Vou i

27 began, not in Jan., but in Sept. A.D. 41 ; see below, No. 8. a), so that this expulsion would then rather belong to A.D. 50.] (i. The Proconsulship of Gallio in Achaia must fall after A.D. 44, in which year (Dio Cassius, Ix. 24) this province, taken by Tiberius in A.D. 15 into his own hands, and ruled thenceforward by Ic.fjati proprwtnre (dfTKTrpi-njyoL), was restored to the control of the senate, and to administration \>y proconsuls (ai'OinraTOi).

Further, if Gallio so far shared the disgrace of his famous brother Seneca — who was only recalled in A.D. 49 (Tac. Ann. xii. 8) from an exile that had lasted about eight years — that he would have been passed over while it lasted, then the terminus a quo is not 44 but 49, or rather, since the proconsuls entered on their provincial governments early in the year, A. D. 50.

At the same time, the distinction between tha method of appointment to imperial and to sena- torian provinces was just this, that the emjjeror was quite unfettered m his choice, while, in the other case, all ex-holders of offices in Rome, ex-con- suls and ex-pra;toi"s, succeeded naturally to sena- torian governorships; Dio, for instance (loc. cit.)

, describes this verj' change as one from selection to lot : TTjif d^ 'Axaia* Kai ttjv MaveSofi'ai' alperois &pxov<nv i^ o^TTio 6 Tt(3^/)ioy ^o^e dtSofi^va^ ajr45tt>K€v 6 KXai/5tos Tore t<() KXriptf. Still, it is likely enough that candidates obnoxious to the government either did not stand at all, or were unsuccessful by arrangement at the balloting. Gallio, then, entered on ollice in Achaia certainly not before A.D. 44, and probably not before 49, or even 5U. 7.

Tlie Reign of Herod Agrippa II. and Mar- Triage of Drusilla to Felix. — This Agripp.a, son of Herod Agrippa I., at his fathers ileatli was thought too young to succeed ; but on the death of another Herod, his uncle, king of Chalcis, in the Sth year of Claudius (A.D. 48), he obtained that principality, from which he was transferred after Claudius had completed his 12th year, i.e. about the beginning of A.D. 53, to the two tetrarchies of I'hilip and Lysanias, i.e. the northern part of Palestine.

On this accession to new dignitj' he bestowed his sister Drusilla in marriage on Azizus of Emesa, a husband whom, not long after, p.cT oi ■iro\i/y xpoyov, she deserted for the Roman pro- curator F'elix. Thus, if Josephus' order of events is correct, St. Paul's appearance before Felix and Drusilla, which was after, but not very long after. Pentecost (Ac 20'" 24'-"), cannot fall in A.D. o3, but at earliest in A.D. 54 (Ant. XX. v. 2, vii. 1,2). 8. a. The Procuratorship of Felix.

— The events which led up to the deposition of the last- mentioned procurator, Cumanus (appointed in A.D. 48), are related in full by Josephus, Ant. XX. vi. 1-3, more brielly by Tacitus, Ann. xii. 54 ; the tw» writers, while consistent in the main alout Cumanus, dill'er seriou.sly in regard to Felix. Both agree that troubles broke out between the Gali- leans and Samaritans, originating, says Joseph\is, in an assault on Galileans travelling up to .Jens, for one of the feasts.

Both agree that the Roni.tii soldiery intervened ; that the quarrel was taken before Quadratus, legate of Syria, who investigated the responsibility of the Roman officials for their conduct in relation to it; and that the ultimate result was the deposition of Cumanus. Both agree further on the date ; for Tacitus records the pro- ceedings under A.D. 52, Josephus mentions the recall of Cumanus immediately before the notice of the completion of Claudius' 12th year, Jan. A.D. 53.

On the other hand, Josephus, throughout the • See also Ramsa.v, Ex})Ointor, March 1897. p. 206 : Seneca otldrL-Hnecl hia (h- Ira to hiH brother, not under the adoptive niune Gutlio, but under the niinie Xovatus ; and if it is tnie that he wrote this treatise after his return from exile, it follows that liif brother's adoption, and sutujequent uppointnieiu to a proconsul- ship under the name Gallio, must also be not earlier than A.D. 40. 418 CHKONOLOGY OF NEW TEST. CHRONOLOGY OF NEW TEST.

story, speaks of Cumanus as the only governor, whether of Galilee, Samaria, or Judaea. Tacitus gives Cumanus in Galilee and Feluc in Samana co-ordinate jurisdiction; which of them ruled Judfea proper is not said by him in so many words (by his authority perhaps not at all), but he apparently assumes it to be Felix, whom he introduces as iampridem ludmcc impositus.

Thus in Josephus, Cumanus is the only procurator arraigned before Quadratus, and even he is sent oil' to the imperial tribunal ; in Tacitus, Cumanus and Felix are equally involved ; but since Felix was brother to Pallas, the emperor's favourite and minister, the legate, to avoid having to condemn him, puts him on to the commission tor the trial of his partner in guilt, who is condemned then and there for the crimes of both. How are these divergence, to be reconcUed?

The aiuwer Is not without a direct tearing on the chronology of St Faul s Ute • see below. No. 8. b. Let it be conceded, then, to Tacitus that Felix must have been holding some position in Samana ol sutficient rank to qualify him as one ot the luduM for Cumanus trial So much, indeed, is warranted by Josephus statement, that the high priest Jonathan was continually urging good government on Felix when procurator, 'lest he himself should focur blame before the populace for havm?

requested his appointment from the emperor' (.Ant. p. vul. 5), a request which was more natural If Felix were already known in Palestine. Some of the best modem authorities (Mommsen, Roman Fro- m-^.. Eng. tr. ii. 202 ; Ramsay, St. Paul. p. 313) foUow Tacitus further still.

But Josephus, after all, is givmg « det^led account of the history of his own country dunng his own life- time • and to him it must be conceded in turn that Cumanus rule certainly included Judma (in the narrower sense) with Jerus , and that Felix was probably only a subordinate of his in Samaria.

Prejudice against so near a relation of Pallas made it easy tor Tacitus or his authority to project back on to the earlier years of Felix' residence something of the position, and a share of the misdeeds, of hi» later procuratorship. A third authority for the dates of Felix' tenure is the Chronicle of Eusebius— the Armenian VS, with some MSS of Jerome's tr., placing his arrival in the 11th year of Claudius, the other Lat. MSS in the 10th.

[In the Bodleian MS of the Jerome, this note commences in the second of the two lines given to the 10th year, is continued through the two lines of the 11th year, and ends in the first line of the 12th.] But how are these imperial years reckoned ? So much weight is laid by Hamaok (ChronolotiU, pp. 233-237) on Eusebius' evidence, that this preliminary diflicult.v must be disentangled in some detail. Both Harnack himself (it. p. '234) and Lightfoot(«.s. Biblical Euaye. p. 2'23, n.

2 ; but this essay is as old asA.D. 18(53) assume a reckoning in the case of each emperor from his own accession-day. But it is m the last degree unlikely that a chronicle, where every year is reckoned continuouslv from Abraham, should admit in the parallel column of imperial 'years a system perpetually changing ; and if Titus, though he reigned three months ot a 3rd year (June 79-Sept. 81 4 D ) or Trajan, though he reigned six months ot a 20th year (Jan 98-Aug 117 a.d.)

, are vet allotted only two and nineteen years respectively, it seems clear that, as was to be expected, the imperial years are manipulated into accord with the more fixed arrangement. But two questions still remain. (i ) Where did Eusebius flx his new year? It is natural to think first of Jan. 1, the commencement of the Roman consular year Hut Eusebius was an Eastern, and in the East the year was all but universally commenced about Septemher.

The Jewish civil vear began in September; the old Attic lunar year in Julv; the old Macedonian lunar year in October; the talcnrtirs of Asia Minor in imperial times used the Macedonian months in.ide into a solar year, commencing Sept. 2J ; the similar cjilendar of Svria used the same months in the same way, onlv that each month was pushed down one place, so that the veaV Dresumablv began at the end ol October ; the Alexandrian year on Aug.

29; the era of Alexander or the Greeks wa» reckoned from Sept. s.c 312 ; the Indictions, an invention of Eusebius' own dav, were counted, certainly from September, probably from Sept. a.d. 312. The strong presumption that Eusebius would range himself with all this mass of usage is re- inforced by his use of the Olympiads as parallel, year by year, to his own years ot Abraliam, for tbe Olympiwls began in July, and a year that began on Jan.

1 must be out ol reckoning with an Olympiad year lor either its Brst or last six months. (ii ) Granted, then, that each Eusehian year began In tlie September ol a Julian year, can that Julian year be conclusively fixed? Now, the starting-point of the Olj-mpiads is known to be Julv ot the Julian year b c. 776; it, therefore, a fixed relation Is established between Eusehian years ol Abraham and Olym- Diads a fixed relation between Eusehian and Julian years follow*. Unlortunatelj-.

the two versions of the ChnnxcU diBer by one year as to which year of Abraham is parallel ta 01. 1. 1, the Armenian giving Ann. Abr. 1240, Jerome r241, and so throughout. That Jerome U the more trustworthy la now. through the labours of Hort and Lightloot, recognised even by scholare who had pinned their faith to the Armenian (so, ..£., Harnack, Chronol6git, p. 113 It.)

; and in this particular case two synchronisms ol years ol Tiberius with the 01)-rapiads, the one given in the prelace to the Chronu:le (Jerome), and repeated in the Praep. Bvai^g. of Eusebius himself (x. 9. 1), the other given ir the note on the Cruciflxion (both Jerome and the Armenian), clench the proof. In the first case Tib. 15 is «^, .f-fo-n^'-lf with 01. 201, or more fully m the Prxp. iwii^ with 01. 201. 4. Now, in the ChronuUe it«elf Tib. 15 = Abr. 2044 (Jerome and Arm;nian) = 01. 201.

4 Jerome, but Ol. 202. 1 Aral. In the second case the date tor the Crucifixion is supported by appeal to Phlegon's date, Ol. 202. 4. Now, Tibenus 19 (which is un- questionably Eusebius' dat« for the Passion 8^' P'^'?"^ '[^ p 413')=Abr. 204>* (Jerome and Arm.) = 01. 202. 4 Jerome, 01 203. 1 Arm. Clearly, then, the paraUeham of the oolumnf is right in Jerome, wrong in the Armenian. It follows from this investigation that, accord- ing to Eusebius, Tiberius 1 = 01. 198. 2 (Jerome) =Sept. A.D.

UtoSept. A.D. 15; Gaius 1 = 01. 204^1 (Jerome) = Sept. 37-Sept. 38 A.D. ; Claudius 1 = 0 . 205. l(Jerome) = Sept. 41-Sept. 42 A.D. ; Nero 1 = 01. 208. 3 (Jerome) = Sept. 55-Sept. 56 A.D. As the true accession-days of these four emperors were Aug. 19, A.D. 14; Mar. 16, A.D. 37; Jan. 24, A.D. 41 ; Oct. 13, A.D. 54, an entirely consistent result is obtained, namely, that Eusebius commences the 1st reqnal year of each emperor in the September next after his accession.

When, therefore, he puts the arrival of Felix in Claudius 11, he means not (as Harnack says) Jan. 51 to Jan. 52, but Sept. 51 to Sept 52, and his evidence, instead of contradict- ing, comes into line with that of Tacitus and °r The ' Departure of Felix and Arrival of Festus.—The chronology of so large a period of St Paul's apostleship can be reckoned without difBculty backwards and forsvards from his im-_ prisonment at Ca!

sarea, that this date of helix recall becomes the most important of the series ol synchronisms that have been under discussion. Yet there is none about which opinions vary more widely, years so far apart as A.D. 55 and 61 beins preferred by diflerent ennuirers ; what may be Called the received chronology (Wieseler, ^hron des apost. Zeitalters, pp. 66-99 ; Lightfoot, BMxcal Essays, pp. 217-220; Schurer, HJPl. u. 182. and the bibliography there given) assignmg it to A.D.

(61 or) 60, but not earlier, whi e a few older writers, reinforced now by Harnack (o.c. p. 06 n.), push it back to quite the beginning of Ijlero s reign, A.D. 55 or 56. Blass (Acta Ap. W. 21-24) leaves the question open, but is, on the wnole, against the ' received ^ view ; Ramsay (see No. 9, below) modifies the latter by one year, to A.D. 59. (i ) Arqumentsfor the later date, A.D. bO or bi. a St.

Paul at the time of his arrest, two years before Felix' recall, addresses him as '(or many years past a judge of this nation, (k to\Kw» ^wr La «p<rV TV f««' ToiVrv (Ac 24'»-»'),. a phrase which it is said cannot mean less than six or seven years' procuratorship, i.e. from 52 to 58 or o9 A.D But it has just been shown from Taxjitus that Felix had been in Samaria before he came mto office in Judaea; and since St.

Pauls purpose is naturally to press all that could truly be said of Felix' experience, he would not too minutely distinguish between his present position as pro- curator and his previous position as a suborUinabe. The Ir-n iroXXi are therefore to be reckoned from an indeterminate point previous to A.D. 5i, and no certain deduction of any sort can be drawn about s!"

josephus, after the mention of Nero's acces- sion, records as all happening under Felix : the death of Azizus, king of Emesa ; the succession of Aristobulus in Chalcis, and readjustment of the dominions of the younger Agnppa ; the jealousy between Felix and the high pneat CHRONOLOGY OF NEW TEST. CHRONOLOGY OF NEW TEST.

419 Joaathan, and the reign of terror which, after Jonathan's assassination, prevailed at each of the feasts ; the appearance of various robber chiefs or impostors, especially a certain E^ptian ; and lastly, the 'great quarrel' between the Jewish and Syrian inhabitants of Csesarea {Ant. XX. Wii. 4-8). J<ow, this long succession of incidents cannot, it is said, be brought within less than live or si.x years, i.e. from Oct. 54, Nero's accession, to 60 A.D.

, especially as the rising of the Egyptian was already 'before these da3'8' (Ac 21'*) at the time of St. Paul's arrest, two years from the end of Felix' tenure. But two considerations deprive this line of argument of a good deal of its force. (1) Joeephus naturally groups together all be has to say about Pal. under Felix.

That ne doeu this aft«r Nero's acres- •10Q, means that he conceived, not that the whole state of things described bepan only then to be true, but at most that the main part of Felix' government, and its most striking events, belonged to the new rei^'n ; and this, if Felix" procuratorahip began in a.d. 62, could easily be the case so long as it ended not earlier than A.D. 57 or 5S.

^xact information about the tatter date Joeephus obviously did not possess, or be would, as in other cases, have given it. (2) The various events described were not necessarily succes- •ive. The political arrangements in Galilee or Chalcis, the growing disorder in Jerus., the risings In Palestine, may all have been in progress at one and the same time.

Even the revolt of the Egv^itian is not given as the last in order of time of a series of such events, but as the most striking illustration of the decep- tions practised on the highly-wrought minds of the populace by miracle-mong:er» of all sorts ; for whereas the rest led their followers ofl into the wilderness with the promise of signs and wonders, 'a fellow from Egypt about this time,' ««t« rt^rtr rit maifiif, gave rendecvous for the Mt.

of Olives, that from thence be might show how the walls of Jer\is. should fall down at his bidding. At the same time, if this rising is to be placed under Nero at all, then St. Paul's arrest cannot fall before Pentecost 65, or nlher, if the full natural meaning is to be given to the words «^ rtvrtn rvr AiMpir, before Pentecost 66, and Felix" recall before the summer of 67 or rather 68 a.0. It appears, then, that the arguments nsed to Bupi>ort the 'received' date, A.D.

60, will not b«nr the whole weight placed on them, but that, to far as they go, they do suggest a year not earlier than a.d. 68, or at any rate than 57. The arguments used on the other side most now, in turn, be subjected to examination. (ii.) Araumentt far an early date, A.D. 65 or 66. a. Eusebius' Chronicle places P"e8tus' arrival in Nero 2, i.e. according to Harnack, in the year Oct. 65-Oct. 56 A.D. ; and Eusebius' chronology of the procurators is probably derived from Julius Africanus (A.D.

220), who, whether through the Jewish Icings of Jose|)huB' contemporary, Justus of Tiberias,* or through personal enquiry (for he lived in Palestine), had excellent opportunities of arriving at the facts. But, again, a twofold answer may be given. (1) In any case Eusebius' true dat« for Festus is Nero 2 = Sept. 56-Sept. 57 A.D., see above, p. 418''.

(2) It cannot be too often repeated that chroniclers were tempted to invent dates for all undated events of historical interest ; and as Festus' connexion with St. Paul would deter a Christian from pa.ising him over without mention, it is poHsible that Eusebius (or Africanus), if the usual authorities failed liim, simply set him exactly midway between his predecessor Felix, A.D. 61-52, and bis successor Albinus, A.D. 61-62. For the last procurator, Oessius Florus. Eusebius gives Nero 10-Bept.

C4-Sept. 66 A.D. ; this agrees well enough with Joeephus' statement that the breakini^ out of the war — Aug. 68 A.D. — fell In the 12th year of Nero (i.e. on Josephns' system Oct. 66-Oct. Ofl) and 2nd of Florus, AjU. ix. li. 1. For Albinus, the last hut one, Eusel)ius has Nero 7«=8ept. fll-Sept. 62 a.d. ; and Josephns relates that a certain visionary was brought before Albinus at the Feast of Tabernacles, four years before the war, i.e. Oct. 62 A.D., BJ vi. v.

3, so that Eusebius' date Is at any rate the latest possible, and is very likely correct. j9. Felix on his recall was prosecuted before Nero by the leading Jews of C.Tsarea, and ' would * Photlus, cod. 33, read this book, and says that It extended from Moses to the death of the last Jewish prince, Uerod Agrtppa u., in a.d. 100.

certainly have been condemned for his wrong- doings towards the Jews had not his brother Pallas, who at that moment stood very high in Nero's favour, interceded on his behalf, .,4?!^ XX. viii. 9. Now, according to Tacitus, Ann. xiii. 14, 15, Pallas was removed from office not long before Britannicus celebrated his 14th birthday ; and Britannicus was born just after hi.s father Claudius' accession, circa Feb. 41 A.D. But, again, if Pall.'is' retirement fell in Jan. 55 A.D.

, and Felix' trial E receded it, the latter must have fallen in the very rst months of Nero's reign, and Festus must have come out as procurator in the summer of A.D. 54 under Claudius, a result which it is hopeless to try and reconcile with the other authorities. Harnack, o.c. p.

238, on the ground of the confusion which besetseven the best chronologists through the different methods of reckoning imperial years, conjectures that Tacitus bos mis- takenly put Britannicus' 14th birthday for his 16th, so that the whole stor^ should be transferred from a.d. 55 to 50.

But this is unlikely : m the first place, because Tacitus reckons his years, as a Roman naturally would, by consulships, and not by regnal years of the emperor at all ; in the second place, because the detail about Britannicus' age introduces the account of his murder, and that was far too crucial an event to be likely to be misdated.

It seems obvious — there is certainly no reason against the view —that Pallas retained sutflcient influence in the early years after his retirement to be able to secure immunity for his family. Tacitus expressly says that he stipulated that no inquiry should be made into his conduct In office, a very different attitude to what most fallen ministers had to adopt under the empire.

Doubtless, Josephns exaggerates when he speaks of Nero at the date of the trial as /iMcA,mx iv rort 3jk nuiie ityttt ixiTvov, but this appears to be only his way of accounting tor the acquittal of an oppressor of the Jews. Stated as a proof for the year A.D. 55 or 56, this argument, too, breaks down ; but if restated with a more modest 8coj)e, it will be found not without force.

It is, in fact, difficult to believe that the Jews would not have gained their case against Felix had Poppfea already acquired that ascendency over Nero which enabled tiiem under the ne.\t procuratorship to win their cause in the matter of the temple wall against Festus and Agrippa com- bined. Ant. XX. viii. 11. It is under A.D. 58 that this woman's first introduction to Nero is recorded, but it was not till A.D. 62 that she set the crown to her ambition by marrying him, Tacitus, Ann. xiii.

45, 46, xiv. 60 ff. It was in the same year, 62, that Pallas, who, according to Ann. xiv. 65, was too rich and too slow in dying for Nero's avarice, was poisoned. Not improbably, the in- terest of Claudius' favourite waned with that of Claudius' daughter, so that it was no mere coin- cidence that the same year saw the murder of Octa"ia to make room for Popp.-i'a, and the murder of Pallas. Anyhow, consiclering the respective histo'ies of Pallas and Poppn'a, the years 57, 58 (59?)

would ai)pear to suit the circumstances of Felix' acquittal better than the years 60, 61. In the result, then, the arguments for the ex- treme position on either side iiave been shown to be equally devoid of conclusive force. But, on the other hand, each set of them, though it does not establish its own case, tends to disprove the opposite.

The facts about Pallas and Poppa;a, not to speak of the evidence of Eusebius, do not prove that Festus succeeded Felix as early as 55 or 56, but they do seem to exclude a date as late as A.D. 60. Conversely, the account of Felix' procurator- ship in Josephus, though it does not show that he was governor as late as 60 or 61, does seem to show that he remained later than A.D. 56. The prob- abilities, therefore, both sides being considered, concentrate themselves on the intermediate years A.D.

57-59 for Felix' recall (A.D. 65-57 for St. Paul's arrest). 9. The Dinjs of Unleavened Bread ( Ac 20'' ') in St. Paul's third missionary journey have lately been brouglit again into notice by Ramsay (Expositor, May 1896, p. 336) as a date which 'can be (ixed not merely to the year, but to the month and 420 CHRONOLOGY OF NEW TEST. CHRONOLOGY OF NEW TEST. dai ' ' The Passover was celebrated and the Days oP Unleavened Bread were spent '," Pl".l'Pl';i Thereafter the con.pany .

started for ™as ; and their voyage continued into the fifth day. in Troas tlfe^tayed seven days; the ast com,, e e day that they ipent there wa.s a ^""d'.y and they sailed away early on a Monday ">» "'"H' ./"^"^ on the system common in ancient u.age and followed by Luke . . the seven days in T™a^ • • • , bcL'Ui with a Tuesday and ended with a Monday. Furt er theTuesda/of the arrival in Troas must be also counted as the fifth day of the voyage. !

t follo'vl therefore, that the party started from Philippi on a Friday. The only question that re3 iB whether the company started on the first morning after the Days of Unleavened Bread^ Considering that the plan was to reach Jerus. by Pentec^Lt^W that time was therefore precious we need not hesitate as. to this P<"°t • • ^ Ihe slaving of the Passover in that year fell on tne E^n of a Thursday, and tli. Seven Days o Unleavened Bread continued tdl tl>e follow in Thursday. That was the case in A.

D. 5 , but not in any of the years immediately around it. On thi8 thesiB three remarks ™?K^* "''Hlf'll^J-^^VoThe n the met >il ot simple obser^■ation by .omethmg m the S5a's^;^th^°&ti^^^^^^^^^ from the resSte^r simple observation. Certainly, the days ot he".^m.M ;?.<=/.»;« or Nisan 14 for these vearsaccordmg to gfurt'h^'^v-errnc^^'tlfe It^^nt '^lf!^r^lxf'°^"^oS> ?upphed by L«?n'si^<«rt S«ri.

or Wieseler^s 6^r<mclog^J 115 (and accepted by Ramsay), being always one day, and some- times two days, the earlier * mai tW at Borne, and both under Nero, has be- in eirect the constant tradition of the Church , Peter and Paul, with some date under ^elo, h^^d^dtheRomaAepiscopallistjnJuliusAnc^- (Ilarnark, Cironologie, pp. 124 11., 1 ' ' • ^,^'-""';"" to ionysiua of Corinth, they taught tog.-.tber in Itah and were martyred .ari rt.. airb. a,p6v in iwij , aui ■> _Qj J gj Clement LlC::hi^f. f.

-W esling the Corinthians alK,ut AD 96 sets before their eves ' the noble exampes of our own generation,' the good apostles 1 e e. and Paul, and that great multitude of elect which was gahered together with them in ^jve" sutt'..^^^ ingslnd tortures, women being exposed as Danaids and Dirces (1 Clem. v. vi. : avvr,6polaen ^oKbirMBo':). That the 'great multitude' is that of the Neron.an marms would be all but certain from the parallel "ccoimt in Tacitus of the multitudo t»?

en^ and ZdZludibria of the Christian victims o Nero 4„n XV 44) : and the whole proof is clenched by tcoincidenc;ofTaeitus'mentiouoftheem,H3rors wardens— ie. the horti Nerontam on the \ atican fim-asthe sceneof the. executions, ..ith the state- ment of the Roman Gains (ap. Ens. U.E. u. 25, c. AD 200), that the relics of St. Peter rested on the Vatican as those of St. Paul on the Ostian Way. 4 M M 67 68 69 Alexandrine. Apr. 9, T. Mar. 2fl, 8a. Apr. 17, Sa. (or Mar. 18? Tb.) Apr. 6, T. Mar.

25, Sa. Apr. 13, F. Lewin. Apr. 10, W. Mar. 30, Su. Mar. 19, F. Apr. 7, Th. Mar. 27, M. Apr. 15, Su. Wieaeler. Apr. 18, So. Apr. 7, Th. Mar. 27, M. Apr. 15, Su Now, suppos'ing, as seems a fair estimate, that the Xlexandrinedate U the earliest possible for each year, and two days later the latest, Nisan 14 may Lve been a Thursday in any of the three years A D. 54 (Apr. 11), 56 (Mar. 18), 57 (Apr. , ).

^^hat, then, can fairly be claimed for Kamsay's investiga- tion is, that against the other three yeare, A-D. o5, 58 59, a certain presumption of improhabUity does remain ; and witli regard to the two later of these three years this result serves to confirm the result attained in the last section. Combining this with the previous enquiry, A.D. 56 and o' appear the probable alternatives for the year of St. Paul s arrest, A.D.

58 and 59 for the recall of Fehx and close of the two years' capti^-ity at Csesarea. 10 The Persecution under Nero, and Martyrdoms of St Peter and St. Pa«/.-That the two apostles were martyred on the same day is an erroneous deduction from the common festival on June .i J, which is really the day of the common translation of their relics to the safe conceahnent of the t-ata- • That the Alexandrine date is always beforehand with the date .

lependinE on simple observation wiU be due to the cycle S^mV.S reckoning .Ni».-in 1 fmm the liu>e o "tronon'.cal new moon, not from the lime, about SO houn Ut«r. when it Ant became visible to obeervM*. Suet, is not m the habit of fi%mg dates at ail as something vastly '^^"?"\1^2^.'^"\\nch followed. It normal condition of o'='=^.'0°='' "^"> S°'?,,o, w death to the is true again.that E^^^ebms assigns the apo.Uesde __^ I very end of Nero's reign, A.B.bS.

But he ties in ^^^^^ \ whole persecution, as thelast and «ont^ai^.t^^_^^^^,^ vaguest terms ""^'^-^ ^ero 9 (10) J,xT,r,r,^^.^^^^ ^.^ ^^^ persecution ; and this, ^^""'"^.^IrdeZh W within a year at Sf Tac. and of 0""f./'^™f;'^"^,''^'^'64 middle of (io (Hirnack. any rate of the great ttre. ""'l' "e of A ». b-* "l^a y^,;, o c p. 240, still more precisely. Julj A.D. tw . ""'• ^" the possibilities unreasonably.) Probablv modem writers would not ha,ve been so^rducU^itTadmit this.

« the [e-v-l ^tna"n ology .had .not H°"fj' f,t„ Jof a n 63. so that thftwo'y a^t lSs\vhicirw°uia intervene before 1, s mlrtvrd^ni on the dating just suggested would hfSsuSt to cover what is known or iea.on ^i;^;:^tuJeniZti.i;pmiss^..i73^;-3, But it his been now shown (see Nos »• *• 9> V'^^^.^J 60, but 58 or 59. is the true date o J'ej'tus ariival P.^tabli'.'hes the ienyiinus ad quern, pa.Ta.Ue\ to tne CHRONOLOGY OF NEW TEST.

CHRONOLOGY OF NEW TESL 421 de,-;ire lony before expressed by liiui (Ko 15-') to go oil from Koine to S|i.iiii, is iiiaile more tlian probable by the testimony of Si. Clement, lliiit the aposlle 'preached righteousness to the whole world, and reached the boundaiT of the West ' ((irl rd Tipiia Tijs Suaeus ^X$ur, ad Cor. v. ), and of the Muratorian Canon [e. A.D. 200], ]>rufeetiunem Pauli ab urbe ful Spanifiin projicisccntis.

l''or a journey to districts so untouched, « licre the very founda- tions of Christianity would still have to be laid, at leitst a year must be allowed , and six months more must be added for the preachinj; on the route through Soutlieru Gaul — Marseilles, Aries, Nimes, Narbonnc — if the I'aXoria to whicli t'rescens was Bent (2 Ti 4'") was, as Eusebius, HE iii. 4, and other Greek Fathers supjiose, not the lesser Gaul of Asia Minor, but the greater Gaul of the West. That St.

Paul also revisited the East results from the Pastoral Epistles ; and even critics who, like Harnack (o.c. p. 239, n. 3), reject these Epistles as a whole, admit that genuine accounts of St. Paul'.'t movements after his release have been in- corporated in them.

Put for the journey to Ephesus and Macedonia (1 Ti 1^), for the evangeli- zation of Crete (Tit 1°), for the final visits to Troas, iMiletus, and perhaps Corinth (2Ti 4"-'), for the winter at Nicojiolis (in Ejiirus ; Tit 3'),* a second eighteen months are required. Thus three full years, though not necessarily more, appear to have elapsed between St.

Paul's departure from and return to Home ; and it follows that if his martyrdom in the first great outbreak of Nero's persecution holds good, of the two alter- native years to which his release was narrowed d&wn (No. 9, above), A.D. 61 has an advantage over A.D. 62, and A.D. 56, 58 over A.D. 67, 59 as the years of liis arrest at Jerusalem and of his journey as a prisoner to Komo.

So far, then, ten points from Jewish and secular history have been fixed with more or less prob- ability : (1) Aretas in possession of Damascus, certainly not before A.D. 34, probably not before A.D. 37 ; (2) Herod Agrippa I. 8 death, probably iu A.l>. 44; (3) the famine in Jerusalem, not before A.D. 46; (4) the proconsulate of Sergius Paulus in Cyprus, not in A.D. 51, 52 ; (5) the expulsion of the Jews from Rome, perhaps in A.D.

49 or 50 ; (6) the proconsulship of Gallio in Achaia, probably not before A.D. 49 or 50 ; (7) the marriage of Drusilla with Felix, not before A.D. 54 ; (8) the appointment of Felix as procurator of Juda;a in A.D. 52, and his recall in one of the years A.D. 57-59; (9) of these three years the first seems to be excluded by the note about the days of unleavened bread ; (10) and the third seems to be excluded by the calculation of the necessary interval between St.

Paul's hearing before Festus and his martyrdom in A.D. 64 (64-05). Thus the crucial date of Festus' arrival seems to l>e established as A.D. 58, and therefore the close of the Acts after St. Paul's two years" captivity at Home as A.D. 61 ; and a sort of framework is erected into which the details to be gathered, first, from the comprehensive history of the Acts, and, secondly, from the fragmentary notices in the Epistles, have now to be inserted. {.A) The Acts ; second half (<-hs. 13-28).

For the special criticism of this book, see AtT.s oK Tin: Al'OSTI.ES. More need not be .said here than that Ac is accepted in what follows as containing, on the whole, an accurate and tnistwortliy picture of events between Pentecost and St. Paul's (lirst) Koman captivity, A.D. 29-61. The picture is cut np, as it were, into six panels, each labelled with a general suinmary of progress ; and with so careful ' Tlial is, If St.

TauI'B intention to wint«r thure was carried an artist, the divisions thus outlined are, in the absence of more precise ilnln, the natural starting point of investigation, (i.) First periud, 1'. The Church in Jems., and the preaching of St. Peter : summary in 6' ' and the word of God was in- creasing, and the number of disciples in Jerus. was being greatly multiplied, and a large number of the priests were becoming obedient to the faith.' (ii.) Haund period, 6".

Extension of the Chuicli through Pal. ; the preaching of St. Stephen ; troubles with the Jews : suinmary in 9^' ' the Church throughout all Galilee and Juda;a and Samaria was having peace, being built up, and walking in the fear of the Lord and in the con- solation of the Holy Spirit was being multiplied.' (iii. ) Third period, 9'-. 1 he extension of the Church to Antioch; St.

Peter's conversion of Cornelius; further troubles with the Jews : summary in 12-^ ' and the word of the Lord was increasing and being multiplied.' (iv.) Fourth period, 12-°. Ex- tension of the Church to Asia Minor ; preaching of St. Paul iu ' Galatia ' ; troubles with the Jewish Christians : summary in 16' ' the Churches liien were being conlirmed in the faith, and were abounding more in number dailj'.' (v.) Fifthpcriod, Iti*. Extension of the Church to Europe ; St.

Paul's missionary work in the great centres, such as Corinth and Ejihesus : summary in 19'-" 'so forcibly wiis the word of the Lord increasing and prevailing.' (vi.) Sixth period, 19-'. Extension of the Chinch to Rome ; St. Paul's captivities : sum- marizeil m 28" ' proclaiming the kingdom of God and teaching the things concerning the Lord Jesus Christ with all boliiness unhindered.' t)f these six sections the [protagonist in the first three is St. Peter, in the last three St.

Paul ; and the two halves into whicli the book thus naturally falls make almost equal divisicms at the middle of tlie wliole period covered. But the further con- sideration of the earlier half may best be post- poned until the rich chronological material of the later sections has been set in order. starting -point of St. PauTt First Missionary Journey (iBt II. J., Ac i;l^).— The summary which closes the thini section of tile Acta inten-enes between the notices of the death ol Herod A>;ni>pa I.

(A.D. 44 ; see No. 2, above), and of the completion of 88. Paul and Harnabas' famine ' ministry' at Jems. ; so that it appears a letfitimate inference that between these two events some considerable interval elapsed. Fnrtiier. as there was no faiiiino before the year A.D. 4C (No. 3.

above), the deleijates can scarcely have returned eoj-jier to Antioch, unlesa the Antiochene Church had not merely bejfun to collect contributions in anticipation, which was natural enough, but had closed their fund before the famine was he.ini of, which does not seem natural at all. Cer- tainly, if the delc^^ates helped to admtniBt«r the rehef, the year 4C is the earliest possible. Nor was the start on the l9t M.J. made immediately after their return to Antioch.

The description introduced at this point (13') of the perKonnfl of the Antiochene ' prophets and teat^hers ' su^^ests at least some further period of settled work ; and ikS the journey westwards meant a start either by sea or over theTaunis, it would not be entered upon in the winter months, — indeed it will be assumed in the following' fliscussion as axiomatic that St. Paul's journeys are as far as possible to be pla -ed in the Hunnner (March or April to Nov.)

, and thatdurinc the other months he was in general stationary. Thus the tiprinjf of a.d. 47, or more jtarticularly the end of the paschal season (in that year circa Mar. 'iS-Apr. 4), is the earliest atartintcpoint at nil probable. Duration of the First Misitionary Journey (Ac 134-14'^!)— CroHsinjt to Cyprus the apostles londed at Salamis and ^»ii>yed throui^h the whole Island as far as Paphos, preachinir in the Jewish synacoiiues {\^ ").

The stay in Cj-prus can hardly Imve been less than some months ; the results, at any rale, en couraj^ed tlie Cvjiriote Barnabas to select it as his share of the cnnununilies visitcnl or founded in common (1.^3'i- ^). At earliest, then, in the Hummer of the same year, A.D.

47, the party crosscii to ibe mainland of Painphylia ; and whether or not itanisay's attractive conjecture lie tnie, that the ' inllrrnity of the tlesh ' was a malarial fever caui,'hl there in the lowlands and necesiiiliit- inp an immediate move up into the hills, no ^4tay is rcconlnl anywhere short of Pisidian Antioch (Antioch i'.)

To the e^anifelization of this city and of Iconium, Lystra, and l>erl<o, the main elTorts of the journey were devoted ; ami as the return was uumIc by the same route, the three Mrst-named cities wer« visileil twice. The first sojourn in Antioch P. was lonj; ermuijh for the word to be ' spread abroa>l through the whole tlistrict ' (134t> ; cf. the similar butstroui^er pbruso iu 101'^ of the two yeaib' 422 CHKONOLOGY OF NEW TEST. CHRONOLOGY OF NEW TEST. ■taj- at Ephesus).

At Iconium a Mong time' was spent {U^'^' xpet9, 14^). With Lvstra and Derbe the ' aurroundiny country ' waa evantfelized (14^- ^\ and at Derbe the disciplea made were many' (»Miei-e, 1421). jlie return visita were no douht ahorter; but aa they included the work of confirming and organizing the new conimunities (iTie'-Tyio>^o'rt!, ytipcTovr.ffeorK T^i(r^(/Ti/joi/f , 14*^ 23)^ they cannot well have been hurried.

The Becoiid stay at Perga, unlike the first, was sulticiently 1""K 'or the preaching of the word (14^5 ; contrast 13'^. i-i). From the Pamphylian coast the voyage homeward was made direct. Where the indications are expressed in such general language, opinions will differ aa to the length of time signified. Hut as it la certain that no one will estimate the atay in the interior at leas than six montha, and the hills between Antioch F.

and Perga would not have been recrossed in the winter (Dec-March), the whole absence from Antioch in Syria (Antioch S.) must have prolonged itself beyond a year ; indeed the smallest space of lime which wilt reasonably cover the details of the Acts is 18 montha. Let it be supposed roughly that the apostles arrived in Oyprue In April and left it in July ; that they reached Antioch P. by Aug. 1, Iconium by Nov.

1, spending there the five winter months, down to the paschal season (probably circa Mar. 1S~26) of A.D. 48, Lystra by April 1, Derbe by May 15, the two latter being far less populous or important cities than the two former ; that they began the return journey about July 1, getting down to the Pamphylian lowlands at the beginning of Out., and back to Antioch S. a month later, say Nov. 1, a.d. 48.

it is easy to allow more than this, and Ramsay raises the total from a year uid 7 montha to 2 yeara and 3 or 4 months, ending in July a.d. 49 iCh. in Horn. Emp. pp. 65-73). But the shorter estimate, if it satisflea St. Luke'a language, and it seems to do so, is to be pre- ferred on the ground that it seems unUkely that the apostles on thia their flrat missionary experiment should have separated themselves from their base at Antioch S.

, which waa yet so near them, for as long a period as over 2 yeara. Interval between the Firtt and Second MUsionary Journey : the Apostolic Councii (Ac 1427-1535)^— The two apostles after their return from the lat M.J., and before their visit to Jerua., 'reaided' at Antioch 8. 'for no short time' (hitrpiSo xfi^^' °^ •Xi-yoiy 1428); and although it is just possible that the phrase may be meant to cover the whole period up to the starting-point of the 2nd M.J.

, yet even so the earlier portion itself cannot have been less than the four winter months from Nov. 1, a.d. 48, onwards. For the Council, it may be taken for granted, would not have been held dunng those montha ; and indeed since the Twelve were by thia time do longer settled at Jerus., the opportunity for the Council must have been found in their assembling' for one of the great Jewish feasts. Thus the earliest Dossible orcasion will have been the passover of a.d. 49, circa April 6-12.

But as Paul and Barnabas are said to have ' passed through Phcenice and Samaria, expounding the conversion of the OeatUea ' (IS^X— and though thia does not, of course, imply the flame delay as the foundation of new comnmnities, it does exclude the idea of hurried movements, — it is really more likely that they kept their paasover at Antioch S., and spent the six weeks following in a leisurely progress towarda Jerua., arriving there for the Councii at Pentecost (May 24).

They may easily have been back again at Antioch S. by the end of June ; and aa the further atay only amounted to certain days ' (v.u.ipet,( rnccf, IsSfi), there is no reason why the start for the 2nd M.J. should not have been made in the late summer of the same year, say Sept. 1, a.d. 49, ten months after the return from the preWous loumey. t^Jn the visit of St. Peter to Antioch, Oal 2n, aee below, p. 424».) Duration o/ the Second Mitfionary Journey (Ac 16^18^.— That St.

Paul should start so late in the year, while it would have been very unnatural when he waa breaking new ground in unknown districts, aa in the lat M.J., was natural enough when he was going primarily to revisit existing Churches ; the winter would be spent among them, and they would serve in turn for bases from which, in the spring, he might make his way on again to further and more strictly missionarj' labours. This, in fat't, (a what St. Paul probably did do on his 2nd M.J. He left Antioch S.

by land, ' passing through Syria and Cilicia conflnningtheChurche8'(l&ii«'j-r.i/ij?fl»» ; cf. 142^ 1823), a phrase which certainly impliea a good deal more than a night's rest at each place. Thus several Churches, such as, no doubt, that of Tarsus, were ' visited ' before he reached the Churches of the Ist M.J. at all.

That of these Derbe la first mentioned, and then Lystra (lOl), follows from the adoption on tliis occasion of the land route over Taurus, which must have been crossed not later than Novendwr. It ia not St. Luke'a habit to describe anything •n much detail but the foundation of new Churches.^ontnist, i.g., the first visit to Macedonia (16i2_i7i5) with the second (202), —eo that no deduction can be drawn from his ailence as to any events beyond the circumcision of Timothy (16^).

On the contrary, the interjxiUtion at thia point of the fourth iieriod- Bummar>- in 1&>, though no doufct primarily intended to emphasize the great step forward into Kurope which follows, marks also a heating of time between the old work and the new, and suggest* that the one was more than a mere episode on the way to the other ; St. Paul must have stayed everywliere long enough to mark the progress going on, the 'daily increase in numbere.'

Nor is it at all likely that fresh ground would be broken in the winter months. It can only have been after the passover (March 25-April 1) of a.d. 60 that he concluded at Antioch P. the seven months 'visitation' of existing Churches, and plunged forward into the unknown. That the phrase Phr>-gian and Galatian district * (rr.

^pvyiar ntii Vat\tKr,KT» :^mp<tt, 16^) or ' Oalatian and Phrygian diatrict ' (rr» r«A x'P» " 4>«t^(«», 1823) means not two places, but one and the same, follows as well from the inclusion of both under a !»ingle article, astrom the lael that the names are given in reversa order on the second occasion, though the direction of the journey was the same as on the first, from east to west. St. Paul's object on leaving Antioch P.

was naturally the group of famous and populous cities on the western coast. [The Phrygo-Galatic region, if it lay on the route to Ephesus, can have had nothing to do with Galatia in the narrower ethnical sense, which was far away to the N. and N.E. ; and this is only one of many arguments which combine to make Ramsay's view that the ' Galatian ' Churches are those of Antioch P., Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe, all but demonstrably true.)

Entrance, how- ever, into the province of Asia was barred by divine intervention ; and St. Paul directed his eyes to the next great group of cities, and turned northwards for Bithynia, only to find the same check when he reached the Bithynian border. This time the western direction was left open, and the party skirted Mysia until they touched the coast at a point north of Asia, namely Troas.

But as it is implied throughout these verses that no settlement was made for preaching, not more than a month need be allowed between the departure from Antioch P. and the arrival in Europe. The proclamation of the gospel at Philippi, Thessa- lonica, Beroea, and Athens must have occupied all the aunnner of A.D.

50 : the stay at the two former towns, at least, waa lung enough to found flourishing Churches, and the ' three Sabbaths ' at the synagogue of Thessalonica (172) represent, no doubt, not the whole of St. Paul's residence, but only the time anterior to the separation of Christians and Jews, cf. 18«- 7 198- ». Ramsay, indeed, allots eleven montha to these four places (Ch. in Rom. Emp. p. 85) ; but in the absence of any hint at specially lengthy sojourns — contrast IS-W 14^ etc.

— six weeka at Philippi, two or three months at Thessalonica, and a few weeks each at Bensa and Athena must be considered sufficient. The sea route from Bercea to Athena is hkely to have been taken before the autumnal equinox, and the apostle was doubtless eager to get on to his future headquarters, so that the arrival al Corinth may be placed in October a.d. 50.

Thetotalstay thereof eighteen months (for the iif^ipat /««»« of IS^s are probably to be included in the iwat^-o xxi ^^m* ij of 18^1) will last till April a.d. 52. thus covering two winters and a summer. St. Paul, as might be expected, arrives at the end of one travelling season and leaves at the beginning of another. The departure, if ma<le, as in other cases, immediately after the paschal season (cin-a April 2-9, A.D. 62), would be timed to bring St.

Paul (rid Ephi-sus and Cffisarea, 181*22) to Jerus., as on the 3rd M.J., for the Keiisl of Pentecost. There the stay waa only for the purpose of ' salut- ing the Church,' and the apostle went on at once to his old home at Antioch S., arriving, say, in June a.d. 52, after an absence of two years and nine months. Duration o/ the Third Missionary Journey.— But Antioch was no longer an effective centre for St.

Paul's work ; it was out of reach of his new Churchea in Macedonia and Achaia, while his 'Galatian* Churches would be supervised quite as easily from Ephesus, whither he waa pledgetl to return if he could (1821). If advantage was to be taken of the travelling season for the highlands of Asia Minor, no long delay was pos- sible ; the farewells at Antioch S.

were therefore probably brief (1823 s-oi^tf-oi Tpoo Tina, i^ijXOi ; contrast the continuous work implied in 11»132 1428 ifiSS), and a start made on the 3rd M.J. about August A.D. 62. This time the passage across Asia Minor seems to have been less protracted. Nothing is said of a stay in Cilicia (contr. 15^1) ; it is only in the Galatian Churches of the 1st M.J. that St. Paul, as he moved in order from one to another, set himself to estab- Hsh* all the disciples (iitpxiu^^o^ xadt^iit . .

rrripiXm*, IS'-^). This visitation, and the not very lung ordifficull journey between Antioch P., the westernmost of these cities, and Ephesus, need not have extended over much more than the remaining montha of a.d. 52. Perhaps about the turn of the year, while travelling in the less ruggea districU was still feasible, St.

Paul reached Ephesus, and entered on a long residence there, certainly of two years, almost certainly of two years and three months— that is, if 1910 touto Si lyiift 1» iT>j hi ■ refers only to the dis- puting in the school of 'Tyrannus, and excludes the three months of the synagogue preaching, 19".

It is true that in the case uf the stay at Corinth (see just above) the later and fuller calcu- lation is inclusive and not excluaive of the earlier and briefer : for Ephesus, on the contrary, the supplementary evidence of Ac 2031 rpttrmt . . oIk i<r«t/«raA«i» appears to decide the ques- tion in favour of a total length of considerably over two yeara of residence. The period thus reckoned tenninatts at earliest in March or April A.n. 6.S.

[A departure not before spring ta confirmed by the evidence of the two Corinthian Eiiistle«. 1 Co, written about the paschal season (March 3t^- April ti ia A.D. 55), announces a plan for leaving Ephesus after Pentecost, for travelling through .Macedonia, and perhaps wintering in Corinth (1 Co 5» Id').— a plan which would provide for a much longer, though lesa immediate, visit to Corinth than the original int-ention of going there on the way to Macedonia (cf.

2 Co ll and 1 Co W ov OiXm ykp Cu,ae aprt i vapiltu ;3i7*). Tlie Kpbesian riot may have even precipitated the departure before Pentecost (Ac 20i).] At some time, then, in the spring of a.d. 55, St. Paul launches himself on a new cycle of wanderings, intended to include Macedonia, Achaia, Jerus., and Rome (19-i).

(2 Co im- plies that he had planned to preach at Troas, and stayed there long enough to find an opening, but ultimately hurried on into Macedonia, the sooner to meet Titus and the news from Corinth (212. 13). ) Through Macedonia he travelled slowly, visiting as he went the Churches of the 2nd journey, and possibly founding others (202 i,%xQi,, ri ^iV»i (xi7><t ««/ rafax^Xfo-af a,iTeu( X^* woXkZ), until he reached Greece proper, or 'Hellas.' There, or CHRONOLOGY OF NEW TEST.

CHKONOLOGY OF NEW TEST. 423 In other wonis in CoriDth. he stayed three months — obviously the winter months of i.D. 5V66. since the return journey brought him to I'hilippi just in time (or tlie piu^o\xT (March 'l8-"Z5 a.i>. tC), 2U<}. Tlus longer route through Maoedunia was a sudden substitute, at the time of starting, for the direct voyage to Pal. (20^J, and the party had to hurry m consequence if the distance from I'hilippi to jerus.

was to be covered in the six weeks between ttie end of the paschal season and Pentecost (20^6). A week (six days) was spent at Troas, and another at Tyre, per- haps while waiting for weather or ships ; but the journey be- tween these two places was made with only necessar}' halts, and appears to have occupied not more than a fortnight. The days toat remained to spare were spent at Ciesarea (21^^), and Jerus. was probably reached just in time for the feast. St, PauVa Cajitimtifg. — At Jerus, St.

Paul was arrested (May JUO. 66), and conveyed thence to Cassarea. where his iuiprison- ment, though not of a rigorous character, had lasted a full two years {luti^t wX^pttBtlryut 24^7) when Porcius Festus succeeded Felix in the middle of a.d. 68. Festus, unlike his predecessor, ^ve a fairly prompt hearing to the case (261-^ ^'-^). and late in the summer tit. Paul, having appealed to Ctesar, was sent, with other prisoners, in charge of a centurion to Rome.

But the Toya^ was much delayed by contrary winds, and they were ■tUl off Crete at a time when the great fast (Tisri \Q = circa Sept. 16 ID A.D. 68) had already gone by — how long gone by St. Luke does not say (27^).

Even if the wreck took place as late as the beginning of November, and the three months at Malta (2811)are reckoned to the full, the voyage was continued early in February, before navigation would naturally have begun ; but DO doubt an othcial on government business would be more likely than ordinary folk to risk sailing at an unpropitious season. Anyhow, somewhere in the early months of a.d. 69 St.

Paul may be believed to have arrived in Rome, and after * two whole years' (8(iTia» tJ^n, 283f), i.e. in the spring of a.d. 61, the book of the Acts closes, and leaves him still a prisoner ; though the mention of the particular period suggests that a dllTerent condition of things supervened at the end of it, in which case the release, and visit to Spain, would follow at this point. [See for the rest of St. Paul's Ufe, tupra, pp.

4'2Ut> 421^] Thus the second portion of the Acts, from the beginning of the 1st M.J. (13'-28'"), covers a period of fourteen years, certainly not less, and appar- ently not more ; and if the starting-point was rightly placed in a.d. 47, the fourteen years will come to an end in A.D. 61. (b) The Epistles of St. Paul. Of these tlie Pastoral Epistles fall outside the Acts, and have been dealt with already (p. 421"). The two to the Thess.

were written in tlie company of Silas and Tituothy, the first not long after leaving Athens, 1 Th 1' 3>- »•«, 2 Th 1' ; tliat is to gay, during the long stay at Corinth on the 2nd M.J., A.D. 51 (50-52). The two to the Cor. fall, the one just before, the other soon after, the depar- ture from Ephesus for Macedonia, towards the end of the 3rd M.J., a.d. 55 (see above, p. 422''). Tlie Epistle to the Rom. belongs to the winter residenc* at Corinth, A.D. 55-56 (Ho le^ 15^-^ = Ac 19^).

The Epistles to Philippi, Ephesus, Colossaj, and to Philemon belong in all probal)ility to the Roman imprisonment, A.D. 59-61. But the one Epistle which contains something of a chronology of St. Paul's life (Gal l'»-2'), the one Epistle which would bring together a point in the second half of the Acts with a point m the first, is also, from the absence of allusions to contemporary history, nnfortunately the most difficult to date of all the Epistles. Date of the Galatian Epistle. — (i.)

Resemblance of style and subject-matter has generally led critics to assign Gal to the second group of Epistles, with 1, 2 Co and Ro, or even to a particular place in that group, between 2 Co and Ro (so l.ightfoot, Galatinn.r, jip. 44-56), i.e. on tlie chronology above adopted, in the latter part of A.D. 55. But perhaps too much stress has been laid on such resemblances taken alone, — as though St.

Paul's history was so strictly uniform that a given topic can only have been handled at a given moment, — and too little on the intluenco of external circumstances to revive old ideasor call out new ones. Thus the I'liilippian and Eiihesian letters belong to the same period ; but tlie dill'erence of conditions between the 'Asiatic' province and a Romanized community in Macedonia has produced a marked dill'erence of topics and illustrated a marked progress of thought.

Conversely, Gal and Ro may grapple with the same problems on the same lines (and yet what an alteration of tone between the two !) with- out being at all nearlj' synchronous with one another. The Galatian Epistle must be earlier than the Roman, earlier, that is, than A.D. 56; nothing more can be asserted positively, so far. (ii.) At the other end, the terminits a quo for the Epistle is the 1st M.J. ; thus, even if addressed, as is [)rob- able, to the Churches then founded, it falls after A.D.

48. Further, the phrase in 4" 'because of weakness of the flesh I preached the cosjiel to you tA Trpbrepop,' implies either some con.siderable lap.se of years, ' in the old time,' or a second visit ' on the former of my two visits.' With the first alternative a date aa late as A.D. 53-55 is possible ; with the other, the Epistle must fall between the second and third visits, i.e. between the spring of A.D. 50 and the autumn of A.D. 52 [supra, p. 422). (Ramsay (St. Paul, p.

189) dates the letter from Antioch S. immediately before the third visit, and finds a reason for this precision in the assertion that bo critical a situation must have called of necfssily for a prompt personal inspection ; but it might be urged with at least equal reaj^on, from Gal 16 ^utok rx^iwf fMTaT.thffOi, that the interval after St. Paul's last riait — whichever that was — had not been a long one.] Visits to Jerusalem in the Galatian Epistle. — For the date, then, the years A.D.

50-55 remain open ; and therefore St. Paul when he wrote had paid according to the Acts either three visits to Jerus., — Ac 9-«-> after the flight from Damascus, Ac ll 12'-^ the contribution for the famine, c. A.D. 46, Ac 15''"' the apostolic Council, A.D. 49, — or four, adding to the three former Ac IS'", the flying visit at the end of the 2nd M.J., A.D. 52. In the Epi.

stle, on the other hand, two visits only are named, the first a fortnight's visit to Cephas (Gal 1'*), the second an official visit of the repreaeuta tives of Gentile to the representatives of Jewish Christianity (Gal 2'""'). Ihus, even if St. Luke's enumeration is exhaustive, St. Paul omits either one or two visits altogether. But if this seems a diffi?ulty, the solution is simple; St. Paul is enumerating, not his visits to Jerus.

per se, but his visits for intercourse with the elder apostles, xptK Toi'js TTpi ip.oO djro(7T6Xous ((!al I"), and would neces- sarily omit any visit when they were absent. What, then, of the occasion when the famine con- tribution was brought to Jerusalem ? If St. Luke mentions only elders or presbyters as the recipients of the bounty (Ac 11*"), the natural, though of course not the only possible, explanation is that tlie elders — that is, the local ministry with St.

Jaincs the Lord's brother at their head — were by that time the supreme authority. Certain it is that, whether gradually or at some definite moment, the Twelve did separate themselves from the Church at Jerus., and became'more completely the niis.sionaries which after all their commission from Christ and their very title of 'apostles' meant them to be. After the persecution of Herod they are never mentioned at Jerus. save during tlio Council of ch. 15.

Doubtless, they returned from time to time, as opportunity olfered, to keep the feasts like other Jews ; but neither at St. Paul's fourth nor at his fifth visit is there the least hint of their presence. [If the ancient tradition that the aiiostles, according todivine command, remained at Jerus. for twelve years after the Ascension (Prailicdtio Petri, ap. Clem. Al. Strom, vi. 5; Ajiollonius an. Eus. IJE v. 18: Hamack, o.e. p. 2-1 H ; von Dobscliiitz, Tcxte u. Unters. xi. 1, pp.

■'j'J, 148) 8ul)staiitially represents historic fact, as mav well be the case, then A.D. 41 or thereabouts will mark their departure.] Here is ample reason for St. Paul's silence about the visit of Ac 11. 12 and (if the Epistle was written after the summer of A.D. 52) tliat of Ac 18. Thus the first visit of Gal 424 CHRONOLOGY OF NEW TEST. CHRONOLOGY OF NEW TEST. corresponds with the first of Ac ; the second of Ac is omitted ; and the second of Gal answers to the third of Ac (A.D. 49).

rniis connexion of Gal Zi-io with Ac 16 Is generally accepted, and a strong argument for it is the common atmosphere of crisis which pervades both narratives, told though they are from different points of view. Ilamsay, however {St. Paul, pp. 153- 166), strongly maintains that the second visit of Gal can only be the second of Acts. Some of his points have been answered here by anticipation ; some illustrate the viicrotogie which Hamack, not wholly without cause, attributes to him, e.g.

, that the same visit cannot be said in St. Paul to have been »a.ra. tcirojMAi^f, Oal 2'-^, in St. Luke to have been by commission from the Church of Antioch, as though the Spirit and the Church never spoke in harmony. Very attractive, however, is the identification of St. Paul's 'emissaries from James ^Gal 213 Toi- ixtJi7» mati irri 'XoLxiiSov) with St. Luke's * emissaries from Judsea ' (Ac 161 ruit mmTikllotrtt aci Wf 'lotjot^af), for this would make St.

Peter's destrtion of the Gentile Christians at Antioch to precede and not to follow his championship of their cause at Jerus., and would be a real point of superiority over the common view that St. Peter and ,St. James gave a formal pledge of brotherhood, and then violated it. But this identification of the two Judaizing missions from Jerus. to .\ntioch may be accepted side by side with the ordinary view that Gal ■2'ff- = Ac 16, \f Gal. 211-1'* i^ allowed in order of time to precede Gal 21-10.

There is nothing like the i«-ijTa of Gal 118- 2l 21 to suggest that the chronological series is continued. On the contrary, St. Paul's argument may per- haps he best paraphrased as follows : ' I have not received my gospel from the elder apostles. I went up to their headquarters at Jerus.

, not on my conversion, but first at an interval of 3 years, and then at one of 14 ; the first a private visit, the second i an official one, when I treated with them, and was recognized by them, on equal terms. So far from simply submitting to them, I once publicly rebuked their chief on the occasion when he was on my ground at Antioch, and backed out of his own liberal principles under pressure from representatives of James.

If this interpretation be correct, Ramsay has failed indeed to prove his main point, but has shown the way to a subsidiary rearrangement of much importance. The dispute at Antioch may then be placed in the winter (A.D. 48-49) before the Council, at w-hich St. Peter 'employs to others the argument that had convinced himself.] Date of St. Paul's Conversion. — The second visit of Galatians being thus identified with the Council, the date has already been fixed as in all probability A.D.

49 (above, p. 422») ; and this visit itself was ' at an interval of 14 years ' {5(A SeKareaaipuv irCiv, Gal 21), while the first visit was ' 3 years after' the conversion [lieri. rpla trri. Gal 1'^). But are the 14 years of the ''econd visit also to be reckoned from the conversion (11 years, therefore, from the first visit), with Ramsay, St. Paul, p. 382, or from the first visit (17 from tlie conversion), with Lightfoot, ad lor.

The Greek suits either alternative ; the argument favours the former, for St. Paul would natural ly state the intervals at the highest possible figure. The first of the synchronisms established above (p. 416") gives weight to the same side ; when St. Paul came to Jems, on his first visit, he liad just fled from the ethnarch of Aretas at Damascus (2 Co 11' = Ac 9"- "), and Aretas probably did not become master of Damascus till A.D. 37.

But the addition of the 3 to the 14 years would throw back the first visit to A.D. 35-36, probably beyond the time of Aretas, and the conversion to A.D. 3'2-33, whereas the inclusion of the 3 in the 14 would put the conversion in A.D. 35-36, and the first visit nnder Aretas in A.D. 38. (C) The first half of the Acts : chs. 1-12.

Tlius, from the dates established in the second half of the Acts, it is possible, by means of the Epistles, to argue back to the first half of the Acts and to reach two rough dates for the con- version of St. Paul (Ac 9"^'), A.D. 35-36, and for his first visit to Jerus. (Ac 9™), A.D. 38. It re- mains only to adjust, by the help of the.se points, the division into perio<ls (see p. jil""), which is the single hint at a chronology supplied by St. Luke in the earlier part of liis work. St.

Paul's con- version apparently followed not very long after St. Stephen's martyrdom, and that, in turn, is the first event recordeil in the 2nd section of the Acts (91 8* 6'"). The first period of relatively undisturbed progress will then end about A.D. 35, having covered six years from A.D. 29. The second period, marking a commencement, but only a com- mencement, of conflict, begins in A.D. 35, and the last event mentioned in it is St. Paul's first visit to Jerus., A.D.

38 ; but the peaceful development implied in the summary of tnis period (9") justi- fies, perhaps, the extension of the period as far as A.D. 39-40. The third period ends with the record of advance in 12", after the death of Herod in A.D. 44, and before St. Paul's second visit (at any rate before its conclusion) at the time of the famine in A.D. 46, and lasts altogether from A.D. 39-40 to, say, A.D. 45. That the chronology here adopted results in a more or less even division of periods — i.

from a.d. 29 ; ii. from A.D. 35 ; iiL from A.D. 39-40 ; iv. from A.D. 45-46 ; v. from A.D. 50 ; vi. from A.D. 55 (to A.D. 61) — such as St. Luke seems to be contemplating, must be con- sidered a slight step towards its verification. On the other hand, Harnack's chronology, which puts St. Paul's conversion in the same year as the Crucifixion, or, at latest, in the following, allotting even in the latter case no more than about 18 months to Ac li-9", neglects these period-divisions altogether.

Conclusion. — This article may be concluded by a comparison of the dates here adopted (col. ii.) with schemes preferred by three representative writers — Hamack (col. i.), who throws everything early; Lightfoot (col. iv.), who throws all the latter part late ; and Ramsay (col. iii.), who in- vestigates independently, but is nearer to Light- foot than to Hamack. H. B. L. Cruoiflxion . . » or 80 29 80 [30] St Paul's conversion . SO 86-36 83 34 Ist visit to Jerus. 83 38 86-36 87 2nd Ml. .

[44] 46 46 46 1st M.J 46 47 47 48 Council at Jerus., 2nd M.J. 47 49 60 61 Corinth reached late in . 48 60 61 62 4th visit to Jerus., 3rd M.J. 60 62 63 64 Ephesus left .... 63 66 66 67 6th visit to Jerus., arrest at Pentecost .... 64 6« 67 68 Rome reached early in . 67 69 60 61 Acts closes earlv in . 69 61 62 63 St. Peter's martvrdom. 64 64-68 80 64 St. Paul's martyrdom .

64 64-«6 66 67 If these several schemes are brought to the test of agreement with the ten results established on a balance of probabilities in the first half of this article, it follows with regard to each in turn — 1. That certainly Harnack (A.D. 33), and prob- ably Ramsay (A.D. 35-36), put St. Paul's first visit to Jerus., and therefore his flight from Damascus, earlier than it seems that Aretas can have ob- tained possession of the latter city. 2. That for the death of Herod Agrippa I., A.

D. 44 is accepted in all schemes. 3. "That Harnack, at least, puts the return from the second or famine visit to Jerus. [A.D. 44 1] con- siderably before the famine can have begun. 4. That no scheme puts the 1st M.J. and visit to Cyprus (A.D. 45, 47, 48) in either of the two years which are impossible for Sergius Paulus' governorship. 6. That all schemes bring St. Paul to Corinth (autumn of A.D.

48, of 5U, of 51, of 52) under Claudius ; but that if Orosius' date for the expul- sion of the Jews from Rome (A.D. 49-50) is correct, then, .since Aquila's arrival immediately preceded St. Paul's (Ac 18^ 7rpo<r(/>dTu5 ^Xt/Xi/SoVo), Harnack's date is certainly too early ; Lightfoot's certainly, and Ramsay's possibly, too late. 6. That all schemes make St. Paul appear before Gallio at Corinth (A.D.

49-50, 51-52, 52-53, 53-54) in a possible year for the latter's proconsulship ; but that the earliest of these years, Harnack s, is not a likely one. 7. That, in the same way, Harnack's scheme makes St. Paul aiipear before Felix and his wif« CHURCH CHURCH 426 DmsUIa at Ctesarea (a.d. 54), in the earliest pos- sible year of the marriage. 8. That Harnack puts the recall of Felix and arrival of P'estus too early (A.D. 56) to suit the evidence of Josephus, just as Light foot puts it too late (A.D.

60) to suit the evidence of Tacitus, and that a date equally distant from these two (a.d. 58) is perhaps best of all. 9. That ilarnack's year for St. PauFs arrest (A.D. 54), and still more Lightfoot's (A.D. 58), are less easy to reconcile ^v'ith the chronology of the passover at Philippi than A.D. 56 or 57. 10. That Lightfoot's year, and, to a less extent, Ramsay's year, for the release of St. Paul from the first Koman captivity, are ditiicult to reconcile with his martyrdom in A.D. 64-C5.

The evidence from these synchronisms, taken individually, does not pretend to amount to demonstrative proof ; but the whole of Harnack's scheme, and all the latter part of Lightfoot's, appear to contradict them at too many points to be entertained.

Of the other two, Kamsay's is perhaps nowhere superior, and at several points inferior, to that of the present article, which is recommended as a consistent and fairly satis- factory harmonization of a good many results which, like the sticks in the faggot, are separately weak, but together strong. LrrBRATURS. — The received view depends on Wieseler's Chrtmol. d. apost. ZeitatUrs, 1848. The Engliah reader may find it expouuded iii Veriables* tr.

of Wieselcr, in Lewin'e Fa»ti Sacri, 1865, or in Lightfoot'a Biblical Essays, pp. 216-233, posthumously printed from notes of a course of lectures de- livered in 1363, but seeinin)?, in essentials, to represent his latest views. Most recent Kn^Iish wriicrt> hod accepted tliis chronolog-y without question, until Riinisay, St. Paul the TravtUfr and. the Roman Citizen, lb9."» (see also for some point* his Church in the Roman Umpire, 1893), subjected it » partial re-examination and restatement.

Uis main con- tention, the identification of the visits of Gal 21-10 and Ac 12^, has not met, and is perhaps not likely to meet, with much acceptance ; but in spite of this, and in spite of an unneces- •arily dogmatic tone, his contribution to the subject is a real and substantial one, and the present article is very much more Indebted to him than to any other writer. German books have Id the main acquiesced in Wieseler's results, e.g.

Schiirer's InTaluab'e Geschtchte de$ judischen VoUces im Zeitalter Jemi Christi, ed. 2, 1886-lb90. Some Roman Catholic writers, in- deed, clune to the system which throws back the chronolog-y of St. Paurs later life by four or five years behind Wieseler's ; and these have been now reinforced by Hlass, Acta Aposto- lorum, 1896, pp. 21-24, who does not commit himself beyond a trenchant criticism of the received view, and by Harnack, Chronol. d. altchrUtl. Litteraturbis EusebixisX 1897, pp.

23^^-244, whose adhesion is thorou^ht^oiiij^, though his treatment of the •vidence U unequal and unsatisfactory. C. H. TURNER, CHURCH {4KK\ri<Tia).~YoT the history of the word iKK\-T)(Tla and its relation to such Heb. terms as "^ns and niy, see art. Congregation. In the present art. we shall discus* — L Dbfinition of Ciuirch w NT. IL Tub AtTi'AL CiM'Hcn. (A) Conditions of Membership. \B) The Life of the Church. i. The Public Worship, li. Christian Rule of Conduct. (O The Single Community.

It« Funotloiit uut Orffani- zalion. (D) The whole Church. IIL Tub IuRALCutBcu. I. Dkfinition of THE Church IN NT. — '^KKXijcia is used in NT of a single community of Christians, or of the sum of tlie single communi- ties, the whole body of Christians. In the last sense, two points oi view are possible, and both are found in NT. We may think of the Church as an enipiric matter of fact,' i.e.

as a collection of individuals, the actual Church, or we m:iv cease to tliink of the Cluirch aa a noun of mul- titude and regard it a.s a single individual entity, the idctil Church. The second point of view is closely related to the lirst. If we a-sk what is in the minds of the writers in this u.sage, we find that ultimately they are thinking, nut of a single entity, but of a collection of individuals. So when St.

Paul says the Church is the ' body ' or bride of Christ, he is really expressing under the figure of a single entity, the Church, the relation in which Christ stands to the individual members. There is, however, a real dillerence be- tween the conception of actual and ideal Clmrch in two respects. (1) The concei)tion of the attual Church regards it as it really is, i.e.

a body of indi- viduals of various degrees of imperfection; while the ideal Church is a body whose members represent tlie ideal of membership, i.e. it is a perfect Churcb, or at least one free from tlie negative aspect of evil, (2) The actual Church is composed of the members who are still alive and in the world at the time of speaking; while the conception of the ideal Church does not denote a definite number of members at a definite time, but implies a membership inde- pendent of time.

The latter is, in fact, an ideal, not an empirical, body. Hence it splits otr from the later conception of the ' invisible Church, i.e. tlie Church as composed of all its members, deail and living; for it refers neither to dead nor living Cliristians, but to an indelinite body of membera belonging to no time, present, past, or future, because it is a timeless ideal conception. The conception of the Church in NT stands in so close a relation to two other conceptions, viz.

the ' people of Israel ' and the 'kingdom of God,' that it is necessary here to say something as to the connexion between these ideas. (a) Th' Church and the People of /xrael.—lhe Jewish nation, by the crucillxion of the Messiah, brought down upon them- selves their final and irrevocable rejection. Jews were called upon to save themselves from 'this crooked generation ' (Ac 'Z*'^).

Since Christ came there was ' none other name under heaven which is given amons; men wherein we mvist be saved' (4i2), It was no longer enough to live after Moses; it was only by accepting the baptism of Christ that the Jew could obtain remission of sins. liut at the outset the Christian still remained a Jew. Ilia new profession did not absolve him from the law and the institutions of Moses. So the Church starts aa a society within the Jewish nation.

The distinction is already to hand between the actual Isr. and the true people of (Joil. The be- lievers are the ' remnant" (cf. Uo llO) in the actual Israel, which is the preparation (or the restored and perfected Isr. of the prophets. The Christ, who has already once appeared, is waiting for Israel' to repent and believe on Him, that He may come again and all things be restore! (Ac S'^f '^i 631), aU that do not accept Him shall be utterly destroyed from amon^ the people (323).

Here, then, we see the Churcli identified wiiii the people of Israel, but distinguished, on the one band, from the existing Jewish nation, and, on the other, from the restored Isr. of prophecy. The 'second coming' is to see the identifi- cation of the actual with the ideal Isr., by the incorporation of those who believe on Christ with the latter, and the aestruction of the unbelievers. So in the ilessianic age, Church and ideal Isr. and actual Isr.

will be one and the same, but at present they are distinguished. It was necessary, however, that this view should be uio<]ihed when the admission of Uentiles wa^ pennitted without demanding circumcision from them. Tiie firevious conccjition of the Church and of the future restored sr. was confined to the exclusively national ideals of Jewish tradition. It did not travel beyond the ' Israel after the fie.sh.'

In the Pauline conception, however, the Church is still regarded as the chosen folk, but a distinction appears between Isr. ' after the flesh ' (1 Co 10»»J and the ' Isr. of God ' (Gal tji8). God hiis taken from the heathen a 'peonle for his name' (Ac 151*), ami In this new Isr. ' they are not all Isr. which are of Isr.' (Ko 9"). Ttie faithful remnant within Isr., which before wa« identified with the Church, is now but a small part of it.

The 'oracles of God ' are no longer entrusted to the Jewish nation, for the Christians have succeeded ibe Jews as tlie vehicles of inspiration (Eph 36, He V'i, cf. with 2^). The Church, then, stands over against the actual Isr. as a non-Jewish spiritual Israel. In the picture of Ro lU^^^, the Church is an olive tree in which the patriarchs are the 'root, the unbelieving Jews are rejected branches, and the Gentiles new branches grafted in from *)>» wild olive.

At the same time, to the Jewish and prmiilive Christian, belief in a restoration of the natural Isr. to the posi- tion of a world-sulMiuiiig kingdom (cf. Ac \*^) succeeds the idea of the kinifdom of God aa Christ Himself conceived it, i.e. ibe universal rule of Christian principles, a cosmopolitan instead of a national conception. (^) Thr Church and the Kinndom (of Heaven) af Oorf.

— The fundamental concej>tion underlying the various meanings o( the kingdom of God is that of the Kinnship {fSxfiXttei) of Uo<l or Christ. lU^Ai^a in Greek was a word with a wider range of significaricp than we genenilly attach to the Eng. word ' king- dom.' and the shades of meaning which it bore determine also tin* <JiiTerent conceptions of the kingdom ot heaven. Wo have thus («) the abstract »cnse of ^atnui; i.e.

those moral and spiritual qualitiea which are In consonance vith the will ol 436 CHURCH CHURCH God. It 1b thus that St. Paul says, 'the kingdom of God is . righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost (Ro 1417) ; or that Christ compares it to the hid treasure and the pearl of great price (Mt la, '^) ; or that He says, *Seelt ye finst his kiiifclom and his righteousness' (Mt 633, Lk 12'1). 'The k. of God is \vithin you' (Lk IT^i).

It is prohably also used in this sense in the expressions, ' the glad tidings (or the gospel) of the kingdom' (Mt 4-', Lk &i etc.), 'to preach the kinjjdom' (Lk 4-*3. Ac 2025 etc.) (J) In a concrete sense the estjibhshing or such a rule considered as an rvt^nt. We have here two (>ointa of view from which such an event might be considered.

(1) As soon as Christ's teaching found disciples, the kingdom was already established ; or if we regard the miraculous power of Christ over nature, we might say with Him, ' if I by the spirit of God cast out devils, then is the k. of God come upon you' (Mt 1-228, cf. Lk 1120). From the point of view of the kingdom already established, it is compared to the rapid growth of a mustard tree (Mt 1331-82), or leaven spreading through meal (lb. 83). (2) A future establishment of the kingdom.

This idea is especially connected with the second coming of Christ 'with the angels of his power, in flaming flre' (2 Th 1*, cf. ift. 6.810)^ tile establishment of the kingdom in power (cf. Mt 32 610, Lk 17ai, 1 Co 15W4J). A third but rare use is (3) the present rule of God in heaven (2Ti 418, cf. Lk 23''2.43, Jn 188«). (>•) Ba.iriUii^ = sphere of rule, not so much local, as in the prevailing use of ' kingdom,' but in the sense of the society or community over which the rule extends.

This meaning has also two variations corresponding to the first two meanings of (>3). They are (1) the actual society of professing Christians, including good and bad members : so in Parables of the Tares (Mt 132*30), the Draw-net (ib. «-60), and the Wedding Garment \ib. 221 18), but always with a reference to (2) the blessed society of those who are admitted to the kin^om at the second coming, when it is established with power m its perfection.

As the society of the blessed, to be rejected from which is eternal misery, its membership is the reward of faithful service ; cf. the expressions, ' Theirs is the k. of heaven * (Mt 68. 10, cf. Lk 620), -to enter into, to inherit the k." (Mt 620, Ac 1422, Gal 621, Col 113, and many other places). Of these meanings ix»Xr,r'cx. coincides only with the last. It does not per se connote any moral or spiritual qualities, e.g. we would not say, 'The Church is righteousness and peace and joy,' etc.

Nor could we use the word ixxkr.e-iix. of an event. It IS properly a collective noun, denoting the people of God. Even when it is spoken of ideally or as a person, the fundamental meaning is still that of God's folk. The 'kingdom of God' is then a very much wider conception than 'Church. Where che two occur side by side (Mt 1018), the 'kingdom' appears as the future and heavenly counter^iart of the Church. The 'bindings' and 'loosings' of the latter shall be counted valid in the former; cf.

the words 'on earth' ("Church), 'in heaven' ( = kingdom), ib. 19 1818, cf. Jn 2023. II. The Actual Church is the society of Christians, or a part of it. {A) Membership. — The necessary qualifications for memhership were repentance of former sins and submission to baptism in the name of Jesus Christ (Ac 28*), which carried with it the demand of faith in Christ.

The privilefies of membership acquired at baptism were : (1) The Christian became recon- ciled with God through appropriating to himself Christ's satisfaction for sin (Ro S"" 6*"', Col l^-"'). His past life of sin no longer stood ar;ainst him in his account with God. He was justified. (2) He was sanctified, and henceforth was called ' holy ' (47105), because he belonged to God by the conse- cration of baptism (1 Co 6").

(3) He received the gift of the Holy Ghost (Ac 28*) as a supernatural power within him. (4) He was admitted to the com- mon life and sacraments of the Christian brother- hood. On his part, in turn, he was bound, so far as he could, to live up to the high standard of that life, ' to put on the new man, which after God hath been created in righteousness and holiness of truth' (Eph42<). {B) The Life of the Church.

— The new life, to • hich the convert was introduced by his baptism, was the practical expression of the relation in which he stood to God as a member of His 'people.' His life was henceforth given up to the service of God. And that service was the worship of God in the public gatherings of worship and in the holiness of his private life. So we may consider the life of the Church under these two aspects : (1) the public worship, (2) the Christian conduct.

• He 12® wetrnytipii ictti iicxXr;a-iei wparrerijutf is not to the point as an instance of a distinctively Christian usage of ixxArriK. It is plain from the connexion with xattiyjfiu that ixxXr,e,a is used here in a quite general meaning, ' assembly,' without refer- eDC« to it« technical Christian significance. i. The Public Worship. This subject divides itself into two branches : (11 Occasional ceremonies. The.se were the rites of baptism and ordination.

We hear nothing of special forms of service in connexion with marriage or burial. (2) Ordinary services. These were also of two kinds : (a) a public {i.e. not confined to Chris- tians) service, which was of a didactic (' edification,' 1 Co 14'-) and missionary character ; ib) the ' breaking of the bread,' a private (i.e. confined to Christians) act of worship. (1) Occasional Ceremonies. — (a) Baptism was the ite by wliich the convert was formally admitted as a member of the Church (Ac 21- «).

It was therefore (Mt 28") to be administered to every Christian without exception. St. Paul always takes it for granted that his hearers have been baptized {e.g. Ac 198, r, gs^ Coj 211. H). U is indeed regarded as necessary for salvation that a man should have undergone this ceremony (Jn 3'), which saves the Christian as the ark saved Noah (1 P 320.

31) ^t the same time, it is never regarded as a merely mechanical means of salvation, but is contrasted with circumcision by its spiritual significance (Col 2"' 12), and the subjective element {i.e. faith and a good conscience) is insisted upon as the necessary accompaniment of the ceremonial act, if the receiver would obtain its advantages (1 P 3*'). The ritual of baptism consisted of an immersion of the baptized person in water (Mt 3i8, Mk l'^ Ac 888).

Tije baptizer accompanied the act with the formula 'in tne name of Jesus Christ' (Ac 288 gia 1048 195^ cf. ja 2'), or more fully ' in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost' (Mt28'', Didache 1). No limitations are expressly mentioned in NT which forbid us to suppose that the right to baptize did not belong to every Christian, but as a matter of fact we find no instances of persons baptizing except those with some sort of recognized position of authority.

Our Lord (Jn 4') and the apostles (Ac I0«, I Co 1") generally avoided baptizing in person, and relegated the duty to helpers and assistants. See BAPTISM. (6) Ordination. — Every Christian had a charisma ( = gift, talent), the nature and degree of which determined his position and duties in the com- munity.

But while the charisma in most cases is considered as coming direct from the Holy Ghost to the individual at the time of or after his baptism, without any further human agency, in some instances a charisma was bestowed through tlie 'laying on of hands.' The 'laying on of hands' in OT was the symbolic act of conveying a gift (as in blessing Gn 48", appointing to othce Nu 2728) or a curse (as the scapegoat Lv 16-').

In the case of our Lord the ' laying on of liands ' was especially attached to the miracles of healing {e.g. Mt Q'', Mk 5-" etc.), and He left to His disciples the uower of healing through the same act (Mk 16"). In tlie apostolic age it is also found in connexion with healing (Ac 9'- " 28'). It thus had the significance of a miraculous power.

In tie passages where it is mentioned as an accompanying or supplementary ceremony to baptism, the miraculous gift of the Holy Ghost attends its employment (cf. Ac 8" Sid, i.e. the ' laying on of hands' is the instrument by which the Holy Ghost was given in this instance), and is contrasted with the ordinary gift of the Holy Ghost through baptism.

So, too, when a man was to be 'set apart' for a particular work, lie receives a special ' gift ' for its performance through the ' laying on of hands.' This is especially mentioned of the Seven (.Ac 6'), the mission of B.arnabas and Saul (Ac 13'), and the work of Timothy at Ephesus (1 Ti 4", 2 Ti 1«), and it appears in the Pastoral Epp. as the regular form of ordain- ing a bisliop or deacon (ITiS, ). It was accom- CHURCH CHURCH 427 pauiea by piajer (Ac 6' 13') and fastiii'' (13»).

We nod the ■ layiiij; on of hands ' jiui toniiud by ajiostles (Ac 6" 8" I'J", 2Ti I"), by an ordinaiy disciple at the i-omniand of the lloly Gliost (Ac D', "), by tlie prophcta and teachers at Autioch under similar circumstances (id. 13^), by the presbytery at Ephesu8(lTi4'«). (2) The Regular Worship. — We turn now to tlie regular services of the early Christian Church.

At the first the community met fo: the purpose of worship daily (Ac 1" 2^"), and we find no intimation or allusion that any day was marked with more solemnity than the others. But at a later period the ' first day of the week ' is singled out from the rest and observed with especial honour. The first occasion on which we meet with this is in 1 Co 16^ ' upon the first day of the week let each one of you lay by him in store' his contribution to the collec- tion.

Then Ac 20' we notice the disciples of Troas fathered together on the first day of the week to reak bread. By themselves these two instances could not be pressed. But in Ilev 1'° there is a mention of ' tlie Lord's day,' tJ KvpiaK^ Vl^Pf< which apjiears as Aripioirf) nvplov in the Didache 14', and as Kvpi.aK-fi simply in Ignatius (ad Mag. ix. 1).

These all hang together with the fact recorded by all the evangelists that on the first day of the week Christ rose from the dead (Mt 28', Mk 16^ Lk 24', Jn 20'). The resurrection of Christ was the foundation of Christian hope (1 Co 15""'"), and therefore the day of the resurrection was par excellence the Lord's day (see Ignatius, loc. cit., Ep. Barn.

15), and when it became im|)racticable for the ' breaking of the brea<l ' to be celebrated daily, it was cele- brated with careful regularity on this day {Did. 14' ; I'liny, Eiip. x. 96, ' stato die convenire '). To what precise date this practice goes back in Christian nistory we cannot say. St. Paul (Uo 14°) speaks of those who esteem one day above another, and those who esteem every day alike, but he is here Srobably referring to the Jewish Sabbath.

The ewish Christians themselves observed the Sabbath, and some attempted to force its observance upon the Gentiles (Gal 4'°, Col 2'"). But the Sabbath and metho<l of its observance are e8t)ecially dis- tinguished from the Lord'B day [cf. Ign. loc. cit. ' no longer sabbatizing (iraj3;3nWfoi'7-es), but living according to the Lord's day,' and Ep. Barn. loc. cit. Sabbaths are not pleasing to God, ' therefore wo observe the eighth day for rejoicing ']. On the early hi.

story of the Christian Sunday, see esp. T. Zahn, Skizziti fius dem Leben der alten Kirche, cap. vi. Of the existence of yearly festivals we have no intimation at all in N T. "The Jewish Christians still observed the Jewish feasts (Ac 2' 20'*, 1 Co 10'). There is no allusion in 1 Co 5'- ' (' Our pass- over also hath been sacrificed, even Christ, where- fore let us keep the feast,' etc. ) to the observance of Easter. The context sliows that the apostle is not speaking literally.

The starting-point of his theme is the comparison of the Church to a ' new lump ' from which the old leaven has been purged out. ' We, too,' he says, ' as well as the Jews, have a Passover lamb ; therefore let us keep the feast . . with tlie unleavened breiul of sincerity and truth.'

His imagery is borrowed from the distinctively Jewish passover, but the lesson drawn applies to the whole Christian life, not to any special occasion— ^oprdj'ai/itF is rather ' keep festival' than 'keep the feast.' It is noticeable, however, that in the later Paschal controversy both parties referred to aiiostolic usage (see Eus. IIE v.

23, 24), in view of which we are not justified in drawing an argument from silence against the apostolic foundation of the Easter festival, and the exact date of its institution must be left an open question. In 1 Co we find that St. Paul presents to us a picture of two kinds of Christian woisliip. In cii.

14 is described a meeting wliose chief aim is mutual ediiication; in 11"-" one of a very dillcrent char- acter and ceremonial, the purpose of which is to 'eat the Lord's Supper' {KvpiaKiv Se'tiri'oi>). In the same way two kiiuis of religious observance are di>liiiguislied in the account ol the primitive Church (Ac 2-'-'), 'the breaking uf liread and the prayers.' It is not quite certain whetlier rah jrpoffei/xais here refers to tlie public prayers in tlie temple which the Christians attended {e.

g. 3'), or to the meetings of the community ; but as the writer is describing the salient elements distinctive of the Christ inn life, the latter has a slight balance in its favour. In any case there is abundant evidence {e.<j. Ac 1" Ol. 48. 47 42JM. 81 etg ) that the Christians at this time held assemblies for worship distinct from the ' breaking of the bread.'

This distinctively Christian worship was not held to take the place of the temple services, which were attended with scrupulous regularity (Ac 3'). Neither — and this, of course, refers not only to the first days of Christianity — did it take the place of individual private prayer (cf. Ac 10" IG''', £ph 6'", Ph 1^). (a) The public service. — The purpose of this service was uefore all thinjjs edification, and this not only for those who were already believers, but also for unbelievers.

It had, then, a missionary aspect, and for this purpose was made as public and open as possible. At Jems, it took place especially in the temple as long as this was purmitteu (Ac 2*' 3" 5'-'), or in some public place (Ac 2^, cf. "). Un- believers were welcome to attend and listen (1 Co 14-^). Every Christian had received the Holy Ghost and a 'gift' as the 'manifestation of the Spirit' within him (see 1 Co 12""-).

Whatever was the gift he possessed, he was bound to put it at the service of the community and use it in hanuonious working with the whole {ib.'-"-). Hut if we look through the lists of gifts in Ko 12«f-, 1 Co 12'"f- we see that there are some (c.^. miracles, healings) which would not qualify tlieir possessors to contri- bute to the worship of the community.

So we find a distinction drawn in 1 P 4'"' " between the gifts of speaking and the gifts of ministering (oia>coi'ti;> = contributing by personal help or ofi'erings to the common support). To the former it fell to take part in the public worship. St. Paul mentions ( 1 Co 14*") as constituent elements of this service ' a psalm,' ' a teaching,' ' a revelation,' ' a tong\ie,' ' an interpretation.' 'fhe division is not a rigid one : a ' psalm ' might be also a ' tongue ' (cf. ib."'j.

Nor is the enumeration exhaustive ; prayer is not in- cluded, though it formed an integral p.art of the service (cf. 11^). We may then, perhaps, divide as follows : (o) teaching, (^) prayer, (7) praise. («) Ttaching. — We are only conaidcrinp here the plftce occupied by teaching in the serviccB. We mtiat treat later ol the wider quention ol teachinj^ in general.

A di»f;ourse loniud part o( tlie service in the Jewish Bynai;ogue where it waa con- nected with the reading of an aiipiiinted jwrtion of the OT Bcripturcs (Lk '""'■, Ac i:i" ; me Vitringa, de .S;/n. Vet. Bk. tn. pt. i. c. 6, pt. ii. c. 12 ; ychiirer, liJ I, i 27). We have several uiHtancee of dittcourses in the Christian services {r.g Ac 207<i ), and there is no doubt the 'teaching* in these a-sseniblies took the form of one or more discourses.

But the question of pnhlic reeling is not q\lit« 80 obvious. It is, however, on il im'on grounds quit« probable in itself, and is supportetl bv certain supposed allusions in NT. Thus Tiuiotliv is told (1 Ti 4i3) to 'give heed to reading, to exhortation, and to teaching' , and the writer of the Apoc. alludes tfl the arrangenienU for the puhlir reoding of bis book (Kev l^', cf. Col 4111).

Somewhat later there arose a separate ollice called that of the ' readier," whose duly it was to read in the public services (see Harnaok, Die tog. apovl Kirchrnordnung, 'Texte u. Unf Btl. II. Hft. 6). (fi) PraiifT wtiH made stAndlng(Mk ir^)or kneenng(Ao 203*216) with uplifted hands (1 Ti 2f). Kveu if the words of the prayer were uttered by one person only, the nmyer was reganled a» that of Ibe whole congregiitlon.

Thus in Ac 4'i4-30 the prayer it given verbally, but Is ascribed to the whole assembly iij^Oufx^iat !/>«. ^•r., ir/ioi T6, 6ii» ««i iiT«. We must not press this too literally, as if all actually spoke In the words given. It may 4 28 CHURCH CHURCH mean ibal they followed it, and by their 'amen' at the end identified themselves with the speaker ; or ^>erhaps they repeated his words audibly after him ; cf. Ac 20^^ ««•<» avT-nf wp6<iY,;itt.ro.

All prayer did not, however, consist of definite lau^'uage. The indistin^ishable 'iflo3solalia' comprised prayer as well as praise (1 Co 14i-*), and such 'prayer with the spirit' waji incomprehensible, both to the speaker and to the hearers, unless it were interpreted by one who had the fcift of inVeri>ret- inj( tontjues. The object of the prayers would vary with the ociitsion. "The necessity of the moment supplied the Church with the material for its daily supplications (cf. Ac Vl^).

We find, however, in addition to these occasional topics, injunctions to establish certain prayers as a permanent part of the worship. Such were prayers for the advance of the gospel preachiiit' throurrh the apostle (Ro 15^", Eph Oi», Col 4». 2 Th 'M, cf. I Th S'', He ia«); pravers tor the civil rulers and all men (ITi 2')', prayers for errinjj' members (Ja o^*, iJn 5i6). But no special form of prayer is laid down to be followed.

Of a formulated liturgv of prayer we find aa yet no 8ig;ns, but there are expressions in N'T which bear the appearance of more or less ntereotyped formulsB. Such are especially (I) the form of salutation, 'tirace to you (and mercy) and peace from Ood the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ,' which occurs with variations in the opening of all the i'auline Epp.. and also of 1 F, 2 P, 2 Jn, Jude.

and Rev: (2) the bene- dictions, 'The God of peace be with you' (Ro 15^), ' the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you' {ib. le^O), or the much fuller form, the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God. and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with j'ou all' ('i Co la'-). These occur also in similar form at the close of all the Pauline Epp., He, I P, and Rev.

The form of these opening and concluding prayers is in all cases so much alike, that it may very well represent the prayers of salutation and benediction with which tht services were begun and finished, differing: verbally in different churches, but agreeing in the main. Their liturgical aspect in NT is heightened by the frequent addition of 'amen'(e.3. Ro 1533, Gal i>i«). The long prayer with which Clement of Rome concludes his Ep. to Uie Cor.

, and the set forms of prayer given in the Didache (ch3. 9, 10), have a strong alttnity with Jewish prayers, which suggests that the Church may have for some time used forms of public prayer borrowed from these sources. It is remarkaijle that, except in the Gospels, we hear nothing in NT of the Lord's Prayer. It is not quoted at all, nor can we find instances in NT language which can be said to conUiin any distinct reminisceiRcs of it. But in the Didachp{ch.

fe) the Christian is commanded to repeat the Lord's Prayer three times daily, which proves how uuiversal its use became in the sub- apostolic age. (y) i'raise, i.e. the giving of thanks (iix^'"''''^.)i the act of blessing (iCxoyi7»), of praising (^ecUii), or of glorifjing (iolaZii*) God. Like prayer, it could be expressed in ordinary language. or in the 'tongue' (1 Co Uti). (See ToKOUKS.) From its more emotional cliaracter, it lent itself more to the latter than was the case with prayer.

Examples of praise are to be found in the doxologies which occur with great frequency in the Epistles, e.g. Ro 95 lti25, Gal 1^, Eph 3'^. Ph 42", iTi 1", 2 Ti 4^8, He IS'-^i, 1 P411 5n, 2 P 3I8, Rev Iti. These, again, are given a litur- gical form by the ' Amen ' which almost invariably follows, but the language is not so stereotyped as in the case of the saluta- tions and Denedictions. We see also in sublime outburst of praise, such as Ro li'^'''- or the hjinns of the Apoc. (e.g.

Rev 4^1 111' 153 etc.), examples of praise in freer and less stereotyped form than in the doxologies. We perceive in them the most intense religious emotion. Language of so sublime and ecstatic strain easily passed into the form of song. The singing of a ' psalm ' or ' hymn ' by a member of the congregation was the form which the giving of praise frequently took (Ac Ifi-'^, 1 Co I4I6. Qti^ Kph 619, Col 3l«>, Ja 513). Specimens of these extempore hymns are preserved id Lk 1 or in Rev {loc. cit.

Y Possibly, too, in rhythmic passages such as 1 Ti 3l6, Rev 16^-* are preserved fragments of hymns sung by the whole congregation together. As in the case of prayer, the congregation made the ascription of praise a corporate act bv saying 'Amen' at the close (1 Co WK Rev 614 19^). The forms in which the teaching or prayer or praise might be delivered were three.

From the prophet it came as a direct revelation from God, with all the force of a verbally inspired message, expressed in ordinary language, and therefore needing no explanation of its meaning. From the speaker in a torujue also it came as an 'inspired utterance (Ac 2 'to speak with other tongues aa the Spirit gave them utterance'), but the lan- guage was incomprehensible to the hearers, and to the speaker himself, unless they possessed a further gift, viz. the power to lnter.

pr)t tongues (see I Co 14). From the others it did not come as an inspire<i utterance, but the teacher spoke with greater weight and authority, aa one who had received, in a special degree, the 'gift ol teaching from the Holy Ghost. The 'teacher, by virtue of his gift, ranked higher than the 'speaker in a tongTie. He stood next to the apostles and prophets in the divinely appointed order of the Church (1 O 1228). To the necessity which St. Paul felt of correcting certain abuses in the Cor.

senices we are indebted for an interestinu' picture of these meetings (1 Co 1429-Sfl). Jd their eagerness to exercise the gifts of which they were conscious, the Cor. Chris- tians had m&fle their services scenes of confusion. Members did not wait for one another to finish speaking. If a prophet received a 'revelation.'

he stood up at once and delivered it while another was still speaking, Agiiin, both the prophets and the 'speakers in a tongue' had allowed their enthusiasm to lead them to excess. The prophet unconsciously added a subjective element to his message. The "speaker in a tongue' ineiwlt.'eil his zeal without tronMing whelber the others midfrstood what he meant. To prevent this coniujjioii, tlit- uj'oal.

e lays down the following checks ; (i) Nut nn^re than one tosptak at a time ; each must wait his turn. (2) The one who is speaking to stop if he perceives another waiting to deliver a ' revelation. (3) Tbe ' spfiker in tongues ' is not allowed to speak unless an interpreter be present. (4) The * revelation " of the prophet is to be checked by those who possess the gift of 'discerning spirits' (hiux^tffit irvEvpt«T4»y, cf. 12'"). St.

Paul does not mention a president in the meetings, and he addres»*es himself directly to thecongrega- tioti, as it everything were to be decided at their discretion. But it is almost impossible to suppose that there was no one to direct and manage the gathering, e.g. to appoint the time ol meeting, to declare the opening and closing of the service, etc.

There is no doubt, that vvork of this kind is included io the labour of tliose 'presidents' described in 1 Th 6i'^, though we cannot go the length of saving that i> Kuptm is a special allusion to these services. Women were present at the services, and contributed to the worship (1 Co 11', cf. Ac 2iy). St. Paul directs that they shall keep their heads covered during worship, while the man shall pray with uncovered head (1 Co 114-5).

Both at Corinth (1 Co U'^) and at Ephesus (1 Ti 2ii-l2) he forbids women to take an active part in the services, and the general language in which he speaks shows that he enforced the same rule in all his churches. (b) The * breaking of bread. ^ — The expression ^ /cXdcrts TQv dprov in Ac 2^ refers to soiiiethin}_' more tlian an institution of common meals. It is inileetl doubtful, in tlie liglit of 6^, , whether a system of universal common meals existed at all.

But in any case the double repetition of the article ^ xXdais Toi; dfyrov Avould be strange unless the term were technical, and referred to a special breaking' of a special bread. And such we find to be the case in i Co 10^^ where tiie expression the bread which we break' refers to a religious act, and in ll-'\ wiiere tlie eating of the bread forms part of an act of worsliip called eating the Lord's Supper,' and its signiticance is to proclaim the Lord's deatli till he come ' {ib. -).

From the action of Christ at the institution of this sacrament, the technical name by which it became known was the break- ing of the bread.' The expression occurs some- times without the article {e.g. Ac 20"^, Didarhe 14), where there can be no doubt as to itstechni'-al use. In some places {e.g. Ac 2*^ 27^) it may refer to an ordinary meal.

The only other name which is given to it in NT is the Lord's Supper, 1 Co 1 1'-^^ which refers, however, to the whole meal of which the icXatrts tov dprov was the central act. As early, however, as the Didache (9") the word €vxapi<7Tia is used to t'x press the same thing (cf. also Ign. ad Smym, oh. 7). By its nature this service was of a much more private char- acter than the other.

It was not held in public, with free admission for non-members, but restricted to baptized Chris- tians {Didache 9-^ ' Let none eat or drink of your Eucharist save those who are baptized in the name of the Lord'). It was the secrecy with which the Christians shrouded the Eucharist that gave rise to the absurd accusations which were popularly brought against them.

At the same time, it seems, when pos- sible, to have been made the occasion of a geneml meeting of the whole Church, rich and poor (Ac 20', 1 Co uia-'ii-aa). The breaking of bread ' originally took place daily ('2«). In the Didaehe, however, it is enjoined weekly, on the Lord's day (cf. also Ac 207, 1 Co 162). It was held in the evening, as on the occasion of its institution (cf. Ac •ZO'ff- and the word SiiTi.#» ( = evening meal) in 1 Co 11W-21).

The whole ceremony was a ' remembrance ' of the last supper which Christ ate with His disciples before His death. It was therefore made a common meal, of which the ' breaking of the bread' and the 'drinking of the cup were a part (cf. 1 Co 11^^, Didache lol ^ri hi t« iu- irKftff^Oiiiai). To this common meal each brought his share. Chry- sostom (Horn.

27 in 1 Co 11, § 1) says that in place of the original community of goods the Christians 'obser\e<l common meals on appointed 'days, and having gathered together a(t«r sharing the mysteries, they partook of a common feast, the rich bringing tlie viands, and the poor, who had nothing, being invited by them, and all feasting together.' The aspect of the meal aa an act of love on the part of the rich is supported by the words KATocta-xi'ftTi rtvt fxr.

lx»f< in 1 Co 11", whicli mean the l>oor generally, not those who have not houses. The common meal was called the Move-feast* (iyaa-r, found in NT only in Judel2 The right reading in 2V'i^^ is probably a»«T«if WH, not i>aTaif). Though at first occurring at the same time aa the ' breaking of bread,' which fonned jart of it, the two were afterwards separated, and the Eucharist held in the early morning, while the Agapa) still took place in the evening; so first in i'liny, Upp. x. 96.

See Lightfoot, Jynaiitut, ii. 312. ■ St. Paul give. u. » ri^^.-„';< 'J;;^-V°e'c:nT:pi:.c"i' ™ Mlebraiwl .n Connth at the time, anicii "j ^ i i ^ rtl>er".,>U in ST. A -l-""f ^f ?^'-^o ni, for the apcHc i, cl.ar taat t^.. ''"■'<'' ^« ^?,^_'-»?';nce ate up the food thus consecrated (1 Co 'l > J^ '. ^ ,i„J (this is more prob- able than Harr.ack's "\''"f> '^"i', "co lo'«), and all drank from Mk 14"-=. 1 Co U-l) waa •Messed / 1';" /;;,. j by which the bread it (ll*). The P™.

v»" °' S^^l'^'h^v^'S ^th the occasion. ud wine were consecrated P^"";?^"'' '" ,,rescrihcd, but the " the Didach, (ch. ») ornml P^S^^^ ^ k»^( ix-«"'~') 1° prophets present are allowed to Jf"« ™'^' ^There is some woiVu ot their own <=V°'''!, '•,^" or^ie winrcame first in the doubt u to "hether the bread or «,e wme cam ^.^ ^_ £!^«^^n? or-^hfoup". P^^S^L^^^^-^d^thL-'h^ KirrA*. 18f.3 ; "»"';f'''i.?,'',if rnfan"" <ies christl. Ootles- den/ Iny.i'JA','';- ="■;,'". Vir Pratt. '/-A'oi. IsSl ; H._A.

den/ In JX>TA vol. ="■;., '»'"'>^'=-'^;;4;: -/A^f.-lssr; H. A. ■un an. Zeiulur/ in Z^'' «'^>.„{"' . ^ ^"i 1887 ; JiiUcher, 2ur ?t'■"1:i^rA°pS.t''t^e'';^anrconuin'^ha"pu«"'^^^^ ?^J?"Fo?'tl.eL^J^Ke:i^ Uteriture at the end. ii The Christian Rule of Conduct. •.: „i (M,. M» Ph l^M its exaraple (rh 2=, ir '^tira.']\"hetourc; of ' its spiritui'l strength (Jn U i Co !■>» F.ph 4"). His body is the sacred ?e^ple of theXy Ghost (1 Co 4\ a member o St (.6 ").

and t^>erefore personal hobness and 1- »•„« ->f n,;« (Ph I'M (6) A severe and stern ^"a^ tLS'rti,:rC^Te%'^e^:\f-'i;iV-a tin«. ren' marriage and family cares are £e«arded as competitors a-ainst tlie service of the Lord, wmon Sid absorb every thought -^.-l /„-„^'-« '^.^^ 7«.3.) The Christian n.ust l'« f ver on his^iam, watchful and vigilant, f-^^t'"^ ('^ • Ac 13^ 4 M. 7«-8'). ever in arms against temptation ( 1 ^ '> ^ > Vt.h 6'°") and pray without ceasing (1 1 US ).

Ses in accord with this hi^'h and '^c^l 1^«;^ _ (2) 7"A« Christinn and his Fellow-Christtans The central principle of Christian ethics is love. p^ticaAxpr^ionoffaiU..^^ ra'rs^t'X'mts' (2^. anfst Paul is at o„e u. hiii. for above faith he pnts love ( 1 Co 13». cf . ib. ), and love does not exist apart from works o love M 1 Jn 3") Love is the ' end of the charge (1 1 1 1» ■ the bond of perfection (Col 3"). , And this love IL chiefly exercised towar.

ls the fellow-Chnstian raal 6'«) The name of ' the brethren,' by which tchrltians* denoted their fcUow-behcn^ers^^^ esuecially signiticant. It imp^es descent f om a Common ancestor, members!, p in he -"'« f^, ^i; and was used among the Jews to -^enolc tuur S:^ofi^~\¥^s^ rulers in the Church (1 Co 0 1^ h^ orbearan.^ of the str^^^^^^ t° '»- P-V't;'. 9° Vi 6'8 He 13", 1 Jn 3"), co...passion and help ^ tL'suVering and helpless (He 13^ a, ) an d of secondary importance. ^''« £ f'^1 '' U /be of St.

Paul was that a.-Va" f " ^I'^received r^Vs^f^'TiufMnctfles' tie relation of man and He 13^), ami ^.^"^ ;"!„:. >, ,u„f of Chr stand His ,vife by comparing .^t -ith that^ol .^^^ Christianity Church (Kph ^ ■ ^"fj^j inviolability which it mtroducedw^Ue sacred^ . ^^^^^.^^^■; divorce fm I9» YcTl^) -The question of remarriage. lt% ■.F^t'l'^thatni^y shoufi be the husbands of 3-i. ", lit 1 ) J'""'' . , J' ,1 xi 5») that they should Tve^had "ne Imsband? -ire interpreted in the 2nd younger widows a .

5 • ^^;^\l^ ^^^;^, ,„t„a, it is ^^ i ir'^:!tic^^%r^:nsr«-" '^ tlllu^'fa^ni'relatloni which distinguish the Christian home. The chie, .""'^'t^t^ul^'onT. "clu'^i" ™1' w'TiXhe 7^^ the Church «■" ""^i '" Hnw the C »rch"^The cx«l relation I C^orre^lti^ .^Ct^ St. i^'th'erbyral:!, bolie, in Chn. 430 CHUKCH CHUKCH mode him free (e.g. he Bays of himself, ' not being myself under [the principle ofj law, 1 Co 9'^).

But he rated far above this abstract claim to freedom, the love which he owed to his * brethren in the flesh,' and so to the Jew he became as a Jew, and obsen'ed the commands of the law {e.g. Ac 13"^ 2018 21« 2817), although he recognized that a man could be saved, not by the works of the law, but only by faith ; cf. Gal 21^. Ae regards the Gentile, however, the apostle of the Gentiles fought for tile freedom which he thought the Jew should abstain from claiming.

His position, that the Gentile should be free from circumcision and the law, was confirmed by the con- ference at Jerus., and at the same time the further question of daily intercourse between Jew and Gentile was also settled.

It was assumed, as a matter of course, that the two should Jiix freely and without restraint ; but to lessen the oflence which this intercourse would give to Jewish instinctSj the Gentile was required to abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, and from things strangled. (These prohibitions were possibly conceived as * concrete indications of a pure and true religion,' and only indirectly as concessions to Judaism as they were specially reverenced by Jews.

This explains the perjilexinij addition 'and from fornication.' See Hort, JudaiJttic Christianity, pp. 6S-73.) Thus was established a modus vivendi for those communities in which Jew and Gentile converts were to be found together. It is too much to assume from Ja 2^ that in such communities the Jews had their separate ' syna- gogue,' and lived apart. The author is writing from the stand- point of things as they were in his own church, i.e.

where the community included only Jews who had formed themselves into a synagogue congregation. The incidents related in Gal 2il'i* presuppose a close and daily intercourse (especially in the way of meals) between the Je^s-ish and Gentile communities. If St. Paul condemned so strongly in this instance a reaction to the exclusiveness from which a break had been made, it is certain that he would not have encouraged the establishment of such a system in any of his own churches.

We are therefore oonildent that in ail Pauline churches the Jews, like the apostle, and even St. Peter himself (cf. Ac 103 113), did not refuse to mix with the Gentiles, even if to some extent the two did fall into separate congregations. And intercourse of any kind im- plied a mutual give-and-take. The Jew resigned his instinctive and traditional hatred of the Gentile and lived as a Gentile (iflvixaJf Cf », Gal 2i).

The Gentile had to subordinate his 7»Wif to the principle of love (1 Co 81), that he might give no cause of stumbling to Jews. And there were grades between the pure Jew and the pure Gentile. The 'proselyte of the gate on becoming a (Jhristian naturally felt an instinctive sense of obhgation towards the whole or parts of the law. St. Paul has In his mind, not only Jews, but the class of rti^e/xivin in Ro 14^ And Bo 14'. a, 1 Co 8i-'» !

()»« must be understood generally without exclusive reference to Jew or proselyte. In the mixture of religions from which Christianity drew converts, there were many scruples, serious enough to those in whom they were ingrained from childhood, but which might draw a smile of contempt from the man of * knowledge.' St.

Paul's line of teaching is that their observance or non-observance is accidental, but that the principle of love, which enjoins respect and forbearance towards them, is essential (see Bo 14i^i7, ICoS^X (3) The Christian and the World.— The earliest persecQtions proceeded, not from the Romans, but from the Jews, either publicly, where they were allowed a measure of local authority {e.g. Ac 4'"*" 5i7(r. Qi. 1^ 2 Co 11"), or in the way of private mal- treatment.

The Jews succeeded in some instances in raising Gentile mobs against their enemies {e.g. Ac Q""- IS" 14'). On rarer occasions the hatred of the Gentiles was aroused by personal losses occasioned through Christian teaching (Ac le""' IV^'-). But the Roman government and its re- sponsible representatives neither originated nor supported these persecutions. Its attitude was one of IndifTerence {e.g. Gallio in Ac 18") or active pro- tection (cf.

Pilate 8 attitude Mt 27"'*, the authori- ties at Tbessalonica Ac 17', Ephesus 10"-, Jerus. 21" 23'"'-). The Jewish accusation, that the Cliris- tians were rebelling against the Romans and setting np another king, was never regarded seriously by the government (cf. Lk 23', Jn 18»», Ac 17'). On occasions of tumult, indeed.

Christians were appre- hended aa the apparent causes of disturbance, and treated with the rough-and-ready method of Roman provincial justice (Ac 16^ 22") ; but this was a universal practice, and not confined to Christians. The period of official persecution did not begin till Nero opened it in 64. So the Church looked to the Roman government as a protector rather than a persecutor (cf . 2 Th 2').

Those especially who were fortunate enough to possess the Roman citizenship found it a great safeguard against injustice (Ac le" 22» 26'*-"). These facts prepare us for the attitude of favour observed by Christian teachera towards the civil authorities, although they do not wholly account for it, since the principles upon which civU obedience is enjoined are independent of personal like or dislike. ' The powers that be are ordained of God,' says St. Paul (Ro 13').

The Christians are exhorted to obey and respect them as the representatives of divine justice (Ro 13''*, Tit 3', 1 P 2"-"), to pray for them ( 1 Ti 2^), to pay them tribute as their due (Lk 20-^, Ro 13«- '). From Pliny's letter to Trajan {Epp. x. 96) we find that the government regarded tne Christian communities as clubs (hetcerix), and the Chris- tians acquiesced in this official definition of their position.

As regards the social and industrial world around tliem, the Christians did not cut them- selves off from their former ties to a greater extent than was necessary. The regulation of St. Paul was, that each should remain as he was until the Lord came. So the believing husband or wife is not to leave an unbelieving spouse (1 Co V^-, cf. 1 P 31). If the unbeliever depart, the believer is, however, not under bondage to follow.

But this applies only to marriages con- tracted before the conversion of the one party. When this is not the case the believer is enjoined not to marry with an unbeliever (1 Co 7*" 'she is free to marry whom she will only in the Lord,' i.e. a Christian husband, cf. 2 Co 6"). On the same grounds the slave is advised not to seek his freedom (1 Co 7")i but to do his duty to an unbelieving master as to a believer. We hear of Christians, too, carrying on their former profes- sions, e.g.

physician (Col 4"), tentmakers (Ac 18'), soldiers (Ac 10', Ph 1"), public officers (Ac 16^, Ro 1628), purple dyers (Ac 16'^), lawyer (Tit 3"), and as traders generally (Ja 4"). A difficult question was the extent to which a Christian should Join in heathen social gatherings. There was a danger in so doing, not only because of the actual immorality con- nected with them (1 P 48- *), but also on the grounds of the ordinances against eating meat sacrificed to idols. St.

Paul does not wish to cut iiis congregations entirely off from their former connexions (e.g. 1 Co 6l0). He does not forbid them to accept an invitation to dine with a heathen (1 Co 102'^ but leaves it to the individual Judgment, 'if ye are disposed.' In regard to the scruple against ilimXoBvfa., he recommends the Christian to eat what is given without question ; but if the fact be forced upon iiim that it is an iti^xiBvrot , to refuse it for the sake of conscience and example (1 Co 10^- 38).

We find that some of the advanced liberal party at Corinth even attended the feasts in heathen temples. Tliis St. Paul forbids, not only as 'sinning against the brethren and wounding their conscience whea it is weak ' (1 Co 812), but also on the deeper ground that, in the interpretation put upon it, it is really an act of idolatry (16. IQl'^'^-).

At a later penod it was made a general ground of complaint against the Christian that he held aloof from social gatherings (1 P 4<), In his contact with unbelievers the Christian had to remember that the law of love extends to all men, although it found a greater outlet for its expression in the relation of Christian to Christian (Mt 5"-«, Ro 12»', Tit 3').

The same principles of honesty and charity were, accord- ingly, to be observed also towards ' them which are without' (Ro 12", Gal 6'°, Col 4», Ph 4», ITh 3" 4"), even towards the persecutor (Ro 12"), that thus the believers, by their life and conduct, might appeal to and touch tlie best conscience of the heathen world (1 Ti 3', 1 P 2"). (C) The single Community. — The first centre of the Christian community immediately after the ascension of Christ was the upper room in a house.

Hither they returned immediately after parting from Christ to wait ' steadfastly in prayer ' for the coming of the promised Holy Ghost (Ao ps-iS) Thus the Christian community was in its origin a house-congregation ; and when it outgrew the limits of a single house, it did not form a 'synagogue' (such as those, e.g., in Ac 6'), but spread as a number of house-congregations (cf. tar CHURCH CHURCH 431 ttior, ib. 2" 5").

For their general assemblies and their missionary preaching the disciples were able to meet in the temple or its precincts (5"- "•'-), but for their private worship they were divided into groups, the centre of each being the house- hold of a convert, who was able and willing to provide the necessary accommodation in his house. Thus the Church presented the aspect of a number of household groups. The same principle of di- vision was estaolislied in other places besides Jerus.

, «8 Christianity spread farther. It appears, e.(j., at Thessalonica (Ac 17'), Troas (20^), Ephesus (20'"), Corinth (1 Co 16"), Colossas (Philem \ Laodicoea (Col 4"), and in Rome (assuming that Ro le^'" is &n integral part of the Epistle : see w.°- '• " rout ffiy oiVoif i5e\<pci!) These house, congregations also bear the name of iKK\ri<Tla (e.g. Ho 16°, 1 Co 16'", Col 4", Philem «). The condition of the household in ancient society favoured this feature.

The master of the house was its lord, and his conversion was generally followed by that of his family and dependants (e.g. Ac lO'"-" 16^ IS", 1 Co 1"). In this way the nucleus was at once formed for a house-congregation, and doubtless isolated converts attached themselves to the church in the house of a wealthier convert. The only passage in NT which seems to imply the existence of a church, i.e. a building set apart for purposes of worship, is Ja 2' ' if there come into your synagogue,' etc.

In this passage we have a picture of a Christian place of worship, with seats of honour like the irparoKadcSplai in Jewish synagogues. Apparently, then, by the time this Ep. was written, the Jewish Christians of Jerus. (for the writer speaks from the stand- point of the conditions in his own church) had formed themselves into a synagogue and built a place of meetin" (cf. Ac 6' 9'). The ' school of Tyrannus,' in which St. Paul taught at Ephesus (Ac 19'), was, however, not of this kind.

It did not supersede the house-congregations (20*', 1 Co 16"), but was used, as the context shows (v.'"), for the missionary preaching, which had hitherto taken place in the Jewish sj'nagogues. Tiie city, church was comjiosed of a ntimber of these house-churches, and it grew by the addi- tion of new congregations. The first household which had received the apostle gener.ally became the centre of these smaller groups. To its mem- bers, the first-fruits {d.

Trapx'n) of the city, a special respect was due (1 Co 16'''-"'). It hud been tlic home of the apostle during his visit, and, in con.se- quence, the centre of guidance and direction. In some ca-ses the prominence of some other member caused the centre of the community to shift from the original household ; e.g. the house of Mary, the mother of Mark, waa at first tlie centre of church life in Jerus. (Ac 12'^), but later (Ac 21'») James' house appears as the ollicial place of meet- ing.

The whole community met together on occa- sions of necessity either at this central house or some other convenient place {e.g. Ac 15* 21'", 1 Co 6, 1 Th 5", Col 4"). Thus, apparently, Gains received the community in his house when they a-ssembled to meet their apostle and founder JRo 16'*). The same community met on occasions or common worship (1 Co H'^), though their num- bers do not allow us to supj>(>se that this could always have been the case.

For the purpose of worsiiip the house must liave been the unit. I5ut for the purpose of direction and administration the unit was not the house- but the city-congrega- tion (cf. Ac 11" 13' 20^). So the apostle directs his letters to the church of the city, e.g. at Corinth (1 (k> l'*), because the city-church and not tlic house-church w8l8 the primary unit in the regula- tion of alTairs. The Organization of the Community.

— The writer of Ac sums up the distinctive elements of the new Christian life in the words (2*^) irpouKaprtpouyTts rj diSaxi Twi» iToiTTdXuif Ka.1 Trj koivuvI^, rp K\dae^ roi dprov Kal Toij rpoaevxah (WH), 'abiding in the teaching of the apostles and the fellowship, in the breaking of the bread and the prayers.'

The words go by pairs, the ' breaking of the bread ' and ' the prayers ' making up the common worship of the community, while the 'teaching' and the ' fellowship ' cover the ground of their common life. No community can exist without organiza- tion, lea.st of all a community in which are combined a religion and a common life. But before passing on to a.sk what was the nature of this organization, we must first see what was the nature of the work to be done.

This will be found to group itself under four main heads: (1) The instruction of converts, (2) the collection and administration of the common funds, (3) general a<lmiuistration and direction, (4) discipline. (1) Imtruction.

—\V]\ea we remember bow slowly the disoiplei assimilated the teachin|r of their Master, and what patient and caretui labour it needed to perfect their faith, we ehall realize the work which was involved in the instruction of new convert* when the nunihcrB cf the Church were counted by thousands.

And if this is true with regard to Jews, bow much greater must have been the lal>our when the community included pura Gentiles, who had scarcely any knowledge of Jewish scriptures, and lacked the sound foundation of Jewish monotheism. The labour of 'watering* was not leas than the toil cA 'planting.' The instruction cannot have been confined to the discourse of the services, or the teaching of the apostle in person or by letter. Such a knowledge of the ()T as St.

I'aul presupposes in Qentile converts (f.j. RoT', lCo«i«9is lOHr.Gal 4'iii')could only be the fruit of long and systematic instruction. This waa the main work of men like Aquila and ApoUos. There waa a special ' gift' of ' teaching,' and a special class of men in the Christian Church who were called ' teachers' from the exercise of this gift.

Of the content of this leaching we can only say on tX priori grounds that it must have embraced the historical facts on which Christianity is based, together with their doctrinal significance, and the practical rule of life directly grounded on the doctrine. A systeniaLic instruction in the OT writings must have been necessary for Gentiles to understand the very frequent allusions to them and interpretations of them which occur in the Pauline Epp. (e.a.

Ro 9ii>r-, I Co UH ", 2 Co 3' i», Oal 42i 31, cf. also 2 Ti SI"*). This last passage shows bow the doctrinal and hortatory elements ore mextricably interwoven with instruction in a narrower sense. St. Paul's Epp. also are a good example of the same. The historical facts of OT and of Christ's life are regarded as facts of doctrinal significance {e.g. Gal 421-31), and from doctrinal truths practical injunctions are drawn as their con- sequences (cf. the ' therefore ' in I Co 16M.

Eph 41', Col S'- '2). 'ihe instruction proceeded on the Jevi'iib method of repeated oral teaching (cf. the word ««Tti;(i«, Lk I-, Ac IS^, 1 Co 1419, Oal ^).

In N'T a convert was baptized as soon as he dedarea his belief in Christ (Ac '24i and often), but later the practice arose of deferring baptism until the convert had been instructed in the rudiments of the faith, and during this period he wa« called a 'catechumen' {xx-T^x^^f^^^f)- The content of the teaching had for its kernel first and foremost sayiiigg qf the Lord wiiicli were remembered and treasured up by those who hiul known Him {of. 1 Co T"- '»- » 9" 1123 nar, i xh 42. 1 Ti 6'»).

These floating sayings were at an early date collected into a hook of the 'oracles of the Lord'(Papias ap. Ens. iii. 39), which waa one of the main sources of the Gospels of .Mt arid Lk. To these sayings of Christ were added the divinely inspired teaching of the apostles and propheta. So there arose gradually a fixefl body of teaching bearing the stamp of Christ's authoritv (I Ti 03, 2 Jn 9) or the apostolic approval (Gal 1", 1 Th 4l- 2, 2 'Ih 21», 2 TI 1'3 22 3', Tit 1").

The danger arising from the free activity of the ' teacher ' was thus lessened oy this firm and unalterable foundation of 'tradition,' rspsdcrtt, the faith handed on from one to another (2 Th 2" 30, Ko (117, 1 Co 163 no, n iJ), ^nd guarded by each as a sacred dejiosit (T«^«fi^«,,. 1 Ti 620, g xi V ■J2). This accredited teaching is also expressea by phrases such as riirc: iiinx'lt (Ro 61'), ut^tit,^,; uytmitttr^t Xty^r (2 Ti 1'3, cf. 22), M l^iyyH T^c wurruH (1 Ti 41).

The especial frequency of eucb expressions in the PasUiral Epp. illustrates the more stereotyped fonn which this teaching assumed when death and imprison inent were removing the apostles from personal contjict with their churches. The frequent recurrence of isolated dicta with the Introduction nrrti , ktyM (1 Ti li» S' 4», 2 TI 2", Tit S»), showi that such saylnga were highly valued and carefully l»reserved.

Finally, after the death of the apostles we have a -pccimen of the way in which their teachings were collected, In a work which baa been preiterved to us under the title "The Teaching of the l^rd through the Twelve Apostles' (/>nf. V). (2) 7'/i« .Mana'jemmt o/ Comitum Fuiuit. — (a) Sources qf the rommon rsuemis. — In the early days of enthusiasm nothing but the surrender of all privat« property would satisfy the eagerness of the converta (Ac 2" 434).

Those who had possessiuns sold ihi-m and laid the monay at the apoatlaa' feet oa a oontributioo 432 CHUKCil CUUKCH to the common fund. This condition of things was, however, the result of purely voluntary action in each individual case, and is not to be confused with a compulsory couuuunity of ?oods (4^'^ &•*). It was i»robably not uni\frsal ; thus, e.g.

, we find Mary the mother of Mark in possession of a private house (121*), and Tabitha at Joppa renowned for her many alms-deeds (93tj), which implies that she did not hand over all her property to the Church at llie time of her conversion. It differed iu degree only from a later condition of things in which poor and rich were to be seen in the church (<»..7. IColl'^^^, Ephfi^, CoUMTi6i7, Ja 22). It was a voluntary alms'iitnnri (Ac 4^^).

but collective and organized instead of being "individual and sporadic. The sole source of the Church's revenue remainea always the voluntary offerinj^a of the congregation. Under the head of such voluntary orferingB we must include the contributions of food brought by the rich to the Agapw (implied in 1 Co ll"'^'- 2^), the furnishing of the necessary occessoriea (e.g. seats, lights, etc.)

for the jiuhlic worship, which was probably undertaken by the owner of the iiouse in which the services were held, tlie exercise of private hospitality on behalf of the Church towards visitors from other Churches (of. 1 Ti 3 given to hospitality,' 5>0 ' if she hath used hospitality to strangers, if she hath washed the feet of the saints'), and tlie practice of private charity (Ac ew*, 1 Ti 5iti). (b) The expenses.

— the money thus offered to the communitj' was spent mainly in the support of the poor and helpless in the Chunih. Part of this charity was permanent and regular (^.f?. the support of widows, Ac 6', 1 Ti 6Sff., except so far as they were provided for by private charity, 1 Ti 516, ja i27 ; the support of the poor generally, Ac 2^6 436)^ and part extra- ordinary and occasional \e.g. the offerings sent to the poor brethren in Judaia. Ac 1129 94", Ro ir.2.v27. 31, i Co 16itr., 2 Co 8-0. Gal 2'").

Another source of expenditure was the support Of the ministers of the g03i)eL The labourer was worthy of hia hire. Thev who proclaimed the gospel had the right to live of the gospel' (cf. 1 Co Q*-i\ Gal 6», 1 Ti 6I8, 1 p 52). St. Paul remarks that he was an exception in this respect (1 Co 9^), and resigned what was his right in order to avoid offence (2 Co ll^ff- 12iair., 1 Th '26. 2 Th 3»). From the PhUippians alone did he receive any help (2 Co U^, Ph 4i0ff).

In the Didache (11-13) order is given to receive and lodge the prophet, and send him on his way with foorJ enough to last him until the evening, but no ntoney gifts are allowed. The resident prophets are to receive the first-fruits of corn, wine, and oxen. AVe see from this that the burden of supporting these otficers fell on certain indi- viduals rather than on the community as a whole, and so came only in a limited degree from public funds.

To these charges we must add also the indefinite adininistrative expenses which would inevitably be incurred from time to time in the manage- ment of affairs. See further on this subject Alms. Communion. (3) General Administration and Direction.

— Under this head we must include all such work aa the arrangement of times for the services and other common meetings, the ordering of the services, and the management of the thousand and one details invohed in the general direction of the conmion affairs. To this class of duties St. Paul would add the task of arbitrating in the case of disputes among brethren (1 Co 6^) to avoid the scandal of Christian attacking Christian before the pubhc law courts. (4) The ET\forcing of Discipline.

— To the apostles (Mt 16i»- 19, jn 2i»2-i. 2) and to the Church aa a whole (Mt 18>8) Christ solemnly committed the power which He Himself possessed (Mt 9* etc.) of remitting or retaining sins. These words laid on the Church the duty of enforcing discipline, of pronouncing punishment upon the sinner, or declaring hia forgiveness when the punishment had buen followed by repentance. Punishment and forgiveness were dealt out in the name and in the person of Christ (1 Co .

S4, 2 Co 21")^ This was, then, no arbitrarj- exercise of authority, bat rested upon the guarantee that the decision coincided with the will of God in the matter. The disciplinary power thus belonging to the Church was in practice only exercised against sins which were a public offence to the com- munity. It was only when an act of sinfulness became public, and therefore a scandal to the community, that the Church felt itself called upon to take cognisance of the matter.

The search- ing out of private offfnces w;is no part of the common discipline, nor was the system of public confession yet instituted for such offences. Christians are encouraged to confess their ains to one another (Ja 6^), that they may receive the benefit of others' nrayers for their forgiveness (cf. ib. *, 1 Jn 6'«). From thia last passage we see that there are 'sina unto death' which cannot thus find forgiveness (cf. Mk 323, j;^ 1210). But above all.

the Christian must settle his sins with God by confession to Uim and prayer for pardon (1 Jn l"), and the punishment for sin comes direct from heaven (1 Co 113'>) as well as through the Church. Taking cognisance, then, only of these pul)lic offences, public punishment was administered in proportion t<i the wrong. nie lightest punishment was simple reproof. This could be administered by any Christian to a fellow-Christian (Mt I810, 1 Th 51**).

It assumed an official form when the rebuke was publicly administered by a person of recognized authority (1 Ti 620, Ga! 2^1) or by the community. In case of obstinacy on the part of the sinner, or of more serious faults, the oflTender might be expelled from the community, and its members forbidden to F]ieak, or eat, or have any communication with him (Uo 1BJ7, 1 Co 6^"-l», 2 Jn iO). l-^nally, when the sin was particularly grievous the same sent^?

nce of excommunication might be accompanied with the miraculous infliction of a physical punish- ment (Ac fiMO 8H 1 Co 55, 1 Ti 120), or with the imprecation of a curse (i.«(*i;/«) on the offender (1 Co 1622, Oal 18).

Christ Himself «Urected that in the case of brother wronging brother the injured pervon shAJI (1) reprove the wrong-doer in private ; (2) if that fails, it la to be followed by formal reproof in th« presence of witneseea ; (8) in case he atill refuses to repair the wrong, the matter is to be reported to the Church, by whom the offender shall be excommunicated, ' be to thee as the GentiU and the publican ' (Mt IS^*-''''). The object of the punishment is always refonnatory and not retributory.

This is tne case even with the most severe sentences (1 Co 6^, 1 Ti 120). Their purpose is not destruction, but rept^ntance, and repentance is followed by forgiveness on the part of the injured conummity (2 Co 2'^iO, Gal 01, Jvide 22. 23). During the tune that the ban of the ccm- munity is upon him the offender ia not t^ be regarded as an enemy, but pitied as an erring brother (2 Th 3^^).

Under the four heads of teaching, administratioii of funds, direction, and discipline, we have sum- marized the work to be done in the government of the community. Now the question arises, In whose hands did this work he? The problem here is wider than that of the right to take part in the public worship. There the ri^ht of speech was limited only by the nature and degree of th« 'gift* received by the individual.

All did not possess the higher gifts (1 Co 12^-") of prophecy and teaching, or even the lower gift of tongues {lb. *). Some there were who, without being unbelievers, did not possess the special gifts which fitted a man to tatce part in the services (the ' unlearned ' of 14"^- -, cf. ib. ^^ Ja 1°). He who had not a gift of speaking (I P 4*<''") was not called upon to speak.

In a case, then, where the number of those qualified to take part in the service was so indefinite, we cannot press th each one' of 1 Co 14^ to mean 'every one. There were other gifts of ministration (see Ro I2«ff-, 1 Co 12'ff-, and cf. 1 Co 7^) besides those of the word ; every Christian had received his gift according to the will of the Giver (1 Co 12^, Eph 4"^), and each exercised it in its appropriate sphere.

But though the number of those quali- fied to speak in the services was limited, the limit was quite indefinite as far as human recognition was concerned. How far was this so in regard to teaching and general administration ? At the head of all stand the apostles. This term is not confined to the Twelve. The two are expressly distinguished in 1 Co 15 then to the twelve,' ib.'' * then to all the apostles,' and others besides the Twelve are called apostles (Ro 16^ 1 Co 9^-^, Gal V^).

The conditions of apostleship were to have ' seen the Lord ' and to have done mission- ary work (1 Co 9'-^). The superiority of the apostle's authority rested on this personal contact with Christ (cf. Ac 1^), and for this reason he was of higher rank tlian the prophet. He received his authority from the Lord (2 Co W IZ^% Hia teaching was irrefutable because it came to him from the Lord (1 Co U^, Gal P^). The apostles then occupied the first rank in the Church (1 Co 12^, Eph 4').

There was no branch of government in which they had not the supreme right to com- mand. In teaching their doctrine is the norm of truth (Gal 1®-^). Ihey lay down directions in all matters affecting the religious and social life of the community : they pronounce punishments (1 Co 6"), and forgive * in tne person of Christ ' (2 Co 2^). Next to the apostles come the propfwJs, who constitute the second order in the Church (1 Co 12'^, Eph 4").

We find them, like the apostles, claiming and exercising an authority in every department of church airection, e.g. teaching (Ac 15% 1 Co 14^'", cf. Didache U), general direction (Ac S^ 9>'*'^' 13»^-, 1 Ti 1" 4". cf. Ignatius, ctd Phifnd. 7; Didache 11). These two classes of Church rulers (apostles, prophets) stand entirely al)ove all others in the pole possession of a divine revelation {axoK6.

\v^Ls), Their command was more than human, because they spoke not of themselves, but as the direct mouthpieces of the Holy Ghost. To them have been revealed the mysteries of the gospel (cf. GaJ 1^2 < t^hg gospel . . came to me throagh revelation CHURCH CHURCH 433 of Jesus Christ,' Eph 3' ' whicli, i.e. tlie my.-^tury of Christ . . liath now been revealed unto his holy apostles and projihets in the Spirit,' cf. 1 Co i;5-).

Actordin;,'ly, in -whatever department of the Church's government they issue their injunctions, they speak in the Spirit (^v irKi'^utn, i.e. under the power of the Spirit, Eph 3', Kev l'» 4'^ cf. Ac 21^). The Holy Ghost resided in every Christian as a power of supernatural strength ; but He resided in the apostles ami prophets as a revealer of God's will and ]iurpose. The words and actions of apostles and prophets are often spoken of as the words and avtiun.i of the Hoh/ Ghost Himself (e.g.

Ac 13», cf.« 15=8 20=3- ■« 21", 1 "ri 4', cf. Ignatius, ad Philad. 7). They represent, therefore, the pure theocracy in the same way as the prophets of OT, and in tne same way their authority stood above all other as the direct rule of God. In the matter of government thev were the only possessors of what we should calf a supernatural gift, and there- fore in a pre-eminent degree had the right to rule. (The other supernatural gifts, e.g.

tongues, inter- f)retations of tongues, working of miracles, gifts of lealing, 1 Co V2'^- ^, are not gifts connected with government, and need not be considered here.) In making this division, ' supernatural ' and ' natural ' gifts, we are, indeed, guilty of drawin" a distinction which was not present to the minds of the first Christians. To them every gift was supernatural, because it was the manifestation of the Holy Ghost in the individual.

But it is a distinction which exists in the nature of things ; and when the Christians regarded revelation as the paramount source of authority, they were unconsciously draw- ing a distinction between ' supernatural ' and ' natural ' government. We see, then, that in the apostles and prophets rested an authority which was supreme, because it wa-s based on revelation. Here we have the funda- mental principle of NT church government, viz.

direct divine rule of the Holy Ghost as expressing itself through its human mouthpieces the recipients of revelation. But the question we have now to consider is. To what extent was this principle carried out in practice? Did the apo.stles and prophets monopolize all the direction of the Church ? If we look at the early chapters of Ac, we shall see that this was at lirst the ca.se. Not only the general supervision, but al.so the executive work in all its details, falls upon the apostles (cf.

2« 4M. 37 5ij jjnj \vhen the work grew too largo for them, a division of labour became necessary, and this led to the ajipointment of officers called ' the Seven,' whose work was to receive the ollerings and attend to the 'daily ministration' of alms to the needy (6'). Here we see the delegation of a definite department of administration.

While re- taining their supremacy, the apostles surrender the actual daily working of this department to a new claas of officers, who were not necessarily aijostles or prophets, but ajinointed by popular election (ih. •• '). We hear nothing furtlier of this ollice after the persecution by which one of its holders lost his life, and the rest were driven away from Jcrus. (8')- When the community is reassembled, the ' pres- ••Vters' appear in connexion with the administration of funds (11**).

This cla.s3 of persons is mentioned without introduction, and indeed government by e'lJers was .so fainiliar to Jews, that it is highly probable that from the lirst the 'heads of famili(^s' iiad held a recognized position of induence. Later we find clicse same persons forming with the apostles a committee 01 general management with the widest powers. The great question of (ientile circumcision was first threshed out by them (15"; ▼.''

Trav ri jrXijflos iloes not necessarily iMi|ily the whole community), and their deci.sion put before the whole Church for approval (v.''-). Then the vou I.— 28 letter embodying this decision is drawn up by the committee ot apostles and elders (v.''" j the reading irpiff^vripovs Kai do^Xtpovs is now generally aban- doned). At their next appearance we find them in a similar position of authority ('21 ""'•). The government of the Church at Jerus.

appears in tUf hands of a body of presbyters with James at their head. We cannot avoid seeing here an imitation of the synagogal government among the Jews. We find with them also a body of ehlers who manage the allairs of the synagogue (Lk 7'). We may notice in this connexion that the Jewish Christians call their place of worship a synagogue (Ja 2'^).

Government by elders was a tradition among Jews (Nu 11", Jg 8", 1 S 16^) which had not declined, as with the Greeks and Romans, but was still active (cf. Mt 21», Ac 4»- ^ 6'=" etc. ; Schiirer, JIJP § 27). When we find the term, then, used as the name of the governing body in Jerus., it is almost certain that it had a technical meaning. The ' elders ' were not merely the ' old men,' but those among the old men who were selected to manage the allairs of the community.

How, or on what principle, they were selected at Jerus. we do not know. But we find the presbyteral organization in other Chris- tian communities also,— Paul and Barnabas in- troduced it into the Churches founded on the first missionary journey (Ac 14^), — and in this case they appointed the officers at their own discretion.* Whether St. Paul coatinued this practice in all his Churches is at least doubtful.

He speaks of those in the Church at Thessalonica w^ho ' labour among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you' (1 Th 5'-); but we cannot prove, except by the analogy of other Churches, that these were not prophets. Writing to the Corinthian Church (1 Co 12^), but 8peakin<T of the Church as a whole, he mentions ' helps (d^TiXTj/'fi?) and 'governments' {Kv^ipy^aeii) in a list of gifts and workers.

The names are vague, which suggests that he is using general terms to describe ollicers bearing dill'erent titles in different place.s. But he has already mentioned in his list ' apostles' and 'prophets,' so that he is thinking oj persons distinct from these. This is important, because he is here describing a divinely appointed (lOcTo 6 Oc6i) arrangement, i.e. one which in its outlines he understood to be universal. In Ro I'2' he mentions 6 irpoi<TTa.p.

evoi, but he is here speaking of 'gifts,' some of them common to all Christians, not of officers, and the same men may have com- bined the gifts, cf. the list of gifts in 1 Co 12""-. He includes, e.g., 'giving' (o p-eraOidov!), 'pitying' (A AeiK). We iind, however, another list 01 officers in Eph 4", where the division is apostles, prophets, evangelists,! shepherds, and teachers. From the Gr.

Tovs Si TroiiUvat Kal SiSaffxaXovs we see that he is referring to one class of persons only, and the • The idea of popular election had become by no meAns an csauntia] eleiiieiil in the raeanin^ of x'^^**' '" later Greek. It is still seen in some insUinces, e.g. 2 Co 8'^, .los. Ant. VII. xi. 1, but hris quite (JiBiipperired in many Othere, «.9. Jos. Ant. VI. xiii. 9, t« vri nZ Ulav Kl^fi^cTant^ivei .iflMTjJ.i. It is immaterial to our present pun>oHe whetiier r^i*, ^fT.

^ouf is here the naino of the ollicers created or of the persons front whom the.v were chosen, Imt it would be a 8int,'nlarly abrupt way of speakinc to Boy, 'They ajipnint'-d elders for them ' (i.e. to t)e rulers), x'^*'''" «Ma7f t^i- g-fioTtpotft. In a somewliut similar passii>;e, Tit P ^*» . . ««t«. iTTr.

a^f x»tk TeXj irfiff,iu7tpoi/:, it woulif be Just possible that Tptffflvrifitv, reprosentfl tlie class from which selection is made, liecauso «aO,^Ta»ou (= to set down in a place) had a more technics] meaning 'to put into offlce'; but even here the oniisHion wovild be stranpe. With xi'/>^*>. which bad a votjuer nieaniii)^, ' to appoint,' the omission would be still more remark- alile. t The evangelist woa a wanderinp missionary working on new ITTound (Ac 21t* ; Eus. US ii. 3, iii.

37), and not concerned with tlie orvranir-ation of Churolies already established. In 2 Ti 4' the wortl is useil in a (general ( = ^>roacher of the gospel) ond not in a special sense. The application to the writers ol Qoepels is much lal«r. i6i CHURCH CHURCH general language {Troi/iijv is never used as the name of an officer, but to describe his position and work, cf.

Ac 20^, 1 P 5=, Jude ") shows that he is think- ing of functions which were universal, while the persons performing them perhaps bore ditt'erent names. We find, however, presbyters at Ephesus (Ac 2U"), whom St. Paul calls iwic-Kdirovs, 'over- seers'or bishops (v.^). Tlie letter to the Philip- plans, written some years later than the events described in Ac 20, is addressed to ' the saints . . at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons.'

This is the first certain mention of these officers, for imcrKdirovs in Ac 20^ has probably only a general sense ' overseers,' and it is by no means certain that SidKOfos in Ro 16' is used technically (cf. ib. 15' 12'), while identifications of the Seven with the deacons, though as early as 2nd cent., are only conjectural (see Deacon). In the Pastoral Epp. (1 li 3'"") the bishops and deacons appear as the two local officers. (For the relation of presbyters to bishops, see Bishop.)

We see from these letters that it was the desire of the writer to establish a uniform organization of bishops and deacons (cf. Tit 1°), such as we find as an accom- plished fact in the next generation (cf. the Ep. of Clement of Kome to the Cor., esp. chs. 42, 44). Amongst the Jewish Churches we find the presby- teral organization still in force (Ja 5") ; so, too, in 1 P 5'"-.

We see, then, in the local Churches of the apostolic age various stages of organization, tending towards the end of that period to assume a uniform aspect. In the earlier history we find the greatest contrasts in this respect. In the Church of Jerus. we see a highly developed organi- zation with well-marked distinctions of rulers and ruled. But if we turn to the Corinthian Church of the same time, the state of things there pre- sented to us implies organization of a most rudi- mentary type.

In the proud consciousness of ' know- ledge ' (cf. 1 Co 1' 8' 14-*) the individual member placed too great reliance on his ovm judgment. The result was a forwardness and independence of action on the part of the individual in his private life and in the meetings for public worship {e./;. 8'° 14>o-8«j^ which indicates the absence of firm central control and obedience to authority.

The apostle has to teach them that love is better than know- ledge or any other gift (8' 13), that gifts are to be exercised for the benefit of the whole, each in its place and measure (12'-'). We have not, then, to deal with an iron uniformity of local organization, but with a variety of degrees. We can trace in the Pauline Epp. the following stages in the growth of organization, (a) At the outset the idea of ruling does not appear.

Earnest believers come forward and, according as their gifts permit them, volunteer their services in the work of carrying out the necessary arrangements for the community, in the way of teaching, collecting, and distributing the public alms, etc. The incentive is not the desire to rule, for as yet no position of command is attached to the work, but a purely disinter- ested labour of love.

They ' set themselves to minister to the saints,' 6($ SiaKovlav rois 07/015 Iraiav fai-roi'-s (1 Co 16", cf. Ac 16" *' I8=»-«-^, Ro \& passim, Ph 2™ 4^ 1 P 4'"). (6) Those who thus volunteered were accepted by the apostle in the first instance. They worked under him in the task of cons'ructing the new community. Wliat would be, the»i, more natural than that in depart- ing he should leave them in charge with instruc- tions how to carry on the work?

We cannot suppose that he went away without leaving anyone to superintend the atl'airs of the infant Church. Such persons are tho.se to whom he alludes as 'iiresiding in the Lord,' irpoiVrrd^ifi'oi 4f Ki^v, ' Th 6", for whom he claims the respect and gratituvie due to those who have laboured for the common good. Here we have a status, unofficial indeed, but recognized by the community and the apostle. Compare the position of Stephanas at Corinth (1 Co le").

(c) This position becomes gradually of a more definite and official character. The work of ruling gravitates more exclusively to these presidents, and the appointment becomes more definitely regarded as an appointment. In the Churches of the first missionary journey such a well-marked and definite official position followed after the lapse of, at most, a few months from the first preaching.

At Thessalonica (1 Th 5"- ") such a definite position is perhaps not yet established, but there are persons possessed of a recognized authority to preside and admonish. In Corinth the indefiniteness of authoritative rule, suggested by 1 Co le"- ', is quite supported by the condition of things described in the Epistle, of which we have already spoken. Then in the later Epp. (Phil, and the Pastoral Epp.) we see the gradual tendency to a uniform organization of presbyter- bishops (cf.

Ac 20^ at Ephesus also) and deacons establishing itself in all the Pauline Churches. Later, as we know from the earliest Christian writings, outside NT, which have come down to us, this organization of bishops and deacons became more and more universal. Among Jewish Chris- tians, where previous writers had spoken only of presbyters, e.g.

Ja 5", 1 P 5'- (with perhaps a hint at the name bishop in 2^), Rev 4, et scepe, we find in the Didache the Pauline system of bishops and deacons in full exercise (Did. 14'*-). Among Gentile Churches Clement of Rome (Ep. ad Cor. 42, 44) supposes it to be universal. The single bishop as the centre of all authority in the community appears first at Antioch and in the Asiatic Churches of the Ignatian Epi.stles.

* Over against the authority of these local officers, which did not extend beyond the single com- munity, stands the universal authority of the apostles and prophets, who constitute the founda- tion of the whole Church (Eph 2^), whose sphere of action is not limited to the single Churcn (cf. Ac 11" 21"', Did. 11), though they might settle down for some length of time in one place (e.g. Ac 13' 18" 15'», Did. 13).

What was the practical relation of these two authorities in the actual working of afTairs in the community ? It will be useful, first, to compare the two in regard to the method of their appointment. Every Christian possessed one or more " gifts ' of the Holy Ghost (1 Co 7'). These gifts were of many kinds, including all the mental, moral, and spiritual en- dowments of the Christian. Thus we find ' mercy,' 'almsgiving' (Ro 12«), 'faith' (Ro 12»», 1 Co 12"), 'wisdom," knowledge' (1 Co 12').

Thej-are the mani- festations of the Spirit in the individual (16. 12'). Every one possessing a gift is called to exercise it for the benefit of the community. Every one, therefore, is a minister to the community in his branch of service : ' each one as he has received a gift, ministering it towards one another as good stewards of the manifold grace of God '(IP 4'°).

According, then, to the ideal of the Christian Church, there would have been no appointed officers, but each Christian would have performed his proper part of the work according to the ' gift ' or ' gifts ' granted to him. In the same way as the Christian was ' called ' by the grace of God to be a believer, so he was ' called ' by the gift of God to perform certain functions within the community. Among the.se gifts was that of 'prophecy.'

He who jiossessed, then, the gift of ' prophecy ' was ' called ' to be an apostle or prophet. (For distinc- • It i« not probable that the ■ angel ' o( these Churches in the Apcc M20 21-^- 1 >" ■' 7- '■*> is meant to be a sin^rle eniscopus. The nieS8a(re« aie Ri^-en (see the 'onpuatre throughout' dir«(/| to the Churches, not through an intermediate representative. J CHURCH CHURCH 435 i;: tion of apostle and prophet see separate articles.

The aiiostle's authority ranked higher because of his personal contact with the Lord.) So St. Paul 6j)eaks of himself, ' Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesu^ Christ throufrh the will of Cod ' (1 Co 1'). He insists stiuu^'ly on the direct nature of that call, 'an apostle, not from men, nor throu''li man, but through .le.sus Christ and tiod the Patlier ' (Gal 1', cf. Ac '?0-\ 'the ministry whicli I received from the l^rd Jesus').

These facts show that he does oo« consider the events of Ac 13'"-, but those of hie conversion, as the occasinu of his appointment to the apustolate. The ajipoiiilmeiit of Matthias is not to be taken as typical. In the hrst place, the appointment was for a detinite position, i.e. to fill up the number of twelve apostles ; secondly, the descent of the Holy (_; host had not yet taken place, and the method of determining by 'charisma' was not yet [lo.ssible. So the method here adopted (i.e.

popular election, followed by lliehnal selection by lot between the two thus chosen) is extra- ordinary. Like the apostle, the propliet was a prophet becau.se he posse.'tsed the f;ifl of 'prophecy.' The Holy Spirit divideth 'to each one severally even as he will ' (1 Co 12"). It follows, then. ,..at the irophet, like the aiioslle, received his appointment jy a subjective 'call,' i.e. he exercised his authority without reference to human appointment or per- mission. St.

Paul gives instruclions to Tinu)thy about the a[ipoiutment of bishops and deacons, but says nothing of prophets. 'Ihe Diilache also L'ives instructions to elect bishops and deacons, but is equally silent as to projihets. Nor is this surprising, for the prophet was not an othcer, but the exerciser of a spiritual gift. There could be no more question of electing him than of electing those who should speak with tongues. St. Pauls language in 1 Co 14 (e.<j.

" ' if nU prophesy,' " ' if any Ihinketh himself to be a prophet or spiritual,' "'dciire earnestly to prophesy') would be per- plexing if those only were prophets who were appointed to the ojfice of prophet. It presupposes that the number of prophets is not fixed, but indefinite. But, on the other hand, the ' gift ' might on occasions be rcg.irded as coming through 'ordination.'

We find instances in which men were appointed to carry out a special work through a projmecy put in the mouth of others, e.(j. Paul and Barnabas, Ac 13^ (but, as we said above, Paul did not regard this as an appointment to the apostutatc) ; also Timothy (1 Ti 1'" 4"). In the case of the latter the 'gift' is described as coming to him ' through prophecy, with the laying on of hands by the presbytery' (4"), or through the laying on of the apostle's hands (2 Ti 1").

We have here a solemn transmission of gifts hy the 'laying on of hands' (cf. Ac 8'* 19"), which illus- trates the absence of strict uniformity so character- istic of the first age of the Church. Ab-solutely fixed rules (jid not yet exist in either way ; but, aj)parently like the possessor of any other ' gift,' the prophet, ordinarily, was neither appointed nor onlained to office, but the bearer of a ' revelation,' of which he was subjectively conscious.

But with the apjiointnient of those who were to manage the lAily ndaire u( the coniniunit.v it won dilTorenl. The early con- dition c( thines In wliich this work woa |>ertormeit l).v the chance ti.div' I'jal in the vohintArj' exen'i»e ot his i-ill, led (a« in Cnniith)tod.»o.^er. For the niannt'enientol cvervilay a>lniinis- tration, it wan nure»sar>-, in the nature o( thincii, thot definitely recnj^nized persons should utuierlako the work.

The 'puh- Ji-etive" apjtoinlnient wos found to lie impractityihle and pro- ductive of confusion, unlcM confirmed liy an ohjective recogni- tion. And so, somewhat in the manner de8crihe<l alwve, the vohmtary worker became an ofiU-er, since, from the moment that his appointment waa determined by the community, or an apostle, or his delenate, organization ha<i tiepun, and an office was created. The actual machinery of apiKiintment varies con- siderably In NT.

We find a svsteni of popular election in the appointment of the Seven (Ac (V>), of Bamabai! and Saul to carry alms to Jerusalem f Ac H30), and of the officers appointed by the Churches of Maceaoniaand Corinth to take the collection to Jerusalem (2 Co »"*, 1 Co 16^). Presbyters tbishous) and deacons are apitointed by the apostle (Ac U'-^) or his aelegate (1 Ti 31 18 622, Tit I'u, Clem. Rom. ad Cor. i2).' In the Didache we find a system of popular election for bishops and deacons.

These appointed otticers have this in common with the apostles and proplu't^s, that they are appointed Oecatme they have already shown themselves qualified for the work, i.e. because they have the necessary 'gifts,' and the will to exercise them (cf. I Ti 36. 10^ i)id. 15I). The Seven were especially selected because they were 'of good report, full of the Spirit and of wiwlom.' Those to whom St.

Paul gives a semi-orticial position by enjoin- ing the community to pay respect to them, had already shown their ability for the position. Clement of itouie, Ep. ad Cor. 42, says the apostle 'appointed their flnst-fruite as bishops and deacons after testing them with the Spirit" (>«*;u««-«»t« t^ Tn^u«T,) or, in other words, by first making certain that they rially possessed the necessary giftfl.

When he speaks of the appo'intment of first converts to be bishops and deacons as a uiiilurm practice of the apostles, his language is more universal than tlie evidence of NT warrants. This iiiay ha\ e been oct-a- sionally true (e.g. Ro 16*, 1 Co Itii^), but not necessarily universal. In the significance of the word ' office ' we find the keynote of the relation between the prophetic authority and that of the officers in .actual practice.

Theoretically, the sphere of 'revelation' covered every brancli of work ; in practice, the actual details of the daily management fell upon the ' officers,' while the superior authority of revelation aiipeared in occasional direction on great questions {e.g. Ac 13'" ), or negatively in checking an abuse. Another fact is here brought before us. The a|iostles and prophets were largely an itinerant Older. They belonged to the whole Church, not to any particular Cimrch.

Only occasionally did they settle in a particular place for any length of time. It was, then, impossible for them to carry on the daily adniinislration of a Church in all its details. In no case does this come out more clearly than with regard to the collec- tion and distribution of alms. This department was the first to be separated from the original centralization of all work in the hands of the apostles and put into the hands of ' officers.'

Later we find it in the hands of ' ]>resbyters' at Jeru- salem (Ac U**). In Galatia (1 Co 16'), Achaia {ih., 2 Co 8. 9), Macedonia (2 Co 8'"), the apostle gives general instructions about the collection for the poor brethren of Juda;a, but the carrying out is left to local workers.

In 1 Ti 3'-», Tit I' the qualification for the office of bishops and deacons, that they should not be ' lovers of money,' ' greedy of filthy lucre,' suggests that dealing with public moneys formed a part of their duties. In Clem. Kom. Ep. ad Cor. 44, they are spoken of as those who 'oiler the gifts,' tous . . vpoaeveyKdrTas t4 o^pa. The management of finance constituted in later times also one of the most important of the bishop's duties.

t In the same way as the manage- ♦ We have here a double aspect, according u the person who appointed proceeded on a 'revelation* or his own dis- cretion. Thus, on the one hand, St. Paul speaks of the pres- byters of Ephesus as those ' whom the Holy tihost had appointed bishops' ; on the other, he gives Timothy and Titus directions as to the character of those whom they are to select for offlce (1 Ti 31 ". Tit l"").

and exhorts Timothv not to proceed with too great haste in this mutter (1 Ti 6»), both of which suggest that he has in view a system of appointment by their human discretion, not one in vihich the proper perecne were denoted hy a revelation. ., , t Sohui (KirchmreM, I. 73 IT.) assigns to the prophet this function of collection and distribution on the strength of Did. l:!8 'The first-fruits shall be lirought to the prophets.'

But this passage is treating of the support of prophets and teachers by the community, not of financial management. It directs that it there are no prophets in the communily, tliese first- fruit* are to l>e given to the poor. And there is no other passage in which the jntrphrlt at tuch appear undertaking these duties. Occasional injunctions given by the propliet as a 'revelation' (e.g. Did. 11» 12) are dilTerent from permanent management. Still less Is Sohm's case proved from Did. l.'

i' XHporov,f^rt »Zt ietvru~( iirirxirtvt kmI iixKoitin «£<<( r«v Ki.p.iu. XiiToufiywfif «aj miroi ri, XiircfpyiKf tw, Tp»0r,Tii K/ti >,>ctr««>i'. The y»p in this passage is most naturally referred_ hack to ifieut T»v Kt/oiov; this is the main thought which r/>«i7(, iC''-'^" yt^fm, and ii^oKiuMffAit*vt descrilie more exactly. But If the 436 CHURCH CHURCH ment of finance, the daily administration of dis- cipline fell upon the local officers (cf.

1 Tli 5'-'), as ivell as all those general duties included in presi- dency. The exact division of labour between the ' pro- I)hetic ' and the local rulers naturally varied with the strength and efficiency of the local organiza- tion. In .lerua., where the local organization was very strong, the work of the |)rophct sinks into the hackground. There were prophets at Jerus. (cf. Ac II"), and their voice was heard on great occa- sions (e.g. ib.

15^ 'it seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us '), but the presbyters are more prominent in the administration of affairs. In Corinth, where the local organization was lax to a degree, St. Paul finds it necessary to issue com- mands on the arrangement of a variety of matters connected with their private life anil assemblies for worship, which, in a more organized community, would have been determined by the local officers.

Another feature which would atiect the relation of apostle and prophet to the local community, is the possibility that, in cases where the prophet was settled in a place, he was also a local ruler, i.e. not gud prophet, but appointed in the regular way ; e.g. Judas and Silas, who were chief men among the brethren (Ac 15^), appear also as prophets (it. *■-). In general, the direct rule by revelation appears as initiative in great steps {e.g. Ac 8^ 9'" 10'""- 13- 16«etc.)

Growth of the local Ministry. — The closing days of the apostolic age witnessed a rapid advance in the importance of the local officers. The immense gTowth of the Church made the personal super- vision of the apostle more and more intermittent, and naturally threw more initiative on the bishops. Again, certain dangers develojjcd themselves in regard to jjrophecy. There had always been a ri.sk that the prophet should introduce a subjective element into the message as it was revealed to him.

But this was not all. There arose false apostles (2 Co II'-'*) and false prophets (Mt 24", >lk 13, , 1 ,Jn 4', Rev lO'^). Against these dangers there existed a special gift called the discernment of sjiirlts (1 Co 12'"). In Thessalonica (1 Th 5"'-'^') and Corinth (1 Co 14^) St. Paul found it necessary to remind the Christians to exercise discrimination in regard to the prophet's mess.age. lie lays <iown also (1 Co 12') an objective criterion by which the false projjhet may be detected (cf.

1 Jn 4'"-, Rev 2- 19'°). Tlie great rise of false prophets in later d.'iys necessarily weakened the authority of the j)ro]iliet, anil this, again, tended to strengthen tlie bishojis. There are three directions in which this increased authority developed. (1) Teaching. — Of course the apostles and pro- phets were also teachers. Teaching was one of their main functions.

Hut, exactly as in the case of other local administration, the daily burden of drilling new converts probably did not fall on them. Their teaching was occasional. On whom, then, fell the duty of regular teaching ? The exist- ence of a regular class of persons called ' teachers ' answers the question for us. These were persons possessing in an eminent degree the 'gift' of teaching (Ro 12', 1 Co 12'), i.e. a jiower of grasping and imparting the truths of the Christian religion.

They were not, like the apostles and prophets, guided by direct revelations, but they counted, next to these, as the third order in the Church (1 Co 12^). They appear, too, in the Didnchc, as vnndering ministers, possessing authority in all Churches, and not confined to any one single Church. Again, they were not appointed to an office of teaching, but became teachers by the yip refora to it^iXapyCpout, thi.s implies no more with regard to the pmphcl Hum iBSaiil in ch. 11, viz.

that the [jrophel must not demand niotietary payment. voluntary exercise of their 'gift' (cf. Ja 3', 1 Co 4'°). They appear, then, as a middle stage be- tween the prophetic order and the local adminis- trators, connected with the former by their volun- tary e.xercise of an authority e.\tending over the whole Church, but having, in common with the latter, no claim to a ' revelation.'

Teachers, in fact, represent (except that they were not confined to the single Church) the position of the local ruler, before it became transformed, by apiioint- ment, into an office. Their right to teach lay in their possession of the gift, and submission to them was the result of a voluntary respect. But every Christian was in some degree a teacher, because every Cliristian had the responsibility of edifying his brethren (cf. Col 3'*).

And the local ruler was, from the very nature of his position, a teacher in a higher degree (cf. 1 Th 5'^). With the growth of the tendency, already described, of incorporating the apostolic teaching into an approved oody of tradition, the work of handing on this sacred 'deposit' became part of the bishop's duty. Timothy is enjoined to select faithful men, and instruct them carefully in this apostolic teaching (2 Ti 2").

At the same time, the voluntary teacher, who was teaching on his own lines, became dis- credited, in a similar manner as the prophet, by the rise of false teachers (1 Ti 4' 6^ etc.) Every- thing tended, therefore, to throw extra weight upon these accredited teachers, and diminish the authority of the others. But in 1 Ti 3-', Tit I' St.

Paul expresses the desire that the bishops shall be persons who possess, in an eminent degree, the ' gift ' of teaching : in 1 Ti 5" he crders that elders who 'labour in the word and in teaching' (i.e. who are also teachers) shall be especially honoured (cf. Eph 4" Toui d^ TTOL/j-dfas Kai SidaaKaXovSy i.e. local officers of administration and teadiing).

Finally, he regards these rulers as the special <ruardians of the faith, the supporters of true and destroyers of false doctrine (Ac 20'"-^', Tit l""", cf. He 13"). Thus, on the one hand, the voluntary teacher was tending to become merged into the official bishop ; and, on the other, the bishop was acciuiring an authoritative right to teach.

In the Diilache the teacher still ajjjiears by the side of the prophet, but nothing is said of him separately, which shows that his importance was of the nature of a survival lather than active. The bishops and deacons, however, are spoken of as also performing the service of the prophets and teachers (15'). Thus we see in the Didache that what St. Paul desired had come to pass, viz. the bishojis were all teachers. (2) Spiritual Functions.

— The 'ruler' had at first no exclusive right within the assemblies for wor- ship except that he presided. The right of the ' word ' belonged to every one who iiossessed a gift of speaking, and this was possessed in an eminent degree by the ' pro]]hets,' who were regarded with a higher respect than any other jjossessors of 'gifts of speaking. Now, when we turn to the Didache (chs. 9.

1(1) we find a fixed liturgy p/escribed for the Eucharist, with formal prayers for the conse- cration of the cup and the breaking of the bread, and, at the close of the service, the whole is followed by the injunction, ' But permit the prophets to give thanks as much as they will,' tois 5i Tpo<f>T)Ta.U tVtrp^iTfTc cuxapiffT^r*' 3(ra BiXovai. The contr.ast rots 5^ Trpo<pT)Ta.h, k.t.X.

, implies that the fxed formula of prayer was uttered, not by a ' prophet,' but by a bishop in his absence, or in addition to the free ' giving of thanks.' This prominence of the bishop in spiritual functions, which he shared with the 'prophet 'and ' teacher,' is alluded to in the sen- tence already quoted (Did. 15'), 'For they also perform for you the service of the prophets and teachers.' There were cases in which no 'prophet' or 'teacher' was pre.sent in the community (Z>irf.

I CIIUKCll CHUKCU 437 13'), and in their absence functions which were mainly entrusted to tliem fell upon the bishops and deacons. Tliis applies, not only to spiritual, but also to other functions. The advance of bishops and deacons to some- thing approaching an exclusive right to certain ministerial acts seems to have arisen somewhat as follows.

In certain cases there were actions to be performed on behalf of the community which it was more convenient to carry out by means of a few representatives than by the whole body. This was, e.g., especially the case with the 'laying on of hands' at ordination. These acts were then naturally transferred to the acknowledged repre- sentatives of the assembly (the presbytery, 1 Ti 4").

In the same way James (o") directs that if anyone is ill and desires the help of others' praj'ers for his physical and spiritual healing, he shall send for the ' presbj-ters ' of the Church ; not that the presbyters possess any exclusive privilege in this respect, for it is as 'believers' and 'just men' (vv."-") that their prayers are [lOtent, but because they are the natural representatives of the Church. In the Apoc.

it is the elders who lead in the heavenly worship (4'" S" 11"- ' 19^), and present the prayers of the saints on behalf of the Church (5). (3) Disrijiline.—Aa the apostles one by one died or were hindered by imprisonment, etc., from personal communication with their Churches, and the position of the prophets and teachers began to decline, it was inevitable that the bishops and deacons, who were absorbing teaching and spiritual functions, should increa.se their powers of dis- cipline.

If we may argue from natural causes and the analogy of the Jewish elders, it will appear extremely probable that the presbyter from the first ha<l enjoyed a recognized authority in matters of daily discipline. The maintenance of discipline W68 indeed part of the duty of every Christian, because every ' gift ' entitled the possessor to admonish and e.\hort.

It belonged to the projihet or teacher in a special way, because these were gifted in a special degree, and to the elder through the respect due to old age. Hut the Pastoral Epistles mark the appearance of u. public discipline to be exercised bj' the bishops. This is the signili- cance of the direction that the bishop is to be ' no striker, but gentle, not contentious (1 Ti 3', cf. Tit 1').

We see here a foundation laid for the establishment of public discipline, with its authority residing in the hands of the bishops. LirKRATTRK. — For furtlior details on the separate offlcera see the artt. on Apohtlk, Hishop. Dracon, Propukt, Tbaciier. On the question of Cluirch or^'anization the following may be con. suited ;— Rothe, i>(> A n/inii/« d. chrintL Kircfie, 1S;J7 ; Baur, L'fl.fr dm Crgnr. d. Kpukopnts, 1838; UitschI, Die Enntth. d. allkathol.

Kirche, 1857; LiKhtloot, "The Christian Jlinistrv,' In Cmnin. on Phitipp. 18(18 (also in Dissert, on Ap. Age, 189ti) ; Beyschla^, Dit ehnstl. Gemeiudeverfassung im ZeilaUer des ST., 1876; Hatch, Orpanizalion of the Karl)/ Christian Churches, 1880; Kiihl, Die Gemnudeordnung in den Pastoral- brie/en, 1885 ; Lonin^, />i> d'eineimleper/assiinfj des Crchristen- Ihums, 1888; Lefroy, The Christian Ministrj/, 18flO; Sohm, Kirchenrecht, Iter Band, Die gesch. (rn(«(//rt^/fn, ISO'i (reviewed bv E.

Kohler in ThL., No. 24. 18'.H) ; r{4iinsav, The Church in the Roman Empire, 1803 ; Gore, The ilinisiry of the Church, lsn3; Hamack. Die Lehre der nc6l,f Apmlel, 1893: Cmmer, Die Fortdnuer der Geiste.vjaben in der alten Kirche ; Il^ville. Les origines de PEpiscojtat., 1894 ; Hupfeld, Die apost. Urge- meinde uach der Ap. <iesch. 1894 ; Kahl, Lehrsystem dee Kirrhen- reehls u. der Kirchenpolitik, Ite Ilalfte, 1894 ; also the Hiatoriea Of the Apostolic Age given at the end.* (D) The whole Church.

— Everj- baptized believer is a member of the Church. The Church universal is therefore the company of all the believers, 'all that call upon the name of the Lord Jesus in every ^ace' (1 Co 1'), i.e. the sum of all the single hurches. Christ prayed for the unity of His • Wliile this article is in the press, another very important oontribution to the literature of the subject has appeared in Hort' s Christian Ecelesia, 1887. t future believers ( Jn 17^- ^), that they might be one, cf.

Jn 1(J" '(Dther sheep have I wfiich are not of this fold : them also 1 must bring, and they shall hear my voice ; and they shall become one Hock, one shei>herd.' And imder the training of His apostles the local communities, wherever situated, regarded themselves as members of one body. Each was a Church of God (1 Co 1-, 1 Th 2", 2 Th l-") in Jesus Christ (Ro 16", Gall*'). All bolieversare 'brethren' and fellow -saints without respect of nation or rank.

On this feature of the Christian teaching St. Paul dwells most strongly, both as regards the individual Christians (e.g. 1 Co 12) and the indi- vidual communities (e.g. Eph 2="- •!'• '- '"). What, then, were the grounds on which this consciousness of unity were based ? 1. Strongest of all was the identity of relation between all believers and the Persons of the Holy Trinity (Eph 4*).

By baptism all entered into a corporate society (Ac 2^', Gal 3-''), and that society is the 'body of Christ' (1 Co 12"). Faith has cleansed all from their former sins, has recon- ciled all to God, united all to Christ, and procured for each the presence of the Holy Ghost and His gifts within him.

Every Christian has been called with the same calling to the same faith, enters by the same baptism into unity with the siime Christ, receives the gifts of the same Spirit, owns the same Lord, worships the same God the Father, and is filled with the same hopes (Eph 4'"'). This is far more than a mere unity of belief : it is the conscious- ness of a common spiritual power (Eph 1'°) working mightily and manifestly in each one. Hand in hand with it follows its |)ractical result in 2.

PartirijKitivn of a common Life. — The adoption of Christianity, which snapped so many of the old social ties both for Jew and for heathen, at the same time opened to the convert conditions and precepts of life for the most part new to ancient ideals. The hatred of the Jews and the conteiujit of the Gentiles, which drove the Christians into one another's arms, at the same time accentuated the division which separated them from the rest of the world.

Common unpopularity made them feel their own unity. This alVected primarily the single community, but in a lesser degree the whole Church. Within the community the persecuted Christians found an ideal of conduct which drew them together with the ties of brotherhood (6.oe\<l>ol). The first Christian community started with the principles of a family life, and when the practical conditions of these early days died out, the idea of the ' household of faith ' still remained active.

It expressed itself in the common worship and in the common daily life which we have described aliove. The sketch of that life, as we have given it, is in many respects an ideal. It is drawn not only from the statements, but al.so from the injunctions of NT, and thurefoio we must not suppose that it was always faithfully carried out. In fact, comiilaints of failings, and even cases of serious wickedness (esp. 1 Co S'"-), prove that it was not so.

But it was an authoritative ideal, and an ideal the acceptance of which ini|>lied a great separation from the heathen world, and was there- fore one of the most potent factors in contirming the consciousness of Christian unity. We have described the basis of Christian unity tttider the two headings of a common belief and a common life. It remains to see how this was strengthened by more personal means. These were (a) a ciimvum ijuvemmcnt.

To its founder a Church naturally looked for guidance in the creation of its first institutions. But beyond its respect to the founder was the universal respect due to the f)ro]ihet, and above all to the ajio.stle. And the atter stood at the head of the Clnirch government because he had derived his teaching from the Lord 438 CHURCH CHURCH directly. We have, then, in the apostolic fjovern- ment of the Church the rule of a uniteil band which traced ita authority back to (jhrist.

In spite of ditferences due to individual character and scope of work, the apostolic teaching agreed in its main outlines, so tliat the Church can be said to have been under the |;overninent of one common principle. (A) The intercourse beliveen Churches. There e.xists no higher proof of the facilities afforded by the Roman government for travel and intercourse, than the evidence to be seen in NT of the close relations which the early Churches kept up with one another. (See esp.

on this subject Th. Zahn, Skizzen aus dem Lebcn der altcn Kirche.) This intercourse was kept up mainly by those who were travelling for the Church or on private business. Amongst the first class, of course, the apostles stand out most prominently, b\it only second to the extent of their ioumeyings comes that of their helpers and attendants. The prophets, too, were great travellers {e.g. Ac 11" etc.)

As conspicuous examples of the extent of private travels we may point to the wanderings of Aquila and Priscilla, whom we find first in Italy (Ac 18'), then in succession at Corinth (ib.), Ephesus (18'«, 1 Co 16'"), Rome (?) (Ro 16'), Ephesus (2 Ti 4'») ; or those of Onesiphorus (2 Ti !"• l*) ; or the journeys involved in the collection and delivery of the Gentile collection for the poor of Judaja {e.g. Ac IP", 1 Co 16', 2 Co 8"- "), and the carriage of the apostles" letters.

And besides the wander- ings of official or well-known Christians, it must be remembered that there was a constant stream of other Christians moving from place to place on private business, who attached themselves to the community, and found in it a welcome and hospi- tality until they passed on farther (cf. Did. 12 ; 1 Ti 5", He 13-). Intercourse by letter was also very frequent.

A fruitful cause of this corre- spondence was the practice of furnishing travellers with letters of recommendation {trvarartKal ^i- (TToXai ; cf. Ac 18=', 2 Co 3'). We have instances of other correspondence in the letter of the Jerusalem Church to that of Antioch (Ac 15^), and the letter of the Roman to the Corinthian Church (Clem. Rom. Ep. ad Cor.) How far, then, did all this lead to the establish- ment of one organic unity, or of a higher unity of organization than the city-Church?

We find, in- deed, in a sense, an organic unity embracing the whole Church in the earliest period. In the Church of Jerus., and esp. in the apostles, is to be seen a centralization of government stretching over all the existinj^ Church, viz. Judaea, Samaria, Galilee, and the district around Antioch, i.e. Syria and CUicia (cf. Ac 8" y» 11'- »• ^). This condition of things continued nominally until the time of the conference at Jerus. (Ac 15-'). But St. Paul's visit to Jerus.

on this occasion (which must be taken as identical with that described in Gal 2'-'"), beyond establishin" the freedom of the Gi ntiles from circumcision, led to a further very important result. Now that a purely Gentile Church was possible, St. Paul saw that not only the separation of diiitance, but also in a greater degree the vast difference cf life and thought, between the Pal. Jew and the ordinary Greek or Roman, made it impolitic tliat the centralization of power in the Church of Jerus.

should continue. And the 'pillar' apostles, after convincin{j themselves of his authority and ability, resigned to him the care of the Gentiles, while they contented themselves with the management of the Jewish Churches (Gal 2""'). The partition of authority here described wa.s not regarded by either side as a rigid separa- tion of spheres. Tlie main work of the Apostle of the Gentiles was witli Gentiles, while that of the pillax apostles was with Jews. Thus it was the practice of St.

Paul to preach to the Jews first when breaking up new ground (see Ac 13-end, passim), and he occasionally, though very rarely, addressed himself to Jews in his epistles (e.^. Ro 2"). Again we find St. Peter active at Antioch (Gal 2"), Corinth (?) (I Co 1"), and Rome. St. James addressed his Epistle to the Jews of the Dispersion, 1' ; and 1 P is addressed, not only to Jews, out also to Gentiles throuj^hout Asia Minor (cf. I' 4') at a time when St. Paul was probably still living.

Nor was the separation accompanied by any bit- terness in the relations between the two parties. The pillar apostles gave to St. Paul and Barnabas the ' right hand of fellowship.' These promised in turn to remember the poor of Judaea, and we know that the promise was faithfully kept. St. Paul always speaks with deep affection and respect of the Juda;an Christians {e.g. 1 Th 2", Ro 15"). The momentary break with St.

Peter (Gal 2"), and the efforts of some to exaggerate and prolong its efl'ects (1 Co 1'^ 3='), did not impede his recognition of the deeper truth, that all differences found their unity in Christ (3"). Within these two great divisions, each of which had something of an organic unity in its common rule, resulting to a large extent in common prac- tice {e.g. 1 Co li" 14^), appear smaller divisions, according to the Roman provinces.

Such are the Churches of Judaea (Gal 1^, 1 Th 2"), Galatia (Gal V, 1 Co 161), Macedonia (2 Co 8'), Achaia (Ro 15» 2 Co 1' 9=), Asia (1 Co 16"), Syria and Cilicia (Ac J52S.4I) This grouping was also something more than a mere form of speech. The Churches of Galatia (1 Co 16'), Macedonia (2 Co 8'»), and Achaia (1 Co 16^ 2 Co 8-9) each formed a separate whole for the purposes of gathering and delivering to Jerus. the collection for the poor of Judsea.

Officers were appointed by each province to act for and re- present the province in tnis respect (1 Co 16', 2 Co &"• ^). St. Paul particularly notes the close and affectionate relationship which bound together the Macedonian Churches (1 Th 4'"). These provincial Churches (it is to be noted that 4KK\ri(rta is never used of the Church of a province, but always ^(cxXijcrfai, ' the Churches ') had their natural centre in the capital city {e.g. Corinth, 2 Co 1' ; Ephesus, Ac 19'° ; cf.

Rev 2' where it comes first in the list of the seven Churches). At a later period these districts were in some cases temporarily put under the authority of an apostolic delegate, e.g. Timothy in Asia (1 Ti 1"), Titus in Crete (Tit P). At the end of the apostolic age we find the Churches of Asia under the guidance of St. John (Rev P).

The extent of the apostolic Church included Palestine, Phoenicia (Ac 15'), Syria (the region around Antioch), Asia Minor (1 P 1'), Macedonia, Achaia,'Illyricum (Ro 15'», 2 Ti 4»), Italy (Ac 28"), Crete, and Cyprus. Thus much we know from certain evidence in NT. But there were doubtless many other Churches which are not mentioned, and which, nevertheless, were founded before the close of the NT period. It is quite probable that St. Paul himself preached in Spain (cf. Ko 15^- * ; Clem. Rom.

ad Cor. 5 ; Murat. Fragment, 1. 38). The Church of Alexandria ascribed its foundation to St. Mark (Eus. HE ii. 16, 24 ; Epiph. Hocr. li. 6 ; Jer. de vir. illust. 8 ; Nicephorus, HE ii. 43 ; Acta Bamabm). And without setting any value on the traditions {e.q. in Eus. HE i. 13, iii. 1) current in the later Church, we may well refrain from drawing any arguments from the silence of NT in this respect. III. The Ideal Church.

— So far as we have pro- ceeded hitherto, we have considered the word in- K\7)<rla always in the sense of the Christian body in its actual state of imperfection. We come now to a conception of the Church in which the empirical CHUKCH CHUKCH GOVERNMENT 439 idea disappears and an ideal Church appears, still capable ol proj^Tess, indeed, in some of the similes under which it is depicted {e.r;. Eph 4'"), but free from all the negative elements of evil.

From one point of view, every Christian can be regarded as pcrfe t. lie was washed by baptism from every sUin (cf. 1 Co 6", He 10'*, 1 Jn 3"), and from hence- forth is holy (fivios). The Christians are ' the saints' (ol aytoi). So the distinction of the ideal from the actual body of Christians was a thought w hich lay near at hand. It is the actual Church to which reproof and blame are addressed ; the ideal which ' shall judge tlie world,' I Co 6-.

It is the actual Cliurcli upon the foundation of which some build badly ami some well (1 Co 3'"-"), the ' great hou.se ' in which some are ' vessels unto honour ' and some ' vcs.sels unto dishonour ' (2 Ti 2-°) ; it is the ideal which is a ' holy temple of God ' (i'aii! = shrine) (1 Co 3"), sanctified and cleansed by 'the wa.shing of water with the word ... a glorious Church not having sjjot or wrinkle or any such thing . . holy and without blemish ' (Eph 5-°'").

The metaphors under which the ideal Church is sjKjken of, and its relation to Christ expressed, are of three kinds — (a) the Church as a building, (6) the Church as a body (nwiia), (c) the Church as a bride. (1) Thf Church as a Building. — This very natural comparison is, according to St. Matt., as old as tiie lime of Christ Himself (Mt Ift" • On this rock I will build my Church ■). St.

I'aul (1 Co 310-Ifl) compares the growth of the Corinthian community with that of a building, of which he himself laid the foundation, and upon which others are building. He then (still referring primarily to the Coriiuhian community) passes directly in v.iti to tne idea of the finished building, ' Ye are a temple of God.' The word used for ' temple,* »««,-, means properly an inner shrine or sanctuary-, and St.

I'aul evidently has in his'mind the Holy of Holies in the temple at Jerusalem where ' the Lord sittt-th upon the cheru- liims'(2K 19"), as the Holy Ghost has Uisslirine in theUiXtiWa (cf. 2 Co 0**, and for the same thought in regard to the individual believer 1 Co 6"). Then follows m the Ephesian Kp.

the con- ception of the whole Church as a ' holy temple,' a habitation of God in which the individual Christians or communities are the parts, each fitting into his proper place and the whole held together by Christ, the chief cornerstone (Eph 220-22). Here, where the thought is that in Christ Jew and Gentile are made one building by the breaking down of the ' middle wall of partition' (V. I-*), Christ is the cornerstone and the apostles and prophets the foundation.

But in 1 Co 310, where the thought is the building up of the community, Christ is the foundation, and the apostles, etc., the liuilders. (2) The Church as a Body (^i/«).— The idea of the Christian unity in Christ seems to have suggested the comparison ol the society to a human body, in which the individuals are members. each performing, according to his ' gift,' his proper function, ana accepting his proper position (Ro 12*).

Then conies the identi- fication of this Christian body with the body of Christ (1 Co 1212. 27, cf. ©it^, Jn 151^.), a conception which culminates in the Idea of the believers all partaking in the one body of Christ in the Eucharist (1 Co 10'7.Jn (fi^f). Not until the later Epp. is the ■u^nri'o called outright the "body of Christ' (Eph 123 412 623, Col 118. 24 21&), In the earlier Epp. it is the vaguer ' we,' ' you,* i,€.

primarily the community to which the apostle is writing, although the secondarv idea of the whole (jhurch was probably also present to his mind (Ko 12', 1 Co 12'3- 27, cf. e"). In this relation Christ is sometimes identified with the whole bofly (1 Co 12'»- IT), but in the later Epii. He is called the Hca<l. as the guardian and director (Eph sii. ■*!), as the source of its life, filling it with His fulness (Eph l'-"), as the centre of its unity and the cause of its growth (Eph 4", Col 218).

Tiiese last two pa-ixsoges represent the actual Church as growing gradually to this itieal perfection. (;J) The church as a Brid*. — We have to do here, not only with an ideal conception, but also with the further st^-p of a personi- fication. The comparison of the single community to a virgin is found first in 2 Co 112 • i espoused you to one husband that I Slight present you as a pure virgin to Christ.' Here the idea of Christ as the bridegroom is also present.

The expressions tj rvl«>lsr^ (I I 613^, ^ i«AucTvi adiX^ (2 Jn H), n ixXi«T») xupiet (td.i), ore also applied to single communities. But the applica- tion of this personiflcation to the whole Church as the Itride of Christ is a step t)eyond these. We are here, says .St. Paul (Ei>h 632)^ face to face with a great mystery. Man and wife become one Mesh, so that a man should love his wife as his own body. The Church is the Bride of Christ ; the two arc one l)odv.

Just as man and wife are one Itody ; and as Christ loved the (jhurch and gave Himself up for it, so the husband should love his wife. We see here how closely conncct<'d is this conception with that of the Church as the body of Christ. The union of the two ideas is seen also in the relation of the individual Christian to Christ (1 Co 9><^\ A« man and nnfe become one flesh, so he who cleaveth to (;hri8t (the expression i M\Uiiu»t T4 Kf^.'

« is parallel to « x«AA^^ui>«( r^ ^h*^) l)econie3 one ' spirit ' (m;uf)uith Him, and belongs to His (spiritual) bwlv,— 'your bodies are members (/luah) of Christ.' The idea of the Church as bride is found also in the iuKigerv of the Apocaly^»se. The marriage table is spread (Rev 10'), the bride is arrayed in fine linen, ' which is the righteous acts of the saints ' (vA.»). In c.

20 the powers of evil are bound or destroyed, and the New Jeru- salem comes down out of heaven as a ' bride adorned for her husband ' (212) ; • she is the Bride, the wife of the Lamb * lib »■ cf. •221'). Summary. — Such were the life and teaching of the Church in NT times. If we compare them with that of the succeeding age, two features stand out as specially characteristic of the earlier jieriod. The first is the much more vivid conscious- ness of the power and presence of God in His Church.

The apostles, who were daily with them, had all been in close contact with tlie Lord, and most of them during a period of some years. "The ri.sen Lord was to them a living memory, and they imparted to the Church the force of tliat memory in all its freshness. The power of the Holy Ghost also was a fact of which men were more directly conscious in themselves than at any other time.

Never have the central truths of Christianity — the position of Christ and the significance of His death — been more powerfully realized, and at no time has the Christian life in its practice been more closely connected with, and derived from, that belief. To the fixed apostolic tradition of doctrine and life all succeeding ages have looked as their authority.

But in the strongest contrast with this fixedness of doctrine and moral life, stands the freedom from formal conditions in questions out- side these. Thus, if we turn to the organization we notice the informal way in which ollices grew up, and the comparative absence (until the close of the period) of a fixed division of labour. It is char- acteristic also of the time, that most of the technical terms are used also in a general sense, e.g.

irpfa- ^impos, SiaKOfOi {StaKovia, diaKov^u) SiSdaKaXos. Or, if we turn to the worship, we are struck by the freedom of speech, the absence of exclusive minis- terial rights, of a formal liturgy and fixed ritual, excejit in the case of baptism, faying on of hands, and the Eucharist. In the tran.'iition period immediately following the apostolic age came the fixing of organization with its clear-cut division of labour, and the stereotyping of liturgies and ritual. And along with the.

se developments came, at once their cause and their ell'ect, the decline of the prophet and prophecy. Oenkral LiTBRATimB ON CHURCH. — The Church Histories of the Apostolic age ; esp Neander, Hist. 0/ the i'lajitiug and Training 0/ tlm Christian Church (Eng.), 1861 ; Thiersch, Uist. of Chritttittn Church in Ap. Aye (Eng.), 1852; llaur, Church Uist. 0/ the First Three Centuries (Kng.\ 1879 ; Renan, Ori^jities du Christitmistne, 1S33 ; Schaff, hist, qf Ap. Affe, 1886; Lechler, Ap. Age (Eng.)

, 188(1 ; Fressens6, L« sifcie apostolupu, 1889 ; iloller, Ch. Utst. (Eng.), 1892; Weirsiicker, Ap. Age (Eng.), 18i)5. Further, Kostlin. Das Wesen der hirche naeh Lehre und (iesch. des NT, 1872 ; Secberg, Der Bfgrif der christlichcn Kirclie, 1887 ; Uamack, Ilist. 0/ Dogma (Eng.), 1894. S. C. Gayfohd. CHURCH GOVERNMENT IN THE APOSTOLIC