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.