Page images
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors]

difference soon made its appearance. It showed itself in this respect, that the Hellenists, dissatisfied with the mode of distributing the alms, were mistrustful of the others, and believed that they had cause to complain that their own poor widows were not taken such good care of in the daily distribution,' as the widows of the Palestinian Jews; whether. the fact was, that the apostles had hitherto committed this business to Palestinian Jews, and these had either justly or unjustly incurred the suspicion of partiality, or whether the want of a regular plan for this business had occasioned much irregularity and neglect of individuals, or whether the complaint was grounded more in the natural mistrust of the Hellenists than in a real grievance, must be left undetermined, from the want of more exact information. These complaints, however, induced the apostles to establish a regular plan for conducting this business, and since they could not themselves combine the strict oversight of individuals, and the satisfaction of each one's wants,2 with a proper attention to the principal object of their calling, they thought it best to institute a particular office for the purpose, the first regular one for administering the concerns of the church. Accordingly, they required the church to entrust this business to persons who enjoyed the general confidence, and were fitted for the office, animated by Christian zeal, and armed with Christian prudence.3 Seven such individuals were chosen; the number being accidentally fixed upon as a common one, or being adapted to seven sections of the church. Thus this office originated in the immediate wants of the primitive church,

1 Neither from the expression diakovía, vi. 1, nor from the phrase διακονεῖν τραπέζαις, can it be inferred with certainty that the apostles alluded only to the distribution of food among the poor widows. We may be allowed to suppose that this was only one of the Tables of the service they performed, and that it is mentioned to mark more pointedly the distinction between the oversight of spiritual, and that of secular concerns.

2 That they were required to undertake the business alone, instead of entrusting it to deputies, cannot be proved from the language in the Acts.

3 Acts vi. 3. The word πνεῦμα (which is the true reading, for ἁγίου and kupiov appear to be only glosses) denotes that inspiration for the cause of the gospel which is requisite for every kind of exertion for the kingdom of God; oopía signifies, that quality which is essential for this office in particular, and imports in the New Testament, wisdom or prudence

[blocks in formation]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

and its special mode of operation was marked out by the peculiar situation of this first union of believers, which was in some points dissimilar to that of the Jewish synagogue, or of later churches, As it was called for by the pressure of circumstances, it certainly was not intended to be perfectly correspondent to an office in the Jewish synagogue, and can by no means be considered parallel to that of a common servant of the synagogue (Luke iv. 20), termed It was of higher importance, for at first it was the only one in the church besides the apostolic, and required a special capability in the management of men's dispositions, which might be employed in services of a higher kind, and was such as without doubt belonged to the general idea of oopía. Neither was this office altogether identical with that which at a later period bore the same name, but was subordinate to the office of presbyters. And yet it would be wrong to deny that the later church office of this name developed itself from the first, and might be traced back to it.3 Although, as is usual in such affairs, when the ecclesiastical system became more complex, many changes took place in the office of deacons ; for example, the original sole appointment of deacons for the distribution of alms, became afterwards subordinate to the influence of the presbyters, who assumed the whole management of church affairs, and though many other secular employments were added to the original one, yet the fundamental principle as well as the name of the office remained.5 1 See Rothe's admirable Remarks, p. 166.

2 As Chrysostom observes in his fourteenth Homily on the Acts, § 3. As the Second Trullanian Council, c. 16, which was occasioned by a special object, that the number of deacons for large towns might not be limited to seven.

4 From Acts xi. 30, nothing more is to be inferred, than that when presbyters were appointed for the general superintendence of the church, the contributions intended for the church were handed over to them, as formerly to the apostles, when they held the exclusive management of affairs. It may be fairly supposed that the presbyters entrusted each of the deacons with a sum out of the common fund for distribution in his own department.

5 I find no reason (with Rothe, p. 166) to doubt this; for the name was well adapted to denote their particular employment, and to distinguish them from persons acting in a more subordinate capacity, as Thрeтal. Nor is it any objection to this, that in Acts xxi. 8 they are merely called The Seven, for as the name of deacon was then the usual

In later times, we still find traces of the distribution of alms being considered as the peculiar employment of deacons.1 Here, as in many other instances in the history of the church, human weakness and imperfection subserved the divine wisdom, and promoted the interests of the kingdom of God; for by this appointment of deacons for the Hellenistic part of the church, distinguished men of Hellenistic descent and education were brought into the public service of the church, and the Hellenists, by their freer mental culture, were inmany respects better qualified rightly to understand and to publish the gospel as the foundation of a method of salvation independent of Judaism, and intended for all men equally without distinction. The important consequences resulting from this event will appear in the course of the history.

The institution of the office of presbyters was similar in its origin to that of deacons. As the church was continually increasing in size, the details of its management also multiplied; the guidance of all its affairs by the apostles could no longer be conveniently combined with the exercise of their peculiar apostolic functions; they also wished, in accordance with the spirit of Christianity, not to govern alone, but preferred that the body of believers should govern themselves under their guidance; thus they divided the government of the church, which hitherto they had exercised alone, with tried men, who formed a presiding council of elders, similar to that which was known in the Jewish synagogues under the title of p, TрεσẞÚTEρOL.2 Possibly, as the formal appointment of deacons

appellation of a certain class of officers in the church, Luke uses this expression to distinguish them from others of the same name, just as The Twelve denoted the apostles.

1 Hence, at the appointment of deacons, it was required, that they should not be greedy of filthy lucre," 1 Tim. iii. 8. Origen, in Matt. t. xvi. § 22, οἱ διάκονοι διοικοῦντες τὰ τῆς ἐκκλησίας χρήματα; and Cyprian says of the deacon Felicissimus, pecuniæ commissæ sibi frau dator. Even in the apostolic age, the deacon's office appears to have extended to many other outward employments, and most probably the word avτinweis, Helps,' denotes the serviceableness of their office. 1 Cor. xii. 28.

2 Bauer has lately maintained, that the general government of the affairs of the church did not enter originally and essentially into the idea of πρεσβύτεροι, but that originally every πρεσβύτερος presided over a small distinct Christian society. From this, one consequence would follow which Bauer also deduces from it, that not a republican, but a

arose from a specific outward occasion, a similar, though to us unknown, event occasioned that of presbyters. They were originally chosen as in the Synagogue, not so much for the instruction and edification of the church, as for taking the lead in its general government.

But as to the provision made in the primitive church for religious instruction and edification, we have no precise in

=

monarchical element entered originally into the constitution of the church, a position from which most important consequences would follow. But against this assertion, we have many things to urge. Since the appointment of presbyters in the Christian church entirely corresponded with that of presbyters in the Jewish synagogue, at least in their original constitution, so we may conclude, that if a plurality of elders stood at the head of the synagogue, the same was the case with the first Christian church. But as the synagogue according to the ancient Jewish constitution, was organized on the plan of the great Sanhedrim at Jerusalem, we might expect that a whole college of elders would have the direction of the synagogues, as such college of elders was really at the head of the Jews in a city. Luke vii. 3. The passages in which one is distinguished by the title of 8 agxovvάywyos, Luke viii. 41, 49; xiii. 14, may signify, that the individual mentioned stood at the head of the Jewish congregation as np, and that the form of government was rather monarchical. But admitting this, still the supposition of a college of presbyters, presiding over the synagogue, would not be invalidated, since we meet with a plurality of agxoáywy Tgeo BUT Egol, Acts xiii. 15; xviii. 8-18. Yet we must make the limitation, that in smaller places an individual, as in larger towns a plurality, stood at the head of the synagogue. It is most probable, that although all presbyters were called agxiovváywyoɩ, yet one who acted as president was distinguished by the title of ȧgxiovváywyos, as primus inter pares. In evidence of this, compare the first passage quoted from Luke with Mark v. 22. This is important in reference to the later relation of bishops to presbyters. The analogy to the Jewish synagogue allows us to conclude, that at the head of the first church at Jerusalem, a general deliberative college was placed from the beginning; a notion which is favoured by a comparison with the college of apostles; and in the Acts, a plurality of presbyters always appears next in rank to the apostles, as representatives of the church at Jerusalem. If any one is disposed to maintain, that each of these presbyters presided over a smaller part of the church at its special meetings, still it must be thereby established, that notwithstanding these divided meetings, the church formed a whole, over which this deliberative college of presbyters presided, and therefore, the form of government was still republican. But if it is probable that the whole church, which could not meet in one place, divided itself into several companies, still the assumption, that from the beginning the number of presbyters was equal to the number of places of assembling, and to these subdivisions of the collective body of believers, is entirely groundless, and in the highest degree improbable.

1

formation. If we are justified in assuming that the mode adopted in the assemblies of Gentile Christians—which, in accordance with the enlightened spirit and nature of Christianity, was not confined to one station of life, or to one form of mental cultivation-was also the original one, we might from that conclude, that from the first, any one who had the ability and an inward call to utter his thoughts on Christian topics in a public assembly, was permitted to speak for the general improvement and edification. But the first church differed from the churches subsequently formed among the Gentiles in one important respect, that in the latter there were no teachers of that degree of illumination, and claiming that respect to which the apostles had a right, from the position in which Christ himself had placed them. Meanwhile, though the apostles principally attended to the advancement of Christian knowledge, and as teachers possessed a preponderating and distinguished influence, it by no means follows, that they monopolized the right of instructing the church. In proportion as they were influenced by the spirit of the Gospel, it must have been their aim to lead believers by their teaching to that spiritual maturity, which would enable them to contribute (by virtue of the divine life communicated to all by the Holy Spirit) to their mutual awakening, instruction, and improvement. Viewing the occurrences of the day of Pentecost as an illustration of the agency of the Divine Spirit in the new dispensation, we might conclude that, on subsequent occasions, that spiritual excitement which impelled believers to testify of the divine life, could not be confined to the apostles. Accordingly, we find that individuals came forward, who had already devoted themselves to the study and interpretation of the Old Testament, and to meditation on divine things; and when, by the illumination of the Holy Spirit, they had become familiar with the nature of the gospel, they could with comparative ease develop and apply its truths in public addresses. They received the gift for which there

1 That in the Jewish Christian churches, public speaking in their assemblies was not confined to certain authorized persons, is evident from the fact, that James, in addressing believers of that class who were too apt to substitute talking for practising, censured them, because so many without an inward call, prompted by self-conceit, put themselves forward in their assemblies as teachers.

« PreviousContinue »