The marked contrast between the doctrine of Baruch and the doctrine of St. Paul must of course be admitted in general; but it has been asked whether the doctrine of the Atonement is not a fragment of the abandoned Jewish doctrine of merit, borrowed inconsistently by St.

Paul, or inconsistently tolerated by him. To this the reply is surely in the negative. The Jews undoubtedly held that Enoch, Moses, Jeremiah, and others were, on account of their righteousness, the accepted mediators with G.o.d on behalf of the chosen people, and propitiators of His wrath (see especially _a.s.sumption of Moses_, xi, and pa.s.sages from _Baruch_ cited above). But the doctrine of the Atonement, when it is examined, proves to have one feature which puts it into marked opposition with the Judaic doctrine of human merit.

According to the Christian doctrine of the Atonement, Christ is purely and simply G.o.d's gift to man. He is the Son of G.o.d, given to man by the Father, in order that, taking our nature upon Him, living the perfect human life, and dying the death of perfect obedience, He might satisfy the divine requirement, which we could not satisfy, and procure for us what we could not procure for ourselves, no, not the best of us.

Therefore this doctrine {263} puts all men, the best and worst alike, in the common att.i.tude of simply receiving from G.o.d, as an unmerited boon, the gift of forgiveness and reconciliation in Christ. It is in fact the strongest possible negation of the Jewish idea of human merit, personal or vicarious.

In other respects the doctrine of _The Apocalypse of Baruch_ affords at once interesting contrasts and parallels to St. Paul's doctrine. Thus--

(_a_) In Baruch as in St. Paul, we have a combination of the doctrine of divine predestination with the insistence on human free will and responsibility. lxix. 4: 'Of the good works of the righteous which should be accomplished before Him, He foresaw six kinds' should be compared with Eph. ii. 10: 'Good works which G.o.d prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.'

(_b_) The eschatology of the New Testament, including St. Paul's, is of course especially Jewish. It does not however concern us much in the Epistle to the Ephesians; but we notice that in _The Apocalypse of Baruch_ the idea of 'the consummation of the times' (cf. Eph. i. 10, 'the fulness of the times') appears and reappears constantly. See xiii. 3; xxi. 8, 17; x.x.x. 3; xlii. 6; liv. 21; lvi. 2; lix. 4; lxix. 4, 5; cf. _The a.s.sumption of Moses_, i. 18: 'The consummation of the end of the days.'

(_c_) The connexion of St. Paul's doctrine with the Jewish doctrine is also ill.u.s.trated in _The Apocalypse of Baruch_ on the following points.

_That the Gentiles had the opportunity of the knowledge of G.o.d through His works in nature, but refused it_. See _Baruch_, liv. 18, and cf.

Romans, i. 20: _The pre-existence of the Messiah_. This is suggested but not very clearly stated in x.x.x. 1, cf. Charles's note and _The a.s.sumption of Moses_, i. 14, where the pre-existence of Moses seems to be a.s.serted. Again, _the Fall of Adam and its effect in introducing death_ (_or premature death_) _into the world_. See xxiii. 4; xlviii.

42; liv. 15; lvi. 6, and {264} Charles's notes. Once more The Resurrection of the Body. See _Baruch_, l; li. On all these points we see what was the material in existing Jewish thought or, in other words, what were the existing developements of Old Testament belief, which the Christian inspiration had to work upon. The effect of the specifically Christian inspiration is chiefly seen (1) in selection among existing beliefs--taking some and utterly rejecting others; (2) in giving a definite and fixed form to current Messianic and other ideas which were continually shifting and incoherent; and (3) in spiritualizing and moralizing what it appropriated. Of course it is in the Revelation or Apocalypse of St. John that we have the most signal instance of the New Testament use of contemporary Jewish material. But such material holds a very large place in the whole of the New Testament, and there is no more important a.s.sistance to the study of the New Testament than is afforded by contemporary Jewish literature, especially that of an Apocalyptic character.

[1] _The Apoc. of Baruch_ (A. and C. Black, 1896), p. lx.x.xii. The statement is compiled from Weber, _Lehre des Talmuds_.

[2] Edited also by R. H. Charles (A. and C. Black, 1897), p. 37.

NOTE D. See p. 120.

THE BROTHERHOOD OF ST. ANDREW

After the above pa.s.sage was written, as to the need amongst us of a deeper idea of the obligations of church membership, it fell to my lot to go to the United States, to make acquaintance with the work of the Brotherhood of St. Andrew in that country, and to a.s.sist at its general convention in Buffalo. It seemed to me that nothing could be better calculated to revive the true spirit of laymanship than that society, 'formed in recognition of {265} the fact that every Christian man is pledged to devote his life to the spread of the kingdom of Christ on earth.'

It was started among a small band of young men, of the number of the apostles, nearly fifteen years ago, in St. James's parish, Chicago, and has spread till to-day it numbers more than 1,200 parochial chapters in the United States alone, and has taken firm root in Canada and other parts of the world. It has a double rule of Prayer and of Service.

The point of the service required is that it should have the character especially of witness among a man's equals. So much 'church work' is directed towards raising those who are in some ways our inferiors, that we forget that the real test of a man is the witness he bears for Christ among his equals. There is many a man who, especially in his youth, fails to confess Christ in his own society, and then, if I may so express it, sneaks round the corner to do something to raise the degraded or takes orders and preaches the gospel. n.o.body can possibly disparage these efforts of love, but a certain character of cowardice continues to attach to them, if they are not based on a frank witness for Christ in a man's own walk of life, where it is hardest. It is this witness which the Brotherhood requires.

The particular rule is 'to make an earnest effort each week to bring some one young man within hearing of the Gospel of Christ as set forth in the services of the Church and in men's Bible cla.s.ses.' This rule is no doubt open to criticism. But it is interpreted in the spirit rather than in the letter, and for its definite requirement it is successfully pleaded that it keeps the members from vagueness and slackness.

Certainly the result appears to be excellent. The brethren are pervaded by a spirit of frank religious profession and devotion. There appears to be a general {266} tone among them of reality and good sense. Their missionary zeal does not degenerate into an intrusive prying into other men's souls.

The Brotherhood was developed in the atmosphere of the United States, and it remains a question whether it will flourish in England. The more sharply defined distinctions of cla.s.ses among us; our exaggerated parochialism; the shyness and reserve in religious matters which characterizes many really religious Englishmen and degenerates into a sort of 'hypocrisy reversed,' or pretence of being less religious than one is--these things will const.i.tute grave obstacles. But the need is at least as crying among us, as on the other side of the Atlantic, to emphasize among professing Christians and churchmen the duty of witness. At least we may trust the Brotherhood will be given a good trial. But if it is to have a fair chance among us, the greatest care must be taken that it should develope as a properly lay movement; and while it receives all encouragement from the clergy, should not be taken up by them to be turned into a guild of 'church workers,' useful for purposes of parochial organization.

One of the most striking facts about the Brotherhood in the States is that, while the church spirit is unmistakable--as no one who was present at the corporate Communion of 1,300 delegates in October of this year at half-past six in the morning in a great church at Buffalo could possibly doubt--it has successfully avoided becoming either a party society or a society rent by factions.

It is because I believe the witness of this Brotherhood to the true church spirit has already proved invaluable that I venture to dedicate this little exposition of the great book of brotherhood--though without leave granted or asked--to its founder and president.

{267}

NOTE E. See pp. 164, 166.

THE CONCEPTION OF THE CHURCH (CATHOLIC) IN ST. PAUL IN ITS RELATION TO LOCAL CHURCHES.

By far the most frequent use of the word 'church' or 'churches' in the New Testament is to designate a local society of Christians or a number of such societies taken together, 'the church at Jerusalem,' 'the church at Antioch,' 'the churches of Galatia,' 'the seven churches which are in Asia,' 'all the churches.' But it is used also for the church as a whole. In fact, before Christ's coming the word in the Greek of the Old Testament had pa.s.sed from meaning an a.s.sembly of the people, as in cla.s.sical Greek, to meaning the sacred people as a whole[1], as St. Stephen uses it in his speech 'The church in the wilderness' (Acts vii. 38). And it is exactly in this sense that it is used by our Lord in St. Matthew, xvi. 18. 'The church' which our Lord there promises to 'build' is the Church of the New Covenant as a whole.

We might paraphrase His words (as Dr. Hort suggests[2]) 'on this rock I will build my Israel.' Thus there is throughout the Acts and St.

Paul's earlier epistles, a tendency to pa.s.s from the use of 'church' as a local society to its use as designating the whole body of the faithful. This was but natural seeing that each local society did but represent the one divine society, the church of the Old Covenant, refounded by Christ. See Acts ix. 31: 'The church throughout all Judaea and Galilee and Samaria.' {268} xii. 1: 'Herod the king put forth his hands to afflict certain of the church.' xx. 28: 'The church of G.o.d which he purchased with his own blood.' Gal. i. 13: 'I persecuted the church of G.o.d.' 1 Cor. xii. 28: 'G.o.d hath set some in the church, first apostles,' &c. In this last pa.s.sage and in St.

Paul's speech to the Ephesian elders this general use of the term is unmistakable.

In the Epistle to the Ephesians, in which alone among his epistles St.

Paul is writing not about the difficulties or needs of a particular congregation, but about the church in its general conception, this larger use of the term becomes dominant. And the point to be noticed is that the church in general, or catholic church, is conceived of, not as made up of local churches, but as made up of individual members.

The local church would be regarded by St. Paul not as one element of a catholic confederacy[3], but as the local representative of the one divine and catholic society[4]. But the local church is not, according to St. Paul, a completely independent representative of the church as a whole. The apostles, as commissioned witnesses and representatives of Christ, are over all the churches. They, or their recognized a.s.sociates and delegates, like Barnabas, Timothy and t.i.tus, represent the general church which every local church must, so to speak, reproduce. The apostles therefore, or their representatives, give to each church when it is first founded 'the tradition' of truth and morals which is permanently to mould it; and they maintain the tradition by a more or less constant supervision. Thus they are {269} the force which holds all 'the churches' together on a common basis.

'So ordain I,' says St. Paul, 'in all the churches[5].' 'Hold fast the traditions even as I delivered them to you[6].' The apostle has, he teaches, an 'authority' commensurate with his 'stewardship[7],' an authority 'which the Lord gave for the edification and not the destruction[8]' of the Christians, but which at times must take the form of a 'rod' of chastis.e.m.e.nt[9]. The complete doctrinal and moral independence of particular Churches is strongly denied by St. Paul in such phrases as 'Came the word of G.o.d unto you alone?' or, 'If any man preacheth unto you any gospel other than that which ye received, let him be anathema[10].'

Dr. Hort's work on _The Christian Ecclesia_, in many respects, as would be expected, most admirable, seems to me to minimize quite extraordinarily the apostolic authority. The apostles, he says, were only witnesses of Christ. 'There is no trace in Scripture of a formal commission of authority for government from Christ Himself.' This surprising conclusion is reached by omitting many considerations. Thus in St. Matthew xvi. 19 a definite grant of official authority--as appears in the pa.s.sage, Is. xxii. 22, on which it is based--is promised to St. Peter, and he is on this occasion, as Dr. Hort himself maintains, the representative of the apostles generally. This stewardship granted to the apostles, to shepherd the flock and feed the household of G.o.d, is implied again in St. Luke xii. 42, St. John xxi.

15-17; and it seems to be quite unreasonable to dissociate the authoritative commission to 'absolve and retain,' St. John xx. 20-23, from the apostolic office. Dr. Hort would apparently {270} dissociate such pa.s.sages as those last referred to from the apostolic office, and a.s.sign them to the church as a whole. But how then does he account for the authority inherent in the apostolic office, as it is represented by St. Paul, and in the Acts? St. Paul's conception of the authority of the apostles is barely considered by him; and the authority of the apostolate in the Acts is strangely minimized. Nothing is said of Simon's impression--surely a true one--that the apostles had the 'authority' to convey the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands (viii. 19). Certainly the phrases used toward the churches of Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia, 'to whom we gave no commandment,' 'it seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things,' imply a governmental authority, which, if it is shared by the presbyters, is substantially that of the apostles (Acts xv. 24-28).

Dr. Hort also minimizes greatly the element of official authority which appears almost at once in the church by apostolic appointment and delegation. No doubt there was at first an authority allowed--as must always be allowed--to the acknowledged possessors of extraordinary divine gifts, especially to the 'prophets.' But in the period of St.

Paul's later activity, when he is facing the future of the church and has apparently ceased to expect an immediate return of Christ, these special gifts retire into the background, while the ordinary functions of government, and administration of the word and sacraments, remain in the position which they are permanently to occupy in the hands of regularly ordained officers.

Dr. Hort deals, as it seems to me, most unreasonably with the pastoral epistles. It is surely arbitrary to dissociate 'the gift which was in Timothy by the laying on of St. Paul's hands,' the gift of power, and love, and discipline; which Timothy is to 'stir up' (2 Tim. i. 6), from {271} that mentioned in the first epistle (iv. 14), 'the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbyters'; and to make the former a 'gift' of merely personal piety. And (even if the 'lay hands suddenly on no man' be interpreted, as Ellicott and Hort would interpret it, of the reception of a penitent) it seems absurd to doubt, in view of what is said about the laying on of hands in ordination of 'the seven' and of the 'evangelist' Timothy, and in view of the place it held generally for conveying spiritual gifts in the Christian Church, that this was the accepted method of ordination in all cases; there being in fact no evidence to the contrary.

Once more, Dr. Hort is surely maintaining an impossible position when, even in face of the salutation to the Philippians, he denies that the term 'episcopus' is used in the New Testament as a regular t.i.tle of an ecclesiastical office.

Not even Dr. Hort's reputation for soundness of judgement could stand against many posthumous publications such as _The Christian Ecclesia_.

[1] _Not_, as Dr. Hort points out (_Christian Ecclesia_, p. 5), 'the elect (called-out) people.' The word has in fact no such a.s.sociation attached to it.

[2] pp. 10, 11.

[3] Unless indeed, in Eph. iii. 21, we should understand 'every building' as meaning every local church which, fitted together with every other, grows into a holy temple, i.e. into that which only a really catholic church can be.

[4] The same statement would be true of St. Ignatius of Antioch.

[5] 1 Cor. vii. 17.

[6] 1 Cor. xi. 2, xv. 2.

[7] 1 Cor. ix. 17.

[8] 2 Cor. x. 8.

[9] 1 Cor. iv, 21.

[10] 1 Cor. xiv. 36; Gal. i. 8.