intentions) and yet thought that he could obtain credit before God for his good works. Peter uttered his solemn rebuke with a divine confidence, springing from a regard to that holy cause which was to be preserved from all foreign mixtures, and from the consciousness of being in an office entrusted to him by God, and in which he was supported by divine power. When we reflect what Peter was in the eyes of Ananias, how the superstitious hypocrite must have been confounded and thunderstruck to see his falsehood detected, how the holy denunciations of a man speaking to his conscience with such divine confidence must have acted on his terrified feelings, we shall find it not very difficult to conceive that the words of the apostle would produce so great an effect. The divine and the natural seem here to have been closely connected. What Paul so confidently asserts in his Epistles to the Corinthians, of his ability of inflicting punishment, testifies of the conscious possession by the apostles of such divine power. And when Sapphira, without suspecting what had taken place, three hours after, entered the assembly, Peter at first endeavoured to rouse her conscience by his interrogations: but since, instead of being aroused to consideration and repentance, she was hardened in her hypocrisy, Peter accused her of having concerted with her husband, to put, as it were, the Spirit of God to the proof, whether he might not be deceived by their hypocrisy. He then menaced her with the judgment of God, which had just been inflicted on her husband. The words of the apostle were in this instance aided by the impression of her husband's fate, and striking the conscience of the hypocrite, produced the same effect as on her husband. So terrible was this judgment, in order to guard the first operations of the Holy Spirit, before the admixture of that poison which is always most prejudicial to the operations of divine power on mankind; and to secure a reverence for the apostolic authority, which was so important as an external governing power for the development of the primitive church, until it had advanced to an independent steadfastness and maturity in the faith.

The disciples had not yet attained a clear understanding of that call, which Christ had already given them by so many intimations, to form a Church entirely separated from the existing Jewish economy; to that economy they adhered

as much as possible; all the forms of the national theocracy were sacred in their esteem, it seemed the natural element of their religious consciousness, though a higher principle of life had been imparted, by which that consciousness was to be progressively inspired and transformed. They remained outwardly Jews, although, in proportion as their faith in Jesus as the Redeemer became clearer and stronger, they would inwardly cease to be Jews, and all external rites would assume a different relation to their internal life. It was their belief, that the existing religious forms would continue till the second coming of Christ, when a new and higher order of things would be established, and this great change they expected would shortly take place. Hence the establishment of a distinct mode of worship was far from entering their thoughts. Although new ideas respecting the essence of true worship arose in their minds from the light of faith in the Redeemer, they felt as great an interest in the Temple worship as any devout Jews. They believed, however, that a sifting would take place among the members of the theocracy and that the better part would, by the acknowledgment of Jesus as the Messiah, be incorporated with the Christian community. As the believers, in opposition to the mass of the Jewish nation who remained hardened in their unbelief, now formed a community internally bound together by the one faith in Jesus as the Messiah, and by the consciousness of the higher life received from him, it was necessary that this internal union should assume a certain external form. And a model for such a smaller community within the great national theocracy already existed among the Jews, along with the Temple worship, namely, the Synagogues. means of religious edification which they supplied, took account of the religious welfare of all, and consisted of united prayers and the addresses of individuals who applied themselves to the study of the Old Testament. These means

The

of edification closely corresponded to the nature of the new Christian worship. This form of social worship, as it was copied in all the religious communities founded on Judaism, (such as the Essenes,) was also adopted to a certain extent at the first formation of the Christian church. But it may be disputed, whether the apostles, to whom Christ committed the chief direction of affairs, designed from the first that

believers should form a society exactly on the model of the synagogue, and, in pursuance of this plan, instituted particular offices for the government of the church corresponding to that model-or whether, without such a preconceived plan, distinct offices were appointed, as circumstances required, in doing which they would avail themselves of the model of the synagogue, with which they were familiar.

The advocates of the first scheme (particularly Mosheim) proceed on the undeniably correct assumption, that the existence of certain presidents at the head of the Christian societies, under the name of Elders (πрɛσßúτEрoi), must be presupposed, though their appointment is not expressly mentioned, as appears from Acts xi. 30. The question arises, Whether even earlier traces cannot be found of the existence of such Presbyters? The appointment of deacons is indeed first mentioned as designed to meet a special emergency, but it seems probable that their office was already in existence. It may be presumed, that the apostles, in order not to be called off from the more weighty duties of their office, appointed from the beginning such almoners; but as these officers hitherto had been chosen only from the native Jewish Christians of Palestine, the Christians of Jewish descent, who came from other parts of the Roman Empire, and to whom the Greek was almost as much their mother tongue as the Aramaic,—the Hellenists as they were termed,-believed that they were unjustly treated. On their remonstrance, deacons of Hellenistic descent were especially appointed for them, as appears by their Greek names. As the apostles declared that they were averse from being distracted in their purely spiritual employment of prayer and preaching the word by the distribution of money, we may reasonably infer that even before this time, they had not engaged in such business, but had transferred it to other persons appointed for the purpose. Still earlier, in Acts v., we find mention made of persons under the title of νεώτεροι, νεανίσκοι, who considered such an employment as carrying a corpse out of the Christian assemblies for burial as belonging to their office, so that they seem to have been no other than deacons. And as the title of younger stands in contrast with that of elders in the church, the existence of servants of the church (diákovoi), and

of ruling elders (πрεσẞúтερоi), seems here to be equally pointed out.

But though this supposition has so much plausibility, yet the evidence for it, on closer examination, appears by no means conclusive. It is far from clear that in the last quoted passage of the Acts, the narrative alludes to persons holding a distinct office in the church; it may very naturally be understood of the younger members who were fitted for such manual employment, without any other eligibility than the fact of their age and bodily strength. And, therefore, we are not to suppose that a contrast is intended between the servants and ruling Elders of the church, but simply between the younger and older members. As to the Grecian names of the seven deacons, it cannot be inferred with certainty from this circumstance that they all belonged to the Hellenists for it is well known that the Jews often bore double names, one Hebrew or Aramaic, and the other Hellenistic. Still it is possible, since the complaints of the partial distribution of alms came from the Hellenistic part of the church, that, in order to infuse confidence and satisfaction, pure Hellenists were chosen on this occasion. But if these deacons were appointed only for the Hellenists, it would have been most natural to entrust their election to the Hellenistic part alone, and not to the whole church.

1 Even after what has been urged by Meyer and Olshausen, in their Commentaries on the Acts, against this view, I cannot give it up. In accordance with the relation in which, anciently, and especially among the Jews, the young stood to their elders, it would follow as a matter of course, that the young men in an assembly would be ready to perform any service which might be required. I do not see why (as Olshausen maintains,) on that supposition, any other term than verepot should have been used-for, if Luke had wished to designate appointed servants of the church, he would not have used this indefinite appella tion;-nor can I feel the force of Olshausen's objection, that in that passage of the Acts, the article would not have been used, but the pronoun TIVES. Luke intended to mark, no doubt, a particular class of persons, the younger contradistinguished from the elder, without determining whether all or only some lent their assistance. But Olshausen is so far right, that if these are assumed to be regularly appointed servants of the church, they cannot be considered as the forerunners of the deacons chosen at a later period, for manifestly these veάTEρo held a far lower place. I am glad to find an acute advocate of the view I have taken in Rothe; see his work on the Commencement of the Christian Church, p. 162.

Hence we are disposed to believe, that the church was at first composed entirely of members standing on an equality with one another, and that the apostles alone held a higher rank, and exercised a directing influence over the whole, which arose from the original position in which Christ had placed them in relation to other believers; so that the whole arrangement and administration of the affairs of the church proceeded from them, and they were first induced by particular circumstances to appoint other church officers, as in he instance of deacons.

As in the government of the church in general the apostles at first were the sole directors, all the contributions towards the common fund were deposited with them (Acts v. 2), and its distribution, according to the wants of individuals, was altogether in their hands. From Acts vi. 2, it cannot be positively inferred, that the apostles had nc hitherto been occupied with this secular concern. That passage may be

understood to intimate that they had hitherto attended to this business without being distracted in their calling as preachers of the Word, as long as the confidence universally reposed in them, and the unity pervading the church, lightened this labour; but it assumed a very different aspect when a conflict of distinct interests arose between the members. Meanwhile, the number of the believers increased so greatly, that it is probable, had there been no other reason, that the apostles could not manage the distribution alone; but con、 signed a part of the business sometimes to one, sometimes to another, who either offered themselves for the purpose, or had shown themselves to be worthy of such confidence. Still this department of labour had not yet received any regular form.

But as the visible church received into its bosom various elements, the opposition existing in these elements gradually became apparent, and threatened to destroy the Christian unity, until by the might of the Christian spirit this opposition could be counterbalanced, and a higher unity developed. The strongest opposition existing in the primitive church, was that between the Palestinian or purely Jewish, and the Hellenistic converts. And though the power of Christian love at first so fused together the dispositions of these two parties, that the contrariety seemed lost, yet the original