the Lord’s Supper, the reason of the thing and the nature of the case, suggest, as the consecrating formula, the words of Him who gave this feast upon a sacrifice for the strengthening and refreshing of our souls. But the validity of both these Sacraments is said to depend upon their being administered by those to whom grace has been transmitted by ‘‘ regular devolution from the apostles.” If, then, an autho- vised formula be necessary to the validity of the Sacraments, how much more necessary is it for the validity of the succession upon which the validity of the Sacraments depends? And if there is to be such a formula, surely the highest of all precedents suggests the continued use of the ‘‘ Apostolic Ordinal” to ensure the ‘‘ enduring apostolate.”’ If men are to be the successors of the apostles, and if there be any virtue, or likelihood of blessing in some words rather than in others, then no one will deny the fitness and even the wisdom which sets apart the original words of Christ as the formula to be em- ployed to secure continuous and Apostolic Succession. In truth, the significance of this line of argu- ment was recognised by one who holds quite as strong a place in the history of the Movement as the writer of the tract, which denies the relevancy of the words to the grace bestowed by ordination. Dr. Pusey spoke strongly, and felt deeply, and wrote deliberately his conviction upon this point: ‘‘ So long as those words of our Lord, ‘ Whose sins thou dost forgive, they are forgiven,’ are repeated over us when we are ordained, so long will there be confession 388 The Christian Ministry. in the Church of England.’ The principle under- lying these words, and which gives them value to ‘“‘us when we were ordained,” is succession. By these words the apostles were ordained. By these words men are said to succeed to the powers which are transmitted from the apostles. Canon Carter reiterates the pronouncement of Dr. Pusey.” And yet, when we turn to the New Testament, there is not a trace of this use of these words! Of the ordination of St. Thomas there is no record. The probability is that he shared the blessing of service which the Redeemer committed to the society. St. Matthias was ‘‘ numbered with the eleven apostles,’ but there is no mention of either the imposition of hands or the use of the alleged Ordinal. Indeed, apostolic literature is devoid of even an approach to evidence as to the use of these words in the official Ordinal of the early Church. Nor is this statement to be nullified by reminding us of the perils which beset the argumentum 6 silentio, and which have been already referred to in connection with the Lord’s Supper, and the few references which are made to it in the New Testament. It was instituted by the Redeemer. It was designed by Him to be a perpetual remembrance of His work, and an abiding proclama- tion of His Atonement and Second Advent. His followers have ever since obeyed His command. He also made the Supper the subject of special revela- tion to St. Paul. But the comparative silence of the 1 Vide Times, November 29th, 1866, Dr, Pusey’s letter. 2? Ut supra. Objection obviated—a Grave Omission. 389 Scriptures with regard to it has been used to dis- parage the importance of the Institution, as well as the frequency of its observance. The argument is precarious, because the probability is extremely strong that frequency of mention is in the inverse ratio of constancy of observance. When a ceremony or an institution is either authoritatively or naturally wrought into the fibre of a system, the occasions of its observance will hardly be specified. They will pass as amongst the ordinary curriculum of the society to which they belong. But this depends ultimately upon the certainty of their institution, or upon their being regarded as essential to its existence, expan- sion, or duration. It is here the words said to be the Apostolic Ordinal differ from the words which record the institution of the Sacraments. The latter are revealed and have had large historic recognition. The former are neither revealed as the Ordinal, nor have we the remotest approach to a trace of their ever having been used as such in any of the New Testament ordinations, and a much vaster chronological period might be named. This omis- sion is of the very gravest consequence to those who base their possession of sacerdotal powers, or of authoritative office, upon their individual possession of apostolic lineage. If they, as 1s contended, derive these powers from ‘‘those words of our Lord, ‘Whose sins thou dost forgive, they are forgiven,’ having been ‘repeated over’ them when they were ordained,” what becomes of 390 The Christian Ministry. the transmission of those powers, through the omis- sion of the words which convey them? If the vital transmission be interrupted the succession is broken. If broken, how can it be renewed? ‘If a canal which used to give a copious supply of water suddenly fails, don’t you go to the fount to find the reason of the failure—whether the water has dried up at the spring, or has been intercepted in mid-course ? so that, if this happened through a defect in the canal preventing the flow of the water, it may be repaired, and the water gathered for the supply of the city’s wants may reach them in the abundance and purity with which it left the fount.’’? Acting upon St. Cyprian’s counsel, we betake ourselves to the ‘‘original of our Lord.” We are assured, frequently and confidently, that the words which He used on the evening of the Great Haster Day are those by which He instituted the enduring apostolate. We are further assured that because they are used in the Anglican Ordinal, we succeed to the possession of powers which were committed to those who first heard them, and to be by them transmitted to their successors. But when we take one step from the ‘spring,’ we fail to find the flow on which the succession depends. We ° “Si canalis aquam ducens qui copiose prius et largiter profluebat, subito deficiat, nonne ad fontem pergitur, ut illic defectionis ratio noscatur, utrumne arescentibus venis, in capite unda siccaverit; an vero integra, inde et plena procurrens in medio itinere destiterit? Ut si vitio interrupti aut bibuli canalis effectum est, quo minus aqua continua perseveranter ac jugiter flueret, refecto et confirmato canali ad usum atque ad potum civitatis aqua collecta eadem ubertate atque integritate representetur, qua de fonte proficiscitur’’” (Cyprian, Ep. lxxiy.). Empowering Ordinal unknown for Centuries. 391 are equally unsuccessful when we take another step. And in plain truth, the silence which reigns over the New Testament ordinations, with regard to the use of these ‘‘ awful words,” is unbroken throughout all the centuries which cover the his- tory of the Eastern Church. Morinus, the learned Oratorian, in his great work, has collated the Or- dinals from their original sources.’ He gathered his materials from Greek, Latin, Syriac, and even Coptic authorities. He has annotated the ritual in a series of the most laborious exercitations. And with this result, that the words of our Lord which, be it repeated, are relied upon as ensuring the succession—and this contention is surely most reasonable—have never been used, as the Ordinal, in any branch of the Greek Church. Moreover, Morinus collated no less than nineteen ancient Latin Ordinals. Martene published another set of eighteen. Out of these thirty-seven Ordinals, ranging from a.p. 560 down to about a.p. 1300, and representing an enormous area of ecclesiastical life, only two contain the words of our Lord, and these two are the latest in the whole set. The first Latin Ordinal, in the collection of ' Comment. de Sacris Ecclesie Ordinationibus, Antr. 1685, This is a work of great merit, and of extraordinary labour. My attention was first directed to it by the Lord Bishop of Meath (Dr. Reichel), one of the greatest authorities on Liturgiology. It consists of three parts: The first part is a concise and learned account of the origin of the schism between the Greek and the Latin Churches; the second part is a series of Greek, Latin, and Syriac Ordinals ; the third part contains fifteen exhaustive exercitations on the pre- vious part of the work. The book has great weight, not only in the Roman Church, but wherever learning and candour are respected. 392 The Christian Ministry. Morinus, is, like almost all the Latin Ordinals, based upon the well-known canons of the Fourth Council of Carthage, a.p. 398. Directions are there given re- specting the subjects on which a bishop was to be examined before he was to be consecrated. They concern his disposition, his capacity, his orthodoxy, his attitude towards celibacy, towards second mar- riages, and the possibility of salvation out of the Catholic Church. Directions are also given as to the ordination of presbyters, of deacons, and of the other minor orders. The canon as to the ordination of a presbyter runs thus: ‘“‘When a presbyter is being ordained, whilst the bishop is in the act of blessing and holding his hand over his head, let all the presbyters also who are present hold their hands over his head close to the hand of the bishop.” 5 The ordaining act, according to the canons of the fourth Council of Carthage, con- sisted in imposition of hands and accompanying prayer (benedicente). There is not a trace of the so-called Apostoie Ordinal being used. It was apparently unknown in such a connection. It cannot be otherwise than interesting to note that, just one year later than the date of the fourth Council of Carthage, viz., in 399, St. Augustine was consecrated coadjutor Bishop of Hippo. Was he consecrated with these words? Did he, in due ' “Si extra ecclesiam Catholicam nullus salvetur’’ (Morinus, De Sacr. Ord., p. 211). * “ Presbyter cum ordinatur, episcopo eum benedicente et manum super caput ejus tenente, etiam omnes presbyteri qui presentes sunt, manus suas juxta manum episcopi super caput illius teneant” (Ldid., p. 211). ee συστὰν St. Augustine on Charismatic Transmission. 393 course, ordain others with them? In either case, can we ascertain the sense in which he would understand them, as applied to himself, or by himself towards his presbyters? In endeavouring to reply to these inquiries, it is almost needless to observe that St. Augustine would be quite as likely, as any one in our own day, to remember what formula was employed either to him or by him. We may be perfectly certain that, sup- posing these words were the Ordinal, when he came to them in the public reading of the Scrip- tures, or in private devotion, or in his thoughtful work as a commentator, he would remember when and how they were used in his own ordination as well as in ordinations which he himself held. Nor is it conceivable that if this was the Ordinal for either a presbyter or a bishop, or if the recitation of them, accompanied by imposition of hands, was popularly believed to be the means by which those who were ordained received transmitted grace, becoming thereby successors of the apostles, St. Augustine would omit all reference to their place in the Ordinal, or, when treating generally of the Deity of the Lord Christ, would use language which excludes the idea of transmission, which is necessary to the principle of succession. St. Augustine, it is needless to add, expounds these words. His exposition has no reference to their place in the Ordinal. It is equally devoid of the notion of transmitted grace. And in another passage, written probably about a.p. 417, we find 394 The Christian Ministry. language which is absolutely incompatible with belief in the Apostolic Succession, as communicated or continued by derived grace. In his great work on the Trinity, he asks, in reference to the Deity of Christ, ‘“‘How is He not God who gives the Holy Ghost? Nay, rather, How great a God is He who gives God? For neither did any of His disciples give the Holy Ghost. They prayed that He would come on those on whom they laid hands, but they did not themselves give Him. And this custom the Church observes to this day in her pre- lates. Finally, Simon Magus, too, offering the Apostles money, did not say, ‘Give me, too, this power, that I may give the Holy Ghost, but, that on whomsoever I lay my hands, that he may receive the Holy Ghost.’ Because neither had Scripture said previously, ‘Now Simon, seeing that the Apostles gave the Holy Ghost;’ but, ‘Now Simon, seeing that by means of the imposition of the Apostles’ hands the Holy Ghost was given.’... We may indeed receive this gift in our small measure, but we cannot assuredly pour it out on others; but we call on God over them, by whom it is effected, that so it may take place.’ ? The writer of these words could never have regarded the passage in St. John’s Gospel as the ‘“ Quomodo Deus non est qui dat Spiritum Sanctum? Imo quantus Deus est qui dat Deum? Nequi enim aliquis discipulorum ejus dedit Spiritum Sanctum. Orabant quippe ut veniret in eos quibus manum imponebant, non ipsi eum dabant. Quem morem in suis prepositis etiam nunc servat ecclesia. Denique et Simon Magus offerens apostolis pecuniam, non ait, date et mihi hanc potestatem, ut dem Spiritum Sanctum: sed cuicunque imposuero manus, ut accipiat Spiritum Sanctum. Quia neque Scriptura prius dixerat, Videns autem Morinus Commentary on St. Augustine. 395 Apostolic Ordinal by which supernatural powers were bestowed. It is equally clear St. Augustine did not accept the theory of the official derivation of grace. It is no less clear he did not believe in the principle of Apostolic Succession. And now, it will be helpful to refer to the com- mentary of Morinus upon the above passage. Twelve centuries lie between the teaching of the great African and the criticisms of the great Oratorian: ‘‘ This so clear testimony of St. Augus- tine, derived from the form of speaking as well of Holy Scripture as of the Church, would be at once convicted of lying and imposture, if bishops ordain- ing in his age were accustomed to say, Receive the Holy Ghost; for with what words could bishops more evidently and efficiently testify that they give the holy Ghost than with that form of speech, Receive? And accordingly, that confident assertion of St. Augustine that the prelates of the Church do not give the Holy Ghost, but pray God that He would come on those on whom they lay their hands, would have been convicted of falsehood by the clearest testimonies of everyday occurrence. . The imperative receive not only denotes the delivery of a thing, but the delivery of the thing with power and authority. Therefore you never read in rituals, when the vessels are delivered, I give thee Simon quod apostoli darent Spiritum Sanctum, sed dixerat, Videns autem Simon quod per impositionem manuum apostolorum daretur Spiritus Sanctus. . . Nos autem accipere quidem hoc donum possumus pro modulo nostro : effundere autem super alios non utique possumus, sed ut hoc fiat, Deum super cos a quo hoc efficitur, invocamus” (De Trinitate, lib. 15, c. 26). 396 The Christian Ministry. so and so; or, I deliver to thee so and so; but, Receive ; because with that delivery a double power is intimated—the power of the person who delivers or gives the vessel, .6. of the ordaining bishop; and the power which the person ordained receives from him who ordains him,”’! This criticism of Morinus shows clearly that the words were not used in St. Augustine’s day as the Ordinal. Morinus knew them to be so used in his own. The doctrine which is forced into them was unknown to St. Augustine. It was, as Morinus well knew, an ecclesiastical necessity to the Latin Church, since 1215. It was then the Fourth Council of Lateran organised the carnificina an- marum. The authoritative introduction of sacra- mental confession rendered necessary the authoritative introduction of sacramental absolution. Then, the words of our Lord were, for the first time, introduced into the post-ordination service of the Latin Church. For the first thirteen hundred years of the Christian era there is not the slightest indication of their "“ Hoc tam luculentum St. Augustini testimonium a formula loquendi tam scriptures sacree quam ecclesiz petitum, mendacii et imposture statim convin- ceretur, si illius evo episcopi ordinantes dicere solebant, Accipe Spiritum Sanctum. Quibus enim verbis evidentius et efficacius testari possunt episcopi se Spiritum Sanctum dare quam illa formula loquendi, Accipe? Ac proinde luculentissimis et quotidianis testimoniis falsi convinceretur tam confidens St. Augustini asseverantia, ecclesize prepositos Spiritum Sanctum non dare, sed Deum orare ut ad eos veniat quibus manus imponunt. . . . Imperativus enim, accipe, non solum denotat rei alicujus traditionem, sed rei istius traditionem cum potestate et auctoritate conjunctam. Ideo nunquam legas in ritualibus cum instrumenta traduntur, do, vel trado tibi, sed accipe: quia simul cum ista traditione duplex innuitur potestas, tradentis instrumentum, sive ordinantis, et ea quam ordinatus ab ordinante accipit ” (Morinus, De Sacr. Ord., iii., exercit. Vil., €. Vil., pp. 118-9). Pertinent Inquiries and Reasonable Conclusions. 397 having been used in the services of ordination, as the formula by which men were ordained, or in connec- tion with the imposition of hands.’ If the use of these words “over us, when we were ordained,’’ imparts powers correlative to the revelations of the confessional, by enabling men to bestow absolution, then what was the spiritual condition of the millions who lived and who sinned during the centuries, when, ex hypothesi, no such forgiveness could be given, since no such powers were bestowed? Was there no forgiveness of sins in Christendom for thirteen centuries? Is there none now where these ‘‘ empowering ”’ words are omitted ? The conclusion drawn, from the evidence, abundant, ancient, and varied, will be that the Apostolic Church knew nothing of sacramental confession; nothing of sacramental absolution; nothing of the official transmission of grace from the ‘primary fount;”’ nothing of Apostolic Succession; nothing of these words as the ‘Apostolic Ordinal.” These latter conclusions will be strengthened by the fact, which any one with intelligence and with industry can verify, that bishops in whom the succession is secured have never been ordained by these words. And it is no less perplexing to find that, in the Anglican Church, presbyters, in whom the succes- sion is not secured, are ordained by them. ‘These words, either secure the succession or they do not. If they do, then, how are bishops in the succession, since they are consecrated without them? And how 1 Vide Shall we alter the Ordinal ? (Bishop Reichel, D.D.). 398 The Christian Ministry. are presbyters out of the succession, since they are ordained with them? If, on the other hand, the words do not affect the succession, then, the claims made by those already named, are invalidated.* The principle contended for is not sustained. An appeal is, however, made to sub-apostolic history. ‘‘In the latter part of the second century of the Christian era, the subject came into distinct and formal view; and from that time forward it seems to have been considered by the great writers of the Catholic body a fact too palpable to be doubted, and too simple to be misunderstood.” * The ‘basis (of the historic appeal) shall be laid in the testimony of Ireneus.’’ ‘‘ We take Irenzus for our primary witness as to Apostolic Succession.” * Before the evidence of Irenzus is submitted or ex- amined, it is well to refer to the heresies which he refutes, and it is necessary to keep clearly in mind the nature of the succession which it is sought to sustain by his witness. For it is quite possible that he might refute the heresies without sustaining the principle in dispute. The heresy which Ireneus so energetically and successfully repelled, is Gnostic- ism. Like well-nigh all heresies, it had its mysteries, its secret revelations, its treasures, rich, unfathom- able, and adapted only ‘‘ to those qualified for under- standing”’ them, or “‘to such as are able to pay a high price for acquaintance with such secrets.’’* ! Dr, Pusey, Canon Carter, and others. 2 Church Principles, W. E. Gladstone, p. 189. 3 The Church and the Ministry, pp. 116, 119. 4Tren adv. Her, 101. οἱ 3, ἥν Appeal to Sub-Apostolic Frstory. 399 The system is associated with the names of Simon Magus, Marcion, Valentinus, Basilides, Justinus, Carpocrates, and Saturninus. The leading principle of the system is lucidly stated thus: ‘‘ The Gnostics generally held that the Saviour affected redemption by making a revelation of knowledge, yet they but feebly attempted to connect historically their teach- ing with His. What was derived from Him was buried under elements taken freely from heathen mythologies and philosophies or springing from the mere fancy of the speculator.”' Gnostic secrets were thus gathered from human or mythical sources. They were abstruse, yet ambitious, as professing to solve every difficulty respecting the origin and overthrow of evil, the nature of matter, of man, of God. They were limited in their circulation, so far at least as popular needs were concerned. Gnosticism was accordingly opposed to revelation in its origin, as from God; in its exclusiveness, as the only Divine revelation ; in its range, as having an interest for every one who breathed the breath of life. The great apologist, Irenzus, insisted upon the ‘principle that that alone is to be accounted true knowledge of things divine which can be shown by historical tradition, written or oral, to have been derived from the teaching of Christ and His Apostles,” ‘It is,” he observes, ‘‘ within the power of all, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the ' Dio. Chr. Bio., art. “Gnosticism,” by Dr. Salmon. 400 The Christian Ministry. Apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the Apostles instituted bishops in the churches and the succession of those men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these (heretics) rave about. For if the Apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to ‘the perfect,’ apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, deliver- ing up their own place of government to these men ; which men, if they discharged their duties honestly, would be a great service, but their lapse, a great calamity. . . . We do put to confusion all (by indicating) the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the succession of the bishops.’’ Ireneus then refers to the Church of Rome, its apostolic origin, its episcopal succession, and its continuous tradition of truth. ‘In this order,’ he adds, ‘‘and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the Apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to 8. And now, we have the conclusion drawn by Irenzus from the facts already recited. ‘‘ This is the most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith which has been preserved in the Church from the Apostles ee νυ" δηλννν. Confuston of Episcopal with A postolical Succession. 401 until now, and handed down in truth.’ But these extracts advance nothing to support the official and personal transmission of grace by Apostolic Succes- sion. ‘They sustain, and strongly, the continuity of apostolic truth. They appeal, without reserve or without fear, to the successions of bishops, each passing on to his successor, unadulterated and un- mutilated, the truth of God. But it is necessary to reassert that the point of conflict is not the transmission of truth. It is the official transmission of grace. ‘To claim Irenzus as supporting the latter theory, when he speaks but of the former, is to con- fuse ideas which are essentially distinct, to mistake the whole drift of the Gnostic controversy, and to misunderstand the nature of the apologist’s reply. The more the Gnostic position is realised, and the greater the care bestowed upon the argument of Irenzeus, the clearer and the stronger is the conviction that the transmission of truth is the subject with which he deals, while the transmission of grace is the subject with which he does not deal. 1 “ Traditionem itaque apostolorum in toto mundo manifestatam, in ecclesia adest perspicere omnibus qui vera velint audire (videre), et habemus an- numerare eos qui ab apostolis instituti sunt episcopi in ecclesiis, et successores eorum usque ad nos, qui nihil tale docuerunt, neque cognoverunt quale ab his deliratur. Etenim si recondita mysteria scissent apostoli, que seorsim et latenter ab reliquis perfectos docebant, his vel maxime traderent ea quibus etiam ipsas ecclesias committebant. Valde enim perfectos et irreprehensibiles in omnibus eos volebant esse, quos et successores relinquebant suum ipsorum locum magis- terii tradentes, quibus emendate agentibus fieret magna utilitas, lapsis autem summa calamitas. , . . Annuntiatam hominibus fidem, per successiones epis- coporum pervenientem usque ad nos, indicantes confundimus omnes, .. . Hac ordinatione et successione, ea que est ab apostolis in ecclesia traditio, et veritatis preconiatio pervenit usque ad nos, Et est plenissima hee ostensio, unam et eandem vivificantricem fidem esse, que in ecclesia ab apostolis usque nunc sit conservata, et tradita in veritate” (Iren., adv, Her., 1. iii., c. 1, 3). 26 402 The Christian Ministry. The Church, he contends, is the sole depositary of apostolic doctrine. ‘‘It is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church, since the Apostles, like a rich man (depositing his money) in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth: so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life.’ In another passage, Ireneus again speaks of the succession, and associates with it the mention of ‘‘the certain gift,” but just as one would expect him to have then named “ grace,”’ ‘‘ from the apostolic fount”’ as ‘‘the certain gift,’’ he again accentuates ‘ truth,” thus leaving his testimony still irrelevant to the object for which it is cited. ‘‘ Wherefore it is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church—those, who as I have shown, possess the succession from the Apostles; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the certain gift of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father.” ’ And once more: ‘‘ Where the gifts of the Lord have been placed, there it behoves us to learn the truth, from those who possess that succession of the Church which is from the Apostles, and among whom exist that 1 “Tante igitur ostensiones cum sint, hec non oportet adhuc querere apud alios veritatem, quam facile est ab ecclesia sumere, cum apostoli, quasi in depositorium dives, plenissime in ea contulerint omnia que sint veritatis, uti omnis quicunque velit, sumat ex ea potum vite ” (Iren., adv. Her., 1. iii., α. 4, 1). 2 “ Quapropter eis quiin ecclesia sunt presbyteris obaudire oportet, his qui successionem habent ab apostolis, sicut ostendimus, qui cum episcopatus successione charisma veritatis certum, secundum placitum patris acceperunt ” (Zbid., 1. iv., 6. 43, 4). we Treneus-—Tradition of Truth by Episcopal Suc. 403 which is sound and blameless in conduct, as well as that which is unadulterated and incorrupt in speech. For these also preserve this faith of ours in one God who created all things.”’? Other quotations might be made. They are all to the same purport. They prove the historical con- tinuity of episcopal succession, from the Apostles’ times to those of Irenzeus. They prove that the apostolic tradition of truth rested upon a strong historical basis. They make no statement whatever respecting the transmission of Divine grace from bishop to bishop, and originally from the Apostles. They cannot be cited to sustain the doctrine which is generally known as the ‘ Apostolic Succession.” To represent Irenzus as believing that bishops were “the guardians also no doubt of the grace by which Christians live”’ is an extravagant indulgence in the ‘‘free use of unproved assumptions.”’ The writings of Tertullian are next appealed to. He enters into the same Gnostic controversies as Irenzus, and he, in part, adopts the same argumentative line. He claims priority for truth. In the parable, the Lord sowed the good seed first, the tares were introduced at a later stage. Apostolic truth main- tained this order. ‘To those who ‘are bold enough to plant themselves in the midst of the apostolic age,” he would give a double challenge: ‘‘ Let them produce the original records of their churches; let ' “Ubi igitur charismata Domini posita sunt, ibi discere oportet veritatem, apud quos est ea qu est ab apostolis ecclesiw successio, et id quod est sanum et irreprobabile sermonis constat. Hi enim et cam que est in unum Deum, qui omnia fecit, fidem nostram custodiunt’’ (Iren., adv. Her., 1. iv., ο. 45, 1). 404 The Christian Ministry. them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that their first distinguished bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the Apostles or of apostolic men—a man, moreover, who continued steadfast with the Apostles. For this is the manner in which the Apostolic Churches transmit their registers; as the Church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John, as also the Church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter. In a similar fashion the other churches likewise publish the names of men, as having been appointed to their episcopal places by apostles, whom they regard as transmitters of the apostolic seed” —a word, which is in touch with the previous chapter, where ‘‘seed’”’! is applied to the Word of God. He regards Apostolic Churches as conserving Apostolic teaching, and he challenges inquiry upon ~the point in places far apart. ‘‘ Now, then, you who would exercise your curiosity to advantage, in the matter of your salvation, run through the Apostolic Churches, in which the very chairs of the Apostles are still prominent in their places, in which their own 1 “ Edant ergo origines ecclesiarum suarum, evolvant ordinem episcoporum suorum, ita per successiones ab initio decurrentem, ut primus ille episcopus aliquem ex apostolis, vel apostolis viris, qui tamen cum apostolis perseveraverit, habuerit auctorem et antecessorem. Hoc enim modo ecclesiz apostolic census suos deferunt ; sicut Smyrnzorum ecclesiz habens Polycarpum ab Joanne col- locatum refert ; sicut Romanorum Clementem a Petro ordinatum. Itidem proinde utique et ceterze exhibent, quos ab apostolis in episcopatum constitutos apostolis seminis traduces habeant”’ (Tertullian, de Pres. adv. Her., 32); “‘verbum Dei seminis similitudo est” (31). Similar Witness borne by Tertullian. 405 authentic writings are read.’’’ In another passage, the Scriptures are a sacred deposit, ‘‘ which the Church has handed down from the Apostles, the Apostles from Christ,” (and) ‘‘ Christ from God.’’* He challenges the moral right of Marcion, of Valen- tinus, of Apelles, to interfere with a treasure which does not belong to unbelievers. He uses language which arouses the expectation that if ever he is to indicate his belief in Apostolic Succession, as a principle which expresses the official transmission of grace, he will do so now. But, the expectation is again disappointed. The only trust committed to their keeping was that of truth. ‘‘ Why are you,’ he boldy demands, ‘‘sowing and feeding here at your own pleasure? This is my property. I have long possessed it ; I possessed it before you. I hold some title-deeds from the original owners themselves, to whom the estate belonged. I am the heir of the Apostles. Just as they carefully prepared their will and testament, and committed it to a trust, and adjured ’’ (the trustees to be faithful to their charge), ‘“‘even so do I hold it’’?*® Tertullian also refers to the ordinations held by the heretical teachers. Here is ἃ conspicuous opportunity for warning them of the ! “ Ace jam qui voles curiositatem melius exercere in negotio salutis percurre ecclesias apostolicas, apud quas ipse adhuc‘cathedre apostolorum suis locis presidentur, apud quas ips authenticz litterae eorum recitantur”’ (Tertullian, de Pres. adv. Her., 36). 2 “ Quam ecclesia ab apostolis, apostoli a Christo, Christus a Deo tradidit”’ (1bid., 37). 3. “Quid hic ceteri ad voluntatem vestam seminatis et pascitis? Mea est pos- sessio, olim possideo, prior possideo, habeo origines firmas, ab ipsis auctoribus quorum fuit res. Ego sum heres apostolorum. Sicut caverunt testamento suo, sicut fidei commiserunt, sicut adjuraverunt, ita teneo” (Jbid., 37). 406 The Christian Muintstry. interruption in the flow of the ‘“‘ grace once for all given” to the Apostolic fount, and of the spiritual thirst their followers will suffer. ‘‘ Their ordinations are carelessly administered, capricious, changeable. At one time they put novices in offices; at another time, men who are bound to some secular employ- ment; at another, persons who have apostatised from us, to bind them by vainglory, since they cannot by the truth. Nowhere is promotion easier than in the camp of rebels, where the mere fact of being there is a foremost service. And so it comes to pass that to-day one man is their bishop, to-morrow another ; to-day he is a deacon who to-morrow is a reader ; to-day he is a presbyter who to-morrow is alayman. For even on laymen do they impose the priesthood.’ Irregularities of this kind are censured by Tertullian. He regards them as the results of caprice, of carelessness, of the unworthy tactics of party spirit. But is this the sort of condemnation which would be passed upon such conduct by a man who believed in Apostolic Succession, as involving the stewardship of grace, upon which the souls of the people depended? Is this the language of a theologian who believed that the generation which was ministered to by those who were thus admitted 1 “ Ordinationes eorum temerari, leves, inconstantes ; nunc nvophytos collo- cant, nunc seculo obstrictos, nunc apostatas nostros, ut gloria eos obligent, quia veritate non possunt. Nusquam facilius proficitur, quam in castris rebellium, ubi ipsum esse illic, promereri est. Itaque alius hodie episcopus, cras alius : hodie diaconus, qui cras lector; hodie presbyter, qui cras laicus. Nam et laicis sacerdotalia munera injungunt” (Tertullian, de Pres. adv. Her., xli.). Tertullian unconsciousof Charismatic Transmtsston. 407 to the ranks of a rival ministry, was separated from Divine grace, was parched with thirst, because severed from the only channels in which the water of life flowed? The question is reasonable, is pertinent, and within the lmits of inquiry. If Tertullian believed that Apostolic Succession, as he knew it, gave the Church a “right to be quite sure that she had the Lord’s body to give to His people,” would he have been content to characterise those who broke the succession, and thereby forfeited the flow of grace, as ‘‘careless,” ‘“‘capricious,” ‘‘disorderly ”’ ? Would he not rather have denounced the apostates as imperilling the salvation of souls? Would he not have reminded them of the blessings which were trans- mitted from the ‘primal spring,’ and which were lost to those who would accept the graceless services of the heretics? And if he omits to do this here and elsewhere ; if the only stewardship he recognises be that of the deposit of truth, transmitted along the episcopal line, from the Apostles to the bishops who presided in the various Churches which he men- tions, is it not because he knew nothing of the trans- mission of grace, from bishop to bishop; nothing of the exclusive possession by the episcopate of the stewardship of the grace by which believers live; nothing of the series of hypotheses which, cumula- tively, reach unto the huge fiction of a ‘‘ succession,”’ which transmits ‘“‘the once for all given grace,” but which is, as we have seen, inconsistent with the plain record of Revelation ; in frequent contradiction to the letter and the spirit of the literature of the 408 The Christian Ministry. Anglican Church; unsupported by the historical witnesses which are cited to sustain it; and incom- patible with the power which is involved in the promise of Christ’s perpetual presence in His Church? The principle is, moreover, an incentive to self- assertion, to schism, and to sin. And the more the records of the second century are studied, the greater the blank which they present to whoever seeks to discover in them this ‘“ essential element” of Christianity. Nor will these conclusions be reversed by referring to Hegesippus. They will be confirmed. He is said to have anticipated Irenzus in his recognition of the principle; and Eusebius is referred to as preserving his reference to the Church of Corinth, the episcopate of Primus, the fidelity of the Cor- inthians to the faith; together with the visit of Hegesippus to Rome, and the succession which he there found. The words of Hegesippus do not touch the principle in dispute. They emphasize the con- nection between the episcopal succession and doctrinal continuity. They are as silent as are Ireneus and Tertullian about the official derivation of grace. ‘‘ In every succession, and in every city, the doctrine prevails according to what is declared by the law and the prophets and the Lord.” * Hegesippus, Ireneus, and Tertullian bring us from the middle of the second century to its close. Let us now glance at the earliest records of the sub- apostolic period. It might have been better to 1 Kuseb., H.#,, 1. iv., 6. xxii. Lenatius—Efpiscopal Suc., Doctrinal Continuity. 409 have adopted this line at the outset. But as Irenzeus is accounted the “ primary witness” on behalf of the princyple, it seemed right to examine his testimony in the order in which it is submitted, together with that of Tertullian. The Church of Jerusalem is, on every ground, the mother Church of Christendom. Consentient testimony regards St. James as its first bishop. Eusebius says ‘‘ that down to the invasion of the Jews under Adrian, there were fifteen successions of bishops in that Church, all which received the knowledge of Christ pure and unadulterated.” ! He names the bishops who “ were all of the cireum- cision.”’ And, in another passage, he names some of their successors, and says that Narcissus was “‘ the thirtieth in regular succession from the Apostles.” " The Church of Antioch is associated with Ignatius. The Letters which he addressed to several Churches as well as to Polycarp, are now received as genuine history. There is not a reference in the whole collection to the principle now under review. The authority of the bishop is emphasized. ‘‘ Every one whom the Master of the household sendeth to be steward over His own house, we ought to receive as Him that sent him.” False teachers are to be shunned ‘‘as wild beasts; for they are mad dogs, biting by stealth.” In the Epistle to the Mag- nesians, he refers to some who ‘have the bishop’s name on their lips, but in everything act apart from him. Such men,” he adds, ‘‘ appear to me 1 Euseb., H.Z,, ἵν, c. v 2 Dba, eWay C. ΣΤῚΣ 410 The Christian Ministry. not to keep a good conscience, forasmuch as they do not assemble themselves together lawfully accord- ing to the commandment.’ He censures them as disobedient and disorderly. He appears to be ignorant of the far graver consequence of such conduct: namely, the loss of grace, only to be had from the stewards of the original and ‘‘ once for all given” deposit. In the Epistle to the Smyrneans, we have a most remarkable passage. The presbyters, and not the bishops, are to be followed as the Apostles. And although the language is strong, with regard to the bishop and his place at the consecration of the Kucharist, there is nothing more than an expression regarding the supreme import- ance of authority, of order, and of unity. There is no indication that Ignatius was even acquainted with the principle of the official transmission of grace. If he knew of it, it is extraordinary that he should ignore it, when to insist upon it would have been most opportune, and, in the estimate of those who accept the theory, most admonitory and prevalent. The Church of Smyrna is associated with the episcopacy of Polycarp. We learn of him from Ireneus. The evidence is in the same tone. He ‘“‘always taught the things which he had learned from the Apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. ‘‘ Continuity of doctrine was conserved by episcopal succession.”’ The last reference to be made is to a well-known statement in St. Clement of Rome’s first Hpistle to the Corinthians. The Hpistle shows that faction, Witness of Clement of Rome. 411 disorder, and even anarchy possessed the great Church of Achaia. The Apostles had provided for a continuous ministry. ‘Their successors were faith- ful and diligent ; yet they were expelled from office, and ‘‘ unjustly thrust out from their ministration.” And St. Clement adds: ‘It will be no hght sin for us, if we thrust out those who have offered the gifts of the bishop’s office unblamably and holily. ... Ye have displaced certain persons, though they were; living honourably, from the ministration which they had kept blamelessly.”* He then appeals to Scripture to show that they would ‘not find that righteous persons had been thrust out by holy men.”’ He implores them by various considerations to eradicate the sedition. He appeals to the con- straining example of Christ ; to the power of love; to the examples of the Gentiles ; to the admonition of the Word of God, and to the threatenings of judgment, in the hope of healing the breach in the unity of the ancient Church. He offers a long prayer to the Almighty, for forgiveness of iniquities, of unrighteousness, of transgression. He pleads with God for ‘‘ concord and peace,’ and at length imploringly hopes ‘that ceasing from this foolish dissension, we may attain unto the goal which lieth before us in truthfulness, keeping aloof from every fault.’’ ' ἁμαρτία yap ov μικρὰ ἡμῖν ἔσται, ἐὰν τοὺς ἀμέμπτως Kal ὁσίως προσενέγκοντας τὰ δῶρα τῆς ἐπισκοπῆς ἀποβάλωμεν. .. ὁρῶμεν γὰρ ὅτι ἐνίους ὑμεῖς μετηγάγετε καλῶς πολιτευομεν οὐς] ἐκ τῆς ἀμέμπτως αὐτοῖς τετιμημένης λειτουργίας (Clem. ad Cor. 44). * ὅπως ἡσυχάσαντες τῆς ματαίας στάσεως ἐπὶ τὸν προκείμενον ἡμῖν ἐν ἀληθείᾳ σκοπὸν δίχα παντὸς ἀώμου καταντήσωμεν (Lhid., 63). Are The Christian Ministry. Is this the pleading of a writer who believed that by the ejection of the successors of the Apostles, the flow of grace was interrupted through the diversion or breaking of the succession ? Are these the arguments which would be used now by those whose appeal is based upon the hypothesis that bishops are trustees ‘‘no doubt of the grace by which Christians live?” If Clement held this latter theory, he had only to remind the recalcitrant Corinthians that their conduct placed them under an interdict. They had cut themselves off from the supply of grace from the apostolic fount. But he never refers to it. There is a limit to the range of every investigation. For the purposes of that which the recent reasser- tion of the Apostolic Succession has rendered necessary, the line may fairly be drawn at the close of the second century, and it is not drawn without regret, for the circumstances which seem to characterize the Church of Alexandria, and the strength of Jerome’s statement, justify special reference. ‘From the days of St. Mark the Evangelist, down to the episcopates of Heraclas and Dionysius; the presbyters of Alexandria used always to appoint one chosen out of their number and placed upon the higher grade, just as if an army were making a general, or deacons were choosing one of themselves whose diligence they knew, and calling him archdeacon. For what, ex- cept ordination, does a bishop do which a presbyter Jerome and Episcopacy at Alexandria. 413 does ποὺ δ᾽} These are weighty words. They are exact, unimpassioned, and even chronological. Few men will consider their testimony is broken down by saying they are “the witness of Jerome in a temper.’’ And it is instructive and interesting to note that in order that their evidence may be inva- lidated, resort is had to that Church authority which the principle of Apostolic Succession ignores. ‘‘ So far again as Jerome’s words postulate that the elective authority for the episcopate lay simply with the presbytery, it has against it the evidence that the ancient mode of episcopal election at Alexandria gave great power to the vote of the whole people. It is not likely that the presbytery should have lost power and the people gained it.’’’ This is a great step towards the surrender of the whole position. But further argument is now not possible. Looking back over the period which the evidence covers, and which is about two hundred years, the principle of the Apostolic Succession is not dis- coverable. Itis not found, directly or indirectly, in the Didaché. There is an appeal to the congregation to ‘‘ elect therefore for yourselves bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord, men meek, and not lovers of money, and truthful, and approved, for they minister to you the ministry of the prophets and teachers.” ἢ This passage indicates the point, or the period, at ' Jer. ep. ad Evang., cxlvi. 2 The Church and the Ministry, τι. 2, p. 142 5 χειροτονήσατε οὖν ἑαυτοῖς ἐπισκόπους καὶ διακόνους ἀξίους καὶ ἀφιλαργύρους καὶ ἀληθεῖς καὶ δεδοκιμασμένους, ὑμῖν γὰρ λειτουργοῦσι καὶ αὐτοὶ τὴν λειτουργίαν τῶν προφητῶν καὶ διδασκάλων (Did., 10). 414 The Christian Ministry. which the itinerancy of prophets and teachers passed into the permanency of the episcopate. This, the earliest sub-apostolic fragment, does not even be- tray an approach to consciousness of a doctrine which is regarded as ‘essential’? to Christianity. Hermas is also silent upon this primary condition of Church life. Clement makes no mention of it, when it would have been most influential as an effective instrument of discipline and as a security for order. Ignatius is, as we have seen, equally silent. With him the bishop is a centre of unity. Every one is to be associated with the bishop. His word to the Trallians, has passed into a proverb. Can we not readily imagine the use the great martyr-bishop would have made of the doctrine now disputed had he known or had he believed it? Polycarp, Hegesippus, Ireneus, and Tertullian have been named, as sustaining, all through the second century, and in different places, the Apostolic Succession. ‘They affirm the exist- ence, continuity, prevalence, and utility of episcopal succession. But if by Apostolic Succession be meant, the personal and official derivation and transmission of grace, from the ‘apostolic fount,” “once for all given’’—and this is the sense in which the words are now used—then a very different con- clusion must be drawn from that which has been confidently submitted and asserted. There is not a trace of the theory in sub-apostolic literature for the first two hundred years. The theory itself emerges from a series of hypotheses, some of which Apostolic Succession a Humanly-devised Theory. 415 have been already examined. The examination, to which they have been subjected, justifies their being described as both unscriptural and unhis- torical. The Church of England is absolutely silent with regard to this doctrine—a silence which is culpable and censurable, if the principle be, as is alleged, fundamental. It has been sought to secure countenance for it, as well as the approval which is afforded by analogy, by recalling the suc- cession which undoubtedly obtained in the Jewish dispensation. There, however, the succession was hereditary ; and, although safeguarded by sanctions which, however primarily powerful, lapsed at length into desuetude, it was discontinuous before, during, and after the Advent of our Lord. This is, moreover, a personal possession. It professes to unite in one line a number of individuals, who claim touch with the Apostles, and such a line may exist and may act in complete independence, yea, in defiance of the society, which Christ instituted and to which He has guaranteed His Presence. It demands, as its exclusive treasury and trust, the grace of God, “once for all given,” as if to the illimitable mercy of Heaven, man could place the barrier of even apostolic officialism, or as if that mercy having been so limited, God Almighty had done with His Church. It misunderstands the ministry and the work of the Church of Christ, and by the adoption of Mohler’s theory respecting the Church, it pro- fesses to “continue the works wrought by Christ 416 The Christian Ministry. during His earthly lfe for the redemption and sanctification of mankind,” although His dying word was Τετέλεσται. Continually applied His work is. Continually repeated it cannot be. It regards the words of our Risen Lord as instituting ‘‘the enduring apostolate,’ and some of the most worthy and learned and influential of the advocates of the theory assume the exercise of apostolic authority from these words, forgetful, apparently, of all that is involved in the fact that for thirteen hundred years they have never been so used, and that the principle of transmission is unknown to Scripture, to sub-apostolic history, and to the Church of England. These considerations might be increased in number, and whatever weight they may have now, admits of great addition. But enough has been stated, to justify the conclusion which is here sub- mitted, and which is this: Apostolic Succession, as it is stated in the most recent apology which has been made on its behalf, is, as regards the unity of the Church, schismatical; as regards the means to be employed in doing her Lord’s work, heretical; as regards the theory of the finality of erace and its flow, through official transmission, un- scriptural; and as regards the patristic literature of the first and second centuries, unhistorical. Such Apostolic Succession has no place in Christianity. LECTURE VIII. *“ Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as My Father hath sent Me, even so send I you. And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them ; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained. But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came.” “They ... found the eleven gathered together, and them that were with them.”—ST. JOHN xx. 21-4; St. LUKE xxiv. 33. HE Kingdom of Christ “has no sacerdotal system. It interposes no sacrificial tribe or class between God and man, by whose _ inter- vention alone God is reconciled and man forgiven. Each individual member holds personal communion with the Divine Head. To Him immediately he is responsible, and from Him directly he obtains par- don and draws strength.”' ‘The Epistle to the Hebrews teaches that all sacrifices had been con- summated in the one Sacrifice, all priesthoods absorbed in the one Priest. The offering had been made once for all; and, as there were no more victims, there could be no more priests. ... If, therefore, the sacerdotal office be understood to imply the offering of sacrifices, then the Epistle ' ἐς The Christian Ministry ” (Bishop Lightfoot, Epistle to the Philippians, p. 180). 27 418 The Christian Ministry. to the Hebrews leaves no place for a Christian priesthood.”’ ? These words, clear, weighty, and influential, are now invested with awful solemnity. The voice that uttered them is for ever hushed. The great thinker, theologian, bishop, 15 now in the calm light of the Eternal Presence. His words, written as in God’s sight, were well weighed, both at home and in far-off lands. England’s apostolic Church respected them. Christendom, arrested and amazed, ana- lyzed them. The generations to come will be led by them. Present and but transient obscurations will be dispelled. Larger and more accurate ac- quaintance with the Word of God, with the work of Christ, and with the nature of the Christian Ministry, will convince men that for such sacer- dotalism as presumes or professes to absolve men from the guilt of sin against God, on the ground of transmitted charismatic authority, or continual sacramental propitiation, there is no place in the religion of the Lord Jesus Christ. And yet, a claim which involves both these powers is now made. ‘Two great important prin- ciples were (now) at stake. The first was the need of the help of external ritual in our acts of wor- ship. The second went much deeper: the attack which was being made was really an attack on the supernatural and the spiritual. The struggle was for the sacerdotal character of the Christian ‘ “The Christian Ministry”’ (Bishop Lightfoot, Hpistle to the Philippians, ΒΡ. 263-5). Sacerdotalism. 419 Ministry, whether it came from below or from above, whether it was ordained by man or by God.’’’ Defer- ring any criticism upon the assumption here made, that a sacerdotal ministry is ‘‘ supernatural,” and ‘‘from above,” and that a non-sacerdotal ministry is of ‘‘man, and from below,” it is right to observe that the claim thus officially, influentially, and deliberately made is thus made for the first time. True, it was, practically, demanded twenty years ago, even as it was asserted half a century since, when the Movement began. But in each of these instances terms were used which left the door open. There was more or less of qualification. There is none here. ‘‘The sacerdotal character of the Christian Ministry”’ is the occasion of ‘ the struggle.” It is not that new evidence has been submitted to justify the demand. There is no fresh revelation from God. There are no new needs in man. ‘The claim is, however, asserted expounded, and defended. It is our duty to try and understand it, as well as the basis upon which it rests. This duty is imperative. We are bound to it by our relationship to brethren from whom, un- happily, we differ; by our obligations to the flock of Christ; by the blessings which belong to those who remember that ‘‘the wisdom which is from above is first pure, then peaceable;” by our atti- tude towards ‘‘them that are without,” and by 1 The Right Rev. the Lord Bishop of Lincoln, in replying to an address of the students of the Schola Cancellarii, Jan. 5th, 1889. ‘“ What is being struck at is the sacramental principle. It is the sacerdotal character of the clergy ”’ (Lord Halifax, in addressing the E.C.U. at Clifton, Feb. 1889). 420 The Christian Mintstry. the unquestioned advantages which unity, internal, spiritual, and unbroken, would bring to the Church, in her work for her Lord in the world. The nature of the sacerdotal claim is ascertained by appealing to the writings of its expositors. ‘‘ Sacerdotalism,’’ says one, ‘“‘in the Christian sys- tem can only be the claim to represent Christ. . . . All who claim to exercise sacerdotal or priestly functions claim to do so simply because they sup- pose that when Christ said to the first ministers of the Church: ‘As My Father sent Me, so send I you. . . . Whose soever sins ye remit they are remitted unto them’—He meant those ministers to represent Himself by applying to men the merits of that sacrifice which He had just offered on the Cross. Those who deny these sacerdotal powers must acknowledge—if they be- lieve the New Testament at all—that Christ did, at the first, send some persons to represent Him as His ministers, or ambassadors, or stewards, tor some purposes of grace.” ’ “Through all the ordinances of the Christian Church God alone is the Giver and the Source of all spiritual blessings ... but these gifts reach us, as a rule, through the ministry of human me- diators. The power is from God; but He imparts it through human agents and material channels. This is the essence of sacerdotalism.’’? ‘I assert,” said the late Bishop of Salisbury, speaking, too, 1 Lawlessness, Sacerdotalism, and Ritualism (McColl, p. 245). ? Tbid., p. 379. Claims to be Ministry of FHluman Mediators. 421 ex cathedri, ‘that the apostles, and those who have received the commission from them, have ministrations entrusted to them, through which the bread and wine become, at Holy Communion, the Body and Blood of Christ, and the Church presents before the Throne of Grace that which is present, namely, Christ’s Body and Blood in the sacra- ment, and by such offering pleads with Christ, and through Christ with the Father. ... I also main- tain that the apostles, and they who have come after them through their appointment, have power entrusted to them to make sinners partakers of the mercies of God in Christ, and that they use this power in ministering the word of God and the two sacraments, and by loosing them in the ordinance of absolution from the bonds by which they have been held.’’? Once again, the same episcopal authority says: (ΑΒ. our Lord’s representatives, and so in the person of Christ putting forth some of His dele- gated powers, and by His own words, we bless the elements, or rather He blesses them through us. Through such blessing, the oblation becomes a sacrament, and as such has not only an outward but an inward part. The outward part, the bread and wine, remains in its appearance, form, and essence, or substance, what it was before the act of consecration, but still by consecration it has been made the veil and channel of an ineffable mystery. The inward part is that which our blessed Lord ' Bishop of Salisbury’s Charge, pp. 46, 47 (1867, Fourth Edition). 422 The Christian Ministry. took from the blessed Virgin, which He offered to God as an atoning sacrifice on the Cross, which the Almighty Father has glorified, has, that is, endowed, ‘‘not with the actual properties, but with the super- natural gifts, graces, and effects of Godhead,” and out of which wells forth every blessing of the new covenant. The inward part of the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper is Christ’s precious body and blood, and so, by virtue of the hypostatic union, Christ Himself.’’ The nature of the sacramental sacrifice is thus stated: ‘‘ The propitiatory virtue of the Holy Kucharist consists in this—that it is the appointed means of pleading and applying the efficacy of the Cross; not as a means of making a fresh atonement, or adding anything to the efficacy of that Sacrifice, which is ‘finished,’ but as a means of bringing out into act and effect its all-availing power, and thus communicating its benefits.”? The same idea, without any such modification as is here stated, is conveyed by the words which are applied to the sacrament in a well-known manual: ‘‘ Word made flesh, and dwell- ing in us,” ‘Sacred Victim,” ‘‘ True Propitiation for the living and the dead.”’* It would not be easy to find the claim stated with greater clearness, system, and thoroughness, than it is in the following words: ‘The sacerdotalism ' Bishop of Salisbury’s Charge, pp. 40, 41 (1867, Fourth Edition). * The Doctrine of the Priesthood, c. v., p. 42 (Canon Carter). 3. Litany of the Blessed Sacrament (Zhe Priest’s Prayer Book, p, 191). Life Bestowed, Received, only through the Priest. 423 which cannot be disparaged or repudiated means just this—that Christianity is the life of an organ- ised society in which a graduated body of ordained ministers is made the instrument of unity. The religious life, so far as it concerns the relations of man to God, has two aspects. It is first an ap- proach of man to God. And in this relation each Christian has in his own personal life a freedom of access. But he has this because he belongs to the one body, and this one body has its central act of approach to God in the great memorial oblation of the death of Christ. Here it ap- proaches in due and consecrated order: all are offerers, but they offer through one who is em- powered to this high charge, to ‘offer the gifts’ for God’s acceptance and the consecration of His Spirit. In the second place, religion is a gift of God to man—a gift of Himself. What man re- ceives in Christ is the very life of God. Here, again, each Christian receives the gift as an endowment of his own personal lfe; his whole life may become a life of grace, a life of drink- ing in the Divine Spirit, of eating the flesh of Christ and drinking His blood. But the indi- vidual life can receive this fellowship with God only through membership in the one body and by dependence upon social sacraments of regenera- tion, of confirmation, of communion, of absolution, of which ordained ministers are the appointed instruments.’”? ' The Church and the Ministry, p. 93. 424 The Christian Muntstry. Passages to the same purport might be easily produced. They are found in numerous devotional manuals, which are adapted to the young,’ to the mature, and to the official, as well as in works of a didactic, polemical, and theological character. The above extracts are given thus fully, in order that the nature of the claim may be intelligently, and even authoritatively, presented. They assert that the minister of the Christian Church “represents Jesus Christ ;’’ exercises His delegated power ; applies “ to men the merits of that sacrifice which He offered on the Cross;” mediates between God and man; bestows judicial absolution whereby sin against God is pardoned, and by ‘‘offering’’ and consecrating the elements in the Holy Communion, they become ‘‘that which our Blessed Lord took from the blessed Virgin,’ which suffered on the Cross, which was glorified by the Father, (a) ‘‘ the inward part of the ' “The Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ are really and truly present on the altar under the forms of bread and wine, and the priest offers the sacrifice to God the Father ” (Catechism on the Office of the Holy Communion).—* None but priests can offer a sacrifice ; therefore Christ ordained His apostles to be priests to offer His body and His blood to God the Father, under the sacrificial veils of bread and wine, as the one sacrifice which can take away the sins of the world. The Christian priesthood sums up the offices which under the old covenant were distributed. The priest was the sacrificing, the prophet the preaching, and the judge the ruling officer. The Catholic priest at the altar offers the adorable Saviour, in the pulpit he declares the oracles of God, and in the confessional he sits in his judicial capacity ” (Zracts for the Day).—The following passage asserts the sacerdotal principle in the way of analogy: “The ministry is the hand which offers and distributes ; it is the voice which consecrates and pleads (in the eucharistic sacrifice). And the whole body can no more dispense with its services than the natural body can grasp or speak without the instrumentality of hand and tongue. Thus the ministry is the instrument as well as the symbol of the Church’s unity.” The rigid exclusive ness of sacerdotalism is thus emphasized : ‘“ No man can share her fellowship except in acceptance of its offices” (The Church and the Ministry, p. 86). Fle Claims to Effect Sacramental Propitiation. 425 sacrament ;”’ (b) propitiatory for the living and the dead; (c) present on the altar. Through this sacri- fice the Church is said to approach to God. But approach, corporate or individual, is possible only through the priest, upon whom the sacrifice depends. Spiritual life is ‘“‘the very life of God.” But it cannot be received save by dependence upon ἐς ordained ministers,’’ who are ‘‘ human mediators.” The priest is thus the individual, official, essential, and sole intermediary through whom man approaches to God. He is, moreover, the channel through whom the individual life ‘‘ can receive this fellow- ship with God;” indeed, he is the only channel. True, there is a merciful concession conceivable. “Hach Christian has in his own personal life a perfect freedom of access.” Yet how access can be described in one breath as ‘“‘ perfect freedom,” and in the next as dependent upon official mediation, presents an initial difficulty which is hardly unim- portant. But this remark is sufficient criticism upon the point to which it is addressed. The main con- siderations are the principles which are involved in the sacerdotal claim now made on behalf of the Christian Ministry. These principles appear to be that whether man approaches God, or God endows man with eternal life, the Divine endowment and the human approach are alike through the priest. He is, moreover, the intermediary—official, essential, exclusive—between the soul’s guilt and the soul’s innocence. He bestows judicial absolution, and by his mediation, and the Divine response to it, the 426 The Christian Ministry. sacrament becomes a sacrifice, which is invested with ‘‘a new power and brought into essential union with the one sacrifice, with Jesus, the Mediator of the new covenant, and with the ‘blood of sprinkling.’”’ ? This sacrifice is, accordingly, propitiatory in its nature, and its effects extend even to the invisible world. It thus appears that if the grace of God be manifested in the moral attraction of the soul to its Maker, or in His endowment of the soul with eternal life, or in the blessings of absolution from sin, or in effecting propitiation through sacrifice, the priest is, in each case, indispensable. Through him God’s grace flows. Through him, life is bestowed. His is the voice, through which God absolves. His is the utterance by which sacrificial propitiation becomes possible, continuous, efficacious, and applic- able. In a word, sacerdotalism places upon the lips of the priest the utterance of Him whose priesthood ‘‘yasseth not on from one to another’’?: ‘‘No man cometh unto the Father, but by Me.” This tremendous claim, involving official exclu- siveness and the spiritual dependence of mankind, is commended to our acceptance on the strength of some facts which are, admittedly, presented to us in God’s government of the world. We are reminded that ‘“‘in all departments of life we are dependent one on another. There is a priesthood of science, ministering the mysteries of nature, exercising a 1 The Church and the Ministry, τι. p. 227. Vide Additional Note on the “ Prophecy of Malachi: Its eucharistic significance and patristic application.” 2 ἀπαράβατον ἔχει Thy ἱερωσύνην (Heb. vii. 24). Relies upon Analogy, Plausible but Fallacious. 427 very real authority, and claiming, very justly, a large measure of deference. There is a priesthood of art, ministering and interpreting to men that beauty which is one of the modes of God’s revelation of Himself in material forms. There is a priesthood of political influence, and that not exercised at will, but organised.”' And again, natural society is appealed to as though its constitution and course supplied an analogy to the sacerdotalism which is said to be essential to religion, as revealed by Christ. “Τὴ natural society we still see on all sides men and classes of men, with whom we cannot ourselves dis- pense ; we trace a series of hierarchies, upon which we are dependent for moral, mental, physical bless- ings, whether we will or no. There are priests of wealth. What are the holders of wealth but its priests ; the guardians of its shrines, the dispensers of material blessings which are unattainable without it ; priests of wealth, having the power of the keys and the power of sacrifice, as a priesthood should? There are priests of knowledge. . . . Once more, there are priests of political power.’’* There is a sense in which the principle of depend- ence is not only true, but it is all-pervading. It ranks in the government of the world as a primary law. The scheme of that complicated system of things, and of principles, and of persons, which we term ‘“‘society’’ or “nature,’’ seems designed to display the principle of dependence, and thereby to place 1 The Church and the Ministry (p. 94). * τε Sacerdotalism ” (Canon Liddon’s University Sermons, 2nd series, pp. 195-6). 428 The Christian Ministry. within individual reach countless opportunities of receiving and of administering help. Scope is thus presented for the exercise of intelligence; for the healthy and the happy play of the benevolent affec- tions, for the manifestation of sympathy, of succour, and of brotherhood. This essential principle per- vades the constitution of things. It meets us on our entrance into this world. It never ceases its tender ministries through our earlier years of helplessness, of ignorance, of danger. It follows us from the cradle to the house of prayer. It presents us to God our Father at the font of blessing. It waits upon us amid the duties and the dangers of our school life, and when it has trained us through the golden years of youth, it requires us, in our strength, to wait upon the weak, to succour the frail, and the helpless, and the sorrowful. And when life is well-nigh over, and we lie down to die, the principle which greeted our entrance into the world, which never left us in the cloudy and the dark day, is again by our couch, and represented by love, that is tearless in its agony, it lavishes affections upon us in ways that we never can repay, until at length it closes our eyes in death. Dependence is an all-pervading law of God. But what analogy is there between the prevalence of this great principle and the exclusive claim which is made by sacerdotalism ? What parallel is there between the hierarchies of ‘‘ wealth,’ of ‘‘ know- ledge,” and of ‘ political power,” and the hierarchy which claims exclusive possession of the grace of God? ‘The priest of wealth derives his priesthood Dependence Universal, Sacerdotalism Exclusive. 429 from his possession of enormous treasure. It may have been inherited. It may have been acquired. But his possession, however large, does not affect either the quality or the increase of the possession of the poor man, however small. The coin in the pocket of the beggar at his gate is as genuine as the bullion which may be counted by millions. His ‘“‘ priesthood’’ can neither make the beggar’s coin counterfeit nor prevent him from adding to it. But this is precisely what, in the moral order, the priest of grace claims to be commissioned to do. He is the guardian of God’s favour. He is the vehicle by whom alone it can come. He is the intermediary through whom alone the spiritual mendicant can obtain ‘‘the unsearchable riches of Christ.” To make the illustration relevant and available, the priest of wealth should have exclusive control over every earthly treasure. ‘To him men should be com- pelled to resort for initial possession as well as subsequent increase. And it is just possible that if the priest of wealth made a claim so extravagant, so unprecedented, and so unreasonable, and if, in spite of the claim, good coin was found to be possessed by others who rejected his pretentiousness, those who saw this good coin, and yet heard his claim, would require of him either to prove their coin counterfeit, or to abandon his untenable exclusiveness. The same line of reflection may be applied to those who are termed ‘‘ the priests of knowledge.” “What a hierarchy is this! how brilliant, how en- thusiastic, how powerful!” Here again, it seems 430 The Christian Ministry. reasonable to say that those who belong to this hierarchy would be the first to disown the exclusive- ness which this term implies. Mathematicians, physicists, astronomers, philosophers, moralists, philologists, theologians, authors, and all who love learning, loathe, as they do the hateful ignorance which has generally deepened with sacerdotalism, the idea that knowledge is the exclusive possession of a caste. He who knows most, would be the most earnest in his opposition to the claim. He would refer whoever made it to the catholicity of know- ledge, to the infinities which invite exploration, to the democracy of intellect, to the limitation of every human faculty and to the fact, as certain as it is inspiriting, that the humblest may help the highest ; and he would meekly, yet heartily, assure whoever desired such a strange title as ‘‘ priest of knowledge,” that the only difference between man and man in this department was a difference of attainment, of acquisition, of learning; that no man held knowledge under lock and key ; no man had exclusive monopoly of its treasures. In the temple of knowledge every man may officiate, and speak, in his measure, of her honour. Thus, it appears, the ‘“ priest of knowledge ”’ like the “ priest of wealth’ fails to illustrate the only point in the sacerdotal claim which either is cited to elucidate. To make this case relevant and helpful to the sacerdotal contention, the ‘“‘ priest of knowledge’ should have sole possession of learning. Every inquirer should be compelled to have recourse to him. And if, perchance, the student had made a Analogy rather Favours Universal Priesthood. 431 discovery, or produced some mental fruit “on the tree of knowledge,” or desired some further additions to his intellectual life, then it must be shown that the priest of knowledge could alone either commu- nicate the additions or receive the fresh discoveries for presentation in the temple of fame. No such official combination is conceivable in the mental order. And it is as little discoverable in the political order, where it may be as well to say the “ priest of political power,” derives his authority from the people, that is ‘‘from below,” although we are taught that the powers that be are “ ordained of God.’ Thus far, then, it may be reasonably urged that the ex- clusiveness of sacerdotalism is not commended to our acceptance by the prevalence of the principle of dependence. It receives no support from the so-called hierarchies of wealth, of knowledge, of political power. These rather sustain the doctrine of the priesthood of believers. But to compare their democratic ministry with the rigid exclusiveness of sacerdotalism is to compare things that are not comparable. But those who advance the sacerdotal claim on behalf of the Christian Ministry are not content to allow it to rest upon a fanciful analogy. They take far higher and even holier ground, They are satisfied that its prerogatives—judicial, sacrificial, mediatorial, and exclusive—are conveyed by those words which are regarded as the apostolic Ordinal, and as the sacerdotal commission.’ Indeed, one writer sees an 1 Vide Dr. Pusey, ut supra; The Doctrine of the Priesthood (Canon Carter, p. 31) ; Charge of the (late) Lord Bishop of Salisbury, 1867, pp. 33,47; Lhe 432 The Christian Mintstry. essential sequence between Apostolic Succession ‘‘ as it appears in the Church writers of the second century”? and Sacerdotalism. But as the Apostolic Succession ‘‘ of the second century ’’ does not denote charismatic officialism, derived, and transmissible, the sequence of the sacerdotal conception is by no means established. The succession according to Polycarp, to Ireneus, and to Tertullian has no connection whatever with sacerdotalism.’ Repre- sentations of a very different character may be made, and the task is an easy one. Read into the literature of the second century the sacerdotal conceptions of later and darker eras, and it will be easy enough to say that Apostolic Succession is ‘‘an essential element of the corporate life,” of the Church; and that, “‘ of course, an essential ministry is a sacerdotal con- ception.” But if it be shown, from the documents appealed to, that the succession transmitted ‘ truth ”’ and not grace ; and that this is the purpose for which the succession was appealed to as against the Gnostics, then, the sacerdotalism which depends upon the official transmission of grace ceases to be an ‘“‘ essential conception” of the ministry as seen in the second century. This is not the only preliminary to our inquiry. The exclusive character of the sacerdotal claim im- peratively demands that the words which convey alike the authority and the prerogatives of the claim be proved to have been addressed to the apostles One Offering (Sadler, p. 137) ; The Priest in Absolution, pp. vi., i.; Tracts for the Times (No.1); The Church and the Ministry (Gore), p. 230. 1 Vide Lecture VII., pp. 398-408. Sacerdotal Claim conflicts with Universal Instinct. 433 alone. Not only is this impossible, but the proba- bility is extremely strong that they were addressed to others as well as to the apostles, all of whom were not present. And there is a third consideration, which seems of some consequence. The claim must not, in the nature of things, demand more than its basis can reasonably furnish. If these words con- tain the sacerdotal commission, that commission must be restricted to the sense which they bear. Thus, our inquiry must now be as to the significance of the so-called apostolic ordinal. Reference has already been made to its use. There is little doubt that the interpretation of these words is invested with increased difficulty be- cause, as they run, they appear to conflict with what is at the same time a profound Christian instinct and a clear revelation of God. Deep down in the heart of man there is the conviction that forgiveness of sin is the prerogative of God alone. From many a soul, to whom religion is little more than a subject of mournful curiosity, and who has not studied the Scriptures which bear upon the Haster announce- ment of Christ, the recitation of these words is followed by the inquiry, which at once expresses perplexity, and asserts a truth: ‘‘ Who can forgive sins but God only?”’! And the inquiry has a ready and an adequate response, in words which occupy a prominent place in the liturgy of the Church of England: “To the Lord our God belong mercies and forgivenesses, though we have rebelled against 1 §t. Mark ii. 7; St. Luke v. 21. 28 434 The Christian Ministry. Him.’’ This conviction confronts many when the words, which are now under review, are read. The principle which this conviction expresses, places a Divine limit upon their import. It is true, always and everywhere true, that to God alone it pertaineth to forgive sins. And whatever be their explanation no explanation can be correct which traverses this principle. This essential limitation was felt by one who, more than any other writer in early times, made vast demands for episcopal power and for ecclesiastical authority. It is Cyprian who speaks thus: ‘‘ Let no man deceive himself; let no man beguile himself ; it is God alone that can show mercy. He alone can grant pardon to the sins committed against Him, who did Himself bear our sins, who suffered grief for us, whom God did deliver for our sins. Man cannot be greater than God, nor can a servant remit or forego by his indulgence what has been committed by a greater crime against the Lord, lest to the person lapsed this be moreover added to his sin, if he be ignorant that it is declared, ‘Cursed is the man that putteth his hope in man.’ The Lord must be sought.” ἢ Respecting, then, this abiding verity, we consider the words in St. John’s Gospel in connection with cognate words in St. Matthew’s, which were spoken " “Nemo se fallat, nemo se decipiat : solus dominus misereri potest. Veniam peccatis, que in ipsum commissa sunt, solus potest ille largiri, qui peccata nostra portavit, qui pro nobis doluit, quem Deus tradidit pro peccatis nostris. Homo Deo esse non potest major; nec remittere aut donare indulgentia sua servus potest, quod in Dominum delicto graviore commissum est; ne adhuc lapso et hoc accedat ad crimen, si nesciat esse predictum: ‘maledictus homo qui spem habet in homine.’ Dominus orandus est” (de Lapsis, Cyprian). Our Lord’s Promises to St. Peter Personal. 435 by our blessed Lord under most impressive circum- stances. He had come into a region which dis- played the influence of idolatry. There St. Peter was enabled to make that confession which, preached by the Church, and accepted by mankind, would overturn the consolidated polytheism of centuries. The Saviour blessed the apostle to whom God re- vealed His truth. ‘The blessing consisted in (qa) the designation of the apostle as the Rock-man, not that the apostle was now first so designated.’ But this was the fulfilment to the apostle of an earlier intimation. It consisted, also, in (4) a prophecy respecting the future erection of Christ’s Church upon the confession which he had then made; (c) in the promise to the apostle of the gift of the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and (d) a further promise, ‘‘ whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.’ These two promises were personal. ‘They were made after a personal confession was uttered. They were the Saviour’s seal to the truth, and to the individuality of the confession. They guaranteed the agreement of Heaven with the utterance on earth. There is nothing here of ecclesiastical organisation. Papal primacy and Apostolic Succession are alike excluded. Indeed, the metaphor which is here applied to the confession is the metaphor which best includes the idea of stability. Applied to the apostle, it best excludes the idea of succession. Hach promise was, ' St, John i. 42 (here prophetic). 436 The Christian Ministry. it need hardly be stated, a prophecy. In due time it ripened into history, but it preserved its personal limitation. Christ placed in the hands of St. Peter, the keys by which he was privileged to open the doors of the kingdom of heaven to the Jews, on the Day of Pentecost; to the Gentiles, at Casarea— the latter being emphasized to the apostle and to the Church, by a preparatory vision, the significance of which struck at the deepest roots of Hebrew prejudice, by abolishing Mosaic distinctions in food —a lesson which taught St. Peter the higher truth : ‘‘God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.’’’ It is obvious that in this peculiar and privileged work, St. Peter could not have a successor. One might as well say that St. John, who had the honour of being the first to enter the empty tomb of Christ, had a successor, as to say that St. Peter had a successor in opening the door of faith to the Jews and to the Gentiles. The second section of the prophecy was also fulfilled. It was also personal. Its significance is obscured by ignorance of Hebrew usage. The Jews understood what was meant by “‘to bind” and “to loose.” These terms were then popular. They meant to forbid and to allow. To bind, as Dr. Hammond has shown, is to excommunicate. To loose is to absolve. St. Peter exercised both powers. He excluded from the kingdom of heaven when he said to Simon Magus, ‘‘Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter’? (Acts vui. 21). Thus he 3 Acts x. 28. Authority Promised to the Socvety. 437 “bound.” He admitted men uncircumcised into the Church, in the persons of Cornelius and his companions (Acts x. 47). Thus he “‘loosed.”’ The Saviour had promised to St. Peter that his acts would be ratified by God. Both the promises made to him were thus performed. Christ extended one of these promises to the disciples.” The fact of this promise being made was designed to arouse in them, thus early, a sense of corporate life. They were aware of the individuality of the promise made to St. Peter. They would now, and gradually, begin to learn the significance of its extension to them. This was an element in their training. They were to become a society, and power was here promised them to exclude men from the community and to restore those who had been excluded. The context suggests the conditions which might occasion the exercise of this power. Indi- vidual wrong done to a brother ; the impenitence and the obduracy of the wrongdoer; his defiance of the authority of the society, when it was invoked, for- mally, and in the last instance, by his injured neighbour,—are the conditions under which the society was empowered to bind, and the happy reversal of them, those under which the society was empowered to loose; Divine ratification being promised to one and the other. But this dual power was, all through our Lord’s ministry, a promise, even as the blessing assured to St. Peter was a promise. The conditions necessary for its 1 Speaker's Commentary, St. Matt. xvi. 19. 2 St. Matt. xviii. 15-18. 438 The Christian Menistry. performance did not exist. The society was in- choate. There were internal strifes and petty jealousies, and even wrongs done by one to another. There was heat and displeasure. But the power here promised was not exercised. It could not be. And so months elapsed between the utterance of the Redeemer and its operation. It was a prophecy. But after the Crucifixion and the Resurrection, the society began to take shape. It had been dispersed and discredited. Their Master had been betrayed and deserted and murdered. The community was disintegrated by disaster, yet strangely held together to some degree, by scare, On the first Haster Day the Redeemer appears to them. His primal saluta- tion is addressed to their panic, which He graciously dispels by revealing His identity. The Person who greets them is the Son of Peace. Again, He speaks, and reveals the grand law which has ever since governed His Church: Peace—the starting-point for work. Then there is an indication of their despatch, of His authority, of their obedience to Him in work- ing out the Father’s will in the Son’s mission. The breathing—the Paschal gift—refers to their weakness and to their work. They had been dis- persed, scattered, and even demoralised. They were now, through the quickening breath of their living Lord, once more a society, and more a society than ever they had been. As a society they had received the Holy Ghost to quicken, to invigorate, to illu- minate them. And now the Risen Saviour grants what He had Promise Performed—Authority Exercised. 439 promised to the disciples months ago. Before the Resurrection He had said: ‘‘ Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and what- soever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” After the Resurrection, he says: ‘‘ Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.”’ The promise is thus performed. The Society is constituted. The community is commissioned to exercise authority. Christ empowers His Church to remit and to retain sins, which unless remitted or retained would imperil the existence of the society, by moral corruption and anarchy in the one case, by severity and narrowness in the other. We know, do we not, that, in apostolic times, this power was exercised? The incestuous Corinthian brought grave scandal upon the Church. His sin was condoned where it ought to have been condemned. St. Paul, as the founder of the Church, demands the exercise of discipline. He appeals to the Society. He surrounds it with the most impressive designation: ‘‘In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, to deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh.” He requires the exercise of those powers, which Christ gave, first to an apostle, then to the disciples, and at His resurrec- tion to the society: ‘‘ Put away from among your- selves that wicked person.’”’ And later on he shows that the punishment was inflicted “ of many.” But 440 The Christian Ministry. penitence did its blessed work. The wrongdoer caused the apostle to rejoice, and accordingly he entreats forgiveness for him, and assures the com- munity that their ‘‘remission,” their absolution, would be his. ‘‘To whom ye forgive anything I forgive also; for if I forgave anything to whom I forgave it, for your sakes forgave I it in the person of Christ.” Thus, the excommunication which the apostle referred to was the retention of sin, and — the absolution was the remission of sin. Hach was the act of the Divine society. References to the exercise of these disciplinary powers are found in the Epistles.. The Pauline letters suggest the prevalence of the discipline, en- forced as it was by penal sanctions, of a physical as well as of an ecclesiastical kind. ‘The mention of these in the Pastoral Epistles is what we should expect. Ifthe discipline which St. Paul demanded, authorised, exercised, and the sentence of which upon the wrongdoer was remitted, be the practical expression of the Lord’s fulfilment of the promise made to the disciples, and recorded by St. Matthew, then, since St. John’s Gospel was not written during St. Paul’s lifetime, the latter must have acquired his knowledge of the Saviour’s words either from the Saviour Himself, of which we have no evidence, or from the apostolic body. ‘This is, probably, the fact; in which case the words would be his authority. He would learn from them, and probably from apostolic obedience to them, the Christian 1 1 Tim, i. 20; v.20; Tit. iii, 10. Objection Recognised and Answered. 441 counterpart of that ecclesiastical order and dis- cipline which prevailed in the Hebrew Church.’ But, it will be asked, if this be the significance of the Redeemer’s Easter announcement; if these words are the performance of a promise which Christ ' The following are the three senses in which the words in St. John’s Gospel have been taken. (1) They are regarded as simply a commission to preach. This sense is sustained by the authority of great names. But first, if St. Luke’s account of this appearance of our Lord be connected with St. John’s, an announcement about preaching was subsequently or antecedently made, in which case there would be tautology. The same objection is pre- sented by our Ordinal. The words are there used as the formula by which the presbyter is ordained. After he has been ordained the bishop delivers to him the Bible, with the words: “ Take thou authority to preach the Word of God.” If the words of ordination gave him authority to preach—and this is practically the contention—then the succeeding words are a vain repetition. But secondly, it is hard to see how the words, ‘“‘ Whose sins thou dost forgive, they are forgiven ; and whose sins thou dost retain, they are retained,” can be made to mean “ Those who repent and believe through thy preaching shall be forgiven, and those who do not repent and believe shall not be forgiven.” This Bishop Reichel describes as “a fine specimen of the non-natural method of interpretation.” (2) The second sense assigned to the words connects them with the ad- mission to the Church by the sacrament of holy baptism, and the exclusion by excommunication. Here, again, many great and weighty names are cited. Bishop Harold Browne takes this view. He says: “The only authority which our blessed Lord thus conveyed to the first ministers was, more solemnly than before, authority to bind and to loose—that which is elsewhere called the power of the keys—so that ministerially they had the keys of the Church or Kingdom, to admit men to it by preaching and baptism, to exclude men from it by ex- communication, to restore them to it again by absolution. The assurance given them is that their acts, as Christ’s ministers in all these respects, shall be ratified THOBCAVED oy... ἡ, No more is meant by these solemn words in our ordination service than that, as Christ has left to the presbytery the right of ministering His sacraments, and of excluding from His sacraments, so the newly-ordained presbyter now receives by Christ’s own ordinance that right—a Divine com- mission to minister, and at the same time a Divine commission duly to exercise the authority of excluding the unworthy, and admitting again the penitent sinner.” It is remarkable that in the second book of the Homilies the Church officially asserts the view which is partially adopted by Bishop Harold Browne, and which is altogether adopted in the text : ‘‘ Christ ordained the authority of the keys to excommunicate notorious sinners, and to absolve them which are truly penitent” (Homily for Whitsunday, 566 p. 495). Both views (preaching and discipline) are found in Jewel’s Apology. The passage in which they are 442 The Christian Ministry. made to His disciples long before; if their design was to arouse convictions which had been lulled through sorrow, or terror, or despair, and to confer powers of discipline, which indicated expansion, duration, and even corporate life and authority, what room remains in this incident for the lofty and the spiritual evangel, which, after all, is the primary combined is given in full by Bishop Ryle (vide Ecpository Thoughts on St. John, vol. iii., p. 450). (3) The third sense is that in which the Latin Church regarded the words ever since the organisation of the Confessional. They were then first intro- duced into the post-ordination service of presbyters; they were supposed to confer upon man the prerogatives which belong alone to God, and it is in this latter sense they are now used to support the sacerdotal claim (ut supra). How Treneus and Tertullian would regard such a demand appears from the fact that each bases an important argument for the deity of Christ upon the truth that “none can forgive sins but God alone” (vide Iren., lib. v., c. 17 ; Tertul. adv. Mare., lib. iv., c. 10), Bingham’s summary of authority is well worth repro- ducing. He says: “The same argument is used by Novatian against the Ebionites, and Athanasius against the Arians. St. Basil also uses it as one of his strongest weapons against Eunomius; and the like is done by St. Hilary, and St. Chrysostom, and St. Jerome, and Victor of Antioch, and Cyril of Alexandria—who all argue for our Saviour’s divinity from this topic, ‘ that He had sovereign and absolute power upon earth to forgive sins” ..... The power of absolution in the Church is purely ministerial, and consists in the due exercise and application of those means, in the ordinary use of which God is pleased to remit sins: using the ministry of His servants, as stewards of His mysteries, in the external dispensation of them ; but Himself conferring the internal grace or gift of remission by the operation of His Spirit only upon the worthy receivers ” (vide Bingham, Ὁ. xix., 1, sec. 2). Hooker regards ministerial absolution as concerned with the dual aspects of sin. If against God, the minister can exercise but a declarative power, “‘ because really to affect the removal or continuance of sin in the soul of any offender is no priestly act, but a work which far exceedeth their ability ” (b. vi., c. vi, 5). If it be against an individual, or the Church, the absolution may be final and effectual. “The sentence of ministerial absolution hath two effects : touching sin, it only declareth us free from the guiltiness thereof, and restored into God’s favour ; but concerning right in sacred and divine mysteries whereof through sin we were made unworthy, as the power of the Church did before effectually bind and retain us from access unto them, so upon our apparent repentance it truly restoreth our liberty, looseth the chains wherewith we were tied, remitteth all whatsoever is past, and accepteth us no less, returned, than if we never had gone astray " (Hooker, b. vi., c. vi., δ). The Dual Commission of First Easter Day. 443 message of the Church to the world? Was there no announcement made respecting the forgiveness of sins, as against God? Is it credible, is it possible, that He Who died, ‘“‘ the Just for the unjust,” and ‘‘to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself,” would, on the first Easter Day, and in the first gathering of those followers to whom He appeared, be silent respecting the grand aim of His mission, the purpose of His atonement, the meaning of His sacrifice, and the message which they were to proclaim to those to whom they were sent ? The answer to these inquiries comes from St. Luke’s Gospel. There is strong evidence to justify our believ- ing that St. Luke and St. John give different accounts of the same appearance of Christ to the disciples and to ‘‘ those that were with them.” The day, the supernatural mode of Christ’s appearance, the words of salutation, the terror of the disciples, the merciful readiness of the Lord to dispel their alarm by rendering His identity undoubted, the joy which the recognition of their Master created—are common to both writers. St. John records special utterances which St. Luke does not. St. Luke records what St. John does not. St. Luke connects his narrative by terms which indicate continuity, sequence, and climax. Everything ascends to the grand announce- ment of the work to which Christ committed the society, and the moral necessity to which He Him- self had conformed. ‘‘ Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: And that repentance and remission of 444 The Christian Muintstry. sins should be preached in His name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.” In these words we have the authority of the evangel, the mode of its proclamation, the nature and effect of its an- nouncement, as well as its starting-point and range. The glory of the message reflects the glory of the day on which it was delivered. There seem to be a moral fitness and even a spiritual symmetry in the combination of the two narratives. They record a dual commission. St. Luke records the announce- ment of doctrine. St. John records the administra- tion of discipline. The latter informs us of the erection of the sosiety, of the work on which it is sent, and of the order by which it is to be, in part, presented. St. Luke records the work which awaits the society, the sphere in which it is to move, the announcement which it is to make, the authority upon which it is to rely, the universality of its enter- prise, and the city from which it issues. Hach narrative is the complement of the other.’ But even if they be dissevered ; if St. John’s record be not enlarged by the announcement which introduces the purely spiritual side of the society’s work, as 1 Tam well aware it is usual to disconnect these narratives, and so regard the words of our Lord, as reported by St. John, as spoken on this the fifth appearance on the first Easter Day, and the words reported by St. Luke as spoken on a different and a later occasion. I venture to think the internal evidence of the passages outweighs all that may be urged on behalf of the older view. Besides the coincidences, which are given above, there is another which may be mentioned. Many questions have been raised respecting the gift bestowed by our Lord when He breathed upon those who were assembled, and when He said: ‘“ Receive ye (the) Holy Ghost’’ (Λάβετε Πνεῦμα “ΑὙιον). Bishop H. Browne says this was “ evidently the ordatning grace of God” (p. 783). But this limits the breathing and the blessing to the apostles. It ignores the Sacerdotal Theory tgnores Exegetical Difficulties. 445 recorded by St. Luke, there is nothing gained for sacerdotalism from the analysis of these words. They record the fulfilment of an early promise made by Christ to His disciples. That fulfilment affected them as a society, and not as individuals. The words confer no personal prerogative. Addressed by our Blessed Lord to Jews, it is inconceivable He would use language which popularly understood meant one thing, but which, sacerdotally interpreted, meant another and a different thing, yea violated a fundamental principle of religion, as it was revealed in their Hebrew scriptures, a principle immutable and universal, that God alone can forgive sin. That principle was asserted by prophets, reiterated by apostles, accentuated by Christ. It is necessary, for the purposes of the sacerdotal claim that this principle be traversed. It is no less necessary to be proved that the apostles accepted the principle as thus violated, exercised the powers thus demanded and alleged to be conveyed, and that the powers thus conveyed, exercised, and bestowed exclusively upon them, were by them transmitted to others. We have seen that not one of these positions can be fact that others were present. Is not the true answer supplied by St. Luke’s Gospel : “ Then opened He their understanding, that they might understand the Scriptures”? Bishop Ryle takes this view : ‘‘ He must have meant that He now conferred on them a degree of light and knowledge of Divine truth, which hitherto they had not possessed. In fact, I believe the words point to the very thing which St. Luke says our Lord did on this occasion.” Lightfoot (also quoted by Bishop Ryle) thinks that “in interpreting these words, we must carefully remember that they were probably spoken in connection with our Lord’s words in St. Luke.” The two passages, together with St. Mark xvi. 14-18, are combined as recording the same appearance in Robinson’s /Zarmony of the Four Gospels. 446 The Christian Ministry. maintained. There is not an instance in the New Testament of the exercise of this power. The transmission of charismatic gifts, by a series of individuals, who though succeeding each other are independent of the Church, has no place in reason, in Scripture, in history, or in the literature of the Anglican Church. The powers bestowed by our Lord were not, then, personal or individual; they were social and corporate. The words which He uttered were not addressed to the apostles alone. The Holy Spirit was given to all present, even as it was given to all on the Day of Pentecost. Thus whether we study the gathering itself; the spiritual blessing bestowed ; or the words used, we fail to find any of the accompaniments of an ordination. The words cannot be regarded as the apostolic ordinal. Those who heard them were, so far as their lives enable us to form an opinion, unconscious of the awful prerogative they are so recently said to confer. And for thirteen centuries the words were neither so understood, nor applied. If Scripture and history are to be regarded, they confer no larger and no other powers now than they conferred when first they were uttered by Christ. Sacerdotalism, on their authority, demands other and larger and higher powers. These are not in the words. The words are not relevant to the claims. Attention must now be given to the sacerdotal theory, in connection with the office of the minister, and the work which depends upon it. He is re- garded as a sacrificing priest. In this capacity his Sacerdotal Office—a Preliminary Consideration. 447 work is ‘‘ to represent Christ,” ‘“‘to apply to men the merits of that sacrifice which He had offered on the Cross.’’ Through the exercise of his official right, commission, or prerogative, in sacramental consecra- tion, the eucharist becomes “‘ that which our blessed Lord took from the Virgin Mary, which He offered to God as an atoning sacrifice on the Cross, which the Almighty Father has glorified.” This sacrifice is “‘ propitiatory,” is available for ‘‘the living and for the dead,’ and may be perpetually presented. The officiant is thus, demonstrably and avowedly, a sacrificing priest. The offering which he makes is atoning. And the question now before us is, as regards the priest and the propitiation, What place is there for either in the Christian scheme? In endeavouring to reply to this inquiry, there are some preliminary considerations to be remembered, and of these reference may be made to one. It has to do with the fact of the inquiry being made at all. If, in the portion of the Church of Christ to which we belong, the inquiry has been made in various forms, and but from a comparatively recent period, then there is a suggestion either that the doctrine of priesthood and of propitiation, as now represented, is a fresh discovery in the field of theo- logical research, or it has been allowed to drop out of sight; in which case present controversy is but the effort—the legitimate effort—of good men to gain for ill-treated and forgotten truth its rightful place. But it is submitted the claims made for the officiant, and the tremendous powers which are ascribed to 448 The Christian Mintstry. him, in the atoning sacrifice which he is said to offer, are in themselves, if valid and efficacious, amongst the greatest conceivable securities to per- petual remembrance. HEndow a man with powers which are exclusive as a possession; imagine them actually equal to the performance of daily miracles ; suppose him capable of presenting to mankind an object in which the very Son of God is localised, and by the participation of which the sins of men were expiated; include, in the operative efficacy of this universal Oblation, the millions of the living and the myriads of the dead, and supposing these are essential elements of Galilean Christianity: would they ever have been obscured by ignorance, or neglected in favour of rival fashions in religion? There are at least two considerations to be reckoned with in venturing a reply. The necessity of mankind, met by an obvious and abiding pro- pitiation, and the effectual, indispensable, and exclusive prerogative of the priest would, in the nature of things, have made it in the highest degree improbable that these cognate conditions of office and of expiation could ever be neglected, much less absolutely forgotten. For although expe- rience shows, all too generally and too sadly, that men are careless and indifferent to spiritual affairs, the same experience shows no less powerfully, and on a scale of equal width, that of all the factors of religion, whether it be true or false, transient or abiding, there is no factor so vital as that which, under various subtle forms, is represented by priestly Szgnificance of Resistance to Sacerdotal Claims. 449 power. Yet, in the most vigorous and aggressive Church in Christendom, this very power was so little known for hundreds of years, that the attempt to enforce it now is met with the stoutest re- sistance. In other Christian communities it is unknown, and even repudiated. These considera- tions justify, as they suggest, the inquiry, as to whether such a power and such a sacrificial pro- pitiation could ever have died out, had either been an essential element in primitive Christianity. But this is preliminary. What we desire to ascertain now is the bearing of these phases of sacerdotalism upon the atoning work of the Redeemer, as well as upon the priestly character of the faithful, “the true high-priestly race of God,’’ from whom alone, according to Justin Martyr, ‘‘ He receives sacrifices.” ““God,” says the great apologist of Flavia Neapolis, “‘ receives sacrifices from no one, except through His priests.” ? (a) The atonement of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ is the one “full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world.” To it all the Mosaic sacrifices —partial, imperfect, and repeated—pointed. Each sacrifice expressed some one phase of human sin, and some one phase of the Saviour’s work. Every offermg was thus a fragment of a sacrificial mosaic, revealing, in some degree, the heinousness of sin, the holiness of God, the majesty of law, the ? οὐ δέχεται τὰς παρ᾽ οὐδενὸς θυσίας ὁ Θεὸς εἰ μὴ διὰ τῶν ἱερέων αὐτοῦ (Jus. M., ὁ. Try., CXvi.). 29 450 The Christian Ministry. mercy of Jehovah. Of these elements of religion, no one sacrifice presented a perfect picture. The paschal lamb contained, perhaps, more evangelical teaching than any other ordinance. It was an object-lesson in the fundamental principle of re- demption through sacrifice. The spotlessness of the Redeemer; His life forfeited; His blood sprinkled; individuality of appropriation; domestic religion ; missionary enterprise; and safety through substitution, are portrayed in this redemptive type. Nor is the feast which God instituted upon this sacrifice less instructive, solemnised as it is, to all time, by its connection with the Christian feast upon Christ’s sacrifice. Other sacrifices were or- dained; their institution, nature, object, and ritual forming the burden of one of the books of the Pentateuch. The most prominent of these were the burnt-offering, the meat-offering, the peace- offering, the sin-offering, and the trespass-offering, each presenting some special view of sin—its guilt, its power, its pardon. Hach, to the eye enlightened by spiritual sight, reveals some aspect of sinful necessity and of the Saviour’s work. The combination of all the sacrifices would present a full view of sin and of salvation, as God thought ft to reveal both to the Hebrew mind. But even then such a view would be inadequate, both as regards the universality of the application, and the efficacy of the sacrifice. The system, of which the sacrificial code was a section, had but a ‘‘shadow of good things to come.’’ The “ sacrifices Frequency of Offering, Inadeqguacy of Atonement. 451 which they offered year by year continually” never made those who presented them perfect. The constancy of the offering implied the inadequacy of the atonement. All the offerings were pro- spective. The most impressive, important, and significant service was that of the great Day of Atonement. It was the only public fast day known to the Mosaic law. It was a‘‘ sabbath of rest,’’ but it was also to be a day upon which the nation was summoned to ‘affliction’ of soul,’ in connection with the annual and emphatic solemnity of propitiation. That work was performed under conditions of peculiar, and even awful, severity. They appear, whether we consider the place in which the propitiation was made, the limitation of the office, to one day and to one man; or the sacrifices then presented. The Holy of Holies was the scene of this stupendous transaction. In it stood the ark of the covenant, which contained the tables of the law, and covering and concealing them the mercy seat. Law and Love here met together. Righteousness and peace were here united. The just God, yet the Saviour, declared to His people: ‘Here will I meet with thee.’’ Cherubims of glory over-shadowed the mercy-seat. That sacred chamber was entered but once in each year, and then by but one man. “If even the high-priest himself should enter into it on more than this one day in the year, or more than a second time on that day, he would ‘' This is the “fast” mentioned in Acts xxvii. 9, τὴν νηστείαν, “the Day of Atonement, 10th of Tisri (October).”— Vide Wordsworth, in loc. 452 The Christian Menistry. meet with inevitable death.” Entrance was effected through “ the veil,’’ which served the double purpose of separating the house of the capporeth from the holy place, and of providing the only way by which entrance was allowed. On the great Day of Atone- ment the stir of national life was stilled. The in- dustries of the people were inactive. A solemn pause solicited the souls of the Hebrews to ‘‘ commune with solitude, and listen to silence.” The nation, through its representative, ordained, constituted, and alone, was about to appear in the Presence of God. His robes of glory and of beauty were laid aside. A dress befitting humiliation, penitence, abasement, was assumed. These, the severe and simple vest- ments, authorised and appropriate, were worn by the high-priest only on that one day, and at that one service. He offered a sin-offering for himself and for his house. He took a censer full of burning coals of fire from off the altar before the Lord, and his hands were full of sweet incense beaten small. He brought it within the veil, that the cloud of the incense might cover the mercy-seat, which he also sprinkled with the blood of his own offering seven times. That incense taught him and the nation and the Church that, although propitiation was effected by sacrifice, man must ever appear before God as a suppliant, until, at least, his prayer shall take a higher tone, and ascend in praise. This act, ‘‘ for himself,” being over, he now made propitiation for the people. Two goats had been selected and presented before the Lord at the door of the tabernacle. They were Evangelical Teaching of Great Day of Atonement. 453 but one offering. This is distinctly stated, and it is important to remember it.’ One of these, was by lot, devoted to the Lord. It was doomed to die. It was the sin-offering for the people. The high-priest entered the Holy of Holies. He sprinkled the blood “‘upon the mercy-seat, and before the mercy-seat.” Atonement was now made for the holy place, for the tabernacle, for the altar of burnt-offering. The live goat was next brought. The high-priest confessed over him, still at the door of the tabernacle, “all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions,’’ and sent him away, with all his awful burden, into a land not inhabited, to the wilderness —fit emblem of that oblivion into which sin is borne by the final absolution of the one atoner. Atonement was made in the secrecy of the chamber in which God dwelt. Absolution was bestowed publicly. The two animals thus represented two phases of the same ordinance, Atonement and Absolution. Further into the ritual of the Day of Atonement, it is not necessary to go. From what has been reproduced, it will be seen that it is a picture in Hebrew ritual, of the atone- ment and of the incommunicable priesthood of Christ, which, when interpreted by the Epistle to the Hebrews, shows to a demonstration that Christ’s atonement admits of neither repetition nor reinforcement. The Levitical type brings before us a ceremonial—im- pressive, severe, unique. It was limited to one day, confined to one place, performed by one man, 1 Ley. xvi. 5. 454 The Christian Ministry. and with one purpose. The Christian antitype is exhibited to us, in connection with one sacrifice, once offered, by one high-priest, whose office may not be invaded. His Jewish type entered into the holy place twice. His nature was sinful, and needed expiation. His people were sinful, and had the same necessity. Christ, the High-Priest, was sinless. He accordingly entered, and once for all (ἐφάπαξ). That one entrance left the way open, for ever, and for all. The veil was rent. Access was unhindered. There was approach to God without any other mediator than the Man Christ Jesus. His Jewish type presented the blood of animals, and from the fulness of the idea to be depicted, and the spiritual inadequacy of the sacrifices, there was a divided sin- offering, and an annual presentation. Christ, by His own blood, entered once for all into the holy place, ‘having obtained eternal redemption for us.” ‘Thus there is but one propitiation, and but one high-priest to make it. Christ is Himself the Propitiator, and Himself the Priest. Around these dual and vitally connected doctrines the great and inspired argument in the Epistle to the Hebrews revolves. The writer insists upon the pre- valence of the one offering. He magnifies the inter- cession of the one priest. He contrasts the moral impotency of manifold sacrifices with the abiding and eternal efficacy of ‘the offering of the body of Jesus once for all.” He contrasts the daily ministrations of the Levitical priest, and his offering “ὁ oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never Argument of Epistle to the Hebrews. 455 take away sins,”’ with the one efficacious offering of the great High-Priest. He would ask his readers to note that even the difference in attitude of the type from the antitype expresses the restful finality of the work of the one and the essential ineffective- ness of the work of the other. ‘‘ Every priest standeth,” ‘“ but this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God.” Yea, the efficacy of the atonement is the fulfilment of a covenant; and the burden of a prophecy, while it supplied the reason for the abolition of ‘more offering for sin,” and there- with the inutility of the Temple services and the extinction of the Temple priesthood. Through the atonement of Christ sins and iniquities were remembered no more. And “ where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.” The abolition of propitiation involves the extinction of the priest. Upon these truths, and upon the high-priesthood of Christ, the apostle grounds his exhortation, ‘‘ to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus.” Upon these he claims for every sinful soul an indivi- dual share in the once for all offered sacrifice, and he also claims, as the bloodbought privilege of every sinner, direct access to God. He considers that the prerogative of the Jewish high-priest, exercised by him but once a year, in fear and trembling, is now, in and through Christ Jesus, the personal, inde- feasible privilege of every believer, and at all times. “‘Kach Christian, in virtue of his fellowship with 456 The Christian Mienistry. Christ, is now a high-priest, and is able to come into the very presence of God.’’? The interpretation of the ritual of the great Day of Atonement, by the Epistle to the Hebrews, enables us to reply to the inquiry made, as to a place being found in Christianity for a sacrificing priest, for a ‘‘ human mediator,” and for the propitiation which he makes, or secures, or develops. That answer assumes the inspiration of the Epistle. On this assumption, it may be stated there is no further sacrificial propitiation for sin, possible, necessary, or conceivable. There is no official in the religion of Christ empowered to offer additional expiation, or, by whose act, intervention, or office, the atonement of Christ becomes operative, effectual, or applicable. There is no sacerdotal intermediary by whom the grace of God is necessarily communicated, or through whom the God of grace is necessarily approached. This conclusion is strengthened by the absolute silence of the New Testament with respect to any expiatory connection between the atonement and the eucharist; by the conspicuous and remark- able disuse of sacerdotal designation? to describe the Christian Ministry, by those who are well ac- quainted with the use and the significance of the term ; and by the witness of sub-apostolic literature. (8) There is no ordinance of Christianity which is now so frequently connected with expiation as the Supper of the Lord. ‘Therein, the priest asserts 1 Westcott on Hp. Heb., p. 318. 2 ἱερουργοῦντα τὸ εὐαγγέλιον (Rom. xv. 16. Vide Alf.). Uncertainty as to Sacramental Propitiation. 457 his sacerdotal power. The passages which have been cited above indicate the essential relationship which is said to exist between the office of the priest and the propitiatory virtue of the sacrament. There is some divergence of opinion upon this latter point. One disclaims the idea of renewed propitiation. Others apostrophise the eucharist, in a somewhat aggressive suffrage, as the ‘‘ true propitiation for the living and the dead,’ the emphasis of which is assuredly increased by the fact that the phrase is found in a semi-official manual of devotion.’ Others recognise in it the ‘‘means of bringing out into act and effect the all-availing power of the atone- ment.” And a fourth says that the response of God to the Church’s invocation “ gave to the Church’s sacrifice a new power, and brought it into essential union with the One Sacrifice, with ‘Jesus, the Mediator of the New Covenant,’ and with the blood of sprinkling.” ‘ But for this,” it is added, ‘the Church’s sacrifice would have been most Judaic in character.’’* How ‘renewed propitiation’’ can be denied to the sacrament, when it is addressed in a litany as ‘‘true propitiation for the living and the dead,” is not quite clear. To recognise in it the means by which the atonement becomes operative and applicable, is to claim for it nothing less than the personal power of the Holy Ghost. But to regard the invocation of the Church, and the Divine 1 The Priest's Prayer Book, Litany of the Blessed Sacrament, p. 191. * The Church and the Ministry, p. 227,n. Vide Appendix on “ The Prophecy of Malachi,” etc. 458 The Christian Mintstry. response thereto, as uniting the sacrament with the “blood of sprinkling,” is to perpetuate a sacrifice which was ‘once for all offered,’ and to place the most sacred ordinance in the Christian system in studied and constant opposition to the dying words of Christ; to the reiterated language of the New Testament; to the spirit and the genius of the Epistle to the Hebrews ; to the spiritual consolations which the writer of that book presented to his per- plexed countrymen, in encouraging them to bear the afflictions to which their separation from an expiring system exposed them, because of the transcendent glory of a perfect sacrifice, which pardoned all sin; of the great High-Priest, through whom the spiritual blessings of the Gospel came ; and of the truth, ideal and actual, that all the faith- ful were, in Christ, ‘‘ the high-priestly race of God.” Wherever there is such divergence of opinion, there is generally some error. It will hardly, however, be considered erroneous if it be stated that, amongst those with whose opinion we have now to do, the eucharist is regarded as a propitiatory sacrifice, and he who offers it is represented as, in that sense, a priest. It will be helpful to the examination of these theories if we refer briefly, not so much to the institution of the Lord’s Supper, as to the historical typology with which it was then associated, not omitting some reference to a portion of the sacrificial system, with which the Saviour seems to have brought it into touch. It will be necessary, moreover, to refer to what is known as Ffhistorical Typology and Sacrificial Correspondence. 459 the Invocatio Dei. We shall thus be able to see the position of the Anglican Church with respect to the theory of sacramental propitiation, of which the Invocatio Dei is a central factor. The sacrifice of our Lord was, at the same time, the fulfilment of historical typology, and the ex- haustion of the sacrificial system. When St. Paul said, ‘‘ Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us,’ he imphed that to us the sacrifice of Christ was what the passover lamb was to the house of Israel. In that type are found features which indicate the sinlessness, the perfection, and the death of Christ, together with the condition upon which its bless- ings are available. The application of the blood saved from death and issued in deliverance from bondage. The emancipation was national, but it was typically prospective. It told of redemption for an enslaved world from the thraldom of sin. It taught that redemption would be effected and bestowed in a particular way. It typified re demption through sacrifice. When the Saviour was designated “our Passover,’ and when He is said to have been “sacrificed for us,” the leading features of the type are claimed as fulfilled in the antitype. Man is delivered, and by the sacrifice of the ‘‘ very Paschal Lamb, which was offered for us, and hath taken away the sin of the world.” But it is to be remembered that Christ’s sacri- fice also fulfilled the whole sacrificial system. Every sacrifice had its correspondence in the 1 Proper Preface upon Easter Day (vide Office for the Holy Communion). 460 The Chrestian Ministry. Saviour’s. They were partial; they were limited in their nature, efficacy, and range. His was com- plete and perfect, was unlimited in its efficacy, and universal in its range. He ‘“‘ made an end of sin ;’’ He made an end of propitiation. He annulled, because He exhausted, all the expiatory types. This truth is different from, yet complementary to, that which is taught us by Christ’s fulfilment of the historical type. That proclaimed redemp- tion by sacrifice: this forgiveness of sins by sacrificial expiation. Now there was one feature common to the paschal sacrifice and to all the types of expiation under the Mosaic system. Hach had its festive consequent, which was termed a ‘feast to the Lord,” or a minchah, or thank- offering.’ Sacrificial expiation preceded participa- tion of sacrificial food. The passover was a “feast to the Lord,’ which followed the sacrifice. The minchah was a feast upon a sacrifice. Its materials, as represented especially in the meat-offering gene- rally (Lev. ii.; Num. xv. 4, ff), were fine flour, oil, frankincense, and wine. At the passover at which our Lord instituted the sacrament of His blessed Body and. Blood, there was, beside the accustomed food, bread, which by Divine command belonged to the feast, and wine which did not, but which from an early period had been intro- duced. The bread was used alike at the passover } Vide Appendix on “ The Prophecy of Malachi: Its eucharistic significance and patristic application.” Vide also Exod. xii. 14, xxix. 40, 41; Num. xxviii. 9,10; xxix. 3, 4, 14, 15; xxxviii. 11-14; Lev. xvi. 3, cf. Num. xxix. 11. The Lord's Supper, the Christian Minchah. 461 meal, and, at first, in its natural state, flour, and afterwards in its manufactured state, at every offer- ing of the minchah. Wine belonged to the latter and not to the former. We have thus two ele- ments, bread and wine. Our Lord used both at the Last Supper. The selection of these elements was in accordance with the principle which adapted Jewish usages to Christian purposes. The signi- ficance of the selection seems to be to combine in one feast the dual and antitypical aspects of Christ’s atonement, by combining the feasts which followed, first upon the passover deliverance, and constantly upon the sacrificial expiations for sin. And as the sacrifice of the Cross corresponded to the redemptive deliverance from Egypt through the passover, and completed all sacrificial expiation, so the bread and wine commemorated that suacri- fice, followed upon it, and was designed to be, in the Christian system, the great minchah—festive, joyous, eucharistic ; corresponded to the meat- offerings of the Hebrew system, but attaining to a dignity which was commensurate with the greatness of the sacrifice of which it is the feast. The Hebrew minchah was unbloody. It was not expiatory. It was subsequent to expiation, but it was essentially, chronologically, and regularly dis- connected from expiation. To make it expiatory, either by ‘“‘connection’’ or by “consecration,” or with a view to render expiation operative, would violate the nature of expiatory sacrifice and of the meat offering. Such a conception is excluded by 462 The Christian Ministry. the nature of the sacrifice as well as by Divine law. It would never be conceived by the Hebrew mind, and it is not unreasonable to say that when our Lord consecrated the principal ingredients of the feast of the passover—bread, instead of the lamb, and wine from the meat-offering—He consecrated them preserving their original significance, which were thanksgiving and fellowship, and excluding from them what no Jew would ever think of including— the notion of expiation. But, it may be replied, our Lord used words which appear to imply expiation: ‘This is My blood of the New ‘Testament which is shed for many for the remission of sins.” This sentence, together with the language of the First Epistle to the Corinthians, is to be interpreted by the language which was used in connection with the feast at which the lLord’s Supper was instituted. The lamb, when set on the table to be eaten at the passover, was commonly called by the Jews ‘‘ the body of the paschal lamb.” It was ‘‘ the Lord’s passover.”’ It represented.the Lord’s passover. It was not that fresh national deliverance was an- nually needed or bestowed. It was that the memory of that deliverance might never fade from their minds, and that the spiritual anticipation of a higher deliverance might ever be in ours. As their participation of that feast would enable them to be strengthened and refreshed by feeding upon the covenant blessings of Jehovah, so our feeding upon all that is represented to us by the broken Expiration Excluded by Typology, Nature, Elements. 463 bread and by the outpoured wine, strengthens and refreshes our souls by believingly feeding again and again, and yet again, upon the covenant blessings of God in Christ, whose blood sealed that covenant. We are thus led to exclude from the great Christian minchah the idea of expiation. It is excluded because of the significance which belonged, in the Hebrew system, to the constituent elements of the sacrament, by the place which they held in the sacrificial order, and which connected them with thanksgiving, while it ever excluded them from propitiation. If this contention be scriptural ; if it be sustained by the doctrine of the finality of Christ’s atonement, by His having instituted a “sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving” because of the atonement, and by the sequence which of old prevailed by Divine command—namely, the fes- tive joy succeeding upon, yet ever separated from, expiation: then the Lord’s Supper cannot be re- garded as expiatory without violating a sequence which obtains, no less from the nature of the case than by Divine institution; without saddening the joyous spirit of the ordinance itself; and with- out perpetuating upon earth a propitiation, the finality and oneness of which is the basis of the argument of the Epistle to the Hebrews; is the ground upon which the sacred writer rests his claim for the greatness and the glory of the Chris- tian dispensation, as well as the _high-priestly privileges of the redeemed. There is, moreover, a thought, the discussion of 464 The Christian Ministry. which cannot be undertaken here, but the mention of which is pertinent. All the circumstances which surround the institution are tinged with social and spiritual festivity. These re-appear in the recorded experiences of its commemoration in apostolic and sub-apostolic history. While its heavenly aspect is communion with God, its social aspect is communion with man. ‘There, if ever, we have holy and happy fellowship with each other. There, if ever this side heaven, believing souls realise, at the Lord’s Table, the communion of saints. There, if ever, ‘‘loyal hearts and true’ raise the Gloria in excelsis, consoled by the security of the One Propitiation ; strengthened by the nutriment of the spiritual food upon which faith feeds ; and rejoicing in hope of that glory which must be but prospective ‘till He come.” Is this communion compatible with expiation? Can the idea of sanctified and of sacramental fellowship synchronise with the idea of sacramental expiation ? Are not different and mutually exclusive ideas presented by these words? -Expiation speaks of transgression, of death, of law, its reign and its righteousness. Communion speaks of pardon, of peace, of reconciliation, of love, its exhibition, and its in- fluence. Can these two ideas co-exist in the same offering, at the same time? It may be doubted whether either the Godward or the social aspect of communion is possible as a sacramental conception, if the worshipper be impressed with the there-and-then conception of expiation. Let a worshipper regard the Lord’s Supper as a propitiation, and he will Grave Spiritual Danger. 465 hardly regard it as a feast in which he holds commu- nion with God, or communion with man. Moreover —and these words are written as in the Presence of God—amid all the mysteries of the Cross, there is no mystery which is so impenetrable as that which is known by the awful term “dereliction.’”’ The holiness of the ground forbids us to invade it with the utterance of one polemical word. But as we hear that cry of Desolation, from the broken heart of Christ, it seems to suggest—does it not ?—that even that Expiation involved a condition which was described by Him who experienced it as being “forsaken.” ‘There, the height of propitiation is the depth of isolation, and if one further word may be ventured upon, it would be, that when the conscious- ness of atonement was supreme, the consciousness of communion was Here we pause. For the rest we cannot, must not, dare not, pen. The thoughts which are suggested send us to our knees. The soul goes in to its very deepest self, and then, in wondering and adoring faith, looks off to Christ. That look and His cry of Desolation seem to teach us Expiation precludes communion. If this be so, then the sacerdotal and sacramental theories of the hour present a new and a great danger. They make the souls of the righteous sad, whom God hath not made sad. They raise a requiem over the dead Christ, when angels sing “ΗΘ is risen.”” They interrupt communion with God and communion with man. They destroy the central idea of the Lord’s Supper. 30 466 The Christian Ministry. But our attention must now be given to the means which are employed to give ‘‘ to the Church’s sacrifice a new power,” to bring ‘it into essential union with the One sacrifice, with Jesus, the Mediator of the new covenant,’ and with “the blood of sprinkling.”’ These effects are said to be produced by the response of God to the Church’s invocation. They consist of the ‘‘ consecration” of the elements ‘“‘ by the Holy Spirit.’’ The sequence appears to be the invocation of the Church, the response of God, the consequent union of the elements on the altar with the sacrifice of the Saviour. The reader need hardly be reminded that, in the inspired pages which record our Lord’s institution of His Holy Supper, there is not a trace of either invo- cation by the faithful, consecration by the Holy Ghost, or of the effect which these are said to pro- duce upon the elements. The opinions of patristic writers, upon these points, may be seen, at some length, elsewhere in these pages.’ But it is well to see how these theories stand, when compared with the authoritative teaching of the Church of England. We have accordingly to inquire where this invocation appears in the Anglican Communion Office. What evidence does that document afford of such a change as indicates the consciousness of the Church in the invocation being offered; in the further fact of a Divine response to it; and, in the \ Vide Appendix on “ The Prophecy of Malachi: Its eucharistic significance and patristic application.” Invocation once Inserted in Anglican Office. 467 still further fact, of such a change in the elements as the position in review asserts and requires ? In endeavouring to reply to these inquiries we must refer to the Sarum Missal, which, in the reign of Edward VI. and in that of Queen Elizabeth, was the basis of our present Book of Common Prayer, and we must observe what alterations were made as concerning the invocation. Before 1549, the words of the Sarum Missal ran thus: ‘‘ Which oblation do thou, O God, we beseech Thee, in all things vouchsafe to make ble-kssed, adm>kitted, ταῦ] Ἢ fied, reasonable, and acceptable, that it may be made to us the Bo-kdy and Blood of Thy most beloved Son, our Lord Jesus Christ.’’ This invocation is remarkable, because of what it omits as well as because of what it asks. It omits any reference to the Holy Ghost. It craves from God a change in the “ oblation.”’ In 1549, this invocation was altered thus: ‘‘ Hear us, O merciful Father, we beseech Thee, and with Thy Holy Spirit and Word vouchsafe to bless and sanc-Ktify these Thy gifts and crea- tures of bread and wine that they may be unto us the body and blood of Thy most dearly beloved Son Jesus Christ.” This differs from that of the Sarum Missal in some important particulars. The name of the Holy Spirit is introduced, together with “the Word.” ‘The change in the elements is some- what modified. The difference is but slight, namely, between ‘‘may be made” and ‘‘may be;” but the whole position may be thus presented :— 468 The Christian Ministry. THE LORD’S “ Jesus took bread, and blessed it... . 1 λαβὼν ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἄρτον καὶ εὐλογήσας. .. . (St. Matt. xxvi. 26, 27; St. Mark xiv. 22-23; A.D. 100 (Didache). A.D. 150 (Justin M.). “Now as regards the Eucharist, give thanks after this manner: First, for the cup: ‘We give thanks to Thee, our Father, for the holy vine of David Thy ser- vant, which Thou hast made known to us through Jesus, Thy servant: to Thee be the glory for ever.’ And for the broken bread: ‘We give thanks to Thee, our Father, for the life and knowledge which Thou hast made known to us through Jesus, Thy servant : to Thee be the glory for ever. As this broken bread was scattered upon the mountains and gathered together became one, so let Thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Thy kingdom, for Thine is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ for ever.’”* 2 Περὶ δὲ τῆς εὐχαριστίας, οὕτω εὐχαριστήσατε. ἸΤρῶτον περὶ τοῦ ποτηρίου. Ἐὐχαριστοῦμεν σοι, ἸΪάτηρ ἡμῶν, ὑπὲρ τῆς ἁγίας ἀμπέλου Δαβὶδ τοῦ παιδός σου, ἧς ἐγνώρισας ἡμῖν διὰ ᾿Τησοῦ τοῦ παιδός σου" σοὶ ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας. Ilepi δὲ τοῦ κλάσματος" Εὐχαριστοῦμέν σοι, Ilarnp ἡμῶν, ὑπὲρ τῆς ζωῆς καὶ γνώσεως, ἧς ἐγνώρισας ἡμῖν διὰ ᾿Ιησοῦ τοῦ παιδός σοι, etc., ut supra. Ὥσπερ ἣν τοῦτο κλάσμα διε- σκορπισμένον ἐπάνω τῶν ὀρέων καὶ συναχθὲν ἔγένετο Ev, οὕτω συναχθήτω σου ἣ ἐκκλησία ἀπὸ τῶν περάτων τῆς γῆς εἰς τὴν σὴν βασιλείαν" ὅτι σοῦ ἐστιν ἡ δόξα καὶ ἡ δύναμις διὰ ᾽Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας (Did. ix.). THE BEFORE, DURING 3 Sarum Missal, ante 1548. A.D. 1549 (Common Prayer). “ We have been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His Word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus Who was made flesh.’’$ 3 σὴν δί εὐχῆς λόγου τοῦ παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ εὐχαριστηθεῖσαν τροφήν. ἐξ fs αἷμα καὶ σάρκες κατὰ μεταβολὴν τρέφονται ἡμῶν. ἐκεί- νου τοῦ σαρκοποιηθέντος Ἰησοῦ καὶ σάρκα καὶ αἷμα ἐδιδάχθημεν εἶναι (Just. Mart., Prima A pol., 1, lxvi.). Vide Appendix on “The Prophecy of Malachi,” etc., for significance of above. BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER, AFTER REFORMATION. A.D. 1552, 1559, 1604, 1662 (Common Prayer). “Which oblation do Thou, O God, we beseech Thee, in all things, vouch- safe to make ble & ssed, adm *%itted, rati ® fied, reasonable, and acceptable, that it may be made to us the Bomwdy and Blood of Thy most be- loved Son.” “Hear us, and Word vouchsafe bl ess and wine that they may be s, O merciful Father, we beseech Thee, and with Thy Holy Spirit to “Grant that we receiving these Thy creatures of bread and wine, according to Thy Son our Saviour | Jesus Christ’s holy institu- and sane ¥tify these Thy} tion, in remembrance of gifts and creatures of bread | His death and passion, may be partakers of His most blessed Body and unto us the Body and Blood of | Blood.” Thy most dearly beloved Son.” Obtains in Scottish Liturgy. 469 SUPPER, A.D. 33. He took the cup, and gave thanks.””! καὶ δεξάμενος ποτήριον εὐχαριστήσας. St. Luke xxii. 19, 20; 1 Cor. xi. 23-25). A.D. 182-88 (Irenzus). A.D. c. 350 (Liturgy Apost. Const.). “The bread, which is produced from the “Send down Thy Holy Spirit upon earth, when it receives the invocation of | this sacrifice Who is the witness of the God, is no longer common bread, but the | sufferings of the Lord Jesus, that He Eucharist, consisting of two realities,| may exhibit this bread the body of earthly and heavenly.” ‘When we have} Thy Christ, and this cup the blood of erfected the oblation, we invoke the Holy | Thy Christ.” ἢ pirit, that He may exhibit this sacrifice, both the bread the body of Christ, and the cup the blood of Christ, in order that the receiver of these antitypes may obtain re- mission of sins and life eternal.’ * * Vide Latin and significance of both ex-| ὃ For Greek, vide Appendix, μέ supra tracts in the Appendix on “The Prophecy | (Apost. Const. viii., c. xii.). of Malachi,” etc. THE SCOTTISH COMMUNION OFFICE. A.D. 1890 (draft as now A.D. 1637. A.D, 1764. suggested), “Vouchsafe so to bless “And we most humbly| ‘And we most humbly beseech and sanctify with Thy | beseech Thee, O Merciful | Thee, O Merciful Father, to hear Word and Holy Spirit | Father, to hear us, and of | us, and of Thy Almighty good- these Thy gifts and|Thy Almighty goodness | ness vouchsafe to bless and sanc- creatures of bread and | vouchsafe to bless and| tify, with Thy Holy Spirit, this wine, that they may be | sanctify, with Thy Word | Bread and this Cup, that they unto us the Body and | and Holy Spirit, these Thy | may be the Body and Blood of Blood of Thy most | giftsandcreaturesof bread | Thy most dearly beloved Son, dearly beloved Son.” and wine that they may | that so whosoever shall receive become the Body and Blood | the same may be sanctified both of Thy most dearly beloved | in soul and body, and preserved Son.” unto everlasting life.” 470 The Christian Ministry. How the alteration.was regarded, contemporaneous history shows. Gardiner, of Winchester, argued that, on these words, ‘“‘ the body of Christ is made present to us, as the Church prays, which prayer is ordered to be made in the Book of Common Prayer now set forth.”? To which Cranmer re- plied: ‘‘The bread and the wine be made unto us the body and blood of Christ (as it is in the Book of Common Prayer), but not by changing the sub- stance, etc... . but that in the Godly using of them they be, unto the receivers, Christ’s body and blood. ... And, therefore, in the Book of the Holy Communion, we do not pray absolutely that the bread and wine may be made the body and blood of Christ, but that unto us in that holy mystery they may be so: that is to say, that we may so worthily receive the same, that we may be partakers of Christ’s body and blood, and that therewith in spirit and in truth we may be spiri- tually nourished.”* Gardiner’s contention, and the apparent sense of the invocation, upon which he based it, led to the alteration which was made in 1552, and which continued through the further revisions of 1559, 1604, and 1662. That change presented the words as we have them now: “ Grant that we receiving these Thy creatures of bread and wine, according to Thy Son our Saviour Jesus Christ’s holy institution, in remembrance of His death and passion, may be partakers of His most 1 Works of Archbishop Cranmer, v i., p. 79 (Parker Soc. Ed.). * Ibid. Vide also Question of Anglican Ordinations, Estcourt, p. 323. Excluded, after Three Years, from Anglican Office. 471 blessed Body and Blood.’ Here, the invocation for the descent of the Holy Ghost upon the elements disappears. It was struck out, and instead of the prayer being for a change in the elements, we have a prayer for those who receive them. This revi- sion involves the doctrine that what is received is but bread and wine, and that the presence of Christ’s body and blood is only in the believing participation. But, with these progressive alterations in the invocation, what becomes of the theory under exa- mination? There is no invocation for the con- secration of the elements by the Holy Ghost in the Church of England.! There is no idea, even in the way of supposition, of ‘‘ the Divine response ”’ 1 The Scotch Liturgy preserves the Invocation, as does also the liturgy of the American Protestant Episcopal Church. In the latter, the most important portion of the service consists of (a) the Prayer of Consecration ; (Ὁ) the Oblation; (6) the Invocation ; (@) the first of our post-Communion prayers. These are united, and form one supplication. Passing by the inversion of the -order in which the Invocation appears, as compared with the Greek liturgies and with the First Prayer Book of Edward VI., we notice important changes in the form of the Invocation: “And we most humbly beseech Thee, O merciful Father, to hear us; and of Thy Almighty goodness, vouchsafe to bless and sanctify, with Thy Word and Holy Spirit, these Thy gifts and creatures of bread and wine; that we, receiving them according to Thy Son our Saviour Jesus Christ’s holy institution, in remembrance of His death and passion, may be partakers of His most blessed Body and Blood.” Here the Invocation is for the Holy Spirit to sanctify the elements, and to bless the communicants. There is no idea of either a change in the elements or of propitiation in the sacrament. The Scotch Office is very different. The order is the same as that which is pointed out in the American Office. The Invocation is essentially different ; ἐς And we most humbly beseech Thee, O merciful Father, to hear us; and of Thy Almighty goodness vouchsafe to bless and sanctify with Thy Word and Holy Spirit these Thy gifts and creatures of bread and wine, that they may become the Body and Blood of Thy most dearly beloved Son.” Here the Invocation omits all reference to the communicants, but craves a change in the 472 The Christian Muntstry. to an appeal which is never made. Without the Divine response, how do the elements receive the ‘““new power’? By what are they ‘‘ brought into essential union with the one sacrifice, with ‘Jesus, the Mediator of the new covenant,’ and ‘ with the blood of sprinkling’?”’ So far as we know the mind of the Church of England from that portion of her authorised manual of devotion—which was the most hotly debated during the various revisions through which the Prayer Book passed—we are enabled to say that she has no consciousness of any invocation on behalf of the elements; no con- sciousness of any consecration of them by the Holy Ghost; no consciousness of any expiatory connection being established thereby, between God’s. ‘creatures of bread and wine,” and the sacrifice of Him who was offered up ‘once for all.” Nor may we omit the fact that the Black Rubric, the Articles, and the Homilies, not only refuse to elements. This form has obtained in the Scottish Episcopal Church since 1764. In 1889, the Communion Office formed the burden of a “ Pastoral Letter of the: Scottish Bishops,” in which the Invocation as here given is altered and enlarged. The draft as printed last year runs thus: ‘And we most humbly beseech Thee,, O merciful Father, to hear us, and of Thy Almighty goodness vouchsafe to bless and sanctify with Thy Holy Spirit, this Bread and this Cup, that they may be the Body and Blood of Thy most dearly beloved Son; that so whosoever shall receive the same may be sanctified both in body and soul, and preserved unto. everlasting life.’ Here the Invocation is for the Holy Ghost. It craves that the elements may be Christ’s Body and Blood, and this as reflecting, more clearly, than “may become,” our Lord’s language when He instituted the sacrament. The Invocation in the Scottish Office will have thus gone through three changes. In 1637, the prayer was that the elements “may be unto us,” etc. ; indeed the whole Invocation is nearly the same as that introduced into the First Prayer Book of Edward VI., 1549. In 1764, the words were altered to: “may become unto us.” In 1890, it is proposed by the Scottish bishops, they should be again altered to “ may be the Body and Blood,” etc. Invocation Theory Authoritatwely Discredited. 473 sustain the hypothesis which is represented by the Invocation; they are interlocked with the doctrine which the revisions of the Communion Office in the Prayer Book have committed to us, as the deliberate conclusion at which the Church of England, “in the time” of “her tribulation’”—yea, ‘in the hour” in which her noblest men laid down their lives—arrived. That conclusion is the more em- phatic, because we have seen that the Invocation, as it has been described, had no place in the Sarum Missal. It was first inserted in the Edwardine Prayer Book of 1549. It was allowed a place there for three years. It was then expunged, and has never since gained recognition in the constituted and authoritative language of the Church. Thus, all that is involved in the presence of the invoca- tion the Church once desired, but, after ἃ brief experience, the Church deliberately discarded—a fact which disparages the theory with a far deeper discredit than if it had never been allowed a place in the liturgy. It excludes the idea of propitia- tion from the eucharist. If propitiation be excluded, where is room found for the priest? ‘‘ Seeing then that sacrifice is now no part of the Church ministry how should the name of priesthood be thereunto applied ?’’? ' Hooker, b. v., 6, lxxviii., 2: ‘‘ The whole body of the Church being divided into laity and clergy, the clergy are either presbyters or deacons. I rather term the one sort presbyters than priests, because in a matter of so small moment I would not willingly offend their ears to whom the name of priest- hood is odious, though without cause.” Hooker, later on, shows the indifference of this designation by saying that the word “flesh” is applied to fishes, ‘although it be in nature another thing,” just as the name of a senator or an 474 The Christian Ministry. This inquiry can have but one answer. The title ἱερεύς 15. not once applied in the New Testament to any official in the Christian system.!' The signifi- cance of the word is indisputable. There was no term more popular, more easily understood, more definitely applied, than that of priest. It was always used to describe one who offered sacrifice. The Old Testament illustrates this abundantly. Through all the centuries which elapsed since the erection of the Hebrew sacerdotal system, and its hereditary suc- cession through the Aaronic line up to the close of the centuries of silence, the priest ‘‘ offered sacri- fices,” and made such expiation for the sins of the people as was possible under the hmited conditions of an elementary religion. The term is applied, in the same sense, to the officiants of the idolatrous worship of Baal. Nor is it absent from the pages of the New Testament. The Synoptic writers, as well as St. John, and the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews, use and apply it in the sense in which it is applied, for the most part, in the Old Testament. The term does not appear in any of St. Paul’s Epistles. Although he writes fully about the alderman is applied to persons who are not necessarily old. ‘The Fathers of the Church of Christ with like security of speech call usually the ministry of the Gospel priesthood in regard of that which the Gospel hath proportionadle to ancient sacrifices, namely, the Communion of the blessed body and blood of Christ, although it have properly now no sacrifice. Wherefore, to pass by theyname, let them use what dialect they will, whether we call it a priesthood or presbyter- ship, or ministry, it skilleth not—although in truth the word presbyter doth seem more fit, and in propriety of speech more agreeable, than priest with the drift of the whole Gospel of Jesus Christ” (Hooker, b. v., c. 1xxiii., 2, 3). 1 “The Holy Ghost throughout the body of the New Testament making no such mention of them doth not anywhere call them priests ” (Zdid,, 3). ἱερεύς never Applied to Ministers in New Testament. 475 Christian Ministry, its origin, message, responsibility, and even maintenance, he never pens the word in connection with their office. They are ‘ ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God.”! They are ‘‘ambassadors for Christ,” ἡ yea, ‘‘ minis- ters of God.’ * They are deacons, presbyters, bishops, but never once are they designated priests. Where so many terms are employed to describe those who bore office in the Church, in early times— and employed, too, by those who were well ac- quainted with the significance of the terms which were used, as well as with one which was not used, it appears as if this latter term were avoided. This suspicion is strengthened by the fact that the term is, in its highest sense,applied to Jesus Christ. He is “a merciful and faithful High-Priest,’” yea, He is the “‘ Apostle and High-Priest,’’ and as such He ‘‘occupies the double position of Legislator-Hnvoy from God, and Priest,” thus combining the functions of Moses and Aaron.* He surpasses them in power and in glory. He can bring His people into the 1 οἰκονόμους μυστηρίων Θεοῦ (1 Cor. iv. 1). The word μυστήριον has two meanings in Holy Scripture. It signifies the revelation of what was secret (vide St. Matt. xiii. 11; 1 Cor. xiii. 2; xv. 51; Rom. xi. 25; xvi. 25; Eph. iii- 3, 4,9; Col. i. 26, 27; 2 Thes. ii. 7) ; and is generally associated with the idea of illumination. It also signifies a symbol (vide Eph. v. 32; Rev. i. 20). It is in this latter sense the word occurs in the Holy Communion Office. The word has also an ecclesiastical meaning. In this sense, it is a rite to which “ none but the initiated are admitted.” In early times, catechumens were prepared for holy baptism, and after its administration, they were admitted to the Lord’s Supper. The sacraments under these circumstances were termed μυστήρια (vide Dic. Chr. Antiq.). 2 2 Cor. v. 20. 3 2 Cor. vi. 4. Ep. Hebrews, Westcott, p. 74. 476 The Christian Ministry. rest which was prefigured, and His priesthood abideth ever. It is Melchizedekean, intransmissi- ble, unimpaired, unchangeable, intercessory. Thus, priesthood, and high-priesthood, are ascribed to Christ. These are sacerdotal terms. If “ sacer- dotalism in the Christian system can only be the claim to represent Christ,’’’ how is it that the term by which the principle is expressed is frequently appled to Him, but never applied to those who first ministered under Him ? This difficulty was urged long ago upon one of the ablest controversialists the Church of Rome ever produced. Bellarmine was hard pressed by Chem- nitz upon this point. He admitted the fact, for indeed this is undeniable. He endeavoured to ex- plain it, and his explanation is practically adopted by sacerdotalists to-day. ‘‘ It was,’ we are assured, ‘manifestly not the design of God to precipitate the separation (between the Mosaic system and Chris- tianity), to throw scorn on the ancient faith, to present Christianity as a rival institution, or bring out too prominently at first all the distinctions which were in due season to unfold themselves out of the old institutions. To have assumed at once the long-established name of the minister of the Jewish temples, would have been inconsistent with this economy, and must have placed the Gospel im- mediately in direct and personal antagonism with the Jewish religion.” ‘The disuse of the term iepevs may, therefore, be regarded as a merciful 1 Vide p. 420. Tractartan Explanation of Disuse of Designation. 477 provision to facilitate the progress of the Jewish mind to a clearer view of the spiritual realities of the new kingdom.”’’ Now no one can deny the right of every society to exercise that prudence which is the basis of this argument. Nor can there be much doubt that men may be gradually acclimatised to the adoption or to the rejection of almost anything. But whoever adopts this ‘‘ plan of campaign ’’ ought at least to be consistent, by extending to it such considerations as were most likely in the nature of the case to ‘precipitate separation,’ and even ‘‘ to throw scorn on the ancient faith.” This consistency the holy apostles ostentatiously disregarded. They adopted no such “‘economy.” ‘The apology of St. Stephen cost him his life. The accusation which kindled the frenzy of the Sanhedrim into a white heat was that he had spoken ‘‘ blasphemous words against this holy place and the law.” The vision by which God instructed St. Peter in the extension of His king- dom, abolished the most cherished traditions of the Hebrew race. St. Paul’s sermon at Antioch in Pisidia proclaimed the spiritual ineffectiveness of the Mosaic law, which in the first Council held in the Christian Church was compared to a yoke upon the neck, which was both restrictive and intolerable. And the history of St. Paul shows that his life was endangered, again and again, because, without an approach to reserve, he proclaimed a message which made the religion of his youth an anachronism, and 1 Carter’s Doctrine of the Priesthood, c. xi., p. 122, 478 The Christian Manistry. its highest ceremonial, ‘‘ beggarly elements.” Cir- cumcision is said to be unavailing, unless it represent the new creation of spiritual life in Christ, and yet it was an essential feature in the Jewish religion. One entreaty of the apostle is for an intelligent and affectionate presentation to God of ‘a living sacri- fice,” which he describes as a reasonable service. The Temple is used to illustrate the glorious truth that spiritual life in man makes even his body the dwelling place of the Shekinah, a very shrine of the Holy Ghost. Christ, who was regarded by the Jews as an impostor, is said to be the ‘‘ Passover.”’ Believers are assured that, peril, isolation, and anguish not- withstanding, they have ‘“‘come unto Mount Zion, and unto the city of the living God.’ Other illus- trations of the use of aggressive terminology by Christian apologists might be given. The Hpistle to the Hebrews, in particular, is an inspired con- tradiction to the theory now before us. Thus, even a superficial reference to the New Testament shows that, so far from the apostles adopting the policy which is assigned to them, they used some of the most prominent objects in their old religion to illustrate the principles of the new, and to magnify the contrast between the transiency of the one, and the permanency of the other. In this connection they used the temple, the passover, the high-priest, the sacrifices, circumcision, the law, and even the holy hill, consecrated by a thousand memories and bursts of psalms. They found in the Christian scheme the substance of which these were Explanation Inadequate and Inconsistent. 479 the shadow. The discovery was no secret. They published it far and wide. It included the features of Judaism which were dear to the instincts and to the traditions of the race. ‘The merciful pro- vision”’ did not extend to these. It was only concerned with one term, and that one ἱερεύς ! But closer and wider inspection releases even that. The holy apostle St. Peter apples it to the Christian society, in open disregard of the well-known heredi- tary lines on which for centuries it ran. ‘‘ Ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood;” and Christ is said, in the Apocalypse, to have made His people ‘‘a kingdom and priests unto God and His Father.” What would be thought of the efficacy of a prophylactic which was advertised as an unfailing preventive against a specific epidemic, but which was found to admit all the diseases which were related to the epidemic, and at length admitted the epidemic itself? We see, then, that the principle which has been invoked to explain the absence of the term ἱερεύς was generally inoperative, and was particularly invalid. It did not exclude terms, or types, or themes, be- cause they were likely to precipitate separation from an expiring system, or because the discussion of them would present Christianity as a rival to Juda- ism. And it did not prevent the use of the term in a connection which must have appeared to be little short of blasphemy to a Jew. With these facts presented to us, we cannot but say some other reason must be assigned for the marked disuse of the term. 480 The Christian Mintstry, That reason is found in the nature of the Christian scheme. By Christ’s sacrifice all propitiation is abolished. In Christ’s High-Priesthood all sacer- dotal expiation is annulled. (y) This conclusion is still further elucidated by the witness of sub-apostolic writing. The Drdache refers at some length to the eucharist. It gives the thanksgivings offered ‘first for the cup,’ and then ‘‘for the broken bread.” It records the post-Com- munion prayers, and, in the simplest language, it acknowledges, ‘‘ Thou didst freely give spiritual food and drink, and eternal life through Thy servant.” There is not a trace of propitiation in connection with the sacrament. The sacerdotal idea is perceived in the revival of the Jewish provision for the main- tenance of the high-priest: ‘‘ Thou shalt take and give all the firstfruit of the produce of the wine- press and threshing-floor, of oxen and sheep, to the prophets; for they are your chief priests.’’* This, however, proves nothing for either episcopal or presbyteral sacerdotalism, since the designation is given to the prophets. If the writer had known of the exclusive application of the title to either bishop or presbyter, it is not likely he would have given it to the prophets. St. Clement of Rome is as ignorant of the theory of sacerdotal mediation as the writer of the Didaché is of the sacerdotal propitiation. ‘Let us,’ he says, ‘fix our eyes on the blood of 1 Πᾶσαν οὖν ἀπαρχὴν γεννημάτων ληνοῦ καὶ ἅλωνος βοῶν τε Kal προβάτων λαβὼν δώσεις τὴν [ἀπαρχὴν] τοῖς προφήταις" αὐτοι γάρ εἰσιν οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς ὑμῶν (Did. xiii. 8). Sacerdotalism not found in Second Century Writings. 481 Christ, and understand how precious it is unto His Father, because being shed for our salvation, it won for the whole world the grace of repentance.’ Where is the theory “of approach to God in the great memorial oblation of the death of Christ,’ offered “through one who is empowered to this high charge,” in the following passage: “This is the way, dearly beloved, wherein we have found our salvation, even Jesus Christ, the High-Priest of our offering, the Guardian and Helper of our weakness. Through Him let us look steadfastly into the heights of the heaven; through Him we behold, as in a mirror, His faultless and most excellent visage; through Him the eyes of our hearts were opened ; through Him our foolish and darkened mind springeth up into the light; through Him the Master willed that we should taste of the immortal knowledge.’” St. Clement recognises a duly appointed ministry, performed by definite persons, and carried on in definite places. But a symptom of human media- tion, of sacramental expiation, of sacerdotal function, there is not in his epistles. Ignatius uses very vigorous and ardent language respecting the Lord’s Supper. He regards it as the ' ἀτενίσωμεν els τὸ αἷμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ ἴδωμεν ὡς ἔστιν τίμιον τῷ Θεῷ καὶ πατρὶ αὐτοῦ. ὅτι διὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν σωτηρίαν ἐκχυθὲν παντὶ τῷ κόσμῳ μετανοίας χάριν ὑπήνεγκεν (St. Clem., ad Cor., 1, vii.). 2 Αὕτη ἡ ὁδός, ἀγαπητοί, ἐν ἢ εὕρομεν τὸ σωτήριον ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦν Χριστὸν τὸν ἀρχιερέα τῶν προσφορῶν ἡμῶν, τὸν προστάτην καὶ βοηθὸν τῆς ἀσθενείας ἡμῶν. διὰ τούτου ἀτενίσωμεν εἰς τὰ ὕψη τῶν οὐρανῶν, διὰ τούτου ἐνοπτριζόμεθα τὴν ἄμωμον καὶ ὑπερτάτην ὄψιν αὐτοῦ, διὰ τούτου ἠνεῴχθησαν ἡμῶν οἱ ὀφθαλμοὶ τῆς καρδίας, διὰ τούτου ἡ ἀσύνετος καὶ ἐσκοτωμένη διάνοια ἡμῶν ἀναθάλλει εἰς τὸ θαυμαστὸν αὐτοῦ φῶς, διὰ τούτου ἠθέλησεν ὁ δεσπότης τῆς ἀθανάτου γνώσεως ἡμᾶς γεύσασθαι (St. Clem., ad Cor., 1, xxxvi.). 91 482 The Christian Muntstry. feast at which, under the presidency of the bishop, the Church gathers, and demonstrates her unity. Separate eucharists were schismatical. ‘Be ye careful,’ he says to the Philadelphians, ‘‘ to observe one eucharist, for there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup unto union in His blood; there is one altar, as there is one bishop, together with the presbytery and the deacons my fellow-servants.’’! In his epistle to the Smyrnzans, he describes those ‘‘who hold strange doctrine,” as ‘ abstaining from (thanksgiving) and prayer, because they allow not that the eucharist is the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which flesh suffered for our sins, and which the Father of His goodness raised up.” Such persons held unauthorised eucharists. They acted apart from the Church, and without the bishop. Their feast was unreal. It was held by those who rejected the ‘orace of Jesus Christ,’ broke the peace of the Church, defied its constituted authority, ignored its highest officer. Hence he says: ‘ Let that be held a valid eucharist which is under the bishop or one to whom he shall have committed it.”* But highly coloured as is the eucharistic language of Ignatius, there is not aphrase which partakes of sacerdotalism. 1 Σπουδάσατε οὖν μιᾷ εὐχαριστίᾳ χρῆσθαι, ula yap σὰρξ τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, καὶ ἕν ποτήριον εἰς ἕνωσιν τοῦ αἵματος αὐτοῦ. ἕν θυσιαστήριον, ὡς εἷς ἐπίσκοπος, ἅμα τῷ πρεσβυτερίῳ καὶ διακόνοις τοῖς συνδούλοις μου (len., Hp. ad PALS νὸς 2 εὐχαριστίας καὶ προσευχῆς ἀπέχονται διὰ τὸ μὴ ὁμολογεῖν τὴν εὐχαριστίαν σάρκα εἶναι τοῦ σωτῆῤος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, τὴν ὑπὲρ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν παθοῦσαν, ἣν τῇ χρηστότητι ὁ πατὴρ ἤγειρεν (Ign., Hp. ad Smyrn., vi.). 8. ἐκείνη βεβαία εὐχαριστία ἡγείσθω ἡ ὑπὸ τὸν ἐπίσκοπον οὖσα, ἢ ᾧ ἂν αὐτὸς ἐπιτρέψῃ (Lbid., ν111.}. Witness of Lgnatius, Polycarp, Justin Martyr. 483 There is nothing about the expiatory value of the sacrament. ‘There is nothing about the sacerdotal character of the bishop. In one passage there is an opening for the mention or for the recognition of the idea. The reader is almost led, by the association of ideas, to expect some announcement of the doc- trine. But it is not made. ‘The priests likewise were good, but better is the High-Priest to whom is committed the Holy of Holies; for to him alone are committed the hidden things of God; He Him- self, being the door of the Father, through which Abraham and Isaac and Jacob enter in, and the prophets and the apostles and the Church.’’! Is this the language which would be used by a man who employs rather extravagant terms towards bishops if he believed them to be the ‘‘ stewards of the grace by which Christians live,” or if he regarded them as mediators between God and men? Nor is the epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians more helpful to the sacerdotal claim. There is one passage which is instructive as to the scriptural and the primitive idea of sacrifice. Polycarp considers that widows should be especially characterised by such graces as adorn their position, and the incentive by which he would inspire them is the knowledge ‘“ that they are God’s altar, and that all sacrifices are care- fully inspected.” The writings of Justin Martyr and of Ireneus are as devoid of the sacerdotal * Καλοὶ καὶ οἱ ἱερεῖς, κρεῖσσον δὲ ὁ ἀρχιερεὺς ὁ πεπιστευμένος τὰ ἅγια τῶν ἁγίων, ὃς μόνος πεπίστευται τὰ κρυπτὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ. αὐτὸς ὧν θύρα τοῦ πατρός. δὶ ἧς εἰσέρχονται ᾿Αβραὰμ καὶ Ἴσαακ καὶ ᾿Ιακὼβ καὶ οἱ προφῆται καὶ οἱ ἀπόστολοι καὶ ἡ ἐκκλησία 7 (Cgn., Lp. ad Phil., ix.). 484 The Christian Ministry. contention as any writing can well be.’ They refer —and even frequently and fully—to the eucharist. There is not one phrase in either which regards that sacrament as propitiatory, or he who presides at its celebration as exercising hieratical powers. The last second-century witness we have to ex- amine is Tertullian. His testimony, upon the presence or the prevalence of sacerdotalism in the primitive Church is somewhat difficult to estimate because of his adoption of Montanism. His reli- gious opinions are ascertained from his volumin- ous works, written, moreover, as a layman—some say as a presbyter ’—and as a sectarian. Injustice would be done to his memory if it was believed or asserted that he assailed Christian doctrine as soon as he became a Montanist. It must also be re- membered that the discolouration of his views, through his sympathy with a movement which sought to revive the prophetic gifts and experiences of the earlier generations of the Church’s life, does not invalidate his testimony to matters of fact. The spirit of his evidence will best be caught by re- membering what his position was, that of a Church- man or of a Montanist, when such writings as may be appealed to, are under examination. His work on Prayer was composed when he was in Carthage, and probably ten years before he be- came a Montanist, which was in about 207. In 1 Vide Appendix on “ The Prophecy of Malachi: Its eucharistic significance and patristic application.” * Vide Dio. Chr. Bio., pp. 822, 828. Archdeacon Farrar doubts that Tertullian was in Orders (vide Lives of the Fathers, v.1., Ὁ. 174). Tertullian on Prayer—a Christian Sacrifice. 485 it he refers to well-nigh everything connected with prayer. Beginning with an exposition of the Lord’s Prayer, he refers to the supplications which represent the ever-varying circumstances of individual life, the mood of the soul, and such ceremonial observances as obtained in his day. He refers to washing the hands, putting off loose cloaks, sitting after prayer, elevating the hands, the kiss of peace, the stations, women’s dress, virgins, kneeling, the place and the time for prayer, and its conjunction with praise. “* very institution is excellent, which for the ex- tolling and honouring of God, aims unitedly to bring Him enriched prayer as a choice victim.’ This latter word seems to be associated in his mind with the grand principle of Christian sacrifice. No sooner has the idea of prayer and praise presented itself to his mind, than he dilates, with equal decision, power, and beauty, upon the sacrificial character of adora- tion, and the sacerdotal character of adorers. ‘‘ This is the spiritual victim which has abolished the pristine sacrifices. ‘To what purpose,’ saith He (bring ye] ‘me the multitude of your sacrifies? I am full of holocausts of rams, and I desire not the fat of rams, and the blood of bulls and of goats. For who hath required these from your hands?’ What, then, God has required the Gospel teaches. ‘An hour will come,’ saith He, ‘when the true adorer shall adore the Father in spirit and truth. For ' “Bt est optimum utique institutum omne quod praponendo et honorando deo conpetit saturatam orationem velut opimam hostiam admovere” (Tertull., dle Ora., ο. XXvVii.). 486 The Christian Ministry. God is a spirit, and accordingly requires His adorers to be such.’ We are the true adorers and the true priests, who, praying in spirit, sacrifice, in spirit, prayer—a victim proper and acceptable to God, which assuredly He has required, which He has provided for Himself. This [victim] devoted from the whole heart, fed on faith, tended by truth, entire in innocence, pure in chastity, garlanded with love, we ought to escort with the pomp of good works, amid psalms and hymns, unto God’s altar, to obtain for us all things from God.”' This passage of special beauty, is as remarkable for its omissions, as it is for its assertions. Those who are accustomed to hear or to read the extragavant language which, in our own day, is applied to the eucharist will be shocked to find how disproportionate modern ecclesiastical and sacramental euphemisms are to the language of Tertullian. But the leading ideas of the passage are the sacrifical aspect of adoration, and the sacerdotal character of faithful worshippers. With these principles to guide us, in endeavouring to gain a fair view of the opinion of Tertullian, we ' “Heec est enim hostia spiritalis que pristina sacrificia delevit. Quo mihi, inquit, multitudinem sacrificiorum vestrorum? Plenus sum holocaustomatum arietum, et adipem agnorum et sanguinem taurorum et hircorum nolo. Quis enim requisivit ista de manibus vestris? Que ergo quesierit deus evangelium docet. Veniet hora, inquit, cum veri adoratores adorabunt patrem in spiritu et veritate. Deus enim spiritus est, et adoratores itaque tales requirit. Nos. sumus veri adoratores et veri sacerdotes, qui spiritu orantes spiritu sacrificamus orationem hostiam dei propriam et acceptabilem, quam scilicet requisivit, quam sibi prospexit. Hane de toto corde devotam, fide pastam, veritate curatam,. innocentia integram, castitate mundam, agape coronatam, cum pompa operum bonorum, inter psalmos et hymnos deducere ad altare debemus, omnia nobis. a deo impetraturam” (Tertull., de Ora., c. xxviii.). Allowed that Laymen might Administer Baptism. 487 will next consider what he says in another work, which like that on Prayer was written about the same time, and probably under the same religious conditions. His treatise on Baptism is essentially contro- versial. Quintilla, ‘“‘a viper of the Cainite heresy,”’ had disparaged that sacred sacrament of Christ. ᾿ She ridiculed its origin, its matter, its form, its nature, its effect. Tertullian deals with the subject fully, powerfully, and scripturally ; and amongst the points which are treated by him, we find ‘‘the due observance of giving and receiving baptism,’’ involvy- ing, as this does, one essential feature of the sacer- dotal contention, which is thus clearly described: ‘The individual life can receive fellowship with God only through membership in one body, and by dependence upon social sacraments of regeneration, etc., of which ordained ministers are the appointed instruments.” ὁ Let us now hear Tertullian, the presbyter of Carthage, and this, too, in a polemical apology for the sacrament: ‘‘ Of giving it, the chief priest, who is the bishop, has the right; in the next place, the presbyters and deacons, yet not without the bishop’s authority, on account of the honour of the Church, which being preserved, peace is preserved. Beside these, even laymen have the right; for what is equally received can be equally given. Unless bishops, priests, or deacons be on the spot, disciples are called. The word of the Lord ought not to be hidden by any ; in like manner, too, baptism, which ' The Church and the Ministry, p. 94. 488 The Christian Ministry. is equally God’s property, can be ministered by all.””? He then suggests the regulation of this individual right by the rule of necessity, and he is equally emphatic about the exercise of the right in the presence of the same constraint. Whoever declines to administer baptism, ‘‘in cases of necessity, will be cuilty of a human creature’s loss, if he shall refrain from bestowing what he had a free liberty to bestow.’’” Thus far, we see that the great Carthaginian controversialist allowed laymen, as priests of God, to administer holy baptism. As a matter of order, he advised restriction to be placed upon their exercise of this right ; but whenever necessity arose he would hold them responsible for the loss which ‘‘a human creature’’ would sustain, which is only another way of saying that the sacerdotal notion, which regards the officiant as an exclusive vehicle of grace, was unknown to him. And yet we are told that ‘“ the right of the laymen to baptize, in cases of necessity, was rather grudgingly conceded’”* by Tertullian. We come now to a third work of his, which is rather unhappily entitled an Hzhortation to. Chastity. This was written after he had accepted Montanism ; yet before he went so far as to defend “Dandi quidem habet jus summus sacerdos qui est episcopus. Dehinc presbyteri et diaconi, non tamen sine episcopi auctoritate propter ecclesiz honorem. Quo salvo, salva pax est. Alioquin etiam laicis jus est. Quod enim ex zquo accipitur, ex eequo dari potest, nisi episcopi jam aut presbyteri aut diaconi vocantur, dicentes, Domini sermo non debet abscondi ab ullo. Proinde et baptismus zeque Dei census ab omnibus exerceri potest” (de Bapt., c. Xvii.). * “Quum urget circumstantia periclitantis. ... Quoniam reus erit perditi hominis, si supersederit praestare quod libere potuit” (Zbid.). * The Church and the Ministry, p. 205. Recognised the Priesthood of Believers. 480 the well-meant enthusiasm of that vehement ebul- lition. Tertullian is railing against second marriages. His ardour enables him to see, what no one has ever since been enabled to discover, a Divine prohibition by which the Levites were bound. This prohibition binds us, he contends, still more, and emphatically ‘they who are chosen into the sacerdotal order must be men of one marriage; which rule is so rigidly observed, that I remember some removed from their office for bigamy.’ ‘Tertullian sees that if this prohibition is binding only upon priests, the laity are free, his denunciation of second marriage is unwatrrantable, and his argument overthrown. To this he replies: ‘‘ Vain shall we be if we think that what is not lawful for priests is lawful for laics. Are not even we laics priests? It is written, ‘A king- dom also, and priests to God and Father, hath He made us.’ It is the authority of the Church, and the honour which has acquired sanctity through the joint session of the order, which has established the differ- ence between the order and the laity. Accordingly, when there is no joint session of the ecclesiastical order, you offer, and baptize, and are priest, alone for yourselves. But where three are, a church is, albeit they be laics . . . Therefore, if you have the right of a priest in your own person, in cases of necessity, it behoves you to have lkewise the discipline of a priest, whenever it may be necessary 1 “Tndeigitur apud nos plenius atque strictius praescribitur ; unius matrimonii esse oportere, quos adlegi liceat in ordinem sacerdotalem. Usque adeo quosdam memini digamos loco dejectos ” (Hx. ad Cast., ¢. vii.). 490 The Christian Ministry. to have the right of ἃ priest. . . . God wills us all to be so conditioned as to be ready at all times and places to undertake His sacraments.’’! Here Tertullian regards the administration of the Lord’s Supper, in case of necessity, as within the rights of laymen. ‘This, however, is denied. It is said that Tertullian, in this tract, is writing up Montanism, and writing down Church doctrine. He cannot be regarded as doing either. He is stating matters of fact. He is not setting the Church of the bishops against the Church of the Spirit. This view is strengthened by the admissions and by the as- sertions of his work on Baptism. There, beyond all debate, he says laymen have a right to administer one sacrament. Why should they be denied the administration of the other? ‘There was no sharp line yet drawn in respect of the layman’s power between baptism and the eucharist.” ἢ The only answer to this inquiry comes from Church authority. The Church could, without the commission of sin, allow laymen to administer both sacraments. The permission would be an innovation of a serious and even of a radical kind. It would 1“ Vani erimus, si putaverimus quod sacerdotibus non liceat laicis licere. Nonne et laici sacerdotes sumus? Scriptum est, Regnum quoque nos et sacerdotes Deo et patri suo fecit. Differentiam inter ordinem et plebem constituit ecclesiz auctoritas, et honor per ordinis consessum sanctificatus a Deo. Ubi ecclesiastici ordinis est consessus, et offert et tinguit sacerdos qui est ibi solus. Sed et ubi tres, ecclesia est; licet laici. . . . Igitur si habes jus sacerdotis in temetipso, ubi necesse est habeas, oportet etiam disciplinam sacerdotis necesse sit habere jus sacerdotis. . . . Dicam omnes nos Deus ita voluit dispositos esse, ut ubique sanctiones ejus obeundi sit disciplina ” (Hx. ad Cast., ¢. vii.). 2 The Church and the Ministry, p. 206. Believed in Christian Ministry of Order, Authority. 491 violate the order which has, for the most part, obtained since apostolic times; but there is no evidence to justify the dread of its being, under such necessities as probably prevailed in primitive periods, displeasing to God. Regarding Tertullian’s state- ment, then, not as that of either a partisan or a pervert, but simply as his record of a matter of fact, no difficulty will be created by a passage which has been already quoted, in connection with the disorder which demoralised the Gnostic ordinations. ‘‘ They impose even on laymen the functions of the priest- hood.’’ This shocked Tertullian; but why should it, it may be asked, if laymen had the right to administer both sacraments? Because it was a violation, and a violation by unbelievers, of the order by which laymen were bound, and which limited the exercise of their sacerdotal rights. It is one thing to possess these rights, and at the bidding of con- stituted authority, and in the interests of order, either to exercise them, or not. It is another and a very different thing to usurp the place of constituted authority itself, and to confer upon the disobedient and the irresponsible certain functions without any such restraints as order imperatively required. This would speedily reduce the Church of Christ to the condition, chaotic and capricious, of a disorganised rabble. And Tertullian, in the Soldier’s Chaplet, written, moreover, when he became a Montanist, still upholds the principle of order, as it was asserted at both sacraments. ‘‘ When we are going to enter the water, but a little before, in the presence of the 492 The Christian Ministry. congregation, and under the hand of the president, we solemnly profess that we disown the devil, and his pomp, and his angels.’’ And, once again, ‘‘ We take also, in meetings before daybreak, and from the hand of none but the presidents, the sacrament of the eucharist, which the Lord hath commanded to be eaten at mealtimes, and enjoined to be taken by alls? * Thus reviewing such passages of ‘Tertullian’s writings as bear upon sacerdotalism, certain conclu- sions are suggested. They show that he held, on scriptural authority, the sacerdotal position of the laity. He claimed their right to administer, in cases of necessity, in both sacraments. He restricted the exercise of these rights in the interests of order. But there is no evidence of his belief in official intervention between God and man. There is no trace of his having held the doctrine of sacramental expiation. Sacerdotalism, as it appears in the pages from which explanatory extracts have been repro- duced, has neither recognition nor defence in the works of the great African apologist. 6. The last stage in this prolonged inquiry has now been reached. It is concerned with the attitude which the Anglican Church has assumed with regard to sacerdotalism. ‘The evidence which is about to be submitted will show that whereas, prior to the ‘© Aquam adituri, ibidem, sed et aliquanto prius in ecclesia sub antistitis manu contestamur nos renunciare diabolo, etc. . . . Hucharistiz sacramentum et in tempore victus, et omnibus mandatum a Domino, etiam antelucanis coetibus nec de aliorum manu quam presidentium sumimus” (de Corona, Gaull) Reformation—Different Truths in Different Places. 493 Reformation, the Church of England recognised, adopted, and even authorised that principle, it was, by and during the progress of the Reformation, deliberately and repeatedly discredited, and finally excluded. The Reformation was not the work of a day. All the great movements, which, observed by religious philosophy, lead men to live in the conviction of the presence of God in history, have had periods of preparation. The Reformation is no exception to this great truth. It is equally certain that nations may and do take action, which, to all human observation, appears to be independent ; but, when the results are gathered up, they are seen to be complementary, auxiliary, and even unified. If cautious and thoughtful men regard this as illustrat- ing that unity amid diversity, which reigns alike in the order of nature and of grace, they will reasonably conclude that the moral movements of national life originate at the bidding of Him who rules in grace and in nature. The Reformation began in Germany. But its origin in Switzerland was as independent as if Germany were in the other hemisphere. ‘The same statement may be made respecting both France and England. ‘There was no design between the political or moral or intellectual leaders of these countries. There was no concerted action defined, agreed upon, or even conceived. If there had been, it would have been a matter of considerable per- plexity to say to whom the programme should be submitted. The truth is, the Reformation was from on High. God quickened the hearts of some born 494 The Christian Ministry. leaders of men. And they meditated, they prayed, they observed, they resolved, they toiled, they dared, in individual isolation. As their work grew, they found they were not alone. The whole movement appeared, at the time, to be schismatical, independent, and discoloured by self-assertion. Yet there was a unity amid diversity which was suggestive, and which indicated that nations, and the mighty men that moved them, were, unconsciously, acting under the influence of Him who maketh the wrath of man to praise Him. Luther in Germany, Zwinglius. in Switzerland, and Calvin, Farel, and others acted for long enough alone. But even Z4winglius did not realise the depth of his own saying: “ It 15 not from Luther that I learnt the doctrine of Christ, but from the Word of God. If Luther preaches Christ, he does what I am doing, and that is all.’’? The Reformation did not turn everywhere upon the same truth. In Germany the struggle raged around the doctrines of original sin, the atonement of Christ and its sufficiency, applicability, and range, together with His righteousness as imputed to the faithful, on the indisputable authority of the Word of God. It is not too much to say that Martin Luther shattered the Roman colossus with the doctrine of justification by faith only. In England, God allowed the con- flict to gather around a different set of thoughts. Here the doctrines in contention were represented 1 “1516 eo scilicet tempore, quum Lutheri nomen in nostris regionibus inau- ditum adhuc erat ... doctrinam Christi non a Luthero, sed ex verbo D didici” (Zwinglit Op., Tur., vol. 1., 273). In England Priest, Sacrifice, Altar, Central Points. 495 by three correlative ideas: the Real Presence of the Lord Jesus Christ in the sacramental elements, the transubstantiation of these elements, and their essentially sacrificial character. Priest, sacrifice, altar, were the central pivots around which well-nigh everything turned in the English Reformation. The ideas which are represented by these words produced some of the most thrilling scenes ever recorded in history. ‘They summoned conferences. They agitated parliaments. They threw royal courts into chaos. They gave the holy and the brave to the dungeon and the scaffold. They burnt all the re- formers. They shifted the centre of gravity from Calvary to ceremonialism ; and in this, and through this, the moral equilibrium of truth and of love fell to self and to falsehood. These doctrines are totalised in sacerdotalism ; and we have now to see that sacerdotalism was, at the Reformation, dis- carded by the nation and disowned by the Church. The evidence which will be submitted is connected with the Ordinal, with the office for the ad- ministration of the Lord’s Supper, and with the Articles. 1. The ordinal, as it is in our present Book of Common Prayer, is the outcome of revisions to which that compendium of Scripture and of sanctified adora- tion and order was authoritatively subjected in 1549, 1552, 1559, 1604, and by Convocation in 1661. Before 1549 ordinations were conducted in accordance with the Pontificals of Sarum, Winchester, Bangor, and Exeter. In each of these ordinals the bishop delivered 496 The Chrostian Ministry. to each ordinand a chalice with (unconsecrated) wine and water, and a paten with (unconsecrated) bread. Synchronous with the delivery of the vessels which constitute the form of the (so-called) sacrament, he used the words, ‘‘ Receive power to offer sacrifice to God, and to celebrate masses, as well for the living as for the dead, in the name of the Lord.”’! This cere- mony constituted ordination. The priests were then described as ordinati. Before this they were ordinandt. They were also termed co-consecrators of the Mass with the bishop. They co-operated with him in sacramental propitiation, which would be sacrilege if they were not empowered to do so. The Sacrifice of the Mass is a lengthy ceremonial. At its close the newly-ordained priests again kneel singly before the bishop, and he, laying both his hands on each, says: “Receive the Holy Ghost: whose sins thou dost forgive, they are forgiven; and whose sins thou dost retain, they are retained.’”’ The words were not part of the Ordination Service. They empowered the priest for work other than propitiation. They com- missioned him to hear confession and to bestow or withhold absolution. Such was the ordinal in England up to 1549-50. On January 31st, 1550 (N.8.), by Act of Par- hament, the King was empowered to appoint six prelates, and six other men of this realm, learned in God’s law, to prepare an ordinal; and whatever 1“ Accipe potestatem offerre sacrificium Deo, missasque celebrare, tam pro vivis quam pro defunctis. In nomine Domini. Amen” (Anglican Ordinations, Estcourt, p. 270). Reformed Ordinal revived Didactic Ministry. 497 should be ‘devised for that purpose by the most number of them, and set forth under the Great Seal of England, before the Ist day of April, should be lawfully exercised and used, and none other.’ The Order of Council appointing the Com- missioners was made February 2nd. The book was brought to the Council February 28th, 1550 (N.S.). By that book, then revised, the ordaining act was the imposition of the bishop’s hands, with those of the priest, and the synchronous utterance by the bishop over the ordinand of the words, used in the post-ordi- nation service of the Roman Pontifical, ‘‘ Receive the Holy Ghost,” etc., with the addition of the following: ‘“‘ And be thou a faithful dispenser of the word of God and of His holy sacraments. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”” Then the revised ordinal proceeds: ‘ The bishop shall deliver to every one of them the Bible in the one hand, and the chalice or cup with the bread in the other hand, and say, ‘Take thou authority to preach the word of God and to minister the holy sacraments in this congregation.’ ἢ The alterations thus authorised were vital and sug- gestive. They concern (a) those who ordain. The Fourth Council of Carthage made the ordination of presbyters the joint act of the bishop and presbytery.* The Roman Pontificals, by making the act of ordina- 1 Stat. Edw. VI., 3, 4, ο. 12; Eccles. H., Collier, p. 365. * Vide Liturgies of Edward VI, p.179; Estcourt’s Angl. Ord., p. 269. 5. “ Presbyter cum ordinatur, episcopo eum benedicente et manum super caput ejus tenente, etiam omnes presbyteri qui presentes sunt, manus suas juxta manum episcopi super caput illius teneant” (Morinus de Sac. Ord., p. 211). 52 498 The Christian Ministry. tion consist in the delivery of the chalice and the paten to the bishop, confined ordination to him alone. The revised Anglican Ordinal, by making the presby- ters co-operate with the bishop in manual imposition, brought back the ordinal, in this respect, to ancient prescription. The alterations further affected (6) the introduction of some words and the exclusion of others. ‘The Saviour’s utterances on the Haster Day —used, it will be borne in mind, not as the words by which orders were conferred in the Roman Pontifical, but long after the completion of the Ordination Service —were now made the words by which the ““ office of priest ’’ was conferred, to which were added the words above given. But the words, ‘ Receive power to offer sacrifice to God, and to celebrate mass, as well for the living as the dead. Inthe name of the Lord,’ were struck out.’ The alteration still further (c) intro- duced a very significant rite: ‘The bishop shall deliver to every one of them the Bible in the one band, and the chalice or cup with the bread in the other hand, and say, ‘Take thou authority to preach the word of God and to minister the holy sacraments in this congregation.’”’ It will thus be seen that the revised ordinal excluded propitiation from the priest’s office, and inserted preaching. This latter is empha- sized in a dual way: first, by the introduction and addition of the words, ‘‘and be thou a faithful dis- penser of the word of God and of His sacraments ;”’ secondly, by the delivery of the Bible to the ordinand. “‘The continual sacrifice was taken away, by removing 1 Vide Liturgies of Edward VI., ut supra, and p. 250. Communion Office expunged Sacerdotal Functions. 499 everything that expressed the power of sacrifice, and substituting instead thereof the simple duty of teach- ing and administering sacraments.” * In 1552 a still further charge was ordered. ‘The ordaining act and its accompanying words were allowed to stand, but the delivery of the chalice and the paten was discon- tinued. The delivery of the Bible alone was pre- served.” That rite remains to the present day. together with the accompanying words and a few verbal alterations—viz., ‘‘ In the congregation where thou shalt be lawfully appointed thereto,” and the insertion of the word ‘ kneeling”’ as the posture of the ordinand when he receives the Bible from tie bishop. ‘These verbal alterations were made in 1661.° This comparison of the ordinal before, during, and after the Reformation shows ‘‘ that everything that expresses sacrifice or sacerdotal functions is ex- punged.” ‘The change of 1549 preserved the out- ward sign, but altered the words which gave it expression; the progress of reform in 1552 swept away the sign also.”’ + 2. “The Order of the Administration of the Lord’s Supper or Holy Communion” illustrates the same contention, and in various ways. This would be made plain to ordinary intelligence by the presen- tation of the Sarum Missal, which was the eucha- ristic office in use in the medieval English Church, by the side of the Communion Service, as revised ' Estcourt, p. 268. * Vide Liturgies of Edward VI., pp. 179, 349. % Vide Black Letter Prayer Book. * Vide Estcourt’s Anglican Ordinations, pp. 271-2. 500 The Christian Ministry. for the First Prayer Book of Edward VI. (1550), and still more by the side of that of 1552.1 Al- though this comparison cannot be presented here, still such facts as bear upon the expiatory value of the eucharist and the sacrificial functions of the priest may be submitted. It will be seen that before the Reformation both doctrines obtained. Aiter the Reformation they were excluded. This conviction is produced, even though, for the sake of brevity, inquiry be here restricted to the difference which is represented in these two periods by the name of the office, the place of its performance, its nature, and range. Before 1549 the office was entitled ‘‘ The Ordinarium Misse.”? In 1549 this was altered to ‘‘The Supper of the Lord and the Holy Communion, commonly called the Mass.’’? In the preceding year, 1548, a remarkable docu- ment was published by royal authority. It was designated, ‘‘ The Order of the Communion.’’ This was an instalment of reform in three important particulars. It was, first, a form of communion in the English language, in contradistinction to the use of Latin; it, secondly, restored the cup to the laity, which had hitherto been withheld; and, ' This has been done by the Rev. Canon Estcourt, M.A., F.S.A., who began (1845) as curate of Cirencester. He was a Tractarian who joined the Church of Rome. His work Anglican Ordinations Discussed, is able and admonitory. In it he gives the Mass before the Reformation, and the Communion Service in 1549, and, in some particulars, in 1552, 1559, 1604, and 1662. [Since the above was in type, a pamphlet, comparing in double columns, the Canon of the Mass (Sarum), and the First Prayer Book, Ed. VI., has appeared, from the pen,of a learned lawyer, Mr. J. T. Tomlinson. It is fuller than Estcourt, and its price, 4d., brings it within reach of all. ] 2 Vide Maskell’s Ane. Lit. Ch. Eng. * Vide Lit. Ed. VI., p. 76 (Parker Soc.). Sacrament Designated “ the Supper of the Lord.’ 501 thirdly, it described the service by a term which was scriptural, and which had deep theological significance—viz., ‘‘Communion.” This ‘“ Order of the Communion” was provisional.’ It gave place to the larger work which is represented by the Prayer Book of the next year, 1549. The alteration in the fuller title of the office is remark- able. It brought back the scriptural name of the feast, ‘‘ the Supper of the Lord.”’’ It continued the name which was first given to it in the pro- visional publication of the preceding year. That name, ‘‘Communion,” revived the social aspect of the spiritual banquet, which was excluded by the prevalence of the idea of propitiation. These words, ‘““commonly called the Mass,’ were struck out in 1552. Their exclusion from the title indicated, as early as it could well be indicated, the authoritative rejection from the reformed Communion Service of the ideas which were represented by the name by which the pre-Reformation office was known. This return to ancient truth, as revealed by God in His Holy Word, is also exhibited in connection ' “Our High Court of Parliament enacted ... that the most blessed sacrament of the body and blood of our Saviour Christ should from thence- forth be commonly delivered and ministered unto all persons within our realm of England and Ireland, and other our dominions, under both kinds—that is to say, of bread and wine” (Vide The Proclamation of Edward VL, idid., p. 1). The Order of Communion was printed March 8th, 1548, and it was authorised by the King’s Proclamation, which was issued with it. ἢ κυριακὸν δεῖπνον φαγεῖν (1 Cor. xi. 21). “It appears to have been the custom in this early period for the celebration of the Lord’s Supper to have followed (after the example of the first institution), and not to have preceded (Chrysost.) the agape (Jude 12), or love feast” (Ellicott, in loc.). The Lord’s Supper is one name of the Sacrament. It occurs three times in the Church Catechism, and it is also found in Art. XXVIII. 502 The Christian Ministry. with the place at which or upon which propitiation is made. If the Reformers excluded from the office which we are now examining the idea of expiation, and yet allowed the ‘ altar” to have ceremonial pre- eminence, we should conclude, either that they did not discern the connection there is between expia- tion and the place at which it is effected, or, if they did discern it, they omitted to bring the place into harmony with the principle which they recognised. Such an omission ought not to surprise us, if we remember all the circumstances of the age and of its reforming leaders. ‘There are very few actions which produce only the results at which their agents aimed. There are probably fewer men who are enabled to discern either the order in which these results are manifested or their numerical strength. In the case before us, the exclusion of the idea of propitiation from the Communion Service was gradually effected. The exclusion of the term ““ altar” was so likewise. In the medizval missal of the unreformed Church, the Sarum Use, that word occurs as the normal designation of the place at which the sacrifice was offered. ‘‘ The priest approaches the altar-step and says the Confession.” ‘‘ After the offertory, the deacon presents the chalice, with the paten and the host, to the priest, kissing his hand each time; and the priest, taking the chalice, places it in the middle of the altar,” etc. ‘* The priest goes to the right-hand corner of the altar;” ‘and standing before the altar,’”’ he prays. ‘‘ Then standing Sacrificial Altar changed to “ the Lord's Table.” 503 erect, he kisses the altar,” and ‘“‘turning again towards the altar, says the secret prayer.” In the Canon of the Mass he prays on behalf of those who are described as ‘ partaking of the altar.” In the revision of 1549 four rubrics were intro- duced. They preceded the office; and one of these, which referred to the vestments of the priest, corre- sponded to a similar rubric in the Sarum Missal. The three rubrics then introduced are practically the three first rubrics of our present office. In two of these the term ‘‘altar’’ is not used where it might have been, and the term ‘‘ Lord’s Table”’ is used where it might not have been. The curate is to ‘‘advertise” an ‘‘open and notorious evil liver” ‘‘ not to presume to the Lord’s Table.’ And if he perceive ‘‘malice and hatred to reign”’ between others, he is not to suffer ‘‘them to be partakers of the Lord’s Table.’’? But at the next revision, 1552, our present fourth rubric was introduced. In it “the table” is named, its covering ‘‘ at the Communion time,’’ and its place in the church or in the chancel. And whereas, in 1549, the officiant and his place are indicated as “‘ the priest standing humbly afore the midst of the altar,’ im 1552 the direction was ‘the priest standing at the north side of the table.” * In 1549, before the Prayer “for the whole state of Christ’s Church,” the priest was directed to ‘“ turn him to the altar.” In 1552 this direction disappeared. In 1549 the ' Vide Estcourt, pp. 293, 298-300. 3. Lbid., pp. 77, 263. * Vide Liturgies of Edward VI., p. 76. 4 Tbid., pp. 87, 270. 504 The Christian Ministry. minister is directed to ‘‘ take so much bread and wine as shall suffice,” and to lay the bread upon the corporals or else in the paten, and to put to the wine ‘‘a little pure and clean water, setting both the bread and wine upon the altar.” This order fell into disuetude between 1552 and 1662. But the present rubric has a most interesting and important bearing upon the sacerdotal contention. The two rubrics before the Prayer for the Church Militant here in earth, are clearly reproduced from the Scotch Liturgy. The first relates to the gathering and the humble presentation of the offertory, which is to be placed upon ‘ the holy table.” The second has to do with the Com- munion. It takes the place of the direction given in 1549 as to the laying of the bread upon “ the corporals or paten,’’ and as to the mixed chalice— a direction which seems to have dropped out of the office for over a hundred years. This rubric— ‘‘and when there is a Communion the priest shall then [offer up and] place upon the table so much bread and wine as he shall think sufficient ’—is transcribed from the Scottish Liturgy of 1637. This Scottish Prayer Book was prepared by Laud and Wren. It is in accordance with the written alterations and suggestions entered by Cousin, and his secretary Sancroft, in the editions of 1619, 1634, and 1636. Many of Laud’s suggestions, inserted in the Scottish Liturgy, were accepted by our Convocation. But there was one which Sancroft endeavoured to introduce, which is now in the The Change emphasized in each Revision. 505 Scottish Liturgy,’ but which never obtained in any of our revisions. It is represented by the words within brackets above. These words the Church of England declined to adopt. If this refusal is to be regarded, it seems to carry with it the denial to the elements of the properties of a sacrificial oblation; and the reader will bear in mind that the bread and wine were to be placed upon the table. In 1549 the words of institution are ‘“‘to be said” by the priest, ‘‘ turning still to the altar.’”’ In 1662 the rubric before the Prayer of Consecration was inserted; and although recent appeals to law have legalised the adoption of the Eastward Position, they have also emphasized the exhibition of the manual acts. Where the corre- sponding rubric of 1549 reads “‘altar,’’ we now, since 1662, read ‘“‘table.’”’ In 1548 the prayer, “in the name of the communicants,’’ known as the Prayer of Humble Access, ‘‘ We do not presume,”’ etc., one of the most beautiful supplications in our language, was composed for the brief and provisional ‘Order of Communion.” In that service the preceding rubric ran thus: ‘ Then shall the priest kneel down, and say in the name of all them that shall receive the Communion the prayer following.” In 1549 the place at which the priest was to kneel appears. He is to turn “him to God’s Board ”—a direction which was continued in the Prayer Book of 1552; but at the ' “ And the presbyter shall then offer up, and place the bread and wine,” etc. (Vide the Communion Office in the Scottish Episcopal Church ; and Procter, 351 n.). 506 The Christian Minestry, last revision this phrase was erased in favour of that which was so generally adopted, and which we have now in this rubric and elsewhere in the office—viz., “ The Lord’s Table.’ 1 Our inquiry, then, with respect to the use of the word ‘‘altar,” as indicating the mind of the Church before the Reformation, shows us that in every instance where it was necessary to name the object the word was used. Our inquiry further shows that it was in three instances so designated, even in the first Prayer Book of 1549: (a) as defining the position of the priest; (6) the place on which the elements were to be laid; and (c) to which the minister was to turn when rehearsing the words of institution. Our inquiry further shows that as early as 1549 the ideas which are represented by ‘‘ God’s Board” were influential, operative, and recognised; and by 1552 the word ‘altar’? was expunged from every rubric in which before and during 1549 it occurred. The ‘“‘Lord’s Table” took its place. Altar disappeared from the English Book of Common Prayer. Nor is this all. The King’s letter, addressed to Ridley, Bishop of London, required the removal of the altars from the churches. The letter appears as an Order in Council, and is dated November 24th, 1550, ‘‘given under our signet, at our place of Westminster, iv. year of our reign.”? This order was sustained by ‘six reasons,” setting forth, on the authority of Holy Scripture, why altars should ' Vide Black Letter Prayer Book. * Vide Works of Ridley, p. 507 (Parker Soc, Ed.). “ Altar” disappears from Liturgy and Structures. 507 be taken away.’ It would be strange had they been allowed to remain, without any such action on the part of the authorities. That action was modified ; and later on, in the days of Elizabeth, it was sus- pended. But with the largest allowance for the influence of the spirit that shrinks, betimes, from the consequences of its own action, the review of the question before us, so far as it is represented by this one word “altar,” shows conclusively that the altar, as the place of sacramental propitiation and of sacerdotal function, first disappeared from the consciousness of the Church, then was erased from the official language of the Church, and at length was removed from the structures of the Church. But we have now, and finally, to ask what is the nature of the sacrifice in the Lord’s Supper? This crucial inquiry will receive its response by pur- suing the same line of investigation as that along which we have been travelling. We shall learn the nature of the sacrifice offered in the eucharist in the Church of England before the Reformation by appealing to her authorised and accepted service book, the Sarum Missal. We shall learn the mind of the Church after the Reformation respecting the same by appealing to the various Prayer Book revi- sions, not omitting a reference to the Articles. In the pre-Reformation Missal, when the priest placed the chalice ‘‘in the middle of the altar,” he offered ‘‘the sacrifice to the Lord, saying this prayer, ‘ Re- ceive, O Holy Trinity, this oblation which I, un- Works of Ridley, Tue King’s Proclamation, pp. 319-20, 322-3. 508 The Christian Ministry, worthy sinner, offer in honour of Thee and of blessed Mary and all Thy saints, for my sins and offences, and for the salvation of the living, and rest of all the faithful departed.’’’ He further, in a low voice, entreated the people to pray that the sacrifice might be accepted; to which ‘‘ the clerks answer privately, ‘May the Lord deign to accept this sacrifice of praise at thy hands for our sins and offences.’”’ The blessed Virgin Mary and all the saints are represented as interceding with God that the oblation may be profitable. The language employed expresses propitiation.. There is not a word of this preserved either in the provisional Order of Communion of 1548, or in the First Prayer of Edward VI. in 1549. This, however, is preliminary. We come now to the Canon of the Mass. The opening prayer beseeches God ‘to accept and bless these gifts, these offerings, these holy un- defiled sacrifices.’”’* In 1549 these words were struck out, and the following were introduced: ‘‘ We humbly beseech Thee most mercifully to receive these our prayers, which we offer unto Thy Divine Majesty.”* In the Sarum Missal, before 1549, and subsequently to the words quoted above, the Canon ran thus: ‘‘ Remember, O Lord, . .. all here present, ... for whom we offer to Thee, or who offer unto Thee, this sacrifice of praise, for themselves and all that belong to them, for the redemption of their souls, for the hope of their ' Vide Estcourt, pp. 298-301. 2. Ibid., p. 303. 3 Vide Liturgies of Edward VI, p. 87. “΄ Nature of Sacramental Sacrifice. 509 salvation and safety.’' In 1549 this sacrificial and propitiatory declaration was cancelled, and the following sentence took its place: ‘‘We com- mend unto Thy merciful goodness this congregation which is here assembled in Thy name, to cele- brate the commemoration of the most glorious death of Thy Son.’’? In 1552 the whole prayer was still further revised and rearranged. It then read, as it does to-day: ‘‘ And to all Thy people give Thy heavenly grace, and especially to this congregation here present, that with meek heart and due reverence they may hear and receive Thy holy word, truly serving Thee in holiness and righteousness all the days of their life.”’* In the Sarum service there followed the mention of the saints, and the invocation of their prayers, begin- ning with: ‘‘ The glorious Mary, ever virgin, Mother of our God and Lord Jesus Christ,” and enume- rating the apostles, etc., etc.* In 1549 the saints are still named, but the petition which invoked their prayers is erased; God is praised for the grace which He bestowed upon them, and His aid is sought to enable men to follow their good example.’ In the Sarum Missal, in the same connection, God is besought ‘‘ favourably to accept this obla- tion of our service, as also of all Thy family.”® In 1549 this was erased. There was then introduced what, it is hardly an exaggeration to say, is the ' Vide Estcourt, p. 304. 4 Vide Estcourt, p. 304. 2 Vide Liturgies of Edward VI.,p.88. ° Vide Liturgies of Edward VTI., p. 88. * Ibid., p. 271. ° Vide Estcourt, p.. 305. 510 The Christian Mintstry. most complete statement which the Anglican Li- turgy contains of the fulness, efficacy, and finality of the atonement of Christ: “Ὁ God, heavenly Father, which of Thy tender mercy didst give Thine only Son Jesus Christ to suffer death upon the cross for our redemption, who made there (by His one oblation once offered) a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world.’ ‘Then here fol- lowed the ‘‘invocation,’’ which has been already referred to, and which, it is as curious as it is in- teresting to note, shows that the invocation of 1549 is more in touch with that of the Eastern liturgies than is that of the Sarum Use. It was, however, struck out in 1552.2, In the Sarum Missal, after the invocation and the consecration, the officiant thus proceeds: ‘‘ Wherefore, O Lord, we Thy ser- vants, and likewise Thy holy people, do offer to Thy excellent Majesty, of Thy gifts and bounties, a pure victim, a holy victim, an immaculate victim, the bread of eternal life, and the chalice of ever- lasting salvation, in remembrance, . . . and accept them, .. . a holy sacrifice, an immaculate victim. We humbly beseech Thee . . . command these to be carried by the hands of Thy holy angel to Thine altar on high, . . . that whosoever of us shall by this partaking of the altar receive the most holy body and blood of Thy Son, may be fulfilled with all heavenly benediction and grace.”* Then there ' Vide Liturgies cf Edward VI, p. 88, * Ibid., pp. 88, 267, 281. 3 Vide Estcourt, pp. 307-9. The Witness of the Sarum Missal. 511 followed a supplication on behalf of the dead, who were named. In this passage we have the sacri- ficial character of the elements, a prayer for their conveyance by angelic hands to God’s heavenly altar, their transubstantiation, and its effects upon the recipient. In 1549 some marked changes were made. ‘‘ We, Thy humble servants, do celebrate and make here before Thy Divine Majesty, with these Thy holy gifts, the memorial which Thy Son hath willed us to make, ... entirely desiring Thy fatherly goodness mercifully to accept this our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving,’’ followed by the rest of the first post-Communion prayer so familiar to us, and which contains the New Testa- ment doctrine of the sacrificial character of the believer’s life. God is humbly besought to com- mand ‘these our prayers and supplications, by the ministry of Thy holy angels to be brought into Thy most holy tabernacle,” that ‘‘ whosoever shall be partakers of this Holy Communion may worthily receive the most precious body and blood of Thy Son Jesus Christ, and be fulfilled with Thy grace and heavenly benediction.” Then followed the prayers for the dead. The changes introduced in 1549 were incomplete, though progressive. ‘They are these: (1) The holy gifts, the elements, are de- scribed, not as a victim or as a sacrifice which was to be offered, but as a memorial of Christ’s blessed passion and of Christ’s institution; (2) they are a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, as is also the consecrated life of the believer; (3) the suppli- 512 The Christian Ministry, cation is that the prayers and not, as in the pre-Reformation service, the elements, may be borne by angels before God; (4) worthy reception is in- troduced, but language which might be regarded as recognising transubstantiation is still used; and (5) prayers for the dead are included.’ In 1552 all reference to the ministry of angels was struck out. The petition given above was amended by removing the words which savoured of transubstantiation; so that it read, as it has ever since read, ‘‘ humbly beseeching Thee that all we which be partakers of this Holy Communion may be fulfilled with Thy grace and heavenly benediction.”’* And prayers for the dead were excluded, the result being the first post-Communion prayer (the last sentence being taken from the preceding part of the service), and which is regarded as a compendium of the Christian doctrine of the Lord's Supper, of the believer’s service, of the Saviour’s fulness. Again, the Sarum Missal directed the priest with the sub-deacon to recite the Agnus Dei thrice; and this done, the priest was to say: ‘‘ May this sacred commixtion of the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ be to me and all who receive it salvation of soul and body, and a wholesome preparation for deserving and obtaining life eternal.” After this there follows a prayer which asserts the doctrine of transubstantiation, and “‘ thereby” remission of sins. The priest soon after inclines himself to the host, saying, ‘‘I adore Thee, I glorify Thee,” ete. And 1 Vide Liturgies of Edward VI, p. 89. 2 Tbhid., 280. Changes of 1549, Lncomplete, but Progressive. 513 before and after his reception prayers are offered, which assert that propitiation is effected by the sacrament.’ There is nothing in the Prayer Book of 1549 corresponding to this. True, in that book we find the following to be said by the priest: “‘Christ our Paschal Lamb is offered up for us once for all, when He bare our sins on His body on the cross: for He is the very Lamb of God, that taketh away the sins of the world: wherefore let us keep a joyful and holy feast to the Lord.” But here is decided progress. The finality of the atonement of Christ is asserted. The joyousness of the feast is expressed. No doubt the ‘clerks were directed in the Communion time to sing” the Agnus Dei, and to read some sentences of Holy Scripture. These directions were cancelled in 1552. They have never since been restored. In 1549 we find in the Prayer of Humble Access the petition, ‘‘ Grant us therefore (gracious Lord) so to eat the flesh of Thy dear Son Jesus Christ, and to drink His blood, in these holy mysteries ;’’ but these latter four words were erased in 1552.2. The words of administration, as they were and as they are, illustrate the difference in the doc- trine of the Church before, during, and after the Reformation. The Sarum Missal had as the words of administration : ‘‘ The body of our Lord Jesus Christ preserve thy body and thy soul unto everlasting life.” In 1549 the Prayer Book had these words: “The body of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was given for thee,” etc.; and, ‘‘ The blood of our Lord ' Vide Estcourt, pp. 311-3. ? Vide Liturgies of Edward VI., pp. 92, 279, 33 514 The Chrestian Mintstry. Jesus Christ, which was shed for thee.” The difference is significant. It indicates that the atonement is past. In 1552 those words were erased in favour of these: ‘“‘ Take and eat this in remembrance that Christ died for thee,’ etc.; and, ‘‘Drink this in remembrance,” etc. In 1559 both sentences were united, and ‘‘by the union of both God’s part and man’s part in the ordinance—the reality of God’s gift and the need of man’s con- scious reception of it through faith—have been brought out in perfect clearness and harmony.” ἢ 3. With a single reference to the Articles, our in- quiry must be closed. In the year 1215 the Roman Church, in the Fourth Lateran Council, first decreed the doctrine of transubstantiation. The Romish priesthood, on the basis of that doctrine, offered in the mass propitiatory sacrifices for the living and for the dead. For three centuries after the Lateran Council this doctrine was but a pious opinion. It did not receive the sanction of the Church in Council. In the absence of this the doctrine could not be reckoned among the official and authorised expressions of the Papal system. But this sanction it received from the Tridentine Council in 1562, and ‘its decree as to the eucharistic sacrifice was both approved by the Pope, and also made an article in the new Roman Creed,” in 1564. In 1552 the Forty-two Articles of Religion were agreed upon. These were published by Edward VI. in 1553. They remained, owing to the King’s demise, in 1 Vide Teacher's Prayer Book (Bishop Barry), p. 144 ὃ. Articles contradict Sacramental Expiration. 515 abeyance.! The thirtieth of these Articles declared “the sacrifices of masses” to be ‘‘forged fables and pernicious impostures.”* The Articles were republished ten years later, in 1562. ‘They were reduced to Thirty-nine. This article then received a very emphatic and even awful addition. The word ‘blasphemous ”’ was deliberately and authoritatively introduced before ‘‘ fables ;”’ and with this and other alterations in other articles they were published in English and in Latin in 1572. But why was ‘‘blasphemous’’ inserted? It was the authoritative answer of the Reformed Church to the unscriptural decree of the Council of Trent, passed ten years before. It is the official and unreserved exclusion of the doctrines involved in the modern sacerdotal claim from the theological definitions of the Anglican Church. That claim demands propitiation as effected by the sacrament. It further demands a sacrificing priest. The Church of England before the Refor- mation admitted the doctrine, and recognised the hieratical functions of the official. But careful and candid examination of the ordinal, as well as of the office for the administration of the Lord’s Supper, shows that propitiation has now no place in the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. The ἱερεύς has now no place amongst her ministers. 1 Vide History of Articles, Hardwick, p. 76; Exposition of the Thirty-nine Articles, Bishop H. Browne, p. 6; and Yeacher’s Prayer Book, Bishop Barry, p. 280 ὁ. 2 “Unde Missarum sacrificia, quibus vulgo dicebatur, sacerdotem offerre Christum in remissionem pcenze aut culpe pro vivis et defunctis, figmenta sunt, et perniciose imposture ” (Art. XXX., 1553). But in 1563 the last line reads : ‘‘ Blasphema figmenta sunt,” ete. (Vide Hardwick, pp. 316-7). 516 The Christian Ministry. The nature of the sacerdotal claim has now been stated in the language of its most influential and experienced expositors. The support which has been sought for it from the ‘‘principle of dependence ” has been shown to be weak, irrelevant, and, in the points for which the principle was cited, wide of the mark. The announcement which was made by our Lord to His followers, on the evening of the first Easter Day, has been confidently and constantly de- scribed as the Apostolic Ordinal. Upon this unproved and even unhistorical hypothesis a world of sacer- dotalism has been erected. The hypothesis has been examined ; and whether we regard the circumstances under which our Lord’s words were uttered, or the persons who were present, or those who were absent, or the nature of the mission, or the powers then con- ferred, or their connection with an earlier promise, or the perpetual abeyance in which the apostles allowed the sacerdotal prerogatives to le, the conclusion which the investigation indicates and establishes is that these words are not “‘ the Apostolic Ordinal ;” and consequently all the claims which are urged on foot of their being so are unfounded, even though we omitted the damage which these claims sustain from the failure of the principle of transmission, individual, charismatic, and official, of Apostolic Succession. They are further discredited by the sufficiency of the atonement of our Lord and Saviour Jesus-Christ, and by His Heavenly High Priesthood. They are con- demned by the inspired argument of the Epistle to the Hebrews; they are unknown to the fathers of the Christ's Kingdom no Sacerdotal System. 517 earliest Christian centuries. True, they made their presence felt, and influentially felt, from the time of Cyprian, and both priest and propitiation had a long reign. ‘They have ever ruled in darkness ; and it may be doubted whether sacerdotalism, by asserting its awful prerogatives, as a personal possession, is not a terrible form of selfishness, even though there are, and there are now, conspicuous exceptions to this too pre- vailing rule. ‘The principle prevailed, however, for long in the Church of England. From that Church we have seen that it was gradually, progressively, autho- ritatively, and deliberately excluded. Thus, reviewing all the evidence which has been submitted, examining again the writings of Holy Seripture, and the later literature of the sub-apostolic period, represented by the works of the anonymous Didaché, of Clement of Rome, of Ignatius, of Poly- carp, of Trenzus, of Tertullian, and, earlier still, of Justin Martyr, we are unable to find any warrant for the presence, in the Christian scheme, of sacramental propitiation, or of a sacrificing priest. Both obtained in that economy, which was elementary and pro- visional, and which was described by an inspired writer as being ‘“‘ ready to vanish away.” As we reflect upon these words, we find ourselves walking amid the ruins of God’s most holy house, and from which He departed, consigning it to man, and thereby to desolation and to doom. Its corridors are defiled, its columns are shattered, its roof is open to the light of the stars that looked down upon the departing Israelites. Its veil is rent, and 518 The Christian Mintstry. rent for ever and for ever. We wonder at the ways of God. We hear words which come from His throne. ‘“God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by His Son, whom He hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also He made the worlds; who, being the brightness of His glory, and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high.’’! We medi- tate upon these high words. As we ponder them in our sinful souls, the Holy Ghost, the Comforter, glorifies the perfect propitiation and the heavenly priest by connecting His perfect work with our im- perfect faith. We wonder still, and other words are given us: ‘‘ Having boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus.””* This announcement is full and is final. Itis bracing. It is consolatory. We must tell it out to all, and all must tellit out. ΑΒ we reflect still further upon the evangel which burst upon the world through the rent veil, one imperative enouncement is the undertone of the message. It is published by apostles, prophets, teachers. It is reiterated by bishops, presbyters, and deacons. Martyrs in their flaming shrouds have died to vindi- cate it, and it is heard anew in Christendom to-day from the strong lips of him whose simple life taught many lessons he never dreamt of teaching: ‘“‘ The Kingdom of Christ has no sacerdotal system.” 1 Heb.i. 1-3. BN Selo, sey 10. * Bishop Lightfoot. APPENDICES. MESSIANIC PROPHECY THE INCENTIVE AND AUTHORITY FOR THE ELECTION OF ST. MATTHIAS. δεῖ, Acts i. 21, emphatic. This conclusion is drawn by the Apostle from the language of the Psalms (1xix. 25, cix. 8). With the single exception of Psalm xxii., there is no psalm so frequently cited as applicable to the Redeemer as is the sixty-ninth. There are four quotations from it, in addition to this in the Acts, in the New Testament (St. John ii, 17, xv. 25, xix. 28, 29, compared with St. Matt. xxvii. 34; Rom. xv. 3). Ofthese thatin John xv. 20 is of the first order in importance. It is the application of the psalm by Christ to Himself, and it is certain the Apostles heard, and it is extremely probable they remem- bered that application. To that psalm as well as to the hundred and ninth, St. Peter refers when he shows the assembled company the necessity there was for “ this scripture ” being fulfilled. It is one of along series of citations from the Old Testament which show that Messianic or apostolic experience was that at which the prediction aimed and by which it would be exhausted. The pre- diction was the utterance of the Holy Ghost (Acts i. 16), and it expressed the Divine Mind on two facts: one, the desolation of the traitor’s dwelling; the other, the succession to the traitor’s office (Psalm cix. 8). The first part of the prediction had been fulfilled. Remorse, despair, all that flashes upon us from the woeful words, ‘I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood,” fulfilled the purpose at which the prediction aimed. The second part of the prediction must also be realised. But this required the intervention of others, “His bishopric let another take.” To the fulfilment of this it was morally necessary the assembly should proceed. Apostolic action became imperative because its object was predictive: “ de? οὖν τῶν συνελθόντων ἡμῖν (ἀνδρῶν ἐν παντὶ χρόνῳ ᾧ εἰσῆλθε καὶ ἐξῆλθεν ἐφ᾽ ἡμᾶς ὁ κύριος ᾿Ιησοῦς ;” comp. “"Avdpes ἀδελφοί, ἔδει πληρωθῆναι τὴν γραφὴν (ταύτην). The reader will observe the emphatic position of δεῖ in the prediction and in the proposition which led up to the fact by which it was exhausted, and whether the causative particle be δεῖ οὖν. or διὸ λέγει (Eph. iv. 8), or ἵνα πληρωθῇ (St. Matt. i. 22, 11, 15, etc.), or “γὰρ (Acts ii. 25), or ὅτως πληρωθῇ (St. Matt. ii. 23, etc.), the import is the same. Connection—designed and indissoluble—is decreed between the prediction and its accomplishment. The prophecy points to the history (for the foresight of 520 Appendices. Scripture see in this connection the significant word used in Gal. iii. 8, προϊδοῦσα. δὲ ἡ γραφή). The history exhausts the prophecy. Both indicate the over-ruling mind of God. Nor can there be any reasonable doubt upon this important point. As certainly as David spake by the Holy Ghost, St. Peter acted by the Holy Ghost. It is necessary to emphasise this rudimentary fact. Men assert that St. Peter was here precipitate; that the quotation from the Psalter was misapplied, and that the silence of Scripture about St. Matthias is suggestive of something like independent conclusions having been drawn. Beck (Prof. Theol., Tiibingen) has. spoken clearly upon these points. He says: “It may be asked whether the disciples, who have not here as yet the authority of inspiration, did not go too far in their application of the Scriptures (ver. 21, 1.). They do not remain con- tent with applying passages of Scripture which (Ps. lxix. 25, cix. 8) treat of children of God in general, tothe concrete case of Judas, in order to understand the perdition of Judas in its scriptural bearings, and to wait in good hope for God to supply the loss; they do not wait for this, but draw their independent conclusions and inferences for their own action, completing their number, even though it be by resorting to the lot, . . . But if the Lord Himself did not fill up the vacant place during the forty days of His presence among the disciples, all the while having closely in view the services which they were to render as His witnesses, and even when He said to the eleven, ‘“‘ Ye shall be My witnesses after ye receive the Holy Ghost ;” did not see that there was any occasion to say anything whatever of a successor to Judas before they received the Holy Spirit, or to add such a successor to their number ; if He had expressly coun- selled them to wait until the day when the Spirit should be poured out, then all the more should they have been able, and have felt it their duty, to wait at least till they received the Spirit.”’ Later on the same writer admonishes us, on the strength of the apostolic procedure which he challenges, ‘“‘ that we are not entitled, in reliance upon expressions of Scripture couched in general terms, to forestall the providence of God in special cases and wish to limit it, wish to dig the channels as it were for the fulfilment of His word—to determine the means by which He is to make good any deficiency which still exists.” These strictures represent two leading ideas: first, apostolic misapplication of Scripture ; secondly, apostolic action, independent of the Holy Ghost. The early part of this note disposes of the first. Both psalms are Messianic, and the mind of the Church upon this truth is indicated by the fact that the sixty- ninth Psalm was inserted amongst the Proper Psalms for Good Friday at the last revision of the Book of Common Prayer. This its liturgical position not only aids devotion, but contributes strength to faith, by soliciting the attention of the worshipper to the profound sympathy which exists between Davidic prophecy and Messianic history. The second idea is stated in apparent ignorance of the gift, partial and preparatory, of the Holy Ghost which was bestowed upon the Apostles by their Risen Lord, and which is recorded in St. John xx, 22. Westcott, following Godet, regards this as the resurrection gift, in contrast to the larger afflatus of the ascension. With reference to the former he recently observes, “ The characteristic effect of the Paschal gift was shown in the new faith by which the disciples were gathered into a living The Essentials of Apostolicity. 521 society.’’ Their action would accordingly be inspired by Him who came to them, through the ministration of their victorious Lord. But even if we had not such assurances as St. John’s Gospel supplies, St. Luke’s history suggests that the prophecies of the Psalter were, inter alia, expounded to the disciples by our Lord. If so, is it credible that they should be made acquainted with the bearing of both these psalms upon His history, and that all reference to what the Holy Ghost had predicted respecting the appointment of a successor to the traitor should be excluded? Τῇ this is incredible, then the measure of the incredibility is that of the improbability which weighs down the rationalistic idea of Beck respecting the .precipitancy which he attributes to St. Peter, while he omits altogether the essential fact recorded by St. John xx. 22. The official language of the Church, expressed in the Collect for St. Matthias’ Day, together with the selection of Acts i. 15-26 as “the portion of Scripture appointed for the Epistle,” indicates with unmistakable clearness the teaching of the Anglican Communion upon (a) the choice of St. Matthias, and (2) the scriptural authorisation of the apostles. The Collect runs thus: O Almighty God, who into the place of the traitor Judas didst choose Thy faithful servant Matthias to be of the number of the twelve Apostles.” The Church, in this supplication, guides her children respecting the theories which are here referred to, THE ESSENTIALS OF APOSTOLICITY. The apostolicity of a Church is, according to the text, dependent upon its relationship to Christ, as the foundation upon which both apostles and prophets built ; upon the maintenance of the doctrine which the apostles taught in His name ; and upon the executive which Christ instituted, in and by them. It is not to be supposed that these were matured at Pentecost, but rather that they existed in an inchoate form, the growth of which was under the guidance and by the power of the Holy Ghost. In the Acts of the Apostles, we have what one writer considers “the first historical notice that the converts were now beginning to consolidate into a society.” Dr. Cunningham (Zhe Growth of the Church, p. 4) sees this in Acts ii, 42: “They continued steadfastly in the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and the prayers.”’ He allows that “this lets in a flood of light upon the Apostolic Church,” but while allowing this, in the next sentence he disallows one of the essen- tials of apostolicity, for he says: “‘Church’ itcould scarcely yet be properly called, for it had little cohesion, no organisation, and no office bearers.” The teaching of the opening chapter of the Acts is apparently insignificant or irrelevant. The predictions of the Psalter, which aimed at apostolic and corporate action, are no less so. The Church is, however, still regarded as “apostolic.” The three leading essentials to this great claim are found in the passage referred to above, and accordingly 1 do not hesitate to regard it as classical and germinant, even though we lose τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ from ver. 47. The presence of the article four times over, gives this verse an extraordinary significance. These three thousand souls were brought into living union with 522 Appendices. the Lord Jesus Christ. They became members of His Body. He became their Head. The initiative was from Him. Life, supernatural. spiritual, everlasting, was common to them, to the apostles, to the prophets. ΑἹ] could say, ‘“‘ Christ is our life.” But, again, the second note, viz., the expression of that life is also per- ceptible. It is in the apostles’ doctrine (τῇ διδαχῇ τῶν ἀποστόλων). This included (a) St. Peter’s sermon; (Ὁ) the authorised Sacraments of initiation and of communion ; and, then, as expressive of the attitude of the soul towards God, (6) worship, probably liturgicai, for we have rats προσευχαῖς. The κοινωνία was the unique manifestation of generosity which characterised the Church of A.D. 33. Suicer’s note is clear and thorough. “‘ Hzec vox, inter alia, significat in sacris beneficentiam, eleemosynam, et officia charitatis. Ita sumitur ad _ Rom. xv. 26, κοινωνίαν τινὰ ποιήσασθαι, communicationem aliquam facere sine collationem, id est, conferre aliquid in pauperes: ubi Theodoretus per εὐποίαν explicat τὴν κοινωνίαν. He quotes Theophylact upon the moral significance which is implied by the use of the word κοινωνία in preference to the word ἐλεημοσύνη, Whenever kindness is shown to the poor. Bengel gives a wider meaning to the word in the text, nor is there any good reason for narrowing it. ‘Omnium bonorum internorum et externorum, actionum et consiliorum.” For the high place assigned in the Christian system to εὐποία καὶ κοινωνία, vide Heb, xiii. 16. The apostles’ doctrine, then, in the passage in the Acts, may be regarded as objective, subjective, contemplative, and active. The authorised executive of the Church is necessarily presup- posed. It is, moreover, obviously implied by the express association of the ‘apostles’? with the doctrine. If these three factors constitute apostolicity, their appearance in any society gives it a right to the title apostolic, and it can hardly be denied that the deliberate exclusion of any one of these by any society involves the surrender by that society of the title, and of the spiritual blessings which are assuredly implied thereby, if humble obedience to the spirit of God be likely to bring blessing. If a Church be built upon Christ, yet if it exclude apostolic doctrine, it may be a Church, since any assembly may be so called, but it cannot be called an apostolic Church. If it have the same foun- dation, and happily possess and promulge apostolic doctrine, but repudiate apostolic executive, it is no doubt a Church : but, it is not an apostolic Church. Apostolicity in the nineteenth century is neither more nor less than it was in the first, due regard being had to the difference between an inchoate and mature condition, and to the laws of continuity. Christ is the same yesterday and to-day and for ever (Heb, xiii. 8). His doctrine is unchanging and inflexible (Jude 3). The executive of His Church, in a fluid state, at first, was of Divine appoint- ment (1 Cor. xii, 28), and remembering that it was provisional, or itinerating, or permanent, apostolicity will be respected when necessity urges the reap- pearance of such orders as were in apostolic times subordinated to authorized official control. (Upon this verse as an image of the Primitive Church, see Bishop Pearson, in Acta Ap., i. 33; ii. 41. It is quoted by Wordsworth.) Many who would willingly concede the first and the second ideas as necessary to apostolicity, do not hesitate to exclude the third. They regard with im- patience almost any statement on behalf of apostolic execntive, or an apostolic } Peril of Self-Shepheraing Sheep. 823 ministry, authorised, scriptural, and historical. They disparage ordination, and by very loose talk about a blessed and an encouraging doctrine, “the priest- hood of believers,” they encourage schism, which is sinful, and not infrequently they open the door of opportunity to the wicked, and to the reckless, and to the ignorant, by which occasion is given to the enemies of God to blaspheme. There is a phrase in the Epistle of St. Jude which meets moral disorder of this nature. It is translated “ feeding themselves without fear,” and the reference to “ feed- ing” in Bagster’s Bible is to Phil. iii. 19. This, [humbly submit, is an irrelevant reference. There is no touch whatever between the original of St. Jude and that of St. Paul. The Revised Version is a decided improvement, for ἀφόβως ἑαυτοὺς ποιμαίνοντες is rendered “ shepherds that without fear feed themselves.” It is probable the Revisers, when they decided upon this exact rendering, had in their minds the older cognate sentence in one of the most searching chapters in the Bible, Ezek. xxxiy. 2: “ Woe be to the shepherds of Israel that do feed themselves.” These words would no doubt be fresh and forceful, when the passage in St. Jude came to be dealt with. But the words “ feed themselves” in Ezekiel are βόσκουσιν ἑαυτούς, while those in St. Jude are ἑαυτοὺς ποιμαίνοντες, “shepherding themselves.” They refer to two very different ideas. Ezekiel refers to the self-seeking shepherd. St. Jude refers to the self-shepherding sheep. Ezekiel’s woe is denounced upon an indolent, an indulgent, an egotistic, a selfish priesthood. St. Jude’s woe is denounced upon a wilful, a self-asserting, a schismatical people. Ezekiel’s words are directed against the dangers which wait upon the clergy. St. Jude’s words are levelled against such of the laity as think it no sin to separate themselves whenever caprice may coax them, and who multiply “ our unhappy divisions,’ and who increase disintegration without a fear. (Vide Salmon’s Jntroduction, p. 508 n.) If this explanation of St. Jude’s words be correct, the importance attached in the text to a duly constituted executive, as one factor of apostolicity, is sustained. Meanwhile, it is to be re- membered that the word was somewhat freely, if not loosely, applied in earlier times, which albeit suggests the importance that belongs to it. The prevailing consent of Christendom recognises its rightful and ancient application to Clement, Ignatius, Hermas, Barnabas, and Polycarp, as the “ apostolic Fathers.” The canon of Irenzeus was called apostolic. The Apostolical Church Order, now associated with the name of Professor Bickell, of Marburg, called Apostolische Kirchenordnung, and to be carefully distinguished from the Apostolical Con- stitutions; the lost treatise of Irenzeus on Apostolic Preaching, and upon which Bryennios speculated as possibly a comment upon the Didaché,—a speculation which was, moreover, endorsed by Professor Rendel Harris (Oldest Church Manual, Schaff, sec. ed., p. 116) ; the Nicene and the Roman creeds; together with bishops (“apostolicus usurpabatur de episcopis, qui dicebantur apostolici viri, et eorum dignitas, apostolica dignitas,” Suicer), and epistles (Gregory Thaumaturg., ser. ii.,de Annuncia. B.V.M.). Perhaps the most liberal application of this much coveted term was its association with the temple at Constanti- nople, which was dedicated to St. Sophia : “ Donec apostolici subeuntes limina templi Incluta sacrato potuissent membra sepulchro.”’ 524 Appendices. The reader will recall the place which the term holds in the original Creed of Nicza (Soc., His., i. 8), ἀναθεματίζει. ἡ ἁγία καθολικὴ καὶ ἀποστολικὴ ἐκκλησία. Tertullian’s test of apostolicity is in those words, and their force is accentuated by the way in which he uses them :—“ Illis ecclesiis, quee licet nullum ex apos- tolis, vel apostolicis auctorem suum proferant . . . tamen in eadem fide con- spirantes, nen minus apostolice deputantur pro consanguinitate doctrine” (Prese. Her., c. 32). I confess to regarding these last three words with peculiar interest. They appear to bring the great African apologist into touch with a great English- man. That touch unites periods which time severs by thirteen centuries. Bishop Ridley—in the interval between October 1st, 1555, when he was con- demned, and October 16th, when he was burned—wrote the famous Farewells. Letter xxxii. refers, in most solemn and weighty words, to apostolicity. The teachers of the Church of Rome ‘‘may be called apostolici, that is true disciples of the apostles, and also that Church and congregation of Christians an apostolic Church, yea, and that certain hundred years after the same was first erected and builded upon Christ, by the true apostolical doctrine taught by the mouths of the apostles themselves.” The reformer then traces in a few sentences the degeneration of Rome ‘‘from the trade of truth and true religion.” “Another gospel” had been preached. “Another power” had been exercised. It hath * taken upon it to order and rule the Church of Christ by other strange laws, canons, and rules, than ever it received of the apostles, or the apostles of Christ,” and accordingly it has forfeited its title, both “ of the see and of the sitter therein,” to apostolicity. That title requires—and here Ridley breathes the spirit of the great African Churchman, and expresses his very words—‘ consanguinity of doctrine.” “ The degeneration of Rome” “ from the trade of truth and true religion” had not taken place when Irenzus wrote. This gives painful but keen interest to the opinion of Harnack, upon the orthodoxy of the Roman Church, in the sub-apostolic period. “ Irenzeus con- tends that the consent, with the congregation in Rome, in matters of faith is, for each Church, the proof of her Christianity, and he grounds this contention upon what he points out, that in the congregation in Rome the tradition of faith, since the apostolic times, has been kept unfalsified. It is not doubtful to me that Irenzus here thought of the symbolum of the Church in Rome, which we have still in its original form. By this symbolum, which is at the same time the especial property and legitimate title of the Romish Church, all utter- ances of faith are, according to Irenzeus, to be measured. He does not concede ; no, he contends with exuberant assertiveness, that the decisive standard for the Christianity of the Church, in matters of faith, hes in Rome. So far as they agree with the apostolic tradition, so strictly kept in Rome, all Churches—we may supplement the opinion of Irenzus by that of Tertullian—form the one apostolic-catholic Church. They are themselves apostolic.”' Irenzus, Ter- 1 “Trenius behauptet, dass die Uebereinstimmung mit der romischen Gemeinde in Sachen des Glaubens fiir jede Kirche der Priifstein ihrer Christlichkeit sei, und er begriindet diese Behauptung durch Hinweis darauf, dass in der romischen Gemeinde die Ueberlieferung des Glaubens von der Apostel Zeiten her unver- Manztfold Teaching of Samaritan Mission. 525 tullian, and Ridley, attach the same essential importance to apostolic doctrine. If its prevalence in the Roman Church, in the second century, constituted the strength of its claim to be regarded as apostolic, then by the corruption of that doctrine, that same Church “has forfeited its title both of the see and of the sitter therein ” to apostolicity. THE WITNESS OF THE SAMARITAN MISSION OF SS. PETER AND JOHN TO CHURCH ORDER, TO SACRAMENTAL INITIATION, TO CONFIRMATION, AND TO UNITY. ἀπέστειλαν πρὸς αὐτοὺς τὸν Πέτρον καὶ ᾿Ιωάννην (Acts vill. 14). The despatch of these two holy apostles is full of teaching. It touches the life of the Church at many points. When the Galilean ministry of our Lord had closed (St. Luke ix. 51), He passed through Samaria, on His way to Jerusalem. The traditional animosity between the Jews and the Samaritans, and the obvious intention of the Redeemer to press on to the holy city, so exasperated the Samaritans that “they did not receive Him” (St. Luke ix. 53). St. James and St. John said, “Lord, wilt Thou that we command fire to come down from heaven and con- sume them, even as Elias did?” a proposal which the Lord met by a solemn pause in His progress and an instructive rebuke (στραφεὶς δὲ ἐπετίμησεν avrois). If this incident occurred some six or seven months before the Crucifixion, and if the evangelisation of “ the city of Samaria” (τὴν πόλιν τῆς Σαμαρείας) took place within one year of the Ascension, then within, say, eighteen months, St. John had visited the Samaritans twice; but under what altered conditions! His Master, rejected in the first visit, is accepted inthesecond. Hereditary acerbity is dispelled by “great joy” (ἐγένετο δὲ πολλὴ χαρὰ ἐν τῇ πόλει ἐκείνῃ). The apostle himself is as changed as the people. He who, eighteen months ago, suggested the descent of the fire of vengeance, now comes from Jerusa'em, to which he was then moving, to invoke the celestial fire of the Holy Ghost upon, probably, some of the very persons whom, in earlier days, he would have destroyed. Who can realize the rush of memories which crowded the soul of the saint, when he entered upon a scene which must have been so suggestive ? falscht bewahrt worden sei. Es ist mir nicht zweifelhaft, dass Ireniius hier an das Symbol der rémischen Kirche gedacht hat, welches uns jetzt noch in seiner urspriinglichen Gestalt vorliegt. An diesem Symbole, welches besonderes Higenthum und Rechtstitel der rémischen Kirche zugleich ist, sind alle Glaubens- aussagen nach IJreniius zu messen. Er concedirt nichte, nein, er behauptet mit freudiger Plerophorie, dass in Rom der entscheidende Masstab fiir die Christ- lichkeit der Kirchen in Sachen des Glaubens liege. Sofern sie mit der in Rom so streng bewahrten apostolischen Tradition stimmen, bilden alle Kirchen—so diirfen wir im Sinne des Ireniius mit Tertullian ergiinzen—die eine, apostolisch- katholische Kirche. sind sie selbst apostolisch.”” (Analecten, Harnack, pp. 256- 257, Die Gesellschaftsverfassung der christlichen Kirchen im Alterthum, von Edwin Hatch.) 526 Appendices. But the love of Christ was unchanged, continuous, and active. It dealt, as of old, with even the Samaritans. That love is the most certain and effective solvent of prejudice, whether it be political, or national, or religious. It is in- disputably true, ἡ ἀγάπη οὐδέποτε ἐκπίπτει. St. John never appears again in the scenes recorded in the Acts. But his association with St. Peter on this mission is still further interesting, when the fact of their despatch is considered, together with the nature of their mission, and the evidence thus furnished to the existence and to the expression of an intelligent ecclesiastical solidarity. The record of St. Luke is clear. ᾿Ακούσαντες δὲ ot ἐν Τεροσολύμοις ἀπόστολοι, ὅτι δέδεκται ἡ Σαμάρεια τὸν λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἀπέστειλαν πρὸς αὐτοὺς τὸν Πέτρον καὶ ᾿Ιωάννην. The apostles heard the fact. The apostles sent the delegates. This seems to teach the existence amongst the apostles of authority, which both St. Peter and St. John recognised, and respected, and respected equally. The proprieties of the language employed by the historian exclude the idea that the other apostles, who ἀπέστειλαν, were inferior to the two, οἵτινες καταβάντες, etc. An equal may send an equal or an inferior, A superior may send an inferior, but for an inferior official to “ send” a superior is, in the nature of things, a contradiction. Our Blessed Lord has said, οὐδὲ ἀπόστολος μείζων τοῦ πέμψαντος αὐτόν (St. John xiii. 16), The bearing of the passage upon the alleged primacy of St. Peter is obvious. If St. Peter was at this time the Vicar of Christ or the Prince of the Apostles, his official pre-eminence, and his prerogatives, would have shaped the historian’s language, so that ““ Peter would have taken John,” and even then, it could not be said that the apostles had sent their Prince, or the Vicar of their Lord, any more than it could be said—to compare small things with great—that a Cabinet Council had sent the Sovereign on an errand. Bengel’s comment is worth quoting: “ Qui mittitur, aut a majori mittitur, aut a pari. Collegii apostolici major fuit auctoritas, quam Petri et Johannis singulatim. Hodie Pontifex Rom. non diceretur mitti a quoquam.” The primacy of St. Peter was certainly unknown to St. Luke, when Samaria was evangelised. Nor can we omit, what the historian emphasizes, viz., the position which thus early St. James occupied in the apostolic ἡ body (Acts xii. 17 and Acts xxi. 18)—a position which St, Peter recognised, and which renders the hypothesis of St. James’ presidency over the apostolic meet- ing, implied by Acts viii. 14, credible. (Vide Bishop Patrick, vol. vii., part ii., p. 37, and Salmon, Jnfallibility of the Church, Lect. xviii.) The nature or purpose of this mission has occasioned considerable differ- ence of opinion. The visit of the apostles has been connected with the solemn rite of Confirmation. The passage under review is one of three which are generally cited in this connection (Acts viii. 14-17, xix. 1-6 ; Heb. vi. 1, 2), and I do not think the addition of Acts xiv. 21, 22 would either strain Scripture, or weaken a reasonable case, by the introduction of a doubtful illustration. The rendering of the Auth. Vers. of καὶ μαθητεύσαντες ἱκανούς, by “and had taught many,” is not only faulty. It is theologically defective. The verb is that which is employed by our Lord, in the Great Commission, and it includes βαπτίζοντες ...and διδάσκοντες. ‘‘ Making disciples’’ has two essential conditions: sacra- mental initiation and subsequent instruction. In both, St. Paul and St. Barnabas had engaged in this, their first missionary journey. And the next statement of Importance of Confirmation. 527 the historian justifies the belief that spiritual and complementary work was done, by ἐπιστηρίζοντες τὰς ψυχὰς τῶν μαθητῶν, 1.6., of those who had been baptized and taught. Hence the citation of this passage, in its truer rendering, is in point. The contention of those who disparage Confirmation is that the gift of the Holy Ghost was manifested in Samaria and in Ephesus in a miraculous way (Acts viii. 18, ἰδὼν ; xix. 6, ἐλάλουν τε γλώσσαις Kai προεφήτευον) ; that these χαρίσματα have been withdrawn from the Church; that the circumstances of the Samaritan converts were local and particular, and furnish no authority whatever for the institution of a rite, which is said to be apostolic, catholic, and perpetual. Calfhill (Answer to Martiall, p. 215) argues in this spirit, not so much, however, against Confirmation, for of this he says: “ Children... should be baptized. Then afterward, if ye will have them confirmed, I allow it well ; retaining that order, which in the primitive Church was, and in the English Church is, used : that children, after certain years, be presented to the bishop : and, rendering an account of that faith of theirs (which by their sureties in baptism they professed), have hands laid on them ; which is nothing else but prayer made for them. Quid enim est aliud manuum impositio, quam oratio super hominem?” (Aug., De Bap. cont Don., lib.iii., c. xvi., ed. Ben.) But the strength of Calfhill’s argument is against the erection of an apostolic ordinance into a Christian sacrament, which later is the Tridentine claim. Alford says : “The English Church in retaining the rite of Confirmation, has not grounded it on any institution by the apostles, but merely declares the laying on of hands on the candidates, to certify them (by this sign) of God’s favour and goodness towards them, to be ‘ after the example of the holy apostles.’” He proceeds to argue that “if we have here no institution of a perpetual ordinance, something peculiar to the case before us must have prompted this journey,” and this moving cause he finds partly in the Samaritans, and partly in Philip. But the history assigns the “moving cause” neither to the one nor to the other. It belonged to the apostolic body in Jerusalem (viii. 14), and if so, it invalidates the contention that limits the presence of the delegates to some local circum- ' stance, especially if we find in Acts xiv. 21, 22 an unstrained support to the apostolic action recorded in c, viii., and if to both be added the evidence of the Ephesian converts (Acts xix. 1-6). The reference in Heb. vi. 2 is instructive. The laying on of hands is there (as in Acts viii. 16, 17, and Acts xix. 1-6) complementary to baptism. ‘ What is here referred to is (at least primarily and principally) the imposition of hands, which in the apostolic age was con- nected with baptism, and followed it either immediately, as at Acts xix. 5, or as a later complement, as at Acts viii. 15-17.” (Delitzsch, Zpistle Heb., vol. ii, p. 275.) Bingham, vol. iv., Book xii., gives full patristic references, on, inter alia, the connection, in the passages in the Acts and in the Epistle to the Hebrews, between baptism and the laying on of hands. It will be observed that the inspired writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews terms “laying on of hands” one of the fundamentalia of the doctrine of Christ. If so, it is general, rather than local ; obligatory, not optional ; permanent, not occasional. The connection in which these words lie, shows how much more compre- hensive was rudimentary religion in apostolic times than it is in ourday. Now 528 Appendices. many whose names are most deservedly had in honour in the Church, regard the gospel as containing on@ universal truth, or at most two. These are, in some quarters, considered “the fundamentals,” without which every dis- course is considered defective, if not unfaithful, The writer of this great epistle had a larger and wider range of dogmas. He regarded as “ fundamental” re- pentance from dead works, faith towards God, baptisms, the laying on of hands, the resurrection, and even eschatology. Hooker (Book v., ec. Ixvi., 4, 5), quoting (as does Bingham) Tertullian, Cyprian, etc., regards Confirmation as “ grounded upon the example of Peter and John” in Samaria, and Hook (Church Dic., Ῥ. 228), Cook (Acts of the Ap., Com., p. 93), Procter (His. Com. Prayer, p. 402), Blunt (His. Church, p. 40), Wheatley (On Com. Prayer, p. 378) and Barry (Teacher's Prayer Book), take the same view. The official language of the Church is most guarded, where caution is necessary, and it is clear, where Scripture justifies its being so. Three separate official utterances of the Church have been made on this subject, viz., Art. XXV., Can. Ix., lxi., and the Office for Confirma- tion. The Article emphatically excludes it from being a sacrament. On this point, as on so many others, Anglican theology is opposed to Tridentine. The canons are silent as to the exact occasion of its institution. No scriptaral reference is made. The rite is regarded as “a solemn, ancient, and laudable custom in the Church of God, continued from the apostles’ times,” and such is its importance that every minister is required to take especial care “that none shall be presented to the Bishop . . . but such as can render an account of their faith,” and “‘ likewise to procure as many as he can then to be brought, and by the Bishop to be confirmed.” The office is silent as to the origin of the rite, but considering that the prayer which follows the imposition of hands asserts that this is done “after the example of Thy holy apostles,” and that we know of no “ example” other than these in the Acts of the Apostles, it is not unreasonable to conclude that the Anglican Church allows her children to believe in the apostolicity of the ordinance. The importance of supplication for the Holy Spirit, before, during, and after the imposition of hands, shows the high place which the Church assigns in the ordinance to prayer. (Cyprian, Zp. Iub., 73, “ut, oratione pro eis habita et manu imposita, invocaretur et infun- dereter super eos Spiritus Sanctus.”) There is no trace in the office of the Holy Ghost being given, as a matter of course. The confirmee is regarded as having already received the Blessed Spirit, and the threefold supplication is for “strength,” for “daily increase,” and for perpetual indwelling. Experience illustrates the vast importance of this rite. It is not an exaggeration to say that, even those clergy who are most familiar with mission work, and all its en- couragements, readily admit that there is no office to compare with Confirmation in manifesting spiritual results. But the passage which has given rise to this note, has quite as important a bearing on another matter, which is none the less interesting because it is not dogmatic, as is the Petrine controversy ; or ritualistic, as is Confirmation. This verse indicates the conscious solidarity of the apostolic Church. It is symptomatic of that unity, for which our Blessed Lord prayed (St. John xvii. 21), and it is the earliest intimation we have of that oneness which belongs to life, though exhibited in varying conditions, .but derived from a common Organic Unity of Apostolic Christianity. 529 source. “ The Church which was at Jerusalem” was here in sympathy with the converts in Samaria, even though they “received the word of God” from one who did not belong to the apostolic body. That sympathy found friendly yet official expression. Those who represented it returned, when their mission was concluded, to Jerusalem, from whence they had been despatched (Acts viii. 25). The same moral condition reappears in the connection between Jerusalem and Antioch, Cypriots and Cyrenians evangelise Phenice, Cyprus, and Antioch. These men were not belonging to the apostolic body. But the latter heard of the work, its reality, and its strength, even as they had heard earlier still of the progress of the gospel in Samaria. As then they sent St. Peter and St. John, so now they send (ἐξαπέστειλαν, Acts xi. 22) St. Barnabas to Antioch, who with St. Paul is entrusted with substantial help to meet the necessities of the poorer brethren in Judea. Thus the Church at Jerusalem is in touch with believers in Samaria and in Antioch, and in each mission, representatives from Jerusalem are made welcome. This spiritual affinity engenders practical sympathy between those who, though distant from each other, are yet one in Christ Jesus. It is the growth of that union which, in its healthiest state, comes of spiritual and organic life. The strength and the extent of this is conspicuous in the fact of the great Council of Jerusalem having assembled. The Church of Antioch is distracted by Judaizing teachers. SS. Paul and Barnabas are unable to effect an eirenikon. Appeal is made to “the apostles and elders” at Jerusalem, where the Council is gathered. In due course, the decree is promulged, and finality is given to the debate. The epistle is addressed to the believers in Antioch, in Syria, and in Cilicia, because there was an actual necessity. But it is further circulated in Derbe, in Lystra, and probably in Iconium and Antioch in Pisidia: ὡς δὲ διεπορεύοντο τὰς πόλεις, παρεδίδουν αὐτοῖς φυλάσσειν τὰ δόγματα τὰ κεκριμένα ὑπὸ τῶν ἀποστόλων καὶ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων τῶν ἐν ἹΙερουσαλήμ (Acts xvi. 4). The circulation and acceptance of the decree in the Churches which are named, indicate the position which Jerusalem held as the mother Church; her attitude towards the Churches in other regions; the ready and mutual recognition of that attitude, and the assumption of it as the normal condition of Church life, by the apostles, and the knowledge of it by St. Luke. For the decree was accepted, where it might have been spurned. It was borne by one, who, in bearing it beyond the locality which occasioned the Council and the decree, showed his consciousness of spiritual unity, of organic membership, of ecclesias- tical solidarity, as factors in the life of what we know and recognise as the One Holy Catholic Church. It is one in Life, in Light, in Love, This oneness received early designation in Acts ix. 31: Ἢ μὲν οὖν ἐκκλησία καθ᾽ ὅλης τῆς ᾿Ιουδαίας καὶ Γαλιλαίας kai Σαμαρείας. To the Christian societies in the south, in the centre, and in the north of Palestine, the inspired evangelist gives the name of “the Church.” Meyer regards this, which is the correct reading, as an alteration made in the interests of ecclesiastical unity. If so, the literary forger did his dishonest work with conspicuous carelessness, since he left untouched Acts xy. 41 and xvi. 5. And both texts were well worth cooking, because if altered they would have indicated the unity of the Gentiles with the Jews, in 94 530 Appendices. the same ἐκκλησία. This the verse in chapter ix. does not prove. Is it likely that a forger would alter a phrase in the interests of “ unity,” where those united were but Christianised Jews, and leave untouched phrases which, if altered, would tell far more for his purpose, because they announced the unity of Christianised Gentiles and Christianised Jews? The truth is, in the later passages, the historian is recording the attitude of an apostle to local founda- tions, very much as a bishop would describe his visitation of various Churches in new mission districts, in our colonies. In the earlier reference, the historian is describing a happy experience which was enjoyed by all these local founda- tions in Palestine, and which, affecting their life and their expansion in the same way, showed them to be one in both. This was very much as if a bishop described, say, the Church in Africa as having rest, perhaps through the pre- valence of political distraction amongst native tribes, or through Mahommedan ageression upon native deities. The complete idea of the historian would be represented by a phrase to which no one acquainted with apostolic literature could object, viz., the Church of the Churches. This would signify the union of all the separate, local, and plural societies in one grand incorporation. This ideal was regarded by the Master. “καὶ ἄλλα πρόβατα ἔχω, ἃ οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ τῆς αὐλῆς ταύτης" κἀκεῖνα δεῖ με ἀγαγεῖν, καὶ τῆς φωνῆς μου ἀκούσουσι᾽ καὶ γενήσονται μία ποίμνη, εἷς ποιμήν " (St. John χ. 16). Yet Hatch says: “115 an unproved assump- tion that the Church of Christ is an aggregation of visible and organised societies” (8. Z., p. xii.). ‘‘ Aggregation does not appear to have invariably followed belief’ CB. Z., p. 29). THE JERUSALEM COUNCIL AND THE PLYMOUTHISM OF THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH. Many similar statements to that cited in the text are made in Dr. Cunning- ham’s interesting volume. The Pauline Churches are very frequently referred to, and generally for the purpose of accentuating their “structureless” and “inorganic” condition. ‘“ Hvery one helped according to his ability. In their meetings every one took a part. The possession of a gift, real or supposed, was the only qualification for exercising it. . . . At those meetings, without pres- byter, bishop, or deacon, or official of any kind, converts were baptized, the Lord’s supper eaten—sometimes, it must be acknowledged, amid confusion, gluttony, and drunkenness—and discipline exercised. In those apostolic Churches we have a whole service of prayer, praise, and preaching, the sacra- ments, and excommunication, arranged and managed by the whole society, with apostolic sanction, even by apostolic command. All this must have been well known to the Church at Jerusalem. There was frequent intercourse between the two cities. There were Jewish spies watching the Gentile Christians, and reporting their doings. And yet when the so-called synod met at Jerusalem no fault wasfound. Matters which now seem infinitely little were made the subject of debate ; those matters, which in the eyes of many now are so infinitely Alleged Plymouthism of Corinthian Church. 531 great, were never alluded to. Indirectly the synod sanctioned them by its silence, and even went further, by joining the whole brethren with them in their deliberations, and making their letter run in the name of ‘the apostles, presby- ters, and brethren,’ to their brethren amung the Gentiles, although their decision affected matters both of doctrine and of discipline” (Growth of the Church, pp. 90, 91). This passage is thus fully given because the author of A Mew Theory of Knowing and Known is entitled to have the fullest regard paid to his views. The author's theory, as to the democratic mode in which the Corinthian Church existed, and in which worship was conducted, is referred to in the text. It may be dismissed in view of the perplexities which are created by the mention, in this Epistle, of the officers which God set in His Church. What a Corinthian Christian would think of either St. Paul or his Master, who would, in one breath, say that ‘apostles, prophets, evangelists, and teachers” had been ap- pointed in the Church, and in the next breath leave a large body of believers without any representatives of His appointment, may be the subject of speculation. The difficulty presses heavily upon the advocates of the argu- mentum e silentio, It may be passed by in favour of other points which are raised by Professor Cunningham. It is surely somewhat strange to hear the doctrine of “through circumcision to Christ” described as a matter “ which now seems infinitely little.” St. Paul regarded it as of life and death. It is not too much to say that—with the Epistle to the Galatians before us—he considered the heresy to be an attack upon the crowned rights of Christ. And it is only less startling to learn that these matters which “now are so infinitely great were never alluded to. Indirectly the synod sanctioned them by its silence.” Dr. Cunningham is clear about these matters. They were the ordinances which represent public Christian worship, independently of the aid or even of the existence of either ‘“ bishop, presbyter, deacon, or official of any kind.” This, the * structureless,” unministerial Plymouth brethrenism of the Corinthian Church, was “never alluded to,” yea “indirectly” it was sanctioned by the Jerusalem synod! But the synod was held some two or three years before the Corinthian Church was founded, and, according to Wieseler, some seven years before the Corinthian epistle was written. Nor isthis all. Professor Cunning. ham, while obviously and unwarrantably disparaging the synod, does not hesitate to show his appreciation of it, by pressing the conciliar decree into the service of his theory. Not content with deranging the chronological order of missionary enterprise, by either antedating the disorders of the Corinthian Church, or by deferring the date of the Council until after the Corinthian Church was founded, he commits the decree then promulged, to his theory, on the author- ity of a reading which has long been questioned, which has lately been abandoned and which, as it stands in the Authorised Version, is in open conflict with the evidence, internal and collateral, of the record. This reading is Οἱ ἀπόστολοι καὶ ot πρεσβύτεροι καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοὶ (‘‘ The Apostles and Elders and Brethren,” Acts xv. 23, Auth. Vers.). But “ καὶ is not in D, and the words καὶ οἱ are not found in A, B, C, nor in the Vulgate and Armenian yersions” (vide Wordsworth). They are rejected by Lachmann, by Alford, and by the Revised Version, in which the amended text runs: “The apostles and the elder brethren.” The same 532 Appendices. official conjunction appears in Acts xv. 2,6, xvi.4. It will thus be seen the later and the revised reading is probably correct; and if it be, then the synod did not “join the whole brethren with them in their deliberations,” and if they did not, the passage cannot fairly be cited as commending a mode of worship which would be exposed to apostolic reproof (1 Cor. xiv, 23-40), even though the insignificant anachronism represented by seven years be disposed of. The influence of the proceedings of this, the primary Council, upon the Church, has been of the gravest kind. The record shows, and conclusively, that while the laity were present and assented to a determination at which the apostles and elders had arrived, they neither had a voice in the declaration of the doctrine nor in the promulgation of the decree (Acts xvi. 4). How long this order con- tinued to be observed, the reader may learn from an exhaustive article on ἐς Councils’ in the Dic. Chr. Ant. THE “CRITICAL METHOD” APPLIED TO THE FIRST SIX CHAPTERS OF THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. A very. few references will justify the opinion which is expressed in the text respecting Professor Harnack’s writings. In his interesting article on ‘‘ The Origin of the Christian Ministry ” (Hapositor, May, 1887), he says: “ It is admitted that the first five chapters of the Acts are beset by many critical difficulties, The section, however, consisting of chap. vi. 1 ff., is distinguished in yarious particulars from that which precedes. Hvery reader who studies the Acts of the Apostles with care will observe that when from reading the first five chapters he passes on to the sixth, he here at once enters on historical ground, The narrative in the first five chapters is of a pictorial, panegyrical, and vague description; in the section, chap. vi. 1 ff., on the contrary, it is concrete and precise.” The most casual study of the earlier chapters will show their essential importance. The first chapter is the only record we have of the subject of the Risen Saviour’s converse during the forty days; of the missionary range which apostolic witness was to cover, and which moreover was covered in the order indicated, Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, and the world ; the angelic promise of the Return of the Redeemer ; the election of St. Matthias, in accordance with prophecy ; with moral necessity ; with Divine choice; and with apostolic con- sciousness of corporate life (vide note on “ Messianic Prophecy the Incentive and Authority for the Election of St. Matthias’). The second chapter is the only account we have of the performance of the Redeemer’s promise, by the effusion of the Holy Ghost, and the origin of the Christian Church, It also contains St. Peter’s great and fertile sermon, ἐν ἀποδείξει Πνεύματος καὶ δυνάμεως, together with the earliest record of Church life, worship, love, and growth. The miracle recorded in the third chapter is one of the most pregnant incidents in this first section of apostolic history. It is a sign “for Israel.” It is regarded as typical. (See Baumgarten’s Apos. His., vol.i., § vi.). With it is Professor Harnack on First Six Chapters of Acts. 533 connected the fullest description which revelation contains of the nature origin, object, and issue of the principle of faith (Acts iii. 16) ; the first assault and imprisonment from without, and the first treachery from within (vide p. 90, Lecture iii.). All these fall within the section which Professor Harnack describes as “pictorial, panegyrical, and vague.” This estimate of these chapters does not deter Professor Harnack from referring to them as historical, when it serves his purpose (wide ὃ 7, ref. Acts i. 23, Expositor, p. 327); and it seems somewhat uncritical to regard chap. vi. as the point where we first enter upon “historical ground,” while the circumstances therein recorded—the election and ordination of the deacons—arose out’ of the administration of the funds, the possession of which by the apostolic body can only be accounted for by the facts recorded in the earlier chapters (chaps. ii. 44, 45, iv. 32, 34-37). Chapter vi., which is “historical,” thus reposes upon chapters which are “ pictorial, pane- gyrical, and vague.” Professor Harnack appears to overlook the way in which the leading events narrated in these chapters are interlocked with other scriptures, and by consequence the chapters themselves. The references to the Psalter are numerous. They are cited as prophetic anticipations of contemporary history. St. Peter quotes Psalms Ixix. 25, cix. 8, in connection with the suicide of the traitor and the appointment of a successor. Psalm exxxiii. 1-3 is a prophecy— profoundly spiritual, beautiful, instructive —of Acts ii. 1: the psalm is predictive ; the Pentecostal gathering, unity, and effusion are historic. The prophecy of Joel (chap. ii. 28-32) may be similarly described. Acts ii. 30 looks back upon the great prediction in 2 Sam. vii. 12, 13, and upon Ps. cxxxii. 11. There are four quotations from Ps. xvi. in Acts ii., and one from Psalm ex. In Acts iii. 22, the well-known pentateuchal anticipation is declared to be fulfilled. In Acts iv. 25, 26, Psalm ii. is regarded as fulfilled by the attitude of both Herod and Pontius Pilate toward Christ. The 28th verse is clearly a reference to Ps. cix. 27. If, then, these five chapters are “‘ pictoria], panegyrical, and vague,” they are connected with predictions which were uttered long before the Christian era. The connection is vital, is clear, and is final. From the rationalistic standpoint, the connection will be considered fanciful, and even arbitrary, The believer regards it as real. Its reality justifies him in considering the section in the Acts to be historical, with this serious advantage, that in this case the history in the 6th chap. is the natural outcome of the history in the preced- ing chapters. Professor Harnack’s position is very different. His estimate of the sixth chapter as historical has for its basis what he regards as “ pictorial, panegyrical, and vague,” and all the prophetic adumbrations must be either imaginary, or irrelevant, or composed after the event. In accordance with his disparagement of these chapters, he ignores the completion of the apostolic body, by the election of St. Matthias, as indicating the presence in the apostles of the idea of a constitution. ‘“ The earliest witness which we possess for the begin- ning of a constitution of the Christian Church is to be found in Acts vi. 1 ff.,’’ while later on he says, ‘‘ It seems to me very improbable that the Acts of the Apostles was written during the first century ” (note, p. 334), an opinion which involves the authorship of the book. If it was not written during the first 534 Appendices. century, then, since St. John was the only apostle or evangelist who saw the close of that century, it is certain St. Luke, pre-deceasing him, did not write the Acts. (Vide Acts i. 1.) But by the end of the second century, it was as generally accepted as were the Gospels. (Vide Salmon, Introduction, sect. xviii.) The coincidences between the Acts and some second century writers are both telling and numerous. The words addressed by our Risen Lord to the disciples (in reply to their inquiry, Acts i. 6), Οὐχ ὑμῶν ἐστι γνῶναι χρόνους ἢ kaipous ods ὁ Πατὴρ ἔθετο ἐν τῇ ἰδίᾳ ἐξουσίᾳ. are peculiar to the Acts. The last clause is found in Iren., b.‘iii., c. xxiii. The saying of the Lord Jesus, quoted by St. Paul in his address to the elders (Acts xx. 35), Μακάριόν ἐστι μᾶλλον διδόναι ἢ λαμβάνειν, is echoed by Clement of Rome (§§ ii., xiii., vide Lightfoot, Clement of Rome, pp. 37, 67). Other probable references are given by Dr. Salmon in his Jntroduction to the New Testament. As to the authorship of the book, great and fresh service has been rendered to the traditional view, which from the first connected the book with St. Luke, by Dr. Hobart. His work The Medical Language of St Luke: a proof from internal evidence that ‘‘ the Gospel according to St. Luke” and “the Acts of the Apostles” were written by the same person, and that the same person was a Medical man) exhibits the most painful care, and is a welcome addition to the literature which the theories of Baur, of Schleiermacher, and of Harnack have called forth, and with which their disciples will have to deal. On the antiquity and the authorship of the Acts, the reader will thank me for transcribing the following inimitable passage from Dean Burgon’s “ Life of Martin Joseph Routh ” (Lives of Twelve Good Men, pp. 70, 71) :—‘‘‘ The Acts of the Apostles. . . . I have not the least doubt was the work of St. Luke. . . . But what is quite evident, it must needs be a book of altogether apostolic antiquity, indeed of the age it professes to be. For you may have observed that the sacred writer ends by saying, that St. Paul dwelt at Rome “two whole years in his own hired house.” Now, sir, ... no one but a contemporary would have ended his narrative in that way. We should have kad allabout St. Paul’s martyrdom’ .. . ‘all about his martyrdom, sir, if the narrative had been subsequent in date to St. Paul's death.’ ” THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE WORD κυβερνήσεις, AS USED BY ST. PAUL AND BY ST. IGNATIUS. “ κυβερνήσεις : κυβερνήτης, ut habet Suidas, proprie ὁ τοῦ πλοίου ἡγεμών : ἄρχων τῶν ναυτῶν, nautarum dux, ut Plato, Polit., I. Metaphorice apostoli vocantur κυβερνήται" (Suicer), He also refers to Hom. Chry. (xxxviii., t. v.), where the word is applied in the same sense to the apostles. It is frequently found in Aristotle, and Ellicott gives a reference to Pindar. In every case it indicates guidance, direction, government. Perhaps the most suggestive use of the term is in the Epistle of St. Ignatius to Polycarp (ii.). ὁ καιρὸς ἀπαιτεῖ oe, ὡς κυβερνῆ- ται ἀνέμους καὶ ws χειμαζόμενος λιμένα. Lightfoot conjectures there was some cor- St. Paul and Ignatius—Episcopacy. 535 ruption in the text here. It makes the crisis the pilot, and Polycarp the wind, which is not the metaphor we should expect. Then having suggested the more intelligible reading, he regards it as saying, ‘The ship of the Church is tossed to and fro on the waves of the world. ... You must be both its helmsman and its haven.” This is also Bishop Lightfoot’s analysis of the epistle (p. 330). In the Antiochene Acts of Martyrdom there is an important passage in which κυβέρνησις is applied to episcopal rule, and in which κυβερνήτης ἀγαθός is 6 ἐπίσκοπος (6. V.). The passage is this : ‘“ Not long after Trajan had succeeded to the empire of the Romans, Ignatius the disciple of the Apostle John, a man of apostolic character in all ways, governed the Church of the Antiochenes. He had with difficulty weathered past storms of the many persecutions in the time of Domitian, and, like a good pilot, by the helm of prayer and fasting, by the assiduity of his teaching, and by his spiritual earnestness, had withstood the surge of the enemy’s power, fearful lest he should lose any of the fainthearted or over simple ” (Ἄρτι διαδεξαμένου τὴν Ρωμαίων ἀρχὴν Τραϊανοῦ, Iyvdrios ὁ τοῦ ἀποστόλου ᾿Ιωάννου μαθητής, ἀνὴρ ἐν τοῖς πᾶσιν ἀποστολικός, ἐκυβέρνα τὴν ἐκκλησίαν ᾿Αντιοχέων -ὃς τοὺς πάλαι χειμῶνας μόλις παραγαγὼν τῶν πολλῶν ἐπὶ Δομετιανοῦ διωγμῶν, καθάπερ κυβερνήτης ἀγαθός, τῷ οἴακι τῆς προσευχῆς καὶ τῆς νηστείας, τῇ συνεχείᾳ "τῆς διδασκαλίας. τῷ τόνῳ τῷ πνευματικῷ πρὸς τὴν ζάλην τῆς ἀντικειμένης ἀντεῖχεν εδυνάμεως, δεδοικὼς μή τινα τῶν ὀλιγοψύχων ἢ ἀκεραιοτέρων ἀποβάλῃ (Antiochene Acts 1.).᾿ These Acts are not regarded as historical. Nevertheless, the use of the ~word under review counts for something, especially when its earlier use in the letter to Polycarp (ji.) is remembered. It appears again in the letter of the Smyrnzans, where it is applied to the Redeemer, “our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour of our souls, and Helmsman of our bodies, and Shepherd of the catholic ‘Church throughout the world ” (xix.), τὸν σωτῆρα τῶν ψυχῶν ἡμῶν καὶ κυβερνήτην τῶν σωμάτων ἡμῶν καὶ ποιμένα τῆς κατὰ τὴν οἰκουμένην καθολικῆς ἐκκλησίας. Τί 15 more than probable that 1 St. Peter ii. 25 (τὸν ποιμένα καὶ ἐπίσκοπον τῶν ψυχῶν ὑμῶν.) was remembered when this sentence was penned. That Ignatius design- ated Polycarp as κυβερνήτης is plain, and that he addressed him as ἐπισκόπῳ ἐκκλησίας Σμυρναιῶν (Ep. Ig. ad Polyc.) is equally so, and the repetition of the designation in connection with the office shows that the bishop was regarded as the pilot, or helmsman, of the Church. But the question now arises : Where did Ignatius first find κυβερνήσεις connected with the officers of the Christian Church ? It is only found in 1 Cor. xii. 28, and it is there found as among the appointments of God. That Ignatius possessed that epistle is indisputable. This conclusion may well repose upon internal evidence, even though it be but gathered from the letter to Polycarp and from that to the Ephesians. In both there are many reminiscences of 1 Cor. In Ep. ad. Eph, (ii.) wa ἐν μιᾷ ὑποταγῇ -κατηρτισμένοι recalls 1 Cor. i. 10, ἵνα τὸ αὐτὸ λέγητε πάντες... κατηρτισμένοι ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ voi, etc. Inc. viii., περίψημα ὑμῶν is a personal application of πάντων περίψημα ἕως ἄρτι (1 Cor. iv. 13), and probably οἱ σαρκικοὶ τὰ πνευματικὰ πράσσειν «οὐ δύνανται οὐδὲ οἱ πνευματικοὶ τὰ σαρκικά expresses the principle which is found in 1 Cor. ii. 14,15. In the appeal (c. xv.) ἵνα ὥμεν αὐτοῦ ναοί Bishop Lightfoot 530 Appendices. sees a reference to 1 Cor. iii. 16, 17, vi. 19, while in the next chapter, the ad- monition μὴ πλανᾶσθε, ἀδελφοί ἴου" οἱ οἰκοφθόροι βασιλείαν Θεοῦ ot κληρονομήσουσιν “ΕἼ founded on St. Paul’s language in the First Epistle to the Corinthians: comp. 111, 16, οὐκ οἴδατε ὅτι ναὸς Θεοῦ ἐστε, Kal τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ Θεοῦ οἰκεῖ ἐν ὑμῖν ; εἴ τιΞ TOY ναὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ φθείρει, φθερεῖ τοῦτον ὁ Θεὸς, combined with vi. 9, 10, 19, μὴ πλανᾶσθε" οὔτε πόρνοι. . . οὔτε μοιχοί... βασιλείαν Θεοῦ κληρονομήσουσιν... οὐκ οἴδατε ὅτι τὸ σῶμα ὑμῶν ναὸς τοῦ ἐν ὑμίν ἁγίου πνεύματός ἐστιν." In c. xvill. there are three reminiscences in as many lines, περίψημα (1 Cor. iv. 13) ; τοῦ σταυροῦ & ἐστιν σκάνδαλον (1 Cor. i. 18, 23, 24); and ποῦ σοφός ; ποῦ συζητής ; a refraction of 1 Cor. i. 20. In the Epistle to Polycarp, similar references are perceived. In c. ii, νῆφε, ὡς Θεοῦ ἀθλητής, recalls the apostolic counsel of 1 Cor. ix. 25; ὁ. iii. has στῆθι ἑδραῖος, and Bishop Lightfoot refers to és δὲ ἕστηκεν ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ ἑδραῖος: (1 Cor, vii. 37), and the explanation of the startling phrase in c. v., τῆς σαρκὸς τοῦ Κυρίου is found in 1 Cor. vi. 15. These traces of the inspired epistle in the Ignatian letters might be easily multiplied. The contents of the latter prove that with that epistle Ignatius was well acquainted, In it he found κυβερνήσεις: as amongst the appointments which were made by Almighty God in the Church. With this knowledge, he applied the term to Polycarp, and in doing so, it cannot be reasonably doubted that the office to which it was thus applied was regarded by Ignatius as from above. Clement’s Epistle to James (cc. xiv., xv.) contains. an ancient expansion of the ship as a type of the Church, which is very beautiful. The picture is very frequently found in ecclesiastical literature, as well as in Christian art (Dict. Christian Antiquities). A reference from Bengel and from Ellicott and Alford may close this note. “Ἥκυβερνήσεις, gubernationes gerunt qui clavum in ecclesia tenent” (Bengel) ; or exactly, “they take the helm in steering.” Bishop Ellicott says it “ points probably to ἐπίσκοποι and πρεσβύτε- pow, or, more generally, ot προϊστάμενοι (Rom. xii. 8)—those who are invested with administrative power and authority.” Alford, likewise, “the department of the presbyters or bishops—the direction of the various Churches.” The Ignatiam reference is, I believe, specific, clear, and most important. THE CONNOTATION OF ποίμαινειν. ποίμαινειν. Does it not appear to be somewhat perverse to appeal to medizeval Latin Ordinals to fix the apostolic sense of a disputed term? The perversity is none the less when appeal is made to the language employed in parochial life, in, for instance, the use of the title “ Rector.” This is what Dr. Hatch has. done (B. Lectures, p. 76). ‘‘There are at least two significant indications that the original conception of the presbyterate never wholly passed away: the one is the fact that in all the Ordinals of the Latin Church, in both the prayers and the addresses to the people at the ordination of presbyters, Church government is a leading element in the conception of the presbyter’s office ; the other is the fact that after the parochial system had come to prevail, the presbyter who was put in charge of a parish was said to be sent not to teach, but to rule @d a Pregnant Sense of ποίμαινειν. 537 regendum) ; the conception of his office which underlies this expression is pre- served to us even in modern times in the familiar title of ‘ Rector.” Dr. Hatch here assumes that the original conception of the office was administrative, ruling, disciplinary, and that this “ original conception” was continuous, This idea reposes upon the assumption that ποίμαινειν, applied again and again to presbyters, and rendered “feed” in our versions, has a full equivalent in the Latin regere, and means, mainly, if not entirely, guidance, direction, the “exercise of the power to rule, from which Dr. Hatch draws the conclusion that “the presbyters of the primitive Church did not teach.” There are few canons of interpretation safer than that which fixes the signifi- cance of a word by its use, and it is as well to add, its original significance by its original use. The word ποίμαινειν is found in the Pentateuch, in the historical, prophetical, and poetical books of the Old Testament. It is applied to pastoral life. It was used, too when Israel came to Hebron, to David, to make him king (2 Sam. v. 2), when it certainly implies leadership and the exercise of authority. It is found in one of the most solemnising utterances in Holy Writ, where an indolent and a self-seeking priesthood expose themselves to Divine malediction (Ezek. xxxiv.), and where the provision of food (βόσκειν) appears as amongst the duties of the shepherd (Ὦ ποιμένες ᾿Ισραὴλ, μὴ οἱ ποιμένες βόσκουσιν ἑαυτούς ; οὐχὶ τὰ πρόβατα βόσκουσιν οἱ ποιμένες), the neglect of which involves them in the retributive announcement καὶ βοσκήσω αὐτὰ μετὰ κρίματος (ver. 10). That chapter contains a Messianic prophecy. It predicts the advent of Christ. καὶ ἀναστήσω ἐπ᾽ ἀυτοὺς ποιμένα ἕνα, καὶ ποιμανεῖ αὐτοὺς, τὸν δοῦλόν μου Δαυεὶδ αὐτὸς ποιμανεῖ αὐτοὺς καὶ ἔσται αὐτῶν ποιμήν (ver. 23; Isa. xl. 11). The same word is applied to Christ in the Psalter, where it includes the political idea of rule, and implies the pastoral idea of the provision of food. Ποιμανεῖς αὐτοὺς ἐν ῥάβδῳ σιδηρᾷ (Ps. ii. 9; Rev. ii. 27), and Κύριος ποιμαίνει με, καὶ οὐδέν με ὑστερήσει. (Any support which Dr. Hatch’s theory as to the exclusive reference of the word ποιμαινείν to administration, derives from the use of the word in the former passage is nullified by the fact that ποιμαίνειν here represents a much stronger Hebrew word, the Septuagint translator having read OY (HY) for DYAN (Νὴ) (vide Schleusner sub voce). In citing this passage (Rev. 11. 27) our Lord retains and so confirms the pastoral idea which the translator, “inten- tionally or unintentionally,” introduced (vide Trench, Epp. Seven Churches, p- 167). The Lord, thus celebrated by one who was a type of Him, is the same who in that chapter in St. John which is the New Testament counterpart of Ezekiel xxxiy., describes Himself as 6 ποιμὴν ὁ καλὸς, ὁ ποιμὴν ὁ καλὸς τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ τίθησιν ὑπὲρ τῶν προβάτων. The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews (xiii. 20) and St. Peter (Ist Ep. ii. 25) continues the designation, and the work which this designation includes is, as may be seen from the use of the word, the provision of food, of protection, of guidance, the exercise of authority, and every virtue or characteristic which is opposed to the incriminations which God laid against the shepherds by the voice of Ezekiel. The word is, then, of great width. In what sense would a Jew employ it? especially a Jew who had the particular knowledge of the Scriptures which we know St. Paul to have had together with rare intellectual acumen, and the enlightening spirituality of 53 Appendices. the Holy Ghost? Is it conceivable that St. Paul when exhorting the Ephesian presbyters ποιμαίνειν τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ would restrict the meaning to discipline, to administration, to magisterial, or to financial functions, while he must have known the higher senses which belong to the word, when applied to Christ, and when compared with the maledictions of the prophecy, and inter- preted by the normal duties of pastoral life? Such a conception requires a large sacrifice to be made to system. Nor is the sacrifice the less the more Dr. Hatch’s theories are examined. In one part of his work, he confirms his view of the duties of episcopacy by the argument from the abuses of the office, just as in the science of physiology the nature of the functions of an organ is often shown by its lesions. Apply this principle to St. Paul’s address at Miletus. He there warns the presbyters of Ephesus that ἐξ ὑμῶν αὐτῶν ἀναστήσονται ἄνδρες λαλοῦντες διεστραμμένα, τοῦ ἀποσπᾷν τοὺς μαθητὰς ὀπίσω αὐτῶν. Here isan abuse of the presbyteral office, by speaking perverse things, and with a selfish and schismatical intent. This is a moral lesion. It shows that one function of the office was to speak, thatis to teach truth. Bengel’s words are apposite: “ἀποσπᾶν, abstrahere, a simplicitate erga Christum et ab unitate corporis, Character falsi doctoris, ut velit, ex se uno pendere discipulos. γρηγορεῖτε, vigilate, verbum pastorale.” Dr. Hatch, in further support of his theory, refers to Eph. iv. 11 (τοὺς δὲ ποιμένας καὶ διδασκάλους), where the ποίμενες are distinct from the διδασκάλοι. But the omission of τοὺς δὲ before διδασκάλους classifies both in the one category. The διδασκάλοι are not distinguished from the ποιμένες (Alford, Ellicott, ete.), as the ποιμένας are from the εὐαγγελιστὰς, or these from the προφήτας, Dr. Hatch regards them as representing, the one discipline, the other doctrine. They rather represent ποίμενες, the resident ministry ; διδασκάλοι, the itinerant ; but teaching was generally common to both,—generally, for it may be conceded that the reference cited by Hatch from 1 Tim. y. 17 shows that teaching was not expected of all the presbyters. But the διπλῆς τιμῆς claimed for the πρεσβυτέροι οἱ κοπιῶντες ἐν λόγῳ Kal διδασκαλίᾳ, indicates the high place which didactics held in connection with the office when as yet the ministry was in a fluid state ; and whatever advantage may be gained for Dr. Hatch’s theory by his reference to Hermas (Vis. 3, 5) and to Hippolytus, can hardly be strengthened by the passage to which he refers in Eusebius: συγκαλέσας τοὺς πρεσβυτέρους καὶ διδασκάλους τῶν ἐν ταῖς κώμαις ἀδελφῶν, παρόντων Kal τῶν βουλομένων ἀδελφῶν, δημοσίᾳ τὴν ἐξέτασιν ποιησάσθαι τοῦ λόγου προετρεψάμην (vii. 24). Dr. Hatch (B. L., Ῥ. 18, note 54), points out that Eusebius here separates τοὺς πρεσβυτέρους from διδασκάλους by καί. But καί is omitted by Heinichen (vide Com. in Huseb. Pamph. H, E., p. 351, Lipsiz), who refers to Rheinwald, Archdol., p. 68, sq., note 9. Yet even if the καί be allowed, and the presbyters are here distin- guished from the teachers, if they examined the doctrine publicly, it was because, by office and by experience, they were competent to do so, in which case the reference proves nothing for Dr. Hatch. The observations made above, in connection with their appearance and influence at the Council of Jerusalem, may be useful here. Dr. Hatch does not refer to 1 Pet. v. 1-2, where the Apostle exhorts the presbyters ποιμάνατε τὸ ἐν ὑμῖν ποίμνιον τοῦ Θεοῦ. The duty to which he thus incites the officers of the Church would in his mind, as much Alleged Eucharistic Prophecy of Malachi. 539 as in St. Paul’s, be drawn from and suggested by the Hebrew Scriptures, with the additional emphasis afforded by the words used by the Redeemer, at the restoration of the Apostle ; Bécxe (feed) ; Ποίμαινε (tend); βόσκε (feed). The word includes the various offices of a shepherd ; the leading, feeding, tending : “ pasce mente, pasce ore, pasce opere, pasce animi oratione, verbi exhortatione, exempli exhibitione ” (Bernard, in Alf.), THE PROPHECY OF MALACHI: ITS EUCHARISTIC SIGNIFICANCE AND PATRISTIC APPLICATION, - “For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same, My name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto My name, and a pure offering ; for My name shall be great among the heathen ” (Mal. i, 11). I. Two lines of thought are suggested: first, the significance of the prophecy ; secondly, its patristic application. The verse has been regarded as a statement of the contemporaneous worship of Jehovah by the heathen nations, “from the rising up of the sun unto the going down of the same,” and of Jehovah’s merciful acceptance of such adoration, on a principle which seems to be the same as that which underlies St. Paul’s announcement on Mars’ Hill: “ Whom, therefore, ye ignorantly worship, Him declare I unto you.” But this principle is not related to that which is read into the text. It is one thing for an evangelist to declare that the Being who is sought by his hearers, in varied modes and ways, is the burden of his message. It is another and a different thing to say that idolatrous worship is acceptable to the Most High, because those who offer it intend it for a deity of some form, or character, or nature. Jehovah has expressly forbidden the worship of the true God under any representation. To accept such worship would practically contradict His own legislation, and such an explanation of the verse is as inconsistent with its language, as it is incompatible with the laws which God has revealed respecting His nature and His worship. But the verse has also been regarded, not so much as a description of worship which, prevailing in Malachi’s day, might be accepted by God, as a prophecy of the expansion of the knowledge which was already and but partially possessed by the heathen. Clement of Alexandria (Strom., v. 14) cites the verse in this spirit. Such a view does not satisfy either the context, or the contents of the prophecy. The context is a safe guide to its significance. An apostate people had adopted a formal, lifeless, and degenerate worship. The priests of God not only made no remonstrance. They despised Jehovah. They offered “the blind for sacrifice.”” Jehovah declared [* Oh, that there were one among you that would shut the doors” (of the temple), Mal. i. 10] that His house might as well be closed. The offerings, formal, heartless, unworthy, of the apostate people gave Him no pleasure: “Neither will I accept an 540 Appendices. offering at your hand.” The discontinuance of the temple worship, which is hinted as within the possibilities which would please God, together with His refusal of an offering at their hands, prepare the way for a period and for a condition when Judaism would become obsolete. A partial religion would give place to an universal; the localisation of sacrifice would be lost in its world-wide prevalence ; and the corruption of merely carnal offerings would give place to spiritual worship, in which the typical sacrificial system would be annulled, and incense and the minchah would alone survive. This is the teaching of the context. The language which is employed is no less clear in its guidance. God would no longer accept typical, local, unspiritual offerings, ‘for from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same, My name shall be great among the Gentiles ; and in every place incense shall be offered unto My name, and a pure offering.” Regarding, then, this verse as a prophecy of the abrogation of that religious system, which was partial, elementary, and typical, in favour of that which is universal, spiritual, and anti-typical, the prediction has to do with the Kingdom of Christ. We may now see what is meant by the two marks which are to characterise the later and the larger dispensation, viz. incense and a pure offering. Incense symbolises supplication (vide Ps. cxli. 2). Isaiah’s vision is clear upon this point. The seraphic trisagion is heard, ‘‘and the posts of the door moved at the voice of him that cried, and the house was filled with smoke” (Isa. vi. 3,4). St. Luke's account of the worship which was led by Zacharias is no less so. The priest burnt “incense when he went into the temple of the Lord. And the whole multitude of the people were praying without, at the time of incense” (St. Luke i. 9, 10; Lev. xvi. 12,13). In the Apocalypse, the same symbolism appears (Rey. v. 8, viii. 3,4). The prediction accordingly teaches that prayer, as a sacrifice, spiritual and universal, shall characterise the worship of the kingdom of Christ. The ‘pure offering” is the minchah. It was the unbloody sacrifice (vide Lev. ii.). It effected no atonement. To this, even when sustained by the loftiest piety conceivable in Hebrew conditions, the minchah was unequal. ‘‘ Without shedding of blood is no remission ” (Heb. ix. 22). The meat-offering was not expiatory. An animal slaughtered for sacrifice is generally called zebach. This is opposed to minchah, which signifies a gift. It denotes a vegetable offering ; is in A.V. a meat offer- ing (Speaker’s Com., Intro. Lev., p. 496); in R.V., meal offering. Its materials were “fine flour, oil, and frankincense,” thus showing an essential difference from the burnt offering and from the sin offering. In these life was sacrificed. In this fruit was offered. The flour was not presented in its natural state, “ Bread and wine,” says Kliefoth, “were not merely products of the soil, not merely articles of food growing up ready for man’s eating through the goodness of God; they were wrought out by man himself, his production, acquired through his own labour in the sweat of his brow. Yea, more, they were also wrought by man ; they were not the gifts of God remaining in their natural form, not raw productions, that is to say, but something which man had produced by his own diligence and skill out of the gifts of God and through the blessing of God. Thus the materials of the minchah represented not merely everything that man receives through the goodness of God, but every- The Minchah, not Propitratory, but Eucharistic. 541 thing that he produces by his own labour out of the gifts of God, and through the assistance and blessing of God.’ Its meaning appears to be exactly expressed in the words of David (1 Chron, xxix. 10-14), ‘All that is in the heaven and the earth is Thine... . All things come of Thee, and of Thine own have we given Thee.” ‘It recognised the sovereignty of the Lord, and His bounty in giving them all earthly blessings, by dedicating to Him the best of His gifts: the flour, as the main support of life ; oil, as the symbol of rich- ness ; and wine, as the symbol of vigour and refreshment” (Dic. Bible, p. 286). These ideas, God’s sovereignty, together with His bounteous provision for human need and man’s consciousness of his dependence upon, and his reception of what God thus provided, are included in thanksgiving. These are expressed in praise. The minchah was, as a sacrifice, subsidiary. It formed a part of : (1) the daily morning and evening sacrifice (Ex. xxix. 40, 41); (2) the Sabbath offering (Num. xxviii. 9, 10); (3) the monthly sacrifice (Num. xxviii. 11-14) ; (4) the offerings at the great festivals (Num. xxix. 3, 4,14, 15); and (5) the offering on the great Day of Atonement (Lev. xvi. 3; cf. Num. xxix. 11). It was also offered at the consecration of priests, at the cleansing of the leper, and at the termination of the Nazarite’s vow (vide Dic. Bible). The prophecy declares that, in the new and universal worship of God, the minchah wonld ascend from being a mere addendum to becoming, with supplication, the only universal sacrifice. It would cease to be a part of any. It would be the pure offering—@ucla καθαρά. The minchah shares with the burnt offering, which typified self-dedication, the moral satisfaction which is represented by those words which occur more frequently in its prescribed ritual than in that of any other sacrifice, “ a sweet savour unto the Lord” (Ley. ii. 2, 9,12). It has been said that in this respect, “it stands in contrast to the sin offerings, which are not a sweet savour ” (Jukes, On Offerings, p. 68). This is not quite correct. The sin offerings which were required for (a) the high priest; (Ὁ) the congregation; (6) the ruler (vide Lev. iv.) make no mention of the “sweet savour unto the Lord.’ But amongst the gradations of this sacrifice, there is the mention of the sweet savour, accompanying the sin offering for one of the common people (Lev. iv. 31). The portion of the minchah which was burnt on the altar, suggested by its name, that its office was to put God in remembrance. To this there is a reference in Psalm xx. 3: ‘ Remember all thy offerings,” 1,6. the minchah, a plea which puts us in touch with Acts x. 4, 31, ai ἐλεημοσύναι cou ἐμνήσθησαν ἐνώπιον τοῦ Θεοῦ. We may now see the leading ideas which are associated with the Christian minchah. They represent the sacrifice of thanksgiving, occupying no more a subordinate, but a principal position in the worship of Almighty God; well- pleasing in His sight, and, in His merciful Presence, a memorial of those who offer it. The “sweet savour unto the Lord” is connected with this sacrifice in Phil. iv. 18. St. Paul had received ‘of Epaphroditus the things which were sent” from the Philippians ὀσμὴν εὐωδίας, θυσίαν δεκτὴν, εὐάρεστον τῳ Oem’ '—an 1 Vide Ireneus adv. Heres., lib. iv., 6. xviii., 4. 542 Appendices. obvious reference to the minchah, which, in earlier days, Saul of Tarsus had frequently offered. A similar reference is found in Heb. xiii. 15, 16: “dv αὐτοῦ οὖν ἀναφέρωμεν θυσίαν αἰνέσεως διαπαντὸς τῷ Θεῷ τοῦτ᾽ ἔστι καρπὸν χειλέων ὁμολογούντων τῷ ὀνόματι αὐτοῦ. τῆς δὲ εὐποιΐας καὶ κοινωνίας μὴ ἐπιλανθάνεσθε. τοιαύταις γὰρ θυσίαις εὐαρεστεῖται ὁ Θεός. } Here, too, the inspired writer had the minchah in his mind (Vide Rom. ΧΙ]. 1 ; 1 Pet. ii. ὅ). The “ memorial” feature of it is found in Heb. vi. 10, and here in an aspect of great spiritual beauty, reposing for its recognition upon the righteousness of God. The Church recognises this reference by placing this passage amongst the Offertory Sentences. Thus we are enabled to discern, in apostolic times, the fulfilment of the prediction. In the Christian system, the sacrifices which are presented “in every place” are those which, in the Jewish, were represented by “incense” and by the “ minchah.” These are the sacrifices of prayer, of praise—the latter covering all that is comprised in the service, joyous and grateful, of one who has, by intelligent faith, appropriated the blessings which Christ, as the Sin-offering has procured, and whose life is, consequently, a whole burnt offering to God. II. The patristic application of this prophecy may now be referred to. Until Bryennios discovered the Didaché, Justin Martyr’s was the first known reference to this prediction. This pre-eminence belongs now to the unknown compiler of the Didaché. The citation appears in the following section : “1 On the Lord’s day of the Lord come together, and break bread, and give thanks, having before confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. 2 Let no one who has a dispute with his fellow come together with you until they are reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be defiled. 3 For this is that which was spoken by the Lord: In every place and time offer Me a pure sacrifice, for lama great King, saith the Lord, and My name is wonderful among the Gentiles.”? With the exception of Zech. xiy. 5, this is the only quotation from the Old Testament which the Didaché contains. The passage given above shows: (a) that the worship on the Lord’s day included the Agapé, the Eucharist and the confession of sins ; (0) that the latter preceded the Eucharist ; (6) that worshippers at variance were excluded (vide Matt. v. 23, 24, and the Exhortation in the Book of Common Prayer), and (d@) that the prophecy in Malachi was thus early considered as referring to the Eucharist. The nature of the sacrifice is not mentioned. No doubt the writer of the Didache understood it to be as Malachi described it, viz.: the minchah. The next writer who refers to the prophecy is Justin Martyr. In one passage he quotes it to show that circumcision as such is of no use to those who are uncircumcised in heart. He then says that “though a man be a Scythian 1 Vide Ireneus, Frag. xxxviil. 2 Κατὰ κυριακὴν δὲ Κυρίου συναχθέντες κλάσατε ἄρτον καὶ εὐχαριστήσατε προσ- εξομολογησάμενοι τὰ παραπτώματα ὑμῶν, ὅπως καθαρὰ ἡ θυσία ἡμῶν ἢ. Πᾶς δὲ ἔχων τὴν [τἱνὰ] ἀμφιβολίαν μετὰ τοῦ ἑταίρου αὐτοῦ μὴ συνελθέτω ὑμῖν ἔως οὗ διαλλαγῶσιν, ἵνα μὴ κοινωθῇ ἡ θυσία ἡμῶν. Αὕτη γάρ ἐστιν ἡ ῥηθεῖσα ὑπὸ Κυρίου. Ἔν παντὶ τόπῳ καὶ χρόνῳ προσφέρειν μοι θυσίαν καθαράν. ὅτι βασιλεὺς μέγας εἰμί. λέγει Κύριος, καὶ τὸ ὄνομά μου θαυμαστὸν ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσι (Διδ., Xiv.). References to, in Justin Martyr, Irenaus. 543 or a Persian, if he has the knowledge of God and of His Christ, and keeps the everlasting righteous decrees, he is circumcised with the good and useful circumcision, and is a friend of God, and rejoices in his gifts and offerings.” He then quotes the prophecy of Malachi, to (@) justify his doctrine as to the universality of the Gospel, and (Ὁ) as to God’s acceptance of Gentile sacrifices. Later on, in the same work, he returns to the Mosaic law, and, having referred to the paschal lamb, and to the scapegoat, as types of Christ, he refers to the minchah, in these terms: “ The offering of the fine flour, which was prescribed to be presented on behalf of those purified from leprosy, was a type of the bread of the Eucharist, the celebration of which our Lord Jesus Christ prescribed, in remembrance of the suffering which He endured, on behalf of those who are purified in soul from all iniquity, in order that we may at the same time thank God for having created the world, with all things therein, for the sake of man, and for delivering us from the evil in which we were.” The prophecy is then repeated, and Justin Martyr adds : “ He then speaks of those Gentiles, namely, us, who in every place offer sacrifices to Him, ¢.e. the bread of the Eucharist, and also the cup of the Eucharist.”* The well-known passage in the prophecy of Zechariah (iii. 4-7) is used to illustrate the change which sinners undergo when stripped of the filthy garments of their sins, they become the true high- priestly race of God, and so qualified to present sacrifices. ‘‘ We, who through the name of Jesus have believed as one man in God the Maker of all, have been stripped, through the name of His First-begotten Son, of the filthy garments, i.e. of our sins ; and being vehemently inflamed by the word of His calling, we are the true high-priestly race of God, as even God Himself bears witness, saying, that in every place among the Gentiles sacrifices are presented to Him well- pleasing and pure. Now God receives sacrifices from no one but His priests. Accordingly, God, anticipating all the sacrifices which we offer through this name, and which Jesus the Christ enjoined us to offer, i.e. in the’ Eucharist of the bread and the cup, and which are presented by Christians in all places throughout the world, bears witness that they are well pleasing to Him. . . .” Justin again quotes the prophecy, and adds, “ Prayers and giving of thanks, when offered by worthy men, are the only perfect and well pleasing sacrifices toGod. For such alone Christians have undertaken to offer.”* When showing that Judaism as a religion fell short of the vastness of the prophecy, he re-asserts. its universality as well as the spiritual nature of the sacrifices foretold : “‘ There is not one single race of men, . . . among whom prayers and giving of thanks are not offered through the name of the crucified Jesus.” 4 We turn now to Iveneus. In an important chapter, which insists upon the imperative necessity of spirituality, as against formal sacrifice, he refers to this principle in connection with the Levitical ritual, ‘God did not seek sacrifices and holocausts from them, but faith, and obedience, and righteousness, because: of their salvation.” Again, he adds, our Lord, “giving directions to His dis- ciples to offer to God the firstfruits of His own created things—not as if He stood in need of them, but that they might be themselves neither unfruitful nor 1 Justin Martyr, Dia. Try., c. xxviii. 3 Thid., c. CXvi., CXVil. δ δ." Cc. xii. 4 Thid., c. Cxvil. 544 Appendices. ungrateful—He took that created thing, bread, and gave thanks and said ‘ This is My body.’ And the cup likewise, which is part of that creation to which we belong, He confessed to be His blood, and taught the new oblation of the new covenant ; which the Church receiving from the apostles, offers to God through- out all the world, to Him who gives us as the means of subsistence, the first- fruits of His own gifts in the New Testament, concerning which Malachi, among the twelve prophets, spake beforehand,” Having quoted the prophecy, and referred the “name” to our Lord, he says “the Church makes offerings through Jesus Christ,” ‘incense is offered to My name, and a pure sacrifice.” “The incense is the prayers of the saints.”! ‘The oblation of the Church, which the Lord gaye instructions to be offered throughout all the world is accounted with God a pure sacrifice, and is acceptable unto Him, not that He needs a sacrifice from us, but that he who offers is himself glorified in what he does offer, if his gift be accepted.” The gift shows both honour and affection towards the King. And what that gift is he defines clearly. ‘‘ We are bound,” he observes, ‘‘to offer to God the firstfruits of His creation.” He who does so is “accounted grateful.” But all depends upon the spiritual condition of the worshipper. “ Sacrifices,” he says, “0 not sanctify a man.” “It is the con- science of the offerer that sanctifies the sacrifice when it is pure, and thus moves God to accept [the offering! as from a friend.”” Referring still to the oblation, which he has already described as “ the first-fruits of His creation,” he reiterates the importance of faith, of hope, and of love, in the worshipper, when “ offering to God the firstfruits of His own created things. And the Church alone offers this pure oblation to the Creator, offering to Him, with giving of thanks, [the things taken] from His creation.”* Irenzeus here refers to certain heretical opinions which disqualify those who hold them from presenting an oblation which signifies thanksgiving unto God. They must “either alter their opinion, or cease from offering the things just mentioned.” ‘“ Our opinion is in accordance with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn establishes our opinion. For we offer to Him His own, announcing consistently the fellowship and union of flesh and spirit. For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly ; so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity. Now we make offering to Him, not as though He stood in need of it, but rendering thanks for His gift, and thus sanctifying what has been created... ." And having then referred to the obligation which the precept of the prophecy imposes, he says it is God’s will ‘“‘that we should offer a gift at the altar, frequently and without intermission,” and, he adds, “‘ the altar is in heaven, for towards that place our prayers and oblations are directed.” * The same prophecy appears in the second of the Fragments which are attributed to Irenzeus, and which were discovered by Pfaff (1715) in the Royal Library at Turin. The disappearance of the MSS. is, on every ground, most 1 Tren., Adv. Her., iv., c. xvii. 4-6, 3 Tbid., 4. 2" Tbid., ἣν, δὲ xvii. 1 9: 4 Lbid., 5, 6. The Pfaffian Fragment. 545 unfortunate. That Pfaff, who was a strong and learned Lutheran copied,from the Turin MSS. there is no reason to doubt. But whether these MSS. repre- sented.the opinions of Irenzeus is another and a different question. Nor is it unimportant, because the Rev. Wigan Harvey, in his edition of Irenzeus (1857), quotes one passage (in Fragment xxxvii.), as asserting the doctrine, not of con- substantiation, but of transubstantiation. If Harvey’s comment on the passage be correct, then Irenzeus held two doctrines respecting the Eucharist which are in hopeless antagonism, and one of them an anticipation of Tridentine doctrine by hundreds of years. The Fragment says, ‘ the Lord instituted a new oblation in the new covenant, according to the prophet Malachi.” It then recites the prophecy, and defines the offerings therein predicted, as prayer and praise (Rom. xii. 1 ; Heb. xiii, 15). ‘“‘ Those oblations are not according to the law, the handwriting of which the Lord took away from the midst by cancelling it ; but they are according to the Spirit, for we must worship God ‘in spirit and in truth.’ And therefore the oblation of the Eucharist is not a carnal one, but a spiritual ; and in this respect it is pure. For we make an oblation to God of the bread and the cup of blessing, giving Him thanks in that He has com- manded the earth to bring forth these fruits for our nourishment. And then, when we have perfected the oblation, we invoke the Holy Spirit, that He may exhibit this sacrifice, both the bread the body of Christ, and the cup the blood of Christ, in order that the receiver of these antitypes may obtain remission of sins and life eternal. Those persons, then, who perform these oblations in remembrance of the Lord, do not fall in with Jewish views, but, performing the service after a spiritual manner, they shall be called sons of wisdom.”! In this ' The special treatment of the doctrine of the Eucharist is not within the scope of these Lectures. But the important work which has recently appeared is such that it would hardly be fitting that its statements should be without recog- nition. Zhe Ministry of the Christian Church (by Charles Gore, M.A., Principal of the Pusey House, Oxford) has a vast amount of valuable matter, which is stated with such admirable temper, that, in that respect, there is nothing to bedesired. But there are, as it is most unwelcome to me to state, serious under- statements of fact, and overstatements of doctrine. This is especially the case when the subject now under review is referred to. The author, while admit- ting the difficulty of dealing exhaustively with “the sense in which the early Church believed the Eucharist to be a sacrifice,’ remarks that “ the whole lan- guage of the earliest Church seems most easily interpreted, if we suppose that the bread and wine, chosen out of the general offerings of the congregation and presented before God asa memorial of Christ’s sacrifice with accompanying prayers, were regarded as constituting the thank-offering (Eucharist), or obla- tions (gifts) of the Church, and as expressive of that relation of sonship, and purity, and freedom of approach to God, which belonged to the Church in virtue of her redemption, as being the ‘ high-priestly race’” (Ρ. 227). This falls far short of what the literature of the period enables us to state. It contains no mention of the oblations as representing God’s mercies to us in creation. On this point Irenzus is, of all the second century authorities, the most emphatic. 35 546 Appendices. passage, the writer, whoever he was, reiterates the view which Irenzus un- doubtedly took of the oblation, in the passages which are quoted above. It was a thankoffering for God’s creative mercies. If the author of this Pfaffian Fragment was Ireneus, he was, so far, consistent. But the last sentence seems to imply another, and a novel and a much later doctrine. Harvey says ‘‘ayrirumos here conveys the idea of identity between the body of Christ and the consecrated bread. The two are not co-existent as distinct substances, In his view, Christ counselled His disciples to offer to God firstfruits from His creatures, that they might not be unfruitful nor ungrateful (B. iy., ο. xvii. δ). He speaks of the Church making the oblation, “ἴῃ fervent love offering the firstfruits of His own created things,” “ offering to Him, with giving of thanks, the things taken from His creation” (B. iv., c. xviii. 4). He challenges the right of those who refuse to own Christ as the Son of the Creator of the world, to offer the oblation. His word causes the wood to yield fruit, the fountains to flow, and the earth to yield first the blade, then the ear, then the full corn in the ear (Jbid.). And once again, in a later passage, he accentuates the creative aspect of the offering. These four references from Ireneus Mr. Gore ignores, in the passage in which he proposes to give the sense in which the earliest Church believed the Eucharist to be a sacrifice. In that portion of his note, Mr. Gore omits, what both Justin and Irenzus emphasise, viz.: “ those first- fruits of the earth of which we present the bread and wine as a sample” (Vide Rudiments of Theology, Arch. Norris, p. 329). In the Pfaffian Fragment, there is a similar reference, which is also omitted by Mr. Gore, and this is the more remarkable, because Mr. Gore evidently attaches almost fundamental im- portance to the Fragment. The language therein is, on this point, quite Irenzan. “ The oblation of the Eucharist is not a carnal one, but a spiritual; and in this respect it is pure. For we make an oblation to God of the bread and the cup of blessing, giving Him thanks in that He has commanded the earth to bring forth these fruits for our nourishment.” This sentence occurs in the Fragment im- mediately before a sentence which Mr. Gore has extracted. Yet it is omitted, with nearly all the other references, except indeed the author means to include them and their teaching in the words ‘‘ thankoffering (Hucharist) or oblations gifts) of the Church.” If this explanation be inadequate, then Mr. Gore has understated his facts. He has, apparently, erred by way of defect. But besides this, he has overstated the doctrine, as held in the “ earliest Church,” and as gathered from the language employed. ‘ These gifts,” he says, “‘ were then offered for the consecration of the Holy Spirit.” They became “no longer common bread, but Eucharist, made up of two substances, an earthly and an heavenly ; they became to the Church ‘the Body and Blood of Christ.’ This response of God to the Church’s invocation, the mingling of heavenly and earthly things, gave to the Church’s sacrifice a new power, and brought it into essential union with the One Sacrifice, with ‘Jesus, the mediator of the new covenant,’ and with ‘the blood of sprinkling.’” Now, no question is raised here respecting the absolute silence maintained by the New Testament writers as to the place which the Blessed Spirit of God may be pleased to occupy in Understatement of Facts, Overstatement of Doctrine. 5 47 consubstantially ; but the bread, through the energy of the word, Is the Lord’s body.” The latter statement is not in accordance with the opinion of Ireneus elsewhere. He “did not think the bread and wine to have become really flesh and blood” (Bishop Harold Browne, Art. XXVIIL., s. 1, p. 689). The theory depends upon the meaning which Harvey assigns to ἀντίτυπος. Does this word imply, as Harvey asserts, the identity of the type with that which it the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, or the marvellous potentiality He may deign to bestow either in it or by it. Upon both points, Holy Scripture is suggestively silent. But the question raised by Mr. Gore’s account of “the consecration of the gifts by the Holy Ghost” is of the first order. Where is this consecration, to which such miraculous results are attached, implied or recognised ? Not in Clement, nor in Hermas, nor in Ignatius, nor in Polycarp, nor in Barnabas, nor in the Epistle to Diognetus. Justin shows that prayer was offered : ᾿Αλλήλους φιλήματι ἀσπαζόμεθα παυσάμενοι τῶν εὐχῶν. ἔπειτα προσφέρετα τῷ προεστῶτι τῶν ἀδελφῶν ἄρτος, καὶ ποτήριον ὕδατος καὶ κράματος. καὶ οὗτος λαβὼν olvov καὶ δόξαν τῷ Πατρὶ τῶν ὅλων διὰ τοῦ ὀνόματος τοῦ Υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ Πνεύματος τοῦ Αγίου ἀναπέμπει (Apol., lxy.). There is no suggestion here of the elements, τὰ δῶρα, being “ offered for the consecration of the Holy Ghost.” In the following chapter prayer is also mentioned. τὴν δ εὐχῆς λόγου τοῦ παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ εὐχαρι- στηθεῖσαν rpopyv—but here, the reference is probably to the prayer pronounced over the elements, in obedience to the example of our Blessed Lord (παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ), a very different thing from a prayer, which “offered” the oblations “for the consecration of the Holy Ghost.” Irenus is the first writer to refer, in not over clear terms, to the invocation. The passage has been already cited, but it is not burdensome to give the ipsissima verba. ‘“ Offerimus enim ei que sunt ejus, congruenter communicationem et unitatem [8]. veritatem] predicantes carnis et spiritus. Quemadmodum enim qui est a terra panis, percipiens [in-] vocationem Dei, jam non communis panis est, sed eucharistia ex duabus rebus constans, terrena et ccelesti; sic et corpora nostra, percipientia eucharistiam, jam non sunt corruptibilia, spem resurrectionis habentia. Offerimus autem ei non quasi indigenti, sed gratias agentes donationi ejus, et sanctificantes creaturam ” (B. iv., ο. xviii. 5,6). Here the bread is described as “ percipiens invocationem Dei.” This is as different from its ‘consecration by the Holy Ghost” as is the prayer which is indicated by Justin Martyr as having been offered, and the effect of the “invocatio Dei,” as described by Irenzeus is one thing, and by Mr. Gore is another and an entirely different thing. According to Irenzus, “the bread is no longer common bread, but Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly ; so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity The effect of the invocation, according to Ireneus, is thus twofold. It affects the elements and it affects the believer. But according to Mr. Gore even if we omit the glaring difference there is between the “invocatio Dei” and “the consecration of the Holy Ghost”—the effects were such that they 548 Appendices. typified? Is the word “emblem” as used, even by Irenzeus, indicative of identity between the picture and the person? Was Christ, who was the ἀντίτυπος of Adam, of Abel, of Noah, of Isaac, of Joseph, of Moses, of Joshua, identical with each or with all? Surely not. Hach pointed, in some one or more aspects to Christ. Christ corresponded to each and to all in these several aspects. But as to identity between the type and the antitype, it is excluded ‘gave to the Church’s sacrifice a new power, and brought it into essential union with the One Sacrifice, with Jesus, the ‘mediator of the new covenant,’ and with ‘the blood of sprinkling.’” These tremendous issues are connected with a “consecration of the Holy Ghost” which is never mentioned in Holy Writ ; never mentioned in a single patristic writer up to and probably including Irenzeeus— probably, it is said, for the words, as used by Mr. Gore, do occur, and once and earliest, in a Fragment which is attributed to Irenzus (“ then, when we have invoked the Holy Spirit,’—the rest of the passage is given above). At the very best, the Pfaffian Fragment is not above suspicion. Dr. Salmon describes it as “mysterious,” declines to regard it as rightly placed amongst the works of the bishop of Lyons, and while he is ready to concede that it is the work of an ancient author, he does “ποὺ believe that that author was Ireneus.”! If Ireneus was not the author of the Pfaffian Fragment, there is not, within the known literature of the first two centuries, an illustration of the elements being “‘ offered for the consecration of the Holy Ghost.” The phrase is found in the Liturgy of the Apostolic Constitutions. But this work is not earlier than the middle of the fourth century. Even there the Prayer of Consecration has not the effects which Mr. Gore declares are wrought upon the elements: “they became to the Church the Body and Blood of Christ :” καὶ καταπέμψης τὸ “Αγιόν σου Πνεῦμα ἐπὶ τὴν θυσίαν ταύτην, τὴν μαρτύρα τῶν παθημάτων τοῦ Κυρίου ᾽Τησοῦ, ὅπως ἀποφήνῃ τὸν ἄρτον τοῦτον σῶμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ σοῦ, καὶ τὸ ποτήριον τοῦτο αἷμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ σοῦ : “Απᾶ send down Thy Holy Spirit upon this sacrifice, which is the witness of the sufferings of the Lord Jesus, that He may exhibit this bread the body of Thy Christ, and this cup the blood of Thy Christ.” The same invocation appears in the Liturgies of St. Cyril of Jerusalem, and of St. James; but no one, who has considered the subject, would ever think of regarding these liturgies, which are of the fourth century, as interpreting “ the language of the earliest Church.” “The response of God to the Church's invocation,” as described by Mr. Gore, has no place in the literature of the first two centuries. “The new power” which the Church’s sacrifice is said to have received is the power of propitiation : ‘‘It has been brought into essential union with the One Sacrifice, with ‘Jesus, the mediator of the new covenant,’ and with ‘the blood of sprinkling.’” But the word of the Blessed Spirit, Whose power is said to produce these effects, is in abiding contradiction to the effects which He is said to produce. Continuous propitiation is incompatible with complete atonement (Heb. x. 2). τοῦτο yap ἐποίησεν ἐφάπαξ. ἑαυτὸν dvevéyxas (Heb. vil. 28). HlondOev ἐφάπαξ, εἰς τὰ ἅγια, αἰωνίαν λύτρωσιν εὑράμενος (Heb. ix. 12, 28). Nor can it be forgotten that sacrificial propitiation is governed by a law 1 Introduction New Test., 514. Eucharistic E-xpration unknown two First Centuries. 549 by the principles which govern both. These principles underlie the sacrificial laws of the Hebrew economy, as well as its typological system. To maintain the identity of the type with the antitype would be destructive of Judaism and of Christianity, and it is equally destructive, in a lesser degree, of the teach- ing of the passage. whether it belongs to Irenzeus or not. The writer evidently regards the body of Christ and the blood of Christ as antitypes. Their types which the Holy Ghost has revealed in typical elementary typology, in the Jewish dispensation, and in antitypical Christological completion in the Christian. That law is χωρὶς αἱματεκχυσίας οὐ γίνεται ἄφεσις (Heb, ix. 22). If it be contended—as it is—that the Eucharist is propitiatory, then it must also be admitted that it is governed by the principle upon which propitiation depends. Nor do I imagine that Mr. Gore would shrink from this position, His statement is clear. ‘The Church’s sacrifice is . . . brought into connec- tion with ‘the blood of sprinkling.’’’ And he tells how. It is by the “response of God to the Church’s invocation.”’ To this theory, moreover, Irenzeus is committed—how erroneously has already been shown; but I subjoin another passage, which is produced with reluctance, but its production will still further discredit the effort which is made to find Roman Catholic doctrine in the teachings of Irenzus. In one place in his first book (c. ix.) he exposes the deceitful arts and practices of Marcus, by showing his use of magical rites in connection with an imitation of the Eucharist. “ Pretending to consecrate cups mixed with wine, and protracting to great length the word of invocation. he contrives to give them a purple and reddish colour, so that Charis, who is among those who are superior to all things, might be thought to drop her own blood into that cup through means of his invocation, and that thus those who are present should be led to rejoice to taste of that cup, in order that, by so doing, the Charis who is set forth by this magician may also flow into them. Again, giving mixed cups to the women, he bids them consecrate these in his presence. When this has been done, he himself produces another cup of much larger size than that which the deluded woman has consecrated, and pouring from the smaller one consecrated by the woman into that which has been brought forward by himself, he at the same time pronounces these words : ‘May that Charis who is before all things, and who transcends all speech and knowledge, fill thine inner man, and multiply in thee her own knowledge, by sowing the grain of mustard seed in thee as in good soil.’” (‘‘ Pro calice enim vino mixto fingens se gratias agere, et in multum extendens sermonem invoca- tionis, purpureum et rubicundum apparere facit, ut putetur ea gratia ab iis quz sunt super omnia suum sanguinem stillare in illius calicem per invoca- tionem ejus, et valde concupiscere presentes ex illo gustare poculo, ut et in eos stillet que per magum hunc vocatur gratia. Rursus mulieribus dant calices mixtos, ipsas gratias agere jubet, presente se: et ubi hoc factum est, ipse alium calicem multo majorem quam est ille in quo illa seducta eucharistiam facit, proferens, et transfundens a minori qui est a muliere eucharistia factus, in illum qui est ab eo allatus multo majorem, statim dicens ita, Illa que est ante omnia inexcogitabilis et inenarrabilis gratia, adimpleat tuum intus hominem, multi- plicet in te agnitionem suam, inseminans granum sinapisin bonam terram.” Iren., 550 Appendices. respectively are bread and wine. He asserts that after the oblation, the Holy Spirit is invoked, that He may exhibit this sacrifice, the bread the type, and the cup the type, of that which they represent, and of which they are emble- matical, namely, the propitiation of Christ, that those who receive the latter may obtain remission of sins and eternal life. With this the last clause agrees, The oblations are in remembrance of an absent Lord. The worship is spiritual, and thus, if the author of the Fragment be Iveneus, he is consistent ; the Tridentine doctrine is not here ; the bread is not regarded as the body of Christ, and the historic continuity which from the time in which the author of the Didaché lived, down to the days of Irenzus, connects the Jewish minchah with the Christian sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, is preserved. The testimony of Tertullian is not otherwise. He shows the provisional | character of the Jewish economy. It appeared in their sacrificial system, which was localised. He then quotes the prophecy of Malachi, together with some phrases from the Psalter, It is of the “ spiritual sacrifices” God speaks, when He says, “ In every place they offer clean sacrifices to My name.” “ Sacrifices of praise are pointed to.”! In his work against Marcion, he refers in a well- known section to the success of the apostles and to their sufferings, as indicated by prophecy, and leads up to the numerous intimations of praise, which would ascend from the Church. He cites some from the Psalter, and states their agreement with the prophecy of Malachi: ‘In every place sacrifice shall be offered unto My name, and a pure offering” “such,” he adds, “as the ascrip- tion of glory, and blessing, and praise, and hymns, Now, inasmuch as all these things are found also amongst you, and the sign upon the forehead, and the sacraments of the Church, and the offerings of the pure sacrifice, you ought now to burst forth, and declare that the spirit of the Creator prophesied of your Christ.” Later on, Tertullian again cites Malachi’s prediction, and reiterates adv. Heres., lib. i., c.9.) This passage indicates the general prevalence of the invocation in connection with the Eucharist. Its use was parodied by heretical impostors. The effect is also parodied. It is twofold: (a) Upon the liquid ; (6) upon the recipient. This latter effect is described as purely spiritual, having no connection whatever with expiation, or the forgiveness of sins. If the Eucharist, as administered in the Church, was propitiatory, how is it that the “magical impostors,” who imitated the Eucharist, make no mention what- ever of what is regarded as its essence, and its blessing ? The dying cry of the Saviour, τετέλεσται, is final. Mr. Gore’s theory is a painful illustration of the way in which a world may be built upon an hypo- thesis. That it would be a fair account of the language used on this sacred subject in the later centuries, there can be, unhappily, but little doubt. That it is a suggestive apology on behalf of some modern theories is equally probable. That it is an inaccurate statement of the language of the early, yea, “the earliest Church,” is absolutely certain. With regard to the historical and devotional literature of that epoch, the author has understated the facts and he has overstated the doctrine. τ Adv. Jud., ¢. Vv. 2 Adv. Marc., 6. xxii. Testimony of Tertullian, etc. 551 his opinion respecting the nature of the oblation. “In every place a sacritice is offered unto My name, even a pure offering "—“ meaning simple prayer from ‘a pure conscience.” ἢ The significance of the prophecy and its patristic application are clear. No question is raised respecting the correctness of the application. It is, however, important to gather from the evidence which has been submitted, the conclusions to which it appears to point, carefully remembering the topical and chronological range of the evidence. The Didaché indicates the conjunction of the Agapé with the celebration of the Eucharist; regards the latter as a sacrifice, which, offered by the whole congregation, would yet be defiled by any one member of the society participating while living at variance with his neighbour. The sacrifice required the presence of the bishop and of the deacon (vide οὖν, c. xv.). The citation of the prophecy shows that the writer considered the sacrifice as -a thankoffering. Justin Martyr, born in Flavia Neapolis, lived for a considerable time in Palestine. He accepted Christianity, resided for some time in Ephesus, finally settled in the imperial city, and suffered martyrdom during the reign of Marcus Aurelius, about 161, or 163. He considers the flour of the Jewish minchah ea type of the bread of the Eucharist. The latter is a thankoffering for mercies, creative and redemptive. In his opinion, Christians, who are a high-priestly race, offer to God “ prayers and praises, the only sacrifices perfect and well- pleasing to God.” The first Apology contains the following important passage, “ For not as ordinary bread and ordinary wine do we receive these, but in the manner that Jesus Christ become incarnate by the Word of God, had, for our salvation, both flesh and blood, so have we been taught that the food, which has been made a thanksgiving by the word of prayer which He gave us, by which food our own flesh and blood are, through transformation nourished, is ‘oth the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus.”* This language is strong, but it is involved, and it is, in one essential particular incorrect. Nevertheless 1 Adv, Mar'e., iv., c. 1. 2 Οὐ γὰρ ὡς κοινὸν ἄρτον οὐδὲ κοινὸν πόμα ταῦτα λαμβάνομεν, ἀλλ᾽ ὃν τρόπον διὰ λόγου Θεοῦ σαρκοποιηθεὶς Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς ὁ σωτὴρ ἡμῶν καὶ σάρκα καὶ αἷμα ὑπὲρ "σωτηρίας ἡμῶν ἔσχεν. οὕτως καὶ τὴν δι᾿ εὐχῆς λόγου τοῦ παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ εὐχαριστηθεῖσαν τροφὴν, ἐξ ἧς αἷμα καὶ σάρκες κατὰ μεταβολὴν τρέφονται ἡμῶν, ἐκείνου τοῦ σαρκοποιη- «θέντος Ἰησοῦ καὶ σάρκα καὶ αἷμα ἐδιδάχθημεν εἶναι (Apol. prima Just. M.,\xvi.). The Incarnation is here said to be διὰ λόγου Θεοῦ. This is incorrect (ride St. Matt. i. 18, 20 ; St. Luke i. 35, etc.) The Third Person of the Holy Trinity is, according to Scripture, the Agent by Whom σαρκοποιηθεὶς Ἰησοῦς Χριστός. An inexactness of this grave kind is here associated with one of the most involved passages in Justin Martyr, and an involved statement is almost necessarily obscure. It generally invites various schools to find within its lines support and sanction. This passage illustrates this, and painfully. It has been appealed to by the Recep- tionist, by the Consubstantialist, and by the Romanist. But not one of the three can make the passage say more than Justin Martyr says elsewhere and 552 Appendices. when very large concessions are made to those who see in this section the germs of doctrine which is considered medieval, the fact remains, again and again repeated, that in the mind of Justin Martyr, the supreme and controlling idea of the sacrifice is thanksgiving. Irenzeus was born between 120 and 125, but Lipsius (Die. Chr. Bio.) gives 130 as the most probable date. Some believe he was a Syrian, others that he was aSmyrnean. It is certain that in early life he was acquainted with and profoundly impressed by Polycarp. This places him almost in touch with apostolic influence, if not of actually under apostolic teaching. He was some fifty years old when elected to the episcopate, and he lived to be seventy or even eighty years of age, was bishop of Lyons, in France, during the last quarter of the second century. According to him, the Eucharist is the oblation of the new covenant. It is a thankoffering to Almighty God, for His bounties in creation, and although he seems, in one passage, to recognise ‘‘the heavenly” side of the Hucharist, and the body of the recipient as no longer corruptible, yet, like Justin Martyr, the governing idea of the sacrifice is thanksgiving. Tertullian was born in Carthage. The year of his birth and of his death are alike uncertain, The generally accepted dates are between 150-160 and 220-240. His writings, brilliant, voluminous, instructive, reveal the state of Roman Africa before and after it surrendered to Christ. On the point under review, his opinion is especially significant, because he was, by nature and by circumstance, a controversialist. He, with the author of the Didache, with here, viz. the Eucharist is a sacrifice of thanksgiving. And if a useful canon of interpretation be allowed, viz. to explain the obscure portions of an author by such portions as are clear, the eucharistic nature of the sacrifice will be clearer still, In another work (Dia. ὁ. Trypho, c. 1xx.), he refers to the well- known words of Isaiah, in which the security and the support of the believer are predicted: ‘“ bread shall be given him ; his waters shall be sure” (Isa, xxx. 16). “ Now,” says Justin, “it is evident that in this prophecy allusion is made to the bread which our Christ gave us to doin remembrance (ποιεῖν εἰς ἀνάμνησιν) of His being made flesh in behalf of those who believe in Him, for whom also He suffered ; and to the cup which He gave us to do in remembrance of His. own blood, with giving of thanks.” In another section of the same work (c. cxvil., quoted above), Justin Martyr declares emphatically, because he speaks exclusively, ‘‘ that prayers and giving of thanks, when offered by worthy men, are the only sacrifices perfect and well-pleasing to God. Such alone Christians have undertaken to offer (ποιεῖν), and in the remembrance made by their food, both solid and liquid, in which the suffering of the Son of God, which He endured, is brought to remembrance.” The verb ποιεῖν presents an opportunity for indicating another instance of “the free use of unproved assumptions” by Mr. Gore. He says: “ The consent of the Church in regarding the Eucharist as a sacrifice appears to fix the meaning of Christ’s words of institution” (p. 227n.). It would be instructive: to know where this ‘‘ consent” is to be found, but this question is not by any means as important as the nature of the “sacrifice in the Eucharist” to which the Church is said to “consent.” If it be propitiatory, then the evidence of Lord's Supper, Sacrifice of Praise and Thanksgwing. 553 Justin Martyr, with Irenzus, cites Malachi’s prediction as pointing to the Eucharist. With him the pure offering is “simple prayer from a pure conscience.” It thus appears that for more than two centuries, and in places as wide apart as Asia Minor, Rome, Lyons, Ephesus, and Carthage, the prophecy of Malachi was considered to refer to the sacrifice, Christian, universal, spiritual, of prayer and of thanksgiving. It was cited by the author of the Didaché, by Justin Martyr, by Irenzeus, by Tertullian, in connection with the Eucharist. The Eucharist was considered by Justin Martyr, by Irveneus, by Tertullian, as a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving—Justin Martyr and Irenzus connecting it emphatically with God’s mercies to mankind in creation. Ignatius, in his letter to the Smyrneans (vi.), uses language which appears to imply “ that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ which suffered for our sins.” Bishop Lightfoot interprets this by the figurist theory, which has the support of Tertullian: “ Hoc est corpus meum: id est figura mei corporis.” There are expressions equally strong in Ireneus. They appear to recognise, in the elements, a “ heavenly reality,” yet he is emphatic in asserting that all depends upon the spiritual condition of the individual. “It is the conscience of the offerer that sanctifies the sacrifice.” But there is not, in all the literature of the first two centuries, a single expression, which implies, or which states that the sacrifice of the Eucharist is propitiatory. Justin Martyr teaches that sinners came to Christ for life. Believers came he first two centuries proves that of that view the Church was unconscious. If it be eucharistic, an offering of praise and thanksgiving, then Mr. Gore’s apparent contention as to the “consent of the Church” is not proved. But, further, to sustain his assumption about the propitiatory value of the Eucharist, which is implied in the earlier part of the note, as the “ consent of the Church,” he appeals to two passages in Justin Martyr in which ποιεῖν (Dial. ὁ. Trypho, 41, 70) occurs, in which it may be rendered “to offer;” and, it is added, “this use of the word is common in the LXX. without any qualification.” The late Dr. Hamilton, Bishop of Salisbury, was, so far as I know, the first Anglican prelate who made this discovery, and who endeavoured to justify his opinion by appealing to the Septuagintal use of ποιεῖν, to prove that τοῦτο ποιεῖτε means “sacrifice (or ‘offer’) this.” Two questions are raised by this plea: (a) the meaning οὗ the word in Justin Martyr ;.and (Ὁ) in the Septuagint. If Justin Martyr considered the sacrament to be propitiatory, and if he regarded ποιεῖν as equivalent to “sacrifice,” he would, probably, have described the officiant by the usual sacrificial designation, iepeds. But he does not so describe him. He gives us information, clear and even detailed, about the sacrament (vide Apol. 1, c. 66-7). But the official who would be described by Mr. Gore as ὁ ἱερεὺς, Justin Martyr describes as τῷ προεστῶτι τῶν ἀδελφῶν, and he so describes him, in connection with the weekly worship of the Christians, and with the celebration of the Lord’s Supper, four times over, in a comparatively brief statement. If Justin Martyr regarded ποιεῖν as equivalent to sacrifice ; and 554 Appendices. to the Eucharist with life. The unregenerate, the unpardoned, the inconsistent, were warned away from the héavenly feast. ‘‘This food is called among us thanksgiving, of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined.”! With this, contrast the following startling pronouncement : “In the Church, communion with God—oneness with God— was believed to depend upon a simple act, possible to the most ignorant. ‘Take eat, this is My body.’ ‘He that eateth My flesh dwelleth in Me, and 1 in him.’” (Gore’s Christian Ministry, Ὁ. 79, n.) The author has omitted to mention our Blessed Lord’s exegesis. ‘It is the spirit that quickeneth ; the flesh profiteth nothing ; the words that I speak unto you are spirit and are life.”* Nor has he observed the grave difficulty which his’ interpretation of these words creates and intensifies. If our Lord meant what Mr. Gore represents as the doctrine of the Church, then He asked the people of Capernaum to do an if he further regarded the sacrifice as expiatory, his description of the “ priest ” as the “president of the brethren” is a flagrant irregularity, almost as irreverent as a phrase which was applied by the author of “ Ecce Homo” to the sacrament itself. But the title is not irreverent, and it can seem so only to those who force a meaning into ποιεῖν, which Justin Martyr’s writings do not sustain. But (Ὁ) we are further assured that “this use of the word is common in LXX, without any qualification.” ἹΠοιεῖν is used in two general senses, to make and to do, It occurs some twelve times in the first chapter of Genesis, in the former sense. It occurs in the third chapter (vy. 13, 14) in the latter sense: as well as in the tenth verse of the fourth chapter. But the verb ποιεῖν occurs some 2,400 times in the Septuagint, and Trommius quotes 2,260 verses in which the word has either of the senses here given. He gives one verse in which it has the meaning “to offer,” or “to sacrifice” :—Kal νῦν λάβετε ἑπτὰ μόσχους καὶ ἑπτὰ κριούς, Kal πορεύθητε πρὸς τὸν παῖδά μου ᾿1ώβ' καὶ ποιήσεις κάρπωμα περὶ ὑμῶν --- Take unto you now seven bullocks and seven rams, and go to my servant Job, and offer up for yourselves a burnt-offering ” (Job xlii. 8). But here it would be quite as correct to say “make” as “ offer ; ” and the same rendering may be given, in accordance with one of the two general senses of the word, to the passages in which the word ποιεῖν oceurs in the Septuagint, and where it is rendered by “ offer” or some cognate term. Thus, Trommius gives 2,260 verses in which the word is rendered “to make ” or “to do ;” and we are assured that, in the Septuagint, “to offer” is its “common” meaning! The New Testament is not appealed to. There the word occurs over 500 times. There is not an instance in which it is rendered ‘* to sacrifice.” 1 kal ἡ τροφὴ αὕτη καλεῖται παρ᾽ ἡμῖν εὐχαριστία, ἧς οὐδενὶ ἄλλῳ μετασχεῖν ἔξόν ἐστιν, ἢ τῷ πιστεύοντι ἀληθῆ εἶναι τὰ δεδιδαγμένα ὑφ᾽ ἡμῶν, καὶ λουσαμένῳ τὸ ὑπὲρ ἀφέσεως ἁμαρτιῶν καὶ εἰς ἀναγέννησιν λουτρὸν καὶ οὕτως βιοῦντι ὡς ὁ Χριστὸς παρέ- δωκεν (Just, M., prim. Apol., \xvi.). * τὸ, πνεῦμά ἐστι τὸ ζωοποιοῦν, ἣ σὰρξ οὐκ ὠφελεῖ οὐδέν. TA ῥήματα ἃ ἐγὼ λελάληκα ὑμῖν πνεϑμώ ἐστι καὶ ζωή ἐστιν (St. John vi. 63), Inspired Antictpations of Modern Science. 555 impossibility, and He made the possession of eternal life depend upon “a simple act,” which was impossible. For there was then no Eucharist of which to partake. INSPIRED ANTICIPATIONS OF MODERN SCIENCE, The line of argument suggested above abounds with interest, information, and evidence. It was well worked out by the late Professor Gaussen, of Geneva in his admirable volume 7heopneustia, and it is amongst the most powerful contributions which can be made to the cumulative argument for the inspira- tion of the Holy Scripture. A few illustrations will show this. In Gen, i. 9, we have the Divine order, “ Let the waters under the heavens be gathered to- gether unto one place.” In the Psalter, the ever present volition of God with regard to aqueous order is thus represented : “‘ He gathereth the waters of the sea together as an heap” (Ps.-xxxiii. 7). The physical doctrine of both passages is the final oneness of all the oceans. This announcement was made, and was recorded by Moses. It lay in the leaves of the Pentateuch, unchallenged by inquiry, unproved by exploration, and possibly unstudied by piety, for over three thousand years. Magellan (1519-22) first circumnavigated the earth This demonstrated in the sixteenth century the doctrine which had been re- vealed to Moses, and which had been in the possession of the Jews over thirty centuries before. The world then first knew “ that the waters under the heaven were gathered together into one place.” Had the discovery been made anterior to Magellan, it is incredible the fact would have been lost. And to the inquiry, How did Moses acquire it? There can be, I believe, but one reply. The achievement of the Portuguese navigator is associated with another scientific doctrine, viz., the sphericity of the globe. This is stated in Scripture. “ He that sitteth upon the circle of the earth” (Isa. xl. 22). But this truth was not held in either the east or west. In both the earth was believed to be a plane. Thales of Miletus (B.C. 636) taught the globular form of the earth, and Pythagoras—whose “life is shrouded in the dim magnificence of legends,” and is, moreover, associated with mathematics, miracles, and music—holds the same truth. But how far it was from being accepted, some of the most humiliating histories of ecclesiaticism abundantly prove (vide Gaussen, pp. 252-255, and on another subject, which aroused equal opposition even unto blood, see Lect. xiv. “ Scientific arguments for the earth’s motion,” in Dr, Salmon’s Jnfallibility of the Church). It was established when Magellan sailed round the world. Again, the Scriptures ,imply the innumerability of the stars (Gen. xv. 5), and teach that God alone can tell their number (Ps. exlvii. 4). The catalogue of Hipparchus (160-125 B.c.) gives 1,022 (Pouchet, p. 514). “ In both hemi- spheres taken together, the most practised eyes are incapable of discovering more than 5,000; whilst before the invention of the telescope a man could not see, even in the finest night, more than a thousand” (Gaussen, p. 268). But from the days of Galileo until now, men have so improved the telescope that the vault of heaven “is found, according to M. Struve, to contain more than 20,000,000 stars,” and Lord Rosse’s marvellous instrument has proved that what used to be considered nebulz are now dense swarms of stars, which are indeed innumerable, as God’s early announcement to Abraham implied, and as His 556 Appendices. word, recorded in the Psalter, clearly taught. These are three simple illustrations of a great truth. Many additions to these, no less conclusive, might be made. A notable one is suggested by Col. ii. 19,20. Bishop Lightfoot’s exegesis is most interesting. He refers to the theories of Aristotle, of Galen, of Hippocrates, and examines the sacred text in the light of both ancient and modern physiology, the discoveries of which have “invested the Apostle’s language with far greater distinctness and force than it can have worn to his own contemporaries. Any exposition of the nervous system more especially reads like a commentary on his image of the relations between the body and the head. At every turn we meet with some fresh illustration which kindles with it a flood of light.” Bishop Light- foot then shows how ancient scientific speculation was feeling after those physiological truths, which the image of the Pauline text involved. He thus concludes: “ Bearing in mind all this diversity of opinion among ancient physiologists, we cannot fail to be struck in the text, not only with the correct- ness of the image, but also with the propriety of the terms ; and we are forci- bly reminded that among the Apostle’s most intimate companions at this time was one whom he calls ‘the beloved physician.’” The Bible has both antici- pated modern science, and accurately described its accepted conclusions. The importance of this, as an argument for its supernatural origin, will appear, if we compare these scriptural forecasts of scientific progress, covering hundreds of years, with other utterances, not of unbelievers, but of devout men, who occupied a prominent position in the Church. Clement of Rome, in a passage of great beauty, dwells upon the order and the obedience of creation, and having referred to the “‘ heavens as moved by His direction,” and “ day and night,” and “the sun and the moon and the dancing stars” as obedient to the Divine decree. He then speaks of “ the ocean which is impassable for men.” (Ὠκεανὸς ἀνθρώποις ἀπέραντος, καὶ οἱ μετ᾽ αὐτὸν κόσμοι ταῖς αὐταῖς Tayais τοῦ δεσπότου διευθύνονται, 1 Clem. Rom. ad Cor., xx.). If Clement meant what his words appear to imply, he had no idea of a time ever coming when, through scientific progress, the ocean would be passable to men. Such agnosticism is quite compatible with orthodoxy. It would not be compatible with a claim to inspiration. Lactantius may also be referred to in this connection. He is scandalised by the imagina- tion of the antipodes, and of the sphericity of the globe. “ How is it,” he inquires, “with those who imagine that there are antipodes opposite to our footsteps? Do they say anything to the purpose? Or is there anyone so sense- less as to believe that there are men whose footsteps are higher than their heads ? or that the things which with us are in a recumbent position with them hang in an inverted direction? that the crops and trees grow downwards? that the rains, and snow, and hail fall upwards to the earth? He then refers to the rotundity of the earth as accounting for the “invention of those suspended antipodes,” and says, “Iam ata loss what to say respecting those who, when they have once erred, consistently persevere in their folly, and defend one vain thing by another.” GENERAL INDEX. A. Aaron, 342, 343, 344 Absalom, 190 Absolution, 372 Aberglaube, 192 2. Agapé, 183 Alford, Dean, 84 7., 93 7., 175 ., 527, 536, 538 Analogy, Butler's, 314, 315 ᾿Αντίλυτρον, 226 n. Antioch, 102, 150, 409 Apocalypse, 320 Apollos, 111 Appointments, 81, 82 Aquila, 111 Archippus, 68 Argument, moral, 309 Arnold, Matthew, 192 x. Articles, 329, 330, 332, 369 Articles of Religion, 514-5 Asceticism, 284 Atonement, 337, 388 Augustine, St., 392, 393 Apostolic succession, 326-416 in what it consists, 326-7 ] silence of the Church of England, 328 deacons, presbyters ‘necessary orders,” 333 bishops not said to be “ necessary,” 333 evidence of rubric in episcopal ordinal, 333-4 succession said to be more im- portant than constitution of ministry, 340 sense in which succession is true, 341 obtained in Judaism, 343 succession now claimed is individual, | 344 abandoned by Cardinal Newman,347 | Apostolic succession— unsustained by ethical excellence, 351 independent of rights of divine society, 351-2 its tendency schismatical, 353 provision against in Papacy, 354 said to be an enduring apostolate, 355 “free use of unproved assumptions,” 357 “ once for all given grace,” 358-65 Mr. Gore adopts Méhler’s theory of the Church, 366 necessary to Tridentine doctrine, 369 succession said to be based upon ἐξ apostolic ordinal.” 369-72 principle of Incarnation inapplica- ble to apostolic succession, 373 devolution of grace, 380 appeal to Scripture inconclusive, 382 ecclesiastical saint-lore, 383 are bishops successors of apostles ? 384 succession not independent of or- daining formula, 385 uncertainty amongst Tractarians,387 advice of St. Cyprian, 390 “apostolic ordinal’? unknown and unused for over 1,000 years, 391 St. Augustine on the imposition of hands, 394 Morinus’ criticism of Augustine, 395 bishops and presbyters, 397 Trenzus and succession, 399 Tertullian and succession, 403 Hegesippus and Ignatius, 409 Clement of Rome, 411 Jerome, 412 episcopal succession transmitted truth, not grace, 408 apostolic, charismatic, succession no place in Christianity, 416 B. Baptism, 15, 52, 213, 372, 386 Barlow, Prof., 196 2. Barnabas, 21, 51, 56, 74, 246, 360, 378, 382, 383 Barnabas, Ep. of, 116 Barry, Bishop, 514-5, 528 Basle, Council of, 353 Beck, Prof., 520 Bengel, 136, 168 z., 361 Berea, 101 Beveridge, 45 Bickell, Prof., 523 Bickersteth, Bishop, 7, 306, 320 Bingham, 267., 61 n., 527 “ Bishop,” 100, 143, 145, 163 Black Letter Prayer Book, 332, 334 Bryennios, 81, 125 Buchner, 313 Burgon’s Lives, 315, 534 Burrhus, 141 Butler, Bishop, 1677., 193 ., 254 %., 314-6 Butler, Archer, 22 ἢ. C. Cersarea, 55, 114, 176 Caiaphas, 344-5 Calvary, 368 Calvin, 63 n., 174, 175 n. Carter, Canon, 370, 384, 388, 398, 477 Carthage, fourth Council of, 392 Caspari, 118 2. Catechism, 363 Ceylon, 305 Chalons, 187 Charles 1., 334 Chronological limit, 67 ἢ. Chrysostom, 93 as a preacher, 266 emphatic as to importance of Holy Scripture, 267 considers Scriptures divine charms, 269 magnifies didactic side of ministerial work, 271 Church principles, 329 x. Clement of Rome, 116, 136 ”., 140, 159 ., 160, 181, 244, 277, 279, 410- 11, 481, 534, 536, 556 Clifford, Prof., 44 Colosse, 305 Commission (the Great), 11, 18, 14, 47, 56 Common Prayer, Book of, 329, 361, 364 General Index. Communion office, 364 Communion of saints, 2:4 Compte, 29, 256 Confirmation, 363, 372, 526-8 Confucianism, 305 Congregation, ministering in, 322 Consecration, episcopal, 333 Constance, Council of, 353 Constantinople, 346 Convocation, 334 Cook, Canon (the late), 49 n. Coptic ordinals, 391 Corinthian Church, 104, 107, 305 Crete, 115, 166, 167, 172 Cunningham, Prof., 70 »., 72, 105, 135, 521, 530-1 Cyrus, Bishop of, 384 Cyprian, 390, 434, 528 Cypriots, 360 D. D’Aubigne, 175, 341 Deacons, 100, 114, 121, 125, 137, 140, 148, 145, 329, 332-3 Denton, 352 De Quincey, 286 Development of Christian doctrine, 314 Diaconate, 58, 134, 139 Didache, 85, 117, 118, 121, 124, 136, 182, 413, 468, 480, 517, 542 n. Didactic office of Christian ministry, 231 subject of prophecy, 282-3 magnified by our Lord’s example and injunction, 233 emphasised by apostolic action and literature, 235-44 same prominence given to preaching by St. Clement of Rome, 244-5 similar testimony of Ignatius, Poly- carp, Irenzus, Justin Martyr, 245-9 Anglican Church emphatic about didactics, 250 Roman Church emphatic about sacerdotalism, 251 Διδάσκαλος, 163 Diognetus, Ep. to, 278, 365 Drummond, 315 K. Egyptian priests, 29 Elders, 60, 62, 66, 74, 77, 111, 162 Ellicott, 67 n., 842., 99 2., 106 m., 175 n., 210 n. General Index. 559 Epaphras, 68 | Irenzus, 210%., 248 n., 249, 282, 327, Epaphroditus, 64, 144». 357 n., 384 2., 398 n.,899-403, 408, 432, Ephesus, 305 469, 517, 523, 524, 541 »., 543, 550, Epiphanius, 26 x. 552-3 Ἐπίσκοπος, 34, 35, 141, 166, 174, 179. | Invocatio Dei, 466 See BISHOP introduced into Prayer Book, 1549, Ethics, Data of, 324 467 Eucharist, 71, 117, 147, 162, 369, 372 | excluded from Prayer Book, 1552, Eusebius, 170 η.. 177 n.. 282, 408-9 | 473 | retained in Scottish Communion F Office, 469 ? | presented in liturgical table, 468-9 one revised in American office, 471 aed Gore’s assumption respecting, 546 ’ : | unnoticed by earliest patristic writers, 547 G. first noticed by Irenzeus, 547 differs from “ prayer” noticed by Gamaliel, 53 ᾿ Justin Martyr, 547 Gibbon, 310, 311 effect ascribed to one thing accord- Gladstone, 329, 398 ing to Irenzus, another accord- Gnosticism, 282, 285 n., 398, 399, 401, ing to Gore, 547-8 403 Gore’s conclusion an “ unproved as- Goethe, 180 sumption,” 548 Goldwin Smith, 315 no place in earlier Christian litera- Gore, Rev. Charles, 325, 333, 347, 353, ture, 548 356-7, 366, 383-4, 385, 398, 413,423-4, | theory opposed to Holy Scripture, 426-7, 432, 545-55 548 Ireneus gives no countenance to H Tridentine doctrine, 549 Hallam, 334 J. Hardwick, 515 ‘ Harnack, Prof., 81, 83, 99 x. 112 ”., | Jamblichus, 292. 142 n., 144n., 147, 158, 171, 524, | James, St., 112, 156, 168, 170n., 173, 532-4 358, 409 Harris, Prof. Rendel, 523 Japan, Bishopric of, 304 Hatch, Dr. (the late), 27 η., 11 π., 72, | Jerome, 412-3 ! 99, 108, 123, 142, 157, 171, 176, 177, | Jerusalem, Council of, 60, 96, 151, 356, 525, 530, 537-8 161, 108 Hegesippus, 408, 414 Judas, 96, 97 Helps, Ministry of, 81, 95, 96 Justin Martyr, 184, 2107., 245, 295, Hengstenberg, 12». 449 n Hermas, 86, 118, 120, 128, 136, 140, 144n., 147, 158, 171, 414 K. Heylyn, 334 Hippolytus, 282, 384 Kaye, 129 n. Holland, Dr., 334 Kingdom of Christ, 310-11, 322, 324, Hooker, 45, 473-4 x. 3542. Κυβερνήτης, 82 n., 108 Lip L. Ignatius, 99 x., 108 »., 122, 124, 129 n., 144... 161, 185, 246, 414, 481, 482, | Lactantius, 4 483, 517, 534-6 Lange, 12. Imposition of hands, 111, 149 Laud, Archbishop, 334 Incarnation, 1, 374 Lechler, 93 ». Inspiration 192, Liddon, Canon, 427 £60 wv Lightfoot, Bishop, 68 2., 118 ., 123 7., 129 η.. 159 ., 418, 518, 584-6,,.556 Lincoln, Lord Bishop of, 326, 419 Liturgical office, 230 Liturgical table, 468-9 Lombard, Peter, 218 Lord’s Supper, 16 ἢ. Luke, St., 99 Luthardt, 195 2. Lycaonia, 110, 114, 127,151, 165 Lystra, 98, 152, 162 M. Macedonius, 24 Magnesians, 409 Mahaffy, Prof., 260 η., 271 n. Mansel, 314 x. Marcellus of Ancyra, 24 7. Marcion, 248 Mark, St., 93, 98, 145 Marshall, N., 379 Martensen, 67 ἢ. Materialism, 313 Matthias, St., 18, 20, 51, 519, 520 Meath, Lord Bishop of, 391, 397 Messianic prophecy, 18 ”., 519 Missionary journey, St. Paul’s first, 59, 74 Missionary journey, St. Paul’s second, 61, 74, 91 Mohler, 353, 355, 366, 369, 373, 415 Montanism, 48, 128 x. Morinus, 391-2, 395-6, 497 n. Mosheim, 334 Mozley, 128 n. Muratorian Fragment, 128 ἢ. N. Napier, Lord Chancellor, 315 Ναύκληρος, 108 Newman, 43 2., 129 2., 256, 288 n., 305, 328, 329, 331, 347 0. Ordinal, 36, 45, 57, 249, 383-4-8 Origen, 265 iP. Paley, 311-2 Pastoral epistles, 68, 163 Pastoral office, 41 Patrick, Bishop, 62%. Pearson, 379 General Index. Pfaffian fragment, 544-5 regarded as doubtful by Dr. Salmon, 548 Philip, St., 49 2., 54, 91, 139 Ποιμαίνειν, 164. (see Appendix) Polycarp, 86, 122, 129 η., 136, 144%., 159, 185, 246, 265, 404, 409, 410, 414 Positivism, 312 Presbyter, 79, 114,120, 151,157, 159 ἡ. 160, 162, 165, 171, 173, 397 Presbyterians, 341 Priesthood, universal, 38 Prophet, 58, 64, 67, 97, 116 Prynne, 334 Pusey, 387, 388, 398 R. Recognitions, Clementine, 176 Regeneration, 213 Reichel, Bishop, 391, 397, 441 | Religion, Comte and Newman, dualism defective, 256-7 Revelation, claims, nature, power, 252-3 contains anticipations of modern science, 253 ἡ. (see Appendix) minister must be faithful towards, 254 universal in its appeal, 260 minister must have faith in, 264 Ridley, 506-7 ., 524-5 Rogers, 253 ἢ. Ruffinus, 177 ἢ. Ryle, Bishop, 442, 445 8. Sacerdotalism, 417 common to polytheism and mono- theism, 38-40 excluded from Christianity, 418 its claims stated, 419-23 a system of human mediation, 424 divine life bestowed or received only through the priest, 425 sacramental propitiation, 426 the principle of dependence, plau- sible but fallacious analogy, 427-31 sacerdotalism based on apostdfic succession, 432 apostolic succession not proved, sacerdotal claim not established, 432 based upon St. John xx. 22-23, 433 opposed to powerful instinct, 434 Easter announcement of Christ con- sidered, in connection with earlier promise, 434-9 General Index. Sacerdotalism— authority bestowed exercised, 439 St. Luke's account of same appear- ance, 443 words not used as ordinal, 446 sacerdotal theory connected with office of minister, 446 could not have died out, if an original institution of Christianity, 448 bearing of theory upon the Atone- ment, 449 typology of Great Day of Atone- ment, 450 one offering, one priest, 455 sacramental propitiation stated, 457 dual aspects of our Lord’s sacrifice, 459 the Christian minchah, 461 propitiation excluded from minchah, 463 communion cannot synchronize with expiation, 464 expiation incompatible with com- munion, 465 sacramental propitiation destructive of communion, 465 sacrament said to be united with the one sacrifice, by invocatio Dei, 466 invocatio Dei excluded from An- glican office, 467 propitiation and priesthood surren- dered by Hooker, 473-4 priest never applied to minister in New Testament, 475 Tractarian explanation, inconsis- tent, and inadequate, 477 sacerdotal mediation unknown to Clement of Rome, 480 unknown to Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, 482 Tertullian on prayer as a sacrifice, 485 ’ Tertullian on priesthood of laymen, 487 laymen allowed to administer sacra- ments, when necessary, 489 his evidence as to Church order and authority, 492 Anglican Church and sacerdotalism, 493 ordinal, evidential value of exclu- sion from, 495 progressively excluded from Prayer Book, 499-514 “altar” erased from Anglican li- turgy, 503-7 561 Sacerdotalism— “altar”? removed from Anglican churches, 506-7 propitiation excluded from sacra- ment, 1548, 1549, 1552, ete., 509-14 Salisbury, late Bishop of, 421-2, 431 Salmon, Dr.,97., 99 ., 123 ., 128 η., 137 n., 167 2., 285 "., 339, 399, 523, 526, 534, 548, 555 Samaria, 54, 93, 145 Schaff, 117, 118 n., 125 Silas, 63, 96, 98, 101, 110 Sin, actual, 203, 225. Sin, original, 197 Smyth, 122 n. Sosthenes, 64 Sozomen, 137 7. Spencer, Herbert, 324 Stephen, 21, 49, 90 Suicer, 26 x, Swainson, 24 n., 267. die Taylor, Jeremy, 99 n. Teacher's Prayer Book, 334 Tekoah, Woman of, 190, 192 Tertullian, 130 7., 296, 299, 404-8, 414, 432, 484, 492, 517, 524, 528 Theodoret, 384. Timothy, 62, 68, 98, 99 »., 101, 110, 112, 115, 122, 162, 167, 170, 172 Titus, 110, 115, 167, 172 Tracts for Times, 370-1, 382, 385 Trullo, Council of, 135 Tychicus, 112 Vi Valentinus, 248 Vicarious sacrifice, 226 ἡ, Vitringa, 149 x. Vogt, 313 Vulgate, 178 Ἦν, Wesley, 130 x. Westcott, Prof., 254 ., 380, 456, 520 Whately, 354 Wilkinson, 30 7. Wordsworth, 150, 451 Zs Zaccheeus, 176 ἡ, Zwinglius, 175 36 INDEX OF TEXTS QUOTE OLD GENESIS. vi. ὃ : : EXODUS. ἘΠ: ; xxviii. 1, 41, 48 xxix 40; 41: LEVITICUS. 1. 2, 12 Ἐν IPA 19 ἘΝ, Ὁ eile, 5 elie. NUMBERS. xvii. 10 XVI ὃ, on . xxviii. 9,10. ΕΊΣ ΕΣ aly Ἢ ΤῸ ΧΕΙ 11 Ε ΧΧΧΥΪΙ. 11-14 DEUTERONOMY. JOSHUA, xiii. 14, 33 2 SAMUEL. ν. Ὁ ? vii. 12, 13 xiv, U4 1 KINGS. viii. 9 ὲ ; 1 CHRONICLES. Serabe 10. VES PSALMS. 1,9 oil xiv. . 460, . 541 . 53 206 τ 195, 199 TESTAMENT. ΟἿΣ. ὁ exxxil. 1] PSALMS. 519, 520, 19, 519, Crees 159 Ὁ exli. 2 exliii. 2 exlvii. 4 i. 6 : Wks πὶ - xi. 4 sally hil xl. 22 xlix. 24. inary lili. 6 One ἘΣΤΙ 11 xxiii. 21 = Qulily ot a XXXIV. 2 Xxxiv. 4 li, 28-32 iii. 2 iv. 6 i, 10. 14 PROVERBS. ISAIAH, J BREMIAH. EZEKIEL. JOEL. AMOS. ZECHARIAH. MALACHI, . 66, Index of Texts Quoted. NEW TESTAMENT. St. MATTHEW. 1, 22 li. 15 li. 23 iv. 19 . v. 23, 24 vii. 15, 16 = ee x. 10 Sh 11. xvi. 19. SVU. 27 . ; Xvili. 15-18 . xx. 28 f xxvi. 26,27 . XXVi. 32 XXvii. 34 : XXviii. 7, 10,16 XXvili. 19, 20 Sr. MARK. St. LUKE. xxiv. 10 ς js xxiv. 13, 25, 26, 32 xxiv, 21 : 2 xxiv. 34 xxiv. 47 xxiv. 49 PAGE 289, 519 . 519 . 519 51 . 542 . 120 83 see . 475 . 437 ΕἾ»). . 437 . 226 . 468 rae Ὁ. . 619 12 94 14, 228 14, 228 17, 20 vi. 27, 40, 47. vi. 63, 67, 68 vil. 5 ἘΠ Ὁ x. 10 SLO x. 28 ΧΙ, 25, 26 SH 10΄. xv. 4 xv, 25 xvii, 17 xvii. 21. ἘΣΘ, 29) : xx, 1418, 19 xx. ΣΙ, 25 Sv. JON, aaey ὦ 12, 13 44, 326 . 520, 521 xx, 24, 26 19 30.0 1.9 13 AcTS OF THE APOSTLES. ᾿ς 1 11 1 τὰ : ) 1 i. 6 16, 38, 534 i. 8 ᾿ ἘΝ i. 14 * 113 1, 15, 26 : . 50 1. 10 19, 519, 521 ry δ ( : - ὍΣ i, 21 519 1, 26, 26 51 11. 14 52 ii, 16, 18 20 ii. 30 . 533 i, 37 50, 52 ii, 38 . 228 564 Index of Texts Quoted. ACTS OF THE APOSTLES: ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. PAGE PAGE ii, 38, 39 ᾿ : : ΠΟ ΟΡ ἈΝ Ὁ» “ 95 We se : : : 5 GPS Gl | ssh) 94 ἦι 5. ἢ. : F : ἕ . 90 | xiv. 4, 14 94 Te ae : : : : 5 CAL. || Σῖν 5. ΤῈ 98 Table 26 ae : ; : ς ΟΡ ἢ" Seda, IEE 84 valet. Ἵ ἕ Ξ Ξ . 5O | xiv. 215, 22 . 526, 527 ThA Uy By BM - : j : . 5O | xiv. 23 5 ἀνθ. 5 3 : J ΠΟ | Sang. FADS ao) ἵν J : : 5 : . 1382 | xv. 2,6 532 iv. 29, 31 : Ξ Ξ δι κοι τς ΤΥ . Ὃθ iv. 31,33 1.10 Ὁ τὴν 21,53, 360 | xv. 14 . 367 ἵν. 9. ; 5 : τς 53) Weer. 22 97 The Boo : : ; : ΡΟ" Ἐν 29 531 Valea ΐ ; : : ΡΠ ΡΣ 97 vari alle : : : : . 5O | xv. 32 97 v.3 ; : Ν : ς ἘΠ Ἐν Αἴ 529 Ul ; : : : : 50 ἢ Saath U5 Ὁ 99 wy I, WG : : 4 . 89 | xvi. 4, 5 . 529, 532 v. 17, 42 : : Ν : 5 eh | oer LO vy. 18, 40 : : : δ . 50 | xvi. 25, 27 ξ 5 BM) ve 20) κα ς : ‘ DIS" |e xvi 20k ; : : : . 260 γὲ 28. - : ; : : 8 1 xvii 11 : : : . 102 νὰ 1. Ὁ. 50, 54 | xix. 1-6 ; ; : . 526, 527 ὙΠῸ Bde GO) || Saba alo dull, ΠΩ : 5 111 Tiley Oe AGE saben . ς 3 : . 28 vi. 3 Ol |) xx: 24 ©. : 4 : 5 . 134 vi. 5 91 Wo: CA -. : : . Ε (255 vii. 38 DO TENS LO as : 34, 66, 67, 102, 111, viii. 1 . 54 134, 171, 323 viii. 4 . Ἵ : 49, 91 xx. 31 ᾿ ΙΝ viii. 12, 18, 15, 16, 29 ὌΠ Ἐπ ary : : Σ ; . 300 vili. 14, 16, 17 525, 526,527 | xx.35 . f j ; ᾿ . ὅ94 viii. 14, 25 XO) |) τε 17 : Ε ζ : ἘΠ viii. 15, 17, 18 yA |; σε Altos 6 5 : : . 66, 526 viii. 25 529 | xxii. 16. i : ‘ 3 ΠΡΟ. τ ix. 6 217 | xxii. 21. : P : : . δα ib 11 21 | xxvii.9 3 ἢ : . . 451 ix. 26, 27 55 | xxvii. 11 . 5 . ; . 108 ix. 27 50 = Si 529 ROMANS. ix. 30 92 | i. 4 ‘ ᾿ : ᾿ : 295 x. 28 437 | iii. 9-12. : : ; : ᾿ς 195 xa 48) Ὁ DOA NW ae RA a : : ; . 198 x. 44-48 8. eave ee : ς ζ ν . 22 xi, 2,18, 22 sy |) abi IE : Ξ ‘ : ot xi. 19, 20 21) vii. 2) - : : ᾿ : . 295 xi, 19, 21-23. 49, 360 | viii. 17 . : : : nee xi, 20 . EXGy || 55 Ny : : . 66, 233 xi. 21, 22, 24 O27) ha. 18) - ; ἢ : ‘ . 134 sy ae 529 | xi. 25 . ; ἢ ( 3 ATS xi. 22, 23 Salty cathe 1 : ᾿ . 542, 545 xi. 26 Ad, WON |) τ (yc ἃ 4 ἢ : . 255 xi. 27 δὴ 9. lo b Eg να : : ; . 184 ἘΠῚ 17 ΡΟ |) ΞῚ ἃ - : 5 " : . 536 xiii. 1 58,92 | xv.3 .- : ‘ Σ : . 819 xiii. 4 7958 S\xvin ἘΣ 3 ; : : . 184 ees ees - 7 | ev 2B. wt δ ῃπ: Lndex of Texts Quoted. 1 CORINTHIANS. PAGE i. 6, 7 106 ἂς ἢ 130 i, 14-16 216 ἘΠῚ 236 i. 21 239 i, 24 259 ii. 14, 15 535 iii. 5 134 iii. 16, 19 536 iv. 1 64 vi, 11 293 ix. 1 84 ix. 12, 14 63 = 81 22 ἄπ ΜΝ] 501 ΧΙ. 23-25 469 xii, 3 22, 23, 217 xii, 27 ᾿ 5 ς : 98 xii, 28 66, 81, 127, 323, 522, 535 xii, 29 65 xiii, 2 475 xiv. 23, 40 532 xv. 5 12 xv. 7 167 xv. 10 359 ay Pay 175 xvi. 15 134 2 CORINTHIANS, li, 15, 16 65 111, 4, 5 65 Ἢ. 6.9 134 iv. 1 134 vad 65 iv. 15 360 ν, 15 229 v. 17 215 v. 18 . 65 v. 18, 19 66, 229 v. 20 Rs vi. 4 . 475 viii. 23 84 ix. 8, 14 360 a 8, 99 134 xi. 13 83 XL 25 94 xii. 9 359 GALATIANS. 1.19 107 ii. 2 60 ii. 20 215, 276 111, 8 520 iii. 13 229 ili. 22 207 111. 27 221 v, 19-21 293 GALATIANS, EPHESIANS. vi. 19, 20 vi, 21, 22 PHILIPPIANS. 1.1 ii. 16 ii, 25 τ; 960: 27 iil. 19 COLOSSIANS. iv. 7 iv. 17 1 THESSALONIANS. i. 10 ii. G iii, 2 vv, 12 v. 23 v. 27 565 PAGE . 293 . 66 . 215 . 361 . 211 . 295 11 67 + 25 . 241 85 . 29 . 134 . 475 85 . 241 . 242 . 220 . 519 66, 323 67 81, 85, 99 . 174 . 475 . 243 . 115 68, 99, 136 . 223 . 68 . 130 . 523 ΡΝ] . 186 . 541 68 62, 108 2 THESSALONIANS. PAGE 1 7 : 5 J : Σ AnD shir, ee ξ : : 3 . 235 iii, 6, 14 : : : 5 , oR Tb, CO) : 3 Ξ 3 5 (8 1 TIMOTHY. hs 8) 112, 171, 248 i. 20 % . 440 li. 6 226 Tit, ff : 243 mts Us . 148 τὺ Se . 163 iii, 8, 12 . 1438 TH 8) 19 . 136 ἘΠ ΠΣ Γ : ; : . 141 iii. 14, 15 ; : 3 : = if πὶ 15y & f ι ! : nD ἵν: INE : : : 4 ileal iv. 15 61, 175 iv. 14 98, 99 iv. 16 “ΠΙΕΙ͂Ν Voy 108, 243, 538 Vm, 20) - : : : . 117], 440 va, ils ΠΕ ΤΟΣ ; : ; ΝΗ vi. 20 i 5 WS 2 TIMOTHY. 1, 2 98 i. 6 P : Ξ , ᾽ . 98 Pola. Ἵ 5 ; : elo ii, 2 , 3 : Ἢ 79 ἘΠῚ 12 Ἔ : : : 5 1h ING : : ὦ . 99 102 iv. 6 : ; 5 : ‘ . o24 ἵν 20) 5 ᾿ Ἢ : 5 Uae TITUS. 1. 5 ; 4, Wee 1.9 163, 173, 244 ii. 11 3 Sa os Ξ . 262 inlay ΤῊΣ : 3 : 3 lis ἀπ 6 10 - : 5 : : . 440 PHILEMON. τ Bh Wh 99. 5 4 : ez HEBREWS. Th; les} ᾿ : Ξ > ols in. 9 : : : : . 261 Index of Texts Quoted. HEBREWS. PAG ἵν. ΤῸ 210, 222 iv. 16 . 361 Wael 40 ν. 4} 93 vi, 1, 2 526 vi. 10 542 vii. 24 426 x. 19 518 ΠῚ Ish 226 xan 7: . : s ! . "69 atk (ls 17. 24. ‘ F : . 108 ἘΠῚ fey : : : 522 scrlils 1155 545 dune, ΤΌ. . 522 soni, I 26, 69 ἘΠῚ: 20 . 537 ix. 4 Α : 343 St. JAMES. i, 18 222 iv. 6 Ξ 358 ἵν. LEE 203 1 Sr. PETER: Tey A 79 Te AR} 274 ie 2 223 li. 5 5 . 542 li, 25 35, 1159, 53d iv. 6 10 τῆν ΠΑ ὁ . 538 v.12 é 3 79 2051 PTH 111. 18 223 1 ὅ5:. JOHN. iii. 4 203 iii. 9 22 v.l 22 Wy Ll? 203 JUDE. one 522 REVELATION. i, 20 475 v. 8 540 vili. 3, 4 540 Xvili. 17 108 Printed by Hazell, Watson, & Viney, Ld., London and Aylesbury. BY THE SAME AUTHOR. THE LIMITATION OF LIBERTY: Its GROUND AND NECESSITY. LECTURE ON SCEPTICISM. VICTORY THROUGH DEFEAT: A FUNERAL SERMON, PREACHED ON THE DEATH OF SAMUEL ROBERT GRAVES, M.P. A PLEA FOR THE OLD CATHOLIC MOVEMENT. A BISHOP FOR LIVERPOOL. PLEADINGS FOR CHRIST: BEING SERMONS DOCTRINAL AND PRACTICAL. THE TWO BANQUETS: BEING A SERMON TO YOUNG MEN. LUTHER AT WORMS: A LECTURE. EXCELSIOR : THE SERMON PREACHED AT THE GARFIELD MEMORIAL SERVICE, HELD IN THE CATHEDRAL, LIVERPOOL, SEPTEMBER 2157, 1881. THE OLD LANDMARK : A SERMON PREACHED IN THE LIVERPOOL CATHEDRAL, IN REFERENCE TO DISESTABLISHMENT. MINISTERIAL JOY SURVIVES PERSONAL SEPARATION : A FAREWELL SERMON. Ἄν ν a! t- Ψ ‘ τ ‘a 4 ἢ “4 ϊ Ce 4 WN) {sc Rp A {ΠΣ ~ Ta lege Ὁ» Ὅς Ὁ απο Κα. ως Ses Detter. = ὦ «ὦ iw