St. Peter. St. John, Jerusalem writing to Jews,1 and accordingly he uses the term 'presbyters' for the local church rulers among the Jews of the dispersion; but on the other hand, while Jewish presbyters had been merely judicial officers, and not officers of worship, nor teachers, the Christian presbyters have assigned to them by St. James a 'ministry of healing,' 2 both of body and soul, with accompanying prayer, which has no analogy in the Jewish presbyterate, while it accords naturally with the general pastoral functions assigned to them by St. Peter,3 It may surprise us that, whereas St. John is specially connected in authentic tradition with the establishment of the 'monarchical episcopate' and with the general development of the ministry, we have hardly (The angels' any information on the subject in his writings. If, indeed, the Apocalypse dates from the end of his life, we shall naturally see in the 'angels' of the seven Churches of Asia some indirect reference to the responsible bishops. But the mention of these angels cannot be put in evidence, because their primary prob. sym. bolic.) 1 See especially the use of the word 'synagogue' (James ii. 2) for the Christian place of meeting. 2 The elders of the Church' (James v. 14-16) are assumed to have the gift of healing by means of unction, accompanied by their 'prayer of faith' (cf. St. Mark vi. 13). But as sickness is the symbol, and often the effect, of sin (cf. 1 Cor. xi. 30), so the healing is spiritual as well as physical-it is spiritual absolution with the miraculous sanction and evidence still attached (cf. St. Mark ii. 10): if he have committed sins, it shall be forgiven him.' Then follows a general admonition to confess sins mutually one to another. This probably implies that the sick man would have confessed his sins to the presbyters whom he had summoned. See Origen in Levit. ii. 4. Generally great light has been thrown on this practice of mutual confession among Christians by the passages in the Didache, iv. 14 and xiv. 1: 'On the Lord's day gather yourselves together and break bread and give thanks (evxapornoate), having first confessed your sins, that your sacrifice may be pure.' The practice was derived from the Jewish synagogue; cf. Sabatier La Didachè pp. 47, 48. Cf. also 1 John i. 9 and Westcott in loc. 31 Pet. v. 1-5. St. Peter also (if he does not actually use the word enɩokoneîv in ver. 2, where the reading is doubtful) implies the use of the term éríσxoros by using it of Christ the 'chief pastor' (ii. 25, cf. v. 4). 4 Cf. Origen in Luc. xiii. meaning seems to be symbolical;1 they seem to be symbols of the temper or spirit of the different Churches. In the same way, as we have other reasons for believing St. John to have instituted bishops, we shall probably be inclined to see in Diotrephes, with his ambitious self-exaltation and his power 'to cast out of the Church'2 brethren who had come from St. John, one of these local bishops who was misusing his authority. But here again the indication is too ambiguous to constitute evidence of itself. It remains for us then to seek such additional information, 1 The angels have been generally taken to be bishops, the use of 'angels' in Mal. ii. 7 and Eccles. v. 6 being quoted. If this is so, they are addressed as embodying the Church, and Ignatius' language may be compared where he speaks (ad Trall. 1) of 'seeing the whole community in the bishop,' and when he passes imperceptibly (ad Polyc. 5, 6) from addressing the bishop of Smyrna to addressing his Church. But the identification of the bishop with the Church in the Apocalypse goes further than this, and the fact that the female personage, Jezebel (ii. 20), seems clearly symbolical would suggest a symbolical meaning for the angels also. So also the use of the whole book leads us to see in the angels symbolic representations of different agencies, e.g. Milligan (on Rev. x. 1-3 in Schaff's Pop. Comment. on the N. T.) is certainly right in describing the strong angel' as 'neither the Lord, nor a mere creature executing His will, but a representation of His action. The angel by whom such representation is effected has naturally the attributes of the Being whose action he embodies.' The more in fact one studies the Apocalypse, the more the symbolical character of personages, numbers, and events is impressed upon one. So the angels of the seven Churches seem to be ideal personifications of the temper or genius of the Churches. See Lightfoot Dissert. pp. 199, 200; Simcox Early Ch. Hist. p. 172 n.1; Milligan in loc. For the other sense, see Trench Epp. to the Seven Ch. and Godet in Expositor, Jan. 1888, p. 67. Among the ancients, Arethas of Caesarea, using Andreas and other more ancient authors, interprets the angels first as guardian angels (who are addressed on behalf of the Churches, as masters on behalf of their pupils : εἰδὼς ὡς οἰκειοῦσθαι φιλεῖ τὰ τοῦ μαθητοῦ ὁ διδάσκαλος, εἴτε κατορθώματα, εἴτε ἡττήματα), and then as the Churches themselves (ἄγγελον τῆς ̓Εφέσου τὴν ἐν avrη ¿kkλŋoíav λéyet); see Cramer's Catena Graec. Patr. N. T. viii. p. 200. So also the writer who passes for Victorinus of Petau, the earliest commentator on the book; he clearly interpreted the angels as symbolical of classes of individuals, for he paraphrases the letter to the angel of Ephesus thus: 'ad eos scripsit [Ioannes] qui et laborant et operantur et patientes sunt et cum videant homines quosdam in ecclesia dispensatores praeposteros, ne dispersio fiat, portant, Haec universa ad laudem spectant et laudem non mediocrem sed tales viros et talem classem et tales electionis homines oportet omnimodo admoneri.' So he deals with the other letters: 'aut ad eos scripsit. . . aut ad eos . . . aut ad eos, etc.' Origen in Num. xx. 3 interprets of angels in the strict sense (and hence Andreas, as above), and so Jerome on Mic. vi. init. 23 John 9-10. Diotrephes seems clothed with official power. III. Evi- with especially on the origin of the local ministry, as can be derived from the Acts of the Apostles. III. In the Acts of the Apostles we are presented first of all with a very clear picture of the apostolic ministry. Just exception can indeed be taken to M. Renan's phrase when he describes 'the divine institution of the hierarchy' as a 'favourite thesis' of St. Luke,1 just so far as the phrase seems to carry with it too much implication of conscious design in writing; but it cannot be fairly denied that the divine authority of a hierarchy in the Christian Church does appear conspicuously enough in the course of St. Luke's narrative. From the first the disciples appear as a body amongst whom eleven, or after Matthias' election twelve, are held to possess a ministerial office and commission direct from Christ.2 Upon the whole body, thus differentiated into ministers and people, the Holy Ghost descends and the Church begins her life as the Spirit-bearing body, with the Apostles for her authoritative teachers and for her centre of unity. This is sufficiently implied in the phrase which describes the first new converts as 'continuing steadfast in the Apostles' teaching and fellowship, in the breaking of the bread and the prayers.' They are prominent in the early history as representing Christ, acting in His name to work physical miracles of healing on 'those without,' of judgment also on 'those 1 Les Apôtres p. xxxix. Cf. Sabatier La Didachè p. 155: 'Dejà du temps de saint Luc on faisait précéder les décisions du concile de Jérusalem d'un préambule gros de toutes les prétensions hiérarchiques romaines' (i.e. such as M. Sabatier thinks were derived from the influence of the Roman Church upon Christianity). 2 Acts. i. 25 : διακονία καὶ ἀποστολή : also by implication (ver. 20) έπισκοπή. 3 Acts ii. 42 : τῇ διδαχῇ τῶν ἀποστόλων καὶ τῇ κοινωνίᾳ, τῇ κλάσει τοῦ ἄρτου καὶ ταῖς προσευχαῖς, the phrase τῶν ἀποστόλων seems to characterize the whole sentence. See also following note. ᄑ to give the by laying-on within.'1 Again, they have the authority to ordain to those various ministries of the Church the origin of and power which will be considered shortly: thus the Church at Holy Ghost Jerusalem set the seven (we are told) 'before the of hands, Apostles, and when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them.'2 When we hear afterwards of those later-added Apostles, Barnabas and Saul, 'appointing elders' in the Churches they founded, we cannot doubt, especially in view of the evidence of the Pastoral Epistles, that the method of appointment was the same method of laying on hands with prayer; and we shall not be surprised that St. Paul should describe the presbyters at Ephesus, appointed as they must have been by his hands, as none the less instituted by the Holy Ghost. It is indeed not only in the case of the appointment of the ministry that we are led to associate the action of the Holy Ghost with the laying-on of apostolic hands. The narrative of in confirmathe Acts elsewhere assures us that the Apostles laid their hands on all Christians after their baptism, in order by this means to impart to them that gift of 1 Acts v. 1-11. These judgments brought a great fear not only on the Church but on all who heard of them (ver. 11)—a fear of the Apostles. Afterwards we are told that they wrought many public miracles and made public appearance as teachers in Solomon's porch (cf. iii. 11). Hence it seems necessary to interpret the words that follow of the rest durst no man associate himself with them' (kodλãσbai avrois, cf. viii. 29, ix. 26, x. 28) as meaning of the rest of the Christians durst no man associate himself with the apostolic college on their public appearances.' A clear distinction appeared between them and the rest of the Christians. And the Jews as a whole held them in honour, and the Christian Church made rapid progress.' Only so do we get a natural interpretation of the passage throughout. 2 Acts vi. 6. With 3 Acts xiv. 23: χειροτονήσαντες δὲ αὐτοῖς κατ' ἐκκλησίαν πρεσβυτέρους. reference to this word xetporoveiv Holtzmann remarks (.c. p. 219): 'sprechen philologische Gründe allerdings mehr für die Bedeutung "erwählen" schlechthin als für "durch Stimmabgabe erwählen lassen," ' i.e. it had become a quite general word for 'to elect.' 4 Acts xx. 28: προσέχετε . . . παντὶ τῷ ποιμνίῳ, ἐν ᾧ ὑμᾶς τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον ἔθετο ἐπισκόπους. (The ἔθετο recalls 1 Cor. xii. 28 : οὓς μὲν ἔθετο ὁ θεὸς ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ πρῶτον ἀποστόλους, κ.τ.λ. The Holy Ghost had made them bishops by prophetic indications and the special xápioμa bestowed upon them. tion and ordination; (miraculous gifts do not dispense from ordina. tion) the Holy Ghost which is the essence of the Christian life. The laying-on of hands in 'ordination' is, as we should gather from the Acts and Pastoral Epistles taken together, a determination of this same divine gift to a special ministerial function, or the bestowal of a superadded power. Further we are led to believe that this function of the laying-on of hands —at least as a means to the bestowal of the Holy Ghost for Christian life or ministerial office-belonged normally to the Apostles alone.1 This gift of the Holy Ghost, which is imparted to every Christian, was in the first days of the Church commonly accompanied by miraculous signs, such as 'prophesyings' and 'tongues'; and where the divine gift evidenced by such outward miracles preceded baptism and the laying-on of hands, the instrumentality by which the gift was ordinarily communicated followed in part-baptism apparently without the 1 See Acts xix. 6, and especially Acts viii. 15-19, cf. Rom. i. 11, ïi. Tim. i. 6. There is no such language about authority (govσía) or instrumentality (dá) used except of apostles. True, Ananias, a 'layman' apparently, laid hands on St. Paul. Whether this was the occasion of St. Paul receiving the Holy Ghost, as well as recovering sight, is not plain. Acts ix. 17 may suggest it. But, any way, Ananias received a special divine commission to do this thing. And it was essential to St. Paul's apostolate that he should not have received his spiritual gifts through other apostles. Again the prophets and teachers at Antioch lay hands on Barnabas and Saul. But here also we have a special divine authorization; and it is to set apart two already of their own 'order' to a special work (xiii. 2). Probably, however, these 'prophets' held quasi-apostolic 'authority' to lay-on hands in all cases. Who, unless Barnabas, can have confirmed' the people of Antioch? 2 I assume that the bestowal of the Spirit was only accompanied by the miraculous gifts, while its essence lay in the bestowal of that presence which makes the Christian the temple of God. The miraculous xapíopara passed away, but the underlying gift remained, mediated by the same 'laying-on of hands.' I do not think this can be fairly questioned. In the Acts those who had not yet received 'the laying-on of hands' are represented not as being without certain miraculous powers, but as not possessing the Spirit. See viii. 16, xix. 3-7. The possession of the Spirit undoubtedly constitutes the essence of Christianity, with or without miraculous powers; see Gal. iii. 2 and Rom. viii. 9-17, where St. Paul speaks of it as received at a definite moment and as a permanent possession (ἐλάβετε, οἰκεῖ ἐν viv). Cf. Hebrews vi. 2 for the close association of baptisms with the laying-on of hands. |