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