Coming now to the records, the peculiar importance attached to the Didache' lies in the fact that, on its first appearance, it was almost universally hailed as a witness to the condition of things prevailing in a quite primitive state of Christian society, where the old order had not yet passed, though the new had begun to appear. Harnack was almost the only critic of renown who dated its redaction later than A.D. 150, and Catholics were often not slow in attributing this conclusion to his desire to minimize the importance of its witness to certain Catholic dogmas and practices, especially to the Trinitarian baptismal formula, and the Real Presence. By most authorities its compilation was dated somewhere about A.D. 100. Its place of origin was allowed to be uncertain, but Syria and Asia Minor gained the majority of votes.

By the upholders of the twofold ministry theory, the "Didache' was hailed with delight. It was taken as a revelation, as a fresh and accurately fixed starting-point of interpretation for all that was obscure in the New Testament writings. The Christian society it revealed to us was certainly primitive, remote and cut off from the main stream of Christian thought and influences. Thus, although we find that the local churches were organized under bishops, yet we see that, at the same time, they were still served by itinerant apostles,' 'and especially by prophets, who upon coming into the local brotherhood were treated with all honour, and who ministered the Eucharist, taking precedence of the local bishop. Here, then, is evidence of first-rate importance to the effect that, in the beginning, the bishops held only the second place, that the ministry of sacrament and sacrifice was originally not institutional but charismatic, that it was only in course of time, under the influence of special circumstances, of causes, secular and human, rather than by virtue of Christ's original intention and command, that the charismatic ministry gave place to the episcopal and institutional, and that this finally developed into the hierarchy of three degrees that afterwards became universal. Stated in this way, the case is a strong one. It raises difficulties that must be faced.

Two questions present themselves. The first concerns the date and authority of the 'Didache,' the second, of less moment, but still not unimportant, has to do with its interpretation. In dealing with the first, Mr. Wotherspoon

pretends to no originality of research, but claims only to have made a careful examination of all the materials hitherto collected and of the opinions and conclusions based by the foremost critics upon the evidence available. I cannot follow him here in the details of his treatment of this question. His conclusion is that the document as it stands is of a comparatively late date, and its origin Montanistic. That the compiler incorporated earlier texts is granted: the first part, chapters i-vi, being a tract of Jewish origin, and some of the other parts also, which cannot, however, be with certainty determined, probably being extracts from existent documents. He gives a résumé of recent criticism, showing how the latest scholarship, especially in England, as represented by the late Dr. Bigg, Dr. Armitage-Robertson, and Prof. Swete, embodies a strong reaction against the very high antiquity and value previously attributed to it. He then adds one or two considerations of his own, which certainly are not without weight, and which tend to discredit its authority as an index of primitive conditions. The indications of Montanism that he notes are three. Firstly, the local colouring is exclusively rural, agricultural, and of village life, suggestive, too, of the hill country. And Phrygia, the home of Montanism, is essentially an agricultural land, with but two or three townships of any importance, and also a land of mountains. Secondly, the indications of persecution of Christians by Christians, indications that square well with persecution that is not unto death, point to a period subsequent to A.D. 172, when Montanism was condemned by the Bishops of Asia, but can scarcely be made to fit in with what we know of any state of affairs previous to that. Thirdly, we find a deep interest in prophets, but very little in any other member of the Christian ministry, and none at all in charismatic persons in general. The teacher' is simply mentioned; the apostle' is dismissed in four sentences, two of which take precautions against the too probable case that he is a pseudo-apostle. But the prophet arouses genuine interest and almost enthusiasm. If he does not occupy the stage to the exclusion of all others, he is certainly the central figure upon it, and the personage of chief importance. Moreover, he represents a decadent type of prophet; he is not the simple, unofficial, occasionally and spontaneously inspired prophet of the Acts, of the Epistles, of the letters of St. Ignatius, nor even of

the Shepherd of Hermas. In all these, as our author shows, it was not the prophet who was regarded, but rather the prophecy. The prophet of the Didache' is rather a professional prophet, who, once proved by his having the manners of the Lord,' whatever that may mean, is set upon a special pedestal of honour, in virtue of his being a prophet, is not to be gainsaid, and is entitled to receive gifts. Also there are indications that the writer of the Didache' had in mind not one isolated community, but a collection of communities comprising a considerable number of units. Taking all these points into consideration, we certainly find that the hypothesis of Montanistic origin fits all the facts as we know them, and fits them as no other hypothesis does. It supplies a background and gives an explanation which is coherent throughout, and even though we regard it as an hypothesis only, it is of such strength and consistency as most seriously to impair the authority of the 'Didache,' as a witness to the conditions obtaining in a really primitive and orthodox Christian community. Many a Many a priest, recalling his student days, and the effective use made of the 'Didache' by his professor, when expounding the argument from Tradition in support of the Real Presence, of the use of the Trinitarian form in Baptism, or of Baptism by effusion, will be loth to accept the hypothesis of origin and date here put forward. But the case is certainly a strong one, deserving of careful attention. After all, what is lost on the one side may well be more than balanced by what is gained on the other.

When he comes to the second question, the interpretation of the Didache,' Mr. Wotherspoon is equally satisfactory, and if his readers, text in hand, will take the trouble to follow his criticism, I think they will agree with the conclusion at which he arrives, namely, that even as it stands, and granting the early date postulated for it, the Didache does not supply us with evidence for the existence of a twofold ministry, in the sense asserted by Harnack and those who think with him. It does show the existence of an institutional ministry elected by the local church, and it does show the existence of apostles' who are itinerant and, seemingly, of but small account; of 'teachers' whose function is indefinite, and of 'prophets who seem normally to be settled, but who sometimes itinerate. But it provides no solid evidence in favour of

the theory that these apostles, teachers, and prophets constituted an order of itinerant and universal ministry, superior in origin to the appointed or institutional ministry, but now gradually being superseded by this latter. The apostles of the Didache have nothing in common with the Twelve, nor even with those whom the Epistles call apostles in a wider sense, except that they are kept on the move from Church to Church, and even in this the differences are great. The teachers are too shadowy to deserve consideration. The prophets, though of great esteem, are given no precedence over the bishops in spiritual ministry. It is even very doubtful whether they are given the right of presiding at the Eucharist. In certain circumstances they may order an Agape, they may give thanks as much as they will, without using the set forms provided; but this is after the celebration of the Eucharist. Those critics who find more than this in the Didache ' are reading into it their own preconceived ideas, or, as Mr. Wotherspoon well says of one of them, are considering the contents of a theory, not the contents of the "Didache."

Our author devotes many pages to the examination of all the other written records, canonical and otherwise, of the state of things in the primitive Church. He leaves out of account the less important charismatics, to examine in detail the status and functions of the prophet alone; since if it can be shown that the prophet did not dispute with the apostle or bishop the government of the Church, and had no place in its ministry properly so called, the others must a fortiori be excluded.

Here, again, there are two questions calling for notice, a negative one, and a positive; what the prophet was not, and what he was. So far as the New Testament writings go, the main, practically the only support of the theory that prophets were originally sharers in the ministry, and indeed. held the next place in dignity to the Apostles, is contained in the so-called lists of ministers' given by St. Paul in 1st Corinthians and Ephesians. But, as Mr. Wotherspoon shows, with keen insight into St. Paul's mind and methods of speech, he is not here regulating ecclesiastical precedence he is inculcating the true principle of Christian ambition: "covet earnestly the best gifts" (p. 159). I shall come back to this point later. Beyond these lists, which themselves are not evidence if rightly understood,

there is no other testimony in favour of the twofold ministry to be found in the canonical writings.

Prophesyings are mentioned and prophets are spoken of in many places, but nowhere do we find them invested with the two notes which must characterize the true minister, namely, responsibility to the Church, and conversely the dependence upon them of the Church for essential service and ministration. On the other hand, as every reader of the New Testament is well aware, there are many quite unambiguous indications of the existence of orders of men, who show forth in themselves both of these marks, and who, whether themselves charismatics or not, occupy their positions of authority by appointment or institution, apostles, bishops (or presbyters), deacons. In the noncanonical literature the case for the twofold ministry is, if possible, still weaker. Only in Hermas do prophets hold any place of importance, and even there they are clearly not ministers, nor is there any indication that they ever have been.

But the difficulty is still to be faced. What were the prophets, what their functions? That they occupied some position of eminence seems evident, and that the place they held is now wholly or almost wholly unoccupied, is too generally assumed for the question to be passed over in silence. In Mr. Wotherspoon's answer to this difficulty we have, I think, the most interesting and suggestive part of the whole of his book. If it can be accepted by Catholics it seems to me to afford a completely satisfactory solution, both theologically and historically, of difficulties that undoubtedly need to be cleared up.

The first thing to be noticed, yet as a rule strangely neglected, is that throughout the primitive literature, whether inspired or not, it is not so much the prophet that is honoured, as the prophecy that is esteemed. And this is true although St. Paul speaks of prophets in the concrete in those three places wherein is found the only argument of any strength in favour of our adversaries, namely, in the two so-called lists, and where he speaks of 'apostles and prophets' as being the foundation of the Church' (Eph. ii. 20).

Let us take this last expression first. We need not follow Mr. Wotherspoon in his discussion of the exact meaning of 'apostle,' whether in the language of the Evangelists or of St. Paul. All who read with any