sins. Even at the cost of cutting off the right hand, or plucking out
the right eye, the Christian community must be kept pure in doctrine as
in life.

These two passages,--the one before us, and the one respecting the case
of incest at Corinth,--are conclusive as to St. Paul's teaching
respecting the existence and personality of the devil. They are
supported and illustrated by a number of other passages in his writings;
as when he tells the Thessalonians that "Satan hindered" his work, or
warns the Corinthians that "even Satan fashioneth himself into an angel
of light," and tells them that his own sore trouble in the flesh was,
like Job's, "a messenger of Satan to buffet" him. Not less clear is the
teaching of St. Peter and St. John in Epistles which, with those of St.
Paul to the Corinthians, are among the best authenticated works in
ancient literature. "Your adversary the devil as a roaring lion, walketh
about, seeking whom he may devour," says the one: "He that doeth sin is
of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning," says the other.
And, if we need higher authority, there is the declaration of Christ to
the malignant and unbelieving Jews. "Ye are of your father the devil,
and the lusts of your father it is your will to do. He was a murderer
from the beginning, and stood not in the truth, because there is no
truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is
a liar, and the father thereof."[32] With regard to this last passage,
those who deny the personal existence of Satan must maintain either (1)
that the Evangelist here attributes to Christ words which He never used;
or (2) that Christ was willing to make use of a monstrous superstition
in order to denounce his opponents with emphasis; or (3) that He Himself
erroneously believed in the existence of a being who was a mere figment
of an unenlightened imagination: in other words, that "the Son of God
was manifested that He might destroy the works of the devil," when all
the while there was no devil and no works of his to be destroyed.

The first of these views cuts at the root of all trust in the Gospels as
historical documents. Words which imply that Satan is a person are
attributed to Christ by the Synoptists no less than by St. John; and if
the Evangelists are not to be believed in their report of Christ's
sayings on this topic, what security have we that they are to be
believed as to their reports of the rest of His teaching; or indeed as
to anything which they narrate? Again, how are we to account for the
very strong statements made by the Apostles themselves respecting the
evil one, if they had never heard anything of the kind from Christ.

The second view has been adopted by Schleiermacher, who thinks that
Christ accommodated His teaching to the ideas then prevalent among the
Jews respecting Satan without sharing them Himself. He knew that Satan
was a mere personification of the moral evil which every man finds in
his own nature and in that of his fellow-men: but the Jews believed in
the personality of this evil principle, and He acquiesced in the
belief, not as being true, but as offering no fundamental opposition to
His teaching. But is this consistent with the truthfulness of Christ? If
a personal devil is an empty superstition, He went out of his way to
confirm men in their belief in it. Why teach that the enemy who sowed
the tares is the devil? Why interpret the birds that snatch away the
freshly sown seed as Satan? It would have been so easy in each case to
have spoken of impersonal temptations. Again, what motive can Christ
have had for telling His _Apostles_ (not the ignorant and superstitious
multitude), that He Himself had endured the repeated solicitations of a
personal tempter, who had conversed and argued with Him?

Those who, like Strauss and Renan, believe Jesus of Nazareth to have
been a mere man, would naturally adopt the third view. In believing in
the personality of Satan Jesus merely shared the superstitions of His
age. To all those who wish to discuss with him whether we are still
Christians, Strauss declares that "the belief in a devil is one of the
most hideous sides of the ancient Christian faith," and that "the extent
to which this dangerous delusion still controls men's ideas or has been
banished from them is the very thing to regard as a measure of culture."
But at the same time he admits that "to remove so fundamental a stone is
dangerous for the whole edifice of the Christian faith. It was the young
Goethe who remarked against Bahrdt that if ever an idea was biblical,
this one [of the existence of a personal Satan] was such."[33] And
elsewhere Strauss declares that the conception of the Messiah and His
kingdom without the antithesis of an infernal kingdom with a personal
chief is as impossible as that of North pole without a South pole.[34]

To refuse to believe in an evil power external to ourselves is to
believe that human nature itself is diabolical. Whence come the devilish
thoughts that vex us even at the most sacred and solemn moments? If they
do not come from the evil one and his myrmidons, they come from
ourselves:--they are our own offspring. Such a belief might well drive
us to despair. So far from being a "hideous" element in the Christian
faith, the belief in a power, "_not ourselves_, that makes for"
wickedness, is a most consoling one. It has been said that, if there
were no God, we should have to invent one: and with almost equal truth
we might say that, if there were no devil, we should have to invent one.
Without a belief in God bad men would have little to induce them to
conquer their evil passions. Without a belief in a devil good men would
have little hope of ever being able to do so.

The passage before us supplies us with another consoling thought with
regard to this terrible adversary, who is always invisibly plotting
against us. It is often _for our own good_ that God allows him to have
an advantage over us. He is permitted to inflict loss upon us through
our persons and our property, as in the case of Job, and the woman whom
he bowed down for eighteen years, in order to chasten us and teach us
that "we have not here an abiding city." And he is permitted even to
lead us into sin, in order to save us from spiritual pride, and to
convince us that apart from Christ and in our own strength we can do
nothing. These are not Satan's motives, but they are God's motives in
allowing him to be "the ruler of this world," and to have much power
over human affairs. Satan inflicts suffering from love of inflicting it,
and leads into sin from love of sin: but God knows how to bring good out
of evil by making the evil one frustrate his own wiles. The devil
malignantly afflicts souls that come within his power; but the
affliction leads to those souls being "saved in the day of the Lord." It
had that blessed effect in the case of the incestuous person at Corinth.
Whether the same is true of Hymenæus and Alexander, there is nothing in
Scripture to tell us. It is for us to take care that in our case the
chastisements which inevitably follow upon sin do not drive us further
and further into it, but teach us to sin no more.

FOOTNOTES:

[30] Dr. David Brown in Schaff's _Popular Commentary_, iii., p. 180.

[31] Heb. xii. 5, 11; comp. 1 Cor. xi. 32; 2 Cor. vi. 9; 2 Tim. ii. 25;
Luke xxiii. 16, 22: Soph., _Ajax_ 595; Xen., _Mem._ I. iii. 5.

[32] 1 Thess. ii. 18; 2 Cor. xi. 14, xii. 7; 1 Pet. v. 8; 1 John iii. 8;
John viii. 44.

[33] Strauss, _Der alte und der neue Glaube_, p. 22.

[34] Herzog und Plitt, XV. p. 361.

CHAPTER VIII.

_ELEMENTS OF CHRISTIAN WORSHIP; INTERCESSORY PRAYER AND
THANKSGIVING.--THE SOLIDARITY OF CHRISTENDOM AND OF THE HUMAN RACE._

    "I exhort, therefore, first of all, that supplications, prayers,
    intercessions, thanksgivings, be made for all men: for kings and all
    that are in high places; that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life
    in all godliness and gravity"--1 TIM. ii. 1.

The first chapter of the Epistle is more or less introductory. It
repeats what St. Paul had already said to his beloved disciple by word
of mouth, on the subject of Christian doctrine, and the necessity of
keeping it pure. It makes a digression respecting the Apostle's own
conversion. It reminds Timothy of the hopeful prophecies uttered over
him at his ordination; and it points out the terrible consequences of
driving conscience from the helm and placing oneself in antagonism to
the Almighty. In this second chapter St Paul goes on to mention in order
the subjects which led to the writing of the letter; and the very first
exhortation which he has to give is that respecting Christian worship
and the duty of intercessory prayer and thanksgiving.

There are two things very worthy of remark in the treatment of the
subject of worship in the Pastoral Epistles. First, these letters bring
before us a more developed form of worship than we find indicated in
the earlier writings of St. Paul. It is still very primitive, but it has
grown. And this is exactly what we ought to expect, especially when we
remember how rapidly the Christian Church developed its powers during
the first century and a half. Secondly, the indications of this more
developed form of worship occur only in the letters to Timothy, which
deal with the condition of things in the Church of Ephesus, a Church
which had already been founded for a considerable time, and was in a
comparatively advanced stage of organization. Hence we are not surprised
to find in these two Epistles fragments of what appear to be primitive
liturgical forms. In the First Epistle we have two grand doxologies,
which may be the outcome of the Apostle's devotion at the moment, but
are quite as likely to be quotations of formulas well known to Timothy
(i. 17; vi. 15, 16). Between these two we have what looks like a portion
of a hymn in praise of Jesus Christ, suitable for singing antiphonally
(iii. 16; comp. Pliny, _Epp._ x. 96): and also what may be a baptismal
exhortation (vi. 12). In the Second Epistle we have traces of another
liturgical formula (ii. 11-13).

St. Paul of course does not mean, as the A.V. might lead us to suppose,
that in all Christian worship intercession ought to come first; still
less that intercession is the first duty of a Christian. But he does
place it first among those subjects about which he has to give
directions in this Epistle. He makes sure that it shall not be forgotten
by himself in writing to his delegate at Ephesus; and he wishes to make
sure that it shall not be forgotten by Timothy in his ministration. To
offer prayers and thanksgivings on behalf of all men is a duty of such
high importance that the Apostle places it first among the topics of his
pastoral charge.

Was it a duty which Timothy and the congregation committed to his care
had been neglecting, or were in serious danger of neglecting? It may
well have been so. In the difficulties of the overseer's own personal
position, and in the varied dangers to which his little flock were so
unceasingly exposed, the claims of others upon their united prayer and
praise may sometimes have been forgotten. When the Apostle had left
Timothy to take his place for a time in Ephesus he had hoped to return
very soon, and consequently had given him only brief and somewhat hasty
directions as to his course of action during his absence. He had been
prevented from returning; and there was a probability that Timothy would
have to be his representative for an indefinite period. Meanwhile the
difficulties of Timothy's position had not diminished. Many of his flock
were much older men than himself, and some of them had been elders in
the Church of Ephesus long before the Apostle's beloved disciple was
placed in charge of them. Some of the leaders in the congregation had
become tainted with the Gnostic errors with which the intellectual
atmosphere of Ephesus was charged, and were endeavouring to make
compromise and confusion between heathen lawlessness and Christian
liberty. Besides which, there was the bitter hostility of the Jews, who
regarded both Paul and Timothy as renegades from the faith of their
ancestors, and who never lost an opportunity of thwarting and reviling
them. Above all there was the ever-present danger of heathenism, which
confronted the Christians every time they left the shelter of their own
houses. In the city which counted it as its chief glory that it was the
"Temple-keeper of the great Artemis" (Acts xix. 35), every street
through which the Christians walked, and every heathen house which they
entered, was full of pagan abominations; to say nothing of the
magnificent temples, beautiful groves, and seductive idolatrous rites,
which were among the main features that attracted such motley crowds to
Ephesus. Amid difficulties and perils such as these, it would not be
wonderful if Timothy and those committed to his care had been somewhat
oblivious of the fact that "behind the mountains also there are people;"
that beyond the narrow limits of their contracted horizon there were
interests as weighty as their own--Christians who were as dear to God as
themselves, whose needs were as great as their own, and to whom the Lord
had been equally gracious; and moreover countless hosts of heathen, who
also were God's children, needing His help and receiving His blessings;
for all of whom, as well as for themselves, the Church in Ephesus was
bound to offer prayer and thanksgiving.

But there is no need to assume that Timothy, and those committed to his
care, had been specially neglectful of this duty. To keep clearly in
view our responsibilities towards the whole human race, or even towards
the whole Church, is so difficult a thing for all of us, that the
prominent place which St. Paul gives to the obligation to offer prayers
and thanksgivings for all men is quite intelligible, without the
supposition that the disciple whom he addresses was more in need of such
a charge than other ministers in the Churches under St. Paul's care.

The Apostle uses three different words for prayer, the second of which
is a general term and covers all kinds of prayer to God, and the first a
still more general term, including petitions addressed to man. Either
of the first two would embrace the third, which indicates a bold and
earnest approach to the Almighty to implore some great benefit. None of
the three words necessarily means intercession in the sense of prayer
_on behalf of others_. This idea comes from the context. St. Paul says
plainly that it is prayers and thanksgivings "for all men" that he
desires to have made: and in all probability he did not carefully
distinguish in his mind the shades of meaning which are proper to the
three terms which he uses. Whatever various kinds of supplication there
may be which are offered by man at the throne of grace, he urges that
the whole human race are to have the benefit of them. Obviously, as
Chrysostom long ago pointed out, we cannot limit the Apostle's "all men"
to all believers. Directly he enters into detail he mentions "kings and
all that are in high place;" and in St. Paul's day not a single king,
and we may almost say not a single person in high place, was a believer.
The scope of a Christian's desires and gratitude, when he appears before
the Lord, must have no narrower limit than that which embraces the whole
human race. This important principle, the Apostle charges his
representative, must be exhibited in the public worship of the Church in
Ephesus.

The solidarity of the whole body of Christians, however distant from one
another in space and time, however different from one another in
nationality, in discipline, and even in creed, is a magnificent fact, of
which we all of us need from time to time to be reminded, and which,
even when we are reminded of it, we find it somewhat difficult to grasp.
Members of sects that we never heard of, dwelling in remote regions of
which we do not even know the names, are nevertheless united to us by
the eternal ties of a common baptism and a common belief in God and in
Jesus Christ. The eastern sectarian in the wilds of Asia, and the
western sectarian in the backwoods of North America, are members of
Christ and our brethren; and as such have spiritual interests identical
with our own, for which it is not only our duty but our advantage to
pray. "Whether one member suffereth, all the members suffer with it; or
one member is honoured, all the members rejoice with it." The ties which
bind Christians to one another are at once so subtle and so real, that
it is impossible for one Christian to remain unaffected by the progress
or retrogression of any other. Therefore, not only does the law of
Christian charity require us to aid all our fellow-Christians by praying
for them, but the law of self-interest leads us to do so also; for their
advance will assuredly help us forward, and their relapse will assuredly
keep us back. All this is plain matter of fact, revealed to us by Christ
and His apostles, and confirmed by our own experience, so far as our
feeble powers of observation are able to supply a test. Nevertheless, it
is a fact of such enormous proportions (even without taking into account
our close relationship with those who have passed away from this world),
that even with our best efforts we fail to realize it in its immensity.

What shall we say, then, about the difficulty of realizing the
solidarity of the whole human race? For they also are God's offspring,
and as such are of one family with ourselves. If it is hard to remember
that the welfare of the humblest member of a remote and obscure
community in Christendom intimately concerns ourselves, how shall we
keep in view the fact that we have both interests and obligations in
reference to the wildest and most degraded heathens in the heart of
Africa or in the islands of the Pacific? Here is a fact on a far more
stupendous scale; for in the population of the globe, those who are not
even in name Christians, outnumber us by at least three to one. And yet
let us never forget that our interest in these countless multitudes,
whom we have never seen and never shall see in this life, is not a mere
graceful sentiment or empty flourish of rhetoric, but a sober and solid
fact. The hackneyed phrase, "a man and a brother," represents a vital
truth. Every human being is one of our brethren, and, whether we like
the responsibility or not, we are still our "brother's keeper." In our
keeping, to a very real extent, lie the supreme issues of his spiritual
life, and we have to look to it that we discharge our trust faithfully.
We read with horror, and it may be with compassion, of the monstrous
outrages committed by savage chiefs upon their subjects, their wives, or
their enemies. We forget that the guilt of these things may lie partly
at our door, because we have not done our part in helping forward
civilizing influences which would have prevented such horrors, above all
because we have not prayed as we ought for those who commit them. There
are few of us who have not some opportunities of giving assistance in
various ways to missionary enterprise and humanizing efforts. But all of
us can at least pray for God's blessing upon such things, and for His
mercy upon those who are in need of it. Of those who, having nothing
else to give, give their struggles after holiness and their prayers for
their fellow-men, the blessed commendation stands written, "They have
done what they could."

"For kings and all that are in high place." It is quite a mistake to
suppose that "kings" here means the Roman Emperors. This has been
asserted, and from this misinterpretation has been deduced the
erroneous conclusion that the letter must have been written at a time
when it was customary for the Emperor to associate another prince with
him in the empire, with a view to securing the succession. As Hadrian
was the first to do this, and that near to the close of his reign, this
letter (it is urged) cannot be earlier than A.D. 138. But this
interpretation is impossible, for "kings" in the Greek has no article.
Had the writer meant the two reigning Emperors, whether Hadrian and
Antoninus, or M. Aurelius and Verus, he would inevitably have written
"for _the_ kings and for all in high place." The expression "for kings,"
obviously means "for monarchs of all descriptions," including the Roman
Emperor, but including many other potentates also. Such persons, as
having the heaviest responsibilities and the greatest power of doing
good and evil, have an especial claim upon the prayers of Christians. It
gives us a striking illustration of the transforming powers of
Christianity when we think of St. Paul giving urgent directions that
among the persons to be remembered first in the intercessions of the
Church are Nero and the men whom he put "in high place," such as Otho
and Vitellius, who afterwards became Emperor: and this, too, after
Nero's peculiarly cruel and wanton persecution of the Christians A.D.
64. How firmly this beautiful practice became established among
Christians, is shown from their writings in the second and third
centuries. Tertullian, who lived through the reigns of such monsters as
Commodus and Elagabalus, who remembered the persecution under M.
Aurelius, and witnessed that under Septimius Severus, can nevertheless
write thus of the Emperor of Rome: "A Christian is the enemy of no one,
least of all of the Emperor, whom he knows to have been appointed by
his God, and whom he therefore of necessity loves, and reverences, and
honours, and desires his well-being, with that of the whole Roman
Empire, so long as the world shall stand; for it shall last as long. To
the Emperor, therefore, we render such homage as is lawful for us and
good for him, as the human being who comes next to God, and is what he
is by God's decree, and to God alone is inferior.... And so we sacrifice
also for the well-being of the Emperor; but to our God and his; but in
the way that God has ordained, with a prayer that is pure. For God, the
Creator of the universe, has no need of odours or of blood."[35] In
another passage Tertullian anticipates the objection that Christians
pray for the Emperor, in order to curry favour with the Roman government
and thus escape persecution. He says that the heathen have only to look
into the Scriptures, which to Christians are the voice of God, and see
that to pray for their enemies and to pray for those in authority is a
fundamental rule with Christians. And he quotes the passage before
us.[36] But he appears to misunderstand the concluding words of the
Apostle's injunction,--"that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in
all godliness and gravity." Tertullian understands this as a reason for
praying for kings and rulers; because they are the preservers of the
public peace, and any disturbance in the empire will necessarily affect
the Christians as well as other subjects,--which is giving a rather
narrow and selfish motive for this great duty. "That we may lead a
tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and gravity," is the object and
consequence, not of our praying for kings and rulers in particular, but
of our offering prayers and thanksgivings _on behalf of all men_.

When this most pressing obligation is duly discharged, then, and only
then, can we hope with tranquil consciences to be able to live Christian
lives in retirement from the rivalries and jealousies and squabbles of
the world. Only in the attitude of mind which makes us pray and give
thanks for our fellow-men is the tranquillity of a godly life possible.
The enemies of Christian peace and quietness are anxiety and strife. Are
we anxious about the well-being of those near and dear to us, or of
those whose interests are bound up with our own? Let us pray for them.
Have we grave misgivings respecting the course which events are taking
in Church, or in State, or in any of the smaller societies to which we
belong? Let us offer supplications and intercessions on behalf of all
concerned in them. Prayer offered in faith to the throne of grace will
calm our anxiety, because it will assure us that all is in God's hand,
and that in His own good time He will bring good out of the evil. Are we
at strife with our neighbours, and is this a constant source of
disturbance? Let us pray for them. Fervent and frequent prayers for
those who are hostile to us will certainly secure this much,--that we
ourselves become more wary about giving provocation; and this will go a
long way towards bringing the attainment of our desire for the entire
cessation of the strife. Is there any one to whom we have taken a strong
aversion, whose very presence is a trial to us, whose every gesture and
every tone irritates us, and the sight of whose handwriting makes us
shiver, because of its disturbing associations? Let us pray for him.
Sooner or later dislike must give way to prayer. It is impossible to go
on taking a real interest in the welfare of another, and at the same
time to go on detesting him. And if our prayers for his welfare are
genuine, a real interest in it there must be. Is there any one of whom
we are jealous? Of whose popularity, so dangerous to our own, we are
envious? Whose success--quite undeserved success, as it seems to
us--disgusts and frightens us? Whose mishaps and failures, nay even
whose faults and misdeeds, give us pleasure and satisfaction? Let us
thank God for the favour which He bestows upon this man. Let us praise
our heavenly Father for having in His wisdom and His justice given to
another of His children what He denies to us; and let us pray Him to
keep this other from abusing His gifts.

Yes, let us never forget that not only prayers but _thanksgivings_ are
to be offered _for all men_. He who is so good to the whole Church, of
which we are members, and to the great human family to which we belong,
certainly has claim upon the gratitude of every human being, and
especially of every Christian. His bounty is not given by measure or by
merit. He maketh His sun to shine upon the evil and the good, and
sendeth His rain upon the just and the unjust: and shall we pick and
choose as to what we will thank Him for, and what not? The sister who
loves her erring or her half-witted brother is grateful to her father
for the care which he bestows upon his graceless and his useless son.
And shall we not give thanks to our heavenly Father for the benefits
which He bestows on the countless multitudes whose interests are so
closely interwoven with our own? Benefits bestowed upon any human being
are an answer to our prayers, and as such we are bound to give thanks
for them. How much more grateful shall we be, when we are able to look
on them as benefits bestowed upon those whom we love!

This is the cause of so much of our failure in prayer. We do not couple
our prayers with thanksgiving; or at any rate our thanksgivings are far
less hearty than our prayers. We give thanks for benefits received by
ourselves: we forget to give thanks "for all men." Above all, we forget
that the truest gratitude is shown, not in words or feelings, but in
conduct. We should send good deeds after good words to heaven. Not that
our ingratitude provokes God to withhold His gifts; but that it does
render us less capable of receiving them. For the sake of others no less
than for ourselves let us remember the Apostle's charge that
"thanksgivings be made for all men." We cannot give plenty and
prosperity to the nations of the earth. We cannot bestow on them peace
and tranquillity. We cannot bring them out of darkness to God's glorious
light. We cannot raise them from impurity to holiness. We can only do a
little, a very little, towards these great ends. But one thing we can
do. We can at least thank Him who has already bestowed some, and is
preparing to bestow others, of these blessings. We can praise Him for
the end towards which He will have all things work.--"He willeth that
_all_ men should be saved" (ver. 4), "that God may be all in all."

FOOTNOTES:

[35] _Ad Scapulam_, ii.

[36] _Apol._, xxxi.

CHAPTER IX.

_BEHAVIOUR IN CHRISTIAN WORSHIP: MEN'S ATTITUDE OF BODY AND MIND:
WOMEN'S ATTIRE AND ORNAMENT._

    "I desire, therefore, that the men pray in every place, lifting up
    holy hands, without wrath and disputing. In like manner, that women
    adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and
    sobriety; not with braided hair, and gold or pearls or costly
    raiment; but (which becometh women professing godliness) through
    good works. Let a woman learn in quietness with all subjection. But
    I permit not a woman to teach, nor to have dominion over a man, but
    to be in quietness."--1 TIM. ii. 8-12.

In the preceding verses of this chapter, St. Paul has been insisting on
the duty of unselfishness in our devotions. Our prayers and
thanksgivings are not to be bounded in their scope by our own personal
interests, but are to include the whole human race; and for this obvious
and sufficient reason,--that in using such devotions we know that our
desires are in harmony with the mind of God, "who willeth that _all_ men
should be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth." Having thus
laid down the principles which are to guide Christian congregations in
the _subject-matter_ of their prayers and thanksgivings, he passes on
now to give some directions respecting the _behaviour_ of men and women,
when they meet together for common worship of the one God and the one
Mediator between God and man, Christ Jesus.

There is no reasonable doubt (although the point has been disputed) that
St. Paul is here speaking of public worship in the congregation; the
whole context implies it. Some of the directions would be scarcely
intelligible, if we were to suppose that the Apostle is thinking of
private devotions, or even of family prayer in Christian households. And
we are not to suppose that he is indirectly finding fault with other
forms of worship, Jewish or heathen. He is merely laying down certain
principles which are to guide Christians, whether at Ephesus or
elsewhere, in the conduct of public service. Thus there is no special
emphasis on "in every place," as if the meaning were, "Our ways are not
like those of the Jews; for they were not allowed to sacrifice and
perform their services anywhere, but assembling from all parts of the
world were bound to perform all their worship in the temple. For as
Christ commanded us to pray for _all_ men, because He died for all men,
so it is good to pray _everywhere_."[37] Such an antithesis between
Jewish and Christian worship, even if it were true, would not be in
place here. Every place is a place of private prayer to both Jew and
Christian alike: but not every place is a place of public prayer to the
Christian any more than to the Jew.[38] Moreover, the Greek shows
plainly that the emphasis is not on "in every place," but on "pray."
Wherever there may be a customary "house of prayer," whether in Ephesus
or anywhere else, the Apostle desires that prayers should be offered
publicly by the men in the congregation. After "pray," the emphasis
falls on "the men," public prayer is to be made, and it is to be
conducted by the men and not by the women in the congregation.

It is evident from this passage, as from 1 Cor. xiv., that in this
primitive Christian worship great freedom was allowed. There is no
Bishop, President, or Elder, to whom the right of leading the service or
uttering the prayers and thanksgivings is reserved. This duty and
privilege is shared by all the males alike. In the recently discovered
_Doctrine of the Twelve Apostles_ nothing is said as to who is to offer
the prayers, of which certain forms are given. It is merely stated that
in addition to these forms _extempore_ prayer may be offered by "the
prophets." And Justin Martyr mentions that a similar privilege was
allowed to "the president" of the congregation according to his
ability.[39] Thus we seem to trace a gradual increase of strictness, a
development of ecclesiastical order, very natural under the
circumstances. First, all the men in the congregation are allowed to
conduct public worship, as here and in 1 Corinthians. Then, the right of
adding to the prescribed forms is restricted to the prophets, as in the
_Didache_. Next, this right is reserved to the presiding minister, as in
Justin Martyr. And lastly, free prayer is abolished altogether. We need
not assume that precisely this development took place in all the
Churches; but that something analogous took place in nearly all. Nor
need we assume that the development was simultaneous: while one Church
was at one stage of the process, another was more advanced, and a third
less so. Again, we may conjecture that forms of prayer gradually
increased in number, and in extent, and in stringency. But in the
directions here given to Timothy we are at the beginning of the
development.

"Lifting up holy hands." Here again we need not suspect any polemical
purpose. St. Paul is not insinuating that, when Gnostics or heathen lift
up their hands in prayer, their hands are not holy. Just as every
Christian is ideally a saint, so every hand that is lifted up in prayer
is holy. In thus stating the ideal, the Apostle inculcates the
realization of it. There is a monstrous incongruity in one who comes
red-handed from the commission of a sin, lifting up the very members
which witness against him, in order to implore a blessing from the God
whom he has outraged. The same idea is expressed in more general terms
by St. Peter: "Like as He which called you is holy, be ye yourselves
also holy in all manner of living; because it is written, ye shall be
holy; for I am holy" (1 Pet. i. 15, 16). In a passage more closely
parallel to this, Clement of Rome says, "Let us therefore approach Him
in holiness of soul, _lifting up pure and undefiled hands unto Him_,
with love towards our gentle and compassionate Father who made us an
elect portion unto Himself" (_Cor._ xxix). And Tertullian urges that "a
defiled spirit cannot be recognized by the Holy Spirit" (_De Orat._,
xiii). Nowhere else in the New Testament do we read of this attitude of
lifting up the hands during prayer. But to this day it is common in the
East. Solomon at the dedication of the temple "stood before the altar of
the Lord in the presence of all the congregation of Israel, and _spread
forth his hands toward heaven_" (1 Kings viii. 22); and the Psalmist
repeatedly speaks of "lifting up the hands" in worship (xxviii. 2;
lxiii. 4; cxxxiv. 2). Clement of Alexandria seems to have regarded it as
the ideal attitude in prayer, as symbolizing the desire of the body to
abstract itself from the earth, following the eagerness of the spirit in
yearning for heavenly things.[40] Tertullian, on the other hand,
suggests that the arms are spread out in prayer in memory of the
crucifixion, and directs that they should be extended, but only slightly
raised, an attitude which is more in harmony with a humble spirit: and
in another place he says that the Christian by his very posture in
prayer is ready for every infliction. He asserts that the Jews in his
day did _not_ raise the hands in prayer, and characteristically gives as
a reason that they were stained with the blood of the Prophets and of
Christ. With evident reference to this passage, he says that Christian
hands must be lifted up pure from falsehood, murder, and all other sins
of which the hands can be the instruments.[41] Ancient Christian
monuments of the earliest age frequently represent the faithful as
standing with raised hands to pray. Eusebius tells us that Constantine
had himself represented in this attitude on his coins, "looking upwards,
stretching up toward God, like one praying."[42] Of course this does not
mean that kneeling was unusual or irregular; there is plenty of evidence
to the contrary. But the attitude here commended by St. Paul was very
ancient when he wrote, and has continued in some parts of the world ever
since. Like so many other things in natural religion and in Judaism, it
received a new and intensified meaning when it was adopted among the
usages of the Christian Church.

"Without wrath and disputing:" that is, in the spirit of Christian peace
and trust. Ill-will and misgiving respecting one another are
incompatible with united prayer to our common Father. The atmosphere of
controversy is not congenial to devotion. Christ Himself has told us to
be reconciled to our brother before presuming to offer our gift on the
altar. In a similar spirit St. Paul directs that those who are to
conduct public service in the sanctuary must do so without angry
feelings or mutual distrust. In the Pastoral Epistles warnings against
quarrelsome conduct are frequent; and the experience of every one of us
tells us how necessary they are. The bishop is charged to be "no
brawler, no striker; but gentle, not contentious." The deacons must not
be "double-tongued." Women must not be "slanderers." Young widows have
to be on their guard against being "tattlers and busybodies." Timothy is
charged to "follow after ... love, patience, meekness," and is reminded
that "the Lord's servant must not strive, but be gentle towards all, apt
to teach, forbearing, in meekness correcting them that oppose
themselves." Titus again is told that a bishop must be "not self-willed,
not soon angry," "no brawler, no striker," that the aged women must not
be "slanderers," that all men are to be put in mind "to speak evil of no
man, not to be contentious, to be gentle, showing all meekness toward
all men."[43] There is no need to assume that that age, or that those
Churches, had any special need of warnings of this kind. All ages and
all Churches need them. To keep one's tongue and one's temper in due
order is to all of us one of the most constant and necessary duties of
the Christian life; and the neglect cannot fail to be disastrous to the
reality and efficacy of our devotions. Those who have ill-will and
strife in their hearts cannot unite to much purpose in common
thanksgiving and prayer.

And just as the men have to take care that their attitude of body and
mind is such as befits the dignity of public worship, in like manner the
women also have to take care that their presence in the congregation
does not appear incongruous. They must come in seemly attire and with
seemly behaviour. Everything which might divert attention from the
service to themselves must be avoided. Modesty and simplicity must at
all times be the characteristics of a Christian woman's dress and
bearing; but at no time is this more necessary than in the public
services of the Church. Excessive adornment, out of place at all times,
is grievously offensive there. It gives a flat contradiction to the
profession of humility which is involved in taking part in common
worship, and to that natural sobriety which is a woman's fairest
ornament and best protection. Both reverence and self-reverence are
injured by it. Moreover, it may easily be a cause of offence to others,
by provoking jealousy or admiration of the creature, where all ought to
be absorbed in the worship of the Creator.

Here again St. Paul is putting his finger upon dangers and evils which
are not peculiar to any age or any Church. He had spoken of the same
thing years before, to the women of Corinth, and St. Peter utters
similar warnings to Christian women throughout all time.[44] Clement of
Alexandria abounds in protests against the extravagance in dress so
common in his own day. In one place he says; "Apelles the painter seeing
one of his pupils painting a figure thickly with gold colour to
represent Helen, said to him; 'My lad, you were unable to paint her
beautiful, and so you have made her rich.' Such Helens are the ladies of
the present day; not really beautiful, but richly got up. To these the
Spirit prophesies by Zephaniah: And their gold shall not be able to
deliver them in the day of the Lord's anger."[45] Tertullian is not less
emphatic. He says that most Christian women dress like heathen, as if
modesty required nothing more than stopping short of actual impurity.
"What is the use," he asks, "of showing a decent and Christian
simplicity in your face, while you load the rest of your body with the
dangling absurdities of pomps and vanities?"[46] Chrysostom also, in
commenting on this very passage, asks the congregation at Antioch: "And
what then is _modest apparel_? Such as covers them completely and
decently, and not with superfluous ornaments; for the one is decent and
the other is not. What? Do you approach God to pray with broidered hair
and ornaments of gold? Are you come to a ball? to a marriage-feast? to a
carnival? There such costly things might have been seasonable: here not
one of them is wanted. You are come to pray, to ask pardon for your
sins, to plead for your offences, beseeching the Lord, and hoping to
render Him propitious to you. Away with such hypocrisy! God is not
mocked. This is the attire of actors and dancers, who live upon the
stage. Nothing of this kind becomes a modest woman, who should be
adorned with shamefastness and sobriety.... And if St. Paul" (he
continues) "would remove those things which are merely the marks of
wealth, as gold, pearls, and costly array; how much more those things
which imply studied adornment, as painting, colouring the eyes, a
mincing walk, an affected voice, a languishing look? For he glances at
all these things in speaking of modest apparel and shamefastness."

But there is no need to go to Corinth in the first century, or
Alexandria and Carthage in the second and third, or Antioch in the
fourth, in order to show that the Apostle was giving no unnecessary
warning in admonishing Timothy respecting the dress and behaviour of
Christian women, especially in the public services of the congregation.
In our own age and our own Church we can find abundant illustration.
Might not any preacher in any fashionable congregation echo with a good
deal of point the questions of Chrysostom? "Have you come to dance or a
levée? Have you mistaken this building for a theatre?" And what would be
the language of a Chrysostom or a Paul if he were to enter a theatre
nowadays and see the attire, I will not say of the actresses, but of the
audience? There are some rough epithets, not often heard in polite
society, which express in plain language the condition of those women
who by their manner of life and conversation have forfeited their
characters. Preachers in earlier ages were accustomed to speak very
plainly about such things: and what the Apostle and Chrysostom have
written in their epistles and homilies does not leave us in much doubt
as to what would have been their manner of speaking of them.

But what is urged here is sufficient. "You are Christian women," says
St. Paul, "and the profession which you have adopted is reverence
towards God (θεοσέβειαν). This profession you have made known to the
world. It is necessary, therefore, that those externals of which the
world takes cognisance should not give the lie to your profession. And
how is unseemly attire, paraded at the very time of public worship,
compatible with the reverence which you have professed? Reverence God by
reverencing yourselves; by guarding with jealous care the dignity of
those bodies with which He has endowed you. Reverence God by coming
before Him clothed both in body and soul in fitting attire. Let your
bodies be freed from meretricious decoration. Let your souls be adorned
with abundance of good works."

FOOTNOTES:

[37] So Chrysostom _in loco_: but this is an exaggeration respecting
Jewish limitations.

[38] See Clement of Rome, _Cor._ xli.

[39] _Didache_, x. 7; Just. Mart., _Apol._, 1. lxvii. Justin probably
uses the term "president" ὁ προεστώς in order to be intelligible to
heathen readers.

[40] _Strom._, VII. vii.

[41] _De Orat._, xiii., xiv., xvii.; _Apol._ xxx.; Comp. _Adv. Jud._, x.

[42] _Vit. Const._, IV. xv. 1.

[43] 1 Tim. iii. 3, 8, 11; v. 13; vi. 11; 2 Tim. ii. 24; Tit. i. 7; ii.
3; iii. 2.

[44] 1 Cor. xi. 2-16; 1 Pet. iii. 3, 4.

[45] _Pæd._, II. xiii.

[46] _De Cult Fem._, II. i. ix.

CHAPTER X.

_ORIGIN OF THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY; VARIOUS CERTAINTIES AND PROBABILITIES
DISTINGUISHED._

    "If a man seeketh the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
    The bishop therefore must be without reproach, the husband of one
    wife, temperate, sober-minded, orderly, given to hospitality, apt to
    teach; no brawler, no striker; but gentle, not contentious, no lover
    of money; one that ruleth well his own house, having his children in
    subjection with all gravity; (but if a man knoweth not how to rule
    his own house, how shall he take care of the house of God?) not a
    novice, lest being puffed up he fall into the condemnation of the
    devil. Moreover he must have good testimony from them that are
    without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
    Deacons in like manner must be grave, not double-tongued, not given
    to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre; holding the mystery of the
    faith in a pure conscience. And let these also first be proved; then
    let them serve as deacons, if they be blameless."--1 TIM. iii. 1-10.

This passage is one of the most important in the New Testament
respecting the Christian ministry; and in the Pastoral Epistles it does
not stand alone. Of the two classes of ministers mentioned here, one is
again touched upon in the Epistle to Titus (i. 5-9), and the
qualifications for this office, which is evidently the superior of the
two, are stated in terms not very different from those which are used in
the passage before us. Therefore a series of expositions upon the
Pastoral Epistles would be culpably incomplete which did not attempt to
arrive at some conclusions respecting the question of the primitive
Christian ministry; a question which at the present time is being
investigated with immense industry and interest, and with some clear and
substantial results. The time is probably far distant when the last word
will have been said upon the subject; for it is one on which
considerable difference of opinion is not only possible but reasonable:
and those persons would seem to be least worthy of consideration, who
are most confident that they are in possession of the whole truth on the
subject. One of the first requisites in the examination of questions of
fact is a power of accurately distinguishing what is certain from what
is not certain: and the person who is confident that he has attained to
certainty, when the evidence in his possession does not at all warrant
certainty, is not a trustworthy guide.

It would be impossible in a discussion of moderate length to touch upon
all the points which have been raised in connexion with this problem;
but some service will have been rendered if a few of the more important
features of the question are pointed out and classified under the two
heads just indicated, as certain or not certain. In any scientific
enquiry, whether historical or experimental, this classification is a
useful one, and very often leads to the enlargement of the class of
certainties. When the group of certainties has been properly
investigated, and when the various items have been placed in their
proper relations to one another and to the whole of which they are only
constituent parts, the result is likely to be a transfer of other items
from the domain of what is only probable or possible to the domain of
what is certain.

At the outset it is necessary to place a word of caution as to what is
meant, in a question of this kind, by _certainty_. There are no limits
to scepticism, as the history of speculative philosophy has abundantly
shown. It is possible to question one's own existence, and still more
possible to question the irresistible evidence of one's senses or the
irresistible conclusions of one's reason. _A fortiori_ it is possible to
throw doubt upon any historical fact. We can, if we like, classify the
assassinations of Julius Cæsar and of Cicero, and the genuineness of the
Æneid and of the Epistles to the Corinthians, among things that are not
certain. They cannot be demonstrated like a proposition in Euclid or an
experiment in chemistry or physics. But a sceptical criticism of this
kind makes history impossible; for it demands as a condition of
certainty a kind of evidence, and an amount of evidence, which from the
nature of the case is unattainable. Juries are directed by the courts to
treat evidence as adequate, which they would be willing to recognize as
such in matters of very serious moment to themselves. There is a certain
amount of evidence which to a person of trained and well-balanced mind
makes a thing "practically certain:" _i.e._, with this amount of
evidence before him he would confidently act on the assumption that the
thing was true.

In the question before us there are four or five things which may with
great reason be treated as practically certain.

1. The solution of the question as to the origin of the Christian
ministry, _has no practical bearing upon the lives of Christians_. For
us the problem is one of historical interest without moral import. As
students of Church History we are bound to investigate the _origines_ of
the ministry which has been one of the chief factors in that history:
but our loyalty as members of the Church will not be affected by the
result of our investigations. Our duty towards the constitution
consisting of bishops, priests, and deacons, which existed unchallenged
from the close of the second century to the close of the Middle Ages,
and which has existed down to the present day in all the three great
branches of the Catholic Church, Roman, Oriental, and Anglican, is no
way affected by the question whether the constitution of the Church
during the century which separates the writings of St. John from the
writings of his disciple's disciple, Irenæus, was as a rule episcopal,
collegiate, or presbyterian. For a churchman who accepts the episcopal
form of government as essential to the well-being of a Church, the
enormous prescription which that form has acquired during at least
seventeen centuries, is such ample justification, that he can afford to
be serene as to the outcome of enquiries respecting the constitution of
the various infant Churches from A.D. 85 to A.D. 185. It makes no
practical difference either to add, or not to add, to an authority which
is already ample. To prove that the episcopal form of government was
founded by the Apostles may have been a matter of great practical
importance in the middle of the second century. But, before that century
had closed, the practical question, _if there ever was one_, had settled
itself. God's providence ordained that the universal form of Church
government should be the episcopal form and should continue to be such;
and for us it adds little to its authority to know that the way in which
it became universal was through the instrumentality and influence of
Apostles. On the other hand, to prove that episcopacy was established
independently of Apostolic influence would detract very little from its
accumulated authority.

2. A second point, which may be regarded as certain with regard to this
question, is, that _for the period which joins the age of Irenæus to the
age of St. John, we have not sufficient evidence to arrive at anything
like proof_. The evidence has received important additions during the
present century, and still more important additions are by no means
impossible; but at present our materials are still inadequate. And the
evidence is insufficient in two ways. First, although surprisingly large
as compared with what might have been reasonably expected, yet in
itself, the literature of this period is fragmentary and scanty.
Secondly, the dates of some of the most important witnesses cannot as
yet be accurately determined. In many cases to be able to fix the date
of a document within twenty or thirty years is quite sufficient: but
this is a case in which the difference of twenty years is a really
serious difference; and there is fully that amount of uncertainty as to
the date of some of the writings which are our principal sources of
information; _e.g._, the _Doctrine of the Twelve Apostles_, the Epistles
of Ignatius, the _Shepherd of Hermas_ and the _Clementines_. Here also
our position may improve. Further research may enable us to date some of
these documents accurately. But, for the present, uncertainty about
precise dates and general scantiness of evidence compel us to admit that
with regard to many of the points connected with this question nothing
that can fairly be called proof is possible respecting the interval
which separates the last quarter of the first century from the last
quarter of the second.

This feature of the problem is sometimes represented by the useful
metaphor that the history of the Church just at this period "passes
through a tunnel" or "runs underground." We are in the light of day
during most of the time covered by the New Testament; and we are again
in the light of day directly we reach the time covered by the abundant
writings of Irenæus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and others. But
during the intervening period we are, not indeed in total darkness, but
in a passage the obscurity of which is only slightly relieved by an
occasional lamp or light-hole. Leaving this tantalizing interval, about
which the one thing that is certain is that many certainties are not
likely to be found in it, we pass on to look for our two next
certainties in the periods which precede and follow it.

3. In the period covered by the New Testament it is certain that the
Church had officers who discharged spiritual functions which were not
discharged by ordinary Christians; in other words _a distinction was
made from the first between clergy and laity_. Of this fact the Pastoral
Epistles contain abundant evidence; and further evidence is scattered up
and down the New Testament, from the earliest document in the volume to
the last. In the First Epistle to the Thessalonians, which is certainly
the earliest Christian writing that has come down to us, we find St.
Paul beseeching the Church of the Thessalonians "to know them that
_labour among you_, and _are over you in the Lord_, and _admonish_ you;
and to esteem them exceeding highly in love for their work's sake" (v.
12, 13). The three functions here enumerated are evidently functions to
be exercised by a few with regard to the many: they are not duties which
every one is to discharge towards every one. In the Third Epistle of St.
John, which is certainly one of the latest, and perhaps the very latest,
of the writings contained in the New Testament, the incident about
Diotrephes seems to show that not only ecclesiastical government, but
ecclesiastical government by a single official, was already in existence
in the Church in which Diotrephes "loved to have the pre-eminence" (9,
10). In between these two we have the exhortation in the Epistle to the
Hebrews: "Obey them that _have the rule over you_ and submit to them:
for they watch in behalf of your _souls_, as they that shall give
account" (xiii. 17). And directly we go outside the New Testament and
look at the Epistle of the Church of Rome to the Church of Corinth,
commonly called the First Epistle of Clement, we find the same
distinction between clergy and laity observed. In this letter, which
almost certainly was written during the lifetime of St. John, we read
that the Apostles, "preaching everywhere in country and town, appointed
their firstfruits, when they had proved them by the Spirit, to be
bishops and deacons unto them that should believe. And this they did in
no new fashion; for indeed it had been written concerning bishops and
deacons from very ancient times; for thus saith the scripture in a
certain place, I will appoint their bishops in righteousness, and their
deacons in faith"--the last words being an inaccurate quotation of the
LXX. of Isa. lx. 17. And a little further on Clement writes: "Our
Apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife
over the name of the bishop's office. For this cause, therefore, having
received complete fore-knowledge, they appointed the aforesaid persons,
and afterwards they provided a continuance, that if these should fall
asleep, other approved men should succeed to their ministration. Those
therefore who were appointed by them, or afterward by other men of
repute with the consent of the whole Church, and have ministered
unblamably to the flock of Christ in lowliness of mind, peacefully and
with all modesty, and for long time have borne a good report with
all--these men we consider to be unjustly thrust out from their
ministration. For it will be no light sin for us, if we thrust out those
who have offered the gifts of the bishop's office unblamably and holily.
Blessed are those presbyters who have gone before, seeing that their
departure was fruitful and ripe, for they have no fear lest any one
should remove them from their appointed place. For we see that ye have
displaced certain persons, though they were living honourably, from the
ministration which they had kept blamelessly" (xlii., xliv.).

Three things come out very clearly from this passage, confirming what
has been found in the New Testament. (1) There is a clear distinction
made between clergy and laity. (2) This distinction is not a temporary
arrangement, but is the basis of a permanent organization. (3) A person
who has been duly promoted to the ranks of the clergy as a presbyter or
bishop (the two titles being here synonymous, as in the Epistle to
Titus) holds that position for life. Unless he is guilty of some serious
offence, to depose him is no light sin.

None of these passages, either in the New Testament or in Clement, tell
us very clearly the precise nature of the functions which the clergy, as
distinct from the laity, were to discharge; yet they indicate that these
functions were of a spiritual rather than of a secular character, that
they concerned men's souls rather than their bodies, and that they were
connected with religious service (λειτουργία). But the one thing which
is quite clear is this,--that the Church had, and was always intended to
have, a body of officers distinct from the congregations to which they
ministered and over which they ruled.

4. For our fourth certainty we resort to the time when the history of
the Church returns once more to the full light of day, in the last
quarter of the second century. Then we find two things quite clearly
established, which have continued in Christendom from that day to this.
We find a _regularly organized clergy_, not only distinctly marked off
from the laity, but distinctly _marked off among themselves by well
defined gradations of rank_. And, secondly, we find that _each local
Church is constitutionally governed by one chief officer_, whose powers
are large and seldom resisted, and _who universally receives the title
of bishop_. To these two points we may add a third. There is no trace of
any belief, or even suspicion, that the constitution of these local
Churches had ever been anything else. On the contrary, the evidence (and
it is considerable) points to the conclusion that Christians in the
latter part of the second century--say A.D. 180 to 200--were fully
persuaded that the episcopal form of government had prevailed in the
different Churches from the Apostles' time to their own. Just as in the
case of the Gospels, Irenæus and his contemporaries not only do not know
of either more or less than the four which have come down to us, but
cannot conceive of there ever being either more or less than these four:
so in the case of Church Government, they not only represent episcopacy
as everywhere prevalent in their time, but they have no idea that at any
previous time any other form of government prevailed. And although
Irenæus, like St. Paul and Clement of Rome, sometimes speaks of bishops
under the title of presbyter, yet it is quite clear that there were at
that time presbyters who were not bishops and who did not possess
episcopal authority. Irenæus himself was such a presbyter, until the
martyrdom of Pothinus in the persecution of A.D. 177 created a vacancy
in the see of Lyons, which Irenæus was then called upon to fill; and he
held the see for upwards of twenty years, from about A.D. 180 to 202.
From Irenæus and from his contemporary Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth, we
learn not only the fact that episcopacy prevailed everywhere, but, in
not a few cases, the name of the existing bishop; and in some cases the
names of their predecessors are given up to the times of the Apostles.
Thus, in the case of the Church of Rome, Linus the first bishop is
connected with "the two most glorious Apostles Peter and Paul": and, in
the case of Athens, Dionysius the Areopagite is said to have been
appointed first bishop of that Church by the Apostle Paul. This may or
may not be correct: but at least it shows that in the time of Irenæus
and Dionysius of Corinth episcopacy was not only recognized as the
universal form of Church government, but was also believed to have
prevailed in the principal Churches from the very earliest times.[47]

5. If we narrow our field and look, not at the whole Church, but at the
Churches of Asia Minor and Syria, we may obtain yet another certainty
from the obscure period which lies between the age of the Apostles and
that of Dionysius and Irenæus. The investigations of Lightfoot, Zahn,
and Harnack have placed the genuineness of the short Greek form of the
Epistles of Ignatius beyond reasonable dispute. Their exact date cannot
as yet be determined. The evidence is strong that Ignatius was martyred
in the reign of Trajan: and, if that is accepted, the letters cannot be
later than A.D. 117. But even if this evidence be rejected as not
conclusive, and the letters be dated ten or twelve years later, their
testimony will still be of the utmost importance. They prove that long
before A.D. 150 episcopacy was the recognized form of government
throughout the Churches of Asia Minor and Syria; and, as Ignatius speaks
of "the bishops that are settled _in the farthest parts of the earth_
(κατὰ τὰ πέρατα ὁρισθέντες)" they prove that, according to his belief,
episcopacy was the recognized form everywhere (_Ephes._ iii.). This
evidence is not a little strengthened by the fact that, as all sound
critics on both sides are now agreed, the Epistles of Ignatius were
evidently not written in order to magnify the episcopal office, or to
preach up the episcopal system. The writer's main object is to deprecate
schism and all that might tend to schism. And in his opinion the best
way to avoid schism is to keep closely united to the bishop. Thus, the
magnifying of the episcopal office comes about incidentally; because
Ignatius takes for granted that everywhere there is a bishop in each
Church, who is the duly appointed ruler of it, loyalty to whom will be a
security against all schismatical tendencies.

These four or five points being regarded as established to an extent
which may reasonably be called certainty, there remain certain other
points about which certainty is not yet possible, some of which admit of
a probable solution, while for others there is so little evidence that
we have to fall back upon mere conjecture. Among these would be the
distinctions of office, or gradations of rank, among the clergy in the
first century or century and a half after the Ascension, the precise
functions assigned to each office, and the manner of appointment. With
regard to these questions three positions may be assumed with a
considerable amount of probability.

1. There was a distinction made between itinerant or missionary clergy
and stationary or localized clergy. Among the former we find apostles
(who are a much larger body than the Twelve), prophets, and evangelists.
Among the latter we have two orders, spoken of as bishops and deacons,
as here and in the Epistle to the Philippians (i. 1) as well as in the
_Doctrine of the Twelve Apostles_, presbyter or elder being sometimes
used as synonymous with bishop. This distinction between an itinerant
and a stationary ministry appears in the First Epistle to the
Corinthians (xii. 28), in the Epistle to the Ephesians (iv. 11), and
perhaps also in the Acts of the Apostles and in the Epistles of St.
John. In the _Doctrine of the Twelve Apostles_ it is clearly marked.

2. There seems to have been a further distinction between those who did,
and those who did not, possess supernatural prophetical gifts. The title
of prophet was commonly, but perhaps not exclusively, given to those who
possessed this gift: and the _Doctrine of the Twelve Apostles_ shows a
great respect for prophets. But the distinction naturally died out when
these supernatural gifts ceased to be manifested. During the process of
extinction serious difficulty arose as to the test of a genuine prophet.
Some fanatical persons believed themselves to be prophets, and some
dishonest persons pretended to be prophets, when they were not such. The
office appears to have been extinct when Ignatius wrote: by prophets he
always means the prophets of the Old Testament. Montanism was probably
a forlorn attempt to revive this much desired office after the Church as
a whole had decided against it. Further discussion of the gift of
prophecy in the New Testament will be found in a previous chapter (vi.).

3. The clergy were not elected by the congregation as its delegates or
representatives, deputed to perform functions which originally could be
discharged by any Christian. They were appointed by the Apostles and
their successors or substitutes. Where the congregation selected or
recommended candidates, as in the case of the Seven Deacons (Acts vi.
4-6), they did not themselves lay hands on them. The typical act of
laying on of hands was always performed by those who were already
ministers, whether apostles, prophets, or elders. Whatever else was
still open to the laity, this act of ordaining was not. And there is
good reason for believing that the celebration of the Eucharist also was
from the first reserved to the clergy, and that all ministers, excepting
prophets, were expected to use a prescribed form of words in celebrating
it.

But, although much still remains untouched, this discussion must draw to
a close. In the ideal Church there is no Lord's Day or holy seasons, for
all days are the Lord's, and all seasons are holy; there are no places
especially dedicated to God's worship, for the whole universe is His
temple; there are no persons especially ordained to be His ministers,
for all His people are priests and prophets. But in the Church as it
exists in a sinful world, the attempt to make all times and all places
holy ends in the desecration of all alike; and the theory that all
Christians are priests becomes indistinguishable from the theory that
none are such. In this matter let us not try to be wiser than God, Whose
will may be discerned in His providential guiding of His Church
throughout so many centuries. The attempt to reproduce Paradise or to
anticipate heaven in a state of society which does not possess the
conditions of Paradise or heaven, can end in nothing but disastrous
confusion.

In conclusion the following weighty words are gratefully quoted. They
come with special force from one who does not himself belong to an
Episcopalian Church.

"By our reception or denial of priesthood in the Church, our entire view
of what the Church is must be affected and moulded. We shall either
accept the idea of a visible and organized body, within which Christ
rules by means of a ministry, sacraments, and ordinances to which He has
attached a blessing, _the fulness of which we have no right to look for
except through the channels He has ordained_ (and it ought to be
needless to say that this is the Presbyterian idea), or we shall rest
satisfied with the thought of the Church as consisting of multitudes of
individual souls known to God alone, as invisible, unorganized, with
ordinances blessed because of the memories which they awaken, but to
which no promise of present grace is tied, with, in short, no thought of
a Body of Christ in the world, but only of a spiritual and heavenly
principle ruling in the hearts and regulating the lives of men.
Conceptions of the Church so widely different from each other cannot
fail to affect in the most vital manner the Church's life and relation
to those around her. Yet both conceptions are the logical and necessary
result of the acceptance or denial of the idea of a divinely appointed
and still living priesthood among men."[48]

FOOTNOTES:

[47] See an admirable article on the Christian ministry by Dr. Salmon in
the _Expositor_ for July, 1887; also the present writer's _Church of the
Early Fathers_, pp. 58 ff.; 92 ff.; 2nd ed. Longmans, 1887.

[48] Professor W. Milligan, D.D., on "The Idea of the Priesthood," in
the _Expositor_ for July, 1888, p. 7.

CHAPTER XI.

_THE APOSTLE'S RULE RESPECTING SECOND MARRIAGES; ITS MEANING AND PRESENT
OBLIGATION._

    "The husband of one wife."--1 TIM. iii. 2.

The Apostle here states, as one of the first qualifications to be looked
for in a person who is to be ordained a bishop, that he must be "husband
of one wife." The precise meaning of this phrase will probably never
cease to be discussed. But, although it must be admitted that the phrase
is capable of bearing several meanings, yet it cannot be fairly
contended that the meaning is seriously doubtful. The balance of
probability is so largely in favour of one of the meanings, that the
remainder may be reasonably set aside as having no valid ground for
being supported in competition with it.

Three passages in which the phrase occurs have to be considered
together, and these have to be compared with a fourth. (1) There is the
passage before us about a bishop, (2) another in ver. 12 about deacons,
and (3) another in Tit. i. 6 about elders or presbyters, whom St. Paul
afterwards mentions under the title of bishop. In these three passages
we have it plainly set forth that Timothy and Titus are to regard it as
a necessary qualification in a bishop or elder or presbyter, and also in
a deacon, that he should be a "man of one woman" or "husband of one
wife" (μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἀνήρ). In the fourth passage (1 Tim. v. 9) he gives
as a necessary qualification of one who is to be placed on the roll of
church widows, that she must be a "woman of one man" or "wife of one
husband" (ἑνὸς ἄνδρος γυνή). This fourth passage is of much importance
in determining the meaning of the converse expression in the other three
passages.

There are four main interpretations of the expression in question.

1. That which the phrase at once suggests to a modern mind,--that the
person to be ordained bishop or deacon must have only one wife and not
more; that he must not be a _polygamist_. According to this
interpretation, therefore, we are to understand the Apostle to mean,
that a Jew or barbarian with more wives than one might be admitted to
baptism and become a member of the congregation, but ought not to be
admitted to the ministry. This explanation, which at first sight looks
simple and plausible, will not bear inspection. It is quite true that
polygamy in St. Paul's day still existed among the Jews. Justin Martyr,
in the _Dialogue with Trypho_, says to the Jews, "It is better for you
to follow God than your senseless and blind teachers, who even to this
day allow you each to have four and five wives" (§ 134). But polygamy in
the Roman Empire must have been rare. It was forbidden by Roman law,
which did not allow a man to have more than one lawful wife at a time,
and treated every simultaneous second marriage, not only as null and
void, but infamous. Where it was practised it must have been practised
secretly. It is probable that, when St. Paul wrote to Timothy and Titus,
not a single polygamist had been converted to the Christian faith.
Polygamists were exceedingly rare inside the Empire, and the Church had
not yet spread beyond it. Indeed, our utter ignorance as to the way in
which the primitive Church dealt with polygamists who wished to become
Christians, amounts to something like proof that such cases were
extremely uncommon. How improbable, therefore, that St. Paul should
think it worth while to charge both Timothy and Titus that converted
polygamists must not be admitted to the office of bishop, when there is
no likelihood that any one of them knew of a single instance of a
polygamist who had become a Christian! On these grounds alone this
interpretation of the phrase might be safely rejected.

But these grounds do not stand alone. There is the convincing evidence
of the converse phrase, "wife of one husband." If men with more than one
wife were very rare in the Roman Empire, what are we to think of women
with more than one husband? Even among the barbarians outside the
Empire, such a thing as a plurality of husbands was regarded as
monstrous. It is incredible that St. Paul could have had any such case
in his mind, when he mentioned the qualification "wife of one husband."
Moreover, as the question before him was one relating to widows, this
"wife of one husband" must be a person who at the time had _no_ husband.
The phrase, therefore, can only mean a woman who after the death of her
husband has not married again. Consequently the converse expression,
"husband of one wife," cannot have any reference to polygamy.

2. Far more worthy of consideration is the view that what is aimed at in
both cases is not polygamy, but _divorce_. Divorce, as we know from
abundant evidence, was very frequent both among the Jews and the Romans
in the first century of the Christian era. Among the former it provoked
the special condemnation of Christ: and one of the many influences which
Christianity had upon Roman law was to diminish the facilities for
divorce. According to Jewish practice the husband could obtain a divorce
for very trivial reasons; and in the time of St. Paul Jewish women
sometimes took the initiative. According to Roman practice either
husband or wife could obtain a divorce very easily. Abundant instances
are on record, and that in the case of people of high character, such as
Cicero. After the divorce either of the parties could marry again; and
often enough both of them did so; therefore in the Roman Empire in St.
Paul's day there must have been plenty of persons of both sexes who had
been divorced once or twice and had married again. There is nothing
improbable in the supposition that quite a sufficient number of such
persons had been converted to Christianity to make it worth while to
legislate respecting them. They might be admitted to baptism; but they
must not be admitted to an official position in the Church. A regulation
of this kind might be all the more necessary, because in a wealthy
capital like Ephesus it would probably be among the upper and more
influential classes that divorces would be most frequent; and from
precisely these classes, when any of them had become Christians,
officials would be likely to be chosen. This explanation, therefore, of
the phrases "husband of one wife" and "wife of one husband" cannot be
condemned, like the first, as utterly incredible. It has a fair amount
of probability: but it remains to be seen whether another explanation
(which really includes this one) has not a far greater amount.

3. We may pass over without much discussion the view that the phrases
are a vague way of indicating _misconduct of any kind in reference to
marriage_. No doubt such misconduct was rife among the heathen, and the
Christian Church by no means escaped the taint, as the scandals in the
Church of Corinth and the frequent warnings of the Apostles against sins
of this kind show. But when St. Paul has to speak of such things he is
not afraid to do so in language that cannot be misunderstood. We have
seen this already in the first chapter of this Epistle; and the fifth
chapters of 1 Corinthians, Galatians, and Ephesians supply other
examples. We may safely say that if St. Paul had meant to indicate
persons who had entered into illicit unions before or after marriage, he
would have used much less ambiguous language than the phrases under
discussion.

4. There remains the view, which from the first has been the dominant
one, that these passages all refer to _second marriage after the first
marriage has been dissolved by death_. A widower who has married a
second wife ought not to be admitted to the ministry; a widow who has
married a second husband ought not to be placed on the roll of Church
widows. This interpretation is reasonable in itself, is in harmony with
the context and with what St. Paul says elsewhere about marriage, and is
confirmed by the views taken of second marriages in the case of clergy
by the early Church.

(_a_) The belief that St. Paul was opposed to the ordination of persons
who had contracted a second marriage is reasonable in itself. A second
marriage, although perfectly lawful and in some cases advisable, was so
far a sign of weakness; and a double family would in many cases be a
serious hindrance to work. The Church could not afford to enlist any
but its strongest men among its officers; and its officers must not be
hampered more than other men with domestic cares. Moreover, the heathen
certainly felt a special respect for the _univira_, the woman who did
not enter into a second marriage; and there is some reason for believing
that second marriages were sometimes thought unfitting in the case of
men, _e.g._, in the case of certain priests. Be that as it may, we may
safely conclude that, both by Christians and heathen, persons who had
abstained from marrying again would so far be more respected than those
who had not abstained.

(_b_) This interpretation is in harmony with the context. In the passage
before us the qualification which immediately precedes the expression,
"husband of one wife," is "without reproach"; in the Epistle to Titus it
is "blameless." In each case the meaning seems to be that there must be
nothing in the past or present life of the candidate, which could
afterwards with any show of reason be urged against him as inconsistent
with his office. He must be above and not below the average of men; and
_therefore_ he must not have been twice married.

(_c_) This agrees with what St. Paul says elsewhere about marriage. His
statements are clear and consistent, and it is a mistake to suppose that
there is any want of harmony between what is said in this Epistle and
what is said to the Corinthian Church on this subject. The Apostle
strongly upholds the lawfulness of marriage for all (1 Cor. vii. 28, 36;
1 Tim. iv. 3). For _those who are equal to it_, whether single or
widowed, he considers that their remaining as they are is the more
blessed condition (1 Cor. vii. 1, 7, 8, 32, 34, 40; 1 Tim. v. 7). But so
few persons are equal to this, that it is prudent for those who desire
to marry to do so, and for those who desire to marry again to do so (1
Cor. vii. 2, 9, 39; 1 Tim. v. 14). These being his convictions, is it
not reasonable to suppose, that in selecting ministers for the Church he
would look for them in the class which had given proof of moral strength
by remaining unmarried or by not marrying a second time. In an age of
such boundless licentiousness continency won admiration and respect; and
a person who had given clear evidence of such self-control would have
his moral influence thereby increased. Few things impress barbarous and
semi-barbarous people more than to see a man having full control over
passions to which they themselves are slaves. In the terrific odds which
the infant Church had to encounter, this was a point well worth turning
to advantage.

And here we may note St. Paul's wisdom in giving no preference to those
who had not married at all over those who had married only once. Had he
done so, he would have played into the hands of those heretics who
disparaged wedlock. And perhaps he had seen something of the evils which
abounded among the celibate priests of heathenism. It is quite obvious,
that, although he in no way discourages celibacy among the clergy, yet
he assumes that among them, as among the laity, marriage will be the
rule and abstaining the exception; so much so, that he does not think of
giving any special directions for the guidance of a celibate bishop or a
celibate deacon.[49]

5. Lastly, this interpretation of the phrases in question is strongly
confirmed by the views of leading Christians on the subject in the first
few centuries, and by the decrees of councils; these being largely
influenced by St. Paul's language, and therefore being a guide as to
what his words were then supposed to mean.

Hermas, Clement of Alexandria, of course Tertullian, and among later
Fathers, Chrysostom, Epiphanius, and Cyril, all write in disparagement
of second marriages, not as sin, but as weakness. To marry again is to
fall short of the high perfection set before us in the Gospel
constitution. Athenagoras goes so far as to call a second marriage
"respectable adultery," and to say that one who thus severs himself from
his dead wife is an "adulterer in disguise." Respecting the clergy,
Origen says plainly, "Neither a bishop, nor a presbyter, nor a deacon,
nor a widow, can be twice married." The canons of councils are not less
plain, either as to the discouragement of second marriages among the
laity, or their incompatibility with what was then required of the
clergy. The synods of Ancyra (_Can._ 19), of Neocæsarea (_Can._ 3 and
7), and of Laodicea (_Can._ 1) subjected lay persons who married more
than once to a penalty. This penalty seems to have varied in different
Churches; but in some cases it involved excommunication for a time. The
Council of Nicæa, on the other hand, makes it a condition that members
of the Puritan sect of _Cathari_ are not to be received into the Church
unless they promise in writing to communicate with those who have
married a second time (Can. 8). The _Apostolic Constitutions_ (vi. 17)
and the so-called _Apostolic Canons_ (17) absolutely forbid the
promotion of one who has married twice, to be a bishop, presbyter, or
deacon; and the _Apostolic Constitutions_ forbid the marriage of one who
is already in Holy Orders. He may marry once before he is ordained: but
if he is single at his ordination he must remain so all his life. Of
course, if his wife dies, he is not to marry again. Even singers,
readers, and door-keepers, although they may marry after they have been
admitted to office, yet are in no case to marry a second time or to
marry a widow. And the widow of a cleric was not allowed to marry a
second time.

All these rigorous views and enactments leave little doubt as to how the
early Church understood St. Paul's language: viz., that one who had
exhibited the weakness of marrying a second time was not to be admitted
to the ministry. From this they drew the inference that one who was
already in orders must not be allowed to marry a second time. And from
this they drew the further inference that entering into a marriage
contract at all was inadmissible for one who was already a bishop,
presbyter, or deacon. Marriage was not a bar to ordination, but
ordination was a bar to marriage. Married men might become clergy, but
the higher orders of clergy might not become married.

A little thought will show that neither of these inferences follows from
St. Paul's rule; and we have good reason for doubting whether he would
have sanctioned either of them. The Apostle rules that those who have
shown want of moral strength in taking a second wife are not to be
ordained deacons or presbyters. But he nowhere says or hints that, if
they find in themselves a want of moral strength of this kind _after_
their ordination, they are to be made to bear a burden to which they are
unequal. On the contrary, the general principle, which he so clearly
lays down, decides the case: "If they have not continency, let them
marry: for it is better to marry than to burn." And if this holds good
of clergy who have lost their first wives, it holds good at least as
strongly of those who were unmarried at the time of their ordination.
Those Churches, therefore, which, like our own, allow the clergy to
marry, and even to marry a second time, after ordination, may rightly
claim to have the Apostle on their side.

But there are Churches, and among them the Church of England, which
disregard the Apostle's directions, in admitting those who have been
more than once married to the diaconate, and even to the episcopate.
What defence is to be made of an apparent laxity, which seems to amount
to lawlessness? The answer is that there is nothing to show that St.
Paul is giving rules which are to bind the Church for all time. It is
quite possible that his directions are given "by reason of the present
distress." We do not consider ourselves bound by the regulation, which
has far higher authority than that of a single Apostle, respecting the
eating of blood and of things strangled. The first council, at which
most of the Apostles were present, forbad the eating of these things. It
also forbad the eating of things offered to idols. St. Paul himself led
the way in showing that this restriction is not always binding: and the
whole Church has come to disregard the other. Why? Because in none of
these cases is the act sinful in itself. While the Jewish converts were
likely to be scandalized by seeing their fellow-Christians eating blood,
it was expedient to forbid it; and while heathen converts were likely to
think lightly of idolatry, if they saw their fellow-Christians eating
what had been offered in sacrifice to an idol, it was expedient to
forbid it. When these dangers ceased the reason for the enactment
ceased; and the enactment was rightly disregarded. The same principle
applies to the ordination of persons who have been twice married.
Nowadays a man is not considered less strong than his fellows, because
he has married a second time. To refuse to ordain such a person would be
to lose a minister at a time when the need of additional ministers is
great; and this loss would be without compensation.

And we have evidence that in the primitive Church the Apostle's rule
about digamists was not considered absolute. In one of his Montanist
treatises Tertullian taunts the Catholics in having even among their
bishops men who had married twice, and who did not blush when the
Pastoral Epistles were read;[50] and Hippolytus, in his fierce attack on
Callistus, Bishop of Rome, states that under him men who had been twice
and thrice married were ordained bishops, priests, and deacons. And we
know that a distinction was made in the Greek Church between those who
had married twice _as Christians_, and those who had concluded the
second marriage before baptism. The latter were not excluded from
ordination. And some went so far as to say that if the first marriage
took place before baptism, and the second afterwards, the man was to be
considered as having been married only once.[51] This freedom in
interpreting the Apostle's rule not unnaturally led to its being, in
some branches of the Church, disregarded. St. Paul says, "Do not ordain
a man who has married more than once." If you may say, "This man, who
has married more than once, shall be _accounted_ as having married only
once;" you may equally well say "The Apostle's rule was a temporary one,
and we have the right to judge of its suitableness to our times and to
particular circumstances." We may feel confidence that in such a matter
it was not St. Paul's wish to deprive Churches throughout all time of
their liberty of judgment, and the Church of England is thus justified.

FOOTNOTES:

[49] As the _Dictionary of Christian Antiquities_ (vol. i. p. 324) has
given its sanction to the view that "St. Paul _required_ the
presbyter-bishop to have had the experience of marriage and with at
least a preference for those who had brought up children (1 Tim. iii. 2,
4), and extended the requirement even to the deacons of the Church (1
Tim. iii. 11, 12)," it seems to be worth while to repeat the declaration
of Ellicott and Huther, that "the strange opinion of Bretschneider, that
μιᾶς is here the indefinite article, and that Paul meant that a bishop
should be married, hardly needed the elaborate refutation which is
accorded to it by Winer, _Grammar of New Testament_, III. 18 (Eng. Tr.,
p. 146)." Would any Englishman ever say "a bishop must have one wife,"
when his meaning was "a bishop must have a wife"?

[50] _De Monog._, xii.

[51] See Döllinger's _Hippolytus and Callistus_ (pp. 129-147 Eng.
Trans.) for a full discussion of the question.

CHAPTER XII.

_THE RELATION OF HUMAN CONDUCT TO THE MYSTERY OF GODLINESS._

    "These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly;
    but if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how men ought to behave
    themselves in the house of God, which is the Church of the living
    God, the pillar and ground of the truth. And without controversy
    great is the mystery of godliness; He who was manifested in the
    flesh, justified in the spirit, seen of angels, preached among the
    nations, believed on in the world, received up in glory"--1 TIM.
    iii. 14-16.

St. Paul here makes a pause in the Epistle. He has brought to a close
some of the principal directions which he has to give respecting the
preservation of pure doctrine, the conduct of public worship, and the
qualifications for the ministry: and before proceeding to other topics
he halts in order to insist upon the importance of these things, by
pointing out what is really involved in them. Their importance is one
main reason for his writing at all. Although he hopes to be with Timothy
again even sooner than might be expected, he nevertheless will not allow
matters of this gravity to wait for his return to Ephesus. For, after
all, this hope may be frustrated, and it may be a long time before the
two friends meet again face to face. The way in which Christians ought
to behave themselves in the house of God is not a matter which can wait
indefinitely, seeing that this house of God is no lifeless shrine of a
lifeless image, which knows nothing and cares nothing about what goes on
in its temple; but a congregation of immortal souls and of bodies that
are temples of the living God, Who will destroy him who destroys His
temple (1 Cor. iii. 17). God's house must have regulations to preserve
it from unseeming disorder. The congregation which belongs to the living
God must have a constitution to preserve it from faction and anarchy.
All the more so, seeing that to it has been assigned a post of great
responsibility. Truth in itself is self-evident and self-sustained: it
needs no external support or foundation. But truth as it is manifested
to the world needs the best support and the firmest basis that can be
found for it. And it is the duty and privilege of the Church to supply
these. God's household is not only a community which in a solemn and
special way belongs to the living God: it is also the "pillar and ground
of the truth." These considerations show how vital is the question, In
what way ought one to behave oneself in this community?[52]

For the truth, to the support and establishment of which every Christian
by his behaviour in the Church is bound to contribute, is indisputably
something great and profound. By the admission of all, the mystery of
the Christian faith is a deep and weighty one; and the responsibility of
helping or hindering its establishment is proportionately deep and
weighty. Other things may be matter of dispute, but this not. "Without
controversy great is the mystery of godliness."

Why does St. Paul speak of the Truth as "the mystery of godliness"? In
order to express both the Divine and the human aspects of the Christian
faith. On the Divine side the Gospel is a mystery, a disclosed secret.
It is a body of truth originally hidden from man's knowledge, to which
man by his own unaided reason and abilities would never be able to find
the way. In one word it is a revelation: a communication by God to men
of Truth which they could not have discovered for themselves. "Mystery"
is one of those words which Christianity has borrowed from paganism, but
has consecrated to new uses by gloriously transfiguring its meaning. The
heathen mystery was something always kept hidden from the bulk of
mankind; a secret to which only a privileged few were admitted. It
encouraged, in the very centre of religion itself, selfishness and
exclusiveness. The Christian mystery, on the other hand, is something
once hidden, but now made known, not to a select few, but to all. The
term, therefore, involves a splendid paradox: it is a secret revealed to
every one. In St. Paul's own words to the Romans (xvi. 25), "the
revelation of the mystery which hath been kept in silence through times
eternal, but now is manifested, and by the scriptures of the prophets,
according to the commandment of the eternal God, is made known unto all
the nations." He rarely uses the word mystery without combining with it
some other word signifying to reveal, manifest, or make known.[53]

But the Christian faith is not only a mystery but a "mystery of
godliness." It not only tells of the bounty of Almighty God in revealing
His eternal counsels to man, but it also tells of man's obligations in
consequence of being initiated. It is a mystery, not "of lawlessness" (2
Thess. ii. 7), but "of godliness." Those who accept it "profess
godliness"; profess reverence to the God who has made it known to them.
It teaches plainly on what principle we are to regulate "how men ought
to behave themselves in the household of God." The Gospel is a mystery
of piety, a mystery of reverence and of religious life. Holy itself, and
proceeding from the Holy One, it bids its recipients be holy, even as He
is Holy Who gives it.

"Who was manifested in the flesh, justified in the spirit, seen of
angels, preached among the nations, believed on in the world, received
up in glory."

After the text about the three Heavenly Witnesses in the First Epistle
of St. John, no disputed reading in the New Testament has given rise to
more controversy than the passage before us. Let us hope that the day is
not far distant when there will be no more disputing about either text.
The truth, though still doubted, especially in reference to the passage
before us, is not really doubtful. In both cases the reading of the A.V.
is indefensible. It is certain that St. John never wrote the words about
the "three that bear witness in heaven": and it is certain that St. Paul
did not write, "_God_ was manifest in the flesh," but "_Who_ was
manifested in the flesh." The reading "_God_ was manifested in the
flesh" appears in no Christian writer until late in the fourth century,
and in no translation of the Scriptures, earlier than the seventh or
eighth century. And it is not found in any of the five great primary
MSS., except as a correction made by a later scribe, who knew of the
reading "God was manifested," and either preferred it to the other, or
at least wished to preserve it as an alternative reading, or as an
interpretation. Even so cautious and conservative a commentator as the
late Bishop Wordsworth of Lincoln declares that "the preponderance of
testimony is overwhelming" against the reading "_God_ was manifested in
the flesh." In an old Greek MS., it would require only two small strokes
to turn "Who" into "God"; and this alteration would be a tempting one,
seeing that the masculine "Who" after the neuter "mystery," looks harsh
and unnatural.[54]

But here we come upon a highly interesting consideration. The words that
follow look like a quotation from some primitive Christian hymn or
confession. The rhythmical movement and the parallelism of the six
balanced clauses, of which each triplet forms a climax, points to some
such fact as this. It is possible that we have here a fragment of one of
the very hymns which, as Pliny the Younger tells the Emperor Trajan, the
Christians were accustomed to sing antiphonally at daybreak to Christ as
a God.[55] Such a passage as this might well be sung from side to side,
line by line or triplet by triplet, as choirs still chant the Psalms in
our churches.

    "Who was manifested in the flesh,
    "Justified in the spirit,
    "Seen of angels,
    "Preached among the nations,
    "Believed on in the world,
    "Received up in glory."

Let us assume that this very reasonable and attractive conjecture is
correct, and that St. Paul is here quoting from some well-known form of
words. Then the "Who" with which the quotation begins will refer to
something in the preceding lines which are not quoted. How natural,
then, that St. Paul should leave the "Who" unchanged, although it does
not fit on grammatically to his own sentence. But in any case there is
no doubt as to the antecedent of the "Who." "The mystery of godliness"
has for its centre and basis the life of a Divine Person; and the great
crisis in the long process by which the mystery was revealed was reached
when this Divine Person "was manifested in the flesh." That in making
this statement or quotation the Apostle has in his mind the Gnostics who
"teach a different doctrine" (i. 3), is quite possible, but is by no
means certain. The "manifestation" of Christ in the flesh is a favourite
topic with him, as with St. John, and is one of the points in which the
two Apostles not only teach the same doctrine, but teach it in the same
language. The fact that he had used the word "mystery" would be quite
enough to make him speak of "manifestation," even if there had been no
false teachers who denied or explained away the fact of the Incarnation
of the Divine Son. The two words fit into one another exactly.
"Mystery," in Christian theology, implies something which once was
concealed but has now been made known; "manifest" implies making known
what had once been concealed. _An historical appearance of One Who had
previously existed, but had been kept from_ _the knowledge of the
world_, is what is meant by, "Who was manifested in the flesh."

"Justified in the spirit." Spirit here cannot mean the Holy Spirit, as
the A.V. would lead us to suppose. "In spirit" in this clause is in
obvious contrast to "in flesh" in the previous clause. And if "flesh"
means the material part of Christ's nature, "spirit" means the
immaterial part of His nature, and the higher portion of it. His flesh
was the sphere of His manifestation: His spirit was the sphere of His
justification. Thus much seems to be clear. But what are we to
understand by His justification? And how did it take place in His
spirit? These are questions to which a great variety of answers have
been given; and it would be rash to assert of any one of them that it is
so satisfactory as to be conclusive.

Christ's human nature consisted, as ours does, of three elements, body,
soul, and spirit. The body is the flesh spoken of in the first clause.
The soul (ψυχή), as distinct from the spirit (πνεῦμα), is the seat of
the natural affections and desires. It was Christ's soul that was
troubled at the thought of impending suffering. "My soul is exceeding
sorrowful, even unto death" (Matt. xxvi. 38; Mark xiv. 34). "Now is My
soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save Me from this hour"
(John xii. 27). The spirit is the seat of the religious emotions: it is
the highest, innermost part of man's nature; the sanctuary of the
temple. It was in His spirit that Christ was affected when the presence
of moral evil distressed Him. He was moved with indignation in His
spirit when He saw the hypocritical Jews mingling their sentimental
lamentations with the heartfelt lamentations of Martha and Mary at the
grave of Lazarus (John xi. 33). It was in His spirit also that He was
troubled when, as Judas sat at table with Him and possibly next to
Him,[56] He said, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, that one of you shall
betray Me" (John xiii. 21). This spiritual part of His nature, which was
the sphere of His most intense suffering, was also the sphere of His
most intense joy and satisfaction. As moral evil distressed His spirit,
so moral innocence delighted it. In a way that none of us can measure,
Jesus Christ knew the joy of a good conscience. The challenge which He
made to the Jews, "Which of you convicteth Me of sin?" was one which He
could make to His own conscience. It had nothing against Him and could
never accuse Him. He was _justified_ when it spake, and clear when it
judged (Rom. iii. 4; Ps. li. 4). Perfect Man though He was, and
manifested in weak and suffering flesh, He was nevertheless "justified
in the spirit."[57]

"Seen of angels." It is impossible to determine the precise occasion to
which this refers. Ever since the Incarnation Christ has been visible to
the angels; but something more special than the fact of the Incarnation
seems to be alluded to here. The wording in the Greek is exactly the
same as in "_He appeared to_ Cephas; then _to_ the twelve; then _He
appeared to_ above five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater
part remain until now, but some are fallen asleep; then _He appeared to_
James; then _to_ all the Apostles; last of all, as _to_ one born out of
due time, _He appeared to_ me also" (1 Cor. xv. 5-8). Here, therefore,
we might translate "_appeared to_ angels." What appearance, or
appearances, of the incarnate Word to the angelic host can be intended?

The question cannot be answered with any certainty; but with some
confidence we can venture to say what can _not_ be intended. "Appeared
to angels" can scarcely refer to the angelic appearances which are
recorded in connexion with the Nativity, Temptation, Agony,
Resurrection, and Ascension of Christ. On those occasions angels
appeared to Christ and to others, not He to angels. With still greater
confidence we may reject the suggestion that "angels" here means either
the Apostles, as the angels or _messengers_ of Christ, or evil spirits,
as the angels of Satan. It may be doubted whether anything at all
parallel to either explanation can be found in Scripture. Moreover,
"appeared to evil spirits" is an interpretation which makes the passage
more difficult than it was before. The manifestation of Christ to the
angelic host either at the Incarnation or at the return to glory is a
far more reasonable meaning to assign to the words.

The first three clauses of this primitive hymn may thus be summed up.
The mystery of godliness has been revealed to mankind, and revealed in a
historical Person, Who, while manifested in human flesh, was in His
inmost spirit declared free from all sin. And this manifestation of a
perfectly righteous Man was not confined to the human race. The angels
also witnessed it and can bear testimony to its reality.

The remaining triplet is more simple: the meaning of each one of its
clauses is clear. The same Christ, who was seen of angels, was also
preached among the nations of the earth and believed on in the world:
yet He Himself was taken up from the earth and received once more in
glory. The propagation of the faith in an ascended Christ is here
plainly and even enthusiastically stated. To all the nations, to the
whole world, this glorified Saviour belongs. All this adds emphasis to
the question "how men ought to behave themselves in the house of God" in
which such truths are taught and upheld.

It is remarkable how many arrangements of these six clauses are
possible, all making excellent sense. We may make them into two triplets
of independent lines: or we may couple the two first lines of each
triplet together and then make the third lines correspond to one
another. In either case each group begins with earth and ends with
heaven. Or again, we may make the six lines into three couplets. In the
first couplet flesh and spirit are contrasted and combined; in the
second, angels and men; in the third, earth and heaven.

Yes, beyond dispute the mystery of godliness is a great one. The
revelation of the Eternal Son, which imposes upon those who accept it a
holiness of which His sinlessness must be the model, is something awful
and profound. But He, Who along with every temptation which He allows
"makes also the way of escape," does not impose a pattern for imitation
without at the same time granting the grace necessary for struggling
towards it. To reach it is impossible--at any rate in this life. But the
consciousness that we cannot reach perfection is no excuse for aiming at
imperfection. The sinlessness of Christ is immeasurably beyond us here;
and it may be that even in eternity the loss caused by our sins in this
life will never be entirely cancelled. But to those who have taken up
their cross daily and followed their Master, and who have washed their
robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb, will be granted
hereafter to stand sinless "before the throne of God and serve Him day
and night in His temple." Having followed Christ on earth, they will
follow Him still more in heaven. Having shared His sufferings here, they
will share His reward there. They too will be "seen of angels" and
"received up in glory."

FOOTNOTES:

[52] To take the "pillar and ground of the truth" as meaning Timothy
makes sense, but not nearly such good sense: moreover, it is almost
certain that if St. Paul had meant this, he would have expressed himself
differently. There is no intolerable mixture of metaphors in speaking of
Christians first as a house and then as a pillar, any more than in
speaking of any one as both a pillar and a basis. In vi. 9 we have the
covetous falling into a _snare_ and hurtful lusts such as _drown_ men.

[53] 1 Cor. ii 1, 7, xv. 51; Eph. i. 9, iii. 3, 9, vi. 19; Col. i. 26,
27, ii. v. 3, comp. Rom. xi. 25, and see Lightfoot on Col. i. 26.

[54] Cf. Col. i. 27, which throws much light on this passage; and also
Col. ii. 2. In some MSS. and Versions the "Who" has been changed into
"which," in order to make the construction less harsh.

[55] Carmen Christo quasi deo dicere secum invicem (Plin., _Ep._ x. 97).

[56] St. John reclined on our Lord's right; Judas seems to have been on
His left. He must have been very close to be able to hear without the
others hearing.

[57] Cf. the partly parallel passage 1 Pet. iii. 18: "Put to death in
the flesh, but quickened in the spirit." But "flesh" and "spirit" have
no preposition in the original Greek in 1 Pet. iii. 18: here each has
the ἐν.

CHAPTER XIII.

_THE COMPARATIVE VALUE OF BODILY EXERCISE AND OF GODLINESS._

    "Exercise thyself unto godliness: for bodily exercise is profitable
    for a little; but godliness is profitable for all things, having
    promise of the life which now is, and of that which is to come"--1
    TIM. iv. 7, 8.

It is almost impossible to decide what St. Paul here means by "bodily
exercise." Not that either the phrase or the passage in which it occurs
is either difficult or obscure. But the phrase may mean either of two
things, both of which make excellent sense in themselves, and both of
which fit the context.

At the beginning of this chapter the Apostle warns Timothy against
apostates who shall "give heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of
devils ... forbidding to marry and commanding to abstain from meats."
St. Paul has in his mind those moral teachers who made bodily
mortifications the road, not to self-discipline, but to self-effacement;
and who taught that such things were necessary, not because our bodies
are prone to evil, but because they exist at all. To have a body, they
held, was a degradation: and such a possession was a curse, a burden,
and a shame. Instead of believing, as every Christian must, that a human
body is a very sacred thing, to be jealously guarded from all that may
harm or pollute it, these philosophers held that it was worse than
worthless, fit for nothing but to be trampled upon and abused. That it
may be sanctified here and be glorified hereafter,--that it may be the
temple of God's Holy Spirit now and be admitted to share the blessedness
of Christ's ascended humanity in the world to come,--they could not and
would not believe. It must be made to feel its own vileness. It must be
checked, and thwarted, and tormented into subjection, until the blessed
time should come when death should release the unhappy soul that was
linked to it from its loathsome and intolerable companion.

It cannot, of course, for a moment be supposed that St. Paul would admit
that "bodily exercise" of this suicidal kind was "profitable" even "for
a little." On the contrary, as we have seen already, he condemns the
whole system in the very strongest terms. It is a blasphemy against
God's goodness and a libel on human nature. But some persons have
thought that the Apostle may be alluding to practices which, externally
at any rate, had much resemblance to the practices which he so
emphatically condemns. He may have in his mind those fasts, and vigils,
and other forms of bodily mortification, which within prudent limits and
when sanctified by humility and prayer, are a useful, if not a necessary
discipline for most of us. And it has been thought that Timothy himself
may have been going to unwise lengths in such ascetic practices: for in
this very letter we find his affectionate master charging him, "Be no
longer a drinker of water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake
and thine often infirmities."

This then is one possible meaning of the Apostle's words in the passage
before us. Discipline of the body by means of a severe rule of life is
profitable for something: but it is not everything. It is not even the
chief thing, or anything approaching to the chief thing. The chief thing
is godliness. To the value of bodily exercise of this kind there are
limits, and rather narrow limits: it "is profitable for _a little_." To
the value of godliness there are no limits: it is "profitable for _all_
things." Mortifications of the body may preserve us from sins of the
flesh: but they are no certain protection even against these. They are
no protection at all--sometimes they are the very reverse of
protection--against sins of self-complacency and spiritual pride.
Asceticism may exist without godliness; and godliness may exist without
asceticism. Bodily mortifications may be useful; but they may also be
harmful to both soul and body. Godliness must always be useful to both;
can never be harmful to either.

But it is quite possible to understand the expression "bodily exercise,"
in the sense in which the phrase is most commonly used in ordinary
conversation among ourselves. In the text which we are considering it
may mean that exercise of the body which we are accustomed to take, some
of us of necessity, because the work by which we earn our daily bread
involves a great deal of physical exertion; some of us for health's
sake, because our work involves a great deal of sitting still; some of
us for pleasure, because bodily exercise of various kinds is delightful
to us. This interpretation of the Apostle's statement, like the other
interpretation, makes good sense of itself and fits the context. And
whereas that was in harmony with the opening words of the chapter, this
fits the immediate context.

St. Paul has just said "Exercise thyself unto godliness." In using the
expression "Exercise thyself" (γύμναζε σεαυτόν) he was of course
borrowing, as he so constantly does borrow, from the language which was
used respecting gymnastic contests in the public games. The Christian is
an athlete, who must train himself and exercise himself for a lifelong
contest. He has to wrestle and fight with the powers of evil, that he
may win a crown of glory that fadeth not away. How natural, then, that
the Apostle, having just spoken of spiritual exercise for the attainment
of godliness, should go on to glance at bodily exercise, in order to
point out the superiority of the one over the other. The figurative
would easily suggest the literal sense; and it is therefore quite lawful
to take the words "bodily exercise" in their most literal sense. Perhaps
we may go further and say, that this is just one of those cases in
which, because the literal meaning makes excellent sense, the literal
meaning is to be preferred. Let us then take St. Paul's words quite
literally and see what meaning they will yield.

"Bodily exercise is profitable for a little." It is by no means a
useless thing. In its proper place it has a real value. Taken in
moderation it tends to preserve health and increase strength. It may
sometimes be the means of gaining for ourselves and for the circle to
which we belong praise and distinction. It makes us more capable of
aiding ourselves and others in times of physical danger. It may even be
the means of enabling us to save life. By taking us out of ourselves and
turning our thoughts into new channels, it is an instrument of mental
refreshment, and enables us to return to the main business of our lives
with increased intellectual vigour. And beyond all this, if kept within
bounds, it has a real moral value. It sometimes keeps us out of mischief
by giving us innocent instead of harmful recreation. And bodily training
and practice, if loyally carried out, involve moral gains of another
kind. Dangerous appetites have to be kept in check, personal wishes have
to be sacrificed, good temper has to be cultivated, if success is to be
secured for ourselves or the side to which we belong. All this is
"profitable" in a very real degree. But the limits to all these good
results are evident; and they are somewhat narrow. They are confined to
this life, and for the most part to the lower side of it; and they are
by no means certain. Only indirectly does bodily exercise yield help to
the intellectual and spiritual parts of our nature; and as regards both
of them it may easily do more harm than good. Like excessive meat and
drink, it may brutalize instead of invigorating. Have we not all of us
seen men whose extravagant devotion to bodily exercise has extinguished
almost all intellectual interests, and apparently all spiritual
interests also?

But there are no such drawbacks to the exercise of godliness. "Godliness
is profitable for _all_ things, having promise" not only "of the life
which now is, but of that which is to come." Its value is not confined
to the things of this world, although it enriches and glorifies them
all. And, unlike bodily exercise, its good results are certain. There is
no possibility of excess. We may be unwise in our pursuit of godliness,
as in our pursuit of bodily strength and activity; but we cannot have
too much exercise in godliness, as we easily can in athletics. Indeed,
we cannot with any safety lay aside the one, as we not only can, but
must, frequently lay aside the other. And we need to bear this simple
truth in mind. Most of us are willing to admit that godliness is an
excellent thing for attaining to a peaceful death; but we show little
evidence that we are convinced of its being necessary for spending a
happy life. We look upon it as a very suitable thing for the weak, the
poor, the sickly, the sorrowful, and perhaps also for sentimental
persons who have plenty of leisure time at their disposal. We fail to
see that there is much need for it, or indeed much room for it, in the
lives of busy, capable, energetic, and practical men of the world. In
other words, we are not at all convinced of the truth of the Apostle's
words, that "Godliness is profitable for _all_ things," and we do not
act as if they had very much interest for us. They express a truth which
is only too likely to be crowded out of sight and out of mind in this
bustling age. Let us be as practical as our dispositions lead us and our
surroundings require us to be; but let us not forget that godliness is
really the most practical of all things. It lays hold on a man's whole
nature. It purifies his body, it illumines and sanctifies his intellect;
it braces his will. It penetrates into every department of life, whether
business or amusement, social intercourse or private meditation. Ask the
physicians, ask employers of labour, ask teachers in schools and
universities, ask statesmen and philosophers, what their experience
teaches them respecting the average merits of the virtuous and the
vicious. They will tell you that the godly person has the healthiest
body, is the most faithful servant, the most painstaking student, the
best citizen, the happiest man. A man who is formed, reformed, and
informed by religion will do far more effectual work in the world than
the same man without religion. He works with less friction, because his
care is cast upon his heavenly Father; and with more confidence, because
his trust is placed on One much more sure than himself. Moreover, in the
long run he is trusted and respected. Even those who not only abjure
religion in themselves, but ridicule it in others, cannot get rid of
their own experience. They find that the godly man can be depended upon,
where the merely clever man cannot; and they act in accordance with this
experience. Nor does the profitableness of godliness end with the
possession of blessings so inestimable as these. It holds out rich
promises respecting future happiness, and it gives an earnest and
guarantee for it. It gives a man the blessing of a good conscience,
which is one of our chief foretastes of the blessedness which awaits us
in the world to come.

Let us once for all get rid of the common, but false notion that there
is anything unpractical, anything weak or unmanly, in the life of
holiness to which Christ has called us, and of which He has given us an
example: and by the lives which we lead let us prove to others that this
vulgar notion _is_ a false one. Nothing has done more harm to the cause
of Christianity than the misconceptions which the world has formed as to
what Christianity is and what it involves. And these misconceptions are
largely caused by the unworthy lives which professing Christians lead.
And this unworthiness is of two kinds. There is first the utter
worldliness, and often the downright wickedness, of many who are not
only baptized Christians, but who habitually keep up some of the
external marks of an ordinary Christian life, such as going to church,
having family prayers, attending religious meetings, and the like. And
perhaps the worst form of this is that in which religion is made a
trade, and an appearance of godliness is assumed in order to make money
out of a reputation for sanctity. Secondly, there is the seriously
mistaken way in which many earnest persons set to work in order to
attain to true godliness. By their own course of life they lead people
to suppose that a religious life, the life of an earnest Christian, is a
dismal thing and an unpractical thing. They wear a depressed and joyless
look; they not only abstain from, but leave it to be supposed that they
condemn, many things which give zest and brightness to life, and which
the Gospel does not condemn. In their eagerness to show their conviction
as to the transcendent importance of spiritual matters, they exhibit a
carelessness and slovenliness in reference to the affairs of this life,
which is exceedingly trying to all those who have to work with them.
Thus they stand forward before the world as conspicuous evidence that
godliness is _not_ "profitable for all things." The world is only too
ready to take note of evidence which points to a conclusion so in
harmony with its own predilections. It is, and has been from the
beginning, prejudiced against religion; and its adherents are quick to
seize upon, and make the most of, anything which appears to justify
these prejudices. "In a world such as this," they say, "so full of care
and suffering, we cannot afford to part with anything which gives
brightness and refreshment to life. A religion which tells us to abjure
all these things, and live perpetually as if we were at the point of
death or face to face with the Day of Judgment, may be all very well for
monks and nuns, but is no religion for the mass of mankind. Moreover,
this is a busy age. Most of us have much to do; and, if we are to live
at all, what we have to do must be done quickly and thoroughly. That
means that we must give our minds to it; and a religion which tells us
that we must not give our minds to our business, but to other things
which it says are of far greater importance, is no religion for people
who have to make their way in the world and keep themselves and their
children from penury. We flatly refuse to accept a gospel which is so
manifestly out of harmony with the conditions of average human life."
This charge against Christianity is a very old one: we find it taken up
and answered in some of the earliest defences of the gospel which have
come down to us. The unhappy thing is, not that such charges should be
made, but that the lives of Christian men and women should prove that
there is at least a _primâ facie_ case for bringing such accusations.
The early Christians had to confront the charge that they were joyless,
useless members of society and unpatriotic citizens. They maintained
that, on the contrary, they were the happiest and most contented of men,
devoted to the well-being of others, and ready to die for their country.
They kept aloof from many things in which the heathen indulged, not
because they were pleasures, but because they were sinful. And there
were certain services which they could not, without grievous sin, render
to the State. In all lawful matters no men were more ready than they
were to be loyal and law-abiding citizens. In this, as in any other
matter of moral conduct, they were quite willing to be compared with
their accusers or any other class of men. On which side were to be found
those who were bright and peaceful in their lives, who cherished their
kindred, who took care of the stranger, who succoured their enemies, who
shrank not from death?

A practical appeal of this kind is found to be in the long run far more
telling than exposition and argument. It may be impossible to get men to
listen to, or take interest in, statements as to the principles and
requirements of the Christian religion. You may fail to convince them
that its precepts and demands are neither superstitious nor
unreasonable. But you can always show them what a life of godliness
really is;--that it is full of joyousness, and that its joys are neither
fitful nor uncertain; that it is no foe to what is bright and beautiful,
and is neither morose in itself nor apt to frown at lightheartedness in
others; that it does not interfere with the most strenuous attention to
business and the most capable despatch of it. Men refuse to listen to or
to be moved by words; but they cannot help noticing and being influenced
by facts which are all round them in their daily lives. So far as man
can judge, the number of vicious, mean, and unworthy lives is far in
excess of those which are pure and lofty. Each one of us can do
something towards throwing the balance the other way. We can prove to
all the world that godliness is not an unreality, and does not make
those who strive after it unreal; that it is hostile neither to
joyousness nor to capable activity; that, on the contrary, it enhances
the brightness of all that is really beautiful in life, while it raises
to a higher power all natural gifts and abilities; that the Apostle was
saying no more than the simple truth when he declared that it is
"profitable for all things."

CHAPTER XIV.

_THE PASTOR'S BEHAVIOUR TOWARDS WOMEN.--THE CHURCH WIDOW._

    "Honour widows that are widows indeed. But if any widow hath
    children or grandchildren, let them learn first to shew piety
    towards their own family, and to requite their parents: for this is
    acceptable in the sight of God.... Let none be enrolled as a widow
    under threescore years old, having been the wife of one man, well
    reported of for good works"--1 TIM. v. 3, 4, 9.

The subject of this fifth chapter is "The Behaviour of the Pastor
towards the older and younger men and women in the congregation." Some
have thought that it forms the main portion of the letter, to which all
the rest is more or less introductory or supplementary. But the
structure of the letter cannot easily be brought into harmony with this
view. It seems to be much nearer the truth to say that the
unpremeditated way in which this subject is introduced, cannot well be
explained unless we assume that we are reading a genuine letter, and not
a forged treatise. The connexion of the different subjects touched upon
is loose and not always very obvious. Points are mentioned in the order
in which they occur to the writer's mind without careful arrangement.
After the personal exhortations given at the close of Chapter iv., which
have a solemnity that might lead one to suppose that the Apostle was
about to bring his words to a close, he makes a fresh start and treats
of an entirely new subject which has occurred to him.

It is not difficult to guess what has suggested the new subject. The
personal exhortations with which the previous section ends contain these
words, "Let no man despise thy youth; but be thou an ensample to them
that believe, in word, in manner of life, in love, in faith, in purity."
Timothy is not to allow the fact that he is younger than many of those
over whom he is set to interfere with the proper discharge of his
duties. He is to give no one a handle for charging him with want of
gravity or propriety. Sobriety of conduct is to counterbalance any
apparent lack of experience. But St. Paul remembers that there is
another side to that. Although Timothy is to behave in such a way as
never to remind his flock of his comparative youthfulness, yet he
himself is always to bear in mind that he is still a young man. This is
specially to be remembered in dealing with persons of either sex who are
older than himself, and in his bearing towards young women. St. Paul
begins with the treatment of older men and returns to this point again
later on. Between these two passages about men he gives directions for
Timothy's guidance respecting the women in his flock, and specially
respecting widows. This subject occupies more than half the chapter and
is of very great interest, as being our chief source of information
respecting the treatment of widows in the early Church. Commentators are
by no means unanimous in their interpretation of the details of the
passage, but it is believed that the explanation which is now offered is
in harmony with the original Greek, consistent with itself, and not
contradicted by anything which is known from other sources.

It is quite evident that more than one kind of widow is spoken of: and
one of the questions which the passage raises is--How many classes of
widows are indicated? We can distinguish four kinds; and it seems
probable that the Apostle means to give us four kinds.

1. There is "the widow indeed (ἡ ὄντως χήρα)." Her characteristic is
that she is "desolate," _i.e._, quite alone in the world. She has not
only lost her husband, but she has neither children nor any other near
relation to minister to her necessities. Her hope is set on God, to Whom
her prayers ascend night and day. She is contrasted with two other
classes of widow, both of whom are in worldly position better off than
she is, for they are not desolate or destitute; yet one of these is far
more miserable than the widow indeed, because the manner of life which
she adopts is so unworthy of her.

2. There is the widow who "hath children or grandchildren." Natural
affection will cause these to take care that their widowed parent does