THE TEACHING OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES part 7

2O THE TEACHING    OF   THE    TWELVE    APOSTLES

Trypho), both of whom refer to the serpent of brass made by Moses for the healing of the people, and as a type of Christ, although he had himself delivered to Israel the commandment, “ Ye shall have neither molten nor graven image,” and " Cursed be the man that maketh a molten or graven image.” Both Barnabas and Justin seem to refer to an oral Didache existing previous to any written treatise.

It will be observed that the Didache gives no example of the kind of actions in which a prophet might be allowed to in fringe the law.  But the instances quoted by Taylor from Barnabas and Justin Martyr may be regarded as bearing on the question of the use of art as an aid to Christian teach ing.

C]jap. X jj. . ércwtr âp “e{cre be i’ay i:a ’t âpiirr!pave Compare the cor responding passage in the Apostolical Constitutions (vii. 28), “ Ye are able to know the right hand from the left, and to discern false teachers from

true.” For the form of expression see also Jonah iv. i i,

of the people of Nineveh.

Chap. xi ii. i, a.—Apostles (chap. xi. 3), prophets, teachers. These terms are often used not only in the Didache but also in the New Testament and other early Ch ristian literature without any definite distinction.

 They are used indifferently of the some persons, accord- ing to the aspect of their work which at the moment is being considered. In the D idache the apostle is called a prophet (xi. 3, 6) ; but in xiii. I , 2, the prophet and teacher are apparently distinct. But in Acts xiii. I ; XIV, 4, I @ ; XV. 3 , Gel. ii. 9 ; i Thess. i. i ; ii. 6

we read of Paul, Barnabas, S ilas, and perhaps Timothy

also, as “ teachers,” " apostles ” and “ › prophets.” We seem, however, to see in the early Church the rise of " teachers ” who were a class by themselves, distinct from apostles and prophets.

See i Cor. xii. 28, where the three classes are very definitely separated : " first, apostles ; secondly, prophets ; thirdly, teachers.”

It appears from Rom. xii. y, that ' teaching ” was

THE TEACHING OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES 21

one of the definite spiritual gifts of the early Cliurch , exercise of the gift being not confincd to officials of the Church (Acts viii. 4 , xi. i Q ; xviii. z 6, 28 , James iii. i), but open (as in the Jewish synagogue) to any whom the President might invite Luke iv. i y ; Acts xiii. i § ;

xvii. z.). It is laid down in thc Apostolical Constitu- tions that ' though a man be a layman, yet if he be experienced in the delivery of instruction and reverent in habit, he may teach ; for thc Scripture saith ' they shall all be taught of God ’ ” (viii. 3 I).

“ Apostles.” The term which at first was restrictcd to the twelve was afterwards exteiided to otliers.

 The qualification at first dcmanded—personal knowledge of the Lord during his ministry (Acts i. 2 i)—was not rigidly adhered to, for we find Timothy and Silas described by St. Paul as apostles together with himsclf (i Thess. i. i ; ii. 6). That the extension of the term may not at first have been generally approved is suggested by St. Paul’s iiidignant question in I Cor. ix. i ; and perhaps we should recognize that when the title had become generally extended, a distinction was made between thc original apostolate and those who were simply missionaries—mcii in fact as the term iinplies “ sent fortli.” At all events it seeins clear that the tcrm was generally used et the period of ihc Didaclie, and that the Church needed to be sliown how to discern the truc Evangelist or missionary from the many false who souglit to impose tliemselves on believers.

rropliets.• rhat it is clear from vcr. 4 of chap. xiii, that one of the prophetic functions was that of almoner. If no prophet was present the alms were to be given directly to the poor. The essential diiference between the “ prophet,” properly so called and the “ apostle ” and the “ teacher ” was apparently his gift of speaking “ in the Spirit ” (‹r trr«ûp z‹), in fact “ pro- phesyiiig ” as in i Samuel x. i o, and elscwhere.  This gift did not, however, as in the case of Saul, prove him to be a true propliet ¡ “ Not every one,” says the

THE  TEACHING  OF THE  TWELVE  APOSTLES

Didache (xi. 8), “ that speaketh in the Spirit is a prophet ; but only if lie have the ways of the Lord.” If a prophet took money for himself, or ordered a love- feast or table for his own benefit, lie would not have the ways of the Lord, and would be thereby proved a false prophet. Generally speaking the prophets were held in considerable honour (even in their own country, though for the most part they were itinerant missionaries). 

We see, for example, in chap. x. y, that they were allowed to give thanks in public after their own mariner, and were not restricted to prescribed forms of prayer‘. All the first-fruits are to be given to tlicm “ liar thcy are

your chief priests ” (xi i i 3) In this respect at least tlicy held the same position towards the Cliristian Church as

the priesthood in the Jewish Church, in having no personal means of livelihood, but depending for support on the offerings of the community.

Chap. xiv. i .—“ The Lord’s day of the Lord.” xtipia«p xvpcov.

 Doiniiiica Dooiini. The title is peculiar. The day is always—with one exceJition—spoken of in the New Testament as the “ £ rst day of the weck,” (Jolt n xx. i , i Q ; Acts xx. y , i Cor. xvi. 2.). The exception is Rev. i . i o, “ I was in tie Spirit on the Lord’s l)ay ” ; ivli icli indicatcs a later date then would ordinarily be assigned to tie Apocalypse. II ut the dimble expression hcrc used is apparently unique.

 In the corresponding passage as the Apostolical Constitutions the words are “ the day of the resurrection of the Lord, that is, the Lord’s Day.” This fuller pli rase suggests the doubt whether the tautology of the Didache may not be due to some mutilation of the text, by which some words have d ropped out. D r. Ta)'lor supposes the formula in the Didache to have been constructed with the definite purpose of con trusting the new holy day, with tlic old Sabbath.

 Instead of a “ Sabbath of the Lot d ” Cir ristiaiis werc to celcbrate a “ Lord’s Day of the Lord.”

In any case th is passage in the Didache is valuable, as some of the earliest evidence extant of the observance by

THE TEACHIN G OP THE TWELVE APÖSTLES °3

C hristians of thc  Lord’s  Day.    The   testirnony  of  Pliny in his famous letter to Trajan, and of  Ignatius  in  fiis Epistlcs would come very near it in  point  of  time :  and next to liim J ustin Martyr in his  first  Apology.  Pliny spcaks  of  Christian services taking   place   “ state   die ” and, (if wc may accept him) Ignatius (Ep. ad Mairies Q.) dcscribcs the couverts from Judaisin as “ no louper Sabba-

t j  j jlJ   ’ ’  }fttjf fTt  CO    Œ T t OV W €( y  À  J    k Ct TG    V p bO l••T} H   OÎ} P

{‹3rzcs “ but lrving a life according to the Lord’s  Day.” justin  Martyr  contrasts the  Sabbath  w fitch is   ri‹›   longer to be observed by Cliristians with the Lord’s Day on which God began the work of creation, and the Saviour rose from the dead.

lt is worth while to notice in }›ass- ing, that the earliest reference to cessation from weekly labours oti the Lord’s Day is  i»  rertullian,  who died about z i 6   .D.    “ Qua die '’ hc says “ ennui inxiet itis ltabitii et a@icio carere debetnus di erentes etre m iiegatia ne guein diabolo fcc«»i drinui ”—“on which day it is our duty to free ourselves from all worldly carc and trouble, even postponing business, lest wc should give place to the devil.” Ver. i , 2. “ That our (or yourj sacrifice  bc  pure  not defiled.” The Eucharistic  Sacrifice  clearly  ineans  the

“ sacrifice of praise and t lianks6 • ing :” also the  “ reason- able holy  and livcly sacrifice ”  of the  worshippers,  in soul and in  body.    It  is not  possible  to read into the text  any

reference to the " sacrifice of the mass,” in which the sacrement is regarded as a repetitioii  of  Christ’s  Sacrifice of Himself on Calvary.

Chap.   xv.   i . — “ Bisliops  and   deacons.”  (•  ‹  •     ‹

•°‹ ‹ ••* •). This verse contains directions for  the ap}iointment  of the local oPicials of the Chtirch   as distinct  from  the  itinerant ministers  described  in  Chapters xi,  xii  and  xiii.     From   the   absence   of  the   word     p«  - 0 ’repas (elder or prcsbyter) from our treatise it  is reasonable to infer with Bisliop Liçlitfoot that at the date of the

id aehe “ Bishop ” and “ Elder ” were identical in meaning ; the episcopal office not having yct been developed, and the technical sense of tète -xôros being

 24 THE TEACHING   OF THE   TWELVE   APOSTLES

therefore unknown. The theories of Hatch and Harnack, ingenious thou6h they are, do not carry conviction and indeed are to some extent mutually destructive.

What we may take as definitely established (unless like these critics we reject the Pastoral Epistles and relegate much if not all of the Acts to the 2nd century) is that the existence of Prcsbyters in thc Church at Jerusalem is

recognised from the first (ACtS XÎ, 3 : • V. 4, 6, 23.) that the ordination of Presbyters in Gentile Ch urches

took place as a matter of course (Acts xiV. 23. ZX. I y,) , while the Pastoral Epistles are full of the work and qualifi- cations of the Order.  No record is given of the institution

of the order but it is gcncrally admitted to have been modelled on Jewish precedent. Therc is much probabilité that it began iii the Christian Church with the appoint- ment of the Seventy by our Lord (Luke x. i).

As to the Episco{›ate, the negative evidence of the Acts and the Pastoral Epistles shows that the Episcopal Order did not assume defi iiite existence so long as the Apostolate rçmained.

The germ of the order may be seen in the presidency of S. James over the Council at Jerusalem (Acts xv) ; in the authority entrusted to

 4“imothy and Titus as delegates of S. Paul ; possibly also in the recognition of the "Angels" of the Seven Cliurclies [Rev. ii, iii.] B ishop Barry in his Annotatcd Edition of the Churcli Service says “ There is ample evidence that from the early years of the 2nd Centui y onwards the Episcopate as the higliest Order in the Ministry received general recognition not only from the Ch urcli but also from the heretical sects which se- ceded from it,” This is however open to question.

The Ignatian Epistles, even if genuine, describe the bishop rather as the minister of a congregation than the ruler of what we understand by a diocèse , and in Irenæ us (at the close of the second century) the bishop though over

the presbyters is (as Bishop Lightfoot says) “ still re6arded as one of them ” and is as often called “ presbyter ’ as “ bishop.” Hc is in fact "primus inter §arrJ,"

Part 6           part 8