CHAPTER IV.

CHURCH CONSTITUTION AND DISCIPLINE.

I-THE CLERICAL HIERARCHY.

1. EMPHASIZING THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN CLERGY AND LAITY. — While the Church had its special officers from the outset, these were not at first, with the exception of the apostles, widely distinguished from the general body of believers. A priesthood in the more emphatic sense was not congenial to the thought of the first generations of Christians. The ministry were not set up as the sole dispensers of grace, over against whom all other Christians must take the place of children still in their minority and incapable of any independent agency. "The distinction," says Ritschl, "between the active and the passive members of the congregation,-in other words, the Catholic conception of priesthood, is foreign to the first two centuries." 1 The fact that a majority of ecclesiastical officers continued, after their election, to pursue their worldly callings, was adverse to very wide distinctions in the Church. Still more adverse was the high conception taken of the common privilege of believers. All were regarded as partakers of the Spirit. Post-apostolic writers evince something of the same consciousness of the high privi

1 Albrecht Ritschl, Die Entstehung der altkatholischen Kirche.

lege pertaining to the ordinary Christian standing as appears in the writings of Peter, John, and Paul. The Apostolic Constitutions, notwithstanding their hierarchical tone, use this language: "Though a man be a layman, if skilful in the word and grave in his manners, let him teach." That this principle was sometimes acted upon, we know from the Palestinian bishops who employed Origen to interpret the Scriptures before their congregations, and defended themselves against the objections of the Bishop of Alexandria by affirming that they were guilty of no innovation, that "wheresoever there are found those qualified to benefit the brethren, these are exhorted by the holy bishops to address the people."2 Tertullian declares, in very plain and emphatic terms, that all Christians are priests by inherent right; though, for the sake of order and convenience, certain ones are, under ordinary circumstances, to be set apart for the administration of ordinances and for directing in government and discipline. He asks, “Are not even we laics priests?" "Where three are," he says, "a church is, albeit they be laics. For each individual lives by his own faith, nor is there exception of persons with God."3 While he protests, in the name of the peace and unity of the Church, against a layman's assuming to baptize in a case where a clergyman is accessible, he says with equal positiveness, "Even laymen have the right; for what is equally received can be equally given. Unless bishops or priests or deacons be on the spot, disciples are called. The word of the Lord ought not to be hidden by any; in like manner, too, baptism, which is

1 viii. 32. 2 Hist. Eccl., vi. 19. 8 De Exhort. Cast., vii.

equally God's property, can be administered by all."1 Irenæus says in one place, "All the righteous possess the sacerdotal rank."2 The same representation appears with Origen.3 "All Christians," as he teaches, "are priests, not merely or pre-eminently the officebearers, but all according to the measure of their knowledge and their services in the kingdom of the Lord."4 In practice, also, the right and power of the laity were recognized. It was the general custom that the selection of the bishops should be submitted to their approval.5 Even Cyprian, the vigorous champion of order and authority, did not think it fitting to exclude the laity from a share in the management of the Church. He speaks of himself as having made up his mind from the commencement of his episcopacy to take no important step without asking the consent of the people as well as the advice of his clergy." There is abundant evidence, therefore, that the more radical idea of priesthood did not dominate the Church in the first stages of its history.

Still, from the apostolic age onwards, there was an increasing tendency to widen the distance between clergy and laity. It was felt necessary to guard against the growing dangers of heresy and schism by emphasizing the dignity of the standing officers and leaders of the Church. As numbers and wealth increased, there was both more occasion and more opportunity for the ministry to abandon secular callings, and to give them

1 De Bapt., xvii. See also De Monog., vii., xii.

2 Cont. Hær., iv. 8. 3.

3 Hom. in Lev., ix. 1. 9; Tom. in Joan., i. 3.

'Redepenning, Origenes, ii. 436, 437. 5 Cons. Apost., viii. 4. Epist., v. 4, in Ante-Nicene Lib., in Oxford ed., epist. xiv.

selves wholly to their sacred vocation. Jewish ideas upon the subject of the priesthood unduly colored the thinking of some minds. As the heathen world had also its sacrificing priesthood, converts from within its borders not unnaturally were inclined to seek in Christianity for a counterpart to their old system of altars and officiating priests. From these several causes, there resulted a positive growth of priestly ideas and customs. As early as the closing part of the second century, there was a noticeable drift towards sacerdotalism, or the high-church theory of Christ's kingdom on earth. The freer stand-point was not yet forgotten, as appears from the statements which have been quoted from leading writers. The Church remained still, in the main, at no small distance from the full Romish conception of priestly rank and mediation. Nevertheless, the more liberal position was not maintained with clear understanding and entire consistency. Some of the writers who strongly asserted the common priesthood of believers employed also at times a phraseology which might be interpreted in favor of sacerdotalism. The convenience of a high ecclesiastical power, as a safeguard against the forces of disorder and anarchy, began so to engross the vision of many Christians, that they gave no proper attention to the dangers to personal freedom which such a power, unchecked, would be sure to involve.1

1 The second book of the Apostolic Constitutions contains some statements well suited to serve as a basis of hierarchical pride and theocratic rule. Such, for example, is the declaration that the priestly office excels the kingly by as much as the soul is more excellent than the body (ii. 34).

2. GROWTH OF EPISCOPACY.-Five different stages. in the growth of the episcopal system may be noticed: (1) the establishment of the distinction between presbyters and bishops; (2) the emphasizing of the bishop's importance; (3) the rise of metropolitans, or archbishops; (4) the rise of patriarchs, or bishops having jurisdiction over important divisions of the Empire; (5) a striving after a common episcopal centre, a bishop of all bishops. These different stages were not successive in the sense that one was fully completed before another was begun : they were in part contemporaneous. Still, the order given expresses the logical succession of developments within the episcopacy.

As regards the first stage, there is much obscurity. It was probably accomplished in some regions earlier than in others. Clement of Rome, whose writings cannot well be placed earlier than the closing years of the first century, indicates no consciousness of any distinction between bishops and presbyters in the Corinthian church. He speaks of sedition, not against the authority of a bishop, but against the presbyters, and exhorts to submission to the presbyters. The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles in like manner implies but two orders in the ministry. One of its directions is this, "Appoint for yourselves bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord." The epistles of Ignatius, on the other hand, show that in the early part of the second century, a considerable portion of the Church, especially that in Asia Minor, recognized a clear distinction between

1 Epist. ad Corinth., xlvii., lvii.

2 Chapter XV. This is regarded as one of the evidences in favor of the early origin of this document.