Full text of "St. Paul's Epistle to the Philippians; with introduction, notes, and dissertations"

See other formats

Semen Role : ἘΞ ΕΡΉΞΕΞΟΞΗ Σ ἘΞ :
frei eaht Gepee nates Κη στη aera Cpe BER eR er prmaeiey mea Sess

τὴν ᾿ a 2 a f psi ον ‘a : Z ae Ι: i. fi 4, . mest ra San MRIS ese 7
Peper Saeed z Σ δδεξεενεσ αι τοσοῦτος : Β ἜΡΓΟ τε Sais

SATS 23 or Haises ς fires = F she = Ἐ = ξ Se ῖς + Sara")

peeee. . ἢ οἰ ΣΟ οι δ αν RSI σεν τον, τ τ γ % =n Seosiererertyert ntact ad (Ἄς Ξε ΟΣ ς τ να το Ἶ Het ἀν τὴ

ΠΞΞΕΞΩΞ,

Stak)

er
Spi ἀχί ταν

pres aerated

Jools Sa ee le ee aD
Reale 3 PA GU καὶ μὰ ας ραν ΟΣ,

TOE PPT eter tent: 7
Sissi Υ ἢ

Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2008 with funding from
Microsoft Corporation

https://archive.org/details/stpaulsepistletoOOlighuoft

ey ve ut

THE EPISTLES OF ST PAUL.

11.
THE FIRST ROMAN CAPTIVITY.

EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

Saw Tate ee oes
ti δή δ f S

SSS ὶ

Φ
e

Cambridge

PRINTED BY C. J. CLAY,

M. A.

AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.

EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

A REVISED TEXT
WITH

INTRODUCTION, NOTES, AND DISSERTATIONS.

J’ BX LIGHTFOOT, D.D.

CANON OF ST PAUL'S;
HONORARY FELLOW OF TRINITY COLLEGE,
AND
HULSEAN PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY, CAMBRIDGE,

THIRD EDITION. —

London and Cambridae :
MACMILLAN AND CO.

1373.

MIMHTAI MOY γίνεοθε κἀθὼς κἀγὼ ypicToy.

Παῦλος γενόμενος μέγιστος ὑπογραμμός.
CLEMENT.

Οὐχ ὡς Παῦλος διατάσσομαι ὑμῖν᾽ ἐκεῖνος ἀπόστολος,
Ee , . 3 »» > , Ν Ὶ id col “
ἐγὼ κατάκριτος" ἐκεῖνος ἐλείθερος, ἐγὼ δὲ μέχρι νῦν δοῦλος.

IGNATIUS.

4 3} με , “
Οὔτε ἐγὼ οὔτε ἄλλος ὅμοιος ἐμοὶ δύναται κατακολουθῆσαι

τῇ σοφίᾳ τοῦ μακαρίου καὶ ἐνδόξου Παύλου.
POLYCARP.

PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION.

THE present volume is a second instalment of the commentary
on St Paul's Epistles, of which I sketched a plan in the preface
to my edition of the Galatians. At the same time it is in-
tended, like its predecessor, to be complete in itself; so that
the plan, as a whole, may be interrupted at any time without
detriment to the parts. |

Here again I have the pleasure of repeating my obligations
~ to the standard works of reference, and to those commentators,
both English and German, whose labours extend over both Epi-
stles and to whom I before acknowledged my debt of gratitude.
The special commentaries on this epistle are neither so nume-
rous nor so important, as on the former. The best, with which
I am acquainted, are those of Van Hengel, of Rilhet, and of
Eadie ; but to these I am not conscious of any direct obligation
which is not acknowledged in its proper place. I have also
consulted from time to time several other more or less important
works on this epistle, which it will be unnecessary to specify,
as they either lay no claim to originality or for other reasons

have furnished no material of which I could avail myself.

vi Preface.

It is still a greater gratification to me to renew my thanks
to personal friends, who have assisted me with their suggestions
and corrections ; and to one more especially whose aid has been
freely given in correcting the proof-sheets of this volume
throughout.

The Epistle to the Philippians presents an easier task to an
editor than almost any of St Paul’s Epistles. The readings are
for the most part obvious; and only in a few passages does he
meet with very serious difficulties of interpretation. I have
taken advantage of this circumstance to introduce some inves-
tigations bearing on St Paul’s Epistles and on Apostolic Chris-
tianity generally, by which this volume is perhaps swollen to an
undue bulk, but which will proportionally relieve its successors.
Thus the dissertation on the Christian ministry might well
have been left for another occasion; but the mention of ‘ bishops
and deacons’ in the opening of this letter furnished a good text
for the discussion; and the Pastoral Epistles, which deal more
directly with questions relating to the ministerial office, will de-
mand so much space for the solution of other difficulties, that it
seemed advisable to anticipate and dispose of this important
subject.

In the dissertation on ‘St Paul and the Three,’ attached to
the Epistle to the Galatians, I endeavoured to sketch the atti-
tude of the Apostle towards Judaism and Judaic Christianity.
In the present volume the discussion on St Paul and Seneca is
offered as an attempt to trace the relations of the Gospel to a
second form of religious thought—the most imposing system
of heathen philosophy with which the Apostle was brought
directly in contact. And on a later occasion, if this commentary
should ever be extended to the Epistle to the Colossians, I hope

to add yet a third chapter to this history in an essay on ‘ Chris-

Preface. vil

tianity and Gnosis.’ These may be considered the three most
important types of dogmatic and systematized religion (whether
within or without the pale of Christendom) with which St Paul
was confronted.

As we lay down the Epistle to the Galatians and take up
the Epistle to the Philippians, we cannot fail to be struck by
the contrast. We have passed at once from the most dogmatic
to the least dogmatic of the Apostle’s letters, and the transition
is instructive. If in the one the Gospel is presented in its op-
position to an individual form of error, in the other it appears
as it is in itself. The dogmatic element in the Galatians is due

‘to special circumstances and bears a special character; while
on the other hand the Philippian Epistle may be taken to ex-
hibit the normal type of the Apostle’s teaching, when not deter-
mined and limited by mdividual circumstances, and thus to
present the essential substance of the Gospel. Dogmatic forms
are the buttresses or the scaffold-poles of the building, not the
building itself.

But, if the Epistle to the Philippians serves to correct one
false conception of Christianity, it is equally impressive as a
protest against another. In the natural reaction against excess
of dogma, there is a tendency to lay the whole stress of the
Gospel on its ethical precepts. For instance men will often
tacitly assume, and even openly avow, that its kernel is contained
in the Sermon on the Mount. This conception may perhaps
seem more healthy in its impulse and more directly practical in
its aim; but in fact it is not less dangerous even to morality than
the other: for, when the sources of life are cut off, the stream will
cease to flow. Certainly this is not St Paul’s idea of the Gospel
as it appears in the Epistle to the Philippians. If we would

learn what he held to be its essence, we must ask ourselves

viii Preface.

what is the significance of such phrases as ‘I desire you in the
heart of Jesus Christ,’ ‘To me to live is Christ,’ ‘That I may
know the power of Christ’s resurrection,’ ‘I have all strength in
Christ that giveth me power.’ Though the Gospel is capable
of doctrinal exposition, though it is eminently fertile in moral
results, yet its substance is neither a dogmatic system nor an

ethical code, but a Person and a Life.

Triyiry Coneas,
July ist, 1868.

CONTENTS.

INTRODUCTION.
PAGE

BOS iO TID UOTE canieae acca cescconeveseusstenuezss>oonessieees I—28
11. Order of the Epistles of the Captivity.......cccccoccsscees 290—45
UE ΟΣ OF PUUUDIY sisicccsedscsscecdesocsecodsaoscets 46—64
IV. Character and Contents of the Epistle ...ccsccsceceseees 65—72
The Genuineness of the Epistle ........csceccccscoecees 73—76

TEXT AND NOTES.
BN Peer tsa ea ec cipeence sth taaacesdecscaceeneesies vasavowaveswvacvaiusen 79—92
The synonymes ‘bishop’ and ‘presbyter’ ......ceseeeees 93—97
The meaning of ‘ pretoriumMm?’ IN i. 13..0.sceseceseceeesons 97—102
Be pee Ta NAS Roars s ὑοοτουευνονο τονε Ατ το το 103—124
The synonymes μορφὴ ANA CYTpds.ccsscssescseseeeesevesee 125—131

Different interpretations of οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο. 131—135
Lost Epistles to the Philippians ?.....sscressceceseseeees 136—140

x Contents.

PAGE

ΠΣ τ ANG GAS es Sach τ ΤΣ vasceanssestsateenasudes ab ener το τοῦδ: I41—165

“Clement my fellow-labourer’.......cccccscevscsecssseesaes 166—169

CUBSATS πποΠ'ή τ τοτὖὸ--. 169—176
DISSERTATIONS.

1 <2he-Christian Minisiry eee ee ee 179—267

ΤΙ δ. Paul and Seneca κι σι vee pat ee eee 268—326

The Letters of Paul and Seneca ...........060c000 327—331

ST PAUL IN ROME.

‘ie arrival of St Paul in the metropolis marks a new and St Paul’s
Ε 5 : “as isit ὦ
important epoch in the history of the Christian Church. Sane

Hitherto he had come in contact with Roman institutions 7 the re-

lations be-

modified by local circumstances and administered by subordi- pipe
; : ς ᾿ Jospelan
nate officers in the outlying provinces of the Empire. Now he the Em-

: : ire.
was in the very centre and focus of Roman influence ; and from -

this time forward neither the policy of the government nor the
character of the reigning prince was altogether a matter of
indifference to the welfare of Christianity. The change of
scene had brought with it a change in the mutual relations
between the Gospel and the Empire. They were now occupy-
ing the same ground, and a collision was inevitable. Up to
this time the Apostle had found rather an ally than an enemy
in a power which he had more than once successfully invoked
against the malignity of his fellow-countrymen. This _pre-
carious alliance was henceforward exchanged for direct, though
intermittent, antagonism. The Empire, which in one of his
earlier epistles he would seem to have taken as the type of
that restraining power which kept Antichrist m check’, was
itself now assuming the character of Antichrist. When St
Paul appealed from the tribunal of the Jewish procurator to
the court of Cesar, he attracted the notice and challenged the
hostility of the greatest power which the world had ever seen.
The very emperor, to whom the appeal was made, bears the
1 2 Thess. il. 6, 7.
PHIL. I

ST PAUL IN ROME.

The Nero- ignominy of the first systematic persecution of the Christians ;

nian per-
secution ἃ
conse-
quence.

St Paul’s
sense of
the im-

and thus commenced the long struggle, which raged for
several centuries, and ended in establishing the Gospel on the
ruins of the Roman Empire. It was doubtless the impulse
given to the progress of Christianity by the presence of its
greatest preacher in the metropolis, which raised the Church in
Rome to a position of prominence, and made it a mark for the
wanton attacks of the tyrant. Its very obscurity would have
shielded it otherwise. The preaching of Paul was the necessary
antecedent to the persecution of Nero.

It is probable that the Apostle foresaw the importance of
his decision, when he transferred his cause to the tribunal of

portanceof Cegar, There is a significant force in his declaration at an

this visit.

Its promi-

nence in
St Luke’s
narrative.

Aspect of
affairs
when

St Paul
arrived.

earlier date, that he ‘must see Rome’’ It had long been his
‘earnest desire?’ to visit the imperial city, and he had been —
strengthened in this purpose by a heavenly vision®. To pre-
pare the way for his visit he had addressed to the Roman
Church a letter containing a more complete and systematic
exposition of doctrine than he ever committed to writing before
or after. And now, when the moment has arrived, the firm
and undaunted resolution, with which in defiance of policy he
makes his appeal, bears testimony to the strength of his convic-
tion, The sacred historian takes pains to emphasize this
visit to Rome. He doubtless echoes the feeling of St Paul
himself, when he closes his record with a notice of the Apostle’s
success in the metropolis, deeming this the fittest termination
to his narrative, as the virtual and prospective realisation of
our Lord’s promise placed in its forefront, that the Apostles
should be His witnesses to ‘the uttermost part of the earth*’

It was probably in the early spring of the year 61, that
St Paul arrived in Rome®. The glorious five years, which
ushered in the reign of Nero amidst the acclamations of a

1 Acts xix. 21. 4 Acts xxv. II.

? Rom. i. 1o—16, xv. 22—24, 28, 29, 5 Actsi. 8. See Lekebusch Aposte-
32, ἐπιποθῶ, ἐπιποθίαν ἔχων. geschichte p. 227 54.

3 Acts xxiii. rr ‘So must thou bear 6 See Wieseler Chronol. p. 66 sq.

witness also at Rome.’

ST PAUL IN ROME.

grateful people, and which later ages recalled with wistful
regret, as an ideal of imperial rule’, had now drawn to a close.
The unnatural murder of Agrippina had at length revealed the
true character of Nero. Burrus and Seneca, it is true, still
lingered at the head of affairs: but their power was waning.
Neither the blunt honesty of the soldier nor the calm modera-
tion of the philosopher could hold their ground any longer
against the influence of more subtle and less scrupulous coun-
sellors.

Lop)

‘At Rome the Apostle remained for ‘two whole years, Bean of

preaching the Gospel without interruption, though preaching it; pea

in bonds. By specifying this period? St Luke seems to imply
that at its close there was some change in the outward condition
of the prisoner. This change can hardly have been any other
than the approach of his long-deferred trial, which ended, as
there is good ground for believing’, in his acquittal and release.
At all events he must have been liberated before July 64, if
liberated at all. The great fire which then devastated Rome
became the signal for an onslaught on the unoffending Chris-
tians; and one regarded as the ringleader of the hated sect
could hardly have escaped the general massacre.

It will appear strange that so long an interval was allowed Probable

to elapse before the trial came on. But while the defend

ant ἢ the delay

had no power to hasten the tardy course of justice, the accusers °f his trial.

were interested in delaying it. They must have foreseen

plainly enough the acquittal of a prisoner whom the provincial

1 Aurel. Vict. Ces. 5 ‘UtimeritoTra- end alike, as they had begun alike. (2)

janus sepius testaretur procul differre
cunctos principes Neronis quinquennio.’

2 Acts xxviii. 30, 31. The inference
in the text will not hold, if, as some
suppose, St Luke’s narrative was ac-
cidentally broken off and terminates
abruptly. From this view however I
dissent for two reasons. (1) A compa-
rison with the closing sentences of the
Gospel shows a striking parallelism in
the plan of the two narratives; they

The success of St Paul’s preaching in
Rome is a fitter termination to the his-
tory than any other incident which
could have beenchosen. It is the most
striking realisation of that promise of
the universal spread of the Gospel,
which is the starting-point of the nar-
rative.

3 The discussion of this question is
reserved for the introduction to the
Pastoral Epistles,

I—2

Indolence
of Nero.

ST PAUL IN ROME.

governor himself had declared to be innocent’. If they wished
to defer the issue, the collection of evidence was a sufficient
St Paul

was charged with stirring up sedition among ‘all the Jews

plea to urge in order to obtain an extension of time”.
throughout the world®. From the whole area therefore, over
which his labours had extended, witnesses must be summoned.
In this way two years might easily run out before the prisoner
appeared for judgment. But more potent probably, than any
formal plea, was the indolence or the caprice of the emperor
himself *, who frequently postponed the hearing of causes inde-
finitely without any assignable reason, and certainly would not
put himself out to do justice to a despised provinctal, labouring
under a perplexing charge connected with some ‘foreign super-
stition. If St Paul had lingered in close confinement for two
years under Felix, he might well be eontent to remaim under

1 Acts Xxv. 12,25; COMP. XXV1. 31,32.

2 Two cases in point are quoted, as
occurring about this time. Tac. Ann.
xiii. 52 ‘ Silvanum magna vis accusa-
torum circumsteterat, poscebatque tem-
pus eyocandorum testium : reus illico
defendi postulabat.’ Silvanus had been
proconsul of Africa, Also we are told
of Suillius, who was accused of pecula-
tion in the government of Asia, Ann.
xii. 43 ‘Quia inquisitionem annuam
impetraverunt, brevius visum [sub- Jur-
bana crimina incipi quorum obyii testes
erant.’ In both these cases the accusers
petition for an extension of the period,
while it is the interest of the defendant
to be tried at once. In the second ease
a year is demanded and allowed for col-
lecting evidence, though the crimes in
question are confined to his tenure of
office and to the single province of
‘Asia.’ On the whole subject see Wie-
seler, Chronol. 407 sq., who has fully
discussed the possible causes of delay.
Compare also Conybeare and Howson
It. p. 462 sq. (2nd ed.),.

3 Acts xxiv. 5 πᾶσι rots ᾿Ιουδαίοις

τοῖς κατὰ τὴν οἰκουμένην.

4 Josephus (Ant. xviii. 6. 5) says of
Tiberius, whom he describes as μελλητὴς
εἰ καί τις ἑτέρων βασιλέων ἢ τυράννων
γενόμενος, that he deferred the trial of
prisoners indefinitely in order to pro-
long their tortures. Nero seems to have
been almost as dilatory, though more
from recklessness and indolence than
from deliberate purpose. The case of
the priests accused by Felix (see below,
p- 5, note 4) illustrates this. Felix
ceased to be procurator in the year 60:
yet they were still prisoners in 63 or 64,
and were only then liberated at-the in-
tercession of Josephus. For the date
see Clinton Fasti Rom. τ. pp. 23, 45, 77.

Geib Geschichte des rémischen Crimé-
nalprocesses etc. p. 691, speaking of
causes tried before the emperor, de-
scribes the practice of the early Caesars
as so ‘unsteady and capricious in all re-
pects,’ that no definite rule can be laid
down: ‘Erst in der spaiteren Kaiser-
zeit,’ he adds, ‘ist dieses anders gewor-
den und zwar namentlich hinsichtlich
des Appellationsyerfahrens.’ Similarly

ST PAUL IN ROME.,

less irksome restraints for an equal length of time, awaiting
the pleasure of Czesar.

Meanwhile events occurred at Rome which shook society to Stirring
its foundations. The political horizon was growing every day a a
darker’. Death deprived Nero of his most upright adviser in
the person of Burrus the prefect of the preetorians. The office
thus vacated was handed over to Tigellinus, with whom was
associated as colleague the feeble and insignificant Rufus. By
the death of Burrus the influence of Seneca was effectually
broken’; and, though the emperor refused to consent to his
retirement, his part in the direction of affairs was henceforth
merely nominal. At the same time the guilty career of Nero
culminated in the divorce and death of Octavia; and the cruel
and shameless Poppea became the emperor's consort in her
stead. With a strange inconsistency of character, which would
atone for profligate living by a fervour of religious devotion,
and of which that age especially was fertile im examples, she
had become ἃ proselyte to Judaism*, and more than once advo-
cated the cause of her adopted race before the emperor with
zeal and success ἡ,
Laboulaye Lois Criminelles des Ro- 348 (2nd ed.).
mains p.444, ‘Sous les premiers Césars 4 It is not irrelevant to relate two
tout se fit sans régle et sans mesure,et incidents which occurred at this time,
il ne faut pas chercher ἃ cette époque as they illustrate the nature of the com-
de systtme régulier,’ ete. Thereisno munication kept up between the Jews

trace of a statutable limitation of time and the imperial court, and the sort of
(prescriptie) applying to the imperial influence which Poppa exerted on the

tribunal at this epoch. affairs of this people.
1 Tac. Ann. xiv. 51 ‘ Gravescentibus (1) Felix, while procurator of Ju-
indies publicis malis.’ dea, had brought a trivial charge
2 Tac. Ann. xiv. 52 ‘Mors Burri in- against certain Jewish priests, and sent
fregit Senec potentiam.’ them to Rome to plead their cause be-

3 Joseph, Antiq. xx. 8. 11 θεοσεβὴς fore Cesar. Here they were kept ina
γὰρ ἦν, i.e. a worshipper of the true lingering captivity, living on the hard-
God, a proselytess. In connexion with est fare, but remaining faithful in their
this fact the notice of her burial is re- allegiance to the God of their fathers.
markable; Tac. Ann. xvi. 6 ‘Corpus The historian Josephus, to whom these
non igni abolitum, ut Romanus mos; priests were known, then a young man,
sed regum externorum consuetudine undertook a journey to Rome for the
differtum odoribus conditur ete.’ See purpose of procuring their liberation.
Friedlander Sittengeschichte Romst.p. Like St Paul he was shipwrecked in

not un-
known to

St. Paul.

His silence
explained.

ST PAUL IN ROME.

How far the personal condition of St Paul, or his prospects ᾿
at the approaching trial, may have been affected by these two
changes, I shall have to consider hereafter. At all events he
camot have been ignorant of such stirring incidents. His
enforced companionship with the soldiers of the pretorian
guard must have kept him informed of all changes in the
administration of the camp. His intimacy with the members
of Czesar’s household must have brought to his hearing the
intrigues and crimes of the imperial court. It is strange
therefore, that in the epistles written from Rome during this
period there is not’ any, even the faintest, reference to events
so notorious in history. Strange at least at first sight. But
the Apostle would not venture to risk his personal safety, or
the cause which he advocated, by perilous allusions in letters
Nor
indeed is it probable that he was under any temptation to
allude to them. He did not breathe the atmosphere of political

which from their very nature must be made public.

life; he was absorbed in higher interests and anxieties. With
the care of all the churches daily pressing upon him, with a
deep sense of the paramount importance of his personal mission,

the Adriatic, and like him he also
landed at Puteoli. Arrived at Rome,
he was introduced to Poppa by a cer-
tain Jew, Aliturus by name, an actor
of mimes, who wasin great favour with
Nero. The empress not only advocated
the cause which he had at heart and
procured the liberation of his friends,
but sent him back to his native country
laden with presents (Joseph. Vit. § 3).
This took place in the year 63 or 64,
and was therefore nearly, if not quite,
coincident with St Paul’s residence in
Rome.

(2) The second incident almost cer-
tainly occurred while the Apostle was in
the metropolis. The king’s palace at
Jerusalem stood in the immediate neigh-
bourhood of the temple. Agrippa had
recently built a lofty tower, which en-
abled him to overlook the sacred en-

closure and to witness the performance
of the holyrites. This was an outrage
on Jewish feeling, as well as a breach of
immemorial custom, and was resented
accordingly. The Jews erected a coun-
terwall, which exeluded all view from
the royal residence. Festus the procu-
rator took the side of the king and or-
dered the demolition of this wall; but
afterwards yielded so far as to allow
the Jews to refer the case to Nero. An
embassy was accordingly sent to Rome,
composed of twelve persons including
Ismael the high-priest and Helcias the
treasurer. Poppsea interested herself
in the success of their mission, and in
deference to her entreaties the emperor
allowed the wall to stand (Joseph. Ant.
ἘΣ (4 ΠΩΣ

It is suggested (Conybeare and How-
son 11. ἢ. +62), that this embassy may

ST PAUL IN ROME. Zi

with a near and fervid anticipation of his own dissolution and
union with Christ, if not of the great and final crisis when
heaven and earth themselves shall pass away, it is not sur-
prising that all minor events, all transitory interests, should be
merged in those more engrossing thoughts. His life—so he
himself writing from Rome describes the temper of the true
believer—his life was hidden with Christ in God’.

The degree of restraint put upon a person labouring under Character

a criminal charge was determined by various circumstances ; by eee
the nature of the charge itself, by the rank and reputation of
the accused, by the degree of guilt presumed to attach to him.
Those most leniently dealt with were handed over to their
friends, who thus became sureties for their appearance; the
worst offenders were thrown into prison and loaded with
chains’. The captivity of St Paul at Rome was neither the
severest nor the lightest possible.

By his appeal to Cvsar* he had placed himself at the
emperor's disposal. Accordingly on his arrival in Rome he is
delivered over to the commander of the imperial guards, the
prefect of the pretorians*, under whose charge he appears to

have been entrusted with the prosecu-
tion of St Paul. It seems at least
certain, that the ambassadors arrived
in Rome while the Apostle was still a
prisoner there; since Festus had ceased
to be procurator before the autumn of
62: but beyond the coincidence of date
all is conjecture. In any case the
friendly meeting of Festus and Agrippa,
related in the Acts, may have had refer-
ence to this dispute about Agrippa’s
building: and if so, the incident links
together the accusation of St Paul and
the complaint against Agrippa.

Ἐ Col, iis 2:

2 On the different kinds of custodia,
roughly distinguished as libera, publica,
and militaris, but admitting various
modifications, see Geib p. 561 sq.,
Wieseler Chronol. p. 380 sq., 394 Sq.

The custody of St Paul belongs to the
last of the three.

9. In republican times a difference
was made between ‘ provocatio’ and
‘appellatio.’ The former was a refer-
ence to the populus, the latter to the
tribunes. On the other hand, the ap-
peal to the emperor was called indiffer-
ently ‘provocatio’ or ‘ appellatio’ ; for
he combined all functions in himself.
The latter term however seems to have
been the more common. On this sub-
ject consult Geib p. 675 sq., Rein Das
Privatrecht ete. p. 960. Krebs, Opuse.
p- 135 8q., has an essay De provocatione
1). Pauli ad Cesarem; which however
does not contain any important matter.

* Acts xxvill. 16 παρέδωκεν τοὺς
δεσμίους τῷ στρατοπεδάρχῃ, i.e. to the
‘preefectus pretorio’ or ‘prefectus pre-

ST PAUL IN ROME.

Heisin have remained throughout his captivity. He represents him-

bonds, but

self as strictly a prisoner: he speaks again and again of his

bonds’.

: : : aie
ing the ‘ coupling-chain”™.

At times he uses more precise language, mention-
According to Roman custom he was

bound by the hand to the soldier who guarded him, and was

never left alone day or night. As the soldiers would relieve

guard in constant succession, the preetorians one by one were
brought into communication with the ‘ prisoner of Jesus Christ,’

tori,’ for both cases are found in in-
scriptions. From the use of the singu-
lar here it has been argued with much
probability that the officer in question
was Burrus. He held the prefecture
alone, whereas both before and after
his time the office was shared by two
persons: see Tac. Ann. Xil. 42,
51. For the changes which this office
underwent at different times, consult
Becker and Marquardt Rim, Alterth.
I. 3, p. 286. With the singular here
contrast the plural in Trajan’s letter,
Plin. Ep. x. 65 ‘ Vinctus mitti ad pre-
fectos pretori mei debet,’ and in Phi-
lostr. Vit. Soph. 11. 32 ἀνεπέμφθη eis

XIV.

τὴν Ῥώμην ws ἀπολογησόμενος τοῖς τῶν
see Wieseler
Chronol. p. 88. The whole clause how-
ever is rejected by most recent editors,
as the balanee of existing authorities is
very decidedly against it. On the other
hand the statement does not look like
an arbitrary fiction, and may contain a
genuine tradition, even if it was no pari
of the original text.

1 He ealls himself δέσμιος, Acts
XXvili. 17, Philem. 1, 9, Ephes. ii. 1,
iv. r; his δεσμοὶ are mentioned Phil. i.
7, 13, 14, 17, Philem. τὸ; 13, Coloss.
iv. 18; comp. Coloss. iv, 3 δι᾽ ὃ (or ὃν)
καὶ δέδεμαι.

στρατοπέδων ἡγεμόσιν:

2 ἅλυσις, Ephes. vi. 20 ὑπὲρ οὗ πρεσ-
βεύω ἐν ἁλύσει, Acts xxvill. 20 τὴν
The word
seems originally to differ from δεσμοί,
only as bringing out the idea of attach-

“" ,
ἄλυσιν ταύτην περίκειμαι.

ment rather than confinement. After-
wards however it signifies especially
‘hand-fetters ’ (manicz), as opposed to
πέδαι (pedice); Mark y. 4 πέδαις καὶ
ἁλύσεσιν δεδέσθαι, Kal διεσπάσθαι ὑπ᾽ av-
τοῦ τὰς ἁλύσεις καὶ τὰς πέδας συντετρί-
ῴφθαι. Meyer indeed denies this dis-
tinction: but the words διεσπάσθαι,
συντετρίφθαι, if taken to denote the ac-
tion of the hands and feet respectively,
are much more expressive; and the dis-
tinction of ἁλύσεις and πέδαι seems Cer-
tainly to be observed elsewhere, e.g.
Polyb. iii. 82. 8, Dion, Hal. Ant. Rom.
vi, 26, 27: comp. Plut. Mor. p. 829 4
ταῖς χερσὶν ἁλύσεις. In Aristoph. Fragnt.
(Meineke 11. p. 1079), where both adv-
ces and πέδαι are mentioned as ladies’
ornaments, the former are perhaps
‘bracelets’ or ‘ cuffs’: see also Nicostr.
Fragm. (ib. 11. p. 289). Hence the
word is used especially of the ‘coupling-
chain,’ ‘hand-cuff,’ by which the pri-
soner was attached to his guard, as in
the case of Agrippa, Joseph. Ant. xviii.
6. 7,10. Compare the metaphor in Lu-
cian, Quom. hist. conser. § 55 ἐχόμε-
νον αὐτοῦ καὶ ἁλύσεως τρόπῳ (τρόπον)
συνηρμοσμένον, With Senec. Epist. i. 5
‘Quemadmodum eadem catena et cus-
todiam et militem copulat.’ See a simi-
lar use in Plutarch, Vit. Mar. 27 ἦσαν
ὑπὲρ τοῦ μὴ διασπᾶσθαι τὴν τάξιν οἱ
πρόμαχοι μακραῖς ἀλύσεσι συνεχόμενοι.
When the confinement was very rigo-
rous, the prisoner was bound to two
soldiers. This was the case with St

ST PAUL IN ROME. 9

and thus he was able to affirm that his bonds had borne
witness to the Gospel ‘throughout the imperial regiments’

On the other hand, the severity of his confinement was not enjoys
so great as this circumstance standing alone might seem to ee
imply. It is certain that all had free access to him, and that he Py:
was allowed to converse and write without restraint. He was

When
he first arrived, he was taken to temporary lodgings; either to
a house of public entertainment, or to the abode of some friend’.
But afterwards he rented a dwelling of his own’, and there he

remained apparently till his release.

not thrown into prison, but lhved in rooms of his own.

A natural desire has been felt to determine a locality so
fraught with interest as St Paul’s abode in Rome. Some have St Paul’s
imagined him a prisoner within the barracks attached to the Sena
imperial residence on the Palatine. Others have fixed his
dwelling-place in the great camp, the head-quarters of the pree-
torians, without the walls to the north-east of the city. The

former conjecture seems hardly consistent with the mention of

his own hired house.

Peter, Acts xii. 6 κοιμώμενος μεταξὺ
δύο στρατιωτῶν δεδεμένος ἁλύσεσιν δυσίν.
Such had also been St Paul’s condition
during the early days of his captivity
at Jerusalem: Acts xxi. 33. A relaxa-
tion of the rigour of his earlier impri-
sonment is mentioned Acts xxiy. 23.
On this whole subject see Wieseler
Chronol. p. 380 sq. When Ignatius,
Rom. 5, speaks of himself as ἐνδεδεμένος
δέκα λεοπάρδοις 6 ἐστιν στρατιωτικὸν
τάγμα, we must understand that he was
in charge of a company of ten, who
successively relieved guard, so that he
was attached to one at a time.

1 Phil. i. 13 ἐν ὅλῳ τῷ πραιτωρίῳ.

2 Acts xxviii. 23 els τὴν ξενίαν. Sui-
das explains ξενίαν by καταγώγιον, κα-
τάλυμα, and similarly Hesychius; comp.
Clem. Hom. i. 15 ἐπιβάντος μου τῆς γῆς
καὶ ξενίαν θηρωμένου, Vili. 2, Xll. 24,
xiv. 1, 8. On the other hand Philem.

The latter is less unlikely, for the camp

22 ἑτοίμαζέ μοι ξενίαν rather suggests a
lodging in afriend’s house: comp. Acts
xxi. 16.

3 Acts xxvili. 30 ἐνέμεινεν διετίαν ὅλην
ἐν ἰδίῳ μισθώματι, Where ἰδίῳ seems cer-
tainly to distinguish the μίσθωμα here
from the ξενία above. The word μίσθωμα
elsewhere signifies ‘hire,’ being used
especially in a bad sense of shameful
wages, e.g. Deut. xxiii. 18. Hence
Philo in Flace. p.536 M μετὰ τὸν ἐπάρ-
ατον μισθόν, ἢ κυριώτερον εἰπεῖν, τὸ μί-
σθωμα: comp. Ailian V. Η. iv. 12.
The sense, which it has here, is not re-
cognised by the Greek lexicographers,
nor can 1 find any other instance.
Wetstein indeed quotes ἐν μισθώματι
οἰκεῖν as from Philo, but gives no refer-
ence, and I suspect there is a mistake.
This exceptional meaning of μίσθωμα
may perhaps be explained as a trans-
lation of the Latin ‘conductum.’

10 ST PAUL IN ROME.

was large and might have contained within its precincts lodgings
rented by prisoners under military custody. Yet the reference
to the ‘ preetorium’ does not require this, and the circumstances
seem naturally to poimt to a separate dwelling. Within the
camp then his abode may have been, near to the camp it pro-
bably was, for in the choice of a locality the convenience of the
soldiers in relieving guard would naturally be consulted’.

Thus mitigated, his captivity did not materially impede the
progress of his missionary work. On the contrary he himself
regarded his bonds as a powerful agency in the spread of the
Gospel. Beyond the dreary monotony of his situation, which
might well have crushed a spirit unsustained by his lofty hopes
and consolations, he was not very hardly treated. It was at
least an alleviation, that no restriction was placed on the visits
of his friends.

Friends Of these friends not a few names might be supplied by con-

ΠΕΊΘΗΙ an jecture from the long list of salutations in the Epistle to the
Romans. Did he fall in once again with Aquila and Priscilla,
his fellow-artisans and fellow-sufferers, who ‘for his life had
laid down their own necks’*? Did he still find in Rome his
countrymen, perhaps his kinsmen, Andronicus and Junias and
Herodion*? Did he experience once more the tender care of
the mother of Rufus, who in times past had treated him as her
own son*? Did he renew his intimacy with those former friends
of whom he speaks with affectionate warmth, Epznetus his
well-beloved, Urbanus his helper in Christ, Mary who laboured
much for him, Amplias, Stachys, Persis??

Of Roman residents however, beyond a general reference to
the members of Czsar’s household’, he makes no mention in
his letters written from the metropolis. They would probably

His perso- be unknown to his distant correspondents. But of occasional
naloomP® visitors in Rome, his converts or his colleagues in the Gospel, the

1 See the detached note on the mean- 4 Rom. xvi. 13.
ing of ‘pretorium’ in i, 13. > Rom. xvi. 5, 6, 8, 9, 12.
2 Rom. xvi. 3. SUPiilpiverzz.

3 Rom. xvi. 7, 11

ST PAUL IN ROME.

companions of his travels and the delegates of foreign churches, nions and

not a few are named. His youthful disciple and associate
Timotheus, the best beloved of his spiritual sons, seems to have
been with him durig the whole or nearly the whole of his
Another friend also, who had shared with him the
perils of the voyage, Luke ‘the beloved physician? now his
fellow-labourer and perhaps his medical attendant, hereafter his
biographer, is constantly by his side’.

captivity’.

His two favourite Mace-
donian churches are well represented among his companions:
Philippi despatches Epaphroditus with pecuniary aid, welcome
to him as a relief of his wants but doubly welcome as a token
of their devoted love*®: Aristarchus is present from Thessalonica*,
a tried associate, who some years before had imperilled his life
with St Paul at Ephesus® and now shared his captivity at Rome®.
Delegates from the Asiatic churches too were with him: Ty-
chicus’, a native of the Roman province of Asia and probably of
Ephesus its capital*®, the Apostle’s companion both in earlier
and later days’: and Epaphras the evangelist of his native
Colossze, who came to consult St Paul on the dangerous heresies
then threatening this and the neighbouring churches over

which he watched with intense anxiety". Besides these were

1 His name appears in the opening
salutations of the Epistles to the Phil-
ippians, Colossians, and Philemon:
compare also Phil. ii. rg—23. It may
perhaps be inferred from St Luke’s
silence, Acts xxvii. 2, that Timotheus
did not accompany St Paul on his jour-
ney to Rome, but joined him soon after
his arrival.

2 Col. iv. 14, Philem. 24.

3 Phil. ii. 25—30, iv. 14—18. See
below, p. 60.
4 Col. iv. το, Philem. 24. On the

notice of Aristarchus in Acts xxvii. 2,
see below, p. 34, note 2.

® Acts xix, 29.

δ In Col. iv. το, St Paul styles him ὁ
συναιχμάλωτός pov. Perhaps however
this may refer to the incident at Ephe-

sus already alluded to (Acts xix. 29).
Or does it signify a spiritual subjection
(αἰχμαλωσία, Rom. vil. 23, 2 Cor. x. 5,
Ephes. iv. 8), so that it may be com-
pared with σύνδουλος (Col. i. 7, iv. 7),
and συνστρατιώτης (Phil. 11, 25, Philem.
2)? St Paul uses the term συναιχμά-
Awros also of Epaphras (Philem. 23),
and of his ‘kinsmen’ Andronicus and
Junias or Junia (Rom. xvi. 7).

7 Ephes. vi. 21, Col. iv. 7.

8: Acts xx. 4, 2 Tim. iva 12.) He is
mentioned together with Trophimus,
Acts 1]. 6., and Trophimus was an Ephe-
sian, ib. xxi. 29.

9 Acts xx. 4, 2 Tim. iy. 12: comp. Tit.
iii, 12. Perhaps also he is one of the
anonymous brethren in 2 Cor, viii.18, 22.

10) ΠΟΙ ἄν. τοὶ

other asso-
ciates.

St Paul's

correspon-
dence with

foreign

Churches.

ST PAUL IN ROME.

other friends old and new: one pair especially, whose names are
linked together by contrast; John Mark who, having deserted
in former years, has now returned to his post and is once more
a loyal soldier of Christ’; and Demas, as yet faithful to his
allegiance, who hereafter will turn renegade and desert the
Apostle in his sorest need*. To these must be added a disciple
of the Circumcision, whose surname ‘the just’* proclaims his
devotion to his former faith—one Jesus, to us a name only, but
to St Paul much more than a name, for amidst the general
defection of the Jewish converts he stood by the Apostle almost
alone*. Lastly, there was Philemon’s runaway slave Onesimus,
‘not now a slave, but above a slave, a brother beloved,’ whose
career is the most touching episode in the apostolic history and
the noblest monument of the moral power of the Gospel’.
These friendships supported him under the ‘care of all the
churches,’ which continued to press upon him in his captivity
not.less heavily than before. The epistles of this period bear
testimony alike to the breadth and the intensity of his sym-
pathy with others. The Church of Philippi which he had
himself planted and watered, and the Church of Colossz with
which he had no personal acquaintance, alike claim and receive
his fatherly advice. The temporal interests of the imdividual
slave, and the spiritual well-being of the collective Churches of
Asia®, are equally the objects of his care. Yet these four epi-
stles which alone survive, must represent very inadequately the
extent of the demands made upon his time and energies at this
period. There is no notice here of Thessalonica, none of Corinth,
none of the churches of Syria, of his own native Cilicia, of
Lycaonia and Pisidia and Galatia. It is idle to speculate on
the possibility of lost epistles: but, whether by his letters or
by his delegates, we cannot doubt that these brotherhoods,

1 Col. iv. 10, Philem. 24: comp. 2 4 Col. iv. rr.
ΠΤ εἴν 1. 5 Col. iv. g, and Philem. ro sq.

? Col. iv. 14, Philem. 24: comp. 2 ὁ The Epistle to the Ephesians seems
Tim. iv. ro. to have been a circular letter to the

3 See Galatians p. 348, note 1. Asiatic Churches,

ST PAUL IN ROME. 13

which had a special claim upon him as their spiritual father,
received their due share of attention from this ‘prisoner of
Jesus Christ.’

But it was on Rome especially that he would concentrate Existing
his energies: Rome, which for years past he had longed to see ΕΝ
with an intense longing: the common sink of all the worst Church.
vices of humanity’, and therefore the noblest sphere for evan-
gelical zeal. Here he would find a wider field and a richer soil,
than any which had hitherto attracted him. But the ground
had not lain altogether fallow. There was already a large and
flourishing Church, a mixed community of Jew and Gentile
converts, founded, it would seem, partly by his own companions
and disciples, partly by teachers commissioned directly from
Palestine and imbued with the strongest prejudices of their
race; a heterogeneous mass, with diverse feelings and sympa-
thies, with no well-defined organization, with no other bond of
union than the belief in a common Messiah; gathering, we may
suppose, for purposes of worship in small knots here and there,
as close neighbourhood or common nationality or sympathy or
accident drew them together; but, as a body, lost in the vast
masses of the heathen population, and only faintly discerned or
contemptuously ignored even by the large community of Jewish
residents.

With the nucleus of a Christian Church thus ready to hand, Success of
but needing to be instructed and consolidated, with an enor- ae
mous outlying population of unconverted Jews and Gentiles to Rome.
be gathered into the fold, the Apostle entered upon his work.
Writing to the Romans three years before, he had expressed his
assurance that, when he visited them, he would ‘come in the
fulness of the blessing of Christ’. There is every reason to
believe that this confidence was justified by the event. The
notice, with which the narrative of St Luke closes, implies no
small measure of success. The same may be inferred from

1 Tac. Ann. xv. 44 ‘Quo cuncta ing of the spread of Christianity in

undique atrocia aut pudenda conflu- Rome.
unt celebranturque.’ Tacitus is speak- 2? Rom, ΧΥ͂. 29.

St Paul
addresses
himself

first to the

Jews,

ST PAUL IN ROME.

allusions in St Paul’s own epistles and is confirmed by the
subsequent history of the Roman Church.

In considering the results of the Apostle’s labours more in
detail, it will be necessary to view the Jewish and Gentile con-
verts separately. In no Church are their antipathies and feuds
more strongly marked than in the Roman. Long after their
junction the two streams are distinctly traced, each with its own
colour, its own motion; and a generation at least elapses, before
they are imseparably united. In the history of St Paul they
flow almost wholly apart.

1. Several thousands of Jews had been uprooted from their
native land and transplanted to Rome by Pompeius. In this
new soil they had spread rapidly, and now formed a very im-
portant element in the population of the metropolis.
unmolested in a quarter of their own beyond the Tiber, pro-
tected and fostered by the earlier Ceesars, receiving constant
accessions from home, they abounded everywhere, in the forum,
Their growing influ-
‘The

vanquished,’ said Seneca bitterly, ‘have given laws to their

in the camp, even in the palace itself’.
ence alarmed the moralists and politicians of Rome.
victors’. Immediately on his arrival the Apostle summoned to
his lodgings the more influential members of his race—probably
In seeking this interview he
On the one hand he
was anxious to secure their good-will and thus to forestall the

ne 1 3
the rulers of the synagogues’.
seems to have had a double purpose.

calumnies of his enemies; on the other he paid respect to their
spiritual prerogative, by holding out to them the first offer of

the Gospel*. On their arrival he explained to them the cir-

Living ©

1 On the numbers and influence of
the Jews in Rome, see Merivale His-
tory of the Romans vi. p.257 sq., Fried-
lander Sittengeseh. ut. p. 509 sq.

2 Seneca quoted by St Augustine De
Civ. Dei vi. 51, ‘Cum interim usque eo
sceleratissime gentis consuetudo con-
valuit, ut per omnes jam terras recep-
ta sit: victi victoribus leges dederunt.’

Compare also Pers. Sat. v. 180, Juv.
vi. 542. The mock excuse of Horace,
Sat. 1. 9. 70, shows how wide was the
influence of this race in Rome, even a
generation earlier. See also Ovid A. A.
i. 76, and references in Merivale p. 259.

3 Acts xxvill. 17 sq.

4 He had declared this prerogative
of the Jews in writing to the Roman

ST PAUL IN ROME. 15

cumstances which had brought him there. To his personal ex- but is

planations they replied, in real or affected ignorance, that they ae
had received no instructions from Palestine; they had heard no

harm of him and would gladly listen to his defence; only this

they knew, that the sect of which he professed himself an ad-
herent, had a bad name everywhere’. For the exposition of his
teaching a later day was fixed. When the time arrived, he ‘ ex-
pounded and testified the kingdom of God, arguing from their
own scriptures ‘from morning till evening. His success was not
greater than with his fellow-countrymen elsewhere. He dismissed
them, denouncing their stubborn unbelief and declaring his inten-
tion of communicating to the Gentiles that offer which they had
spurned. It is not probable that he made any further advances
in this direction. He had broken ground and nothing more. —

Yet it was not from any indisposition to hear of Messiah’s Their an-
ticipation

of Mes-
siah.

advent that they gave this cold reception to the new teacher.
The announcement in itself would have been heartily welcomed,
for it harmonized with their most cherished hopes. For years

past Jewish society in Rome had been kept in a fever of excite-

Church, i. 16, ii. 9, 10, and would feel
bound to regard it, when he arrived in
the metropolis.

1 It is maintained by Baur (Paulus
p. 368), Schwegler (Nachapost. Zeit. 11.
Pp. 93), and Zeller (T'heolog. Jahrb. 1849,
p. 571), that this portion of the narra-
tive betrays the unhistorical character
of the Acts; that the language here
ascribed to the Jews ignores the exist-
ence of the Roman Church, and that
therefore the incident is irreconcileable
with the facts as gathered from the
Epistle to the Romans, On the con-
trary, this language seems to me to be
quite natural under the circumstances,
as it was certainly most politic. It is
not very likely that the leading Jews
would frankly recognise the facts of the
case. They had been taught caution
by the troubles which the Messianic
feuds had brought on their more im-
petuous fellow-countrymen; and they

would do wisely to shield themselves
under a prudent reserve. Their best
policy was to ignore Christianity; to
enquire as little as possible about it,
and, when questioned, to understate
their knowledge. In alarge and popu-
lous city like Rome they might without
much difficulty shut their eyes to its
existence. When its claims were di-
rectly pressed upon them by St Paul,
their character for fairness, perhaps
also some conscientious scruples, re-
quired them to give him at least a for-
mal hearing. At all events the writer
of the Acts is quite aware that there
was already a Christian Church in
Rome; for he represents the Apostle
as met on his way by two deputations
from it. Indeed the two last chapters
of the narrative so clearly indicate the
presence of an eyewitness, that we can
hardly question the incidents, even if
we are at a loss how to interpret them.

Judaic
Christian-
ity in
Rome.

ST PAUL IN ROME.

ment by successive rumours of false Christs. On one occasion
a tumult had broken out, and the emperor had issued a general
edict of banishment against the race’, If this check had made
them more careful and less demonstrative, it had certainly not
smothered their yearnings after the advent of a Prince who
was to set his foot on the neck of their Roman oppressors. But
the Christ of their anticipations was not the Christ of St Paul’s
preaching. Grace, liberty, the abrogation of law, the supre-
macy of faith, the levelling of all religious and social castes—
these were strange sounds in their ears; these were conditions
which they might not and would not accept.

But where he had failed, other teachers, who sympa-
thized more fully with their prejudices and made larger con-
cessions to their bigotry, might win a way. The proportion of
Jewish converts saluted in the Epistle to the Romans’, not less —

1 Sueton. Claud. 25 ‘Judeos im-
pulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantes
Roma expulit.’? Suetonius here makes
a double mistake: (1) He confuses the
names Chrestus and Christus. This
confusion was not unnatural, for the
difference in pronunciation was hardly
perceptible, and Chrestus, ‘the good-
natured,’ was a frequent proper name,
while Christus, ‘the anointed,’ would
convey no idea at all to a heathen
ignorant of the Old Testament and
unacquainted with Hebrew customs.
The mistake continued to be made
long after Suetonius: comp. Justin
Apol. i. p. 54 D ὅσον γε ἐκ TOU κατηγο-
ρουμένου ἡμῶν ὀνόματος, χρηστότατοι
ὑπάρχομεν, Tertull, Apol. 3 ‘Cum per-
peram Chrestianus pronuntiatur a vo-
bis,’ ad Nat. i. 3, Theoph. ad Autol. i.
12 περὶ δὲ τοῦ καταγελᾶν μου καλοῦντά
με Χριστιανόν, οὐκ oldas ὃ λέγεις" πρῶ-
τον μὲν ὅτι τὸ χριστὸν ἡδὺ καὶ εὔχρηστον
καὶ ἀκαταγέλαστόν ἐστιν ; and even as
late as Lactantius, Jnst. Div. iv. 7
‘Exponenda hujus nominis ratio est
propter ignorantium errorem, qui eum
immutata littera Chrestum solent di-

cere. See also Boeckh. C.I. 3857p,
App. The word ‘Chrestianus’ ap-
pears on an inscription (Miinter Sinn-
bilder der alten Christen τ. p. 14, Orell.
Inser. 4426), where however it may be
a proper name. At all events the de-
signation ‘Christian’ would hardly be
expected on a monument of this date ;
for other names in the inscription (Dru-
sus, Antonia) point to the age of the
earlier Cesars. M. Renan (Les Apétres,
p. 234) is wrong in saying that the ter-
mination--anus betrays a Latin origin.
Compare Σαρδιανός, Τραλλιανός. (2) It
seems probable that the disturbances
which Suetonius here attributes to the
instigation of some one Chrestus (or
Christus), understanding this as a pro-
per name, were really caused by various
conflicting rumours of claimants to the
Messiahship. Yet even in this case we
may fairly suppose that the true Christ
held a prominent place in these reports;
for He must have been not less known
at this time than any of the false Christs.

2 The only strictly Jewish name is
Mary; but Aquila and Priscilla are
known to have been Jews. St Paul’s

ST PAUL IN ROME.

than the obvious motive and bearing of the letter itself, points
to the existence of a large, perhaps a preponderating, Jewish
element in the Church of the metropolis before St Paul’s arrival.
These Christians of the Circumcision for the most part owed
no spiritual allegiance to the Apostle of the Gentiles: some of
them had confessed Christ before him’; many no doubt were
rigid in their adherence to the law. It would seem as though
St Paul had long ago been apprehensive of the attitude these
Jewish converts might assume towards him.
tone of the Epistle to the Romans—conciliatory and yet un-
compromising—seems intended to disarm possible opposition.
Was it not this gloomy foreboding also which overclouded his
spirit when he first set foot on the Italian shore? He had
good reason to ‘thank God and take courage, when he was
met by one deputation of Roman Christians at the Forum
of Appius, by another at the Three Taverns®. It was a relief
to find that some members at least of the Roman Church were
favourably disposed towards him. At all events his fears were
His bold advo-
cacy of the liberty of the Gospel provoked the determined
We can hardly doubt to what
class of teachers he alludes in the Epistle to the Philippians as

not unfounded, as appeared from the sequel.
antagonism of the Judaizers.

preaching Christ of envy and strife, in a factious spirit, only
for the purpose of thwarting him, only to increase his anguish
and to render his chains more galling’. An incidental notice
in another, probably a later epistle, written also from Rome,
reveals the virulence of this opposition still more clearly.
Of all the Jewish Christians in Rome the Apostle can name

also would in all likelihood be Jews.
1 At the first day of Pentecost of ἐπι-

‘kinsmen’ also, Andronicus, Junia (Ju-
nias?), and Herodion, must have be-

longed to this race, whatever sense we
attach to the word ‘kinsmen.’ Apelles
too, though not a strictly Jewish name,
was frequently borne by Jews. If
moreover the Aristobulus mentioned in
yer. 10 belonged to the family of Herod,
as seems most probable (see p. 172 8q-),
then the members of ‘his household’

PHIL.

δημοῦντες Ῥωμαῖοι, lovdatol re kal προσ-
ήλυτοι, are mentioned among those pre-
sent, Acts il. ro. In the Epistle to the
Romans St Paul salutes certain Jewish
Christians, who were ‘ before him in
Christ,’ xvi. 7.

2 Acts xxviii. 15.

3 Phil. i. 15—18.

The conciliatory Their op-
position to

Their zea-
lous prose-
lytism.

The Gen-
tile Chris-
tians wel-
come St
Paul.

ST PAUL IN ROME.

three only as remaining steadfast in the general desertion; Arist-
archus his own companion in travel and in captivity, Marcus
the cousin of his former missionary colleague Barnabas, and
Jesus surnamed the Just. ‘In them, he adds feelingly, ‘I
found comfort’

But if these sectarians resolutely opposed St Paul, they were
hardly less zealous in preaching Christ. The incentive of rivalry
goaded them on to fresh exertions. Their gospel was dwarfed
and mutilated; it ignored the principle of liberty which was
a main feature of the true Gospel: but though their motives
were thus unworthy and their doctrine distorted, still ‘Christ
was preached’: and for this cause, smothering all personal
feeling, the Apostle constrained himself to rejoice’.

2. Meanwhile among the Gentiles his preaching bore more
abundant and healthier fruit. As he encountered in the exist-
ing Church of Rome the stubborn resistance of a compact body
of Judaic antagonists, so also there were doubtless very many
whose more liberal Christian training prepared them to welcome
him as their leader and guide. If constant communication was
kept up with Jerusalem, the facilities of intercourse with the
cities which he himself had evangelized, with Corinth and
Ephesus for instance, were even greater. The Syrian Orontes
which washed the walls of Antioch the mother of Gentile
Christendom, when it mingled its waters with the Tiber,
assuredly bore thither some nobler freight than the scum and
refuse of Oriental profligacy, the degraded religions and
licentious morals of Asia*®, Gentile Christianity was not less
fairly represented in Rome than Judaic Christianity. If there
were some who preached Christ of ‘envy and strife,’ there were
others who preached Him of ‘ good-will.’

Thus aided and encouraged, the Apostle prosecuted his
work among the Gentiles with signal and rapid success. In

1 Col. iv. 10, 11 οἵτινες ἐγενήθησάν 2 Phil. i. 18 ἀλλὰ καὶ χαρήσομαι.
μοι παρηγορία. Compare the expression 3 Juv. Sat. ili. 62 ‘Jam pridem Sy-
quoted above from Acts xxviii. 15 ed- rus in Tiberim defluxit Orontes etc.’
χαριστήσας τῷ Θεῷ ἔλαβεν θάρσος.

ST PAUL IN ROME, 19

two quarters especially the results of his labours may be traced. His sue-
The pretorian soldiers, drafted off successively to guard him sr ες
and constrained while on duty to bear him close company, had
opportunities of learning his doctrine and observing his manner

of life, which were certainly not without fruit. He had not

been in Rome very long, before he could boast that his bonds

were not merely known but known in Christ throughout the
pretorian guard’. In the palace of the Cxsars too his influence

was felt. It seems not improbable that when he arrived in

Rome he found among the members of the imperial household, and the
whether slaves or freedmen, some who had already embraced οἰκὸς
the new faith and eagerly welcomed his coming. His energy
would be attracted to this important field of labour, where an
opening was already made and he had secured valuable allies.

At all events, writing from Rome to a distant church, he singles

out from the general salutation the members of Czesar’s house-

hold*, as a body both prominent enough to deserve a special
salutation and so well known to his correspondents that no
explanation was needed.

Occupying these two strongholds in the enemy’s territory,
he would not be slack to push his conquests farther. Of the
social rank, of the race and religion from which his converts
were chiefly drawn, we have no direct knowledge and can only
hazard a conjecture. Yet we can hardly be wrong in assuming
that the Church was not generally recruited from the higher
classes of society and that the recruits were for the most
part Greeks rather than Romans.

Of the fact that the primitive Church of the metropolis Greck na-
before and after St Paul’s visit was chiefly Greek, there is ee
satisfactory evidence’, The salutations in the Roman letter con- C2:
tain very few but Greek names, and even the exceptions hardly
imply the Roman birth of their possessors. The Greek nation-

1 Phil. 1. 13. Seethe detached note. best writers. See for instance West-

2 Phil, iv. 22. cott History of the Canon p. 215 56.»

3 The Greek origin of the Roman and Milman Latin Christianity 1. p.
Church is now generally allowed by the “27 sqq. (1863).

20 ‘ST PAUL IN ROME.

ality of this church in the succeeding ages is still more clearly
seen. Her early bishops for several generations with very few
exceptions bear Greek names, All her literature for nearly
two centuries is Greek. The first Latin version of the Serip-
tures was made not for Rome, but for the provinces, especially
for Africa, Even later, the ill-spelt, ill-written inscriptions of
the catacombs, with their strange intermingling of Greek and
Latin characters, show that the church was not yet fully
nationalised. Doubtless among St Paul’s converts were many
who spoke Latin as their mother tongue: tlie soldiers of the
preetorian guard for instance would perhaps be more Italian
than Greek. But these were neither the more numerous nor
the more influential members of the Church. The Greeks were

the most energetic, as they were also the most intelligent and
enquiring of the middle classes in Rome at this time. The
successful tradesmen, the skilled artisans, the confidential ser-
vants and retainers of noble houses—almost all the activity and
enterprise of the common people whether for good or for evil—
were Greek’, Against the superior versatility of these foreign
intruders the native population was powerless, and a genera-
tion later the satirist complains indignantly that Rome is no
sae longer Roman’. From this rank in life, from the middle and
converts,’ lower classes of society, it seems probable that the Church
drew her largest reinforcements. The members of the Roman
Church saluted in St Paul’s Epistle could assuredly boast no
aristocratic descent, whether from the proud patrician or the

equally proud plebeian families. They bear upstart names,
mostly Greek, sometimes borrowed from natural objects, some-
times adopted from a pagan hero or divinity, sometimes de-
scriptive of personal qualities or advantages, here and there
the surnames of some noble family to which they were perhaps
attached as slaves or freedmen, but hardly in any case bearing
the stamp of high Roman antiquity®. Of Rome, not less than

1 See especially Juv. Sat. ili. 73— 2 Juy. Sat. iii. 60 ‘Non possum ferre,

80. Comp. Friedlinder Sittengeschichte Quirites, Grecam urbem.’
Roms τ. p. 60 sq. (ed. 2). 3 Examples of these different classes

ST PAUL IN ROME. 21

of Corinth, it must have been true, that ‘not many wise after
the flesh, not many powerful, not many high-born’ were
called’.

Not many, and yet perhaps a few. On what grounds and Converts

: : : from th
with what truth the great Stoic philosopher and statesman has ies

been claimed as a signal triumph of the Gospel I shall have to “*****
consider hereafter. Report has swollen the list of Roman con-

verts with other names scarcely less famous for their virtues or

their vices. The poet Lucan, the philosopher Epictetus, the
powerful freedmen Narcissus and Epaphroditus, the emperor's
mistresses Acte and Poppa’, a strange medley of good and

bad, have been swept by tradition or conjecture into that capa-

cious drag-net which ‘gathers of every kind’ For such conver-

sions, highly improbable in themselves, there is not a shadow

of evidence. Yet one illustrious convert at least seems to

have been added to the Church about this time. Pomponia Pomponia
Grecina, the wife of Plautius the conqueror of Britain, was Grae
arraigned of ‘foreign superstition.’ Delivered over to a do-
mestic tribunal according to ancient usage, she was tried by
her husband in presence of her relations, and was pronounced
by him innocent. Her grave and sad demeanour (for she never
appeared but in a mourning garb) was observed by all. The
untimely and cruel death of her friend Julia had drawn a cloud
over her life, which was never dissipated*, Coupled with the
charge already mentioned, this notice suggests that shunning
society she had sought consolation under her deep sorrow
in the duties and hopes of the Gospel’. At all events a

generation later Christianity had worked its way even into the

of names among the Roman Christians place in the year 57 or 58, 7.e. about
are: Stachys; Hermes, Nereus; Epx- the time when the Epistle to the Ro-
netus, Ampliatus, Urbanus; Julia, mans was written, and some three years
Claudia (2 Tim. iv. 21). before St Paul’s arrival in Rome.

ty Cor. i. 26. 4 The ‘superstitio externa’ of Tacitus

2 See Fleury Saint Paul et Séneque in this passage has been explained by
iL, p. 10g, and the references there Lipsius and others after him asreferring
given. to Christianity. See especially Meri-

3 Tac, Ann. xiii. 32. The trial took vale’s History of the Romans VI. p. 273.

Clemens
and Domi-
tilla.

ST PAUL IN ROME.

imperial family. Flavius Clemens and his wife Flavia Domi-
tilla, both cousins of Domitian, were accused of ‘atheism’ and
condemned by the emperor. Clemens had only just resigned
office as consul; and his sons had been nominated successors to
the empire. The husband was put to death; the wife banished
to one of the islands. Allowing that the emperor sacrificed his
kinsman on a ‘most trivial charge, the Roman biographer yet
withholds his sympathy from the unoffending victim as a man

of ‘contemptible indolence’? One whose prejudice or ignorance

1 Sueton. Domit. 15 ‘Flavium Cle-
mentem patruelem suum contemptissi-
me inertie...repente ex tenuissima sus-
picione tantum non in ipso ejus consu-
latu interemit’: Dion Cass. Ixvil. 14
κἀν τῷ αὐτῷ ἔτει ἄλλους τε πολλοὺς
καὶ τὸν Φλαουίον Ἰζλήμεντα ὑπατεύοντα,
καίπερ ἀνεψιὸν ὄντα καὶ γυναῖκα καὶ
αὐτὴν συγγενῆ ἑαυτοῦ Φλαουίαν Δομιτίλ-
λαν ἔχοντα, κατέσφαξεν ὁ Δομιτιανός"
ἐπηνέχθη δὲ ἀμφοῖν ἔγκλημα ἀθεότητος,
ὑφ᾽ ἧς καὶ ἄλλοι ἐς τὰ ᾿Ιουδαίων ἔθη
ἐξοκέλλοντες πολλοὶ κατεδικάσθησαν, καὶ
οἱ μὲν ἀπέθανον οἱ δὲ τῶν γοῦν οὐσιών
ἐστερήθησαν᾽ ἣἡ δὲ Δομιτίλλα ὑπερωρί-
σθη μόνον ἐς ΠΙανδατερίαν. Atheism was
the common charge brought against the
early Christians. Similarly Kusebius,
H. E. iii. 18, refers to heathen histo-
rians as relating (with an exact notice
of the date, the fifteenth year of Domi-
tian) the persecution of the Christians,
and more especially the banishment of
Flavia Domitilla, the niece of Flavius
Clemens (ἐξ ἀδελφῆς γεγονυῖαν Φλαουίου
Κλήμεντος) one of the actual consuls,
to the island of Pontia, τῆς εἰς Xpu-
The heathen
writer especially intended here is one
Bruttius, as appears from another pas-
sage in Husebius Chron. p. 382 (Mai)
sub anno 95, ‘Scribit Bruttius plurimos
Christianorum sub Domitiano fecisse
martyrium: inter quos et Flaviam Do-
mitillam, Flavii Clementis consulis ex
sororeneptem, in insulam Pontiam rele-

στὸν μαρτυρίας ἕνεκεν.

gatam quia se Christianam esse testata
est.’ This Bruttius is not improbably
the Presens with whom the younger
Pliny corresponds (Hpist. vii. 3), Pree-
sens being a cognomen of the Bruttii.
On the various persons bearing this
name see Lardner’s Testimonies of An-
cient Heathens xii. De Rossi’s archeeo-
logical researches bearing on this sub-
ject (Roma Sotterranea τ. p. 266) must
not be overlooked.

It will be seen that the account of
Bruttius (or Eusebius) differs from that
of Dion both in the place of exile and in
therelationship of Domitillato Clemens.
Hence many writers have supposed that
two Domitillas, aunt and niece, were
banished by Domitian: so recently Im-
hof Domitianus p. 116. The calendar
also commemorates a Domitilla as a
virgin and martyr, thus distinguishing
her from the wife of Clemens: see Til-
lemont Hist. Hccl. 11. p.124 sq. Yet
it can hardly be doubtful that one and
the same person is intended in these
notices. Pontia and Pandateria are
neighbouring islands: and the different
accounts of her relationship may be ex-
plained very easily by the carelessness
of Eusebius or some early transcriber.
In the original text of Bruttius the
words corresponding to ‘ Flavii Clemen-
tis’ probably signified ‘ the wife of Fla-
vius Clemens,’ while those translated
“ex sorore neptem’ described her rela-
tionship not to Clemens but to Domiti-

ST PAUL IN ROME.

allowed him to see in Christianity only a ‘mischievous super-
stition” would not be very favourably impressed by a convert
to the new faith, debarred by his principles from sharing the
vicious amusements of his age, and perhaps also in the absorb-
ing contemplation of his higher destinies too forgetful of the
necessary forms of social and political life. There seems no
reason to doubt that Clemens and Domitilla were converts to
the Gospel’.

It is impossible to close this notice of St Paul’s captivity The Nero-

without casting a glance at the great catastrophe which over-

nian per-
secution

whelmed the Roman Church soon after his release. The Nero- eal

nian persecution, related on the authority of Tacitus and
Suetonius and embodied as a cardinal article in the historic
creed of the Church from the earliest times, has latterly shared
the fate of all assumed facts and received dogmas. The histo-
rian of the ‘Decline and Fall’ was the first to question the
truth of this persecution. ‘The obscurity as well as the inno-
cency of the Christians, wrote Gibbon, ‘should have shielded
them from Nero’s indignation and even from his notice.’
Accordingly he supposed that the real sufferers were not
Christians but Jews, not the disciples of the true Christ but
the dupes of some false Christ, the followers not of Jesus the
Nazarene but of Judas the Gaulonite. It might easily happen,
so he argued, that Tacitus, writing a generation later when the
Christians, now a numerous body, had been singled out as the
objects of judicial investigation, should transfer to them ‘the
guilt and the sufferings which he might with far greater truth
and justice have attributed to a sect whose odious memory was

almost extinguished®’ An able living writer also, the author of

an. When Philostratus, Apoll. Vit. viii.
25, speaks of the wife of Clemens as the
sister of the emperor, he confuses her
with another Domitilla no longer living.

1 Sueton. Nero 16 ‘ superstitio nova
ac malefica.’

2 So even Gibbon, who says (6. xvi),
‘The guilt imputed to their charge was
that of Atheism and Jewish manners;

a singular association of ideas, which
cannot with any propriety be applied
except to the Christians etc.’ So too
Baur Paulus p. 472. Early in the
second century the Roman Christians
are so influential that Ignatius fears
lest their intercession may rob him of
the crown of martyrdom.
3 Decline and Fall α. xvi.

Testimony
of Roman
historians.

Allusionin
the Apoca-
lypse.

ST PAUL IN ROME.

the ‘History of the Romans under the Empire’, paying more
deference to ancient authorities, yet feeling this difficulty,
though in a less degree, suggests another solution. He sup-
poses that the persecution was directed in the first instance
against Jewish fanatics*; that the persons thus assailed strove
to divert the popular fury by informing against the Christians ;
that the Christians confessed their allegiance to a King of their
own in ‘a sense which their judges did not care to discriminate’;
that in consequence they were condemned and suffered; and
finally, that later writers, having only an indistinct knowledge
of the facts, confined the persecution directed against Jews and
Christians alike to the latter, who nevertheless were not the
principal victims. If I felt the difficulty which this suggestion
is intended to remove, I should be disposed to accept the solu-
tion. But I do not feel justified in setting aside the authority
of both Tacitus and Suetonius in a case like this, where the
incident recorded must have happened in their own life-time;
an incident moreover not transacted within the recesses of the
palace or by a few accomplices sworn to secrecy, but open and
notorious, affecting the lives of many and gratifying the fanati-
cal fury of a whole populace.

But besides the distinct testimony of the Roman historians,
there is, I venture to think, strong though indirect evidence
which has generally been overlooked. How otherwise is the
imagery of the Apocalypse to be explained? Babylon, the great
harlot, the woman seated on seven hills, ‘drunken with the
blood of the samts and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus’)
what is the historical reference in these words, if the Neronian
persecution be a figment of later date? It is plain that some
great change has passed over the relations between the Gospel
and the Empire, since the days when St Paul sought protection
and obtained justice from the soldiers and the magistrates of

1 vi. p. 280. text loses some of its force, if the later
* A later notice quoted below (p. 329) date be assigned to the Apocalypse; for

mentions the Jews also as sufferers. the passage might then be supposed to
3 Rev. xvii.6. The argument inthe refer to the persecution of Domitian.

ST PAUL IN ROME. E
Rome. The genial indolence of Gallio, the active interposition

of Claudius Lysias, the cold impartiality of Festus, afford no ex-
planation of such language. Roman justice or Roman indiffer-

ence has been exchanged meanwhile for Roman oppression.

And after all the sole ground for scepticism is the assumed ee Ἢ
insignificance of the Roman Church at this epoch, its obscure Rome not
But what are the facts of the gent at
case? Full six years before the Neronian outbreak the brethren this time.

station and scanty numbers.

of Rome are so numerous and so influential as to elicit from
St Paul the largest and most important letter which he ever
wrote. In this letter he salutes a far greater number of persons
than in any other. Its tone shows that the Roman Church
was beset by all the temptations intellectual and moral, to
which only a large and various community is exposed. In
the three years which elapsed before he arrived in the metro-
polis their numbers must in the natural course of events
have increased largely. When he lands on the shores of
Italy, he finds a Christian community established even at
Puteolit. For two whole years from this time the Gospel is
preached with assiduous devotion by St Paul and his compa-
nions; while the zeal of the Judaizers, whetted by rivalry, is
If besides this
we allow for the natural growth of the church in the year in-
tervening after the Apostle’s release, it will be no surprise that
the Christian community had by this time attained sufficient
prominence to provoke the indiscriminate revenge of a people
unnerved by a recent catastrophe and suddenly awakened to
the existence of a mysterious and rapidly increasing sect.

For it is in the very nature of a panic that it should take
alarm at some vague peril of which it cannot estimate the
character or dimensions.

roused to unwonted activity in the same cause.

The first discovery of this strange The Ro-
community would be the most terrible shock to Roman feeling. ae

lace seized

1 Acts xxvili. 14. The traffic with
Alexandria and the East would draw
to Puteoli a large number of Oriental
sailors and merchants. The inscrip-
tions bear testimony to the presence of
Jews in these parts: see an article by

Minervini in the Bullett. Archeol. Na-
pol. Feb. 1855. For the reference to
this article I am indebted to Fried-
liinder Sittengeschichte Roms 11. p. 65.
See also his note on the Pompeian in-
scription I, p. 529.

by a panic.

ST PAUL IN ROME.

How wide might not be its ramifications, how numerous its
adherents? Once before in times past Roman society had
been appalled by a similar revelation. At this crisis men
would call to mind how their forefathers had stood aghast at
the horrors of the Bacchanalian conspiracy; how the canker
still unsuspected was gnawing at the heart of public morality,
and the foundations of society were well-nigh sapped, when the
discovery was accidentally made; so that only the promptest and
most vigorous measures had saved the state’. And was not this
a conspiracy of the same kind? These Christians were certainly
atheists, for they rejected all the gods alike; they were traitors
also, for they swore allegiance to another king besides Cesar.
But there were mysterious whispers of darker horrors than
these; hideous orgies which rivalled the loathsome banquet of
Thyestes, shameless and nameless profligacies which recalled
the tragedy of the house of Laius*. To us, who know what the
Gospel has been and is, who are permitted to look back on the
past history of the Church and forward to her eternal destinies,
such infatuation may seem almost incredible; and yet this mode
of representation probably does no injustice to Roman feeling
at the time. The public mind paralysed by a great calamity has
not strength to reflect or to argue. An idea once seizing it
possesses it wholly. The grave and reserved demeanour of the
Christians would only increase the popular suspicion. The ap-
parent innocence of the sect would seem but a cloak thrown over
their foul designs, which betrayed themselves occasionally by de-
nunciations of Roman life or by threats of a coming vengeance’.

1 For the history of the Bacchanalian
conspiracy detected in the year B.C. 186
see Livy xxxix. 8 sq. In reading this
account it is impossible not to notice
theresemblance of the crimes apparent-
ly proved against these Bacchanalians
with the foul charges recklessly hurled
at the Christians: see e.g. Justin Apol.
i. 26, Tertull. Apol. 7, Minuc. Felix, 9,
28. [The passage in the text was writ-
ten without any recollection that Gib-
bon had mentioned the Bacchanalian

conspiracy in the same connexion.]

2 See the letter of the Churches of
Lyons and Vienne in Euseb. H. #. v. τ.
§ 14 κατεψεύσαντο ἡμῶν Θυέστεια δεῖπνα
καὶ Οἰδιποδείους μίξεις καὶ ὅσα μήτε λα-
λεῖν μήτε νοεῖν θέμις ἡμῖν, Athenag.
Legat. 3 τρία ἐπιφημίζουσιν ἡμῖν ἐγκλή-
ματα, ἀθεότητα, Θυέστεια δεῖπνα, Οἰἶδι-
ποδείους μίξεις, ib. 31, Theoph. ad Aut.
iii. 4, 15, Tertull. ad Nat. i. 7.

3 See the suggestion of Dean Milman,
History of Christianity τι. p. 456 (1863).

ST PAUL IN ROME.

The general silence of the Roman satirists is indeed a signi-
ficant fact, but it cannot fairly be urged to show the obscurity
of the Church at the date of the Neronian persecution. If no
mention is made of Christianity in the short poems of Persius,
it will be remembered that he died nearly two years before this
event. Jf Juvenal and Martial, who in the next generation
‘have dashed in with such glaring colours Jews, Greeks, and
Egyptians’, banish the Christians to the far background of
their picture’,-the fact must not be explained by the compara-
tive insignificance of the latter®. We may safely infer from
the narratives of Pliny and Tacitus that at this time they
were at least as important and influential as the Jews. But
in fact they offered very poor material for caricature. So far
as they presented any salient features which the satirist might
turn to ridicule, these were found in the Jews to a still greater
degree. Where they differed, their distinctive characteristics
would seem entirely negative to the superficial glance of the
heathen. Even Lucian, who satirizes all things in heaven and
earth, living at a time when Christians abounded everywhere,
can say nothing worse of them than that they are good-natured
charitable people, not overwise and easily duped by charlatans‘.

But how did this vast religious movement escape the
notice of philosophical writers, who, if they were blind to its
spiritual import, must at least have recognised in it a striking
moral phenomenon? If the Christians were so important, it is
urged, how are they not mentioned by Seneca, ‘ though Seneca

is full of the tenets of the philosophers’? To this particular

dian’s poetry and of the times—his ex-
traordinary religious indifference. Here

So also De Pressensé Trois Premiers
Siécles 1. p. 97.

1 Merivale vi. p. 277.

a Mart. x 25, duv. 1. 155, Vill. 23.
Even in these passages the allusion is
doubtful.

3 The following instance will show
how little dependence can be placed on
this line of argument. Dean Milman
(History of Christianity, 11. p. 352)
writes: ‘M. Beugnot has pointed out
one remarkable characteristic of Clan-

is a poet writing at the actual crisis of
the complete triumph of the new reli-
gion and the visible extinction of the
old: if we may so speak, a strictly his-
torical poet... Yet...no one would know
the existence of Christianity at that
period of the world by reading the
works of Claudian.’

4 Tucian De Mort. Peregr. ὃ 11 sq.

5 Merivale, 1. ο.

Silence of
the Roman
satirists
explained.

Reticence
of the phi-
losophers.

assumed
for pru-
dential
reasons,

ST PAUL IN ROME.

question it is perhaps sufficient to reply, that most of Seneca’s
works were written before the Christians on any showing had
attracted public notice. But the enquiry may be pushed farther,
and a general answer will be suggested. How, we may well
ask, are they not mentioned by Plutarch, though Plutarch dis-
cusses almost every possible question of philosophical or social
interest, and flourished moreover at the very time, when by
their large and increasing numbers, by their unflinching courage
and steady principle, they had become so formidable, that
the propretor of Bithynia in utter perplexity applies to his
imperial master for instructions how to deal with a sect thus
passive and yet thus revolutionary? How is it again, that
Marcus Aurelius, the philosophical emperor, dismisses them in
his writings with one brief scornful allusion’, though he had
been flooded with apologies and memorials on their behalf, and
though they served in large numbers in the very army which
he commanded in person’? The silence of these later philoso-
phers at least cannot be ascribed to ignorance ; and some other
explanation must be sought. May we not fairly conclude
that, like others under similar circumstances, they considered
a contemptuous reticence the safest, if not the keenest, weapon
to employ against a religious movement, which was working
its way upwards from the lower grades of society, and which
they viewed with alarm and misgiving not unmingled with
secret respect?

1M, Anton. xi. 3 μὴ κατὰ ψιλὴν
παράταξιν (from mere obstinacy), ὡς οἱ
Χριστιανοί, ἀλλὰ λελογισμένως καὶ σε-
μνῶς καί, wore καὶ ἄλλον πεῖσαι, ἀτρα-
γῴδως,

* Thus much at least may be in-
ferred from the story of the thunder-
ing legion: see especially Mosheim De
Rebus Christian. see. 2. § xvii, and
Lardner Testimonies etc. xv. § 3.

3 St Augustine de Civ. Dei vi. τι
says of Seneca, after mentioning this
philosopher’s account of the Jews,

‘Christianos tamen, jam tune Judzis
inimicissimos,in neutram partem com-
memorare ausus est, ne vel laudaret
contra sus patrize veterem consuetudi-
nem vel reprehenderet contra propriam
forsitan voluntatem.’ Seneca indeed
would hardly be expected to mention the
Christians, for most of his works were
perhaps written before the new sect had
attracted the attention of his fellow-
countrymen. But some such motive
as Augustine here suggests must have
sealed the lips of the later philosophers.

Il.

ORDER OF THE EPISTLES OF THE CAPTIVITY.

T PAUL remained in captivity between four and five years Four epi-
(A.D. 58—63); the first half of this period being spent at tiv ποῖα,

ten from
Ceesarea, the second at Rome. While thus a prisoner he wrote Rome.

four epistles, to the Philippians, to the Colossians, to the Ephe-

sians, to Philemon.

Though a few critics have assigned one or

more of these epistles to his confinement at Czsarea’, there are
serious objections to this view*; and the vast majority of writers

1 The three epistles are assigned to
the Cesarean captivity by Bottger
(Beitr. 1. p. 47 8qq.), Thiersch (Kirche
im apost. Zeit. p. 176), Reuss (Gesch.
der heil. Schriften § 114), Meyer (Ephes.
Finl.-§ 2) and others: the Epistle to
the Philippians by Paulus (Progr. Jen.

-1799, and Heidelb. Jahrb. 1825. H. 5,
referred to by Bleek), Bottger (1.c.), and
Thiersch (ib. p. 212), while Rilliet (in-
trod. § rr and note on i. 13) speaks
doubtfully. The oldest tradition or con-
jecture dated all four epistles from
Rome: and this is the opinion of most
modern writers. Oeder alone (Progr.
Onold. 1731: see Wolf Cur. Phil. 11.
p. 168) dates the Philippians from Co-
rinth during St Paul’s first visit.

2 Reasons for dating the three epi-
stles from Caesarea are given fully in
Meyer (Ephes. Εἴη]. §2). I cannot at-
tach any weight to them. For the Epi-
stle to the Philippians there is at least
this prima facie case, that the mention

of the pretorium in Phil. i. 13 would
then be explained by the statement in
Acts xxiii. 35, that St Paul was con-
fined in ‘the preetorium of Herod.’ But
the expression ‘ throughout the preeto-
rium’ (ἐν ὅλῳ τῷ mpacrwplw), while it
implies a wider space than the palace
or official residence of Herod, is easily
explained by the circumstances of St
Paul's connexion with the imperial
euards at Rome: see above, p. 9. On
the other hand there are many serious
objections to Cesarea as the place of
writing. (1) The notice of Cesar’s
household (Phil. iy. 22) cannot without
much straining of language and facts
be made to apply to Cesarea. (2) St
Paul’s account of his progress (i. 12
sq.) loses all its force on this supposi-
tion. He is obviously speaking of some
place of great consequence, where the
Gospel had received a new and remark-
able development. Cesarea does not
satisfy these conditions. It was after

The Phi-

lippian let-
ter stands
apart; the
other three
are linked
together.

ORDER OF THE EPISTLES OF THE CAPTIVITY.

agree in placing all four at a later date, after the Apostle had
been removed thence to Rome.

Assuming then that they were all written from Rome, we
have next to investigate their relative dates. And here again
the question simplifies itself. It seems very clear, and is gene-
rally allowed, that the three epistles last mentioned were written
and despatched at or about the same time, while the letter
to the Philippians stands alone. Of the three thus connected
the Epistle to the Colossians is the link between the other two.
On the one hand its connection with the Epistle to the Ephe-
sians is established by a remarkable resemblance of style and
matter, and by the fact of its being entrusted to the same

messenger Tychicus’.

On the other, it is shown to synchronize

with the letter to Philemon by more than one coincidence:

Onesimus accompanies ‘both epistles?; in both salutations are

sent to Archippus*; in both the same persons are mentioned as

St Paul’s companions at the time of writing’.

all not a very important place. It had
been evangelized by the Apostles of the
Circumcision. The first heathen con-
vert Cornelius lived there. As a chief
seaport town of Palestine, the great
preachers of the Gospel were constantly
passing to and fro through it. Alto-
gether we may suppose it to have re-
ceived more attention in proportion to
its size than any other place; and the
language of St Paul seems wholly in-
applicable to a town with this antece-
dent history. (3) When this epistle is
written, he is looking forward to his
speedy release and purposes a visit to
Macedonia (i. 26, ii. 24: compare Phi-
lem. 22). Now there is no reason to
suppose that he expected this at Cax-
sarea. For what were the circumstances
ofthe case? He had gone up to Jerusa-
lem, intending immediately afterwards
to visit Rome. While at Jerusalem he
is apprehended on a frivolous charge
and imprisoned. When at length he
is brought to trial, he boldly appeals to

Cesar. May we not infer that this
had been his settled determination from
the first? that he considered it more
prudent to act thus than to stake his
safety on the capricious justice of the
provincial governor? that at all events
he hoped thereby to secure the fulfil-
ment of his long-cherished design of
preaching the Gospel in the metropolis?
These considerations seem sufficient
to turn the scale in favour of Rome, as
against Ceesarea, in the case of the Epi-
stle to the Philippians. As regards the
other three, I shall endeavour to give
reasons for placing them later than the
Philippian letter: and if so, they also
must date from Rome. At all events
there is no sufficient ground for aban-
doning the common view.
1 Col. iv. 7, Ephes. vi. 21.
2 Col. iv. 9, Philem. 1o—12.
3 Col. iv. 17, Philem. 2. Hence it
-may be inferred that they went to the
same place.

aePhilem: τα, 22,.24, (01. 1.1 ἣν:

ORDER OF THE EPISTLES OF THE CAPTIVITY. 31

The question then, which I propose to discuss in the follow- Was it
ing pages, is this: whether the Epistle to the Philippians should Ni

before or
be placed early in the Roman captivity and the three epistles ae νν
later ; or whether conversely the three epistles were written first,

and the Philippian letter afterwards. The latter is the prevail-

ing view among the vast majority of recent writers, German

I shall
attempt to show that the arguments generally alleged in its

favour will not support the conclusions: while on the other

hand there are reasons for placing the Philippians early and

the three epistles late, which in the absence of any decisive
evidence on the other side must be regarded as weighty.

The arguments in favour of the later date of the Philippian Argu-

letter, as compared with the other three, are drawn from four ἤν fee

considerations: (1) From the progress of Christianity in Rome, daterieee

as exhibited in this epistle; (2) From a comparison of the amined.
names of St Paul’s associates mentioned in the different epistles;

and English, with one or two important exceptions’.

(3) From the length of time required for the communications
between Philippi and Rome; (4) From the circumstances of
St Paul’s imprisonment. These arguments will be considered
in order.

I. Itis evident that the Christians in Rome form a large τ. Progress
and important body when the Epistle to the Philippians is oe
written. The Gospel has effected a lodgment even in the im- Church.
The bonds of the Apostle have become known

not only ‘throughout the pretorium’ but ‘to all the rest.

perial palace.

There is a marvellous activity among the disciples of the new

7—14. The names common to both
are Timotheus, Epaphras, Marcus,
Aristarchus, Demas, Luke. Tychicus
and Jesus the Just are mentioned in
the Epistle to the Colossians alone.

1 In Germany, De Wette, Schrader,
Hemsen, Anger, Credner, Neander,
Wieseler, Meyer, Wiesinger; in Eng-
land, Davidson, Alford, Conybeare and
Howson, Wordsworth, Ellicott, Eadie.
The exceptions are Bleek (Zinl. in das

Neue Test. pp. 430, 460) who considers
the data insufficient to decide but
treats the Philippians first in order;
and Ewald (Sendschreiben etc. pp.4318q.,
547), who however rejects the Epistle
to the Ephesians, and supposes the re-
maining three to have been written
about the same time. The older Eng-
lish critics for the most part (e.g. Usher
and Pearson) placed the Philippians
first, without assigning reasons,

32 ORDER OF THE EPISTLES OF THE CAPTIVITY.

faith : ‘In every way Christ is preached.’ All this it is argued
requires a very considerable lapse of time. .
Its condi- This argument has to a great extent been met already’. It

Ἢ ΩΝ is highly probable, as I have endeavoured to show, that St Paul

coming. found a flourishing though unorganized Church, when he
arrived in Rome. The state of things exhibited in the Epistle
to the Romans, the probable growth of Christianity in the in-
terval, the fact of his finding a body of worshippers even at
Puteoli, combine to support this inference. It has been sug-
gested also (and reasons will be given hereafter for this sug-
gestion) that the ‘members of Czesar’s household’ were, at least
in some cases, not St Paul’s converts after his arrival but older
disciples already confessing Christ. And again, if when he
wrote he could already count many followers among the pre-
torian soldiers, it is here especially that we might expect to see
the earliest and most striking results of his preaching, for with
these soldiers he was forced to hold close and uninterrupted in-
tercourse day and night from the very first.
Raa. Nor must the expression that his ‘bonds had become
πο not known to all the rest, of the Roman people be rigorously
pressed. pressed. It is contrary to all sound rules of interpretation to
look for statistical precision in words uttered in the fulness
of gratitude and hope. The force of the expression must be
measured by the Apostle’s language elsewhere. In writing to
the Thessalonians for instance, only a few months after they
have heard the first tidings of the Gospel, he expresses his joy
that ‘from them has sounded forth the word of the Lord, not
only in Macedonia and Achaia, but in every place their faith to
Godward is spread abroad?®.’
The notice Indeed this very passage in the Philippian letter, which

suggests :
anoppo- has been taken to favour a later date because it announces

as the progress of the Gospel in Rome, appears much more
natural, if written soon after his arrival. The condition of
things which it describes is novel and exceptional. It is evi-
dently the first awakening of dormant influences for good or

1 See above, p. 25. 2 1 Thess, i. 8.

Ste > 5 ees eae

ORDER OF THE EPISTLES OF THE CAPTIVITY. 33

evil, the stirring up of latent emotions of love, emulation, strife,
godless jealousy and godly zeal, by the presence of the great
Apostle among the Christians of Rome. This is hardly the
language he would have used after he had spent two whole
years in the metropolis, when the antagonism of enemies and
the devotion of friends had settled down into a routine of
hatred or of affection. Nor is the form of the announcement
such as might be expected in a letter addressed so long after
his arrival to correspondents with whom he had been in con-
stant communication meanwhile.

2. The argument drawn from the names of St Paul’s asso- 2.StPaul’s
We learn from the Acts that the Apostle aaa
was accompanied on his voyage to Rome by Luke and Arist-

ciates is as follows.
archus’. Now their names occur in the salutations of the
Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon®, but not in the
Epistle to the Philippians. It seems probable therefore that
the letter last mentioned was written later, his two companions
having meanwhile separated from the Apostle.

An argument from silence is always of questionable force. General
answer to
this argu-
Yet in the Epistle to the Ephesians no mention is made of ment.

Tn order to be valid, it ought to apply to all these epistles alike.

Aristarchus and Luke, and what is more remarkable, none of
Timothy, though it was written at the same time with the
letters to Colossee and to Philemon.
ticular case may be due to special reasons’.

The omission in any par-
Nor is it difficult to account for this silence. In the Epistle
to the Philippians St Paul throws his salutation into a general
form; ‘The brethren that are with me greet you.’ In this ex-
pression it is plain that he refers to his own personal com-

panions: for he adds immediately afterwards, ‘ All the brethren,’

in the letter to Philemon. Of this
omission no account can be given.
There is the highest @ priori probabi-

1 Acts xxvii. 2.
2 Col. iv. ro, 14, Philem. 24.
3 The doubtful force of such argu-

ments from silence is illustrated by an-
other case occurring in these epistles.
Jesus Justus is mentioned in the Epi-
stle to the Colossians (iv. 11), but not

PIE.

lity that he would be mentioned either
in both letters or in neither, for they
both were sent to the same place and
by the same messenger.

>
ΒῚ

Aristar-
chus.

St Luke.

ORDER OF THE EPISTLES OF THE CAPTIVITY.

including the resident members of the Roman Church, ‘but
especially they of the household of Cesar greet you’ If
Aristarchus and Luke were with him, they might well be com-
prehended in this general salutation. Of Aristarchus the most
probable account, I think, is, that he parted from St Paul at
Myra, and therefore did not arrive in Rome with the Apostle
but rejoined him there subsequently*. If this be the case, the
absence of his name in the Philippian Epistle, so far as it de-
serves to be considered at all, makes rather for than against the
earlier date. On the other hand St Luke certainly accom-
panied the Apostle to Rome: and his probable connexion with

1 Phil. iv. 21, 22.

2 St Luke’s account is this: ‘Em-
barking on an Adramyttian vessel,
intending to sail to (or along) the
coasts of Asia (μέλλοντες πλεῖν τοὺς
κατὰ τὴν ᾿Ασίαν ro7rovs) we put out to
sea, Aristarchus a Macedonian of Thes-
salonica being with us (Acts xxvii. 2).’
When they arrived at Myra, the centu-
rion ‘found an Alexandrian vessel sail-
ing to Italy and put them (ἡμᾶς) on
board.’ Now it is generally (I believe,
universally) assumed that Aristarchus
accompanied St Paul and St Luke to
Rome. But what are the probabilities
of the case? The vessel in which they
start belongs to Adramyttium a sea-
port of Mysia. If they had remained
in this ship, as seems to have been their
original intention, they would have
hugged the coast of Asia, and at length
(perhaps taking another vessel at Adra-
myttium) have reached Macedonia: and
if they landed, as they probably would,
at Neapolis, they would have taken
the great Egnatian road through Phi-
lippi. Along this road they would have
travelled to Dyrrhachium and thence
have crossed the straits to Italy. Thus
a long voyage in the open seas would
have been avoided: a voyage peculiarly
dangerous at this late season of the
year, as the result proved. Such in

fact was the route of Ignatius, who
likewise was taken a prisoner to Rome
and appears also to have made this
journey late in the year. It was the
accident of falling in at Myra with an
Alexandrian ship sailing straight for
Italy which induced the centurion to
abandon his original design, for the
sake, as would appear, of greater ex-
pedition. But the historian adds when
mentioning this design, ‘ one Aristar-
chus a Macedonian of Thessalonica
being with us.’ Does he not, by in-
serting this notice in this particular
place, intend his readers to understand
(or at least understand himself) that
Avistarchus accompanied them on the
former part of their route, because he
was on his way home? If so, when
their plans were changed at Myra, he
would part from them, continuing in
the Adramyttian vessel, and so reach
his destination.

I have taken the received reading
μέλλοντες πλεῖν, ‘as we were to sail.’
The greater number of the best authori-
ties however read μέλλοντι πλεῖν, ‘as it
(the vessel) was to sail.’ Ifthe latter be
adopted, the passage is silent about the
purpose of the centurion and his pri-
soners, but the probable destination of
Aristarchus is unaffected. The same
copies which read μέλλοντι for the most

56 a ae πὶ ee ee ee ee

ORDER OF THE EPISTLES OF THE CAPTIVITY. 35

Philippi’ suggests at least a presumption that he would be
mentioned by name, if he were still with St Paul. Again, when
in another passage” the Apostle declaring his intention of sending
Timotheus to Philippi adds that he has ‘no one like-minded
who will naturally care for them, for all pursue their own’
pleasures and interests, we cannot suppose that ‘Luke the
beloved physician’ is included in this condemnation. It may
reasonably be conjectured however that St Luke had left Italy
to return thither at a later period, or that he was absent from
Rome on some temporary mission, or at least that he was too
busily occupied to undertake this journey to Philippi. Even if
we assume Rome to have been the head-quarters of the evan-
gelist during the whole of St Paul’s stay, there must have been
many churches in the neighbourhood and in more distant
parts of Italy which needed constant supervision; and after
Timotheus there was probably no one among the Apostle’s
companions to whom he could entrust any important mission
with equal confidence.

3. Again it is urged that the numerous communications 3. Jour-
between Philippi and Rome implied by the notices in this pale
epistle in themselves demand a very considerable lapse of time wet ae
after the Apostle’s arrival.

The narrative however requires at most two journeys from Four at
Rome to Philippi and two from Philippi to Rome; as fol- ey
lows.

(1) From Rome to Philippi. A messenger bears tidings to

the Philippians of St Paul’s arrival in Rome.

(2) From Philippi to Rome. The Philippians send contri-

butions to St Paul by the hand of Epaphroditus®,

(3) From Rome to Philippi. A messenger arrives at the

latter place with tidings of Epaphroditus’ illness,

part also insert εἰς before τοὺς κατὰ τὴν there would be a temptation to alter
᾿Ασίαν κιτιλ. It seems probable there- μέλλοντες in order to adapt it to subse-
fore that there has been a confusion quent facts.

between μέλλοντες and μέλλοντι els. 1 See below, pp. 52, 58.

The best authorities are certainly in 2 Phil. ii. r9g—21.

favour of the latter. On the other hand 3 Phil. ii. 25, iv. 18.

1. 2

and this
number
may be

reduced,

ORDER OF THE EPISTLES OF THE CAPTIVITY.

(4) From Philippi to Rome. Epaphroditus is informed
that the news of his illness has reached the Philip-
plans’.

The return of Epaphroditus to Philippi cannot be reckoned
as a separate journey, for it seems clear that he was the bearer
of St Paul’s letter’,

I say four journeys at most; for the number may well be
halved without doing any violence to probability. -As it has
been already stated’, St Luke’s narrative seems to imply that
Aristarchus parted from the Apostle at Myra, coasted along
Asia Minor, and so returned to his native town Thessalonica
by the Egnatian road. On his way he would pass through
Philippi, and from him the Philippians would learn that the
Apostle had been removed from Czesarea to Rome. Thus taking
into account the delay of several months occasioned by the ship-
wreck and the sojourn in Malta, Epaphroditus might well arrive
in Rome with the contributions from Philippi about the same
time with the Apostle himself; and this without any inconve-
nient hurry. On this supposition two of the four journeys
assumed to have taken place after St Paul’s arrival may be dis-
pensed with. Nor again does the expression ‘he was grieved
because ye heard that he was sick’ necessarily imply that Epa-
phroditus had received definite information that the tidings of
his iullmess had reached Philippi. He says nothing about the
manner in which the Philippians had received the news. The
Apostle’s language seems to require nothing more than that
a messenger had been despatched to Philippi with the tidings in
question. This however is a matter of very little moment. On
any showing some months must have elapsed after St Paul’s
arrival, before the letter to the Philippians was written. And
this interval allows ample time for all the incidents, consider-

1 Phil. ii. 26 ἐπιποθῶν ἣν. πάντας Philem. 11, 12, where ἀνέπεμψα is said
ὑμᾶς [ἰδεῖν] kal ἀδημονῶν διότι ἠκούσατε of Onesimus the bearer of the letter.
ὅτι ἠσθένησεν. See the note on Gal. vi. 11.

5 Phil, ii. 25, 28, 29. The ἔπεμψα of 3 See above, p. 34, note 2.
ver. 28 is an epistolary aorist: comp.

ge ee ee ees a ee

naa

Pee αν khaled

ORDER OF THE EPISTLES OF THE CAPTIVITY. | 37

ing that the communication between Rome and Philippi was
constant and rapid’.

4. Lastly, it is urged that the general tone of the Epistle 4.stPaut’s
to the Philippians accords better with a later stage of the Apo- ee
stle’s captivity. The degree of restraint now imposed upon the
prisoner appears to be inconsistent with the liberty implied in Contrast
the narrative of the Acts: the spirit of anxiety and sadness pe
which pervades the letter is thought to accord ill with a period
of successful labour.
to have been written after those two years of unimpeded pro-
gress with which St Luke’s record closes, the Apostle having

been removed meanwhile from his own hired house to the

For these reasons the epistle is supposed

precincts of the pretorium, and placed in more rigorous con-
finement.
And the view thus suggested by the contrast which this and with

1 A month would probably be a fair
allowance of time for the journey be-
tween Rome and Philippi. The distance
from Rome to Brundisium was 360
miles according to Strabo (vi. p.283) or
358 according to the Antonine Itine-
rary (pp. 49, 51, 54, Parth. et Pind.).
The distance from Dyrrhachium to Phi-
lippi was the same within a few miles;
the journey-from Dyrrhachium to Thes-
salonica being about 270 miles (267,
Polybius in Strabo vii. Ὁ. 323; 259, Itin.
Anton. p.151; and 279, Tab. Peuting.),
and from Thessalonica to Philippi roo
miles (/tin. Anton. pp. 152, 157). The
present text of Pliny understates it at
325 miles, H.N.iv. 18. Ovid expects
his books to reach Rome from Brundi-
sium before the tenth day without hur-
rying (Ep. Pont. iv. 5,8, ‘ut festinatum
non faciatis iter’); while Horace mov-
ing very leisurely completes the dis-
tance in 16 days (Sat.i. 5). Thevoyage
between Dyrrhachium and Brundisium
ordinarily took a day: Cic. ad Att. iy.
r; comp. Appian i. p.269 (ed. Bekker).
The land transit on the Greek continent
would probably not occupy much more

time than on the Italian, the distances
being thesame. Thiscalculationagrees
with the notices in Cicero’s letters,
Cicero (if the dates can be trusted)
leaves Brundisium on April 30th and
arrives at Thessalonica on May 23rd
(ad Att. ili. 8); but he travels leisurely
and appears to have been delayed on
the way. Again Atticus purposes start-
ing from Rome on June rst, and Cicero
writing from Thessalonica on the 13th
expects to see him ‘propediem’ (iii. 9).
Again Cicero writing from Thessalonica
on June 18th says that Atticus’ letter
has informed him of all that has hap-
pened at Rome up to May 25th (iil.
19). Lastly Cicero at Dyrrhachium re-
ceives on Noy. 27th a letter from Rome
dated Nov. t2th (iii.23). The sea route
was more uncertain: but under favyour-
able circumstances would be quicker
than the journey by land, whether the
course was by the gulf of Corinth or
round the promontory of Malea. On
the rate of sailing among the ancients
see Friedlander Sittengeschichte Roms
11. p. 12, to whom I owe some of the
above references.

the other
epistles,

accounted
for by con-
temporary
history.

Contrast
with the
Acts ex-
plained.

ORDER OF THE EPISTLES OF THE CAPTIVITY.

epistle offers to St Luke’s narrative is further supported by a
comparison with the other letters written during his captivity.
As distinguished from the remaining three, the Epistle to the
Philippians is thought to wear a gloomier aspect and to indicate
severer restraints and less hopeful prospects’.

At this point the aid of contemporary history is mvoked.
Have we not a sufficient account, it is asked, of the increased
rigour of the Apostle’s confinement m the appointment of the
monster Tigellinus to succeed Burrus as commander of the
imperial guards? Must not the well-known Jewish sympathies
of Poppa, now all-powerful as the emperor’s consort, have
darkened his prospects at the approaching trial ?

The argument drawn from St Luke’s narrative has been
partially and incidently met already*. It seems highly proba-
ble that the praetorium does not denote any locality, whether
the barracks on the palatine or the camp without the city.
Even if a local meaning be adopted, still it is neither stated nor
implied that St Paul dwelt within the pretorium. If he did
dwell there, he might nevertheless have occupied ‘hired lodg-
ings. In the history, as in the letter, he is a prisoner in
bonds. His external condition, as represented in the two
writings, in no way differs. In tone, it is true, there is a strong
contrast between St Luke’s account and the language of St
Paul himself: but this could hardly be otherwise. St Luke,
as the historian of the Church, views events in the retrospect
and deals chiefly with results, presenting the bright side of the
picture, the triumph of the Church. St Paul, as the individual
sufferer, writing at the moment and reflecting the agony of
the struggle, paints the scene in darker colours, dwelling on his
own sorrows. The Apostle’s sufferings were in a great degree
mental—the vexation of soul stirred up by unscrupulous op-
position—the agony of suspense under his impending trial—
his solicitude for the churches under his care—his sense of

1 So Alford (Prol. § iii. 5). But alacriorque et blandior ceteris.’
Bengel, ‘summa epistole, gaudeo, gau- 2 Above, p. 9, and on ‘ preetorium
dere’; and Grotius, ‘Epistola letior ini. 13.

ORDER OF THE EPISTLES OF THE CAPTIVITY. 39

responsibility—his yearning desire to depart and be with Christ.
It was impossible that the historian should reproduce this state
of feeling: he has not done so in other cases’.

And again: comparing the language of the Philippian letter Contrast
with the other epistles, it is difficult to see anything more than ae
those oscillations of feeling which must be experienced daily νὸν τὰ
under trying circumstances of responsibility or danger. All
these epistles alike reveal alternations of joy and _ sadness,
moments of depression and moments of exaltation, successive
waves of hope and fear. If the tone of one epistle is less cheer-
ful than another, this is a very insecure foundation on which
to build the hypothesis of an entire change in the prisoner’s
condition.

Moreover arguments are sometimes alleged for the later The argu-

date of the Philippian letter, which, though advanced for the fe leol

d other pas-

same purpose, in reality neutralise those already considered. 3 ἘΝ

It is no longer to the prevailing gloom, but to the hopefulness
of the Philippian letter, that the appeal is made. The Apostle
is looking forward to his approaching trial and deliverance. He
knows confidently that he shall abide and continue with the
Philippians for their furtherance and joy of the faith: ‘ their
rejoicing will abound by his coming to see them again”’; he
‘trusts in the Lord that he shall visit them shortly*’ Such
passages are, I think, a complete answer to those who represent
the sadness of this epistle as in strong contrast to the brighter
tone of the other three. Yet considered in themselves they
might seem to imply the near approach of his trial, and so
to favour the comparatively late date of the epistle. But here
again we must pause. These expressions, even if as strong, are
not stronger than the language addressed to Philemon, when the
Apostle bids his friend ‘prepare him a lodging, hoping that
‘through their prayers he shall be given to them*’ At many
times doubtless during his long imprisonment, he expected his

1 Compare for instance the agony of account of the same period in St Luke.
feeling expressed in the opening chap- 2 Phil. i. 25, 26.
ters of the Second Epistle to the Corin- δ ΡΠ 11 249
thians with the calm and unimpassioned 4 Philem. 22.

Political
changes
did not
touch St
Paul.

The later
date not e-
stablished.

Argument
for the
earlier
date.

1. Reasons

ORDER OF THE EPISTLES OF THE CAPTIVITY.

trial to come on. His life at this time was a succession of broken
hopes and weary delays.

If this be so, we need not stop long to enquire how the
political changes already noticed might possibly have affected
St Paul’s condition. A prisoner so mean in the eyes of the
Roman world, a despised provincial, a religious fanatic—like
Festus, they would see nothing more in him than this—was
beneath the notice of a Tigellinus, intent on more ambitious and
grander crimes. More plausible is the idea that Poppzea, insti-
gated by the Jews, might have prejudiced the emperor against
an offender whom they hated with a bitter hatred. Doubtless
she might have done so. But, if she had interfered at all, why
should she have been satisfied with delaying his trial or increas-
ing his restraints, when she might have procured his condemna-
tion and death? The hand reeking with the noblest blood of
Rome would hardly refuse at her bidding to strike down a poor
foreigner, who was almost unknown and would certainly be un-
avenged. From whatever cause, whether from ignorance or
caprice or indifference or disdain, her influence, we may safely
conclude, was not exerted to the injury of the Apostle.

Such are the grounds on which the Epistle to the Philip-
pians has been assigned to a later date than the others written
from Rome. So far from establishing this conclusion they seem
to afford at most a very slight presumption in its favour. On
the other hand certain considerations have been overlooked,
which in the absence of direct evidence on the opposite side are
entitled to a hearing. They are founded on a comparison of the
style and matter of these epistles with the epistles of the pre-
ceding and the following groups—with the letters of the third
Apostolic journey on the one side, and the Pastoral Epistles
on the other. The inference from such a comparison, if I mis-
take not, is twofold; we are led to place the Epistle to the
Philippians as early as possible, and the Epistles to the Colos-
sians and Ephesians as late as possible, consistently with otuer
known facts and probabilities.

1. The characteristic features of its group are less strongly

ORDER OF THE EPISTLES OF THE CAPTIVITY. 41

_ marked in the Epistle to the Philippians than in the others. for placing
the Philip-
> pians

it bears a much greater resemblance to the earlier letters, than early.

τ Altogether i in style and tone, as well as in its prominent ideas

do the Epistles to the Colossians and Ephesians. Thus it Resem-
blance to
the earlier

the third apostolic journey. It represents an epoch of transition group,

forms the link which connects these two epistles with those of

in the religious controversies of the age, or to speak more cor-
rectly, a momentary lull, a short breathing space, when one an-
tagonistic error has been fought and overcome, and another is
dimly foreseen in the future. The Apostle’s great battle hitherto
has been with Pharisaic Judaism; his great weapon the doctrine
of grace. In the Epistle to the Philippians we have the spent
waye of this controversy. In the third chapter the Apostle
dwells with something lke his former fulness on the contrast
of faith and law, on the true and the false circumcision, on his
own personal experiences as illustrating his theme. Henceforth
when he touches on these topics, he will do so briefly and in-
cidentally. Even now in his apostolic teaching, as in his inner
life, he is ‘forgetting those things which are behind and reach-
ing forth unto those things which are before. A new type of
error is springing up—more speculative and less practical in its
origin—which in one form or other mainly occupies his attention
throughout the Epistles to the Colossians and Ephesians and
the Pastoral Epistles; and which under the distinctive name of
Gnosticism in its manifold and monstrous developments will
disturb the peace of the Church for two centuries to come.
But of all the earlier letters it most nearly resembles the peel

Epistle to the Romans, to which according to the view here mans.
maintained it stands next in chronological order. At least I do

1 This fact is reflected in the opi- is instructive. The special character-
nions entertained respecting the genu- _ istics of the main group (1, 2 Corinth-
ineness of these epistles. While the ians, Galatians, Romans) have been
authorship of the Epistle to the Phi- taken as the standard of the Apostle’s
lippians has been questioned only by _ style, when they rather indicate a par-
the most extravagant criticism, more ticular phase in it. The Epistle to
temperate writers have hesitated to the Philippians has been spared be-
accept the Colossians and Ephesians. cause it reproduces these features more
This hesitation, though unwarranted, nearly than the other two.

Parallel
passages.

ORDER OF THE EPISTLES OF THE CAPTIVITY.

not think that so many and so close parallels can be produced

with any other epistle, as the following :

PHILIPPIANS.

(1) i. 3,4, 7, 8. I thank my
God in every mention of you at
all times in every request of mine
...as yeall are partakers with me
in grace (τῆς χάριτος): for God is
my witness, how I long for you
all in the bowels of Christ Jesus.

(2) 1. το. That ye may ap-
prove the things that are excel-
lent.

(3) i. 8, 9,10, 11. He became
obedient unto death...wherefore
God also highly exalted Him...
that in the name of Jesus every
knee may bow of things in hea-
ven and things on earth and
things under the earth, and every
tongue may confess that Jesus
Christ is Lord, ὅσ.

(4) ii 2—4. That ye may
have the same mind, having the
same love, united in soul, having
one mind: (Do) nothing in fac-
tiousness or vainglory,

but in humility holding one
another superior to yourselves.

(5) ii. 3. For we are the
circumcision,

who serve (λατρεύοντες) by the
Spirit of God (θεοῦ v. 1. θεῷ),
and boast in Christ Jesus...

4,5. If any other thinketh

1 The idea of the spiritual λατρεία
appears again Rom, xii. 1, τὴν λογικὴν
λατρείαν ὑμῶν, where this moral service
of the Gospel is tacitly contrasted with
the ritual service of the law, as the

RoMANS.

i, 8—11. First I thank my
God through Jesus Christ for you
all...for God is my witness...how
incessantly [ make mention of
you...at all times in my prayers
making request...for J long to see
you, that I may impart some spi-
ritual grace (χάρισμα) to you.

ii, 18. Thou approvest the
things that are excellent.

xiv. 9, 11. For hereunto Christ
died and lived (i.e. rose again),
that he may be Lord both of the
dead and of the living... For it
is written, I live, saith the Lord:
for in me every knee shall bow
and every tongue shall confess
unto God (Is. xlv. 23, 24).

xii. 16—19. Having the same
mind towards one another: not
minding high things...Be not
wise in your own conceits (po-
νιμοι παρ᾽ éavTois)...having peace
with all men: not avenging your-
selves.

1o. In honour holding one
another in preference.

ii. 28. For the (circumcision)
manifest in the flesh is not cir-

cumcision...but circumcision of -

the heart.

i. 9. God whom I serve (Aa-
Tpevw) in my spirit’.

v. 11. Boasting in God through
our Lord Jesus Christ.

xi. 1. For I also am an Is-

living sacrifice to the dead victim.
Compare also James 1. 27 θρησκεία κα-
θαρὰ καὶ ἀμίαντος x.7.X. See the notes
on Phil. 111. 3.

ORDER OF THE EPISTLES OF THE CAPTIVITY.

PHILIPPIANS.

to trust in the flesh, I more:...
of the race of Israel, the tribe of
Benjamin.

(6) 111. 9. Not having my
own righteousness which is of
law, but that which is through
faith of Christ, the righteousness
of God in faith...

10, 11. Being made conform-
able (συμμορφιζόμενος) unto His
death, if by any means I may at-
tain unto the resurrection from
the dead :

21. That it may become con-
formable (σύμμορφον) to the body
of His glory.

(7), ailis τὸ:
destruction,

whose God is their belly.

Whose end is

(8) iv. 18. Having received
from Epaphroditus the (gifts)
from you, an odour of a sweet
savour, a sacrifice acceptable,
well-pleasing to God.

RoMANS.

raelite, of the seed of Abraham, Parallel

the tribe of Benjamin.

x. 3. Ignorant of the righte-
ousness of God, and seeking to
establish their own (righteous-
ness).

ix. 31, 32. Pursuing a law of
righteousness...not of faith, but
as of works.

vi. 5. For if we have been
planted (σύμφυτοι γεγόναμεν) in
the likeness of His death, then
shall we be also of His resurrec-
tion. viii. 29. He foreordained
them conformable (συμμόρφους)
to the image of His Son.

vi. 21. For the end of those
things is death.
xvi. 18, They serve not our

Lord Christ but their own belly.

xii. 1. To present your bodies
a living sacrifice, holy, well-pleas-
ing to God.

Some verbal coincidences besides might be pointed out, on
which however no stress can be laid’.

2. But if these resemblances suggest as early a date for

1 T have observed the following words
and expressions common to these two
epistles and not occurring elsewhere
in the New Testament; ὠποκαραδοκία,
Rom. viii. 19, Phil. i. 20; ἄχρι τοῦ νῦν,
Rom. viii. 22, Phil. i. 5; ἐξ ἐριθείας,
Rom. ii. 8, Phil. i. 16; σύμμορφος, Rom.
viii. 29, Phil. iii. 21; προσδέχεσθαι ἐν
Κυρίῳ, Rom. xvi. 2, Phil. ii. 29; besides
one or two which occur in the parallels
quoted in the text. Compare also Rom.
xiv. 14 olda καὶ πέπεισμαι, with Phil.
i. 25 τοῦτο πεποιθὼς olda. The follow-
ing are found in St Paul in these two

epistles only, though occurring else-
where in the New Testament; axépacog,
Rom. xvi. 19, Phil. ii. 15 (comp. Matt.
x. 16); ἐπιζητεῖν, Rom. xi. 7, Phil. iv.
17 (common elsewhere); λειτουργός,
Rom. xiii. 6, xv. 16, Phil. ii. 25 (comp.
Heb. i. 7, viii. 2); ὀκνηρός, Rom. xii.
11, Phil. iii. 1 (comp. Matt. xxv. 26);
ὑπερέχειν, Rom, xiii. 1, Phil. il. 3, iii.
8, iv. 7 (comp. 1 Pet. ii. 13); ὁμοίωμα,
Kom: 1. 23; v.14; Vie 5; vill. 3, Phil.
ii. 7 (comp. Rev. ix. 7); and perhaps
μενοῦνγε, Rom. ix. 20, x. 18, Phil. iii.
8 (comp. Luke xi. 28).

passages.

44 ORDER OF THE EPISTLES OF THE CAPTIVITY.

2. Reasons the Epistle to the Philippians as circumstances will allow, there
for placing
the other

ee possible. The letters to the Colossians and Ephesians—the

are yet more cogent reasons for placing the others as late as

latter more especially—exhibit an advanced stage in the de-
velopment of the Church. The heresies, which the Apostle
here combats, are no longer the crude, materialistic errors of
the early childhood of Christianity, but the more subtle specu-
lations of its maturer age. The doctrine which he preaches is
not now the ‘milk for babes, but the ‘strong meat’ for grown
men. He speaks to his converts no more ‘as unto carnal’ but
‘as unto spiritual.” In the letter to the Ephesians especially
his teaching soars to the loftiest height, as he dwells on the
mystery of the Word and of the Church. Here too we find
the earliest reference to a Christian hymn’, showing that the
devotion of the Church was at length finding expression in set
forms of words. In’ both ways these epistles bridge over the
gulf which separates the Pastoral letters from the Apostle’s
earlier writings. The heresies of the Pastoral letters are the
heresies of the Colossians and Ephesians grown rank and cor-
rupt. The solitary quotation already mentioned is the precursor
of the not infrequent references to Christian formularies in these
latest of the Apostle’s writings. And in another respect also
the sequence is continuous, if this view of the relative dates be
accepted. The directions relating to ecclesiastical government,
which are scattered through the Pastoral Epistles, are the out-
ward correlative, the practical sequel to the sublime doctrine of
the Church first set forth in its fulness in the Epistle to the
Kphesians. A few writers have questioned the genuineness of
the letters to the Colossians and Ephesians, many more of the
Pastoral Epistles. They have done so chiefly on the ground
that these writings present a later stage of Christian thought
and organization, than the universally acknowledged letters of
St Paul. External authority, supported by internal evidence
of various kinds, bids us stop short of this conclusion. But, if

1 Ephes. v. 14, διὸ λέγει Kal ἀνάστα ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν
"Βγειρε ὁ καθεύδων Καὶ ἐπιφαύσει σοι ὁ Χριστός.

ORDER OF THE EPISTLES OF THE CAPTIVITY.

we refuse to accept the inference, we can hardly fail to re-
cognise the facts which suggested it. These facts are best met
by placing the Epistles to the Colossians and Ephesians late in
St Paul’s first Roman captivity, so as to separate them as
widely as possible from the earlier epistles, and by referring
the Pastoral letters to a still later date towards the close of
the Apostde’s life.

Natural
advantages
of Philippi.

{ΠῚ

THE CHURCH OF PHILIPPI.

HILIPPI* was founded by the great Macedonian king,

whose name it bears, on or near the site of the ancient

Crenides, ‘ Wells’ or ‘ Fountains”,
In the neighbourhood were gold and silver mines

considerable.

Its natural advantages were

which had been worked in very early times by the Pheenicians

and afterwards by the Thasians®*.

The plain moreover on which

it was situated, washed by the Gangites a tributary of the
Strymon, was and is remarkable for its fertility*.

But the circumstance, to which even more than to its rich
soil and mineral treasures Philippi owed its importance, was its

1 On the geography and antiquities
of Philippi, see Cousinéry Voyage dans
la Macédoine τι p. 1 sq. (1831) ; Leake
Northern Greece 111 p. 214 54. (1835);
and more recently two short papers by
Perrot in the Revue Archéologique(1860)
II. p. 44 8q., p. 67 sq., entitled Daton,
Néopolis, les mines de Philippes. A
work of great importance was ¢om-
menced under the auspices of the late
French Emperor, Mission Archéologi-
que de Macédoine, by MM. Heuzey
and Daumet; of which the part re-
lating to Philippi and the neighbour-
hood has appeared (1869). Besides
several unpublished inscriptions it
contains what appears to be a very
careful map of the site of the town
and district.

2 Diod. Sic. xvi. 3, 8; Strabo vii.
p. 331; Appian Bell. Civ. iv. p. 105

of δὲ Φίλιπποι πόλις ἐστὶν ἣ Adros
ὠνομάζετο πάλαι καὶ Κρηνίδες ἔτι πρὸ
Δάτου, κρῆναι γάρ εἰσι περὶ τῷ λόφῳ
ναμάτων πολλαί κιτ.ιλ. Appian how-
ever is wrong in identifying Crenides
and Philippi with Datos or Daton,
though his statement is copied by more
than one recent writer. The site of
this last-mentioned place was near to
Neapolis: see Leake ». 223 sq., Per-
rot p. 46, Miss. Archéol. p. 60 sq.

8. On the mines of Philippi see
Boeckh’s Public Economy of Athens
p.8 (Engl. trans.), Miss. Archéol. p. 4,
Ρ. 55 56.

4 Cousinéry 11. p. 5, ‘Les produits
seraient immenses si l’activité et l’in-
dustrie des habitans répondaient ἃ la
libéralité de la nature’; see also Perrot
p. 49: comp. Athen. xy. p. 6828, Ap-
pian iv. p. 105.

THE CHURCH OF PHILIPPI. 47

geographical position, commanding the great high road between Its geogra-
phical im-

The almost continuous mountain barrier ῬΟΕΙ ΠΟΘΕΝ

Europe and Asia.
between the East and West is here depressed so as to form
a gateway for this thoroughfare of the two continents’.
this advantage of position which led Philip to fortify the site of
the ancient Crenides. It was this which marked out the place
as the battle-field where the destinies of the Empire were
decided. It was this, lastly, which led the conqueror to plant
a Roman colony on the scene of his triumph.

Neither to its productive soil nor to its precious metals can
we trace any features which give a distinctive character to the
early history of the Gospel at Philippi. Its fertility it shared
with many other scenes of the Apostle’s labours.
wealth appears at this time to have been almost, if not wholly,
drained. The mines had passed successively into the hands of
the three prerogative powers of civilised Europe, the Athenians,
the Macedonians, and the Romans. Even before Philip founded
his city, the works had been discontinued on account of the
scanty yield. By his order they were reopened, and a large
But he seems to have

It was

Its mineral Its mines
exhausted.

revenue was extracted from them”.
taxed their productive power to the utmost; for during the
Roman occupation we hear but little of them’.

1 Brutus and Cassius pitched their
camps somewhere in the neighbourhood
of the pass on two eminences which
stand on either side of the road. Ap-
pian, iv. p. 106, describing their posi-
tion says, Td δὲ μέσον τῶν λόφων, τὰ
ὀκτὼ στάδια, δίοδος ἣν ἐς τὴν ᾿Ασίαν τε
καὶ Ἑὐρώπην, καθάπερ πύλαι: see Miss.
Archéol. p. 105 sq. The pass itself is
formed by a depression in the ridge of
Symbolum, so called because it bridges
together the higher mountains on
either side, Pangeum to the west and
the continuation of Hemus to the east.
The ridge of Symbolum thus separates
the plain of the Gangites from the sea-
board, and must be crossed in visiting
Philippi from Neapolis: Dion Cass.

xlvii. 35 Σύμβολον τὸ χωρίον ὀνομάζουσι
καθ᾽ ὃ τὸ ὄρος ἐκεῖνο (i.e. Ilayyatov)
ἑτέρῳ τινὶ ἐς μεσόγειαν ἀνατείνοντι συμ-
βάλλει, καὶ ἔστι μεταξὺ Νέας πόλεως καὶ
Φιλίππων" ἡ μὲν γὰρ πρὸς θαλάσσῃ καὶ
ἀντιπέρας Θάσου ἦν, ἡ δὲ ἐντὸς τῶν ὀρῶν
ἐπὶ τῷ πεδίῳ πεπόλισται; see Leake
p. 217. The distance from Neapolis to
Philippi is given by Appian (iv. 106) as
vo stadia, by the Jerus. Itin. (p. 321,
Wess.) as ro miles (not 9, as stated by
MM. Heuzey and Daumet), and by the
Antonin. Itin. (p.603, Wess.) as 12 miles.
A recent measurement makes it from
12 to 13 kilométres (Mission Archéolo-
gique p. 19), i.e. about 9 Roman miles.

2 Diod. Sic. xvi. 8.

3 On the working of the Macedonian

Its mixed
popula-
tion.

St Paul’s
first visit.

THE CHURCH OF PHILIPPI.

On the other hand the position of Philippi as a thorough-
fare for the traffic of nations invests St Paul’s preaching here
with a peculiar interest. To this circumstance may be ascribed
the great variety of types among the first Philippian converts,
which is one of the most striking and most instructive features
in this portion of the narrative. We are standing at the con-
fluence of the streams of European and Asiatic life: we see
reflected in the evangelization of Philippi, as in a mirror, the
history of the passage of Christianity from the East to the
West.

It was in the course of his second missionary journey,
about the year 52, that St Paul first visited Philippi. His
associates were Silas who had accompanied him from Jeru-
salem’, Timotheus whom they had taken up at Lystra?, and
Luke who had recently joined the party at Troas*. At this
last-mentioned place the Apostle’s eyes were at length opened
to the import of those mysterious checks and impulses which
had brought him to a seaport lying opposite to the European
coast. ‘A man of Macedonia’ appeared in a night vision, and
revealed to him the work which the ‘Spirit of Jesus*’ had
designed for him. Forthwith he sets sail for Europe. His
zeal is seconded by wind and wave, and the voyage is made
Landing at Neapolis he makes no
halt there, but presses forward to fulfil his mission. A
mountain range still lies between him and his work. Fol-
lowing the great Egnatian road he surmounts this barrier,
and the plain of Philippi, the first city in Macedonia, lies

with unwonted speed’.

mines generally under the Romans, see
Becker and Marquardt Rém. Alterth.
I. 2, p. 144. I have not found any
mention of those of Philippi after the
Christian era. The passages in ancient
writers referring to mining operations
are collected in J. and L. Sabatier
Production de UV Or ete. (St Petersburg,
1850) p. 5 sq.

1 Acts xv. 40.

2 Acts xvi. 1, 3.

> Compare Acts xvi. 8 κατέβησαν
els Τρῳάδα, with xvi. 10 εὐθέως ἐ ξητή-
σαμεν ἐξελθεῖν εἰς τὴν ΔΙακεδονίαν.

4 Acts xvi. 7 τὸ πνεῦμα ᾿Ιησοῦ, the
correct reading.

5 Acts xvi. 11 εὐθυδρομήσαμεν els
Σαμοθρᾷκην, τῇ δὲ ἐπιούσῃ els Νεάπολιν.
On a later occasion the voyage from
Neapolis to Troas takes jive days, Acts
axes

THE CHURCH OF PHILIPPI.

at his feet’.
message.

Here he establishes himsélf and delivers his

Before considering the circumstances and results of this Two fea-

mission, it will be necessary to direct attention to two features

tures in
St Luke’s

in the actual condition of Philippi which appear on the face 2¢count.

of St Luke’s narrative and are not without their influence on
the progress of the Gospel—its. political status and its resident

Jewish population.

1. Appreciating its strategical importance of which he had

had recent experience, Augustus founded at Philippi a Roman

military colony with the high-sounding name ‘Colonia Augusta

_ 1 This is the probable explanation
of the expression in Acts xvi. 12, ἥτις
ἐστὶν πρώτη τῆς μερίδος, Maxedovias πό-
λις, κολωνία, ‘for this is the first place
in the country (or district), a city of
Macedonia, a colony.’ The clause ex-
plains why the Apostle did not halt at
Neapolis. Though the political fron-
tier might not be constant, the natural
boundary between Thrace and Mace-
donia was the mountain range already
described: see p. 47, note 1. Thus,
while Philippi is almost universally as-
signed to Macedonia, Neapolis is gene-
rally spoken of as a Thracian town,
e.g. in Seylax (Geog. Min. τ. p. 54, ed.
Miiller): see Rettig Quest. Philipp.
p. 10 sq. The reading of Acts xvi.
12, which I have given, seems the best
supported, as well as the most expres-
sive: the first τῆς (before μερίδος) ought
probably to be retained, being omitted
only by B, besides some copies which
leave out μερίδος also; the second (be-
fore Μακεδονίας) to be rejected, as it
is wanting in a majority of the best
copies: but these variations do not af-
fect the general sense of the passage.
For the expression compare Polyb, ii.
16. 2 μέχρι πόλεως Πίσης, ἣ πρώτη
κεῖται τῆς Τυρρηνίας ὡς πρὸς τὰς δυσμάς,
and ν. 80. 3 7 κεῖται μετὰ Ρινοκόλουρα,
πρώτη τῶν κατὰ κοίλην Συρίαν πόλεων,

PHIL.

k.T.A., quoted by Rettig pp. 7, 8. For
μερὶς compare μεριδάρχης, Joseph, Ant.
sally te ἘΣ

Thus πρώτη describes the geographi-
cal position of Philippi. Allattempts to
explain the epithet of its political rank
have failed. In no sense was it a ‘chief
town.’ So far as we know, Thessalonica
was all along the general capital of
Macedonia; and if this particular dis-
trict had still a separate political ex-
istence, the centre of government was
not Philippi but Amphipolis. Nor again
can it be shown that πρώτη was ever
assumed as a mere honorary title by
any city in Greece or Macedonia, though
common in Asia Minor. On this latter
point Marquardt, in Becker Rim. Al-
terth. 111. 1. Ὁ. 118, seems to be in error
when he states that Thessalonica was
styled πρώτη Μακεδόνων : he has mis-
interpreted the inscription mentioned
in Boeckh no. 1967; see Leake 111. pp.
214, 483, 486. The correction πρώτης
μερίδος for πρώτη τῆς μερίδος might
deserve some consideration, though un-
supported by any external evidence,
if it were at all probable that the ori-
ginal division of Macedonia by the Ro-
mans into four provinces was still re-
cognised; but it seems to have been
abandoned long before this date; see
Leake ut. p. 487.

1. Philippi
a Roman
colony.

THE CHURCH OF PHILIPPI.

Julia Philippensis*’

the special privilege of the ‘jus Italicum’,’

At the same time he conferred upon it

A colony is de-

scribed by an ancient writer as a miniature likeness of the

great Roman people*;

and this character is fully borne out

by the account of Philippi in the apostolic narrative. The

political atmosphere of the place is wholly Roman.

The chief

magistrates, more strictly designated duumvirs, arrogate to

themselves the loftier title of preetors*.

Their servants, like

the attendant officers of the highest functionaries in Rome, bear

the name οἵ lictors’.

citizenship confront us at every turn.

1 Plin. N. H. iv. 18 ‘Intus Philippi
colonia.’ See the coins in Eckhel τι.
p. 76, Mionnet 1. p. 486; Orell. Inscr.
512. In one instance at least ‘Victrix’
seems to be added to this title, Mission
Archéologique p. 17. According to
Dion Cass. li. 4, Augustus ridded
himself of troublesome neighbours by
transplanting to Philippi and other co-
lonies the inhabitants of those Italian
towns which had espoused the cause of

Antonius.
2 Dig. nu. 15. On the ‘jus Italicum’

see Becker and Marquardt Rim. Al-
terth. 11. 1. Ὁ. 261 sq.

3 Gell. xvi. 13 ‘Populi Romani, cujus
iste colonie quasi effigies parve simu-
lacraque esse quedam videntur.’

4 Acts xvi. 19, 22, 35, 360, 38. The
same persons who are first designated
generally ‘the magistrates’ (ἄρχοντες,
ver. 19) are afterwards called by their
distinctive title ‘ the pretors’ (στρατη-
γοῦ. Itis a mistake to suppose that
the prisoners were handed over by the
civil authorities (ἄρχοντες) to the mili-
tary (στρατηγοί) to be tried. The chief
magistrates of a colony were styled
‘ duumyiri juri dicundo,’ or ‘duumyiri’
simply. On their functions see Savigny
Gesch. d. R. R. τ. p. 30 8q., with other
references in Becker and Marquardt
Rim. Alterth, ut. 1.p. 352. Δ duumvir

The pride and privilege of Roman

This is the sentiment

of Philippi appears on an inscription,
Orell. no. 3746 C. VIBIVS C. F. VOL.
FLORVS DEC IIVIR ET MVNE-
RARIVS PHILIPPIS FIL. CAR. C.;
another on a monument at Neapolis,
Mission Archéologique p. 15 [DECV]
RIONATVS . ET . IIVIRALICIS .
PONTIFEX FLAMEN . DIVI
CLAVDI . PHILIPPIS. See also a
mutilated inscription, ib. p.127 TI[VIR.
J[V]R. DIC. PHILIPPIS. The second
must have been contemporary with St
Paul. On the practice of assuming the
title of ‘pretor’ see Cicero de Leg.
Agr. ii. 34 ‘Vidi, quum venissem
Capuam, coloniam deductam L. Con-
sidio et Sext. Saltio (quemadmodum ip-
si loquebantur) pretoribus: ut intelli-
gatis quantam locus ipse afferat super-
biam...Nam primum, id quod dixi,
quum ceteris in coloniis duumyiri ap-
pellentur, hi se preetores appellari volu-
erunt.’ This assumption however was
by no means exceptional even in Italy
(see Orell. Inscr. 3785, Hor. Sat. i. 5. 34,
and notes); and where some Greek title
was necessary, as at Philippi, στρατηγοὶ
would naturally be adopted. See Cure-
ton’s Anc. Syr. Doc. p. 188. Another
inscription (Orell. no. 4064) mentions a
MAG, QVINQVENN. (quinquennalis),
i.e. a censor, at Philippi.
5 ῥαβδοῦχοι, Acts xvi. 35, 38.

Aig,
‘ v

THE CHURCH OF PHILIPPI,

which stimulates the blind loyalty of the people’: this is
the power which obtains redress for the prisoners and forces
an apology from the unwilling magistrates*. Nor is this feature
entirely lost sight of, when we turn from St Luke’s narrative
to St Paul’s epistle. Addressing a Roman colony from the
Roman metropolis, writing as a citizen to citizens, he recurs to
the political franchise as an apt symbol of the higher privileges
of their heavenly calling, to the political life as a suggestive

metaphor for the duties of their Christian profession’.

2. On this, as on all other occasions, the Gospel is first 2. The

offered to the Jews.
been very scanty. St Paul found no synagogue here, as at
Thessalonica and Berea. The members of the chosen race met
together for worship every week at a ‘place of prayer’ outside
the city gate on the banks of the Gangites*. The Apostle
appears to have had no precise information of the spot’, but
the common practice of his countrymen would suggest the
suburbs of the city, and the river-side especially, as a likely
place for these religious gatherings®. Thither accordingly he
repaired with his companions on the first sabbath day after
their arrival. To the women assembled he delivered his mes-

1 Acts xvi. 21 ‘And teach customs times represented by I. It is a great

which it is not lawful for us to receive
neither to observe, being Romans.’

2 Acts xvi. 37—39.

3 Phil. i. 27 μόνον ἀξίως τοῦ εὐαγγε-
Mov τοῦ Χριστοῦ πολιτεύεσθε, iii. 20
ἡμῶν yap τὸ πολίτευμα ἐν οὐρανοῖς
ὑπάρχει.

4. Acts xvi. 1% παρὰ ποταμόν, This
river was the Gangas or Gangites (Ap-
pian iv. p. 106 ὃν Γάγγαν τινές, of δὲ
Γαγγίτην λέγουσι) whose sources are
near to Philippi and probably gave its
name to Crenides. As this river is
called by Herodotus, vii. 113, ’Ayyirns,
and now bears the name Anghista, it
would appear that the initial consonant
was not a decided G, but a guttural
sound like the Shemitie Ayin which is
sometimes omitted in Greek and some-

error to identify the stream mentioned .

by St Luke with the Strymon, which
must be about 30 miles distant, and
certainly would not be designated a
river without the definite article.

5 The correct reading seems to be,
not οὗ ἐνομίζετο προσευχὴ εἶναι, but ov
ἐνομίζομεν προσευχὴν εἶναι, ‘where we
supposed there was a place of prayer’;
and may be explained in the way sug-
gested in the text.

6 Joseph. Ant. xiv. 10. 23 Tas προσ-
εὐχὰς ποιεῖσθαι πρὸς τῇ θαλάσσῃ κατὰ

τὸ πάτριον ἔθος. So Tertullian speaks

: an Jews of
Their numbers at Philippi appear to have Philippi.

of the ‘orationes littorales’ of the Jews, . ᾿

adv. Nat. i. 13; comp. de Jejun. 16:
see also Philo in Flacc. § 14, p. 535 M,
and other references in Biscoe History
of the Acts etc. Ὁ. 182 8q. (1840).

4—2

S51

$2 THE CHURCH OF PHILIPPI.

sage. Of strictly Hebrew converts the sacred record is silent;
but the baptism of a proselytess and her household is related
as the first triumph of the Gospel at Philippi.

No Judaic To the scanty numbers and feeble influence of the Jews we

Peon may perhaps in some degree ascribe the unswerving allegiance

oe of this church to the person of the Apostle and to the true
principles of the Gospel. In one passage indeed his grateful
acknowledgment of the love and faith of his Philippian converts
is suddenly interrupted by a stern denunciation of Judaism’,
But we may well believe that in this warning he was thinking
of Rome more than of Philippi; and that his indignation was
aroused rather by the vexatious antagonism which there
thwarted him in his daily work, than by any actual errors
already undermining the faith of his distant converts* Yet
even the Philippians were not safe from the intrusion of these
dangerous teachers. At no great distance lay important Jewish
settlements, the strongholds of this fanatical opposition, Even
now there might be threatenings of an interference which
would tamper with the allegiance and disturb the peace of his
beloved church.

hari The Apostle’s first visit to Philippi is recorded with a mi-

ue nuteness which has not many parallels in St Luke’s history.

narrative. The narrator had jomed St Paul shortly before he crossed over
into Europe: he was with the Apostle during his sojourn at
Philippi: he seems to have remained there for some time after
his departure*. This exact personal knowledge of the writer,
combining with the grandeur and variety of the incidents
themselves, places the visit to Philippi among the most striking
and instructive passages in the apostolic narrative.

Three dif- I have already referred to the varieties of type among the

ik first disciples at Philippi, as a prominent feature in this portion

oak of the history. The three converts, who are especially men-

converts. tioned, stand in marked contrast each to the other in national

1 Phil. iii, 2 sq. sumed at the same place (Acts xx. 5,

2 See below, p. 68 sq. ἔμενον Huds) after a lapse of six or seven

3 The first person plural is dropped years. This coincidence suggests the
at Philippi (Acts xvii. 1, 7\@ov) and re- inference in the text.

“προ δα αν νενο. ..

THE CHURCH OF PHILIPPI. 53

descent, in social rank, in religious education. They are repre-
sentatives of three different races: the one an Asiatic, the other
a Greek, the third a Roman. In the relations of everyday life
they have nothing in common: the first is engaged in an
important and lucrative branch of traffic: the second, treated °
by the law as a mere chattel without any social or political
rights, is employed by her masters to trade upon the credulous
superstition of the ignorant: the third, equally removed from
both the one and the other, holds a subordinate office under
government. In their religious training also they stand no less
apart. In the one the speculative mystic temper of Oriental
devotion has at length found deeper satisfaction in the revealed.
truths of the Old Testament. The second, bearing the name of
the Pythian god the reputed source of Greek inspiration, repre-
sents an artistic and imaginative religion, though manifested
here in a very low and degrading form’, While the third, if .
he preserved the characteristic features of his race, must have
exhibited a type of worship essentially political in tone. The
purple-dealer and proselytess of Thyatira—the native slave-girl
with the divining spirit—the Roman gaoler—all alike acknow-
ledge the supremacy of the new faith. In the history of the
Gospel at Philippi, as in the history of the Church at large, is
reflected the great maxim of Christianity, the central truth of
the Apostle’s preaching, that here ‘is neither Jew nor Greek,
neither bond nor free, neither male nor female, but all are one
in Christ Jesus*’

Again the order of these conversions is significant: first, Order of
the proselyte, next the Greek, lastly the Roman. Thus the ee
incidents at Philippi in their sequence, not less than in their typical.
variety, symbolize the progress of Christianity throughout the
world. Through the Israelite dispersion, through the proselytes
whether of the covenant or of the gate, the message of the

1 See Plut. Mor. p.4148,Clem. Hom. mountain tribe in the Hemus chain:
ix. 16. It has been conjectured that this Herod. vii. 1rr. Atall events the inci-
girl with the ‘ Pytho-spirit’ was a ἱερόν _ dentisillustrated by the religious temper
Sdovdos attached to the famous oracle of οἵ these half-barbarous mountaineers.
Dionysus among the Satre, a wild 2 Gal. 111, 28,

THE CHURCH OF PHILIPPI.

Gospel first reached the Greek. By the instrumentality of the
Greek language and the diffusion of the Greek race it finally
established itself in Rome, the citadel of power and civilisation,
whence directly or indirectly it was destined to spread over the

‘whole world.

Social in-
fluence of
the Gospel
symbol-
ized in the
case of

(1) The
woman,

These events however are only symbolical as all history—
more especially scriptural history—is symbolical, The order of
the conversions at Philippi was in itself the natural order.
The sacred historian wrote down with truthful simplicity what
he ‘saw and heard. The representative character of these
several incidents can hardly have occurred to him. But from
its geographical position Philippi, as a meeting-point of nations,
would represent not unfairly the civilised world in miniature ;
and the phenomena of the progress of the Gospel in its wider
sphere were thus anticipated on a smaller scale.

But while the conversions at Philippi had thus a typical
character, as representing not only the universality of the Gos-
pel but also the order of its diffusion, they seem to illustrate
still more distinctly the two great social revolutions which it
has effected. In most modern treatises on civilisation, from
whatever point of view they are written, a prominent place is
given to the amelioration of woman and the abolition of slavery,
as the noblest social triumphs of Christianity. Now the woman
and the slave are the principal figures in the scene of the
Apostle’s preaching at Philippi.

As regards the woman indeed it seems probable that the
Apostle’s work was made easier by the national feelings and
usages of Macedonia. It may, I think, be gathered from St
Luke’s narrative, that her social position was higher in this
country than in most parts of the civilised world. At Philippi,
at Thessalonica, at Bercea, the women—in some cases certainly,
in all probably, ladies of birth and rank—take an active part
with the Apostle’. It forms moreover a striking coincidence,

1 At Philippi, xvi. 13 ‘We spoke to women not a few’; at Bercea, xvii. 12
the women that were gathered together’; ‘Many of them believed, and of the
at Thessalonica, xvii. 4 ‘There were Greek women of rank (εὐσχημόνων) and
added to Paul and Silas...of the chief -men not a few.’ :

THE CHURCH OF PHILIPPI. 55

and surely an undesigned coincidence, between the history and

the epistle, that while in the former the Gospel is related

to have been first preached to women and the earliest converts

specially mentioned are women, in the latter we find the peace

of the Philippian Church endangered by the feuds of two

ladies of influence, whose zealous aid in the spread of the

Gospel the Apostle gratefully acknowledges*. Moreover the Influence

inference thus suggested by the narrative of St Luke Brit: we

strengthened by the notice in St Paul’s epistle is farther 4™4

borne out, if I mistake not, by reference to other sources of

information. The extant Macedonian inscriptions seem to
assign to the sex a higher social influence than is common
among the civilised nations of antiquity. In not a few in-
stances a metronymic takes the place of the usual patronymic’? ;
and in other cases a prominence is given to women which can
hardly be accidental®. But whether I am right or not in the

conjecture that the work of the Gospel was in this respect

1 Euodia and Syntyche, Phil. iv. 2,
αἵτινες ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ συνήθλησάν μοι.

3 On the well-known inscription
giving the names of the Thessalonian
politarchs, Boeckh no. 1967, we read
Σωσιπάτρου τοῦ Κλεοπάτρας and Ταύρου
τοῦ ᾿Αμμίας ; on a second at Bercea,
1957 f (add.) Πόρος ᾿Αμμίας ; ona third
not far from Bercea, 1957 g (add.) Ma-
κέδων Evyelas ; on a fourth near Thes-
salonica, 1967 Ὁ (add.) [ὁ δεῖνα] ᾿Αντι-
φίλης; on ἃ fifth at Edessa, 1997 ¢ (add.)
᾿Αλέξανδρος καὶ Ἑϊούλιος of Μαρκίας,
"Eorepo[s] Σεμέλης, [Εἰ]ούλ[ιο]1.5 Καλ-
Norns. See Leake 111. pp. 236, 277,
292.

3 For instance one inscription (no.
1958) records how a wife erects a tomb
‘for herself and her dear husband out
of their common earnings (ἐκ τῶν κοιῶν
καμάτων)" : another (no. 1977) how a
husband erects atomb ‘for his devoted
and darling wife (τῇ φιλάνδρῳ καὶ γλυ-
κυτάτῃ συνβίῳ) and himself,’ in this case

also from their common savings (ἐκ τῶν
κοινῶν κόπων). Again there are cases
of monuments erected in honour of
women by public bodies: e.g. no.
1997 ἃ (add.) ἡ πόλις [κ]αὶ of cuvrpaly]-
ματε[υ]όμενο[.] ‘Pwuato[c] Ilerpwrlay A.
Πετρωνίου Βάσσο[υ] θυγατέρα Στρατύλ-
λαν τιμῶντ[ ε]ς [Θε]οῖς, no. 1999 Μα-
κεδόνων οἱ σύνεδροι Μαρκίαν ᾿Ακυλίαν
Φαβρικιανοῦ "Απερος θυγατέρα] ἀνδρὸς
ἀγαθοῦ: no. 1999 b (add.) τὸ κοινὸν τῶν
Μακεδόνων Μανλίαν ἸΠοντείαν Λουκούλλαν
Αὔλου Ποντίου Βήρου τοῦ λαμπροτάτου
ἀνθυπάτου γυναῖκα ἀρετῆς ἕνεκεν. Again
the deferential language used by the
husband speaking of the wife is worthy
of notice, e.g. no. 1965 Εὐτύχης Στρα-
τονίκῃ TH συμβίῳ καὶ κυρίᾳ μνείας χάριν.
These are the most striking but not
the only instances in which an unusual
prominence is given to women. The
whole series of Macedonian inscriptions
read continuously cannot fail, I think,
to suggest the inference in the text.

56 THE CHURCH OF PHILIPPI.

aided by the social condition of Macedonia, the active zeal of:
the women in this country is a remarkable fact, without a
parallel in the Apostle’s history elsewhere and only to be com-
pared with their prominence at an earlier date in the personal
ministry of our Lord.

(2) The And as Christianity exerts its influence on the woman at

να Philippi, so does it also on the slave. The same person, whose
conversion exemplifies the one maxim of the Gospel that in
Christ is ‘neither male nor female,’ is made a living witness of
the other social principle also that in Him is ‘neither bond nor
free.’ It can hardly have happened that the Apostle’s mission
had never before crossed the path of the slave; yet it is a signi-.
ficant fact, illustrating the varied character and typical import
of this chapter of sacred history, that the divining girl at Phil-
ippi is the earliest recorded instance, where his attention is
directed to one of these ‘live chattels’?

Family re- But more than this: as the Gospel recognises the claims of

eed the woman and the slave severally, so also it fulfils its noblest
mission in hallowing the general relations of family life, which
combines these and other elements. Here too the conversion of
the Philippian Church retains its typical character. It has
been observed’, that this is the first recorded instance in St
Paul’s history where whole families are gathered into the fold.
Lydia and her household—the gaoler and all belonging to
him—are baptized into Christ. Henceforth the worship of
households plays an important part in the divine economy of
the Church, As in primeval days the patriarch was the re-
cognised priest of his clan, so in the Christian Church the father
of the house is the divinely appointed centre of religious life to
his own family. The family religion is the true starting-point,
the surest foundation, of the religion of cities and dioceses, of
nations and empires, The church in the house of Philemon
grows into the Church of Colossze*; the church in the house of

1 Aristot. Pol. i. 4 ὁ δοῦλος κτῆμά τ, Ῥ. 348 (2nd edition),

ἔμψυχον. 3 Philem, 2.
* See Conybeare and Howson 1.

THE CHURCH OF PHILIPPIV 57

Nymphas becomes the Church of Laodicea?; the church in the
house of Aquila and Priscilla loses itself in the Churches of
Ephesus and Rome’®.

Altogether the history of St Paul’s connexion with Philippi Grandeur
assumes a prominence quite out of proportion to the importance oe mney
of the place itself. In the incidents and the results alike of his
preaching the grandeur of the epoch is brought out. The perse-
cutions which the Apostle here endured were more than usually
severe, and impressed themselves deeply on his memory, for he
alludes to them once and again®, The marvellous deliverance
wrought for him is without a parallel in his history before or
atter. The signal success which crowned his labours surpasses
all his earlier or later achievements.

On this last-mentioned feature it is especially refreshing to Loyalty of
dwell. The unwavering loyalty of his Philippian converts is the oer ;
constant solace of the Apostle in his manifold trials, the one
bright ray of happiness piercing the dark clouds which gather
ever thicker about the evening of his life. They are his ‘joy
and crown, his brethren beloved and eagerly desired*.” From
them alone he consents to receive alms for the relief of his per-
sonal wants®. To them alone he writes in language unclouded
by any shadow of displeasure or disappointment.

St Paul’s first visit to Philippi closed abruptly amid the Their sut-
storm of persecution. It was not to be expected that, where ae
the life of the master had been so seriously endangered, the
scholars would escape all penalties. The Apostle left behind
him a legacy of suffering to this newly born church. This is not
a mere conjecture: the afflictions of the Macedonian Christians,
and of the Philippians especially, are more than once mentioned
in St Paul’s epistles’. Ifit was their privilege to believe in Christ,

1 Col. iv. 15. ing the same conflict which ye saw in
2 τ Cor. xvi. 19, Rom. xvi. 5. me.’
3 1 Thess. ii. 2 ‘ Though we had al- 4 Phil. iv. 1.

ready suffered and been ignominiously 5 Phil, iv,, 15.

treated (προπαθόντες καὶ ὑβρισθέντες), as 6 2 Cor. viii. 2. See the notes on

ye know, at Philippi,’ Phil,i.39‘Hav- Phil. i. 7, 28—3o0.

Later com-

munica-

THE CHURCH OF PHILIPPI.

it was equally their privilege to suffer for Him’. To this
refiner’s fire may doubtless be ascribed in part the lustre and
purity of their faith compared with other churches.

About five years elapsed between St Paul's first and second

tions with Visit to Philippi: but meanwhile his communications with this

Philippi.

church appear to have been frequent and intimate. It has
been already mentioned that on the Apostle’s departure St Luke
seems to have remained at Philippi, where he was taken up
after the lapse of several years and where perhaps he had spent
some portion of the intervening period®, Again when in the
year 57 St Paul, then residing at Ephesus, despatched Timo-
theus and Erastus to Macedonia’, we may feel sure that the most
loyal of all his converts were not overlooked in this general
mission. When moreover about the same time, either through
these or other messengers, he appealed to the Macedonian
Christians to relieve the wants of their poorer brethren in
Judea, it may safely be assumed that his faithful Philippian
Church was foremost in the promptness and cordiality of its
response, where all alike in spite of abject poverty and sore
persecution were lavish with their alms ‘to their power, yea
and beyond their power*.’ ΝΟΥ is it probable that these notices
exhaust all his communications with Philippi at this time.
Lying on the high-road between Asia and Achaia, this city
would be the natural halting-place for the Apostle’s messen-
gers’, as they passed to and fro between the great centres of
Gentile Christendom.

At length in the autumn of the year 57 the Apostle himself,
released from his engagements in Asia, revisits his European
churches. His first intention had been to sail direct to Achaia,
in which case he would have called in Macedonia and returned

1 Phil. i. 29 ὑμῖν ἐχαρίσθη τὸ brép infer that Timotheus did not proceed
Χριστοῦ, οὐ μόνον τὸ els αὐτὸν πιστεύειν With Erastus to Corinth, but remained

ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸ ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ πάσχειν. behind in Macedonia.
2 See above, p. 52, note 3. # 2 Cor, viii. 1—5.
3 Acts xix. 22. Of Timotheus see 6 Titus and his companion for in-

also 1 Cor. iv. 17, xvi. 10,2 Cor. i. 1. stance (2 Cor. ii. 13, vii. 6, xii, 18;
Putting together these notices we may comp. 1 Cor. Xvi. 11, 12).

THE CHURCH OF PHILIPPI. 59

to Corinth. But afterwards he altered his plan and travelled by Second
: ᾿ and third
land, so as to take Macedonia on the way’. Leaving Mace- visits.
donia and visiting Corinth, he had purposed to take ship from
this latter place direct to Palestine: but receiving information
of a plot against his life, he changes his route and returns
by land* Thus owing toa combination of circumstances
Macedonia receives a double visit. On both occasions his af-
fectionate relations with Philippi seem to attract and rivet
him there. On the former, seeking relief from the agony of
suspense which oppresses him at Troas, he hurries across the
sea to Macedonia, halting apparently at Philippi and there
On the latter, unable to tear
himself away, he despatches his companions to Asia in advance
and lingers behind at Philippi himself, that he may keep the
paschal feast with his beloved converts*. It is the last festival
for some years to come, which he is free to celebrate as and

awaiting the arrival of Titus’.

where he wills.

Of the former visit St Luke records only the fact. But the
Second Epistle to the Corinthians certainly’, the Epistle to the
Galatians not improbably*, were written from Macedonia on this
occasion: and, though scarcely a single incident is directly re-
lated, they present a complete and vivid picture of the Apostle’s
inward life at this time. Of his external relations thus much
may be learnt: we find him busy with the collection of alms
for Judea, stimulating the Macedonian churches and gratefully
acknowledging their liberal response’; we gather also from the
mention of ‘fightings without*’ that the enemies whether
Jewish or heathen, who had persecuted him in earlier years,

1 2 Cor. i. 15—17, comp. 1 Cor. xvi.
5, οἷ

2 Acts xix. 21, xx, I—3.

32 Cor. ii, 12 56., Vil. 5, 6.

4 Acts xx. 5,6 ‘These going before
waited for us at Troas: but we set sail
from Philippi after the days of unlea-
vened bread.’

Ee χε ον, 11. 1S, ὙΠ: Sy ville Ὁ Sd., 1X,
2,4. The subscription mentions Phil-

ippi as the place of writing, and this
is probable, though the authority is al-
most worthless.

6 See Galatians, p. 35 sq.

7 2 Cor. viii. 1—6, ix. 2.

8 2 Cor. vii. 5; comp. viii. 2. To this
occasion also the Apostle may possibly
refer in Phil. i. 30, τὸν αὐτὸν ἀγῶνα

ἔχοντες οἷον εἴδετε ἐν ἐμοί.

The Phil-
ippians

send alms
to St Paul.

Illness of
Epaphro-
ditus.

THE CHURCH OF PHILIPPI.

made his reappearance in Macedonia a signal for the renewal of
their attacks. Of the latter visit we know absolutely nothing,
except the names of his companions and the fact already men-
tioned that he remained behind for the passover.

From this time forward we read no more of the Philippians
till the period of St Paul’s Roman: captivity. When they heard
of his destination, their slumbering affection for him revived.
It was not the first time that they had been eager to offer and
he willing to receive alms for the supply of his personal wants.
After the close of his first visit, while he was still in Macedonia,
they had more than once sent him timely assistance to Thessa-
lonica*, When from Macedonia he passed on to Achaia, fresh
supplies from Philippi reached him at Corinth’. Then there
was a lull in their attentions. It was not that their affection
had cooled, the Apostle believed, but that the opportunity was
wanting. Now at length after a lapse of ten years their loyalty
again took the same direction; and Epaphroditus was despatched
to Rome with their gift’.

Their zealous attention was worthily seconded by the mes-
senger whom they had chosen. Not content with placing this
token of their love in St Paul’s hands, Epaphroditus* devoted
himself heart and soul to the ministry under the Apostle’s guid-
ance. But the strain of excessive exertion was too great for his
physical powers, In his intense devotion to the work he lost
his health and almost his life. At length the danger passed
away: ‘God had mercy,’ says the Apostle, ‘not on him only,

1 Phil. iv. 16.
2 Phil. iv. 15 ‘When I left Mace-

Epaphras (Col. i. 7, iv. 12, Philem. 23) ;
for, though the names are the same,

donia, no church communicated with
me in regard of giving and receiving
but ye only’; 2 Cor, xi. 8,9 ‘When I
was present with you and wanted, I was
not burdensome to any: for my want
the brethren having come from Mace-
donia supplied.’

3 Phil. ii. 25, 30, iv: 1o—18.

4 Epaphroditus is known to us only
from the notices in this epistle. He
is doubtless to be distinguished from

the identity of the persons seems im-
probable for two reasons. (1) The one
appears to have been a native of Phil-
ippi (Phil. ii. 25 sq.), the other of Co-
lossz (Col. iv. 12). (2) The longer form
of the name is always used of the Phil-
ippian delegate, the shorter of the Co-
lossian teacher. The name in fact isso
extremely common in both forms, that
the coincidence affords no presumption
of the identity of persons.

2 <I

THE CHURCH OF PHILIPPI: οι

but on myself also, that I might not have sorrow upon sorrow.’
But his convalescence was succeeded by home-sickness. He
was oppressed with the thought that the Philippians would
have heard of his critical state. He was anxious to return
that he might quiet their alarm’.

This purpose was warmly approved by St Paul. To contri- The Epi-
bute to their happiness in any way was to alleviate his own Phe
sorrows*, He would not therefore withhold Epaphroditus from Papel
them. So Epaphroditus returns to Philippi, bearing a letter
from the Apostle, in which he pours out his heart in an overflow
of gratitude and love.

In this letter he expresses his intention of sending Timo- Mission of
theus to them immediately*, Whether this purpose was ever es
fulfilled we have no means of knowing. But in sending Timo-
theus he did not mean to withhold himself. He hoped before
long to be released, and he would then visit them in person‘.

The delay mdeed seems to have been greater than he then Later
anticipated ; but at length he was able to fulfil his promise. Bae
One visit at least, probably more than one, he paid to Philippi

and his other Macedonian churches in the interval between his

first and second captivities’.

The canonical writings record nothing more of Philippi.
whole generation passes away before its name is again men-
tioned. Early in the second century Ignatius, now on his way
to Rome where he is condemned to suffer martyrdom, as he
passes through Philippi is kindly entertained and escorted on

A Ignatius at
Philippi.

The name Epaphroditus or Epaphras
is not specially characteristic of Ma-
cedonia, but occurs abundantly every-
where. Ona Thessalonian inscription
(Boeckh no. 1987) we meet with one
Taos KXddt0s ᾿Ε παφρόδειτοςς. This con-
currence of names is suggestive. The
‘combination, which occurs once, might
well occur again: and it is possible
(though in the absence of evidence
hardly probable) that Gaius the Mace-
donian of St Luke (Acts xix..29) is the
same person as Epaphroditus the Phil-

ippian of St Paul.

1 Phil. ii. 25—30.

2 Phil. ii. 28 ‘ That having seen him
ye may rejoice again, and I may be less
sorrowful.’

ΡΠ: we Os

4 (Phil? i724.

5 1 Tim. i. 3. The notices in 2 Tim,
iv. 13, 20 perhaps refer to a later date.
If so, they point to a second visit of the
Apostle after his release; for in going
from Troas to Corinth he would natu-
rally pass through Macedonia,

Polycarp’s
letter.

Commend-
ation and
warning.

THE CHURCH OF PHILIPPI.

his way by the members of the church’. This circumstance
seems to have given rise to communications with Polycarp, the
youthful bishop of Smyrna and trusty friend of Ignatius, in
which the Philippians invite him to address to them some words
of advice and exhortation. Polycarp responds to this appeal.
He congratulates,them on their devotion to the martyrs ‘ bound
in saintly fetters, the diadems of the truly elect. He rejoices
that ‘the sturdy root of their faith, famous from the earliest
days’, still survives and bears fruit unto our Lord Jesus Christ.’
He should not have ventured to address them, unless they had
themselves solicited him, He, and such as he, cannot ‘attain
unto the wisdom of the blessed and glorious Paul, who taught
among them in person, and wrote to them when absent instruc-
tions which they would do well to study for their edification in
the faith®. He offers many words of exhortation, more espe-
cially relating to the qualifications of widows, deacons, and pres-
byters*, He warns them against those who deny that Jesus
Christ has come in the flesh, against those who reject the
testimony of the cross, against those who say there is no
resurrection or judgment’. He sets before them for imitation
the example ‘not only of the blessed Ignatius and Zosimus and
Rufus, but also of others of their own church, and Paul himself
and the other Apostles, who have gone before to their rest®.

There is however one cause for sorrow. Valens a presbyter

1 Martyr. Ignat. § 5; Polyc. Phil. x
δεξαμένοις TA μιμήματα τῆς ἀληθοῦς ἀγά-
wns καὶ προπέμψασιν ὡς ἐπέβαλεν ὑμῖν,
τοὺς ἐνειλημμένους [ἐνειλημένους 3] τοῖς
ὡγιοπρεπέσι δεσμοῖς ἅτινά ἐστι διαδήματα
κιτιλ. The martyrs here alluded to are
doubtless Ignatius and others mentioned
by name §g. The letter of Polycarp
was written after the death of Ignatius
(ξ 9); but the event was so recent that
he asks the Philippians to send him in-
formation about Ignatius and his com-
panions, § 13 ‘Et de ipso Ignatio et de
his qui cum eo sunt (the present is
doubtless due to the translator, where

the original was probably τῶν σὺν αὐτῷ)
quod certius agnoveritis, significate.’

2 § 1 ἐξ ἀρχαίων καταγγελλομένη
χρόνων.

3§ 3. On this passage see the de-
tached note on iii. 1.

4 § 4—6.

5 ¢7. It would not be a safe infer-
ence, that when Polycarp wrote the
Philippian Church was in any special
danger of these errors. The language
is general and comprehensive, warning
them against all the prevailing forms
of heresy.

δ § 9.

THE CHURCH OF PHILIPPI. 63

in the Philippian Church, and his wife whose name is not given, The crime
had brought scandal on the Gospel by their avarice’, From all I
participation in their crime Polycarp exonerates the great
body of the church. He has neither known nor heard of any
such vice in those Philippians among whom St Paul laboured,
boasting of them in all the churches, at a time when his own
Smyrna was not yet converted to Christ”. He trusts the offend-

1 δ τι, Polycarp after speaking of all troubles (ἀρχὴ πάντων χαλεπῶν φιλ-

the crime of Valens adds, ‘ Moneo ita-
que vos ut abstineatis ab avaritia et
sitis casti et veraces...Si quis non abs-
tinuerit se ab avaritia, ab idololatria
coinquinabitur.’ The crime of Valens
and his wife was doubtless avarice, not
concupiscence, as the passage is fre-
quently interpreted. In §§ 4, 6, ‘ava-
ritia’ is the translation of φιλαργυρία ;
and this was probably the word used
in the original here. But even if the
Greek had πλεονεξία, it is a mistake to
suppese that this word ever signifies
‘unchastity’ (see the note on 1 Thess.
iv. 6); and the fact that both husband
and wife were guilty of the crime in
question points rather to avarice (as in
the case of Ananias and Sapphira) than
to impurity. The word ‘casti’ seems
to have misled the commentators; but
even if the original were ἁγνοὶ and not
καθαροί, it might still apply to sordid
and dishonest gain. This use of d-yvds
would not be unnatural even in a hea-
then writer (e.g. Pind. Ol. iii. 21 ἁγνὰ
κρίσις); and the Apostle’s denunciation
of covetousness as idolatry (to which
Polycarp refers in the context) makes it
doubly appropriate here. ‘Corruption’
is a common synonyme for fraud. On
the other hand ‘veraces’ is quite out of
place, if concupiscence was intended.
The correct interpretation may be
inferred also from other expressions in
the letter. Polycarp seems to have had
the crime of Valens in his thoughts
when in an earlier passage, § 4, he de-
clares that ‘avarice is the beginning of

apyupla),’ and when again in enumer-
ating the qualifications of presbyters
(δ 6) he states that they must stand
aloof from every form of avarice (ua-
Kpav ὄντες πάσης φιλαργυρίας). The Ma-
cedonian churches in St Paul’s time
were as liberal as they were poor (2 Cor.
vili. 1—3). Greed of wealth was about
the last crime that they could be charged
with. There is no reason to suppose
that their character had wholly changed
within a single generation. But a no-
table exception had occurred at Phil-
ippi; and, though Polycarp distinctly
treats it as an exception and acquits
the Philippian church as a body (δ 11),
yet it naturally leads him to dwell on
the heinousness of this sin.

The name ‘ Valens’ for some reason
seems to have been frequent in Mace-
donia; perhaps because it had been
borne by some local celebrity: see for
instance Boeckh no. 1969 (at Thessa-
lonica), where it occurs together with
another common Macedonian name
(Acts xx. 4), Οὐαλὴς καὶ Σεκοῦνδος. It
is found also in another inscription at
Drama (Drabescus?) in Perrot (Revue
Archéol. 1860, τι. p. 73); and in a third
and a fourth at Philippi itself, published
in Cousinéry 11. p. 21, Miss. Archéol,
Ὁ: Ὑ71:

53. 8 11 ‘Im quibus laboravit beatus
Paulus, qui estis in principio epistole
ejus: de vobis etenim gloriatur in om-
nibus ecclesiis que Deum sole tune
cognoyerant, nos autem nondum nove-
ramus,’ ©

Conclu-
sion.

Later his-
tory of
Philippi.

any light on its internal condition’.

THE CHURCH OF PHILIPPI.

ers will be truly penitent: and he counsels the Philippians to
treat them, not as enemies, but as errmg members. They are
well versed in the scriptures’, and will not need to be reminded
how the duty of gentleness and forbearance is enforced therein.
At the conclusion, he refers to certain parting injunctions of

Iguatius: he complies with their desire and sends copies of

those letters of the martyr which are in his possession: he com-

mends to their care Crescens, the bearer of the epistle, whe will
be accompanied by his sister.

With this notice the Philippian Church may be said to pass
out of sight. From the time of Polycarp its name is very rarely

mentioned ; and scarcely a single fact is recorded which throws

Here and there the name
of a bishop appears in connexion with the records of an ecclesi-
astical council. On one occasion its prelate subscribes a decree
as vicegerent of the metropolitan of Thessalonica®. But, though
the see is said to exist even to the present day*, the city itself
has been long a wilderness. Of its destruction or decay no
record is left; and among its ruins travellers have hitherto failed
Of the church which stood

foremost among all the apostolic communities in faith and love,

to find any Christian remains’.

it may literally be said that not one stone stands upon another.
Its whole career is a signal monument of the inscrutable coun-
sels of God. Born into the world with the brightest promise,
the Church of Philippi has lived without a history and perished

without a memorial.

1 § 12 ‘Confido enim vos bene ex-
ercitatos esse in sacris literis et nihil
vos latet ete.’

2 The rhetoric of Tertullian (de Pre-
scr. 36, adv. Mare. iv. 5), who appeals
among others to the Philippian Church
as still maintaining the Apostle’s doc-
trine and reading his epistle publicly,
can hardly be considered evidence,
though the fact itself need not be
questioned.

When Hoog, de Cat. Christ. Philipp.
etc. p. 176 (1825), speaks of a council

held at Philippi, ‘imperantibus Constan-
tini filiis,’ he confuses Philippi with
Philippopolis. See Soer. H. L.ii.20,22.

3 Flavianus, who takes an active part
at the C. of Ephesus, 4.p. 431; Labb.
Conc. 11. 456 ete.

4 Le Quien, Or. Chr. τι. p. 70, gives
the name of its bishop when he wrote
(1740). Neale, Holy Eastern Church τ.
p- 92, mentions it among existing sees.

* T ought to except one or two insecrip-
tions lately published, Miss. Archéol.
PP. 95, 97:

ΙΝ,

CHARACTER AND CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE.

| external circumstances, which suggested this epistle, Motive
have been already explained. It must be ascribed to the eae

close personal relations existing between the Apostle and his

converts. It was not written, like the Epistle to the Galatians,

to counteract doctrinal errors, or, like the First to the Co-

rinthians, to correct irregularities of practice. It enforces no

direct lessons of Church government, though it makes casual

allusion to Church officers. It lays down no dogmatic system,

though incidentally it refers to the majesty and the humiliation

of Christ, and to the contrast of law and grace. It is the spon-

taneous utterance of Christian love and gratitude, called forth

by a recent token which the Philippians had given of their

loyal affection. As the pure expression of personal feeling,

not directly evoked by doctrinal or practical errors, it closely

resembles the Apostle’s letter to another leading church of

Macedonia, which likewise held a large place in his affections,

the First Epistle to the Thessalonians.

But the Philippian Church was bound to the Apostle by Aftection-
closer ties than even the Thessalonian. His language in ad- δὲ τοῖον
dressing the two has, it is true, very much in common; the eta
absence of appeal to his apostolic authority, the pervading
tone of satisfaction, even the individual expressions of love and
praise. But in the Epistle to the Philippians the Apostle’s
commendation is more lavish, as his affection is deeper. He
utters no misgivings of their loyalty, no suspicions of false

PHIL. 5

Disputes

and rival--

ries at
Philippi.

St Paul
rebukes
this grow-
ing spirit.

CHARACTER AND CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE.

play, no reproaches of disorderly living, no warnings against
grosser sins. To the Philippians he had given the surest
pledge of confidence which could be given by a high-minded
and sensitive man, to whom it was of the highest importance
for the sake of the great cause which he advocated to avoid the
slightest breath of suspicion, and whose motives nevertheless
were narrowly scanned and unscrupulously misrepresented.
He had placed himself under pecuniary obligations to them.
The alms sent from Philippi had relieved his wants even at
Thessalonica.

Yet even at Philippi there was one drawback to his ge-
neral satisfaction. A spirit of strife had sprung up in the
church ; if there were not open feuds and parties, there were
at least disputes and rivalries. The differences related not to
doctrinal but to social questions; and, while each eagerly as-
serted his own position, each severally claimed the Apostle’s
sympathies for himself.

St Paul steps forward to check the growing tendency.
This he does with characteristic delicacy, striking not less
surely because he strikes for the most part indirectly. He
begins by hinting to them that he is no partisan: he offers
prayers and thanksgivings for all; he hopes well of all; he
looks upon all as companions in grace; his heart yearns after
all in Christ Jesus’. He entreats them later on, to be ‘stead-
fast in one spirit, to ‘strive together with one mind for the
faith of the Gospel*®’ He implores them by all their deepest
Christian experiences, by all their truest natural impulses, to
‘be of one mind,’ to ‘do nothing from party-spirit or from vain-

‘glory. Having piled up phrase upon phrase in the ‘tautology of

earnestness*, he holds out for their example the ‘mind of

Christ,’ who, being higher than all, nevertheless did not assert

His divine majesty, but became lowliest of the lowly. To-

wards the close of the epistle* he returns again to the sub-
1 See the studied repetition of πάντες te ae -

in the paragraph i. 3—8. 4 iv. 2 Aq.
5. 279

CHARACTER AND CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE. 67

ject; and here his language becomes more definite. He
mentions by name two ladies, Euodia and Syntyche, who
had taken a prominent part in these dissensions; he asks them
to be reconciled; and he invites the aid of others, of his true
yoke-fellow, of Clement, of the rest of his fellow-labourers, in
_cementing this reconciliation. He urges the Philippians gene-
rally to exhibit to the world a spectacle of forbearance’. He
reminds them of the peace of God, which surpasses all the
thoughts of man. He entreats them lastly, by all that is noble
and beautiful and good, to hear and to obey. If they do this,
the God of peace will be with them.

Of errors in doctrine there is not the faintest trace in the Indirect

Philippian Church. In one passage indeed, where the Apostle ace
. touches upon doctrinal subjects, he takes occasion to warn his ings es
converts against two antagonistic types of error—Judaic for-
‘malism on the one hand, and Antinomian license on the other.
But while doing so he gives no hint that these dangerous
tendencies were actually rife among them. The warning seems
to have been suggested by circumstances external to the Phil-
ippian Church’.

Of plan and arrangement there is even less than in St Abaeneg
Paul’s letters generally. The origin and motive of the epistle ἢ He ἜΡΙΟΝ
are hardly consistent with any systematic treatment. As in the °Pistle-
Second Epistle to the Corinthians, the torrent of personal feel-
ing is too strong to submit to any such restraint. Even the
threefold division into the explanatory, doctrinal, and horta-
tory portions, which may generally be discerned in his epistles,
is obliterated here.

At the same time the growth and structure of the epi- Seno
stle may be traced with tolerable clearness. After the opening epistle.
salutation and thanksgiving, which in the intensity of his affec- RII,
tion he prolongs to an unusual extent, the Apostle explains

Livy. 5 τὸ ἐπιεικὲς ὑμῶν γνωσθήτω this epistle, that the Philippian Church
x.T.’. See the note there. was not yet tainted by Judaism, and

2 Schinz, die Christliche Gemeinde zu _ that the disputes were social rather than
Philippi (Ziivich 1833), decides after a doctrinal. This result has been gene-
careful examination of the purport of _ rally accepted by more recent writers,

5-2

il. 17—30.

ΠΕ 1

Interrup-
tion and

doctrinal
portion.

CHARACTER AND CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE.

his personal circumstances; the progress of the Gospel in
Rome; the rivalry of his antagonists and the zeal of his ad-
herents; his own hopes and fears. He then urges his con-
verts to unity in the strong reiterative language which has
been already noticed. This leads him to dwell on the humi-
lity of Christ, as the great exemplar; and the reference 15
followed up by a few general words of exhortation. Return-
ing from this to personal matters, he relates his anticipation
of a speedy release; his purpose of sending Timothy; the
recent illness and immediate return of Epaphroditus.

Here the letter, as originally conceived, seems drawing to
a close, He commences what appears like a parting injunction:
‘Finally, my brethren, farewell (rejoice) in the Lord’ ‘To say
the same things, he adds, ‘for me is not irksome, while for you
it is safe.’ He was intending, it would seem, after offering this
apology by way of preface, to refer once more to their dissen-
sions, to say a few words in acknowledgment of their gift, and
then to close. Here however he seems to have been inter-
rupted’. Circumstances occur, which recall him from these joy-
ful associations to the conflict which awaits him without and
which is the great trial and sorrow of his life. He is informed,
we may suppose, of some fresh attempt of the Judaizers in the
metropolis to thwart and annoy him. What, if they should

interfere at Philippi as they were doing at Rome, and tamper

1 Ewald, die Sendschreiben etc. Ὁ. 448
sq., has explained with characteristic
insight the sudden interruption and
subsequent lengthening of the letter.
I should be disposed however to make
the break not after ii. 30 with Ewald,
but after iii. 1 with Grotius. Moreover
I cannot agree with the former in re-
ferring iii. 17, 18, 19, still to Judaic for-
malism rather than to Antinomian ex-
cess. Seethe notes*on the third chapter.

Le Moyne, Var. Sacer. 11. pp. 332,
343, suggested that two letters were
combined in our Epistle to the Philip-
pians, commenting on the plural in

Polycarp (ὃ 3, ὃς καὶ ἀπὼν ὑμῖν ἔγραψεν
ἐπιστολάς); and Heinrichs (prol. p. 31
54.), carrying out the same idea, sup-
posed i. 1—ili. 1 ἐν κυρίῳ to be written
to the Church generally, and iii. 2 τὰ
avrd—iv. 20 to the rulers, the con-
cluding verses iv. 21—23 being the close
of the former letter. He was answered
by J.F. Krause Dissert. Acad. (Regiom.
1811). Paulus, Heidelb. Jahrb. P. 7, p.
702 (1812), adopted the theory of
Heinrichs, modifying it however by
making the close of the second letter
after 111. 9 instead of iii. 20. See Hoog
de Cet. Christ. Phil. ete, Ὁ. 54 84.

CHARACTER AND CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE. 69

with the faith and loyalty of his converts? With this thought
weighing on his spirit he resumes his letter. He bids the Phil- iii. 2—10.
ippians beware of these dogs, these base artisans, these muti-

lators of the flesh. This leads him to contrast his teaching with

theirs, the true circumcision with the false, the power of faith

with the inefficacy of works. But a caution is needed here.
Warned off the abyss of formalism, might they not be swept

into the vortex of license ἢ There were those, who professed the
Apostle’s doctrine but did not follow his example ; who availed
themselves of his opposition to Judaism to justify the licentious-

ness of Heathenism; who held that, because ‘all things were

lawful, therefore ‘all things were expedient’; who would even
‘continue in sin that grace might abound.’ The doctrine of iii.1r2—21.
faith, he urges, does not support this inference ; his own ex-

ample does not countenance it. Moral progress is the obligation

of the one and the rule of the other. To a church planted in

the midst of a heathen population this peril was at least as

great as the former. He had often raised his voice against it

before; and he must add a word of warning now. He exhorts iv. τ.
the Philippians to be steadfast in Christ.

Thus the doctrinal portion, which has occupied the Apostle Subject re-
since he resumed, is a parenthesis suggested by the circum- aa
stances of the moment. At length he takes up the thread of
his subject, where he had dropped it when the letter was inter-
rupted. He refers again to their dissensions. This was the iv. 2, 3:
topic on which repetition needed no apology. He mentions
by name those chiefly at fault, and he appeals directly to those
most able to heal the feuds. And now once more he seems
drawing to a close: ‘Farewell (rejoice) in the Lord alway: iv. 4—7.
again I say, farewell (rejoice). Yet still he lingers: this fare-
well is prolonged into an exhortation and a blessing. At length
he gives his parting injunction: ‘Finally, my brethren, what- iv. 8, 9.
soever things are true, etc.’ But something still remains unsaid.

He has not yet thanked them for their gift by Epaphroditus,
though he has alluded to it in passing. With a graceful inter- iy, 1o—20.
mingling of manly independence and courteous delicacy he

70 CHARACTER AND CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE.

acknowledges this token of their love, explaining his own cir-
cumstances and feelings at some length. At last the epistle

iv.21—23. closes with the salutations and the usual benediction.
srr The following then is an analysis of the epistle :

epistle. A i
ὲ | ae Ce ae Opening salutation.

i. 3—11. Thanksgiving and prayer for his converts.
1. r2—26. Account of his personal circumstances and
feelings ; and of the progress of the Gospel in Rome.

II. i. 27—ii. 4. Exhortation to unity and self-negation.

li, 5—11. Christ the great pattern of humility.
11. 12—16. Practical following of His example.

III. ii. 17—30. Explanation of his intended movements; the
purposed visit of Timothy ; the illness, recovery, and
mission of Epaphroditus.

IV. ii.1. The Apostle begins his final injunctions; but is
interrupted and breaks off suddenly.

[ili. 2—iv. 1. He resumes; and warns them against two
antagonistic errors :

Judaism (111. 3—14).

He contrasts the doctrine of works with the doctrine of
grace ; his former life with his present. The doctrine
of grace leads to a progressive morality. Thus he is
brought to speak secondly of

Antinomianism (111. 15—1iv. 1).

He points to his own example ; and warns his converts
against diverging from the right path. He appeals to
them as citizens of heaven. }

Here the digression ends ; the main thread of the letter
is recovered; and
iv. 2, 3. The Apostle once more urges them to heal their
dissensions, appealing to them by name.
iv. 4—9. He exhorts them to joyfulness, to freedom
from care, to the pursuit of all good aims.

V. iv. ro—20. He gratefully acknowledges their alms re-
ceived through Epaphroditus, and invokes a blessing
on their thoughtful love.

VI. iv. 21—23. Salutations from all and to all.

The farewell benediction.

CHARACTER AND CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE. σι

The Epistle to the Philippians is not only the noblest re- Thoughts
flexion of St Paul’s personal character and spiritual illumination, eee
his large sympathies, his womanly tenderness, his delicate cour- ¢pistle.
tesy, his frank independence, his entire devotion to the Master's
service ; but as a monument of the power of the Gospel it yields
in importance to none of the apostolic writings. Scarcely thirty
years have passed since one Jesus was crucified as a malefactor
in a remote province of the empire; scarcely ten since one Paul
a Jew of Tarsus first told at Philippi the story of His cruel
death; and what is the result? Imagine one, to whom the
name of Christ had been hitherto a name only, led by circum-
stances to study this touching picture of the relations between
St Paul, his fellow-labourers, his converts; and pausing to ask
‘himself what unseen power had produced these marvellous re-
sults. Stronger than any associations of time or place, of race
or profession, stronger than the instinctive sympathies of com-
mon interest or the natural ties of blood-relationship, a myste-
rious bond unites St Paul, Epaphroditus, the Philippian con-
verts; them to the Apostle, and him to them, and each to the
other. In this threefold cord of love the strands are so inter-
twined and knotted together, that the writer cannot conceive
of them as disentangled. The joy of one must be the joy of
all; the sorrow of one must be the sorrow of all.

The Apostle’s language furnishes the reply to such a ques- |
tioner. This unseen power is the ‘power of Christ’s resurrection’,
This mutual love is diffused from ‘the heart of Christ Jesus?)
beating with His pulses and living by His life. When the con-
temporary heathen remarked how ‘these Christians loved one
another, he felt that he was confronted by an unsolved enigma.
The power which wrought the miracle was hidden from him.
It was no new commandment indeed, for it appealed to the
oldest and truest impulses of the human heart. And yet it was
a new commandment; for in Christ’s life and death and resur-
rection it had found not only an example and a sanction, but
a power, a vitality, wholly unfelt and unknown before.

1 Phil) mi: το. 2 Phil. 1.8:

Its great
lesson,

CHARACTER AND CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE.

To all ages of the Churech—to our own especially—this
epistle reads a great lesson. While we are expending our
strength on theological definitions or ecclesiastical rules, it
recalls us from these distractions to the very heart and centre
of the Gospel—the life of Christ and the life in Christ. Here
is the meeting-point of all our differences, the healing of all
our feuds, the true life alike of individuals and sects and
churches: here doctrine and practice are wedded together ; for
here is the ‘Creed of creeds’ involved in and arising out of the

Work of works.

The Genuineness of the Epistle..

ΠῚ TERNAL evidence will appear to most readers to place the genuine- Internal
ness of the Epistle to the Philippians beyond the reach of doubt. This evidence.
evidence is of two kinds, positive and negative, On the one hand the

epistle completely reflects St Paul’s mind and character, even in their

finest shades. On the other, it offers no motive which could have led

to a forgery. Only as the natural outpouring of personal feeling, called

forth by immediate circumstances, is it in any way conceivable. A forger

would not have produced a work so aimless (for aimless in his case it must

have been), and could not have produced one so inartificial.

Nevertheless its genuineness has been canvassed. Evanson (Disso- Genuine-
nance, etc. p. 263) led the van of this adverse criticism. At a later date ness ques-
Schrader (Der Apostel Paulus v. p. 201 sq.) threw out suspicions with ὑποτθα:
regard to different portions of the epistle. More recently it has been
condemned as spurious by Baur (see especially his Paulus p. 458 sq.),
who is followed as usual by Schwegler (Nachap. Zeit. τι. p. 133 8q-),
and one or two others. His objections, says Bleek (Einl. ins N. T. p. 433),
rest sometimes on perverse interpretations of separate passages, sometimes
on arbitrary historical assumptions, while in other cases it is hard to con-
ceive that they were meant in earnest.

I cannot think that the mere fact of their having been brought Objections
forward by men of ability and learning is sufficient to entitle objections need not
of this stamp to a serious refutation. They have not the suggestive pi ea
character which sometimes marks even the more extravagant theories ,
of this school, and serve only as a warning of the condemnation which
unrestrained negative criticism pronounces upon itself. In this epistle
surely, if anywhere, the two complementary aspects of St Paul’s person
and teaching—his strong individuality of character and his equally strong
sense of absorption in Christ—the ‘I’ and the ‘yet not I’ of his great
antithesis—both appear with a force and a definiteness which carry thorough
conviction. Hilgenfeld, the present leader of the Tiibingen school, refused
from the first to subscribe to his master’s view respecting this epistle :
and probably few in the present day would be found to maintain this opi-
nion. The criticisms of Baur have been several times refuted: 6. g. in
the monographs of Linemann Pauli ad Phil. Epist. defend., Gottingen
1847, and B. B, Briickner Epist. ad Phil. Paulo auctori vindic. Lips. 1848,

74 THE GENUINENESS OF THE EPISTLE.

and in the introductions to the commentaries of Wiesinger, Eadie, and
others. See also more recently Hilgenfeld Zeitschr. f. Wissensch. Theol.
1871 p. 192 sq., 309 84., 1873 p. 178 8q.

Early quo- The quotations from this epistle in early Christian writers are not

tations. so numerous, as they would probably have been, if it had contained more
matter which was directly doctrinal or ecclesiastical. Among the Apo-

Apostolic stolic fathers CLEMENT or Romx (ὃ 47) uses the phrase ‘in the beginning

fathers. of the Gospel’ (Phil. iv. 15). Again he says, ‘{f we walk not worthily
of Him?’ (μὴ ἀξίως αὐτοῦ πολιτευόμενοι, § 21; comp. Phil. i. 27). A third
passage (δ 2), ‘Ye were sincere and harmless and not mindful of injury
one towards another, resembles Phil. i. το, ii. 15. And a fourth, in which
he dwells upon the example of Christ’s humility (§ 16), seems to reflect the
familiar passage in Phil. ii. 5 sq. Though each resemblance in itself is
indecisive, all combined suggest at least a probability that St Clement
had seen this epistle. When Ianatrus (Rom. 2) expresses his desire of
being ‘poured out as a libation (σπονδισθῆναι) to God, while yet the altar
is ready,’ this must be considered a reminiscence of Phil. ii. 17. In the
Ignatian Epistle to the Philadelphians also (§ 8) the words ‘do nothing
from party-spirit ( μηδὲν κατ᾽ ἐριθείαν πράσσειν are taken from Phil. ii. 3;
for in an earlier passage of the same letter (§ 1) the writer reproduces the
second member of St Paul’s sentence, ‘nor from vainglory’ (οὐδὲ κατὰ κενο-
δοξίαν). In the Ignatian Epistle to the Smyrnzeans again the words ὃ 4 ‘I
endure all things, while He strengtheneth me’ are derived from Phil. iv. 13,
and ὃ τι ‘Being perfect be ye also perfectly minded’ from Phil. iii. 15.
Potycarp, addressing the Philippians, more than once directly mentions
St Paul’s writing to them (§ 3, 11): he commences the body of the
letter with an expression taken from this epistle, ‘I rejoiced with you
greatly in the Lord’ (συνεχάρην ὑμῖν μεγάλως ἐν Κυρίῳ, comp. Phil. iv. 10
ἐχάρην δὲ ἐν Κυρίῳ μεγάλως): and in other passages his words are a re-
flexion of its language ; 6. g. ὃ 2 ‘Unto whom all things were made subject
that are in heaven and that are on the earth etc.,” of Phil. ii. 10; ὃ 9
‘I did not run in vain’, of Phil. ii. 16 (comp. Gal. ii. 2); ὃ 10 ‘diligentes
invicem, in veritate sociati, mansuetudinem Domini alterutri przestolantes,’
of Phil. 11. 2—5; § 12 ‘inimicis ecrucis, of Phil. iii. 18. The words ἐὰν
πολιτευσώμεθα ἀξίως αὐτοῦ (ὃ 5) are perhaps taken from Clement of Rome
(see above), though they resemble Phil. i. 27.

Hermas. When Hermas, Vis. i. 3, writes ‘they shall be written into the books
of life,” he probably refers rather to Rev. xx. 15, than to Phil. iv. 3.
Other coincidences, as Vis. iii. 13 ‘If anything be wanting it shall be
revealed to thee’ (Phil. iii. 15), Mand. v. 2 ‘Concerning giving or receiving’
(Phil. iv. 15), are not sufficient to establish a connexion.

Test. x11 In the TESTAMENTS OF THE TWELVE PatTrRiARcHs, a Jewish Christian

Patriarchs. work probably dating early in the second century, a few expressions are
borrowed from this epistle: Zevi 4 ‘in the heart (ἐν σπλάγχνοις) of His
Son,’ from Phil. i. 8; Benj. 10 ‘Worshipping the king of the heavens
who appeared on earth in the form of man’ (ἐν μορφῇ ἀνθρώπου, to which

THE GENUINENESS OF THE EPISTLE. ΕΣ

one text adds ταπεινώσεως, comp. Phil. iii. 21), and Zab. 9 ‘Ye shall see in
the fashion of man ete’ (ὄψεσθε ἐν σχήματι ἀνθρώπου; it is doubtful
whether or not θεὸν should follow, but the reference is plainly to Christ),
from Phil. ii, 6—8; Zevi 14 ‘Ye are the luminaries (οἱ φωστῆρες) of the
heaven,’ from Phil. ii. 15.

The Apologists supply several references. In the ΕΡΙΒΤῚΒ ΤῸ D10GNE- Apologists.

rus occur the words ‘their dwelling is on earth but their citizenship is in
heaven’ (ἐπὶ γῆς διατρίβουσιν ἀλλ᾽ ἐν οὐράνῳ πολιτεύονται § 5): comp. Phil. iii.
20, Justin Martyr [Π] de Resurr. (6. 7. p. 592 Ὁ) also speaks of ‘our hea-
venly citizenship, and in another place (6. 9. p. 594 Ε) writes, ‘The Lord
has said that our dwelling is in heaven (ἐν οὐράνῳ ὑπάρχειν). In the
second passage the reference is probably to such sayings as Joh. xiv. 2, 3;
but the actual expression seems certainly to be borrowed from St Paul’s
language here. Metrro (Routh’s Rel. Sacr. 1. p. 122) designates our Lord
Θεὸς ἀληθὴς προαιώνιος ὑπάρχων, perhaps having in his mind Phil. ii. 6; and
again he writes (Spic. Solesm. up. lviii,a fragment preserved in Syriac) ‘servus
reputatus est’ and ‘servi speciem indutus,’ obviously from the context of
the same passage in our epistle. TuHropnitus (ad Avtol.) more than once
adopts expressions from this epistle ; i. 2 ‘approving the things that are
excellent,’ either from Phil. i. 10 or from Rom. ii. 18; ii. 17 ‘minding
earthly things’ (ra ἐπίγεια φρονούντων), from Phil. iii. 19; iii, 36 ‘these
things are true and useful and just and lovely (προσφιλῆ),᾽ apparently from
Phil. iv. 8; and again, as quoted by Jerome Zpist. 121 (ad Algasiam), he
writes ‘Quze antea pro lucro fuerant, reputari in stercora’ from Phil. iii. ὃ
(if the work quoted by Jerome may be accepted as genuine).

In the EpistLE oF THE CHURCHES OF VIENNE AND Lyons (A.D. 177) Churches
Euseb. H. E£. v. 2, the text Phil. ii. 6 ‘who being in the form of God etc. is of Gaul.
quoted.

In ΑΝΟΙΕΝΤ Syrrac Documents (edited by Cureton) it is said of Christ Syriac
(p. 14), ‘He being God had appeared to them like men’ (Phil. ii. 6, 7), and Docu-
in another writing of the same collection (p. 56) these words occur; ‘ One of nee
the doctors of the Church has said: The scars indeed of my body—that I
may come to the resurrection from the dead’; a combination of Gal. vi. 17
and Phil. iii. 11.

The ΞΕΤΗΙΑΝΙ, a very early heretical sect, are stated by Hippolytus Heretics.
(Heres. Vv. p. 143, X. p. 318) to have interpreted the text Phil. ii. 6, 7, to
explain their own doctrines. CassraNus a Valentinian (about 170) quotes
Phil. iii. 20 (Clem. Alex. Strom. iii. 14, p. 554 Potter). And TuEopotus
(on the authority of the Excerpts published in the works of Clem. Alex.,

p- 966 Potter) has two distinct references to a passage in this epistle
(Phil. ii. 7 in § 19 and ὃ 35).

In the Apocryphal Acts or THomas ὃ 27 we read ‘The holy name of Apocry-
Christ which is above every name’ (τὸ ὑπὲρ πᾶν ὄνομα), from Phil. ii. 9. phal Acts.

The Epistle to the Philippians appears in all the Canons or SCRIPTURE Canons of
during the second century : in the lists of the heretic Marcion and of the Scripture.

Muratorian fragment, as well as in the Old Latin and Peshito Syriac
versions.

Close of
the 2nd
century.

THE GENUINENESS OF THE EPISTLE.

With the other Pauline Epistles of our Canon it is directly quoted and
assigned to the Apostle by IrENxus, TERTULLIAN, and CLEMENT oF ALEX-
ANDRIA. Tertullian more especially, in passages already quoted (p. 64,
note 2), speaks of its having been read in the Philippian Church uninter-
ruptedly to his own time. Though he may not say this from direct per-
sonal knowledge or precise information, yet the statement would not have
been hazarded, unless the epistle had been universally received in the
Church as far back as the traditions of his generation reached.

ΠΡΟΣ ΦΙΛΙΠΠΉΗΣΙΟΥΣ.

WE ALL ARE CHANGED INTO THE SAME IMAGE FROM
GLORY TO GLORY, AS OF THE LORD THE SPIRIT.

BUT THE FRUIT OF THE SPIRIT IS LOVE, JOY, PEACE,

And so the Word had breath, and wrought
With human hands the creed of creeds
In loveliness of perfect deeds,

More strong than all poetic thought.

ΠΡΟΣ

ΦΙΛΙΠΙΠΗΣΤΟΥ͂Σ.

I. "ΠΑΥ͂ΛΟΣ καὶ Τιμόθεος, δοῦλοι Χριστοῦ

Ν -~ ΄σ - , ~ Cal ΄- ἊΣ
Ιησοῦ, πᾶσιν τοῖς ἁγίοις ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ τοῖς οὐσιν

I. Παῦλος] The official title of
Apostle is omitted here, as in the
Epistles to the Thessalonians. In
writing to the Macedonian Churches,
with which his relations were so close
and affectionate, St Paul would feel an
appeal to his authority to be unneces-
sary. The same omission is found in
the letter to Philemon, and must be
similarly explained. He does not en-
force a command as a superior, but
asks a favour as a friend (Philem. 8,
9, 14). In direct contrast to this
tone is the strong assertion of his
Apostleship in writing to the Galatian
Churches, where his authority and his
doctrine alike were endangered.

Τιμόθεος] The intercourse between
Timotheus and the Philippian Church
had been constant and intimate. He
had assisted the Apostle in its first
foundation (Acts xvi. I, 13, and xvii
14). He had visited Philippi twice
at least during the third missionary
journey (Acts xix. 22, comp. 2 Cor.
i. 1; and Acts xx. 3, 4, comp. Rom.
xvi. 21). He was there not impro-
bably more than once during the
captivity at Czesarea, when the Apo-
stle himself was prevented from see-
ing them. And now again he was
on the eve of another visit, having
been chosen for this purpose, as one
whose solicitude for the Philippians
had become a second nature (γνησίως
μεριμνήσει ii. 20). In like manner his
name is associated with St Paul in
the letters to the other great church

of Macedonia (1 Thess. i. 1, 2 Thess.
1. Στὴ:

But beyond the association of his
name in the salutation, Timotheus
takes no part in the letter. δύ Paul
starts with the singular (ver. 3) which
he maintains throughout; and having
occasion to mention Timotheus speaks
of him in the third person, ii. 19.

πᾶσιν] see the note on ver. 4.

τοῖς ἁγίοις] ‘the saints, i.e. the
covenant people: a term transferred
from the old dispensation to the new,
The chosen race was a holy people
(λαὸς ἅγιος), the Israelites were saints
(ἅγιοι), by virtue of their consecra-
tion to Jehovah: see e.g. Exod. xix.
6, Dent. vil. .6;. Σὶν. 2;.. 21 Dan.’ vii,
18, 22, 25, viii. 24. So 1 Mace. x. 39
τοῖς ἁγίοις τοῖς ἐν Ἱερουσαλήμ. The
Christian Church, having taken the
place of the Jewish race, has in-
herited all its titles and privileges;
it is ‘a chosen generation, a royal
priesthood, an holy nation (ἔθνος ἅγιον),
a peculiar people (1 Pet. ii. 9)» All who
have entered into the Christian cove-
nant by baptism are ‘saints’ in the
language of the Apostles. Even the
irregularities and profligacies of the
Corinthian Church do not forfeit it
this title. Thus the main idea of the
term is consecration. But, though it
does not assert moral qualifications
as a fact in the persons so designated,
it implies them as a duty. And it
was probably because ἅγιος suggests
the moral idea, which is entirely want-

> , \ > / \ ,
εν Φιλίσποις συν εἐπισκοτοις Και διακόνοις.

EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

(fT 253

2 / ca
χαρις vply

A > / > \ ΄σ ‘ ε ΄- \ 7 > a
Kat εἰρήνη ἀπο Θεοῦ πατρὸς ἡμών Kal κυρίου Ἰησοῦ

Χριστοῦ.

3 Ε > ~ o~ 0 ΜΕΝ 3 \ / io , € “
υχαριστω TW EW βου επι πασῆ TH VEL UMOV
t

ing to ἱερός, that the former was adopt-
ed by the Lxx translators as the com-
mon rendering of wp, while the latter
is very rarely.used by them in any
sense: see esp. Lev. xi. 44 ἁγιασθή-
σεσθε καὶ ἅγιοι ἔσεσθε ὅτι ἅγιός εἰμι
ἐγώ.

ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ] to be connected
with ἁγίοις. For the omission of the
article see the notes on 1 Thess. i. 1.

ἐπισκόποις Kat διακόνοις) ‘the pres-
byters and deacons’ The contribu-
tions were probably sent to St Paulin
the name of the officers, as well as of
the church generally: comp. Acts xv.
23. Hence St Pau! mentions them in
reply. It seems hardly probable that
this mention was intended, as some
have thought, to strengthen the hands
of the presbyters and deacons, their
authority being endangered. The dis-
sensions in the Philippian Church do
not appear to have touched the offi-
cers. On ἐπίσκοπος and πρεσβύτερος,
as interchangeable terms, see the
detached note, p. 93.

2. χάρις ὑμῖν κιτ.λ.] On the form
of salutation see the note on 1 Thess,
1 1.

3. The thanksgiving in this epistle
is more than usually earnest. The
Apostle dwells long and fondly on the
subject. He repeats words and accu-
mulates clauses in the intensity of his
feeling. As before in the omission of
his official title, so here in the fulness
of his thanksgiving, the letters to the
Thessalonians present the nearest pa-
rallel to the language of this epistle :
see introduction p. 65.

3—5. ‘I thank my God for you
all at all times, as I think of you,
whensoever I pray for you (and these
prayers I offer with joy), for that you
have co-operated with me to the fur-

therance of the Gospel from the day
when you first heard of it to the pre-
sent moment.’

The arrangement of the clauses in
these verses is doubtful. They may
be connected in various ways, and the
punctuation will differ accordingly.
On the whole however the words
πάντοτε ἐν πάσῃ δεήσει μου ὑπὲρ πάντων
ὑμῶν seem naturally to run together ;
and if so, we have the alternative of
attaching them to the foregoing or to
the following words. I have preferred
the former for two reasons. (1) The
structure of the passage is dislocated
and its force weakened, by disconnect-
ing clauses pointed out so obviously
as correlative by the repetition of the
same word πάσῃ, πάντοτε, πάσῃ, πάν-
των; see Lobeck Paral. p. 56. (2)
The words μετὰ χαρᾶς τὴν δέησιν ποιού-
μενος seem to stand apart, as an ex-
planatory clause defining the charac-
ter of the foregoing πάσῃ δεήσει; for
there would be great awkwardness in
making one sentence of the two, év
πάσῃ δεήσει THY δέησιν ποιούμενος. For
the connexion εὐχαριστεῖν πάντοτε (in
most cases with περὶ or ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν) see
1 Cor. i. 4, 1 Thess. i. 2, 2 Thess. i. 3,
ii. 13, Ephes. v. 20, and perhaps also
Col. i. 3, Philem. 4: comp. also Ephes.
i. 16 οὐ παύομαι εὐχαριστῶν.

τῷ Θεῷ μου] ‘my God. The singu-
lar expresses strongly the sense of a
close personal relationship: comp. Acts
xxvii. 23 ‘whose I am and whom I
serve’: and see the note on Gal. ii. 20,
and comp. iii. 8.

ἐπὶ πάσῃ TH μνείᾳ] ‘in all my re-
membrance, not ‘on every remem-
brance (ἐπὶ πάσῃ μνείᾳ), which would
point rather to isolated, intermittent
acts. On μνεία and εὐχαριστῶ see the
notes 1 Thess, i. 2.

1 9]

EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS, 8I

/ 3 / / ε \ , ΄σ
4 qavTOTeE ἐν πασῆη δεήσει μου ὑπὲρ πάντων ὑμῶν, μετὰ

΄σ \ ’ / > \ lo ε =~ >
XapPas τὴν δέησιν FOLOUMEVOS, 5 Ss Τῇ κοινωνίᾳ υμῶν εις
t t

\ ἢ \ ΄σ ff ς ᾽ lod 5
TO εὐαγγελιον ἀπὸ [77s] πρωτῆς ἡμέρας ἄχρι TOU νῦν;

4. ὑπὲρ πάντων ὑμῶν] should be
connected rather with εὐχαριστῶ than
with ἐν πάσῃ δεήσει, for the following
reasons. (1) The words are more na-
turally taken as independent and co-
ordinate with all the preceding clauses,
ἐπὶ πάσῃ τῇ μνείᾳ, πάντοτε, ἐν πάσῃ
δεήσει, than as dependent on any one
singly. (2) The stress of the Apo-
stle’s statement is rather on the
thanksgiving for all than the prayer
for all, as he is dwelling on their good
deeds. (3) In the parallel passages
already quoted the common connexion
is εὐχαριστεῖν ὑπὲρ (Or περὶ) ὑμῶν.

There is a studied repetition of the
word ‘all’ in this epistle, when the
Philippian Church is mentioned: see
1. 2, 7 (ὑπὲρ πάντων ὑμῶν, πάντας ὑμᾶς),
8, 25, ii. 17, 17. 21. It is impossible
not to connect this recurrence of the
word with the strong and repeated
exhortations to unity which the epi-
stle contains (i. 27, ii. r—4, iv. 2, 3, 5,
7,9). The Apostle seems to say, ‘I
make no difference between man and
man, or between party and party: my
heart is open to all; my prayers, my
thanksgivings, my hopes, my obliga-
tions, extend to all’? Sce the intro-
duction, p. 66.

μετὰ χαρᾶς κιτιλ.] ‘Samma episto-
le,’ says Bengel, ‘gaudeo gaudete’:
Eampat 19,25, 11:2; 17, 18,28, 29,
lii. I, iv. 1, 4, 10. The article before
δέησιν refers it back to the previous
δεήσει. :

5. ἐπὶ τῇ κοινωνίᾳ κιτιλ.] The pre-
vious clause μετὰ χαρᾶς τὴν δέησιν
ποιούμενος being a parenthesis, these
words are connected with εὐχαριστῶ.
For εὐχαριστεῖν ἐπὶ see 1 Cor. i. 4.
The words signify not ‘ your participa-
tion in the Gospel’ (τοῦ εὐαγγελίου,
comp. ii. I, ili. 10), but ‘ your coopera-
tion towards, in aid of the Gospel’ (eis
τὸ εὐαγγέλιον). For the construction

PHIL.

see 2 Cor. ix. 13 ἁπλότητι τῆς κοινωνίας
εἰς αὐτούς, Rom. xv. 26 κοινωνίαν τινὰ
ποιήσασθαι εἰς τοὺς πτωχούς. In the
passages just quoted κοινωνία has ἃ
restricted meaning, ‘contributions,
almsgiving’ (as also in 2 Cor. viii. 4,
Hebr. xiii. 16; so κοινωνεῖν, Rom. xii.
13; κοινωνικός, 1 Tim. vi. 18; see
Fritzsche Rom. m1. p. 81) ; but here,
as the context shows, it denotes co-
operation in the widest sense, their
participation with the Apostle whether
in sympathy or in suffering or in ac-
tive labour or in any other way. At
the same time their almsgiving was a
signal instance of this cooperation,
and seems to have been foremost in
the Apostle’s mind. In this particu-
lar way they had cooperated from the
very first (ἀπὸ τῆς πρώτης ἡμέρας)
when on his departure from Philippi
they sent contributions to Thessalo-
nica and to Corinth (iv. 15, 16 ἐν ἀρχῇ
Tov εὐαγγελίου), and up to the present
time (ἄχρι τοῦ viv) when again they had
despatched supplies to Rome by the
hands of Epaphroditus (iv. 1075n πότε).

πρώτης] ‘the first.” The article is
frequently omitted, because the nu-
meral is sufficiently definite in itself :
comp. Mark xii. 28—30, xvi. 9, Acts
ΧΙ IO, RV. 12, xx. 18, Ephes. vi. 2.
Here some of the oldest Mss read rijs
πρώτης, but the article might perhaps
be suspected, as a likely addition of
some transcriber for the sake of
greater precision.

6, 7. ‘I have much ground for
thanksgiving ; thanksgiving for past
experience, and thanksgiving for future
hope. I am sure, that as God has in-
augurated a good work in you, so He
will complete the same, that it may be
prepared to stand the test in the day
of Christ’s advent. I have every rea-
son to think thus favourably of you
all: for the remembrance is ever in

82 EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

[I. 6, 7

6 \ > \ “ .« (ee D / ? ἂς. oa, ᾽
πεποιθὼς αὐτο TOUTO, OTL O ἐναρξαμενος εν υμιν εργον

7 ε Mf ΄σ lod
ἀγαθὸν ἐπιτελέσει ἄχρις] ἡμέρας Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, Ἰκαθ-
΄σ ΄' / ΄
ὡς ἐστιν δίκαιον ἐμοὶ τοῦτο φρονεῖν ὑπὲρ πάντων ὑμῶν,

᾿ a € > sf a ~
διὰ τὸ ἔχειν με ἐν TH καρδίᾳ ὑμᾶς ἔν TE τοῖς δεσμοῖς

6. ἡμέρας Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ.

my heart, how you—yes, @// of you—
have tendered me your aid and love,
whether in bearing the sorrows of my
captivity or in actively defending and
promoting the Gospel: a manifest to-
ken that ye ail are partakers with me
of the grace of God’

6. πεποιθὼς αὐτὸ τοῦτο] ‘since I
have this very confidence. This as-
surance, built on the experience of
the past, enables the Apostle to anti-
cipate matter for thankfulness. For
αὐτὸ τοῦτο comp. Gal. ii. 10, 2 Cor. ii.
3, 2 Pet. i. 5 (withav.1.) The order
alone seems sufficient to exclude an-
other proposed rendering of αὐτὸ τοῦ-
ro, ‘on this very account,’ i.e. ‘by rea-
son of your past cooperation.’

ὁ ἐναρξάμενος] The words ἐνάρχεσθαι,
ἐπιτελεῖν, possibly contain a sacrificial
metaphor : see the notes on Gal. iii. 3,
and compare ii. 17 εἰ καὶ σπένδομαι ἐπὶ
τῇ θυσίᾳ. For the omission of Θεὸς
before ὁ ἐναρξάμενος compare Gal. i. 6,
15 (notes).

ἔργον ἀγαθόν) By this ‘good work’
is meant their cooperation with and
affection for the Apostle. By the
workers of this work St Paul doubt-
less means the Philippians themselves.
Nevertheless it is God’s doing from
beginning to end: He inaugurates
and He completes. This paradox of
all true religion is still more broadly
stated in ii. 12,13, ‘ Work out your own
salvation, for it is God that worketh
in you both to will and to work ete.’

ἄχρις ἡμέρας ᾿Ιησοῦ) refers to the
foregoing notes of time, ἀπὸ πρώτης
ἡμέρας and ἄχρι τοῦ viv; but the ex-
pression implies something more than
a temporal limit. The idea of a test-
ing is prominent: ‘God will advance
you in grace, so that you may be pre-

pared to meet the day of trial’ On
the meaning of ἡμέρα and on the ab-
sence of the definite article see the
notes on 1 Thess. v. 2.

As ‘the day of Christ’ is thus a
more appropriate limit than ‘the day
of your death,’ it must not be hastily
inferred from this expression that St
Paul confidently expected the Lord’s
advent during the lifetime of his Phil-
ippian converts. On the other hand,
some anticipation of its near approach
seems to underlie ἄχρις here, as it is
implied in St Paul’s language else-
where, e.g. in ἡμεῖς of ζῶντες 1 Thess.
iv, 17, and in πάντες ov κοιμηθησόμεθα
(probably the correct reading) 1 Cor.
RY. 51.

7. This confidence is justified by
their past cooperation, which is indeli-
bly stamped on the Apostle’s memory.
The stress of the reason (διά), which
is the foundation of this assurance,
rests not on ἔχειν ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ but on
συνκοινωνοὺς τῆς χάριτος, not on the
act of remembering but on the thing
remembered.

καθώς) See the note Gal. iii. 6.

τοῦτο φρονεῖν x.t.d.| ‘to entertain
this opinion concerning you all” On
the difference between ὑπὲρ and περὶ
see the note on Gal. i. 4, and comp.
Winer ὃ xlvii. p. 401.

διὰ τὸ ἔχειν pe κιτ.λ.] ‘because 7 have
you’; ποῦ, as it is sometimes taken,
‘because you have me.’ The order of
the words points to this as the correct
rendering ; and the appeal which fol-
lows, ‘for God is my witness, re-
quires it.

ἔν τε τοῖς δεσμοῖς x. A.) Are these
words to be taken with the foregoing
or with the following clause? Ac-
cording as they are attached to the

16]

EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 83

se Ὁ. Χ Ζ \ B B , ΄σ ᾽ λί
μου και EV TH amjvro oyla Kal EVALWOEL TOU EVAYYVEALOU

, - ΄ , εν os) ἢ 7
OUVKOLVWVOUS MOU τῆς χάριτος TAVTAS υμαᾶς Οντας" ὃ μαρ-

/ le ε ᾽ ΄σ “ e > > /
Tus yap μου ὁ Geos, ws ἐπιποθῶ πάντας ὑμᾶς ἐν σπλαγ-

one or the other, their meaning will
be different. (1) If we connect them
with what precedes, ἐν will be tempo-
ral, and the seuse will then be, ‘ I bear
this in mind, both when I am in bonds
and when I am pleading my cause in
court.’ But even if there were ground
for supposing that the trial had al-
ready begun, the clause is thus ren-
dered almost meaningless. (2) On
the other hand, if they are attached
to the following words, the sense is
easy: ‘ participators with me both in
‘my bonds and in my defence and main-
tenance of the Gospel, i.e. ‘If I have
suffered; so have you; if I have la-
boured actively for the Gospel, so have
you’: comp. vv. 29, 30.
τῇ ἀπολογίᾳ κιτ.λ.] The two words,
being connected by the same article,
combine to form one idea. As ἀπο-
λογία implies the negative or defen-
sive side of the Apostle’s preaching,
the preparatory process of removing
obstacles and prejudices, so βεβαίωσις
deuotes the positive or aggressive side,
the direct advancement and establish-
ment of the Gospel. The two toge-
ther will thus comprise all modes of
preaching and extending the truth.
For ἀπολογία see ver. 16; for βεβαίω-
σις I Cor. i. 6.
συνκοινωνούς μου k.T.r.| ‘partakers
with me in grace’ The genitives are
best treated as separate and inde-
pendent, so e.g. ii. 30: comp. Winer
§ xxx p. 204. In this case ἡ χάρις
with the definite article stands abso-
lutely for ‘the divine grace, as fre-
quently : 6. 5. Acts xviii. 27, 2 Cor. iv.
15, Gal. v. 4, Ephes. ii. 8. ‘Grace’
applies equally to the ‘ bonds,’ and to
the ‘defence and confirmation of the
Gospel. If it is a privilege to preach
Christ, it is not less a privilege to suf-
fer for Him: comp. ver. 29 ὑμῖν ἐχα-
ρίσθη τὸ ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ, ov μόνον τὸ εἰς

αὐτὸν πιστεύειν ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸ ὑπὲρ av-
τοῦ πάσχειν. A more special ren-
dering of the passage is sometimes
adopted, ‘joint-contributors to the
gift which I have received’: see e.g.
Paley’s Hor. Paul. vii. τ. But though
χάρις sometimes refers specially to
almsgiving (e.g. 1 Cor. xvi. 3, 2 Cor.
viii. 4), such a restriction here seems
to sever this clause from the context
and to destroy the whole force of the
passage.

ὑμᾶς] repeated: comp. Col. ii. 13
(the correct reading), and see Winer
§ xxii. p. 160.

8. ‘I call God to witness that I did
not exaggerate, when I spoke of having
you all in my heart.’ The same form
of attestation occurs in Rom. i. 9: see
also 2 Cor. i. 23, 1 Thess. ii. 5, 10.

ἐπιποθῶ) ‘I yearn after. The pre-
position in itself signifies merely di-
rection ; but the idea of straining after
the object being thereby suggested,
it gets to imply eagerness: comp.
Diod. Sic. xvii. 101 παρόντι μὲν οὐ χρη-
σάμενος ἀπόντα δὲ ἐπιποθήσας. Itisa
significant fact, pointing to the greater
intensity of the language, that, while
the simple words πόθος, ποθεῖν, etc.
are never found in the New Testa-
ment, the compounds ἐπιποθεῖν, ἐπιπο-
Gia, ἐπιπόθησις, ἐπιπόθητος, occur with
tolerable frequency.

ἐν σπλάγχνοις κιτ.λ.] ‘ Did I speak of
having you in my own heart ? I should
rather have said that in the heart of
Christ Jesus ] long for you.’ A power-
ful metaphor describing perfect union.
The believer has no yearnings apart
from his Lord; his pulse beats with
the pulse of Christ; his heart throbs
with the heart of Christ. ‘In Paulo
non Paulus vivit,’ says Bengel, ‘sed
Jesus Christus’ ; see the note on Gal.
ii. 20. Comp. Test. ait Pati, Levi 4
ἐν σπλάγχνοις υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ. Theophilus

6 Ξ 5

84 EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

[Ὁ το

χνοις Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ" ϑκαὶ τοῦτο προσεύχομαι, ἵνα ἡ ἀγ-
ann ὑμῶν ἔτι μᾶλλον καὶ μᾶλλον περισσεύη ἐν ἐπιγνώσει
καὶ πάσῃ αἰσθήσει, " εἰς TO δοκιμάζειν ὑμᾶς τὰ δια-
φέροντα, ἵνα ἦτε εἰλικρινεῖς καὶ ἀπρόσκοποι εἰς ἡμέραν

9. μᾶλλον περισσεύσῃ.

(ad Autol. ii. 10, 22) uses σπλάγχνα
and καρδία as convertible terms, speak-
ing of the Word in one passage as
ἐνδιάθετον ἐν τοῖς ἰδίοις σπλάγχνοις (τοῦ
Θεοῦ), in another as ἐνδιάθετον ἐν καρ-
δίᾳ Θεοῦ.

The σπλάγχνα are properly the no-
bler viscera, the heart, lungs, liver etc.,
as distingzished from the ἔντερα, the
lower viscera, the intestines: e.g. Asch.
Agam. 1221 σὺν ἐντέροις τε σπλάγχνα.
The σπλάγχνα alone seem to be re-
garded by the Greeks as the seat of
the affections, whether anger, love, pity,
or jealousy. On the other hand no
such distinction is observed in He-
brew. The words porn, Dy, and
even Δ, which occur commonly in
this metaphorical sense, seem to cor-
respond rather to ἔντερα than to
σπλάγχνα: whence even κοιλία and
ἔγκατα are so used in the τχχ. The
verb σπλαγχνίζεσθαι seems not to be
classical, and was perhaps a coinage
of the Jewish dispersion, the metaphor
being much more common in Hebrew
than in Greek.

g. ‘Ispoke of praying for you (ver.
4). This then is the purport of my
prayer (τοῦτο προσεύχομαι), that your
love may ever grow and grow, in the
attainment of perfect knowledge and
universal discernment.’

ἵνα] introduces the clause which de-
scribes the purport of τοῦτο. For
this connexion of τοῦτο ἵνα compare
1 Joh. iv. 17: see also 3 Joh. 4 μειζο-
τέραν τούτων οὐκ ἔχω χαρὰν ἵνα ἀκούω
καὰλι, Joh. xv. 13 μείζονα ταύτη ς ἀγά-
mv οὐδεὶς ἔχει ἵνα τις τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ
θῇ κιτιλ. For such later usages of ἵνα,
which in older classical Greek always
denotes motive or design, see the
notes on 1 Thess. ii. 16, v. 4, Gal. v. 17.

γ᾽ ἀγάπη] ‘love, neither towards the

Apostle alone nor towards one another
alone, but love absolutely, the inward
state of the soul.

ἔτι μᾶλλον «.7.A.] An accumulation
of words to denote superabundance,
as below ver. 23. The present (περισ-
σεύῃ), perhaps better supported than
the aorist (περισσεύσῃ), is certainly
more in place, as expressing the con-
tinuous growth.

ἐπιγνώσει) ‘ advanced, perfect know-
ledge.” The intensive preposition (éz/)
before γνώσει answers to the adjective
before αἰσθήσει. Comp. τ Cor. xiii. 12
ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους τότε δὲ ἐπι-
γνώσομαι: see also the distinction of
γνῶσις and ἐπίγνωσις in Justin Dial.
Ῥ. 220 D. The substantive, which ap-
pears in St Paulin the Epistle to the
Romans (i. 28, x. 2) for the first time,
is found several times in the letters
of the captivity and afterwards. Its
more frequent occurrence thus corre-
sponds to the more contemplative
aspect of the Gospel presented in
these later epistles.

πάσῃ αἰσθήσει] ‘all perception.’ Love
imparts a sensitiveness of touch, gives
a keen edge to the discriminating fa-
culty, in things moral and spiritual.
While ἐπίγνωσις deals with general
principles, αἴσθησις is concerned with
practical applications. The latter word
does not occur elsewhere in the New
Testament, but αἰσθητήρια is used si-
milarly to denote the organs of moral
sense, Heb. v. 14 τῶν διὰ τὴν ἕξιν τὰ
αἰσθητήρια γεγυμνασμένα ἐχόντων πρὸς
διάκρισιν καλοῦ τε καὶ κακοῦ : Comp. Jer.
iv. 19 τὰ αἰσθητήρια τῆς καρδίας.

10, τὰ διαφέροντα] ποὺ ‘ things which
are opposed,’ as good and bad (so for
instance Fritzsche Rom. I. p. 129)—
for it requires no keen moral sense
to discriminate between these—but

Tear, 12]

Χριστοῦ,

EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 85

I , Q Ie Ἁ A
πεπληρωμένοι καρπὸν δικαιοσύνης τὸν διὰ

rn - \ ἢ >
Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ εἰς δόξαν καὶ ἔπαινον Θεοῦ.

τ Γινώσκειν δὲ ὑμᾶς βούλομαι, ἀδελφοί, ὅτι τὰ κατ᾽

ἐμὲ μᾶλλον εἰς προκοπὴν τοῦ εὐαγγελίου ἐλήλυθεν,

‘things that transcend,’ ‘ex bonis me-
liora’ in Bengel’s words. The phrase
δοκιμάζειν τὰ διαφέροντα occurs also
Rom. ii. 18.

εἰλικρινεῖς) signifies properly ‘dis-
tinct, unmixed,’ and hence ‘ pure, un-
sullied.’ The probable derivation and
first meaning of the word (a strategi-
cal term, εἴλη, εἰληδόν, “ gregatim,’
comp. φυλοκρινεῖν) are suggested by

Xen. Cyrop. viii. 5. 14 καὶ διὰ τὸ εἰλι-᾿

κρινῆ ἕκαστα εἶναι [τὰ φῦλα], πολὺ μᾶλ-
λον ἦν δῆλα, καὶ ὁπότε τις εὐτακτοίη καὶ
εἴ τις μὴ πράττοι τὸ προσταττόμενον. A
different account of the word however
(deriving it from εἵλη, ‘sunlight’) is
generally received.

ἀπρόσκοποι)] might be either in-
transitive, ‘ without stumbling, as Acts
XXiv. 16 ἀπρόσκοπον συνείδησιν ἔχειν
πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, or transitive, “ποῦ caus-
ing offence,’ as I Cor. x. 32 ἀπρόσκοποι
καὶ ἐπ πα ἰδῆς γίνεσθε καὶ Ἰξχλησιν. 1
the former sense be taken, εἰλικρινεῖς
and ἀπρόσκοπο: will be related to each
other as the positive and the negative:
if the latier, they will denote respec-
tively the relation to God (εἰλικρινεῖς)
and the relation to men (ἀπρόσκοποι).
The former is to be preférred; for it
is a question solely of the fitness of the
Philippians to appear before the tri-
bunal of Christ, and any reference to
their influence on others would be out
of place. Comp. Jude 24, 25, τῷ δὲ δυ»-
ναμένῳ φυλάξαι ὑμᾶς ἀπταίστους καὶ
στῆσαι κατενώπιον τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ ἀμώ-
μους k.T.X.

εἰς ἡμέραν Χριστοῦ] not ‘until, but
‘for the day of Christ’; comp. ii. 16,
and see also i. 6.

11. καρπὸν δικαιοσύνης] The expres-
sion is taken from the Oid Testament,
e.g. Proy. xi. 30, Amos vi. 12, and oc-
curs also James jii. 18. For the ac-

cusative after πληροῦσθαι comp. Col.
i. 9: similarly Luke xi. 46 φορτίζετε
τοὺς ἀνθρώπους φορτία δυσβάστακτα.
See Winer § xxxii. p. 242.

τὸν διὰ Ἰησοῦ Jadded to guard against
misunderstanding. The Apostle means
‘righteousness in Christ,’ as contrasted
with ‘righteousness by law’: comp. iii.
9. Only so far as the life of the believer
is absorbed in the life of Christ, does
the righteousness of Christ become
hisown. Thus righteousness by faith
is intimately bound up with the life in
Christ: it must in its very nature be
fruitful; it is indeed the condition of
bearing fruit. Comp. John xv. 4 ‘As

- the branch cannot bear fruit of itself,

except it abide in the vine, no more
can ye, except ye abide in me.’

εἰς δόξαν x.7.A.| The only true aim
of all human endeavours: comp. ii. 11.
‘The glory,’ the manifestation of His
power and grace; ‘the praise,’ the re-
cognition of these divine attributes by
men: comp. Ephes. i. 6 εἰς ἔπαινον δό-
Ens τῆς χάριτος αὐτοῦ, ib. 1. 12, 14.

*Lest you should be misinform-

ed, 1 would have you know that my
sufferings and restraints, so far from
being prejudicial to the Gospel, have
served to advance it. My bonis have
borne witness to Christ, not onlyamong
the soldiers of the imperial guard, but
in a far wider circle. Thesame bonds
too have through my example inspired
most of the brethren with boldness,
so that trusting in the Lord they are
more zealous than ever, and preach
the word of God courageously and un-
flinchingly.’

τὰ κατ᾽ ἐμέ] ‘my circumstances, as
Col. iv. 7, Ephes. vi. 21: comp. Tobit
x. 8, 1 Esdr. 1. 22.

μᾶλλον] ‘rather’ than the reverse,
as might have been anticipated,

86 EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

[1- 13, 14

ef \ i \ ~ /
"δῶστε Tous δεσμούς μου φανεροὺς ἐν Χριστῷ γενέσθαι
> e/ ~ ~ = ΄ \ ‘
ἐν ὅλῳ τῷ πραιϊτωρίῳ Kal τοῖς λοιποῖς πᾶσιν, " καὶ TOLS

πλείονας τῶν ἀδελφῶν ἐν KUpiw πεποιθότας τοῖς δεσμοῖς
΄σ , \ / ΄σ >
μου περισσοτέρως τολμᾶν ἀφόβως τὸν λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ

προκοπήν] The verb προκόπτειν is
strictly classical; not so the substan-
tive, which is condemned in Phryni-
chus (Lobeck, p. 85). It is however
common in writers of this age.

13. φανεροὺς x.t.d.| ‘have become
manifest in Christ, i.e. ‘have been
seen in their relation to Christ, have
borne testimony to the Gospel.’

ἐδ ὅλῳ τῷ πραιτωρίῳ] ‘throughout
the pretorian guard, i.e. the soldiers
composing the imperial regiments.
This seems to be the best supported
meaning of πραιτώριον. If a local sense
is assigned to it, it will probably sig-
nify the ‘przetoriar camp,’ but clear
examples of this sense are wanting:
see the detached note, p. 97. On St
Paul’s intercourse with the preetorian
soldiers see the introduction, pp. 7,
19.

τοῖς λοιποῖς πᾶσιν] ‘to all the rest’:
comp. 2 Cor. xiii. 2; a comprehensive
expression, which must not be rigor-
ously interpreted: see the introduc-
tion, p. 32. The translation of the
Authorised Version, ‘in all other
places,’ will not stand.

14. τοὺς πλείονας] ‘the greater num-
ber” St Paul excepts a minority, who
through towardice or indifference held
back.

ev κυρίῳ] to be taken with πεποιθό-
tas τοῖς δεσμοῖς pov. Similarly Gal. v.
10 πέποιθα εἰς ὑμᾶς ἐν κυρίῳ, 2 Thess.
ill, 4 πεποίθαμεν δὲ ἐν κυρίῳ ἐφ᾽ ὑμᾶς.
Comp. also below ii. 24, Rom. xiv. 14.
The words ἐν κυρίῳ are thus emphatic
by their position. They cannot well be
attached to τῶν ἀδελφῶν, as τῶν ἀδελ-
φῶν alone designates the Christian
brotherhood, and the addition would
be unmeaning. The instances quoted
in favour of this connexion (Col. i. 2,
iv. 7, Ephes, vi. 21) are no correct pa-

rallels; for in none of these passages
does the preposition depend directly
on ἀδελφός. For πέποιθα, with a
dative of the thing in which the confi-
dence reposes (τοῖς δεσμοῖς), see Phi-
lem. 21.

περισσοτέρως] This word seems
never to lose its comparative force:
see the note on Gal. i. 14. Here it
denotes the increased zeal of the bre-
thren, when stimulated by St Paul’s
endurance. The Apostle accumulates
words expressive of courage, πεποιθό-
Tas, περισσοτέρως, τολμᾶν ἀφόβως, as
above in ver. 9 (see the note).

τοῦ Θεοῦ] These words, which are
wanting in the received reading, have
a decided preponderance of authority
in their favour, and should probably
stand in the text: comp. Acts iv. 31
ἐλάλουν τὸν λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ μετὰ παρρη-
σίας.

15—17. ‘But though all alike are
active, all are not influenced by the
Same motives. Some preach Christ
to gratify an envious and quarrelsome
spirit: others to manifest their good-
will. The latter work from love, ac-
knowledging that I am appointed to
plead for the Gospel: the former
proclaim Christ from headstrong par-
tisanship and with impure motives,
having no other aim than to render
my bonds more galling’

These antagonists can be none other
than the Judaizing party, who call
down the Apostle’s rebuke in a later
passage of this letter (iii. 2 sq.) and
whose opposition is indirectly implied
in another epistle written also from
Rome (Col. iv. 11): see above, pp. 17,
18. They preach Christ indeed, but
their motives are not single. Their
real object is to gain adherents to the
law. The main-spring of their activity

I. 15—17]

EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 87

΄ \ / ᾽
λαλεῖν: “ὁ τινὲς μὲν καὶ διὰ φθόνον καὶ ἔριν, τινὲς δὲ καὶ δι᾽

iO ie \ \ y 16 ε \ > > t
εὐδοκίαν τὸν Χριστον κηρυσσουσιν" * οἱ μὲν ἐξ aAYAaTNS,

100 c/ 3 > / = > , ~ 17 ε
ELOOTES OTL εἰς ἀπολογίαν Tou εὐαγγελίου κεῖμαι, * οι

is a factious opposition to the Apostle,
a jealousy of his influence. They
value success, not as a triumph over
heathendom, but as a triumph over
St Paul. It enhances their satisfac-

tion to think that his sufferings will be .

made more poignant by their progress.

But how, it has been asked, can St
Paul rejoice in the success of such
teachers? Is not this satisfaction
inconsistent with his principles? Does
he not in the Epistle to the Galatians
. for instance wholly repudiate their
doctrine, and even maintain that for
those who hold it Christ has died in
vain? This apparent incongruity has
led some writers to deny any reference
to the Judaizers here; while to others
it has furnished an argument against
the genuineness of the whole epistle.
But thetwo casesare entirely different.
In the one, where the alternative is
between the liberty of the Gospel and
the bondage of ritualism, he un-
sparingly denounces his Galatian con-
verts for abandoning the former and
adopting the latter. Here on the
other hand the choice is between an
imperfect Christianity and an uncon-
verted state; the former, however in-
adequate, must be a gain upon the
latter, and therefore must give joy to
a high-minded servant of Christ. In
Rome there was room enough for him
and for them. He was content there-
fore that each should work on inde-
pendently. It was a step in advance
to know Christ, even though He were
known only ‘after the flesh’

καὶ διὰ φθόνον] ‘even from enry,
monstrous as this will seem. For διὰ
φθόνον see Matt. xxvii. 18, Mark xy.
το. Philemon the comic poet (Meineke,
IV. p. 55), πολλά pe διδάσκεις ἀφθόνως
διὰ φθόνον, has been quoted in illus-
tration of this passage,

καὶ δι’ εὐδοκίαν] ‘also out of good-
will’; this second καὶ must be differ-
ently translated from the former. The
substantive εὐδοκία may mean either
(1) ‘purpose, design, desire,’ Eeclus. xi.
17 ἡ εὐδοκία αὐτοῦ εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα εὐο-
δωθήσεται, Rom. x. I ἡ εὐδοκία τῆς
ἐμῆς καρδίας καὶ ἡ δέησις πρὸς. τὸν
Θεόν ; or (2) ‘satisfaction, contentment,
happiness,’ Ecclus. xxxv. 14 οἱ ὀρθρίζον-
Tes εὑρήσουσιν εὐδοκίαν, 2 Thess, i. 11
πᾶσαν εὐδοκίαν ἀγαθωσύνης ; or (3)
‘benevolence, goodwill, Ps. 1. 20 ἀγά-
θυνον, Κύριε, ἐν τῇ εὐδοκίᾳ σου τὴν
Σιών, cv. 4, and perhaps Luke ii. 14.
These different significations arise out
of the object to which εὐδοκία is di-
rected. In the first case it refers to
things future, in the second to things
present, in the third to persons.
Fritzsche (om. tt. p.371) has separated
the different meanings of this word,
but is not happy in his examples. In
the present passage the opposition to
διὰ φθόνον καὶ ἔριν seems to require
the third meaning.

16,17. The order of the clauses is
reversed by the figure called chiasm,
so that the subject last introduced is
discussed first; as e.g. Gal. iv. 4, 5.
In the received text the verses are
transposed, with a view to remedying
this supposed irregularity.

ἐξ ἀγάπης] ‘the one preach Christ
out of love’; and ἐξ ἐριθείας must be
similarly taken. Others connect oi ἐξ
ἐριθείας, οἱ ἐξ ἀγάπης, ‘the factious,’
‘the loving” comparing Rom. ii. 8 τοῖς
δὲ ἐξ ἐριθείας (see also iii. 26, Gal. iii.
7, 9); but the order in the second
clause is very awkward with this ar-
rangement, which makes τὸν Χριστὸν
καταγγέλλουσιν unduly emphatic.

κεῖμαι] “1 am appointed, as Luke
ii. 34 οὗτος κεῖται εἰς πτῶσιν καὶ ava-
στασιν πολλῶν, 1 Thess. iii. 3 αὐτοὶ γὰρ

88 EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

[I. 18, 19

δὲ ἐξ ἐριθείας [τὸν] Χριστὸν καταγγέλλουσιν οὐχ ay-

σε τ ΕΑ ’, > / > ὃ = 7
vos, οἰόμενοι θλίψιν ἐγείρειν τοῖς δεσμοῖς pov. τί
ς / af / af
yap; πλὴν ὅτι παντὲ τρόπῳ, εἴτε προφάσει εἴτε ἀλη-
΄ Ay / Δ / / xs
θείᾳ, Χριστος ge οὐ ΤΠ καὶ ἐν τούτῳ χαίρω
> \ / ὭΣ c/ ΄σ , ’
ἀλλὰ Kal χαρήσομαι' “5 οἶδα yap ὅτι τοῦτό μοι ἀπο-

19. οἶδα δὲ ὅτι.

οἴδατε ὅτι εἰς τοῦτο κείμεθα: COMP.
Josh. iv. 6. The idea of prostration,
if implied at all, can only be sub-
ordinate.

17. ἐξ ἐριθεία.] The interests of
party were predominant with the Ju-
daizers : their missionary zeal took the
form ofa political canvass. For the pro-
per meaning of ἐριθεία, ‘partisanship,’
see the note on Gal. y. 20. The words
τὸν Χριστὸν καταγγέλλουσιν seem to be
added to bring out the contrast be-
tween the character of their motives
and the subject of their preaching ;
for there is a moral contradiction be-
tween ἐριθεία and Χριστός.

οὐχ ἁγνῶς] ‘eith mixed, impure mo-
tives, explained afterwards by προ-
dace. The insincere, selfish, and even
sordid motives of the Judaizers are
denounced in other passages also:
200r. τὶ τς, 20, Gale vi. 17.

θλίψιν ἐγείρειν] ‘to make my chains
gall me, where the metaphor in θλίψις
is clearly seen. This word, though ex-
tremely common in the Lxx, occurs
very rarely in classical writers even of
a late date, and in these few passages
has its literal meaning. The same
want in the religious vocabulary, which
gave currency to θλίψις, also created
‘tribulatio’ as its Latin equiva'ent.
On the accent of θλίψις see Lipsius
Gramm. Unters. p. 35. The reading
ἐγείρειν, besides being better support-
ed, carries out the metaphor better
than ἐπιφέρειν of the received text.
The gathering opposition to the Apo-
stle’s doctriné of liberty, the forming
of a compact party in the Church
bound to the observance of the law,
were the means by which they sought

to annoy and wound him.

18. τί γάρ!) ‘What then, as Xen.
Mem. ii. 6. 2, 3, iii. 3.6, and commonly
in classical writers: comp. also Lxx,
Job xvi. 3, xxi. 4.

πλὴν ὅτι] ‘oniy that, as Acts xx.
23; comp. Plut. Wor. p. 780 a, Plato
Phed. p. 57 8, Theet. p. 183 4. This
seems on the whole the most’probable
reading. Some texts have πλὴν alone,
others ὅτε alone; both which readings
appear like attempts to smooth the
construction. The latter however,
which is supported by one excellent
authority, may possibly be correct.

προφάσει] ‘as a cloke for other de-
signs,’ i.e. using the name of Christ to
promote the interests of their party
and to gain proselytes to the law.
On πρόφασις, ‘an ostensible purpose,
generally but not necessarily implying
insincerity, see the note on 1 Thess. ii.
5. The opposition of πρόφασις and
ἀλήθεια is illustrated by numerous ex-
amples in Wetstein and Raphel.

ev τούτῳ] ‘herein, 1.6. ἐν τῷ καταγ-
γέλλεσθαι Χριστόν.

ἀλλὰ καὶ χαρήσομαι] ‘yea απ I shall
rejoice. The abruptness reflects the
conflict in the Apostle’s mind: he
crushes the feeling of personal annoy-
ance, which rises up at the thought of
this unscrupulous antagonism. The
A. V. however, ‘I will rejoice, brings
out the idea of determination more
strongly than the original justifies.

19, 20. ‘Is not my joy reasonable ?
For I know that all my present trials
and sufferings will lead only to my
salvation, and that in answer to your
prayers the Spirit of Christ will be
shedabundantly uponme. Thus will be

ae eS ψνν τας. ὧ «σον

I. 20] EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 89

’ Α an ΄σ hd \
βήσεται εἰς σωτηρίαν διὰ τῆς ὑμῶν δεήσεως Kat ἐπιχορ-

, ~ / ΄σ ΄σ
ηγίας τοῦ πνεύματος ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ,

20 A \ ’
κατα τὴν απο-

’ ὍΣΙΑ , « ᾽ > \ > ,
καραδοκίαν καὶ ἐλπίδα pov, ὅτι ἐν οὐδενὲ αἰσχυνθήσομαι,

> se , , ε , \ “- /
aXX ἐν TAaTH παρρησίᾳ WS πάντοτε Kat νὺν μεγαλυνθη-

\ > ΄ ΄ 7 ᾽ Ἐπ ΩΝ = af \
σεται Χριστος εν Tw σώματι Mov, ELTE OLA ζωῆς ΕΥΤΕ διὰ

fulfilled my carnest longing and hope,
that I may never hang back through
shame, but at this crisis, as always,
may speak and act courageously; so
that, whether I die 2 martyr for His
name or live to labour in His service,
He may be glorified in my body,’

19. τοῦτο] ‘this state of things,’ these
perplexities and annoyances. Itis un-

.connected with the preceding ἐν τούτῳ,
ver. 18.

σωτηρίαν] ‘salvation, in the highest
sense. These trials will develope the
spiritual life in the Apostle, will be a
pathway to the glories of heaven. His
personal safety cannot be intended
here, as seme have thought; for the
σωτηρία, of which he speaks, will be
gained equally whether he lives or
dies (ver. 20).

τῆς ὑμῶν δεήσεως κιτ.λ.] The two
clauses are fitly connected by the same
article; for the supply of the Spirit is
the answer to their prayev.

emtxopnyias] ‘bountiful supply’; see
the note on Gal. iii. 5. But must the
following genitive τοῦ πνεύματος be
considered subjective or objective? Is
the Spirit the giver or the gift? Ought
we not to say in answer to this ques-
tion, that the language of the original
suggests no limitaticn, that it will bear
both meanings equally well, and that
therefore any such restriction is arbi-
trary? ‘The Spirit of Jesus’ is both
the giver and the gift. For the ex-
pression τὸ πνεῦμα Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ com-
pare Rom. viii. 9, Gal. iv. 6, and Acts
xvi. 7 (the correct reading).

20. ἀποκαραδοκίαν] ‘ earnest desire?
The substantive occurs once again in
the New Testament, Rom. viii. 19.
The yerb is not uncommon in Polybius

and later writers. The idea of eager-
ness conveyed by the simple word
καραδοκεῖν is further intensitied by the
preposition, which implies abstraction,
absorption, as in ἀποβλέπειν, ἀπεκδέ-
χεσθαι, ete.: comp. Joseph. B. J. iii.
7.26 τοῖς μὲν οὖν καθ᾽ ἕτερα προσφέ-
ρουσι τὰς κλίμακας οὐ προσεῖχεν, ἀπε-
καραδόκει δὲ τὴν ὁρμὴν τῶν βελῶν, 1. 6,
his attention was drawn off and con-
centrated on the missiles ; a passage
quoted by C.F. A. Fritzsche, whose ac-
count of the word however (/’vitzsch.
Opusc. I. p. 150) is not altogether
satisfactory.

αἰσχυνθήσομαι K.t-d.] αἰσχύνη and
παρρησία are opposed, Prov. xiii. 5
ἀσεβὴς δὲ αἰσχύνεται καὶ οὐχ ἕξει παρ-
ρησίαν, τ Joh. ii. 28 σχῶμεν παρρησίαν
καὶ μὴ αἰσχυνθῶμεν ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ. This
right of free speech (παρρησία) is the
badge, the privilege, of the servant of
Christ: see esp. 2 Cor. iii. 12.

καὶ νῦν] ‘so now. For καὶ νῦν (καὶ
ἄρτι) corresponding to ws (καθώς) comp.
1 Joh. ii. 18, Gal. i. 9.

μεγαλυνθήσεται) After ἐν πάση παρ-
ρησίᾳ the first person might naturally
be expected: but with sensitive reve-
rence the Apostle shrinks from any
mention of his own agency, lest he
sheuld seem to glorify himself. It is
not μεγαλυνθήσομαι, not even peya-
uve τὸν Χριστόν, but μεγαλυνθήσεται
Χριστὸς ἐν τῷ σώματί μου. For the
thought compare 2 Cor. iv. 10 πάν-
TOTE THY νέκρωσιν τοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ ἐν τῷ σώ-
ματι περιφέροντες, ἵνα καὶ ἡ ζωὴ τοῦ
᾿Ιησοῦ ἐν τῷ σώματι ἡμῶν φανερωθῇ,
1 Cor. vi. 20 δοξασάτε δὴ τὸν Θεὸν ἐν
τῷ σώματι ὑμῶν.

21—26. ‘Others may make choice
between life and death. I gladly

gO EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

θανάτου.

ΠΠ- 215-22

“ ἐμοὶ γὰρ TO Gv Χριστὸς καὶ τὸ ἀποθανεῖν

, 22? \ \ —~ ᾽ \ ΄σ if ‘ af
κέρδος" ει δὲ TO Civ εν σαρκι TOUTO μοι Kap7ros Eepyou—

accept either alternative. If I live,
my life is one with Christ: if I die,
my death is gain to me. Yet when
I incline to prefer death, I hesitate:
for may not my life—this present ex-
istence which men call life—may not
my life be fruitful through my labours?
Nay, I know not how to choose. Iam
hemmed in, as it were, a wall on this
side and a wall on that. If I con-
sulted my own longing, I should desire
to dissolve this earthly tabernacle, and
to go home to Christ; for this is very
far better. If I consulted your in-
terests, I should wish to live and
labour still: for this your needs re-
quire. And a voice within assures
me, that so it will be. I shall continue
here and abide with you all; that I
may promote your advance in the
faith and your joy in believing: and
that you on your part may have in me
fresh cause for boasting in Christ,
when you see me present among you
once more.’

21. ἐμοί] ‘to me, whatever it may
be to others: so ἡμῶν, iii. 20.

τὸ ζῆν Χριστός] ‘life is Christ?
‘TL live only to serve Him, only to com-
mune with Him; I have no concep-
tion of life apart from Him.’ ‘ Quic-
quid vivo, is Bengel’s paraphrase,
‘Christum vivo’: comp. Gal. 11, 20 ἐῶ
δὲ οὐκέτι ἐγώ, ζῇ δὲ ἐν ἐμοὶ Χριστός, and
Col. iii. 3, 4.

τὸ ἀποθανεῖν κέρδος] ‘death is gain,
for then my union with Christ will be
more completely realised.’ The tense
denotes not the act of dying but the
consequence of dying, the state after
death: comp. 2 Cor. vii. 3 εἰς τὸ
συναποθανεῖν καὶ συνζῆν, ‘to be with
you in death and in life. The proper
opposition to ζῆν is not ἀποθνήσκειν,
but ἀποθανεῖν or τεθνάναι, e.g. Plato
Leg. Ὁ. 958 £, Gorg. p. 483 B, Pheed.
62 a. The difference is marked in
Plato Phed. 644 οὐδὲν ἄλλο ἐπιτηδεύ-

ovo ἢ ἀποθνήσκειν τε καὶ τεθνάναι.

22. The grammar of the passage re-
flects the conflict of feeling in the
Apostle’s mind. He is tossed to and
fro between the desire to labour for
Christ in life, and the desire to be
united with Christ by death. The
abrupt and disjointed sentences ex-
press this hesitation.

ei δὲ τὸ ζῆν κιιλ.] Of several inter-
pretations that have been suggested,
two only seem to deserve consideration :
(1) ‘ But if my living in the flesh will
be fruitful through a laborious career,
then what to choose I know not.’ In
this case καὶ will introduce the apo-
dosis. The only passage at all ana-
logous in the New Testament is 2 Cor.
ii. 2 εἰ yap eyo λυπῶ ὑμᾶς, καὶ tis ὃ
εὐφραίνων pe; comp. Clem. Hom. ii. 44
εἰ δὲ TO πῖον ὄρος ἐπιθυμεῖ, καὶ Tivos τὰ
πάντα; εἰ ψεύδεται, καὶ τίς ἀληθεύει ;
καιλ. But the parallel is not exact,
for in these instances καὶ introduces a
direct intcrrogative. Passages indeed
are given in Hartung (I. pp. 130, 131)
where καὶ ushers in the apodosis after
ei, but these are all poetical. And
even if this use of καὶ be admissi-
ble, the sentence still runs awkwardly,
(2) ‘But if (it be my lot) to live
in the flesh, then my labour will be
productive of fruit. And so what to
choose I know πού. Thus the sen-
tence ef δὲ τὸ ζῆν κιτιλ. is treated as
elliptical, the predicate being sup-
pressed. But, though ellipses are very
frequent in St Paul (comp. e.g. Rom.
ἦν. Ὁ, ν᾿ τὸ, ἴπ- 16; «Cor: iv. ὁ; aw
2 Cor. i. 6, Gal. ii. 9, v. 13, ete.), yet
the present instance would be ex-
tremely harsh. Of the two explana-
tions already considered the first seems
preferable ; but may not a third be
hazarded? (3) ‘ But what if my living
in the flesh will bear fruit, ete.? In
fact what to choose I know not.’ In
this case εἰ implies an interrogation,

E23]

EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. Ol

\ / ε ΄ 2 [3 23 4 δὲ > “
δε, ΤᾺ αιρήησομαι ου γνωρίζω" συνέχομαι Εε €K Τῶν
πὰ ἢ \ ? 7 af > \ ᾽ - \ \

OVO, τὴν ἐπιθυμίαν EX WV CLS TO avaNvoal Kal συν Χρισ-

the apodosis being suppressed ; as in
tom. ix. 22, Acts xxiii. 9 (where the
received text adds μὴ θεομαχῶμεν).
On this and similar uses of εἰ see
Winer § lvii. p. 531, § lxv. p. 622, A.
Buttmann pp. 214, 215. I do not know
whether this interpretation has ever
been suggested; but it seems to be in
keeping with the abruptness of the
context, and to present less difficulty
than those generally adopted.

τὸ ζῆν ἐν σαρκί] St Paul had before

spoken of the natural life as τὸ ζῆν
simply; but the mention of the gain of
.death has meanwhile suggested the
thought of the higher life. Thus the
word ζῆν requires to be qualified by
the addition of ἐν σαρκί. After all
death is true life. The sublime guess
of Euripides, ris οἶδεν εἰ τὸ ζῆν μέν
ἐστι κατθανεῖν τὸ κατθανεῖν δὲ ζῆν,
which was greeted with ignoble ridi-
cule by the comic poets, has become
an assured truth in Christ.

καρπὸς ἔργου] Comp. Rom. 1.13 ἵνα
τινὰ καρπὸν σχῶ καὶ ev ὑμῖν. For the
mmetaphor see 1 Cor. iii. 6 sq.

ov γνωρίζω] “1 do not perceive.’
Tvepi¢ew has two distinct senses; (1)
‘To understand, know’; (2) ‘To declare,
make known.’ In classical Greek the
former seems to be the more common,
even at a late date, though the latter
occurs not infrequently. On the other
hand in biblical Greek the latter is
the usual meaning (e.g. below, iv. 6),
the exceptions being very few, as here
and Job iv. 16(Symm.), xxxiv. 25 (LXx):
comp. Test. xii Patr. Dan 2 φίλον οὐ
γνωρίζει.

23. συνέχομαι ἐκ τῶν δύο] ‘I am
hemmed in on both sides, | am pre-
vented from inclining one way or the
other” The preposition seems to de-
note direction, as in ἐκ δεξιᾶς, ἐκ θα-
Aacons, ete. The δύο are the two horns
of the dilemma, stated in verses 21, 22.

τὴν ἐπιθυμίαν k.t.A.] ‘my own desire

tends towards.’ Comp. Gal. vi. 4.

τὸ ἀναλῦσαι) ‘to break up, depart,
comp. ἀνάλυσις 2 Tim. iv. 6. The me-
taphor is drawn from breaking up an
encampment, e.g. Polyb. v. 28. ὃ αὖθις
eis παραχειμασίαν ἀνέλυσε, 2 Mace. ix. I
ἀναλελυκὼς ἀκόσμως. The camp-life
of the Israelites in the wilderness,
as commemorated by the annual feast
of Tabernacles, was a ready and ap-
propriate symbol of man’s transitory
life on earth: while the land of pro-
mise with its settled abodes, the land
flowing with milk and honey, typified
the eternal inheritance of the redeem-
ed: Hebr. iv. 1 sq. See especially
2 Cor. Vv. I ἐὰν ἡ ἐπίγειος ἡμῶν οἰκία
τοῦ σκήνους καταλυθῇ, οἰκοδομὴν ἐκ
Θεοῦ ἔχομεν, οἰκίαν ἀχειροποίητον αἰώ-
νιον ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, aud ver. 4. Com-
pare also the metaphor in Plut. Mor.
76. D ov μονὰς ποιοῦσιν ἢ ἐποχὰς ὥσπερ
ἐν ὁδῷ τῆς προκοπῆς ἀλλ᾽ ἀναλύσεις.

σὺν Χριστῷ εἶναι] The faithful im-
mediately after death are similarly re-
presented as in the presence and keep-
ing of the Lord also in 2 Cor. v. 6, 8
ἐνδημοῦντες ἐν τῷ σώματι ἐκδημοῦμεν
ἀπὸ τοῦ Κυρίου x.t.A., Acts vii. 59;
comp. Clem. Rom. ὃ 5 ἐπορεύθη εἰς τὸν
ὀφειλόμενον τόπον τῆς δόξης Of St Pe-
ter and εἰς τὸν ἅγιον τόπον ἐπορεύθη of
St Paul, Polye. Phil. § 9 εἰς τὸν ὀφει-
λόμενον αὐτοῖς τύπον εἰσὶ mapa τῷ Kv-
pio. On the other hand their state
after death is elsewhere described as
a sleep from which they wiil arise,
I Cor. xv. 51, 52, 1 Thess. iv. 14, 16.
The one mode of representation must
be qualified by the other.

πολλῷ μᾶλλον κρεῖσσον] For the
triple comparative see Isocr. Archid.
§ 83 πολὺ γὰρ κρεῖττον... τελευτῆσαι
τὸν βίον μᾶλλον ἢ ζῆν κιτιλ. and other
references in Wetstein: comp. Winer
§ xxxv. p. 254. The insertion of yap
is supported by most of the best Mss;
and yet a reading which comes to the

92 EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

[I. 25, 26

a > co \ ΄σ ΄ς a \ \
τῷ εἶναι: πολλᾷ [γὰρ] μᾶλλον κρεῖσσον" *470 δὲ ἐπι-
; 3 a : δ 5 4 eat as \ ~
μένειν [ἐν] TH σαρκὶ ἀναγκαιότερον δι’ ὑμᾶς. *Kat τοῦτο
\ co e/ ~ \ ΄σ ΄σ ᾿ξ
πεποιθὼς οἶδα, ὅτι μενῶ καὶ παραμενώ πᾶσιν ὑμῖν εἰς

\ ς cr \ \ \ ΄- ͵7
τὴν ὑμῶν προκοπὴν καὶ χαραν τῆς πίστεως,

J A
va TO

7 ς ~ ΄ > et) ΄“σ > > \ ἃ
καυχημα νμὼν περισσευῇ ἐν Χριστῷ Ιησοῦ ἐν ἐμοὶ δια
Ny > > , ε >
τῆς ἐμῆς παρουσίας πάλιν προς vas.

relief of a disjointed syntax must be
regarded with suspicion.

24. ἐπιμένειν τῇ σαρκί] not ‘to
abide in,’ but ‘to abide by the flesh,
to cling to this present life, to take it
with all its inconveniences. This is the
common construction ἊΝ ἐπιμένειν In
St Paul, Rom. vi. 1, xi. 22, 23, Col. 1.
22.1 Tit. iv-.10, ἐμοὶ insertion of ἐν
weakens the force of the expression ;
besides that this preposition is not
found with ἐπιμένειν elsewhere in St
Paul, except in 1 Cor. xvi. ὃ ἐπιμενῶ ἐν
᾿Ἐφέσῳ which is no parallel.

ἀναγκαιότερον] The comparative cor-
responds to the foregoing κρεῖσσον.
Hither alternative is in a manner ne-
cent as either is advantageous. But

the balance of necessity (of obligation)
is on one side, the balance of advant-
age on the other.

25. τοῦτο πεποιθὼς οἶδα] ‘of this
I am confidently persuaded, that ete.’;
comp. Rom. xiv. 14 οἶδα καὶ πέπεισμαι
..oTu K.T.A., and Ephes. v. 5 τοῦτο yap
ἴστε γινώσκοντες ὅτι πᾶς πόρνος K.T-D.
The words are commonly taken, ‘ being
persuaded of this (that my life will be
advantageous to you), I know that ete’

οἶδα] not a prophetic inspiration, but
a personal conviction: comp. 1]. 24.
The same word οἶδα is used Acts xx.
25, where he expresses his belief that
he shall not see his Asiatic converts
again. Viewed as infallible presenti-
ments, the two are hardly reconcilable ;
for the one assumes, the other nega-
tives, his release. The assurance here
recorded was fulfilled (1 Tim. 1. 3);
while the presentiment there express-
ed was overruled by events (1 Tim. i.
3. 2 Tim i. 15; 18, ἵν. 29).

mapapeva] is relative, while pera is
absolute. It denotes continuance in a

certain place or with certain persons:

or in certain relations. Very frequent-
ly, as here, it takes a dative of the per-
son, e.g. Plat. Apol. p. 39 E, Phed.
115 D οὐκέτι ὑμῖν mapapeva, etc. The
reading of the received text συμπαρα-
μενῶ may be dismissed, as insufiicient-
ly supported. μενῶ καὶ παραμενῶ may
be translated ‘bide and abide,’

τῆς πίστεως) to be taken with both
substantives. For χαρὰν τῆς πίστεως
comp. Rom. xy. 13 πληρώσαι ὑμᾶς πά-
σης χαρᾶς καὶ εἰρήνης ἐν τῷ πιστεύειν.
On joyfulness, as the key- -note of this
epistle, see the notes, i. 4, iv. 4.

26. ἵνα τὸ καύχημα x.7.d.| ‘that you

- may have more matter for boasting in

me,’ not ‘that I may have more mat-
ter for boasting in you,’ as it is some-
times taken. Either would accord with
the Aposile’s language elsewhere, 2
Cor. i. 14 ὅτι καύχημα ὑμῶν ἐσμὲν καθ-
amep καὶ ὑμεῖς ἡμῶν ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τοῦ
Κυρίου Ἰησοῦ (comp. v. 12); but the
former is the simpler interpretation of
the words here. The words καυχᾶσθαι,
καύχησις, καύχημα, link this epistle
with the preceding group, where they
occur very abundautly (see the intro-
duction, p. 41). In the later epistles
only one instance is found, Ephes. 11.
g. On the difference between καύχη-
μα, καύχησις, See the note Gal. vi. 4.

ἐν] repeated. The first denotes the
sphere in which their pride lives ; the
second the object en which it rests.
Compare Col. ii, 7 περισσεύοντες ἐν av-
τῇ ev εὐχαριστίᾳ.

παρουσίας πάλιν] For the position of

πάλιν see the note on Gal. 1. 13.

EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 93

The synonymes ‘bishop’ and ‘ presbyter.

T is a fact now generally recognized by theologians of all shades of
opinion, that in the language of the New Testament the same officer in
the Church is called indifferently ‘bishop’ (ἐπίσκοπος) and ‘elder’ or ‘presby-
ter’ (πρεσβύτερος). The bearing of this fact on the origin and authority of
the ‘episcopate,’ as the term was understocd later and as it is understood
in the present day, will be considered in a dissertation at the end of this
volume. At present it will be sufficient to establish the fact itself; but
before doing so, it may be useful to trace the previous history of the two
words.

Episcopus, ‘bishop,’ ‘overseer, was an official title among the Greeks.
In Athenian language it was used especially to designate commissioners
appointed to regulate a new colony or acquisition, so that the Attic ‘bishop’
corresponded to the Spartan ‘harmost!’ Thus the impostor, who intrudes
. upon the colonists in Aristophanes (Av. 1022), says ἐπίσκοπος ἥκω δεῦρο τῷ
κυάμῳ λαχών. These officers are mentioned also in an inscription, Boeckh
no. 73. The title however is not confined to Attic usage; it is the desig-
nation for instance of the inspectors whose business it.was to report to the
Indian kings (Arrian /nd. xii. 5); of the commissioner appointed by Mithri-
- dates to settle affairs in Ephesus (Appian Mithr. 48); of magistrates who
regulated the sale of provisions under the Romans (Charisius in the Dig.
1. 4. 18.); and of certain officers in Rhodes whose functions are unknown
(Ross. Znser. Graec. Ined. fase. m1. nos. 275, 276)”.

In the Lxx the wordis common. In some places it signifies ‘inspectors,
superintendents, taskmasters,’ as 2 Kings xi. 19, 2 Chron. xxxiv. 12, 17, Is.
Ix. 17; in others it is a higher title, ‘captains’ or ‘presidents, Neh. xi. 9,

1 Harpocration 5. v. (ed. Dindorf.

p. 129) quotes from Theophrastus, πολλῷ
yap κάλλιον κατά ye τὴν τοῦ ὀνόματος
θέσιν, ὡς οἱ Λάκωνες ἁρμοστὰς φάσκοντες
εἰς τὰς πόλεις πέμπειν, οὐκ ἐπισκόπους
οὐδὲ φύλακας, ὡς ᾿Αθηναῖοι. See also
Schol. on Arist. Av. 1]. 6. of παρ᾽ ᾽Αθη-
ναίων εἰς τὰς ἐπηκόους πόλεις ἐπισκέψα-
σθαι τὰ παρ᾽ ἑκάστοις πεμπόμενοι ἐπί-
σκοποι καὶ φύλακες ἐκαλοῦντο οὖς οἱ Λά-
κωνες ἁρμοστὰς ἔλεγον.

3 Τὴ these instances the ἐπίσκοποι
seem to hold some office in connexion
with a temple. In another inscription
(Ross. Inscr. Grec. Ined, fase. τι. no.
198), found at Thera, the word again
occurs; Acdoxfar* ἀ[ποδε]ξαμένος τὴν
ἐπαγγελίαν τὸ μ[ὲν ἀρ]γύριον ἐγδανεῖσαι
τὸς ἐπισκόϊπος] Δίωνα καὶ Μελέϊππον,
where among other dialectic forms the
accusative pluralin osoccurs, M, Wesch-

er in an article in the Revue Archéo-
logique, p. 246 (Avril 1866), supposes
the ἐπίσκοποι here to be officers of a
club or confraternity (€pavos or θίασος),
in which he is followed by Renan Les
Apétres p. 353. If their opinion be cor-
rect, this inscription presents a closer
analogy to the Christian use of the term,

. than the instances given in the text.
The context of the inscription however
is not decisive, though this interpreta-
tion seems fairly probable: see below
p. 192. There can be no reasonable
doubt 1 imagine about the reading ém-
σκόπος; though Ross himself suggested
ἐπισσόφος, because he found the word
in another Therean inscription (Boeckh
no. 2448). In this latter inscription
ἐπισσόφος isprobably a mason’s blunder
for ἐπισκόποξ.

The two
words sy-
nonymes.

Meaning
of ‘bishop’
in heathen
writers

and in the
LxXx.

94 EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

14,22. Of Antiochus Epiphanes we are told that when he determined to
overthrow the worship of the one true God, he ‘appointed commissioners
(ἐπισκόπους, bishops) over all the people,’ to see that his orders were
obeyed (1 Mace. i. 51: comp. Joseph. Ant. xii. 5.4; in 2 Macc. v. 22 the

ἐπισκοπή. Word is ἐπιστάτας). The feminine ἐπισκοπή, which is not a classical word,
occurs very frequently in the Lxx, denoting sometimes the work, sometimes
the office, of an ἐπίσκοπος. Hence it passed into the language of the New
Testament and of the Christian Church.

Thus beyond the fundamental idea of inspection, which lies at the root
of the word ‘bishop,’ its usage suggests two subsidiary notions also; (1) Re-
sponsibility to a superior power; (2) The introduction of a new order of
things.

aie The earlier history of the word presbyterus (elder, presbyter, or priest)
Ἔ ol ce me is much more closely connected with its Christian sense. If the analogies

of the ‘bishop’ are to be sought chiefly among heathen nations, the name
and office of the ‘presbyter’ are essentially Jewish. Illustrations indeed
might be found in almost all nations ancient or modern, in the γερουσία of
Sparta for instance, in the ‘senatus’ of Rome, in the ‘ signoria’ of Florence,
or in the ‘aldermen’ of our own country and time, where the deliberative
body originally took its name from the advanced age of its members. But
among the chosen people we meet at every turn with presbyters or elders
in Church and State from the earliest to the latest times. In the lifetime
of the lawgiver, in the days of the judges, throughout the monarchy, during
the captivity, after the return, and under the Roman domination, the
‘elders’ appear as an integral part of the governing body of the country.
transferred But it is rather in a special religious development of the office, than in these
from the yational and civil presbyteries, that we are to look for the prototype of

οὐ the Christian minister. Over every Jewish synagogue, whether at home

Church. or abroad, a council of ‘elders’ presided'. It was not unnatural therefore
that, when the Christian synagogue took its place by the side of the Jew-
ish, a similar organization should be adopted with such modifications as
circumstances required; and thus the name familiar under the old dispen-
sation was retained under the new.

Identityof ΟΥ̓ the identity of the ‘bishop’ and ‘presbyter’ in the language of the

ae apostolic age, the following evidence seems conclusive.

apostolic (1) Inthe opening of this epistle St Paul salutes the ‘bishops’ and

writings ‘deacons?’ Now it is incredible that he should recognise only the first

1 See especially Vitringa de Synag. οἱ ἐπίσκοποι πρεσβύτεροι), he illustrates

Veto τῶι τ Ὁ ΤΡ 5 ΕΠ

2 It may be worth while correcting
a mistake which runs through the criti-
cal editions of the Greek Testament.
Chrysostom is quoted as reading συνε-
πισκόποις in one word, His editors no
doubt make him read 50, but of this
reading there is no trace in the context.
After explaining that the terms deacon,
presbyter, bishop, were originally con-
vertible (οἱ πρεσβύτεροι τὸ παλαιὸν ἐκα-
λοῦντο ἐπίσκοποι καὶ διάκονοι Χριστοῦ καὶ

this by the fact that even in his own
day bishops often addressed a presbyter
as a fellow-presbyter, a deacon as a
fellow-deacon (ὅθεν καὶ νῦν πολλοὶ συμ-
πρεσβυτέρῳ ἐπίσκοποι γράφουσι καὶ συν-
διακόνῳ): but his language nowhere
implies that he read συνεπισκόποις. The
comment of Theodore of Mopsuestia
again has been understood (see Tischen-
dorf) as referring to and combating the
reading συνεπισκόποις. This also is an
error. After explaining the identity of

a ee

ee 7 Re

EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 95

and third order and pass over the second, though the second was
absolutely essential to the existence of a church and formed the staple of
its ministry. It seems therefore to follow of necessity that the ‘bishops’
are identical with the ‘presbyters’ Whether or not the Philippian Church
at this time possessed also a ‘bishop’ in the later sense of the term, is
a question which must be reserved for the present.

(2) [π΄ {πὸ Acts (xx. 17)St Paul is represented as summoning to Mile-
tus the ‘elders’ or ‘presbyters’ of the Church of Ephesus. Yet in address-
ing them immediately after he appeals to them as ‘bishops’ or ‘ overseers’
of the church (xx. 28).

(3) Similarly St Peter, appealing to the ‘presbyters’ of the churches
addressed by him, in the same breath urges them to ‘fulfil the office of
bishops’ (ἐπισκοποῦντες) with disinterested zeal (1 Pet. v. 1, 2).

(4) Again in the First Epistle to Timothy St Paul, after describing the
qualifications for the office of a ‘bishop’ (iii. 1—7), goes on at once to say
what is required of ‘deacons’ (iii. 8—13). He makes no mention of presby-
ters. The term ‘presbyter’ however is not unknown to him; for having
oceasion in a later passage to speak of Christian ministers he calls these
officers no longer ‘bishops, but ‘ presbyters’ (v. 17—19).

(5) The same identification appears still more plainly from the Apostle’s
directions to Titus (i. 5—7); ‘That thou shouldest set in order the things
that are wanting and ordain elders in every city, as I appointed thee ; if
any one be blameless, the husband of one wife, having believing children
who are not charged with riotousness or unruly; for a bishop (τὸν ἐπίσκο-
mov)! must be blameless ete.’

(6) Nor is it only in the apostolic writings that this identity is found. and in Cle-

ment of

bishops and presbyters Theodore adds, however (Raban. Maur. vi. p. 479, ed. Rome.

προσεκτέον ὅτι τὸ σὺν ἐπισκόποις λέ-
El, οὐχ ὡς τινες ἐνόμισαν ὥσπερ ἡμεῖς
σὺν πρεσβυτέροις γράφειν εἰώβαμεν: οὐ
yap πρὸς τὸ ἑαυτοῦ πρόσωπον εἶπεν τὸ
σύν, ἵνα ἢ σὺν ἐπισκόποις ἡμῶν" ἀλλὰ
πρὸς τὸ πᾶσι τοῖς ἐν Φιλίπποις ἁγίοις,
σὺν τοῖς αὐτόθι ἐπισκόποις τε καὶ διακό-
νοις: ‘It must be observed that when he
says with the bishops, it is not, as some
have thought, a parallel to our practice
of writing ‘together with the elders’
(i.e. of associating the elders with them-
selves in the superscription, as for in-
stance Polycarp does in writing to the
Philippians): for he does not use the
word within reference to himself, mean-
ing with our bishops, but in reference to
all the saints that are at Philippi, i.e.
with the bishops and deacons that are
there. Here I have substituted σὺν
πρεσβυτέροις for συμπρεσβυτέροις, as the
context seems to require, and corrected
the corrupt 7 ἰσὴν into ἢ σὺν with the
Latin. The Latin version of Theodore

Migne) mistakes and confuses his mean-
ing. The interpretation which Theodore
is combating appears in the Ambrosian
Hilary; ‘Cum episcopis et diaconibus :
hoe est, cum Paulo et Timotheo, qui
utique episcopi erant: simul significa-
vit et diaconos qui ministrabant ei.
Ad plebem enim scribit: nam si epis-
copis scriberet et diaconibus, ad per-
sonas eorum scriberet; et loci ipsius
episcopo scribendum erat, non duobus
vel tribus, sicut et ad Titum et Timo-
theum.’ See below p. 228.

1 Τὴ τὸν ἐπίσκοπον the definite arti-
cle denotes the type, as in 2 Cor, xii.
12 τὰ σημεῖα τοῦ ἀποστολοῦ, Joh. x. τι
ὁ ποιμὴν ὁ καλός : see the notes on Gal.
ἅπ|,,. σοὶ

2 The identity of the two titles in
the New Testament is recognised by
the Peshito Syriac Version, which com-
monly translates ἐπίσκοπος by kashisho,
i.e. presbyter or elder: see Wichelhaus
de Vers. Syr. Ant. p. 209.

Different
usage in
ignatius
and Poly-
carp.

The iden-
tity proved
by Jerome.

Σ πιστεύειν) 342.

οὔ EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

St Clement cf Rome wrote probably in the last decade of the first century

and in his language the terms are still convertible. Speaking of the
Apostles he says that ‘preaching in every country and city (κατὰ χώρας καὶ
κατὰ πόλεις) they appointed their first-fruits, having tested them by the
Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of them that should believe (μελλόντων
A little later, referring to the disorganized state of the
Corinthian Church, he adds, ‘Our Apostles knew through our Lord Jesus
Christ that there would be strife concerning the authority (ἐπὶ τοῦ ὀνόματος)
of the bishopric’...6We shall incur no slight guilt if we eject from the bi-
shopric those who have presented the offerings (δῶρα) unblameably and
holily. Blessed are the pres?yters who have gone before, whose depariure
was crowned with fruit and mature (οἵτενες ἔγκαρπον καὶ τελείαν ἔσχον τὴν
ἀνάλυσιν) § 44. =

This is the last instance of identification. With the opening of a
second century a new phraseology begins. In the genuine epistles of
Ignatius the terms are used in their more modern sense. In his letter to
Polycarp (§ 6) he writes: ‘Give heed to the bishop, that Ged also may give
heed to you. I am devoted (ἀντίψυχον ἐγώ) to those who are obedient to
the bishop, to presbyters, to deacons (τῷ ἐπισκόπῳ, πρεσβυτέροις, διακόνοις).
The bishop is always singled out by this writer, as the chief officer of the
churcht. So about the same time Polycarp, writing to the Philippians,
gives directions to the deacons (§ 5) and the presbyters (δ 6). He also
begins his letter, ‘Polycarp and the prestyters that are with him’ With
this form of address may be coupled the fact that the writer is distinctly
called ‘bishop of Smyrna’ by Ignatius (Polyc. init.).

Towards the close of the second century the original application of
the term ‘bishop’ scems to have passed not only out of use, but almost
out of memory. So perhaps we may account for the explanation which
Irenzeus gives of the incident at Miletus (Acts xx. 17, 28). ‘Having called
together the bishops and presbyters who were from Ephesus and the other
neighbouring cities? But in the fourth century, when the fathers of
the Church began to examine the apostolic records with a more criti-
cal eye, they at once detected the fact. No one states it more clearly
than Jerome. ‘Among the ancients,’ he says, ‘bishops and presbyters are
the same, for the one is a term of dignity, the other of age®. ‘The
Apostle plainly shows,’ he writes in another place, ‘that presbyters are the
same as bishops...It is proved most clearly that bishops and presbyters are
the same*” Again in a third passage he says ‘If any one thinks the opinion

the writer had only an indistinct know-
ledge of the altered value of the term.
Atall events the same account has been

1 Besides the passages quoted in the
text see Polyc. 5, Ephes.2. All these
passages are found in the Syriac. The

shorter Greek teems with references to
the bishop as chief officer of the Church,
but the genuineness of this latter recen-
sion seems to me more than doubtful.
2 Tren. iii. 14. 2. His explanation
of the incident has been charged with
dishonesty, but I know of nothing to
justify sucha charge. It would appear
a very natural solution of a difficulty, if

given by writers who lived in a more
critical age; e.g. Potter, Church Govern-
ment ὁ. ili. p. 118.

3 Epist. Ἰχὶχ (1.0. 4148q., ed. Vallarsi).

4 Epist. exlvi (1. p. 1081) ‘Quum
Apostolus perspicue doceat eosdem esse
presbyteros quos episcopos’...‘ manifes-
tissime comprobatur eundem esse epis-
copum atque presbyterum,’

EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 97

that the bishops and presbyters are the same, to be not the view of the
Scriptures but my own, let him study the words of the apostle to the
Philippians,’ and in support of his view he alleges the scriptural proofs

at great length'. But, though more full than other writers, he is hardly and eal
more explicit. Of his predecessors the Ambrosian Hilary had discerned mae ae
the same truth?. Of his contemporaries and successors, Chrysostom, Pela- Jater
gius, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret, all acknowledge 1053, Thus in writers.
every one of the extant commentaries on the epistles containing the crucial

passages, whether Greek or Latin, before the close of the fifth century,

this identity is affirmed. In the succeeding ages bishops and popes ac-

cept the verdict of St Jerome without question. Even late in the medi-

zeval period, and at the era of the reformation, the justice of his criticism

or the sanction of his name carries the general suffrages of theologians‘.

The meaning of ‘pretorium’ tn i. 13.

The word ‘preetorium’ signifies properly (1) ‘The general’s tent,’ ‘the Common
head-quarters in a camp, From this it gets other derived meanings : ™eanings
(2) ‘The residence of a governor or prince,’ e.g. Acts xxiii. 35 ἐν τῷ oe
πραιτωρίῳ τοῦ Ἣ ρώδου (A.V. ‘judgment hall’), Mark xv. 16 ἀπήγαγον αὐτὸν ἡ
ἔσω τῆς αὐλῆς ὅ ἐστιν πραιτώριον, Acta Thome § 3 πραιτώρια βασιλικά, Juv.

Sat. x. 161 ‘sedet ad pretoria regis,” Tertull. ad Scap.§ 3 ‘solus in
pretorio suo etc.” (3) ‘Any spacious villa or palace’; Juv. Sat. i. 75
‘criminibus debent hortos preetoria mensas,’ Sueton. Tiber. 39 ‘juxta
Terracinam in preetorio cui speluncee nomen erat inccenante eo’ (comp.
Octav. 72, Calig. 37), Epict. Diss. iii. 22. 47 οὐ πραιτωρίδιον ἀλλὰ γῆ μόνον
κιτιλ. [

So much for the word generally. It remains to enquire, what sense Explana-
it would probably bear, when used by a person writing from Rome tionsofthe
and speaking of the cause which he advocated as becoming known ‘in the at ee
whole of the preetorium.’ Several answers have been given to this ques-
tion.

(1) ‘The imperial residence on the Palatine.” So our English Version, (1) The
following the Greek commentators. Thus Chrysostom, ‘They still (τέως) palace.
called the palace by this name.’ Similarly Theodore of Mopsuestia5,

1 Ad Tit. i. 5 (vu. p. 695). Theodore of Mopsuestia on Phil. i. r,

? On Ephes. iv. 11. But heishardly Tit. i. 7, and especially on 1 Tim. iij
consistent with himself. On1Tim.iii. (where the matter is fully discussed);
8 he recognises the identity less dis- | Theodoret on Phil. i. 1, 1 Tim. iii. 1 54.,
tinctly ; on Phil. i. 1 (see above, p.95, Tit. i. 7, following closely in the steps
note) he ignores it; while on Tit.i.7 he οὗ Theodore. See also Ammonius on
passes over the subject withouta word. Acts xx. 28 in Cramer’s Catena, p. 337.

‘eA Chrysostom on Phil. i. τ (on τ Tim. 4 Later authorities are given in
iii. 8, Tit. i. 7, he isnot soclear); Pela- Gieseler Kirchengesch. τ. pp. 105, 106.
gius on Phil.i.1, τ Tim. iii. 12, Tit. i.7; 5 In Raban. Maur. Op. vi. p. 482 A.

PHIL. 7,

Objection
to this
meaning.

No in-
stance of
this sense.

EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

‘What we are in the habit of calling the palace, he calls the preetorium?
Theodoret giving the same meaning adds, ‘It is probable that the palace
was so called at that time!’ This interpretation, which has the advan-
tage of illustrating the reference to ‘Czesar’s household’ at the close of
the epistle, is thus ably advocated by Dean Merivale?; “In the provinces
the emperor was known, not as Princeps, but as Imperator. In Judzea
governed more immediately by him through the imperial procurators, he
would be more exclusively regarded as a military chief. The soldier, to
whom the Apostle was attached with a chain, would speak of him as his
general. When Paul asked the centurion in charge of him, ‘ Where shall
I be confined at Rome ?’, the answer would be, ‘In the prztorium’ or
the quarters of the general. When led, as perhaps he was, before the
emperor's tribunal, if he asked the attending guard, ‘ Where am I?’, again
they would reply, ‘In the preetorium.” The emperor was protected in his
palace by a body-guard, lodged in its courts and standing sentry at its
gates; and accordingly they received the name of preetorians.”

It is hardly probable however that in the early ages of the empire
the feelings of Roman citizens would be thus outraged by the adoption
of a term which implied that they were under a military despotism. In
the days of the republic the consuls were required to lay down their
‘imperium’ without the walls and to appear in the city as civilians. And
under the early Czesars the fiction of the republic was carefully guarded,
though the reality had ceased to exist. If it be urged that the name
was confined to the soldiers (as Dean Merivale seems to suggest), it is
difficult to conceive why St Paul after several months’ residence at least in
Rome, during which he must have mixed with various classes of men,
should have singled out this exceptional term, especially when writing to
distant correspondents.

But whatever may be said of the a priori probability, it is a fatal
objection that not a single instance of this usage has been produced. The
language of the Greek fathers quoted above shows that though they
assumed the word must have had this meaning at an earlier date, it was
certainly not so when they wrote. While ‘preetorium’ is a frequent desig-
nation of splendid villas, whether of the emperors or others, away from
Rome, the imperial residence on the Palatine is not once so called.
Indeed the word seems to have suggested to a Roman the idea of a
country seat. Thus when Tacitus and Suetonius are relating the same
event, the one uses ‘villa,’ the other ‘przetorium, to describe the scene of
the occurrence’. Hence Forcellini with right appreciation defines the
word, ‘zedes elegantiores ornatioresque in agris exstructee et villa queeque

1 His words are τὰ βασίλεια yap ritoryis meant. Παλλαντιανὸς here is

πραιτώριον προσηγόρευσεν" εἰκὸς δὲ ὅτι
καὶ οὕτως κατ᾽ ἐκεῖνον ὠνομάζετο τὸν και-
pov’ ἀρχὴν γὰρ εἶχεν ἡ ῥωμαϊκὴ δυνα-
orela, |

2 History of the Romans v1. p. 268.

3 In Phlegon de Longev. § 4 ἐκ Σα-
βίνων ἀπὸ πραιτωρίου παλλαντιανοῦ, a
palace of the emperor in the Sabine ter-

explained ‘imperial’ ‘Caesarean’ by
Perizonius de Pretor. p. 252, as if con-
nected with παλάτιον (comp. Dion Cass.
lui. τό quoted above in the text) ; but,like
horti Pallantiani, the name is doubtless
derived from its former owner Pallas; see
Friedlander Sittengesch. Roms τ. p. 98.

4 Tac. Ann. iv. 59, Suet. Tiber. 30.

EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

minime rustica vel villze pars nobilior et cultior ubi domini, rusticart cum
libet, morantur” In Rome itself a ‘preetorium’ would not have been
tolerated?.

(2) The ‘preetoriam’ is not the imperial palace itself, but the pre-
torian barracks attached thereto. This interpretation is open to many of
the objections urged against the former. Moreover it is equally destitute
of authority. Ina passage of Dion Cassius indeed (liii. 16) there seems to
be mention of a ‘pretorium’ on the Palatine; καλεῖται δὲ τὰ βασίλεια
παλάτιον...ὅτι ἔν τε τῷ παλατίῳ 6 Καῖσαρ ᾧκει kal ἐκεῖ TO στρατήγιον εἶχε.
Here στρατήγιον is doubtless a rendering of the Latin ‘preetorium’ ; but the
sense is hardly local. As this passage stands alone, the words would
appear to mean simply that the emperor was surrounded by his body-
guards and kept state as a military commander. This language, though it
would probably have been avoided by a contemporary, was not in itself
inappropriate when applied to Augustus, of whom Dion is speaking, be-
fore the preetorian camp was built, and when the barracks attached to the
palace were still the head-quarters of the preetorian guards*, At all
events, if ‘praetorium’ ever had this sense, it can hardly have been meant
by St Paul here; for the expression ‘throughout the preetorium, in con-
nexion with the context, would be wholly out of place in reference to
a space so limited.

(3) The great camp of the preetorian soldiers is so designated. Tibe-
rius concentrated the cohorts previously scattered up and down the city
(Tac. Ann. iv. 2) and established them outside the Colline gate at the
North East of the city in a permanent camp, whose ramparts can be traced
at the present day, being embedded in the later walls of Aurelian. If
‘ preetorium’ here has a local sense, no other place could be so fitly desig-
nated; for as this camp was without the walls, the term so applied would
give no offence. But this meaning again lacks external support. It might
indeed be argued that as the Greek equivalent to ‘ preefectus prezetorio’
is στρατοπεδάρχης, ‘the commander of the camp, the camp itself would
be designated ‘przetorium’; but, as a question of fact, no decisive in-
stance of this sense is produeed. The camp is sometimes called ‘ castra
preetoria’ (Plin. LV. 7. iii. 9), sometimes ‘castra preetorianorum’ (Tac. Hist.
i. 3), once at least ‘castra preetori’ (i.e. preetorii, Orell. Znscr. 21); but
never ‘ preetorium.’

As all attempts to give a local sense to ‘pretorium’ thus fail for
want of evidence, it remains to discover some other suitable meaning,
which is not open to this objection.

(4) Preetorium signifies not a place, but a body of men. It is used for
instance of a council of war, the officers who met in the general’s tent:
e.g. Liy. xxvi. 15, xxx. 5. But more frequently it denotes the przetorian

1 On the other hand away from
Rome the residence of the emperor's

about two centuries after the event.
For this sense of στρατήγιον comp.

representative is frequently so called;
e.g. at Cologne (Orell. 3297), at Munda
(ib. 3303).

2 See Perizonius p. 230. It must
be remembered that Dion Cassius wrote

Tac. Ann, 111. 33 ‘duorum egressus
coli, duo esse pretoria,’ where a com-
plaint is made of the pomp main-
tained by the wives of provincial
governors, '

—2

(2) The
barracks
on the
Palatine.

(3) The
Preetorian
camp.

(4) The
Preetorian
uards.

100

This sense
to be
adopted.

EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

regiments, the imperial guards. This in fact is the common use of the
term. It is found in ‘castra preetorii’ already quoted and probably also
in ‘preefectus preetorio.” It occurs also in such phrases as ‘ veteranus ex
preetorio’ (Tac. Hist. ii. 11, Suet. Nero 9, Orell. Znscr. 123), ‘missus ex
preetorio’ (Orell. no. 1644, note), ‘lectus in preetorio’ (Orell. no. 941; comp.
nos. 3589, 6806, 6817). A guardsman was said to serve ‘in preetorio, a
soldier of the line ‘in legione’ (Orell. nos. 3547, 5286, 5291). If St Paul
seeing a new face among his guards asked how he came to be there, the
answer would be ‘I have been promoted to the preetorium’ ; if he enquired
after an old face which he missed, he might be told ‘He has been dis-
charged from the preetorium. In this sense and this alone can it be
safely affirmed that he would hear the word ‘ preetorium’ used daily. The
following passages will further illustrate this meaning: Plin. NV. H. xxv. 2
‘Nuper cujusdam militantis in preetorio mater vidit in quiete...in Lace-
tania res gerebatur, Hispanize proxima parte’: Tac. Hist. 1. 20 ‘ Hxauc-
torati per eos dies tribuni, e preetorio Antonius. Taurus et Antonius Naso,
ex urbanis cohortibus milius Pacensis, e vigiliis Julius Fronto’; 7b. iv. 46
‘Militiam et stipendia orant...igitur in preetorium accepti’: Joseph. Ant.
Xix. 3. 1 of περὶ τὸ στρατηγικὸν καλούμενον ὅπερ ἐστὶ τῆς στρατιᾶς καθαρώ-
τατον, i.e. ‘the preetorium, which is the flower of the army’: Dosith. Hadr.
Sent. ὃ 2 αἰτοῦντός τινος ἵνα στρατεύηται, ᾿Ανδριανὸς εἶπεν: Ποῦ θέλεις
στρατεύεσθαι; ἐκείνου λέγοντος Eis τὸ πραιτώριον, ᾿Αδριανὸς ἐξήτασεν
Ποῖον μῆκος ἔχεις ; λέγοντος ἐκείνου Πέντε πόδας καὶ ἥμισυ, ᾿Αδριανὸς εἶπεν
Ἔν τοσούτῳ εἰς τὴν πολιτικὴν στρατεύου, καὶ ἐὰν καλὸς στρατιώτης ἔσῃ
τρίτῳ ὀψωνίῳ δυνήσῃ εἰς τὸ πραιτώριον μεταβῆναι.

This sense is in all respects appropriate. It forms ἃ fit introduction to
the words καὶ τοῖς λοιποῖς πᾶσιν Which follow. It is explained by St Paul’s
position as an imperial prisoner in charge of the prefect of the preetorians,
And lastly it avoids any conflict with St Luke’s statement that the Apostle
dwelt in ‘his own hired house?’: for it is silent about the locality.

1 See also Plin. N. ἢ. vii. 19, Orell. and Sacr. Phil. no. x. Ὁ. 58. Al-

no, 3477. On the meaning of the word
pretorium see especially ‘Perizoniicum
Hubero Disquisitio de Pretorio, ete.
(Franeq. 1690)’, a 12mo volume con-
taining more than goo pages. An inde-
pendent though partial search has ena-
bled me to add very little to the matter
accumulated in this elaborate work.
Huber maintained that by ‘ pretorium’
in Phil. i. 13 must be understood the pa-
lace or the audience-chamber therein.
Pefizonius, whose refutation of his ad-
versary is complete, explained it of the
pretoriancohorts or thepretorian camp.
If he had omitted this second alterna-
tive, his work would in my judgment
have been entirely satisfactory: though
I must confess to haying once taken
it to mean the camp; Journal of Class.

most all recent commentators on the
Philippians occupy themselves in dis-
cussing the possible local senses of ‘pree-
torium,’ barely, if at all, alluding to the
only meaning which is really well sup-
ported and meets all the requirements
of the case. Of recent writers on St
Paul two only, so far as I have noticed,
Bleek (Hinl. in das N. T. p. 433) and
apparently Ewald (Sendschreiben ete. p,
441), take what seems to be the correct
view, but even they do not explain their
reasons. On this account I have entered
into the question more fully than its ab-
solute importance deserves.

2 This difficulty indeed is very slight,
if it be interpreted of the camp; for the
camp was large and might perhaps have
contained houses or rooms rented by

EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. IOI

The following account, relating to a contemporary of St Paul, who Account of
also spent some time in Rome under military custody, is abridged from Agrippa.
Josephus (Ané. xviii. 6. 5 sq.). As throwing light on the condition of
a prisoner under such circumstances, it may fitly close this investigation.

Herod Agrippa, then a young man and resident in Rome, contracted an
intimate friendship with Caius. On one occasion, when the two were
driving together, Agrippa was overheard praying that Tiberius would re-
sign the empire to make way for his friend who was ‘in all respects more
worthy.’ Some time after, the charioteer, having been dismissed by
Agrippa and bearing a grudge against him, reported his words to Tiberius.

So Agrippa was consigned to Macro, the prefect of the przetorians, to be His con-
put in chains. Hereupon Antonia, the sister-in-law of Tiberius, who had finement.
a kindly feeling for the Jewish prince as a friend of her grandson Caius,
grieving at his misfortune, and yet not daring to intercede with the

prisoners: see above, p.g sq. But if
the palace or the Palatine barracks were
_meant, St Luke’s statement would not
be so easily explained. Wieseler indeed
(Chronol. p. 403, note 3), who pro-
nounces in fayour of the Palatine bar-
racks, adduces the instances of Drusus
and Agrippa in support of his view.
But both cases break down on examina-
tion. (1) Drusus, it is true, was impri-
soned in the palace; Tac. Ann. vi. 23,
Suet. Tiber. 54. But this is no parallel
to the case of St Paul. Drusus, as a
member of the imperial family, would
naturally be confined within the pre-
cincts of the imperial residence. More-
over, as Tiberius had designs on his ne-
phew’s life, secresy was absolutely ne-
cessary for his plans. Nor indeed could
one, who might at any moment become
the focus of a revolution, be safely
entrusted to the keeping of the camp
away from the emperor’s personal cog-
nisance. (2) Wieseler misunderstands
the incidents relating to Agrippa, whose
imprisonment is wholly unconnected
with the Palatine. When Tiberius or-
dered him to be put under arrest, he was
at the emperor’s Tusculan villa (§ 6).
From thence he was conveyed to the
camp, where we find him still confined
at the accession of Caius, which led to
his removal and release ($10). Wieseler’s
mistake is twofold. First; he explains
τοῦ βασιλείου as referring to the palace
at Rome; though Josephus lays the scene
of the arrest at Tusculanum (Τιβέριος
ἐκ τῶν Καπρεῶν εἰς Τουσκουλανὸν παραγί-
νεται). For the existence of such palaces

at Tusculum see Strabo v. p. 239 δεχό-
μενος βασιλείων κατασκευὰς ἐκπρεπεστά-
τας. Secondly; heboldly translates στρα-
τόπεδον by ‘pretorium,’ understanding
thereby the Palatine barracks ; though
these barracks were in no sense a camp
and were neyer so called. Building
upon these two false suppositions, he
makes the Palatine the scene of both
his arrest and his imprisonment. Ca-
ractacus also, like Agrippa, appears to
have been imprisoned in the pretorian
camp, Tac. Ann. xii. 36. And, if these
royal captives were not retained on the
Palatine, it is very improbable than an
exception should be made in the case of
a humble prisoner like St Paul, whose
case would not appear to differ from
many hundreds likewise awaiting the
decision of Cesar,

It will appear from the account
relating to Agrippa, given in the text,
that this prince was confined in the
camp during the reign of Tiberius; but
that on the accession of Caius he was
removed to a house of his own, though
still under military custody. The no-
tices in the Acts suggest that St Paul’s
captivity resembled this latter condition
of Agrippa, and that he did not reside
actually within the camp. A Roman tra-
dition is perhaps preserved in thenotice
of the Roman Hilary (Ambrosiaster) in
his prologue to the Ephesians; ‘In cus-
todia sub fidejussore intelligitur degisse
manens extra castra in conductu suo.’
In Acts xxviii. 16 some mss (Greek
and Latin) read ἔξω τῆς παρεμβολῆς,
‘extra castra.’

102

Death of
Tiberius.

Release of
Agrippa.

EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

emperor, spoke to Macro on his behalf. Her entreaties prevailed. The
prefect took care that the soldiers appointed to guard him should not be
over severe, and that the centurion to whom he was bound should be a
man of humane disposition. He was permitted to take a bath every day;
free access was granted to his freedmen and his friends; and other in-
dulgences were allowed him. Accordingly his friend Silas and his freed-
men, Marsyas and Stoecheus, were constant in their attendance: they
brought him food that was palatable to him; they smuggled in clothes
under pretence of selling them; they made his bed every night with the
aid of the soldiers, who had received orders to this effect from Macro.

In this way six months rolled by and Tiberius died. On hearing of the
emperor's death, Marsyas ran in hot haste to Agrippa to tell him the good
news. He found the prince on the threshold, going out to the baths,
and making signs to him said in Hebrew, ‘The lion’s dead.’ The centurion
in command noticed the hurry of the messenger and the satisfaction with
which his words were received. His curiosity was excited. At first an
evasive answer was returned to his question; but as the man had been
friendly disposed, Agrippa at length told him. The centurion shared his
prisoner's joy, unfastened his chain, and served up dinner to him. But
while they sat at table, and the wine was flowing freely, contrary tidings
arrived. Tiberius was alive and would return to Rome in a few days. The
centurion who had committed himself so grievously was furious at this
announcement. He rudely pushed Agrippa off the couch, and threatened
him with the loss of his head, as a penalty for his lying report. Agrippa
was again put in chains, and the rigour of his confinement increased.
So he passed the night in great discomfort. But the next day the report
of the emperor’s death was confirmed. And soon after a letter arrived
from Caius to Piso the prefect of the city, directing the removal of Agrippa
from the camp to the house where he had lived before he was imprisoned.
This relieved and reassured him. Though he was still guarded and
watched, yet less restraint was put upon his movements (φυλακὴ μὲν καὶ
τήρησις ἦν, μετὰ μέντοι ἀνέσεως τῆς εἰς THY δίαιταν. When the new emperor
arrived in Rome, his first impulse was to release Agrippa at once: but
Antonia represented to him that this indecent haste would be regarded as
an outrage on his predecessor’s memory. So after waiting a few days to
save appearances, he sent for Agrippa, placed the royal diadem on his
head, gave him the tetrarchies of Philip and Lysanias, and removing his
iron fetter (ἁλύσει) invested him with a golden chain of the same weight.

I; 27]

EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

103

’ fe = > / “- io
ἽἼΜονον ἀξίως τοῦ εὐαγγελίου Tov Χριστοῦ πολι-

, (74 of 3 \ A \omee \ e ΄ »>f > \ > ΤᾺ
τευεσθε, LVQ ἘΠῚ ΤῈ ἐλθὼν Και ἰδὼν υμας Εἰτε απ ων AKOUW

\ > e/ E Ol (7 ΄σ an
τὰ περι ὑμῶν OTL στήκετε EV ἑνὶ πνεύματι, μιᾷ ψυχῆ

27. ἀπὼν ἀκούσω τὰ περὶ ὑμῶν.

27—30. ‘But under all circum-
stances do your duty as good citizens
of a heavenly kingdom; act worthily
of the Gospel of Christ. So that whe-
ther I come among you and see with
my own eyes, or stay away and obtain
tidings from others, I may learn that
you maintain your ground bravely and
resolutely, acting by one inspiration ;
that with united aims and interests
you are fighting allin the ranks of the
- Faith on the side of the Gospel ; and
that no assault of your antagonists
makes you waver: for this will be a
sure omen to them of utter defeat, to
you of life and safety : an omen, I say,
sent by God Himself; for it is His
grace, His privilege bestowed upon
you, that for Christ—yea, that ye
should not only believe on Him, but
also should ‘suffer for Him. For ye
have entered the same lists, ye are
engaged in the same struggle, in which
you saw me contending then at Philip-
pi, in which you hear of my contend-
ing now in Rome.’

27. Μόνον] ‘ Only,’ i.e. ‘whatever
may happen, whether I visit you again
or visit you not’: see Gal. ii. 10, v. 13,
vi. 12, 2 Thess. ii. 7.

πολιτεύεσθε) ‘perform your duties
as citizens. The metaphor of the
heavenly citizenship occurs again, iii.
20 ἡμῶν TO πολίτευμα ἐν οὐρανοῖς ὑπάρ-
χει, and Ephes. ii. 19 συνπολῖται τῶν
ἁγίων. See the note on iii. 20. It was
natural that, dwelling in the metropolis
of the empire, St Paul should use this
illustration. The metaphor moreover
would speak forcibly to his correspond-
ents ; for Philippi wasa Roman colony,
and the Apostle had himself obtained
satisfaction, while in this place, by
declaring himself a Roman citizen:
Acts xvi. 12, 37, 38. Though the word

πολιτεύεσθαι is used very loosely at a
later date, at this time it seems al-
ways to refer to public duties devolving
on a man as a member of a body: so
Acts xxiii. 1 πάσῃ συνειδήσει ἀγαθῇ
πεπολίτευμαι τῷ Θεῷ κιτιλ., where St
Paul had been accused of violating the
laws and customs of the people and
so subverting the theocratic constitu-
tion ; Joseph. Vit. § 2 ἠρξάμην πολι-
τεύεσθαι τῇ Φαρισαίων αἱρέσει κατ-
ακολουθῶν, for the Pharisees were a
political as well as a religious party.
The opposite to πολιτεύεσθαι is ἰδιω-
reve, e.g. Aischin. Timarch. p. 27.

The phrase ἀξίως πολιτεύεσθαι is
adopted in Clem. Rom. ὃ 21. Poly-
carp also, writing to these same Phi-
lippians (δ 5), combines it very happily
with another expression in St Paul
(2 Tim. ii. 12), ἐὰν πολιτευσώμεθα ἀξίως
αὐτοῦ, καὶ συμβασιλεύσομεν αὐτῷ, ‘If
we perform our duties under Him as
simple citizens, He will promote us to
a share of His sovereignty’

iva εἴτε ἐλθὼν κιτ.λ.] The sentence
is somewhat irregular. It would have
run more smoothly iva, εἴτε ἐλθὼν καὶ
ἰδών, εἴτε ἀπὼν καὶ ἀκούων, μάθω τὰ
περὶ ὑμῶν. For εἴτε, εἴτε, with parti-
ciples, comp. e.g. 2 Cor. vy. 9 εἴτε ἐνδη-
μοῦντες εἴτε ἐκδημοῦντες. On this plan
the sentence is begun: but in the se-
cond clause the symmetry is lost and
the participle (ἀκούων) exchanged for
a finite verb (ἀκούω), so that in place
of a general word applying to both par-
ticipial clauses (e.g. μάθω) is substi-
tuted a special one (ἀκούω) referring
to the second clause only.

στήκετε] ‘stand firm, ‘hold your
ground,’ For the metaphor see Ephes.
vi. 13 ἵνα δυνηθῆτε ἀντιστῆναι ev τῇ
ἡμέρᾳ τῇ πονηρᾷ, καὶ ἅπαντα κατεργα-
σάμενοι στῆναι. στῆτε οὖν, περιζωσά-

104 EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

΄᾿ a ay oO > /
συναθλοῦντες TH πίστει TOU εὐωγγελίου,

[Γ 28, 2

28 \ \
Kat μὴ πτυ-

a ΄ , «“ \
ρόμενοι ἐν μηδενὶ ὑπὸ τῶν ἀντικειμένων: ἥτις ἐστὶν av-

~ sf > 7 ε co δὲ if \ ~
TOLS ἔνδειξις ἀπωλείας, ὑμῶν OE σωτηρίας, καὶ τοῦτο

> “- ε Cia \ \ ΄
ἀπὸ Θεοῦ: “ὅτι ὑμῖν ἐχαρίσθη τὸ ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ, οὐ

μενοι κτιλ. In the form στήκω the
idea of firmness or uprightness 15
prominent: see the note on Gal. v. 1.
In alater passage the Apostle com-
pares the Christian life to the Greek
stadium (iii. 14). Here the metaphor
seems to be drawn rather from the
combats of the Roman amphitheatre.
Like criminals or captives, the be-
lievers are condemned to fight for their
lives: against them are arrayed the
ranks of worldliness and sin: only un-
flinching courage and steady combina-
tion can win the victory against such
odds: comp. 1 Cor. iv. 9 ὁ Θεὸς ἡμᾶς
τοὺς ἀποστόλους ἐσχάτους ἀπέδειξεν ὡς
ἐπιθανατίους, ὅτι θέατρον ἐγενήθημεν
τῷ κόσμῳ K.T-A.
ἑνὶ πνεύματι] differs from μιᾷ ψυχῆ.
The spirit, the principle of the higher
life, is distinguished from the soul, the
seat of the affections, passions, ete.
For this distinction of πνεῦμα and
ψυχὴ see the notes on 1 Thess, v. 23.
For ἐν πνεῦμα comp. Ephes. iv. 4,
Clem. Rom. 46, Hermas Siz. ix. 13.
συναθλοῦντες τῇ πίστει] ‘ striving in
concert with the faith” Comp. Mart.
Ign. § 3 παρεκάλει συναθλεῖν τῇ αὐτοῦ
προθέσει, Ignat. Polyc. § 6 συγκοπιᾶτε
ἀλλήλοις, συναθλεῖτε. Thus ἡ πίστις is
here objective, ‘the faith,’ ‘the teach-
ing of the Gospel’; see the notes on
Gal. iii. 23. For this idea of association
with the faith, thus personified and
regarded as a moral agent, compare
1 Cor. xiii. 6 συγχαίρει δὲ τῇ ἀληθείᾳ,
2 Tim. i. ὃ συγκακοπάθησον τῷ evayye-
λίῳ, 3 Joh. ὃ συνεργοὶ γινώμεθα τῇ adn-
θείᾳ. The other construction, which de-
taches τῇ πίστει from the preposition in
συναθλοῦντες and translates it ‘for the
faith” seems harsh and improbable.
28. μὴ πτυρόμεναι] ‘not blenching,

‘not startled’: comp. Clem. Hom. ii.
39 πτύραντες ἀμαθεῖς ὄχλους, M. Anton.
vill. 45, Polycr. in Euseb. H. E. v. 24.
The metaphor is from a timid horse
(πτοεῖν) ; comp. Plut. Mor. p. 800 σ
μήτε ὄψει μήτε φωνῇ πτυρόμενος ὥσπερ
θηρίον ὕποπτον, Vit. Kab. 3 ἐντρόμου τοῦ
ἵππου γενομένου καὶ πτυρέντος. Though
apparently not an Attic word, it seems
to have been used in other dialects
from the earliest times, e.g. Hippoer.
de Morb. Mul. τ. p. 600 ἢ δεδίσσηται
καὶ πτύρηται.

ἥτις] ‘ seeing that it, i.e. ‘your fear-
lessness when menaced with persecu-
tion’; by attraction with ἔνδειξις : comp.
Ephes. iii. 13 αἰτοῦμαι μὴ ἐγκακεῖν ἐν
ταῖς θλίψεσίν μου ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ἥτις ἐστὶν
δόξα ὑμῶν, and see Winer § xxiv. p.
179. St Paul uses very similar lan-
guage in writing to the other great
church of Macedonia, 2 Thess. i. 47.

In this sentence the received text
presents two variations: (1) For ἐστὶν
αὐτοῖς it reads αὐτοῖς μέν ἐστιν : (2)
For ὑμῶν it has ὑμῖν. These are ob-
viously corrections for the sake of
balancing the clauses and bringing out
the contrast.

τοῦτο ἀπὸ Θεοῦ] referring to ἔνδειξις.
It is a direct indication from God.
The Christian gladiator does not anxi-
ously await the signal of life or death
from the fickle crowd (Juv. Sat. iii.
36 ‘Munera nunc edunt et verso pollice
vulgi quem libet occidunt populariter’).
The great ἀγωνοθέτης Himself has
given him a sure token of deliverance.

29. ἐχαρίσθη] ‘ God has granted you
the high privilege of suffering for
Christ ; this is the surest sign, that
He looks upon you with favour’ See
the note on i. 7.

τὸ ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ] Le. πάσχειν. The

I. 30, IL. 1]

EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 105

/ \ ’ > A £ 3 \ \ A “Ὁ A ’ -
μόνον TO εἰς αὐτον miaTEVELY, ἀλλα καὶ TO ὑπερ αὐτοῦ

, \ \ 3 ΄- ᾽ ae af 3
πάσχειν" δ» τὸν αὐτὸν ἀγώνα ἔχοντες οἷον εἴδετε ἐν ἐμοὶ

\ =~ 7 2 ,
καὶ νῦν ἀκούετε ἐν ἐμοί.

II. Ἔξ τὶς οὖν παράκλησις ἐν Χριστῷ, εἴ τι παρα-

sentence is suspended by the insertion
of the after-thought od μόνον τὸ εἰς
αὐτὸν πιστεύειν, and resumed in τὸ
ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ πάσχειν.

30. ἀγῶνα] ‘a gladiatorial or ath-
letic contest, as 1 Tim. vi. 12, 2 Tim.
iv. 7; compare συναθλοῦντες, Ver. 27.

ἔχοντες] It is difficult to say whether
this word should be taken (1) with
στήκετε συναθλοῦντες Kal μὴ πτυρόμενοι,
the intermediate words being a paren-

‘thesis ; or (2) with ὑμῖν ἐχαρίσθη x.7.A,

as an irregular nominative, of which
many instances occur in St Paul, e.g.
Col. iii. τό, Ephes. 111. 18, iv. 2: see
Winer § lxiii. p. 594. AS στήκετε is
so far distant, the latter construction
seems more probable.

εἴδετε] ‘ye saw’; for the Apostle
suffered persecution at Philippi itself ;
see Acts xvi. 19 sq., I Thess. ii. 2,
in which latter passage he uses the
same word as here, ἐν πολλῷ ἀγώιν.
See the introduction, pp. 57, 59.

11. τ. ‘If then your experiences in
Christ appeal to you with any force, if
love exerts any persuasive power upon
you, if your fellowship in the Spirit is
a living reality, if you have any affec-
tionate yearnings of heart, any tender
feelings of compassion, listen and obey.
You have given me joy hitherto. Now
fill my cup of gladness to overflowing.
Live in unity among yourselves, ani-
mated by an equal and mutual love,
knit together in all your sympathies
and affections, united in all your
thoughts and aims. Do nothing to
promote the ends of party faction, no-
thing to gratify your own personal
vanity: but be humble-minded and
esteem your neighbours more highly
than yourselves. Let not every man re-
gard his own wants, his own inter-
ests; but let him consult also the

interests and the wants of others.’

The Apostle here appeals to the
Philippians, by all their deepest ex-
periences as Christians and all their
noblest impulses as men, to preserve
peace and concord. Of thefour grounds
of appeal, the first and third (παρά-
κλησις ἐν Χριστῷ, κοινωνία πνεύματος)
are objective, the external principles of
love and harmony; while the second
and fourth (παραμύθιον ἀγάπης, σπλάγ-
χνα καὶ οἰκτιρμοί) are subjective, the in-
ward feelings inspired thereby. The
Jorm of the appeal has been illus-
trated from Virgil Zn. i. 603 ‘Si qua
pios respectant numina, si quid us-
quam justitize est, et mens sibi conscia
recti, ete.’

παράκλησις ev Χριστῷ] i.e. ‘If your
life in Christ,,your knowledge of Christ,
speaks to your hearts with a persua-
sive eloquence. The subject of the
sentence, the exhortation to unity, re-
quires that παράκλησις should be taken
here to mean not ‘consolation’ but
‘exhortation.’ See the next note.

παραμύθιον] ‘incentive, encourage-
ment, not ‘comfort, as the word more
commonly means. For this sense of,
παραμύθιον, ‘a motive of persuasion or
dissuasion,’ see Plat. Legg. vi. p. 773 B,
ix. p. 880 A ἐὰν μέν τις τοιούτοις παρα-
μυθίοις εὐπειθὴς γίγνηται, εὐήνιος ἂν εἴη,
Euthyd. p.272 B. This, which is the
original meaning of the word, appears
still more frequently in παραμυθία, πα-
ραμυθεῖσθαι. For the conjunction of
παράκλησις; παραμύθιον, in the sense in
which they are here used, see 1 Thess.
li. 11 παρακαλοῦντες ὑμᾶς καὶ παραμυ-
θούμενοι καὶ μαρτυρόμενοι (with the
note), and perhaps 1 Cor. xiv. 3.

εἴ τις κοινωνία x.t.A.| ‘ If communion
with the Spirit of love is not a mere
idle name, but a real ‘thing’ Com-

106

EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

[22

“ sf , ig γ ,
μύθιον ἀγάπης, εἴ τις κοινωνία πνεύματος, εἴ τις σπλαγ-

» , , , \ , «“ ι
χνα καὶ οἰκτιρμοί, "πληρώσατε μου THY χαρᾶν, ἵνα τὸ
\ ΄σ st \ > / of ,
αὐτὸ φρονῆτε, τὴν αὐτὴν ἀγαπην ἔχοντες, σύνψυχοι;
εἶ a \ > A \
TO ἕν φρονοῦντες" δμηδὲν κατ᾽ ἐριθείαν μηδὲ κατὰ κενο-

pare the benediction in 2 Cor. xiii. 13.

εἴ τις σπλάγχνα κιτιλ] The ancient
copies are unanimous in favour of this
reading (the only important exception
being Clem. Alex. Strom. vi. p. 604
Potter, where twa is perhaps a later
correction) ; and we cannot therefore
look upon twa as anything more than
an arbitrary, though very obvious,
emendation in the later Mss where it
occurs. Nevertheless it seems hardly
possible that St Paul could have in-
tended so to write. If τις is retained,
it can only be explained by the eager
impetuosity with which the Apostle
dictated the letter, the εἴ τις of the
preceding clause being repeated, and
then by a sudden impulse σπλάγχνα
καὶ oixtippotbeing substituted for some
possible masculine or feminine sub-
stantive. Some few mss of no great
authority read in like manner εἴ τις
παραμύθιον. But it seems more pro-
bable that εἴ τις is an error of some
early transcriber, perhaps of the origi-
nal amanuensis himself, for εἴ τινα
or et τι. If εἴ τι were intended, the
error would be nothing more than
an accidental repetition of the first
letter in σπλάγχνα. Under any cir-
cumstances, the reading εἴ τις is a
valuable testimony to the scrupulous
fidelity of the early transcribers, who
copied the text as they found it, even
when it contained readings so mani-
festly difficult. See the note on ἦλθεν
in Gal. ii. 12.

σπλάγχνα] See the note on i. 8,
By σπλάγχνα is signified the abode of
tender feelings, by οἰκτιρμοὶ the mani-
festation of these in compassionate
yearnings and actions : comp. Col. iii.
12 σπλάγχνα οἰκτιρμοῦ.

2. πληρώσατε] ‘complete, as you
have begun.’ He has already express-

ed his joy at their faith and love, i. 4,
9. Compare Joh. iii. 29 αὕτη οὖν ἡ
χαρὰ ἡ ἐμὴ πεπλήρωται.

iva] ‘ so as to, see the note on i. 9.

τὸ αὐτὸ φρονῆτε] a general expres-
sion of accordance, which is defined
and enforced by the three following
clauses. It is the concord not of a
common hatred, but of a common love
(τὴν αὐτὴν ἀγάπην ἔχοντες). It mani-
fests itself in a complete harmony of
the feelings and affections (σύνψυχοι).
It produces an entireunison of thought
and directs it to one end (τὸ ἕν dpo-
voovtes). The redundancy of expres-
sion is a measure of the Apostle’s
earnestness: BaBai, says Chrysostom,
ποσάκις TO αὐτὸ λέγει ἀπὸ διαθέσεως
πολλῆς. See the introduction, p. 66.

τὸ ἕν φρονοῦντες] a stronger expres-
sion than the foregoing τὸ αὐτὸ dpo-
νῆτε; from which it does not otherwise
differ. The two are sometimes com-
bined, e.g. Aristid. de Cone. Rhod.
Ρ. 569, ἐν καὶ ταὐτὸν φρονοῦντες, comp.
Polyb. v. 104. I λέγοντες ἕν καὶ ταὐτὸ
πάντες καὶ συμπλέκοντες τὰς χεῖρας,
quoted by Wetstein. So too the Latin
‘unum atque idem sentire.’ The de-
finite article before ἕν gives additional
strength to the expression.

3. μηδέν] ‘do nothing” The verb
is suppressed, as is very frequently the
case in imperative sentences after μή,
e.g. Gal. v. 13 (see the note there) :
comp. Klotz on Devar. 11. p. 669. This
construction is more natural and more
forcible than the understanding dpo-
νοῦντες With μηδὲν from the preceding
clause.

κατ᾽ ἐριθεία")͵ So Ignat. Philad.
8 μηδὲν kar ἐριθείαν πράσσειν. See the
introduction, p. 74. On the meaning
of ἐριθεία, ‘factiousness, party-spirit,’
see the note on Gal. ¥. 20. The two

IT. 4]

EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

107

δοξίαν, ἀλλὰ TH ταπεινοφροσύνη ἀλλήλους ἡγούμενοι

e (2 - \ ΗΝ lon .«“ ΄
UTEDENOVTAS ἑαυτῶν, 4 un TA EAUTWY EKAGOTOL σκοτσουν-

> \ \ Nene , .«
τες, ἄλλα καὶ Ta ἑτέρων ἕκαστοι.

4, 5:

μὴ τὰ ἑαυτῶν ἕκαστος σκοποῦντες ἀλλὰ καὶ τὰ ἑτέρων. Ἕκαστοι τοῦτο

φρονεῖτε k.T.X.

impediments to an universal, diffusive,
unconditional charity are the exalta-
tion of party and the exaltation of
self. Both these are condemned here;
the first in κατ᾽ ἐριθείαν, the second in
κατὰ κενοδοξίαν. The μηδὲ κατὰ κενο-
δοξίαν of the older Mss distinguishes
and emphasizes the two false motives
more strongly than the ἢ κενοδοξίαν of
the received text.

κενοδοξίαν] ‘vain-glory, personal
vanity. Sce the note on Gal. v. 26.

τῇ ταπεινοφροσύνῃ] ‘your lowli-
ness of mind’ Though a common
word in the New Testament, ταπεινο-
φροσύνη seems not to occur earlier.
Even the adjective ταπεινόφρων and
the verb ταπεινοφρονεῖν, though occur-
ring once each in the Lxx (Prov. xxix.
23, Ps. cxxx. 2), appear not to be found
in classical Greek before the Christian
era. In heathen writers indeed ταπει-
vos has almost always a bad meaning,
‘grovelling, ‘abject.’ In Aristotle (?)
for instance (Eth. Eudem. iii. 3) ταπει-
vos is associated with ἀνδραποδώδης;
in Plato (Legg. iv. p. 774 ©) with dve-
λεύθερος ; in Arrian (#pict.i. 3) with
ἀγεννής. To this however some few
exceptions are found, especially in
Plato and the Platonists; see Nean-
der Church Hist. 1. p. 26 (Eng. Tr.).
On the other hand, St Paul once uses
ταπεινοφροσύνη in disparagement, Col.
ii. 18. It was one great result of the
life of Christ (on which St Paul dwells
here) to raise ‘humility’ to its proper
level; and, if not fresh coined for this
purpose, the word ταπεινοφροσύνη now
first became current through the in-
fluence of Christian ethics, On its
moral and religious significance see
Neander Planting τ. p. 483 (Eng. Tr.).

ἀλλήλους k.7.A.] ie. ‘each thinking

the other better.’ See esp. Rom. xii.
10 TH τιμῇ ἀλλήλους προηγούμενοι.

4, 5. These verses exhibit several
various readings. The received text
has σκοπεῖτε for. σκοποῦντες, and dpo-
νείσθω for φρονεῖτε, also inserting yap
after τοῦτο. All these variations may
be at once dismissed, as they have not
sufficient support and are evident al-
terations to relieve the grammar of
the sentence. But others still remain,
where it is more difficult to decide.
In ver. 4, at the first occurrence of the
word, there is about equal authority
for ἕκαστος and ἕκαστοι ; at its second
occurrence, the weight of evidence is
very decidedly in favour of ἕκαστοι as
against ἕκαστος. On the grammar it

- should be remarked; (1) That the plu-

ral of ἕκαστος, though common else-
where, does not occur again either in
the New Testament (for in Rev. vi. 11
it is certainly a false reading) or, as
would appear, in the Lxx. (2) That
we should expect either τὰ ἑαυτῶν
ἕκαστοι OY τὰ ἑαυτοῦ ἕκαστος ; but this
consideration is not very weighty, for
irregularities sometimes occur; and as
τὰ ἑαυτῶν precedes ἕκαστος, the latter
might be looked upon as an after-
thought inserted parenthetically. (3)
That St Paul can hardly have written
ἕκαστος in the first clause and ἕκαστοι
in the second, intending the clauses as
correlative ; and therefore if we retain
ἕκαστος in the first case, it will be
necessary to detach the following ἕκα-
στοι, and join it on with the next sen-
tence. This view seems to have been
taken by some older expositors and
translators ; and I have given it as
an alternative reading. Whether the
probabilities (independently of the evi-
dence) are in favour of ἕκαστος or éxac=

108

EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

[1I. 5,6

~ ΄ Εἰ αν «“ \ ~ ΄σ

ὁ Τοῦτο φρονεῖτε ἐν ὑμῖν, ὃ καὶ ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ,

ra ΄σ ro ’ ᾽ Ἑ \ e , \
“ὃς ἐν poppy Θεοῦ ὑπάρχων οὐχ ἁρπαγμον ἡγήσατο TO

rot in the first case, it is difficult to
say. The plural ἕκαστοι would mean
‘each and all.’

σκοποῦντες) ‘regarding as your aim
(σκοπός) For this sense of σκοπεῖν
τὸ ἑαυτοῦ, ‘to consult one’s own in-
terests, comp. Eur. £7. 1114, Thue. vi.

12, 2, and other passages quoted by Wet-
stein. For other instances of parti-
ciples used where imperatives might
have been expected, see Rom. xii. 9,
Heb. xiii. 5.

ἀλλὰ καί] ‘but also, i.e. let them
look beyond their own interests to those
of others.

ἕκαστοι] For the repetition of the
word compare 1 Cor. vii. 17.

5—Ir. ‘Reflect in your own minds
the mind of Christ Jesus. Be humble,
as He also was humble. Though ex-
isting before the worlds in the Eternal
Godhead, yet He did not ciing with
avidity to the prerogatives of His
divine majesty, did not ambitiously
display His equality with God; but di-
vested Himself of the glories of heaven,
and took upon Him the nature of a
servant, assuming the likeness of men.
Nor was this all. Having thus ap-
peared among men in the fashion of a
man, He humbled Himself yet more,
and carried out His obedience even to
dying. Nor did He die by a common
death : He was crucified, as the lowest
malefactor is crucified. But as was
His humility, so also was His exalta-
tion. God raised Him to a preemi-
nent height, and gave Him a title and
a dignity far above all dignities and
titles else. For to the name and ma-
jesty of Jesus all created things in
heaven and earth and hell shall pay
homage on bended knee; and every
tongue with praise and thanksgiving
shall declare that Jesus Christ is Lord,
and in and for Him shall glorify God
the Father.’

5. ev ὑμῖν) ‘in yourselves, i.e. ‘

your hearts, as Matt. iii. 9 μὴ δόξητε
λέγειν ἐν ἑαυτοῖς, ix. 3 εἶπαν ev ἑαυτοῖς
(explained by ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ὑμῶν
which follows), ix. 21 ete. For ὑμῖν,
where the New Testament writers
generally have ἑαυτοῖς and _ classical
authors ὑμῖν αὐτοῖς, compare Matt. vi.
19 μὴ θησαυρίζετε ὑμῖν θησαυρούς ; and
see A. Buttmann, p. 975. These slight
difficulties, together with the irregula-
rity of construction mentioned in the
next note, have doubtless led to the
substitution of φρονείσθω for ppoveire
in the received text.

ὃ καὶ x.7.X.] sc. ἐφρονεῖτο. The re-
gular construction would have been 6
καὶ Χριστὸς ᾿Ιησοῦς ἐφρόνει ἐν ἑαυτῷ.

6. ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ] ‘in the form of
God. On the meaning οἵ μορφὴ and
its distinction from σχῆμα see the de-
tached note at the end of this chapter.
Though μορφὴ is not the same as φύ-
σις Or οὐσία, yet the possession of the
μορφὴ involves participation in the ov-
σία also: for μορφὴ implies not the ex-
ternal accidents but the essential attri-
butes. Similar to this, though not so
decisive, are the expressions used
elsewhere of the Divinity of the Son,
2 ον" ἵν. 45 Colas. a5:
and χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως τοῦ Θεοῦ
Heb. i. 3.. Similar also is the term
which St John has adopted to express
this truth, ὁ Adyos τοῦ Θεοῦ.

ὑπάρχων] The word denotes ‘prior
existence,’ but not necessarily ‘eternal
existence.’ The latter idea however
follows in the present instance from
the conception of the divinity of Christ
which the context supposes. The
phrase ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ ὑπάρχων is
thus an exact counterpart to ἐν ἀρχῇ
ἣν ὁ Λόγος καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν
κατὰ.» John 1.1. The idea correspond-
ing to ὑπάρχων is expressed in other
terms elsewhere; Col. i. 15, 17 πρωτό-
τόκος πάσης κτίσεως, αὐτός ἐστιν πρὸ
πάντων, Heb. i. 8, το, John viii. 58,

‘A a ΄
εἰκὼν τοῦ Θεοῦ

{5.7

EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

109

> ΄σ \ \ ’
εἶναι ἴσα Θεῷ, ΤἸάλλάα ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν μορφὴν δούλου

xvii. 24, and Apoc. i. 17, iii. 14.

οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο] ‘yet did not
regard it as a prize, a treasure to be
clutched and retained at all hazards,’
The more usual form of the word is
ἅρπαγμα, which properly signifies sim-
ply ‘a piece of plunder, but especially
with such verbs as ἡγεῖσθαι, ποιεῖσθαι,
νομίζειν, etc., is employed like ἕρμαιον;
εὕρημα, to denote ‘a highly-prized pos-
session, an unexpected gain’: as Plut.
Mor. p. 330 D οὐδὲ ὥσπερ ἅρπαγμα καὶ
λάφυρον εὐτυχίας ἀνελπίστου σπαράξαι
καὶ ἀνασύρασθαι διανοηθείς, Heliod. vii.
20 οὐχ ἅρπαγμα οὐδὲ ἕρμαιον ἡγεῖται τὸ
- πρᾶγμα, tb. Vili. 7 ἅρπαγμα τὸ ῥηθὲν
ἐποιήσατο ἡ ᾿Αρσάκη, Titus Bostr, ς,
Manich. i. 2 ἅρπαγμα ψευδῶς τὸ ἀναγ-
καῖον τῆς φύσεως ἡγεῖται, 56. H. Δ.
Vili 12 τὸν θάνατον ἁρπαγμαθέμενοι, Vit.
Const. ii. 31 οἷον ἅρπαγμά τι τὴν ἐπά-
νοδον ποιησάμενοι.

It appears then from these in-
stances that ἅρπαγμα ἡγεῖσθαι fre-
quently signifies nothing more than
‘to clutch greedily,’ ‘prize highly,’ ‘to
set store by,’ the idea of plunder or
robbery having passed out of sight,
The form ἁρπαγμὸς however presents
greater difficulty; for neither analogy
nor usage is decisive as to its mean-
ing: (1) The termination -μὸς indeed
denotes primarily the process, so that
ἁρπαγμὸς would be ‘an act of plunder-
ing” But as ἃ matter of fact substan-
tives in -μὸς are frequently used to
describe a concrete thing, e.g. θεσμός,
χρησμός, φραγμός, etc. (see Buttmann,
Ausf. Sprachl. § 119. 23 (IL p. 399);
with which compare the English
‘seizure, capture,’ and the like): so
that the form is no impediment to
the sense adopted above. (2) And
again the particular word ἁρπαγμὸς
occurs so rarely that usage cannot
be considered decisive. In Plut. Jor.
p. 12 A τὸν ἐκ Κρήτης καλούμενον
ἁρπαγμόν, the only instance of its oc-
currence in any classical writer (for

though it appears as a various read-
ing for ἁρπαγὴ in Pausan. i. 20. 2, the
authority is too slight to deserve
consideration), it seems certainly to
denote the act. On the other hand
in Euseb. Comm. in Luc. vi. (Mai,
Nov. Patr, Bibl. iv. p. 165) ὁ Πέτρος
δὲ ἁρπαγμὸν τὸν διὰ σταυροῦ θάνατον
ἐποιεῖτο διὰ τὰς σωτηρίους ἐλπίδας (ἃ
reference which I owe to a friend), in
Cyril. Alex. de Ador. I. p. 25 (ed. Au-
bert.) οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν τὴν παραίτησιν ὡς
ἐξ ἀδρανοῦς καὶ ὑδαρεστέρας ἐποιεῖτο
φρενός (speaking of Lot’s importunity
when the angels declined his offer of
hospitality), and in a late anonymous
writer in the Catena Possini on Mark
X. 42 τῷ δεῖξαι ὅτι οὐκ ἔστιν ἁρπαγμὸς
ἡ τιμή, τῶν ἐθνῶν γὰρ τὸ τοιοῦτον, it is
equivalent to ἅρπαγμα. Under these
circumstances we may, in choosing
between the two senses of ἁρπαγμός,

fairly assign to it here the one which

best suits the context.

The meaning adopted above satis-
fies this condition: ‘ Though He pre-
existed in the form of God, yet He
did not look upon equality with God
as a prize which must not slip from
His grasp, but He emptied Him-
self, divested Himself, taking upon
Him the form of a slave” The idea
is the same as in 2 Cor. viii. 9 δὲ
ὑμᾶς ἐπτώχευσεν πλούσιος ὦν. The
other rendering (adopted by the A.V.),
‘thought it not robbery to be equal
with God,’ disconnects this clause from
its context. The objections to this
latter interpretation will be considered
more at length in the detached note at
the end of the chapter.

τὸ εἶναι ἴσα Θεῷ] ‘to be on an
equality with God’ For this use of
ἴσα as a predicate, comp. Job xi. 12
βροτὸς δὲ γεννητὸς γυναικὸς ἴσα ὄνῳ
ἐρημίτῃ. So ὅμοια in Thucyd. i. 25 δυ-
vapet ὄντες.. «ὅμοια τοῖς Ἑλλήνων πλου-
σιωτάτοις: see Jelf. Gramm. § 382.
The examples of the mere adverbial

IIo EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. [Il. 8

’ > € 4 ᾽ ’ , 8 \ ,
Aa Bur, ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος, και σχήματι
ς ᾽ 3 / ε Ψ τ
εὑρεθεὶς ὡς ἄνθρωπος ἐταπείνωσεν ἑαυτον, γενόμενος

use of ἴσα accumulated by commenta-
tors do not throw much light on the
meaning here. Between the two ex-
pressions ἴσος εἶναι and ἴσα εἶναι no
other distinction can be drawn, except
that the former refers rather to the
person, the latter to the attributes.
In the present instance ἴσα Θεῷ ex-
presses better the Catholic doctrine of
the Person of Christ, than ἴσος Θεῷ; for
the latter would seem to divide the
Godhead. It is not the statement
either of the Lord Himself or of the
evangelist, but the complaint of the
Jews, that He ‘made Himself ἴσον τῷ
Θεῷ (John ν. 18)

In the letter of the synod οἵ Ancyra,
directed against the Sabellianism of
Marcellus, attention is called to the
absence of the article with Θεὸς here
and above (ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ); καθὸ Θεὸς
ὧν οὔτε μορφῃ [οὔτ᾽ ἐν μορφῇ 1] ἐστι τοῦ
Θεοῦ ἀλλὰ Θεοῦ, οὔτε ἴσα ἐστὶ τῷ Θεῷ
ἀλλὰ Θεῷ, οὔτε αὐθεντικῶς ὡς ὁ πατήρ
(Epiphan. e@r. |xxiii. 9, p. 855 Petay.).
The object of this comment, whether
right or wrong, is apparently to dis-
tinguish between Θεὸς God absolutely
and ὁ Θεὸς God the Father; but the
editors generally after Petau substitute
ἀλλὰ Θεός, ἀλλὰ Θεός, for ἀλλὰ Θεοῦ,
ἀλλὰ Θεῷ, thus disregarding the ΜΒ
and confusing the sense.

7. ἀλλὰ ἑαυτόν] ‘So far from this:
He divested Himself, not of His divine
nature, for this was impossible, but ‘of
the glories, the prerogatives, of Deity.
This He did by taking upon Him the
form of a servant.’ The emphatic
position of ἑαυτὸν points to the humi-
liation of our Lord as voluntary, self-
imposed.

ἐκένωσεν] ‘emptied, stripped Him-
self’ of the insignia of majesty.

μορφὴν δούλου λαβών] ‘by taking
the form of a slave” The action of
λαβὼν is coincident in time with
the action of ἐκένωσεν, as e.g. Ephes.

i. 9: comp. Plat. Men. Ὁ. 92 © evepye-
τησον φράσας, and see Hermann on
Viger no. 224, Bernhardy Giriech.
Synt. p. 383. By ‘form’ is meant not
the external semblance only (σχῆμα of
the following verse), but the character-
istic attributes, as in ver. 6. For a-
Opwros the stronger word δοῦλος is
substituted: He, who is Master (κύριος)
of all, became the slave of all. Comp.
Matt. xx. 27, 28, Mark x. 44, 45.

This text was made the starting-
point of certain mystic speculations by
the early sect of the Sethians; Hippol.
TEP: VAG BAT.

ἐν ὁμοιώματι] Unlike μορφή, this
word does not imply the reality of our
Lord’s humanity: see Trench N. 7.
Syn. ist ser. ὃ xv. ‘Forma (μορφή)
dicit quiddam absolutum; stmdlitudo
(ὁμοίωμα) dicit relationem ad alia ejus-
dem conditionis; habitus (σχῆμα) re-
fertur ad aspectum et seusum,’ is
Bengel’s distinction. Thus ὁμοίωμα
stands midway between μορφὴ and
σχῆμα. The plural ἀνθρώπων is used ;
for Christ, as the second Adam, repre-
sents not the individual man, but the
human race; Rom. vy. 15, 1 Cor. xv.
45—47.

γενόμενος] like λαβὼν is opposed to
the foregoing ὑπάρχων (ver. 6), and
marks the assumption of the new upon
the old.

8. ‘ Nor was this His lowest degra-
dation. He not only became a man,
but He was treated as the meanest of
men. He died the death of a criminal
slave.’

σχήματι κιτιλ.)} The former verse
dwells on the contrast between what
He was from the beginning and what
He became afterwards: hence λαβών
(not ἔχων", ὁμοίωμα (not μορφή), yevo=
μενος (not ὧν), all words expressive of
change. In the present the opposition
is between what He és in Himself, and
what He appeared in the eyes of men:

IL. 9]

EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

« , , ΄ ’ \ > \ Nove
ὑπήκοος μέχρι θανάτου, θανάτου δὲ σταυροῦ" 5 διὸ Kal ὁ

Θε A a ΕΣ \ ε rp a , > ω Δ ἢ
OS @QUTOV U7TrEpU WOEV Και εχαρισατο αὐτῷ TO ονομαὰ

hence σχήματι (for ὁμοιώματι or μορφῇ),
εὑρεθείς (for γενόμενος Or ὑπάρχων), ὡς
ἄνθρωπος (for ἄνθρωπος), all expressions
implying external semblance. ‘He
hath no form nor comeliness: there
is no beauty that we should desire
him: he was despised and we esteemed
him not’ (Is. liii. 2, 3). For σχήματι
εὑρεθεὶς x.7-A. compare Test. xii Patr.
Zab. 9 ὄψεσθε Θεὸν ἐν σχήματι avOpa-
που, Benj. 10 ἐπὶ γῆς φανέντα ἐν μορφῇ
ἀνθρώπου [ταπεινώσεως].

ὑπήκοος) SC. τῷ Θεῷ : Comp. Ver. 9,
διὸ καὶ 6 Θεὸς κτ͵ιλ. On the ὑπακοὴ
of Christ comp. Rom. ν. 19, Hebr. v. 8.

θανάτου δὲ σταυροῦ] “1 said death,
but it was no common death. It was
a death which involved not intense
suffering only but intense shame also:
a death reserved for malefactors and
slaves: a death on which the Mosaic
law has uttered a curse (Deut. xxi. 23),
and which even Gentiles consider the
most foul and cruel of all punish-
ments (Cic. Verr. v. 64); which has
been ever after to the Jews a stum-
blingblock and to the Greeks foolish-
ness.’ Compare Heb. xii. 2 ὑπέμεινεν
σταυρὸν αἰσχύνης καταφρονήσας, and
see Galatians p. 150 sq. The con-
trast of his own position must have
deepened St Paul’s sense of his Mas-
ter’s humiliation. As a Roman citizen
he could under no circumstances suffer
such degradation ; and accordingly, if
we may accept the tradition, while St
Peter died on the cross, he himself
was executed by the sword: see Ter-
tull. Scorp. 15, and comp. Ep. Gall.
in Euseb. H. £. v. 1, § 12.

9. διό] In consequence of this
voluntary humiliation, in fulfilment of
the divine law which He Himself
enunciated, ὁ ταπεινῶν ἑαυτὸν ὑψωθή-
σεται (Luke xiv. 11, xviii, 14).

διὸ καί] is a frequent collocation of
particles in the New Testament with
various shades of meaning. Here the

καὶ implies reciprocation.

ὑπερύψωσεν]! The word is found
several times in the Lxx, but ap-
parently does not occur in classical
writers.

ἐχαρίσατο αὐτῷ] ‘gave to Him, the
Son of Man’ Ὑπερύψωσεν and ἐχαρί-
caro are used in reference to the sub-
ordinate position voluntarily assumed
by the Son of God.

τὸ ὄνομα] ‘the name, i.e. the title
and dignity,’ comp. Ephes. i. 21 ὑπερ-
ἄνω πάσης ἀρχῆς καὶ ἐξουσίας καὶ δυνά-
μεως καὶ κυριότητος καἱπαντὸς ὀνόματος
ὀνομαζομένου, Heb.i. 4 ὅσῳ διαφορώ-
τερον Tap αὐτοὺς κεκληρονόμηκεν ὄνομα.
If St Paul were referring to any one
term, Κύριος would best explain the
reference; for it occurs in the context
ὅτι Κύριος Ἰησοῦς Xproros, ver. 11. But
here, as in the passages quoted, we
should probably look to a very common
Hebrew sense of ‘name,’ not meaning
a definite appellation but denoting
office, rank, dignity. In this case the
use of the ‘ Name of God’ in the Old
Testament to denote the Divine Pre-
sence or the Divine Majesty, more
especially as the object of adorationand
praise, will suggest the true meaning:
since the context dwells on the honour
and worship henceforth offered to Him
on whom ‘the name’ has been con-
ferred. ‘To praise the name, to bless
the name, to fear the name, of God’
are frequent expressions in the Old
Testament. See especially Gesenius
Thesaur. p. 1432, 8. v. OW, where he de-
fines ‘the name of God,’ ‘Deus qua-
tenus ab hominibus invocatur, celebra-
tur. Philo in a remarkable passage
(among other titles assigned to our
Lord in the Apostolic writings) gives
‘the Name of God’ as a designation
of the ‘Word’: καὶ ἂν μηδέπω μέντοι
τυγχάνῃ τις ἀξιόχρεως ὧν υἱὸς Θεοῦ
προσαγορεύεσθαι, σπουδαζέτω κοσμεῖσ-
θαι κατὰ τὸν πρωτόγονον αὐτοῦ

17 EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

[II. 10

\ e \ ΄- A τον ’ a 8.6 ὧν Ἶ = a
TO UTEP TAV OVOMNA,, νὰ EV TW ονοματι σου TITAN

͵ ' , \ 3 / \
FONY KAMYH ἐπουρανίων και επιγειὼν Kal καταχθο-

λόγον, τὸν ἄγγελον πρεσβύτατον, ὡς
ἀρχάγγελον πολυώνυμον ὑπάρχοντα καὶ
γὰρ ἀρχὴ καὶ ὄνομα Θεοῦ καὶ λόγος
καὶ ὁ κατ᾽ εἰκόνα ἄνθρωπος καὶ ὁρῶν
᾿Ισραὴλ προσαγορεύεται (de Conf. Ling.
ὃ 28, p. 427 M). St Paul’s idea here
seems to be the same; for the parallel
remains unaffected by the fact that the
Word was not revealed to Philo as an
incarnate Person. Somewhat different
in expression, though similar in mean-
ing, is St John’s language, Rev. xix.
13. The reading τὸ ὄνομα (for which
the received text has ὄνομα withoutthe
article) is unquestionably correct, both
as having thesupport of the oldest mss,
and as giving a much fuller meaning.
For other instances where τὸ ὄνομα is
used absolutely, comp. Acts v. 41 κατη-
ξιώθησαν ὑπὲρ τοῦ ὀνόματος ἀτιμασθῆναι;
Ignat. Eph, 3 δέδεμαι ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι,
Philad. 10 δοξάσαι τὸ ὄνομα. In all
these cases transcribers or translators
have stumbled at the expression and
interpolated words to explain it. The
same motive will account for the omis-
sion of the article here.

10. This passage is modelled on
Isaiah xlv. 23 ὅτι ἐμοὶ κάμψει πᾶν γόνυ
καὶ ἐξομολογήσεται πᾶσα γλῶσσα τῷ
Θεῷ (so Alex., but Vat. has καὶ ὀμεῖται
π. yA. Tov Θεόν, and Sin. καὶ ομνιται π.
yA. τὸν κύριον); the text being modi-
fied to suit St Paul’s application to the
Son. In Rom. xiv. ro, 11, on the other
hand, the same text is directly quoted:
πάντες yap παραστησόμεθα τῷ βήματι τοῦ
Θεοῦ (v.]. τοῦ Χριστοῦ)" γέγραπται γάρ,
Ζῶ ἐγώ, λέγει Κύριος, ὅτι ἐμοὶ κάμψει
x.7.A.; the introductory words however,
Ζώ ἐγώ, λέγει Κύριος, being substituted
for κατ᾽ ἐμαυτοῦ ὀμνύω of the prophet.
In the passage in the Romans then, if
the reading τοῦ Χριστοῦ were adopted,
Κύριος would refer naturally to our
Lord, and thus it would serve to illus-
trate the application of the text here ;
but the balance of authority is de-

cidedly in favour of rod Θεοῦ, which
is doubtless correct ; the other reading
having been introduced from 2 Cor. v.
10, where the words τὸ βῆμα τοῦ Χρισ-
Tov occur.

Yet even without the countenance
which would thus have been obtained
from Rom. xiv. 11, it seems clear from
the context that ‘the name of Jesus’
is not only the medium but the object
of adoration. The motive of the pas-
sage (as shown by the last verse) is to
declare the honour paid to Jesus ; and
that the individual expressions suggest
this interpretation will appear from the
following note.

ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι!) ‘in the name,’ i.e. the
majesty, the manifestation to man, as
an object of worship and praise. It
is not ‘the name Jesus,’ but ‘the name
of Jesus.’ The name here must be the
same with the name in the preceding
verse. And the personal name Jesus
cannot there be meant; for the be-
stowal of the name is represented as
following upon the humiliation and
death of the Son of Man. If such had
been the meaning, the words should
have run, not ‘He bestowed on Him
the name etc., but ‘He exalted the
name borne by Him’; for, though emi-
nently significant in His case and thus
prophetic of His glorious office (Matt.
i. 21), it was the personal name of many
others besides. That the bending of
the knee is an act of reverence fo Jesus,
and not only to God through Him, will
appear from the following considera-
tions; (1) The parallel clause describes
an act of reverence paid directly to
the Son as its object, the ultimate aim
however being the glory of the Fa-
ther, πᾶσα γλῶσσα ἐξομολογήσεται ὅτι
Κύριος Ἰησους κιτιλ. (2) The con-
struction ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι ᾿Ιησοῦ πᾶν γόνυ
κάμψῃ in this sense is supported by
many analogous instances where direct
adoration is meant: e.g. Ps. Ixiii.

77.11, 12]

EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

113

‘ a a > ’ ef ,
νίων, “Kal πᾶσὰ FA@CCA EZOMOAOLHCETAI OTL Kuptos
> ΄- A > / 5 7,

Ιησοῦς Χριστος εἰς δόξαν Θεοῦ πατρος.
/ ’ , \ , ,
™"Oore, ἀγαπητοί mov, καθὼς πάντοτε ὑπηκούσατε,

5 ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί σου ἀρῶ τὰς χεῖράς μου,
Ps. xliv. 10 ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί σου ἐξομο-
λογησόμεθα, Ps. cv. 3 ἐπαινεῖσθε ἐν τῷ
ὀνόματι τῷ ἁγίῳ αὐτοῦ, 1 Kings viii. 44
προσεύξονται ἐν ὀνόματι Κυρίου, besides
the very frequent expression ἐπικαλεῖ-
σθαι ἐν ὀνόματι Kupiou(or Θεοῦ)! Kings
xviii. 24, 25, 26, 2 Kings v. 11, Ps, xx.
8, cxvi. 17, 2 Chron. xxviii. 15.

τῶν ἐπουρανίων k.t.X.| ‘all creation,
all things whatsoever and wheresoever
they be.’ The whole universe, whether
animate or inanimate, bends the knee
in homage and raises its voice in
praise: see especially Rev. v. 13 καὶ
πᾶν κτίσμα ὃ ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς
γῆς καὶ ὑποκάτω τῆς γῆς καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς θα-
λάσσης [a] ἐστιν καὶ τὰ ἐν αὐτοῖς πάντα,
καὶ ἤκουσα λέγοντας τῷ καθημένῳ K.T.D.:
and comp. Ephes. i. 20—22. So in
like manner St Paul represents ‘all
creation’ as awaiting the redemption
of Christ, Rom. viii. 22. Compare
Ignat. Trall. 9 βλεπόντων τῶν ἐπου-
paviov καὶ ἐπιγείων καὶ ὑποχθονίων,
Polye. Phil. 2 ᾧ ὑπετάγη τὰ πάντα ἐπου-
ράνια καὶ ἐπίγεια. It would seem there-
fore that the adjectives here are neu-
ter; and any limitation to intelligent
beings, while it detracts from the uni-
versality of the homage, is not requir-
ed by the expressions. The personifi-
cation of universal nature offering its
praise and homage to its Creator in
the 148th Psalm will serve to illus-
trate St Paul’s meaning here. If this
view be correct, all endeavours to
explain the three words of different
classes of intelligent beings ; as Chris-
tians, Jews, heathens; angels, men,
devils ; the angels, the living, the dead ;
souls of the blessed,men on earth, souls
in purgatory, etc., are out of place.

11. ἐξομολογήσεται] ‘proclaim with
thanksgiving.” In itself ἐξομολογεῖ-
σθαι is simply ‘to declare or confess
epenly or plainly” But as its second-

PHIL.

ary sense ‘to offer praise or thanks-
giving’ has almost entirely supplanted
its primary meaning in the Lxx, where
it is of frequent occurrence, and as
moreover it has this secondary sense in
the very passage of Isaiah which St Paul
adapts, the idea of praise or thanks-
giving ought probably net to be ex-
cluded here. Compare the construc-
tion ἐξομολογοῦμαί σοι πάτερ ὅτι, Matt.
xi. 25, Luke x. 21. The authorities
are divided between ἐξομολογήσηται
and ἐξομολογήσεται. In a doubtful
case I have given the preference to
the latter, as transcribers would be
tempted to substitute the conjunctive
to conform to κάμψη. The future is
justified by such passages as Rev. xxii.
14 ἵνα ἔσται... καὶ εἰσέλθωσιν; 866
Winer § xli. p. 304.

Κύριος Ἰησοῦς] See Acts ii. 36 καὶ
Κύριον αὐτὸν καὶ Χριστὸν ὁ Θεὸς ἐποίη-
σεν, τοῦτον τὸν Ἰησοῦν ὃν ὑμεῖς ἐσταυ-
ρώσατε, Rom. x. 9 ἐὰν ὁμολογήσῃς ἐν
τῷ στόματί σου Κύριον Ἰησοῦν, i.e. ‘con-
fess Jesus to be Lord,’ where the
other reading ὅτι Κύριος “Ingots is a
paraphrase; comp. 1 Cor. xii. 3.

12, 13. ‘Therefore, my beloved,
having the example of Christ’s humi-
lity to guide you, the example of
Christ’s exaltation to encourage you,
as ye have always been obedient
hitherto, so continue. Do not look to
my presence to stimulate you. Labour
earnestly not only at times when I am
with you, but now when I am far away.
With a nervous and trembling anxiety
work out your salvation for yourselves.
For yourselves, did I say? Nay, ye
are not alone. It is God working in
you from first to last: God that in-
spires the earliest impulse, and God
that directs the final achievement: for
such is His good pleasure.’

ὑπηκούσατε] ‘were obedient, i.e. to
God, not to St Paul himself. Ὑπακοὴ

114

EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

[II. 13

μὴ WS ἐν τῆ παρουσίᾳ μου μόνον, ἀλλὰ νῦν πολλῷ μάλ-
λον ἐν τῆ ἀπουσίᾳ μου, μετὰ φόβου καὶ τρόμου τὴν
ἑαυτῶν σωτηρίαν karepya eae: Θεὸς yap ἐστιν ὁ
ἐνεργῶν ἐν ὑμῖν καὶ τὸ θέλειν καὶ τὸ ἐνεργεῖν ὑπὲρ τῆς

is most frequently so used in the New
Testament θ᾿ submission to the Gospel,
eg. Rom. i. 5, xv. 18, xvi. 19, 26,
2 Cor. vii. 3 Zea: It here refers
back to the example of Christ, who
Himself ‘showed obedience’ (arteons
γενόμενος. ver. 8).

μὴ ὡς ἐν τῇ k.TA.]‘do not, as though
my presence prompted you, work out in
my presence only etc.’ The sentence
is a fusion of two ideas, μὴ ὡς ev τῇ
παρουσίᾳ μου κατεργάζεσθε, and μὴ ἐν
τῇ παρουσίᾳ μου μόνον κατεργάζεσθε,
‘do not be energetic because I am pre-
sent,’ and ‘do not be energetic only
when [ am present. The pleonastic
ὡς lays stress on the sentiment or mo-
tive of the agent: compare Rom. ix.
32, 2 Cor. ii. 17, Philem. 14.

ἜΠΗ καὶ τρόμου] i.e. a nervous and
trembling anxiety to do right. Such
at least seems to be the meaning of
the phrase in St Paul, 2 Cor. vil. 15,
Ephes. vi. 5: comp. 1 Cor. ii. 3. The
words occur together frequently in
the Lxx, where however they have a
sterner import: Gen. ix. 2, Exod. xv.
16, Deut. ii. 25, xi. 25, Ps. liv. 5, Is.
ΠΣ 16;

ἑαυτῶν] The word is emphatic in re-
ference both to what goes before and
to what follows. ‘Do not depend on me,
but on yourselves, ‘When you depend
on yourselves, you depend on God.’

κατεργάζεσθε) ‘work out, as e.g.
Xen. Mem. iv. 2. 7 πλειόνων περὶ ταῦτα
πραγματευομένων ἐλάττους οἱ κατεργα-
ζόμενοι γίγνονται. It is a common
word in St Paul.

13. γάρ) This verse supplies at once
the stimulus to and the corrective of
the precept in the preceding: ‘Work,
for God works with you’: and ‘The
good is not your own doing, but God’s.’

ἐνεργῶν] ‘ works mightily, works ef-
fectively.’ The preposition of the com-
pound is unconnected with the ἐν of
ev ὑμῖν (‘in your hearts’). See the
notes on Gal. ii. 8.

καὶ τὸ θέλειν κι τ.λ.] ‘not less the will,
the first impulse, than the work, the
actual performance. ? *Nos ergo volu-
mus, sed Deus in nobis operatur et
velle; nos ergo operamur, sed Deus in
nobis operatur et operari, Augustin.
de Don. Persev. 33 (x. p. 838,ed. Ben.).
It was not sufficient to say Θεός ἐστιν
ὁ ἐνεργῶν, lest he should seem to limit
the part of God to the actual working:
this activity of God comprises τὸ θέ-
ew as well as τὸ ἐνεργεῖν. The θέλειν
and the ἐνεργεῖν correspond respec-
tively to the ‘gratia preeveniens’ and
the ‘gratia cooperans’ of a later theo-
logy.

ὑπὲρ τῆς K.T-A.| ‘in fulfilment of His
benevolent purpose’; for God ‘will
have all men to be saved’ (1 Tim. ii. 4).
The words should therefore be con-
nected with Θεός ἐστιν ὁ ἐνεργῶν, not
with καὶ τὸ θέλειν «.7.X.; for this latter
connexion would introduce an idea
alien to the context.. On εὐδοκία see
the note i. 15.

14—16. ‘Be ye not like Israel of
old. Never give way to discontent
and murmuring, to questioning and
unbelief. So live that you call forth
no censure from others, that you keep
your own consciences single and pure.
Show yourselves blameless children
of God amidst a crooked and per-
verse generation. For you are set
in this world as luminaries in the fir-
mament. Hold out to others the word
of life. That so, when Christ shall
come to judge all our works, I may be
able to boast of your faith,and to show

II. 14—16]

> ’ὔ
εὐδοκίας.

EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

115

, a 4 a
ἤἄσπαντα ποιεῖτε χωρίς γογγνσμῶν Kal δια-

΄ .«“ , sf /
λογισμῶν, Siva γένησθε ἀμεμπτοι καὶ ἀκέραιοι, τέκνδ
Cf 3: fe A “ \
Θεοῦ kmwma μέσον γενεᾶς οκολιᾶς Kal AlecTpam-
, > ve / θ « σ΄ 3 ͵ τό 7
μένηο, ἐν οἷς φαίνεσθε ὡς φωστῆρες ἐν κόσμῳ, “λόγον

that my race has not been run in vain,
that my struggles have indeed been
crowned with success,’

14. yoyyuoper]|‘murmurings.’ The
word is constantly used in the Lxx
of Israel in the wilderness: compare
1 Cor. x. 10 μηδὲ γογγύζετε καθάπερ τινὲς
αὐτῶν ἐγόγγυσαν. ‘The same reference
to the Israelites, which is directly ex-
pressed in the passage just quoted,
seems to have been present to the
Apostle’s mind here; for in the next
verse he quotes from the song of
Moses. For γογγυσμὸς the Athenians
used τονθορυσμός : the former however
occurs in the oldest Ionic writers (see
Lobeck PAryn. p. 358). This is one
of many instances of the exceptional
character of the Attic dialect: see
above on πτυρόμενοι i. 28 and Gala-
tians vi. 6, and p. 92.

διαλογισμῶν] This word in the New
Testament means sometimes ‘inward
questionings,’ sometimes ‘disputes, dis-
cussion’; for there is no sufficient
ground for denying it this second
meaning: see 1 Tim. ii. 8. Here it
seems to have the former sense. As
γογγυσμὸς is the moral,so διαλογισμὸς
is the intellectual rebellion against
God.

15. γένησθε] ‘may approve your-
selves’: better supported than the
other reading ἦτε.

ἀκέραιοι] ‘pure, sincere, literally
‘unmixed,’ ‘unadulterated’ (from κε-
ράννυμι); for the word is used of pure
wine (Athen. ii. 45 ©), of unalloyed
metal (Plut. Mor. 1154 8), and the
like. Comp. Philo Ley. ad Cai. § 42,
Ῥ. 594 Μ τὴν χάριν διδοὺς ἔδωκεν οὐκ
ἀκέραιον ἀλλ᾽ ἀναμίξας αὐτῇ δέος ἀργα-
λεώτερον. The stress laid in the New
Testament on simplicity of character

appears in this as in many other words:
ἁπλοῦς, εἰλικρινής, δίψυχος etc. Of the
two words here used, the former (ὦ-
μεμπτοι) relates to the judgment of
others, while the latter (ἀκέραιοι) de-
scribes the intrinsic character.

τέκνα Θεοῦ k.t-A.] A direct contrast
to the Israelites in the desert, who in
the song of Moses are described as οὐκ
αὐτῷ τέκνα (i.e. no children of God)
μωμητά, γενεὰ σκολιὰ καὶ διεστραμμένη
(Deut. xxxii. 5,1ΧΧ): comp. Luke ix. 41.

ἄμωμα] Both forms ἄμωμος and ἀμώ-
μῆτος are equally common. Here the
weight of evidence is in favour of the
former, though there is some authority
for the latter: in 2 Pet. iii. 14 on the
other hand, duepnrochas much stronger
support than ἄμωμοι.

μέσον] For this adverbial use see
Steph. Thes. (ed. Hase and Dindorf),
8. v. p. 824. The received text substi-
tutes ἐν μέσῳ.

διεστραμμένης | ‘distorted, astronger
word than σκολιᾶς :comp. Arrian, Epict.
iii. 6. 8 οἱ μὴ παντάπασι διεστραμμένοι
τῶν ἀνθρώπων (comp. i. 29. 3). It cor-
responds to a strong reduplicated
form in the Hebrew Spbnp.

φαίνεσθε) ‘ye appear, not ‘ye shine’
(paivere) as the A. V. The same error
is made in Matt. xxiv 27, Rev. xviii.
23. On the other hand in Matt. ii. 7
τοῦ φαινομένου ἀστέρος, it is correctly
rendered ‘appeared.’ φαίνεσθε here
should be taken as an indicative, not
an imperative.

ὡς φωστῆρες) ‘as luminaries.’
The word is used almost exclusively
of the heavenly bodies (except when
it is metaphorical) as e.g. Gen. i. 14,
16 (where it is a rendering of 5)x),
Kcclus. xliii. 7, Orac. Sibyl. ii. 186,
200, iii. 88 ete. Compare esp. Wisd,

8—2

116

EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

(II. 17

- , / \ 3 , ΄σ
ζωῆς ἐπέχοντες, εἰς καύχημα ἐμοὶ εἰς ἡἥμεραν Χριστοῦ,
c/ \ af \ > \

OTL οὐκ εἰς κενὸν ἔδραμον οὐδὲ εἰς κενὸν ἐκοπίασα.
\ 9 Ψ Α “ / \
ἄλλα εἰ καὶ σπένδομαι ἐπὶ TH θυσίᾳ Kal λειτουργίᾳ

Xill, 2 φωστῆρας οὐρανοῦ πρυτάνεις κόσ-
μου. The word occurs only once again
in the New Testament, Rev. xxi. 11,
where also it should be translated
‘luminary.’

ἐν κόσμῳ] To be taken not with
φωστῆρες alone (as the passage of Wis-
dom just quoted might suggest), but
with φαίνεσθε ws φωστῆρες. For in
the former case κόσμῳ must signify
the material world as distinguished
from the moral world. But this is
hardly possible in the language of the
New Testament: for though κόσμος
sometimes refers to external nature,
yet as it much more frequently has a
moral significance, it cannot well, un-
less so defined by the context, signify
the former to the exclusion of thelatter.
It is therefore used here in the same
sense as in John iii. 19 τὸ φῶς ἐλήλυ-
θεν εἰς τὸν κόσμον καὶ ἠγάπησαν οἱ ἄν-
θρωποι μᾶλλον τὸ σκότος κοτιλ.: comp.
i. 9, 10, ix. 5, xii. 46, ete.

16. ἐπέχοντες] The foregoing clause
ev ois φαίνεσθε ὡς φωστῆρες ἐν κόσμῳ
should probably be taken as paren-
thetical, so that ἐπέχοντες is attached
to ἵνα γένησθε κιτιλ. For this sense of
ἐπέχειν ‘to hold out’ see Hom. 714. ix.
489, xxii. 494, Ar. Nub. 1382, ete. (οἶνον,
κοτύλην), Pausan. i. 33. 7, Plut. Mor.
265 A, 268 F (μαστόν, θηλήν, yada). If
therefore we are to look for any meta-
phor in ἐπέχοντες, it would most natu-
rally be that of offering food or wine.
At all events it seems wholly uncon-
nected with the preceding image in
φωστῆρες.

εἰς ἡμέραν Χριστοῦ] ‘against the
day of Christ, as i. 10; comp. i. 6.
‘The day of Christ’ is a phrase pecu-
liar to this epistle. More commonly
it is ‘the day of the Lord.’ For this
reference to the great judgment in
connexion with his ministerial labours

compare 1 Cor. iii. 12, 13, iv. 3—5, and
esp. 2 Cor. i. 14.

εἰς κενὸν ἔδραμον as Gal. ii. 2. This
passage is quoted Polye. Phil. § 9
οὗτοι πάντες οὐκ εἰς κενὸν ἔδραμον : COM-
pare 2 Tim. iv. 7.

ἐκοπίασα) Probably a continuation
of the same metaphor, referring to the
training for the athletic games: com-
pare 1 Cor. ix. 24—27. At least κο-
πιᾶν is elsewhere associated with rpé-
xew in the same way: Anthol. m1. p.
166 πῖνε καὶ εὐφραίνου" τί yap αὔριον, ἢ
τί τὸ μέλλον, οὐδεὶς γινώσκει᾽ μὴ τρέχε,
μὴ koria,Ignat. Polyc.6 συγκοπιᾶτε
ἀλλήλοις, συναθλεῖτε, συντρέχετε.

17,18. ‘I spoke of my severe la-
bours for the Gospel. I am ready even
to die in the same cause. If I am re-
quired to pour out my life-blood as a
libation over the sacrificial offering of
your faith, I rejoice myself and I con-
gratulate you all therein. Yea in like
manner I ask you also to rejoice and
to congratulate me.’

Thus the particles ἀλλὰ εἰ καὶ will
refer to the preceding ἔδραμον, ἐκοπί-
aca. Most recent commentators ex-
plain the connexion in a very harsh
and artificial way. Assuming that St
Paul had before mentioned his antici-
pation of living till the advent of Christ
εἰς ἡμέραν Χριστοῦ (ver. 16), they sup-
pose that he now suggests the alterna-
tive of his dying before. But in fact
no such anticipation was expressed:
for his work would be equally tested
at ‘the day of Christ” whether he
were alive or dead when that daycame.
The faint expectation, which in i. 6,
10 (where the same phrase occurs) is
suggested by the context, finds no ex-
pression here. On εἰ καὶ as distinguish-
ed from καὶ εἰ see the note on Gal. i. 8.

σπένδομαι] As his death actually
approaches, he says ἐγὼ yap ἤδη σπέν--

IL. 18]

EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

ΤΙ

ἘΞ , A , \ 7 A =
τῆς πίστεως ὑμῶν, χαίρω καὶ συγχαίρω πᾶσιν ὑμῖν"
\ \ ~ fe \ ff /
ro δὲ αὐτὸ Kal ὑμεῖς χαίρετε Kal συγχαίρετέ μοι.

Sopa 2 Tim.iv. 6. Comp. Ignat. Rom.
2 πλέον μοι μὴ παράσχησθε τοῦ σπονδισ-
θῆναι Θεῷ, ὡς ἔτι θυσιαστήριον ἕτοιμόν
ἐστιν, uttered under similar circum-
stances. It is a striking coincidence,
that St Paul’s great heathen contem-
porary Seneca, whose name tradition
has linked with his own, is reported to
have used a similar metaphor when on
the point of death: Tac. Ann. xv. 64
‘respergens proximos servorum, addita
voce libare se liquorem illum Jovi libe-
ratori’ : compare the account of Thra-
sea, Ann. xvi. 35. The present tense
σπένδομαι places the hypothesis vividly
before the eyes: but it does not, as
generally explained, refer to present
dangers, as though the process were
actually begun: comp. e.g. Matt. xii.
26, xviii. 8, 9, etc.

ἐπὶ τῇ θυσίᾳ] The general import
of the metaphor is clear; but it has
been questioned whether the reference
is to heathen libations or to Jewish
drink-offerings. The preposition (ἐπ)
seems hardly conclusive. Even if it be
true that the drink-offerings of the
Jews were always poured around and
not upon the altar (Joseph. Ant. iii. 9.
4 σπένδουσι περὶ τὸν βωμὸν τὸν οἶνον;
see Ewald Alterth. p. 37 sq. 2te ausg.),
yet the Lxx certainly uses the preposi-
tion ‘upon’ to describe them: Levit,
V. 11 οὐκ ἐπιχεεῖ ἐπ᾽ αὐτὸ ἔλαιον, Num.
XXVili. 24 ἐπὶ τοῦ ὁλοκαυτώματος τοῦ διὰ
παντὸς ποιήσεις τὴν σπονδὴν αὐτοῦ. ΝΟΥ
need ἐπὶ with the dative necessarily
be translated ‘upon, but may mean
‘accompanying.’ On the other hand,
as St Paul is writing to converted hea-
thens, a reference to heathen sacrifice
is more appropriate (comp. 2 Cor. ii.
14); while owing to the greater pro-
minence of the libation in heathen rites
the metaphor would be more expres-
sive. For the appropriateness of the
preposition in this case see Hom. 77,
Xi. 775 σπένδων αἴθοπα οἶνον en’ αἰθομέ-

νοις ἱεροῖσιν, Arrian Alea. vi, 19 σπεί-
σας ἐπὶ τῇ θυσίᾳ τὴν φιάλην k.7.d., and
the common word ἐπισπένδειν. The
‘sacrifice’ (θυσία) here is the victim,
not the act.

Aevrovpyia] This word has passed
through the following meanings : (1)
A civil service, a state-burden, espe-
cially in the technical language of
Athenian law : (2) A function or office
of any kind, as of the bodily organs,
e.g. the mouth, Arist. Part. An. ii. 3:
(3) Sacerdotal ministration especially,
whether among the Jews (as Heb. viii.
6, ix. 21, and commonly in the Lxx),
or among heathen nations (as Diod.
Sic. i. 21, where it is used of the Egyp-
tian priesthood) : (4) The eucharistic
services; and thence more generally
(5) Set forms of divine worship. As
the word is applied most frequently in
the Bible to sacerdotal functions, it
should probably be taken here as sup-
plementing the idea of θυσία. Thus
St Paul’s language expresses the fun-
damental idea of the Christian Church,
in which an universal priesthood has
supplanted the exclusive ministrations
of a select tribe or class : see 1 Pet. ii.
5 ἱεράτευμα ἅγιον ἀνενέγκαι πνευματικὰς
θυσίας. The Philippians are the priests ;
their faith (or their good works spring-
ing from their faith) is the sacrifice:
St Paul’s life-blood the accompanying
libation. Commentators have much
confused the image by representing
St Paul himself as the sacrificer.

avyxaipo| ‘I congratulate, not “1
rejoice with.” As joy is enjoined on
the Philippians in the second clause,
it must not be assumed on their part
in the first. For this sense of συγχαί-
pew ‘to congratulate,’ where recipro-
cation on the part of the person ap-
pealed to is not so much presupposed
as invited, see e.g. Plut. Mor. 231 B
συγχαίρω τῇ πόλει τριακοσίους κρεέττο-
vas μου πολίτας ἐχούσῃ, Polyb. xxix. 7. 4,

118 EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

[II. 19—21

9 Ἐλπίζω δὲ ἐν κυρίω Ἰησοῦ Τιμόθεον ταχέως πέμ-
ψαι ὑμῖν, ἵνα κἀγὼ εὐψυχῶ γνοὺς τὰ περὶ ὑμῶν. *° οὐὃ-
ένα γὰρ ἔχω ἰσόψυχον, ὅστις γνησίως τὰ περὶ ὑμῶν
μεριμνήσει: “oi πάντες γὰρ τὰ ἑαυτῶν ζητοῦσιν, οὐ τὰ

Barnab. 1 μᾶλλον συγχαίρω ἐμαυτῷ,
etc.

18. τὸ δὲ αὐτό] ‘in the same way, i.e.
τὴν αὐτὴν χαρὰν χαίρετε; as Matt.
XXVil. 44 τὸ δ᾽ αὐτὸ καὶ οἱ λῃσταὶ... .ὠνεί-
διζον αὐτόν. The accusative defines
the character rather than the object
of the action, so that ταὐτὰ χαίρειν
(Demosth. de Cor. p. 323) is ‘to have
the same joys.’ For the poetical use
of χαίρειν and similar words with an
accusative of the object see Valcknaer
on Kur. Hipp. 1338.

καὶ ὑμεῖς χαίρετε] We are reminded
of the messenger who brought the
tidings of the battle of Marathon, ex-
piring on the first threshold with these
words on his lips, χαίρετε καὶ χαίρομεν,
Plut. Mor. p. 347 σ. See the note on
iv. 4.

19—24. ‘ But though absent myself,
I hope in the Lord to send Timotheus
shortly to you. This I purpose not for
your sakes only but for my own also ;
that hearing how you fare, I may take
heart. I have chosen him, for [ have
no other messenger at hand who can
compare with him, none other who
will show the same lively and instine-
tive interest in your welfare. For all
pursue their own selfish aims, reckless
of the will of Christ. But the creden-
tials of Timotheus are before you: you
know how he has been tested by long
experience, how as a son with a father
he has laboured with me in the service
of the Gospel. Him therefore I hope
to send without delay, when I see what
turn my affairs will take. At the same
time I trust in the Lord, that I shall
visit you before long in person.’

19. ᾿Ελπίζω δέ] Thisis connected in
thought with ver. 12. ‘I urged the
duty of self-reliance during my ab-
sence. Yet I do not intend to leave

you without guidance. I purpose
sending Timotheus directly,and I hope
to visit you myself before long” , Re-
cent commentators seem to agree in
taking ἐλπίζω δὲ as oppositive to the
fear expressed in the foregoing εἰ καὶ
σπένδομαι ; but the possibility of his
own death and the intention of send-
ing Timotheus do not stand in any sort
of opposition.

ἐν κυρίῳ “Incod| So above i. 14
and below ii. 24. The same idea is
expressed still more explicitly 1. ὃ ἐν
σπλάγχνοις Χριστοῦ Ιησοῦ. The Chris-
tian is a part of Christ, a member of
His body. His every thought and
word and deed proceeds from Christ,
as the centre of volition. Thus he
loves in the Lord, he hopes in the
Lord, he boasts in the Lord, he labours
in the Lord, etc. He has one guiding
principle in acting and in forbearing
to act, μόνον ἐν Κυρίῳ (1 Cor. vii. 39).

κἀγὼ εὐψυχῶ] ‘L also may take
courage. Comp. ver. 27 οὐκ αὐτὸν δὲ
μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐμέ. The guidance of
the Philippians was one object of Ti-
mothy’s mission; St Paul’s comfort
was another, While εὔψυχος, εὐψυχία,
are not uncommon, the verb εὐψυχεῖν
seems not to occur in classical writers,
though the imperative εὐψύχει ap-
pears frequently on epitaphs: see
Jacobs Anthol. xm. p. 304. In Pollux
11, 28 εὐψυχεῖν is given as a syn-
onyme for θαρσεῖν. Comp. Hermas
Τάϊδ: 1. 2.

20. οὐδένα γάρ] This condemna-
tion must be limited to the persons
available for such a mission. See the
introduction, p. 35.

ἰσόψυχον] ‘like-minded, not with
St Paul himself,as it isgenerally taken,
but with Timotheus. Otherwise the
words would have been οὐδένα yap

{1:5 23]

EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

110

1 A = am A δὲ 5 \ 9 - , ev

ησοῦ Χριστοῦ. “τὴν δὲ δοκιμὴν αὐτοῦ γινώσκετε, OTL
/ \ > > / > \ y

ὡς πατρὶ τέκνον σὺν ἐμοὲ ἐδούλευσεν εἰς TO εὐαγγέλιον.

2 ΄“ s 3 / ec 5) > , \ \

τοῦτον μὲν οὖν ἐλπίζω πέμψαι, ὡς av ἀφίδω Ta περὲ

21. οὐ τὰ Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ.

ἄλλον or οὐδένα yap πλὴν τούτου. The
word ἰσόψυχος is extremely rare. It
.oecurs in Asch. Agam. 1470 (1446)
where it has much the same sense as
here. In Ps. liv. 14 ἄνθρωπε ἰσόψυχε
it is a rendering of "55 ‘as my
price,’ i.e. ‘quem mihi zquiparabam,
quem diligebam ut me ipsum’ (Gesen.),
being thus equivalent to ἀντίψυχε.

ὅστις] ‘such that he? See Gal. iv.
24 (note), 26, v. 19.

γνησίως) ie, as a birthright, as
an instinct derived from his spiritual
parentage: see esp. [Demosth.] c.
Neer, p. 1353 τοὺς φύσει πολίτας καὶ
γνησίως μετέχοντας τῆς πόλεως, ELpi-
taph. p. 1390 τοὺς μὲν.. πολίτας προσ-
αγορευομένους ὁμοίους εἶναι τοῖς εἰσποι-
ἥτοις τῶν παίδων, τούτους δὲ γνησίους
γόνῳ τῆς πατρίδος πολίτας εἶναι. Ti-
motheus was neither a supposititious
(νόθος) nor an adopted (εἰσποίητος) son,
but, as St Paul calls him elsewhere,
γνήσιον τέκνον ἐν πίστει (1 Tim. i. 2,
comp. Tit.i. 4); comp. Hippol. Har. vi.
20 Ἰσίδωρος ὁ Βασιλείδου παῖς γνή-
σιος ‘his father’s own son.” He recog-
nised this filial relationship (ὡς πατρὶ
τέκνον ver. 22); he inherited all the
interests and affections of his spiritual
father. This, I suppose, is Chryso-
stom’s meaning, when he explains it
τουτέστι πατρικῶς (Compare πατρικὴ
φιλία, ἔχθρα etc.). Comp. Heb. xii. 8
ἄρα νόθοι καὶ οὐχ υἱοί ἐστε.

21. οἱ πάντες] ‘one and all, ‘all
without exception.” For the force of
the article with πάντες, πάντα, see Bern-
hardy vi. p. 320, Jelf § 454.

22. δοκιμήν] ‘approved character,’

_ as in 2 Cor. ii. 9, ix. 13, and probably
Rom.y. 4. See Fritzsche Rom. 1. p. 259.

γινώσκετε] ‘ye recognise, ‘ye re-
member and acknowledge.’ Timotheus
was personally well known to the

Philippians ; see the note i. 1.

ὡς πατρὶ τέκνον] This is often ex-
plained by understanding σὺν with
πατρὶ from the following clause σὺν
ἐμοί; see Jelf § 650. Instances of such
omissions however occur chiefly if not
entirely in poetry, and are found
mostly in clauses connected by con-
junctions (7, καί, ete.). The preposition
is omitted here, because the exact form
of the sentence was not yet decided
in the writer’s mind when the first
words were written ; see Winer § 1. p.
441, δ xiii. p. 599. For this testimony
to Timotheus compare 1 Cor. iv. 17 os
ἐστίν μου τέκνον ἀγαπητὸν καὶ πιστὸν ἐν
κυρίῳ, ΧΥΪ. IO τὸ γὰρ ἔργον κυρίου ἐρ-
γάζεται ὡς κἀγώ.

23. τοῦτον μὲν οὖν] ‘him then, the
clause being answered by πέποιθα δὲ
OTL Kal αὐτὸς ἐλεύσομαι (ver. 24),
while ἐξαυτῆς is matched by ταχέως.

ὡς ἄν.. ἐξαυτῆς] ‘at oncewhen. For
ὡς ay temporal comp. Rom. xv. 24,
I Cor. xi. 34.

apidw] So ἀφορῶντες Heb. xii. 2.
If any weight is to be attached to the
agreement of the older mss, the as-
pirated form (ἀφίδω for ἀπίδω) must
be read here. In Acts ii. 7 (οὐχ or
οὐχὶ ἰδοὺ) and in Acts iv. 29 (ἔφιδε)
they are divided. In the three prin-
cipal mss of the Lxx, so far as I have
noticed, the following instances of
aspirates in compounds of εἶδον occur:
Gen. xvi. 13, εφιδων A; Gen. xxxi. 49,
εφιδοι A; Ps. xxx. ὃ, εφειδες A; Ps.
xci. 12, epidey A; Ps. cxi. 8, εφιδη N;
Jer. xxxi. 19, εφιδε N: Jonah iv. 5,
αφειδὴ 8; 1 Mae. ili. 59, εφιδειν & A;
2 Mace. i. 27, epecde (for exude imper.) A;
2 Mace. viii. 2, εφιδειν (edidt) A; Deut.
Xxvi. 15, xaOide B; Judith vi. 10,
καθειδε (for κατιδε) A. It must be re-
membered that in the Vatican ms

120

EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

[II. 24, 25

nlf 3 eres 24 ᾿ θ δὲ > y 4 \ 3 \

ἐμε, ἐξαυτῆς: “᾿πέποιθα δὲ ἐν κυρίῳ OTL Kal αὐτὸς τα-
ig ? / \ > > a

χέως ἐλεύσομαι [πρὸς ὑμᾶς]. “ἀναγκαῖον δὲ ἡγησάμην

3 / \ 3 \ \ \ \

Ezradpoditov TOV ἀδελφὸν καὶ συνεργὸν καὶ συνστρα-
7 ΄σ΄ \ 3 / ~

τιώτην μου, ὑμών δὲ ἀπόστολον Kal λειτουργὸν τῆς

almost all the book of Genesis is lost
and that the Sinaitic contains less
than half of the Old Testament. The
collations of other Mss in Holmes’ and
Parsons’ LXx supply many additional
examples both in these and other pas-
sages. Similarly eAmis is sometimes
preceded by an aspirate (ἀφελπίζοντες
Luke vi. 35, ἐφ᾽ ἐλπίδι, Rom. viii. 20,
I Cor, ix. 10, ἀφελπικὼς Hermas Vis,
ili. 12); when naturalised in Coptic it
is always so written, and we frequently
find Helpis as a proper name in Latin.
In both cases the anomaly is support-
ed by inscriptions: E®EIAE Boeckh
no. 3333; HEATIIAA no. 170; the lat-
ter being as old as the 5th century B.c.
The aspirates are doubtless to be ex-
plained as remnants of the digamma,
which both these words possessed :
see Curtius Griech. Etym. pp. 217, 238
(2nd ed.). It is less easy to account
for οὐχ ὄψεσθε Luke xvii. 22, οὐχ
ὀλίγος Acts xii. 18 (in which passages
however the aspirate is not well sup-
ported), though there are some in-
dications that ὄπτομαι had a digamma.
On οὐχ ᾿ἸΙουδαικῶς, Gal. ii. 14, see the
note there.

24. With St Paul’s language here
compare I Cor. iv. 17, 19, ἔπεμψα
ὑμῖν Τιμόθεον ὅς ἐστίν μου τέκνον κιτιλ.
ἐλεύσομαι δὲ ταχέως πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἐὰν ὁ
κύριος θελήσῃ.

ταχέως) If the view taken in the
introduction (p. 31 sq.) of the date of
this epistle be correct, St Paul’s
release was delayed longer than he at
this time expected. We have a choice
between supposing him disappointed
in the anticipation expressed here
or in the anticipation implied in the
injunction to Philemon (ver. 22).

25—30. ‘Meanwhile, though I pur-
pose sending Timotheus shortly, though

I trust myself to visit you before very
long, I have thought it necessary
to despatch Epaphroditus to you at
once; Epaphroditus, whom you com-
missioned as your delegate to minister
to my needs, in whom J have found a
brother and a fellow-labourer and a
comrade in arms. I have sent him,
because he longed earnestly to see
you and was very anxious and troubled
that you had heard of his iliness. Nor
was the report unfounded. He was
indeed so ill that we despaired of his
life. But God spared him in His
mercy; mercy not to him only but to
myself also, that I might not be
weighed down by a fresh burden of
sorrow. For this reason I have been
the more eager to send him, that
your cheerfulness may be restored by
seeing him in health, and that my
sorrow may be lightened by sympathy
with your joy. Receive him therefore
in the Lord with all gladness, and
hold such men in honour; for in his
devotion to the work, he was brought
to death’s door, hazarding his life,
that he might make up by his zeal
and diligence the lack of your personal
services to supplement your charitable
gift’

25. ἀναγκαῖον κιτ.λ.] The same ex-
pression occurs 2 Cor. ix. 5. ἡγησά-
μὴν is here the epistolary aorist, like
ἔπεμψα (ver. 28); for Epaphroditus
seems to have been the bearer of the
letter. See the introduction p. 36 and
the note on Gal. vi. 11.

᾿Επαφρόδιτον] On Epaphroditus see
the introduction p. 60 sq. He is not
mentioned except in this epistle. The
name (corresponding in meaning to the
Latin ‘ venustus’) was extremely com-
mon in the Roman period. It was as-
sumed by the dictator Sylla himself in

17:26; 27]

EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

121

le ’ \ hes αὖ 2 ὃ pee θ ~ ΩΝ
χρείας μου, πέμψαι προς ὑμας, “᾿ἐπειδὴ ἐπιποῦθων ἣν
/ onl ’ ΄σ f / / > ,
TavTas ὑμάς, Kal ἀδημονῶν, διότι ἠκούσατε OTL ἠσθέ-
27 \ \ > θέ / θ , ᾿ > \

vnoev. *'Kal yap noVevnoev παραπλήσιον VavaTw* adra

writing to the Greeks (Λεύκιος Κορνήλιος
Σύλλας ᾿Επαφρόδιτος, Plut. Syll. 34;
comp. Appian. Civ. i. 97). It was
borne by a freedman of Augustus
(Dion Cass. li. 11, 13); by a favourite
of Nero, likewise a freedman (Tac.
Ann. xv. 55 etc.); by ἃ grammarian
of Chzeroneia residing at Rome during
this last emperor’s reign ( Suidas s. v. );
by a patron of literature (possibly the
same with one of those already men-
tioned) who encouraged Josephus
(Antig. procem. 2, Vit. 76). The name
occurs very frequently in inscriptions
both Greek and Latin, whether at full
length Epaphroditus, or in its con-
tracted form Epaphras.

ἀδελφὸν κιτ.λ.)] The three words
are arranged in an ascending scale ;
common sympathy, common work,
common danger and toil and suffering.
Συνστρατιώτης occurs again Philem. 2.
The metaphor is naturally very com-
mon: see esp. 2 Cor. x. 3, 4, 1 Tim. i.
io, 2 Lim. 11: .3;4.

ὑμῶν δέ] This prominent position is
given to ὑμῶν, both to contrast it with
the immediately preceding pov, and to
bind together the words following;
for ἀπόστολον καὶ λειτουργὸν τῆς χρείας
μου form one idea, ‘a messenger sent
to minister to my need.’ Epaphrodi-
tus was the bearer of the contributions
from Philippi (iv. 18), which just below
are designated λειτουργία (ver. 30):
comp. Rom. xy. 27 ἐν τοῖς σαρκικοῖς
λειτουργῆσαι αὐτοῖς. For this sense of
ἀπόστολος, ‘a delegate or messenger of
a church,’ see 2 Cor. viii. 23 ἀπόστολοι
ἐκκλησιῶν. The interpretation which
makes Epaphroditus an apostle or
bishop of Philippi will be considered
in the dissertation on the Christian
ministry.

τῆς χρείας pov] as iv. 16; comp.
Acts xx. 34, Rom. xii. 13.

26. ἐπιποθῶν] ‘eagerly longing af-
ter’: see the note on i. 8. Here the
expression is still further intensified
by the substitution of ἐπιποθῶν ἦν for
ἐπεπόθει. While the external evidence
for and against ἰδεῖν is very evenly
balanced, the language seems to gain
in force by the omission. It may have
been added because ἐπιποθεῖν ἰδεῖν
was a well-remembered expression in
St Paul; Rom. i. 11, 1 Thess. iii. 6,
2 Tim. i. 4.

ἀδημονῶν] ‘distressed.’ The word is
used in connexion with ἀπορεῖν, ἰλιγ-
γιᾶν (Plato Theet. p.175 D), with Eevo-
παθεῖν (Plut. Mor. 601 6), and the like.
It describes the confused, restless,
half-distracted_ state, which is pro-
duced by physical derangement, or by
mental distress, as grief, shame, dis-
appointment, etc. For its sense here
comp. Dion. Hal. A. 10, 1. 56 ἀδημο-
νοῦντι τῷ ἀνδρὶ καὶ παρεικότι TO σῶμα
ὑπὸ λύπης. The derivation of ἀδη-
μονεῖν Suggested by Buttmann (Lewil.
p- 29), from ἄδημος ‘away from home’
and so ‘beside oneself’ (in which how-
ever he seems not to have been aware
that he was anticipated by Photius
Lex. p.9: see Steph. 768. 8. v.), is
almost universally accepted. But to
say nothing else, the form of the word
is a serious obstacle; and Lobeck,
Pathol. pp. 160, 238, is probably right
in returning to the older derivation
ἀδήμων, adjoa. In this case the pri-
mary idea of the word will be loath-
ing and discontent. The word oc-
curs in Symmachus, Ps. ΟΧΥ. 2 (ἐν τῇ
ἐκστάσει LXX), Ps. lx. 2 (ἀκηδιάσαι
Lxx), Eccl. vii. 16 (ἐκπλαγῇς 1|ΧΧ);
and in Aquila, Job xviii. 20 (ἐστέναξαν
ΣΧ)

27. καὶ γάρ] ‘for indeed” The
καὶ implies that the previous ἡ σθένην
σεν understates the case.

122 EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

[II. 28—30

\ / , ᾽ \ \ , \ 4
ὁ Θεὸς ἠλέησεν αὐτόν, οὐκ αὐτὸν δὲ μόνον, ἀλλὰ Kal
te Ὁ.) “τ \ , ete , ~ 28 ΄,
ἐμέ, ἵνα μὴ λύπην ἐπὶ λύπην σχῶ. ““σπουδαιοτέρως ουν
af / .« > if > \ / ΄ \
ἔπεμψα αὐτόν, iva ἰδόντες αὐτὸν πάλιν χαρῆτε, Kayw

/ ἘΝ / Ss \ > \
ἀλυπότερος ὦ. “προσδέχεσθε οὖν αὐτὸν ἐν κυρίῳ μετὰ

7 a \ \ / , a7 «

πάσης χαρᾶς, καὶ τοὺς τοιούτους ἐντίμους ἔχετε, 3 ὅτι

ἐπὶ λύπην] So all the best copies,
while the received text reads ἐπὶ λύπῃ.
In such cases the dative is more com-
mon in classical authors, but the ac-
cusative is supported by several pas-
sages in the Lxx, e.g. Ezech. vii. 26
ἀγγελία ἐπὶ ἀγγελίαν, Ps. xviii. 28
ἀνομίαν ἐπὶ τὴν ἀνομίαν, 18. xxviii. 10
(where both constructions are com-
bined) θλίψιν ἐπὶ θλίψιν, ἐλπίδα ἐπ᾽
ἐλπίδι. Comp. Matt. xxiv. 2, and see
A. Buttmann p. 291.

28. σπουδαιοτέρως | ‘with increased
eagerness’ on account of this cireum-
stance: see for the comparative Winer
ὃ xxxv. p. 257, and compare the note
ON περισσοτέρως i. 14.

ἔπεμψα] i.e. with the letter, as in
Ephes. vi. 22, Col. iv. 8, Philem. 11,
and perhaps also 2 Cor. ix. 3. On this
aorist see above, ver. 25.

πάλιν χαρῆτε] ‘may recover your
cheerfulness, which had been marred
by the news of Epaphroditus’ illness :
for the order suggests the connexion
of πάλιν with χαρῆτε rather than with
ἰδόντες.

ἀλυπότερος ὦ] ‘my sorrow may be
lessened.’ The expression is purpose-
ly substituted for πάλιν χαρῶ, for a
prior sorrow will still remain unremoy-
ed; comp. ver. 27 λύπην ἐπὶ λύπην.

29. προσδέχεσθε κ-τ.λ.] comp. Rom.
XVi. 2,

30. τὸ ἔργον] Comp. Acts xv. 38
Παῦλος δὲ ἠξίου τὸν ἀποστάντα ἀπ᾽
αὐτῶν ἀπὸ Παμφυλίας καὶ μὴ συνελ-
θόντα αὐτοῖς εἰς τὸ ἔργον, μὴ συν-
παραλαμβάνειν τοῦτον, Where we seem
to have St Paul’s very words. So too
Ignat. Ephes. 14 οὐ yap ἐπαγγελίας τὸ
ἔργον, Rom. 3 οὐ πεισμονῆς τὸ ἔργον
ἀλλὰ μεγέθους ἐστὶν ὁ χριστιανισμός.

Thus τὸ ἔργον is used absolutely, like
ἡ ὁδός, τὸ θέλημα, TO ὄνομα (see on
ver. 9), etc. Though one only of the
oldest mss has ro ἔργον alone, this
must be the correct reading. The
others add κυρίου, Χριστοῦ, τοῦ κυρίου,
τοῦ Χριστοῦ, ΟΥ̓ τοῦ Θεοῦ, of which the
two first are highly supported; but the
authorities, being very evenly divided,
neutralise each other. All alike are
insertions to explain τὸ ἔργον.
παραβολευσάμενος] ‘having gambled
with his life’ From παραβάλλεσθαι,
to throw down a stake, to make a
venture (e.g. Polyb. ii. 94. 4 οὐδαμῶς
κρίνων ἐκκυβεύειν οὐδὲ παραβάλλεσθαι
τοῖς ὅλοις) COMES παράβολος, ‘gambling,
rash, reckless,’ whence. παραβολεύεσθαι
‘to play the gambler,’ formed on the
analogy of ἀσωτεύεσθαι, διαλεκτικεύ-
εσθαι, περπερεύεσθαι, πονηρεύεσθαι, ‘ to
play the spendthrift, quibbler, brag-
gart, scoundrel, etc’: see Lobeck
Phryn. p. 67. With the use here
compare the ecclesiastical sense of
parabolani, brotherhoods who at the
risk of their lives nursed the sick and
buried the dead. For the expression
compare Diod. Sic. ili. 35 ἔκριναν
παραβαλέσθαι ταῖς ψυχαῖς, Hom. 77.
ix. 322 αἰεὶ ἐμὴν ψυχὴν παραβαλλό-
μενος. While παραβάλλεσθαι takes
either an accusative or a dative of the
thing stated, παραβολεύεσθαι from its
nature can have only the latter. The
original meaning of the English word
‘hazard’ is the same, ‘a game of

chance’: see for the derivation Diez

Etymol. Worterb. der Rom. Spr. p.
23 5.0. azzardo, E. Miller tym.
Worterb. der Eng. Spr.s.v. No one
who has felt the nervous vigour of St
Paul’s style will hesitate between παρα-

IIL 1]

EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

123

διὰ TO ἔργον μέχρι θανάτου ἤγγισεν παραβολευσάμε-
νος τῆ ψυχῆ, ἵνα ἀναπληρώση τὸ ὑμῶν ὑστέρημα τῆς

πρός με λειτουργίας.

ἘΠ:

βολευσάμενος and παραβουλευσάμενος.
The latter, which would mean ‘having
consulted amiss,’ stands in the re-
ceived text: but the evidence is
strongly in favour of the former. Both
words alike are very rare.

ἀναπληρώσῃ κιτιλ.] aS in τ Cor. xvi.
17 χαίρω ἐπὶ τῇ παρουσίᾳ Στεφανᾷ
κατὰ. ὅτι τὸ ὑμέτερον ὑστέρημα αὐτοὶ
ἀνεπλήρωσαν : comp. Clem. Rom. § 38
bv οὗ ἀναπληρωθῇ αὐτοῦ τὸ ὑστέρημα.
So also ἀνταναπληροῦν in Col. i. 24
and προσαναπληροῦν in 2 Cor. Xi. 9.

TO ὑμῶν ὑστέρημα K.T.A.] 1.9. ‘what
your services towards me lacked to be
complete,’ in other words ‘ your per-
sonal ministrations, as in 1 Cor. xvi.
17 just quoted. It seems plain from
this expression that Epaphroditus’
illness was the consequence not of
persecution but of over-exertion.

III. 1. ‘And now, my brethren,
I must wish you farewell. Rejoice in
the Lord. Forgive me, if I speak once
more on an old topic. It is not irk-
some to me to speak, and it is safe for
you to hear.’

τὸ λοιπόν] ‘for the rest, i.e. ‘finally,
in conclusion’ With λοιπὸν or τὸ
λοιπὸν St Paul frequently ushers in
the concluding portion of his letters
containing the practical exhortations ;
Fe i hess;iy.:1, 2 Thess. iii. 1, 2 Cor.
xiii. 11, Ephes. vi. 10 (where however
τοῦ λοιποῦ should probably be read).
Sometimes this concluding portion is
prolonged, as in the First Epistle to
the Thessalonians, where it extends
over two chapters. In the present
instance the letter is interrupted, a
fresh subject is introduced, the con-
clusion is for a time forgotten, and
St Paul resumes his farewell injunc-
tions later at iv. 8 τὸ λοιπόν, ἀδελφοὶ
καιλ. See the introduction, p. 68 sq.

, /
*TO λοιπόν, ἀδελφοί pov, χαίρετε ἐν κυρίῳ.

In other passages λοιπὸν and τὸ λοιπὸν
occur in reference to the approaching
end of all things; as 1 Cor. vii. 29 6
καιρὸς συνεσταλμένος ἐστίν, TO λοιπὸν
ἵνα κιτιλ., Ign. Ephes. 11, Smyrn. 9.

χαίρετε] ‘farewell’ At the same
time the word conveys an injunction to
rejoice ; see ii, 18, iv. 4, and the note
on the latter passage.

ta αὐτά] ‘the same things.” But
to what does St Paul refer? To his
own personal intercourse with the
Philippians? To messages delivered
by his delegates? To previous letters
not now extant? To some topic con-
tained in this present epistle? The
expression itself τὰ αὐτὰ γράφειν seems
to limit the range of choice to written
communications. The theory of an
earlier letter or letters, which seems
to be supported by an expression of
Polycarp (ὃ 3 ἀπὼν ὑμῖν ἔγραψεν ἐπι-
στολάς), will be considered in the
detached note. At present it is suf-
ficient to say that if the epistle itself
supplies the requisite allusion, it is
much more naturally sought here than
elsewhere. On what subject then does
this epistle dwell repeatedly ?

Two answers will suggest them-
selves. (1) The duty of rejoicing.
This topic is very prominent in the
epistle: see the note on i. 4. It has
occurred more than once already. It
has the advantage also of appearing
in the immediate context, χαίρετε ἐν
κυρίῳ. Nevertheless it seems in-
adequate to explain St Paul’s language
here. Such an injunction has no very
direct bearing on the safety of the
Philippians; its repetition could hardly
be suspected of being irksome to the
Apostle. The words seem obviously
to refer to some actual or threatened
evil, against which a reiterated warn-

124

EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

{III. 1

\ 3 \ , ε > \ Α 3 > “ ea \
Ta αὐτὰ γραφειν ὑμῖν ἐμοὶ μὲν οὐκ oKvnpov, ὑμῖν δὲ

ἀσφαλές.

ing was necessary. (2) Such an evil
existed in the dissensions among the
Philippians. This topic either directly
or indirectly has occupied a very con-
siderable portion of the letter hitherto ;
and it appears again more than once
before the close: see the introduction
p. 66 sq. Itis the Apostle’s practice
to conclude with a warning against
the prevailing danger of his cor-
respondents. The Corinthians are
again reminded that ‘the Lord cometh’
(1 Cor. xvi. 22); the Galatians are
told once more that ‘circumcision
is nothing and uncircumcision is

nothing’ (Gal. vi. 15); the Thessalonians
receive a parting injunction against
the spirit of restlessness and disorder
spreading among them (1 Thess. y. 14,
2 Thess. iii. 14). The Apostle there-
fore would naturally lay stress on this
point here, intending, as he appears
to have done, to bring his letter to
a speedy close. See the note on iii. 2.

ὀκνηρόν] ‘irksome, tedious.” The
word “generally signifies ‘dilatory,
sluggish,’ as in the Lxx frequently ;
but here it is active, ‘causing dxvos,’
as in Soph. Gd. T. 834 ἡμῖν μέν, ὦναξ,

ταῦτ᾽ ὀκνηρά.

EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 125

The synonymes μορφὴ and σχῆμα".

The word σχῆμα corresponds exactly in derivation, though but partially
in meaning, to the old English ‘haviour.’ In its first sense it denotes the
figure, shape, fashion, of a thing. Thence it gathers several derived mean-
ings. It gets to signify, like the corresponding Latin ‘habitus,’ sometimes
the dress or costume (as Aristoph. Ag. 1331 τεττιγοφόρας ἀρχαίῳ σχήματι
λαμπρός), Sometimes the attitude or demeanour (as Eur. Jon 238 τρόπων
τεκμήριον τὸ σχῆμ᾽ ἔχεις τόδε). It is used also for a ‘figure of speech, as the
dress in which the sense clothes itself or the posture which the language
assumes. It signifies moreover pomp, display, outward circumstance (as
Soph. Ant. 1169 τύραννον σχῆμ᾽ ἔχων), and frequently semblance, pretence, as
opposed to reality, truth (as Plat. Hpin. p. 989 ¢ οὐ σχήμασι τεχνάζοντας ἀλλὰ
ἀληθείᾳ τιμῶντας ἀρετήν, Plut. Vit. Galb. 15 ἀρνήσεως σχῆμα τὴν ἀναβολὴν
εἶναι φάσκοντες, Hur. Fragm. Aéol. 18 οὐδὲν ἄλλο πλὴν ὄχλος καὶ σχῆμα),
Altogether it suggests the idea of something changeable, fleeting, unsub-
stantial. :

Μορφή, like σχῆμα, originally refers to the organs of sense®. If σχῆμα
may be rendered by ‘figure, ‘fashion,’ μορφὴ corresponds to ‘form. It
comprises all those sensible qualities, which striking the eye lead to the
conviction that we see such and such a thing. The conviction indeed may
be false, for the form may be a phantom; but to the senses at all events the
representation of the object conceived is complete. The word has not and
cannot have any of those secondary senses which attach to σχῆμα, as ges-
ture or dress or parade or pretext. In many cases indeed the words are
used convertibly, because the sense is sufficiently lax to include either.
But the difference between the two is tested by the fact that the μορφὴ
of a definite thing as such, for instance of a lion or a tree, is one
only, while its σχῆμα may change every minute. Thus we often find μορφῆς
σχῆμα, as in Latin ‘figura forme*? but rarely, if ever, σχήματος μορφή
(Eur. Iph. Taur. 292 οὐ ταὐτὰ μορφῆς σχήματα, Ton 992 ποῖόν τι μορφῆς
σχῆμα!λ. The σχῆμα is often an accident of the μορφή.

1 The following note is founded on
some remarks which appeared several

it with the Sanscrit ‘ varpas,’ ‘form.’
3 As e.g. Luer. iv. 69 ‘formai ser-

years ago (in the Journal of Class. and
Sacr. Philol. no. vu. p. 113 8q., 121),
enlarged and modified. The distinction
of μορφὴ and σχῆμα has since been
drawn out by Archbishop Trench (N.T.
Syn. znd ser. § xx) in his pointed and
instructive manner.

2 J have purposely avoided the ques-
tion of its derivation, feeling that I have
no right to an opinion on the subject.
Benfey, Wurzel-lex. 11. p. 309, connects

vare figuram.’ Compare the account
of ‘forma’ and ‘figura’ given by D6o-
derlein, Lat. Syn. 11. p. 25 sq. (refer-
red to by Trench, 1. c. p. 93). His dis-
tinction corresponds to that which is
here given of μορφὴ and σχῆμα. ‘The
form (Gestalt), he says, ‘so far as it has
definite outlines is figura; so far as
it is the visible impression and the
stamp of the inner being and corre-
sponds thereto, it is forma.’

Classical
sense of

σχήμα

and of
μορφή.

Its philo-
sophical
meaning.

Plato.

Aristotle.

126 EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

From the primary popular sense of μορφὴ we pass to its secondary
philosophical meaning. And here the older philosophers do not render much
assistance. In Parmenides indeed (μορφὰς γὰρ κατέθεντο δύο, ver. 112 Kar-
sten) the word signifies ‘ natures,’ ‘essences, for he is speaking of two ele-
mental principles of the universe. But without the light thrown upon its
use here by the phraseology of later thinkers, no inference could safely be
drawn from this solitary instance. In Plato we first meet with a clear
example of its philosophical sense. In the Pheedo (p. 103 n, 104 A) So-
crates, eliciting the doctrine of ideas by question and answer after his
wont, concludes that ‘not only is the same name always claimed for the
εἶδος itself, but also for something else which is not the εἶδος and yet has
its μορφὴ always whenever it exists.’ And in illustration of his meaning he
adduces the example of the odd and the number three, the latter being
always called odd and being inseparable from oddness, though not the odd
itself. Thus in Plato’s language the μορφὴ is the impress of the idea on the
individual, or in other words the specific character. It need not therefore
denote any material sensible quality, as in the instance quoted it does not.
In Plato however the philosophical sense of μορφὴ is very rare. On the other
hand Aristotle uses it commonly. But its relation to εἶδος has undergone a
change, corresponding to the difference in his metaphysical views. As he
discards Plato’s doctrine of ideas wholly, as he recognises no eternal self-
existent archetype distinct from the specific character exhibited in the indi-
viduals, it follows as a matter of course that with him εἶδος and μορφὴ are
identical. There are, according to his teaching, two elements or principles
or causes of things; the matter, the substratum supporting the qualities,
and the form, the aggregate of the qualities*. The form he calls indiffer-
ently εἶδος or popdy*®. He moreover designates it by various synonymes.
It is sometimes ‘the abstract conception realised’ (τὸ τί ἦν eivar*), sometimes
‘the essence corresponding to the definition’ (ἡ οὐσία ἡ κατὰ τὸν λόγον),

1 Here the εἶδος is plainly the ἰδέα.
Plato seems to have used both words
alike to denote the eternal archetype, as
for instance in the passages in Trende-
lenburg, Platon. de ideis doctr. p. 33
sqq. Where however especial accuracy
was aimed at, ἰδέα would naturally be
preferred to εἶδος : see Thompson’s
note on Archer Butler’s Lectures τι. p.
128.

2 A large number of passages is col-
lected by Waitz, Organon τι. p. 401
sq. See also Heyder Aristot. u. He-
gel. Dialektik p. 182 sq., and especially
Ritter and Preller Hist. Phil. p. 324
sq. (ed. 2). In other places Aristotle
speaks of four causes, the efficient, the
material, the formal, and the final. The
final and the efficient causes however
may be conceived as involved in the
formal: see esp.G. Schneider, De Causa

Finali Aristotelea (Berol. 1865), p. 15
sq.

3 See Waitz Organon τι. Ὁ. 405.
There are exceptional cases where either
word is used in its popular rather than
its philosophical sense, referring direct-
ly to the organs of vision: but Biese, die
Philosophie des Aristoteles τ. p. 439, is
not justified in his general distinction
that μορφὴ is ‘die aiisserliche sichtbare
Form der Dinge,’ and εἶδος ‘das die
Dinge von innen heraus Gestaltende.’
This distinction may suit one passage,
but it is contradicted by twenty others.
Thesameremark applies totheattempts
made by the old commentators on Ari-
stotle to distinguish μορφὴ and εἶδος.

4 On this term see Trendelenburg,
Rhein. Mus. τι. p. 457 8qQ., esp. pp.
409, 481 (1828); comp. his note on de
Anima i. I, 2, p. 192 56. "

EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 127
sometimes ‘the definition of the essence’ (ὁ λόγος τῆς οὐσίας), sometimes
‘the definition’ alone, sometimes ‘the essence’ alone. He calls it also ‘the
actuality’ (ἐνέργεια) or ‘the perfection’ (ἐντελέχεια), matter being desig-
nated ‘the potentiality’ (δύναμις). ‘So rich in wealth and titles, said a
later writer of a rival school half in irony, ‘is the εἶδος with Aristotle®’
The significance of his μορφὴ or εἶδος will appear also from the fact that he
elsewhere identifies it with the final cause (τέλος or οὗ évexa)*, because the
end or purpose is implicitly contained in the qualities. It is still more evi-
dent from the intimate connexion which he conceives to exist between the
form and the nature. ‘The term nature,’ he says, ‘is used to signify three
things; sometimes it is equivalent to the matter, sometimes to the form,
sometimes to both combined. Of the nature according to matter and the
nature according to form, the latter is the more influential (κυριωτέρα) ᾿,᾽
i.e. it has a more important function in making the thing what it is.

It will appear moreover from this account, that the term μορφή,
though originally derived from the organs of sense like εἶδος, and referring
to external conformation, has in the language of Aristotle a much wider
application, being not only applied to physical qualities generally, but also
extended to immaterial objects. Thus he says in one passage that skin,
vein, membrane, and all such things, belong to the same popdn*; in ano-
ther, that courage and justice and prudence have the same μορφὴ in a
state as in an individual®; in a third, that science and health may be called
the μορφὴ and εἶδος of the scientific and the healthy respectively’; while in
a fourth, criticising the saying of Democritus that ‘anybody could see what
was the form (μορφή) of a man, meaning that he might be known by his
shape and colour, he replies that ‘a corpse has the form (μορφή) of the
human shape (σχήματος) and yet nevertheless is not a man’’ The form of
a man therefore in Aristotle’s conception was something more than his
sensible appearance.

This sense of μορφή, as the specific character, was naturally transmitted Later
from these great original thinkers to the philosophers of later ages. It is Philoso-
found for instance in Plutarch®. It appears very definitely in the Neopla- phen.

1 On the form regarded as the évép-
yea and the ἐντελέχεια see Trendelen-
burg de Anima ii. 1, p. 295 sq.

2 A Platonist in Stobeus Hel. i. 6.
13 οὕτως αὐτῷ πλούσιόν τε Kal πολυώ-
νυμόν ἐστι τὸ εἶδος.

3 See Schneider de Caus. Fin. Ari-
stot. Ὁ. το sq. and the passages quoted
p- 12.

4 Phys. Ausc. ii. 1, p. 192 A (Bek-
ker), de Part. An. i. τ, p. 640 B. See
below, note 8.

5 de Anim. Gen. ii. 3, p. 737 8.

6 Polit. vii. τ, p. 1323 B.

7 de Anima il. 2, p. 414 A.

8 de Part. An.i. 1, Ὁ. 640 B, ἡ γὰρ
κατὰ τὴν μορφὴν φύσις κυριωτέρα τῆς
ὑλικῆς φύσεως. εἰ μὲν οὖν τῷ σχήματι

καὶ τῷ χρώματι ἕκαστόν ἐστι τῶν τε ζῴων
καὶ τῶν μορίων, ὀρθῶς ἂν Δημόκριτος
λέγοι" φαίνεται γὰρ οὕτως ὑπολαβεῖν.
φησὶ γοῦν παντὶ δῆλον εἶναι οἷόν τι τὴν
μορφήν ἐστιν ὁ ἄνθρωπος, ὡς ὄντος αὐτοῦ
τῷ τε σχήματι καὶ τῷ χρώματι γνωρί-
μου. καίτοι καὶ ὁ τεθνεὼς ἔχει τὴν αὐτὴν
τοῦ σχήματος μορφήν, ἀλλ’ ὅμως οὐκ
ἔστιν ἄνθρωπος (i.e. the corpse has the
μορφὴ of the human σχῆμα, but it has
not the μορφὴ of a man).

9 Mor. p. to13 © αὐτός τε γὰρ ὁ
κόσμος οὗτος καὶ τῶν μερών ἕκαστον av-
τοῦ συνέστηκεν ἔκ τε σωματικῆς οὐσίας
καὶ νοητῆς, ὧν ἡ μὲν ὕλην καὶ ὑποκείμενον,
ἡ δὲ μορφὴν καὶ εἶδος τῷ γενομένῳ παρ-
ἔσχε κιτιλ. Comp. p. 1022 Ε-. For
these references and the passage in the

Popular
language.

New
Testament
usage

of μορφὴ

and ox7jpua.

128 EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
tonists!, And whatis more to our purpose, it is recognised by Philo, the
chief representative of Alexandrian Judaism”.

Nor can it have been wholly without influence on the language of every-
day life. Terms, like ideas, gradually permeate society till they reach its
lower strata. Words stamped in the mint of the philosopher pass into
general currency, losing their sharpness of outline meanwhile, but in the
main retaining their impress and value. The exclusive technicalities of the
scholastic logic are the common property of shopmen and artisans in our
own day.

Do we then find in the New Testament any distinction between μορφὴ
and σχῆμα corresponding to that which appears to have held roughly in the
common language of the Greeks and to have been still further developed in
the technical systems of philosophers ?

A review of the passages where σχῆμα and its derivatives are used will
not, I think, leave any doubt on the mind that this word retains the notion
of ‘instability, changeableness, quite as strongly as in classical Greek.
Thus ‘the fashion of this world, which ‘passeth away, is τὸ σχῆμα τοῦ
κόσμου τούτου (1 Cor. vii. 31). ‘To fall in with the fashion of this world’ is
συνσχηματίζεσθαι τῷ αἰῶνι τούτῳ (Rom. xii. 2). ‘To follow the capricious
guidance of the passions’ is συνσχηματίζεσθαι ταῖς ἐπιθυμίαις (1 Pet. 1. 14).
The fictitious illusory transformation whereby evil assumes the mask of
good—the false apostles appearing as the true, the prince of darkness as an
angel of light, the ministers of Satan as ministers of righteousness—is
described by the thrice repeated word μετασχηματίζεσθαι (2 Cor. xi. 13, 14,
15). The significance of σχῆμα will be felt at once, if in any of these pas-
sages we attempt to substitute μορφὴ in its stead®.

On the other hand the great and entire change of the inner life, other-
wise described as being born again, being created anew, is spoken of as a
conversion of μορφὴ always, of σχῆμα never. Thus ‘He fore-ordained them
conformable (συμμόρφους) to the image of His Son’ (Rom. viii. 29); ‘Being
made conformable (συμμορφιζόμενος) to His death’ (Phil. iii. 10); ‘We are
transformed (μεταμορφούμεθα) into the same image’ (2 Cor. ili. 18); ‘To be
transformed by the renewal of the mind’ (Rom. xii. 2) ; ‘Until Christ be
formed (μορφωθῇ) in you’ (Gal. iv. 19), In these passages again, if any one
doubts whether μορφὴ has any special force, let him substitute σχῆμα and try
the effect. In some cases indeed, where the organs of sense are concerned
and where the appeal lies to popular usage, either word might be used. Yet
I think it will be felt at once that in the account of the transfiguration pera-

next note I am indebted to Wytten-
bach’s note on Plato, Phed. p. 103 E.

1 See e.g. Plotin. Ennead. i. 6, p.
52 A, especially the expression οὐκ dva-
σχομένης τῆς ὕλης TO πάντη κατὰ TO εἶδος
μορφοῦσθαι.

2 de Vict. Off. § 13, Ῥ- 261 Μ, τὸ
τεθλασμένον ἀφήρηται τὴν ποιότητα καὶ
τὸ εἶδος καὶ οὐδὲν ἕτερόν ἐστιν ἢ κυρίως
εἰπεῖν ἄμορφος ὕλη, and lower down,

ταῖς ἀσωμάτοις δυνάμεσιν, ὧν ἔτυμον
ὄνομα αἱ ἰδέαι, κατεχρήσατο πρὸς τὸ γένος
ἕκαστον τὴν ἁρμόττουσαν λαβεῖν μορφήν.
For other references see Dihne Jii-
disch-Alex. Religionsphilosophie τ. p.
185.

3 In 1 Cor, iv. 6 ταῦτα μετεσχημάτισα
els ἐμαυτὸν κ. τ. Δ. the word refers to a
rhetorical σχῆμα, and here μετεμόρφωσα
would of course be out of place.

EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 129
σχηματίζεσθαι would have been out of place and that μεταμορφοῦσθαι alone
is adequate to express the completeness and significance of the change
(Matt. xvii. 2, Mark ix. 2). Even in the later addition to St Mark’s Gospel
where our Lord is described as appearing to the two disciples ἐν ἑτέρᾳ
μορφῇ, though μορφὴ here has no peculiar force, yet. σχῆμα would perhaps
be avoided instinctively, as it might imply an illusion or an timposture. It
will be observed also that in two passages where St Paul speaks of an
appearance which is superficial and unreal, though not using σχῆμα, he still
avoids μορφὴ as imappr opriate and adopts μόρφωσις instead (Rom. il. 20 τὴν
μόρφωσιν τῆς γνώσεως καὶ τῆς ἀληθείας, 2 Tim. iii. 5 μόρφωσιν εὐσεβείας).
Here the termination denotes the aiming after or affecting the μορφή.

And the distinction, which has thus appeared from the review of each
word separately, will be seen ep more clearly from those passages where they
occur together. In Rom. xii. 2 μὴ cuvexnpariCer Oat τῷ αἰῶνι τούτῳ
ἀλλὰ μεταμορφοῦ σθαι τῇ ἀνακαινώσει τοῦ νοός the form of the sentence calls
attention to the contrast, and the appropriateness of each word in its own
connexion is obvious: ‘Not to follow the fleeting fashion of this world, but
to undergo a complete change, assume a new form, in the renewal of the
mind.’ On the other hand in Phil. iii. 21 μετασχηματίσει τὸ σῶμα τῆς τα-
πεινώσεως ἡμῶν σύμμορφον τῷ σώματι τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ, the difference is not
obvious at first sight. The meaning however seems to be, ‘will change the
Jashion of the body of our humiliation and jix it in the form of the body of
His glory. Here I think it will be clear that a compound of σχῆμα
could not be substituted for σύμμορφον without serious detriment to the
sense: while on the other hand μεταμορφώσει might possibly haye stood for
μετασχηματίσει".

I now come to the passage in the Epistle to the Philippians out of
which this investigation has arisen. But before attempting to discover
what is implied by μορφὴ Θεοῦ, it will be necessary to clear the way by dis-
posing of a preliminary question. Does the expression ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ
ὑπάρχων refer to the pre-incarnate or the incarnate Christ? Those who
adopt the latter view for the most part explain the words of the super-
natural or divine power and grace manifested by our Lord during His
earthly ministry. Thus in ancient times the Ambrosian Hilary, ‘Deus
apparet, dum mortuos excitat, surdis reddit auditum, leprosos mundat,
et alia’: thus in a later age Erasmus, ‘Ipsis factis se Deum esse declara-
ret etc’; and Luther, ‘Dass géttliche Gestalt nichts anderes sei denn
sich erzeigen mit Worten und Werken gegen andere als ein Herr und
Gott’2. Against this view De Wette, though himself referring the ex-
pression to Christ incarnate, urges with justice that the point of time
marked by ὑπάρχων is evidently prior to our Lord’s actual ministry,

1 Of the two words peracynuari few
would refer to the transient condition
from which, μεταμορφοῦν to the perma-
nent state to which, the change takes
place. Archbishop Trench however sup-
poses that μετασχηματίζειν is here pre-
ferred to μεταμορφοῦν as expressing

PHIL.

‘transition but no absolute solution of
continuity,’ the spiritual body being
developed from the natural, as the
butterfly from the caterpillar. N. 7
Syn. 2nd ser. p. 91.

2 Postill.ad, Epist. Domin. Palm. (x11.
p- 630 ed, Hall.), quoted by De Wette.

Concur:

rence of

the two
words.

Phil. ii. 6,
7°

The pre-
incarnate
Christ is
meant,

Thus
μορφὴ
refers to
the divine
attributes.

130 EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

the period of this ministry itself being a period of humiliation. He
therefore explains it as describing the glory dwelling potentially in Christ,
at the moment when He commenced His ministry. The meaning of St Paul,
he thinks, is best illustrated by the account of the temptation (Matt. iv. 8),
where our Lord rejects Satan’s offer of ‘all the kingdoms of the world
and their glory.’ At that moment and in that act of renunciation it might
be said of Him that ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ ὑπάρχων οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι
ἴσα Θεῷ ἀλλὰ ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν. But this is quite as unsatisfactory as the
explanation which he rejects. The point of time is clearly prior not only
to our Lord’s open ministry, but also to His becoming man. Even if the
words μορφὴν δούλου λαβὼν did not directly refer to the incarnation, as
they appear to do, nothing else can be understood by ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώ-
πων γενόμενος. We cannot suppose St Paul to have meant, that our Lord
was not in the likeness of men before His baptism and ministry, and
became so then for the first time. On the contrary all accounts alike agree
in representing this (so far as regards His earthly life), as the turning-
point when He began to ‘manifest forth His glory (John ii. 11). It was
an exaggeration indeed when certain early heretics represented His bap-
tism as the moment of His first assumption of Deity: but only by a
direct reversal of the accounts in the Gospel could it be regarded in any
sense as the commencement of His humanity. The whole context in St
Paul clearly implies that the being born as man was the first step in His
humiliation, as the death on the Cross was the last. In other words, it
requires that ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ ὑπάρχων be referred to a point of time prior to
the incarnation.

This being so, what meaning must we attach to ‘the form of God’ in
which our Lord pre-existed? In the Clementine Homilies St Peter is
represented as insisting upon the anthropomorphic passages in the Scrip-
tures and maintaining therefrom that God has a sensible form (μορφή). To
the objection of his opponent that if God has a form (μορφή), He must have
a figure, a shape (σχῆμα) also, the Apostle is made to reply by accepting the
inference: ‘God has a σχῆμα; He has eyes and hands and feet like a man;
nevertheless He has no need to use them!’ Not such was St Paul’s con-
ception of God. Not in this sense could he speak of the μορφή, not in
any sense could he speak of the σχῆμα, of Him who is ‘King of kings and
Lord of lords, who only hath immortality, who dwelleth in light unapproach-
able, whom no man hath seen or can see (1 Tim, vi. 15, 16) It remains
then that μορφὴ must apply to the attributes of the Godhead. In other
words, it is used in a sense substantially the same which it bears in Greek
philosophy. It suggests the same idea which is otherwise expressed in

1 Clem. Hom. xvii. 3, 7, 8.

2 A passage in Justin Martyr (Apol.
i. 9) fairly illustrates the distinction of
μορφὴ and σχῆμα in St Paul. He says
that Christians do not believe the idols
formed by men’s hands to have the
form (μορφήν) of God; they have only
the names and the shapes (σχήματα) of

demons; the form of God is not of this
kind (οὐ τοιαύτην ἔχειν τὴν μορφήν) ;
His glory 8} form are ineffable (ἄρρητον
δόξαν καὶ μορφὴν ἔχων). He thus ap-
pears to contrast the visible σχήματα of
demons with the insensible immaterial
μορφὴ of God. A corresponding dis-
tinction also seems to holdin the Pistis

EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

131

St John by ὁ Λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ, in Christian writers of succeeding ages ""
υἱὸς Θεοῦ ὧν Θεός, and in the Nicene Creed by Θεὸς ἐκ Θεοῦ.

In accepting this conclusion we need not assume that St Paul con- St Paul's
sciously derived his use of the term from any philoso
There was sufficient definiteness even in its popular usage to suggest this

meaning when it was transferred from the objects of sense to the concep-
tions of the mind. Yet if St John adopted λόγος, if St Paul himself adopted
εἰκὼν, πρωτότοκος, and the like, from the language of existing theological
schools, it seems very far from improbable that the closely analogous ex-

pression μορφὴ Θεοῦ should have been derived from a similar source.

The

speculations of Alexandrian and Gnostic Judaism formed a ready channel,
by which the philosophical terms of ancient Greece were brought within

reach of the Apostles of Christ.

Thus in the passage under consideration the μορφὴ is contrasted with General
the σχῆμα, as that which is intrinsic and essential with that which is acci- result.

dental and outward. And the three clauses imply respectively the true
divine nature of our Lord (μορφὴ Θεοῦ), the true human nature (μορφὴ δού-
ov), and the externals of the human nature (σχήματι ὡς ἄνθρωπος)".

Different interpretations of οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο.

It will appear from the notes, that two principal inter pretations of οὐχ Two inter-
ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο have been det depending on the different senses Pretations
In the one the prominent idea is the assertion, in

assigned to ἁρπαγμός.

the other the surrender, of privileges.

‘he one lays stress on the majesty,

the other on the humility, of our Lord. These two interpretations may
conveniently be considered side by side and discussed at greater length.

ft, Vf ἁρπαγμὸς ‘plundering’ is taken to mean ‘robbery, ‘usurpation,’ (1) dp-
then the expression asserts that the equality with God was the natural παγμὸς
possession, the inherent right, of our Lord. This interpretation suits the t0bbery-

Sophia, where both words occur several
times, pp. 38, 184, 226, 246, 253, 272,
273,274, 277; the former especially in
the phrase ἀλήθεια μορφῆς opposed to
similitude or copy (παράδειγμα, see p.
253), the latter in connexion with τύποι
and παραδείγματα (see esp. 272 56.).

1 In the controversies of the fourth
and fifth centuries great stress was laid
by Catholic writers on the force of
μορφὴ here. See for instance Hilary of
Poitiers de Trin. viii. 45 (11. p. 245)
Psalm exxxyili. (1. p. 569), Ambrose
Epist. 46 (1. p. 986), Greg. Nyss.
δ. Eunom. iy. p. 566 (ἡ δὲ μορφὴ τοῦ Θεοῦ

ταὐτὸν τῇ οὐσίᾳ πάντως ἐστίν), and the
commentators Victorinus, Ambrosias-
ter, Chrysostom, and Theodoret, on this
passage. St Chrysostom especially dis-
cusses the matteratsomelength. It is
not surprising that they should have
taken this view, but they could hardly *
have insisted with such confidence on
the identity of μορφὴ and οὐσία, unless
they had at least a reasonable case
on their side. I trust the investiga-
tion in the text will show that their
view was not groundless, though their
language might be at times over-
strained.

phical nomenclature. Usage ac-
pound

The cor-
text lost
sight οἱ,

Influence
of the
Latin
Fathers,

(2) ἁρ-
παγμὸς
ἢ prize.

132 EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

words themselves well enough, when isolated from their context, and so
far is free from objection. But it takes no account of the clauses which
immediately precede and follow. (1) It neglects the foregoing words.
For the Apostle is there enforcing the duty of humility, and when he adds
‘Have the mind which was in Jesus Christ,’ we expect this appeal to our
great Example to be followed immediately by a reference, not to the right
which He claimed, but to the dignity which He renownced. The dis-
location of thought caused by this interpretation is apparent ; ‘Be ye hum-
ble and like-minded with Christ, who partaking of the divine nature
claimed equality with God” The mention of our Lord’s condescension ,
is thus postponed too late in the sentence. (2) And again this interpretation
wholly disregards the connexion with the words following. For in the
expression οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο κιτιλ. ἀλλὰ ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν, the particles
οὐχ and ἀλλὰ obviously correspond, ‘not the one but the other’; so that
ἐκένωσεν ἑαυτὸν must contain the idea which directly contrasts with
ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο. On the other hand the interpretation in question ren-
ders ἀλλὰ as equivalent to ἀλλ᾽ ὅμως. Besides being unnatural in itself
after οὐχ, this rendering fails entirely to explain the emphatic position
of ἁρπαγμόν.

This sense, which is adopted in our own English Version and has been
extensively received in modern times, may probably be traced to the in-
fluence of the Latin Fathers, who interpreted the rendering of the Latin
Version without reference to the original. The Latin phrase ‘rapinam
arbitrari’ did not convey the secondary meaning which was at once sug-
gested by dpraypov (ἅρπαγμα) ἡγεῖσθαι ; nor perhaps would the Latin par-
ticles ‘non...sed’ bring out the idea of contrast so strongly as οὐχ.. ἀλλά.
At all events it should be noticed, that while this interpretation is most
common (though not universal) among Latin writers, it is unsupported
by a single Greek Father, unless possibly at a very late date.

Such is the interpretation of TeRTULLIAN de Resurr. Carn. 6, adv. Prax.
7, adv. Mare. v. 20; of the Amprostan Hinary here; of St AmBrose de
Fid. ii. 8 (11. p. 483 ed. Bened.), ‘Quod enim quis non habet, rapere cona-
tur; ergo non quasi rapinam habebat sequalitatem cum Patre etc.’; of
Primasius here; and above all of Sr AveustinE who again and again
quotes and explains the passage in his Sermons, 92 (v. p. 500 ed. Bened.),
118 (p. 587), 183 (p. 875), 186 (p. 885), 213 (p. 937), 244 (p. 1019), 264 (p.
1075), 292 (p. 1170), 304 (p. 1235); comp. in Psalm. xc. (Iv. p. 972). The
distinctness, with which this interpretation was enunciated by the greatest
teacher of the Western Church, would necessarily secure for it a wide
reception.

» 2. If onthe other hand ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγεῖσθαι is considered equivalent to

the common phrase ἅρπαγμα ἡγεῖσθαι, so that ἁρπαγμὸς will signify ‘a prize,

‘a treasure,’ then the logical connexion with the context before and after

is strictly preserved: ‘Be humble as Christ was humble: He, though

existing before the worlds in the form of God, did not treat His equality

with God as a prize, a treasure to be greedily clutched and ostentatiously

displayed : on the contrary He resigned the glories of heaven.’ The only

objection to this rendering, the form ἁρπαγμὸς in place of ἅρπαγμα, has -
been considered in the notes.

EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. P35

This is the common and indeed almost universal interpretation of the The sense
Greek Fathers, who would have the most lively sense of the requirements adopted by
of the language. So it is evidently taken in the earliest passage where it eee
is quoted, in the Epistle of the Cuurcnus or Gaut (Euseb. H. £. v. 2), iG Ga
where praising the humility of the martyrs they say ἐπὶ τοσοῦτον ζηλωταὶ Churches
καὶ μιμηταὶ Χριστοῦ ἐγένοντο, ὃς ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ ὑπάρχων οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν of Gaul.
ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσα Θεῷ, evidently thinking this clause to contain in itself a
statement of His condescension. So OricEn clearly takes it; in Joann. Origen,
vi. § 37 (IV. p. 156 D) μέχρι θανάτου καταβαίνειν ὑπὲρ ἀσεβών, οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν
ἡγούμενον τὸ εἶναι ἴσα Θεῷ, καὶ κενοῦν ἑαυτὸν κιτιλ.; tn Matth. Comm. Ser.
(111. p. 916 c) ‘Vere Jesus non rapinam arbitratus est esse se zequalem Deo,
et non semel sed frequenter pro omnibus seipsum humiliavit’; 72 Rom.
v. ὃ 2 (Iv. p. 553 A) ‘Nec rapinam ducit esse se eequalem Deo, hoc est, non
sibi magni aliquid deputat quod ipse quidem zequalis Deo et unum cum
patre sit’; ib. x. § 7 (Iv. p. 672 c) ‘Christus non sibi placens nec rapinam
arbitrans esse se zequalem Deo semetipsum exinanivit. So again Euseptus Eusebius.
unmistakeably ; Ec/. Proph. iii. 4 ἐγενήθη πένης, οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγούμενος
τὸ εἶναι ἴσα Θεῷ GAN ἑαυτὸν ταπεινῶν κιτιλ.; Eccles, Theol. i. 13 (p. 57)
προὐπάρχων, θεότητι πατρικῆς δόξης τετιμημένος" οὐ μὴν ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγούμενος
τὸ εἶναι ἴσα Θεῷ ἕαυτον δ᾽ οὖν κενώσας κιτιλ. ; comp. 7b. i. 20 (p. 94). So
also THEODORE OF Mopsursti1A (Raban. Maur. Op. vi. p. 488 B ed. Migne) Theodore.
‘Non magnam reputavit illam que ad Deum est eequalitatem et elatus in
sua permansit dignitate, sed magis pro aliorum utilitate preeelegit humiliora
etc.’; and after him THEopores, interpreting the passage, τὴν πρὸς τὸν πα- Theodo-
τέρα ἰσότητα ἔχων ov μέγα τοῦτο ὑπέλαβε. So moreover the PseuDO-ATHANA- ret.
stus Hom. de Sem. (Athan. Op. τι. p. 49 ed. Bened.) χρισθεὶς δὲ ὁ Δαυεὶδ εἰς ute
βασιλέα οὐχ ἅμα ἥρπασε τὴν βασιλείαν ἀλλ᾽ ἠνείχετο πολλοῖς χρόνοις δου- ging,
λεύων τῷ Σαούλ᾽ καὶ ὁ σωτὴρ ἡμῶν γεννηθεὶς βασιλεὺς πρὸ τῶν αἰώνων... «ἠνεί-
χετο, οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσα Θεῷ κιτιλ. So in like manner
ἸΒΙΡΟΒῈ or PeLusium Epist. iv. 22 εἰ ἕρμαιον ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσον οὐκ ἂν Τοϊάογο of
ἑαυτὸν ἐταπείνωσεν... .δοῦλος μὲν γὰρ καὶ ἐλευθερωθεὶς καὶ υἱοθεσίᾳ τιμηθεὶς ἅτε Pelusium.
ἅρπαγμα ἢ εὕρημα τὴν ἀξίαν ἡγησάμενος οὐδ᾽ ἂν ὑποσταίη οἰκετικὸν ἔργον
avicav ὁ δὲ γνήσιος vios κιτιλ.; and OyRIL ΟΕ ALEXANDRIA 6. Jul. vi Cyril of
(vi. p. 195 ed. Aubert.) 6 μὲν yap τῶν ὅλων σωτὴρ καὶ κύριος, καίτοι μετὸν ΑἸοσ-
αὐτῷ τὸ ἐν μορφῇ καὶ ἰσότητι τῇ κατὰ πᾶν ὁτιοῦν ὁρᾶσθαι πρὸς τὸν πατέρα aus
καὶ τοῖς τῆς θεότητος ἐναβρύνεσθαι θάκοις, οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο k.T.X.
(where the καίτοι is decisive). In addition to this positive testimony it
should be noticed, that throughout the important controversies of the fourth
and fifth centuries it does not seem once to have occurred to any Greek
Father to put forward the other explanation of the passage, though so
eminently favourable to the orthodox belief’.

1 Tt is not clear what interpreta-
tion was adopted by Didymus of Alex-
andria de Trin. i. 26 (p. 73), Τί τῆς
ἰσότητος ταύτης εὑρίσκεται ἄνισον; οὐχ
ἥρπασε γάρ, φησίν, οὐκ ἔλαβε τὸ ἴσον
εἶναι τῇ φύσει τῷ Θεῷ καὶ πατρί᾽ καὶ
δὴ ὁ μὴ ὑπ᾽ ἄλλου κενωθεὶς ἑαυτὸν δὲ
κενώσας αὐθέντην δεσπότην ὁμοῦ καὶ

ἀΐδιον ἑαυτὸν ἀπέδειξεν : comp. ib. 111. 17
(p. 377). The expression οὐχ ἥρπασε
however seems to point to an interme-
diate interpretation like the one adopted
by Chrysostom: see below, p. 134. No-
thing can be inferred from the language
of St Basil adv. Eunom. iv (1. p. 294
E, 295 A).

Also by
Hilary

and Je-
rome,

The two
senses
compared.

A middle
course
taken by
Chryso-
stom.

Objection
to his ex-
planation.

134 EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

Nor is the interpretation thus generally adopted by Greek writers con-
fined to them alone. Some of the most acute and learned of the Latin
fathers explain it in the same way.

Thus perhaps Hinary oF Porrmrs de Trin. viii. 45 (IL p. 246 ed.
Bened.) ‘Non sibi rapiens esse se eequalem Deo, ad susceptionem se forme
servilis per obedientiam exinanivit...non tamen sequalem se Deo per rapi-
nam existimans quamvis in forma Dei et sequalis Deo per Deum Deus sig-
natus exstaret!’; and more clearly Jnromre ad Hedib. Q. 9 (Lpist. 120, 1.
p. 837) ‘Pro quibus non rapinam arbitratus est se esse equalem Deo sed
semetipsum exinanivit’; see also his notes on Gal. iv. 12, v. 14%

In comparing these two interpretations, it will be seen that while the
former makes οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο a continuation and expansion of the
idea already contained in ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ ὑπάρχων, ‘He existed in the form
of God and so did not think it usurpation to be equal with God’; the
latter treats the words as involving a contrast to this idea, ‘He existed
in the form of God but nevertheless did not eagerly assert His equality
with God.’ In short the two interpretations of the clause, as I have said
before, are directly opposed, inasmuch as the one expresses our Lord’s asser-
tion, the other His cession, of the rights pertaining to His divine majesty.

And between these two explanations—the one which interprets apray-

ὃν by. ἀδικίαν, and the other which interprets it by &ppacov—our choice
must be made. A middle interpretation however was maintained by
St Chrysostom, and has been adopted with more or less distinctness by
others, especially in recent times. It agrees very nearly with the first in
the sense assigned to ἁρπαγμός, and yet approaches to the second in the
general drift of the clause. ‘Being in the form of God, He did not con-
sider that He was plundering, when He claimed equality with God. He
did not therefore look upon His divine prerogatives as a booty of which
He feared to be deprived and which therefore it was necessary to guard
jealously. He reigned not as a tyrant but as a lawful sovereign. He could
therefore divest himself of the outward splendours of His rank without
fear 3,’

As an indirect doctrinal inference from the passage, this account is
admissible; but as a direct explanation of its bearing, it is faulty because
it wnderstands too much, requiring links to be supplied which the con-
nexion does not suggest and which interrupt the sequence of thought.
All similar attempts to mediate between the two opposing explanations fail
in the same way and tend only to confuse the interpretation of the passage.

Of the two explanations then, between which our choice lies, the con-

1 Yet in another passage c. Const.
Imper. ὃ 19 (τ. p. 577) he says, ‘Non ra-
pit quod erat Christus, which points to
the other sense of ἁρπαγμός. Perhaps
he, like Chrysostom, adopted a middle
interpretation combining features of
both.

2 This is probably the view also of
Victorinus in his commentary on the

passage, ‘Ergo nunc Paulus, Non, in-

quit, Christus rapinam credidit, id est,
hoe sibi vindicavit, tantum habere
voluit ut forma Dei esset, sed etiam se
ipsum exinanivit etc.’; but his lan-
guage is not distinct. See again his
treatise c. Arium i. g, Galland Bibl.
Vet. Patr. vit. p. 155.

3 Op. x1. p. 245. I have abridged
his explanation.

EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 135
text, as I have shown, seems imperatively to require the second ; and if
authority count for anything, the list of names, by which it is maintained,
sufficiently refutes the charge of being ‘liable to grave suspicion on theolo-
gical grounds,’ We should do wisely however to consider its doctrinal
bearing, without reference to authority.

Now while the other explanation directly asserts our Lord’s divinity, Theologi-

this cgnfessedly does not. Yet on the other hand the theological difference ee
Ξ : : ς : 5 of the in-
is only apparent. For, though we miss the direct assertion in this par- terpreta-
ticular clause, the doctrine still remains. It is involved in the preceding tion adopt-
words, for the ‘pre-existence in the form of God, as will appear I think ed.
from the last note, means substantially this. It is indirectly implied more-
over in this very clause taken in connexion with the context. For how
could it be a sign of humility in our Lord not to assert His equality with
God, if He were not divine? How could such a claim be considered
otherwise than arrogant and blasphemous, if He were onlya man? If St
Chrysostom’s interpretation must be rejected as faulty and confused, his
argument at least is valid; ‘No one wishing to exhort to humility says,
Be humble and think less of yourself than of your compeers (ἔλαττον φρόνει
τῶν ὁμοτίμων), for such and such a person being a slave did not set himself
up against his master; therefore imitate him. Nay, one might reply, here
is a question not of humility, but of infatuation (ἀπονοίας); ‘It is no
humility for the inferior not to set himself up against his superior’; ‘If
being a man, He washed the feet of men, He did not empty, did not
humble Himself; if being a man, He did not grasp at equality with God,
He deserves no praise!”

One who refuses to claim some enviable privilege may be influenced by It does not

either of two motives, by a feeling of humility or by a sense of justice, favour hu-
according as he has or has not a right to this privilege, Those who hold ™#nitar-
humanitarian views of the Person of Christ necessarily take the latter?” Y°V*
view of the motive in this instance. The equality with God, they argue,
was not asserted, because it would have been an act of usurpation to do 50.
To this view it may fairly be objected, that it overlooks the true signi-
ficance of ἁρπαγμὸν (ἅρπαγμα) ἡγεῖσθαι, which as a recognised phrase is
equivalent to ἕρμαιον ἡγεῖσθαι and therefore refers to the desirableness of the
possession or acquisition. But its fatal condemnation is this, that it treats
the clause as isolated and takes no account of the context. The act ex-
pressed by οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο is brought forward as an example of
humility, and can only be regarded as such, if the expression τὸ εἶναι ἴσα
Θεῷ refers to rights which it was an act of condescension to waive*.

1 Op. στ. pp. 236, 237, 247.

2 One other interpretation put for-
ward by recent commentators deserves
attention. Meyer (followed by Dean
Alford), desirous of giving ἁρπαγμὸν
the active sense which its termination
suggests, translates the words, ‘Did not
look upon His being on an equality
with God, as a means of self-enrich-
ment.’ In answer to the mechanical ob-

jection urged against this sense, that a
state (τὸ εἶναι) cannot be regarded as an
action (ἁρπαγμὸν), he justly appeals to
1 Tim. Vi. 5 νομιζόντων πορισμὸν εἶναι
τὴν εὐσέβειαν, which presents an exact
parallel in this respect. This interpre-
tation suits the context very fairly, but
it seems to me to be somewhat strained;
and the fact that ἅρπαγμα ἡγεῖσθαι
(ποιεῖσθαι) is a common phrase mean-

Supposed
reference
to sich in
the Epi-
stle itself

and in
Polycarp.

Probabi-
lities con-
sidered,

136 EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

Lost Epistles to the Fhilippians ?

It has been maintained by some, that a passage in the Epistle to the
Philippians implies a more or less sustained correspondence between
St Paul and his converts, so that the extant letter is only a single link in
a long chain. ‘To write the same things, says St Paul, ‘to me is not irk-
some, while for you it is safe” The reference, it is urged, cannot be ex-
plained from the epistle itself, since it does not supply any topic which
satisfies the two conditions, of occurring in the immediate context, and of
being repeated elsewhere in the course of the letter.

Moreover the inference thus suggested is thought to be confirmed by an
allusion in the Epistle of Polyearp. Writing to these same Philippians, he
says (§ 3); ‘ Neither I nor another like me can attain to the wisdom of the
blessed and glorious Paul; who coming among you taught the word of
truth accurately and surely before the men of that day; who also when
absent wrote letters (ἐπιστολάς) to you, into which if ye search ye can be
builded up unto the faith given to you.’

Against this view no objection can be taken from the probabilities of
the case. On the contrary it is only reasonable to suppose, that during the
ten or eleven years which elapsed between the epoch of their conversion
and the date of this epistle, the Apostle, ever overflowing with love and
ever prompt to seize the passing opportunity, would have written not
once or twice only to converts with whom his relations were so close and
affectionate. And—to consider the broader question—if we extend our
range of view beyond the Philippians to the many churches of his founding,
if we take into account not these ten years only but the whole period of his
missionary life, we can hardly resist the conclusion that in the epistles of our
Canon we have only a part—perhaps not a very large part—of the whole
correspondence of the Apostle either with churches or with individuals.

But, if there be any reluctance to allow that the letter of an inspired
Apostle could have been permitted to perish, a moment’s thought will dis-
sipate the scruple. Any theory of inspiration, which would be consistent
with historical fact, must find a place for this supposition. It is true of
Him who ‘spake as never man spake,’ that if all His words had been pre-
served, ‘the world itself could not contain the books that should be written.’
Yet His recorded sayings may be read through in a very few hours. And
on the ground of inspiration we caunot assuredly claim for the letters of
the Apostle an immunity from the ravages of time, which was denied to

ing ‘toprize highly, to welcome eagerly,’
and that ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγεῖσθαι (ποιεῖσθαι),
wherever else it occurs, has also this
sense, would appear to be decisive.
Meyer indeed attempts to force his own
meaning on ἁρπαγμὸν in the passage of
Cyril, de Ador. 1. p. 25, quoted above
(in the notes, p. 109); but when this

writer, speaking of Lot’s renewal of the
offer of hospitality when declined by
the angels, describes this importunity
by οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν τὴν παραίτησιν ἐποιεῖτο,
itis difficult to conceive that the phrase
can mean anything else but ‘did not
eagerly close with, did not gladly wel-
come their refusal.’

EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 197

the words of the Saviour Himself. The ‘litera scripta’ indeed has a firmer
hold on life. But the difficulty of multiplying copies, the strife of parties
within the Church, and the perils assailing the brotherhood from without,
are sufficient to explain the loss of any documents in the earlier ages. And
from the nature of the case the letters of the Apostles could not have been
so highly prized by their contemporaries, as by later generations. History
confirms the suggestion which reason makes, that the writings of the first
teachers of the Gospel grew in importance, as the echo of their voice died
away. A letter from a dear friend is a poor substitute for the free inter-
change of conversation. But when he is taken from us, we know not how
to value his correspondence highly enough?.

At all events indications are not wanting of other letters besides those Indica-
which have been preserved for the instruction of the Church. The two tions of
short Epistles to the Thessalonians stand alone in a period which extends een ont
over at least twenty years before and after2 Yet in one of these the ΠΡ. ΞΕ ΚΟΣ
Apostle calls attention to his mode of signature, as a guarantee of genuine- nica.
ness, which occurred ‘in every epistle’ written by him*. Such an expres-
sion would be conclusive, even if unsupported by other allusions, which
suggest at least the suspicion that several letters may have passed between
St Paul and his Thessalonian converts?, Again, his written communica-
tions with the Corinthians seem to have extended beyond the two extant Corinth.
epistles. In a passage in the First Hpistle, according to the most pro-
bable interpretation, he directly alludes to a previous letter addressed to
them®; and the acknowledgment of the Corinthians, which he elsewhere
mentions, that his ‘letters are weighty and powerful, together with his
own reply ‘Such as we are by letters when absent etc.*,” cannot be ex-
plained quite satisfactorily (though the explanation might pass) by the

single extant epistle written before this date.

1 Prof. Jowett, Epistles of St Paul
I. p. 195 (2nd ed.), has an instructive
essay on the probability of many epi-
stles having been lost. Withsomeof his
special criticisms however I venture to
disagree. He supposes for instance that
1 Cor. v. 9 refers to the First Epistle to
the Corinthians itself, and that Col. iv.
16 does not refer to the Epistle to the
Ephesians.

2 Fourteen years at least, probably
seventeen (see notes Gal. ii. 1), elapsed
between St Paul’s conversion and the
third visit to Jerusalem (a.p. 51). The
Epistles to the Corinthians, which pro-
bably follow next in order after the
Epistles to the Thessalonians, were not
written tilla.p. 57,58. Thus the whole
period will be 20 or 23 years, according
to the reckoning adopted,

3 2 Thess. ili. 17.

4 2 Thess. il, 2, 15.

On the other hand the

δι Cor. v. g ἔγραψα ὑμῖν ἐν τῇ
ἐπιστολῇ μὴ συναναμίγνυσθαι πόρνοις.
The real difficulty in referring this allu-
sion to the First Epistle itself lies not
in ἔγραψα, which might be explained as
an epistolary aorist, but in ἐν τῇ ἐπι-
στολῇ ‘in my letter,’ which is thus ren-
dered meaningless: see Journal of
Class. and Sacr. Phil. 11. p. 196 (note).
Two independent reasons have probably
conspired to promote the unnatural ex-
planation by which it is referred to the
First Epistle. (1) On theological grounds
commentators have been unwilling to
admit that an epistle of St Paul could
have perished: while (2) they have been
misled critically by the context, ver. ΤΙ
νῦν δὲ ἔγραψα x.7.X., taking νῦν in its
primary temporal sense, whereas it ap-
pears to mean, ‘under these circum-
stances,’ ‘the world being what it is.’

Sra (ΟἿΣ: Χο ΤΟ, lt

[Laodi-
cea. ]

Explana-
tions of
Phil. iii. r
examined,

Allusionin
Polyecarp
consider-
ed.

ἐπιστολαὶ
used of a
single
letter,

138 EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

‘letter from Laodicea,’ which the Apostle directs the Colossians to procure
and read!, must not be classed among these lost letters, as there is very
good reason for supposing that he there refers to the circular letter to the
Asiatic Churches, sent to Laodicea as one of the great centres and thence
communicated to the neighbouring town of Colosse, but circulated in the
Church at large through the metropolis of Asia and therefore generally
known as the Epistle to the Ephesians. Whether to these lost letters to
Thessalunica and to Coriuth we are required to add one or more addressed
to the Philippians, I propose now to consider. The general question has
only been introduced to prepare the way for this investigation.

1, The passage in the Epistle to the Philippians itself has been .

variously explained. Some have interpreted it ‘to repeat in writing the
same injunctions which I gave you myself by word of mouth,’ or ‘ which
I charged you by my messengers,” But such amplifications receive no
encouragement from the words themselves, which mean simply ‘to write
the same things again and again.’ To written communications therefore
our attention must be confined.

Even with this limitation, three solutions are offered. Either (1) The
extant epistle itself consists of two separate letters welded together; or
(2) A lost letter must be assumed in which the same subject was introduced ;
or (3) The often repeated topic must be discovered in the extant letter.
The first of these solutions has been already considered and set aside”;
nor indeed does it contribute anything towards the interpretation of this
passage (though it would explain the plural in Polycarp), for no new topic
is introduced by the disintegration of the existing letter. The second
might very fairly be accepted in default of a better: but there is nothing
in the words which suggests a reference to any incident external to the
letter itself, and it is therefore simpler not to look elsewhere for the
allusion. The third view then seems preferable, if any topic can be found
which satisfies the conditions. And in the notes on the passage I have
attempted to show that such a topic is not wanting.

2. But the reference in the Epistle of Polycarp still remains to be ex-
plained. What account must be given of the ‘letters,’ which St Paul wrote
to the Philippians? Does Polycarp, as some have thought, include the
Thessalonian Epistles, which as being addressed to a neighbouring Church
would be known and read at Philippi also? Thisis possible; but a simpler
solution offers itself. Notwithstanding the plural ἐπιστολαί, the reference
may be satisfied by the one extant Epistle to the Philippians. Of this
usage of the plural ἐπιστολαί, applying to a single letter®, there can be no
doubt. This will appear plainly from Thucyd. viii. 51 ὅσον οὐ παροῦσαν
ἀπὸ τοῦ ᾿Αλκιβιάδου περὶ τούτων ἐπιστολήν, compared with ai δὲ παρὰ τοῦ
᾿Αλκιβιάδου ἐπιστολαὶ οὐ πολὺ ὕστερον ἧκον ; from Joseph. Ant. xii. 4. 10
ὁ Λακεδαιμονίων βασιλεὺς [Ἄρειος πρεσβείαν τε ἔπεμπε καὶ ἐπιστολὰς ὧν τὸ
ἀντίγραφόν ἐστι τοιοῦτον, compared with ἡ μὲν οὖν ἐπιστολὴ ἡ πεμφθεῖσα
παρὰ τοῦ Λακεδαιμονίων βασιλέως τοῦτον περιεῖχε τὸν τρόπον: and from

1 Col. iv. 16. I hope to consider 2 See the introduction, p. 68 note.
the question of the ‘ epistle from Lao- 3 Thom. Mag. p. 354 καὶ ἐπιστολὴ
dicea,’ in the introduction and notesto καὶ ἐπιστολαὶ πληθυντικῶς" ῥητορικόν.
the Epistle to the Colossians. 4 Comp. also Antig. xiii. 4. 8.

EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 139
Alciphron Epist. ii. 4 ὡς διεπέμψω μου τοῦ βασιλέως τὰς ἐπιστολάς, εὐθὺς
ἀνέγνων, compared with σοβοῦσα ταῖς χερσὶν ἐμαυτῆς τὴν ἐπιστολὴν σὺν
αὐτῇ τῇ βασιλικῇ σφραγῖδι; the singular in each case standing in the
immediate neighbourhood of the plural and referring to the same writing.
IT have placed these instances side by side, because the context in all three
cases determines the sense, and because being taken from writers of differ-
ent epochs they show that the usage was not confined to any one period.
The following references also, which might be multiplied many times, serve
to illustrate its occurrence in classical writers at different stages of the
language: Eur. Iph. Taur. 589, 767, Iph. Aul. 111, 314, Thucyd. i. 132,
iv. 50, Polyb. v. 43. 5, Lucian. Amor. 47 (II. p. 450), Julian. Epist. 73
(comp. £pist. 44). Nor is this usage confined to classical Greek. In
Esth. iii. 14 ἐπιστολαὶ is a translation of a singular substantive (25);
while in 1 Macc. v. 14, X. 3,7, Xi. 29, x11. 5 etc., it plainly refers to a single
document. And in ecclesiastical writers of a later date examples are found.
Eusebius (Z7.£. vi. 1) for instance, like the authors first quoted, uses ἐπιστολὴ
and ἐπιστολαὶ in the same context when speaking of one and the same
letter”.

If therefore we find that in another place Polycarp, referring again to
the Epistle to the Philippians, uses the singular (ἐπιστολή), this circum-
stance will present no difficulty; for we have seen similar variations of
usage in the passages of Thucydides and Alciphron, of Josephus and Euse-
bius, where the anomaly is rendered more striking by the fact that in these
authors the singular and plural occur in close proximity.

But a later passage of this same father has been quoted to show that he
carefully distinguishes between the singular and the plural of this word. ‘The
letters (ἐπιστολάς) of Ignatius, he writes, ‘which were sent to us by him,
and such others as we had by us, we have sent to you, as ye commanded ;
all which (αἵτινες) are appended to this letter (ἐπιστολῇ); from which ye may
derive great advantage’ (δ 13). The plural here has been explained as
referring to the two letters, the one to the Smyrnzeans, the other to Poly-
carp, contained in the short Greek recension. This explanation, it will be
seen, supposes either the genuineness of the short Greek recension of the
Ignatian letters or the spuriousness of this portion of Polycarp’s epistle.

Singular
and plural
inter-
changed.

Polyearp’s
usage else-
where con-
sidered.

Into these questions it would be beside the purpose to enter here. I.

would only say that here again the ἐπιστολαί may very well be used of a
single letter, and that on this supposition there is a certain propriety in the
change from the plural to the singular, when the writer has occasion to
speak of himself. For the plural ἐπιστολαί, which signifies properly ‘direc-
tions, injunctions, whenever it occurs in prose of a single epistle, seems to
denote a missive of importance, such as a king’s mandate or a bishop’s

3 Polye. Phil. 11 ‘qui estis in prin-
cipio epistole ejus,’ where some word

1 TI owe ἃ few of these references to
Rettig Quest. Phil. p. 38.

2 Comp. also H. Εἰ. vi. 43, quoted
by Cotelier on Polye. Phil. 3. The
plural ‘epistole’ in Latin is used in
the same way; Justin xi. 8, 12, Plin.
N.H. xxxiii. 12, quoted by Fabric. Bibl.
Grec. Iv. p. 804 (ed. Harles).

like ‘laudati’ should perhaps be sup-
plied. Others however suppose the ori-
ginal Greek to have been οἱ ὄντες ἐν
ἀρχῇ ἐπιστολαὶ αὐτοῦ, comparing for
ἐν ἀρχῇ Phil. iv. 15, and for ἐπιστολαὶ
αὐτοῦ 2 Cor. ili. 2, 3.

He does
not refer
to a lost
letter.

140 EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

pastoral; and its employment by Polycarp to designate his own letter
would have jarred strangely with his pervading tone of humility, though it
would fitly describe the communications of the blessed Apostle Paul (8. 3)
or the holy martyr Ignatius (δ 13)1.

On the whole then it would appear probable that Polycarp refers solely
to the extant Epistle to the Philippians; for though the existence of other
letters was seen to be in itself antecedently probable, yet it seems very
unlikely that an epistle of St Paul, which had survived the opening of
the second century and was then known to the Churches of Smyrna and
Philippi, should so soon afterwards have passed wholly out of memory.
Trenzeus, the pupil of Polycarp, is evidently acquainted with only one
Epistle of St Paul to the Philippians?.

1 By a curious coincidence Maximus
uses the plural of Polycarp’s own epi-
stle: Dion. Areop. Op. τι. p. 93 (ed.
Corder.), ἔχει δὲ καὶ ἐπιστολὰς ὁ αὐτὸς
θεῖος Πολύκαρπος πρὸς Φιλιππησίους.

2 Georgius Syncellus indeed (Chron.
I. p. 651 ed. Dind., a passage which I
owe to Rettig Quest. Phil. p. 38) speak-
ing of St Clement of Rome writes,
τούτου Kal ὁ ἀπόστολος ἐν TH πρὸς Φιλιπ-

Μετὰ καὶ Κλήμεντος κ-τ.λ. : but it seems
wholly incredible that Syncellus him-
self, and very unlikely that any autho-
rity quoted by him, should have been
acquainted with more than one Epistle
to the Philippians: and I can only ac-
count for the reading by supposing that
a superfluous a crept into the text
and was afterwards written out in full
πρώτῃ.

πησίους μέμνηται πρώτῃ ἐπιστολῇ εἰπών,

PEE: 2)

γ΄ \ Vs
"βλέπετε τοὺς κύνας,

111. 2--, ‘Be on your guard. Shun
these shameless dogs, these workers
of mischief, these mutilators of the
flesh. I call it mutilation, for we are
the true circumcision, we offer the
genuine service; we—you and I—
Gentile and Jew alike—who serve by
the Spirit of God, who place our boast
in Christ Jesus and put no trust in the
flesh. And yet, whatever be the value
of this confidence in the flesh, I assert
it as well. If any other man claims
to put trust in the flesh, my claim is
greater. I was circumcised on the
eighth day, a child of believing pa-
rents. JI am descended of an old
Israelite stock. I belong to the loyal
and renowned tribe of Benjamin. I
- am of a lineage which has never con-
formed to foreign usages, but has
preserved throughout the language
and the customs of the fathers. Thus
much for my inherited privileges ; and
now for my personal career. Do they
speak of law? I belong to the Pha-
risees, the strictest of all sects. Of
zeal? I persecuted the Church. This
surely is enough! Of righteousness ?
In such righteousness as consists in
obedience to law, I have never been
found a defaulter,’

2. A probable account of the ab-
rupt introduction of this new topic is
given in the introduction p. 68. As
the Apostle is on the point of refer-
ring once more to the divisions in the
Philippian Church before concluding,
he is interrupted. Whether the in-
terruption was momentary, or whether
some hours or even days elapsed be-
fore the letter was resumed, it is vain
to conjecture. But it has diverted,
or at least modified, the current of
his thoughts. He speaks no longer of
the social dissensions actually pre-
valent among the Philippians; but he
warns them against a much more
serious though hitherto distant peril
—the infection of Judaism. It seems
probable therefore that he had mean-

EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

141

Lh A
βλέπετε TOUS κακοὺς ἐρ-

while been apprised of some fresh
outbreak or reminded of some old
antagonism on the part of his Judaiz-
ing opponents in Rome; see p. 17.

The thrice repeated ‘mark ye,’ to-
gether with the recurrence of the defi-
nite article in the three clauses—the
dogs, the evil workers, the concision—
shows that St Paul is alluding to a
well-known and well-marked party in
or out of the Church.

βλέπετε] ‘look to, be on your guard
against, mark and watch.’ Comp. Mark
iv. 24 βλέπετε τί ἀκούετε, 2 Joh. 8
βλέπετε ἑαυτούς : 80 frequently βλέπετε
ἀπό (e.g. Mark viii. 15) and βλέπετε
py (e.g. Luke xxi. 8).

τοὺς κύνας] St Paul retorts upon
the Judaizers the term of reproach,
by which they stigmatized the Gen-
tiles as impure. In the Mosaic law
the word is used to denounce the foul
moral profligacies of heathen worship
(Deut. xxiii. 19 οὐ προσοίσεις μίσθωμα
πόρνης οὐδὲ ἄλλαγμα κυνός). Among
the Jews of the Christian era it was
a common designation of the Gentiles,
involving chiefly the idea of ceremo-
nial impurity; see esp. Clem. Hom. ii.
19 εἶπεν Οὐκ ἔξεστιν ἰᾶσθαι τὰ ἔθνη
ἐοικότα κυσὶν διὰ τὸ διαφόροις χρῆσθαι
τροφαῖς καὶ πράξεσιν, ἀποδεδομένης τῆς
κατὰ τὴν βασιλείαν τραπέζης τοῖς υἱοῖς
Ἰσραήλ᾽ ἡ δὲ τοῦτο ἀκούσασα, καὶ τῆς
αὐτῆς τραπέζης ὡς κύων ψιχίων ἀπο-
πιπτόντων συμμεταλαμβάνειν δεομένη],
μεταθεμένη ὅπερ ἦν, τῷ ὁμοίως διαιτᾶσ-
θαι τοῖς τῆς βασιλείας υἱοῖς τῆς εἰς τὴν
θυγατέρα, ὡς ἠξίωσεν, ἔτυχεν ἰάσεως.
The writer thus interprets from a
Judaizing point of view the incident
in Matt. xv. 22 sq., where our Lord
uses the Jewish phraseology of the
day to test the faith of the Canaanite
woman. See the rabbinical quotations
in Schéitgen 1. p. 1145. St John
applies the term to those whose moral
impurity excludes them from the new
Jerusalem, the spiritual Israel, Apoce.
xxii, 15. Asa term of reproach the

142 EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

/ lé / /
yatas, βλέπετε τήν κατατομήν.

[III. 3

ϑἡμεῖς yap ἐσμεν 1

/ € , ΄σ / \ /
περιτομή; οἱ πνεύματι Θεοῦ λατρεύοντες καὶ καυχωμενοι

word on the lips of a Jew signified
chiefly ‘impurity’; of a Greek, ‘impu-
dence.’ The herds of dogs which prowl
about easteyn cities, without a home
and without an owner, feeding on the
refuse and filth of the streets, quarrel-
ling among themselves, and attacking
the passer-by, explain both applications
of the image. To the Jewmore especi-
ally the comparison of the heathen toa
dog would commend itself, as describing
his indiscriminate use of meats whether
clean or not. Thus St Paul’s language
here is strikingly significant: ‘They
speak of themselves as God's children;
they boast of eating at God’s table;
they reproach us as dogs, as foul and
unclean, as outcasts from the cove-
nant, because forsooth we eat meat
bought at the shambles, because we
do not observe the washing of cups
and platters. I reverse the image.
We are the children, for we banquet
on the spiritual feast which God has
spread before us: they are the dogs,
for they greedily devour the garbage
of carnal ordinances, the very refuse
of God’s table.’ See the note on σκύ-
Baka ver. 8.

κακοὺς ἐργάτας] So again he says
of the Judaizing teacher 2 Cor. xi.
13 οἱ τοιοῦτοι WevdarroaToAoL, ἐργάται
δόλιοι. The proselytizing zeal of the
party has been already noticed by St
Paul,i.15, 16. There he contemplates
it as exerted upon heathendom, and
with very mixed feelings he constrains
himself to rejoice: here on the other
hand he apprehends its assaults on a
more liberal Christianity, and an un-
qualified condemnation is pronounced
upon it. The Pharisaic party (Acts
xv. 5) which ‘compassed sea and land
to make one proselyte’ (Matt. xxiii. 15)
had carried its old leaven into the
Christian Chnrch. There was the
same zealous activity in the pursuit
of its aims (ἐργάτας), and there were

the same pernicious consequences in
the attainment (κακούς).

τὴν Katatopny| ‘the concision, the
mutilation.’ The corresponding verb
κατατέμνειν is used in the Lxx only
of mutilations and incisions forbidden
by the Mosaic law; Levit. xxi. 5 ἐπὶ
Tas σάρκας αὐτῶν ov κατατεμοῦσιν ἐν-
τομίδας, 1 Kings xvili. 28 κατατέμνοντο
κατὰ τὸν ἐθισμὸν αὐτῶν, Is. xv. 2, Hos.
xvii. 14. Hence the appropriateness
here: ‘This circumcision, which they
vaunt, isin Christ only as the gashings
and mutilations of the idolatrous hea-
then’: comp. Gal. v. 12 ὄφελον καὶ
ἀποκόψονται, With the note. Thus it
carries out the idea of κύνας. For the
paronomasia of ἁ κατατομή, περιτομή,
compare 2 Thess. iii. 11 μηδὲν ἐργαζο-

évous adda περιεργαζομένους, Rom. xii.
3 μὴ ὑπερφρονεῖν παρ᾽ ὃ Set φρονεῖν
ἀλλὰ φρονεῖν εἰς τὸ σωφρονεῖν : see
Winer § lxviii. p. 658 sqq. See the
monograph by J. F. Béottcher de
Paron. etc. Paulo freq. (Lips. 1823) ;
and for instances in the Old Testament
Glass. Phil. Sacr. v. ii. 2, ». 926. But,
though especially frequent in the Bible,
they are naturally common everywhere.
The saying of Diogenes, that the school
of Euclides was not σχολὴ but χολὴ
and the discourse of Plato not δια-
τριβὴ but κατατριβή (Diog. Laert. vi.
24), may be matched in English by the
ambassador’s complaint that he had
been sent not to Spain but to Pain,
or Leicester’s report of the English
troops in the Netherlands that the
Queen’s ‘poor subjects were no better
than abjects, or Coleridge’s descrip-
tion of French philosophy as ‘psilo-
sophy,’ or again in Latin by the taunt
of pope against antipope that he was
not ‘consecratus’ but ‘execratus,’ or
the common proverb ‘compendia dis-
pendia.” See also Farrar’s Chapters
on Language p. 265 sq.

3. ἡμεῖς 7A] ‘We are the true

oe Sah νυν oe, | ae ee ee tt eee” Sees Ce

ae”

ΠῚ. 4]

EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

143

ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ καὶ οὐκ ἐν σαρκὲ πεποιθότες. “καίπερ

3 ΝΣ ΟΣ: , δ os
ἐγὼ ἔχων πεποίθησιν καὶ ἐν

circumcision; we, who have put off
the impurity of the heart and have
put on Christ, whether belonging to
the outward circumcision, as I, or to
the outward uncircumcision, as you.’
ἡ περιτομή] The contrast of the
material and the spiritual circum-
ision occurs more than once else-
where in St Paul: Rom. ii. 25—29,
Col. ii. 11, comp. Ephes. ii. 11 of λεγό-
μενοι axpoBvotia ὑπὸ τῆς λεγομένης
περιτομῆς ἐν σαρκὶ χειροποιήτου. In
this respect, as in so many others, St
Stephen’s speech contains an anticipa-
tion of St Paul: Acts vii. 51 ἀπερίτμη-
τοι. καρδίαις καὶ τοῖς ὠσίν. The use
made of the image of circumcision, as
a metaphor for purity, in the Old Tes-
tament had prepared the way for the
Apostle’s application: e.g. the cir-
cumcision of the heart, Levit. xxvi. 41,
Deut. x. 16, xxx. 6, Ezek. xliv. 7; of
the ear, Jer. vi. 10; of the lips, Exod.
vi. 12, 30; comp. Jer.ix. 25 26. Thus
too Philo discusses at some length the
significance of this rite, as a symbol of
moral purgation, de Circwme. τι. Ὁ. 211
M, comp. de Vict. Off. τι. p. 258 M.
So too Justin. Dial. 12, p. 229 © δευ-
τέρας ἤδη χρεία περιτομῆς, καὶ ὑμεῖς
ἐπὶ τῇ σαρκὶ μέγα φρονεῖτε (comp. § 19,
p. 236 ὁ), ὃ 43; p. 261 © οὐ ταύτην την
κατὰ σάρκα παρελάβομεν περιτομὴν
ἀλλὰ πνευματικήν, Barnab. ὃ 9.
πνεύματι Θεοῦ] ‘by the Spirit of
God, and not with the ordinances
and traditions of men. Thus Θεοῦ,
besides being the better supported
reading, is also more emphatic than
Θεῷ. The latter however presents a
closer parallel to Rom. i. 9 6 Θεὸς ᾧ

λατρεύω ἐν τῷ πνεύματί pov. See the
next note.
λατρεύοντες] The terms λατρεία,

λατρεύειν had got to be used in a very
special sense to denote the service
rendered to Jehovah by the Israelite
race, as His peculiar people: see espe-
cially Rom. ix. 4 ὧν ἡ viodecia κιτιλ,

σαρκί: εἴ τις δοκεῖ ἄλλος
καὶ ἡ λατρεία καὶ αἱ ἐπαγγελίαι,
Acts xxvi. 7 εἰς ἣν τὸ δωδεκάφυλον
ἡμῶν ἐν ἐκτενείᾳ νύκτα καὶ ἡμέραν λα-
Tpevov κιτιλ.; comp. Heb. ix. 1, 6.
Hence the significance of St Paul’s
words here; ‘We possess the true
περιτομή, the circumcision not of the
flesh but of the heart, and we also offer
the true λατρεία, the service not of ex-
ternal rites but of a spiritual worship’:
comp. Joh. iv. 23, 24. The same op-
position between the external and the
spiritual λατρεία is implied again in
Rom. xii. I παραστῆσαι τὰ σώματα
ὑμῶν θυσίαν ζῶσαν ἁγίαν εὐάρεστον τῷ
Θεῷ, τὴν λογικὴν λατρείαν ὑμῶν,
besides Rom. i. 9 quoted in the pre-
vious note. Compare Athenag. Leg.
13 προσφέρειν δέον ἀναίμακτον θυσίαν
καὶ τὴν λογικὴν προσάγειν λατρείαν,
and see the note on iv. 18. This defi-
nite sense of λατρεύειν explains how it
is used absolutely without any case of
the object following, as in Luke ii. 37,
Acts xxvi. 7. The substitution of
Θεῷ for Θεοῦ here was probably an
attempt to relieve the apparent awk-
wardness of this absolute use.
καυχώμενοι x.t-A.] in accordance
with the precept in Jer. ix. 23, 24,
twice quoted in a condensed form by
Stebant. τειν 51. 2) Cor. Τα
καυχώμενος ἐν κυρίῳ καυχάσθω.

οὐκ ἐν σαρκί] Comp. 2 Cor. xi. 18,
Gal. vi. 13, 14. The expression év
σαρκὶ extends beyond περιτομὴ to all
external privileges.

4. καίπερ ἐγὼ x.t.A.| ‘though hav-
ing myself confidence. The Apostle
for the moment places himself on the
same standing ground with the Ju-
daizers and, adopting their language,
speaks of himself as having that which
in fact he had renounced: comp. 2 Cor,
xi. 18 ἐπεὶ πολλοὶ καυχῶνται κατὰ [τὴν]
σάρκα, κἀγὼ καυχήσομαι. The proper
force οἵ ἔχων πεποίθησιν must ποὺ be
explained away. The καίπερ ἐγὼ
singles out the Apostle (comp. 1 Thess,

144

/ 5 , > \ ὧν
πεποιθέναι ἐν σαρκί, ἐγὼ μάλλον"

EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

{III. 5

= > /
ὅπεριτομῆ οκταη-

μερος, ἐκ γένους Ἰσραήλ, φυλῆς Βενιαμείν, “EBpatos ἐξ

ii. 18), for the Philippians did not
likewise possess these claims.

καὶ ἐν σαρκί] ‘in the flesh as well
as in Christ ; as if forsooth this one
topic did not cover the whole field of
boasting,’

δοκεῖ πεποιθέναι] ‘thinks to have
confidence’; ‘seems to himself’ rather
than ‘seems to others’; for the former,
besides being the more common mean-
ing in St Paul (1 Cor. iii. 18, vii. 40, x.
12, xi. 16 etc.), is also more forcible.
With ἐγὼ μᾶλλον we must understand
δοκῶ πεποιθέναι in the same sense ;
‘If they arrogate to themselves these
carnal privileges, I also arrogate them
to myself’ St Paul is using an argu-
mentum ad hominem; in his own
language, he is for the moment ‘speak-
ing foolishly, is ‘speaking not after
the Lord, 2 Cor. xi.17. See the pre-
ceding note.

5. This passage has a close parallel
in 2 Cor. xi. 21; and the comparison
is instructive. With the same depth
of feeling and the same general pur-
port, the form of expression in the
two passages differs widely. The tu-
multuous eagerness of the Apostle’s
earlier style, which appears in the
letter to the Corinthians, is replaced
here by a more subdued, though not
less earnest, tone of remonstrance.
Compare also Rom. ix. 3—5, Xi. I.

The four clauses at the beginning
of the fifth verse, which describe the
privileges inherited by the Apostle
apart from his own act or will,. are
arranged in an ascending scale. (1)
The due performance of the rite of
circumcision shows that his parents
were neither heathens nor sons of
Ishmael. (2) But as this is consist-
ent with their being proselytes, he
specifies his direct Israelite descent.
(3) Again his ancestors might have
been descendants of Israel and yet
have belonged to a renegade tribe.
Against this possibility he guards by

naming the faithful tribe of Benjamin.
(4) Lastly, many of those, whose de-
scent was unimpeachable and who in-
herited the faith of the Mosaie law,
yet as living among heathens adopted
the language and conformed to the
customs of the people around them.
Not such were the forefathers of Saul
of Tarsus. There had been no Helle-
nist among them; they were all strict
Hebrews from first to last.

περιτομῇ ὀκταήμερος] Converts to
Judaism would be circumcised in
mature age; Ishmaelites in their thir-
teenth year. Concerning the latter
see Joseph. Ant. i. 12. 2. For the
dative περιτομῇ ‘in respect of cireum-
cision’ comp. ii. 7 σχήματι εὑρεθείς,
and see Winer § xxxi. p. 229. The
nominative περιτομή, read in some
texts, is hardly translatable. For ox-
ranuepos ‘eight days old’ compare
τριήμερος (M. Anton. iv. 50), τετραήμε-
pos (Arist. Pol. iii. 15), πενθήμερος
(Xen. Hell. vii. 1. 14), Sexnpepos
(Thucyd. v. 26, 32), etc. The passages
quoted show that the words denote
properly not tnterval but duration,
so that ‘on the eighth day’ is not a
very accurate translation. The broken
days at the beginning and end are of
course counted in to make up the eight.

ἐκ γένους ᾿Ισραήλ] i.e. his parents
were not grafted into the covenant
people, but descended from the origi-
nal stock. On the significance of
‘Israel, Israelite, as implying the
privileges of the theocratic covenant,
see the note on Gal. vi. 16.

φυλῆς Βενιαμείν] As Benjamin gave
to the Israelites their first king, as
Benjamin alone was faithful to Judah
at the disruption, so also this tribe
had from the earliest times held the
post of honour in the armies of the
nation. ‘After thee, O Benjamin’ was
a battle-cry of Israel; Judges v. 14,
Tos. v. 8. The glory of the Benjamite
however did net end here. He re-

νυ»

III. 6]

EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

145

Ἑβραίων, κατὰ νόμον Φαρισαῖος, “κατὰ ζῆλος διώκων

\ , \ y \ , ,
τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, κατὰ δικαιοσύνην THY EV νόμῳ γενόμενος

membered with pride that his fore-
father alone of the twelve patriarchs
was born in the land of promise (see
the words put into the mouth. of Mor-
decai in Megill. sth. iii. 4, quoted by
Wetstein). He would also recal the
great national deliverance wrought by
means of a Benjamite, which was com-
memorated in the yearly festival of
Purim. St Paul mentions his descent
from Benjamin again Rom. xi. 1. He
doubtless derived his name ‘Saul’ di-
rectly or indirectly from the Benja-
inite king, to whom he himself refers
with marked emphasis (Acts xiii. 21).
At a very early date the prediction
in Jacob’s blessing of Benjamin (Gen.
xlix. 27), ‘In the morning he shall
devour the prey and at night he shall
divide the spoil,’ was applied to the
persecuting zeal and later conversion
of St Paul; Zest. wii Pair. Benj. 11,
Tertull.adv. Mare.v.1, Hippol Fragm.
50 (p. 140 Lagarde, Ephr. Syr. rv. pp.
114, 193, comp. p. 288); see Galatians
p. 308. On the character of Saul of
Tarsus in connexion with the cha-
racter of the tribe see Stanley Jewish
Church τι. p. 40.

‘EBpaios ἐξ ‘“EBpaiwv| As Ἰουδαῖος
is opposed ἰο Ἕλλην in the New Tes-
tament (e.g. Rom. i. 16), 80 is Ἑβραῖος
to Ἑλληνιστής (Acts vi. 1). In other
words, while the former pair of terms
expresses a contrast of race and re-
ligion, the latter implies difference of
language and manners. Within the
pale of the Jewish Church a man was
Ἰουδαῖος, who traced his descent from
Jacob and conformed to the religion
of his fathers, but he was not Ἑβραῖος
also, unless he spoke the Hebrew
tongue and retained Hebrew customs :
see Trench NV. 7. Syn. ist ser. ὃ xxxix.
Hence here, as in 2 Cor. xi. 22, ‘He-
brew’ implies something which is not
expressed in ‘Israelite’ Though St
Paul was born in Tursus, he was yet

PHIL,

brought up under a great Hebrew
teacher in the Hebrew metropolis
(Acts xxii. 3); he spoke the ‘ Hebrew’
language fluently (xxi. 40, xxii. 2); he
quotes frequently from the Hebrew
Scriptures which he translates for him-
self, thus contrasting with his contem-
poraries the Jewish Philo and the
Christian writer of the Epistle to the
Hebrews, who commonly use the Hel-
lenistic version of the Seventy. The
tradition mentioned by Jerome on
Philem. 23 (vil. p. 762 ed. Vallarsi),
that St Pauls parents lived in the
Galilean town of Gischala and were
driven thence by the Roman invasion,
contains its own refutation in a mani-
fest anachronism; but it seems to
illustrate St Paul’s statemeut here, for
it may rest on a reminiscence of the
long residence of his family in those
parts, For the form of expression
Ἑβραῖος ἐξ Ἑβραίων, ‘a Hebrew and of
Hebrew ancestry’, comp. Herod. ii. 143
πίρωμιν ἐκ πιρώμιος, Demosth. Andr.
p. 614 δούλους ἐκ δούλων καλῶν ἑαυτοῦ
βελτίους καὶ ἐκ βελτιόνων, Polyb. ii. 59. 1
οὐ μόνον γεγονέναι τύραννον ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐκ
τυράννων πεφυκέναι, With other passages
collected in Wetstein and Kypke.

Having thus enumerated his in-
herited privileges, the Apostle goes
on to speak of matters which depended
on his own personal choice. Here are
three topics of boasting. (1) As re-
gards law, he attached himself to the
sect which was strictest in its ritual
observance. (2) As regards zeal, he
had been as energetic as any of his
countrymen in persecuting the Church.
(3) As regards righteousness, he had
left nothing undone which the law
required.

νόμον] ‘law’, not ‘the law’; for
though the Mosaic law is meant, yet
it is here regarded in the abstract, as
a principle of action, being coordinated
with ζῆλος and δικαιοσύνην. For the

146

"}
ἄμεμπτος.
\ \ \ /
διὰ τὸν Χριστὸν ζημίαν.

EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

[TILT 758

[ἀλλὰ] ἅτινα ἦν μοι κέρδη, ταῦτα ἥγημαι
“ἀλλὰ μὲν οὖν [Kal] ἡγοῦμαι

/ « > \ \ € / ΄σ ,
πανταὰ ζημίαν εἶναι δια TO ὑπερέχον τῆς γνώσεως Χρισ-

" ἁτινά μοι ἦν κέρδη. 8.

distinction of νόμος and ὁ νόμος see
the notes on Gal. ii. 19, iv. 4, 5, 21,
V. 18; Vi. 12.

Φαρισαῖος] Acts xxili. 6 ἐγὼ Φαρι-
σαῖός εἰμι υἱὸς Φαρισαίων (where vids
Φαρισαίων perhaps refers rather to his
teachers than to his ancestors, being
a Hebraism like ‘the sons of the pro-
phets’; comp. Amos vii. 14), xxvi. 5
κατὰ THY ἀκριβεστάτην αἵρεσιν τῆς ἡμε-
τέρας θρησκείας ἔζησα Φαρισαῖος, XXii.
3 πεπαιδευμένος κατὰ ἀκρίβειαν τοῦ
πατρῴου νόμου. Similarly St Paul calls
himself ζηλωτὴς τῶν πατρικῶν παρα-
δόσεων in Gal. i. 14: see the note there.

6. κατὰ ζῆλος κιτ.λ.] An expression
of intense irony, condemning while he
seems to exalt his former self: ‘I was
zealous above them all; I asserted my
principles with fire and sword; I perse-
cuted, imprisoned, slew these infatuat-
ed Christians; this was my great claim
to God’s favour” This condensed irony
is more common in the earlier epi-
stles:%e,g/°5 ‘Cor: iv. 8, 2’Cor? xi. 1,7;
19. The correct reading is ζῆλος (not
ζῆλον), for which form see Winer
§ ix. p. 78, A. Buttmann p. 20. In
Clem. Rom. §§ 3, 4, 5, 6, where the
word occurs frequently, the masculine
and neuter seem to be interchanged
without any law.

διώκων] The references to his per-
secution of the Church are frequent in
St Paul: see the note on Gal. i. 13 καθ᾽
ὑπερβολὴν ἐδίωκον τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ
Θεοῦ.

τὴν ἐν νόμῳ] added to qualify and
explain δικαιοσύνην; ‘Such righteous-
ness as consists in law, in obedience to
formal precepts’, but not the true
righteousness: see ver. 9. Here ev
νόμῳ is used without the article for
the same reason as in ver, 5.

γενόμενος ἄμεμπτος] ‘showing my-

ἀλλὰ μενοῦνγε [καὶ] ἡγοῦμαι.

self blameless’, i.e. ‘1 omitted no ob-
servance however trivial’, for μέμφεσ-
θαι applies to sins of omission.

ἅτινα κιτ.Ὰλ.] ‘All such things which
Tused to count upas distinet items with
a miserly greedand reckon to my credit
—these I have massed together under
one general head as loss’... This para-
phrase is intended to bring out, though
with a necessary exaggeration, the
idea faintly expressed by the change
from the plural (κέρδη) to the singular
(ζημίαν). Otherwise there would be
a natural tendency to make both
plural or both singular: comp. Me-
nand. Mon. 301 (Meineke tv. p. 348)
κέρδος πονηρὸν ζημίαν ἀεὶ φέρει with
tb. 496 (p. 354) τὰ μικρὰ κέρδη ζημίας
μεγάλας φέρει. For ἅτινα, denoting
‘the class of things’, see the notes on
Gal. iv. 24. v. 19.

διὰ τὸν Χριστόν] ‘for Christ’, i.e. as
it is explained below (ver. 8), ἵνα Χρι-
στὸν κερδήσω. ‘To this end it was ne-
cessary first to renounce all other
claims to righteousness : see especially
Gal. v. 4.

8. ἀλλὰ μὲν οὖν κιτ.λ.] ‘nay more-
over I do count all things ete”; see
Winer ὃ liii. p. 463. This combi-
nation of particles introduces the
present statement as an amendment
and extension of the former. The
advance consists in two points; (1) The
substitution of the nga for the
perfect (ἡγοῦμαι for 7 ἥγημαι); (2) The
expansion: of ταῦτα into πάντα.

διὰ τὸ ὑπερέχον κιτ.λ.] The prepo-
sition may mean either ‘for the sake
of’ (as in διὰ τὸν Χριστὸν above and
δι’ ὃν below); or, as the sense of
ὑπερέχον Suggests, ‘by reason of’, sig-
nifying that the surpassing worth of
this knowledge eclipses and annihi-
lates all other gains in comparison ;

IIL. 9]

EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

147

a) ΄σ ΄σ , Si eX Q / > ΄
τοῦ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ κυρίου μου, ot ὃν τὰ πάντα ἐζημιωθην

καὶ ἡγοῦμαι σκύβαλα, ἵνα Χριστὸν κερδήσω 9 καὶ εὑρεθώ

? > > \ »f > \ hi \ > Ie > \
εν αὕτῳ μὴ EXWY ἐμὴν δικαιοσύνην τὴν ἐκ νομου, ἀλλα

as 2 Cor. iii. 10 οὐ δεδόξασται τὸ δεδο-
ξασμένον ἐν τούτῳ τῷ μέρει εἵνεκεν
τῆς ὑπερβαλλούσης δόξης.

τοῦ κυρίου μου] See the note on
1,3.

τὰ πάντα ἐζημιώθην] ‘1 suffered the
confiscation, was mulcted, of all things
together. For τὰ πάντα, which is
somewhat stronger than πάντα, comp.
Rom. viii. 32, xi. 36, 1 Cor. viii. 6, ete.

σκύβαλα] The word seems to sig-
nify generally ‘refuse’, being applied
most frequently in one sense or other
to food, as in Plut. Mor. p. 352 D περίτ-
τωμα δὲ τροφῆς καὶ σκύβαλον οὐδὲν ἁγνὸν
οὐδὲ καθαρόν ἐστι ἐκ δὲ τῶν περιττω-
μάτων ἔρια καὶ λάχναι καὶ τρίχες καὶ
ὄνυχες ἀναφύονται. The two significa-
tions most common are: (1) ‘Excre-
ment’, the portion of food rejected by
the body, as not possessing nutritive
qualities: e.g. Joseph. B. J. v. 13. 7.
This sense is frequent in medical wri-
ters. (2) ‘The refuse or leavings of
a feast’, the food thrown away from
the table: e.g. Leon. Alex. 30 (Anthol.
11. p. 196) ὡς ἀποδειπνιδίου yevoopevos
σκυβάλου, Aristo 2 (7d. τι. p. 258) δεῖπνον
συχνὸν ἀπὸ σκυβάλων, Adesp. 13 (ib. IIL.
P- 253) ἐρρίφθω ξηροῖς φυρόμενον σκυβά-
λοις, Q. Meee. 8 (Ὁ. τι. p. 238), Adesp.
386 (ib. III. p. 233); and metaphori-
cally Heges. 4 (tb. I. p. 254) ἐξ ἁλὸς
ἡμίβρωτον ἀνηνέγκαντο σαγηνεῖς ἄνδρα
πολύκλαυτον ναυτιλίης σκύβαλον. So
again σκυβάλισμα, Pseudo-Phocyl. 144
μηδ᾽ ἄλλου παρὰ δαιτὸς ἔδῃς σκυβάλισμα
τραπέζης.

As regards derivation, it is now
generally connected with oxap, σκατός
(Benfey Wurzel. τ. p. 628, π. p. 172,
Lobeck Pathol. p. 92). This deriva-
tion countenances the former of the
two senses given above; but Suidas
explains the word, τὸ τοῖς κυσὶ βαλλό-
μενον κυσίβαλόν τι ov (comp. Etym.

Mag. p. 719, 53); and so Pott. Etym.
frorsch, ττ. p. 295, taking σκυ- to repre-
sent ἐς κύνας and comparing oxopa-
κίζειν. This account of the word seems
at least as probable as the other; but
whether correct or not, it would ap-
pear to have been the popular deriva-
tion, and from this circumstance the
second of the two meanings would
become more prominent than the
first.

At all events this meaning, which is
well supported by the passages quoted,
is especially appropriate here. The
Judaizers spoke of themselves as
banqueters seated at the Father’s
table, of Gentile Christians as dogs
greedily snatching up the refuse meat
which fell therefrom. St Paul has
reversed the image. The Judaizers
are themselves the dogs (ver. 2); the
meats served to the sons of God are
spiritual meats; the ordinances, which
the formalists value so highly, are the
mere refuse of the feast.

The earnest reiteration of St Paul’s
language here expresses the intensity
of his desire to produce conviction :
κέρδη, κερδήσω---ἥγημαι, ἡγοῦμαι, ἡγοῦ-
μαι---ζ(ημίαν, ζημίαν, ἐζημιώθην---διά, διά,
διά--πάντα, τὰ πάντα- Χριστόν, Χρισ-
τοῦ, Χριστόν; see above i. 9, 14, 27,
11: 2:

9. εὑρεθῷ] ‘may be found’; per-
haps at the great day of revelation
(2 Cor. v. 3), perhaps more generally
(1 Cor. iv. 2). For the frequent use
of this word in Aramaised Greek see
the note on Gal. ii. 17.

ev αὐτῷ] ‘in Christ’, as part of
Christ, as a member of His body. It
is only by becoming one with Christ,
that Christ’s righteousness can become
our righteousness.

ἐμὴν δικαιοσύνην] ‘Any righteous-
ness that I may have or not have.’

10—2

148

\ \ / ~ \ >
τὴν διὰ πίστεως Χριστοῦ, τὴν εκ

~ ,
TH πίστει;

EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

ἘΠῚ 10

- Ss , 5) \
Θεοῦ δικαιοσύνην ἐπὶ

a - 5. τινα \ \ 7, - ᾽
“τοὺ γνῶναι QUTOV Kal Τὴν δύναμιν TYS αναπ-

/ > ΄σ΄ i 7] Ca / > ΄σ-
στάσεως αὐτοῦ καὶ κοινωνίαν [τῶν] παθημάτων αὐτοῦ,

It is ἐμήν, not τὴν ἐμήν; for the latter
would seem to assume the existence
of such personal righteousness. Comp.
Nom. x. 3 ἀγνοοῦντες yap τὴν τοῦ Θεοῦ
δικαιοσύνην καὶ τὴν ἰδίαν [δικαιοσύνην]
ζητοῦντες στῆσαι τῇ δικαιοσύνῃ τοῦ
Θεοῦ οὐχ ὑπετάγησαν. St Paul is ap-
plying and extending the language of
the Old Testament: comp. Ps. xxi. 16,
Is. Ixiv. 6.

τὴν ἐκ vopov| See above ver. 6;
comp. Gal. 11. 16—21, iii. Io—12, 21,
Rom. iii. 21I—31, iv. 13, 14, 1x. 30—32,
naa. 5:

ἀλλὰ x.t.r.] Here διὰ πίστεως Χρισ-
τοῦ is opposed to ἐκ νόμου, and ἐκ
Θεοῦ to ἐμήν, of the preceding clause.

διὰ πίστεως Χριστοῦ | ‘through faith
in Christ. The ex of the former
clause is changed into διὰ here, be-
cause faith is only the means, not
the source, of justification: see the
note on Gal. ii. 16.

ἐπὶ τῇ πίστει] ‘on the condition of
Jaith’; as Actsiii. 16. The article (τῇ
πίστει) is used here, because πίστεως
has gone before; ‘the faith thus sup-
posed’.

1o.. ‘That Imay know Him. And
when I speak of knowing Him, I mean,
that I may feel the power of His resur-
rection; but to feel this, it is first
necessary that I should share His suf-
ferings.’ The essence of knowing Christ
consists in knowing the power of His
resurrection; hence the words καὶ τὴν
δύναμιν τῆς ἀναστάσεως αὐτοῦ are added
by way of explanation. But these words
again suggest another thought; no
one can participate in His resurrection,
who has not first participated in His
death. Hence a further addition καὶ
κοινωνίαν τῶν παθημάτων αὐτοῦ, Which
logically precedes τὴν δύναμιν κιιλ.;
as appears from the explanation follow-
ing, συμμορφιζόμενος τῷ θανάτῳ αὐτοῦ,

εἴ πως κιτιλ.

τοῦ γνῶναι) not simply ‘know’, but
‘recognise, feel, appropriate’. On γινώσ-
κειν See the notes to Gal. iti. 7, iv. 9.
Th's intense sense of γινώσκειν, and,
even of εἰδέναι (e.g. 1 Thess. v. 12), is
the more common in Biblical Greek,
because both words are used in the
LXx as renderings of yt! which fre-
quently has this sense.

τὴν δύναμιν x.t.r.| ‘the power of
His resurrection’; as the assurance
of immortality (Rom. viii. 11, 1 Cor.
Xv. 14 sq.), as the triumph over sin
and the pledge of justification (Rom.
iv. 24, 25), as asserting the dignity and
enforcing the claims of the human body
(1 Cor. vi. 13—15, Phil. 111. 21); thus
quickening and stimulating the whole
moral and spiritual being (Rom. vi. 4
sq., Gal. ii. 20, Ephes. ii. 5, Col. ii. see
On this see Wesieert Gospel of the
Resurrection ii. § 31 86.

καὶ κοινωνίαν ete The participa-
tion in Christ’s sufferings partly fol-
lows upon and partly precedes the
power of His resurrection. It follows,
as the practical result on our life ;
it precedes, as leading up tothefulland
final appreciation of this power. In
this latter aspect it is. taken up in
the explanatory clause which comes
immediately after, συμμορφιζόμενος
καιλ. For the expression τὴν κοινω-
νίαν κιτιλ. comp. 2 Cor. i. 5 περρισεύει
τὰ παθήματα τοῦ Χριστοῦ εἰς ἡμᾶς K.T.A.,
I Pet. iv. 13 κοινωνεῖτε τοῖς τοῦ Χριστοῦ
παθήμασιν, Col. i. 24, Polye. Phil. 9
παρὰ TO κυρίῳ ᾧ καὶ συνέπαθον. See also
for the idea the passages quoted in the
next note. The τὴν before κοινωνίαν
in the received text, besides being
deficient in authority, severs the close
connexion between ‘the power of His
resurrection’ and ‘the νοῦ δος
in His sufferings.’

ων» i.

PLT, EY, (02

EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

149

, > θ aT a ᾽ Str ἢ ,
συμμορφιζόμενος Tw αν ω UTOU, ει πὼς KATAVTH-

> \ > lien \ > > I2 “, / of
σω εἰς τὴν ἐξαναστασιν τὴν εκ νεκρων. OVX OTL ἤδη

συμμορφιζόμενος κιτιλ.] See Rom.
Vi. 5 εἰ γὰρ σύμφυτοι γεγόναμεν τῷ
ὁμοιώματι τοῦ θανάτου αὐτοῦ, ἀλλὰ καὶ
τῆς ἀναστάσεως ἐσόμεθα, 2 Cor. iv. 10
πάντοτε THY νέκρωσιν τοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ ἐν τῷ
σώματι περιφέροντες, ἵνα καὶ ἡ ζωὴ τοῦ
Ἰησοῦ φανερωθῇ ἐν τῇ θνητῇ σαρκὶ ἡμῶν
κιτιλ.; comp. Rom. viii. 17, 2 Tim. ii. 11,
12. The conformity with the sufferings
of Christ implies not only the endurance
of persecution for His name, but all
pangs and all afflictions undergone in
the struggle against sin either within
or without. The agony of Gethsemane,
not less than the agony of , Calvary,
will be reproduced however faintly in
the faithful servant of Christ. For
συμμορφιζόμενος see the detached note
on μορφὴ and σχῆμα above p. 128.
εἴ πως καταντήσω) ‘if so be 7 may
attain. The Apostle states not a
positive assurance but a modest hope.
For εἴ πως see Acts xxvii. 12 (optat.),
Rom. i. το (fut.), xi. 14 (fut. or conj.).
Here καταντήσω is probably the con-
junctive, as εἰ καὶ καταλάβω follows
immediately. The conjunctive with εἰ,
barely tolerated in Attic prose (though
less rare in poetry), is hardly more
common in the Greek Testament.
The only decisive instance seems to
be εἰ καὶ καταλάβω below, ver. 12.
In other passages (as Luke ix. 13,
mor, ixy τιν σῦν. 1 Thess.,v.. 10,
Rev. xi. 5) the possibility of error or
the existence of various readings ren-
ders it more or less doubtful.
τὴν ἐξανάστασιν «.7.d.| The ‘resur-
rection j7vom the dead’ is the final
resurrection of the righteous to a
new and glorified life. This meaning,
- which the context requires, is implied
by the form of expression. The general
resurrection of the dead, whether
good or bad, is ἡ ἀνάστασις τῶν νεκρῶν
(e.g. 1 Cor. xv. 42); on the other hand
the resurrection of Christ and of those
who rise with Christ is generally

[ἡ] ἀνάστασις [ἡ] ἐκ νεκρῶν (Luke xx.
35, Acts iv. 2, 1 δὶ. 152). The former
includes both the ἀνάστασις ζωῆς and
the ἀνάστασις κρίσεως (Joh. v. 29); the
latter is confined to the ἀνάστασις
ζωῆς. The received reading τῶν νεκρῶν
for τὴν ἐκ νεκρῶν, besides being feebly
supported, disregards this distinction.
Here the expression is further in-
tensified by the substitution of ἐξ-
ἀνάστασις for ἀνάστασις, the word not
occurring elsewhere in the New Tes-
tament.

12. In the following verses, though
St Paul speaks of himself, his language
seems really to be directed against the
antinomian spirit, which in its rebound
from Jewish formalism perverted
liberty into license. It is necessary
to supply a corrective to such false in-
ferences from the doctrine of grace
broadly stated. This he does by point-
ing to his own spiritual insecurity, his
own earnest strivings, his own onward
progress. “ΤῸ continue in sin that grace
may abound’ gains no countenance
either from his doctrine or from his
example. Having thus prepared the
way, he in the 18th verse directly
condemns those professed followers
who thus dragged his teaching in the
dust. See the introduction p. 69.

12—16, ‘Do not mistake me, I
hold the language of hope, not of
assurance. I have not yet reached
the goal; I am not yet made perfect.
But I press forward in the race, eager
to grasp the prize, forasmuch as Christ
also has grasped me. My brothers,
let other men vaunt their security.
Such is not my language. I do not
consider that I have the prize already
in my grasp. This, and this only, is
my rule. Forgetting the landmarks
already passed and straining every
nerve and muscle in the onward race,
I press forward ever towards the
goal, that I may win the prize of my

150

EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

[EEL 19504

᾽ἅ, Nf , - / \ 3 \

ἔλαβον ἢ ἤδη τετελείωμαι, διώκω δὲ εἰ καὶ καταλάβω,
᾽ γεν \ / ε \ = αὐ , \
EP w Kal κατελήμῴφθην ὑπὸ Χριστοῦ. ™ ἀδελφοί, ἐγὼ

> \ 7ὔ / “ , \ ,
ἐμαυτὸν ov λογίζομαι κατειληφέναι: **ev δέ, τὰ μὲν ὀπί-

’, > \ ᾽ > /
σω ἐπιλανθανόμενος τοῖς δὲ ἔμπροσθεν ἐπεκτεινόμενος

heavenly rest whereunto God has call-
ed mein Christ Jesus. Let wstherefore,
who have put away childish things,
who boast that we are men in Christ,
so resolve. Then, if in any matter
we lose our way, God will at length
reveal this also to us. Only let us
remember one thing. Our footsteps
must not swerve from the line in
which we have hitherto trodden.’

12. οὐχ ὅτι κιτιλ.] The change of
tense is not accidental. The aorist
ἔλαβον points to a past epoch, to
which ἐζημιώθην, κατελήμφθην, also
refer; ‘not as though by my conversion
I did at once attain’. The perfect rere-
λείωμαι describes his present state;
‘not as though I were now already
perfected.’ For οὐχ ὅτι compare 2
Cor. iii. 5, vii. 9, 2 Thess. iii. 9, and
below iv. 11, 17.

διώκω κιτιλ.] For the connexion of
διώκειν and καταλαμβάνειν see Herod.
ix. 58 διωκτέοι εἰσὶ εἰς ὃ καταλαμ-
φθέντες κιτιλ., Lucian Hermot. 77
ὠκύτεροι παραπολὺ διώκοντες οὐ κατέ-
λαβον: compare Lxx Exod. xv. 9,
Kecles. xi. 10. For the meaning of
these two words see the note on ἐπεκ-
Tewopevos Ver. 14; for the conjunctive
καταλάβω, {16 note on καταντήσω Ver. 10.

ἐφ᾽ ᾧ] may mean either (1) ‘Where-
fore, whereunto,’ thus fulfilling God’s
purpose; or (2) ‘Because,’ thus fulfil-

: ling his own duty. In this second sense
ἐφ᾽ ᾧ is apparently used Rom. vy. 12,
2Cor. v. 4. The former meaning seems
more appropriate here, though the
latter is better supported by St Paul’s
usage elsewhere. On the different
senses of ἐφ᾽ 6 see Fritzsche on Rom.
I. p. 299. Others, as the English Ver-
sion, understand an antecedent, κατα-
λάβω ἐκεῖνο ἐφ᾽ ᾧ (comp. Luke v. 25);
but καταλάβω, like κατειληφέναι below,

seems to be used absolutely, as ἔλαβον
and διώκω also are used.

13. ἀδελφοί] ‘my brothers; with
a view of arresting attention; see the
notes on Gal. ili. 15, vi. 1, 18.

ἐγὼ ἐμαυτόν] ‘Facile hoe alii de
Paulo existimare possent, says Bengel.
This however seems hardly to be the
point of the expression. St Paul is
not contrasting his own estimate of
himself with other people’s estimate
of him, but his estimate of himself
with others’ estimate of themselves.
He is in fact protesting against the
false security, the antinomian reckless-
ness, Which others deduced from the
doctrine of faith: see the notes on
τέλειοι Ver. 15, and on vy. 12, 19, and
the introduction p. 69.

14. ἕν δέ] This usage may be illus-
trated by the classical expression
δυοῖν θάτερον. It is difficult to say
whether ἕν is a nominative or an
accusative. If (with Winer § Ixvi. p.
642) we may compare 2 Cor. vi. 13, itis
the latter.

τὰ ὀπίσω] i.e. the portion of the
course already traversed. Compare
Lucian Calumn. 12 οἷόν τι καὶ ἐπὶ
τοῖς γυμνικοῖς ἀγῶσιν ὑπὸ τῶν δρομέων
γίγνεται" κακεῖ γὰρ ὁ μὲν ἀγαθὸς δρομεὺς
τῆς ὕσπληγος εὐθὺς καταπεσούσης, μόνον
τοῦ πρόσω ἐφιέμενος καὶ τὴν διάνοιαν
ἀποτείνας πρὸς τὸ τέρμα K.T.A.

ἐπεκτεινόμενος | ‘supereatensus: ocu-
lus manum, manus pedem preevertit
et trahit’, is Bengel’s paraphrase. The
metaphor may possibly be derived from
the chariot races in the Circus, as the
epistle was written from Rome. On
this supposition the meaning of ἐπεκτει-
νόμενος has been aptly illustrated by
Virgil’s ‘Instant verbere torto Ht
proni dant lora’ (Georg. iii. 106). To
this view διώκω lends some support,

IIL. 15]

EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

ΠῚ

\ \ , ᾽ \ - ΠΥ τὴ /
κατα OKOTOV διώκω αἰ TO βραβεῖον Τῆς AVW κλήσεως

τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ.

ef 3 / a
*S5O@OL OVV τέλειοι, τοῦτο

φρονώμεν" Kal εἴ τι ἑτέρως φρονεῖτε, Kal τοῦτο ὁ Θεὸς

15. τοῦτο φρονοῦμεν.

for it is frequently said of charioteers
(e.g. Soph. £7. 738); but all the terms
used are equally appropriate to the
foot-race, and there seems no reason
for departing from St Paul’s usual
metaphor. Moreover the not looking
back, which showed a right temper
in a runner (Lucian |. ¢.), would be
fatal to the charioteer; see Themist.
Orat. Xv. p. 196 B ἀνδρὶ δὲ ἡνιοχοῦν-
Tl...dvaykN...TA μὲν πρόσω μὴ πάνυ ὁρᾶν
ὀπίσω δὲ ἀεὶ τετράφθαι τῇ γνώμῃ πρὸς
τοὺς διώκοντας K.T.A.

εἰς τὸ βραβεῖον] ‘unto the prize’;
comp. I Cor. ix. 24. This preposition
is used, because the prize marks the
position of the goal. The ἐπὶ of the
common text is an obvious substitution
for a more difficult reading.

τῆς ἄνω κλήσεως] ‘our heavenward
calling’; so Philo Plant. ὃ 6 p. 333 M
πρὸς yap τὸ θεῖον ἄνω καλεῖσθαι θέμις
τοὺς Ur αὐτοῦ καταπνευσθέντας, Comp.
Heb. π|. 1. The words ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ
must be taken with κλήσεως; see
1 Cor. vii. 22, 1 Pet. v. Io.

15. ὅσοι οὖν τέλειοι] The τέλειοι
are ‘grown men’ as opposed tochildren;
e.g. 1 Cor. xiv. 20, Ephes. iv. 13, Heb.
v.14. They are therefore those who
have passed out of the rudimentary
discipline of ordinances (Gal. iv. 3, 4),
who have put away childish things
(1 Cor, xiii. 1o—12), who have assumed
the Apostle’s ground respecting the
law. ‘The τέλειοι in fact are the same
with the πνευματικοί : comp. I Cor.
ii. 6 with iii. 1. But these men, who
were proud of their manhood, who
boasted their spiritual discernment,
were often regardless of the scruples
of others and even lax in their own
lives. Hence the stress which St
Paul here lays on the duty of moral
and spiritual progress, as enforced by

his own example. Thus in ὅσοι τέλειοι,
‘all we who attained our manhood, our
independence, in Christ,’ there is the
same reproachful irony as in 1 Cor,
Vili. 1 οἴδαμεν ὅτι πάντες γνῶσιν ἔχομεν,
in Rom. xv. I ἡμεῖς οἱ δυνατοί, and
possibly also in Gal. vi. I ὑμεῖς of
πνευματικοί. The epithet τέλειοι seems
to have been especially affected by
the party both at this time and later;
comp. Barnab. 4 γενώμεθα πνευματικοί,
γενώμεθα ναὸς τέλειος τῷ Θεῷ, Tren.
1. 6. 4 ἑαυτοὺς δὲ ὑπερυψοῦσι, τελείους
ἀποκαλοῦντες καὶ σπέρματα ἐκλογῆς
(comp. ὃ 3, where οἱ τελειότατοι is said
in irony, and see also i. 13. 5, i. 18. 1,
iii. 13. 5), Clem. Alex. Ped. i. 6 (p. 128
Potter) ἐμοὶ δὲ καὶ θαυμάζειν ἔπεισιν ὅπως
σφᾶς τελείους τινὲς τολμῶσι καλεῖν καὶ
γνωστικοὺς ὑπὲρ τὸν ἀπόστολον φρο-
νοῦντες, φυσιούμενοί τε καὶ φρυαττόμενοι
κιτιλ., Hippol. Har. v. ὃ οὐδεὶς τούτων
τῶν μυστηρίων ἀκροατὴς γέγονεν εἰ μὴ
μόνοι οἱ γνωστικοὶ τέλειοι, NOt without
a reference to the secondary sense of
the word, ‘instructed in the mysteries.’

τοῦτο φρονώμεν] ‘let us have this
mind’ i.e. let us make it our rule to
forget the past and press ever for-
ward.

καὶ εἴ τι ἑτέρως κιτιλ.] “ Then, if only
you hold this fundamental principle,
if progress is indeed your rule; though
you are at fault on any subject, God
will reveal this also to you’; comp,
Joh. vil. 17 ἐάν tis θέλῃ τὸ θέλημα
αὐτοῦ ποιεῖν, γνώσεται περὶ τῆς διδαχῆς
πότερον ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐστὶν κιτιλ. Here
ἑτέρως seems to have the meaning
‘amiss’: see the note on Gal. 1.6. It
may however be ‘otherwise, inreference
to τοῦτο φρονῶμεν ; in which case εἴτι
will mean ‘in any minor point’: ‘If
you are sound at the core, God will
remoye the superficial blemishes,’

Lye EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

1 πὸ τὴ

Be tes 7 \ > ΩΝ > / ΄ ΄σ
ὑμῖν ἀποκαλύψει: “πλὴν εἰς ὃ ἐφθάσαμεν, τῷ αὐτῷ

στοιχεῖν.

1 “ , bay , ΄σ
᾿Συνμιμηταί μου γίνεσθε, ἀδελφοί, καὶ σκοπεῖτε

16. πλὴν εἰς ὃ κιτ.λ.] Sonly we must
walk bythe same rulewhereunto we at-
tained” What is meant by this same
rule? Is it (1) The rule of moral
progress? or (2) The rule of faith as
opposed to works? In the former case,
the words would simply enforce the
preceding τοῦτο φρονῶμεν; inthe latter,
they are added as a parting caution
against ‘the dogs, the base workers,
the concision.’ The latter seems pre-
ferable, as on the whole the reference
to the Judaizers is the more probable,
both because St Paul’s earnestness
would naturally prompt him to recur
to this subject, and because the
phrase is elsewhere used in the
same connexion; Gal. vi. 16 ὅσοι τῷ
κανόνι τούτῳ στοιχήσουσιν, comp. V. 25.
The words after στοιχεῖν in the re-
ceived text (κανόνι, τὸ αὐτὸ φρονεῖν)
are interpolated from Gal. vi. τό,
Phil. ii. 2. Of these κανόνι is a correct
gloss, while τὸ αὐτὸ φρονεῖν expresses
an idea alien to the context. Though
πλὴν is now generally connected with
πλέον, πλεῖν, as if it signified ‘more
than, beyond’ (e.g. Klotz Devar. τι.
p 724, Curtius Griech. Etym. p. 253),
the etymology which connects it with
πέλας seems to offer a better explani-
tion of its usage. It will then signify
‘besides,’ and hence, in passages like
the present, ‘apart from this,’ ‘ setting
this aside’; so that it is conveniently
translated ‘only’: comp. i. 18, iv. 14.
In this case it has an accusatival form,
like δίκην, ἐπίκλην, or the Latin ‘clam,’
‘palam,’ etc. For the dative of the rul>
or direction (τῷ αὐτῷ) see the notes
on Gal. v. 16, 25, vi. 16. The infinitive
στοιχεῖν is equivalent to an emphatic
imperative; see Fritzsche Rom. ut. Ὁ.
85, and Winer ὃ xliii. p. 332. For
φθάνειν eis, ‘to reach to’ see Dan. iv.
19, Rom. ix. 31.

17—21. ‘My brethren, vie with each
other in imitating me, and observe
those whose walk of life is fashioned
after our example. This is the only
safe test. For there are many, of
whom I told you often and now tell
you again even in tears, who profess-
ing our doctrine walk not in our
footsteps. They are foes to the cross
of Christ; they are doomed to per-
dition ; they make their appetites their
god; they glory in their shame; they
are absorbed in earthly things. Not
such is ow? life. In heaven we have even
now our country, our home; and from
heaven hereafter we look in patient
hope for a deliverer, even the Lord
Jesus Christ, who shall change the
fleeting fashion of these bodies—the
bodies of our earthly humiliation—so
that they shall take the abiding form
of His own body—the body of His
risen glory: for such is the working
of the mighty power whereby He is
able to subdue all things alike unto
Himself,’

17. Συνμιμηταί μου] i.e. ‘ Vie with
each other in imitating me,’ ‘one and
all of you imitate me’: 80 συμμιμεῖσθαι
Plat. Polit. p.274 Ὁ. Compare 1 Cor.
iv, 10. xi. 1, 1 Thess. 1. Ὁ; 2° Thess: aia
7, 9, ἵνα ἑαυτοὺς τύπον δῶμεν ὑμῖν εἰς τὸ
μιμεῖσθαι ἡμᾶς. In 1 Cor. xi. 1 the
injunction μιμηταί pov γίνεσθε is ad-
dressed, as here, to the party of re-
action against Jadaism.

σκοπεῖτε) ‘mark and follow,’ not as
generally ‘mark and avoid’ e.g. Rom.
xvi. 17. Under ἡμᾶς are included
Timotheus, Epaphroditus, and other
faithful companions known to the
Philippians. Shrinking from the ego-
tism of dwelling on his own personal ex-
ample, St Paul passes at once from the
singular (μου) to the plural (ἡμᾶς).

18. πολλοὶ γάρ] If the view which

Cn ee pa ye ee Pe ee eee ee

ΠῚ. 18]

EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

153

\ Ss ΄σ \ af ’ ΄σ
τοὺς οὕτω περιπατοῦντας καθὼς ἔχετε τύπον ἡμᾶς.
\ \ ΄σ « / 7 CS A
τὸ πολλοὶ yap περιπατοῦσιν, ovs πολλάκις ἐλεγον υμῖν,
΄σ \ , \ > \ ΄σ ΄σ ΄σ
νῦν δὲ καὶ κλαίων λέγω, τοὺς ἐχθροὺς τοῦ σταυροῦ τοῦ

I have taken be correct, the persons
here denounced are not the Judaizing
teachers, but the antinomian re-
actionists. This view is borne out by
the parallel expression, Rom. Xvi.
18 TO κυρίῳ ἡμῶν Χριστῷ οὐ δουλεύ-
ουσιν αλλὰ τῇ ἑαυτῶν κοιλίᾳ, where
the same persons seem to be in-
tended; for they are described as
creating divisions and offences (ver.
17), as holding plansible language
(ver. 18), as professing to be wise
beyond others (ver. 19) and yet not
innocent in their wisdom; this last
reproach being implied in the words
θέλω δὲ ὑμᾶς σοφοὺς εἶναι εἰς TO ἀγαθὸν
ἀκεραίους δὲ εἰς τὸ κακόν. They appear
therefore to belong to the same party
to which the passages vi. I—23, Xiv.
1—xy. 6, of that epistle are chiefly
addressed. For the profession of
‘wisdom’ in these faithless disciples
of St Paul see 1 Cor. i. 17 sq,, iv. 18
8q., Vili, I 84.) Χ- 15. Compare the
note on τέλειοι above.

περιπατοῦσιν] An adverbial clause,
such as οὐκ ὀρθῶς, might have been
expected: but in the earnestness of
expression the sentence is uninter-
rupted, the qualifying idea being for
the moment dropped. It reappears
in a different form in the words τοὺς
ἐχθροὺς κιτ᾿λ.. attached tothe dependent
sentence οὖς πολλάκις ἔλεγον k.T.A.

νῦν δέ] ‘but now’, for the evil has
grown meanwhile.

καὶ κλαίων] The stress of St Paul’s
grief would lie in the fact, that they
degraded the true doctrine of liberty,
so as to minister to their profligate
and worldly living. They made use
of his name, but did not follow his
example.

τοὺς ἐχθροὺς τοῦ σταυροῦ) See Polye.
Phil. § 12. These words do not in
themselves decide what persons are

here denounced; for the enemies of
the cross may be twofold; (1) Doc-
trinal. The Judaizers, who deny the
efficacy of the cross and substitute
obedience to a formal code in its
place; comp. Gal. v. ΤΙ, vi. 12, 14.
(2) Practical. The Antinomians, who
refuse to conform to the cross (ili. 10,
2 Cor. i. 5, 6) and live a life of self-
indulgence; comp. 1 Cor. i. 17. If
the view, which I have adopted and
which the context seems to require,
is correct, the latter are here meant;
see the last note. In the passages,
Polye. Phil. 7 os ἂν μὴ ὁμολογῇ τὸ
μαρτύριον τοῦ σταυροῦ, Lgnat. Trall.
11 ἐφαίνοντο ἂν κλάδοι τοῦ σταυροῦ,
the reference is apparently to doce-
tism, as denying the reality of the
passion. But belonging‘ to a later
generation, these passages throw no
light on St Paul’s meaning here.

19. τὸ τέλος ἀπώλεια] Comp. Rom.
Vi. 21 τὸ τέλος ἐκείνων θάνατος : see also
2 Cor. xi. 15, Hebr. vi. 8.

ὁ θεὸς ἡ κοιλία] See Rom. xvi. 18
already quoted: comp. Seneca de
Benef. vii. 26 ‘Alius abdomini servit’,
Eur. Cycl. 335 Qvo...77 “μεγίστῃ γαστρὶ
THOE δαιμόνων" ὡς τοὐμπιεῖν γε καὶ
φαγεῖν trou’ ἡμέραν Ζεὺς οὗτος ἀνθρώ-
ποισι τοῖσι σώφροσιν. So in attacks
on Epicurean ethics ‘venter’ commonly
appears as the type of sensual appe-
tites generally, e.g. Cic. Nut. Deor. i.
40, Senec. Vit. Beat. ix. 4, xiv.3. The
Apostle elsewhere reminds these lax
brethren, that ‘the kingdom of God
is not eating and drinking’, Rom. xiv,
17; comp. 1 Cor. viii. 8. The self-
indulgence, which wounds the tender
conscience of others and turns liberty
into license, is here condemned.

ἡ δόξα κιτ.λ. The unfettered liberty,
of which they boast, thus perverted
becomes their deepest degradation.

eel EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

[III. 19, 20

~ πὸ \ fé if ὋΣ \
Χριστοῦ, “wy τὸ τέλος άπωλεια, ὧν ὁ θεὸς ἡ κοιλία,

καὶ ἡ δόξα ἐν TH αἰσγύνη αὐτῶν. οἱ Ta ἐπίγεια o-
i ἢ αἰσχύνη D yea op

VOUYTES.

c ΄σ \ \ / 3 ~ €
“ἡμῶν yao TO πολίτευμα ἐν οὐρανοῖς ὑπάρ-

> - = / ae
χει, ἐξ οὗ Kal σωτῆρα ἀπεκδεχόμεθα κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χρισ-

20. ἡμῶν δὲ τὸ πολίτευμα.

Comp. Hosea vii. 8 τὴν δόξαν αὐτῶν
els ἀτιμίαν θήσω.

οἱ τὰ ἐπίγεια κιτιλ] ‘Men whose
minds are set on earthly things!’ For
the abrupt nominative occurring with-
out any grammatical connexion and
expressing amazement, comp. Mark
xii. 38—40; see Winer § xxix. p. 196.

20. ἡμῶν yap x.t.A.| ‘Their souls
are mundane and grovelling. They
have no fellowship with ws; for we
are citizens of a heavenly common-
wealth’. The emphatic position of
ἡμῶν contrasts the false adherents of
St Paul with the true. About the con-
necting particle there is some difficulty.
While the earliest Mss all read yap, the
earliest citations (with several versions)
have persistently δέ. I have there-
fore given δὲ as a possible alternative;
although it is probably a substitution
for γάρ, of which the connexion was
not very obvious.

τὸ πολίτευμα] This may mean
either (1) ‘The state, the constitution,
to which as citizens we belong’, e.g.
Philo de Jos..ii. p. 51 M ἐγγραφῆς τῆς
ἐν τῷ μεγίστῳ καὶ ἀρίστῳ πολιτεύματι
τοῦδε τοῦ κόσμου, de Confus, i. Ῥ.
421 Μ ἐγγράφονται τῷ τῆς προτέρας
πολιτεύματι, 2 Mace. xii. 7 τὸ σύμπαν
τῶν ᾿Ιοππιτῶν πολίτευμα; or (2) ‘The
functions which as citizens we per-
form’, e.g. Demosth. de Cor. p. 262
πάντα τὰ τοιαῦτα προῃρούμην πολιτεύ-
ματα καιὰ., Lucian Prom. 15 ἐπὶ τῷ
πολιτεύματι τούτῳ, Tatian ad Gree.
19. The singular points to the former
meaning which is also more frequent.
In either case ἐξ οὗ ‘whence’ will refer
not to πολίτευμα, but to οὐρανοῖς. On
the metaphor see above i. 27. Compare
also Philo de Confus. i. Ὁ. 416 M πατρί-

4 , “ fe

da μὲν τὸν οὐράνιον χῶρον ἐν ᾧ πολιτεύ-
ονται ξένον δὲ τὸν περίγειον ἐν ᾧ παρῴ-
κησαν νομίζουσαι, Hpist. ad Diogn.
§ 5 ἐπὶ γῆς διατρίβουσιν ἀλλ᾽ ἐν οὐρανῷ
πολιτεύονται, Clem. Hom. i. 16 αὐτή σε
ἡ ἀλήθεια ξένον ὄντα τῆς ἰδίας πόλεως
καταστήσει πολίτην. 66 4180 Μ. Anton.
lil. 11 πολίτην ὄντα πόλεως τῆς ἀνωτάτης
ἧς αἱ λοιπαὶ πόλεις ὥσπερ οἰκίαι εἰσίν.
It was a favourite metaphor with the
Stoics, Clem. Alex. Strom. iv. 26 (p.
642 Potter) λέγουσι yap καὶ of Στωϊκοὶ
Tov μὲν οὐρανὸν κυρίως πόλιν τὰ δὲ ἐπὶ
γῆς ἐνταῦθα οὐκ ἔτι πόλεις, λέγεσθαι μὲν
γάρ, οὐκ εἶναι δέ κιτιλ.; 5660. below p.
303 sq. Somewhat similarly Plato says
of his ideal state (esp. ix. p. 592 B)
ἐν οὐρανῷ ἴσως παράδειγμα [THs πόλεως]
ἀνάκειται τῷ βουλομένῳ ὁρᾶν καὶ ὁρῶντι
ἑαυτὸν κατοικίζειν. But the reply of
Anaxagoras (Diog. Laert. ii. 7) to one
who reproached him with indifference
to his countrymen, εὐφήμει, ἐμοὶ yap
καὶ σφόδρα μέλει τῆς πατρίδος (δείξας
τὸν οὐρανόν), ought not to be quoted
in illustration, as it refers to his astro-
nomical studies.

ὑπάρχει] ‘is even now’, for the
kingdom of heaven is a present king-
dom; so Hphes. il. 19 οὐκέτι ἐστὲ
ξένοι καὶ πάροικοι ἀλλὰ ἐστὲ συνπο-
λῖται τῶν ἁγίων κιτιλ. (comp. ver. 6).

σωτῆρα ἀπεκδεχόμεθα)] ‘we eagerly
await as a saviour’. On ἀπεκδέ-
χεσθαι see Gal. v. 5, together with
the note on ἀποκαραδοκία above, i. 20.

21. μετασχηματίσει] ‘will change
the fashion’. For μετασχηματίσει and
σύμμορφον see the detached note on
μορφὴ and σχῆμα, p. 128.

τῆς ταπεινώσεως ἡμῶν] ‘af our hu-
miliation, i.e. the body which we
bear in our present low estate, which

el. 21, FV. 1]

EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

155

, δ A he As = > {7
TOV, “OS μετασχηματίσει TO TWMA τῆς ταπεινώσεως

΄σ a / => , 5 ΄σ δὴ \
ἡμῶν σύμμορφον TW σωματι τῆς δόξης αὐτου; KATA τῆν

Ἄν: ἢ = , > \ \ ε / ᾽ ~ \
EVEN YELAV TOU δύνασθαι QUTOV Και ὑποτάξαι AUT W Ta

σαντα.

is exposed to all the passions, suffer-
ings, and indignities of this life. The
English translation, ‘our vile body’,
seems to countenance the Stoic con-
tempt of the body, of which there is no
tinge in the original.
cvppoppor]| ‘so as to be conform-
able’, see Winer ὃ lix. p. 550, ὃ Ixvi.
p- 646. The words εἰς τὸ γενέσθαι
αὐτό, occurring before σύμμορφον in
the received text, must be struck out
as a gloss, though a correct one. This
transformation is described at greater
length and in other language, 1 Cor.
Ἔν 357 5°
᾿ τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ) i.e. with which
He is clothed in His glorified estate.
τὴν ἐνέργειαν tov δύνασθαι) ‘ The
exercise of the power which He pos-
sesses.” This expression involves the
common antithesis of δύναμις and ἐνέρ-
yeta; comp. Ephes. i. 19. ‘ Potentia
arbor, efficacia fructus,’ says Calvin.
καὶ ὑποτάξαι) ‘also to subject’; for
this power of subjugating the human
body is only one manifestation of the
universal sovereignty of Christ. On the
subjection of all things to the Son see
1 Cor. xv. 25—27. Fortra πάντα with
the article see the note above ver. 8.
αὐτῷ] Le. τῷ Χριστῷ, referring to
the subject of the principal verb, as
e.g. in Acts xxy. 21, Ephes. i. 4. In
such connexions the reflexive pronoun
ἑαυτοῦ would be required in Classical
Greek. In the later language however
we find αὐτοῦ ete. in place of ἑαυτοῦ
etc. in almost every case, except where
it stands as the direct object, the
immediate accusative of the verb. See
the excellent account of the usage of
αὐτὸς and ἑαυτοῦ in A. Buttmann
p. 97. In this passage there is not
sufficient authority for the reading
ἑαυτῷ. The forms αὑτοῦ, αὑτῷ, αὑτόν,

IV. ‘wore, ἀδελφοί μου ἀγαπητοὶ Kal ἐπι-

have no place in the Greek Testament,
as is clearly shown by A. Buttmann l.c.
Winer, § xxii. p. 164, speaks hesitat-
ingly.

IV. 1. ὥστε] ‘therefore’. ‘Bearing
these things in mind, living as citizens
of a heavenly polity, having this hope
of a coming Saviour.’

ἐπιπόθητοι] This adjective does not
occur elsewhere in the New Testament:
comp. Clem. Rom. 59, Appian. //isp.
43. The Apostle’s love finds expres-
sion in the accumulation and repeti-
tion of words. In the final ἀγαπητοὶ
he seems to linger over this theme, as
if unable to break away from it.

χαρὰ καὶ στέφανός pov] He uses
the same language in addressing the
other great Macedonian church, I
Thess. ii. 19. The word στέφανος ‘a
chaplet’ must be carefully distin-
guished from διάδημα ‘a regal or
priestly diadem’. To the references
given in Trench N.7. Syn. Ist ser.
§ xxiii. add. Is. lxii. 3 στέφανος κάλλους
«««καὶ διάδημα βασιλείας, Test. vii Patr.
Levi 8 ὁ ἕκτος στέφανόν μοι τῇ κεφαλῇ
περιέθηκεν, ὁ ἕβδομος διάδημα τῇ κε-
φαλῇ μοι ἱερατείας περιέθηκε, Diod. Sic.
ΧΧ. 54 διάδημα μὲν οὐκ ἔκρινεν ἔχειν,
ἐφόρει γὰρ ἀεὶ στέφανον. Thus the idea
conveyed by στέφανος is not dominion,
but either (1) victory, or (2) merri-
ment, as the wreath was worn equally
by the conqueror and by the holiday-
maker. Without excluding the latter
notion, the former seems to be promi-
nent in this and in the parallel pas-
sage; for there, as here, the Apostle
refers in the context to the Lord’s ©
coming. His converts will then be
his wreath of victory, for it will ap-
pear that he οὐκ eis κενὸν ἔδραμεν (il.
16), and he will receive the successful
athlete’s reward; comp. 1 Cor. ix. 25.

156

EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

[1V. 2,3

\ ld , e/ , >
πόθητοι, χαρὰ Kal. στεφανὸς μου, οὕτως στήκετε ἐν

/ δ᾽
κυρίῳ, ἀγαπητοίῖ.

na 7 ΄σ \
"Εὐοδίαν παρακαλῶ καὶ Συντύχην παρακαλῶ τὸ

3 \ ~ > /
αὐτο φρονεῖν ἐν κυρίῳ.

οὕτως στήκετε] ‘stand fast 80, as you
are guided by my precept and my ex-
ample, as becomes citizens of a hea-
venly kingdom.’ On στήκετε see the
notes, i. 27, Gal. v. I.

2. The Apostle at length returns
from his long digression (see the notes
on iii. 1, 2) to the subject of the dis-
sensions at Philippi. His injunctions
here take the form of a direct perso-
nal appeal to those chiefly at fault;
and two ladies especially are mention-
ed by name.

2, 3. ‘Lappeal to Huodia, and I ap-
peal to Syntyche, to give up their dif-
ferences and live at peace in the Lord.
Yes I ask you, my faithful and true
yokefellow, who are now by my side,
who will deliver this letter to the Phil-
ippians, to reconcile them again: for
I cannot forget how zealously they
seconded my efforts on behalf of the
Gospel. I invite Clement also, with
the rest of my fellow-labourers, whose
names are enrolled in the book of life,
the register of God’s faithful people,
to aid in this work of reconciliation.’

Evodiav x«.7.A.] Both these names
occur in the inscriptions: Euhodia or
Euodia for instance in Gruter p. 695.
4, p. 789. 5, Muratori p. 107. 9, p. 932.
5, Ῥ- 1161. 4, p. 1185. 7, p. 1340. ὃ,
p. 1362. 2, p. 1671. 3, 5 (comp. Tertull.
ad Scap. 4); Syntyche, Suntyche, or
Syntiche, in Gruter p. 890. 7, p. 987. 8,
Muratori, p. 857. 7, Ρ. 972. 5, Ρ. 1315.
17, p. 1569. 4, p. 1664. 4. The English
Version treats the first as a man’s
name ; and others have in like manner
interpreted the second. No instance
however of either ‘Kuodias’ or ‘Syn-
tyches’ has been found in the inscrip-
tions. The former indeed might be
considered a contraction of Euodianus
which occurs occasionally: but the

WD ΄σ \ Me f-
Spat ἐρωτώ Kal σέ, γνήσιε συν-

masculine form of the latter is Synty-
chus, a very rare name (Gruter p.
372. 5). But, though it were possible
to treat the words in themselves as
masculine, two female names are
clearly required here, as there is
nothing else in the sentence to which
αὐταῖς can be referred. Euodia and
Syntyche appear to have been ladies
of rank, or possibly (like Phoebe, Rom.
Xvi. 1) deaconesses in the Philippian
church. On the position of women in
Macedonia and on their prominence
in the history of the Gospel there, see
the introduction, p. 54 sq.

παρακαλῶ) St Paul repeats the word
as if, says Bengel, ‘coram adhortans
seorsum utramvis.’

3. vai] ‘yea, introducing an affec-
tionate appeal, as Philem. 20 vai, ἀδεὰλ-
φέ, ἐγώ σου ὀναίμην. The καὶ of the
received text must be considered a
misprint, or a miswriting of a few late
MSS.

ἐρωτῶ] “7 ask’; a late use of the
word which in the classical language
signifies not ‘rogo’ generally, but ‘in-
terrogo’ specially. In this late sense
of ‘requesting,’ ἐρωτῶ differs from ai-
τῶ, as ‘rogo’ from ‘peto’; the two
former being used towards an equal,
the two latter towards a superior; see
Trench NV. 7. Syn. 1st ser. § xl.

γνήσιε σύνζυγε] ‘true yoke-fellow,’
comp. Aisch. Ag. 842; so 2 Cor. vi. 14
ἑτεροζυγοῦντες. It is doubtful whom
the Apostle thus addresses. On the
whole however it seems most probable
that Epaphroditus, the bearer of the
letter, is intended ; for in his case
alone there would be no risk of making
the reference unintelligible by the sup-
pression of the name. Different com-
mentators have explained it of Barna-
bas, of Luke, of Silas, of Timotheus, of

IV. 4]

EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

157

«. , 5 ΄σ .« 5 ᾽ ΄σ > 7ὔ
ζυγε, συνλαμβανου αὐταῖς, αἵτινες ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ

7, 7, \ \ 7 ~~ "-
συνηθλησᾶν μοι, μετα καὶ Κλήμεντος καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν

΄- en x ’ ΄ > a
συνεργῶν μου, ὧν Ta ὀνόματα ἐν βίβλῳ ζωῆς.

4X ’ > / ΄ . ot 9 = ,
ALOETE εν KUpl@ TAVTOTE TTANLY ερω; χαιρετε.

the chief presbyter or bishop of Phil-
ippi. Others again have taken Svv-
(vyos itself as a proper name, explain-
ing γνήσιε ‘truly called’ The case
for this interpretation is well stated
by Laurent Weutest. Stud. p. 134. It
would be plausible, if Σύνζυγος occur-
red commonly, or occurred at all, in
the inscriptions. The passage would
then present a parallel to the play on
the name Onesimus in Philem. 11.
Less can be said in favour of another
expedient which makes Τνήσιος the
proper name. A very ancient inter-
pretation again (Clem. Alex. Strom.
iii. p. 535 Potter, Orig. om. i. p. 461
Delarue) takes ‘yokefellow’ to mean
St Paul’s wife; but the Apostle would
doubtless have written γνησία in this
case, and it seems clear moreover from
1 Cor. vii. 8. that he was either unmar-
ried or a widower. ‘The grammatical
objection applies equally to Renan’s
suggestion (St Paul p. 148) that Lydia
is meant. For γνήσιε comp. Ecclus. vii.
18, and see the note on γνησίως 1]. 20.

συνλαμβάνου, κ.τ.λ.} ‘assist them,
Euodia and Syntyche, since they la-
boured with me etc’? They may have
belonged to the company of women to
whom the Gospel was first preached
at Philippi, Acts xvi. 13 tats συνελθού-
cas γυναιξίν. For αἵτινες, ‘inasmuch
as they, comp. e.g. Acts x. 41, 47,
Rom. ii. 15, vi 2,etc. While ὃς simply
warks the individual, ὅστις places him
in a class, and thus calls attention to
certain characteristic features; hence
the meaning ‘quippe qui’ On the
distinction of os and ὅστις see the
notes on Gal. iv. 24, 26, v.19. The
rendering adopted by the English ver-
sion, ‘ Help those women who laboured
ete.’ is obviously incorrect, and would
require ἐκείναις at συνήθλησαν,

μετὰ καὶ Κλήμεντος xz7.d.] ‘with
Clement also. These words ought
perhaps to be connected rather with
συνλαμβάνου αὐταῖς than with συνηθλη-
σάν pot. The Apostle is anxious to
engage αὐ in the work of conciliation.

- On the Clement here meant see the

detached note p. 166. The καὶ before
Κλήμεντος seems to be retrospective
(referring to γνήσιε σύνζυγε) rather
than prospective (referring to καὶ τῶν
λοιπῶν συνεργῶν pov); as in John ii. 2.
For its position comp. Clem. Rom. § 59
σὺν καὶ Φορτουνάτῳ.

ὧν τὰ ὀνόματα K.T.r.| ‘whose names,
though not mentioned by the Apostle,
are nevertheless in the book of life.
The ‘book of life’ in the figurative
language of the Old Testament is the
register of the covenant people: comp.
Is. iv. 3 of γραφέντες εἰς ζωὴν ἐν ‘Iepou-
σαλήμ, Ezek. xili. 9 ἐν παιδείᾳ τοῦ λαοῦ
μου οὐκ ἔσονται οὐδὲ ἐν γραφῇ οἴκου
Ἰσραὴλ οὐ γραφήσονται. Hence ‘to
be blotted out of the book of the liv-
ing’ means ‘to forfeit the privileges
of the theocracy,’ ‘to be shut out from
God’s favour,’ Ps. lxix. 28; comp. Exod.
XXxii. 32. But the expression, though
perhaps confined originally to tempo-
ral blessings, was in itself ἃ witness
to higher hopes; and in the book of
Daniel first (xii. 1 sq.) it distinctly re-
fers to a blessed immortality. In the
Revelation τὸ βιβλίον τῆς ζωῆς is a
phrase of constant recurrence, ili. 5,
RUB, KV S, ΣΣ 12. lbs ab 27 ore
19; comp. Hermas Vis. i. 3. See also
Luke x. 20, Heb. xii. 23. It is clear
from the expression ‘blotting out of
the book’ (Rev. iii. 5), that the image
suggested no idea of absolute predes-
tination. For the use of the phrase
in rabbinical writers see Wetstein here.

4. χαίρετε] This word combines a

158

ὦ > \ > lA ΄σ ,
ὅτο ἐπιεικὲς ὑμῶν γνωσθήτω πᾶσιν ἀνθρωποις.
6 A ΄σ > ΙΝ \ > 4

μηδὲν μεριμνᾶτε, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν παντὶ τή Tpoo-

ριος ἐγγύς.

EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

[IV. 5—7

ς 7
O κυ-

Lon \ ων / 3 3 7, \ 3 ΄ ε a
" oT γτ'
εὐχῇ Kal TH δεήσει MET εἰ χαριστίιαᾶς τὰ αἰτήματα υμῶν

γνωριζέσθω πρὸς τὸν Θεόν.

parting benediction with an exhorta-
tion to cheerfulness. It is neither
‘farewell’ alone, nor ‘rejoice’ alone.
Compare for this same combination of
senses the dying words of the Greek
messenger χαίρετε kai χαίρομεν quoted
above on ii. 18; see the notes on ii. 18,
Te

πάλιν ἐρῶ] ‘again I will say’; for
ἐρῶ seems to be always a future in the
New ‘Testament as in Attic Greek.
Compare Alsch. Hum. 1014 χαίρετε,
χαίρετε δ᾽ αὖθις, ἐπανδιπλοίζω. See the
notes on i. 4.

5—7. ‘Let your gentle and for-
bearing spirit be recognised by all
men. The judgment is drawing near.
Entertain no anxious cares, but throw
them all upon God. By your prayer
and your supplication make your every
want known to Him. If you do this,
then the peace of God, far more effec-
tive than any forethought or contriv-
ance of man, will keep watch over
your hearts and your thoughts in
Christ Jesus.’

5. τὸ ἐπιεικὲς ὑμῶν] ‘your for-
bearance, the opposite to a spirit of
contention and self-seeking. The ἐπι-
εικὴς Stands in contrast to the ἀκριβο-
δίκαιος, as being satisfied with less
than his due, Arist. Zth. Nic. v. το.
The word is connected with ἄμαχος,
πᾶσαν ἐνδεικνύμενος πραύτητα (Tit. iii. 2,
comp. 1 Tim. iii. 3), with εἰρηνικός, ev-
πειθής, μεστὸς ἐλέους k.T-A. (James 11].
17), With χρηστός, πολυέλεος (Ps. Ιχχχν.
5), With ἀγαθός (‘kind’, τ Pet. ii 18),
with φιλάνθρωπος (2 Macc. ix. 27). This
quality of ἐπιείκεια was signally mani-
fested in our blessed Lord Himself
(σον τ

ὃ κύριος ἐγγύς] The nearness of
the Lord’s advent is assigned as a rea-
son for patient forbearance. So simi-

“kal ἡ εἰρήνη τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡ

larly in St James vy. 8, μακροθυμήσατε
καὶ ὑμεῖς...ὅτι ἡ παρουσία τοῦ κυρίου ἤγ-
γικεν «tA. The expression ὁ κύριος
ἐγγὺς is the Apostle’s watchword. In
I Cor. xvi. 22 an Aramaic equivalent is
given, Mapav ἀθά, whence we may infer
that it was a familiar form of mutual
recognition and warning in the early
Church. Compare Barnab. ὃ 21 ἐγγὺς
ἡ ἡμέρα ἐν ἣ συναπολεῖται πάντα τῷ πο-
νηρῷ, ἐγγὺς ὁ κύριος καὶ ὁ μισθὸς αὐτοῦ.
See also Luke xxi. 31, 1 Pet. iv. 7.
Thus we may paraphrase St Paul’s lan-
guage here: ‘ To what purpose is this
rivalry, this self-assertion? The end
is nigh, when you will have to re-
sign all. Bear with others now, that
God may bear with you then.’ On the
other hand a different interpretation
is suggested by such passages as Ps,
CXIX. 151 ἐγγὺς εἶ κύριε, exlv. 18 ἐγγὺς
κύριος πᾶσι τοῖς ἐπικαλουμένοις αὐτόν
(comp. xxxiv. 18), Clem. Rom. ὃ 21
ἴδωμεν πῶς ἐγγύς ἐστιν κιτιλ. (Comp.
Hermas Vis. ii. 3); but this is neither
so natural nor so appropriate here.

6. μηδὲν μεριμνᾶτε] ‘have no anxi-
eties’ ; for μέριμνα is anxious harassing
care. See Trench, On the Authorized
Version p. 13 sq. (on Matt. vi. 25):
and comp. 1 Pet. v. 7, where μέριμνα
is used of human anxieties, μέλει of
God’s providential care.

τῇ προσευχῇ κιτ.λ.] While προσευχὴ
is the general offering up of the wishes
and desires to God, δέησις implies spe-
cial petition for the supply of wants.
Thus προσευχὴ points to the frame of
mind in the petitioner, δέησις to the
act of solicitation. The two occur to-
gether also in Ephes. vi. 18, 1 Tim. ii. 1,
v. 5. In αἰτήματα again the several ob-

jects of δέησις are implied. More on the
distinction of these words may be seen
in Trench, NW. 7. Syn. 2nd ser. § 1.

IV. 8}

EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

159

e , rn , \ « ΄-
ὑπερέχουσα πάντα νοῦν φρουρήσει τὰς καρδίας ὑμῶν καὶ

\ 7 ε ΄σ > ἌΧ ἢ ΄-
τα νοήματα ὑμῶν ἐν Χριστῷ Ιησοῦ.

\ , > / © > Ἁ > ΄σ e/ ,

8To λοιπόν, ἀδελφοί, ὅσα ἐστὶν ἀληθῆ, ὅσα σεμνα,

ef / ef ε / « > .« sf sf

ὅσα δίκαια, ὅσα ayva, ὅσα προσφιλῆ, σα εὔφημα, εἰ

πρὸς τὸν Θεόν] ‘before God’, ‘to
Godward’, not simply τῷ Θεῷ.

μετ᾽ εὐχαριστίας] Since thankfulness
for past blessings is a necessary condi-
tion of acceptance in preferring new

‘petitions. Great stress is laid on the
duty of εὐχαριστία by St Paul; e.g.
Bam: 1,21, x1v.,6,2,Cor: 1s. 12,,4V2 15;
ix. 11, 12, Ephes. v. 20, Col. ii. 7, iii. 17,
1 Thess. v. 18,1 Tim.ii.1. All his own
letters addressed to churches, with the
sole exception of the Epistle to the
Galatians, commence with an em-
phatic thanksgiving. In this epistle
the injunction is in harmony with the
repeated exhortations to cheerfulness
(χαρά) which it contains; see the note
ΠῚ: 4.

7. Kat ἡ εἰρήνη «.t.d.] ‘then the
peace of God’; again an indirect allu-
sion to their dissensions. So too in
ver. 9 ὁ Θεὸς τῆς εἰρήνης. Compare 2
Thess. iii. 16 αὐτὸς δὲ ὁ κύριος τῆς εἰρή-
νης δώῃ ὑμῖν τὴν εἰρήνην κιτ.λ.

ὑπερέχουσα κ. τ. λ.}] ‘surpassing
every device or counsel’ of man, i.e.
which is far better, which produces
a higher satisfaction, than all puncti-
lious self-assertion, all anxious fore-
thought. This sense scems better
adapted to the context, than the mean-
ing frequently assigned to the words,
‘surpassing all intelligence, transcend-
ing all power of conception.’ In favour
of the latter however may be quoted
Ephes. iii. 20 τῷ δυναμένῳ ὑπὲρ πάντα
ποιῆσαι ὑπερεκπερισσοῦ ὧν αἰτούμεθα ἢ
νοοῦμεν.

φρουρήσει κιτ.λ.}] A verbal para-
dox, for φρουρεῖν is a warrior’s duty;
‘God’s peace shall stand sentry, shall
keep guard over your hearts.’ Compare
‘I Thess, iv. 11 φιλοτιμεῖσθαι ἡσυχάζειν
for a similar instance. The νοήματα
reside in and issue from the καρδίαι

(comp. 2 Cor. iii. 14, 15); for in the
Apostle’s language καρδία is the seat
of thought as well as of feeling.

8. Τὸ λοιπόν] ‘Finally? Again the -
Apostle attempts to conclude; see the
note on τὸ λοιπὸν ili. 1, and the intro-
duction, p. 68 sq.

ὅσα ἐστὶν ἀληθῆ κιτιλ.] Speaking
roughly, the words may be said to be
arranged in a descending scale. The
first four describe the character of the
actions themselves, the two former
adnOn, σεμνά, being absolute, the two
latter δίκαια, ἁγνά, relative; the fifth
and sixth προσφιλῆ, εὔφημα, point to
the moral approbation which they con-
ciliate; while the seventh and eighth
ἀρετή, ἔπαινος, in which the form of ex-
pression is changed (εἴτις for ὅσα), are
thrown in as an afterthought, that no
motive may be omitted.

ἀληθῆ] not ‘veracious’, but ‘true’
in the widest sense. So St Chryso-
stom, ταῦτα ὄντως ἀληθῆ ἡ ἀρετή, ψεῦδος
δὲ ἡ κακία. In like manner the most
comprehensive meaning must be given
to δίκαια ‘righteous’, not simply ‘just’),
and to dyva (‘pure, stainless’ not sim-
ply ‘chaste’): comp. Cic. Fin. iii. 4
‘Una virtus, unum istud, quod hones-
tum appellas, rectum, laudabile, de-
corum, erit enim notius quale sit, plu-
ribus notatum vocabulis idem decla-
rantibus’.

προσφιλῆ] ‘amiable, lovely’; see
Feclus. iv. 7, xx. 13. It does not oc-
cur elsewhere in the New Testament.
Comp. Cic. Lal. 28 ‘ Nihil est amabi-
lius virtute, nihil quod magis alliciat
ad diligendum,’

εὔφημα) not ‘well-spoken of, well-
reputed’, for the word seems never to
have this passive meaning; but with
its usual active sense, ‘/air-speaking,’
and so ‘winning, attractive” Com-

169

EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

[ΞΟ 70

’ \ \ of »} = , «“ \
τις ἀρετή και EL TLS ETALVOS, Ταυταὰ λογίζεσθε: 9a και
3 Ἢ \ \ ? \ > ?
ἐμαθετε και παρελάβετε καὶ YKOVOATE Kal εἴδετε εν
> / ΄σ , \ e \ ΄σ td ᾿
ἐμοι, ταυτα πρασσετε, καὶ O Geos τῆς εἰρήνης ἔσται

μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν.

\ , VA [2 »"" ,
™’Eyapny δὲ ἐν κυρίῳ μεγάλως, ὅτι ἤδη ποτὲ ἀνε-

pare Plut. Vit. Thes. 20 ἃ δὲ εὐφημό-
TATA τῶν μυθολογουμένων, Mor. 84 Dre
μὴν εὔφημον, Lucian Prom. 3 πρὸς τὸ
εὐφημότατον ἐξηγούμενος τὸ εἰρημένον,
i.e. putting the most favourable con-
struction on the account.

εἴ τις ἀρετή) St Paul seems studi-
ously to avoid this common heathen
term for moral excellence, for it occurs
in this passage only. Neither is it
found elsewhere in the New Testa-
ment, except in 1 Pet. ii. 9, 2 Pet. i.
3, 5, in all which passages it seems to
have some special sense. In the Old
Testament it always signifies ‘glory,
praise’ (asin 1 Pet. ii. 9); though in the
Apocrypha (e.g. Wisd. iv. 1) it has its
ordinary classical sense. Its force here
is doubtful. Some treat εἴ τις ἀρετή,
εἴ τις ἔπαινος, as comprehensive ex-
pressions, recapitulating the previous
subjects under two general heads, the
intrinsic character and the subjective
estimation. The strangeness of the
word however, combined with the
change of expression εἴ τις, will sug-
gest another explanation ; * Whatever
value may reside in your old heathen
conception of virtue, whatever consi-
deration is due to the praise of men’ ;
as if the Apostle were anxious not to
omit any possible ground of appeal.
Thus Beza’s remark on ἀρετὴ seems to
be just; ‘Verbum nimis huumile, si
cum donis Spiritus Sancti comparetur.’
With this single occurrence of ἀρετή,
compare the solitary use of τὸ θεῖον in
the address on the Areopagus, Acts
XVii. 29.

9. In the former verse the proper
subjects of meditation (λογίζεσθε) have

been enumerated ; in the present the |
proper line of action (πράσσετε) is in- -

dicated. The Philippians must obey

the Apostle’s precepts (ἃ ἐμάθετε καὶ
παρελάβετε) and follow his example (ἃ
ἠκούσατε kal εἴδετε ἐν ἐμοί).

καὶ ἐμάθετε κιτιλ.] The verbs should
probably be connected together in
pairs, so that the καὶ before ἐμάθετε is
answered by the καὶ before ἠκούσατε.
With ἐμάθετε καὶ παρελάβετε we may
understand παρ᾽ ἐμοῦ from the ἐν ἐμοὶ
of the next clause. The word παρελα-
Bere adds little to ἐμάθετε, except the
reference to the person communicat-
ing the instruction: comp. Plat. 7het.
p. 198 B παραλαμβάνοντα δὲ μανθάνειν.

ev ἐμοί] to be attached to ἠκούσατε,
as wellas to εἴδετε ; ‘heard when I was
away, and saw when I was with you’:
comp. i. 30 οἷον εἴδετε ἐν ἐμοὶ καὶ νῦν
ἀκούετε ἐν ἐμοί.

1o—19. ‘It was ἃ matter of great
and holy joy to me that after so long
an interval your care on my behalf
revived and flourished again. I do
not mean that you ever relaxed your
care, but the opportunity was want-
ing. Do not suppose, that in saying
this I am complaining of want; for I
have learnt to be content with my
lot, whatever it may be. I know how
to bear humiliation, and I know also
how to bear abundance. Under all cir-
cumstances and in every case, in plenty
and in hunger, in abundance and in
want, I have been initiated in the
never-failing mystery, I possess the
true secret of life. I can do and
bear all things in Christ who inspires
me with strength. But, though I am
thus indifferent to my own wants, I
commend you for your sympathy and
aid in my affliction. I need not re-
mind you, my Philippian friends ; you
yourselves will remember ; that in the
first days of the Gospel, when I left

EV; 11,/12]

EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

161

θάλετε TO ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ φρονεῖν: ἐφ᾽ ᾧ καὶ ἐφρονεῖτε, ἠκαι-

ρεῖσθε δέ.

oS 5 ie 2 \ 3 , tay

ἔμαθον ἐν ois εἰμὲ avTapKys εἶναι.
΄σ 3. \ 7

νοῦσθαι, οἶδα Kal περισσεύειν.

Macedonia, though I would not re-
ceive contributions of money from
any other Church, I made an excep-
tion in your case. Nay, even before
I left, when I was still at Thessalo-
nica, you sent more than once to sup-
ply my wants. Again I say, I do not
desire the gift, but I do desire that
the fruits of your benevolence should
redound to your account. For my-
self, I have now enough and more
than enough of all things. The pre-
sents which you sent by Epaphro-
ditus have fully supplied my needs.
I welcome them, as the sweet savour
of a burnt-offering, as a sacrifice ac-
cepted by and well-pleasing to God.
And I am confident that God on my
behalf will recompense you and sup-
ply all your wants with the prodigal
wealth which He only can command,
in the kingdom of His glory, in Christ
Jesus.’

10. «ἐχάρην δὲ κιτ.λ.] So Polycarp :

writing to these same Philippians be-
gins (δ 1) συνεχάρην ὑμῖν μεγάλως ἐν
κυρίῳ ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ κιτιλ. The de
arrests a subject which is in danger of
escaping: see Gal. iv. 20. It is asif
the Apostle said: ‘I must not forget
-to thank you for your gift.’

ἤδη ποτὲ aveOadere κ.τ.λ.}] ‘at
length ye revived your interest in
me. For ἤδη ποτέ ‘at length’ (not
necessarily referring to present time)
see Rom. i. 10, with the passages
quoted in illustration by Kypke. For
this construction of ἀναθάλλειν, ‘to
put forth new shoots, with an accu-
sative of the thing germinated, com-
pare Ezek. xvii. 24 (ξύλον ξηρόν),
Ecclus. i. 18 (εἰρηνην, ὑγίειαν), Xi. 22
(εὐλογίαν), 1. 10 (καρπούς). As the
two expressions ἤδη ποτὲ and ἀνεθά-

PHIL.

II ᾽ « θ᾽ € A λέ Α ᾽ SY \
οὐχ OTL KaU ὑὕστερήησιν AEYyw εγὼ yap

8. \
τὰ οἰδα καὶ ταπει-
> \ \ =~
ἐν παντὶ Kal ἐν πάσιν

λετε combined might seem to convey
a rebuke, the Apostle hastens to re-
move the impression by the words
which follow, ἐφ᾽ ᾧ καὶ ἐφρονεῖτε and
οὐχ ὅτι καθ᾽ ὑστέρησιν λέγω.

ἐφ᾽ ᾧ κιτλ.] ‘in which ye did in-
deed interest yourselves” The ante-
cedent to 6 is ‘my wants, my inter-
ests, being involved in, though not
identical with, ro ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ φρονεῖν.
Such grammatical irregularities are
characteristic of St Paul’s style: com-
pare for instance ii. 5. To obviate
the fancied difficulty, it has been pro-
posed to explain the previous clause
[ὥστε] φρονεῖν τὸ ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ, in which
case τὸ ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ would form a strict
antecedent to 6. But the separation
οἵ τὸ ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ from φρονεῖν is harsh
and unnatural.

ἠκαιρεῖσθε] ‘ye had no opportu-
nity’; alate and rare word. The ac-
tive ἀκαιρεῖν is found in Diod. Sic.
Exe. p. 30 (Mai).

11. οὐχ ore] ‘It is not that I speak,
etc’ For οὐχ ὅτι comp. iii. 12, iv. 17:
see A. Buttmann p. 319. For καθ᾽
ὑστέρησιν, ‘in language dictated by
want,’ comp. Rom. x. 2 κατ᾽ ἐπίγνωσιν,
Acts iii. 17 κατὰ ἄγνοιαν, etc.: see
Winer § xlix. p. 421.

ev οἷς εἰμὶ κιτ.λ.1 Sin the position
in which I am placed. The idea of
αὐτάρκεια is ‘independence of external
circumstances.’ Compare 2 Cor. ix.
ὃ ἐν παντὶ πάντοτε πᾶσαν αὐτάρκειαν
ἔχοντες, I Tim. vi. 6. Socrates, when
asked ‘Who was the wealthiest, re-
plied, ‘He that is content with least,
for αὐτάρκεια is nature’s wealth’ (Stob.
Flor. ν. 43). The Stoies especially laid
great stress on this virtue: see Senec.
Ep. Mor. 9 (passim). So M. Anton. i.
16 τὸ αὔταρκες ἐν παντί, Where also an-

162 EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

[LV. 13,14

i \ , \ ~ \ if
μέμνημαι, και χορτάζεσθαι και σεινὰν. και περισσευειν

Ξ , > Υ > AS = ,

kal ὑστερεῖσθαι. "ἧπάντα ἰσχύω ἐν τῷ ἐνδυναμοῦντί με.
\ ΄σ > If 4 , - /

τά πλὴν καλῶς ἐποιήσατε συνκοινωνήσαντες μου TH θλι-

other phrase found in St Paul (2 Tim.
iv. 5) occurs in the context, νῆφον ev
πᾶσι. See the notes on πολίτευμα iii.
20, and on ἀπέχειν iv. 18, and the dis-
sertation on ‘St Paul and Seneca.’

12. καὶ ταπεινοῦσθαι] This clause
seems to be shaped in anticipation of
the καὶ περισσεύειν which follows, so
that the one καὶ would answer the
other, ‘both to be abased and to
abound’; but the connexion is after-
wards interrupted by the repetition
of οἶδα for the sake of emphasis. So
too perhaps I Cor. xv. 29, 30 τί καὶ
βαπτίζονται...τί καὶ ἡμεῖς KT.-A.; COMP.
Rom. i. 13.

ἐν παντὶ καὶ ἐν πᾶσιν] A general
expression corresponding to the Eng-
lish ‘all and every’; ἐν παντὶ ‘in
every case’ singly, ἐν πᾶσιν ‘in all
cases’ collectively: comp. 2 Cor. xi. 6
ἐν παντὶ φανερώσαντες ἐν πᾶσιν εἰς ὑμᾶς.

μεμύημαι) ‘I have been initiated,
I possess the secret, as Plut. Mor. p.
795 ΒΕ τὰ μὲν πρῶτα μανθάνων ἔτι πο-
λιτεύεσθαι καὶ μυούμενος, τὰ δὲ ἔσχατα
διδάσκων καὶ μυσταγωγῶν, Alciphr.
Epist. ii. 4 πρωρατεύειν μυηθήσομαι.
The same metaphor is employed by
St Paul in μυστήρια applied to reveal-
ed truths, and perhaps also in odpa-
γίζεσθαι (Eph. 1. 13). The writer of
the Ignatian Epistles addresses the
Ephesians (ὃ 12) as Παύλου συμμύσται
τοῦ ἡγιασμένου, thus taking up the
Apostle’s own metaphor.

χορτάζεσθαι)] The word χορτάζειν,
properly ‘to give fodder to animals,’
is in the first instance only applied to
men as a depreciatory term, e.g,
Plat. Resp. ix. p. 586 βοσκημάτων
δίκην...χορταζόμενοι. Hence the ear-
lier examples of this application are
found chiefly in the Comic poets, as
in the passages quoted by Athenzeus,
iii. p. 99 sq., where the word is dis-

cussed. In the later language how-
ever χορτάζεσθαι lias lost the sense of
caricature, and become a serious equi-
valent to κορέννυσθαι, being applied
commonly to men and directly opposed
to πεινᾶν, e.g. Matt. v. 6. On χορ-
τάζειν see Sturz de Dial. Mac. p. 200.
A parallel instance of a word casting
off all mean associations in the later
language is Ψψωμίξζειν, 1 Cor. ΧΙ]. 3.
πεινᾶν] On this form see A. Butt-
mann p. 38, Lobeck PAryn. p. 61.

13. τῷ ἐνδυναμοῦντί με] ‘in Him
that infuses strength into me, i.e.
Christ: comp. 1 Tim. i. 12. The word
oecurs several times in St Paul.

14. πλήν] ‘nevertheless, though I
could have dispensed with your con-
tributions.’

συνκοινωνήσαντες x.T.A.| Le. ‘by
making common cause with my afilic-
tion, by your readiness to share
the burden of my troubles.” It was
not the actual pecuniary relief, so
much as the sympathy and compa-
nionship in his sorrow, that the Apo-
stle valued. On the construction of
κοινωνεῖν see the note on Gal. vi. 6.

15. The object of this allusion
seems to be not so much to stimulate
them by recalling their former zeal
in contributing to his needs, as to
show his willingness to receive such
contributions at their hands. ‘Do
not mistake my meaning,’ he seems to
say, ‘do not imagine that I receive
your gifts coldly, that I consider them
intrusive. You yourselves will recol-
lect that, though it was my rule not
to receive such contributions, I made
an exception in your case.’

καὶ ὑμεῖς] ‘ye too, ye yourselves,
without my reminding you’: comp. 1
Thess, ii. 1 αὐτοὶ yap οἴδατε, ἀδελφοί.

Φιλιππήσιοι] Stephanus Byzant. says,
‘O πολίτης Φιλιππεύς, Φιλιππηνὸς δὲ

——

Pe ee ee ee ὅν ἀκ.

ΤΡ 1]

EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

163

15 » \ δος ΄- ῇ « > ᾽ a =
Wer. "οἴδατε δὲ kal ὑμεῖς, Φιλιππήσιοι, ὅτι ἐν ἀρχῆ TOU
.« ΄- 5 \ 7 > ς
εὐαγγελίου, ὅτε ἐξῆλθον ἀπὸ Μακεδονίας, οὐδεμία μοι
> i > / 5) , i? \ ,
ἐκκλησία ἐκοινώνησεν εἰς λόγον δόσεως καὶ λήμψεως,

παρὰ Πολυβίῳ. The passage of Poly-
bius to which he refers is not extant.
Though Stephanus does not mention
the form Φιλιππήσιος, it occurs in the
heading of Polycarp’s letter (Lren. iil.
3. 4) as well as of this epistle. Φιλιπ-
πεὺς is found three times in a Beeotian
inscription in Keil p. 172 (see Dindorf’s
Steph. Thes. 8. V.).

ἐν ἀρχῇ Tod εὐαγγελίου] ‘in the ear-
liest days of the Gospel, especially in
reference to Macedonia. Similarly,
writing to the Thessalonians soon
after his first visit, St Paul says (2
Thess. ii. 13) εἵλατο ὑμᾶς 6 Θεὸς ἀπαρ-
χὴν (v. 1. ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς) εἰς σωτηρίαν. The
expression occurs in Clem. Rom. ὃ 47
τί πρῶτον ὑμῖν ἐν ἀρχῇ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου
ἔγραψεν, and possibly this is the mean-
ing of Polycarp § 11 ‘qui estis in
principio epistolz ejus’: see above,
p. 139, note 3.

ὅτε ἐξῆλθον ἀπὸ Μακεδονίας] ‘when
I departed from Macedonia’ may
mean either (1) ‘at the moment of
my departure,’ or (2) ‘after my de-
parture’ This latter meaning is jus-
tified by the pluperfect sense which
the aorist frequently has (see Winer,
§ xl. p. 290); though in fact this is
no peculiarity of Greek, but a loose-
ness of expression common to all lan-
guages. If this meaning be adopted,
the allusion is explained by the con-
tributions sent from Macedonia to
Corinth (2 Cor. xi. 8, 9). If on the
other hand the former sense were
rigorously pressed (though this is un-
reasonable), contributions might well
have been conveyed to him through
‘the brethren’ who escorted him from
Macedonia to Athens, Acts xvii. 14,
15. The ‘undesigned coincidence’ be-
tween the history and the epistles in
the matter of these contributions is
well put by Paley (4Zor. Paw. vii.no. 1).

eis λόγον κιτ.λ.] ‘as regards’ ; liter-
ally ‘to the account or score of’;
comp. Thue. iii. 46 ἐς χρημάτων λόγον
ἰσχυούσαις, Demosth. &. L. p. 385 εἰς
ἀρετῆς λόγον καὶ δόξης ἣν οὗτοι χρημά-
των ἀπέδοντο, Polyb. xi. 28. ὃ εἰς ἀργυ-
ρίου λόγον ἀδικεῖσθαι. In the passages
quoted, as here, the original applica-
tion to a money transaction is kept
more or less distinctly in view; but
this is not always the case, e.g. Polyb.
v. 89. 6 ξύλα εἰς σφηκίσκων λόγον.
With the expression here compare
Cic. Lael. 16 ‘ratio acceptorum et da-
torum.’

δόσεως καὶ λήμψεως]) ‘giving and
taking, ‘credit and debit,’ a general
expression for pecuniary transactions,
derived from the two sides of the
ledger: see Ecclus. xlii. 7 καὶ δόσις καὶ
λῆμψις παντὶ ἐν γραφῇ; xli. 19 ἀπὸ oKo-
ρακισμοῦ λήμψεως καὶ δόσεως, Arrian.
Epict. ii. 9 τὸν φιλάργυρον [ἐπαύξου-
σιν] at ἀκατάλληλοι λήψεις καὶ δόσεις,
Hermas Mand. v. 2 περὶ δόσεως ἢ λή-
Ψψεως ἢ περὶ τοιούτων μωρῶν πραγμάτων.
The phrase refers solely to the pass-
ing of money between the two. The
explanation given by St Chrysostom
and followed by many later writers,
εἰς λόγον δόσεως τῶν σαρκικῶν καὶ
λήψεως τῶν πνευματικῶν (the Philip-
pians paying worldly goods and re-
ceiving spiritual), is plainly inappropri-
ate; for the intermingling of different
things destroys the whole force of the
clause εἰς λόγον δόσεως καὶ λήμψεως,
which is added to define the kind of
contributions intended.

ei μὴ ὑμεῖς μόνοι] So, speaking of
this same period, he asks the Corinth-
ians whether he did them a wrong
in taking no contributions from them
and preaching the Gospel to them
gratuitously (2 Cor. xi 7). The limit-
ation ἐν ἀρχῇ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου perhaps

ἘΠΕ ὦ

164 EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. [IV. 16—19

? λ € ~ tf τό °/ \ ’ / \ «
εἰ μὴ ὑμεῖς μόνοι, * OTL καὶ ἐν Θεσσαλονίκη Kat ἅπαξ
L
\ Νὴ > \ / > / ε >
καὶ δὶς [ets] THY χρείαν por ἐπέμψατε. "οὐχ ὅτι ἐπι-
΄σ 4 ᾿ 2 \ > ΄' \ \ \
(Tw TO δόμα, αλλα ἐπιζητῶ τον καρπον τον πλεο-

/ 3 / ε > Q
νάζοντα εἰς λόγον ὑμῶν.

‘TEN δὲ πάντα Kal περισ-

4 \ \
σεύω, πεπλήρωμαι δεξάμενος παρὰ Ἐπαφροδίτου τὰ
παρ᾽ ὑμῶν, ὀσμὴν εὐωδίας, θυσίαν δεκτὴν εὐάρεστον τῷ

Θεῴ.

- \ / , Ξ Pos
96 δὲ Θεὸς pou πληρώσει πᾶσαν χρείαν ὑμῶν

Ν \ lo ’ ~ 5 / 3 ΄σ ΄σ
κατα τὸ πλοῦτος αὐτοὺ ἐν δοξη ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿ἸΙησοῦ.

implies that he relaxed his rule later,
when he became better known and
understood.

16. ὅτι καὶ κι-τ.λ.] ‘for not only
did you contribute to my wants after
my departure from Macedonia, but
also in Thessalonica, before [ left ete.
So St Paul himself reminds the Thes-
salonians (1 Thess. ii. 5, 2 Thess. iii. 8)
that he did not burden them at all.
At the same time it appears from
those passages, that his bodily wants
were supplied mainly by the labours
of his own hands. Thus it would seem
that the gifts of the Philippians were
only occasional, and the same may be
gathered from the words καὶ ἅπαξ καὶ
dis here. On the abbreviated expres-
sion ἐν Θεσσαλονίκη ‘when I was in
Thessalonica’ see Winer § 1. p. 433;
comp. below, ver. 19.

καὶ ἅπαξ καὶ dis] ‘more than once’:
comp. 1 Thess. ii. 18. The double καὶ
is common in such cases, e.g. καὶ dis
καὶ τρίς, Plat. Phed. p. 63 D.

eis τὴν χρείαν] ‘to relieve my want’,
the preposition indicating the object ;
see Winer ὃ xlix.p.415. The omission
of εἰς in some old copies is probably
due to the similar ending of the pre-
ceding word. Otherwise the reading
might claim to be adopted, though in
this sense the plural τὰς χρείας would
be more natural.

17. Again the Apostle’s nervous
anxiety to clear himself interposes.

By thus enlarging on the past liber- ©

ality of the Philippians, he might be

thought to covet their gifts. This
possible misapprehension he at once
corrects.

οὐχ ὅτι ἐπιζητῶ] For οὐχ ὅτι see
the notes on ver. 11 and on ili. 12;
for the indirectly intensive force of the
preposition in ἐπιζητῶ, the note on
ἐπιποθῶ i. 8. The repetition of ἐπε-
ζητῶ is emphatic; ‘I do not want
the gift, I do want the fruit ete.’
Compare the repetition of παρακαλῶ
ver. 2, and of οἶδα ver. 12.

τὸν καρπὸν x.T.A.| ‘i.e. the recom-
pense which is placed to your account
and increases with each fresh demon-
stration of your love.’

18. ἀπέχω xt.A.] “7 have all
things to the full, as Matt. vi. 2, 5,
16, Luke vi. 24. For the phrase az-
έχειν πάντα compare Arrian. “pict. iii.
2.15 ἀπέχεις ἅπαντα, ili. 24. 17 τὸ γὰρ
εὐδαιμονοῦν ἀπέχειν δεῖ πάντα ἃ θέλει
πεπληρωμένῳ τινὶ ἐοικνέαι : comp. Diog.
Laert. vii. 100 καλὸν δὲ λέγουσι τὸ
τέλειον ἀγαθὸν παρὰ τὸ πάντας ἀπέχειν
τοὺς ἐπιζητουμένους ἀριθμοὺς ὑπὸ τῆς
φύσεως κιτ.λ. See also Gataker on
M. Anton. iv. 49. Like αὐτάρκεια, it
seems to have been a favourite Stoie
word: see the note on ver. 11. As in
ἀπολαμβάνειν (see Gal. iv. 5), the idea of
ἀπό in this compound is correspond-
ence i.e.of the contents to the capacity,
of the possession to the desire, etc., so
that it denotes the /w// complement.
The following word περισσεύω ex-
presses an advance on ἀπέχω ; ‘not
only full, but overflowing.’ .

IV. 20—23]

EPISTLE FO THE PHILIPPIANS.

165

΄“ δ > \ \ -~ , 3 \ IA a
rw δὲ Θεῷ Kal πατρὶ ἡμῶν ἡ δόξα εἰς TOUS αἰῶνας τῶν

5 ν το iedZ
ALWVYWV, ἀμῆν.-

᾽ / J ΄σ ΄

"Ἰ Ἀσπάσασθε παντα ἅγιον ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ.

, ec ΄σ ε \ > \ > “
σπαζονται ὑμᾶς οἱ σὺν ἐμοὶ ἀδελφοί.

5
a-

/
55 ἀσπάζονται

ε lo , ε «“ ΄ \ ε > ΄ Ii
ὑμᾶς TAVTES OL ἅγιοι, μαλιστα δὲ οἱ ἐκ τῆς Καίσαρος

οἰκίας.
3 χαρις τοῦ κυρίου

πνεύματος ὑμῶν. [ἀμήν.]

παρὰ ᾿Ἐπαφροδίτου κιτ.λ.] ‘at the
hands of Epaphroditus the gifts trans-
mitted from you’ On the preposi-
tion παρὰ see the note Gal. 1. 12.

ὀσμὴν εὐωδίας) a very frequent ex-
pression in the Lxx for the smell of
sacrifices and offerings, being a ren-
dering of nn’3 mn (e.g. Gen. viii. 21,
Exod. xxix. 18, ete.). St Paul employs
it as a metaphor likewise in Ephes. τ.
2 comp. 2) Cor, i. 15, 16. So too
Test. ati Patr. Levi 3 προσφέρουσι
κυρίῳ ὀσμὴν εὐωδίας λογικὴν καὶ θυσίαν
> ,
αναιμακτον.

θυσίαν δεκτὴν κιτιλ So Rom. xii. 1
παραστῆσαι τὰ σώματα ὑμῶν θυσίαν
ζῶσαν ἁγίαν εὐάρεστον τῷ Θεῷ κιτιλ.
comp. I Pet. ii. 5, Heb. xiii. 16. The
expression εὐάρεστος τῷ Θεῷ occurs
Wisd. iv. 10 (comp. Clem. Rom. 49,
Ign. Smyrn. 8), 2nd εὐαρεστεῖν τῷ Θεῷ
is common in the Lxx.

19. ὁ Θεός μου] ‘my God’: comp.
i. 3. The pronoun is especially ex-
pressive here: ‘You have supplied all
my wants (vy. 16, 18), God on my
behalf shall supply all yours.’

ev δόξῃ] These words show that
the needs here contemplated are
not merely temporary. Πληρώσει ἐν
δόξῃ seems to be a pregnant phrase,
signifying (ghall supply by placing you
in glory’ ¢eomp. ver. 16 ἐν Θεσσαλονίκῃ.
This is still further explained by ἐν
Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ, ‘through your union
with, incorporation in, Christ Jesus.’

2 a va \ a
Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ μετὰ τοῦ

20. ἡ δόξα. See the notes δ]. 1. 5.

ἡμῶν] It is no longer pov, for the
reference is not now to himself as dis-
tinguished from the Philippians, but
as united with them.

21. ἐν Χριστῷ “Incod] probably to
be taken with ἀσπάσασθε; comp. Rom.
XVI. 22, 1 Cor, xvi, 16.

οἱ σὺν ἐμοὶ ἀδελφοί] Apparently
the Apostle’s personal companions
and fellow-travellers are meant, as
distinguished from the Christians re-
sident in Rome who are described in
the following verse: see the note on
Gal. 1. 2. On St Paul’s companions
during or about this time see the in-
troduction p. 11.

22. πάντες οἱ ἅγιοι] All the Chris-
tians in Rome, not his personal at-
tendants only.

οἱ ἐκ τῆς Καίσαρος οἰκίας] ‘ The
members of Cosar’s household, pro-
bably slaves and freedmen attached
to the palace: see the detached note
p. 169, and the introduction pp. 14, 19.
The expression οἰκία Καίσαρος corre-
sponds to ‘familia’ or ‘domus Ceesaris’
(Tac. Hist. ii. 92) and might include
equally the highest functionaries and
the lowest menials. Compare Philo
Flace. p. 522 Μ εἰ δὴ μὴ βασιλεὺς ἦν
ἀλλά τις τῶν ἐκ τῆς Καίσαρος οἰκίας,
οὐκ ὥφειλε προνομίαν τινὰ καὶ τιμὴν
ἔχειν; Hippol. Her. ix. 12 οἰκέτης
ἐτύγχανε Καρποφόρου τινὸς ἀνδρὸς
πιστοῦ ὄντος ἐκ τῆς Καίσαρος οἰκίας.

Identical
with Cle-
ment of
Rome?

Authori-
ties for the
identifica-
tion.

Difficulties
of place

and date.

166 EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

‘Clement ny fellow-labourer.

E have seen the Christians of Philippi honourably associated with

two Apostolic Fathers, Ignatius and Polycarp!. But were they even
more intimately connected with the third name of the triad? Is there
sufficient ground for identifying Clement St Paul's fellow-labourer, saluted
in this Epistle, with Clement the writer of the letter to the Corinthians,
the early bishop of Rome, the central figure in the Church of the succeed-
ing generation ?

Of the Roman bishop Irenzus says, that he ‘had seen the blessed
Apostles and conversed with them and had the preaching of the Apo- _
stles still ringing in his ears and their tradition before his eyes2’ From
his silence about St Paul it may perhaps be inferred that he did not
see any direct mention of the Roman Clement in the epistles of this
Apostle. Origen however very distinctly identifies the author of the Corin-
thian letter with the person saluted in the Epistle to the Philippians 8,
And, starting from Origen, this view was transmitted through Eusebius
to later writers. Nor does the supposition do any violence to character.
The epistle of the Roman Clement was written to heal a feud in a dis-
tant but friendly Church: and in like manner St Paul’s fellow-labourer
is here invoked to aid in a work of reconciliation.

Nevertheless the notices of place and time are opposed to the identi-
fication of the two. For (1) the author of the letter to Corinth was a
leading member of the Roman Church, while St Paul’s fellow-labourer
seems clearly to be represented as resident at Philippi. _And again (2)
the date interposes a serious though not insuperable difficulty. Historical
evidence® and internal probability® alike point to the later years of Do-
mitian (about A.D. 96), as the time when the Epistle of Clement was
written. If Eusebius is correct, the author died soon after, in the
third year of Trajan, 4.p. 1007. But in the list of the early bishops of
Rome, where even the order is uncertain, the dates may fairly be con-
sidered conjectural or capricious; and there is some ground for supposing
that he may have lived even longer than this. If the received chronology
be only approximately true, the Shepherd of Hermas can hardly have
been written much earlier than a.p. 140°. Yet the author there represents

1 See the introduction, p. 61 sq. ° Hegesippus in Euseb. H.E. iii. 16;

J besa Tab 63, 2h comp. iv. 22.

3 In Joann. i. 29 (Iv. p. 153, Dela- 5 See St Clement of Rome p. 4, with
rue). the references.

4 Wuseb. H.E. iii. 4, 15, Epiphan. 7 Kuseb, H.£. iii. 34. The date in the
Her. xxvii. 6 (where however by aslip Chronicon of the same writer is 4.. 95.
of memory the Epistle to the Romans is 8 The statements in the text are

mentioned), Hieron. Vir. Ill. 15, adv. founded on two data; (1) The assertion
Jovin. 1.11; comp. Apost. Const. vi. 8. in the Muratorian Fragment (West-

EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 167

himself as commissioned by the angel to deliver the book to Clement}. Notice in
It is true we may place the imaginary date of the vision many years the Shep-
before the actual writing and publication of the Shepherd: yet even then it of
the difficulty does not altogether vanish; for the author describes him- re
self as a married man with a family of children grown or growing up?

at the time when Clement is living. On these grounds it would appear

that we cannot well place the death of Clement earlier than Α.Ρ. 110,

i.e. nearly 50 years after the date of the Epistle to the Philippians. And

it is not likely, though far from impossible, that St Paul’s fellow-labourer

should still be living and active after the lapse of half a century.

Another objection also has been urged against the identity. Early Connexion
tradition almost uniformly represents St Clement of Rome as a disciple With St
not of St Paul but of St Peter®, On this however I cannot lay any ἐῶ τ
stress. The tradition may be traced to the influence of the Clementine
Homilies and Recognitions: and it belongs to the general plan of these
Judaic writings to transfer to St Peter, as the true Apostle of the Gen-
tiles, the companionships and achievements of St Paul’, On the other
hand St Clement’s letter itself, though it shows a knowledge of the First
Epistle of St Peter, bears yet stronger traces of St Paul’s influence. It
is at least possible that St Clement knew both Apostles, as he quotes the
writings of both and mentions both by name’.

All these difficulties however might be set aside, if Clement were a Clement a
rare name. But this is far from being the case. Lipsius enumerates common
five Clements mentioned by Tacitus alone’: and extant inscriptions would 72™¢-
supply still more convincing proofs of its frequency. Though common
enough before, its popularity’ was doubtless much increased under the
Flavian dynasty, when it was borne by members of the reigning house.

A strange destiny has pursued the name of Clement of Rome. The Recent
romance of story, which gathered about it in the earliest ages of the ctiticism.
Church, has been even surpassed by the romance of criticism of which

cott Canon p. 480, 2nd ed.), ‘Pastorem from both. Hermas may have written

vero nuperrime temporibus nostris in
urbe Roma Hermas conscripsit, sedente
cathedra urbis Rome ecclesie Pio epi-
scopo fratre ejus’; (z) The received date
of the episcopate of Pius (A.D. 142—157,
Euseb. H.E. 111. 15, 34; A.D. 138—152,
Euseb. Chron.). But onthe other hand
it must be said (1) That as the Murato-
rian Fragment is obviously a transla-
tion from the Greek, we cannot feel
_any certainty that the original stated
the book to have been written dwring
the episcopate of Pius, though the Latin
sedente seems to imply this; AG (2) That
no confidence can be placedi in the dates
of the early Roman bishops; for while
Eusebius himself has two different lists,
the catalogues of other writers differ

before his brother’s episcopate, or Pius
may have become bishop at an earlier
date than Eusebius supposes. If either
or both these suppositions be true, the
interval between the death of Clement
and the writing of the Shepherd may be
considerably diminished, and the chro-
nological difficulty which I have sug-
gested in the text vanishes.

1 Hermas Vis. 11. 4.

mAs Mal ΩΣ ΤΊ 3 2

3 See especially Tertull. Preser.
Her. 32, Origen Philoc. 22: and con-
sult Lipsius de Clem. Rom. p. 172 sq.

4+ See Galatians p. 315 84.

ὅ Clem. Rom. § 5. See Galatians,
PP- 323, 341.

δ Lipsius, p. 768.

Baur’s
theory.

Schwegler.

Volkmar.

168 EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

it has been the subject in these latest days. Its occurrence in the Epistle
to the Philippians has been made the signal for an attack on the genuine-
ness of this letter. The theory of Baur'is as follows. The conversion
of Flavius Clemens, the kinsman of Domitian, is the sole foundation in
fact, upon which the story of Clement the Roman bishop has been built”.
The writer of the Clementine Homilies, an adherent of the Petrine or
Jewish party in the Church, bent on doing honour to his favourite Apo-
stle, represents Clement as the disciple or successor of St Peter. In order
to do this, he is obliged to throw the date of Clement farther back and
thus to represent him as the kinsman not of Domitian, but of Tiberius. The
forger of the Philippian Epistle writes at a later date when this fiction

has been generally received as an accredited fact. Though himself a.

Pauline Christian, he is anxious to conciliate the Petrine faction and for
this purpose represents this imaginary but now all-famous disciple of St
Peter, as a fellow-labourer of St Paul. The whole epistle in fact is written
up to this mention of Clement. The przetorium, the household of Ceesar,
are both introduced to give an air of probability to the notice. In this
criticism, unsubstantial as it is, one element of truth may be recognised.
The Roman Clement, as he appears in his extant letter and as he may be
discerned through the dim traditions of antiquity, isa man of large sym-
pathies and comprehensive views, if not a successful reconciler, at all events
a fit mediator between the extreme parties in the Church. The theory
itself it will not be necessary to discuss seriously. The enormous diffi-
culties which it involves will be apparent at once. But it may be worth
while to call attention to the hollow basis on which it rests. Baur omits
to notice that the Clement here mentioned appears as resident at
Philippi and not at Rome: though on this point the supposed forger
would have been scrupulously exact, as supplying the key to his whole mean-
ing. To these speculations Schwegler®, following up ‘a hint thrown ont
by Baur, adds his own contribution. Euodia and Syntyche, he maintains,
are not two women but two parties in the Church, the ‘true yoke-
fellow’ being none other than St Peter himself. Were they the names of
historical persons, he writes, it would give the passage ‘an extremely
strange character. It may be inferred from this that he considers his
own interpretation entirely simple and natural. Schwegler however stops
short of explaining why the one party is called Euodia and the other
Syntyche. It is left to a later and bolder critic to supply the deficiency.
Volkmar! finds the solution in the Apostolic Constitutions, where it is
stated that Euodius was made bishop of Antioch by St Peter and Ignatius
by St Paul’. As Huodius is the Petrine bishop, so Euodia will represent
the Petrine party. The names, he supposes, are adopted with a view to
their significance. Huodia, ‘taking the right path,’ is a synonyme for ortho-
doxy, and therefore aptly describes the Jewish community: while Syntyche,

1 Paulus, Ὁ. 469 sq. Clemens as a proselyte to Judaism. His
2 See above, p. 22. ἡ own speculations are equally extrava-
3 Nachapost. Zeit. τι. p. 135. gant: Gesch. der Juden iv. Ὁ. 435

4 Theolog. Jahrb. xv. p. 311 sq. (ed. 2), Monatschr. f. Gesch. τι. Wiss. d.
(1856), XvI. p. 147 54. (1857). Graetz Judenth. April 1869, p. 169.
answers Volkmar by claiming Flavius > Apost. Const. vii. 46.

EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 169

‘the partner (consors),’ is an equally fit designation of the later associated
Gentile Church!, This last story completes the building thus piled by
three successive hauds. Meanwhile it will be obvious to all, that a writer
could not more effectually have concealed his meaning and thereby
frustrated his own designs, than by wearing the impenetrable veil of enigma
thus ascribed to him. But indeed it is needless to waste time on this
learned trifling, which might be overlooked if the interests indirectly
involved were less serious. In dealing with such theories the bare
statement is often the best refutation”.

Cesar’s Household.

Ὁ mention of certain members of Czesar’s household at the close of Baseless
the Philippian Epistle has given rise to much speculation and formed theories.

the groundwork of more than one capricious theory. It has been assumed

that this phrase must designate persons of high rank and position, powerful

minions of the court, great officers of state, or even blood relations of the

emperor himself. On this assumption, maintained in a more or less

exaggerated form, it has been inferred that some time must have elapsed

between St Paul’s arrival at Rome and the date of this epistle, to account

for this unwonted triumph of the Gospel. And extreme critics have even

taken the expression as the starting-point for an attack on the genuineness

of the letter, charging the writer with an anachronism and supposing him

to refer to Clemens and Domitilla, the kinsman and kinswoman of Domi-

tian, who suffered for the faith at the close of the century?

All such inferences are built on a misconception of the meaning of the Extent of
term. The ‘domus’ or ‘familia Czesaris’ (represented by the Greek οἰκία the house-
Καίσαρος) includes the whole of the imperial household, the meanest slaves 7°
as well as the most powerful courtiers. On the character and constitution
of this household we happen to possess more information than perhaps on
any other department of social life in Rome. The inscriptions relating
thereto are so numerous, that a separate section is assigned to them in all
good collections. And almost every year is adding to these stores of inform-
ation by fresh discoveries. In Rome itself, if we may judge by these
inscriptions, the ‘domus Augusta’ must have formed no inconsiderable
fraction of the whole population ; but it comprised besides all persons in
the emperor’s service, whether slaves or freemen, in Italy and even in the
provinces.

The monuments to which I have referred are chiefly sepulchral. Co- Sources of
lumbaria have been discovered from time to time, whose occupants be- i»forma-

1 When I wrote the above, I should 2 Other recent speculations relating
not have thought it possible to outbid to the history of the Roman Clement,
in extravagance the speculations men- more innocent but equally unsubstan-
tioned in the text; but Hitzig, Zur tial, will be found in Lagarde’s intro-
Kritik Paulinischer Briefe p. 7 sq. duction to his Clementina, p. (12) sq.
(1870), far exceeds them all. The re- (1865).
futation of Hilgenfeld, Zeitschr. 1871,

3 See above, pp. 22, 168.
p- 331 Sq., Was quite unnecessary.

List of
offices in

the house-
hold.

Bearing
on the re-
ference in
St Paul.

170 EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

longed principally, if not solely, to this class. In 1726 one of these places
of sepulture was exhumed on the Appian way. Its contents will appear
from the title of a work published the following year, and giving an account
of the discovery: Monumentum sive Columbarium Libertorum et Ser-
vorum Livie Auguste et Cesarum, ete. ab A. F. Gorio. More recent
excavations have added to our knowledge on this subject. Since the year
1840 several other sepulchral dove-cotes, situated also near the Appian
way, have been brought to light. Accounts of these, more or less complete,
with copies of inscriptions will be found in Canina’s Prima Parte della
Via Appia τ. p. 217 sq., in the Dissertazioni della Pontificia Accademia
Romana di Archeologia xt. p. 317 8q. (1352), and in the Monumenti ed
Annali pubblicati dal’? Instituto di Corrispondenza Archeologica nel
1856 (a paper by Henzen). The occupants of these recently excavated
columbaria again are almost all freedmen or slaves of the emperors. The
frequency of the name Ti. Claudius suggests a date not earlier and not
much later than the second and fourth Czesars: and this date is confirmed
by the mention of other members of the imperial family at this time, as
Messalina, Octavia, Agrippina, Drusus, etc. Though here and there a
name points to a later emperor, the great majority must be assigned to the
reign of Nero or his immediate predecessors and successors, and thus the
persons to whom they refer were mostly contemporaries of St Paul. Be-
sides these special sources of information, a vast number of isolated inscrip-
tions relating to the servants and dependents of the emperors have been
discovered from time to time, and will be found in the general collections
of Muratori, Gruter, Orelli, and others. By these means we obtain some
insight into the names and offices of the ‘household of Czesar’ at the date
when the expression was used in the Epistle to the Philippians.

The following list will give some idea of the number and variety of
places which the ‘domus Augusta’ included: ‘pzedagogus puerorum, dis-
pensator rationis privatee, exactor tributorum, preepositus velariorum, pro-
curator pregustatorum, preepositus auri escarii, procurator balnei, villicus
hortorum, ete.; a lapidicinis, a pendice cedri, a frumentis, a commentariis
equorum, a veste regia, a cura catellze, ab argento potorio, a supeliectile
castrensi, a veste forensi, a libellis, a studiis, ab epistulis, a rationibus, a
bibliotheca Latina Apollinis, a bibliotheca Greeca Palatina, etc. ; architectus,
tabellarius, castellarius, chirurgus, ocularius, dizetarchus, nomenclator,
tesserarius, designator, vicarius, symphoniacus, musicarius, pedissequus,
lecticarius, cocus, argentarius, sutor, cubicularius, triclinarius, ostiarius,
ornator, unctor, etc.; tonstrix, sarcinatrix, obstetrix, ete. This very im-
perfect list suggests a minute subdivision of offices. When we find several
distinct functions in the single department of the wardrobe or the plate-
chest, when even the ‘tasters’ form a separate class of servants under their
own chief, the multitude and multiplicity thus exhibited forbid us to spe-
culate on the exact office or rank which may have been held by these friends
of St Paul. Least of all are we encouraged to assume that they were persons
of great influence or distinguished rank. At the same time the connexion
with Czesar’s household doubtless secured even to the lowest grades of
slaves and freedmen substantial though undefined privileges and immuni-
ties, and conferred on them a certain social importance among their equals,

eS ee

~~. 5

᾿ς Ἐν eS ee ee ee ω;

ae ee ee ee eee

ie i gE oe

in i Κ

EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 171

which made them value their position’. Hence we may account for the
scrupulous care with which an office in the household, however mean, is
always recorded on monumental inscriptions. At the time when St Paul
wrote the influence of the emperor’s slaves and dependents had about
reached its climax. The reigns of Claudius and Nero have been described
as the saturnalia of the imperial freedmen ?.

Now, if I am right in supposing that the Epistle to the Philippians was Members
written soon after St Paul's arrival in the metropolis, it would seem to of the
follow that the members of Czesar’s household who sent their salutations to bousehold
Philippi were earlier converts, who did not therefore owe their knowledge of Tabi eaety
the Gospel to St Paul’s preaching in Rome*®. Under any circumstances converts,
this supposition best explains the incidental character of the allusion. For
St Paul obviously assumes that his distant correspondents know all about
the persons thus referred to. Ifso, we are led to look for them in the long
list of names saluted by St Paul some three years before in the Epistle to
the Romans.

Nor is there any prior improbability in this supposition. The earliest Foreigners
converts in Rome would naturally be drawn from the classes of foreigners named in

sojourning or permanently resident there’, Greeks, Syrians, and especially De eed
5 : 5 1 en
Jews. Accordingly one of the persons thus saluted is described as a ‘first- 4, Rome

fruit of Asia®’. Aquila and Priscilla also, who are mentioned in this list,
appear residing at one time at Corinth, at another at Ephesus®. Of several
others again St Paul speaks as personal acquaintances, though he had
not as yet visited Rome. Of these Mary bears a Jewish name’, and others
besides plainly belonged to the same race‘, though their names do not
directly proclaim their origin. Now, though Greeks and Orientals formed
a numerous and active portion of the general population of Rome, it was
especially about the palace and the court that their numbers and in-
fluence were felt®. History reveals not Greeks only, of whom the Romans

and found
were a little less intolerant, but Syrians, Samaritans, Philistines", and Jews,

about the
court.

1 Plin. N.H. xiii. 5 ‘Marcelli Atser-
nini libertus sed qui se potentie# causa
Cesaris libertis adoptasset,’ Hist. Aug.
Pertinax 8 ‘Reddidit preterea domi-
nis eos qui se ex privatis domibus in
aulam contulerant.’

2 See Friedlander Sittengeschichte
Roms τ. pp. 65,68 (ed. 2). Inthe 2nd
chapter of this work much important
information respecting the court of the
early Cesars is collected and arranged.
The references in the last note are taken
thence (p. 62).

3 See above, pp. 19, 32.

4 Seneca (adv. Helv. Cons. 6) says of
the population of Rome at this time,
‘Jube istos omnes ad nomen citari et
unde domo quisque sit quere: videbis
majorem partem esse que relictis sedibus
suis venerit in maximam quidemet pul-
cherrimam urbem, non tamen suam.’

5 Rom. xvi. 5 (the correct reading).

6 Acts) xvill. 25 18, 26, 1 Core ΤΙ:
10-

7 Rom. xvi. 6. Probably Jewish,
though not certainly, for the form is
indecisive. The best mss read Ma-
ρίαν (not Μαριάμ), and ‘Maria’ is a
good Latin name also.

8 xvi. 7, 10, those whom St Paul
calls his ‘kinsmen’ (comp. ix. 3).

9 See above, p. 14, and comp. espe-
cially Friedlander 1. p. 60 sq.

10 Thallus a Samaritan under Tibe-
rius (Joseph. Ant. xviii. 6. 4), and A-
pelles an Ascalonite under Caius (see
below, p. 172), will serve as examples
of these two minor races. Syrians and
Jews very commonly rose to power at
court. The case of the Jewish actor
Aliturus mentioned above (p. 6) illus-
trates the influence of this latter people.

172 EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

holding places of influence about the emperors at this time. And, for every
one who succeeded in attaining to distinction, there must have been tens and
hundreds of Orientals about the court who never emerged from obscurity,
For, independently of other causes, the suecess of the few would draw

Inference. around them crowds of their fellow-countrymen. Thus the household of the
Czesars would supply in the greatest abundance the material from which
the conversions mentioned in the Epistle to the Romans would probably be
wrought.

Following this clue, it may be useful to consult the inscriptions with
a view to ascertaining whethoe the information thence derived throws any
additional light on the subject. And for this purpose I shall take in order
those names in the salutations of the Epistle to the Romans which give
promise of yielding a result.

Amplias. I. AMPLIAS is a contraction of Ampliatus, which is read in some of the
best copies. A common name in itself, it occurs several times in connexion
with the imperial household. Thus AMPLIATUS . HILARL. AUGUSTOR. LIBERTI.
SER . VILICUS (Grut. p. 62. 10). We meet with it also attached to the names
‘Ti. Claudius’ (Murat. p. 1249. 14, comp. p. 1150. 7). Again two persons bear-
ing the name are mentioned in the inscriptions of columbaria specially ap-
propriated to the household (Acc. di Arch. x1. pp. 359, 374). At a later
date we read of one Ampliatus, a freedman of Hadrian (Grut. p. 591. 10).

Urbanus. 2. The name URzanus is equally common with Ampliatus, and in the
following inscriptions designates members of the household: Tr. CLAUDI.
URBANI . SER . MENSORIS . AEDIFICIORUM (Murat. p. 924. 8): CLAUDIAE . PHI-
LETI . AUG. L. LIBERTAE . HEURESI. URBANUS.. ET. SURUS . FRATRES . SORORI.
PIIsSIMAE (Murat. p. 996. 5): URBANUS . LYDES . AUG. L. DISPENS . INMUNIS .
DAT . HERMAE. FRATRI. etc. (Murat. 920. 1). 1T.FLAVIUS. AUG. LIB. URBA-
Nus (Grut. p. 589. 10). Accordingly the name C. Julius Urbanus is found
more than once (Grut. p. 574. I, p. 981. 3). On an inscription A.D. ΤΙΣ,
Urbanus and Ampliatus occur next to each other.in a list of imperial
freedmen connected with the mint (Grut. p. 1070. 1).

Stachys. 3. The next name Sracuys is comparatively rare. Yet at least one
person so called held an important office in the household near the time
when St Paul wrote: STACHYS . MARCHLLAE . MEDICUS, Whose name occurs
on the same monument with one ΤΊ. JULIUS . FIDES (Henzen in the Jnstit. di
Corrisp. Archeol. 1856, p. 15, no. 44). Again in another inscription,
where one Stachys is mentioned, and where the names of his relations,
Julius, Julia, Claudia, are also given, we may safely infer some connexion
with the court (Grut. p. 689. 1). Compare also Grut. p. 587. 2

Apelles. 4. APELLHS again is a name belonging to the imperial household. It
was borne for instance by a famous tragic actor, a native of Ascalon, who at
one time stood high in the favour of the emperor Caius, and is described
as inheriting a national antipathy to the Jews (Philo Leg. ad Cat. p. 576 u;
see Friedliinder Sittengesch. Roms τ. p. 98). One CL. APELLES again is
mentioned as a member of the household (Orell. 2892) and the name tr.
COLAUDIUS APELEA occurs in. an inscription of the age of Vespasian (Grut.
Ῥ. 240).

Household 5. ARISTOBULUS surnamed the younger, a grandson of Herod the Great,

of Aristo- was educated in the metropolis, together with his brothers Agrippa and
bulus.

EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 173

Herod. While his two brothers became kings, the one of Judea, the other
of Chalcis, Aristobulus himself ended his days in a private station, and as it
appears, in Rome (Joseph. Bell. Jud. ii. 11.6). The date of his death is
uncertain, but he was still living in the year 45 (Anti7. xx. I. 2. The
emperor Claudius, writing at this time, speaks of Aristobulus as entertain-
ing most dutiful and friendly sentiments towards himself. When the slaves
of a household passed into the hands of a new master, by cession or inhe-
ritance or confiscation, they continued to be designated by the name of
their former proprietor. Thus a slave whom the emperor had inherited by
the will of the Galatian king Amyntas is described as CAESARIS. SER.
AMYNTIANUS (Grut. p. 577. 5). In the same way in the imperial household
we meet with Meecenatiani, Agrippiani, Germaniciani, etc., where in like
manner the names preserve the memory of their earlier masters. Now it
seems not improbable, considering the intimate relations between Claudius
and Aristobulus, that at the death of the latter his servants, wholly or in
part, should be transferred to the palace. In this case they would be de-
signated Avistobuliani, for which I suppose St Paul’s of ἐκ τῶν ᾿Αριστοβού-
Aov to be an equivalent. It is at least not an obvious phrase and demands
explanation. And, as the household of Aristobulus would naturally be
composed in a large measure of Jews, the Gospel would the more easily
be introduced to their notice. Moreover it is worth observing that after
saluting ‘them of the household of Aristobulus” St Paul immediately
singles out one whom he designates his kinsman, i.e. his fellow-countryman]},
and whose name Hrropron we might expect to find among the slaves or
freedmen of a distinguished member of the Herodian family. This inter-
pretation of the expression τοὺς ἐκ τῶν ᾿Αριστοβούλου Will, I think, be con-
firmed by the salutation which follows.

6. For immediately after St Paul uses the same form of expression in
speaking of the household of Narcissus. ‘he name Narcissus indeed is
common enough, and we meet with it several times where a connexion
with the household seems probable, e.g. Ti. Claudius Narcissus (Murat.
p- 1325. 5, comp. p. 1452. 8), Ti. Julius Narcissus (Murat. p. 1362. 2, 4).
But here, asin the case of Aristobulus, the expression seems to point to some
famous person of the name. And the powerful freedman Narcissus, whose
wealth was proverbial (Juv. Saf. xiv. 329), whose influence with Claudius
was unbounded, and who bore a chief part in the intrigues of this reign,
alone satisfies this condition. He was put to death by Agrippina shortly
after the accession of Nero (Tac. Ann. xiii. 1, Dion Cass. Ix. 34), about
three or four years before the Epistle to the Romans was written. As was
usual in such cases, his household would most probably pass into the hands
of the emperor, still however retaining the name of Narcissus. One mem-
ber of this household apparently is commemorated in an extant inscription,
TI . CLAUDIO. SP. Ε΄. NARCISSIANO (Murat. p. 1150. 4). These Narcissiani I
suppose to be designated by St Paul's οἱ ἐκ τῶν Ναρκίσσου.

7. In TrypHana and TrypHosa we may recognise two sisters or at
least near relatives, for it was usual to designate members of the same
family by derivatives of the same root. The name Tryphzena, though not

1 See above, p. 16, note 2.

Household
of Narcis-
sus.

Tryphena

and Try-
phosa.

Rufus.

Hermes.

Hermas.

Patrobas.

174 EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS,

common, was found in the imperial household at or about the time when
St Paul wrote. On an inscription in the columbaria chiefly appropriated
to the emperor’s servants we read, D. M . TRYPHAENAE . VALERIA . TRYPHAE-
NA. MATRI.B.M.F. ET. VALERIUS . FUTIANUS (Ace. di Archeol. x1. p. 375);
where the direct connexion with the household is established by a neigh-
bouring inscription, D. M. CLAUDIAE . AUG . LIB. NEREIDI. M.VALERIUS. FU-
TIANS (sic). MATRI . CARISSIMAE (ib. p. 376). The names Valerius, Valeria,
very frequently occur in connexion with Claudius, Claudia, the former
having doubtless been introduced into the imperial household through the
empress Messalina, a daughter of M. Valerius Messala'. The combination
of these two gentile names fixes the date approximately. Another Valeria
Tryphzena, if it be not the same, is mentioned elsewhere; Q. VALERIO . SA-
LUTARI. AUG. PUTEOLIS . ET . CUMIS .ET VALERIAE . TRIFENAE . HEREDES (Grut.
Ῥ. 481. 2). The name of one Claudia Tryphzena also is preserved : CLAUDIA.
TRYPHAENA . FECIT . ASIATICAE . FILIAE . SUAE (Murat. p. 1150. 3).

The name Tryphosa also, which occurs more frequently, is found several
times in connexion with the household: AGRIAE . TRYPHOSAE . VESTIFICAE .
LIVIUS . THEONA . AB . EPISTULIS . GRAEC . SCRIBA.. A. LIB . PONTIFICALIBUS -
CONJUGI . SANCTISSIMAE . B.D.S.M. (Grut. p. 578. 6, comp. ib. p. 446. 6): DIS.
MANIBUS . JULIAE . TRYPHOSAE.T. FLAVIUS . FORTUNATUS . CONJUGI ete. (Grut.
p. 796. 3, comp. ib. p. 1133. 1). In another inscription again it is found
connected with the name Valerius: VALERI . PRIMI . ET. JUN . TRYPHOSAE .
Viva . FEC. (Grut. p. 893. 2).

8. Rurvs is a very ordinary name, and would not have claimed notice
here but for its occurrence in one of the Gospels. There seems no reason
to doubt the tradition that St Mark wrote especially for the Romans ; and,
if so, it is worth remarking that he alone of the evangelists describes Simon
of Cyrene, as ‘the father of Alexander and Rufus’ (xv. 21). A person of
this name therefore seems to have held a prominent place among the Ro-
man Christians ; and thus there is at least fair ground for identifying the
Rufus of St Paul with the Rufus of St Mark. The inscriptions exhibit
several members of the household bearing the names Rufus and Alexander,
but this fact is of no value where both names are so common.

9. Of the group which follows, HERMES is among the commonest slave-
names. In the household alone probably not less than a score of persons
might be counted up from the inscriptions, who bore this name at or about
the time when St Paul wrote. Herrmas again, being a contraction of several
different names, such as Hermagoras, Hermeros, Hermodorus, Hermo-
genes, etc., though not quite so common as the former, is still very frequent.
The remaining three are rare. Yet Parrosas, an abbreviated form of
Patrobius, was borne by a wealthy and powerful freedman of Nero, who
was put to death by Galba (Tac. Hist. i. 49, ii. 95). But though the in-
frequency of the name would suggest his identity with the person saluted
by St Paul, his character accords ill with the profession of a disciple of

1 This inscription will serve asan il- Ὑπὸ (Orelli, 4492). This Octavia is

lustration; VALERIA . HILARIA. NUTRIx. the unhappy daughter of Claudius and
OCTAYIAE . CAESARIS . AUGUSTI. REQUI- Messalina, who was afterwards married

ESCIT . CUM. TI. CLAUDIO . FRUCTO. toNero. SeealsoClem. Rom.§59 (note).

EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. 175
Christ, unless history has done him a cruel wrong. The Patrobas of St Paul
however might well have been a dependent of this powerful freedman. To
some member of the household, possibly to this notorious Patrobius, the
following inscription refers: TI. CL. AUG.L. PATROBIUS (Grut. p. 610. 3),
where doubtless ‘ Patrobius’ is correctly read for ‘ Patronus’: comp. Murat.
p- 1329. 3, TI. CLAUDIO . PATROBIO.

το. PuroLoaus and Junta appear to have been man and wife, or bro- Philologus
ther and sister. The latter name points to a dependent of the court. The 24 Julia.
former also occurs more than once in connexion with the imperial house-
hold: c. JULIO.c.L. PHILOLOGO (Murat. p. 1586. 3): DAMA. LIVIAE.L.CAS.
PHOEBUS . PHILOLOGI Mon. Liv. p. 168): TI.CLAUDIUS. AUGUSTI . LIB. PHILO-

LOGUS . AB. EPISTOLIS (Murat. p. 2043. 2)}: TI. CLAUDIUS . AUGUSTI. LIB.
PHILOLOGUS . LIBERALIS (Grut. p. 630. 1).

11. Immediately after Philologus and Julia are mentioned NEREvs and Nereus
his sister. For Nereus compare this inscription found at Ancyra; nury- 224 his
CHUS . NEREI. CAESARIS . AUG.SER. VIL. FILIO (Murat. p. 899. 7). The sister’s ἘΠΕ ΘΕ
name is not given, but one Nereis was a member of the household about
this time, as appears from an inscription already quoted (p. 173).

As the result of this investigation, we seem to have established a fair General
presumption, that among the salutations in the Epistle to the Romans some result.
members at least of the imperial household are included. The inscriptions
indeed cannot generally be taken to show more than the fact that the same
names occurred there. A very faint probability of the identity of persons
may in some instances be added, though even with the rarer names the
identification must be held highly precarious. But a combination, such as
Philologus and Julia, affords more solid ground for inference: and in other
cases, as in the household of Narcissus, the probable circumstances suggest
a connexion with the palace. If so, an explanation has been found of the
reference to members of Czesar’s household in the Philippian letter. At all
events this investigation will not have been useless, if it has shown that
the names and allusions at the close of the Roman Epistle are in keeping
with the circumstances of the metropclis in St Paul’s day; for thus it
will have supplied an answer to two forms of objection; the one denying
the genuineness of the last two chapters of this letter, and the other
allowing their genuineness but detaching the salutations from the rest and
assigning them to another epistle”.

1 Tt has been supposed that the
name Philologus was given by the mas-
ter to the freedman mentioned in this
inscription, as being appropriate to
his office; Friedlander, τ. pp. 89, 160.
The following inscription may bealleged
in support of this conjecture; PUDENS.
M . LEPIDI . L . GRAMMATICUS . etc.
ATTEIUS PHILOLOGUS DISCIPULUS
(Grut. p. 653. 2). Ifso, some light is
thrown on the probable occupation of
the Philologus of St Paul.

2 The doxology (Rom. xvi. 25, 26,
27) is found in some copies at the end

of the 14th, in others at the end of the
16th chapter, and in others in both
places, while others again omit it en-
tirely. Moreover in Marcion’s copy the
last two chapters of the epistle were
wanting. All these variations are easily
explained by the hypothesis that the
Epistle to the Romans was circulated
at a very early date in two forms, the
personal matter being omitted in the
shorter. Baur however condemns the
last two chapters as spurious (Paulus
p. 398 sq.), though the mind of St Paul is
apparent in almost every phrase. Other

176

less extravagant critics have found dif-
ficulties in one or two historical no-
tices which these chapters contain: and
Ewald, whose opinion always deserves
consideration, solves these difficulties
by severing xvi. 3—20 from the rest,
and treating it as a fragment of a lost
Epistle to theKphesians(DieSendschrei-
ben etc. p. 428). By this means he ex-
plains the reference to Epznetus as the
first-fruit of Asia (ver. 5 where ᾿Ασίας,
not ᾿Αχαΐας, is the right reading), and
accounts also for the presence of Aquila
and Priscilla (ver. 3), who were found
not long before at Ephesus (1 Cor. xvi.
19). This view is far preferable to the
former, inasmuch as it recognises St
Paul’s authorship; but on the other
hand it loses all support from the phe-
nomena of the mss, which require the
_two chapters to be treated as a whole,
andlend nocountenance to thisarbitrary
dissection. The novel theory recently
started by Renan (Saint Paul p. lxxiii),
who supposes that an editor has com-
bined four copies of the same encyclical
letter of St Paul, each addressed to a
different church and having a different
ending, has the same advantage over
Baur’s view, but is condemned by its
own complexity. Nor in fact are the
difficulties serious enough to justify any

EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

such treatment. At a time when the
court and city of Rome swarmed with
Asiatics (Friedlinder 1. p. 59 sq.), it is
no surprise to encounter one Christian
convert among the crowd. And again,
as Rome wasthe head-quarters of Aquila
and Priscilla, and they had been driven
thence by an imperial edict (Acts xviii.
2), itis natural enough that they should
have returned thither, as soon as it was
convenient and safetodoso. The year
which elapses between the two notices
of this couple (1 Cor. xvi. 19; Rom. xvi.
3—5) allows ample time for them to
transfer themselves from Ephesus to
Rome, and for the Apostle to hear of
their return to their old abode. The
results of the investigation in the text
(whatever other value it may have) seem
sufficient to counterbalance any such
difficulties, for it has been shown that
the notices are in keeping with Rome,
and the same degree of coincidence pro-
bably could not be established in the
case of any other place. A fuller re-
futation of Renan will be found in the
Journal of Philology, τι. p. 264 sq.
In this and a later article (ib. 1m.
p. 193 sq.) I have suggested a theory
to account for the documentary facts,
more especially the varying position of
the doxology.

~
—
=

DISSERTATIONS.

4, ἈΝ... ν΄. ee ee ee bs
i / Veo > rr D ota ‘ AE! =

1.
THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY.

i.
ST PAUL AND SENECA.

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY.

HE kingdom of Christ, not being a kingdom of this world, is Idealofthe
not limited by the restrictions which fetter other societies, poli- ue
tical or religious. It is in the fullest sense free, comprehensive,
universal. It displays this character, not only in the acceptance of
all comers who seek admission, irrespective of race or caste or sex,
but also in the instruction and treatment of those who are already
its members. It has no sacred days or seasons, no special sanctu-
aries, because every time and every place alike are holy. Above all
it has no sacerdotal system. It interposes no sacrificial tribe or class
between God and man, by whose intervention alone God is recon-
ciled and man forgiven. Each individual member holds personal
communion with the Divine Head. To Him immediately he is
responsible, and from Him directly he obtains pardon and draws
strength.

It is most important that we should keep this ideal definitely Necessary

Vet qualifica-

in view, and I have therefore stated it as broadly as possible. ton:

the broad statement, if allowed to stand alone, would suggest a false
impression, or at least would convey only a half truth. It must be
evident that no society of men could hold together without officers,
without rules, without institutions of any kind; and the Church of
Christ is not exempt from this universal law. The conception in

short is strictly an ideal, which we must ever hold before our eyes, The idea
and the

which should inspire and interpret ecclesiastical polity, but which ,.oi7ation.

nevertheless cannot supersede the necessary wants of human society,
and, if crudely and hastily applied, will lead only to signal failure.
As appointed days and set places are indispensable to her efficiency,

12—2

180

Special
character-
istic of
Christian-
ity.

TheJewish
priesthood.

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY.

so also the Church could not fulfil the purposes for which she exists,
without rulers’ and teachers, without a ministry of reconciliation,
in short, without an order of men who may in some sense be de-
signated a priesthood. In this respect the ethics of Christianity pre-
sent an analogy to the politics. Here also the ideal conception and
the actual realization are incommensurate and in a manner con-
tradictory. The Gospel is contrasted with the Law, as the spirit
with the letter. Its ethical principle is not a code of positive ordi-
nances, but conformity to a perfect exemplar, incorporation into a
divine life. The distinction is most important and eminently fertile
in practical results. Yet no man would dare to live without laying
down more or less definite rules for his own guidance, without
yielding obedience to law in some sense; and those who discard or
attempt to discard all such aids are often farthest from the attain-
ment of Christian perfection.

This qualification is introduced here to deprecate any misunder-
standing to which the opening statement, if left without compensa-
tion, would fairly be exposed. It will be time to enquire hereafter
in what sense the Christian ministry may or may not be called a
priesthood. But in attempting to investigate the historical de-
velopment of this divine institution, no better starting-point sug-
gested itself than the characteristic distinction “of Christianity, as
declared occasionally by the direct language but more frequently by
the eloquent silence of the apostolic writings.

For in this respect Christianity stands apart from all the
older religions of the world. So far at least, the Mosaic dispensa-
tion did not differ from the religions of Egypt or Asia or Greece.
Yet the sacerdotal system of the Old Testament possessed one im-
portant characteristic, which separated it from heathen priesthoods
and which deserves especial notice. The priestly tribe held this
peculiar relation to God only as the representatives of the whole
nation. As delegates of the people, they offered sacrifice and made
atonement. The whole community is regarded as ‘a kingdom of
priests,’ ‘a holy nation,’ When the sons of Levi are set apart,
their consecration is distinctly stated to be due under the divine
guidance not to any inherent sanctity or to any caste privilege,
but to an act of delegation on the part of the entire people. The
Levites are, so to speak, ordained by the whole congregation. ‘The

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 181

children of Israel,’ it is said, ‘shall put their hands upon the
Levites'.’ The nation thus deputes to a single tribe the priestly
functions which belong properly to itself as a whole.

The Christian idea therefore was the restitution of this immediate Itsrelation

and direct relation with God, which was partly suspended but not eee
abolished by the appointment of a sacerdotal tribe. The Levitical priesthood
priesthood, like the Mosaic law, had served its temporary purpose.
The period of childhood had passed, and the Church of God was
now arrived at mature age. The covenant people resumed their
sacerdotal functions. But. the privileges of the covenant were no
longer confined to the limits of a single nation. Every member of
the human family was potentially a member of the Church, and, as
such, a priest of God.

The influence of this idea on the moral and spiritual growth of Influence
the individual believer is too plain to require any comment; but oe
its social effects may call for a passing remark, It will hardly ideal.
be denied, I think, by those who have studied the history of
modern civilization with attention, that this conception of the
Christian Church has been mainly instrumental in the emancipation
of the degraded and oppressed, in the removal of artificial barriers
between clas§ and class, and in the diffusion of a general phil-
anthropy untrammelled by the fetters of party or race; in short,
that to it mainly must be attributed the most important advan-
tages which constitute the superiority of modern societies over
ancient. Consciously or unconsciously, the idea of an universal

iesthood, of the religious equality of all men, which, though not
untaught before, was first embodied in the Church of Christ, has
worked and is working untold blessings in political institutions and
in social life. But the careful student will also observe that this

idea has hitherto been very imperfectly apprehended; that through-
~ out the history of the Church it has been struggling for recognition,
at most times discerned in some of its aspects but at all times wholly
ignored in others; and that therefore the actual results are a very
inadequate measure of its efficacy, if only it could assume due pro-
minence and were allowed free scope in action.

This then is the Christian ideal; a holy season extending the

1 Num. viii. 10.

182

Practical
organiza-
tion.

Fixed days
and places

ες ofworship;

but the
idea kept
in view.

Appoint-
ment of a
ministry.

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY.

whole year round—a temple confined only by the limits of the habit-
able world

a priesthood coextensive with the human race.

Strict loyalty to this conception was not held incompatible with
practical measures of organization, As the Church grew in num-
bers, as new and heterogeneous elements were added, as the early
fervour of devotion cooled and strange forms of disorder sprang
up, it became necessary to provide for the emergency by fixed
rules and definite officers. The community of goods, by which the
infant Church had attempted to give effect to the idea of an universal
brotherhood, must very soon have been abandoned under the pres-
sure of circumstances. The celebration of the first day in the week
at once, the institution of annual festivals afterwards, were seen to be
necessary to stimulate and direct the devotion of the believers. The
appointment of definite places of meeting in the earliest days, the
erection of special buildings for worship at a later date, were found
indispensable to the working of the Church. But the Apostles never
lost sight of the idea in their teaching. They proclaimed loudly
that ‘God dwelleth not in temples made by hands.’ They indig-
nantly denounced those who ‘observed days and months and seasons
and years. This language is not satisfied by supposing that they
condemned only the temple-worship in the one case, that they repro-
bated only Jewish sabbaths and new moons in the other. It was against
the false principle that they waged war; the principie which exalted
the means into an end, and gave an absolute intrinsic value to subor-
dinate aids and expedients. - These aids and expedients, for his own
sake and for the good of the society to which he belonged, a Christian
could not afford to hold lightly or neglect. But they were no part of
the essence of God’s message to man in the Gospel: they must not
be allowed to obscure the idea of Christian worship.

So it was also with the Christian priesthood. For communi-
cating instruction and for preserving public order, for conducting
religious worship and for dispensing social charities, it became
necessary to appoint special officers. But the priestly functions and
privileges of the Christian people are never regarded as transferred
or even delegated to these officers. They are called stewards or
messengers of God, servants or ministers of the Church, and the
like: but the sacerdotal title is never once conferred upon them, |
The only priests under the Gospel, designated as such in the New

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 183

Testament, are the saints, the members of the Christian brother-

hood’.

As individuals, all Christians are priests alike. As members Two pas-
of a corporation, they have their several and distinct offices. The oa ἐπ τὰ
similitude of the human body, where each limb or organ performs lating

: thereto.
its own functions, and the health and growth of the whole frame are
promoted by the harmonious but separate working of every part, was
chosen by St Paul to represent the progress and operation of the
Church. In two passages, written at two different stages in his
apostolic career, he briefly sums up the offices in the Church with
reference to this image. In the earlier” he enumerates ‘first apostles,
secondly prophets, thirdly teachers, then powers, then gifts of heal-
ing, helps, governments, kinds of tongues.’ In the second passage *
the list is briefer; ‘some apostles, and some prophets, and some
evangelists, and some pastors and teachers.’ The earlier enumera-
tion differs chiefly from the later in specifying distinctly certain
miraculous powers, this being required by the Apostle’s argument
which is directed against an exaggerated estimate and abuse of such
gifts. In both They refer

: : - - : chiefly to
alike the work of converting unbelievers and founding congregations the ee

Neither list can have been intended to be exhaustive.

holds the foremost place, while the permanent government and in- a al
This"
prominence was necessary in the earliest age of the Gospel. The

struction of the several churches is kept in the background.

apostles, prophets, evangelists, all range under the former head. But
the permanent ministry, though lightly touched upon, is not forgot-
ten; for under the designation of ‘teachers, helps, governments’
in the one passage, of ‘pastors and teachers’ in the other, these
Again in both passages alike it will be
The faculty
of governing not less than the utterance of prophecy, the gift of heal-

officers must be intended.
seen that great stress is laid on the work of the Spirit.

ing not less than the gift of tongues, is an inspiration of the Holy

1 | Pet. ii. 5,9, Apoc. i. 6, v.10,xx.6. Ephes. iv. 12.) The whole passage,

The commentator Hilary has express-
ed this truth with much distinctness:
‘In lege nascebantur sacerdotes ex ge-
nere Aaron Levit: nune autem omnes
ex genere sunt sacerdotali, dicente
Petro Apostolo, Quia estis genus regale
et sacerdotale etc. (Ambrosiast. on

to which I shall have occasion to refer
again, contains a singularly apprecia-
tive account of the relation of the mi-
nistry to the congregation.

2 1 Cor. xii. 28.
3 Ephes. iv. 11.

184 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY.

Ghost. But on the other hand in both alike there is an entire
silence about priestly functions: for the most exalted office in the
Church, the highest gift of the Spirit, conveyed no sacerdotal right
which was not enjoyed by the humblest member of the Christian
community.
goning From the subordinate place, which it thus occupies in the notices
as erie of St Paul, the permanent ministry gradually emerged, as the Church
Pee assumed a more settled form, and the higher but temporary offices,
such as the apostolate, fell away. This progressive growth and
development of the ministry, until it arrived at its mature and
normal state, it will be the object of the following pages to trace.
rae But before proceeding further, some definition of terms is neces-
necessary. Sary. On no subject has more serious error arisen from the con-
fusion of language. The word ‘priest’ has two different senses. In
the one it is a synonyme for presbyter or elder, and designates the
minister who presides over and instructs a Christian congregation:
in the other it is equivalent to the Latin sacerdos, the Greek ἱερεύς,
or the Hebrew 175, the offerer of sacrifices, who also performs other
mediatorial offices between God and man. How the confusion
between these two meanings has affected the history and theology of
‘Priest’ the Church, it will be instructive to consider in the sequel. At
ee present it is sufficient to say that the word will be used throughout
this essay, as it has been used hitherto, in the latter sense only, so
that priestly will be equivalent to ‘sacerdotal’ or ‘hieratie.’ Etymo-
logically indeed the other meaning is alone correct (for the words
priest and presbyter are the same); but convenience will justify its
restriction to this secondary and imported sense, since the English
language supplies no other rendering of sacerdos or ἱερεύς. On the
other hand, when the Christian elder is meant, the longer form ‘pres-
byter’ will be employed throughout.

Different History seems to show decisively that before the middle of the
views on
the origin 3 Ν
of the its three orders of ministers, its bishop, its presbyters, and its
threefold : - Gea

ministry, deacons. On this point there cannot reasonably be two opinions.

second century each church or organized Christian community had

But at what time and under what circumstances this organization
was matured, and to what extent our allegiance is due to it as an

authoritative ordinance, are more difficult questions. Some have

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 185

recognised in episcopacy an institution of divine origin, absolute and
indispensable; others have represented it as destitute of all apostolic
sanction and authority. Some again have sought for the archetype of
the threefold ministry in the Aaronic priesthood; others in the
arrangements of synagogue worship. In this clamour of antagonistic
opinions history is obviously the sole upright, impartial referee ; and
the historical mode of treatment will therefore be strictly adhered to
in the following investigation. The doctrine in this instance at all
events is involved in the history’.

St Luke’s narrative represents the Twelve Apostles in the earliest Ministry

days as the sole directors and administrators of the Church. For ee ee
the financial business of the infant community, not less than for its "πὶ ae
spiritual guidance, they alone are responsible. This state of things
-could not last long. By the rapid accession of numbers, and still
more by the admission of heterogeneous classes into the Church, the
work became too vast and too various for them to discharge unaided.
To relieve them from the increasing pressure, the inferior and less
important functions passed successively into other hands: and thus
each grade of the ministry, beginning from the lowest, was created
in order.

1. The establishment of the diaconate came first. Complaints 1. Dra-
cons.
Appoint-
community. The Hellenist widows had been overlooked in the neh of

e peven.
daily distribution of food and alms. ΤῸ remedy this neglect a new

had reached the ears of the Apostles from an outlying portion of the

office was created. Seven men were appointed whose duty it was
to superintend the public messes’, and, as we may suppose, to provide
in other ways for the bodily wants of the helpless poor. Thus
relieved, the Twelve were enabled to devote themselves without
interruption ‘to prayer and to the ministry of the word.’ The
Apostles suggested the creation of this new office, but the persons
were chosen by popular election and afterwards ordained by the
Twelve with imposition of hands. Though the complaint came from
the Hellenists, it must not be supposed that the ministrations of the

1 The origin of the Christian minis- | more recent works on the subject with
try is ably investigated in Rothe’s which I am acquainted, and to both of
Anfdnge der Christlichen Kirche ete. them I wish to acknowledge my obliga-
(1837), and Ritschl’s Entstehung der tions, though in many respects I have
Altkatholischen Kirche (2nd ed. 1857). arrived at results different from either.
These are the most important of the 2 Acts vi. 2 διακονεῖν τραπέζαις.

186

The Seven
were dea-
cons.

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY.

Seven were confined to this class’. The object in creating this new
office is stated to be not the partial but the entire relief of the Apostles
from the serving of tables. This being the case, the appointment of
Hellenists (for such they would appear to have been from their
names”) is a token of the liberal and loving spirit which prompted
the Hebrew members of the Church in the selection of persons to fill
the office.

I have assumed that the office thus established represents the
later diaconate ; for though this point has been much disputed, I do
not see how the identity of the two can reasonably be called in
question®, If the word deacon does not occur in the passage, yet
the corresponding verb and substantive, διακονεῖν and διακονία, are
repeated more than once. The functions moreover are substantially
those which devolved on the deacons of the earliest ages, and which
still in theory, though not altogether in practice, form the ‘primary
duties of the office. Again, it seems clear from the emphasis with
which St Luke dwells on the new institution, that he looks on
the establishment of this office, not as an isolated incident, but as
the initiation of a new order of things in the Church. It is in
short one of those representative facts, of which the earlier part of
his narrative is almost wholly made up. Lastly, the tradition of
the identity of the two offices has been unanimous from the earliest
times. Ivenzeus, the first writer who alludes to the appointment of
the Seven, distinctly holds them to have been deacons*. The Roman
Church some centuries later, though the presbytery had largely in-
creased meanwhile, still restricted the number of deacons to seven,
thus preserving the memory of the first institution of this office’.

1 So for instance Vitringa de Synag.
Ill. 2. 5, p- 928 sq. and Mosheim de
Reb. Christ. p. 119, followed by many
later writers.

2 This inference however is far from
certain, since many Hebrews bore
Greek names, e.g. the Apostles An-
drew and Philip.

3 It is maintained by Vitringa 111. 2.
5, Ῥ. 920 sq., that the office of the
Seven was different from the later diaco-
nate. He quotes Chrysost. Hom. 14 in
Act. (Ix. p. 113, ed. Montf.) and Can.
το of the Quinisextine Council (comp.

p.187,noter)as favouring his view. With
strange perversity Bohmer (Diss. Jur.
Eccl. p. 349 54.) supposes them to be
presbyters, and this account has been
adopted even by Ritschl, p. 355 sq.
According to another view the office of
the Seven branched outinto the two later
orders of the diaconate and the presby-
terate, Lange Apost. Zeit. τι. 1. p. 75.
4 Tren. 1. 26. 3, ili. 12. 10, iv. 15. τ᾿
5 In the middle of the third century,
when Cornelius writes to Fabius, Rome
has 46 presbyters but only 7 deacons,
Euseb. ΗΠ... vi. 43; see Routh’s Rel.

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 187

And in like manner a canon of the Council of, Neoceesarea (A.D. 315)
enacted that there should be no more than seven deacons in any
city however great’, alleging the apostolic model. This rule, it is

true, was only partially observed; but the tradition was at all events

so far respected, that the creation of an order of subdeacons was

found necessary in order to remedy the inconvenience arising from

the limitation’.

The narrative in the Acts, if I mistake not, implies that the The office
office thus created was entirely new. Some writers however have Mice
explained the incident as an extension to the Hellenists of an institu-
tion which already existed among the Hebrew Christians and is im-
plied in the ‘younger men’ mentioned in an earlier part of St Luke’s
. history’.

.also to contradict the general tenour of the narrative.

This view seems not only to be groundless in itself, but
It would
appear moreover, that the institution was not merely new within the
Christian Church, but novel absolutely. There is no reason for con-
necting it with any prototype existing in the Jewish community.
The narrative offers no hint that it was either a continuation of
the order of Levites or an adaptation of an office in the synagogue.
The philanthropic purpose for which it was established presents no
The Levite, ποὺ bor-

; : rowed from
whose function it was to keep the beasts for slaughter, to cleanse the Leviti-

direct point of contact with the known duties of either.

away the blood and offal of the sacrifices, to serve as porter at the CaN One
temple gates, and to swell the chorus of sacred psalmody, bears no
strong resemblance to the Christian deacon, whose ministrations lay
among the widows and orphans, and whose time was almost wholly

spent in works of charity. And again, the Chazan or attendant in nor from

: .,,. [89 syna-
the synagogue, whose duties were confined to the care of the building gooue,
and the preparation for service, has more in common with the

modern parish clerk than’ with the deacon in the infant Church of

Sacr. 1. Ὁ. 23, with his note p. 61.
Even in the fourth and fifth centuries
the number of Roman deacons still re-
mained constant: see Ambrosiast. on
τ Tim. 111. 13, Sozom. vii. 19 διάκονοι δὲ
mapa Ῥωμαίοις εἰσέτι viv εἰσὶν ἑπτά...
παρὰ δὲ τοῖς ἄλλοις ἀδιάφορος ὁ τούτων
ἀριθμός.

1 Concil. Neocxs. ὁ. 14 (Routh Rel.

Sacr. rv. Ὁ. 185): see Bingham’s Antigq.
11. 20. 19. At the Quinisextine or 2nd
Trullan council (A.D. 692) this Neocew-
sarean canon was refuted and rejected:
see Hefele Conciliengesch. Il. p. 304,
and Vitringa p. 922.

2 See Bingham 111. 1. 3.

3 Acts y. 6, 10. This is the view of
Mosheim de Reb. Christ. p. 114.

188

Teaching
only inci-
dental to
the office.

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY.

Christ’. It is therefore a baseless, though a very common, assump-
tion that the Christian diaconate was copied from the arrangements
of the synagogue. The Hebrew Chazan is not rendered by deacon in
the Greek Testament; but a different word is used instead’, We
may fairly presume that St Luke dwells at such length on the esta-
blishment of the diaconate, because he regards it as a novel creation.
Thus the work primarily assigned to the deacons was the relief
of the poor. Their office was essentially a ‘serving of tables,’ as
distinguished from the higher function of preaching and instruction.
But partly from the circumstances of their position, partly from the
personal character of those first appointed, the deacons at once
assumed a prominence which is not indicated in the original creation
of the office. Moving about freely among the poorer brethren and
charged with the relief of their material wants, they would find
opportunities of influence which were denied to the higher officers of
the Church who necessarily kept themselves more aloof. The devout
zeal of a Stephen or a Philip would turn these opportunities to the
best account; and thus, without ceasing to be dispensers of alms,
they became also ministers of the Word. The Apostles themselves
had directed that the persons chosen should be not only ‘men of
honest report,’ but also ‘full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom’: and
this careful foresight, to which the extended influence of the diacon-
ate may be ascribed, proved also the security against its abuse. But
still the work of teaching must be traced rather to the capacity of
the individual officer than to the direct functions of the office.
St Paul, writing thirty years later, and stating the requirements of the
diaconate, lays the stress mainly on those qualifications which would ’
be most important in persons moving about from house to house
and entrusted with the distribution of alms. While he requires that
they shall hold the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience, in other
words, that they shall be sincere believers, he is not anxious, as in the
case of the presbyters, to secure ‘aptness to teach,’ but demands
especially that they shall be free from certain vicious habits, such as

1 Vitringa (111. 2. 4, p. 914 Sq., 1. view, the fact that as a rule there was
2. 22, p. 11308q.) derives the Christian only one Chazan to each synagogue
deacon from the Chazan of the syna- must not be overlooked.
gogue. Among other objections to this 2 ὑπηρέτης, Luke iv. 20.

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 189

a love of gossiping, and a greed of paltry gain, into which they might
easily fall from the nature of their duties’.

From the mother Church of Jerusalem the institution spread to Spread of
Gentile Christian brotherhoods. By the ‘helps’ in the First Epistle Benge:
to the Corinthians (4.D. 57), and by the ‘ministration® in the Epistle Gentile
to the Romans (A.D. 58), the diaconate solely or chiefly seems to be a
intended; but besides these incidental allusions, the latter epistle
bears more significant testimony to the general extension of the
office. The strict seclusion of the female sex in Greece and in some
Oriental countries necessarily debarred them from the ministrations
of men: and to meet the want thus felt, it was found necessary at
an early date to admit women to the diaconate. A woman-deacon
belonging to the Church of Cenchree is mentioned in the Epistle to

the Romans‘. As time advances, the diaconate becomes still more
prominent. In the Philippian Church a few years later (about .p.
62) the deacons take their rank after the presbyters, the two orders
together constituting the recognised ministry of the Christian society
there’. Again, passing over another interval of some years, we
find St Paul in the First Epistle to Timothy (about a.p. 66) giving
express directions as to the qualifications of men-deacons and women-
deacons alike®. From the tenour of his language it seems clear that
in the Christian communities of proconsular Asia at all events the
institution was so common that ministerial organization would be
considered incomplete without it. On the other hand we may perhaps
infer from the instructions which he sends about the same time to
Titus in Crete, that he did not consider it indispensable; for while he
mentions haying given direct orders to his delegate to appoint pres-
byters in every city, he is silent about a diaconate’.

2. While the diaconate was thus an entirely new creation, called 2. Prus-
forth by a special emergency and developed by the progress of events, a
the early history of the presbyterate was different. If the sacred
historian dwells at length on the institution of the lower office but is
silent about the first beginnings of the higher, the explanation seems
to be, that the latter had not the claim of novelty like the former.

1 x Tim. iii. 8 sq. ΡΠ]. 1 τὶ
2 1 Cor. xii. 28. Ce retin adie OFS
3 Rom. xii. 7. 7 Tit. i. 5 sq.

4 Rom. xvi. 1.

190

not a new
office,

but adopt-
edfrom the
syna-
gogue.

Occasion
of its adop-
tion.

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY.

The Christian Church in its earliest. stage was regarded by the body
of the Jewish people as nothing more than a new sect springing up
by the side of the old. This was not unnatural: for the first disciples
conformed to the religion of their fathers in all essential points,
practising circumcision, observing the sabbaths, and attending the
temple-worship. The sects in the Jewish commonwealth were not,
properly speaking, nonconformists. They only superadded their own
special organization to the established religion of their country, which
for the most part they were careful to observe.. The institution of
synagogues was flexible enough to allow free scope for wide diver-
gences of creed and practice. Different races as the Cyrenians and
Alexandrians, different classes of society as the freedmen’, perhaps
also different sects as the Sadducees or the Essenes, each had or
could have their own special synagogue*, where they might indulge
their peculiarities without hindrance. As soon as the expansion of
the Church rendered some organization necessary, it would form a
‘synagogue’ of its own. The Christian congregations in Palestine
long continued to be designated by this name*, though the term
‘ecclesia’ took its place from the very first in heathen countries.
With the synagogue itself they would naturally, if not necessarily,
adopt the normal government of a synagogue, and a body of elders or
presbyters would be chosen to direct the religious worship and partly
also to watch over the temporal well-being of the society.

Hence the silence of St Luke.

byters, he introduces them without preface, as though the institution

When he first mentions the pres-
were a matter of course. But the moment of their introduction
is significant. I have pointed out elsewhere* that the two persecu-.
tions, of which St Stephen and St James were respectively the chief
victims, mark two important stages in the diffusion of the Gospel.
Their connexion with the internal organization of the Church is not

less remarkable. The first results directly from the establishment of

1 Acts Vi. 9.

2 Tt is stated, that there were no less
than 480 synagogues in Jerusalem.
The number is doubtless greatly ex-
aggerated, but must have been very
considerable: see Vitringa prol. 4,
Pp: 28, andr. 2.04, p. 253%

3 Jamesii.2. Hpiphanius (xxx. 18,
p. 142) says of the Hbionites, cvvayw-

γὴν οὗτοι καλοῦσι τὴν ἑαυτῶν ἐκκλησίαν,
καὶ οὐχὶ ἐκκλησίαν. See also Hieron.
Epist. οχὶϊ. 13 (1. p. 746. ed. Vall.)
‘per totas orientis synagogas,’ speaking
of the Nazareans; though his meaning
is not altogether clear. Comp. Test.
ait Patr. Benj. τι.
4 See Galatians Ὁ. 293.

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. ΙΟΙ

the lowest order in the ministry, the diaconate. To the second may
probably be ascribed the adoption of the next higher grade, the pres-
bytery. This later persecution was the signal for the dispersion of
the Twelve on a wider mission. Since Jerusalem would no longer be
their home as hitherto, it became necessary to provide for the perma-
nent direction of the Church there; and for this purpose the usual
government of the synagogue would be adopted. Now at all events
for the first time we read of ‘presbyters’ in connexion with the
Christian brotherhood at Jerusalem’.

From this time forward all official communications with the Presbytery
mother Church are carried on through their intervention. To the ae
presbyters Barnabas and Saul bear the alms contributed by the
Gentile Churches*. The presbyters are persistently associated with
the Apostles, in convening the congress, in the superscription of the
‘decree, and in the general settlement of the dispute between the
Jewish and Gentile Christians*. By the presbyters St Paul is
received many years later on his last visit to Jerusalem, and to them
he gives an account of his missionary labours and triumphs’.

But the office was not confined to the mother Church alone. Extension
of the office
to Gentile
dispersion, and Christian presbyteries would early occupy a not less Churches.

Jewish presbyteries existed already in all the principal cities of the

wide area. On their very first missionary journey the Apostles
Paul and Barnabas are described as appointing presbyters in every
church®. The same rule was doubtless carried out in all the brother-
hoods founded later; but it is mentioned here and here only, ἡ
because the mode of procedure on this occasion would suffice as a
type of the Apostles’ dealings elsewhere under similar circumstances,

The name of the presbyter then presents no difficulty. But what Presbyters
must be said of the term ‘bishop’? It has been shown that in the honey”
apostolic writings the two are only different designations of one and
the same office®. How and where was this second name originated?

To the officers of Gentile Churches alone is the term applied, as a pe ony in

7rentiie

synonyme for presbyter. At Philippi’, in Asia Minor*, in Crete*, Churches.

1 Acts xi, 30. On the sequence of 5 Acts xiv. 23.

events at this time see Galatians p. 6 See above, p. 94 sq.

123. ; eau alot
2 Acts xi. 30. 8 Acts xx. 28, 1 Tim. iii. 1, 2; comp.
5. Acts xv. 2, 4, 6) 22, 25: \xvi. 4. 1 Pet. 11. 25, v. 2.

* Acts xxi. 18. 5. ited. ἢ:

192

Possible
origin of
the term.

Twofold
duties of
the presby-
ter.

The func-
tion of
teaching,

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY.

the presbyter is so called. In the next generation the title is
employed in a letter written by the Greek Church of Rome to the
Greek Church of Corinth’. Thus the word would seem to be espe-
cially Hellenic. Beyond this we are left to conjecture. But if we
may assume that the directors of religious and social clubs among the
heathen were commonly so called’, it would naturally occur, if not to
the Gentile Christians themselves, at all events to their heathen
associates, as a fit designation for the presiding members of the new
society. The infant Church of Christ, which appeared to the Jew as
a synagogue, would be regarded by the heathen as a confraternity’®.
But whatever may have been the origin of the term, it did not alto-
gether dispossess the earlier name ‘presbyter,’ which still held its
place as a synonyme even in Gentile congregations*. And, when at
length the term bishop was appropriated to a higher office in the
Church, the latter became again, as it had been at first, the sole
designation of the Christian elder’.

The duties of the presbyters were twofold. They were both rulers
and instructors of the congregation. This double function appears
in St Paul’s expression ‘pastors and teachers’*°, where, as the form of
the original seems to show, the two words describe the same office
under different aspects. Though government was probably the first
conception of the office, yet the work of teaching must have fallen
to the presbyters from the very first and have assumed greater
prominence as time went on. With the growth of the Church, the
visits of the apostles and evangelists to any individual community
must have become less and less frequent, so that the burden of in-
struction would be gradually transferred from these missionary

preachers to the local officers of the congregation. Hence St Paul

* Clem. Rom. 42, 45.

2 The evidence howeyer is slight:
see above p. 93, note 2. Some light is
thrown on this subject by the fact that
the Roman government seenis first to
have recognised the Christian brother-
hoods in their corporate capacity, as
burial clubs: see de Rossi Rom. Sotterr,
1 571:

3 On {Π656 Ο] 105 or confraternities see
Renan Les Apétres Ὁ. 351 sq.; comp.
Saint Paul p. 239.

4 Acts xx, 17, 1 Timea, Litas 5;
1 Pet. y. 1, Clem. Rom. 21, 44.

5 Other more general designations in
the New Testament are οἱ προιστάμενοι
(1 Thess. v. 12, Rom. xii. 8: comp.
1 Tim. v. 17), or οἱ ἡγούμενοι (Hebr.
xiii, 7, 17, 24). For the former comp.
Hermas Vis. ii. 4, Justin. Apol. i. 67
(ὁ προεστώς); for the latter, Clem. Rom.
1, 21, Hermas Vis. ii. 2, iii. 9 (of προη-
γούμενοι).

6 Ephes. iv. 11 τοὺς δὲ ποιμένας καὶ
διδασκάλους. For ποιμαίνειν applied
to the ἐπίσκοπος or πρεσβύτερος see
Acts xx. 28, 1 Pet. v. 2; comp. 1 Pet.
ii, 25.

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY.

in two passages, where he gives directions relating to bishops or
presbyters, insists specially on the faculty of teaching as a qualifica-
Yet even here this work seems to be regarded
In the one

tion for the position’.
rather as incidental to than as inherent in the office.

193

epistle he directs that double honour shall be paid to those pres-_

byters who have ruled well, but especially to such as ‘labour in
word and doctrine’, as though one holding this office might de-
cline the work of instruction. In the other, he closes the list of
qualifications with the requirement that the bishop (or presbyter)
hold fast the faithful word in accordance with the apostolic teaching
‘that he may be able both to exhort in the healthy doctrine and to
confute gainsayers,’ alleging as a reason the pernicious activity and
growing numbers of the false teachers. Nevertheless there is no
ground for supposing that the work of teaching and the work of
governing pertained to separate members of the presbyteral college®.
As each had his special gift, so would he devote himself more or less
exclusively to the one or the other of these sacred functions.

3. It is clear then that at the close of the apostolic age, the two
lower orders of the threefold ministry were firmly and widely estab-
lished; but traces of the third and highest order, the episcopate pro-
perly so called, are few and indistinct.

3. BisHops.

For the opinion hazarded by Theodoret and adopted by many The office

later writers*, that the same officers in the Church who were first

ee tin, 111: 2: Tit. 1. 0:

2.1 Tim. v. 17 μάλιστα of κοπιῶντες
ἐν λόγῳ Kal διδασκαλίᾳ. At a much
later date we read of ‘presbyteri doc-
tores,’ whence it may perhaps be in-
ferred that even then the work of teach-
ing was not absolutely indispensable to
the presbyteral office ; Act. Perp. et Fel.
13, Cyprian. Epist. 29: see Ritschl p.
352.

3 The distinction of lay or ruling
elders, and ministers proper or teaching
elders, was laid down by Calvin and
has been adopted as the constitution of
several presbyterian Churches. This
interpretation of St Paul’s language is
refuted by Rothe p. 224, Ritschl p. 352
sq., and Schaff Hist. of Apost. Ch. τι. p.
312, besides older writers such as Vi-
tringa and Mosheim,

PHIL.

4 On 1 Tim. iii. 1, τοὺς δὲ νῦν καλου-
μένους ἐπισκόπους ἀποστόλους ὠνόμα ζον"
τοῦ δὲ χρόνου προϊόντος τὸ μὲν τῆς ἀπο-
στολῆς ὄνομα τοῖς ἀληθῶς ἀποστόλοις
κατέλιπον, τὸ δὲ τῆς ἐπισκοπῆς τοῖς πάλαι
καλουμένοις ἀποστόλοις ἐπέθεσαν. See
also hisnoteon Phil. i. r. Comp. Words-
worth Theoph. Angl. c. x, Blunt First
Three Centuries Ὁ. 81. Theodoret, as
usual, has borrowed from Theodore of
Mopsuestia on 1 Tim. iii. 1, ‘ Qui vero
nune episcopi nominantur, illi tune
apostoli dicebantur ... Beatis vero apo-
stolis decedentibus, illi qui post illos
ordinati sunt ... grave existimaverunt
apostolorum sibi Vv emia e nuncupatio-
nem; diviserunt ergo ipsa nomina ete.’
(Raban. Maur. vr. p. 604 p ed, Migne).
Theodore however makes a distinction
between the two offices: nor does he,

not ‘a con-
tinuation

194

of the apo-

stolate.

Phil. ii. 25
wrongly
explained.

The epis-
copate de-
veloped
out of the
presby-
tery.

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY.

called apostles came afterwards to be designated bishops, is baseless.
If the two offices had been identical, the substitution of the one name
for the other would have required some explanation. But in fact
the functions of the Apostle and the bishop differed widely. The
Apostle, like the prophet or the evangelist, held no local office.
He was essentially, as his name denotes, a missionary, moving about
from place to place, founding and confirming new brotherhoods.
The only ground on which Theodoret builds his theory is a false
interpretation of a passage in St Paul. At the opening of the
Epistle to Philippi the presbyters (here called bishops) and deacons
are saluted, while in the body of the letter one Epaphroditus is
mentioned as an ‘apostle’ of the Philippians. If ‘apostle’ here had
the meaning which is thus assigned to it, all the three orders of the
ministry would be found at Philippi. But this interpretation will
not stand. The true Apostle, like St Peter or St John, bears this
title as the messenger, the delegate, of Christ Himself: while Epaphro-
ditus is only so styled as the messenger of the Philippian brother-
hood ; and in the very next clause the expression is explained by the
statement that he carried their alms to St Paul’. The use of the
word here has a parallel in another passage’, where messengers (or
apostles) of the churches are mentioned. It is not therefore to the
apostle that we must look for the prototype of the bishop. How
far indeed and in what sense the bishop may be called a successor of
the Apostles, will be a proper subject for consideration: but the
succession at least does not consist in an identity of office.

The history of the name itself suggests a different account of the
origin of the episcopate. If bishop was at first used as a synonyme
for presbyter and afterwards came to designate the higher officer under
whom the presbyters served, the episcopate properly so called
would seem to have been developed from the subordinate office.
In other words, the episcopate was formed not out of the apostolic
order by localisation but out of the presbyteral by elevation: and
the title, which originally was common to all, came at length to be
appropriated to the chief among them’.

like Theodoret, misinterpret Phil. ii. 25. 2 2 Cor. viii. 23, see Galatians p. 95,
Thecommentator Hilaryalso,onEphes. note 3.
iv. 11, says ‘apostoli episcopi sunt.’ 3 A parallel instance from Athenian

1 See Phil. ii. 25, with the note. institutions will illustrate this usage.

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 195

If this account be true, we might expect to find in the mother gst James
was the
earliest
ripen into maturity, the first traces of this developed form of the bishop,

James the Lord’s

brother alone, within the period compassed by the apostolic writings,

Church of Jerusalem, which as the earliest founded would soonest
ministry. Nor is this expectation disappointed.

can claim to be regarded as a bishop in the later and more special
sense of the term. In the language of St Paul he takes precedence
even of the earliest and greatest preachers of the Gospel, St Peter and
St John', where the affairs of the Jewish Church specially are con-
cerned. In St Luke’s narrative he appears as the local representa-
tive of the brotherhood in Jerusalem, presiding at the congress, whose
decision he suggests and whose decree he appears to have framed’,
receiving the missionary preachers as they revisit the mother Church*,
_acting generally as the referee in communications with foreign
brotherhoods. The place assigned to him in the spurious Clementines,
where he is represented as supreme arbiter over the Church universal

This
kind of authority is nowhere conferred upon him in the apostolic

in matters of doctrine, must be treated as a gross exaggeration.

writings: but his social and ecclesiastical position, as it appears in
St Luke and St Paul, explains how the exaggeration was possible.
And this position is the more remarkable if, as seems to have been
the case, he was not one of the Twelve*.

On the other hand, though especially prominent, he appears in the pyt yet
not isolat-
; : : ἢ : ed from his
prison is about to leave Jerusalem, he desires that his deliverance presby-

shall be reported to ‘James and the brethren®.” When again St ἵν
Paul on his last visit to the Holy City goes to see James, we are

Acts as a member of a body. When St Peter, after his escape from

told that all the presbyters were present®. If in some passages St

James is named by himself, in others he is omitted and the presbyters

alone are mentioned’.

The ἐπιστάτης was chairman of a body
of ten πρόεδροι, who themselves were
appointed in turn by lot to serve from a
larger body of fifty πρυτάνεις. Yet we
find the ἐπιστάτης not only designated
πρύτανις par excellence (Demosth. Ti-
mocr. § 157), but even addressed by
this name in the presence of the other
πρόεδροι (Thue. vi. 14).

1 Gal. ii. g; see the note. φ'"

? Acts xv. 13 sq. St James speaks

From this it may be inferred that though

last and apparently with some degree
of authority (ἐγὼ κρίνω ver. 19). The
decree is clearly framed on his recom-
mendations, andsome indecisive coinci-
dences of style with his epistle have
been pointed out.

3 Acts xxi. 18; comp. xii. 17. See
also Gal. i. 19, ii. 12.

4 See Galatians p. 247 856.

5 Acts xii. 17. 6 Acts xxi. 18.

7 Acts xi. 30; comp. XV. 4, 23, XVI. 4.

13—2

196

Nobishops
as yet in

theGentile
Churches.

Twostages
of develop-
ment:

(1) Occa-
sional su-
pervision
by the
Apostles
them-
selves.

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY.

holding a position superior to the rest, he was still considered as a
member of the presbytery; that he was in fact the head or president
of the college. What power this presidency conferred, how far it
was recognised as an independent official position, and to what de-
gree it was due to the ascendancy of his personal gifts, are questions
which in the absence of direct information can only be answered by
conjecture. But his close relationship with the Lord, his rare energy
of character, and his rigid sanctity of life which won the respect
even of the unconverted Jews’, would react upon his office, and
may perhaps have elevated it to a level which was not definitely
contemplated in its origin.

But while the episcopal office thus existed in the mother Church
of Jerusalem from very early days, at least in a rudimentary form, the
New Testament presents no distinct traces of such organization in
the Gentile congregations. The government of the Gentile churches,
as there represented, exhibits two successive stages of development
tending in this direction; but the third stage, in which episcopacy
definitely appears, still lies beyond the horizon.

(1) We have first of all the Apostles themselves exercising the
superintendence of the churches under their care, sometimes in per-
son and on the spot, sometimes at a distance by letter or by message.
The imaginary picture drawn by St Paul, when he directs the pun-
ishment of the Corinthian offender, vividly represents his position in
this respect. The members of the church are gathered together, the
elders, we may suppose, being seated apart on a dais or tribune; he
himself, as president, directs their deliberations, collects their votes,
pronounces sentence on the guilty man*. How the absence of the
apostolic president was actually supplied in this instance, we do not
know. But a council was held; he did direct their verdict ‘in spirit
though not in person’; and ‘the majority’ condemned the offender’.
In the same way St Peter, giving directions to the elders, claims a
place among them. The title ‘fellow-presbyter, which he applies to
himself*, would doubtless recall to the memory of his readers the
occasions when he himself had presided with the elders and guided
their deliberations.

1 See Galatians p. 348 sq. 3 2 Cor. ii. 6 ἡ ἐπιτιμία αὕτη ἡ ὑπὸ
Care ΟΣ Υ" 5 ΗΠ τῶν πλειόνων. τὺ ῬοΙν; τὸ

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 197
(2) As the first stage then, the Apostles themselves were the (2) Resi-
superintendents of each individual church. But the wider spread of ae

the Gospel would diminish the frequency of their visits and impair the delegates.
efficiency of such supervision. In the second stage therefore we find
them, at critical seasons and in important congregations, delegating
some trustworthy disciple who should fix his abode in a given place
The Pastoral

It is the conception

for a time and direct the affairs of the church there.
Epistles present this second stage to our view.
of a later age which represents Timothy as bishop of Ephesus and
Titus as bishop of Crete’.
position which they held was temporary. In both cases their term
But the
With less perma-

St Paul’s own language implies that the

of office is drawing to a close, when the Apostle wwites”.
conception is not altogether without foundation.
_nence but perhaps greater authority, the position occupied by these
apostolic delegates nevertheless fairly represents the functions of the
bishop early in the second century. They were in fact the link
between the Apostle whose superintendence was occasional and gene-
ral and the bishop who exercised a permanent supervision over an
individual congregation.

Beyond this second stage the notices in the apostolic writings do The angels
inthe Apo-
calpyse not
But neither does the name ‘angel’ itself bishops.

not carry us. The angels of the seven churches indeed are frequently
alleged as an exception’®.
suggest such an explanation*, nor is this view in keeping with the

highly figurative style of this wonderful book. Its sublime imagery

1 Const. Apost. vii. 46, Euseb. H. E.
iii. 4, and later writers.

3 See τ Tim. i. 3, iii. 14, 2 Tim. iv. 9,
21, Tit. i. 5, iii. 12.

3 See for instance among recent wri-
ters Thiersch Gesch. der Apost. Kirche
p. 278, Trench Epistles to the Seven
Churches p. 47 sq., with others. This
explanation is as old as the earliest
commentators. Rothe supposes thatthe
word anticipates the establishment of
episcopacy, being a kind of prophetic
symbol, p. 423 sq. Others again take
the angel to designate the collective
ministry, i.e. the whole body of priests
and deacons. For various explanations
see Schaff Hist. of Apost. Ch. 11. p. 223.

Rothe (p. 426) supposes that Dio-
trephes ὁ φιλοπρωτεύων αὐτῶν (3 Joh. 9)

was a bishop. This cannot be pro-
nounced impossible, but the language
is far too indefinite to encourage such
an inference.

4 It is conceivable indeed that a
bishop or chief pastor should be called an
angel or messenger of God or of Christ
(comp. Hag. i. 13, Mal. ii. 7), but he
would hardly be styled an angel of the
church over which he presides. See the
parallel case of ἀπόστολος above, p. 194.
Vitringa (1. 9, p. 550), and others after
him, explain ἄγγελος in the Apocalypse
by the mv, the messenger or deputy
of the synagogue. These however were
only inferior officers, and could not be
compared to stars or made responsible
for the well-being of the churches; see
Rothe p. 504.

198

True ex-
planation.

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY.

seems to be seriously impaired by this interpretation. On the other
hand St John’s own language gives the true key to the symbolism.
‘The seven stars,’ so it is explained, ‘are the seven angels of the seven
churches, and the seven candlesticks are the seven churches’.’ This
contrast between the heavenly and the earthly fires—the star shining
steadily by its own inherent eternal light, and the lamp flickering and
uncertain, requiring to be fed with fuel and tended with care—
cannot be devoid of meaning. The star is the suprasensual counter-
part, the heavenly representative; the lamp, the earthly realisation,
the outward embodiment. Whether the angel is here conceived as an
actual person, the celestial guardian, or only as a personification, the
idea or spirit of the church, it is unnecessary for my present purpose
to consider. But whatever may be the exact conception, he is identi-
fied with and made responsible for it to a degree wholly unsuited to
any human officer. Nothing is predicated of him, which may not be
predicated of it. To him are imputed all its hopes, its fears, its
graces, its shortcomings. He is punished with it, and he is rewarded
with it. In one passage especially the language applied to the angel
seems to exclude the common interpretation. In the message to
Thyatira the angel is blamed, because he suffers himself to be led
astray by ‘his wife Jezebel?’ In this image of Ahab’s idolatrous
queen some dangerous and immoral teaching must be personified;
for it does violence alike to the general tenour and to the individual
expressions in the passage to suppose that an actual woman is meant.
Thus the symbolism of the passage is entirely in keeping. Nor
again is this mode of representation new. ‘The ‘princes’ in the pro-
phecy of Daniel*® present a very near if not an exact parallel to the
angels of the Revelation. Here, as elsewhere, St John seems to
adapt the imagery of this earliest apocalyptic book.

Indeed, if with most recent writers we adopt the early date of the
Apocalypse of St John, it is scarcely possible that the episcopal
organization should have been so mature when it was written. In
this case probably not more than two or three years have elapsed
from the date of the Pastoral Epistles*, and this interval seems quite

1 Rev. i. 20. a correct reading, it seems to be a cor-
2 Rey. ii. 20 τὴν γυναῖκά cov lefaBer. _— rect gloss.
The word cov should probably be re- SIDES χ τ, Ze), Mite

tained in the text: or at least, if not 4 The date of the Pastoral Epistles

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 199

insufficient to account for so great a change in the administration
of the Asiatic churches.
As late therefore as the year 70 no distinct signs of episcopal go- Episcopa-

- : : . cy estab-
vernment have hitherto appeared in Gentile Christendom. Yet unless ΠΝ natn
we have recourse to a sweeping condemnation of received documents, gentile

churches

it seems vain to deny that early in the second century the episcopal pefore the
office was firmly and widely established. Thus during the last three ae
decades of the first century, and consequently during the lifetime of
the latest surviving Apostle, this change must have been brought
about. But the circumstances under which it was effected are
shrouded in darkness; and various attempts have been made to read
the obscure enigma. Of several solutions offered one at least deserves
If Rothe’s view cannot be accepted as final, its ex- Rothe’s
amination will at least serve to bring out the conditions of the ΒΟ αὐ
problem: and for this reason I shall state and discuss it as briefly
For the words in which the theory is stated I am
myself responsible.

‘The epoch to which we last adverted marks an important crisis Import-

in the history of Christianity. The Church was distracted and oc a

special notice.

as possible’.

dismayed by the growing dissensions between the Jewish and
Gentile brethren and by the menacing apparition of Gnostic heresy.
So long as its three most prominent leaders were living, there had
been some security against the extravagance of parties, some guaran-

But St

Peter, St Paul, and St James, were carried away by death almost at

tee of harmonious combination among diverse churches.

the same time and in the face of this great emergency. Another
blow too had fallen: the long-delayed judgment of God on the once
With the overthrow of Jerusalem
The keystone of the

fabric was withdrawn, and the whole edifice threatened with ruin.

Holy City was delayed no more.
the visible centre of the Church was removed.

There was a crying need for some organization which should cement
together the diverse elements of Christian society and preserve it

from disintegration.’

may be and probably is as late as a.p.
66 or 67; while the Apocalypse on
this hypothesis was written not later
than A.D. 70.

1 See Rothe’s Anfdnge etc. pp. 354—
392. Rothe’s account of the origin of

episcopacy is assailed (on grounds in
many respects differmg from those
which I have urged) by Baur Ursprung
des Episcopats p. 39 sq., and Ritschl p.
410 Sq.

200

Origin of
the Catho-
licChurch.

Agency of
the surviv-
ing Apo-
stles.

Evidence
of a se-
cond Apo-
stolic
Council.

Hegesip-
pus.

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY.

‘Out of this need the Catholic Church arose. Christendom had
hitherto existed as a number of distinct isolated congregations, drawn
in the same direction by a common faith and common sympathies,
accidentally linked one with another by the personal influence and
apostolic authority of their common teachers, but not bound together
in a harmonious whole by any permanent external organization,
Now at length this great result was brought about. The magnitude
of the change effected during this period may be measured by the
difference in the constitution and conception of the Christian Church
as presented in the-Pastoral Epistles of St Paul and the letters of St
Ignatius respectively.’

To this
question only one answer can be given. This great work must be
ascribed to the surviving Apostles.

‘By whom then was the new constitution organized?

St John especially, who built
up the speculative theology of the Church, was mainly instrumental
in completing its external constitution also; for Asia Minor was the
centre from which the new movement spread. St John however
was not the only Apostle or early disciple who lived in this pro-
St Philip is known to have settled in Hierapolis'. St
Andrew also seems to have dwelt in these parts®. The silence of
history clearly proclaims the fact which the voice of history but
faintly suggests,

vince.

If we hear nothing more of the Apostles’ mission-
ary labours, it is because they had organized an united Church, to
which they had transferred the work of evangelization.’

‘Of such a combined effort on the part of the Apostles, resulting
in a definite ecclesiastical polity, in an united Catholic Church,
no direct account is preserved: but incidental notices are not want-
ing; and in the general paucity of information respecting the whole
period more than this was not to be expected’®.’

‘(1) Eusebius relates that after the martyrdom of St James
and the fall of Jerusalem, the remaining Apostles and personal dis-

1 Papias in Euseb. H. E. iii. 39;
Polyecrates and Caius in Euseb. H. E.
iii. 21.

2 Muratorian Canon (cire. 170. A.D.),
Routh Rel. Sacr. 1. p. 394.

3 Besides the evidence which I have
stated and discussed in the text, Rothe
also brings forward a fragment of the
Predicatio Pauli (preserved in the tract

de Baptismo Hereticorum, which is
included among Cyprian’s works, app.
p- 30, ed. Fell; see Galatians p. 337
note), where the writer mentions a
meeting of St Peter and St Paul in
Rome. The main question however is
so slightly affected thereby, that I have
not thought it necessary to investigate
the value and bearing of this fragment.

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY.

ciples of the Lord, with his surviving relations, met together and
after consultation unanimously appointed Symeon the son of Clopas
to the vacant see’. It can hardly be doubted, that Eusebius in
this passage quotes from the earlier historian Hegesippus, from
whom he has derived the other incidents in the lives of James and
Symeon: and we may well believe that this council discussed
larger questions than the appointment of a single bishop, and that
the constitution and prospects of the Church generally came under
deliberation. It may have been on this occasion that the surviving

Apostles partitioned out the world among them, and ‘Asia was

_assigned to John’.’

‘(2) A fragment of Ireneus points in the same direction.
Writing of the holy eucharist he says, ‘They who have paid atten-
tion to the second ordinances of the Apostles know that the Lord
appointed a new offering in the new covenant®*.’. By these ‘second
ordinances’ must be understood some later decrees or injunctions
than those contained in the apostolic epistles: and these would
naturally be framed and promulgated by such a council as the notice
of Eusebius suggests.’

‘(3) To the same effect St Clement of Rome writes, that the
Apostles, having appointed elders in every church and foreseeing
the disputes which would arise, ‘afterwards added a codicil (supple-
mentary direction) that if they should fall asleep, other approved
men should succeed to their office*’ Here the pronouns ‘they,’
‘their,’ must refer, not to the first appointed presbyters, but to
the Apostles themselves. Thus interpreted, the passage contains a
distinct notice of the institution of bishops as successors of the Apo-
stles; while in the word ‘afterwards’ is involved an allusion to the
later council to which the ‘second ordinances’ of Ireneus also refer.’

1 Kuseb. H. Εἰ. iii. rr.

2 According to the tradition reported
by Origen as quoted in Euseb. H. FE.
ili. 1.

3 One of the Pfaffian fragments, no.
XXXVlli, p. 854 in Stieren’s edition of
Treneus.

4 Clem. Rom. § 44 κατέστησαν τοὺς
προειρημένους (SC. πρεσβυτέρους) Kal μετ-
αξὺτἐπινομὴν δεδώκασιν, ὅπως, ἐὰν κοιμη-
θῶσιν, διαδέξωνται ἕτεροι δεδοκιμασμένοι
ἄνδρες τὴν λειτουργίαν αὐτῶν. The in-
terpretation of the passage depends on

the persons intended in κοιμηθῶσιν and
αὐτῶν (see the notes on the passage).

5 A much more explicit though
somewhat later authority may be
quoted in favour of his view. The
Ambrosian Hilary on Ephes. iv. 12,
speaking of the change from the pres-
byteral to the episcopal form of govern-
ment, says ‘immutata est ratio, pro-
spiciente concilio, ut non ordo ete.’ If
the reading be correct, I suppose he
was thinking of the Apostolic Constitu-
tions. See also the expression of St

201

Trenexus.

Clement of
Rome.

202

Results of
the Coun-
cil.

Value of
Rothe’s
theory.

The eyi-
dence ex-
amined.
Hegesip-
pus.

Trenzus.

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY.

‘These notices seem to justify the conclusion that immediately
after the fall of Jerusalem a council of the apostles and first
teachers of the Gospel was held to deliberate on the crisis, and
to frame measures for the well-being of the Church. The centre of
the system then organized was episcopacy, which at once secured the
compact and harmonious working of each individual congregation,
and as the link of communication between separate brotherhoods
formed the whole into one undivided Catholic Church. Recom-
mended by this high authority, the new constitution was immedi-
ately and generally adopted.’

This theory, which is maintained with much ability and vigour,
attracted considerable notice, as being a new defence of episcopacy
advanced by a member of a presbyterian Church. On the other
hand, its intrinsic value seems to have been unduly depreciated; for,
if it fails to give a satisfactory solution, it has at least the merit of
stating the conditions of the problem with great distinctness, and of
pointing out the direction to be followed. On this account it seemed
worthy of attention.

It must indeed be confessed that the historical notices will not
(1) The account
of Hegesippus (for to Hegesippus the statement in Husebius may

bear the weight of the inference built upon them.

fairly be ascribed) confines the object of this gathering to the
If its deliberations had
exerted that vast and permanent influence on the future of the

appointment of a successor to St James.

Church which Rothe’s theory supposes, it is scarcely possible that
this early historian should have been ignorant of the fact or knowing
it should have passed it over in silence. (2) The genuineness of the -
Pfaffian fragments of Lrenzeus must always remain doubtful’. Inde-
pendently of the mystery which hangs over their publication, the very
passage quoted throws great suspicion on their authorship; for the ex-
pression in question” seems naturally to refer to the so-called Apostolic

Constitutions, which have been swelled to their present size by the

Jerome on Tit. i. 5 (quoted below p.
204) ‘in toto orbe decretum est.’

1 The controversial treatises on either
side are printed in Stieren’s Irenzeus 11.
p. 381 sqq. It is sufficient here to
state that shortly after the transcription
of these fragments by Pfaff, the Turin
Ms from which they were taken dis-

appeared; so that there was no means
of testing the accuracy of the tran-
scriber or ascertaining the character of
the ms.

2 The expression al δεύτεραι τῶν ἀπο-
στόλων διατάξεις closely resembles the
language of these Constitutions; see
Hippol. p. 74, 82 (Lagarde).

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY.

accretions of successive generations, but can hardly have existed even
in a rudimentary form in the age of Ireneus, or if existing have
been regarded* by him as genuine. If he had been acquainted with
such later ordinances issued by the authority of an apostolic coun-
cil, is it conceivable that in his great work on heresies he should
have omitted to quote a sanction so unquestionable, where his main
object is to show that the doctrine of the Catholic Church in his day
represented the true teaching of the Apostles, and his main argu-
ment the fact that the Catholic bishops of his time derived their

203

office by direct succession from the Apostles? (3) The passage in Clement.

the epistle of St Clement cannot be correctly interpreted by Rothe:
for his explanation, though elaborately defended, disregards the pur-
pose of the letter. The Corinthian Church is disturbed by a spirit
_of insubordination, Presbyters, who have faithfully discharged their
duties, have nevertheless been ruthlessly expelled from office. St
Clement writes in the name of the Roman Church to correct these
irregularities. He reminds the Corinthians that the presbyteral
office was established by the Apostles, who not only themselves
appointed elders, but also gave directions that the vacancies caused
from time to time by death should be filled up by other men of cha-
racter, thus providing for a succession in the ministry. Conse-
quently in these unworthy feuds they were setting themselves in
opposition to officers of repute either actually nominated by Apo-
stles, or appointed by those so nominated in accordance with the
apostolic injunctions, There is no mention of episcopacy, properly
so called, throughout the epistle; for in the language of St Clement,
‘bishop’ and ‘presbyter’ are still synonymous terms’. Thus the
pronouns ‘they,’ ‘their,’ refer naturally to the presbyters first ap-
pointed by the Apostles themselves. Whether (supposing the read-
ing to be correct”) Rothe has rightly translated ἐπινομήν ‘a codicil,’
it is unnecessary to enquire, as the rendering does not materially
affect the question.

Nor again does it appear that the rise of episcopacy was so Episcopa-

sudden and so immediate, that an authoritative order issuing from

cy nota
sudden

an apostolic council alone can explain the phenomenon. In the °reation,

mysterious period which comprises the last thirty years of the first

1 See above pp. 95, 96. μονήν; see the notes on the passage.
2 The right reading is probably ém-

204 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY.

century, and on which history is almost wholly silent, episcopacy
must, it is true, have been mainly developed. But before this period:
its beginnings may be traced, and after the close it is not yet fully
matured. It seems vain to deny with Rothe’ that the position of
St James in the mother Church furnished the precedent and the
pattern of the later episcopate. It appears equally mistaken to main-
tain, as this theory requires, that at the close of the first and the
beginning of the second century the organization of all churches
alike had arrived at the same stage of development and exhibited
the episcopate in an equally perfect form.

but ma- On the other hand, the emergency which consolidated the epi-

ey scopal form of government is correctly and forcibly stated. It was

emergency remarked long ago by Jerome, that ‘before factions were introduced
into religion by the prompting of the devil,’ the churches were
governed by a council of elders, ‘but as soon as each man began to
consider those whom he had baptized to belong to himself and not to
Christ, it was decided throughout the world that one elected from
among the elders should be placed over the rest, so that the care of
the church should devolve on him, and the seeds of schism be
removed’. And again in another passage he writes to the same
effect ; ‘When afterwards one presbyter was elected that he might be
placed over the rest, this was done as a remedy against schism, that
each man might not drag to himself and thus break up the Church
of Christ®.’ To the dissensions of Jew and Gentile converts, and to
the disputes of Gnostic false teachers, the development of episcopacy
may be mainly ascribed.

and in Nor again is Rothe probably wrong as to the authority mainly:
ere instrumental in effecting the change. Asia Minor was the adopted

influence home of more than ohne Apostle after the fall of Jerusalem. Asia
of StJohn. wtinor too was the nurse, if not the mother, of episcopacy in the
Gentile Churches. So important an institution, developed in a
Christian community of which St John was the living centre and
guide, could hardly have grown up without his sanction: and, as
will be seen presently, early tradition very distinctly connects his
name with the appointment of bishops in these parts.

But to the question how this change was brought about, a some-

1 p. 264 sq. 3 Epist. ecxlvi ad Evang. (1. ἢ:
3 On Tit.i. 5 (vir. p. 694; ed. Vall.). 1082).

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 205

We have seen that the Manner of
needs of the Church and the ascendancy of his personal character cee
placed St James at the head of the Christian brotherhood in Jeru-

salem. Though remaining a member of the presbyteral council, he

was singled out from the rest and placed in a position of superior

responsibility.

what different answer must be given.

His exact power it would be impossible, and it is
When therefore after the fall of the city
St John with other surviving Apostles removed to Asia Minor and
found there manifold irregularities and threatening symptoms of dis-

unnecessary, to define.

ruption, he would not unnaturally encourage an approach in these
Gentile Churches to the same organization, which had been signally
blessed, and proved effectual in holding together the mother Church
amid dangers not less serious. The existence of a council or col-
_lege necessarily supposes a presidency of some kind, whether this
presidency be assumed by each member in turn, or lodged in the
hands of a single person’. It was only necessary therefore for him
to give permanence, definiteness, stability, to an office which already
existed in germ, There is no reason however for supposing that
any direct ordinance was issued to the churches. The evident
utility and even pressing need of such an office, sanctioned by the
most venerated name in Christendom, would be sufficient to secure
its wide though gradual reception. Such a reception, it is true,
supposes a substantial harmony and freedom of intercourse among
the churches, which remained undisturbed by the troubles of the
times ; but the silence of history is not at all unfavourable to this
supposition. In this way, during the historical blank which éx-
tends over half a century after the fall of Jerusalem, episcopacy
was matured and the Catholic Church consolidated’.

1 The Ambrosian Hilary on Ephes,

pears to denote the president of the
iv. 12 seems to say that the senior

council of elders: see Vitringa tt. 2.p.586

member was president; but this may
be mere conjecture. The constitution
of the synagogue does not aid mate-
rially in settling this question. In the
New Testament at all events ἀρχισυνά-
ywyos is only another name for an elder
of the synagogue (Mark v. 22, Acts
xiii. 15, xviii. 8, 17; comp. Justin. Dial.
c. Tryph. § 137), and therefore corre-
sponds not to the bishop but to the
presbyter of the Christian Church.
Sometimes however ἀρχισυνάγωγος ap-

Sq., 111. 1. p. 610 sq. The opinions of
Vitringa must be received with caution,
as histendency to press the resemblance
between the government of the Jewish
synagogue and the Christian Church is
strong. The real likeness consists in *
the councilof presbyters ; but the three-
fold order of the Christian ministry as
a whole seems to have no counterpart
in the synagogue.

2 The expression ‘Catholic Church’
is found first in the Ignatian letter to

206

This view
supported
by the no-
tices of in-
dividual
churches.

JERUSA-
LEM.

St James.

Symeon,

Later
bishops.

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY.

At all events, when we come to trace the early history of the
office in the principal churches of Christendom in succession, we
shall find all the facts consistent with the account adopted here,
while some of them are hardly reconcileable with any other. In
this review it will be convenient to commence with the mother
Church, and to take the others in order, as they are connected either
by neighbourhood or by political or religious sympathy.

1, The Church of JERusAtEM, as I have already pointed out,
presents the earliest instance of a bishop. A certain official pro-
minence is assigned to James the Lord’s brother, both in the Epi-
stles of St Paul and in the Acts of the Apostles. And the inference
drawn from the notices in the canonical Scriptures is borne out by
the tradition of the next ages. As early as the middle of the second
century all parties concur in representing him as a bishop in the
strict sense of the term’. In this respect Catholic Christians and
Ebionite Christians hold the same language: the testimony of
Hegesippus on the one hand is matched by the testimony of the
Clementine writings on the other. On his death, which is recorded
as taking place immediately before the war of Vespasian, Symeon
was appointed in his place*. Hegesippus, who is our authority for
this statement, distinctly regards Symeon as holding the same office
with James, and no less distinctly calls him a bishop. This same
historian also mentions the circumstance that one Thebuthis (ap-
parently on this occasion), being disappointed of the bishopric, raised
a schism and attempted to corrupt the virgin purity of the Church
with false doctrine. As Symeon died in the reign of Trajan at an’
advanced age, it is not improbable that Hegesippus was born during
Of the successors of Symeon a complete list is preserved
by Eusebius*, The fact however that it comprises thirteen, names

within a period of less than thirty years must throw suspicion on

his lifetime.

the Smyrneans §8. Inthe Martyrdom
of Polycarp it occurs several times,
inser, and δὲ 8, 16, 19. On its mean-
ing see Westcott Canon p. 26, note
(2nd ed.).

1 Hegesipp. in Euseb. H. EL. ii. 23,
iv. 22; Clem. Hom. xi. 35, Ep. Petr.
init., and Ep.Clem. init.; Clem. Recogn.
1. 43, 68, 73; Clem. Alex. in Euseb. ii.
1; Const. Apost. v. 8, Vi. 14, Vill. 35,
46.

2 Hegesipp. in Euseb. H. E. iv. 22.

3 H. Ε΄. iv. 5. The episcopate of
Justus the successor of Symeon com-
mences about a.p. 108: that of Marcus
the first Gentile bishop, a.p. 136. Thus
thirteen bishops occupy only about
twenty-eight years. Even after the
foundation of Alia Capitolina the suc-
cession is very rapid. In the period
from Marcus (a.p. 136) to Narcissus
(A.D. 190) we count fifteen bishops.

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 207

its accuracy. A succession so rapid is hardly consistent with the
known tenure of life offices in ordinary cases: and if the list be cor-
rect, the frequent changes must be attributed to the troubles and
If Eusebius here also had derived his
information from Hegesippus, it must at least have had some solid

uncertainties of the times’.

foundation in fact; but even then the alternation between Jerusalem
and Pella, and the possible confusion of the bishops with other pro-
minent members of the presbytery, might introduce much error.
It appears however that in this instance he was indebted to less
The statement that after
the foundation of Aelia Capitolina (A.D. 136) Marcus presided

trustworthy sources of information’.

over the mother Church, as its first Gentile bishop, need not be
questioned; and beyond this point it is unnecessary to carry the in-
vestigation’.

Of other bishops in PALEsTINE and the neighbourhood before the Other sees
in Pales-

? tine and

so far as I know. During the Roman episcopate of Victor however neighbour-

(about A.D. 190), we find three bishops, Theophilus of Czesarea, Cas- eee G8

latter half of the second century no trustworthy notice is preserved

sius of Tyre, and Clarus of Ptolemais, in conjunction with Narcissus
of Jerusalem, writing an encyclical letter in favour of the western
view in the Paschal controversy*. If indeed any reliance could be
placed on the Clementine writings, the episcopate of Palestine was
matured at a very early date: for St Peter is there represented as
appointing bishops in every city which he visits, in Cesarea, Tyre,
Sidon, Berytus, Tripolis, and Laodicea’, And though the fictions
of this theological romance have no direct historical value, it is

The repetition of the same names how-
ever suggests that some conflict was
going on during this interval.

1 Parallels nevertheless may be found
in the annals of the papacy. Thus from
A.D, 882 to A.D. go4 there were thirteen
popes: and in other times of trouble
the succession has been almost as
rapid.

* This may be inferred from a com-
parison of H. Ε. ἵν. 5 τοσοῦτον ἐξ éyypa-
pov παρείληφα with H. H.y. 12 ai τῶν
αὐτόθι διαδοχαὶ περιέχουσι. His infor-
mation was probably taken from a list
kept at Jerusalem; but the case of the
spurious correspondence with Abgarus

preserved in the archives of Edessa
(H. Ε. 1. 13) shows howtreacherous such
sources of information were.

3 Narcissus, who became bishop of
Jerusalem in 1go A.D., might well have
preserved the memory of much earlier
times. His successor Alexander, in
whose favour he resigned a.p. 214,
speaks of him as still living at the ad-
vanced age of 116 (Euseb. H.E. vi. 11).

4 Kuseb. H. EH. v. 25.

> Clem. Hom. iii. 68 sq. (Cewsarea),
vii. 5 (Tyre), vii. 8 (Sidon), vii. 12
(Berytus), xi. 36 (Tripolis), xx. 23
(Laodicea) : comp. Clem. Recogn. iii.65,
66; 74, Vi. 15, x. 68:.

208

ANTIOCH.

Evyodius.

Ignatius.

Later
bishops.

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY.

hardly probable that the writer would have indulged in such state- —
ments, unless an early development of the episcopate in these parts
had invested his narrative with an air of probability. The institu-
tion would naturally spread from the Church of Jerusalem to the
more important communities in the neighbourhood, even without the
direct intervention of the Apostles.

2. From the mother Church of the Hebrews we pass naturally
to the metropolis of Gentile Christendom. AnrTiocH is traditionally
reported to have received its first bishop Evodius from St Peter’.
The story may perhaps rest on some basis of truth, though no confidence
can be placed in this class of statements, unless they are known to
have been derived from some early authority. But of Ignatius, who
stands second in the traditional catalogue of Antiochene bishops,
we can speak with more confidence. He is designated a bishop by
very early authors, and he evidently speaks as such. He writes to
one bishop, Polycarp; he mentions by name another, Onesimus’*.
He looks forward to the appointment of a successor at Antioch after
his death®, He urges obedience to their bishops on his correspond-
ents. And, lest it should be supposed that he uses the term in its
earlier sense as a synonyme for presbyter, he in one passage mentions
in conjunction the three orders of the ministry, the bishop, the
presbyters, and the deacons*. Altogether it is plain that he looks
upon the episcopal system as the authoritative form of government
in those churches with which he is most directly concerned. It may
be suggested indeed that he would hardly have enforced the claims
of episcopacy, unless it were an object of attack, and its compara-
tively recent origin might therefore be inferred: but still some years
would be required before it could have assumed that mature and
definite form which it has in his letters. It seems impossible to
decide, and it is needless to investigate, the exact date of the epistles
of St Ignatius: but we cannot do wrong in placing them during the
earliest years of the second century. The successor to whom Igna-
tius alludes is reported to have been Hero*®: and from his time
onward the list of Antiochene bishops is complete®. If the authen-

1 Const, Apost. vii. 46, Euseb. H. Ε. 4 Polyc. 6. See above, p. 96.
ili. 22. 5 Huseb. H. EH. 111. 36.

2 Ephes. 1. 6 Kuseb, H. E. iv. 20.

5. Polyc. 8 (Syr.).

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 209

ticity of the list, as a whole, is questionable, two bishops of Antioch
at least during the second century, Theophilus and Serapion, are
known as historical persons.

If the Clementine writings emanated, as seems probable, from Clemen-
Syria or Palestine’, this will be the proper place to state their attitude πρόμον:
with regard to episcopacy. Whether the opinions there advanced
exhibit the recognised tenets of a sect or congregation, or the private

views of the individual writer or writers, will probably never be
ascertained ; but, whatever may be said on this point, these heretical
books outstrip the most rigid orthodoxy in their reverence for the
episcopal office. Monarchy is represented as necessary to the peace
of the Church’.
honoured as the image of God’.

The bishop occupies the seat of Christ and must be
And hence St Peter, as he moves
from place to place, ordains bishops everywhere, as though this were
the crowning act of his missionary labours*. The divergence of the
Clementine doctrine from the tenets of Catholic Christianity only
renders this phenomenon more remarkable, when we remember the

very early date of these writings; for the Homilies cannot well be

placed later than the end, and should perhaps be placed towards the
beginning, of the second century.

3. We have hitherto been κατ only with the Greek syrrawn
Church of Syria. Of the early history of the Syrian Cuuron, C2U8¢H
strictly so called, no trustworthy account is preserved. The documents
which profess to give information respecting it are comparatively
late: and while their violent anachronisms discredit them as a whole,
it is impossible to separate the fabulous from the historic’, It should
be remarked however, that they exhibit a high sacerdotal view of
the episcopate as prevailing in these churches from the earliest times
of which any record is preserved’.

4. Asta Minor follows next in order; and here we find the Agra My.

NOR.

1 See Galatians pp. 325, 326.

2 Clem. Hom. iii. 62.

3 Clem. Hom. iii. 62, 66, 70.
below, p. 236.

4 See the references given above p.
207, note 5.

> The Ancient Syriac Documents edit-
ed by Cureton and Wright. Some of
these must be old, for they were seen
by Eusebius in the archives of Edessa

PHIL.

See

(H. E. i. 13); but nevertheless they
abound in the grossest anachronisms,
€.g. Pp. 17, 23.

ὁ See for instance pp. 13, 16, 18, 21,
23, 24, 26, 29, 30, 33, 34, 35) 42, 71.
The succession to the episcopate is
conferred by the ‘Hand of Priesthood’
through the Apostles, who received it
from our Lord, and is derived ultimately
from Moses and Aaron (p. 24).

210 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY.

widest and most unequivocal traces of episcopacy at an early cate.
Clement of Alexandria distinctly states that St John went about from
city to city, his purpose being ‘in some places to establish bishops, in
ae - others to consolidate whole churches, in others again to appoint to
proconsu- the clerical office some one of those who had been signified by the
lar Asia, Spirit’.’ ‘The sequence of bishops,’ writes Tertullian in like manner
of Asia Minor, ‘traced back to its origin will be found to rest on
the authority of John’.’ And a writer earlier than either speaks of
St John’s ‘fellow-disciples and bishops*’ as gathered about him. The
conclusiveness even of such testimony might perhaps be doubted, if
it were not supported by other more direct evidence. At the begin-
ning of the second century the genuine letters of Ignatius mention by
Onesimus. name two bishops in these parts, Onesimus of Ephesus and Polycarp
polyestp: of Smyrna*. Of the former nothing more is known: the latter
evidently writes as a bishop, for he distinguishes himself from his
presbyters*, and is expressly so called by other writers besides
Ignatius, His pupil Iveneeus says of him, that he had ‘not
only been instructed by Apostles and conversed with many who had
seen Christ but had also been established by Apostles in Asia ag
bishop in the Church at Smyrna‘, Polycrates also, a younger con-
temporary of Polycarp and himself bishop of Ephesus, designates him
by this title’; and again in the letter written by his own church
and giving an account of his martyrdom he is styled ‘bishop of the -
Catholic Church in Smyrna’,’ As Polycarp survived the middle of
the second century dying at a very advanced age (about A.D. 166) the
possibility of error on this point seems to be excluded: and indeed
all historical evidence must be thrown aside as worthless, if testimony
so strong can be disregarded,
Ignatian The short Greek of the Ignatian letters is probably corrupt or
ae spurious: but from internal evidence this recension can hardly have
been made later than the middle of the second century’, and its

1 Quis Div. Salv. 42 (p. 959). > Ῥοῖγο. Phil. init.

2 Adv. Mare. iv. 5. 6 Tren. iii. 3. 4. Comp. Tertull. de
3 Muratorian Fragment, Routh Rel. Prescr. 32.

Sacr. i. 394. Irenzus too, whose ex- 7 In Euseb, v. 24.

perience was drawn chiefly from Asia 8 Mart. Polyc. 16. Polyearp is eall-

Minor, more than once speaks of ed ‘bishop of Smyrna’ also in Mart.
bishops appointed by the Apostles, iii. Ignat. 3.
SU ΤΥ 260. ΤΣ ᾿ 9. See below, p. 232, note.

+ See above, p. 208,

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. hte

witness therefore is highly valuable. The staunch advocacy of the
episcopate which distinguishes these writings is well known and
will be considered hereafter. At present we are only concerned with
the historical testimony which they bear to the wide extension and
authoritative claims of the episcopal office. Besides Polycarp and
Onesimus, mentioned by the true Ignatius, the writer names also
Damas bishop of Magnesia’ and Polybius bishop of Tralles’; and he
urges on the Philadelphians also the duty of obedience to their
bishop*, though the name is not given. It seems probable that these
were not fictitious personages, for he would be anxious to give an air
of reality to his writings: but whether or not we regard his testimony
as indirectly affecting the age of Ignatius, for his owf time at
least it must be regarded as valid.

But the evidence is not confined to the persons and the churches
already mentioned. Papias, who was a friend of Polycarp and had
conversed with personal disciples of the Lord, is commonly desig.
nated bishop of Hierapolis*; and we learn from a younger contem- ee
porary Serapion’, that Claudius Apollinaris, known as a writer jis,
against the Montanists, also held this see in the reign of M. Aurelius.

Again Sagaris the martyr who seems to have perished in the same Sagaris.
persecution with Polycarp (A.D. 166)° is designated bishop of Laodicea

by one writing towards the close of the same century, who also

alludes to Melito the contemporary of Sagaris as holding the see of Melito.
Sardis’, The authority just quoted, Polycrates of Ephesus, who Polycrates
flourished in the last decade of the century, says moreover that he bea rae
had had seven relations bishops before him, himself being the eighth,

and that he followed their tradition’. When he wrote he had been
‘sixty-five years in the Lord’; so that even, if this period date from

the time of his birth and not of his conversion or baptism, he must

have been born scarcely a quarter of a century after the death of

the last surviving Apostle, whose latest years were spent in the very

Church over which Polycrates himself presided. It appears more-

1 Magn. 2. 7 Polyerates in Euseb. H. E. v. 24.
Ὁ. γα, τ. _ Melito’s office may be inferred from the
BP paladets contrast implied in περιμένων τὴν ἀπὸ
4 Euseb. H. E. iii. 36. τῶν οὐρανῶν ἐπισκοπ ἦν.

5 In Euseb. H. E. v. 19. 8 In Euseb, H. Ε΄. v.24. See Gala-
® See his contemporary Melito in tians Ρ. 345, note. ᾿
Euseb. H. ΕἸ. iv. 26.

I yee

212

Bishops in
other parts
of Asia
Minor.

Episcopal
synods.

MacEpo-
NIA and
GREECE.

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY.

over from his language that none of these relations to whom he refers
were surviving when he wrote.

Thus the evidence for the early and wide extension of episcopacy
throughout proconsular Asia, the scene of St John’s latest labours,
may be considered irrefragable. And when we pass to other districts
of Asia Minor, examples are not wanting, though these are neither
so early nor so frequent. Marcion a native of Sinope is related to
have been the son of a Christian bishop‘: and Marcion himself had
elaborated his theological system before the middle of the second
century. Again, a bishop of Eumenia, Thraseas by name, is stated
by Polycrates to have been martyred and buried at Smyrna’; and, as
he is mentioned in connexion with Polyearp, it may fairly be sup-
posed that the two suffered in the same persecution. Dionysius of
Corinth moreover writing to Amastris and the other churches of
Pontus (about A.D. 170) mentions Palmas the bishop ‘of this city*: and
when the Paschal controversy breaks out afresh under Victor of
Rome, we find this same Palmas putting his signature first to a cir-
cular letter as the senior of the bishops of Pontus*» An anonymous
writer also, who took part in the Montanist controversy, speaks of
two bishops of repute, Zoticus of Comana and Julianus of Apamea,
as having resisted the impostures of the false prophetesses®’. But
indeed the frequent notices of encyclical letters written and synods
held towards the close of the second century are a much more power-
ful testimony to the wide extension of episcopacy throughout the
provinces of Asia Minor than the incidental mention of individual
names. On one such occasion Polycrates speaks of the ‘crowds’ of
bishops whom he had summoned to confer with him on the Paschal
question ®, “

5. As we turn from Asia Minor to ΜΑΘΕΡΟΝΙΑ and GREECE,
the evidence becomes fainter and scantier. This circumstance is no
doubt due partly to the fact that these churches were much less
active and important during the second century than the Christian
communities of Asia Minor, but the phenomena cannot be wholly
explained by this consideration. When Tertullian in one of his

1 [Tertull.] adv. omn. heres. 6. amea on the Meander is mentioned at
2 In Euseb. H. E. v. 24, the end of the chapter, probably this
3 In Euseb. H. E. iv. 23. is the place meant.

4 Euseb. H. E. v. 23. δ In Euseb. H. EF. v. 24 πολλὰ πλήθη.

5 In Euseb. H. FE. v. τό. As Ap-

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 213

rhetorical flights challenges the heretical teachers to consult the Later de-
apostolic churches, where ‘the very sees of the Apostles still pre- eee
side,’ adding, ‘If Achaia is nearest to you, then you have Corinth; if P8¢y-
you are not far from Macedonia, you have Philippi, you have the
Thessalonians ; if you can reach Asia, you have Ephesus'’: his main
argument was doubtless just, and even the language would commend

itself to his own age, for episcopacy was the only form of government

known or remembered in the church when he wrote: but a careful
investigation scarcely allows, and certainly does not encourage us,

to place Corinth and Philippi and Thessalonica in the same category

with Ephesus as regards episcopacy. The term ‘apostolic see’ was
appropriate to the latter; but, so far as we know, it cannot be
strictly applied to the former. During the early years of the second
century, when episcopacy was firmly established in the principal
churches of Asia Minor, Polycarp sends a letter to the Philippians. Philippi.
He writes in the name of himself and his presbyters; he gives

advice to the Philippians respecting the obligations and the autho-

rity of presbyters and deacons: he is minute in. his instructions
respecting one individual presbyter, Valens by name, who had. been

guilty of some crime; but throughout the letter he never once refers

to their bishop; and indeed its whole tone is hardly consistent with

the supposition that they had any chief officer holding the same pro-

minent position at Philippi which he himself held at Smyrna. We

are thus driven to the conclusion that episcopacy did not exist at all

among the Philippians at this time, or existed only in an elementary

form, so that the bishop was a mere president of the presbyteral
council. At Thessalonica indeed, according to a tradition mentioned Thessalo-
by Origen’, the same Caius whom St Paul describes as his host aD

at Corinth was afterwards appointed bishop; but with so common

a name the possibilities of error are great, even if the testimony

were earlier in date and expressed in more distinct terms. When

from Macedonia we pass to Achaia, the same phenomena present
themselves. At the close of the first century Clement writes to Coriuth.
Corinth, as at the beginning of the second century Polycarp writes to ἢ
Philippi. As in the latter epistle, so in the former, there is no allu-

sion to the episcopal office: yet the main subject of Clement’s letter

1 Tertull, de Prescr. 37. traditione majorum’ (rv. p. 86, ed. De-
2 On Rom. xvi. 23; ‘Fertur sane larue).

214

Athens.

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. -

is the expulsion and ill treatment of certain presbyters, whose au-
thority he maintains as holding an office instituted by and handed
down from the Apostles themselves. If Corinth however was
without a bishop in the strict sense at the close of the first century,
she cannot long have remained so. When some fifty years later
Hegesippus stayed here on his way to Rome, Primus was bishop
of this Church; and it is clear moreover from this writer’s language
that Primus had been preeeded by several occupants of the see’.
Indeed the order of his narrative, so far as we can piece it together
from the broken fragments preserved in Eusebius, might suggest
the inference, not at all improbable in itself, that episcopacy had
been established at Corinth as a corrective of the dissensions
and feuds which had called forth Clement’s letter?, Again Dionysius,
one of the immediate successors of Primus, was the writer of several
letters of which fragments are extant®; and at the close of the
century we meet with a later bishop of Corinth, Bacchyllus, who
takes an active part in the Paschal controversy*. When from
Corinth we pass on to Athens, a very early instance of a bishop
confronts us, on authority which seems at first sight good. Eusebius
represents Dionysius of Corinth, who wrote apparently about the
year 170, as stating that his namesake the Areopagite, ‘having been
brought to the faith by the Apostle Paul according to the account
in the Acts, was the first to be entrusted with the bishopric (or
supervision) of the diocese (in the language of those times, the parish)
of the Athenians*.’ Now, if we could be sure that Eusebius was
here reporting the exact words of Dionysius, the testimony though
In this case the
easiest solution would be, that this ancient writer had not unnatu-
rally confounded the earlier and

not conclusive would be entitled to great deference.

later usage of the word bishop.

1 In Euseb. H. E.iv. 22, καὶ ἐπέμενεν μεντος πρὸς Κορινθίους ἐπιστολῆς αὐτῷ

ἡ ἐκκλησία ἡ ἹΚορινθίων ἐν τῷ ἀρθῷ λόγῳ
μέχρι Πρίμου ἐπισκοπεύοντος ἐν ἹΚορίνθῳ
x.7.A. Alittle later he speaks of ἑκάστῃ
διαδοχή, referring apparently to Corinth
among other churches.

2 Hegesippus mentioned the feuds in
the Church of Corinth during the reign
of Domitian, which had occasioned the
writing of this letter (H. Εἰ. ili. 16);
and then after some account of Cle-
ment’s epistle (werd Twa περὶ τῆς Κλή-

εἰρημένα, H. ΕἸ. iv. 22) he continued in
the words which are quoted in the last
note (ἐπιλέγοντος ταῦτα, Kal ἐπέμενεν
ἡ ἐκκλησία κ. τ. λ.). On the probable
tenor οὗ Hegesippus’ work see below,
Ῥ. 218.

3 The fragments of Dionysius are
found in Euseb. H. ΕΠ. iv. 23. See
also Routh Rel. Sacr. 1. p. 177 sq.

4 Kuseb. H. EH. v. 22, 23.

5 In Kuseb. H. EH. iv. 23.

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 215

But it seems most probable that Eusebius (for he does not profess
to be giving a direct quotation) has unintentionally paraphrased and
interpreted the statement of Dionysius by the light of later ecclesias-
tical usages. However Athens, like Corinth, did not long remain
without a bishop. The same Dionysius, writing to the Athenians,
reminds them how, after the martyrdom of Publius their ruler (rov
προεστῶτα), Quadratus becoming bishop sustained the courage and
stimulated the faith of the Athenian brotherhood’, If, as seems
more probable than not, this was the famous Quadratus who pre-
sented his apology to Hadrian during that emperor’s visit to Athens,
the existence of episcopacy in this city is thrown back early in the
century; even though Quadratus were not already bishop when
Hadrian paid his visit.

6. The same writer, from whom we learn these particulars about ΟΒΕΤΕ.
‘episcopacy at Athens, also furnishes information on the Church in
Crete. He writes letters to two different communities in this island,
the one to Gortyna commending Philip who held this see, the other to
the Cnossians offering words of advice to their bishop Pinytus'. The
first was author of a treatise against Marcion*; the latter wrote a
reply to Dionysius, of which Eusebius preserved a brief notice’.

7. Of episcopacy in ΤΉΒΑΟΘΕ, and indeed of the Thracian Church Trace.
generally, we read nothing till the close of the second century, when
one Adlius Publius Julius bishop of Debeltum, a colony in this pro-
vince, signs an encyclical letter®. The existence of a see at a place so
unimportant implies the wide spread of episcopacy in these regions.

8. As we turn to Romer, we are confronted by a far more per- Rome.
plexing problem than any encountered hitherto. The attempt to
decipher the early history of episcopacy here seems almost hopeless,

where the evidence is at once scanty and conflicting. It has been The pre-

g
not

rule, the spirit which dominated in the State must by natural pre- monarchi-
disposition and sympathy have infused itself into the Church also, so
that a monarchical form of government would be developed more

often assumed that in the metropolis of the world, the seat of imperial aes

1 Euseb. H. E. iv. 23. lation of Roman usage, suggests the
2 Kuseb. H. H. iy. 25. probability that the signatures of three
% Euseb. H. Ε. v.19. Thecombina- distinct persons have got confused. The
tion of three gentile names in ‘Mlius error however, if error it be, does not
Publius Julius’ is perhaps possible at affect the inference in the text.
this late epoch; but, being a gross vio-

Bearing of
Clement’s
epistle.

Testimony
of Ignatius

and
Hermas.

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY.

rapidly here than in other parts of Christendom. This supposition
seems to overlook the fact that the influences which prevailed in the
early church of the metropolis were more Greek than Roman’, and
that therefore the tendency would be rather towards individual
liberty than towards compact and rigorous government. But indeed
such presumptions, however attractive and specious, are valueless
against the slightest evidence of facts. And the most trustworthy
sources of information which we possess do not countenance the idea.
The earliest authentic document bearing on the subject is the Epistle
from the Romans to the Corinthians, probably written in the last
decade of the first century. I have already considered the bearing of
this letter on episcopacy in the Church of Corinth, and it is now
time to ask what light it throws on this same institution at Rome.
Now we cannot hesitate to accept the universal testimony of anti-
quity that it was written by Clement, the reputed bishop of Rome:
and it is therefore the more surprising that, if he held this high
office, the writer should not only not distinguish himself in any way
from the rest of the church (as Polycarp does for instance), but that
even his name should be suppressed. It is still more important to
observe that, though he has occasion to speak of the ministry as an
institution of the Apostles, he mentions only two orders and is silent
about the episcopal office. Moreover he still uses the word ‘bishop’
in the older sense in which it occurs in the apostolic writings, as
a synonyme for presbyter’; and it may be argued that the recogni-
tion of the episcopate as a higher and distinct office would oblige
the adoption of a special name and therefore must have synchro-
nized roughly with the separation of meaning between ‘bishop’ and
‘presbyter.’ Again, not many years after the date of Clement's
letter, St Ignatius on his way to martyrdom writes to the Romans.
Though this saint is the recognised champion of episcopacy, though
the remaining six of the Ignatian letters all contain direct injunc-
tions of obedience to bishops, in this epistle alone there is no allu-
sion to the episcopal office as existing among his correspondents.
The lapse of a few years carries us from the letters of Ignatius to the
Shepherd of Hermas. And here the indications are equivocal. The
angelic messenger directs Hermas to impart the revelation to the

1 See above, pp. 19, 20. 7 See above, pp. 95, 96.

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY.

_ presbyters and also to make two copies, the one for Clement who shall

communicate with the foreign churches (such being his duty), the
other for Grapte who shall instruct the widows. Hermas himself is
charged to ‘read it to this city with the elders who preside over the
church!’ Elsewhere mention is made of the ‘rulers’ of the church’.
And again, in an enumeration of the faithful officers of the churches
past and present, he speaks of the ‘apostles and bishops and teachers
and deacons*,’ Here probably the word ‘bishop’ is used in its later
sense, and the presbyters are designated by the term ‘teachers.’ Yet
this interpretation cannot be regarded as certain, for the ‘bishops and
teachers’ in Hermas, like the ‘pastors and teachers’ in St Paul, may
possibly refer to the one presbyteral office in its twofold aspect.
Other passages in which Hermas uses the same terms are indecisive.
Thus he speaks of ‘apostles and teachers who preached to the whole
world and taught with reverence and purity the word of the Lord”;
of ‘deacons who exercised their diaconate ill and plundered the life
(τὴν ζωήν) of widows and orphans*’; of ‘hospitable bishops who at all
times received the servants of God into their homes cheerfully and
without hypocrisy? ‘who protected the bereaved and the widows
in their ministrations without ceasing®.’ From these passages it
seems impossible to arrive at a safe conclusion respecting the minis-
try at the time when Hermas wrote. In other places he condemns
the false prophet ‘who seeming to have the Spirit exalts himself and
would fain have the first seat’’; or he warns ‘those who rule over
the church and those who hold the chief-seat,’ bidding them give up
their dissensions and live at peace among themselves’; or he de-
nounces those who have ‘emulation one with another for the first

217

place or for some honour®.’ If we could accept the suggestion that Unwar-

ranted

in this last class of passages the writer condemns the ambition which inference.

1 Vis. li. 4 γράψεις οὖν δύο βιβλιδάρια
καὶ πέμψεις ἕν Κλήμεντι καὶ ἕν Τραπτῇ.
πέμψει οὖν Κλήμης els τὰς ἔξω πόλεις᾽
ἐκείνῳ γὰρ ἐπιτέτραπται: Τραπτὴ δὲ
νουθετήσει Tas χήρας καὶ τοὺς ὀρφανούς"
σὺ δὲ ἀναγνώσεις εἰς ταύτην τὴν πόλιν
μετὰ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων τῶν προϊσταμένων
τῆς ἐκκλησίας.

3 Vis: il. 2, iii, 9.

2 AG 11) Ee
4 Sim. ix. 2
5 2

Ge
Sim. ix. 26.

6 Sim. ix. 27.

7 Mand. xi.

8 Vis. ili. g ὑμῖν λέγω τοῖς προηγου-
μένοις τῆς ἐκκλησίας καὶ τοῖς πρωτοκαθε-
δρίταις, κιτ.ιλ. Theword πρωτοκαθεδρίτης
seems to mean nothing more than ‘oc-
cupant of the first seat” (comp. συνδι-
δασκαλίτης Ign. Eph. 3; compedagogita
Orell. Inscr. 2818, 2819), and need not
be ironical as Ritschl (p. 403) supposes.

9 Sim. viii. 7.

218

Testimony
of Hegesip-
pus

and of Ire-
nieus.

Lists of
Roman
bishops.

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY.

aimed at transforming the presbyterian into the episcopal form of -
government’, we should have arrived ata solution of the difficulty:
but the rebukes are couched in the most general terms and apply at
least as well to the ambitious pursuit of existing offices as to the
This clue
failing us, the notices in the Shepherd are in themselves too vague to

arrogant assertion of a hitherto unrecognized power’.
lead to any result. Were it not known that the writer's own
brother was bishop of Rome, we should be at a loss what to say
about the constitution of the Roman Church in his day’. .
But while the testimony of these early writers appears at first
sight and on the whole unfavourable to the existence of episcopacy in
Rome when they wrote, the impression needs to be corrected by im-
portant considerations on the other side. Hegesippus, who visited.
Rome about the middle of the second century during the papacy of
Anicetus, has left it on record that he drew up a list of the Roman |
bishops to his own time*, As the list is not preserved, we can only
conjecture its contents; but if we may judge from the sentence imme-
diately following in which he praises the orthodoxy of this and other
churches under each succession, his object was probably to show that
the teaching of the Apostles had been carefully preserved and handed
down, and he would therefore trace the episcopal succession back to
apostolic times®. Such at all events is the aim and method of Ire-
neus who, writing somewhat later than Hegesippus and combating
Gnostic heresies, appeals especially to the bishops of Rome, as depo-
sitaries of the apostolic tradition®, The list of Irenzeus commences
with Linus, whom he identifies with the person of this name men-
tioned by St Paul, and whom he states to have been ‘entrusted with
the office of the bishopric’ by the Apostles.

is Anencletus of whom he relates nothing, the third Clemens whom

The second in succession

1 So Ritschl pp. 403, 535.

3 Comp. Matt. xxiii. 6, etc. When
Trenzus wrote, episcopacy was certainly
a venerable institution: yet his lan-
guage closely resembles the reproachful
expressions of Hermas: ‘Contumeliis
agunt reliquos et principalis consessio-
nis (Mss concessionis) tumore elatisunt’
(iv. 26. 3).

3 See above, p. 166, note 8.

4 In Kuseb. H. EL. iv. 22.

5 The words of Hegesippus ἐν ἑκάστῃ

διαδοχῇ καὶ ἐν ἑκάστῃ πόλει K.T.r. have a
parallel in those of Irenzus (iii. 3. 3) τῇ
αὐτῇ τάξει καὶ τῇ αὐτῇ διδαχῇ (Lat.
‘hac ordinatione et successione’) ἥ τε
ἀπὸ τῶν ἀποστόλων ἐν TH ἐκκλησίᾳ πα-
ράδοσις καὶ τὸ τῆς ἀληθείας κήρυγμα
κατήντηκεν εἰς ἡμᾶς. May not Ireneus
haye derived his information from the
διαδοχὴ of Roman bishops which Hege-
sippus drew up? See below, p. 238.
Siren) 111.,2. 2.

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY.

he describes as a hearer of the Apostles and as writer of the letter to
the Corinthians,
Xystus, Telesphorus, Hyginus, Pius, Anicetus, Soter, and Eleuthe-

The others in order are Evarestus, Alexander,

rus dering whose episcopacy Irenzeus writes. Eusebius in different

works gives two lists, both agreeing in the, order with Ireneus, |

though not according with each other in the dates. Catalogues are
also found in later writers, transposing the sequence of the earliest
bishops, and adding the name Cletus or substituting it for Anen-
cletus'. If these later catalogues deserve to be considered at all, the
discrepancies may be explained by assuming two distinct churches
in Rome—a Jewish and a Gentile community—in the first ages’;
or they may have arisen from a confusion of the earlier and later

senses of ἐπίσκοπος.

can safely be assumed of Linus and Anencietus than that they held 4

219

With the many possibilities of error, no more Linus,
A.D. 68.
nencle-

some prominent position in the Roman Church. But the reason for tus :
A.D. 50.

supposing Clement to have been a bishop is as strong as the universal Clement,

tradition of the next ages can make it.
bishop, we must not suppose him to have attained the same distinct
isolated position of authority which was occupied by his successors
Eleutherus and Victor for instance at the close of the second century,
or even by his contemporaries Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp of
Smyrna. He was rather the chief of the presbyters than the chief
over the presbyters. Only when thus limited, can the episcopacy of
St Clement be reconciled with the language of his own epistle or
At the same

time the allusion in the Shepherd, though inconsistent with any ex-

with the notice in his younger contemporary Hermas.

‘alted conception of his office, does assign to him as his special pro-

1 On this subject see Pearson’s ‘Dis-
sertationes due de serie et successione
primorum Rome episcoporum’ in his
Minor Theological Works 11. p. 296 sq.
(ed. Churton). The Bucherian Cata-
logue eyidently belongs to the age of
Hippolytus and may have come from
himself; but it has been so corrupted
by omissions and transpositions, as to
be almost valueless for the early bishops:
see Mommsen Uebef den Chronographen
vom Jahre 354, p. 583 8q., and compare
Lipsius Quellenkritik des Epiphanios,
p- 59. Recently another (undated) ca-

talogue of the Roman bishops has been
added to those already known (see An-
cient Syriac Documents p. 71), but this
is of no value. The omission of Cle-
ment’s name in the Syriac list is doubt-
less due to the fact that the names
Cletus, Clemens, begin with the same
letters. Im the margin I have for con-
venience given the dates of the Roman
bishops from the Ecclesiastical History
of Eusebius, without however attaching
any weight to them in the case of the
earlier names. See above p. 166,
2 See Galatians p. 323.

Yet, while calling him a *” 9?

Evarestus,
A.D 100.

Alexander;
A.D. 109.
Xystus,

A.D. 110.

Telespho-
rus,

INS ID, 158.
Hyginus,

A.D. 139.

Pius,

A.D. 142.

Anicetus,

A.D. 157.

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY.

vince the duty of communicating with foreign churches', which in
the early ages was essentially the bishop’s function, as may be seen
by the instances of Polycarp, of Dionysius, of Irenseus, and of Poly-
crates, Of the two succeeding bishops, Evarestus and ALEX4NDER,
no authentic notices are preserved. Xystus, who follows, is the re-
puted author of a collection of proverbs, which a distinguished living
critic has not hesitated to accept as genuine*®. He is also the earliest
of those Roman prelates whom Irenzus, writing to Victor in the
name of the Gallican Churches, mentions as having observed Easter
after the western reckoning and yet maintained peace with those
who kept it otherwise*, The next two, TeELEspHoRUs and Hycinus,
are described in the same terms, The former is likewise distin-
guished as the sole martyr among the early bishops of the metro-
polis’; the latter is mentioned as being in office when the peace of
the Roman Church was disturbed by the presence of the heretics
Valentinus and Cerdon®. With Pius, the next in order, the office,
if not the man, emerges into daylight. An anonymous writer, treat-
ing on the canon of Scripture, says that the Shepherd was written
by Hermas ‘quite lately while his brother Pius held the see of the:
Church of Rome*®” This passage, written by a contemporary, be-
sides'the testimony which it bears to the date and authorship of the
Shepherd (with which we are not here concerned), is valuable in its
bearing on this investigation; for the use of the ‘chair’ or ‘see’ as
a recognised phrase pomts to a more or less prolonged existence
of episcopacy in Rome, when this writer lived. To Pius succeeds
Anicetus. And now Rome becomes for the moment the centre of
interest and activity in the Christian world’. During this episcopate
Hegesippus, visiting the metropolis for the purpose of ascertaining
and recording the doctrines of the Roman Church, is welcomed by the
bishop*. About the same time also another more illustrious visitor,
Polycarp the venerable bishop of Smyrna, arrives in Rome to confer
with the head of the Roman Church on the Paschal dispute’ and
¥ See above, p. 217, note r. 3 Tren. in Euseb. H. EH. v. 24.
2 Ewald, Gesch. des V. I. vil. p. 321 aren, ὙΠ 5. 5:

sq. On the other hand see Zeller Pubrens 1a. age
Philos. der Griechen 111. 1. p. 601 note; § See above, p. 166 note 8, Ht the
and Singer in the Jiidische Zeitschrift passage is quoted.
(1867) p. 29 sq. Τὸ has recently been 7 See Westcott Canon p. 169, note r.

edited by Gildemeister, Sexti Senten- 8 Hegesipp. in Euseb. H. ΕἸ. iv. 22.
tie, 1873. 9 Iren. in Euseb. H. FE. v. 24.

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY.

there falls in with and denounces the heretic Marcion'. These facts

are stated on contemporary authority. Of Sorrr also, the next in S

succession, a contemporary record is preserved. Dionysius of Corinth,
writing to the Romans, praises the zeal of their bishop, who in his
fatherly care for the suffering poor and for the prisoners working
in the mines had maintained and extended the hereditary fame of
~ his church for zeal in all charitable and good works’.
of an archdeacon. When Hegesippus paid his visit to the metro-
polis, he found Eleutherus standing in this relation to the bishop
Anicetus, and seems to have made his acquaintance while acting in
this capacity*. Eleutherus however was a contemporary, not only of
Hezesippus, but also of the great writers Ireneus and Tertullian’,
who speak of the episcopal succession in the churches generally, and
in Rome especially, as the best safeguard for the transmission of the
true faith from apostolic times’.
Eleutherus, a new era begins. Apparently the first Latin prelate
who held the metropolitan see of Latin Christendom’, he was more-
over the first Roman bishop who is known to have had intimate
relations with the imperial court’, and the first also who advanced

those claims to universal dominion which his successors in later ages

have always consistently and often successfully maintained’®.

1 Tren. iii. 3. 4, comp. iii. 4. 4.

2 In Euseb., H. E. iv. 23.

3 In Euseb. H. E. iv. 22 μέχρις ᾽Ανι-
κήτου οὗ διάκονος ἣν ᾿Ελεύθερος.

4 He is mentioned by Ireneus iii. 3.
3 viv δωδεκάτῳ τόπῳ τὸν τῆς ἐπισκοπῆς
ἀπὸ τῶν ἀποστόλων κατέχει κλῆρον ᾿Ελεύ-
θερος, and by Tertullian, de Preescr. 30
‘sub episcopatu Eleutheri benedicti.’

5 Tren. iii. 3. 2, Tertull. de Prescr.
32, 36, adv. Mare. iv. 5.

6 All the predecessors of Victor bear
Greek names with two exceptions, Cle-
mens and Pius; and even these appear
not to have been Latin. Clement
writes in Greek, and his style is wholly
unlike what might be expected from a
Roman. Hermas, the brother of Pius,
not only employs the Greek language
in writing, but bears a Greek name also.
It is worth observing also that Tertul-
lian (de Prescr. 30), speaking of the

episcopate of Eleutherus, designates the

church of the metropolis not ‘ Keclesia
Romana,’ but ‘Ecclesia Romanensis,’
i.e. not the Church of Rome, but the
Churchin Rome. The transition from
a Greek to a Latin Church was of course
gradual; but, if a definite epoch must
be named, the episcopate of Victor
serves better than any other. The two
immediate successors of Victor, Zephy-
rinus (202—219) and Callistus (219—
223), bear Greek names, and it may be
inferred from the account in Hippolytus
that they were Greeks; but from this
time forward the Roman bishops, with
scarcely an exception, seem to have
been Latins.

7 Hippol. Her. ix. 12, pp. 287, 288.

8 See the account of his attitude in
the Paschal controversy, Euseb. H. E,
V. 24.

22}

oter,

A.D. 168,

In Exev- Eleuthe-

- . . rus
THERUS, who succeeds Soter, we have the earliest recorded instance: 4p, 177.

With Victor, the successor of Victor,

A,D. 189.

222

GAUL.

AFRICA.

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY.

hear,’ writes Tertullian scornfully, ‘that an edict has gone forth, aye
and that a peremptory edict: the chief pontiff, forsooth, I mean the
At the end of the’
first century the Roman Church was swayed By the mild and peaceful

bishop of bishops, has issued his commands’.’

counsels of the presbyter-bishop Clement; the close of the second
witnessed the autocratic pretensions of the haughty pope Victor,
the prototype of a Hildebrand or an Innocent.

9. The Churches of Gaunt were closely connected with and pro-
bably descended from the Churches of Asia Minor. If so, the episco-
pal form of government would probably. be coeval with the founda-
tion of Christian brotherhoods in this country. It is true we do not
meet with any earlier bishop than the immediate predecessor of
Trenzus at Lyons, the aged Pothinus, of whose martyrdom an account
is given in the letter of the Gallican Churches’. But this is also the
first distinct historical notice of any kind relating to Christianity
in Gaul.

to. AFRICA again was evangelized from Rome at a compara-
tively late date. Of the African Church before the close of the
second century, when a flood of light is suddenly thrown upon it by
the writings of Tertullian, we know absolutely nothing. But we need
not doubt that this father represents the traditions and sentiments of
his church, when he lays stress on episcopacy as an apostolic institu-
tion and on the episcopate as the depositary of pure Christian
doctrine. If we may judge by the large number of prelates assem-
bled in the African councils of a later generation, it would appear
that the extension of the episcopate was far more rapid here than in
most parts of Christendom *,

1 Tertull. de Pudic. τ. The bishop
here mentioned will be either Victor or

Cyprian aboutsoyears later,the opinions
of as many as 87 bishops are recorded;

Zephyrinus; and the passage points to
the assumption of extraordinary titles
by the Roman bishops about this time.
See also Cyprian in the opening of the
Concil. Carth. p. 158 (ed. Fell) ‘Neque
enim quisquam nostrum episcopum se
episcoporum constituit etc.,’ doubtless
in allusion to the arrogance of the
Roman prelates.

2 The Epistle of the Gallican Churches
in Euseb. H. ΕἸ. ν. 1.

3 At the African council convoked by

andallusion is made in one of his letters
(Epist. 59) to a council held before his
time, when go bishops assembled. For
a list.of the African bishopries at this
time see Miinter Primord. Eccl. Afric.
p- 31 sq. The enormous number of
African bishops a few centuries later
would seem incredible, were it not re-
ported on the best authority. Dupin
(Optat. Milev. p. lix) counts up as
many as 690 African sees: compare
also the Notitia in Ruinart’s Victor Vi-

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY.

223

11, The church of AnexanpRIA, on the other hand, was pro- Atexay-

bably founded in apostolic times’. Nor is there any reason to doubt
the tradition which connects it with the name of St Mark, though the
Neverthe-

Eusebius

indeed gives a list of bishops beginning with St Mark, which here, as

authorities for the statement are comparatively recent.
less of its early history we have no authentic record.

in the case of the Roman see, is accompanied by dates’; but from
what source he derived his information, is unknown. The first con-
temporary notice of church officers in Alexandria is found in a
heathen writer.
anus, thus describes the state of religion in this city: ‘I have become
perfectly familiar with Egypt, which you praised to me; it is fickle,
uncertain, blown about by every gust of rumour. Those who worship
Serapis are Christians, and those are devoted to Serapis who call
themselves bishops of Christ. There is no ruler of a synagogue there,
no Samaritan, no Christian presbyter, who is not an astrologer, a
soothsayer, a quack. The patriarch himself whenever he comes to
Egypt is compelled by some to worship Serapis, by others to worship

Christ*,

tensis Ὁ. 117 sq. With the notes, p.
215 8q. These last references I owe to
Gibbon, 6. xxxvii. and ὁ. xli.
’ 1 Independently of the tradition re-
Jating to St Mark, this may be inferred
from extant canonical and uncanonical
writings which appear to haveemanated
from Alexandria. The Epistle to the
Hebrews, even if we may not ascribe
it to the learned Alexandrian Apollos
(Acts xviii. 24), at least bears obvious
marks of Alexandrian culture. The so-
called Epistle of Barnabas again, which
may have been written as early as the
reign of Vespasian and can hardly date
later than Nerva, must be referred to
the Alexandrian school of theology.

2 Kuseb. H. EH. ii. 24, iii. 14, ete.
See Clinton’s Fasti Romani τι. p. 544.

3 Preserved in Vopiscus Vit. Satwrn.
8. The Jewish patriarch (who resided
at Tiberias) is doubtless intended; for
it would be no hardship to the Christian
bishop of Alexandria to be ‘compelled
to worship Christ.’ Otherwise the ana-
chronism inyolvyed in such a title would

In this letter, which seems to have been written in the

alone have sufficed to condemn the let-
ter asspurious. Yet Salmasius, Casau-
bon, and the older commentators gene-
rally, agree in the supposition that the
bishop of Alexandria is styled patriarch
here. The manner in which the docu-
ment is stated by Vopiscus to have
been preserved (‘ Hadriani epistolam ex
libris Phlegontis liberti ejus proditam’)
is favourable to its genuineness; nor
does the mention of Verus as the em-
peror’s ‘son’ in another part of the
letter present any real chronological
difficulty. Hadrian paid his visit to
Egypt in the autumn of 130, but the
letter is not stated to have been written
there. The date of the third consul-
ship of Seryianus is 4.D. 134, and the
account of Spartianus (Ver. 3) easily
admits of the adoption of Verus before
or during this year, though Clinton
(Fast. Rom. 1. p. 124) places it as late
as A.D. 135. Gregorovius (Kaiser Ha-
drianp.71) suggests that ‘filiam meum’
may have been added by Phlegon or by
some oneelse, The prominence of the

DRIA,

The emperor Hadrian, writing to the consul Servi- Hadrian’s
letter.

oon

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY.

year 134, Hadrian shows more knowledge of Jewish ecclesiastical
polity than of Christian: but, apparently without knowing the exact
value of terms, he seems to distinguish the bishop and the presbyter
in the Christian community’. From the age of Hadrian to the age
of Clement no contemporary or nearly contemporary notices are

found, bearing on the government of the Alexandrian Church. The

Clementof language of Clement is significant; he speaks sometimes of two

Alexan-
dria.

Inferences,

orders of the ministry, the presbyters and deacons’; sometimes of
three, the bishops, presbyters, and deacons*. Thus it would appear
that even as late as the close of the second century the bishop of
Alexandria was regarded as distinct and yet not distinct from the
presbytery*. And the language of Clement is further illustrated by
the fact, which will have to be considered at length presently, that
at Alexandria the bishop was nominated and apparently ordained by
the twelve presbyters out of their own number’. The episcopal
office in this Church during the second century gives no presage of
the world-wide influence to which under the prouder name of patri-
archate it was destined in later ages to attain. The Alexandrian
succession, in which history is hitherto most interested, is not the
succession of the bishops but of the heads of the catechetical school.

The first bishop of Alexandria, of whom any distinct incident is

recorded on trustworthy authority, was a contemporary of Origen.

The notices thus collected’ present a large body of evidence

Christiansin this letteris not surprising,
when we remember how Hadrian inter-
ested himself in their tenets on another
occasion (at Athens). This document
is considered genuine by such opposite
authorities as Tillemont (Hist. des Emp.
1. p. 265) and Gregorovius (1. ὁ. p. 41),
and may be accepted without hesitation.

1 At this time there appears to have
been only one bishop in Egypt (see
below, p. 230). But Hadrian, who would
have heard of numerous bishops else-
where, and perhaps had no very precise
knowledge of the Egyptian Church,
might well indulge in this rhetorical
flourish. At all events he seems to mean
different offices, when speaking of the
bishop and the presbyter.

2 Strom. vii. τ (p. 830, Potter) ὁμοίως
δὲ καὶ κατὰ τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, τὴν μὲν Bed-

τιωτικὴν οἱ πρεσβύτεροι σώζουσιν εἱκόνα,
τὴν ὑπηρετικὴν δὲ οἱ διάκονοι.

3 Strom. vi. 13 (Pp. 793) αἱ ἐνταῦθα
κατὰ τὴν ἐκκλησίαν προκοπαί, ἐπισκόπων,
πρεσβυτέρων, διακόνων, μιμήματα οἶμαι
ἀγγελικῆς δόξης, Strom. ili. 12 (p. 552),
Ped. iii. 12 (see the next note): see
Kaye's Clement of Alexandria p. 463 sq.

4 Yet in one passage he, like Ireneus
(see above p. 96), betrays his ignorance
that in the language of the New Testa-
ment bishop and presbyter are syno-
nymes; see Ped. iii. 12 (p. 309) μυρίαι
δὲ ὅσαι ὑποθῆκαι els πρόσωπα ἐκλεκτὰ
διατείνουσαι ἐγγεγράφαται ταῖς βίβλοις
ταῖς ἁγίαις, αἱ μὲν πρεσβυτέροις αἱ
δὲ ἐπισκόποις αἱ δὲ διακόνοις, ἄλλαι
χήραις K.T.r.

5 See below, p. 229.

δ In this sketch of the episcopate in

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 225

establishing the fact of the early and extensive adoption of epi- The gene-
- ae : Vener ral preva-

scopacy in the Christian Church. The investigation however would Jenyéo of e-

not be complete, unless attention were called to such indirect testi- P!8copacy.

mony as is furnished by the tacit assumptions of writers living

towards and at the close of the second century. Episcopacy is so

inseparably interwoven with all the traditions and beliefs of men

like Ireneus and Tertullian, that they betray no knowledge of a

time when it was not. Even Irenzus, the earlier of these, who was

certainly born and probably had grown up before the middle of the

century, seems to be wholly ignorant that the word bishop had

passed from a lower to a higher value since the apostolic times’.

Nor is it important only to observe the positive though indirect

testimony which they afford. Their silence suggests a strong nega-

tive presumption, that while every other point of doctrine or practice

Was eagerly canvassed, the form of Church government alone

scarcely came under discussion.

But these notices, besides establishing the general prevalence of Gradual

and un-
é even deve-
cate that the solution suggested by the history of the word ‘bishop’ lopment of

. 2 5 the oftice.
and its transference from the lower to the higher oflice is the true

solution, and that the episcopate was created out of the presbytery.

episcopacy, also throw considerable light on its origin. They indi-

They show that this creation was not so much an isolated act as a
progressive development, not advancing everywhere at an uniform
rate but exhibiting at one and the same time different stages of
growth in different churches, They seem to hint also that, so far as
this development was affected at all by national temper and charac-
teristics, it was slower where the prevailing influences were more
purely Greek, as at Corinth and Philippi and Rome, and more rapid
where an oriental spirit predominated, as at Jerusalem and Antioch
and Ephesus. Above all, they establish this result clearly, that its
maturer forms are seen first in those regions where the latest. surviv-

ing Apostles (more especially St John) fixed their abode, and at a

the different churches] hayenot thought
it necessary to carry the lists later than
the second century. Nor (except in a
very few cases) has any testimony been
accepted, unless the writer himself flou-
rished before the close of this century,
The Apostolic Constitutions would add

PHIL.

several names to the list, but this evi-
dence is not trustworthy, though in
many cases the statements doubtless
rested on some traditional basis.

1 See above, p. 96. The same is true
of Clement of Alexandria: see p. 224
note 4.

226 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY.

time when its prevalence cannot be dissociated from their influence
or their sanction.
Original The original relation of the bishop to the presbyter, which this
pone 9, investigation reveals, was not forgotten even after the lapse of
offices not centuries. Though set over the presbyters, he was still regarded
forgotten. λ ΞΕ : Be
as in some sense one of them. Ivenzeus indicates this position of the
episcopate very clearly. In his language a presbyter is never desig-
nated a bishop, while on the other hand he very frequently speaks
A bishop of a bishop as a presbyter. In other words, though he views the
still called . ae
apresby- episcopate as a distinct office from the presbytery, he does not
Eee Ire- regard it as a distinct order in the same sense in which the diaco-
nate is a distinct order. Thus, arguing against the heretics he says,
‘But when again we appeal against them to that tradition which is
derived from the Apostles, which is preserved in the churches by
successions of presbyters, they place themselves in opposition to it,
saying that they, being wiser not only than the presbyters but even
than the Apostles, have discovered the genuine truth’” Yet just
below, after again mentioning the apostolic tradition, he adds, ‘We
are able to enumerate those who have been appointed by the
Apostles bishops in the churches and their successors down to our
own time”’; and still further, after saying that it would take up too
much space if he were to trace the succession in all the churches,
he declares that he will confound his opponents by singling out the
ancient and renowned Church of Rome founded by the Apostles
Peter and Paul and will point out the tradition handed down to his
own time ‘by the succession of bishops,’ after which he gives a list
from Linus to Eleutherus*. So again in another passage he writes,
‘Therefore obedience ought to be rendered to the presbyters who are
in the churches, who have the succession from the Apostles as we
have shown, who with the succession of the episcopate have also
received the sure grace of truth according to the pleasure of the
Father’; after which he mentions some ‘who are believed by many
to be presbyters, but serve their own lusts and are elated with the
pomp of the chief seat, and bids his readers shun these and seek
such as ‘together with the rank of the presbytery show their speech
sound and their conversation void of offence,’ adding of these
1 Tren. iii. 2. 2. 3 Tren; iii, 3. 2, 3%
= ibys 1Π|: 5 1:

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 227

latter, ‘Such presbyters the Church nurtures and rears, concerning
whom also the prophet saith, “I will give thy rulers in peace and
thy bishops in righteousness’”’. Thus also writing to Victor of

Rome in the name of the Gallican churches, he says, ‘It was not so

observed by the presbyters before Soter, who ruled the Church which

thou now guidest, we mean Anicetus and Pius, Hyginus and Teles-

phorus and Xystus’.’ And the same estimate of the office appears and Cle-
in Clement of Alexandria: for, while he speaks elsewhere of the ae
three offices in the ministry, mentioning them by name, he in one a
passage puts forward a twofold division, the presbyters whose duty

it is to improve, and the deacons whose duty it is to serve, the
Church*®. The functions of the bishop and presbyter are thus re-

garded as substantially the same in kind, though different in degree,

while the functions of the diaconate are separate from both. More

than a century and a half later, this view is put forward with the

greatest distinctness by the most learned and the most illustrious of

the Latin fathers. ‘There is one ordination,’ writes the commen- Testimony
tator Hilary, ‘of the bishop and the presbyter; for either is a priest, enon
but the bishop is first. Every bishop is a presbyter, but every pres-

byter is not a bishop: for he is bishop who is first among the pres-

byters*.” The language of St Jerome to the same effect has been Jerome,
quoted above’. To the passages there given may be added the fol-
lowing: ‘This has been said to show that with the ancients pres-
byters were the same as bishops: but gradually all the responsibility
was deferred to a single person, that the thickets of heresies might
be rooted out. Therefore, as presbyters know that by the custom of the

Church they are subject to him who shall have been set over them,

Viren. tv: 26. 2, 3, 4, 5-

2 In Euseb. H.E. v. 24. In other
places Irenzus apparently uses πρεσβύ-
τεροι to denote antiquity and not office,
as in the letter to Florinus, Euseb.
H. E. v. 20 of πρὸ ἡμῶν πρεσβύτεροι
οἱ καὶ τοῖς ἀποστόλοις συμφοιτήσαντες
(comp. ii. 22. 5); im which sense the
word occurs also in Papias (Euseb.
H.E. iii. 39); but the passages quoted
in the text are decisive, nor is there any
reason (as Rothe assumes, p. 414 £4.)
why the usage of Ireneus should be
uniform,

3 See the passage quoted above, Ὁ.
224, note 2. Soalso in the anecdote of
St John (Quis div. salv. 42, p. 959) we
read τῷ καθεστῶτι προσβλέψας ἐπι-
σκόπῳ, but immediately afterwards ὁ
δὲ πρεσβύτερος ἀναλαβών κ.τ.λ., and
then again ἀγε δή, ἔφη, ὦ ἐπίσκοπ ε,
of the same person. Thus he too, like
Treneus, regards the bishop as a pres-
byter, though the converse would not
be true.

4 Ambrosiast. on 1 Tim, iii. ro,

5 See p. 96.

1--ὦ

and Au-
gustine.

Bishops
styled
them-
selves fel-
low-pres-
byters.

The
bishop of
Alexan-
dria cho-
sen and
created by
the pres-
bytery.

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY.

so let bishops also be aware that they are superior to presbyters
more owing to custom than to any actual ordinance of the Lord, ete. :
Let us see therefore what sort of person ought to be ordained pres-
byter or bishop’.’ In the same spirit too the great Augustine
writing to Jerome says, ‘Although according to titles of honour
which the practice of the Church has now made valid, the episcopate
is greater than the presbytery, yet in many things Augustine is less
than Jerome’.’ To these fathers this view seemed to be an obvious
deduction from the identity of the terms ‘bishop’ and ‘presbyter’
in the apostolic writings; nor indeed, when they wrote, had usage
entirely effaced the original connexion between the two offices. Even
in the fourth and fifth centuries, when the independence and power
of the episcopate had reached its maximum, it was still customary
for a bishop in writing to a presbyter to address him as ‘fellow-
presbyter®,’ thus bearing testimony to a substantial identity of order.
Nor does it appear that this view was ever questioned until the era
of the Reformation. In the western Church at all events it carried
the sanction of the highest ecclesiastical authorities and was main-
tained even by popes and councils*.

Nor was it only in the language of the later Church that the
memory of this fact was preserved. Even in her practice indica-
tions might here and there be traced, which pointed to a time when
the bishop was still only the chief member of the presbytery. The
case of the Alexandrian Church, which has already been mentioned
casually, deserves special notice. St Jerome, after denouncing the
audacity of certain persons who ‘would give to deacons the prece-
dence over presbyters, that is over bishops,’ and alleging scriptural

proofs of the identity of the two, gives the following fact in illus-

dress.

1 On Tit. i. 5 (viz. p. 696).

2 Epist. |xxxii. 33 (i. p.202,ed.Ben.).

3 So for instance Cyprian, Hpist. 14,
writes ‘compresbyteri nostri Donatus
et Fortunatus’; and addressing Corne-
lius bishop of Rome (Epist. 45) he
says ‘cum ad me talia de te et com-
presbyteris tecum considentibus scripta
venissent.’ Compare also Epist. 44, 45,
71, 76. Augustine writes to Jerome in
the same terms, and in fact this seems
to have been the recognised form of ad-

ci (in Augustin. Op. 11. P. 2, p. 93)
‘Quid est enim episcopus nisi primus
presbyter, hoe est summus sacerdos?
Denique non aliter quam compresbyte-
ros hie vocat et consacerdotes suos.
Numquid et ministros condiaconos suos
dicit episcopus?’, where the writer is
arguing against the arrogance of the
Roman deacons. See above, p. 94.

4 See the references collected by
Gieseler i. p. 105 sq.

See the Quast. Vet. et Nov. Test. .

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 229

tration: ‘At Alexandria, from Mark the Evangelist down to the
times of the bishops Heraclas (4.p. 233—249) and Dionysius (A.D.
249—265), the presbyters always nominated as bishop one chosen
out of their own body and placed in a higher grade: just as if an
army were to appoint a general, or deacons were to choose from
their own body one whom they knew to be diligent and call him
archdeacon'.’ Though the direct statement of this father refers only
to the appointment of the bishop, still it may be inferred that the
And
‘In Egypt,’ writes

function of the presbyters extended also to the consecration.
this inference is borne out by other evidence.
an older contemporary of St Jerome, the commentator Hilary, ‘the
presbyters seal (i.e. ordain or consecrate), if the bishop be not pre-
sent’. This however might refer only to the ordination of pres-
byters, and not to the consecration of a bishop. But even the latter
is supported by direct evidence, which though comparatively late
deserves consideration, inasmuch as it comes from one who was him-

self a patriarch of Alexandria. Eutychius, who held the patriarchal Testimony

of Euty-

see from A.D. 933 to A.D. 940, writes as follows: ‘The Evangelist 5°.

Mark appointed along with the patriarch Hananias twelve presbyters
who should remain with the patriarch, to the end that, when the
patriarchate was vacant, they might choose one of the twelve pres-
byters, on whose head the remaining eleven laying their hands should
bless: him and create him patriarch,’ The vacant place in the pres-
bytery was then to be filled up, that the number twelve might be
constant®. ‘This custom,’ adds this writer, ‘did not cease till the
time of Alexander (A.D. 313326), patriarch of Alexandria. He
however forbad that henceforth the presbyters should create the
patriarch, and decreed that on the death of the patriarch the bishops
should meet to ordain the (new) patriarch, etc.*’ It is clear from this

1 Epist. exlvi ad Evang. (1. p. 1082).

2 Ambrosiast. on Ephes. iv. 12. So
too in the Quest. Vet. et Nov. Test. ci

catus p. 22 sq. (in answer to Selden the
translator of Hutychius) and byLeQuien
Oriens Christianus τι. p. 342, who urge

(falsely ascribed to St Augustine), Au-
gust. Op. 11. P. 2, p. 93, ‘Nam in
Alexandria et per totam Agyptum,
si desit episcopus, consecrat (y. 1. con-
signat) presbyter.’

3 Eutychii Patr. Alexandr. Annales
I. p. 331 (Pococke, Oxon. 1656). The
inferences in the text are resisted by
Abraham Ecchellensis Lutycihius vind-

all that can be said on the opposite side-
The authority of a writer so inaccurate
asHutychius, ifit had been unsupported,
would have had no great weight; but, as
we have seen, this is not the case.

4 Between Dionysius and Alexander
four bishops of Alexandria intervene,
Maximus (4.D. 265), Theonas (A.D. 283),
Peter I (a.p. 301), and Achillas (a.p.

230

Increase
of the
Egyptian
episco-
pate.

Decree of
the Coun-
cil of An-
cyra.

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY.

passage that Eutychius considered the functions of nomination and
ordination to rest with the same persons.

If this view however be correct, the practice of the Alexandrian
Church was exceptional; for at this time the formal act of the
bishop was considered generally necessary to give validity to ordi-
nation. At the close
of the second century, when every considerable church in Europe
and Asia appears to have had its bishop, the only representative of
the episcopal order in Egypt was the bishop of Alexandria. It was
Demetrius first (A.D. 190—233), as Eutychius informs us!, who ap-
pointed three other bishops, to which number his successor Heraclas
This extension of episcopacy

Nor is the exception difficult to account for.

(A.D. 233—249) added twenty more.
to the provincial towns of Egypt paved the way for a change in the
But
before this time it was a matter of convenience and almost of neces-
sity that the Alexandrian presbyters should themselves ordain their
chief.

Nor is it only in Alexandria that we meet with this peculiarity.

mode of appointing and ordaining the patriarch of Alexandria.

Where the same urgent reason existed, the same exceptional practice
seems to have been tolerated. A decree of the Council of Ancyra
(A.D. 314) ordains that ‘it be not allowed to country-bishops (χωρε-
πισκόποις) to ordain presbyters or deacons, nor even to city-presby-
ters, except permission be given in each parish by the bishop in

writing’®.’ Thus while restraining the existing license, the framers
fo) fo} fo} ?

312). It will therefore be seen that
there is a considerable discrepancy be-
tween the accounts of Jerome and Eu-
tychius as to the time when the change
was effected. But we may reasonably
conjecture (with Ritschl, p. 432) that the
transition from the old state of things
to the new would be the result of a pro-
longed conflict between the Alexandrian
presbytery who had hitherto held these
functions, and the bishops of the re-
cently created Egyptian sees to whom
it was proposed to transfer them.
Somewhat later one Ischyras was
deprived of his orders by an Alexan-
drian synod, because he had been or-
dained by a presbyter only: Athan.
Apol. c. Arian. 75 (1. p. 152). From
this time at all events the Alexandrian

Church insisted as strictly as any other
on episcopal ordination.

1 Kutych. Ann. 1. 6. p. 332. Hera-
clas, we are informed on the same
authority (p. 335), was the first Alex-
andrian prelate who bore the title of
patriarch; this designation being equi-
valent to metropolitan or bishop of
bishops.

2 Concil. Ancyr. can. 13 (Routh Rel.
Sacr. Iv. p. £21) χωρεπισκόποις μὴ ἐξεῖ-
ναι πρεσβυτέρους ἢ διακόνους χειροτονεῖν,
ἀλλὰ [μὴν] μηδὲ πρεσβυτέροις πόλεως
χωρὶς τοῦ ἐπιτραπῆναι ὑπὸ τοῦ ἐπισκό-
που μετὰ γραμμάτων ἐν ἑκάστῃ παροικίᾳ.
The various readings and interpreta-
tions of this canon will be found in
Routh’s note, p. 144 sq. Routh him.
self reads ἀλλὰ μὴν μηδὲ πρεσβυτέρους

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY.

of the decree still allow very considerable latitude.

And it is espe-

cially important to observe that they lay more stress on episcopal

sanction than on episcopal ordination.

Provided that the former is

secured, they are content to dispense with the latter.
Asa general rule however, even those writers who maintain a Ordines

231

n con-

substantial identity in the offices of the bishop and presbyter reserve a to

the power of ordaining to the former".

This distinction in fact may

be regarded as a settled maxim of Church polity in the fourth and

later centuries .

And when Aerius maintained the equality of the

bishop and presbyter and denied the necessity of episcopal ordina-

tion, his opinion was condemned as heretical, and is stigmatized as

‘frantic’ by Epiphanius’.

πόλεως, making πρεσβυτέρους πόλεως
the object of χειροτονεῖν, but to this
there is a twofold objection: (1) he
necessarily understands the former
πρεσβυτέρους to mean πρεσβυτέρους χώ-
pas, though this is not expressed: (2)
he interprets ἀλλὰ μὴν μηδὲ ‘much
less,’ a sense which μηδέ seems to ex-
elude and which is not borne out by
his examples.

The name and office of the χωρεπί-
σκοπος appear to be reliques of the time
when ἐπίσκοπος and πρεσβύτερος were
synonymes. MWhile the large cities had
their college of presbyters, for the vil-
lages a single πρεσβύτερος (or ἐπίσκοπος)
would suffice; but from his isolated
position he would be tempted, even if
he were not obliged, to perform on his
own responsibility certain acts which
in the city would only be performed by
the bishop properly so called, or at least
would not be performed without his
consent. Out of this position the office
of the later χωρεπίσκοπος would gra-
dually be developed; but the rate of
progression would not be uniform, and
the regulations affecting it would be
determined by the circumstances of the
particular locality. Hence, at a later
date, it seems in some places to have
been presbyteral, in others episcopal.
In the Ancyran canon just quoted a
chorepiscopus is evidently placed below
the city presbytery; but in othernotices
he occupies a higher position. For the
conflicting accounts of the χωρεπίσκοπος

see Bingham τι. xiv.

Baur’s account of the origin of the
episcopate supposes that each Christian
congregation was presided over not
by a college of presbyters, but by a
single πρεσβύτερος or ἐπίσκοπος, i.e.
that the constitution of the Church
was from the first monarchical: see
Pastoralbriefe p. 81 sq., Ursprung des
Episcopats p. 84 sq. This view is
inconsistent alike with the analogy of
the synagogue and with the notices in
the apostolic and early ecclesiastical
writings. But the practice, which he
considers to have been the general rule,
would probably hold in small country
congregations, where a college of pres-
byters would be unnecessary as well as
impossible. :

1 St Jerome himself (EZpist. exlvi),
in the context of the passage in which
he maintains the identity of the two
orders and alleges the tradition of the
Alexandrian Church (see above, p. 229),
adds, ‘Quid enim facit excepta ordina-
tione episcopus quod presbyter non
faciat ?? Soalso Const. Apost. viii. 28
ἐπίσκοπος χειροθετεῖ χειροτονεῖ... πρεσβύ-
τερος χειροθετεῖ οὐ χειροτονεῖ, Chrysost.
Hom, xi on 1 Tim. ili. 8 τῇ χειροτονίᾳ
μόνῃ ὑπερβεβήκασι καὶ τούτῳ μόνον δο-
κοῦσι πλεονεκτεῖν πρεσβυτέρους. See
Bingham wu. iii. 5, 6, 7, for other re-
ferences.

2 Heres. \xxv. 3; comp. Augustine
Hares. ὃ 53. See Wordsworth Theoph-
Angl. ὁ. X.

the
bishops.

232 ‘THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY.

Τὸ has been seen that the institution of an episcopate must be
placed as far back as the closing years of the first century, and that
it cannot, without violence to historical testimony, be dissevered
from the name of St John. But it has been seen also that the earli-

est bishops did not hold the same independent position of supremacy

Causes of Which was and is occupied by their later representatives. It will

in ag therefore be instructive to trace the successive stages by which the

of episco- power of the office was developed during the second and third centu-

a ries. Though something must be attributed to the frailty of human
pride and love of power, it will nevertheless appear that the pressing
needs of the Church were mainly instrumental in bringing about the
result, and that this development of the episcopal office was a provi-
dential safeguard amid the confusion of speculative opinion, the dis-
tracting effects of persecution, and the growing anarchy of social
life, which threatened not only the extension but the very existence
of the Church of Christ. Ambition of office in a society where pro-
minence of rank involved prominence of risk was at least no vulgar
and selfish passion.

Three This development will be conveniently connected with three

Pee ad great names, each separated from the other by an interval of more

Soa than half a century, and each marking a distinct stage in its progress.
Ignatius, Irenseus, and Cyprian, represent three successive advances
towards the supremacy which was ultimately attained.

τ. IGNna- 1. Jenatius of Antioch is commonly recognized as the staunch-

TIUS.

est advocate of episcopacy in the early ages. Though the strength
and prevalence of this view is doubtless due in great measure to the
forged and interpolated epistles bearing his name, it is nevertheless
sufficiently justified by his authentic letters. Nor indeed would a
falsifier have adopted his mask, unless the genuine writings or tra-
ditional opinions of this early martyr had given countenance to the

forgery. To St Ignatius the chief value of episcopacy lies in this,

1 Throughout this dissertation it is landes, 1859) than by any other writer.

assumed that the Syriac version repre-
sents the epistles of St Ignatius in their
original form. The reasons forthis view
are given better by R. A. Lipsius (Ueber
die Aechtheit, etc. in Niedner’s Zeit-
schrift 1. p. 3 8q., 1856, and Ueber das
Verhdltniss des Textes etc. in the Ab-
handlungen fiir die Kunde des Morgen-

At the same time, I agree with Lipsius
that the epistles of the short Greek
recension cannot date later than the
middle of the second century; and
if so, they will still hold their place
among the most important of early
Christian documents.

“-

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 233

that it constitutes a visible centre of unity in the congregation. He

seems in the development of the office to keep in view the same Thebishop
regarded
as a centre
Apostles in its institution. The withdrawal of the authoritative ΩΓ ἀν.

purpose, which we may suppose to have influenced the last surviving

preachers of the Gospel, the personal disciples of the Lord, had
severed one bond of union. The destruction of the original abode of
_Christendom, the scene of the life and passion of the Saviour and of
the earliest triumphs of the Church, had removed another. Thus de-
prived at once of the personal and the local ties which had hitherto
bound individual to individual and church to church, the Christian
brotherhood was threatened with schism, disunion, dissolution,
‘Vindicate thine office with all diligence,’ writes Ignatius to the
bishop of Smyrna, ‘in things temporal as well as spiritual. Have a
care of unity, than which nothing is better’ ‘The crisis requires
thee, as the pilot requires the winds or the storm-tossed mariner a
haven, so as to attain unto God’. ‘Let not those who seem to be
plausible and teach falsehoods dismay thee; but stand thou firm as
an anvil under the hammer: ’tis the part of a great athlete to be
bruised and to conquer®.’ ‘Let nothing be done without thy con-
sent, and do thou nothing without the consent of God*’ He adds
directions also, that those who decide on a life of virginity shall dis-
close their intention to the bishop only, and those who marry shall
obtain his consent to their union, that ‘their marriage may be accord-
ing to the Lord and not according to lust’.’ And turning from the
bishop to the people he adds, ‘Give heed to your bishop, that God
also may give heed to you. I give my life for those who are obedient
to the bishop, to presbyters, to deacons. With them may I have my
portion in the presence of God’.’ Writing to the Ephesians also he
says that in receiving their bishop Onesimus he is receiving their
whole body, and he charges them to love him, and one and all to be
in his likeness’, adding, ‘Since love does not permit me to be silent,
therefore I have been forward in exhorting you to conform to the
will of αοα ",
From these passages it will be seen that St Ignatius values the

episcopate chiefly as a security for good discipline and harmonious
ΝᾺ W 8

ΤΟ σ᾽ 5. Polye. 5
2 Polye. 2. 6 Polyc. 6.
3 Polyc. 3. 7 Ephes. 1.
4 Polyc. 4. 8 Tphes. 3.

234

The Igna-
tian writer
takes the

same view.

His ex-
travagant
exaltation
of the
episcopate.

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY.

working in the Church. And the writer, who before or about the
middle of the second century forges and interpolates the Ignatian
letters, follows in the track of the saint whose name he assumes :
while at the same time he lays greater stress on the divine authority
of the institution. When this unknown person wrote, the heresies
faintly discerned by the genuine Ignatius had grown rampant and the
purity of Christian teaching was seriously endangered. Yet he de-
nounces these heresies rather as a breach of unity than as a falsification
of doctrine. Though perhaps more nearly a contemporary of Irenzeus
than of Ignatius, he has not yet exchanged the standing-point of the
earlier father for that of the latter. But while he maintains the
same aspect of episcopacy with the true Ignatius, he uses extrava-
gant language which has no parallel in the genuine letters of the
saint. Throughout the whole range of Christian literature, no more
uncompromising advocate of episcopacy can be found. His advocacy
indeed is extended to the two lower orders of the ministry’, more espe-
cially to the presbyters*. But it is when asserting the claims of the
episcopal office to obedience and respect, that his language is strained
to the utmost. ‘The bishops established in the farthest parts of
the world are in the counsels of Jesus Christ*” ‘Every one whom
the Master of the house sendeth to govern His own household we
ought to receive, as Him that sent him; clearly therefore we ought
to regard the bishop as the Lord Himself*” Those ‘live a life after
Christ,’ who ‘obey the bishop as Jesus Christ’.’ ‘It is good to know
God and the bishop; he that honoureth the bishop is honoured of
God; he that doeth anything without the knowledge of the bishop
serveth the devil®.’ He that obeys his bishop, obeys ‘not him, but
the Father of Jesus Christ, the bishop of all.’ On the other hand,
he that practises hypocrisy towards his bishop, ‘not only deceiveth
the visible one, but cheateth the Unseen’.’ ‘As many as are of God
and of Jesus Christ, are with the bishop*.’ Those are approved
who are ‘inseparate from God, from Jesus Christ, and from the
bishop, and from the ordinances of the Apostles®.’ ‘Do ye all,’ says
this writer again, ‘follow the bishop, as Jesus Christ followed the

1 Magn. 13, Trall. 3, 7, Philad. 4, 7, 5 Trall. 2.
Smyrn. 8, 12. 6 Smyrn. 9.
2 Ephes. 2, 20, Magn. 2, 6, Trall. 13. 7 Magn. 3.

3 Ephes. 3. 8 Philad, 3.

4 Ephes. 6. 2 7115. ἢ

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 235

Father'’ The Ephesians are commended accordingly, because they
are so united with their bishop ‘as the Church with Jesus Christ
and as Jesus Christ with the Father” ‘If, it is added, ‘the prayer
of one or two hath so much power, how much more the prayer of the
bishop and of the whole Church’ ‘Wherever the bishop may
appear, there let the multitude be, just as where Jesus Christ may
be, there is the Catholic Church*’ Therefore ‘let no man do anything
pertaining to the Church without the bishop*’ ‘It is not allowable
either to baptize or to hold a love-feast without the bishop: but
whatsoever he may approve, this also is well pleasing to God, that
everything which is done may be safe and valid®’ ‘ Unity of God,’
according to this writer, consists in harmonious co-operation with
the bishop’.

_And yet with all this extravagant exaltation of the episcopal The pres.

office, the presbyters are not put out of sight. They form a council’, peer
a ‘worthy spiritual coronal*’ round the bishop. It is the duty of ae
every individual, but especially of them, ‘to refresh the bishop unto
the honour of the Father and of Jesus Christ and of the Apostles®.’
They stand in the same relation to him, ‘as the chords to the lyre™.’
If the bishop occupies the place of God or of Jesus Christ, the pres-
byters are as the Apostles, as the council of God", If obedience
is due to the bishop as the grace of God, it is due to the presbytery
as the law of Jesus Christ”.

It need hardly be remarked how subversive of the true spirit of Considera-
tions sug-
gested by
quent suppression of direct responsibility to God in Christ, is the this lan-
guage,

Christianity, in the negation of individual freedom and the conse-

crushing despotism with which this writer’s language, if taken lite-
rally, would invest the episcopal office. It is more important to bear
in mind the extenuating fact, that the needs and distractions of the
age seemed to call for a greater concentration of authority in the
episcopate ; and we might well be surprised, if at a great crisis the
defence of an all-important institution were expressed in words care-

1 Smyrn. 8, comp. Magn. 7. curs 1 Tim. iv. 14, is very frequent in
2 Ephes. 5. the Ignatian Epistles.
3 Smyrn. 8. 8 Magn. 13.
4 ib. comp. Magn. 4, Philad. 7. 9 Trall. 12.
5 Smyrn. ὃ. 10 Ephes. 4; comp. the metaphor in
6 Polyc. 8 ἐν ἑνότητι Θεοῦ καὶ ἐπισκό- Philad. τ.

που (v. 1. ἐπισκοπῇ) : comp. Philad. 3, 8. 1 Trall. 2, 3, Magn. 6, Smyrn. 8.

7 The word πρεσβυτέριον, which oc- 12 Magn. 2.

236

The same
views ad-
vanced in
the inter-
ests of E-
bionism.

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY.

fully weighed and guarded. But whatever excuse the exigencies of
the Church may suggest, it is hard to believe that this extravagance
would have received the sanction of St Ignatius himself. At all
events there is a jarring discord between the unfeigned humility
which will not allow the saint to command the Christians of Rome
like St Peter and St Paul, ‘for they are Apostles, he a condemned
man, they are free, he a slave until now’, and the lofty assumptions
of this later writer, who sets the bishop in the place of God and
on the throne of Christ.

Strangely enough, about the time when the Ignatian interpolator

thus asserted the claims of the episcopate as a safeguard of ortho-
doxy, another writer was using similar means to advance a very
different form of Christianity. The same organization, which is
thus employed to consolidate and advance the Catholic Church, might

serve equally well to establish a compact Ebionite community. I -

have already mentioned the author of the Clementine Homilies as
a staunch advocate of episcopacy’. His view of the sanctions and
privileges of the office does not differ materially from that of the
Ignatian writer. ‘The multitude of the faithful, he says, ‘must
obey a single person, that so it may be able to continue in har-
mony.’ Monarchy is a necessary condition of peace; this may be
seen from the aspect of the world around: at present there are many
kings, and the result is discord and war; in the world to come God
has appointed one King only, that ‘by reason of monarchy an inde-
structible peace may be established: therefore all ought to follow
some one person as guide, preferring him in honour as the image of
God; and this guide must show the way that leadeth to the Holy
City*®’ Accordingly he delights to speak of the bishop as occupying
the place or the seat of Christ*. Every insult, he says, and every
honour offered to a bishop is carried to Christ and from Christ is
taken up to the presence of the Father; and thus it is requited
manifold’. Similarly another writer of the Clementine cycle, if he
be not the same, compares Christ to the captain, the bishop to the
mate, and the presbyters to the sailors, while the lower orders and
the laity have each their proper place in the ship of the Church’,
' Ten. Rom. 2. 4 ib. iil. 60, 66, 7o.

See above, p. 209. «| 5 bP ail. 66) i708
Clem. Hom. iii. 61, 62. 6 ib. Hp. Clem. 15.

oo ts

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 237

It is no surprise that such extravagant claims should not have Monta-
been allowed to pass unchallenged. About the same time when ee
these lofty hierarchical pretensions were advanced on the one hand anne eel
in the Ignatian letters on behalf of Catholicism and on the other by vagance.
the Clementine writers in the interests of Ebionism, a strong spiritual-

ist reaction set in. If in its mental aspect the heresy of Montanus

must be regarded as a protest against the speculative subtleties

of Gnosticism, on its practical side it was equally a rebound from

the aggressive tyranny of hierarchical assumption. Montanus taught

that the true succession of the Spirit, the authorized channel of

divine grace, must be sought not in the hierarchical but in the pro-

phetic order. For a rigid outward system he substituted the free
inward impulse. Wildly fanatical as were its manifestations, this
reaction nevertheless issued from a true instinct which rebelled
against the oppressive yoke of external tradition and did battle for

the freedom of the individual spirit. Montanus was excommuni-

cated and Montanism died out; but though dead, it yet spake; for

a portion of its better spirit was infused into the Catholic Church,

which it leavened and refreshed and invigorated.

2. Irenaus followed Ignatius after an interval of about two 2. 1ππ-
generations. With the altered circumstances of the Church, the ae
aspect of the episcopal office has also undergone a change. The
religious atmosphere is now charged with heretical speculations of
all kinds. Amidst the competition of rival teachers, all eagerly bid-
ding for support, the perplexed believer asks for some decisive test
by which he may try the claims of the disputants. To this question
Trenzeus supplies an answer. ‘If you wish,’ he argues, ‘to ascertain Thebishop
the doctrine of the Apostles, apply to the Church of the Apostles. fe μὰ
Tn the succession of bishops tracing their descent from the primitive penne
age and appointed by the Apostles themselves, you have a guarantee
for the transmission of the pure faith, which no isolated, upstart,
self-constituted teacher can furnish. There is the Church of Rome
for instance, whose episcopal pedigree is perfect in all its links and
whose earliest bishops, Linus and Clement, associated with the
Apostles themselves; there is the Church of Smyrna again, whose
bishop Polycarp, the disciple of St John, died only the other day’.’

Thus the episcopate is regarded now not so much as the centre

1 See especially iii. cc. 2, 3, 4, iv. 26. 2 sq., iv. 32. 1, V- pref., Vv. 20. I, 2.

238

The same
view held
by Hege-
sippus and
Tertul-
lian,

3. Cr-
PRIAN.

The
bishop the
vicegerent
of Christ.

Influence
of Cyprian
on the epi-
scopate.

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY.

of ecclesiastical unity but rather as the depositary of apostolic
tradition.

This view is not peculiar to Ireneus. It seems to have been
advanced earlier by Hegesippus, for in a detached fragment he lays
stress on the succession of the bishops at Rome and at Corinth,
adding that in each church and in each succession the pure faith was
preserved’; so that he seems here to be controverting that ‘ gnosis
falsely so called’ which elsewhere he denounces*. It is distinctly
maintained by Tertullian, the younger contemporary of Ireneus,
who refers, if not with the same frequency, at least with equal
emphasis, to the tradition of the apostolic churches as preserved
by the succession of the episcopate’®.

3. As two generations intervened between Ignatius and Ire-
neus, so the same period roughly speaking separates Irenzeus from
Cyprian. If with Ignatius the bishop is the centre of Christian
unity, if with Irenus he is the depositary of the apostolic tradition, ©
with Cyprian he is the absolute vicegerent of Christ in things
spiritual, In mere language indeed it would be difficult to surpass
the Ignatian writer, who probably lived a century earlier. With
the single exception of the sacerdotal view of the ministry which had
grown up meanwhile, Cyprian puts forward no assumption which
this writer had not advanced either literally or substantially long
before. This one exception however is all important, for it raised
the sanctions of the episcopate to a higher level and put new force
into old titles of respect. Theoretically therefore it may be said
that Cyprian took his stand on the combination of the ecclesiasti-
cal authority as asserted by the Ignatian writer with the sacerdotal
claim which had been developed in the half century just past. But
the real influence which he exercised in the elevation of the episco-
pate consisted not in the novelty of his theoretical views, but in his
practical energy and success. The absolute supremacy of the bishop
had remained hitherto a lofty title or at least a vague ill-defined
assumption: it became through his exertions a substantial and patent
and world-wide fact. The first prelate whose force of character
vibrated throughout the whole of Christendom, he was driven not
less by the circumstances of his position than by his own tempe-

1 In Euseb. H. E. iv. 22. See above, 2 Euseb. H. E. iii. 32.
p. 218, 3 Tertull. de Prescr. 32.

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 239

rament and conviction to throw all his energy into this scale. And
the permanent result was much vaster than he could have antici-
pated beforehand or realized after the fact. Forced into the epi-
scopate against his will, he raised it to a position of absolute inde-
pendence, from which it has never since been deposed. The two
great controversies in which Cyprian engaged, though immediately
arising out of questions of discipline, combined from opposite sides
to consolidate and enhance the power of the bishops’.

The first question of dispute concerned the treatment of such First con-
as had lapsed during the recent persecution under Decius. Cyprian pina
found himself on this occasion doing battle for the episcopate against Hee
a twofold opposition, against the confessors who claimed the right of
absolving and restoring these fallen brethren, and against his own
presbyters who in the absence of their bishop supported the claims of
the confessors. From his retirement he launched his shafts against
this combined array, where an aristocracy of moral influence was
leagued with an aristocracy of official position. With signal deter-
mination and courage in pursuing his aim, and with not less sagacity
and address in discerning the means for carrying it out, Cyprian had
on this occasion the further advantage, that he was defending the
cause of order and right. He succeeded moreover in enlisting in his
cause the rulers of the most powerful church in Christendom. The
Roman clergy declared for the bishop and against the presbyters
of Carthage. Of Cyprian’s sincerity no reasonable question can be
entertained. In maintaining the authority of his office he believed
himself to be fighting his Master’s battle, and he sought success as
the only safeguard of the integrity of the Church of Christ. In this
lofty and disinterested spirit, and with these advantages of position,
he entered upon the contest.

It is unnecessary for my purpose to follow out the conflict in
detail: to show how ultimately the positions of the two combatants
were shifted, so that from maintaining discipline against the cham-
pions of too great laxity Cyprian found himself protecting the fallen
against the advocates of too great severity: to trace the progress

τ The influence of Cyprian on the 54. (Strasburg, 1857). See also Rett-
episcopate is ably stated in two vigor- __berg’s Thascius Céicilius Cyprianus p.
ous articles by Kayser entitled Cyprien 567 sq., and Huther’s Cyprian’s Lehre
ou VAutonomie de UV Episcopat in the von der Kirche p. 59 54.

Revue de Théologie, xv. pp. 138 sq., 242

240 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY.

of the schism and the attempt to establish a rival episcopate : or to
unravel the entanglements of the Novatian controversy and lay open
Power of the intricate relations between Rome and Carthage’. It is sufficient
ee to say that Cyprian’s victory was complete. He triumphed over the
church de- eonfessors, triumphed over his own presbyters, triumphed over the

aia schismatic bishop and his party. It was the most signal success

hitherto achieved for the episcopate, because the battle had been

fought and the victory won on this definite issue. The absolute

supremacy of the episcopal office was thus established against the two

antagonists from which it had most to fear, against a recognised aris-

tocracy of ecclesiastical office and an irregular but not less powerful
aristocracy of moral weight. .

The position of the bishop with respect to the individual church

over which he ruled was thus defined by the first contest in which

Second Cyprian engaged. The second conflict resulted in determining his

ae relation to the Church universal. The schism which had grown up

cee during the first conflict created the difficulty which gave occasion to

the second. A question arose whether baptism by heretics and

schismatics should be held valid or not. Stephen the Roman

bishop, pleading the immemorial custom of his church, recognised

its validity. Cyprian insisted on rebaptism in such cases. Hitherto

the bishop of Carthage had acted in cordial harmony with Rome:

but now there was a collision. Stephen, inheriting the haughty

temper and aggressive policy of his earlier predecessor Victor, excom-

municated those who differed from the Roman usage in this matter.

These arrogant assumptions were directly met by Cyprian. He

summoned first one and then another synod of African bishops, who

declared in his favour. He had on his side also the churches of

Asia Minor, which had been included in Stephen’s edict of excom-

munication. Thus the bolt hurled by Stephen fell innocuous, and

the churches of Africa and Asia retained their practice. The prin-

Relations ciple asserted in the struggle was not unimportant. As in the

ce former conflict Cyprian had maintained the independent supremacy

bishops to
the Uni- of the bishop over the officers and members of his own congregation,

1 The intricacy of the whole proceed- nists, varying and even interchanged
ing is a strong evidence of the genuine- with the change of circumstances, are
ness of the letter and other documents very natural, but very unlike the in-
which contain the account of the con- vention of a forger who has a distinet
troversy.. The situations of theantago- _ side to maintain.

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 241

so now he contended successfully for his immunity from any inter- bie
At a later period indeed Rome carried the defined.
victory, but the immediate result of this controversy was to establish
More-
over this struggle had the further and not less important conse-
quence of defining and exhibiting the relations of the episcopate
to the Church in another way. As the individual bishop had been

pronounced indispensable to the existence of the individual commu-

ference from without.

the independence and enhance the power of the episcopate.

nity, so the episcopal order was now put forward as the absolute
indefeasible representative of the universal Church. Synods of
bishops indeed had been held frequently before ; but under Cyprian’s
guidance they assumed a prominence which threw all existing prece-
dents into the shade.
word. The unity of the Church, he maintained, consists in the
unanimity of the bishops’. In this controversy, as in the former, he
acted throughout on the principle, distinctly asserted, that the exist-
ence of the episcopal office was not a matter of practical advantage or

A ‘one undivided episcopate’ was his watch-

ecclesiastical rule or even of apostolic sanction, but an absolute in-
controvertible decree of God. The triumph of Cyprian therefore was
the triumph of this principle.

The greatness of Cyprian’s influence on the episcopate is indeed Cyprian’s
due to this fact, that with him the statement of the principle pre- ον τς me
Of the sharpness and P#e-

distinctness of his sacerdotal views it will be time to speak pre-

cedes and necessitates the practical measures.

sently ; but of his conception of the episcopal office generally thus
much may be said here, that he regards the bishop as exclusively the
representative of God to the congregation and hardly, if at all, as
the representative of the congregation before God. The bishop is
the indispensable channel of divine grace, the indispensable bond of
Christian brotherhood.
as the foundation-stone of the ecclesiastical edifice: not so much the

The episcopate is not so much the roof

legitimate development as the primary condition of a church’.

argues (Ipist. 43) that, as there is one
Church, there must be only ‘unum al-

1 De Unit. Eccl. 2 ‘Quam unitatem
firmiter tenere et vindicare debemus

maxime episcopi qui in ecclesia presi-
demus, ut episcopatum quoque ipsum
unum atque indivisum probemus’; and
again ‘Episcopatus unus est, cujus a
singulis in solidum pars tenetur: ec-
elesia quoque una estetc.’ Soagain he

PHIL.

tare et unum sacerdotium (i.e. one epi-
scopate)’. Comp. also Epist. 46, 55,67.

2 Epist. 66 ‘Scire debes episcopum
in ecclesia esse et ecclesiam in episcopo,
et si quis cum episcopo non sit, in eccle-
sia non esse.’ Epist. 33 ‘Ut ecclesia

ty
aS
bo

The power
of the
bishops a
question of
practical
conveni-
ence,

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY.

The bishop is appointed directly by God, is responsible directly to
God, is inspired directly from God’. This last poimt deserves espe-
cial notice. Though in words he frequently defers to the established
usage of consulting the presbyters and even the laity in the appoint-
ment of officers and in other matters affecting the well-being of the
community, yet he only makes the concession to nullify it imme-
diately. He pleads a direct official inspiration? which enables him
to dispense with ecclesiastical custom and to act on his own respon-
sibility. Though the presbyters may still have retained the shadow
of a controlling power over the acts of the bishop, though the
courtesy of language by which they were recognised as fellow-pres-
byters* was not laid aside, yet for all practical ends the independent
supremacy of the episcopate was completely established by the prin-

ciples and the measures of Cyprian.

In the investigation just concluded I have endeavoured to trace
the changes in the relative position of the first and second orders
of the ministry, by which the power was gradually concentrated in
the hands of the former. Such a development involves no new prin-
ciple and must be regarded chiefly in its practical bearings. It is
plainly competent for the Church at any given time to entrust a
particular office with larger powers, as the emergency may require.
And, though the grounds on which the independent authority of
the episcopate was at times defended may have been false or ex-
aggerated, no reasonable objection can be taken to later forms of
ecclesiastical polity because the measure of power accorded to the
bishop does not remain exactly the same as in the Church of the
subapostolic ages. Nay, to many thoughtful and dispassionate minds
even the gigantic power wielded by the popes during the middle

tra episcopos rebellarunt.’
* See esp. Hpist. 3, 43, 58) 59, 73

super episcopos constituatur et omnis
actus ecclesia per eosdem prepositos

gubernetur.’ Hence the expression ‘nec
episcopum nec ecclesiam cogitans,’
Epist. 41; hence also ‘honor episcopi’
is associated not only with ‘ecclesiz
ratio’ (Epist. 33) but even with ‘timor
dei’ (Epist. 15). Compare also the
language (Epist.. 59) ‘Nec ecclesia istic
cuiquam clauditur nec episcopus alicui
denegatur’, and again (Epist. 43),
‘Soli cum episcopis non sint, qui con-

and above all 66 (Ad Pupianum).

2 Epist. 38 ‘Expectanda non sunt
testimonia humana cum precedunt
divina suffragia’; Epist. 39 ‘Non hu-
mana suffragatione sed divina digna-
tione conjunctum’; Epist. 40 ‘ Ad-
monitos nos et instructos sciatis digna-
tione divina ut Numidicus presbyter
etc.’

3 See above p. 228, note 3.

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 243

ages will appear justifiable in itself (though they will repudiate the
false pretensions on which it was founded, and the false opinions
which were associated with it), since only by such a providential
concentration of authority could the Church, humanly speaking, have

Now how- 224 un-
connected

ever it is my purpose to investigate the origin and growth of a new with sacer-
dotalism.

braved the storms of those ages of anarchy and violence.

principle, which is nowhere enunciated in the New Testament, but
which notwithstanding has worked its way into general recognition
and seriously modified the character of later Christianity. The pro-
gress of the sacerdotal view of the ministry is one of the most
striking and important phenomena in the history of the Church.

Tt has been pointed out already that the sacerdotal functions and No sacer-
dotalism
in the New
tain to all believers alike and do not refer solely or specially to the ἜΣ
ment,

If to this statement it be objected that the
inference is built upon the silence of the Apostles and Evangelists,

privileges, which alone are mentioned in the apostolic writings, per-
ministerial office.

and that such reasoning is always precarious, the reply is that an
exclusive sacerdotalism (as the word is commonly understood)" con-
But indeed the strength
or weakness of an argument drawn from silence depends wholly

tradicts the general tenour of the Gospel.

on the circumstance under which the silence is maintained. And
In the Pas-
toral Epistles for instance, which are largely occupied with questions

in this case it cannot be considered devoid of weight.

relating te the Christian ministry, it seems scarcely possible that this
aspect should have been overlooked, if it had any place in St Paul’s
teaching. The Apostle discusses at length the requirements, the
responsibilities, the sanctions, of the ministerial office: he regards
the presbyter as an example, as a teacher, as a philanthropist, as
a ruler.
tions, the sacerdotal privileges, of the office wholly set aside? If

How then, it may well be asked, are the sacerdotal func-

these claims were recognised by him at all, they must necessarily

have taken a foremost place. The same argument again applies with

1 In speaking of sacerdotalism, I as-
sume the term to have essentially the
same force as when applied to the Jew-
ish priesthood. In a certain sense (to
be considered hereafter) all officers ap-
pointed to minister ‘for men in things
pertaining to God’ may becalled priests;
and sacerdotal phraseology, when first

applied to the Christian ministry, may
have borne this innocent meaning. But
at a later date it was certainly so used
as to imply a substantial identity of
character with the Jewish priesthood,
1. 6. to designate the Christian minister
as one who offers sacrifices and makes
atonement.

10 Ὁ

244

Its rapid
spread at
a later
date,

Distine-
tion of the
clergyfrom
the laity

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY.

not less force to those passages in the Epistles to the Corinthians,
where St Paul asserts his apostolic authority against his detractors.
Nevertheless, so entirely had the primitive conception of the Chris-
tian Church been supplanted by this sacerdotal view of the ministry,
before the northern races were converted to the Gospel, and the
dialects derived from the Latin took the place of the ancient tongue,
that the languages of modern Europe very generally supply only
one word to represent alike the priests of the Jewish or heathen
ceremonial and the presbyter of the Christian ministry’.

For, though no distinct traces of sacerdotalism are visible in the
ages immediately after the Apostles, yet having once taken root
in the Church it shot up rapidly into maturity. Towards the
close of the second century we discern the first germs appearing above
the surface: yet, shortly after the middle of the third, the plant has
all but attained its full growth. The origin of this idea, the progress
of its development, and the conditions favourable to its spread, will
be considered in the present section of this essay.

A separation of orders, it is true, appeared at a much earlier
date, and was in some sense involved in the appointment of a
special ministry. This, and not more than this, was originally con-
tained in the distinction of clergy and laity. If the sacerdotal view
of the ministry engrafted itself on this distinction, it nevertheless
was not necessarily implied or even indirectly suggested thereby.

1 Tt is a significant fact that in those
languages which have only one word to
express the twoideas,this word etymolo-
gically represents ‘presbyterus’ and not
‘sacerdos,’ e.g. the French prétre, the
German priester, andthe English priest;
thus showing that the sacerdotal idea
was imported and not original. In the
Italian, where two words prete and
sacerdote exist side by side, there is no
marked difference in usage, except that
prete is the morecommon. [If the lat-
ter brings out the sacerdotal idea more
prominently, the former is also applied
to Jewish and Heathen priests and
therefore distinctly involves this idea.
Wiclif’s version of the New Testament
naturally conforms to the Vulgate, in
which it seems to be the rule to translate
πρεσβύτεροι by ‘presbyteri’ (in Wiclif
‘preestes’) where it obviously denotes

the second order in the ministry (e.g.
Acts xiv. 23, 1 Tim. v. 17, 19, Tit. i. 5,
James v. 14), and by ‘seniores’ (in
Wiclif ‘eldres’ or ‘elder men’) in other
passages: but if so, this rule is not
always successfully applied (e.g, Acts
xi, 30, ΣΧ: 18,1 Pot. νι πὶ A doubt
about the meaning may explain the
anomaly that the word is translated
‘presbyteri,’ ‘preestes,’ Acts xv. 2, and
‘seniores,’ ‘elder men,’ Acts xv. 4, 6,
22, ΧΥΪ. 4; though the persons intended
are the same. In Acts xx. 17, it is
rendered in Wiclif’s version ‘the gret-
tist men of birthe,’ a misunderstanding
of the Vulgate ‘majores natu.’ The
English versions of the reformers and
the reformed Church from Tyndale
downward translate πρεσβύτεροι uni-
formly by ‘elders.’

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY.

245
The term ‘clerus,’ as a designation of the ministerial office, did not noes
rom e

owing to any existing associations convey the idea of sacerdotal [evitical

functions. The word is not used of the Aaronic priesthood in any PHest-

hood.
special sense which would explain its transference to the Christian
It is indeed said of the Levites, that they have no
But the

Jewish priesthood is never described conversely as the special ‘clerus’

ministry.
“clerus’ in the land, the Lord Himself being their ‘clerus’’.

of Jehovah: while on the other hand the metaphor thus inverted is
Up to
this point therefore the analogy of Old Testament usage would

more than once applied to the whole Israelite people’.

have suggested ‘clerus’ as a name rather for the entire body of
the faithful than for the ministry specially or exclusively: nor do
other references to the clerus or lot in connexion with the Levitical
The tithes, it is true,
were assigned to the sons of Levi as their ‘clerus’*; but in this

priesthood countenance its special application.

there is nothing distinctive, and in fact the word is employed
much more prominently in describing the lands allotted to the
whole people. Again the courses of priests and Levites selected
to conduct the temple-service were appointed by lot*; but the mode
adopted in distributing a particular set of duties is far too special
If indeed

it were an established fact that the Aaronic priesthood at the time

to have supplied a distinctive name for the whole order.

of the Christian era commonly bore the name of ‘clergy,’ we might
be driven to explain the designation in this or in some similar
way ; but apparently no evidence of any such usage exists’, and it
is therefore needless to cast about for an explanation of a fact which
itself is only conjectural. The origin of the term clergy, as ap-
plied to the Christian ministry, must be sought elsewhere.

And the record of the earliest appointment made by the Origin of

1 Deut. x. 9, xviii. 1,2; comp. Num.
xxvi. 62, Deut. xii. 12, xiv. 27, 29, Josh.
xiv. 3. Jerome (Kpist. 111. 5,1. p. 258)
says, ‘Propterea vocantur clerici, vel
quia de sorte sunt Domini, vel quiaipse
Dominus sors, id est pars, clericorum
est.’ The former explanation would be
reasonable, if it were supported by the
language of the Old Testament: the
latter is plainly inadequate.

2 Dent. iv. 20 εἶναι αὐτῷ λαὸν ἔγκλη-
pov: comp. ix. 29 οὗτοι λαός σου καὶ
κλῆρός σου.

3 Num. xviii. 21, 24, 26.

4 1 Chron. xxiv. 5, 7, 31, Xxv. 8, 9.

5 On the other hand λαὸς is used of
the people, as contrasted either with
the rulers or with the priests. From
this latter contrast comes λαϊκός, ‘laic’
or ‘profane,’ and λαϊκόω ‘to profane’ ;
which, though not found in the rxx,
occur frequently in the versions of
Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion
(λαϊκός, 1 Sam. xxi. 4, Ezek. xlviii. 15;
Aaikdw, Deut. xx. 6, xxvili. 30, Ruth i.
12, Ezek. vii. 22).

246 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY.

‘Clerus’as Christian Church after the Ascension of the Lord seems to supply

f :
He clans the clue. Exhorting the assembled brethren to elect a successor
Be in place of Judas, St Peter tells them that the traitor ‘had been
ministry.

numbered among them and had received the Jot (κλῆρον) of the
ministry’: while in the account of the subsequent proceedings it
is recorded that the Apostles ‘distributed lots’ to the brethren,
and that ‘the Jot fell on Matthias and he was added to the eleven
Apostles!’ The following therefore seems to be the sequence of
meanings, by which the word κλῆρος arrived at this peculiar sense:
(1) the lot by which the office was assigned; (2) the office thus
The

first two senses are illustrated by the passages quoted from the

assigned by lot; (3) the body of persons holding the office.

Acts; and from the second to the third the transition is easy and
natural. It must not be supposed however that the mode of
appointing officers by lot prevailed generally in the early Church,
Besides the case of Matthias no other instance is recorded in the
New Testament ; nor is this procedure likely to have been commonly
adopted. But just as in the passage quoted the word is used
to describe the office of Judas, though Judas was certainly not
selected by lot, so generally from signifying one special mode of
appointment to office it got to signify office in the Church gene-
rally®. If this account of the application of ‘clerus’ to the Chris-
tian ministry be correct, we should expect to find it illustrated

by a corresponding progress in the actual usage of the word. And

this is in fact the case. The sense ‘clerical appointment or office’

chronologically precedes the sense ‘clergy’. The former meaning
occurs several times in Ireneus. He speaks of Hyginus as ‘holding
the ninth clerus of the episcopal succession from the Apostles*’; and
of Eleutherus in like manner he says, ‘He now occupies the clerus

of the episcopate in the tenth place from the Apostles’ On the

1 Acts i. 17 ἔλαχεν τὸν κλῆρον, 26
ἔδωκαν κλήρους αὐτοῖς καὶ ἔπεσεν ὁ κλῆ-
ρος ἐπὶ Μαθθίαν. In ver. 25 κλῆρον is
a false reading. The use of the word
in τ Pet. v. 3 κατακυριεύοντες τών κλή-
ρων (i.e. of the flocks assigned to them)
does not illustrate this meaning.

2 See Clem. Alex. Quis div. salv. 42,
where κληροῦν is ‘to appoint to the
ministry’; and Iren. ili. 3. 3 κληροῦσθαι
τὴν ἐπισκοπήν. A similar extension of

meaning is seen in this same word κλῆ-
pos applied to land. Signifying origi-
nally a piece of ground assigned by lot,
it gets to mean landed property gene-
rally, whether obtained by assignment
or by inheritance or in any other way.

3) Inens ἢ 27, τ.

4 Tren. iii. 3.3. In this passage how-
ever, as in the preceding, the word is
explained by a qualifying genitive. In
Hippol. Her. ix. 12 (Pp. 290), ἤρξαντο

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 247

other hand the earliest instance of ‘clerus’, meaning clergy, seems
to occur in Tertullian', who belongs to the next generation.
It will thus be seen that the use of ‘clerus’ to denote the No sacer-
ἜΝ : ; 5 dotal idea
ministry cannot be traced to the Jewish priesthood, and is there- conveyed

The term Py the

fore wholly unconnected with any sacerdotal views. '
erm

does indeed recognise the clergy as an order distinct from the laity ;
but this is a mere question of ecclesiastical rule or polity, and
involves no doctrinal bearings. The origin of sacerdotal phraseology

and ideas must be sought elsewhere.

Attention has been already directed to the absence of any Spee of
appeal to sacerdotal claims in the Pastoral Epistles. The silence eas Ἧ
of the apostolic fathers deserves also to be noticed. Though the Pe =
genuine letters of all three may be truly said to hinge on questions dotalism.
relating to the ministry, no distinct traces of this influence are
visible. St Clement, as the representative of the Roman Church, Clement.
writes to the Christian brotherhood at Corinth, offering friendly
counsel in their disputes and rebuking their factious and unworthy
conduct towards certain presbyters whom, though blameless, they
had ejected from office.

to principles of Christian order.

He appeals to motives of Christian love,
He adduces a large number of
examples from biblical history condemnatory of jealousy and in-
subordination. He urges that men, who had been appointed directly
by the Apostles or by persons themselves so appointed ought to have
received better treatment. Dwelling at great length on the subject,

he nevertheless advances no sacerdotal claims or immunities on

He does, it is true, adduce the Import of

: : : - hi -
Aaronic priesthood and the Temple service as showing that God ea ale

behalf of the ejected ministers.

has appointed set persons and set places and will have all things the Bee
nic priest-

He had before illustrated this lesson by the sub- hood.
ordination of ranks in an army, and by the relation of the different

done in order.

members of the human body: he had insisted on the duties of

ἐπίσκοποι καὶ πρεσβύτεροι καὶ διάκονοι
δίγαμοι καὶ τρίγαμοι καθίστασθαι εἰς κλή-
ρους, it is used absolutely of ‘clerical
offices.’ The Epistle of the Gallican
Churches (Euseb. H. E. vy. 1) speaks
more than once of the κλῆρος τῶν μαρ-
τύρων, i.e. the order or rank of mar-
tyrs: comp. Test. xii Patr. Levi8. See
Ritschl p. 390 sq., to whom I am in-

debted for several of the passages which
are quoted in this investigation.

1 e.g. de Monog. τῷ ‘Unde enim
episcopi et clerus?’ and again ‘ Extolli-
mur et inflamur adversus clerum.’ Per-
haps however earlier instances may have
escaped notice. In Clem. Alex. Quis
div. salv. 42 the word seems not to be
used in this sense.

248 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY.

the strong towards the weak, of the rich towards the poor, of the
wise towards the ignorant, and so forth: he had enforced the
appeal by reminding his readers of the utter feebleness and insig-
nificance of man in the sight of God, as represented in the Scriptures
of the Old Testament; and then follows the passage which contains
the allusion in question: ‘He hath not commanded (the offerings
and ministrations) to be performed at random or in disorder, but
at fixed times and seasons; and where and through whom He
willeth them to be performed, He hath ordained by His supreme
will. They therefore who make their offerings at the appointed
seasons are acceptable and blessed, since following the ordinances of
the Master they do not go wrong. For to the high-priest peculiar
services are entrusted, and the priests have their peculiar office
assigned to them, and on Levites peculiar ministrations are imposed ;
the layman is bound by lay ordinances, Let each of you, brethren,
in his own rank give thanks to God, retaining a good conscience,
not transgressing the appointed rule of his service (λειτουργίας) ete."”
Here it is clear that in St Clement’s conception the sanction pos-
sessed in common by the Aaronic priesthood and the Christian
ministry is not the sacerdotal consecration, but the divinely ap-
pointed order. He passes over in silence the numerous passages
in the Old Testament which enjoin obedience to the priests ; while the
only sentence (ὃ 42) which he puts forward as anticipating and
enforcing the authority of the Christian ministry is a misquoted and
misinterpreted verse from Isaiah; ‘I will establish their overseers
(bishops) in righteousness and their ministers (deacons) in faith*’.
Again a little later he mentions in illustration the murmuring of

1 Clem.Rom.40,41. Neander (Church
History, τ. p. 272 note, Bohn’s transla-
tion) conjectures that this passage is
an ‘interpolation from a hierarchical
interest,’ and Dean Milman (Hist. of
Christianity, 1. p. 259) says that it is
‘rejected by all judicious and impartial
scholars.’ At the risk of forfeiting all
claim to judiciousness and impartiality
one may venture to demur to this arbi-
trary criticism. On the other hand the
clause ὁ λαϊκὸς x.7.A. may possibly be
spurious, for it is not connected by any
particle with the context; but this isa

precarious argument, and moreover the
retention or rejection of these words
does not materially affect the present
question.

2 Js. lx. 17, where the A. V. cor-
rectly renders the original, ‘I will also
make thy officers (lit. magistrates) peace
and thine exactors (i.e. task-masters)
righteousness’; i.e. there shall be no
tyranny or oppression. The xx de-
parts from the original, and Clement
has altered the txx. By this double
divergence a reference to the two orders
of the ministry is obtained.

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 249

the Israelites which was rebuked by the budding of Aaron’s rod’.
But here too he makes it clear how far he considers the analogy
to extend. He calls the sedition in the one case ‘jealousy con-
cerning the priesthood’, in the other ‘strife concerning the honour
of the episcopate’. He keeps the names and the offices distinct.

The significance of this fact will be felt at once by comparing his
language with the expressions used by any later writer, such as
Cyprian, who was penetrated with the spirit of sacerdotalism’.

Of St Ignatius, as the champion of episcopacy, much has been said Ignatius.
already. It is sufficient to add here, that he never regards the
ministry as a sacerdotal office. But the silence of the writer of the Ignatian
interpolated and forged epistles is a more important and remarkable see
fact.

obedience to bishops, while their language is frequently so strong as

While these letters teem with passages enjoining the strictest

to be almost profane, this Ignatian writer never once appeals to sa-
cerdotal claims*, though such an appeal would have made his case
more than doubly strong. If it be ever safe to take the sentiments
of an individual writer as expressing the belief of his age, we may
infer from the silence which pervades these letters, that the sacer-
dotal view of the ministry had not yet found its way into the Chris-
tian Church.

When we pass on to the third apostolic father, the same pheno-
menon is repeated. Polycarp, like Clement and Ignatius, occupies Polycarp.
much space in discussing the duties and the claims of Christian mi-
nisters. He takes occasion especially to give his correspondents ad-
vice as to a certain presbyter who had disgraced his office by a grave
offence’, Yet he again knows nothing, or at least says nothing, of

1 Clem. Rom. 43.

2 Contrast § 43 ζήλου ἐμπεσόντος
περὶ τῆς ἱερωσύνης with ὃ 44 ἔρις ἔσται
ἐπὶ τοῦ ὀνόματος τῆς ἐπισκοπῆς. The
common feature which connects the two
offices together is stated in the words,
§ 43 ἵνα μὴ ἀκαταστασία γένηται.

3 See below p. 257.

4 Some passages are quoted in Green-
wood Cathedra Petri τ. Ὁ. 73 as tending
in this direction, e.g. Philad. 9 καλοὶ
καὶ οἱ ἱερεῖς, κρεῖσσον δὲ ὁ ἀρχιερεύς
κιτιλ. But rightly interpreted they do
not favour this view. In the passage

quoted for instance, the writer seems
to be maintaining the superiority of the
new covenant, as represented by the
great High-Priest (ἀρχιερεύς) in and
through whom the whole Church has
access to God, over the old dispensa-
tion of the Levitical priesthood (ἱερεῖς).
If this interpretation be correct, the
passage echoes the teaching of the Epi-
stle to the Hebrews, and is opposed
to exclusive sacerdotalism. On the
meaning of θυσιαστήριον in the Ignatian
Epistles see below p. 263, note 2.
5 Sce above p. 62 sq.

250

Justin
Martyr

maintains
an univer-
sal priest-
hood.

Trenzus

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY.

any sacerdotal privileges which claimed respect, or of any sacerdotal
sanctity which has been violated.

Justin Martyr writes about a generation later. He speaks at
length and with emphasis on the eucharistic offerings. Here at least
we might expect to find sacerdotal views of the Christian ministry
propounded. Yet this is far from being the case. He does indeed
lay stress on sacerdotal functions, but these belong to the whole body
of the Church, and are not in any way the exclusive right of the
clergy. ‘So we,’ he writes, when arguing against Trypho the Jew,
‘who through the name of Jesus have believed as one man in God
the maker of the universe, having divested ourselves of our filthy
garments, that is our sins, through the name of His first-born Son,
and having been refined (πυρωθέντες) by the word of His calling, are
the true high-priestly race of God, as God Himself also beareth wit-
ness, saying that in every place among the Gentiles are men offering
sacrifices well-pleasing unto Him and pure (Mal. i. 11). Yet God
doth not receive sacrifices from any one, except through His priests.
Therefore God anticipating all sacrifices through this name, which
Jesus Christ ordained to be offered, I mean those offered by the
Christians in every region of the earth with (ἐπὶ) the thanksgiving
(the eucharist) of the bread and of the cup, beareth witness that
they are well-pleasing to Him; but the sacrifices offered by you and
through those your priests he rejecteth, saying, “And your sacrifices
I will not accept from your hands etc. (Mal. i. το)". The whole
Christian people therefore (such is Justin’s conception) have not only
taken the place of the Aaronic priesthood, but have become a nation
of high-priests, being made one with the great High-Priest of the new
covenant and presenting their eucharistic offerings in His name.

Another generation leads us from Justin Martyr to Ireneus.
When Irenzus writes, the second century is very far advanced. Yet
still the silence which has accompanied us hitherto remains un-
broken. And here again it is important to observe that Ireneus, if
he held the sacerdotal view, had every motive for urging it, since the
importance and authority of the episcopate occupy a large space in
his teaching. Nevertheless he not only withholds this title as a spe-
cial designation of the Christian ministry, but advances an entirely

1 Dial. c. Tryph. c. 116, 117, p. 344.

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 251

different view of the priestly office. He recognises only the priest- acknow-

hood of moral holiness, the priesthood of apostolic self-denial. Thus ete
commenting on the reference made by our Lord to the incident in a
David’s life where the king and his followers eat the shew-bread,

‘which it is not lawful to eat save for the priests alone’, Irenzus
remarks'; ‘He excuseth His disciples by the words of the law, and
signifieth that it is lawful for priests to act freely. For David had

been called to be a priest in the sight of God, although Saul carried

on a persecution against him ; for all just men belong to the sacer-

dotal order®. Now all apostles of the Lord are priests, for they in-

herit neither lands nor houses here, but ever attend on the altar and

on God’: ‘Who are they’, he goes on, ‘that have left father and

mother and have renounced all their kindred for the sake of the

word of God and His covenant, but the disciples of the Lord? Of

these Moses saith again, “But they shall have no inheritance ; for

the Lord Himself shall be their inheritance”; and again, “The

priests, the Levites,:in the whole tribe of Levi shall have no part nor
inheritance with Israel: the first-fruits (fructificationes) of the Lord

are their inheritance ; they shall eat them.” For this reason also
The
disciples of the Lord, he would say, were allowed when hungry to
take food of the seeds (they had sown): for “The labourer is worthy

Paul saith, “I require not the gift, but I require the fruit.”

of his food.”’ Again, striking upon the same topic in a later passage*
and commenting on the words of Jeremiah (xxxi. 14), “I will intoxi-
cate the soul of the priests the sons of Levi, and my people shall be
filled with my good things,” he adds, ‘we have shown in a former
book, that all disciples of the Lord are priests and Levites: who also
profaned the Sabbath in the temple and are blameless.’ Thus Ire-
nus too recognises the whole body of the faithful under the new dis-
pensation as the counterparts of the sons of Levi under the old. The
position of the Apostles and Evangelists has not yet been abandoned.

A few years later, but still before the close of the century, Poly-

1 Her. iv. 8. 3.

2 This sentence is cited by John Da-
mascene and Antonius Melissa πᾶς
βασιλεὺς δίκαιος ἱερατικὴν ἔχει τάξιν ; but
the words were quoted doubtless from
memory by the one writer and borrowed
by the other from him. βασιλεὺς is not
represented in the Latin and does not

suit the context. The close conformity of
their quotations from the Ignatian let-
ters is a sufficient proof that these two
writers are not independent authorities:
see the passages in Cureton’s Corp. Jg-
nat. p. 180 sq.

ΞΟ Teka Ney 6 5:

252

Explana-
tion of a
passage in
Poly-
crates.

Clement
of Alexan-
dria.

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY.

crates of Ephesus writes to Victor of Rome. Incidentally he speaks
of St John as ‘having been made a priest’ and ‘wearing the mitre’’;
and this might seem to be a distinct expression of sacerdotal views,
for the ‘mitre’ to which he alludes is doubtless the tiara of the
Jewish high-priest. But it may very reasonably be questioned if this
is the correct meaning of the passage. Whether St John did actually
wear this decoration of the high-priestly office, or whether Polycrates
has mistaken a symbolical expression in some earlier writer for an
actual fact, or whether lastly his language itself should be treated as
But

in any case the notice is explained by the language of St John hin-

a violent metaphor, I have had occasion to discuss elsewhere’.

self, who regards the whole body of believers as high-priests of the
new covenant’; and it is certain that the contemporaries of Poly-

erates still continued to hold similar language*,. As a figurative ex-

pression or as a literal fact, the notice points to St John as the vete-
On the
other hand, it is possible that this was not the sense which Poly-

ran teacher, the chief representative, of a pontifical race.

erates himself attached to the figure or the fact: and if so, we have
here perhaps the earliest passage in any extant Christian writing
where the sacerdotal view of the ministry is distinctly put forward.
Clement of Alexandria was a contemporary of Polycrates.
Though his extant writings are considerable in extent and though
they are largely occupied with questions of Christian ethics and
social life, the ministry does not hold a prominent place in them.
In the few passages where he mentions it, he does not betray any
The bias of his
He would be much more

tendency to sacerdotal or even to hierarchical views.
mind indeed lay in an opposite direction.
inclined to maintain an aristocracy of intellectual contemplation than
of sacerdotal office. And in Alexandria generally, as we have seen,
the development of the hierarchy was slower than in other churches.

How far he is from maintaining a sacerdotal view of the ministry

1 In Euseb. H. Ε΄. v. 24 ὃς ἐγενήθη
ἱερεὺς τὸ πέταλον medopexws. Comp.
Tertull. adv. Jud. 14 ‘exornatus podere
et mitra’, Test. xii Patr. Levi 8 ava:
στὰς ἔνδυσαι τὴν στολὴν τῆς ἱερατείας...
τὸν ποδήρη τῆς ἀληθείας καὶ τὸ πέταλον
τῆς πίστεως k.T.A. See also, as an illus-
tration of the metaphor, Tertull. Monog.
12 ‘Cum ad pereequationem discipline

sacerdotalis provocamur, deponimus in-
fulas.’

2 See Galatians p. 345 note.

3 Rev. ii. 17; see the commentators.

4 So Justin in the words already
quoted (p. 250), Dial. c. Tryph. ὃ 116
ἀρχιερατικὸν τὸ ἀληθινὸν γένος ἐσμὲν τοῦ
Θεοῦ. See also the passage of Origen
quoted below p. 255.

|
|

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 253

and how substantially he coincides with Irenzeus in this respect,
will appear from the following passage. ‘It is possible for men ἘΠῚ cae
even now, by exercising themselves in the commandments ‘of the hood.
Lord and by living a perfect gnostic life in obedience to the Gospel,
to be inscribed in the roll of the Apostles. Such men are genuine
presbyters of the Church and true deacons of the will of God, if they
practise and teach the things of the Lord, being not indeed ordained
by men nor considered righteous because they are presbyters, but
enrolled in the presbytery because they are righteous: and though
here on earth they may not be honoured with a chief seat, yet shall
they sit on the four and twenty thrones judging the people’. It
is quite consistent with this truly spiritual view, that he ‘should
elsewhere recognise the presbyter, the deacon, and the layman, as
distinct orders’. But on the other hand he never uses the words
‘priest,’ ‘priestly,’ ‘priesthood,’ of the Christian ministry. In one
passage indeed he contrasts laity and priesthood, but without
any such reference. Speaking of the veil of the temple and as-
signing to it a symbolical meaning, he describes it as ‘a barrier
against laic unbelief,’ behind which ‘the priestly ministration is
hidden*.’ Here the laymen and the priests are respectively those
who reject and those who appropriate the spiritual mysteries of the
Gospel. Accordingly in the context St Clement, followimg up the
hint thrown out in the Epistle to the Hebrews, gives a spiritual
meaning to all the furniture of the holy place.

His younger contemporary Tertullian is the first to assert direct Tertullian
holds a
sacerdotal
he complains that they impose sacerdotal functions on laymen*, ‘The view uf the
ministry,

sacerdotal claims on behalf of the Christian ministry. Of the heretics

right of giving baptism,’ he says elsewhere, ‘belongs to the chief priest
(summus sacerdos), that is, the bishop’.’ ‘No woman,’ he asserts,
‘ought to teach, baptize, celebrate the eucharist, or arrogate to her-
self the performance of any duty pertaining to males, much less
of the sacerdotal office’ And generally he uses the words sacer-
dos, sacerdotium, sacerdotalis, of the Christian ministry. It seems

1 Strom. Vi. 13, Ὁ. 793- tween the clergy and laity.’
2 Strom. iii. go, p. 552. 4 de Prescr. Her. 41 ‘Nam et laicis
3 Strom. v. 33 8q., p. 665 sq. Bp. sacerdotalia munera injungunt.’

Kaye (Clement of Alexandria p. 464) 5 de Baptismo 17.

incorrectly adduces this passage as an 8 de Virg. vel. 9.

express mention of ‘the distinction be-

254

yet quali-
fies it by
his asser-
tion of an
universal
priest-
hood.

Sacerdotal

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY.

plain moreover from his mode of speaking, that such language was
not peculiar to himself but passed current in the churches among
which he moved. Yet he himself supplies the true counterpoise to
this special sacerdotalism in his strong assertion of the universal priest-
hood of all true believers. ‘We should be foolish,’ so he writes when
arguing against second marriages, ‘to suppose that a latitude is
allowed to laymen which is denied to priests. Are not we laymen
also priests? It is written, “He hath also made us a kingdom and
priests to God and His Father.” It is the authority of the Church
which makes a difference between the order (the clergy) and the
people—this authority and the consecration of their rank by the
assignment of special benches to the clergy. Thus where there is no
bench of clergy, you present the eucharistic offerings and baptize and
are your own sole priest. For where three are gathered together,
there is a church, even though they be laymen.
exercise the rights of a priest in cases of necessity, it is your duty

also to observe the discipline enjoined on a priest, where of necessity

Therefore if you

you exercise the rights of a priest’.’ And in another treatise he
writes in bitter irony, ‘When we begin to exalt and inflame our-
then we are all
᾿ς but
when we are required to submit ourselves equally to the priestly
These
passages, it is true, occur in treatises probably written after Ter-
but this con-
sideration is of little consequence, for they bear witness to the fact
that the scriptural doctrine of an universal priesthood was common

ground to himself and his opponents, and had not yet been obscured

selves against the clergy, then we are all one;
priests, because “Ἢ 6 made us priests to God and His Father’

discipline, we throw off our fillets and are no longer equal’.’

tullian had become wholly or in part a Montanist:

by the sacerdotal view of the Christian ministry’.
An incidental expression in Hippolytus serves to show that a

‘Show thyself to the priest’; adv. Mare.
iv. 9, adv. Jud. 14. Again, he uses

1 de Exh. Cast.7. See Kaye’s Tertul-
lian p. 211, whose interpretation of

‘honor per ordinis consessum sanctifi-
catus’ I have adopted.

2 de Monog. 12. I have taken the
reading ‘impares’ for ‘pares,’ as re-
quired by the context.

3 Tertullian regards Christ, our great
High-Priest, as the counterpart under
the new dispensation of the priest under
the old, and go interprets the text

‘sacerdos’ in a moral sense, de Spectac.
16 ‘sacerdotes pacis,’ de Cult. Fem. ii.
12 ‘sacerdotes pudicitie,’ ad Uxor. i.
6 (comp. 7) ‘virginitatis et viduitatis
sacerdotia.’ On the other hand in de
Pall. 4 he seems to compare the Chris-
tian minister with the heathen priests,
but too much stress must not be jaid
on a rhetorical image.

Ss Ὡς δ

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 255

few years later than Tertullian sacerdotal terms were commonly language
in Hippo-

used to designate the different orders of the clergy. ‘We, says tus!

the zealous bishop of Portus, ‘being successors of the Apostles and
partaking of the same grace both of high-priesthood and of teaching
and accounted guardians of the Church, do not close our eyes
drowsily or tacitly suppress the true word, etc.’.’

The march of sacerdotal ideas was probably slower at Alexandria
than at Carthage or Rome. Though belonging to the next gene- Origen in-

ration, Origen’s views are hardly so advanced as those of Tertul- ee
lian. In the temple of the Church, he says, there are two sanc- hoodspiri-

: : : tuall,
tuaries: the heavenly, accessible only to Jesus Christ, our great ΤῊΣ

High-Priest ; the earthly, open to all priests of the new covenant,
that is, to all faithful believers. For Christians are a sacerdotal
race and therefore have access to the outer sanctuary. There they
must present their offerings, their holocausts of love and self-denial.
From this outer sanctuary our High-Priest takes the fire, as He
enters the Holy of Holies to offer incense to the Father (see
Lev. xvi. 12)". Very many professed Christians, he writes else-
where (I am here abridging his words), occupied chiefly with the
concerns of this world and dedicating few of their actions to God,
are represented by the tribes, who merely present their tithes and
first-fruits. On the other hand ‘those who are devoted to the divine
word and are dedicated sincerely to the sole worship of God, may not
unreasonably be called priests and Levites according to the differ-
ence in this respect of their impulses tending thereto.’ Lastly ‘ those
who excel the men of their own generation, perchance will be high-
priests.’ They are only high-priests however after the order of
Aaron, our Lord Himself being High-Priest after the order of Mel-
chisedek*®, Again in a third place he says, ‘The Apostles and they
that are made like unto the Apostles, being priests after the order of
the great High-Priest, having received the knowledge of the worship
of God and being instructed by the Spirit, know for what sins they
ought to offer sacrifices, etc.*.’ In all these passages Origen has
taken spiritual enlightenment and not sacerdotal office to be the
Christian counterpart to the Aaronic priesthood. Elsewhere how- butapplies

1 Her. proem. p. 3. 3 In Joann. i. § 3 (IV. p. 3).
3 Hom. ix in Lev. 9, 10 (11. p. 243 4 de Orat. 28 (1. p. 255). See also
Delarue). Hom. iv in Num. 3 (τι. Ὁ. 283),

256 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY.

ec ta ever he makes use of sacerdotal terms to describe. the ministry of the
erms to 5 .
the minis- Church"; and in one place distinguishes the priests and the Levites

Ey: as representing the presbyters and deacons respectively’.
Hitherto the sacerdotal view of the Christian ministry has not

Thepriest- been held apart from a distinct recognition of the sacerdotal funce-

hoodofthe ,. Be ne aye :
sninistry tions of the whole Christian body. The minister is thus ,regarded as
‘prings a priest, because he is the mouthpiece, the representative, of a

from the
priesthood priestly race. Such appears to be the conception of Tertullian, who

aaa speaks of the clergy as separate from the laity only because the

Church in the exercise of her prerogative has for convenience
entrusted to them the performance of certain sacerdotal functions
belonging properly to the whole congregation, and of Origen,
who, giving a moral and spiritual interpretation to the sacerdotal
office, considers the priesthood of the clergy to differ from the priest-
hood of the laity only in degree, in so far as the former devote their
time and their thoughts more entirely to God than the latter. So
long as this important aspect is kept in view, so long as the priest-
hood of the ministry is regarded as springing from the priesthood of
the whole body, the teaching of the Apostles has not been directly
violated. But still it was not a safe nomenclature which assigned
the terms sacerdos, tepevs, and the like, to the ministry, as a special
designation. The appearance of this phenomenon marks the period of
transition from the universal sacerdotalism of the New Testament
to the particular sacerdotalism of a later age.

If Tertullian and Origen are still hovering on the border,
Cyprian has boldly transferred himself into the new domain. It
is not only that he uses the terms sacerdos, sacerdotium, sacer-
dotalis, of the ministry with a frequency hitherto without parallel.
But he treats all the passages in the Old Testament which refer
to the privileges, the sanctions, the duties, and the responsibilities

Hom. in Ps. xxxvii. 8 6 (τι. p. 688) that

Cyprian
the cham-
pion of un-
disguised
sacerdo-
talism.

1 Hom. v in Lev. 4 (11. p. 208 sq.)

‘Discant sacerdotes Domini qui eccle-
siis presunt,’ and also ib. τι. 4 (p. τοι)
‘Cum non erubescit sacerdoti Domini
indicare peccatum suum et querere
medicinam’ (for he quotes James v. 14
in illustration, p. 189). But Hom. x in
Num. τ, 2 (I. p. 302) quoted by Rede-
penning (Origenes τι. p. 417) hardly
bears this sense, for the ‘pontifex’ ap-
plies to our Lord; and it is clear from

in Origen’s opinion the confessor to the
penitent need not be an ordained minis-
ter. The passages in Redepenning’s
, Origenes bearing on this subject are
1 Ὁ: 357, IL pps 250. τ. 1530 Β΄

2 Hom. xii in Jerem. 3 (ut. p. 196)
‘If any one therefore among these
priests (I mean us the presbyters) or
among these Levites who stand about
the people (I mean the deacons) ete.’

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 257

of the Aaronic priesthood, as applying to the officers of the Christian
Church. His opponents are profane and sacrilegious; they have
passed sentence of death on themselves by disobeying the com-
mand of the Lord in Deuteronomy to ‘hear the priest’’; they
have forgotten the injunction of Solomon to honour and reverence
God’s priests’; they have despised the example of St Paul who
regretted that he ‘did not know it was the high priest*’; they
have been guilty of the sin of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram‘.
These passages are urged again and again. They are urged more-
over, as applying not by parity of reasoning, not by analogy of
circumstance, but as absolute and immediate and unquestionable.
As Cyprian crowned the edifice of episcopal power, so also was
he the first to put forward without relief or disguise these sacer-
dotal assumptions; and so uncompromising was the tone in which
he ‘asserted them, that nothing was left to his successors but
to enforce his principles and reiterate his language’.

After thus tracing the gradual departure from the Apostolic
teaching in the encroachment of the sacerdotal on the pastoral and
ministerial view of the clergy, it will be instructive to investigate
the causes to which this divergence from primitive truth may

be ascribed. To the question whether the change was due to Were

sacerdotal
views due

To some it has appeared as a reproduction of the Aaronic priest- to es
en-
among St Paul’s tile in-

in the Church : 22e2¢es?

ever increasing

Jewish or Gentile influences, opposite answers have been given.

hood, due to Pharisaic tendencies, such as we find
converts in Galatia and at Corinth, still lingering
to others, as imported into Christianity by the
mass of heathen converts who were incapable of shaking off their
sacerdotal prejudices and appreciating the free spirit of the Gospel.
The latter view seems correct in the main, but requires some
modification,

At all events so far as the evidence of extant writings goes, The
there is no reason for supposing that sacerdotalism was especially ἐπθς ον
rife among the Jewish converts. The Testaments of the Twelve Christian

4 De Unit. Eccl. p. 83 (Fell), Epist.
3» 67, 69, 73.

1 Deut. xvii. 12; see Epist. 3, 4, 43,
59, 66.

2 Though the words are ascribed to
Solomon, the quotation comes from
Ecclus. vii. 29, 31; see Epist. 3.

5 Acts xxili, 4; see Epist. 3, 59,
66.

PHIL.

5. The sacerdotal language in the
Apostolical Constitutions is hardly less
strong, while it is more systematic;
but their date is uncertain and cannot
well be placed earlier than Cyprian,

258

writings
contain no
traces of
sacerdo-
talism.

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY.

Patriarchs may be taken to represent one phase of Judaic Chris-
In both alike

there is an entire absence of sacerdotal views of the ministry.

tianity; the Clementine writings exhibit another.

The former work indeed dwells at length on our Lord’s office,
as the descendant and heir of Levi’, and alludes more than once
to his institution of a new priesthood; but this priesthood is
Christ Himself is the High priest’,
and the sacerdotal office is described as being ‘after the type of
the Gentiles, extending to all the Gentiles*’ On the Christian
In the Clementine Homilies the

spiritual and comprehensive.

ministry the writer is silent.
case is somewhat different, but the inference is still more obvious.
Though the episcopate is regarded as the backbone of the Church,
though the claims of the ministry are urged with great distinct-
ness, no appeal is ever made to priestly sanctity as the ground
of this exalted estimate*. Indeed the hold of the Levitical priest-
hood on the mind of the pious Jew must have been materially —
weakened at the Christian era by the development of the synagogue
organization on the one hand, and by the ever growing influence
of the learned and literary classes, the scribes and rabbis, on the
other. The points on which the Judaizers of the apostolic age
insist are the rite of circumcision, the distinction of meats, the
observance of sabbaths, and the like. The necessity of a priest-
hood was not, or at least is not known to have been, part of their
programme. Among the Essene Jews especially, who went so far
as to repudiate the temple sacrifices, no great importance could
have been attached to the Aaronic priesthood®: and after the
Apostolic ages at all events, the most active Judaizers of the dis-
persion seem to have belonged to the Essene type. But indeed
the overwhelming argument against ascribing the growth of sacer-
dotal views to Jewish influence lies in the fact, that there is a
singular absence of distinct sacerdotalism during the first century
and a half, when alone on any showing Judaism was powerful
enough to impress itself on the belief of the Church at large.

1 See Galatians p. 308.

2 Ruben 6, Symeon 7, Levi 18.

3 Levi 8.

4 See the next note.

5 See Galatians pp. 310, 313- Inthe
syzygies of the Clementine Homilies (ii.
16, 33) Aaron is opposed to Moses, the

high-priest to the lawgiver, as the bad
to the good, the false to the true, like
Cain to Abel, Ishmael to Isaac, etc.
In the later Recognitions the estimate
of the high-priest’s position is still un-
favourable (1. 46, 48). Compare the
statement in Justin, Dial. c. Tryph.117.

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 259

It is therefore to Gentile feeling that this development must Sacerdo-
be ascribed. For the heathen familiar with auguries, lustrations, Euler i
sacrifices, and depending on the intervention of some priest for pee Ὁ
all the manifold religious rites of the. state, the club, and the
family, the sacerdotal functions must have occupied a far larger
space in the affairs of every day life, than for the Jew of the
dispersion who of necessity dispensed and had no scruple at dis-
pensing with priestly ministrations from one year’s end to the
other. With this presumption drawn from probability the evidence
of fact accords. In Latin Christendom, as represented by the
Church of Carthage, the germs of the sacerdotal idea appear first
and soonest ripen to maturity. If we could satisfy ourselves of
the early date of the Ancient Syriac Documents lately published,
we should have discovered another centre from which this idea
was propagated. And so far their testimony may perhaps be
accepted. Syria was at least a soil where such a plant would
thrive and luxuriate. In no country of the civilized world was
sacerdotal authority among the heathen greater. The most im-
portant centres of Syrian Christianity, Antioch and Emesa, were
also the cradles of strongly-marked sacerdotal religions which at
different times made their influence felt throughout the Roman
empire’.

But though the spirit, which imported the idea into the Church but sought
of Christ and sustained it there, was chiefly due to Gentile education, OE ΝΣ
yet its form was almost as certainly derived from the Old Testament. πον
And this is the modification which needs to be made in the state-
ment, in itself substantially true, that sacerdotalism must be traced
to the influence of Heathen rather than of Jewish converts.

In the Apostolic writings we find the terms ‘offering’, ‘sacrifice’, (1) Meta-
applied to certain conditions and actions of the Christian life. ne
These sacrifices or offerings are described as spiritual’; they [668
consist of praise®, of faith*, of almsgiving’, of the devotion of the

body’, of the conversion of unbelievers’, and the like. Thus whatever

1 The worship of the Syrian goddess oe IEG iia iy
of Antioch was among the most popular 5. ἘΠΘΌ. ΣΙ, 185.
of oriental superstitions under the ape hil 11 17.
earlier Cesars; the rites of the Sun- 5 Acts xxiv. 17, Phil. iv. 18; comp.
god of Emesa became fashionable Heb. xiii. 16.
under Elagabalus, 6 Rom. xii. τὶ 7 Rom. xv. 16.

17—2

+260 THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY.

is dedicated to God’s service may be included under this metaphor.
In one passage also the image is so far extended, that the Apostolic
writer speaks of an altar’ pertaining to the spiritual service of the
Christian Church. If on this noble Scriptural language a false super-
structure has been reared, we have here only one instance out of
many, where the truth has been impaired by transferring state-
ments from the region of metaphor to the region of fact.

These ‘sacrifices’ were very frequently the acts not of the
Such for
instance were the offerings of public prayer and thanksgiving, or the
collection of alms on the first day of the week, or the contribution

individual Christian, but of the whole congregation.

Offerings of food for the agape, and the like. In such cases the congregation
presented
by the

ministers.

was represented by its minister, who thus acted as its mouthpiece
and was said to ‘present the offerings’ to God. So the expression
is used in the Epistle of St Clement of Rome’*. But in itself it
involves no sacerdotal view. This ancient father regards the sacri-
fice or offering as the act of the whole Church performed through
its presbyters. The minister is a priest in the same sense only
in which each individual member of the congregation is a priest.
When St Clement denounces those who usurp the functions of the
presbyters, he reprobates their conduct not as an act of sacrilege
but as a violation of order. He views the presbytery as an Apostolic
ordinance, not as a sacerdotal caste.

Thus when this father speaks of the presbytery as ‘presenting
the offerings,’ he uses an expression which, if not directly scriptural,
is at least accordant with the tenour of Scripture. But from such
language the transition to sacerdotal views was easy, where the

sacerdotal spirit was rife. From being the act of the whole con-

1 Heb. xiii. ro.

2 Clem. Rom. 44 τοὺς ἀμέμπτως καὶ
ὁσίως προσενεγκόντας τὰ δώρα. What
sort of offerings are meant, may be
gathered from other passages in Cle-
ment’s Epistle; e.g. ὃ 35 θυσία αἰνέσεως
δοξάσει με, ὃ 52 θῦσον τώ θεῷ θυσίαν alvé-
σεως καὶ ἀπόδος τῷ ὑψίστῳ τὰς εὐχάς σου,
§ 36 εὕρομεντὸ σωτήριον ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν Xpt-
στὸν τὸν ἀρχιερέα τῶν προσφορῶν ἡμῶν
τὸν προστάτην καὶ βοηθὸν τῆς ἀσθενείας
ἡμῶν, and § 41 ἕκαστος ὑμών, ἀδελφοί,
ἐν τῷ ἰδίῳ τάγματι εὐχαριστείτω τῷ θεῷ
ἐν ἀγαθῇ συνειδήσει ὑπάρχων, μὴ παρεκ-

βαίνων τὸν ὡρισμένον τῆς λειτουργίας
αὐτοῦ κανόνα. Compare especially Heb.
xiii. 10, 15, 16, ἔχομεν θυσιαστήριον ἐξ οὗ
φαγεῖν οὐκ ἔχουσιν [ἐξουσίαν] οἱ τῇ σκηνῇ
λατρεύοντες... Δί αὐτοῦ οὖν ἀναφέρωμεν
θυσίαν αἰνέσεως διὰ παντὸς τῷ θεῷ, τουτ-
éoTw, καρπὸν χειλέων ὁμολογούντων τῷ
ὀνόματι αὐτοῦ" τῆς δὲ εὐποιΐας καὶ κοινω-
νίας μὴ ἐπιλανθάνεσθε, τοιαύταις γὰρ
θυσίαις εὐαρεστεῖται ὁ θεός.

The doctrine of the early Church
respecting ‘sacrifice’ is investigated by
Hofling die Lehre der dltesten Kirche
vom Opfer (Erlangen 1851).

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 261

gregation, the sacrifice came to be regarded as the act of the minister
who officiated on its behalf.

And this transition was moreover facilitated by the growing Special
tendency to apply the terms ‘sacrifice’ and ‘offering’ exclusively or een
chiefly to the eucharistic service. It may be doubted whether even as τ χοροῖς
used by St Clement the expression may not have a special reference rist.
to this chief act of Christian dedication’. It is quite certain that
writers belonging to the generations next following, Justin Martyr
and Irenzus for instance*, employ the terms very frequently with
this reference. We may here reserve the question in what sense the
celebration of the Lord’s supper may or may not be truly called a
sacrifice. The point to be noticed at present is this; that the of-
fering of the eucharist, being regarded as the one special act of
sacrifice and appearing externally to the eye as the act of the offi-
ciating minister, might well lead to the minister being called a priest
and then being thought a priest in some exclusive sense, where the
religious bias was in this direction and as soon as the true position
of the minister as the representative of the congregation was lost
sight of.

But besides the metaphor or the analogy of the sacrifice, there (2) Ana-

: : 3 logy of
was another point of resemblance also between the Jewish priesthood ἘΝ ΕΣ

and the Christian ministry, which favoured the sacerdotal view of one oe
the latter. As soon as the episcopate and presbytery ceased to be cal priest-

bons hood,
regarded as sub-orders and were looked upon as distinct orders, the

correspondence of the threefold ministry with the three ranks of the

1 On the whole however the language
of the Epistle to the Hebrews quoted in
the last note seems to be the best ex-
ponent of St Clement’s meaning, as he
very frequently follows this Apostolic
writer. If εὐχαριστείτω has any special
reference to the holy eucharist, as it
may have, δῶρα will nevertheless be the
alms and prayers and thanksgivings
which accompanied the celebration of
it. Compare Const. Apost. ii. 25 ai
τότε θυσίαι viv εὐχαὶ καὶ δεήσεις καὶ
εὐχαριστίαι, αἱ τότε ἀπαρχαὶ καὶ δεκάται
καὶ ἀφαιρέματα καὶ δώρα νῦν προσφοραὶ
αἱ διὰ τῶν ὁσίων ἐπισκόπων προσ-
φερόμεναι κυρίῳ K.T-r., § 27 προσήκει
οὖν καὶ ὑμᾶς, ἀδελφοί, τὰς θυσίας ὑμῶν
ἤτοι προσφορὰς τῷ ἐπισκόπῳ προσφέρειν

ὡς ἀρχιερεῖ κιτ.Ὰ., ὃ 34 τοὺς καρποὺς
ὑμῶν καὶ τὰ ἔργα τῶν χειρῶν ὑμῶν εἰς
εὐλογίαν ὑμῶν προσφέροντες αὐτῷ (sc. τῷ
ἐπισκόπῳ)...τὰ δώρα ὑμῶν διδόντες αὐτῷ
ὡς ἱερεῖ θεοῦ, ὃ 53. δώρον δέ ἐστι θεῷ ἡ
ἑκάστου προσευχὴ καὶ εὐχαριστία : comp.
also § 35. These passages are quoted in
Ho6fling, p. 27 sq.

2 The chief passages in these fa-
thers relating to Christian oblations
are, Justin. Apol. i. 13 (p. 60), i. 65,
66, 67 (p. 97 8q.), Dial. 28, 29 (p. 246),
41 (p. 259 8q.), 116, 117 (p. 344 8q.),
iven. ‘Her. 1V. CC. Τῇ, 18, τῦ, ὧν 26035
[Fragm. 38, Stieren]. . The place occu-
pied by the eucharistic elements in their
view of sacrifice will only be appreciated
by reading the passages continuously.

Question
suggested.

Silence of
the Apo-
stolic wri-
ters.

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY.

Levitical priesthood could not fail to suggest itself. The solitary
bishop represented the solitary high-priest; the principal acts of
Christian sacrifice were performed by the presbyters, as the principal
acts of Jewish sacrifice by the priests; and the attendant ministra-
tions were assigned in the one case to the deacon, as in the other to
the Levite. Thus the analogy seemed complete. To this corre-
spondence however there was one grave impediment. The only
High Priest under the Gospel recognised by the apostolic writings,
is our Lord Himself. Accordingly in the Christian remains of the
ages next succeeding this title is reserved as by right to Him’; and
though belonging to various schools, all writers alike abstain from
applying it to the bishop. Yet the scruple was at length set aside.
When it had become usual to speak of the presbyters as ‘sacerdotes’,
the designation of ‘pontifex’ or ‘summus sacerdos’ for the bishop
was far too convenient and too appropriate to be neglected.

Thus the analogy of the sacrifices and the correspondence of the
threefold order supplied the material on which the sacerdotal feeling
worked. And in this way, by the union of Gentile sentiment with
the ordinances of the old dispensation, the doctrine of an exclu-
sive priesthood found its way into the Church of Christ.

How far is the language of the later Church justifiable? Can
the Christian ministry be called a priesthood in any sense? and
if so, in what sense? The historical investigation, which has
suggested this question as its proper corollary, has also supplied the
means of answering it.

Though different interpretations may be put upon the fact that
the sacred writers throughout refrain from applying sacerdotal terms
to the Christian ministry, I think it must be taken to signify this
much at least, that this ministry, if a priesthood at all, is a priest-
hood of a type essentially different from the Jewish. Otherwise we
shall be perplexed to explain why the earliest Christian teachers
should have abstained from using those terms, which alone would
adequately express to their hearers the one most important aspect
of the ministerial office. It is often said in reply, that we have here
a question not of words, but of things. This is undeniable: but

1 See Clem. Rom. 36, 58, Polyc. Patr. Rub. 6, Sym. 7, etc., Clem. Recogn.
Phil. 12, Ignat. Philad. 9, Test. wit 1. 48,

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 263

words express things; and the silence of the Apostles still requires
an explanation.

However the interpretation of this fact is not far to seek. The Epistle to
Epistle to the Hebrews speaks at great length on priests and sacri- nae
fices in their Jewish and their Christian bearing. It is plain from
this epistle, as it may be gathered also from other notices Jewish

and Heathen, that the one prominent idea of the priestly office at its doves
nal teach-

this time was the function of offering sacrifice and thereby making

atonement.

Now this Apostolic writer teaches that all sacrifices

had been consummated in the one Sacrifice, all priesthoods absorbed

‘in the one Priest.

The offering had been made once for all: and,
as there were no more victims, there could be no more priests’.

All

former priesthoods had borne witness to the necessity of a human
mediator, and this sentiment had its satisfaction in the Person and

' Office of the Son of Man.

All past sacrifices had proclaimed the

need of an atoning death, and had their antitype, their realisation,

their annulment, in the Cross of Christ.

This explicit statement

supplements and interprets the silence elsewhere noticed in the

Apostolic writings.

Strictly accordant too with the general tenour of his argument and spiri-

is the language used throughout by the writer of this epistle. He
speaks of Christian sacrifices, of a Christian altar ; but the sacrifices
are praise and thanksgiving and well-doing, the altar is the congre-

gation assembled for common worship’.

1 The epistle deals mainly with the
office of Christ as the antitype of the
High Priest offering the annual sacri-
fice of atonement: and it has been
urged that there is still room for a sa-
crificial priesthood under the High
Priest. The whole argument however
is equally applicable to the inferior
priests: and in one passage at least it
is directly so applied (x. rr, 12), ‘And
every priest standeth daily (καθ᾽ ἡμέραν)
ministering and offering the same sacri-
fices, etc.’; where the y.1. ἀρχιερεὺς for
ἱερεὺς seems to have arisen from the
desire to bring the verse into more exact
conformity with what has gone before.
This passage, it should be remembered,
is thesumming up and generalisation of
the previous argument.

If the Christian ministry

2 It is surprising that some should
have interpreted θυσιαστήριον in Heb.
xiii. ro of the Lord’s table. There
may be a doubt as to the exact signifi-
cance of the term in this passage, but
an actual altar is plainly not intended.
This is shown by the context both be-
fore and after: e.g. ver. g the opposi-
tion of χάρις and βρώματα, ver. 15 the
contrast implied in the mention of θυσία
αἰνέσεως and καρπὸς χειλέων, and ver.
16 the naming εὐποιΐα καὶ κοινωνία as
the kind of sacrifice with which God
is well pleased. The sense which I
have assigned to it appears to suit the
language of the context; while at the
same time it accords with the Christian
phraseology of succeeding ages. So
Clem. Alex. Strom. vii. 6, p. 848, ἔστι

264

Christian
ministers

are priests-offering of sacrifices,
in another

sense;

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY.

were a sacerdotal office, if the holy eucharist were a sacerdotal act,
in the same sense in which the Jewish priesthood and the Jewish
sacrifice were sacerdotal, then his argument is faulty and his language
misleading. Though dwelling at great length on the Christian coun-
terparts to the Jewish priest, the Jewish altar, the Jewish sacri-
fice, he omits to mention the one office, the one place, the one act,
which on this showing would be their truest and liveliest counter-
He has
rejected these, and he has chosen instead moral and spiritual analo-

parts in the every-day worship of the Church of Christ.

gies for all these sacred types’. Thus in what he has said and

in what he has left unsaid alike, his language points to one and

the same result,

If therefore the sacerdotal office be understood to imply the

γοῦν τὸ παρ᾽ ἡμῖν θυσιαστήριον ἐνταῦθα
τὸ ἐπίγειον τὸ ἄθροισμα τῶν ταῖς εὐχαῖς
ἀνακειμένων. The use of the word in
the Ignatian Epistles also, though less
obvious, seems to be substantially the
same; Hphes. 4, Trall. 7, Magn. ἢ,
Philad. 4; see Héfling Opfer etc., p.
32 sq. Similarly too Polycarp (ὃ 4)
speaks of the body of widows as θυσιασ-
τήριον Θεοῦ.

[It has been suggested to me by seve-
ral friends independently, since the first
edition appeared, that ἔχομεν θυσιαστή-
ριον should be understood ‘we Jews
have an altar,’ and that the writer of
the epistle is here bringing an example
from the old dispensation itself (the sin-
offering on the day of atonement) in
which the sacrifices were not eaten.
This interpretation is attractive, but
it seems to me inadequate to explain
the whole context (though it suits parts
well enough), and is ill adapted to
individual expressions (e.g, θυσιαστήριον
where θυσία would be expected, and
οἱ τῇ σκηνῇ λατρεύοντες which thus
becomes needlessly emphatic), not to
mention that the first person plural and
the present tense ἔχομεν seem unna-
tural where the author and his readers
are spoken of, not as actual Christians,
but as former Jews. In fact the analogy
of the sacrifice on the day of atonement

then the Epistle to the Hebrews leaves no place

appears not to be introduced till the
next verse, ὧν yap εἰσφέρεται ζώων
κιτ.λ.]

Some interpreters again, froma com-
parison of 1 Cor. ix. 13 with 1 Cor. x.
18, have inferred that St Paul recog-
nises the designation of the Lord’s table
asanaltar. Onthecontrary itisaspeak-
ing fact, that in both passages he avoids
using the term of the Lord’s table,
though the language of the context
might readily have suggested it to him,
if he had considered it appropriate.
Nor does the argument in either case
require or encourage such an inference.
In 1 Cor. ix. 13, 14, the Apostle writes
‘Know ye not that they which wait at
the altar are partakers with the altar?
Even so hath the Lord ordained that
they which preach the gospel should
live of the gospel.’ The point of resem-
blance in the two cases is the holding
a sacred office: but the ministering on
the altar is predicated only of the
former. So also in 1 Cor. x. 18 86.»
the aitar is named as common to Jews
and Heathens, but the table only as
common to Christians and Heathens;
i.e. the holy eucharist is a banquet but
it is not a sacrifice (in the Jewish or
Heathen sense of sacrifice).

1 For the passages see above, pp.
259, 260,

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY.

for a Christian priesthood. If on the other hand the word be taken
in a wider and looser acceptation, it cannot well be withheld from the
ministry of the Church of Christ. Only in this case the meaning
of the term should be clearly apprehended: and it might have been
better if the later Christian vocabulary had conformed to the silence
of the Apostolic writers, so that the possibility of confusion would
have been avoided.

According to this broader meaning, the priest may be defined as
one who represents God to man and man to God. It is moreover
indispensable that he should be called by God, for no man ‘taketh
this honour to himself.’ The Christian ministry satisfies both these
conditions.

Of the fulfilment of the latter the only evidence within our cog-
nisance is the fact that the minister is called according to a divinely
appointed order. If the preceding investigation be substantially
correct, the three-fold ministry can be traced to Apostolic direction ;
and short of an express statement we can possess no better assurance
of a Divine appointment or at least a Divine sanction. If the facts
do not allow us to unchurch other Christian communities differently
organized, they may at least justify our jealous adhesion to a
polity derived from this source.

And while the mode of appointment satisfies the one condition,
the nature of the office itself satisfies the other; for it exhibits the
doubly representative character which is there laid down,

The Christian minister is God’s ambassador to men: he is charged
with the ministry of reconciliation; he unfolds the will of heaven;
he declares in God’s name the terms on which pardon is offered;
and he pronounces in God’s name the absolution of the penitent.
This last mentioned function has been thought to invest the ministry
with a distinctly sacerdotal character. Yet it is very closely con-
nected with the magisterial and pastoral duties of the office, and is
only priestly in the same sense in which they are priestly. As
empowered to declare the conditions of God’s grace, he is empowered
also to proclaim the consequences of their acceptance. But through-
out his office is representative and not vicarial'. He does not inter-
pose between God and man in such a way that direct communion

1 The distinction is made in Maurice’s Kingdom of Christ, τι. Ὁ. 216.

265

as having
a divine
appoint-
ment,

as repre-
senting
God to
man,

266

and as re-
presenting
man to
God.

The preva-
lence of sa-
cerdotal-
ism consi-
dered.

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY.

with God is superseded on the one hand, or that his own mediation
becomes indispensable on the other. :

Again the Christian minister is the representative of man to
God—of the congregation primarily, of the individual indirectly as
a member of the congregation. The alms, the prayers, the thanks-
givings of the community are offered through him. Some represen-
tation is as necessary in the Church as it is in a popular govern-
ment: and the nature of the representation is not affected by the
fact that the form of the ministry has been handed down from
Apostolic times and may well be presumed to have a Divine sanction.
For here again it must be borne in mind that the minister’s function
is representative without being vicarial. He is a priest, as the
mouthpiece, the delegate, of a priestly race. His acts are not his
own, but the acts of the congregation. Hence too it will follow that,
viewed on this side as on the other, his function cannot be absolute
and indispensable. It may be a general rule, it may be under
ordinary circumstances a practically universal law, that the highest
acts of congregational worship shall be performed through the
principal officers of the congregation. But an emergency may arise
when the spirit and not the letter must decide. The Christian ideal
will then interpose and interpret our duty. The higher ordinance
of the universal priesthood will overrule all special limitations. The
layman will assume functions which are otherwise restricted to the
ordained minister’.

Yet it would be vain to deny that a very different conception
prevailed for many centuries in the Church of Christ. The Apo-
stolic ideal was set forth, and within a few generations forgotten.
The vision was only for a time and then vanished. A strictly
sacerdotal view of the ministry superseded the broader and more
spiritual conception of their priestly functions. From being the
representatives, the ambassadors, of God, they came to be regarded
His vicars. Nor is this the only instance where a false conception
has seemed to maintain a long-lived domination over the Church.
For some centuries the idea of the Holy Roman Empire enthralled
the minds of men. For a still longer period the idea of the Holy
Roman See held undisturbed sway over Western Christendom. To

1 For the opinion of the early Church passage of Tertullian quoted above,
on this subject see especially the p. 254. :

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY.

those who take a comprehensive view of the progress of Christianity,
even these more lasting obscurations of the truth will present no
serious difficulty. They will not suffer themselves to be blinded
thereby to the true nobility of Ecclesiastical History; they will not
fail to see that, even in the seasons of her deepest degradation, the
Church was still the regenerator of society, the upholder of right
principle against selfish interest, the visible witness of the Invisible
God; they will thankfully confess that, notwithstanding the pride
and selfishness and dishonour of individual rulers, notwithstanding
the imperfections and errors of special institutions and develop-
ments, yet in her continuous history the Divine promise has been
signally realised, ‘Lo I am with you always, even unto the end of
the world.’

267

Senecatra-
ditionally
accounted
a Chris-
tian.

11,

ST PAUL AND SENECA.

HE earliest of the Latin fathers, Tertullian, writing about a
century and a half after the death of Seneca, speaks of this
philosopher as ‘often our own'.’ Some two hundred years later
St Jerome, having occasion to quote him, omits the qualifying ad-
verb and calls him broadly ‘our own Seneca?’ Living midway
between these two writers, Lactantius points out several coincidences
with the teaching of the Gospel in the writings of Seneca, whom
nevertheless he styles ‘the most determined of the Roman Stoics*.’
From the age of St Jerome, Seneca was commonly regarded as
standing on the very threshold of the Christian Church, even if he
In one Ecclesiastical
Council at least, held at Tours in the year 567, his authority is

had not actually passed within its portals.

quoted with a deference generally accorded only to fathers of the
Church*,
native Spain St Seneca takes his place by the side of St Peter and

And even to the present day in the marionette plays of his

St Paul in the representations of our Lord’s passion’.

Comparing the language of Tertullian and Jerome, we are able
to measure the growth of this idea in the interval of time which
separates the two. One important impulse however, which it re-

ceived meanwhile, must not be overlooked. When St Jerome wrote,

1 Tertull. de Anim. 20 ‘Seneca sepe
noster.’

2 Adv. Jovin. 1. 49 (τι. p. 318) ‘Scrip-
serunt Aristoteles et Plutarchus et nos-
ter Seneca de matrimonio libros ete.’

3 Div. Inst. i. 5 ‘Annweus Seneca
qui ex Romanis vel acerrimus Stoicus

fuit’: comp. ii. g, vi. 24, etc.

4 Labbei Concilia vy. p. 856 (Paris,
1671) ‘Sicut ait Seneca pessimum in eo
vitium esse qui in id quoinsanit ceteros
putat furere.’ See Fleury Saint Paul
et Sénéque τ. p. 14.

® So Fleury states, 1. p. 280.

‘ST PAUL AND SENECA. 269

the Christianity of Seneca seemed to be established on a sounder The forged
correspond-

ence of
Paul and
Seneca.

basis than mere critical inference. A correspondence, purporting to
have passed between the heathen philosopher and the Apostle of the
Gentiles, was then in general circulation; and, without either affirm-
ing or denying its genuineness, this father was thereby induced to
If the

letters of Paul and Seneca, which have come down to us, are the

ive a place to Seneca in his catalooue of Christian writers’.
g 5

same with those read by him (and there is no sufficient reason for
doubting the identity’), it is strange that he could for a moment
have entertained the question of their authenticity. The poverty of
thought and style, the errors in chronology and history, and the
whole conception of the relative positions of the Stoic philosopher
Yet
this correspondence has without doubt been mainly instrumental

and the Christian Apostle, betray clearly the hand of a forger.

in fixing the belief on the mind of the later Church, as it was even
sufficient to induce some hesitation in St Jerome himself. How far
the known history and the extant writings of either favour this idea,
it will be the object of the present essay to examine. The enquiry
into the historical connexion between these two great contemporaries
will naturally expand into an investigation of the relations, whether
of coincidence or of contrast, between the systems of which they were
the respective exponents. And, as Stoicism was the only philosophy
which could even pretend to rival Christianity in the earlier ages of
the Church, such an investigation ought not to be uninstructive’.

Like all the later systems of Greek philosophy, Stoicism was the Later phi-

= 5 pre RG OC ᾿ - - ] hi Ω
offspring of despair. Of despair in religion: for the old mythologies τιν ΠΗ].
had ceased to command the belief or influence the conduct of men, dren of

+ Je ak : d irs
Of despair in politics: for the Macedonian conquest had broken the ees

independence of the Hellenic states and stamped out the last sparks

of corporate life. Of despair even in philosophy itself: for the older

1 Vir. Illustr. 12 ‘Quem non ponerem
in catalogo sanctorum, nisi me ill epi-
stole provocarent que leguntur a pluri-
mis, Pauli ad Senecam et Senece ad
Paulum,’

2 See the note at the end of this dis-
sertation.

3 In the sketch, which I have given,
of the relation of Stoicism to the cir-
cumstances of the time and to other

earlier and contemporary systems of
philosophy, I am greatly indebted to
the account in Zeller’s Philosophie der
Griechen Th. 111. Abth. 1 Die nach-
aristotelische Philosophie (2nd ed. 1865),
which it is impossible to praise too
highly. See also the instructive essay of
Sir A. Grant on ‘The Ancient Stoics’
in his edition of Aristotle’s Ethics 1. p.
243 Sq. (2nd ed.).

270 ST PAUL AND SENECA.

thinkers, though they devoted their lives to forging a golden chain
which should link earth to heaven, appeared now to have spent their
strength in weaving ropes of sand. The sublime intuitions of Plato
had been found too vague and unsubstantial, and the subtle analyses
of Aristotle too hard and cold, to satisfy the natural craving of man
for some guidance which should teach him how to live and to die.
Greece Thus the soil of Greece had been prepared by the uprootal of
prepared ; rt atu
fornew past interests and associations for fresh developments of religious and
Se of philosophic thought. When political life became impossible, the
phy. moral faculties of man were turned inward upon himself and concen-
trated on the discipline of the individual soul. When speculation
had been cast aside as barren and unprofitable, the search was di-
rected towards some practical rule or rules which might take its
place. When the gods of Hellas had been deposed and dishonoured,
some new powers must be created or discovered to occupy their
vacant throne.

Coinci- Stimulated by the same need, Epicurus and Zeno strove in dif-
donors ad ferent ways to solve the problem which the perplexities of their age

aan ae presented, Both alike, avoiding philosophy in the proper sense of
Stoic phi. the term, concentrated their energies on ethics: but the one took
losophies. hanpiness, the other virtue, as his supreme good, and made it the
starting point of his ethical teaching. Both alike contrasted with
the older masters in building their systems on the needs of the indi-
vidual and not of the state: but the one strove to satisfy the cravings
of man, as a being intended by nature for social life, by laying stress
on the claims and privileges of friendship, the other by expanding
his sphere of duty and representing him as a citizen of the world or
even of the universe. Both alike paid a certain respect to the waning
beliefs of their day: but the one without denying the existence
of the gods banished them from all concern in the affairs of men,
while the other, transforming and utilising the creations of Hellenic
mythology, identified them with the powers of the physical world.
Both alike took conformity to nature as their guiding maxim: but
nature with the one was interpreted to mean the equable balance of
all the impulses and faculties of man, with the other the absolute
supremacy of the reason, as the ruling principle of his being. And
lastly, both alike sought refuge from the turmoil and confusion of
the age in the inward calm and composure of the soul. If Serenity

‘ST PAUL AND SENECA. 271%

(ἀταραξία) was the supreme virtue of the one, her twin sister Passion-
lessness (ἀπαθία) was the sovereign principle of the other.

These tivo later developments of Greek philosophy both took root Oriental

and grew to maturity in Greek soil. But, while the seed of the one ae
was strictly Hellenic, the other was derived from an Oriental stock.
Epicurus was a Greek of the Greeks, a child of Athenian parents.
Zeno, on the other hand, a native of Citium, a Phenician colony in
Crete, was probably of Shemitic race, for he is commonly styled ‘the
Phenician’.’ Babylon, Tyre, Sidon, Carthage, reared some.of his
most illustrious successors. Cilicia, Phrygia, Rhodes, were the homes
of others. Not a single Stoic of any name was a native of Greece
proper’.

To Eastern affinities Stoicism was without doubt largely in- Its moral
earnest-
ness de-
Greek philosophy. To this fact may be ascribed the intense moral ἐνὸς

; ence.
earnestness which was its most honourable characteristic. If the

debted for the features which distinguished it from other schools of

later philosophers generally, as distinguished from the earlier, busied
themselves with ethics rather than metaphysics, with the Stoics this
was the one absorbing passion. The contrast between the light
reckless gaiety of the Hellenic spirit and the stern, unbending, almost
fanatical moralism of the followers of Zeno is as complete as could
well be imagined. The ever active conscience which is the glory,
and the proud self-consciousness which is the reproach, of the Stoic
school are alike alien to the temper of ancient Greece. Stoicism
breathes rather the religious atmosphere of the East, which fostered
on the one hand the inspired devotion of a David or an Isaiah, and
on the other the self-mortification and self-righteousness of an Egyp-
tian therapeute or an Indian fakir. A recent writer, to whom we
are indebted for a highly appreciative account of the Stoic school,
describes this new phase of Greek philosophy, which we have been
reviewing and of which Stoicism was the truest exponent, as ‘the
transition to modernism’®.’ It might with greater truth be described as
the contact of Oriental influences with the world of classical thought.

1 See Diog. Laert. vii. 3, where So again ii. 114 Ζήνωνα τὸν Φοίνικα.
Crates addresses him ri φεύγεις, 6 Φοι- 2 See below, pp. 297, 301.
νικίδιον; comp. ὃ 15 Φοίνισσαν; ὃ 25 3 Grant, I. δι. p. 243. Sir A. Grant
Φοινικικῶς ; ὃ 30 εἰ δὲ πάτρα Φοίνισσα tis however fully recognises the eastern
ὁ φθόνος. We are told also ὃ 7 dvre- element in Stoicism (p. 246).
ποιοῦντο δ᾽ αὐτοῦ καὶ of ἐν Σιδῶνι Κιτιεῖς,

272 ST PAUL AND SENECA,

Union of Stoicism was in fact the earliest offspring of the union between the
oriental ae : -
with clag- Yeligious consciousness of the East and the intellectual culture of

sical the West.

thonghit The recognition of the claims of the individual soul, the
"sense of personal responsibility, the habit of judicial introspection,

in short the subjective view of ethics, were in no sense new, for
they are known to have held sway over the mind of the chosen peo-
ple from the earliest dawn of their history as a nation. But now
for the first time they presented themselves at the doors of Western
civilization and demanded admission. The occasion was eminently
favourable. The conquests of Alexander, which rendered the fusion
of the Hast and West for the first time possible, also evoked the
moral need which they had thus supplied the means of satisfying.
By the overthrow of the state the importance of the individual
was enhanced. In the failure of political relations, men were thrown

back on their inward resources and led to examine their moral wants

and to educate their moral faculties,

Exclusive
attention
to ethics,

It was in this way that the Eastern origin of Stoicism com-
bined with the circumstances and requirements of the age to give it
an exclusively ethical character. The Stoics did, it is true, pay
some little attention to physical questions: and one or two leading
representatives of the school also contributed towards the systematic
treatment of logic. But consciously and expressly they held these
branches of study to be valueless except in their bearing on moral
questions. Representing philosophy under the image of a field, they
compared physics to the trees, ethics to the fruit for which the trees
exist, and logic to the wall or fence which protects the enclosure’,
Or again, adopting another comparison, they likened logic to the

Practical
neglect cf
physics

shell of an egg, physics to the white, and ethics to the yolk?. As
the fundamental maxim of Stoical ethics was conformity to nature,
and as therefore it was of signal importance to ascertain man’s rela-

1 Diog. Laert. vii. 40, Philo de
Agric. § 3 p. 302 M. See also de Mut.
Nom. ὃ το, p. 589 M, where Philo after
giving this comparison says οὕτως οὖν
ἔφασαν καὶ ἐν φιλοσοφίᾳ δεῖν τήν τε φυ-
σικὴν καὶ λογικὴν πραγματείαν ἐπὶ τὴν
ἠθικὴν ἀναφέρεσθαι k.T.r.

2. Sext. Emp. νἱϊ. 17. On the other
hand Diog. Laert. 1. c. makes ethies the
white and physics the yolk, See Zeller
d.c.p. 57, and Ritter and Preller Hist.

Phil. § 396. But this is a matter of
little moment; for, whichever form of
the metaphor be adopted, the ethical —
bearing of physics is put prominently
forward. Indeed as ancient naturalists
were not agreed about the respective
functions of the yolk and the white, the
application of the metaphor must have
been influenced by this uncertainty. The
inferiority of logic appears in all the
comparisons.

‘ST PAUL AND SENECA.

to
δ
Ww

tion to the world around, it might have been supposed that the study
of physics would have made great progress in the hands of Zeno’s
disciples. But, pursuing it for the most part without any love for the
study itself and pursuing it moreover only to support certain foregone
ethical conclusions, they instituted few independent researches and
discovered no hidden truths.
The place which it occupies in the images already mentioned and depre-

Cixtion of
It was not 80 Ἰρρίο.

To logic they assigned a still meaner
part.
clearly points to their conception of its functions.
much a means of arriving at truth, as an expedient for protecting
truth already attained from external assaults. An extreme repre-
sentative of the school went so far as to say that ‘Of subjects of
philosophical investigation some pertain to us, some have no relation
to us, and some are beyond us: ethical questions belong to the first
class ; dialectics to the second, for they contribute nothing towards’
the amendment of life ; and physics to the third, for they are beyond
This was the

genuine spirit of the school’, though other adherents were more

the reach of knowledge and are profitless withal’.’

guarded in their statements. Physical science is conversant in experi-
ment; logical science in argumentation. But the Stoic was impa-
tient alike of the one and the other ; for he was essentially a philo-
sopher of intuitions.

And here again the Oriental spirit manifested itself. The Greek Propel
spirit o

moralist was a reasoner: the Oriental for the most part, whether ΡΘΕ Ά ΘΕ.

Though they might clothe their
systems of morality in a dialectical garb the Stoic teachers belonged

inspired or uninspired, a prophet.
essentially to this latter class, Kven Chrysippus, the great logician
and controversialist of the sect, is reported to have told his master
Cleanthes, that ‘he only wanted the doctrines, and would himself
find out the proofs*.’ This saying has been condemned as ‘ betraying
a want of earnestness as to the truth*’; but I can hardly think that it
ought to be regarded in this light.
at first sight, it may well express the intense faith in intuition, or
what I have called the prophetic’ spirit, which distinguishes the

Flippant though it would appear

3 Diog. Laert. vil. 179 πολλάκις ἔλεγε
μόνης τῆς τῶν δογμάτων διδασκαλίας xp7-

1 Ariston in Diog., Laert. vii. 160,
Stob. Flor. Ixxx. 7. See Zeller l. c.

Ρ. 50.

2 *Quicquid legeris ad mores statim
referas,’ says Seneca Ep. Mor. Ixxxix.
See the whole of the preceding epistle.

121s U0 OE

few τὰς δ᾽ ἀποδείξεις αὐτὸς εὑρήσειν.

4 Grant lic. p. 253:

5 Perhaps the use of this term needs
some apology; but I could not find

274

Parallel to
Christian-
ity in the
westward
progress of
Stoicism.

Influence
οἱ Greece

and of
Rome.

ST PAUL AND SENECA.

school. Like the other Stoics, Chrysippus had no belief in argumen-
tation, but welcomed the highest truths as intuitively apprehended.
Logic was to him, as to them, only the egg-shell which protected the
germ of future life, the fence which guarded the fruitful garden. As
a useful weapon of defence against assailants and nothing more, it
was regarded by the most perfect master of the science which the
school produced. The doctrines did not derive their validity from
logical reasoning: they were absolute and self-contained. Once
stated, they must commend themselves to the innate faculty, when
not clouded by ignoble prejudices of education or degrading habits
of life.

But though the germ of Stoicism was derived from the East, its
systematic development and its practical successes were attained by
transplantation into a western soil. In this respect its career, as it
travelled westward, presents a rough but instructive parallel to the
progress of the Christian Church. The fundamental ideas, derived Ὁ
from Oriental parentage, were reduced to a system and placed on an
intellectual basis by the instrumentality of Greek thought. The
schools of Athens and of Tarsus did for Stoicism the same work
which was accomplished for the doctrines of the Gospel by the con-
troversial writings of the Greek fathers and the authoritative decrees
of the Greek councils. Zeno and Chrysippus and Panetius are the
counterparts of an Origen, an Athanasius, or a Basil. But, while the
systematic expositions of the Stoic tenets were directly or indirectly
the products of Hellenic thought and were matured on Greek soil,
the scene of its greatest practical manifestations was elsewhere. It
must be allowed that the Roman representatives of the school were
very inadequate exponents of the Stoic philosophy regarded as a spe-
culative system: but just as Latin Christianity adopted from her
Greek sister the creeds which she herself was incapable of framing,
and built thereupon an edifice of moral influence and social organi-
zation far more stately and enduring, so also when naturalised in its
Latin home Stoicism became a motive power in the world, and ex-
hibited those practical results to which its renown is chiefly due.

a better. I meant to express by it tinct belief in a personal God, was not
the characteristic of enunciating moral ἃ prophetin theordinary sense, but only
truths as authoritative, independently 85 being the exponent of his own inner
of processes of reasoning. The Stoic, consciousness, which was his supreme
being a pantheist and haying no dis- authority,

ST PAUL AND SENECA. 275

This comparison is instituted between movements hardly comparable
in their character or their effects; and it necessarily stops short of
the incorporation of the Teutonic nations. But the distinctive feature
of Christianity as a Divine revelation and of the Church as a Divine
institution does not exempt them from the ordinary laws of pro-
gress: and the contrasts between the doctrines of the Porch and the
Gospel, to which I shall have to call attention later, are rendered
only the more instructive by observing this parallelism in their out-
ward career.

It is this latest or Roman period of Stoic philosophy which has Attention
directed to
the Roman
then became most manifest, but also because this stage of its history period.

chiefly attracted attention, not only because its practical influence

alone is adequately illustrated by extant writings of the school. On
the Christian student moreover it has a special claim; for he will
learn an instructive lesson in the conflicts or coincidences of Sto-
icism with the doctrines of the Gospel and the progress of the
Church. And of this stage in its history Seneca is without doubt
the most striking representative.
Seneca was strictly a contemporary of St Paul. Born probably Seneca
within a few years of each other, the Christian Apostle and the
Stoic philosopher both died about the same time and both fell vic-
tims of the same tyrant’s rage. Here, it would have seemed, the
parallelism must end. One might indeed indulge in an interesting
speculation whether Seneca, like so many other Stoics, had not
Shemitic blood in his veins. The whole district from which he came
was thickly populated with Pheenician settlers either from the mo-
ther country or from her great African colony. The name of his
native province Betica, the name of his native city Corduba, are
both said to be Phenician. Even his own name, though commonly
derived from the Latin, may perhaps have a Shemitie origin ; for it
is borne by a Jew of Palestine early in the seeond century’. This
however is thrown out merely as a conjecture. Otherwise the Stoic contrasted
| philosopher from the extreme West and the Christian Apostle from leer
the extreme East of the Roman dominions would seem very unlikely
| to present any features in common. ‘The one a wealthy courtier and

1 The name Σεννεκᾶς or Levexds wordis usually connected with ‘senex.’
occurs in the list of the early bishops Curtius Griech. Etym. § 428.
of Jerusalem, Euseb. H. E.iv.5. The

18—2

to
ἘΠῚ
OV

Coinci-
dences of
thought
and lan-

guage.

ST PAUL AND SENECA.

statesman settled in the metropolis, the other a poor and homeless

preacher wandering in distant provinces, they were separated not

less by the manifold influences of daily life than by the circum-

stances of their birth and early education.

Yet the coincidences of

thought and even of language between the two are at first sight so

striking, that many writers have been at a loss to account for them,

except on the supposition of personal intercourse, if not of direct

plagiarism’, The inference indeed appears unnecessary: but the facts

are remarkable enough to challenge investigation, and I propose

now to consider their bearing.

Though general resemblances of sentiment and teaching will

carry less weight, as compared with the more special coincidences of

language and illustration, yet the data would be incomplete without

taking the former into account’.

1 The connexion of St Paul and Se-
neca has been a favourite subject with
French writers. The most elaborate of
recent works is A. Fleury’s Saint Paul
et Sénéque (Paris 1853), in which the
author attempts to show that Seneca
was a disciple of St Paul. It is inter-
esting and full of materials, but extra-
vagant and unsatisfactory. Far more
critical is C. Aubertin’s Etude Critique
sur les rapports supposés entre Séneque et
Saint Paul (Paris 1857), which appears
intended as an answer to Fleury. Au-
bertin shows that many of the parallels
are fallacious, and that many others
prove nothing, since the same senti-
ments occur in earlier writers. At the
same time he fails to account for other
more striking coincidences. It must be
added also that he is sometimes very
careless in his statements. For instance
(p. 186) he fixes an epoch by coupling
together the names of Celsusand Julian,
though they are separated by nearly
two centuries. Fleury’s opinion is com-
bated also in Baur’s articles Seneca und
Paulus in the Zeitschrift fiir Wissen-
schaftliche Theologie τ. p. 161 sq. (1858),
Among other recent French works. in
which Seneca’s obligations to Christian-
ity are maintained, may be named those
of Troplong, De Vinjluence du Chris-
tianisme sur le droit civil des Romains
p. 76 (Paris 1843), and C. Schmidt

Thus we might imagine ourselves

Essai historique sur la société civile dans -
le monde Romain etsursa transformation

par le Christianisme (Paris 1853). The

opposite view is taken by C. Martha

Les Moralistes sous VEmpire Romain

(2™ ed. Paris 1866). Le Stoicisme ἃ
Rome by P. Montée (Paris, 1865), is a
readable little book, but does not throw
any fresh light on the subject. Seekers
after God, a popular and instructive
work by the Rev. F. W. Farrar, ap-

peared about the same time asmy first |

edition. The older literature of the sub-

ject will be found in Fleury 1. p. 2 sq.

In reading through Seneca I have been
able to add some striking coincidences
to those collected by Fleury and others,
while at the same time I have rejected
a vast number as insufficient or illusory.

2 No account is here taken of cer- Ὁ

tain direct reproductions of Christian

teaching which some writers havefound |

in Seneca. Thus the doctrine of the
Trinity is supposed to be enunciated by
these words ‘Quisquis formator universi
fuit, sive ille Deus est potens omnium,
sive incorporalis ratio ingentium ope-
rum artifex, sive divinus spiritus per
omnia maxima ac minima zquali in-
tentione diffusus, sive fatum et inmuta-
bilis causarum inter se cohxrentium
series’ (ad Helv. matr. 8). Fleury (1.

p.97), who holds thisview, significantly
ends his quotation with ‘diffusus,’ omit-

‘ST PAUL AND SENECA. ae

listening to a Christian divine, when we read in the pages of

Seneca that ‘God made the world because He is good,’ and that Goodness
‘as the good never grudges anything good, He therefore made every- ene
thing the best possible’.’

inference from this parallel, we are checked by remembering that it is

Yet if we are tempted to draw a hasty

a quotation from Plato. Again Seneca maintains that ‘in worshipping Relation
the gods, the first thing is to believe in the gods,’ and that ‘he who ens 4
has copied them has worshipped them adequately *’; and on this duty

But

here too his sentiment is common to Plato and many other of the

older philosophers.
God*.’

a friendship do I say? nay, rather a relationship and a resemblance”’ ;

of imitating the gods he insists frequently and emphatically*.

‘No man,’ he says elsewhere, ‘is good without
‘Between good men and the gods there exists a friendship—

and using still stronger language he speaks of men as the children of
God*.
Stoic teachers, and his very language is anticipated in the words quoted
by St Paul from Cleanthes or Aratus, ‘We too His offspring are’.’

From the recognition of God’s fatherly relation to man im- Fatherly
chastise-
ment of
describes the trials and sufferings of good men as the chastisements God.

But here again he is treading in the footsteps of the older

portant consequences. flow. In almost Apostolic language Seneca
of a wise and beneficent parent: ‘God has a fatherly mind towards
good men and loves them stoutly; and, saith He, Let them be
harassed with toils, with pains, with losses, that they may gather

true strength®.’ ‘Those therefore whom God approves, whom He

ting the clause ‘sive fatum, etc.’ Thus
again some writers have found an allu-
sion to the Christian sacraments in

singulis enim et Genium et Junonem
dederunt.’ See Zeller, p. 297 sq.
1 Ep. Mor. lxv. το.

Seneca’s language, ‘Ad hoe sacramen-
tum adactisumusferre mortalia,’ de Vit.
beat. 15 (comp. Ep. Mor. lxv). Such
criticisms are mere plays on words and
do not even deserve credit for ingenuity.
On the other hand Seneca does mention
the doctrine of guardian angels or de-
mons; ‘Sepone in presentia que qui-
busdam placent, unicuique nostrum
pedagogum dari deum,’ Hp. Mor. ex;
but, as Aubertin shows (p. 284 sq.), this
was a tenet common to many earlier
philosophers; and in the very passage
quoted Seneca himself adds, ‘Ita tamen
hoe seponas volo, ut memineris majcres
nostros, qui crediderunt, Stoicos fuisse,

2 Ep. Mor. xev. 50.

3 de Vit. beat. 15 ‘Habebit illud
in animo vetus preceptum: deum se-
quere’; de Benef. iv. 25 ‘Propositum
est nobis secundum rerum naturam vi-
vere et deorum exemplum sequi’; ib.
1. 1 ‘Hos sequamur duces quantum
humana imbecillitas patitur’ ; 2p.Mor.
exxiv. 23 ‘Animus emendatus ac purus,
emulator dei.’

4 Ep. Mor. xli, comp, Ixxiii.

5 de Prov.i; comp. Nat. Quest. prol.,
etc.

6 de Prov. i, de Benef. ii. 29.

7 Acts xvii. 28.

8 de Prov. 2.

ST PAUL AND SENECA.

loves, them He hardens, He chastises, He disciplines’.’ Hence the

‘sweet uses of adversity’ find in him an eloquent exponent. ‘ No-
thing,’ he says, quoting his friend Demetrius, ‘seems to me more
unhappy than the man whom no adversity has ever befallen’’ ‘The

life free from care and from any buffetings of fortune is a dead sea*’
Hence too it follows that resignation under adversity becomes a
plain duty. ‘It is. best to endure what you cannot mend, and
without murmuring to attend upon God, by whose ordering all
things come to pass. He is a bad soldier who follows his captain

complaining*.’

The in- Still more strikingly Christian is his language, when he speaks

aay of God who ‘is near us, is with us, is within,’ of ‘a holy spirit

God. residing in us, the guardian and observer of our good and evil
deeds*.’ ‘By what other name,’ he asks, ‘can we call an upright
and good and great mind except (a) god lodging in a human body°?’ |
The spark of a heavenly flame has alighted on the hearts of men’.
They are associates with, are members of God. The mind came
from God and yearns towards God *.

From this doctrine of the abiding presence of a divine spirit
the practical inferences are not less weighty. ‘So live with men, as
if God saw you; so speak with God, as if men heard you’.’ ‘What
profits it, if any matter is kept secret from men? nothing is hidden
from God"? ‘The gods are witnesses of everything™.’

Universal But even more remarkable perhaps, than this devoutness of tone
ae in which the duties of man to God arising out of his filial relation

are set forth, is the energy of Seneca’s language, when he paints
the internal struggle of the human soul and prescribes the disci-
pline needed for its release. The soul is bound in a prison-house, is

weighed down by a heavy burden”. Life is a continual warfare’.

1 de Prov. 4; comp. ib. ὃ τ.

2 de Prov. 3.

3 Ep. Mor. \xvii. This again is a say-
ing of Demetrius.

4 Ep. Mor. evii; comp. ib. lxxvi.

5 Ep. Mor. xli; comp. ib. Ixxiii.

6 Ep. Mor. xxxi. The want of the
definite article in Latin leaves the exact
meaning uncertain ; but this uncertain-
ty is suited to the vagueness of Stoic
theology. In Ep. Mor. xli Seneca quotes

the words ‘Quis deus, incertum est;
habitat Deus’ (Virg. din. viii. 352), and
applies them to this inward monitor.

7 de Otio 5.

8 Ep. Mor. xcii.

9 Ep. Mor. x.

10 Ep. Mor. \xxxiii; comp. Fragm. 14
(in Lactant, vi. 24).

11 Ep. Mor. cii.

12 Ad Helv. matr.11, Ep. Mor.1xv, cii.

13 See below, p. 285, note 9.

ST PAUL AND SENECA. 279

From the terrors of this struggle none escape unscathed. The
Apostolic doctrine that all have sinned has an apparent counterpart
in the teaching of Seneca; ‘We shall ever be obliged to pronounce
the same sentence upon ourselves, that we are evil, that we have
been evil, and (I will add it unwillingly) that we shall be evil’’
‘Every vice exists in every man, though every vice is not promi-
nent in each®.’ ‘If we would be upright judges of all things, let
us first persuade ourselves of this, that not one of us is without
fault*’ ‘These are vices of mankind and not of the times. No age
has been free from fault*’ ‘Capital punishment is appointed for
all, and this by a most righteous ordinance’. ‘No one will be found
who can acquit himself; and any man calling himself innocent has
regard to the witness, not to his own conscience’. ‘Every day,
every hour,’ he exclaims, ‘shows us our nothingness, and reminds us
by some new token, when we forget our frailty”.’ Thus Seneca, in Office of
common with the Stoic school generally, lays great stress on the ee
office of the conscience, as ‘making cowards of us all.’ ‘It reproaches
them,’ he says, ‘and shows them to themselves*’ ‘The first and
greatest punishment of sinners is the fact of having sinned®.’ ‘The
beginning of safety is the knowledge of sin.’ ‘I think this,’ he adds,
‘an admirable saying of Epicurus”®.’

Hence also follows the duty of strict self-examination. ‘As far Self-exa-
as thou canst, accuse thyself, try thyself: discharge the office, first of ee
a prosecutor, then of a judge, lastly of an intercessor.’ Accordingly fession,
he relates at some length how, on lying down to rest every night, he
follows the example of Sextius and reviews his shortcomings during
the day: ‘When the light is removed out of sight, and my wife, who
is by this time aware of my practice, is now silent, I pass the whole

1 de Benef. i. το.

2 de Benef. iv. 27.

3 de Ira ii. 28; comp. ad Polyb. τι,

_ Ep. Mor. xiii.

4 Ep. Mor, xevii.

5 Qu. Nat. ii. 59.

6 de Trai. 14.

7 Ep. Mor. ci.

8 Ep. Mor. xevii. 15. “

15. τ΄.

10 Ep. Mor. xxviii. 9 ‘Initium est
salutis notitia peccati.? For conve-
nience I have translated peccatum here

as elsewhere by ‘sin’; but it will be
evident at once that in a saying of Epi-
curus, whose gods were indifferent to
the doings of men, the associations con-
nected with the word must be very dif-
ferent. See the remarks below, p. 294.
Fleury (1. p. 111) is eloquent on this
coincidence, but omits to mention that
it occurs in a saying of Epicurus. His
argument crumbles into dust before our
eyes, when the light of this fact is ad-
mitted,
11 70. Lo.

280 ST PAUL AND SENECA.

of my day under examination, and I review my deeds and words.

I hide nothing from myself, I pass over nothing’.’

Similarly he
describes the good man as one who ‘has opened out his conscience to
the gods, and always lives as if in public, fearing himself more than
others.’ In the same spirit too he enlarges on the advantage of
having a faithful friend, ‘a ready heart into which your every secret
can be safely deposited, whose privity you need fear less than your
own’; and urges again and again the duty of meditation and self-
converse*, quoting on this head the saying of Epicurus, ‘Then retire

within thyself most, when thou art forced to be in a crowd®’

Duties Nor, when we pass from the duty of individual self-discipline to
ie the social relations of man, does the Stoic philosophy, as represented

by Seneca, hold a less lofty tone. He acknowledges in almost Scrip-
tural language the obligation of breaking bread with the hungry °.
‘You must live for another,’ he writes, ‘if you would live for your-
self’.’ ‘For what purpose do I get myself a friend?’ he exclaims
with all the extravagance of Stoic self-renunciation, ‘That I may
have one for whom I can die, one whom I can follow into exile, one
‘T will
so live,’ he says elsewhere, ‘as if I knew that I was born for others,
and will give thanks to nature on this score®.’

whom I can shield from death at the cost of my own life®’

Moreover these duties of humanity extend to all classes and
ranks in the social scale. The slave has claims equally with the
freeman, the base-born equally with the noble. ‘They are slaves,
you urge ; nay, they are men. They are slaves; nay, they are com-
They are slaves; nay, they are humble friends. They are
slaves ; nay, they are fellow-slaves, if you reflect that fortune has
the same power over both.’ ‘Let some of them,’ he adds, ‘dine

with you, because they are worthy ; others, that they may become

rades.

worthy.’

spirit. He is a slave.

1 de Ira iii. 36.

2 de Benef. vii. 1.

3 de Trang. Anim. 4.
Mor. xi.

4 Ep. Mor. vii ‘Recede in teipsum
quantum potes,’ de Otio 28 (1) ‘ Prode-
rit tamen per se ipsum secedere; me-
liores erimus singuli’: comp. ad Mare.
Pep

Comp. Ep.

‘He is a slave, you say. Yet perchance he is free in
Will this harm him ?

Show me who is not.

5 Ep. Mor. xxv.

6 Ep. Mor. xcv ‘Cum esuriente pa-
nem suum dividat’: comp. Is. lviii. 7
(Vulg.)‘ Frange esurienti panem tuum,’
Ezek. xviii. 7, 16.

7 Ep. Mor, xlviii.

8 Ep. Mor. ix.

9. de Vit. beat. 20: comp. de Otio
30 (3).

ST PAUL AND SENECA. 281

One is a slave to lust, another to avarice, a third to ambition, all
alike to fear’.

But the moral teaching of Seneca will be brought out more Parallels
clearly, while at the same time the conditions of the problem before ee gs
us will be better understood, by collecting the parallels, which are theMount.
scattered up and down his writings, to the sentiments and images
in the Sermon on the Mount.

‘The mind, unless it is pure and holy, comprehends not God’.” Matt. v. 8.

‘A man is a robber even before he stains his hands; for he is v. 21 sq.
already armed to slay, and has the desire to spoil and to Κι]

‘The deed will not be upright unless the will be upright*.’

‘Cast out whatsoever things rend thy heart: nay, if they could v. 29.

net be extracted otherwise, thou shouldst have plucked out thy

heart itself with them ὅ,᾽

‘What will the wise man do when he is buffeted (colaphis per-

cussus) ?
mouth.

He will do as Cato did when he was smitten on the
He did not burst into a passion, did not avenge himself,

did not even forgive it, but denied its having been done®.’
‘I will be agreeable to friends, gentle and yielding to enemies’.’

‘Give aid even to enemies®,’

‘Let us follow the gods as leaders, so far as human weakness
allows : let us give our good services and not lend them on usury...
How many are unworthy of the light: and yet the day arises...
This is characteristic of a great and good mind, to pursue not the

fruits of a kind deed but the deeds themselves’.’

‘We propose

to ourselves...to follow the example of the gods...See what great

1 Ep. Mor. xlvii. 1, 15, 17.

2 Ep. Mor. 1xxxvii. 21.

3 de Benef. v.14. So also de Const.
Sap. 7 he teaches that the sin consists
in the intent, not the act, and instances
adultery, theft, and murder.

4 Ep. Mor. lvii ‘Actio recta non erit,
nisi recta fuerit voluntas,’ de Benef. v,
19 ‘Mens spectanda est dantis.’

5 Ep. Mor. li. 13.

6 de Const. Sap. 14.

7 de Vit. beat. 20 ‘Ero amicis ju-
cundus, inimicis mitis et facilis.’

8 de Otio 28 (1) ‘Non desinemus com-
muni bono operam dare, adjuvare sin-
gulos, opem ferre etiam inimicis miti

(v.1.senili) manu’: comp. alsode Benef.
vy. I (fin.), vii. 31, de Ira i. 14. Such
however is not always Seneca’s tone
with regard to enemies: comp. Ep. Mor.
lxxxi ‘Hoe certe, inquis, justitie con-
venit, suum cuique reddere, beneficio
gratiam, injurie talionem aut certe.
malam gratiam. Verum erit istud,
cum alius injuriam fecerit, alius bene-
ficium dederit ete.’ This passage shows
that Seneca’s doctrine was a very feeble
and imperfect recognition of the Chris-
tian maxim ‘Love your enemies.’

9 de Benef. i. 1. See the whole con-
text.

282 ST PAUL AND SENECA.

things they bring to pass daily, what great gifts they bestow, with
what abundant fruits they fill the earth...with what suddenly falling
showers they soften the ground...All these things they do without
reward, without any advantage accruing to themselves...Let us be
ashamed to hold out any benefit for sale: we find the gods giving
gratuitously. If you imitate the gods, confer benefits even on the
unthankful: for the sun rises even on the wicked, and the seas are

[Luke vi.
35-]

open to pirates’.

‘One ought so to give that another may receive. It is not
giving or receiving to transfer to the right hand from the left®.’
‘This is the law of a good deed between two: the one ought at

once to forget that it was conferred, the other never to forget that

vi. 3 sq.

it was received ®,’
‘Let whatsoever has been pleasing to God, be pleasing to man‘,’
‘Do not, like those whose desire is not to make progress but

vi. το.
vi. 16.

to be seen, do anything to attract notice in your demeanour or

mode of life. Avoid a rough exterior and unshorn hair and a
carelessly kept beard and professed hatred of money and a bed laid
on the ground and whatever else affects ambitious display by a
perverse path...Let everything within us be unlike, but let our
outward appearance (frons) resemble the common people®.’

‘Apply thyself rather to the true riches. It is shameful to de-
pend for a happy life on silver and gold*’ ‘Let thy good deeds be
invested like a treasure deep-buried in the ground, which thou canst
not bring to light, except it be necessary’,’

‘Do ye mark the pimples of others, being covered with countless
ulcers? This is as if a man should mock at the moles or warts on the
most beautiful persons, when he himself is devoured by a fierce scab*.’

vii, 3 sq.

1 de Benef. iv. 25, 26. See the con-
text. Compare also de Benef. vii. 31.

2 de Benef. v. 8.

3 de Benef. ii. το.

* Ep. Mor. lxxiv. 20.

> Ep. Mor. vy. 1, 2. Other writers
are equally severe on the insincere pro-
fessors of Stoic principles. ‘Like their
Jewish counterpart, the Pharisees, they
were formal, austere, pretentious, and
not unfrequently hypocritical’; Grant
p- 281. Of the villain P. Egnatius
Tacitus writes (Ann. xvi. 32), ‘Auctori-

tatem Stoice sects preferebat habitu et
ore ad exprimendam imaginem honesti
exercitus.’ Egnatius, like so many other
Stoics, was an Oriental, a native of
Beyrout (Juv. iii. 116). If the phi-
losopher’s busts may be trusted, the
language of Tacitus would well describe
Seneca’s own appearance; but proba-
bly with him this austerity was not
affected.

6 Ep. Mor. cx. 18.

7 de Vit. beat. 24.

8 de Vit. beat. 27.

ST PAUL AND SENECA. 283

‘Expect from others what you have done to another’. ‘ Let us vii. 12.
so give as we would wish to receive*.’ .

‘Therefore good things cannot spring of evil...good does not vii. τό, 17.
grow of evil, any more than a fig of an olive tree. The fruits cor-
respond to the seed®,’

‘Not otherwise than some rock standing alone in a shallow vii. 26.
sea, which the waves cease not from whichever side they are
driven to beat upon, and yet do not either stir it from its place,
etc....Seek some soft and yielding material in which to fix your
darts*.’

Nor are these coincidences of thought and imagery confined to Othercoin-
cidences
with our
Pharisees to whited walls, and contrasts the scrupulously clean Lord's lan-

the Sermon on the Mount. If our Lord compares the hypocritical

outside of the cup and platter with the inward corruption, Seneca
also adopts the same images: ‘ Within is no good: if thou shouldest
see them, not where they are exposed to view but where they
are concealed, they are miserable, filthy, vile, adorned without like
their own walls...Then it appears how much real foulness beneath
the surface this borrowed glitter has concealed’’ If our Lord
declares that the branches must perish unless they abide in the
vine, the language of Seneca presents an eminently instructive
parallel: ‘As the leaves cannot flourish by themselves, but want
a branch wherein they may grow and whence they may draw sap,
so those precepts wither if they are alone: they need to be
grafted in a sect®.” Again the parables of the sower, of the mustard-
seed, of the debtor forgiven, of the talents placed out at usury,
of the rich fool, have all their echoes in the writings of the Roman
Stoic: ‘Words must be sown like seed which, though it be small,
yet when it has found a suitable place unfolds its strength and
from being the least spreads into the largest growth...They are few
things which are spoken: yet if the mind has received them well,
they gain strength and grow. The same, I say, is the case with
precepts as with seeds. They produce much and yet they are
scanty’. ‘Divine seeds are sown in human bodies. If a good

1 Ep. Mor. xciv. 43. This is a quo- 5 de Provid. 6.

tation. 6 Ep. Mor. xcv. 59. See the remarks
2 de Benef. ii. 1. below, p. 324, on this parallel.
3 Ep. Mor. \xxxvil. 24, 25. 7 Ep. Mor. xxxviii. 2.

* de Vit. beat. 27.

284

ST PAUL AND SENECA.

husbandman receives them, they spring up like their origin...; if a
bad one, they are killed as by barren and marshy ground, and
then weeds are produced in place of grain'.’ ‘We have received
our good things as a loan. The use and advantage are ours, and
the duration thereof the divine disposer of his own bounty regu-
lates. We ought to have in readiness what He has given us for
an uncertain period, and to restore it, when summoned to do 50,
without complaint. He is the worst debtor, who reproaches his
creditor’.’ ‘As the money-lender does not summon some creditors
whom he knows to be bankrupt...So I will openly and persistently
pass over some ungrateful persons nor demand any benefit from
them in turn*®’ ‘O how great is the madness of those who embark
on distant hopes: I will buy, I will build, I will lend out, I will
demand payment, I will bear honours: then at length I will
resign my old. age wearied and sated to rest. Believe me, all
things are uncertain even to the prosperous. No man ought to
promise himself anything out of the future. Even what we hold
slips through our hands, and fortune assails the very hour on
which we are pressing*.’ If our Master declares that ‘it is more
blessed to give than to receive,’ the Stoic philosopher tells his
readers that he ‘would rather not receive benefits, than not confer

_them®, and that ‘it is more wretched to the good man to do

an injury than to receive one’. If our Lord reminds His hearers
of the Scriptural warning ‘I will have mercy and not sacrifice,’
if He commends the poor widow’s mite thrown into the treasury as
a richer gift than the most lavish offerings of the wealthy, if His
whole life is a comment on the prophet’s declaration to the Jews
that God ‘cannot away with their sabbaths and new moons,’ so
also Seneca writes: ‘ Not even in victims, though they be fat and
their brows glitter with goid, is ‘honour paid to the gods, but in the
pious and upright intent of the worshippers’.’ The gods are ‘ wor-
shipped not by the wholesale slaughter of fat carcasses of bulls nor
by votive offerings of gold or silver, nor by money poured into
their treasuries, but by the pious and upright intent®’ ‘Let us

1 Ep. Mor. \xxiii. τό. 6 Ep. Mor. xev. 32: comp. de Benef.
2 Ad Mare. to. iv. 12, Vil. 31, 32.

3 de Benef. v. 21. 7 de Benef. i. 6.

4 Ep. Mor. ci. 4. 8 Ep. Mor. cxv. 5.

5 de Benef. i. 1.

ST PAUL AND SENECA.

to
ioe)
ψι

forbid any one to light lamps on sabbath-days, since the gods
do not want light, and even men take no pleasure in smoke...he
worships God, who knows Him’.’ And lastly, if the dying prayer
of the Redeemer is ‘ Father, forgive them, for they know not what
they do,’ some have discovered a striking counterpart (I can only see
a mean caricature) of this expression of triumphant self-sacrifice in
the language of Seneca: ‘There is no reason why thou shouldest be
angry: pardon them ; they are all mad®*’

Nor are the coincidences confined to the Gospel narratives. Coinci-

The writings of Seneca present several points of resemblance also ΠΘΗ ΙΒ
to the Apostolic Epistles. The declaration of St John that ‘perfect ae
) pistles,

love casteth out fear*®’ has its echo in the philosopher’s words,
The metaphor of St Peter,

also, ‘Girding up the loins of your mind be watchful and hope’,

‘Love cannot be mingled with fear*,’

reappears in the same connexion in Seneca, ‘ Let the mind stand
ready-girt, and let it never fear what is necessary but ever expect
what is uncertain®’ And again, if St James rebukes the pre-
sumption of those who say, ‘To-day or to-morrow we will go into
such a city, when they ought to say, If the Lord will, we shall live
and do this or that’, Seneca in a similar spirit says that the wise
man will ‘never promise himself anything on the security of fortune,
but will say, I will sail unless anything happen, and, I will be-
come pretor unless anything happen, and, My business will turn
out well for me unless anything happen’®.’

The coincidences with St Paul are even more numerous and andespeci-
It is not only that Seneca, like the Apostle of BPE
the Gentiles, compares life to a warfare’, or describes the struggle

after good as a ‘contest with the flesh’’,’ or speaks of this present

not less striking.

1 Ep. Mor. xev. 47.

2 de Benef. v. 17.
below, p. 295.

3 x Joh. iv. 18.

4 Ep. Mor. xvii. 18.

5 y Pet. i. 13.

δ ad Polyb. 11 ‘In procinectu stet
animus ete.’

7 James iv. 13.

8 de Trang. Anim. 13.

9 Ep. Mor. xcvi ‘Vivere, Lucili,
militare est’; ib. li ‘Nobis quoque mi-
litandum est et quidem genere militiz

See the remarks

quo numquam quies, numquam otium,
datur’; ib. lxv ‘Hoe quod vivit stipen-
dium putat’; ib. cxx. 12‘Ci em se esse
universi et militem credens.’ The com-
parison is at least as old as the Book of
Job, vil τ.

10 ad Mare. 24 ‘Omne illi cum hae
carne grave certamen est.’ The flesh
is not unfrequently used for the carnal
desires and repulsions, e.g. Ep. Mor.
lxxiv ‘Non est summa felicitatis nostre
in carne ponenda.’ This use of σὰρξ
has been traced to Epicurus.

286

Tit. i. τε.

1 Cor. ix.

25.

ST PAUL AND SENECA.

existence as a pilgrimage in a strange land and of our mortal bodies
as tabernacles of the soul’. Though some of these metaphors are
more Oriental than Greek or Roman, they are too common to suggest
any immediate historical connexion. It is more to the purpose to
note special coincidences of thought and diction, The hateful flattery,
first of Claudius and then of Nero, to which the expressions are
prostituted by Seneca, does not conceal the resemblance of the
following passages to the language of St Paul where they occur in
a truer and nobler application. Of the former emperor he writes
to a friend at court, ‘In him are all things and he is instead of
all things to thee”: to the latter he says, ‘The gentleness of thy
spirit will spread by degrees through the whole body of the empire,
and all things will be formed after thy likeness: health passes
from the head to all the members*.’ Nor are still closer parallels
wanting. Thus, while St Paul professes that he will ‘gladly spend
and be spent’ for his Corinthian converts, Seneca repeats the same
striking expression, ‘Good men toil, they spend and are spent‘,
While the Apostle declares that ‘unto the pure all things are
pure, but unto the defiled and unbelieving nothing is pure,’ it is
the Roman philosopher’s dictum that ‘the evil man turns all
things to evil’’” While St Paul in a well-remembered passage
compares and contrasts the training for the mortal and the immortal
crown, a strikingly similar use is made of the same comparison
in the following words of Seneca ; ‘What blows do athletes receive
in their face, what blows all over their body. Yet they bear all
the torture from thirst of glory. Let us also overcome all things,
for our reward is not a crown or a palm branch or the trumpeter
proclaiming silence for the announcement of our name, but virtue
and strength of mind and peace acquired ever after®,’

The coincidence will be further illustrated by the following

1 Hp. Mor. exx ‘Nec domum esse
hoe corpus sed hospitium et quidem
breve hospitium,’ and again ‘Magnus
animus.. nihil horum que circa sunt
suum judicat, sed ut commodatis utitur
peregrinus et properans.’ So also Ep.
Mor. cii. 24 ‘Quicquid circa te jacet
rerum tamquam hospitalis loci sarcinas
specta.’ In this last letter (§ 23) he
speaks.of advancing age as a ‘ripening
to another birth (in alium maturescimus

partum),’ and designates death by the
term since consecrated in the language
of the Christian Church, as the birth-
day of eternity: ‘Dies iste, quem tam-
quam supremum reformidas, eterni na-
talis est’ (δ 26).

2 ad Polyb. 7.

3 de Clem. ii. 2.

4 de Provid. 5.
Ep. Mor. xcviii. 3.
Ep. Mor, Ixxviii. τό.

ST PAUL AND SENECA. 287

passages of Seneca, to which the corresponding references in St Paul
are given in the margin.

‘They consecrate the holy and immortal and inviolable gods Rom. i. 23.
in motionless matter of the vilest kind: they clothe them with the
forms of men, and beasts, and fishes’.’

‘They are ever enamoured of their own ill deeds, which is the Rom. i. 28,
last ill of all: and then is their wretchedness complete, when shame- om
ful things not only delight them but are even approved by them”.’

‘The tyrant is angry with the homicide, and the sacrilegious man Rom. ii.21,

. 22.
punishes thefts*.’
‘ Hope is the name for an uncertain good ἡ. pois ὙΠ:
. . . 4. ee
‘ Pertinacious goodness overcomes evil men’.’ Rom. xii.

‘IT have a better and a surer light whereby I can discern the

true from the false.

21.
1 Cor.ii.11.

The mind discovers the good of the mind’®.’

‘Let us use them, let us not boast of them: and let us use them 1 Cor. vil.

sparingly, as a loan deposited with us which will soon depart’.’

‘To obey God is liberty *.’

‘Not only corrected but transfigured’®.’
‘A man is not yet wise, unless his mind is transfigured into those

things which he has learnt’®.’

31:

2 Cor. iii.

18.

“ὙΥ Βαὺ 15. τῆϑη ἢ A cracked vessel which will break at the least 2 Cor.iv.7.

fall'!?

‘This is salutary; not to associate with those unlike ourselves 2 Cor. vi.

and having different desires’”.’

14.

‘That gift is far more welcome which is given with a ready than 2 Cor. ix. 7.

at i i (Prov. xxii,

that which is given with a full hand’*.’ 9.)
‘Gather up and preserve the time" Eph. v. 16.
“1 confess that love of our own body is natural to us’*.’ pie v.28,

1 de Superst. (Fragm. 31) in August.
Civ. Dei vi. το.

2 Ep. Mor. xxxix. 6.

3 de Ira ii. 28.

4 Ep. Mor. x. § 2.

5 de Benef. vii. 31.

6 de Vit. beat. 2.

7 Ep. Mor. Ἰχχῖν. 18.

8 de Vit. beat. 15. Compare the lan-
guage of our Liturgy, ‘ Whose service is
perfect freedom.’ Elsewhere (Ep. Mor.
viii) he quotes a saying of Epicurus,
‘Thou must be the slave of philosophy,

that true liberty may fall to thy
lot.’

9 Ep. Mor. vi. τ.

10 Ep. Mor. xciv. 48.

1! ad Mare. τὰς So Ps. xxxi, τὴ ΑἹ
am become like a broken vessel.’

12 Hp. Mor. xxxii. 2.

13 de Benef. i. 7.

14 Ep. Mor.i. 1. So also he speaks
elsewhere (de Brev.Vit. 1) of ‘investing’
time (conlocaretur).

15 Ep. Mor. xiv. 1.
for love is ‘ caritas.”

The word used

288 ST PAUL AND SENECA.

Col. ii. 22. ‘Which comes or passes away very quickly, destined to perish in
the very using (in ipso usu sui periturum)’.’

τ Tim. iio. ‘Neither jewels nor pearls turned thee aside’.’

1 Tim.iv.8. ‘T reflect how many exercise their bodies, how few their minds*’

‘It is a foolish occupation to exercise the muscles of the arms....
Return quickly from the body to the mind: exercise this, night and

day*.’
1 Tim.v.6. ‘Do these men fear death, into which while living they have
buried themselves*?’ ‘ He is sick: nay, he is dead®.’
2 Tim. iii. ‘They live ill, who are always learning to live’” ‘How long
i: wilt thou learn? begin to teach*.’

In the opening sentences of our Burial Service two passages
1 Tim. vi. of Scripture are combined: ‘We brought nothing into this world
τι i. αι, and it is certain we can carry nothing out. The Lord gave and
the Lord hath taken away: blessed be the name of the Lord.’
Both passages have parallels in Seneca: ‘Non licet plus efferre quam —
intuleris’;’ ‘ Abstulit (fortuna) sed dedit®.’
In the speech on the Areopagus again, which was addressed
partly to a Stoic audience, we should naturally expect to find
parallels. The following passages justify this expectation,

Acts xvii. ‘The whole world is the temple of the immortal gods'’.’ ‘Temples

ea eH: are not to be built to God of stones piled on high: He must be
consecrated in the heart of each man”’.’

Xvii. 25. ‘God wants not ministers. How so? He Himself ministereth
to the human race. He is at hand everywhere and to all men”.’

xvii. 27. ‘God is near thee: He is with thee; He is within”.

Xvii. 29. ‘Thou shalt not form Him of silver and gold: a true likeness
of God cannot be moulded of this material’*.’

The first The first impression made by this series of parallels is striking.

impression

from these Lhey seem to show a general coincidence in the fundamental prin-

parallels ciples of theology and the leading maxims in ethics: they exhibit

moreover special resemblances in imagery and expression, which, it

1 de Vit. beat. 7. 9. Ep. Mor. cii. 25.

2 ad Helv. matr. 16. 10 Hip. Mor. \xiti. 7.

3 Ep. Mor. lxxx. 2. . 11 de Benef. vii. 7.

4 Ep. Mor. xv. 2, 5. 12 Fragm. 123, in Lactant. Div. Inst.
5 Ep. Mor, exxii. 3. Vi. 25.

6 de Brev. Vit. 12. 13 Ep. Mor. xev. 47.

7 Ep. Mor. xxiii. g. 14 Ep. Mor. ἘΠῚ 1.

8 Ep. Mor. xxxiii. 9. 15 Ep. Mor, xxxi, 11.

ST PAUL AND SENECA. 289

would seem, cannot be explained as the result of accident, but must needs to be

point to some historical connexion. ee
Nevertheless a nearer examination very materially diminishes the

force of this impression. In many cases, where the parallels are

most close, the theory of a direct historical connexion is impossible;

in many others it can be shown to be quite unnecessary; while in not

a few instances the resemblance, however striking, must be con-

demned as illusory and fallacious. After deductions made on all

these heads, we shall still have to consider whether the remaining coin-

cidences are such as to require or to suggest this mode of solution.

1. In investigating the reasonableness of explaining coinci- Difficulty

. : ἢ ὃς of esta-
dences between two different authors by direct obligation on the plishing
one hand or the other, the dates of tlie several writings are ob- nase |

viously a most important element in the decision. In the present logy.
instance the relative chronology is involved in considerable difficulty.

It is roughly true that the literary activity of Seneca comprises
about the same period over which (with such exceptions as the
Gospel and Epistles of St John) the writings of the Apostles and
Evangelists extend. But in some cases of parallelism it is difficult,

and in others wholly impossible, to say which writing can claim
priority of time. If the Epistles of St Paul may for the most
part be dated within narrow limits, this is not the case with the
Gospels: and on the other hand the chronology of Seneca’s writings

is with some few exceptions vague and uncertain. In many cases The prior-

however it seems impossible that the Stoic philosopher can have al ἘΣ
derived his thoughts or his language from the New Testament. te to
peneca,

Though the most numerous and most striking parallels are found in
his latest writings, yet some coincidences occur in works which must
be assigned to his earlier years, and these were composed certainly
before the first Gospels could have been circulated in Rome, and
perhaps before they were even written. Again several strong
resemblances occur in Seneca to those books of the New Testament
which were written after his death. Thus the passage which dwells
on the fatherly chastisement of God' presents a coincidence, as re-
markable as any, to the language of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Thus
again in tracing the portrait of the perfect man (which has been

1 See above, p. 277 sq. Com- Prov. iii. 11, 12, which is quoted
pare Hebrews xii. 5 8q., and see _ there.

PHIL. 19

290

Seneca’s
obliga-
tions to
previous
writers.

ST PAUL AND SENECA.

thought to reflect many features of the life of Christ, delineated in
the Gospels) he describes him as ‘shining like a light in the dark-
ness'’; an expression which at once recalls the language applied to
the Divine Word in the prologue of St John’s Gospel. And again in
the series of parallels given above many resemblances will have
been noticed to the Pastoral Epistles, which can hardly have been
written before Seneca’s death. These facts, if they do not prove
much, are at least so far valid as to show that the simple theory
of direct borrowing from the Apostolic writings will not meet all
the facts of the case.

2. Again; it is not sufficient to examine Seneca’s writings by
themselves, but we must enquire how far he was anticipated by the
older philosophers in those brilliant flashes of theological truth or
of ethical sentiment, which from time to time dazzle us in his
writings. If after all they should prove to be only lights reflected
from the noblest thoughts and sayings of former days, or at best
old fires rekindled and fanned into a brighter flame, we have found
a solution more simple and natural, than if we were to ascribe them
to direct intercourse with Christian teachers or immediate acquaint-
ance with Christian writings. We shall not cease in this case te
regard them as true promptings of the Word of God which was from
the beginning, bright rays of the Divine Light which ‘was in the
world’ though ‘the world knew it not,’ which ‘shineth in the
darkness’ though ‘the darkness comprehended it not’: but we shall
no longer confound them with the direct effulgence of the same Word
made flesh, the Shechinah at length tabernacled among men, ‘ whose
glory we beheld, the glory as of the only-begotten of the Father.’

And this is manifestly the solution of many coincidences which
have been adduced above. Though Seneca was essentially a Stoic,
yet he read widely and borrowed freely from all existing schools of
philosophy’. To the Pythagoreans and the Platonists he is largely
indebted ; and even of Epicurus, the founder of the rival school, he
speaks with the deepest respect®. Jt will have been noticed that |
several of the most striking passages cited above are direct quo-

1 Ep. Mor. exx. 13 ‘Non aliter quam —_ sententia sum, invitis hocnostris popu-
in tenebris lumen effulsit.’ laribus dicam,sancta Epicurum et recta
2 See what he says of himself, de Vit. precipere et, si propius accesseris, tris- _

beat. 3, de Otio 2 (29). tia’: comp. Ep. Mor. ii. 5, vi. 6, viii.
3 de Vit. beat. 13 ‘In ea quidemipsa 8, xx. 9.

ST PAUL AND SENECA. 201

tations from earlier writers, and therefore can have no immediate
connexion with Christian ethics. The sentiment for instance, which
approaches most nearly to the Christian maxim ‘Love your ene-
mies,’ is avowedly based on the teaching of his Stoic predecessors’.
And where this is not the case, recent research has shown that (with Parallels

: ΐ ; as striking
some exceptions) passages not only as profound in feeling and truth- found in

earlier

es conics 7 er er eee Nes τ ee
ful in sentiment, but often very similar in expression and not less oo.

striking in their resemblance to the Apostelic writings, can be pro-
duced from the older philosophers and poets of Greece and Rome’.
One instance will suffice. Seneca’s picture of the perfect man has
been already mentioned as reflecting some features of the ‘Son of
Man’ delineated in the Gospels.

Plato in its minute touches reproduces the likeness with a fidelity

Yet the earlier portrait drawn by

so striking, that the chronological impossibility alone has rescued him
from the charge of plagiarism: ‘Though doing no wrong,’ Socrates
is represented saying, ‘he will have the greatest reputation for
wrong-doing,’ ‘he will go forward immovable even to death, ap-
pearmg to be unjust throughout life but being just,’ ‘he will be
scourged,’ ‘last of all after suffering every kind of evil he will be
erucified (ἀνασχινδυλευθήσεται)". Not unnaturally Clement of Alex-

andria, quoting this passage, describes Plato as ‘all but foretelling

the dispensation of salvation *.’

3. Lastly: the proverbial suspicion which attaches to statistics Many co-
ought to be extended to coincidences of language, for they may be, Pere
and often are, equally fallacious. An expression or a maxim, which cious.
detached from its context offers a striking resemblance to the theo-
logy or the ethics of the Gospel, is found to have a wholly different
bearing when considered in its proper relations.

This consideration is especially important in the case before us. Stoicism
Stoicism and Christianity are founded on widely different theological ae ΤῊΣ
conceptions ; and the ethical teaching of the two in many respects opposed.
presents a direct contrast. St Jerome was led astray either by his

ignorance of philosophy or by his partiality for a stern asceticism,

1 de Otio 1 (28). See above, p. 283,
note 8. See also Schneider Christliche
Klinge, p. 327 sq.

2 Such parallels are produced from
older writers by Aubertin (Sénéque et
Saint Paul), who has worked out this
line of argument. See also the large

collection of passages in R. Schneider
Christliche Klinge aus den Griechischen
und RomischenKlassikern (Gotha, 1865).
3 Plato Resp. ii. pp. 361, 362. See
Aubertin, p. 254 sq.
4 Strom. Vv. 14 μονονουχὶ προφητεύων
The σωτήριον οἰκονομίαν.

19—2

292 ST PAUL AND SENECA. |

when he said that ‘the Stoic dogmas in very many points coincide
with our own’. It is in the doctrines of the Platonist and the Py-
thagorean that the truer resemblances to the teaching of the Bible are
to be sought. It was not the Porch but the Academy that so many
famous teachers, like Justin Martyr and Augustine, found to be the
vestibule to the Church of Christ. Again and again the Platonic
philosophy comes in contact with the Gospel; but Stoicism moves
in another line, running parallel indeed and impressive by its paral-
lelism, but for this very reason precluded from any approximation.
Only when he deserts the Stoic platform, does Seneca really ap-
proach the level of Christianity. Struck by their beauty, he adopts
and embodies the maxims of other schools: but they betray their
foreign origin, and refuse to be incorporated into his system.

Senecawas For on the whole Lactantius was right, when he called Seneca
arene a most determined follower of the Stoics”. It can only excite our
marvel that any one, after reading a few pages of this writer, ᾿
should entertain a suspicion of his having been in any sense a Chris-
tian. If the superficial colouring is not seldom deceptive, we can-
not penetrate skindeep without encountering some rigid and in-
flexible dogma of the Stoic school. In his fundamental principles
he is a disciple of Zeno ; and, being a disciple of Zeno, he could not
possibly be a disciple of Christ.
His pan- Interpreted by this fact, those passages which at first sight strike
ee us by their resemblance to the language of the Apostles and Evan-
ism. gelists assume a wholly different meaning. The basis of Stoic theo-

logy is gross materialism, though it is more or less relieved and
compensated in different writers of the school by a vague mysticism.
The supreme God of the Stoic had no existence distinct from ex-
ternal nature. Seneca himself identifies Him with fate, with neces-
sity, with nature, with the world as a living whole*. The different
elements of the universe, such as the planetary bodies, were inferior
partibusque ejus inserta?...Hune eun-

dem et fatum si dixeris, non mentieris...
Sic nune naturam voca, fatum, fortu-

1 Hieron. Comm. in Isai. Iv. ¢. ΤΙ
‘Stoici qui nostro dogmati in plerisque
concordant’ (Op. Iv. p. 159, Vallarsi).

2 See above, p. 268.

3 See especially de Benef. iv. 7, 8
‘Natura, inquit, hoc mihi prestat. Non
intellegis te, cum hoc dicis, mutare
nomen deo? quid enim aliud est natura
quam deus et divina ratio toti mundo

nam, omnia ejusdem dei nomina sunt
varie utentis sua potestate’; de Vit.
beat. 8 ‘Mundus cuncta complectens
rectorque universi deus.’ Occasionally
amore personal conception of deity ap-
pears: e.g. ad Helv. Matr. 8.

ST PAUL AND SENECA. 29

Geo

gods, members of the Universal Being’. With a bold consistency
the Stoic assigned a corporeal existence even to moral abstractions.
Here also Seneca manifests his adherence to the tenets of his school.
Courage, prudence, reverence, cheerfulness, wisdom, he says, are all
bodily substances, for otherwise they could not affect bodies, as they
manifestly do’.

Viewed by the light of this material pantheism, the injunction His lan-
to be ‘followers of God’ cannot mean the same to him as it does chee ae
even to the Platonic philosopher, still less to the Christian Apostle. Hae
In Stoic phraseology ‘imitation of God’ signifies nothing deeper tenets.
than a due recognition of physical laws on the part of man, and a
conformity thereto in his own actions. It is merely a synonyme for
the favourite Stoic formula of ‘accordance with nature.’ This may
be a useful precept; but so interpreted the expression is emptied of
its religious significance. In fact to follow the world and to follow
God are equivalent phrases with Seneca*. Again in like manner,
the lesson drawn from the rain and the sunshine freely bestowed
upon all*, though in form it coincides so nearly with the language of
the Gospel, loses its theological meaning and becomes merely an ap-
peal to a physical fact, when interpreted by Stoic doctrine.

Hence also language, which must strike the ear of a Christian as Consistent
blasphe-
mies in
Seneca quotes with approbation the saying of his revered Sextius, pipe
od,

shocking blasphemy, was consistent and natural on the lips of a Stoic.

that Jupiter is not better than a good man; he is richer, but riches ©
do not constitute superior goodness ; he is longer-lived, but greater
longevity does not ensure greater happiness®. ‘The good man,’ he
says elsewhere, ‘differs from God only in length of time®.’ ‘He is
like God, excepting his mortality’.’ In the same spirit an earlier
Stoic, Chrysippus, had boldly argued that the wise man is as useful
to Zeus, as Zeus is to the wise man*. Such language is the legi-

timate consequence of Stoic pantheism.

1 de Clem. i. 8. 5 Ep. Mor. lxxiii. 12, 13.
2 Ep. Mor. cvi: comp. Ep. Mor. exvii. δι γοῦν τς
3 de Ira ii. 16 ‘Quid est autem cur 7 de Const. Sap. 8: comp. Ep. Mor.

hominem ad tam infelicia exempla re- xxxi ‘Par deo surges.’ Nay, in one
voces, cum habeas mundum deumque, respect good men excel God, “1116 extra
quem ex omnibus animalibus ut solus patientiam malorum est, vos supra pa-
imitetur, solus intellegit.’ tientiam,’ de Prov. 6.

* See the passages quoted above, p. 8 Plut. adv. Stoic. 33 (Op. Mor. p.
281 sq. 1078).

204 ST PAUL AND SENECA.

He has no Hence also the Stoic, so long as he was true to the tenets of his
Be a, lt school, could have no real consciousness of sin. Only where there is
a distinct belief in a personal God, can this consciousness find a rest-
ing-place. Seneca and Tertullian might use the same word peccatum,
but its value and significance to the two writers cannot be compared.
The Christian Apostle and the Stoic philosopher alike can say, and
do say, that ‘All men have erred’’; but the moral key in which the
saying is pitched is wholly different. With Seneca error or sin is
nothing more than the failure in attaining to the ideal of the perfect
man which he sets before him, the running counter to the law of the
universe in which he finds himself placed. He does not view it as
an offence done to the will of an all-holy all-righteous Being, an
unfilial act of defiance towards a loving and gracious Father. The
Stoic conception of error or sin is not referred at all to the idea of
God*. His pantheism had so obscured the personality of the Divine
Being, that such reference was, if not impossible, at least unnatural.
Meaning And the influence of this pantheism necessarily pervades the
nae ἘΠῚ Stoic vocabulary. The ‘Sacer spiritus’ of Seneca may be translated
Seneca. _ literally by the Holy Spirit, the πνεῦμα ἅγιον, of Scriptural language ;
but it signifies something quite different. His declaration that we
are ‘members of God,’ is in words almost identical with certain ex-
pressions of the Apostle; but its meaning has nothing in common.
Both the one and the other are modes of stating the Stoic dogma,
that the Universe is one great animal pervaded by one soul or prin-
ciple of life, and that into men, as fractions of this whole, as limbs of
this body, is transfused a portion of the universal spirit®. It is almost
purely a physical conception, and has no strictly theological value.
His moral Again, though the sterner colours of Stoic morality are fre-

ee quently toned down in Seneca, still the foundation of his ethical

repulsive system betrays the repulsive features of his school. His funda-
features of

Stoicism, mental maxim is not to guide and train nature, but to overcome

it‘. The passions and affections are not to be directed, but to be
crushed. The wise man, he says, will be clement and gentle, but he
will not feel pity, for only old women and girls will be moved by

1 See the passages quoted above, Virgil, @n. vi. 726 ‘Spiritus intus alit

p- 279. totamque infusa per artus mens agitat
2 See the remarksof Baur, 1.6. p. 190 molem et magno se corpore miscet.’
sq., on this subject. 4 de Brev.Vit.14 ‘Hominis naturam |

3 Comparethe well-known passage in cum Stoicis vincere.’

ST PAUL AND SENECA. 295

tears; he will not pardon, for pardon is the remission of a deserved
penalty; he will be strictly and inexorably just’.

It is obvious that this tone leaves no place for repentance, for for-
giveness, for restitution, on which the theological ethics of the Gospel
are built. The very passage*, which has often been quoted as a
parallel to the Saviour’s dying words, ‘ Father, forgive them, for they
know not what they do,’ really stands in direct contrast to the spirit
of those words: for it is not dictated by tenderness and love, but
expresses a contemptuous pity, if not a withering scorn.

In the same spirit Seneca commits himself to the impassive calm
which forms the moral ideal of his school*. He has no sympathy
with a righteous indignation, which Aristotle called ‘the spur of
virtue’; for it would disturb the serenity of the mind*. He could Its impas-
only have regarded with a lofty disdain (unless for the moment the ΕΣ]
man triumphed over the philosopher) the grand outburst of passion- δ τε εν
ate sympathy which in the Apostle of the Gentiles has wrung a tri- theGospel.
bute of admiration even from unbelievers, ‘Who is weak, and I am
not weak? Who is offended, and I burn not’? He would neither
have appreciated nor respected the spirit which dictated those touch-
ing words, ‘I say the truth...I lie not...I have great heaviness and
continual sorrow of heart...for my brethren, my kinsmen according to
the flesh®’ He must have spurned the precept which bids the Chris-
tian ‘rejoice with them that do rejoice, and weep with them that

weep’,’

as giving the direct lie to a sovereign maxim of Stoic philoso-
phy. To the consistent disciple of Zeno the agony of Gethsemane could
not have appeared, as to the Christian it ever will appear, the most
sublime spectacle of moral sympathy, the proper consummation of a
Divine life: for insensibility to the sorrows and sufferings of others
was the only passport to perfection, as conceived in the Stoic ideal.
These considerations will have shown that many even of the

most obvious parallels in Seneca’s language are really no parallels at

1 de Clem. ii. 5—7, where he makes
@ curious attempt to vindicate; the
Stoies.

2 It is quoted above, p. 285.

3 Ep. Mor. Ixxiv. 30 ‘Non adfligitur
sapiens liberorum amissione, non ami-
corum: eodem enim animo fert illorum
mortem quo suam exspectat. Non

magis hanctimet quam illam dolet...In-
honesta est omnis trepidatio et sollici-
tudo.’ And see especially Ep. Mor.
cxvi.

ὁ de Ira iii. 3.

5 2 Cor. xi. 29.

Cy Roras 1X. 11,) 2.2:

7 Rom. xii. 15.

296 ST PAUL AND SENECA.

Inconsist- all. They will have served moreover to reveal the wide gulf which

song separates him from Christianity. It must be added however, that
and of Sto- his humanity frequently triumphs over his philosophy ; that he often
aia writes with a kindliness and a sympathy which, if little creditable to
his consistency, is highly honourable to his heart. In this respect
however he does not stand alone. Stoicism is in fact the most incon-
gruous, the most self-contradictory, of all philosophic systems. With
a gross and material pantheism it unites the most vivid expressions of
the fatherly love and providence of God: with the sheerest fatalism
it combines the most exaggerated statements of the independence
and self-sufficiency of the human soul: with the hardest and most
uncompromising isolation of the individual it proclaims the most ex-
pansive view of his relations to all around. The inconsistencies of
Stoicism were a favourite taunt with the teachers of rival schools’.
The human heart in fact refused to be silenced by the dictation of a
rigorous and artificial system, and was constantly bursting its philo-
sophical fetters.
omer But after all allowance made for the considerations just urged,
per oes. some facts remain which still require explanation. It appears that
main tobe the Christian parallels in Seneca’s writings become more frequent
explained,

as he advances in life*. It is not less true that they are much more
striking and more numerous than in the other great Stoics of the
Roman period, Epictetus and M. Aurelius ; for though in character
these later writers approached much nearer to the Christian ideal
than the minister of Nero, though their fundamental doctrines are
as little inconsistent with Christian theology and ethics as his, yet
the closer resemblances of sentiment and expression, which alone
would suggest any direct obligations to Christianity, are, I believe,
decidedly more frequent in Seneca*. Lastly: after all deductions

made, a class of coincidences still remains, of which the expression

1 See for instance the treatise of Plu-
tarch de Repugnantiis Stoicorum (Op.
Mor. Ὁ. 1033 sq.).

2 Among his more Christian works
are the de Providentia, de Otio, de Vita
beata, de Beneficiis, and the Epistule
Morales; among his less Christian, the
de Constantia Sapientis and de Ira. In
some cases the date is uncertain; but
what I have said in the text will, I

think, be found substantially true.

1 have read Epictetus and M. Au-
relius through with a view to such eoin-
cidences, and believe the statement in
the text to be correct. Several of the
more remarkable parallelsin the former
writer occur in the passages quoted be-
low, p. 312 sq., and seem to warrant
the belief that he was acquainted with
the language of the Gospel. :

8T PAUL AND SENECA. 297

‘spend and be spent’ may be taken as a type’, and which can hardly
be considered accidental. If any historical connexion (direct or
indirect) can be traced with a fair degree of probability, we may

Τ shall Historical

content myself here with stating the different ways in which such wae

reasonably look to this for the solution of such coincidences.

a connexion was possible or probable, without venturing to affirm

what was actually the case, for the data are not sufficient to justify

any definite theory.

' 1. The fact already mentioned is not unimportant, that the (τ) The

astern
srincipal Stoic teachers all came from the East, and that therefore oricin of
I Ρ g

their language and thought must in a greater or less degree have Sener
borne the stamp of their Oriental origin. We advance a step further
towards the object of our search, if we remember that the most
famous of them were not only Oriental but Shemitic. Babylonia,
Phenicia, Syria, Palestine, are their homes. One comes from
Scythopolis, a second from Apamea, a third from Ascalon, a fourth

from Ptolemais, two others from Hierapolis, besides several from

Tyre and Sidon or their colonies, such as Citium and Carthage’.

What religious systems they had the opportunity of studying, and

how far they were indebted to any of these, it is impossible to say.

But it would indeed be strange if, living on the confines and even ve ie :
within the borders of the home of Judaism, the Stoic teachers escaped tions to
all influence from the One religion which, it would seem, must have J¥4ais™.
attracted the attention of the thoughtful and earnest mind, which

even then was making rapid progress through the Roman Empire,

and which afterwards through the Gospel has made itself far

1 See above p. 286. Aubertin has at-
tacked this very instance (p. 360 sq.),
but without success. He only shows
(what did not need showing) that ‘im-
pendere’ is used elsewhere in this same
sense. The important feature in the
coincidence is the combination of the
active and passive voices.

2 T have noted down the following
homes of more or less distinguished
Stoic teachers from the East; Seleucia,
Diogenes (p. 41) ; Epiphania, Euphrates
(p. 613); Scythopolis, Basilides (p. 614);
Ascalon, Antibius, Eubius (p. 615);
Hierapolis in Syria (?),Serapio (p.612),
Publius (p.615); Tyre, Antipater, Apol-
lonius (p. 520); Sidon, Zeno (p. 36),

Boethus? (p. 40); Ptolemais, Diogenes
(Ρ. 43); Apamea in Syria, Posidonius
(p.509); Citium, Zeno (Ὁ. 27), Perseus
(p. 34); Carthage, Herillus (p. 33);
Cyrene, Kratosthenes (p. 39). The Cili-
cian Stoics are enumerated below p. 301.
Of the other famous teachers belong-
ing to the school, Cleanthes came from
Assos (Ρ. 31), Ariston from Chios (p. 32),
Dionysius from Heraclea (p.35), Sphe-
rus from Bosporus (p. 35), Panetius
from Rhodes. (p. 500), Epictetus from
Hierapolis in Phrygia (p. 660). The
references are to the pages of Zeller’s
work, where the authorities for the
statements will be found.

298

(2) Sene-
ca’s possi-
ble know-
ledge of
Christian-
ity.

(3)Hissup-
posed con-

ST PAUL AND SENECA.

more widely felt than any other throughout the civilized world.
I have already ventured to ascribe the intense moral earnestness of
the Stoics to their Eastern origin. It would be no extravagant
assumption that they also owed some ethical maxims and some
theological terms (though certainly not their main doctrines) directly
or indirectly to the flourishing Jewish schools of their age, founded
on the teaching of the Old Testament. The exaggerations of the
early Christian fathers, who set down all the loftier sentiments of
the Greek philosophers as plagiarisms from the lawgiver or the
prophets, have’ cast suspicion on any such affiliation: but we should
not allow ourselves to be blinded by reactionary prejudices to the
possibilities or rather the probabilities in the case before us.

2. The consideration which I have just advanced will explain
many coincidences: but we may proceed a step further. Is it
impossible, or rather is it improbable, that Seneca was acquainted
with the teaching of the Gospel in some rudimentary form? His
silence about Christianity proves nothing, because it proves too
much. If an appreciable part of the lower population of Rome
had become Christians some few years before Seneca’s death’, if the
Gospel claimed converts within the very palace walls’, if a few
(probably not more than a few) even in the higher grades of society,
like Pomponia Greecina*, had adopted the new faith, his acquaintance
with its main facts is at least a very tenable supposition. If his
own account may be trusted, he made a practice of dining with his
slaves and engaging them in familiar conversation*; so that the
avenues of information open to him were manifold’. His acquaint-
ance with any written documents of Christianity is less probable ;
but of the oral Gospel, as repeated from the lips of slaves and others,
he might at least have had an accidental and fragmentary know-
ledge. This supposition would explain the coincidences with the
Sermon on the Mount and with the parables of our Lord, if they
are clear and numerous enough to demand an explanation.

3. But the legend goes beyond this, and connects Seneca directly

1 See above, p. 17 sq., 25. 6, quoted Friedlander, 111. p. 535) men-
3 Phil. iv. 22; see p. 169 sq. tions one M. Anneus Paulus Petrus,
3 See above, p. 21. obviously a Christian. Was he de-
4 Ep. Mor. xlvii. scended from some freedman of Sene-

5 An early inscription at Ostia (de ca’s house?
Rossi Bull. de Archeol. Crist. 1867, p.

ST PAUL AND SENECA. 299

with St Paul. The Stoic philosopher is supposed to be included nexion
among the ‘members of Czesar’s household’ mentioned in one of the bee ον
Apostle’s letters from Rome. The legend itself however has no value
as independent evidence. The coincidences noted above would suggest
it, and the forged correspondence would fix and substantiate it. We
are therefore thrown back on the probabilities of the case; and it
must be confessed that, when we examine the Aposile’s history
with a view to tracing a historical connexion, the result is not
very encouraging. St Paul, it is true, when at Corinth, was brought
_ before Seneca’s brother Gallio, to whom the philosopher dedicates Gallio.
more than one work and of whom he speaks in tenderly affectionate
language’; but Gallio, who ‘cared for none of these_things,’ to
whom the questions at issue between St Paul and his accusers
were merely idle and frivolous disputes about obscure national
customs’, would be little likely to bestow a serious thought upon
a case apparently so unimportant, still less likely to communi-
cate his experiences to his brother in Rome. Again it may be
urged that as St Paul on his arrival in Rome was delivered to
Burrus the prefect of the pretorian guards*, the intimate friend Burrus.
of Seneca, it might be expected that some communication between
the Apostle and the. philosopher would be established in this way.
Yet, if we reflect that the pretorian prefect must yearly have been
receiving hundreds of prisoners from the different provinces, that
St Paul himself was only one of several committed to his guardian-
ship at the same time, that the interview of this supreme magistrate
with any individual prisoner must have been purely formal, that
from his position and character Burrus was little likely to discrimi-
nate between St Paul’s case and any other, and finally that he
appears to have died not very long after the Apostle’s arrival in
Rome*, we shall see very little cause to lay stress on such a supposi-
tion. Lastly; it is said that, when St Paul was brought before Nero Nero.
for trial, Seneca must have been present as the Emperor’s adviser,
and being present must have interested himself in the religious
opinions of so remarkable a prisoner. But here again we have only

1 Nat. Qu. iv. pref. § 10 ‘Gallionem comp. Ep. Mor. civ. ‘Domini mei Gal-
fratrem meum quem nemo non parum _Jionis.’
amat, etiam qui amare plus non potest,’ 2 Acts xvill. 14, 45.

and again § 11 ‘Nemo mortalium uni 3 See above, p. 7 84.
tam dulcis est, quam hic omnibus’: | * See above, pp. 5, 8, 38.

Summary
of results.

Stoicism,
like Alex-
andrian
Judaism,
a prepara-
tion forthe
Gospel.

ST PAUL AND SENECA.

a series of assumptions more or less probable. It is not known under
what circumstances and in whose presence such a trial would take
place; it is very far from certain that St Paul’s case came on before
Seneca had retired from the court; and it is questionable whether
amid the formalities of the trial there would have been the oppor-
tunity, even if there were the will, to enter into questions of religious
or philosophical interest. On the whole therefore it must be con-
fessed that no great stress can be laid on the direct historical links
which might connect Seneca with the Apostle of the Gentiles.

I have hitherto investigated the historical circumstances which
might explain any coincidences of language or thought as arising out
of obligations on the part of Seneca or of his Stoic predecessors. It
has been seen that the teachers of this school generally were in all
likelihood indebted to Oriental, if not to Jewish, sources for their re-
ligious vocabulary ; that Seneca himself not improbably had a vague
and partial acquaintance with Christianity, though he was certainly
anything but a Christian himself; and that his personal intercourse
with the Apostle of the Gentiles, though not substantiated, is at least
not an impossibility. How far the coincidences may be ascribed to
one or other of these causes, I shall not attempt to discriminate ; but
there is also another aspect of the question which must not be put
out of sight. In some instances at least, if any obligation exist at
all, it cannot be on the side of the philosopher, for the chronology
resists this inference: and for these cases some other solution must be
found.

As the speculations of Alexandrian Judaism had elaborated a new
and important theological vocabulary, so also to the language of Sto-
icism, which itself likewise had sprung from the union of the religious
sentiment of the East with the philosophical thought of the West,
was due an equally remarkable development of moral terms and
images. To the Gospel which was announced to the world in ‘the
fulness of time,’ both the one and the other paid their tribute. As
St John (nor St John alone) adopted the terms of Alexandrian theo-
sophy as the least inadequate to express the highest doctrines of
Christianity, so St Paul (nor St Paul alone) found in the ethical lan-
guage of the Stoics expressions more fit than he could find elsewhere

ST PAUL AND SENECA. 301

to describe in certain aspects the duties and privileges, the struggles
and the triumphs, of the Christian life. But though the words and
symbols remained substantially the same, yet in their application
they became instinct with new force and meaning. This change in
either case they owed to their being placed in relation to the central
fact of Christianity, the Incarnation of the Son. The Alexandrian
terms, expressing the attributes and operations of the Divine Word,
which in their origin had a purely metaphysical bearing, were trans-
lated into the sphere of practical theology, when God had descended
among men to lift up men to God. The Stoic expressions, describing
the independence of the individual spirit, the subjugation of the un-
ruly passions, the universal empire of a triumphant self-control, the
cosmopolitan relations of the wise man, were quickened into new life,
when an unfailing source of strength and a boundless hope of victory
had been revealed in the Gospel, when all men were proclaimed to be
brothers, and each and every man united with God in Christ.
It is difficult to estimate, and perhaps not very easy to overrate, Wide in-
the extent to which Stoic philosophy- had leavened the moral vocabu- quero gt

the ethical
lary of the civilised world at the time of the Christian era. To take language

a single instance; the most important of moral terms, the crowning pal
triumph of ethical nomenclature, συνείδησις, conscientia, the inter-

nal, absolute, supreme judge of individual action, if not struck in the

mint of the Stoics, at all events became current coin through their
influence. To a great extent therefore the general diffusion of Stoic
language would lead to its adoption by the first teachers of Chris-
tianity; while at the same time in St Paul’s own case personal cir-
cumstances might have led to a closer acquaintance with the diction

of this school.

Tarsus, the birth-place and constant home of St Paul, was at this Stoicism
time a most important, if not the foremost, seat of Greek learning. at Tae
Of all the philosophical schools, the Stoic was the most numerously
and ably represented at this great centre. Its geographical position,
as a half-way house, had doubtless some influence in recommending it
to a philosophy which had its birth-place in the East and grew into
maturity in the West. At all events we may count up six or more‘

1 Strabo (xiv. 13, 14. p. 673 sq.) named Cordylion,and Athenodorus son
mentions five by name, Antipater, Ar- of Sandon. To these may be added
chedemus, Nestor, Athenodorus sur- Zeno (Zeller, p. 40: Diog. Laert. vii.

St Paul’s
acquaint-
ance with
Stoic
teaching.

Two in-
stances
given.

Ι. The
portrait of
the wise
man.

ST PAUL AND SENECA.

well-known Stoic teachers whose home was at Tarsus, besides Chry-
sippus and Aratus who came from the neighbouring Soli’, and three
If St Paul’s

early education was Jewish, he was at least instructed by the most

others who resided at Mallos, also a Cilician town’.

liberal teacher of the day, who, unlike his stricter countrymen and
contemporaries, had no dread of Greek learning; and during his
repeated and lengthened sojourns in Tarsus, he must have come in
contact with Stoic maxims and dogmas. But indeed it is not mere
conjecture, that St Paul had some acquaintance with the teachers or
the writings of this school. The speech on the Areopagus, addressed
partly to Stoics, shows a clear appreciation of the elements of truth
contained in their philosophy, and a studied coincidence with their
modes of expression*. Its one quotation moreover is taken from a
Stoic writing, the hymn of Cleanthes, the noblest expression of hea-
then devotion which Greek literature has preserved to us‘.

And I think we may find occasionally also in St Paul’s epistles
sufficiently distinct traces of the influence of Stoic diction. A few
instances are set down in the notes to this epistle. Many more
might be gathered from his other letters, especially the Pastoral Epi-
stles. But I will content myself with giving two broad examples,
where the characteristic common-places of Stoic morality seem to be
adopted and transfigured in the language of the Christian Apostle.

1. The portrait of the wise man, the ideal of Stoic aspiration,
has very distinct and peculiar features—so peculiar that they pre-
sented an easy butt for the ridicule of antagonists. It is his promi-
nent characteristic that he is sufficient in himself, that he wants

35 enumerates eight of the name), and
Heracleides (Zeller,p. 43). Of Atheno-
dorus son of Sandon, Strabo adds ὃν
καὶ Kavavirny φασὶν ἀπὸ κώμης τινός.
If Strabo’s explanation of Ἱζανανίτης be
correct, the coincidence with a surname
of one of the Twelve Apostles is acci-
dental. But one is tempted to suspect
that the word had a Shemitic origin.

1 The fathers of both these famous
men appear to have migrated from
Tarsus. For Chrysippus see Strabo xiv.
8, p. 671; of Aratus we are told that
Asclepiades Ταρσέα φησὶν αὐτὸν γεγονέ-
vat ἀλλ᾽ οὐ Σολέα (Arati Opera τι. p. 429
ed. Buhle).

2 Crates (Zeller, p. 42), the two Pro-
cluses (ib. p. 615).

3 See above, p. 288.

4 Acts xvii. 28. The words in Clean-
thes are ἐκ σοῦ yap γένος ἐσμέν. The
quotation of St Paul agrees exactly
with a half-line in Aratus another Stoic
poet, connected with his native Tarsus,
τοῦ yap καὶ γένος ἐσμέν. Since the
Apostle introduces the words as quoted
from some of their own poets, he would
seem to have both passages in view.
By οἱ καθ᾽ ὑμᾶς ποιηταὶ he probably
means the poets belonging to the same
school as his Stoie audience.

ST PAUL AND SENECA. 303

nothing, that he possesses everything. This topic is expanded with a
fervour and energy which often oversteps the proper bounds of Stoic
calm. The wise man alone is free: he alone is happy: he alone is
beautiful. He and he only possesses absolute wealth. He is the
true king and the true priest’.

Now may we not say that this image has suggested many expres-
sions to the Apostle of the Gentiles? ‘Hven now are ye full,’ he 1Cor.iy. 8.
exclaims in impassioned irony to the Corinthians, ‘even now are ye
rich, even now are ye made kings without us’: ‘we are fools for 1Cor.iv.1o.
Christ, but ye are wise in Christ: we are weak, but ye are strong:
ye are glorious, but we are dishonoured.’ ‘ All things are yours,” he τ Cor. iii.
says elsewhere, ‘all things are yours, and ye are Christ’s, and Christ *” 7%
is God’s.’ So too he describes himself and the other Apostles, ‘As 2 Cor. vi.
being grieved, yet always rejoicing; as beggars, yet making many rich ; ns
as having nothing, and yet possessing all things.’ ‘In every thing 2 Cor. ix.
at every time having every self-sufficiency (αὐτάρκειαν)... ἴῃ every thing Sik:
being enriched.’ ‘I have learnt,’ he says again, ‘in whatsoever circum- Phil. iv.rr,
stances I am, to be self-sufficing. I have all strength in Him that ** τὴ
giveth me power. I have all things to the full and to overflowing.’

If the coincidence of imagery in these passages is remarkable, Coinci-

. dence and

the contrast of sentiment is not less striking. This universal domi- .jitrast

nion, this boundless inheritance, is promised alike by the Stoic a ΠΣ ἢ
philosopher to the wise man and by the Christian Apostle to the Paul’scon-
believer. But the one must attain it by self-isolation, the other by SOEs
incorporation. The essential requisite in the former case is a proud
independence ; in the latter an entire reliance on, and intimate union

with, an unseen power. It is ἐν τῷ ἐνδυναμοῦντι that the faithful

becomes all-sufficient, all-powerful; it is ἐν Χριστῷ that he is crowned

a king and consecrated a priest. All things are his, but they are

only his, in so far as he is Christ’s and because Christ is God’s.

Here and here only the Apostle found the realisation of the proud

ideal which the chief philosophers of his native Tarsus had sketched

in such bold outline and painted in these brilliant colours.

2. The instance just given relates to the development of the 2. The cos-
individual man. The example which I shall next take expresses na
1 See esp. Seneca de Benef. vil. 3,4, 3. 124 84.) will be remembered, See
6, 10, Ep. Mor. ix. Compare Zeller, also the passages from Plutarch quoted
p. 231. Theridicule of Horace (Sat.1. in Orelli’s Excursus (11. p. 67).

304 ST PAUL AND SENECA.

of the

The cosmopolitan tenets of the
Stoics

his widest relations to others.
Stoics have been already mentioned. They grew out of the history
of one age and were interpreted by the history of another. Nega-
tively they were suggested by the hopeless state of politics under
the successors of Alexander. Positively they were realised, or
rather represented, by the condition of the world under the Roman
Empire’. In the age of the Seleucids and Ptolemies, when the
old national barriers had been overthrown, and petty states with
all their interests and ambitions had crumbled into the dust, the
longing eye of the Greek philosopher wandered over the ruinous
waste, until his range of view expanded to the ideal of a world-wide
state, which for the first time became a possibility to his intellectual

Α few

generations passed, and the wide extension of the Roman Empire,

vision, when it became also a want to his social instinets.

the far-reaching protectorate of the Roman franchise*, seemed to
give a definite meaning, a concrete form, in some sense a local
habitation, to this idea which the Stoic philosopher of Greece had
meanwhile transmitted to the Stoic moralist of Rome.

The language of Seneca well illustrates the nature of this cosmo-
‘All this, which thou seest, in which are comprised

illustrated
by the
language
of Seneca.

politan ideal.
things human and divine, is one. We are members of a vast body.
Nature made us kin, when she produced us from the same things
and to the same ends*.’ ‘I will look upon all lands as belonging
to me, and my own lands as belonging to all. I will so live as if
I knew that Iam born for others, and on this account f£ will give
thanks to nature...She gave me alone to all men and all men to me
alone*.” ‘I well know that the world is my country and the gods

its rulers; that they stand above me and about me, the censors of

my deeds and words’.’

1 Plutarch (Op. Mor. p. 329 B) says
that Alexander himself realised this
ideal of a world-wide polity, which Zeno
only delineated as a dream or a phan-
tom (ὥσπερ ὄναρ ἢ εἴδωλον ἀνατυπωσά-
μενος). If Plutarch’s statement be cor-
rect that Alexander looked upon him-
self as entrusted with a divine mission
to ‘reconcile the whole world,’ he cer-
tainly had the conception in his mind;
but his actual work was only the be-
ginning of the end, and the realisation

‘Seeing that we assigned to the wise man

of the idea (so far as it was destined to
be realised) was reserved for the Ro-
mans. ‘Fecisti patriam diversis gen-
tibus unam,’ ‘ Urbem fecisti quod prius
orbis erat,’ says a later poet addressing
the emperor of his day; Rutil. de Red.
i. 63, 66. ;

2 See Cicero pro Balb. 13, Verr. v.
57, 65.

3 Ep. Mor. ΣΟΥ. 52.

4 de Vit. beat. 20.

5 ibid.

ST PAUL AND SENECA. 305

a commonwealth worthy of him, I mean the world, he is not beyond
the borders of his commonwealth, even though he has gone into
retirement. Nay, perhaps he has left one corner of it and passed
into a Jarger and ampler region; and raised above the heavens he
understands (at length) how lowly he was seated when he mounted
the chair of state or the bench of justice’’ ‘ Let us embrace in our
thoughts two commonwealths, the one vast and truly named
common, in which are comprised gods and men, in which we
look not to this corner or to that, but we measure the boundaries
of our state with the sun; the other, to which the circumstances
of our birth have assigned us’.’ ‘Virtue is barred to none: she
is open to all, she receives all, she invites all, gentlefolk, freed-
men, slaves, kings, exiles alike*®.’ ‘Nature bids me assist men; and
whether they be bond or free, whether gentlefolk or freedmen,
whether they enjoy liberty as a right or as a friendly gift, what
matter? Wherever a man is, there is room for doing good*” ‘This
mind may belong as well to a Roman knight, as to a freedman, as —
to a slave: for what is a Roman knight or a freedman or a slave?
Names which had their origin in ambition or injustice’.’

Did St Paul speak quite independently of this Stoic imagery, {ts Chris-
when the vision of a nobler polity rose before him, the revelation tian coun-

f Ν ‘ terpart in
of a city not made with hands, eternal in the heavens? Is there the hea-
venly citi-
zenship of
more striking because it clothes an idea in many respects very St Paul.

not a strange coincidence in his language—a coincidence only the

different? ‘Our citizenship is in heaven.’ ‘God raised us with Phil.iii.20.
Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ τοῦτον
Jesus.’ ‘Therefore ye are no more strangers and sojourners, but Ephes. ii.
fellow-citizens with the saints and members of God’s household.’ '%

‘Fulfil your duties as citizens worthily of the Gospel of Christ.’ Phil. i. 27.
‘We being many are one body in Christ, and members one of Rom. xii.
another.’ ‘For as the body is one and hath many members, and all 2) Can aaa
the members of the body being many are one body, so also is 1% 13, 27-
Christ: for we all are baptized in one Spirit into one body, whether [Ephes.iv.

Jews or Greeks, whether bond or free. Ye are the body of Christ 75 δ΄ 30.

1 Ep. Mor. \xviii. 3 de Benef. iii. 18.
2 de Otio 4 (31). ‘Glaubt man hier 4 de Vit. beat. 24.
nicht,’ asks Zeller (p. 275), ‘fast Au- 5 Ep. Mor. xxxi. 11.

gustin De Civitate Dei zu héren?’
PHIL. 20

306

Gal. iii. 28.

(ΣΟΙ π΄.

Summary.

Christiani-
ty andStoi-
cism com-
pared.

ST PAUL AND SENECA.

and members in particular.’ ‘There is neither Jew nor Greek ;
there is neither bond nor free; there is no male and female: for ye
all are one in Christ Jesus.’ ‘Not Greek and Jew, circumcision and
uncireumcision, barbarian, Scythian, bond, free: but Christ is all
things and in all’’

Here again, though the images are the same, the idea is trans-
figured and glorified. At length the bond of coherence, the missing
As in the

former case, so here the magic words ἐν Χριστῷ have produced the

principle of universal brotherhood, has been found.
change and realised the conception. A living soul has been breathed
into the marble statue by Christianity; and thus from the ‘much
admired polity of Zeno”’ arises the Civitas Dei of St Augustine.

Tt has been the aim of the investigation just concluded to point
out how far the coincidences between Seneca and St Paul are real,
and how far fallacious; to show that these coincidences may in some —
cases be explained by the natural and independent development of
religious thought, while in others a historical connexion seems to be
required; and to indicate generally the different ways im which this
historical connexion was probable or possible, without however at-
tempting to decide by which of several channels the resemblance in
each individual instance was derived.

In conclusion it may be useful to pass from the special connexion
between St Paul and Seneca to the more general relation between
Christianity and Stoicism, and to compare them very briefly in their
principles, their operations, and their results. Stoicism has died
out, having produced during its short lifetime only very transient

1 Ecce Homo p. 136 ‘The city of God,
of which the Stoics doubtfully and
feebly spoke, was now set up before the
eyes of men. It was no unsubstantial
city such as we fancy in the clouds, no
invisible pattern such as Plato thought
might be laid up in heaven, but a visible
corporation whose members met toge-
ther to eat bread and drink wine, and in-
to which they were initiated by bodily
immersion in water. Here the Gentile
met the Jew whom.he had been accus-
tomed to regard as an enemy of the
human race: the Roman met the lying
Greek sophist, the Syrian slave, the

gladiator born beside the Danube.
brotherhood they met, the natural birth
and kindred of each forgotten, the bap-
tism alone remembered in which they
have been born again to God and to
each other.’ See the whole context.

2 Plut. Op. Mor. p. 329 7 πολὺ θαυ-
μαζομένη πολιτεία τοῦ THY Στωϊκὴν atpe=
σιν καταβαλομένου Zjvwvos. It is re-
markable that this ideal is described in
the context under a scriptural image, |
els δὲ βίος ἢ καὶ κόσμος, ὥσπερ ἀγέλης συν-
νόμου νομῷ κοινῷ συντρεφομένης : COMP.
Joh. x. τό καὶ γενήσεται μία ποίμνη, els |
ποιμήν.

ST PAUL AND SENECA. 307

and partial effects ; Christianity has become the dominant religion
of the civilised world, and leavened society through its whole mass.
The very coincidences, on which we have been dwelling so long,
throw into relief the contrast between the failure of the one and
the triumph of the other, and stimulate enquiry into the causes of
this difference.
To some it may seem sufficient to reply that the one is a mere The ques-

E ὍΣ ᾿ ee
human philosophy, the other a Divine revelation. ἸΟΙ was

But this answer sue stated.

shelves without solving the problem; for it is equivalent to saying
that the one is partial, defective, and fallacious, while the other is
absolutely true. The question therefore, to which an answer is
sought, may be stated thus: What are those theological and ethical
principles, ignored or denied by Stoicism, and enforced by the Gos-
pel, in which the Divine power of the latter lies, and to which it
owes its empire over the hearts and actions of men? This is a very
wide subject of discussion ; and I shall only attempt to indicate a
Yet even when treated thus
imperfectly, such an investigation ought not to be useless.

few more striking points of contrast.
In an
age when the distinctive characteristics of Christianity are regarded
as a stumbling-block by a few, and more or less consciously ignored
as of little moment by others, it is a matter of vast importance to en-
quire whether the secret of its strength does or does not lie in these ;
and the points at issue cannot be better suggested, than by comparing
it with an abstract system of philosophy so imposing as the Stoic.

Indeed our first wonder is, that from a system so rigorous and Meagre re-
sults of

unflinching in its principles and so heroic in its proportions the di- gioicism

rect results should have been marvellously little. It produced, or at
least it attracted, a few isolated great men: but on the life of the
masses, and on the policy of states, it was almost wholly powerless.

Of the founder and his immediate successors not very much is The older
known; but we are warranted in believing that they were men of Bick
earnest aspirations, of rare self-denial, and for the most part (though
the grossness of their language seems hardly reconcilable with this

view’) of moral and upright lives. Zeno himself indeed cannot be

1 It is impossible to speak with any
confidence on this point. The language

and even complacency the most hateful
forms of heathen impurity (see Plu-

held by Zeno and Chrysippus was gross-
ly licentious, and might be taken to
show that they viewed with indifference

tarch Op. Mor. p. 1044, Clem. Hom. v.
18, Sext. Emp. Pyrrh. iii. 200 sq.).
But it is due to the known character

20---2

308

Stoicism
in Rome.

Its obliga-
tions tothe
East.

Cato the
younger.

ST PAUL AND SENECA.

set down to the credit of the school. He made the philosophy and
But Cleanthes was directly moulded by the
influence of his master’s teaching :

was not made by it.
and for calm perseverance, for
rigorous self-discipline, and for unwavering devotion to a noble
ideal, few characters in the history of Greek philosophy are com-
Yet Cleanthes, like Zeno, died a suicide. The ex-

ample, not less than the precept, of the first teachers of the sect

parable to him.

created a fatal passion for selfmurder, which was the most indelible,
if not the darkest, blot on Stoic morality.

It was not however among the Greeks, to whose national temper
the genius of Stoicism was alien, that this school achieved its proud-
est triumphs. The stern and practical spirit of the Romans offered
a more congenial sphere for its influence. And here again it is
worth observing, that their principal instructors were almost all East-
erns. Posidonius for instance, the familiar friend of many famous
Romans and the most influential missionary of Stoic doctrine in
Rome, was a native of the Syrian Apamea. From this time forward '
it became a common custom for the Roman noble to maintain in
his house some eminent philosopher, as the instructor of his children
and the religious director of himself and his family’; and in this
Thus Cato the

younger had at different times two professors of this sect domesti-

capacity we meet with several Oriental Stoics.

cated in his household, both of Eastern origin, Antipater of Tyre
and Athenodorus of Tarsus’. In Cato himself, whom his contem-
poraries regarded as the ‘most perfect Stoic*, and in whom the sect
at large would probably have recognised its most illustrious repre-

sentative, we have a signal example alike of the virtues and of the

and teaching of these men, that we
should put the most favourable con-
struction on such expressions ; and they
may perhaps be regarded as theoretical
extravagances of language, illustrating
the Stoic doctrine that externals are
indifferent (see Zeller, Ὁ. 261 sq.). Yet
this mode of speaking must have been
highly dangerous to morals ; and the
danger would only be increased by the
fact that such language was held by
men whose characters were justly ad-
mired in other respects.

1 Seneca ad Marc. 4 ‘Consol[atori se]
Areo philosopho viri sui prebuit et mul-

tum eamrem profuisse sibiconfessa est,’
where he is speaking of Livia after the
death of her son Drusus. This philo-
sopher is represented as using the fol-
lowing words in his reply to her: ‘Ego
adsiduus viri tui comes, cui non tantum
qu in publicum emittuntur nota, sed
omnes sunt secretiores animorum ves-
trorum motus.’ For another allusion
to these domestic chaplains of heathen-
dom see de Trang. Anim. 14 *Prosediag
batur illum philosophus suus.’

2 Plutarch Vit. Cat. 4, 10, 16.

3 Cicero Brut. xxxi, Parad. procm. 2.

ST PAUL AND SENECA. 309

defects of the school, Honest, earnest, and courageous even to death, His excel-
lences and

but hard, stolid, impracticable, and almost inhuman, he paralysed gosccis,

the higher qualities of his nature by his wnamiable philosophy, so
that they were rendered almost useless to his generation and country.
A recent Roman historian has described him as ‘one of the most
melancholy phenomena in an age so abounding in political carica-
tures.’ ‘There was more nobility,’ he writes bitterly, ‘and above
all more judgment in the death of Cato than there had been in his
life.” ‘It only elevates the tragic significance of his death that he
was himself a fool’’ Exaggerated as this language may be, it is
yet not wholly without truth; and, were the direct social and poli-
tical results of Cato’s life alone to be regarded, his career must be
pronounced a failure. But in fact his importance lies, not in what
he did, but in what he was. It was a vast gain to humanity, that
in an age of worldly self-seeking, of crooked and fraudulent policy,
of scepticism and infidelity to all right principle, one man held his
ground, stern, unbending, upright to the last. Such a man may
fail, as Cato failed, in all the practical aims of life: but he has left
a valuable legacy to after ages in the staunch assertion of principle ;
he has bequeathed to them a fructifying estate, not the less produc-
tive because its richest harvests must be reaped by generations yet
unborn. Cato was the true type of Stoicism in its striking excel-

lence, as in its hopeless weakness. The later Roman Stoics are Later Ro
man Sto-

feeble copies, more or less conscious, of Cato. Like him, they were ἘΣ

hard, impracticable, perverse, studiously antagonistic to the prevail-
ing spirit or the dominant power of their age: but, like him also,
they were living protests, when protests were most needed, against
the dishonesty and corruption of the times; and their fearless demean-
our was felt as a standing reproach alike to the profligate despot-
ism of the ruler and to the mean and cringing flattery of the sub-
ject. Yet it is mournful to reflect how much greater might have
been the influence of men like Thrasea Peetus and Helvidius Priscus
on their generation, if their strict integrity had been allied to a more
sympathetic creed.

In these men however there was an earnest singleness of pur-
pose, which may condone many faults. Unhappily the saine cannot
be said of Seneca. We may reject as calumnies the grosser charges Seneca.

ΠῚ Mommsen’s History of Rome, tv. pp. 156, 448 sq. (Eng. trans. ).

310 ST PAUL AND SENECA.

with which the malignity of his enemies has laden his memory; but
enough remains in the admission of his admirers, and more than
enough in the testimony of his own writings, to forfeit his character
His faults. as a high-minded and sincere man. No words are too strong to
condemn the baseness of one who could overwhelm the emperor
Claudius, while living, with the most fulsome and slavish flattery,
and then, when his ashes were scarcely cold, turn upon him and
- poison his memory with the venom of malicious satire’, From this
charge there is no escape; for his extant writings convict him.
We may well refuse to believe, as his enemies asserted, that he coun-
selled the murder of Agrippina; but it seems that he was in some
way implicated with the matricide, and it is quite certain that he
connived at other iniquities of his imperial pupil. We may indig-
nantly repudiate, as we are probably justified in doing, the grave
charges of moral profligacy which were brought against him in his
lifetime, and after his death; but the man who, while condemning, ὦ
can describe at length the grossest forms of impurity (as Seneca does
occasionally) had surely no very sensitive shrinking from sins ‘of
which it is a shame even to speak.’ We may demur to accepting
the account of his enemies, that his wealth was amassed by fraud
and violence; but there is no doubt that, while preaching a lofty
indifference to worldly advantages, he consented to be enriched by a
profligate and unscrupulous tyrant, and that the enormous property
thus accumulated exposed him to the reproaches of his contempo-
raries. A portrait which combines all these features will command
no great respect. Yet, notwithstanding a somewhat obtrusive rhe-
toric, there is in Seneca’s writings an earnestness of purpose, a
yearning after moral perfection, and a constant reference to an ideal
standard, which cannot be mere affectation. He seems to have been
a rigorous ascetic in early life, and to the last to have maintained a
severe self-discipline. Such at least is his own statement; nor is
it unsupported by less partial testimony’.
For all this inconsistency however we must blame not the creed
but the man. He would probably have been much worse, if his
1 The treatise ad Polybium de Conso- οἱ the extravagant panegyric pronounc-
latione would be disgraceful, if it stood ed by Nero over his predecessor (Tac.
alone; but contrasted with the Ludus Ann. xili. 3).

de Morte Claudii it becomes odious. To 2 See Ep. Mor. lxxxvii. 2, eviii. 14;
complete his shame, he was the author comp. Tac. Ann. xiv. 53, XV. 45, 63.

ST PAUL AND SENECA. 211

philosophy had not held up to him a stern ideal for imitation. His own
Is it genuine or affected humility—a palliative or an aggravation fe a:
of his offence—that he himself confesses how far he falls short of this weakness.
ideal? To those taunting enemies of philosophy, who pointing to his
luxury and wealth ask ‘Why do you speak more bravely than you

live?’, he replies: ‘I will add to your reproaches just now, and

I will bring more charges against myself than you think. For the
present I give you this answer: I am not wise, and (to feed your
malevolence) I shall not be wise. Therefore require of me, not that

I should equal the best men, but that I should be better than the

bad. It is enough for me daily to diminish my vices in some de-

gree and to chide my errors.’ ‘These things,’ he adds, ‘I say not

in my own defence, for I am sunk deep in all vices, but in defence

of him who has made some progress'.’ ‘The wise man,’ he writes
apologetically, ‘does not think himself unworthy of any advantages

of fortune. He does not love riches but he prefers them. He
receives them not into his soul but into his house. Nor does he

spurn them when he has them in his possession, but retains them

and desires ampler material for’ his virtue to be furnished thereby”.’

‘T am not now speaking to you of myself,’ he writes to Lucilius,

‘for I fall far short of a moderate, not to say a perfect man, but

of one over whom fortune has lost her power’? Seneca, more than

any man, must have felt the truth of the saying, ‘How hardly shall

they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God*,’

From Seneca it is refreshing to turn to Epictetus. The lame Epictetus,
slave of Epaphroditus is a far nobler type of Stoic discipline than the
wealthy courtier of Epaphroditus’ master. Here at all events, we
feel instinctively that we have to do with genuine earnestness. His
motto ‘bear and forbear” inspires his discourses throughout, as it
appears also to have been the guide of his life. But more striking still
is the spirit of piety which pervades his thoughts. ‘When ye have
shut the doors,’ he says, ‘and have made all dark within, remem-

1 de Vit. beat. 17; comp. ad Helv. _ tion in the letters to Lucilius seems

Matr. 5. exaggerated. I wish I could take as
2 de Vit. beat. 21. favourable a view of Seneca’s character
3 Ep. Mor. lvii. 3. as this writer does.
4 The account of Seneca in Martha’s 5 ἀνέχου καὶ ἀπέχου, Aul. Gell. xvii.

Moralistes p.1 sq.iswellworth reading, το, where the words are explained.
though the idea of the spiritual direc- APs ze

312

Expres-
sions of
piety inhis
writings,

ST PAUL AND SENECA,

ber never to say that ye are alone, for ye are not; but God is within
and so is your angel (δαίμων) ; and what need of light have these to
see what ye do? To this God ye also ought to swear allegiance, as
soldiers do to Cesar’.’ ‘If we had sense, ought we to do anything
else both in public and in private but praise and honour the divine
being (τὸ θεῖον) and recount his favours ?...... What then? Since ye,
the many, are blinded, should there not be some one to fill this
station and to sing for all men the hymn to God? For what else
can I, a lame old man, do but sing hymns to Ged? Nay, if I were
a nightingale, I had done the work of a nightingale; if a swan, the
work of a swan. So being what I am, a rational creature, I must sing
hymns to God. This is my task, and I perform it; nor will I ever
desert this post, so far as it is vouchsafed me: and you I exhort to

join in this same song®.’ ‘How then dost thou appear? As a witness
What witness

L am in wreiched plight, O Lord, and I am

called by God: Come thou and bear witness to me...
dost thou bear to God?
miserable; no one cares for me, no one gives me anything ; all men
blame me, all men speak ill of me. Wilt thou bear this witness, and
disgrace the calling wherewith He hath called thee, for that He ho-
noured thee and held thee worthy to be brought forward as a witness
in this great cause*?’ ‘When thou goest to visit any great person,
remember that Another also above seeth what is done, and that thou
‘Thou art an off-
shoot (ἀπόσπασμα) of God; thou hast some part of Him in thyself,
Why therefore dost thou not perceive thy noble birth? Why dost
Thou bearest God about
Thinkest
thou that 1 mean some god of silver or gold, without thee? Within
thyself thou bearest ‘Him, and thou dost not feel that thou art
defiling Him with thy impure thoughts and thy filthy deeds. If

oughtest to please Him rather than this one’*,’

thou not know whence thou art come?
with thee, wretched man, and thou dost not perceive it.

1 Diss. i. 14. 13 8q.; comp. Matt.
ΣΧ. 21-

a IOVS 1: WOE i Elie

3 Diss. i. 29. 46 sq. The words τὴν
κλῆσιν ἣν κέκληκεν appear from the
context to refer to citing witnesses, but
they recall a familiar expression of St
Paul; 1 Cor. vii. 20, Ephes. iv. 1, comp.
2 Tim.i. 9. The address Κύριε, used
in prayer to God, is frequent in Epic-

tetus, but does not occur (so far as I am
aware) in any heathen writing before
the Apostolic times. Sometimes we
find Κύριε ὁ Θεός, and once he writes
Κύριε ἐλέησον (11. 7. 12). It is worth
noting that all the three cities where
Epictetus is known to have lived—
Hierapolis, Rome, Nicopolis—occur in
the history of St Paul.
SDisesi. sor

ST PAUL AND SENECA.

an image of God were present, thou wouldest not dare to do any of
these things which thou doest: but, God Himself being present
within thee, and overlooking and overhearing all, thou art not
ashamed to think and to do these things, O man, insensible of thine
own nature, and visited with the wrath of God’. ‘Remember that
thou art a son. What profession is due to this character? To
consider all that belongs to Him as belonging to a father, to obey
Him in all things, never to complain of Him to any one, nor to say
or do anything hurtful to Him, to yield and give way to Him in all
things, working with Him to the utmost of thy power.’ ‘Dare to
look up to God and say, Use me henceforth whereunto thou wilt,
I consent unto Thee, [am Thine. I shrink from nothing that seem-
eth good to Thee. Lead me where Thou wilt: clothe me with what
garments Thou wilt. Wouldest Thou that I should be in office or
out of office, should live at home or in exile, should be rich or poor?
I will defend Thee for all these things before men*.’ ‘These (vices)
thou canst not cast out otherwise than by looking to God alone, by
setting thine affections (προσπεπονθότα) on Him alone, by being con-
secrated to His commands*.’ ‘When thou hast heard these words,
O young man, go thy way and say to thyself, It is not Epictetus who
has told me these things (for whence did he come by them ?), but
some kind God speaking through him. For it would never have
entered into the heart of Epictetus to say these things, seeing it is
not his wont to speak (so) to any man. Come then, let us obey
God, lest God’s wrath fall upon us (ἵνα py θεοχόλωτοι ὦμεν"). «Thus
much I can tell thee now, that he, who setteth his hand to so
great a matter without God, calls down God’s wrath and does
but desire to behave himself unseemly in public. For neither in
a well-ordered household does any one come forward and say to
himself J must be steward. Else the master, observing him and
seeing him giving his orders insolently, drags him off to be scourged.
So it happens also in this great city (of the world), for here too
there is a householder, who ordereth everything’. ‘The cynic (i.e.

1 Diss. ii. 8. 11 sq. We are reminded 4 Diss. ii. 16. 46.
of the surname θεοφόρος, borne by a D 7) 185. 11. τὸ S46) Sle
Christian contemporary of Epictetus § Diss. iii. 22. 2 sq. The passage
and by many later Christian saints. bears a strong resemblance to our
2 Diss, ii. 10. 7. Lord’s parable in Matt. xxiv. 45 sq.,

2 Diss. 11. 16. 42. Luke xii. 41 sq. The expressions, ὁ

313

314 ST PAUL AND SENECA.

the true philosopher) ought to know that he is sent a messenger
ἘΠῚ

must be wholly given without distraction to the service of God,

from God to men, to show them concerning good and evil’.

free to converse with mankind, not tied down by private duties, nor
entangled in relations, which if he transgresses, he will no longer
keep the character of a noble and good man, and if he observes,
he will fail in his part as the messenger and watchman and herald

of the gods*’

Improved The genuine piety of these passages is a remarkable contrast to
ee the arrogance and blasphemy in which the older Stoics. sometimes

logy. indulged and which even Seneca repeats. with approval*. Stoic
theology, as represented by Epictetus, is fast wiping away its re-
proach ; but in so doing it has almost ceased to be Stoic. The pan-
theistic creed, which identifies God with the world, is kept in the
background ; and by this subordination greater room is left for the
expansion of true reverence. On the other hand (to pass over graver
defects in his system) he has not yet emancipated himself from the
austerity and isolation of Stoical ethics. There still remains a
hardness and want of sympathy about his moral teaching, which
betrays its parentage. But enough has been said to account for the
fact that the remains of Epictetus have found a place in the library
of the Church, and that the most pious and thoughtful Christian
divines have listened with admiration to his devout utterances*.

whole passage should be read. Epicte-
tus appears throughout to be treading
in the footsteps of St Paul. His words,

οἰκονόμος, ὁ κύριος, ὁ οἰκοδεσπότης, OCCUr
in both the philosopher and the Evan-
gelists. Moreover the word ἔτεμεν in

Epictetus corresponds to διχοτομήσει
in the Gospels, and in both words the
difficulty of interpretation is the same.
I can hardly believe that so strange a
coincidence is quite accidental. Com-
bined with the numerous parallels in
Seneca’s writings collected above (p.
281 sq.), it favours the supposition that
our Lord’s discourses in some form or
other were early known to heathen
writers. For other coincidences more
or less close see i. 9. 19,1. 25. 10,1. 29.
31, i 21. 16, {Π|- 22:25} ἵν 1 7oer
δ᾽ ἀγγαρεία ἢ κιτ.λ., comp. Matt.
γ ὙΠ) SI, 8: 30:

1 Diss. ili. 22, 23.

2 Diss. iii. 22.69. Ihave only been
able to give short extracts, but the

ἀπερίσπαστον εἷναι det ὅλον πρὸς TH δια-
κονίᾳ τοῦ Θεοῦ, correspond to the Apo-
stle’s expression, εὐπάρεδρον τῷ Κυρίῳ
ἀπερισπάστως (t Cor. vil. 35), and the
reason given for remaining unmarried
is the same. Another close coincidence
with St Paul is ὃ μὲν θέλει οὐ ποιεῖ (11.
26. τ). Again such phrases as νομίμως
ἀθλεῖν (111. το. 8), γράμματα συστατικά
(ii. 3. 1), ταῦτα μελέτα (iv. I. 170), οὐκ
εἰμὶ ἐλεύθερος ; (ill. 22. 48), recall the
Apostle’s language. Other Scriptural
expressions also occur, such as Θεοῦ
ζηλωτής (11. 14. 13), τροφὴ στερεωτέρα
(ii. 16, 39), ete.

3 See above p. 293.

4 ‘Epictetus seems as if he had come
after or before his time; too late for

ST PAUL AND SENECA. 315

As Epictetus gives a higher tone to the theology of the school, M. Aureli-
so the writings of M. Aurelius manifest an improvement in its a:
ethical teaching. The manifold opportunities of his position would
cherish in an emperor naturally humane and sensitive wider sym-
pathies, than were possible to a lame old man born and bred a slave,
whom cruel treatment had estranged from his kind and who was Improved
still further isolated by his bodily infirmity. At all events it is in one
this point, and perhaps in this alone, that the meditations of M. morality.
Aurelius impress us more favourably than the discourses of Epicte-
tus. As a conscious witness of God and a stern preacher of right-
eousness, the Phrygian slave holds a higher place: but as a kindly
philanthropist, conscientiously alive to the claims of all men far and
In him, for the

first and last time in the history of the school, the cosmopolitan

near, the Roman emperor commands deeper respect.

sympathies, with which the Stoic invested his wise man, become
more than a mere empty form of rhetoric. His natural disposition
softened the harsher features of Stoical ethics. The brooding melan-
choly and the almost feminine tenderness, which appear in his me-
ditations, are a marked contrast to the hard outlines in the por-
traiture of the older Stoics. Cato was the most perfect type of the
school: but M. Aurelius was the better man, because he was the worse
Stoic. Altogether there is a true beauty and nobleness of character in
this emperor, which the accidents of his position throw into stronger
relief. Beset by all the temptations which unlimited power could
create, and sorely tried in the most intimate and sacred relations of
life—with a profligate wife and an inhuman son—he neither sullied
nor hardened his heart, but remained pure and upright and amiable
to the end, the model of a conscientious if not a wise ruler, and the
best type which heathendom could give of a high-minded gentleman.
With all this it is a more than ‘tragical fact,’ that his justice and his Persecu-

: : : > : 5 A. f th
humanity alike broke down in one essential point, and that by his ΟΕ

philosophy, too early for religion. We
are tempted continually to apply to his
system the hackneyed phrase: It is all
very magnificent, but it is not philoso-
phy—it is too one-sided and careless of
knowledge for its own sake; and it is
not religion—it isinadequateand wants
a basis. Yet for all this, as long as
men appreciate elevated thought, in

direct and genuine language, about
human duties and human improvement,
Epictetus will have much to teach those
who know more than he did both of
philosophy and religion. It is no won-
der that he kindled the enthusiasm of
Pascal or fed the thought of Butler.’
Saturday Review, Vol. xx11. p. 580.

ST PAUL AND SENECA.

bigotry or through his connivance the Christians suffered more widely
and cruelly during his reign than at any other epoch in the first
century and a half of their existence’. Moreover the inherent and
vital defects of the school, after all the modifications it had under-
gone and despite the amiable character of its latest representative,
are still patent. ‘The Stoicism of M. Aurelius gives many of the
moral precepts of the Gospel, but without their foundation, which
can find no place in his system. It is impossible to read his re-
flections without emotion, but they have no creative energy. They
are the last strain of a dying creed’.’
References
to Christi-
anity in
Epictetus

and M. Au-
relius.

It is interesting to note the language in which these two latest
and noblest representatives of Stoicism refer to the Christians. Once
and once only is the now numerous and rapidly growing sect: men-
tioned by either philosopher, and in each case dismissed curtly with
an expression of contempt. ‘Is it possible, asks Epictetus, ‘that a
man may be so disposed under these circumstances from madness, or
from habit like the Galileans, and can no one learn by reason and
demonstration that God has made all things which are in the world*?’
‘This readiness to die,’ writes M. Aurelius, ‘should follow from in-
dividual judgment, not from sheer obstinacy as with the Christians,
but after due consideration and with dignity and without scenic dis-
play (atpaywdws), so as to convince others also*.’ The justice of such
contemptuous allusions may be tested by the simple and touching
narratives of the deaths of this very emperor’s victims, of Polycarp
and the

appeal may confidently be made to the impartial judgment of man-

at Smyrna, and of the Gallic martyrs at Vienne and Lyons:

kind to decide whether there was more scenic display or more
genuine obstinacy in their last moments, than in the much vaunted
suicide of Cato and Cato’s imitators.

1 Martha, Moralistes p. 212, attempts
to defend M. Aurelius against this
charge; but the evidence of a wide
persecution is irresistible. For the mo-
tives which might lead M. Aurelius,
both as a ruler and as a philosopher, to
sanction these cruelties, see Zeller Mar-
cus Aurelius Antoninus in his Vortrdge
p. ror sq. If it were established that
thisemperor hadintimaterelations with
a Jewish rabbi, as has been recently
maintained (M. Aurelius Antoninus als

Freund τι. Zeitgenosse des Rabbi Jehuda
ha-Nasi by A. Bodek, Leipz. 1868; see
Prof. Plumptre in the Contemporary Re-
view Jan. 1869, p. 81 sq.), he would
have an additional motive for his treat-
ment of the Christians; but, to say the
least, the identification of the emperor
is very uncertain.

2 Westcott in Smith’s Dictionary of
the Bible τι. Ὁ. 857, s. Vv. eae

SIDI. ἵν as Ot

. 4 Μ. Anton. xi.. 3.

ST PAUL AND SENECA. 21}

I have spoken of Epictetus and M. Aurelius as Stoics, for so Eclecti-

cism of
the later
other school of philosophy. But their teaching belongs to a type, Stoics.

they regarded themselves ; nor indeed could they be assigned to any

which in many respects would hardly have been recognised by Zeno

or Chrysippus. Stoicism during the Roman period had been first
attaching to itself, and then assimilating, diverse foreign elements,
Platonic, Pythagorean, even Jewish and Christian. In Seneca these

appear, side by side, but distinct; in Epictetus and M. Aurelius they

are more or less fused and blended. Roman Stoicism in fact
presents to us not a picture with clear and definite outlines, but

a dissolving view. It becomes more and more eclectic. The mate-

rialism of its earlier theology gradually recedes; and the mystical
element appears in the foreground’. At length Stoicism fades away; Stoicism
and a new eclectic system, in which mysticism has still greater pre- Cee
dominance, emerges and takes its place. Stoicism has fought the bat- tonism.
tle of heathen philosophy against the Gospel, and been vanquished.

Under the banner of Neoplatonism, and with weapons forged in the
armoury of Christianity itself, the contest is renewed. But the day

of heathendom is past. This new champion also retires from the con-

flict in confusion, and the Gospel remains in possession of the field.

In this attempt to sketch the progress and results of this school, The
I have not travelled beyond a few great names. Nor has any in- βάρ ἀν τς
justice been done to it by this course; for Stoicism has no other PY Stoi-
history, except the history of its leaders. It consisted of isolated
individuals, but it never attracted the masses or formed a com-
munity. It was a staff of professors without classes. This sterility Causes of
must have been due to some inherent vicious principles: and I “πὰ Me
propose now to consider its chief defects, drawing out the contrast
with Christianity at the same time.

1. The fundamental and invincible error of Stoic philosophy τ. Its pan-
was its theological creed. Though frequently disguised in devout a
language which the most sincere believer in a personal God might
have welcomed as expressing his loftiest aspirations, its theology
was nevertheless, as dogmatically expounded by its ablest teachers,
nothing better than a pantheistic materialism. This inconsistency
between the philosophic doctrine and the religious phraseology of

* On the approximation of the later _lius, to Neoplatonism,see Zeller’s Nach-
Stoics, and more especially of M. Aure- —_aristotelische Philosophie 11. p. 201 sq.

318

Hymn of
Cleanthes.

Contradic-
tion be-
tween Sto-
ic dogma
and Stoic
hymuolo-
gy-

ST PAUL AND SENECA.

the Stoics is a remarkable feature, which perhaps may ‘be best
explained by its mixed origin. The theological language would be
derived in great measure from Eastern (I venture to think from
Jewish) affinities, while the philosophical dogma was the product
of Hellenized thought. Heathen devotion seldom or never soars
higher than in the sublime hymn of Cleanthes. ‘Thine offspring
are we,’ so he addresses the Supreme Being, ‘therefore will I hymn
Thy praises and sing Thy might for ever. Thee all this universe
which rolls about the earth obeys, wheresoever Thou dost guide it,
and gladly owns Thy sway.’ ‘No work on earth is wrought apart
from Thee, nor through the vast heavenly sphere, nor in the sea,
save only the deeds which bad men in their folly do.’ ‘ Unhappy
they, who ever craving the possession of good things, yet have no
eyes or ears for the universal law of God, by wise obedience where-
unto they might lead a noble life.’ ‘Do Thou, Father, banish fell
ignorance from our soul, and grant us wisdom, whereon relying Thou
rulest all things with justice, that being honoured, we with honour
may requite Thee, as beseemeth mortal man ; since neither men nor
gods have any nobler task than duly to praise the universal law for
aye'’ If these words might be accepted in their first and obvious
meaning, we could hardly wish for any more sublime and devout
expression of the relations of the creature to his Creator and Father.
But a reference to the doctrinal teaching of the school dispels the
splendid illusion. Stoic dogma empties Stoic hymnology of half its
sublimity and more than half its devoutness, This Father in hea-
ven, we learn, is no personal Being, all righteous and all holy, of
whose loving care the purest love of an earthly parent is but a
shadowy counterfeit. He—or It—is only another name for nature,
for necessity, for fate, for the universe. Just in proportion as the
theological doctrine of the school is realised, does its liturgical lan-
guage appear forced and unnatural. Terms derived from human
relationships are confessedly very feeble and inadequate at best to
express the person and attributes of God; but only a mind prepared
by an artificial training could use such language as I have quoted
with the meaning which it is intended to bear. To simple people
it would be impossible to address fate or necessity or universal

1 Fragm. Philos. Grec. τ. p. 151 (ed. Mullach).

ST PAUL AND SENECA.

nature, as a Father, or to express towards it feelings of filial obe-

dience and love.

ω
4
\O

And with the belief in a Personal Being, as has been already No con-

remarked, the sense of sin also will stand or fall’. Where this
belief is absent, error or wrong-doing may be condemned from two
points of view, irrespective of its consequences and on grounds of
independent morality. It may be regarded as a defiance of the
law of our being, or it may be deprecated as a violation of the
principles of beauty and propriety implanted in the mind. In other
words it may be condemned either from physical or from esthetic
considerations. The former aspect is especially common with the
Stoics, for indeed conformity with nature is the groundwork of
Stoical ethics. The latter appears occasionally, though this point
of view is characteristic rather of the Academy than of the Porch.
These are important subsidiary aids to ethical teaching, and should
not be neglected: but the consciousness of sin, as sin, is distinct
from both. Jt is only possible where there is a clear sense of a
personal relation to a Personal Being, whom we are bound to love
and obey, whose will must be the law of our lives and should be
the joy of our hearts. Here again the Stoic’s language is treacher-
ous. He can talk of sin, just as he can talk of God his Father.
But so long as he is true to his dogma, he uses terms here, as before,
in a non-natural sense. Only so far as he deserts the theological
standing-ground of his school (and there is much of this happy
inconsistency in the great Stoic teachers), does he attain to such
an apprehension of the ‘exceeding sinfulness of sin’ as enables him
to probe the depths of the human conscience.

2. When we turn from the theology to the ethics of the Stoical
school, we find defects not less vital in its teaching. Here again
Stoicism presents in itself a startling and irreconcilable contra-
diction. The fundamental Stoic maxim of conformity to nature,
though involving great difficulties in its practical application, might
at all events have afforded a starting-point for a reasonable ethical
code. Yet it is hardly too much to say that no system of morals,
which the wit of man has ever devised, assumes an attitude so
fiercely defiant of nature as this. It is mere folly to maintain that
pain and privation are no evils. The paradox must defeat its own

1 See above, p. 294.

sciousness
of sin.

2. Defects
in Stoical
ethics.

Defiance
of nature.

Want of
sympathy.

Stoicism
exclusive
and not
proselytiz-
ing.

3. No dis-
tinct belief
in man’s
immor-
tality.

ST PAUL AND SENECA.

ends. True religion, like true philosophy, concedes the point, and
sets itself to counteract, to reduce, to minimise them. Our Lord
‘divides himself at once from the ascetic and the Stoic. They had
said, Make yourselves independent of bodily comforts: he says, Ye
have need of these things’.’ . Christianity itself also preaches an
αὐτάρκεια, a moral independence, but its preaching starts from a due
recognition of the facts of human life.

And, while Stoicism is thus paradoxical towards the individual,
its view of the mutual relations between man and man is a still
greater outrage on humanity. ‘In every age the Christian temper
has shivered at the touch of Stoic apathy’.’ Pity, anger, love—all
the most powerful social impulses of our nature—are ignored by
the Stoic, or at least recognised only to be crushed. There is no
attempt to chasten or to guide these affections: they must simply be
rooted out. The Stoic ideal is stern, impassive, immovable. As a
natural consequence, the genuine Stoic is isolated and selfish: he
feels no sympathy with others, and therefore he excites no sympathy
in others. Any wide extension of Stoicism was thus rendered im-
possible by its inherent repulsiveness. It took a firm hold on a
few solitary spirits, but it was wholly powerless with the masses.

Nor indeed can it be said in this respect to have failed in its
aim. The true Stoic was too self-contained, too indifferent to the
condition of others, to concern himself whether the tenets of his
school made many proselytes or few. He wrapped himself up in his
self-conceit, declared the world to be mad, and gave himself no more
trouble about the matter. His avowal of cosmopolitan principles,
his tenet of religious equality, became inoperative, because the springs
of sympathy, which alone could make them effective, had been frozen
at their source. Where enthusiasm is a weakness and love a delusion,
such professions must necessarily be empty verbiage. The temper of
Stoicism was essentially aristocratic and exclusive in religion, as it
was in politics. While professing the largest comprehension, it was
practically the narrowest of all philosophical castes.

3. Though older philosophers had speculated on the immortality
of the soul, and though the belief had been encouraged by some
schools of moralists as supplying a most powerful motive for well-
doing, yet still it remained for the heathen a vague theory, unascer-

1 Ecce Homo Ὁ. 116. 2 Eece Homo p. 119.

ST PAUL AND SENECA. 221

tained and unascertainable. To the Christian alone, when he ac-

cepted the fact of Christ’s resurrection, did it become an established

and incontrovertible truth. Stoicism does not escape the vagueness

which overclouds all mere philosophical speculation on this subject.

On one point alone were the professors of this school agreed. An

eternal existence of the human soul was out of the question. At the

great periodic conflagration, when the universe should be fused and

the manifold organizations dissolved into chaos, the souls of men

must necessarily be involved in the common destruction’. But

within this limit much diversity of opinion prevailed. Some main- Diversity
of opinion
among the
that all men would continue to exist till the conflagration; Chrysip- Stoics.

tained a longer, some a shorter, duration of the soul. Cleanthes said

pus confined even this limited immortality to the wise% The lan-

guage of Seneca on this point is both timid and capricious. ‘If there Seneca’s
be any sense or feeling after death’ is his cautious hypothesis, fre- nee
quently repeated*, ‘I was pleasantly engaged,’ he writes to his Vagueness.
friend Lucilius, ‘in enquiring about the eternity of souls, or rather, I

should say, in trusting. For I was ready to trust myself to the opi-

nions of great men, whovavow rather than prove so very acceptable

a thing. I was surrendering myself to this great hope, I was begin-

ning to be weary of myself, to despise the remaining fragments of a

broken life, as though I were destined to pass away into that illimit-

able time, and into the possession of eternity ; when I was suddenly

aroused by the receipt of your letter, and this beautiful dream
vanished *.’ When again he would console the bereaved mourner, he

has no better words of comfort to offer than these: ‘Why do I
“waste away with fond regret for one who either is happy or does not

exist at all? It is envy to bewail him if he is happy, and madness if

he does not exist®.’. ‘Bear in mind that no evils affect the dead; that

the circumstances which make the lower world terrible to us are an

idle story.’ ‘Death is the release and end of all pains.’ ‘Death is

neither a good nor an evil: for that only can be good or evil which

1 See e.g. Seneca ad Mare. 26, ad post mortem finiri, etiam ipsam.’
Polyb. i. (20). 4 Ep. Mor. cii. 2; comp. Ep. Mor.
2 Diog. Laert. vii. 157. exvli. 6 ‘Cum animarum eternitatem
3 De Brev. Vit. 18, ad Polyb. 5, 9, | disserimus, non leve momentum apud
Ep. Mor. xxiv. 18, lxv. 24, lxxi. 16. nos habet consensus hominum aut ti-
Tertullian (de Resurr. Carn. 1,de Anim. mentium inferos aut colentium.’
42) quotes Seneca as saying ‘Omnia 5 Ad Polyb. 9g.

PHIL, 21

322

Import-
ance of the
doctrine to
Christian-
ity.

Its indif-
ference to
Stoicism.

ST PAUL AND SENECA.

is something.’ ‘Fortune can retain no hold, where nature has given
a release: nor can one be wretched, who does not exist at all’
Afterwards indeed he speaks in a more cheerful strain; ‘Eternal rest
awaits him leaving this murky and troubled (earth) and migrating to
the pure and liquid (sky)*’: but such expressions must be qualified
by what has gone before. Again in this same treatise, as in other
places*®, he promises after death an enlarged sphere of knowledge
But the pro-

mise which he gives in one sentence is often modified or retracted

and a limitless field of calm and pure contemplation.

in the next; and even where the prospects held out are the brightest,
it is not always clear whether he contemplates a continuance of con-
scious individual existence, or merely the absorption into Universal
Being and the impersonal participation in its beauty and order’.
The views of Epictetus and M. Aurelius are even more cloudy and
cheerless than those of Seneca. Immortality, properly so called, has
no place in their philosophies.

Gibbon, in his well-known chapter on the origin and growth
of Christianity, singles out the promise of eternal life as among
the chief causes which promoted its diffusion, Overlooking much
that is offensive in the tone of his remarks, we need not hesitate
to accept the statement as substantially true. It is indeed more
than questionable whether (as Gibbon implies) the growth of the
Church was directly due to the inducements of the offer ; for (looking
only to self-interest) it has a repulsive as well as an attractive side:
but without doubt it added enormously to the moral power of the
Gospel in commending it to the hearts and consciences of men.
Deterring, stimulating, reassuring, purifying and exalting the inward
and outward life, ‘the power of Christ’s resurrection’ extends over
the whole domain of Christian ethics,

On the other hand it was a matter of indifference to the Stoic
whether he doubted or believed or denied the immortality of man ;

for the doctrine was wholly external to his creed, and nothing

1 Ad Mare. 19; comp. Ep. Mor.
xxxvi. τὸ ‘Mors nullum habet incom-
modum: esse enim debet aliquis, cujus
sit incommodum,’ with the context.

2 Ad Mare. 24. 4

3 Comp. e.g. Ep. Mor. Ixxix. 12,
lxxxvi. I, cil. 22, 28 sq.

4 Holzherr Der Philosoph L. Anneus

Seneca τι. p. 58 sq. (1859) endeavours
to show that Seneca is throughout con-
sistent with himself and follows the
Platonists rather than the Stoics in his
doctrine of the immortality of the soul.
I do not see how it is possible, after
reading the treatise ad Marciam, to ac-
quit him of inconsistency.

ST PAUL AND SENECA.

Not life but death was
His religious director was

could be lost or gained by the decision.
the constant subject of his meditations.
summoned to his side, not to prepare him for eternity, but to teach
him how to die’, This defect alone would have rendered Stoicism
utterly powerless with the masses of men: for the enormous de-
mands which it made on the faith and self-denial of its adherents
could not be sustained without the sanction and support of such
a belief. The Epicurean motto, ‘Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow
we die,’ base though it was, had at least this recommendation, that
the conclusion did seem to follow from the premisses : but the moral
teaching of the Stoic was practically summed up in the paralogism,
‘Let us neither eat nor drink, for to-morrow we die,’ where no wit
of man could bridge over the gulf between the premisses and the
conclusion. A belief in man’s immortality might have saved the
Stoic from many intellectual paradoxes and much practical per-
plexity: but then it would have made him other than a Stoic.
He had a profound sense of the reign of moral order in the universe.
Herein he was right. But the postulate of man’s immortality alone
reconciles this belief with many facts of actual experience; and,
refusing to extend his views beyond the present life, he was obliged

He
staunchly maintained the inherent quality of actions as good or bad

to misstate or deny these facts in order to save his thesis®.

(irrespective of their consequences), and he has deserved the grati-
But he
falsely supposed himself bound in consequence to deny any force to

tude of mankind as the champion of a morality of principles.

the utilitarian aspect of ethics, as though it were irreconcilable
with his own doctrine ; and so he was led into the wildest paradoxes,
calling good evil and evil good. The meeting-point of these two
distinct lines of view is beyond the grave, and he refused to carry
his range of vision so far., It was inconsistent with his tenets to
hold out the hope of a future life as an incentive to well-doing and a

dissuasive from sin; for he wholly ignored the idea of retribution.

1 Socrates (or Plato) said that true
philosophers οὐδὲν ἄλλο αὐτοὶ ἐπιτηδεύ-
ovow ἢ ἀποθνήσκειν τε καὶ τεθνάναι
(Phedo 64). The Stoic, by accept-
ing the ἀποθνήσκειν and forgetting the
τεθνάναι, robbed the saying of its vir-
tue.

? Butler argues from the fact that

‘the divine government which we ex-
perience ourselves under in the present
state, taken alone, is allowed not to be
the perfection of moral government.’
The Stoic denied what the Christian
philosopher assumes, and contradicted
experience by maintaining that it is
perfect, taken alone. χ
Ζ21:---2

329"

Conse-
quent pa-
radoxes
and per-
plexities of
Stoicism.

324 ST PAUL AND SENECA.

So far, there was more substantial truth and greater moral power in
the crude and gross conceptions of an afterworld embodied in the
popular mythology which was held up to scorn by him, than in the
imposing philosophy which he himself had devised to supplant

them.
4. Absence 4. Attention was directed above to an instructive parallel
ἜΣΣΩ which Seneca’s language presents to our Lord’s image of the vine
basis. and the branches’. Precepts, writes the philosopher, wither un-

less they are grafted in a sect. By this confession Seneca vir-
tually abandons the position of self-isolation and self-sufficiency,
which the Stoic assumes. He felt vaguely the want of some his-
torical basis, some bond of social union, in short some principle
of cohesion, which should give force and vitality to his ethical
teaching. No mere abstract philosophy has influenced or can in-
Asacred fluence permanently large masses of men. <A Bible and a Church—
ΠΣ a a sacred record and a religious community—are primary conditions
commu- of extensive and abiding success. An isolated spirit here and there

nity neces-

sary, may have dispensed with such aids; but, as a social power, as a

continuous agency, mere doctrine, however imposing, will for the
most part be ineffective without such a support.

So far we have been speaking of conditions of success which were
wanting indeed to Stoicism, but which nevertheless are not peculiar
to Christianity. All creeds, which have secured any wide and lasting
allegiance, have had their sacred books and their religious organi-

Christian- zation. But our Lord’s language, of which Seneca’s image is a
ity centres
in a Per-

Bon. feature of Christianity. It is not a record nor a community, but a

partial though unconscious echo, points to the one distinguishing

Person, whence the sap spreads to the branches and ripens into the
rich clusters. I have already alluded to Gibbon’s account of the
causes which combined to promote the spread of the Church. It
will seem strange to any one who has at all felt the spirit of the
Gospel, that a writer, enumerating the forces to which the dissemi-
nation and predominance of Christianity were due, should omit all
Christ the mention of the Christ. One might have thought it impossible to
cael study with common attention the records of the Apostles and
power of martyrs of the first ages or of the saints and heroes of the later

Christian-

ity. Church, without seeing that the consciousness of personal union with

᾿ 1 See above, p. 283.

ST PAUL AND SENECA. 329

Him, the belief in His abiding presence, was the mainspring of their
actions and the fountain of all their strength, This is not a precon-
ceived theory of what should have happened, but a bare statement
of what stands recorded on the pages of history. In all ages and
under all circumstances, the Christian life has ever radiated from
this central fire. Whether we take St Peter or St Paul, St Francis
of Assisi or John Wesley, whether Athanasius or Augustine, Anselm
or Luther, whether Boniface or Francis Xavier, here has been the
impulse of their activity and the secret of their moral power, Their
lives have illustrated the parable of the vine and the branches.

It is this which differentiates Christianity from all other reli- Distinctive

: : : feature of
gions, and still more from all abstract systems of philosophy. Those Christian.
who assume the entire aim and substance of the Gospel to have ἴδ:
been the inculcation of moral precepts, and who therefore rest its δρῶν
claims solely or chiefly on the purity of its ethical code, often find code
themselves sorely perplexed, when they stumble upon some noble
and true utterance of Jewish or Heathen antiquity before the coming
of Christ. A maxim of a Stoic philosopher or a Rabbinical school-
man, a saying of Plato or Confucius, startles them by its resem-
blance to the teaching of the Gospel. Such perplexity is founded on
a twofold error. On the one hand they have not realised the truth
that the same Divine Power was teaching mankind before He was
made fiesh: while on the other they have failed to see what is
involved in this incarnation and its sequel. To those who have
felt how much is implied in St John’s description of the pre-incarnate
. Word as the life and light of men; to those who allow the force of
Tertullian’s appeal to the ‘witness of a soul naturally Christian’;
to those who have sounded the depths of Augustine’s bold saying,
that what we now call the Christian religion existed from the dawn
of the human race, though it only began to be named Christian when
Christ came in the flesh’; to those who can respond to the senti-
ment of the old English poem,

‘Many man for Cristes love
Was martired in Romayne,

Er any Cristendom was knowe there
Or any cros honoured’;

it cannot be a surprise to find such flashes of divine truth in men

Ὁ Retract. i. 13.

326 ST PAUL AND SENECA.

who lived before the coming of our Lord or were placed beyond
the reach of the Gospel. The significance of Christ’s moral precepts
does not lose but gain by the admission: for we learn to view Him
no longer as one wholly apart from our race, but recognising in His
teaching old truths which ‘in manhood darkly join,’ we shall only be
the more prompt to

‘Yield all blessing to the name
Of Him that made them current coin.’

butaprin- But the mere ethical teaching, however important, is the least

ciple of life . Sag thet RSS se

centred in important, because the least distinctive part of Christianity. If

a Person. there be any meaning in the saying that Christ appeared to ‘bring
life and immortality to light, if the stedfast convictions of St Peter
and St Paul and St John were not a delusion, and their lives not
built upon a lie, then obviously a deeper principle is involved. The
moral teaching and the moral example of our Lord will ever have
the highest value in their own province ; but the core of the Gospel
does not lie here. Its distinctive character is, that in revealing a
Person it reveals also a principle of life—the union with God in
Christ, apprehended by faith in the present and assured to us here-
after by the Resurrection. This Stoicism could not give ; and there-
fore its dogmas and precepts were barren. Its noblest branches
bore neither flowers nor fruit, because there was no parent stem
from which they could draw fresh sap.

ST PAUL AND SENECA. 3527

The Letters of Paul and Seneca.

ἽΠῚΕ spurious correspondence between the Apostle and the philosopher The corre-
to which reference is made in the preceding essay, consists of fourteen spondence
letters, the 1st, 3rd, 5th, 7th, 9th, 11th, 12th, and 13th written in the name @escttbed.
of Seneca, and the 2nd, 4th, 6th, 8th, roth, and 14th of St Paul. In the

address of the 6th the name of Lucilius is added to that,of Seneca, and in

the same way in the address of the 7th Theophilus is named along with

St Paul.

I have not thought it worth while to reprint these letters, as they may Editions
be read conveniently in the recent edition of Seneca’s works by F. Haase of the
(II. p. 476 sq.) included in Teubner’s series, and are to be found likewise in letters.
several older editions of this author. They have been printed lately also
in Fleury’s St Paul et Sénéque (τι. p. 300 sq.) and in Aubertin’s Sénéque et
St Paul (p. 409 sq.), and still more recently in an article by Kraus, entitled
Der Briefwechsel Pauli mit Seneca,in the Theologische Quartalschrift
XLIX. p. 601 (1867).

The great popularity of this correspondence in the ages before the The mss
Reformation is shown by the large number of extant mss. Fleury, 224 colla-
making use of the common catalogues, has enumerated about sixty; and wens
probably a careful search would largely increase the number. The major-
ity, as is usual in such cases, belong to the thirteenth, fourteenth, and
fifteenth centuries, but two at least are as early as the ninth. Haase used
some fresh collations, from which however he complains that little was to
be got (p. xxii); and Fleury also collated three mss from Paris and one
from Toulouse. Haase directed attention to the two most ancient, Ambro-
sianus C. 90 and Argentoratensis C. vr. 5, both belonging to the ninth
century (which had not yet been examined), but had no opportunity of
collating them himself. Collations from these (together with another later
Strassburg ms, Argentoratensis ©. vi. 7) were afterwards used by Kraus
for his text, which is thus constructed of better materials than any other.

But after all, it remains in an unsatisfactory state, which the worthlessness
of the letters themselves may well excuse.

This correspondence was probably forged in the fourth century, either Probable
to recommend Seneca to Christian readers or to recommend Christianity to ™otive of
students of Seneca. In favour of this view may be urged the fact that en
in several mss these spurious letters precede the genuine works of ;
Seneca. Nor does any other motive seem consistent with the letters them-
selves; for they have no doctrinal bearing at all, and no historical interest of

1 As for instance Argent. C. vi. 5 Seneca, being themselves preceded by
described by Kraus. Soin Burn. 251 the notice of Jerome and followed by
(British. Museum), which I have ex- the first of the epistles to Lucilius, It
amined, they are included in a collec- is not uncommon to find them imme-
tion of genuine and spurious works-ef diately before the genuine epistles,

Reference
to the let-
ters by
Jerome,

Augustine,

and later
writers.

These let-
ters a
manifest
forgery.

Yet the
writer is
not igno-
rant nor
wholly
careless.

ST PAUL AND SENECA.

sufficient importance to account for the forgery. They are made up chiefly
of an interchange of compliments between the Apostle and the philoso-
pher; and the only historical thread which can be said to run through
them is the endeavour of Seneca to gain the ear of Nero for the writings
of St Paul.

It is commonly said that St Jerome, who first mentions these letters,
had no suspicion that they were spurious. This statement however is
exaggerated, for he does not commit himself to any opinion at all about
their genuineness. He merely says, that he ‘should not have given a place
to Seneca in a catalogue of saints, unless challenged to do so by those
letters of Paul to Seneca and from Seneca to Paul which are read by very
many persons’ (de Vir. 7Π|. 12 ‘nisi me ille epistolee provocarent que
leguntur a plurimis’). When it is remembered how slight an excuse
serves to bring other names into his list, such as Philo, Josephus, and
Justus Tiberiensis, we cannot lay any stress on the vague language which
he uses in this case. The more probable inference is that he did not deli-
berately accept them as genuine. Indeed, if he had so accepted them,
his profound silence about them elsewhere would be wholly inexplicable.
St Augustine, as generally happens in questions of historical criticism,
repeats the language of Jerome and perhaps had not seen the letters
(Epist. clili. 14 ‘Seneca cujus quedam ad Paulum apostolum leguntur
epistolee!’). Throughout the middle ages they are mentioned or quoted,
most frequently as genuine, but occasionally with an expression of doubt,
until the revival of learning when the light of criticism rapidly dispelled
the illusion *,

As they are now universally allowed to be spurious, it will be unneces-
sary to state at length the grounds of their condemnation. It is sufficient
to say that the letters are inane and unworthy throughout; that the style
of either correspondent is unlike his genuine writings; that the relations
between the two, as there represented, are highly improbable ; and lastly,
that the chronological notices (which however ure absent in some important
Mss) are wrong in almost every instance. Thus, independently of the
unbroken silence of three centuries and a half about this correspondence,
internal evidence alone is sufficient to condemn them hopelessly.

Yet the writer is not an ignorant man. He has read part of Seneca
and is aware of the philosopher’s relations with Lucilius; he is acquainted
with the story of Castor and Pollux appearing to one Vatinius (or
Vatienus); he can talk glibly of the gardens of Sallust; he is acquainted
with the character of Caligula whom he properly calls Gaius Czesar; he is
even aware of the Jewish sympathies of the empress Poppsea and makes
her regard St Paul as a renegade; and lastly, he seems to have had
before him some account of the Neronian fire and persecution! which is no

1 Another passage quoted above, p. 3 Ep. 5 ‘Indignatio domine, quod a
28 note 3, in which Augustine remarks _ritu et secta veteri recesseris et [te]
on Seneca’ssilenceaboutthe Christians, aliorsum converteris’; comp. Ep. 8,
is inconsistent with a conviction of the where however the reading is doubt-
genuineness of these letters. ful.

* See Fleury 1. p. 269 sq. for a 4 Yet there must be some mistake in
eatena of references. the numbers, which appear too small.

ST PAUL AND SENECA. 329

longer extant, for he speaks of ‘ Christians and Jews’ being punished as the
authors of the conflagration and mentions that ‘a hundred and thirty-two
houses and six insulze were burnt in six days.’

Moreover I believe he attempts, though he succeeds ill in the attempt,
to make a difference in the styles of Seneca and St Paul, the writing of
the latter being more ponderous, Unfortunately he betrays himself by
representing Seneca as referring more than once to St Paul’s bad style;
and in one letter the philosopher mentions sending the Apostle a book
de Copia Verborum, obviously for the purpose of improving his Latin.

I mention these facts, because they bear upon a theory maintained by Theory of
some modern critics}, that these letters are not the same with those to some mo-
which Jerome and Augustine refer; that they had before them a genuine pees a
correspondence between St Paul and Seneca, which has since perished; and ~~
that the extant’epistles were forged later (say about the ninth century),
being suggested by the notices in these fathers and invented in conse-
quence to supply their place. The only specious arguments advanced in
favour of this view, so far as I know, are these: (1) A man like Jerome The argu-
could not possibly have believed the extant correspondence to be genuine, ments for
for the forgery is transparent ἡ (2) The de Copia Verborum is a third title this view
to.a work otherwise known as de Formula Honest Vite or de Quatuor stated
Virtutibus, written by Martinus Bragensis or Dumiensis (+ cire. a.D. 580),
but ascribed in many mss to Seneca. Sufficient time therefore must have
elapsed since this date to allow the false title and false ascription to take
the place of the true and to be generally circulated and recognised *.

To both these arguments a ready answer may be given: (1) There is no and an-
reason to suppose that Jerome did believe the correspondence to be swered.
genuine, as I have already shown. He would hardly have spoken so
vaguely, if he had accepted them as genuine or even inclined to this belief.

(2) A much better account can be given of the false title and ascription

of Martin’s treatise, if we suppose that they arose out of the allusion in

the letters, than on the converse hypothesis that they were prior to and
suggested this allusion. This Martin, whose works appear to have had Maytinus
a very large circulation in the middle ages, wrote on kindred subjects Bragensis.
and seems occasionally to have abridged and adapted Seneca’s writings.

For this reason his works were commonly bound up with those of Seneca,

and in some instances came to be ascribed to the Stoic philosopher. This

is the case at all events with the de Moribus, as well as the de Quatuor
Virtutibus, and perhaps other spurious treatises bearing the name of

Seneca may be assigned to the same author. <A copy of the de Quatuor Account of
Virtutibus, either designedly abridged or accidentally mutilated, and on de Copia
this account wanting the title, was bound up so as to precede or follow erborum.
the correspondence of Paul and Seneca*; and, as Seneca in one of these

1 An account of these views will be
found in Fleury 11. p. 225 sq. He
himself holds that the letters read by
these fathers were not the same with
our correspondence, but questions whe-
ther those letters were genuine.

2 This argument is urged by Fleury

1. p. 267 sq. The de Formula Hones-
te Vite is printed in Haase’s edition of
Seneca (111. p. 468) together with other
spurious works,

3 It is found in some extant mss
(e.g. Flor. Pl. xlv. Cod. iv) immediately
before the letters, and it may perhaps

330 ST PAUL AND SENECA.

letters mentions sending the de Copia Verborum, a later transcriber as-
sumed that the neighbouring treatise must be the work in question, and
without reflecting gave it this title. Whether the forger of the corre-
spondence invented an imaginary title, or whether a standard work bearing
this name, either by Seneca himself or by some one else, was in general
circulation when he wrote, we have no means of deciding; but the motive
in the allusion is clearly the improvement of St Paul’s Latin, of which
Seneca more than once complains. On the other hand the de Quatuor
Virtutidus is, as its name implies, a treatise on the cardinal virtues. An
allusion to this treatise therefore would be meaningless; nor indeed has
any reasonable explanation been given, how it got the title de Copia Ver-
borum, on the supposition that this title was prior to the allusion in the
correspondence and was not itself suggested thereby, for it is wholly
alien to the subject of the treatise.

But other strong and (as it seems to me) convincing arguments may be
brought against this theory: (1) Extant mss-of the correspondence date
from the ninth century, and in these the text is already in a corrupt state.
(2) The historical knowledge which the letters show could hardly have

Direct
reasons a-
gainst this
theory.

occur in some others immediately after
them. [Since the first edition appeared,
in which this conjecture was hazarded,
I have found the treatise immediately
after the letters, Bodl. Laud. Misc. 383,
fol. 77 a, where it is anonymous. |

1 The work, when complete, consists
of (1) A dedication in Martin’s name
to Miro king of Gallicia, in which he
mentions the title of the book Formula
Vite Honeste; (2) A short paragraph
enumerating the four cardinal virtues;
(3) A discussion of these several virtues
and the measure to be observed in each.
In the mss, so far as I have learnt
from peysonal inspection and from no-
tices in other writers, it is found in
three different forms; (1) Complete
(e.g. Cambridge Univ. Libr. Dd. xy.
21; Bodl. Laud. Misc. 444, fol. 146),
in which case there is no possibili-
ty of mistaking its authorship; (2)
Without the dedicatory preface, so that
it begins Quatuor virtutwm species ete.
In this form it is generally entitled
de Quatuor Virtutibus and ascribed to
Seneca. So it is for instance in three
British Museum mss, Burn. 251
fol. 33 a (xur1th cent.; the treatise
being mutilated at the end and con-
cluding ‘In has ergo maculas pruden-
tia immensurata perducet’), Burn. 360,
fol. 35 a (σιν cent.?), and Harl. 233
(χα [ἢ or xivth cent.?; where how-

ever the general title is wanting and —
the treatise has the special heading
Seneca de prudentia). The transcriber
of Arund. 249 (xvth cent.) also gives —
it in this form, butis aware of the true
author, for the heading is Incipit trac-
tatus libri honeste vite editus a Martino
episcopo Quit a multis intitulatur de
quatuor virtutibus et atiribuitur Senece;
but he ends it Huxplicit tractatus de
quatuor virtutibus Annei Senece Cordu-
bensis, as he doubtless found it in the
copy which he transcribed. In Bodl.
Laud. Lat. 86, fol. 58 a, where it
occurs in this form, it is ascribed to its
right author; while againin Bodl.Laud.
Misc. 280, fol. 117 a, itis anonymous.
These mss [haveexamined, (3) It occurs
without either the dedicatory preface or
the general paragraph on the four yir-
tues, and some extraneous matter is
added at the end. Only in this form, so
far as I can discover, does it bear the
strange title de Verborum Copia. Soin
one of the Gale mss at Trinity College
Cambridge (0. 3. 31) it begins ‘Senece de
quatuor virtutibus primo(?)de prudentia.
Quisquis prudentiam...’ and ends ‘...
jactura que per negligentiam fit. Ha-
plicit liber Senece de verborum copia’;
and the ms described by Haase (111. p.
xxi) belongs to the same type. These
facts accord with the account of the title
which I have suggested in the text.

ST PAUL AND SENECA.

been possessed, or turned to such account, by a writer later than the
fourth or fifth century. (3) Jerome quotes obliquely a passage from the
letters, and this passage is found in the extant correspondence. To this it
is replied, that the forger, taking the notice of Jerome as his starting-
point, would necessarily insert the quotation to give colour to his forgery.
But I think it may be assumed in this case that the pseudo-Seneca would
have preserved the words of Jerome accurately or nearly so; whereas,
though the sense is the same, the difference in form is considerable. It
may be added also that the sentiment is in entire keeping with the per-
vading tone of the letters, and has no appearance of being introduced for
a distinct purpose. (4) It is wholly inconceivable that a genuine corre-
spondence of the Apostle could have escaped notice for three centuries
and a half; and not less inconceivable that, having once been brought to
light at the end of the fourth and beginning of the fifth century, it should
again have fallen into oblivion and been suffered to disappear. This theory
therefore may be confidently rejected,

1 The reference in St Jerome is tianos.’ The words stand in the letters
‘(Seneca) optare se dicit ejus esse loci (no. 11), ‘[ Uti] nam qui meus, tuus apud
apud suos, cujus sit Paulus apud Chris- ἴθ locus, qui tuus, velim ut meus,’

ΙΓ

END ee

AARONIC priesthood ; see priesthood

accumulated expressions in St Paul,
1 Oh Wily 23, 27: Mb eh WIG ON ἦν. Ἵ; 2, Ε7

Acte, p. 21

Acts of the Apostles; passages ex-
plained, p. 49 (xvi. 12), 51 (xvi. 13),
302 (xvii. 28), 34 (xxvii. 2), 7, 101
(xxviii. 16), 9 (xxviii. 30); ending not
abrupt, p. 3; last chapters authentic,
p- 15; account of St Paul compared
with his epistles, p. 2, 37 sq.; account
of Philippi, p. 49

advent of Christ ; its nearness, i. 6, 10,
17, 111: Tey ἵν: 5

Aelius Publius Julius, p. 215

Aerius, p. 231

Africa, episcopacy in, p. 222; synods
of, p. 222, 240; sacerdotalism in, p.259

Agrippa (Herod, I); his imprisonment
and release, p. [ΟἹ sq.

Agrippa (Herod, II); his dispute with
the Jews and relations with Festus,
Pp: 7

Alexander (the Great); his view of his
mission, p. 304; effects of his con-
quests, p. 272, 304

Alexander (of Alexandria), p. 229

Alexander (of Rome), p. 219 sq.

Alexandria, early foundation of the
Church of, p. 223; state of religion
in, ἐδ. ; ordination at, p. 224; episco-
pacy in, p.223 sq., 229 sq.; patriarch
of, 229 sq.; sacerdotalism at, p. 252,
255

Alexandrian Judaism and the Gospel,
Ῥ- 300 sq.

Aliturus, p. 6, 171

altar, use of the word, p. 249, 260,
263

Ambrosiaster (Hilary) ; on the Divinity
of Christ, p. 129; on the priesthood,
p- 183; on the identity of ‘bishops’
and ‘presbyters,’ p. 97; on episco-
pacy, p. 201 sq., 205, 227; on the
Alexandrian episcopate, p. 229; pre-
serves a tradition about St Paul,
Ῥ. Ior

amphitheatre, metaphor from the, i.
27. 28

Amplias, p. Io, 172

Ancient Syriac Documents, p. 75, 209,
219, 259

Ancyra, Council of, p. 230 sq.

Andrew (St) in Asia Minor, p. 200

Andronicus and Junias, p. 10, I1, 16

Anencletus, p. 218 sq.

angels; of a synagogue, p. 197 ; in the
Apocalypse, p. 197 sq.

Anicetus, p. 218, 220 sq.

anthropomorphism, p. 130

Antichrist, p. 1

antinomianism rebuked, p. 67, 69, iii.
12. 15:15... 18

Antioch, bishops οὗ, p. 208 sq.

Antonia, p. IOI 84.

Antonius Melissa, p. 251

aorist; epistolary, p. 36, 137, ii. 25,
28; participle of, ii. 7; pluperfect
sense of, iv. 15; with perfect, iii. 12

Apelles, p. 17, 171, 172

Apocalypse, angels in the, p. 197 8q.;
date of, p. 198; reference to persecu-
tion in, p. 24; ii. 20 interpreted,
p- 198

334

Apostles; not bishops, p. 194; super-
vision of churches by, p. 196; Second
Council of the, p. 200 sq.

Apostolic Constitutions, p. 257, 261

Apostolic delegates, p. 197

appeals to Cesar, p. 4, 30

appellatio, p. 7

Appian way, monuments of the, p.
169 sq.

Aquila and Priscilla; their movements,
p- 176; in Rome, p. τῷ, 16, 171

Aratus, p. 302

Archippus, p. 30

Areopagus ; see Paul (St)

Aristarchus, p. 11, 18, 34, 36

Aristobulus, p. 17, 173

Aristotle’s use of μορφή and synonymes,
Ρ. 126 sq.

article (the definite) ; omission of, i. 1,
5, 6, ili. 9; type denoted by, p. 95;
uses of, 11. 6, 21, 30, iii. 9

Asia Minor; Apostles settled in, p. 200;
episcopacy in, p. 209 sq.; sides with
Cyprian, p. 240

aspirates (anomalous), ii. 23

Atheism, aname of Christianity, p.22, 23

Athens; episcopacy at, p. 214 sq.

Attic dialect exceptional, ii. 14

Aubertin (C.), Sénéque et St Paul, p.
276, 297

Augustine (St); on Seneca, p. 28; on
episcopacy, p. 228; on pre-Christian
Christianity, p. 325

Augustus; his policy as to Philippi,
P- 49, 50

Aurelius (M. Antoninus) ; his charac-
ter, p. 296, 315 ; his modified Stoicism,
Ῥ. 315, 316 sq.; defects of his teach-
ing, p. 316 ; persecution of the Chris-
tians, p. 315 sq.; supposed relations
with rabbi Jehuda, p. 316; notice of
Christianity, p. 28, 316; on immor-
tality, p. 322

ἅγιοι, i. τ

ἁγνός, p. 63, iv. 8

ἀγών, i. 30

ἀδελφοί (emphatic), ili, 13

ἀδημονεῖν, ii. 26

αἴσθησις, αἰσθητήρια, i. g

INDEX.

αἰσχύνη, παρρησία, i. 20

ἀκαιρεῖν (-ρεῖσθαι), iv. 10

ἀκέραιος, li. 15

ἀληθής, iv. 8

ἀλλὰ μὲν οὖν, iil. 8

ἅλυσις (δεσμός, πέδη), p. 8

ἄμεμπτος, ili. 6

ἄμωμος (-μήτος), 11. 15

ἀναθάλλειν (transitive), iv. 10

ἀναλύειν, i. 23

ἀναπληροῦν, ii. 30

ἀνάστασις (ἐξανάστασι:), ili. τὶ

ἄνω, ili. 15

ἅπαξ καὶ dis, iv. τό

αἀπεκδέχεσθαι, iii. 20

ἀπέχειν, iv. 18

ἀποθανεῖν, i. 21

ἀποκαραδοκία, i. 20

ἀπολογία, i. 7

ἀπόστολος (delegate), ii. 25, p. 194

ἀπρόσκοπος, i. 10

ἀρετή, iv. 8

ἅρπαγμα (ἁρπαγμὸν) ἡγεῖσθαι etc., il. 6,
Ῥ- 131 sq.

ἀρχισυνάγωγος, p. 205

αὐτάρκεια, iv. II

αὐτὸ τοῦτο, i. 6; τὸ αὐτό, ii. 18

αὐτοῦ etc. (αὑτοῦ etc.), use of, ili. 21

ἀφελπίζειν, ii. 23

ἀφορᾶν (-ιδεῖν), ii. 23

Bacchanalian conspiracy, p. 26

Bacchyllus, p. 214

Barnabas, Epistle of, p. 223

Baur (C. F.), p. 73, 168, 175, 231, 276,
σῶς

Benjamin, tribe of, iii. 5

bishops ; see Hpiscopate

book of life, iv. 3

Bruttius, p. 22

Bucherian Catalogue, p. 219

Burrus, the preetorian prefect, p. 3, 5,
8, 299

Butler (Bp.), p. 323

BeBalwots, 1. 7

βλέπετε, iil. 2

Cesarea ; evangelization of, p. 30; St
Paul’s captivity at, p. 29, 30

INDEX.

Cesar’s household, p. 19, 29, 32, 98,
169 sq., iv. 22

Caius or Gaius (the emperor) and Agrip-
pa, p. Tor sq.

Caius or Gaius (St Paul’s host), p. 213

Caius or Gaius (of Macedonia), p. 61

Callistus, p. 221

Calvin’s distinction of lay and teaching
elders, p. 193

Carthage ; see Africa

Cassius of Tyre, p. 207

Catholic Church, p. 202, 205

Cato the younger; his character, p. 308
sq.

chains of prisoners, p. 8

chazan, his duties, etc., p. 187 sq.

chiasm, i. 16

Chrestus, Chrestianus, p. 16

Christ ; divinity and pre-existence of, ii.

“ὁ sq., p. 129 sq., 135; universal sove-
reignty of, iii. 21; high priesthood of,
Ῥ- 249; an object of worship, ii. τὸ ;
the Word, p. 290, 301, 325; the true
vine, p. 324 8q., 326; obedience of,
ii. 8, 12; righteousness in, ili. 9;
membership in, ii. 19, p. 305 Sq.; com-
munion with His sufferings and death,
iii. 10; see Christianity, Church, Re-
surrection, etce

Christian ministry, priesthood, etc.; see
ministry, priesthood, etc.

Christianity, distinguishing feature of,
Ρ- 324 8q.; its true character, p. 325
sq.

Christians, accusations against, p. 23,
26; silence of heathen writers about,
18h 27: 28

chorepiscopi, p. 230 sq.

Chrysippus, p. 273 8q., 307, 321

Chrysostom (St); on bishops and pres-
byters, p. 97; on pretorium, 7b.;
confused interpretation of, 134 sq.;
misunderstood, p. 94

Church of Christ; ideal of, p. 179 sq.;
its practical limitations, 2b.; influence
of this ideal, p. 181; false ideas pre-
vailing in, p. 266

Cicero’s letters, rate of travelling in,
P- 37

335

circumcision, metaphor of, ili. 3

citizenship; St Paul’s metaphor of the
heavenly, p. 51, 305 8q., i. 27, iii. 20;
rights of Roman, ii. 8, p. 304

Clarus (of Ptolemais), p. 207

Claudian, his religious indifference, p.
2p

Claudius Apollinaris, p. 211

Cleanthes, character of, p. 308; hymn
of, p. 302, 318; on immortality, p.
321

Clemens (Alexandrinus); on the minis-
try, Pp. 210, 224, 227, 252 ΒΩ; no
sacerdotalism in, p. 253

Clemens (Flavius); see Flavius

Clemens (Romanus); character of, p.
166, 168; his date, p. 166 ; connexion
with St Peter and St Paul, p. 167;
recent criticisms on, p. 167 sq.; a
Greek, p. 221; his office, p. 216 sq.,
219; occasion of his letter, p. 214;
its purport and contents, p. 203, 213,
247 Sq.; passages discussed, p. 201,
203, 247 sq.; resemblances to Philip-
pians in, p. 743 no sacerdotalism in,
p- 247 sq.; use of term ‘offerings’
in, p. 260; bishops and presbyters
identified in, p. 95 sq., 203, 216

Clement, St Paul’s fellow-labourer,
p- 166 sq.; the name common, p.
167

Clementine Homilies, etc. ; anthropo-
morphism in, p. 130; not sacerdotal,
p- 258; on episcopacy, p. 207, 200,
236; position of St James in, p. 195,
206; on the Canaanitish woman,
iii. 2

clergy, distinguished from laity, p. 244
sq., 2473 origin of the term, p. 244
sq.; see κλῆρος

Cletus, p. 219

clubs ; see confraternities

collection of alms ; see Macedonia, Phi-
lippians

colonies (Roman), p. 50

Colossians, Epistle to the; written from
Rome, p. 12; not from Cesarea, p.
29, 303; date of, 30 sq.; later than
Philippians, p. 44; genuineness of,

336

p- 18; Judaizers mentioned in, p. 17
sq.; Gnosticism refuted in, p. 41

comparative; force of, ii. 28 ; accumu-
lated, i. 23

compresbyterus, p. 228

confraternities, p. 93, 192

conscientia, p. 301 “

Corinth, the Church of; St Paul’s
dealings with, p. 196; episcopacy in,
p- 213 sq.; lost letters to, p. 1373; see
Clemens Romanus

Corinthians, Epistles to the; no sacer-
dotalism in, p. 2443 passages inter-
preted (1 Cor. v. 3 sq., 2 Cor. ii. 6),
Ρ- 196

Crenides, p. 46, 51

Crete, episcopacy in, p. 215

crucifixion, horrors of, ii. 8

custodia, kinds of, p. 7, 8, ror sq.

Cyprian; his mode of addressing pres-
byters, p. 228; view of the episco-
pate, p. 238 sq., 241 sq.; contro-
versies of, p. 239 sq.; his character
and work, p. 238 sq.; genuineness
of his letters, p. 240; sacerdotalism
of, Ρ- 256 sq.

Cyril (of Alexandria), wrongly inter-
preted, p. 136

καθιδεῖν, ii. 23

kal, answering to ws, i. 20; after εἰ etc.
i. 22; displaced, iv. 12 ; doubled, iv. 16

Kavavirys, p. 301

καρδία, iv. 7

καρπὸς δικαιοσύνης, i. 11

κατά, iv. II

καταλαμβάνειν, iil. 12

κατατέμνειν (-τομή), ili. 2

κατεργάζεσθαι, ii. 12

καυχᾶσθαι, καύχημα, etc., i. 26

κεῖσθαι els, i. τό

κενοδοξία, ii. 3

κλῆρος (κληροῦν, etc.), p. 245 54:

κοιλία, lil. 19

κοινωνία, 1. 5

κοπιᾶν, il. τό

κόσμος, ii. 15

κύνες, iii. 2

κύριος, a title of Jesus, ii. 9, 11; κύριε,
in heathen writers, p. 312

INDEX.

χαίρειν, ii. 8, iii. 1, iv. 4
χάρις (ἡ), 1. 7
χορτάζειν, iv. 12

᾿χωρεπίσκοπος, p. 230

Damascene (John), p. 251
dative (of relation), 111. 5

Datos or Daton, p. 46

deacons ; see diaconate
deaconesses, p. 189

Demas, p. 12

Demetrius of Alexandria, p. 230

De Wette; false interpretations of, p.

129, 130

diaconate ; its establishment, p. 185 ;
its novelty, p. 187 sq.; limitation to
seven, p. 186 sq.; its functions, p:
187 sq.; teaching incidental to, p. 188;
extension to Gentile Churches, p.
187 sq.

Dionysius, of Alexandria, p. 229

Dionysius the Areopagite, p. 214 sq.

Dionysius of Corinth quoted, p. 212,
214 Sq., 221

Divinity of Christ; see Christ

dogs, a term of reproach, iii. 2, 8

Domitian, persecution of, p. 22

Domitilla; see Flavia

Drusus, imprisonment of, p. ror

duumviri, p. 50

δέ, iv. τὸ

δέησις (προσευχή), iv. 6

δια, with accus., ill. 7, 8; διὰ φθόνον,
i. 15; διὰ (ἐκ) πίστεως, iii. g

διάδημα (στέφανος), iv. I

διαλογισμός, ii. 14

διαφέροντα (τα), i. 10

διεστραμμένος, li. 15

διὸ καί, il. 9

διώκειν (καταλαμβάνειν), iii. 12

δοκεῖν, ili. 4

δοκιμή, ii. 22

δόσις καὶ λήῆμψις, iv. 15

δύναμις (ἐνέργεια), 111. 21

Ecce Homo quoted, p. 306, 319, 320
Egnatian road, p. 34, 36, 37, 48
Egnatius the Stoic, p. 282

Egypt, episcopate of, p. 230

INDEX. 337

Eleutherus, p. 221

ellipsis, i. 22, ii. 3, 111. 13

Epenetus, p. 10, 176

Epaphras, p. 11; see Epaphroditus

Epaphroditus (Nero’s freedman), p. 21,
311

Epaphroditus (St Paul’s friend); his
journeys between Rome and Philippi,
35 86.; bears alms to St Paul, p. 11,
61, ii. 25 sq.; his sickness, etc., p. 36,
61, ii. 30; distinguished from Epa-
phras, p. 60; a common name in
Macedonia, and elsewhere, p. 61, ii.
25; probable allusion to, iv. 3

Ephesians, Epistle to the; a circular
letter, p. 12, 138; written from Rome,
p. 12; not from Cesarea, p. 29, 30;
date of, p. 30 sq ; later than Philip-
pians, p. 44 sq.; Gnosticism refuted
in, p. 41; hymn quoted in, p. 44;
genuineness of, p. 41, 44 3 supposed
fragment of another epistle, p. 17

Hpictetus ; his earnestness and piety,
p. 311 sq.; his theology and ethics,
p- 314; modified Stoicism of, p. 317;
his places of abode, p. 3123 coinci-
dences with the N.T., p. 296, 312
sq-; especially St Paul, p. 314; his
notice of Christianity, p. 316 ; said to
be a Christian, p. 21; views of im-
mortality, p. 322

Epicurus; sayings of, p. 279, 285, 287;
admired by Seneca, p. 290; his sys-
tem, p. 270 sq.; its Greek origin, p.
271; Epicurean ethics basely consist-
ent, p. 323

episcopate; bishops not the same as
Apostles, p. 193 sq.; episcopate de-
veloped from presbytery, p. 194 56.»
205, 225 Sq.; preparatory steps to-
wards, p. 196 sq.; causes of develop-
ment, p. 199, 204, 232 sq.; gradual
progress of, p. 203 sq., 225, 232 sq.;
first matured in Asia Minor, p. 200,
204 Sq., 210 Sq., 225; episcopate of
Jerusalem, p. 195, 206 sq.; of other
churches, p. 199, 207 sq.; prevalence
of episcopacy, p. 2253; ordination
confined to bishops, p. 230 sq.; foreign

PHIL,

correspondence entrusted to them, p.
220; their mode of addressing pres-
byters, p. 94 sq., 228; they represent
the universal Church, p. 241; their
increased power involves no principle,
Ῥ. 2423 see ἐπίσκοπος, synods, Cle-
mentine Homilies, etc.

Essenes, not sacerdotal, p. 258
Evarestus, p. 219, 220
Lvodia, iv. 2, p. 168

Evodius, p. 168, 208

Eusebius; on 2nd Apostolic Council,

Ῥ. 200 sq.; his list of bishops of Je-
rusalem, p. 206 sq.; of Rome, p. 166,
219; of Alexandria, p. 223

Eutychius (patriarch of Alexandria) ;

his testimony, p. 229 sq.

Ewald; on Philippians, p. 68; on Romans,

Ρ- 175

Ἑβραῖος (’Iovdatos), 111. 5
εἰ interrogative, i. 22; with conjunctive,

lil. 11; el wws, ib.

εἶδος (μορφή, ἰδέα), p. 126 sq.
εἰλικρινής, 1. 10

εἰς, uses of, ili, 14, iv. τό
εἴτε... εἴτε with participles, i. 27
ἐκ, uses of, i. 23, ill. 5

ἕκαστος, ἕκαστοι, ll. 4

ἑλπίς (aspirated), ii. 23
ἐν, repeated, i. 26; pregnant use of, iv.

το

ἐν δέ, ili. 13
ἐνάρχεσθαι, i. 6
ἐνέργεια (δύναμις), 111. 21

ἐνεργεῖν, li. 12

ἔντερα (σπλάγχνα), i. 8

ἐξ

ανάστασις, ili. τα

ἐξομολογεῖσθαι, ii. 11

’

᾽

ἐπεκτείνεσθαι, iii. 14.
ἐπέχειν, ii. 16

. ἐπί, uses of, ii. 17, 27
ἐπίγνωσις, 1. 9

ἐπιεικής, ἵν. 5
ἐπιζητεῖν, ἵν. 17
ἐπιμένειν with dative, i. 24

ἐπιποθεῖν, i. 8, ii. 26, p. 2

ἐπιπόθητος, iv. I

ἐπισκοπή, P+ 94

ἐπίσκοπος ; various uses of, p. 93, 102;

5868 5 - INDEX.

=mpecBurepos, p. 93 Sq-, I9I 56.»
2313 see episcopate
ἐπιστολή (ἐπιστολαί), p. 138 sq.
ἐπιτελεῖν, i. 6
ἐπιχορηγία, i. 19
ἔργον (τό), ii. 30
ἐριθεία, i. 17, il. 3
ἐρῶ (future), iv. 4
ἐρωτᾶν, iv. 3
ἑτέρως, iii. 15
εὐάρεστος τῷ Θεῷ, iv. 18
εὐδοκία, i. 15, il. 13
-εύεσθαι (termination), 11. 30
Ἑοδία, iv. 2
εὑρίσκεσθαι, iil. 9
εὔφημος, iv. ὃ
εὐψυχεῖν, ii. 19
ἐφιδεῖν, ii. 23
ἐφ᾽ @, ili. 12
ἤδη πότε, iv. IO
ἡμέρα Χριστοῦ, i. 6, ii. τό
-ἥμερος (compounds ending in), ili. 5

Family, religion of the, p. 56

Felix accuses Jewish priests, p. 4 sq.

Festus and Agrippa, p. 7

figura; see forma

Flavia Domitilla; her history, p. 22,
233; confusion respecting, p. 22

Flavius Clemens; his history, p. 22;
Baur on, p. 168, 169

Fleury’s Saint Paul et Sénéque, p. 276,
279, 327 86.

forma, figura, p. 125

freedmen of Ceesar, p. 170 sq.

future after ἵνα, 11. 11

Gaius ; see Caius

Gallio, St Paul before, p. 299; Seneca’s
account of, 2b.

Gangites, p. 46, 47, 51

Gaul, episcopacy in, p. 222

genitive, 1. 7, 19

Georgius Syncellus on Philippians, p.
140

Gibbon; on the Neronian persecution,
p- 23, 24; on the spread of Chris-
tianity, p. 322, 324

Gischala, iii. 5

gladiator ; see amphitheatre

Gnosticism ; refuted by St Paul, p. 41;
serves to develope episcopacy, p.
199 sq.

Graetz on Flavius Clemens, p. 168

gratia preeveniens, cooperans, ii. 13

γινώσκειν, 111. 10

γνήσιος, iv. 3; γνησίως, ii. 20

γνωρίζειν, 1. 22

“γογγυσμός, li. 14

Hadrian, letter of; its authenticity, p.
223 sq.

Hananias; p. 229

Hebrew ; see ‘E8patos

Hebrews, Epistle to the; its Alexan-
drian origin, p. 223; absence of sa-
cerdotalism in and general argument
of, p. 263 sq.

Hegesippus; on St James, p. 206; on
Symeon, p. 201 sq., 206; on the Co-
rinthian Church, p. 214; on the Ro-
man Church and bishops, p. 218, 220;
his acquaintance with Eleutherus, p.
2213; aim of his work, p. 218, 238

Hellenists, p. 185 sq.

Heraclas of Alexandria, p. 229, 230

heretics, rebaptism of, p. 240 sq.

Hermas ; the name in St Paul, p. 174

Hermas, the Shepherd of ; its date, p.
166 sq.; its author, p. 167, 220; his
language, p. 221 ; on Church officers,
etc., p. 217 sq.; on Clement, p. 167,
217, 2193 possible acquaintance with
Philippians, p. 74

Hermes, p. 174

Hero of Antioch, p. 208

Herodion, p. 10, 17, 173

Hierapolis ; its bishops, p. 211

high-priests ; mitre of, p. 252; Chris-
tians, so called, p. 250, 252, 255; see
Christ

Hilary ; see A mbrosiaster

Hippolytus ; use of κλῆρος in, p. 2463
sacerdotal terms in, p. 255

Holzherr, p. 322

Huber and Perizonius, p. 100

humility, a Christian virtue, ii. 4

Hyginus, p. 220

seintins Ἐρϑντεναν

ne
=. >

ee ee

INDEX.

Jacob’s blessing on Benjamin, iii. 5

James (St); a bishop, p. 195, 206 ; but
one of the presbytery, p. 195 sq.

-lanus (the termination), p. 173

Jehuda-ha-Nisi, p. 316

Jerome (St); on the identity of bishops
and presbyters, p. 96, 97; on the
origin of episcopacy, p. 204, 227 54.;
on Church polity in Alexandria, p.
228 sq.; on episcopal ordination, p.
231; on Seneca, p. 268 sq., 291, 328
sq-; on St Paul’s birth-place, i. 5;
quotes Theophilus, p. 75

Jerusalem ; bishops of, p. 195, 206 sq.;
presbytery of, p. 195

Jesus Justus, p. 12, 18, 31, 33

Jewish Christians in Rome, p. 16 sq.

Jewish priesthood; see priesthood

Jews, in Rome, p. 14 sq., their Mes-
sianic hopes, p. 16; confused with
Christians, p. 23, 24, 27; at Philippi,
p- 51

Ignatian letters (spurious), p. 232; on
episcopacy, p. 210 sq., 234 Sq.; on
presbyters, p. 235; unchristian doc-
trine of, p. 235 sq.; not sacerdotal,
p- 249 ; use of ‘altar’ in, p. 264; pas-
sage misinterpreted (Philad. 9), p.249

Ignatius (St); his bonds, p. 8; his jour-
ney to Rome, p. 34; sojourn at Phil-
ippi, p. 61, 62; Polycarp’s reference
to, p. 62, 64, 139; on the Roman
Christians, p. 216; on episcopacy,
p-208, 232sq.; recognises three orders,
p- 96; not sacerdotal, p. 249 ; remi-
niscences of our epistle, p. 74

immortality of man, p. 320 sq.

infinitive for imperative, iii. 16

John Damascene, p. 251

John (St); in Asia Minor, p. 200;
matures episcopacy, p. 199, 205, 210

Josephus; his mission to Rome, p. 4,
5; account of Agrippa’s confinement,
p- 101

Jowett (Prof.) on lost epistles of St
Paul, p. 137

Ireneus; Pfaffian fragments of, p. 202;
his honesty vindicated, p. 96; his use
of terms ‘presbyter’ and ‘bishop,’ p.

SRE!
93, 226 sq.; of ‘oblations,’ p. 261;
of κλῆρος, p. 246 sq.; list of Roman
bishops, p. 218 sq.; on Clemens Ro-
manus, p. 166; on episcopacy, p. 225,
237 sq.; on priesthood, p. 251; on
and Apostolic Council, p. 201; his
relation to Hegesippus, p. 218

Ischyras, p. 230

Israelite, iil. 5

Judaizers ; not sacerdotal, p. 258; their
activity in Rome, p. 17, 18, 68, i. 15
ἘΠῚ: ile 2

Julia, p. 175

Julianus (of Apamea), p. 212

Junia or Junias; see Andronicus

Justin Martyr; use of μορφή, σχῆμα,
p- 130; of ‘oblations,’ p. 261; not
sacerdotal, p. 250

ἰδέα, εἶδος, p. 126

ἵνα, i. 9, ti. 2; (future with), ii. 11

ἴσα (ἴσος), ii. 6

ἰσόψυχος, 11. 20

Lactantius on Seneca, p. 267, 292

laity ; see λαός, ete.

Laodicea, St Paul's Epistle to, p. 137

Latin Version, influence of the, p. 132

lapsed, controversy about the, p. 239
sq.

law and the law ; see νόμος

Levites ; ordination of, p. 180; duties
of, p. 187

libations, Jewish and heathen, ii. 17

Linus, p. 218 sq.

lots, use of, p. 246

Lucan, p. 21

Lucian, on the Christians, p. 27

Luke (St) ; in Rome, p. 11, 35; at Phil-
ippi, p. 48, 51, 58

λαός, λαϊκός, λαϊκοῦν, p. 245

λατρεία, λατρεύειν, 111. 3

λειτουργία, ii. 17

λόγος (els λόγον), iv. 15

λοιπόν (τὸ λοιπόν), 111. 1, iv. 8

Macedonia; Roman provinces of, p. 49;
collections of alms in, p. 58, 593 epi-
stles written from, p. 59; epistles
written to, i. 1, 28, p. 65; episcopacy

340

in, p. 212 sq.; position of women in,
Ρ- 55

Macro, p. 101 sq.

Marcion; his parentage, Ὁ. 2123; his
copy of Romans, p. 175

Marcus Aurelius ; see Aurelius

Mark (St), p. 12, 18, 223, 22

Marsyas, p. 102

Martinus Bragensis :
Seneca, p. 329; works of, <b.; recen-
sions, titles, and uss of the formula
Honest Vitee of, p. 330 sq.

Mary, (a Roman Christian), p. 16, 171

Matthias (St), appointment of, p. 246

Melito, p. 75, 211

Merivale (Dr); on the persecution of
Nero, p. 23, 243; on pretorium, p. 98

Messianic expectations in Rome, p. 16

metronymics, Pp: 55

Milman (Dean), p. 248

ministry (the Christian); three orders
of, p. 94, 184, 263 sq.; not sacerdotal,
p. 182; St Paul on, p. 183; the tem-
porary and the permanent, p. 183 sq.;
views of the origin of, p. 184 sq. ;
how far a priesthood, p. 262 sq.; re-
presentative, not vicarial, p. 265 sq.;
see sacerdotalism, priesthood, episco-
pate, etc.

his relation to

Mommsen on Cato, p. 309

Montanism ; a reaction, p. 237

mystery, the metaphor of, iv. 12

-μα, -μός, (terminations), ii. 6

μεριμνᾶν, iv. 6

μέσον (adverbial), ii. 15

μετασχηματίζεσθαι (-μορφοῦσθαι), p. 128
Sq.

μή, μηδέν (ellipsis after), ii. 3

μίσθωμα, p. 9

μόνον, 1. 27

μορφή (ὁμοίωμα, σχῆμα), li. 6 54.; p. 125
sq.; (εἶδος), p. 126 sq.

μυεῖσθαι, iv. 12

Name of God, ii. g; of Jesus, 11. 10

Narcissus (Nero’s freedman) ; p. 21; his
household, p. 173

Narcissus (of Jerusalem), p. 206, 297

INDEX.

Neander, criticism on, p. 248

Neapolis, p. 47, 48, 49

Neoplatonists, their use of μορφή, p.
127; conflict with Christianity, p.
317

Nereus and his sister, p. 175

Nero; administration of, p. 2, 3, 43
guilty acts of, p. 5; his persecution,
p- 2; attempts to explain it away,
Ῥ. 23 sq.; causes of it, p. 26; silence
of heathén writers about it, p. 27,
28; account of it in the letters of
Paul and Seneca, p. 328 sq.

nominative (irregular), i. 30, ili. 19

Novatian schism, p. 240

vat, iv. 3

νόμος and ὁ νόμος, ili. 5, 6, Ὁ

Oblation, offering ; see Sacrifice

Onesimus (Philemon’s slave), Ὁ. 12, 30

Onesimus (of Ephesus), p. 208, 210

ordination by presbyters, p. 229, 230
sq.; restricted to bishops, p. 230 sq.

Oriental characteristics, p. 271

Origen; on Clement of Rome, p. 166;
on Gaius, p. 213; on the priesthood,
P- 255 8q-

οἶδα, 1. 25

ὀκνηρός, iil. I

ὀκταήμερος, lil. 5

ὄνομα; τὸ ὄνομα, ii. 9; ἐν (τῷ) ὀνόματι,
il. 10

ὀπίσω, lil. τὰ

ὀσμὴ «εὐωδίας, iv. 18

ὅστιδ, ἴ 29. len 20, Nil.) 7; ἵν 5

ΟἿΟΝ ὅτι; dla Mavs τι; τῇ

ὡς, pleonastic, il. 12

ws ἄν, temporal, il. 23

Palestine (bishops of), p. 207 sq.

Palmas, p. 212

pantheism admits no consciousness of
sin, Pp. 204, 319

papacy, power of the, p. 242 sq.

Papias, p. 211, 227

parabolani, il. 29

paradox (verbal), iv. 7

paranomasia, ill. 2

Pastoral Epistles; Gnosticism attacked

INDEX. 341

in, p. 41; quotations in, p. 44; late
date of, ἐδ. ; no sacerdotalism in, p.
243

patriarchs (Jewish), p. 223; (Alexan-
drian), p. 224, 229, 230

Patrobas, p. 174

Paul (St); his birth-place, iii. 5; his
tribe, 7b.; his name Saul, ib.; a He-
brew and a Pharisee, 7b.; his kins-
men, Ῥ. 16 sq., 171; not married,
iv. 3; his persecution of ‘the Church,
iii. 6; his means of support, iv. 16;
speech on Areopagus, p. 288, 3023
his visit to Rome, p. I sq.; 30; voyage
thither, p. 34; length of stay, p. 3,
29; his first captivity, 7 sq.; his
bonds, p. 8, 9; his abode in Rome,
Pp. 9, I0, 100; his comparative li-
berty, p.9; his associates and friends,
Ῥ- IO sq., 33 sq.; correspondence
from Rome, p. 12, 39 sq.; preaching
and success there, p. 13 sq.; inter-
view with the Jews, p. 14 sq.; his
feelings and sorrows at Rome, p.
38 sq.; hopes of release, p. 39 sq.,
li. 24; trial, ete., p. 3, 4, 20993 his
silence about political events, p. 6 sq.;
tradition of his death, ii. 8; chrono-
logy of his epistles, p. 1373; lost
letters of, p. 136 sq.; his irony, iii. 6;
his acquaintance with Stoic diction,
etc., p. 301 sq.; his use of hyperbole,
p- 32; irregular constructions, i. 27,
20 ZO 1} ἘΠ δ. ἘΦ, 22,01 TS, ve Los
12; mode of closing his epistles, p.
1243 see accumulated expressions, citi-
zenship, Corinthians, Philippi, Philip-
pians, Seneca, ete.

peccatum, p. 294, 319

Pelagius, on bishops and presbyters, p.
97

Perizonius on ‘pretorium,’ p. 100

Persis, p. 10

Peshito Syriac, the ; identifies the titles
‘bishop’ and ‘presbyter,’ p. 95

Peter (St), in prison, p. 83 appoints
bishops, p. 207, 208; styles himself
‘fellow-presbyter,’ p. 196

Philemon, Epistle to, p. 12; not written

from Cesarea, p. 29, 30; date of, p.
30 sq.

Philip (St) at Hierapolis, p. 200
Philip of Gortyna, p. 215
Philippi, former names of, p. 46; its

site and natural advantages, p. 46,
473 its mines, p. 47, 48; site of the
battle of, p. 47; mixed population of,
p- 48; a Roman colony, p. 49, 50,
i. 27; Jews at, p. 51 sq.; length of
journey from Rome to, p. 37; St
Paul’s first visit to, p, 48 sq.; his
conversions at, p. 52 sq.3 their typi-
cal character, p. 53 8q.; women at,
Ῥ. 54 54.; iv. 2, 3; his sufferings at,
P- 57; 59, i. 30; grandeur of the in-
cidents, p. 57; his second and third
visits, p. 58, 59; later visits, p. 61;
crime of Valens, p. 63; subsequent
history of the Church of, p. 64; epi-
scopacy at, p. 213

Philippians, the; their communications

with St Paul, p. 35 sq., 58; absence
of Judaism among, p. 52, 67; their
fidelity to St Paul, p. 52, 57; they
send relief to him, p. 60, i. 5, 7, iv.
15 sq.; his affection for them, p. 65,
66, i. τ; their sufferings, p. 57, 58;
their strife, p. 66, 67, 1. 4, iii. I, iv.
2 sq., 73; communications with Igna-
tius, p. 61, 62; correspondence with
Polycarp, p. 62, 63; lost letters (2) of
St Paul to them, iii. 1, p. 136 sq.

Philippians, Epistle to the; written

from. Rome, p. 12, 29 sq.; date of,
p: 3° 8q., 61, 171; circumstances at
the time, p. 32, 22; its motive, p.
65 sq.; structure and contents, p. 67
56. ; interruption of, p. 68, iii. 2, iv.
2; integrity of, p. 68, iii. 1; genuine-
ness of, p. 73 sq.; allusion to Juda-
izers in, p. 17, 68, 1. 15 ἘΠ. ill. 2 sq. ;
its characteristics, Ὁ. 41, 65 sq., 71
sq.; its cheerful tone, p. 65, i. 1, 4,
25, li. 18, iii. 1, iv. 4, 6; compared
with Acts, p. 37 Β6.; with Col.
Ephes. Philem., p. 37. “40 84.; with
Romans, p. 41 sq.; with Thessalo-
nians, Ῥθ σον ὅ0; 15 14°20, ἔνι τὸ τα;

342

16; with Galatians, i. 1, 153; with
2 Corinthians, iii, 5; public reading
of, p. 64; lessons to be derived from,
Ῥ. 72

Philippopolis confused with Philippi,
p. 64

Philistines in Rome, p. 171

Philo, on the Word, ii. 9; his use of
μορφή, p. 128

Philologus, p. 175

philosophy, later Greek, p. 269 sq.

Phlegon, p. 98

Piers Ploughman, p. 325

Pinytus, p. 215

Pistis Sophia, μορφή and σχῆμα in, p.
130 sq.

Pius (I of Rome), p. 167, 220

Plato (Platonists), ethics of, ii. 4; use
of μορφή, εἶδος, etc. in, p. 126 sq. ; his
portrait of the just man, p. 291

Plutarch; his silence about Christians,
p- 28; his use of μορφή, p. 127

Polycarp ; a bishop, p. 208, 210; visits
Rome, p. 220; martyrdom of, p. 316;
analysis of his epistle, p. 62 sq. ; its
date, p. 62; passages in it explained,
Ῥ. 62, 63, 138 sq., iv. 15; recognises
three orders, p. 96; adopts St Paul’s
language, p. 74, 1. 27, iv. 10; speaks
of Epistle (or Epistles) to Philippians,
p- 136, 138 sq. ; mentions no bishop
of Philippi, p. 213; has not sacerdo-
tal views, p. 249 sq.

Polycrates (of Ephesus), and his rela-
tions, p. 211; passages quoted from
him, p. 210, 212; notice of St John
in, p. 252; is he sacerdotal? p. 252

Pompeius, p. 14

Pomponia Grecina, probably a Chris-
tian, p. 21

Poppza; her character, p. §; relations
with the Jews, p. 5, 6, 328; supposed
antagonism to St Paul, p. 38, 40, 328;
reported a Christian, p. 21

Posidonius the Stoic, p. 308

Pothinus, p. 222

Preedicatio Pauli, p. 200

pretor, another name for duumyir, p. 50

Pretorian camp, p. 9, 99 sq.

INDEX.

Preetorian guards, p. 7, 9, 19, 98 sq. ;
prefect of the, p. 7, 8, 299

preetorium ; see πραιτώριον

presbyter (elder), among the Jews, p.
94, 190; ἐπίσκοπος a synonyme of,
Ρ- 93 8q., 191 sq.; Christian presby-
ters derived from the synagogue, p.
190 sq.; in the mother Church, p.
191; in Gentile Churches, p. 191 sq.;
their duties, p. 192 sq.; their names,
Ῥ. 192; bishops so called, p. 226 sq. ;
how addressed by bishops, p. 94 8q-,
228; ‘presbyteri doctores,’ p. 1933
see ministry, priest, etc.

present tense, force of, ii. 17

priest distinguished from presbyter, p.
184; the two confused in many lan-
guages, p. 184, 244

priesthood ; idea common to Jewish
and heathen, p. 180, 263; the Chris-
tian, p. 181, 182 sq., 262 sq.; uni-
versal, ii, 17, p. 266; the Jewish, p.
180; not called κλῆρος, p. 245; ana-
logy with Christian ministry, 261 sq.;
see ministry, sacerdotalism, etc.

Primus of Corinth, p. 214

Priscilla ; see Aquila

proseucha, p. 51

provocatio, p. 7

Publius of Athens, p. 215

Puteoli, p. 25, 32

pythoness at Philippi, p. 53

πάλιν (its position), i. 26

παλλαντιανός, p. 98

παραβολεύεσθαι (-Bovrever Oat), li. 30

παράκλησις, ii. I

παραμένειν (μένειν), 1. 25

παραμύθιον, il. I

παρρησία, 1. 20

πᾶς ; οἱ πάντες, ll. 213 τὰ πάντα, ili. 8;
ἐν παντί, ἐν πᾶσι, iv. 12

πεινᾶν, iv. 2

πεποιθέναι with dative, i. 14

περισσοτέρως, 1. 14

πίστις (ἢ) personified, i. 27

πλεονεξία, p. 63

πληροῦσθαι with accus., i. II

πλήν, iii. 16; πλὴν ὅτι, 1. 18

πνεῦμα (ψυχή), is 27

INDEX.

πολιτευεσθαι, i. 27

πολίτευμα, ili. 20

πραιτώριον, P. 9, 29, 38, 07 Sq., 1. 12
πρεσβύτερος; see presbyter

προκοπή, i. 12

προσευχή (δέησις), iv. 6

προσφιλής, iv. 8

πρόφασις, i. 18

πρύτανις, Pp. 195

πρωτοκαθεδρίτης, p. 217

πρῶτος (without article), i. 5
πτύρεσθαι, i. 28

φαίνειν, φαίνεσθαι, ii. 15

φθάνειν els, 111. 16

Φιλιππήσιοι (and other forms), iv. 15
φόβος καὶ τρόμος, il. 12

φρονεῖν τὸ ἕν, τὸ αὐτό, ii. 2

φωστήρ, ii. 15

ψυχή, i. 27, li. 2

Quadratus, p. 215
Quinisextine Council, p. 186, 187
quinquennalis, p. 50

Rebaptism of heretics, p. 240

resurrection, power of the, 111. 10, p.
570.) 322

Revelation ; see Apocalypse

righteousness by faith and by law, i. 11,
iii. 9

Ritschl’s theories, p. 186

Roman Empire; its relations to Chris-
tianity, p. I, 24; cosmopolitan idea
realised in, p. 304

Romans, Epistle to the; salutations in,
p- τό, 17, 20, 171 sq.; conciliatory
tone of, p. 17; integrity of, p. 175;
its resemblance to Philippians, p.
41 sq.

Rome, Jews in, p. 14, 171; Greeks and
Orientals in, p. 171 sq., 176

Rome, the Church of, p. 13 sq.; its
composition and character, p. 13;
Jewish Christians in, p. 16 sq.; Gen-
tile Christians in, p. 18; earliest con-
verts foreigners, p. 171; at first
Greek, not Latin, p. 19, 20, 221;
transition to a Latin Church, p. 221;
social rank of, p. 20 sq.; rapid growth

343

of, p. 25, 31 sq.; deacons limited to
seven, p. 186 sq.; episcopacy and
Church government in, p. 215 sq.;
succession and chronology of bishops,
p- 167, 218 sq. ; communications with
Cyprian, p. 239 sq.; see Clemens Ro-
manus, Nero, Paul (St), ete.

Rothe, on the angels of the Apocalypse,
p- 197; on the origin of episcopacy,
P= 199'5q-

Rufus, p. 10, 174

Sacerdotalism ; the term defined, p. 243;
its absence in the N. T., p. 179, 181,
243 Sq., 262 sq. ; rapid growth, p. 244;
progress of development, p. 252 sq.;
how far innocent, p. 256; whether
due to Jewish or Gentile influences,
Ῥ. 257 sq.; see priesthood

sacrifice (offering); use of the term in
the N. T., p. 259 sq.

Sagaris, p. 211

ΠΗΒΙ ΠΗ 1

Samaritans in Rome, p. 17Ὶ

Saul and Paul, iii. 5

Schwegler, criticisms on, p. 15, 168

Seneca; possibly of Shemitic race, p.
275; his personal appearance, p. 282;
relations with Nero, p. 3, 310; his
retirement, p. 5; chronology of his
writings, p. 289, 295; spurious work
ascribed to, p. 329 sq.; Haase’s Edi-
tion of, p. 327, 329; his character,
p- 309 sq-; his own confessions of
weakness, p. 310 sq.; on the Jews,
p- 14; silence about the Christians,
p: 27, 28; on the population of Rome,
p- 171; accounted a Christian, p.
268; supposed connexion with St
Paul, p. 268, 298 sq.; literature on
the subject, p. 276; compared and
contrasted with St Paul, p. 275 sq.;
coincidence of thought and language
with the Bible, p. 276 sq.; nature of
God, p. 276 sq.; relation of man to
God, p. 2778q-; guardian angels, p.
277; an indwelling spirit, p. 278;
universality of sin, p. 278 sq.; the
conscience, p. 279; self-examination,

344

ete., p.279 sq. ; duties towards others,

p- 280 sq.; parallels to the Sermon on
the Mount and to the Gospels, p.
281 sq.; to the Apostolic Epistles,
p- 285; to St Paul, p. 285 sq., ii. 17;
fallacious inferences therefrom, p.
289 ; his obligations to earlier writers,
p- 2908q.; portrait of the wise man,
Ῥ. 289 sq., 291; a true Stoic in his
theology and his ethics, p. 292 sq.;
his possible knowledge of Christianity,
p- 298 sq.; his cosmopolitanism, p.
304 sq.; his vague ideas of immor-
tality, p. 321 sq.; his sense of the
need of a historic basis, p. 324; see
Stoicism
eneca and Paul, the letters of; de-
scribed, p. 269, 327, 328 sq.; MSS
and editions of, p. 327; motive of the
forgery, p. 327; opinion of St Jerome
about them, p. 269, 328, 329; men-
tioned by St Augustine and later
writers, p. 328; their spuriousness,
p- 269, 328; a theory respecting them
discussed, p. 329 sq.; de Copia Ver-
borum mentioned in them, p. 329 sq.

Serapion, p. 209, 211

Seven, appointment of the, p. 185 sq.;
they were deacons, p. 186

Silas, p. 48

simplicity, stress laid on, ii. 15

sin ; see peccatum

slaves ; their position raised by Chris-
tianity, p. 56; transfer of, p. 173

Socrates, on αὐτάρκεια, iv. 11; on pre-
paration for death, p. 323

Soter, p. 221

Stachys, p. 10, 172

stadium, metaphor of the, i. 27, ii. 16,
ide ees elivs Ἑ

state after death, i. 23

Stephen of Rome, p. 204

Steecheus, p. 102

Stoicism; rise of, p. 269 sq.; Oriental
origin and character of, p. 271 sq.,
273,54. 207 8G-,, 308, 207, 520: ex-
clusive attention to ethics, p. 272 sq.;
neglect of physics and logic, p. 272
sq.; its prophetic character, p. 2738q.;

INDEX.

its westward progress, p. 274; the
older Stoics, p. 207 sq.; Stoicism at
Tarsus, p. 301 sq.; in Rome, p. 275,
308 ; native places of its great teach-
ers, p. 297, 301 8q.; its obligations
to Judaism, p. 297 sq.; a prepara-
tion for the Gospel, p. 300 sq.; wide
influence of its vocabulary, p. 301; _
contrast to Christianity, p. 291 sq.,
306; its materialistic pantheism, p.
292, 317 sq.; consistent blasphemies,
Pp: 293, 3143 no consciousness of sin,
Ῥ- 294, 318 sq.; ‘sacer spiritus,’ p.
278, 294; faulty ethics of, p. 294 86.»
319 8q.; apathy of, p. 295, 320; de-
fiance of nature in, p. 319; inconsis-
tencies of, p. 296, 319; paradoxes and
paralogisms of, p. 323; its cosmopo-
litanism, iii. 20, p. 303 sq.; contempt
of the body, ili. 20; αὐτάρκεια, iv. 11;
the wise man, p. 302 sq.; diverse and
vague ideas about man’s immortality,
Ῥ- 320 sq.; no idea of retribution,
Pp: 323 sq.; want of a historic basis,
p- 324.8q.; religious directors, p. 308;
improved theology in Epictetus, p.
3143 improved ethics in M. Aurelius,
Ῥ- 315; modifications and decline of,
Ρ- 317; hymnology of, p. 318; ex-
clusiveness of, p. 320; meagre results
of, p. 306 sq., 3173; causes of failure,
Ῥ. 3178q.; see Ypicictus, M. Aurelius,
Seneca, Zeno, ete.

subdeacons, p. 187

Suetonius, on the Jews in Rome, p. 16;
on Clemens and Domitilla, p. 22

Symbolum, pass of, p. 47

Symeon (Bp. of Jerusalem), p. 201, 206

synagogues; character and number of,
p. 190; adopted by the Christians,
p: 205; angels of, p. 197; rulers of,
p- 190; Chazan of, p. 187 sq.

synods (episcopal), p. 212, 222, 240

Syntyche, iv. 2, p. 168

Syrian Church, p. 209 ; sacerdotalism
in, p. 259; see Ancient Syriac Docu-
ments

Syrians in Rome, p. 171

σάρξ, p. 285

INDEX.

σκοπεῖν, il. 43 σκοπεῖτε, ili. 17

σκύβαλα, etc., 111. 8

σπένδομαι, ii. 17

σπλάγχνα (σπλαγχνίζεσθαι), i. 8, ii. 1

στέφανος (διάδημα), iv. 1

στύκειν, i. 27, iv. I

στρατήγιον, P. 99

στρατοπεδάρχης, P- 7, 99

συγχαίρειν, il. 17

συμμόρφος (-φοῦσθαι, -φίζεσθαι), p. 127
56.

συναθλεῖν, 1. 27

συναιχμάλωτος, P. IT

συνείδησις, p. 301

σύνζυγος, iv. 3

συνμιμηταί, ii. 17

συνσχηματίζεσθαι, p. 128 sq.

Συντύχη, iv. 2

σχῆμα (μορφή, ὁμοίωμα), 11. 6 56.» Ὀ. 125
sq.

Tacitus on the Christians, p. 23

Tarsus, Stoicism at, p. 301 sq.

Telesphorus, p. 220

tent, metaphor from a, i. 23

Tertullian ; on the Philippian letter,
p- 64, 76; on episcopacy, p. 210, 213,
225, 238; on the Church and bishops
of Rome, p. 221 sq.; on Seneca,
p- 268; on natural Christianity, p.
3253 use of ‘clerus’ in, p. 247; Sa-
cerdotal views of, p. 253 sq.

Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs ;
no sacerdotalism in, p. 257 56. ; re-
semblances to Philippians in, p. 74

thanksgiving, duty of, iv. 6

Thebuthis, p. 206.

Theodore of Mopsuestia ; a passage cor-
rected and explained, p. 95; on
bishops and presbyters, p. 97; on

, bishops and Apostles, p. 193 ; on pre-
torium, p. 97

Theodoret, on bishops and presbyters,
p- 97; on bishops and Apostles, p. 193
sq-; on pretorium, p. 98

Theophilus of Antioch, p. 209

Theophilus of Czesarea, p. 207

Thessalonians, Epistles’to the ; see Phi-
lippians, Epistles to the

PHIL

345

Thessalonica, mistake respecting, p. 49 ;
lost letters to, p. 137; episcopacy at,
Ῥ- 213

Thomas, Acts οὗ ; reference to Philip-
pians, p. 75

Thrace, episcopacy in, p. 215

Thraseas of Eumenia, p. 212

thundering legion, p. 28

Thyatira, Lydia of, p. 53

Tiberius ; his treatment of Agrippa,
p- 101 sq. ; of Drusus, p. 101; pre-
torian camp built by, p. 99

Tigellinus, p. 5, 40

Timotheus ; his character, ii. 20 sq. ;
in Rome, p. 113; at Philippi, p. 48,
58, ΟἹ, 1. τ, ii. 19 sq. 3 his position at
Ephesus, p. 197

Titus ; his position in Crete, p. 197

transcribers, fidelity of, ii. 1

travelling, rate of ancient, p. 37

Tryphena, p. 173 sq.

Tryphosa, 7.

Tiibingen school, p. 73, 168 sq.

Tychicus, p. 11, 30, 31

Tyndale and other versions, rendering
of πρεσβύτερος in, p. 244

τὰ KaT ἐμέ, i. 12

ταπεινόφρων, etc., ii. 4

τέλειοι, iil. 15

τί γάρ; i. 18

τὸ αὐτό, ii. 18

τοῦτο ἵνα, i. 9

Θεός, ὁ Oeds, 11. 6

θεοσεβής, p. 5

θεοφόρος, p. 313

θλίψις, 1. 17

θυσία, ii. 17

θυσιαστήριον ; see altar

Valens (the Philippian) ; his crime, p. 63,
213; the name common in Macedonia,
Ρ. 63

Victor of Rome, p. 221 sq.

vine, parable of the, p. 324 sq.

Vitringa, criticisms on, p. 186, 197, 205

Volkmar, criticisms on, p. 168

Urbanus, p. 10, 172

Vulgate rendering of πρεσβύτερος, p. 244

ὑμᾶς repeated, i. 7

346

ὑμῖν etc. (for ἑαυτοῖς etc.), ii. 5
ὑπακοή, li. 12

ὑπάρχειν, ii. 6, iil. 20
ὑπερυψοῦν, il. 9

Wiclif’s version, p. 244

Wieseler on praetorium, p. ΤΟΙ

woman ; raised by Christianity, p. 54,
55; her influence in Macedonia, p. 55

Word of God, the; see Christ

work, the, ii. 30

INDEX.

Xystus, p. 219, 220; proverbs ascribed
to, p. 220

ξενία, p. 9 :

Zeno; his system compared with that
of Epicurus, p. 270 sq.; a Pheenician,
p. 2713; his character, p. 307; his ad-.
mired polity, p. 304, 309; see Stoicism

Zephyrinus, p. 221 sq.

Zoticus, p. 212

ζῆλος, iii. 6

CAMBRIDGE: PRINTED BY Ὁ. J. CLAY, M.A. AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.

iby

7 ¥ ’ Ἧ :
ta if i) ry _ 7
im i a ᾿ a - = ay
ΠῚ, ne a) Saree

pis ri

᾿
5

ΤΥαΚ ἡ A
at Na

“1

τὰ mi
sal ἦι}.
ΤΑΝ ΑΝ,
ν } τη
‘
{ ΓΝ
‘i
"
Ἶ '
ν ᾿
Pid “
i yy "
͵ ,
i Δ Dy,
at
: ‘
Jnl τ.
x uy

Bible

113209
». Joseph Barber -Comment(N.T.)

Author Lightfoot

Philbppiens |

St.Paul's..Epistle.to the Philippians...

hitle=——

ND 97 Os
- 1958

University of Toronto
Library

Acme Library Card Pocket
LOWE-MARTIN CO. LIMITED

CARO EET Te

bewsss gerere ε"
Sey US Bia
ΞΕ Read senses ἘΞ somites ees ier SERS eres
SA eee teed τοῖς poe Seve bye κυ τὴ" τ᾿ καί οἷς αὐ aeee
Spee peak batten: Η ΚΣ ΕΑ ΝΞ τοπιενον σαν 5 matey ai oe vie Sips taraeeee

oy atte tt

errs

SS ee ee
MSE TT pes eae se EE

ἜΞΙΞΞ
‘$32

aap Se ee > seit ‘saisa wer ς a beset

Biel tewlmerpew wie yt τερῚ a! Seat 5 ΕΙΣ ΠΣ - - τ μα vopeear τ yee er eck ‘x ἊΣ -- τὸ
Ἔν se sete sreaned Betts 3 nad ἘΣΤΙ were ARES 3 a PSF aver es ak cele

ἐς ἜΡΩΣ πον, τς τς κ ETT TIF 3 ae ( Ξ ak 4 pe Rape ens | RSTO ἐν TIERS LTS Pr

“WIT pageant Stan. 2 Ἐ Fats Ἂν Same eS ΤΈΣΣ piney ORS

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "St. Paul's Epistle to the Philippians; with introduction, notes, and dissertations"

See other formats