www.newadvent.org Open in urlscan Pro
2400:52e0:1e00::1080:1  Public Scan

Form analysis
1 forms found in the DOM

../utility/search.htm

<form id="searchbox_000299817191393086628:ifmbhlr-8x0" action="../utility/search.htm">
  <!-- Hidden Inputs -->
  <input type="hidden" name="safe" value="active">
  <input type="hidden" name="cx" value="000299817191393086628:ifmbhlr-8x0">
  <input type="hidden" name="cof" value="FORID:9">
  <!-- Search Box -->
  <label for="searchQuery" id="searchQueryLabel">Search:</label>
  <input id="searchQuery" name="q" type="text" size="25" aria-labelledby="searchQueryLabel">
  <!-- Submit Button -->
  <label for="submitButton" id="submitButtonLabel" class="visually-hidden">Submit Search</label>
  <input id="submitButton" type="submit" name="sa" value="Search" aria-labelledby="submitButtonLabel">
</form>

Text Content

 

Search: Submit Search



 Home   Encyclopedia   Summa   Fathers   Bible   Library 

 A  B  C  D  E  F  G  H  I  J  K  L  M  N  O  P  Q  R  S  T  U  V  W  X  Y  Z 


Home > Catholic Encyclopedia > H > Hierarchy of the Early Church


HIERARCHY OF THE EARLY CHURCH

Please help support the mission of New Advent and get the full contents of this
website as an instant download. Includes the Catholic Encyclopedia, Church
Fathers, Summa, Bible and more — all for only $19.99...

The word hierarchy is used here to denote the three grades of bishop, priest,
and deacon (ministri). According to Catholic doctrine (Council of Trent, sess.
XXIII, can. vi), this threefold gradation owes its existence to Divine
institution. Another name for this hierarchy is hierarchia ordinis, because its
three grades correspond to the three grades of the Sacrament of Holy Orders. The
word hierarchy is, however, also used in a wider sense. A further gradation of
dignity is obtained by the inclusion of the Bishop of Rome, the head of the
Church and Vicar of Christ, to whom, by reason of the Divine origin of the
hierarchy, the three grades just mentioned are subordinated. If however, those
features be taken into account which are of merely ecclesiastical origin, the
hierarchy will include not only the remaining sacred orders, viz, the
subdiaconate and the minor orders, but also all clerics who possess definite
faculties not conferred by the orders themselves. Such are cardinals, nuncios,
delegates, patriarchs, primates, metropolitans, archbishops, vicars-general,
archdeacons, deans, parish priests, and curates. This hierarchy in the wider
sense is called hierarchia jurisdictionis, because the persons in question have
actual power in the Church. There is still a third sense in which the expression
hierarchy may be used; in this it includes the whole clergy and laity, inasmuch
as they are all members of the Church. No instance of the word hierarchia,
corresponding to the term hierarches, can be shown before Dionysius, the
Pseudo-Areopagite. It is not to be interpreted as hiera arche (sacred office),
but as hieron arche (office of sacred rites) (Petavius, "De angelis", II, ii,
2). That the expression heriarchia found general acceptance is due to the
authority of the Pseudo-Areopagite. The third sense of the expression may be
also traced to Dionysius [cf., J. Stiglmayr in "Zeitschr. für kathol.
Theologie", XII (1898), 180 sqq.].



In the present article the expression hierarchy is employed in its narrowest
sense. Since, however, the earliest history of this threefold institution — the
episcopate, presbyterate, and diaconate — cannot be given without a detailed
inquiry into the entire organization and inner constitution of the early Church,
it is proposed to survey in full the earliest history of the organization of the
Christian Church up to the year 150; and in this survey it is essential that we
extend our inquiry to the Apostolic Office, as the root from which sprang the
early Christian episcopate. The foundation of the Church by Christ, the history
of the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome will not be dealt with here (cf. the
articles: BISHOP; CHURCH; APOSTOLIC COLLEGE; DEACON; PRIEST; PRIMACY; POPE;
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION). The treatment of the subject will be under these six main
heads:

 * The Principles Governing the Grouping of the Original Documents belonging to
   our question;
 * Enumeration of the Groups of Documents and the Explanation why these Groups
   have been thus arranged;
 * Discussion and Interpretation of all Texts of Date not later than the Middle
   of the Second Century (the full wording of the texts will be necessary only
   in exceptional cases);
 * Detailed Evidence from Pagan Inscriptions, Papyri, and Ostraka, which throw
   light on Christian institutions;
 * Historical or Quasi-Historical Testimonies on the Constitution of Primitive
   Christianity, taken from Irenæus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen,
   Eusebius, Jerome, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and others;
 * Short Synopsis of the Principal Results of the Investigation.


THE PRINCIPLES GOVERNING THE GROUPING OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS

The common division into an Apostolic and a post-Apostolic period cannot be
aptly applied to the collection of historical testimony bearing on the
constitution of the early Church; such a division is indeed misleading. Because:

A. Our sources for the very earliest times are too scanty and fragmentary to
give us anything approaching a clear picture of the institutions; it is
therefore plain that the mere omission of certain things in these sources gives
us no right to infer their non-existence.

B. Although the development of the primary elements and fundamental principles
of the inner constitution of the Church was surprisingly rapid and uniform, at
least in the essential features, the variations in different localities were not
inconsiderable.

C. Several testimonies taken from the end of the first and the first half of the
second century contain valuable historical information directly concerning the
organization of the early Church and thus lead us to the border of the earliest
epoch.

D. A wealth of formulæ of archæological interest, and many implicit statements
of contemporary legal conceptions, are found in these testimonies. They contain,
as it were, the crystallized institutions of the earliest period.

E. One should not imagine the primitive ecclesiastical structure as a mere
aggregate of disjoined fragments, but rather as a living and regularly developed
organism, from whose inner construction we can under certain conditions arrive
at definite conclusions as to its origin and growth.

The last two points show that it is allowable, and even necessary to determine
from later sources the earliest state of the ecclesiastical constitution by
cautious and critical method. A scientific investigation will first bulk
together all the sources up to the middle of the second century, and then
conceive as a whole, the development up to that time. Research will show that
many of the institutions are undoubtedly post-Apostolic, while of the greater
number of them, it can only be said that they followed one another in a certain
order: it is impossible to determine the exact date of their first appearance.
The encyclicals of St. Ignatius (about 110) mark the close of a definite period;
and there are other sources, the dates of which are exactly known, that enable
us to ascertain the first beginnings and some intermediate steps in the
development of this period. This makes it possible to sketch more or less
accurately the remaining stages without fixing upon the exact date of each
document. For instance, it cannot be doubted that certain descriptions in the
"Doctrine of the Twelve Apostles" (Didache) suppose an older phase of corporate
development than that which we meet with in the Pastoral Epistles and the
Epistle of Clement. This fact however does not decide the question whether the
Didache was actually written before the Epistle of Clement and the Pastoral
Epistles. As to the latter, it is clear that the system of government depicted
therein represents an earlier phase than that given in the Letters of Ignatius.



It is not our intention in this article to undertake a preliminary and cursory
review of the sources, which would only establish the most evident facts of
chronology. This task has been already sufficiently often undertaken from widely
different standpoints, and it has been shown on incontestable evidence that the
several grades of the hierarchy did not exist from the beginning in their later
finished form, but grew up to it by various processes, partly of development and
partly of self-differentiation. Supposing therefore that the process of
development has been determined in its most general outlines, we can arrange the
sources accordingly. Whether the chronology be treated previously or
consequently to such an arrangement, that factor must be considered separately.

The classification will now follow of the whole documentary material up to the
second half of the second century. From the entire material we shall first
collect those testimonies which evidently exhibit the most advanced stage of
development and the closest resemblance to the institutions of this period.
These documents will form the fourth group. We then gather all those accounts in
which the plenitude of the Apostolic authority is shown in conjunction with a
somewhat unfinished and fluctuating system of ecclesiastical government; these
form the first group. The remaining documents will be assigned to the second or
third group accordingly as they are more nearly related to the first or to the
fourth.


GROUPS OF DOCUMENTS


ENUMERATION

FIRST GROUP

(a) the first six chapters of the Acts of the Apostles, and the passages in the
Synoptics concerning the special call and unique position of the Twelve,
(b) the two Epistles to the Corinthians, the Epistle to the Galatians, the two
to the Thessalonians, and the Epistle to the Romans,
(c) some texts from the Acts of the Apostles (to be collected later) about the
Apostles as witnesses and preachers, about the obedience due to them, and about
the fellow-labourers of St. Paul,
(d) the account in the Acts about the seven helpers of the Apostles (vi, 10), of
the presbyters of Palestine (xi, 30; xv, xvi, 4; xxi, 18), of the presbyters in
Asia (xiv, 23), of the prophets (xiii, 1-3; xv, 32; xxi, 8 sq.).

SECOND GROUP

(a) the Epistles to the Philippians, Ephesians, Colossians, and to Philemon,
(b) the twentieth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles (17 sq.),
(c) the First Epistle of Peter,  
(d) the Didache.

THIRD GROUP

(a) the Treatise to the Hebrews,
(b) the Epistle of James,
(c) the Second Epistle of Peter,
(d) the Epistle of Jude,
(e) the Three Epistles of John,
(f) the Pastoral Epistles,
(g) the First Letter of Clement,
(h) the Ascension of Isaias.

FOURTH GROUP

(a) the Apocalypse,
(b) the Gospel of St. John,
(c) the Seven Encyclicals of Ignatius, and the Letter of Polycarp,
(d) the Letter of Barnabas, and the homily known under the title of the Second
Letter of Clement,
(e) the Pastor of Hermas,
(f) Justin,
(g) Hegesippus,
(h) Abercius, besides
(i) a brief dissertation on Gnosticism and Montanism.


EXPLANATION OF THE GROUPS

GENERAL REMARKS

The Apologists (Justin excepted), the fragments of the presbyters and of Papias,
the Letter to Diognetus (chaps. xi and xii are spurious), the "Acta" and
"Passiones" of the martyrs of this period, excepting a passage from the "Passio
Polycarpi"; the Apocrypha properly so called, with the exception of the
Ascension of Isaias; all these furnish nothing directly bearing on our matter.
The same is true of the Christian papyri, the Ostraka, and the inscriptions. One
cannot attach the value of independent testimony to four passages dealing with
the special call and vocation of the Twelve, viz, from the Ebionitic Gospel
(Epiphanius, "Hær.", xxx, 13), from the Apology of Aristides (Texte und
Untersuch., IV, iii, 1893, 9, 10), from the Mission Sermon of Peter (Kerygma
Petrou; Robinson, "Texts and Studies", 1891, 86 sq., fragm. 1), and from a
Coptic papyrus at Strasburg — (cf. Göttinger gel. Anz., 1900, 481 sq.). In
regard to the oldest Greek Christian papyri, see Wessely "Les plus anciens
monuments du christianisme écrits sur Papyrus" ("Patrologia Orientalis", ed.
Graffin and Nau, IV, 2). Even without taking into account the lack of a critical
text, we must nevertheless abandon any attempt to argue from the Clementines,
since even the oldest parts betray themselves more and more as a product of the
third century. The writer of the original document may now and then have made
use of valid traditions, in questions affecting the constitution of the Church,
but he is guilty of arbitrary inventions and changes. All the conclusions
regarding primitive conditions which Hilgenfeld's acumen and learning enabled
him to draw from the Clementines, must give way under the pressure of careful
criticism. Neither does the present writer make use of the so-called "Apostolic
Church Ordinance", because of the invalidity of Harnack's hypothesis ("Die
Quellen der sog. Apost. Kirchenord.", 1886, 32 sq.), which would base Chaps.
16-21:22-28 on two ancient sources dating from the middle of the second century.
The work belongs to the third century and hardly admits of critically safe
conclusions. The same is true of the Syriac Didaskalia.

REMARKS ON THE FIRST GROUP, SECTION A

According to the restrictions made above, we consider here the Gospel accounts
only in so far as their testimony enables us to form an idea of the Church as it
existed in the first generation. The accounts about the position, the authority,
the activity of the original Twelve in Jerusalem (Acts 1-6) bear the most
evident signs of antiquity and genuineness, and agree with all the other
information about the dignity of the Apostles handed down to us from early
times.

REMARKS ON THE FIRST GROUP, SECTION D

It will not suffice, with regard to the presbyters of the Acts of the Apostles,
to establish historically the fact that about A.D. 50 there were presbyters in
Jerusalem and in other localities in Palestine, and that at the same time, Paul
on his first journey appointed presbyters in Asia Minor. There remains another
important question to be solved, whether all these presbyters are, in a true
sense of the word, the predecessors of that primitive college which we meet, for
instance about 115, in the writings of Ignatius of Antioch. There is not the
slightest critical reason — we shall prove this later on at full length — why
the presbyters of Asia Minor should be understood as different from the
superiors mentioned in the First Epistle to the Thessalonians. On the other
hand, we regard the presbyter-bishops of Ephesus (Acts 20) as belonging to the
second group of the sources, because they represent an authority that is much
more definite.

REMARKS ON THE FIRST GROUP, SECTION B AND ON THE SECOND GROUP

In the First Epistle to the Thessalonians, the state of the Church as a
corporate body does not differ in any essential point from that described in the
accounts of the first group. The Apostle Paul appears as the first, nay, the
only authority. In the Epistles to the Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians,
the conditions have changed a little. Indeed, the personal rule of the Apostle
is still supreme; but some traits point to a gradual passing of power to other
superiors. We are reminded of this fact by the title of the Epistle to the
Philippians, in which bishops and deacons are mentioned. We are again reminded
of it by the mention of Archippus, the minister, in the Epistle to the
Colossians. The note to Philemon is likewise connected to some extent with this
change. In the second group we place also the Epistle to the Ephesians, since it
shows a remarkable decrease in the importance, of individuals endowed with the
charismata as members of the organized Body of Christ. For similar reasons we
insert here the Didache.



REMARKS ON THE THIRD AND FOURTH GROUP

All the writings enumerated in the third group show the organization of the
Church more developed. The fourth group witnesses the preponderance of the
monarchic episcopate. It is not easy to find the right place for the Pastor of
Hermas. The degree of organic development supposed in that work, the pronounced
control of the presbyters, and the presence to all appearances of a leading
personality, Clement, all this points to an intermediate stage, the place of
which we are much inclined to fix between the First Letter of Clement and the
Encyclicals of Ignatius. Only once is Clement mentioned and then in passing;
little therefore can be gathered as to the position assigned him by Hermas. On
the other hand, the Church's organization is more stable than it was in Corinth
at the time of the first Clement about A.D. 98. Whether Hermas really attempted
to carry back his description of the Church to the end of the first century by
giving it a tinge of antiquity is as yet an open question; the categorical "No"
of recent scholars provokes contradiction. At all events the attempt of Hermas,
supposing it to have been made, was rather weak. But, on the other hand, the
personal tone is no proof to the contrary. Still, there are strong indications
that the prophet wrote about A.D. 150. A monarchic bishop, it is true, is
nowhere mentioned, but from this it does not follow that Hermas finished his
work before the election of his brother Pius to the Bishopric of Rome. Just
because he was the brother of the Head of the Church, he must have thought it
more advisable to be silent concerning him and to antedate the abuses which he
reprehends.


DISCUSSION OF TEXTS OF DATE NOT LATER THAN THE MIDDLE OF THE SECOND CENTURY


THE TEXTS OF THE FIRST GROUP

If we judge of the organization of the Churches depicted in the first group of
documents simply according to the account given in the texts, without using a
definite theory as a basis, nine questions naturally present themselves as to:

 1. The Position of the Twelve;
 2. The Position of the Seven Ministers of the Table (cf. diakonein trapezais
    Acts 6:2) mentioned in the Acts, and of the Presbyters of Palestine;
 3. Origin of the Apostolic Authority;
 4. Relations between the Apostles and the Christian Communities;
 5. The Rights of the Christian Communities;
 6. The Position of those Individuals possessing the Charismata;
 7. The Origin of Ecclesiastical Authority in General;
 8. The Position of the Superiors spoken of in some texts;
 9. The Position of the Apostolic Fellow-Labourers

THE POSITION OF THE TWELVE

In the first six chapters of the Acts the Eleven (Twelve if we include Matthias)
appear as a governing body to whom the community of Jerusalem is subject (i, 13,
25, 26; ii, 14, 37, 42, 43; iv, 33, 35, 37; v, 2, 12, 18-42; vi, 2 sq., 6). The
chief personality is Simon Peter (i, 15 sq., ii, 14, 37; iv, 8; v, 3 sq., 15,
29). Next to him stands John (iii, 1, 3, 4, 11; iv, 1, 13 sq.). According to
these texts the Twelve are heralds of the Word of God and rulers of the
community. This conception agrees with the traditions in the Synoptics. These
traditions inform us: (a) of the special appointment of the Twelve, (b) of the
office entrusted to them, and their future destiny.

SPECIAL SELECTION OF THE TWELVE

(i) Appointment — The vocation of individuals, viz, of Peter, Andrew, James and
John. They are to be fishers of men (Mark 1:16-20; Matthew, 4:18-22). According
to Luke 5:10, Jesus, after the miraculous draught of fishes, says to Simon that
henceforth he shall catch men. The calling of Matthew (Mark 2:13, 14; Matthew
9:9; Luke 5:27, 28). Appointment of the Twelve (Mark 3:13-19; Matthew 10:2-4;
Luke 6:12-16). Christ "also named them apostles" (Luke 6:13).
(ii) The Office of the Twelve and their Future Destiny — They are to be with Him
and to be sent to preach (Mark 3:14). They are the salt of the earth and the
light of the world (Matthew 5:13-16). They also must protect the world against
corruption and elevate it by their holy example. What Christ has told them in
the dark, they shall speak in the light (Matthew 10:26-27).
(iii) Mission of the Twelve to preach the kingdom and to heal the sick (Mark 6:7
sq.; Matthew 10:5 sq.; Luke 9:1 sq.). To the Gentiles they are not to go.
Mission of the Seventy (Luke x, 1-16). All are obliged to receive the Twelve and
the Seventy, and to hear them; otherwise a severe judgment awaits them (l. c.).
(iv) The power to bind and to loose given to the Twelve (Matthew 18:15 sq.);
they shall judge the twelve tribes of Israel (Luke 22:30).
(v) The Mission to the world (Mark 16:14-18; Matthew 32:18-20; Luke 24:44-49).
(vi) The Apostles will survive their Master and pass through days of sadness
(Mark 2:19, 20; Matthew 9:15; Luke 5:34-35; similarly Mark 8:35 sq.; Matthew
16:24 sq.; Luke 9:22 sq.; Luke 17:20 sq.). They will be dragged before tribunals
(Luke 12:11, 12; 21:12 sq.; Mark 13:9 sq.; Matthew 10:17 sq.).

SPECIAL APPOINTMENT AND POSITION OF SIMON PETER

Peter is the foundation of the Church and the keeper of the keys; he has full
power to bind and to loose (Matthew 16:18 sq.). Peter is to be like a wise and
faithful steward, whom the master setteth over his family (Luke 12:41 sq.; cf.
Matthew 24:45 sq.). Christ prays for Peter; Peter is to confirm his brethren in
the Faith (Luke 22:31-34). No passage in early Christian literature permits our
explaining the primitive and marked position of importance enjoyed by the Church
of Jerusalem by the importance of this city itself. Only the Twelve are the
bearers of this authority, and later James, the "brother of the Lord", and his
circle. Nowhere do we hear that brethren gifted with the charismata had any
influence in matters of government. The Apostolic authority is represented as
the result of the Divine ordinance. This authority included jurisdiction. The
Twelve regarded their prerogatives as a moral power conferred by God and Christ,
as a right which exacted from others the correlative service of obedience.

THE SEVEN APOSTOLIC HELPERS (ACTS 6) AND THE PRESBYTERS OF PALESTINE

THE SEVEN ADMINISTRATORS OF THE TABLE

Owing to the complaint of Hellenistic Jewish Christians that their widows were
less cared for than those of the "Hebrews", the Twelve provide that seven men,
full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom be "looked out" and chosen (cf. to plethos ton
matheton, Acts 6:2, and enopion pantos tou plethous, 6:5) by the whole community
(cf. episkepsasthe of vi, 3, and exelexanto of vi, 5). The Apostles themselves
intend to install the persons chosen in their office (vi, 3). This enables the
Twelve to devote themselves (henceforth exclusively) to prayer and preaching.
The Seven Elect are presented to the Apostles who "praying impose hands upon
them" (vi, 5 and 6). No critical doubt can be cast upon any part of the
narrative. An official name for the Seven has not come down to us. Their office
is described as a ministering to the tables (diakonein trapeizas, vi, 2), the
care of the temporal support of the poor. In reality, however, one of those
elected, Stephen, soon devotes himself with ardent zeal to the preaching of the
Word of God. Another, Philip, becomes a missionary (viii, 5 sq.) He is called
evangelist (xxi, 8).

The sources thus show that these seven men, elected by the people in obedience
to the Apostles, were invested by the Apostles in the almoner's office with
prayer and imposition of hands. In addition they could act as preachers. Whether
this institution existed for any length of time, we do not know. There is no
dogmatic tradition strictly speaking, nor any decisive historical reason to
suppose that these seven men were deacons in the later sense of the word. The
question of their position is usually looked at from a wrong point of view. For
from the difference between the original and the later sphere of activity we
cannot infer a lack of continuity between the office of the Seven and that of
the deacons of the second century. The office of the Seven was no more
completely independent than that of the later deacons. One and the same office
may in course of time shift the limits of its competence to a very considerable
extent; so much so that only a minimum may remain of what it was originally. Yet
nobody speaks in this case of an essentially different office. To be convinced
of this, we have only to consider the Roman offices of prætor and quæstor. In
later times too the care of the poor and sick was one of the duties of deacons
proper. The distribution of the Eucharist was likewise part of their duty. It is
not impossible that the last mentioned duty is already included in the
expression "ministering to the tables", used in our text; for comparison see
chap. ii, 46, "Breaking bread from house to house (klontes te kat okon arton)
they took their meat (metelambanon trophes)". The most important point however
is this: the Seven were appointed to their office by the Apostles with
imposition of hands and prayer. This prayer must have contained, implicitly at
least the petition that the Holy Ghost might empower and strengthen the chosen
ones to fulfil their office (of ministering to the tables), thus conferring all
that was essentially necessary to make their office the same as the later
diaconate. Nor has the Church ever placed the essence of the diaconate in
anything else.

THE PRESBYTERS OF PALESTINE

We do not know whether or not there is an historical basis for the legendary
tradition that the first twelve Apostles, following the command of their Master,
remained twelve years in Jerusalem. At all events only Simon Peter, (James), and
John and James the "Brother of the Lord" are met with in Jerusalem between the
years 45 and 50. About this time presbyters appeared in addition to the
Apostles. We find mention of them for the first time in Acts 11:30. They are to
be found in several Christian communities of Palestine. In Jerusalem the
presbyters hold a middle rank between the Apostles and the rest of the
community. Together with the Apostles they write the letter which conveys the
decision reached by the Church of Jerusalem as to the proper mode of observing
the law (xv, 1-30; cf. xvi, 4). The Acts mention the presbyters in connexion
with James only on one other occasion (xxi, 18). It is contrary to the
principles of historical research to associate the first appearance of the
Palestinian presbyters with the monarchical position held by James of the house
of David. It is only at a later time, probably after Peter had left Jerusalem
for a long time or for ever that James appears as the monarchic bishop of the
holy city. The presbyters were at first simply assistants of the Twelve outside
the capital. Then a substitute for the Apostles was needed in Jerusalem as well,
when most of them had left that city. This was not a revolution in the system of
church government; it was merely the natural course of events. No one who
clearly understands the practice and the ideas of the earliest times will doubt
that the installation of these presbyters was effected by means of imposition of
hands and prayer. Very probably the presbyterate of the earliest time was only a
dignity.

THE ORIGIN OF THE APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY

(a) Paul proves that he is an Apostle sent directly by God and Christ and
endowed with full power (Galatians 1:1, 12, 15; 2:8-9; 1 Corinthians 1:1;
3:9-11; 4:1; 9:1; 2 Corinthians 1:1; 3:6; 10:4-8; 11:4-5; the whole of chapters
11 and 12; 1 Thessalonians 1:4-5; 2:4, 13; Romans 1:1-16; 11:13 sq.; 12:3;
15:15-22; 16:25-27).

(b) Supplementary texts: Galatians 1:8-9 (Paul preaches the absolute truth);
Galatians 2:2 (comparison between his Gospel and that of the original Apostles);
Galatians 2:6 (he did not receive power from other Apostles, whether the word
Apostles be taken in the narrower or the wider sense). The thought underlying
all these texts is this: Paul conceived his own authority as analogous to the
power conferred by God and Christ upon the Twelve, a power which Paul himself
acknowledged.

(c) These utterances of Paul agree with the following from the Acts of the
Apostles: ii, 32; iv, 33; v, 32; viii, 25 (the Apostles are authoritative
witnesses of the Resurrection and the deeds of Jesus Christ): ix, 3 sq.; xxii,
14 sq.; xxvi, 15 sq. (vocation of St. Paul); iv, 19, 20; v, 29; x, 42 (the
Apostles are bound to make known what they have seen and heard); ix, 27 (Paul is
presented to the Apostles by Barnabas at Jerusalem); xiii, 47 [Paul (and
Barnabas?) appointed by Christ to be the light of the Gentiles]; xx, 24,
teleioto [teleiosai] . . . ten diakonian en elabon para tou kyriou Iesou,
diamartyrasthai to euangellion . . . This text is equivalent to those given
above under (a).

RELATIONS OF THE APOSTLE TO THE COMMUNITIES FOUNDED BY HIM

GALATIANS

The Galatians were obliged to believe and obey the preaching of Paul (Galatians
1:6-12; 3:1-2; 4:14-19; 5:2, 7-10). Their relations are based upon the following
three facts strongly emphasized by Paul:

(i) They have received the Holy Ghost ex akons pisteos ("by the hearing of
faith", iii, 2).
(ii) Paul preaches the absolute truth, therefore let him be anathema who
preaches a Gospel besides that which he has preached (i, 8-9).
(iii) To resist the truth when preached, is to disobey (v, 7).

CORINTHIANS

Paul introduces himself as an authoritative teacher: (1 Corinthians 1:11 sq.;
cf. 3:4-7; 2:4-5; 4:3-5, 15-17); Paul threatens to use severe measures (iv,
19-21); he commands them to expel the incest adulterers (v, 1-13); to appoint
arbitrators (vi, 1-7); he distinguishes between his permission (syggnome) and
his command (epitage) (vii, 6); cf. vii, 7, "I would"; 8, "I say"; 10, "I
command, not I, but the Lord"; 12, "1 speak, not the Lord"; 25, "I give
counsel"; 40, he wishes them to follow his counsel. Paul has the right to be
maintained by those to whom he preaches, but he has not made use of this right
(ix, 1-2; 7-16). He praises them that keep his ordinances (xi, 2); "now this I
ordain", 17; "the rest I will set in order, when I come", xi, 33 and 34; cf.
also the orders, xiv, 28 sq. and xv, i sq.; xvi, i sq.: ordinance concerning the
collection, which according to the will of the Apostles, was always to be looked
upon as a free act of kindness. Cf. 2 Corinthians 9 and Rom., xv, 26 sq. In the
first Epistle to the Corinthians the Apostle does not attribute to the community
any authority whatsoever over himself; he refuses to be the object of any
arrogant judgment (iv, 3). In three instances he admits that the community has
certain rights which, however, have their origin in his command or his
directions (v, 1-13; vi, 1-7; xvi, 1 sq.). 2 Corinthians 1:23 sq.: Paul assures
them that he avoided coming to Corinth in order to spare them, and he adds: "Not
because we exercise dominion over your faith, but we are helpers of your joy."
This is the only passage of this kind found in the writings of St. Paul. 2
Corinthians 2:9: "For this end also did I write, that I may know the experiment
of you, whether you be obedient in all things;" iii, 2-3; vii, 8-12; viii, 10
sq. (mild requests); x, 1-18; up to this chapter of the second Epistle to the
Corinthians St. Paul lays little stress upon his authority; he does not so much
utter injunctions as counsels and requests, without, however, acknowledging any
power of the community over himself. Now he speaks of the spiritual weapons
given by God "unto the pulling down of fortifications", (4) "bringing into
captivity every understanding (noema) unto the obedience of Christ", (5) "having
in readiness to revenge all disobedience", (6) the Lord has given him power
"unto edification" (8; cf. xiii, 10; xi, 4); there is no other Christ, no other
Gospel, but that which he has brought (anechesthe, not aneichesthe) (xiii, 2);
if he comes again, he will not spare the sinners. From chap. x on Paul again
forcibly emphasizes his full authority over the community.



ROMANS

We must take into account that the Apostle speaks to a community which he
himself has not founded (cf. especially chap. xv); consequently he does not give
commands; nevertheless he teaches with full authority, as one who has power. He
refers (xiii, 3) to the grace granted him in order that he might be enabled to
give earnest admonitions; hence it is that the Gentiles owe him obedience (xv,
15-19). The same idea is expressed in chap. xvi, 17-19. The text (x,14-17) is
one of those most helpful in giving us an insight into the beginnings of
Christianity. Belief is impossible if one has not heard a preacher of the Faith,
and preaching requires the sending of the preacher.

THESSALONIANS

In 1 Thessalonians 2:7 (1 Corinthians 9:7-16 and 2 Thessalonians 3:7-9); 1
Thessalonians 4:1; 2 Thessalonians 2:12-14 (cf. 2-4), Paul exhorts the
Thessalonians to hold the traditions which they have learned, whether by word or
by his epistle; cf. also 3:6. If one of the faithful does not obey Paul's
epistle, they shall not keep company with him and shall admonish him (3:14-15).

SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES FROM THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

Acts 2:42 (The community perseveres in the doctrine of the Apostles). Acts
15:6-31 (The Apostles and the presbyters of Jerusalem issue an authoritative
encyclical concerning the observance of the law). Acts 16:4 extends it to Asia
Minor.

THE RIGHTS OF THE COMMUNITIES

The first group of our documents contains fifteen texts from which may be drawn
conclusions with regard to certain community rights. These texts may be divided
into eight classes. The first contains information on elections of an official
character held by the communities; the second, on elections of a private
character; the third, on judicial proceedings; the fourth, on private courts of
arbitration; the fifth, on the opinions of the faithful with regard to the
Apostles; the sixth, on collections taken up in the communities; the seventh, on
credentials granted in the name of the community; the eighth, on the
acknowledgment of superiors by the community. In order to view the matter in the
proper critical light, one must keep in mind that from the very beginning the
concept Ecclesia expressed not only the local particular Church, but also the
universal Church as a whole, in as much as it is superior to the individual
communities and operates in them as their vital principle. This is now admitted
by Protestant scholars of the first rank. Even when Ecclesia was used in the
sense of local Church it did not, in the earliest Christian literature,
designate the community as opposed to the Apostles or any other superiors, but
it meant the organized community Such is the obvious meaning of the term in all
the writings of the New Testament. In only two passages which, moreover, belong
to the quite exceptional fifteenth chapter of the Acts, the Ecclesia is placed
side by side with the Apostles and presbyters: The Apostles of the Gentiles are
received by the Church (of Jerusalem) and by the Twelve and the presbyters (xv,
4); the Apostles and presbyters together with the entire Church of Jerusalem
elect the envoys for Antioch. Acts 14:22 says Paul appointed presbyters in every
Church (kat ekklesian) of Asia Minor.

Elsewhere, however, St. Paul's conception of the Church prevails; the Church,
both in its ideal form and in its concrete realization, is always the body of
Christ and consequently an organic, articulated whole. It is in the Epistle to
the Ephesians that we find for the first time the notion of this ideal Church,
i.e., of the universal Church taken as an individual unit (Ephesians 1:22; 3:10,
21; 5:23, 24, 25, 27, 29, 32; so too Colossians 1:18, 24; Hebrews 12:23 sq.).
This is the meaning of Matthew 16:18: "I will build my church". Something like a
transition to this meaning is found in 1 Corinthians 12:28: "God indeed hath set
some in the church; first apostles, etc." One plainly feels however that behind
these words there still lurks the idea that in every individual Church (i.e.
community) the various charismata are operative. Something similar may be
observed in 1 Corinthians 10:32 with the difference, however, that here the
actual particular Church is still more clearly to be seen. On the other hand in
the three passages where Paul speaks of himself as the former persecutor of the
Church, he may possibly have in mind the community of Jerusalem (Galatians 1:13;
1 Corinthians 15:9; Philippians 3:10). In Acts 11:26 the word Ekklesia seems
also to have a signification intermediate between that of the particular
concrete Church and that of the ideal universal Church. There remain eighty-four
texts in which the word Ecclesia occurs. In no single one of them does the
expression signify the community or the congregation taken in a distinctly
democratic sense, by which emphasis would be laid on the self-government of the
faithful. It is therefore not admissible to consider the actions of the Ecclesia
as a mere outcome of democratic rights, thus arbitrarily excluding both the
unitary operation of the organism as a whole and the graded activity of the
individual members and different organs of administration. St. Paul certainly
ascribes all rights and powers to the Ecclesia as the ideal whole, through whose
vivifying action they are imparted to the local Churches, the proximate sources
whence the individual administrative organs derive their vital prerogatives. But
all this is possible only because the Church is the body of Christ and thus in
vital union with the giver of life, Jesus Christ.

This early Christian view of the Church has nothing in common with the idea of a
purely human, democratic authority and supremacy of the community. In our own
days as well, it is of course the only correct conception of the Christian
Church; it is the Catholic idea of the Church. Even towards the end of the
second century the use of terms had already begun to undergo a change. This is
perhaps to be regretted. Instead of speaking of the activity, the efficiency,
and the sacrificial office of the Church of God, it gradually became customary
to lay stress on the acting organs, i.e., to ascribe these functions to the
bishop or presbyter. This brought out more clearly the element of jurisdiction
and defined more sharply the grades of authority. As long as the Church in
general was conceived as the subject of all activity, the functions of the
individual organs remained undefined nor could any clear distinction be drawn
between their respective attributions. While these were more plainly marked off
in the later development, the depth and unity of thought was impaired by the
obscuring of the idea that the Church is the mystical body of Christ. St. Paul
never derived all the rights and powers of the Churches founded by him from the
plenitude of his Apostolic power. He never forgot that the Church of God was
primarily a creation of God, and therefore the subject of rights founded in her
very nature. But these rights and powers which come from God have nothing in
common with community rights. By community rights we understand, of course, only
those rights which were proper to actually existing, complete communities. In
most of the Protestant works on this subject we find these latter rights
confounded with those that belong to the Church as an organism, as the body of
Christ. Harnack, in his latest treatise on the inner constitution of the Church
(Realencyklop. für Protest. Theol. und Kirche, ed. 3, XX, 1908, 508-546; cf.
especially 519 sq.) has attempted to remove this confusion, but only with
partial success.

In the next series of texts we cannot, of course, insert those in which St.
Paul, as for instance in Galatians 4:17, exhorts the Christians to admonish one
another, to warn, to correct the sinners. This is a duty imposed by the Lord's
command; and the right to fulfil that duty is included in the right to
administer fraternal correction; it is not a community right. The first group of
texts deals with electoral proceedings of an official character.

(a) The entire assembly of the faithful takes part in the election of Matthias
(Acts 1:23-26), after two candidates had been proposed. Peter opens the
proceedings; but no information is given about the right of presentation and the
manner of casting the lot.
(b) The seven assistants of the Apostles are chosen by the whole community in
accordance with the injunction of the Twelve (pan to plethos . . . exelexanto);
and from the Apostles they receive the imposition of hands with prayer (Acts
6:2-6).
(c) In Acts 11:22 sq., we are told that the "Church that was at Jerusalem" sends
Barnabas as an official envoy to Antioch.

After the council of the Apostles, envoys are sent out by the Apostles,
presbyters, and the whole Church (syn ole te ekklesia, Acts 15:22). A
semi-official election is spoken of in only one text (second group of texts).
St. Paul is given a companion "by the churches" (2 Corinthians 8:19) to
accompany him in collecting alms. It is easy to read between the lines that St.
Paul desired to have them appointed in order to protect himself against evil
tongues. In these electoral acts one must bear in mind all that has been said
about the Church as an organism and also take into account the dependence of the
voters upon the Apostles, which the texts themselves suggest. Finally the
following important methodological rule should constantly be kept in view: if a
document simply reports the fact that a community chose its officials or that it
had a share in their appointment, this does not warrant the conclusion that the
government is based on democratic principles.

A third group of texts contains information about 'the judicial prerogatives of
the community. They include the sentence condemning the incest man, which was
passed in a plenary session of the community at Corinth (1 Corinthians 5:3 sqq.)
and an allusion to a similar event that took place later in the same Church (2
Corinthians 2:6-9, and 7:12). In both cases one finds an ordinance of the
Apostle, and this means that the competency of the community depends on St.
Paul. The fourth group consists of only one text. It deals with private courts
of arbitration to be introduced at Corinth by order of St. Paul (1 Corinthians
6:1 sq.). In the fifth group we have three texts which tell of the harsh
judgment passed by the faithful on St. Paul (Galatians 6:1; 1 Corinthians 4:3)
and St. Peter (Acts 11:1-4). With regard to their manner of acting, only the
text in the Epistle to the Corinthians speaks of a "day" (hemera) of the
community. The points at issue are party differences that had sprung up between
the followers of Paul, Cephas, and Apollo. However only a superficial exegesis
would draw from the discussions conclusions as to the fundamental elements of
the ecclesiastical organization. Indeed St. Paul himself declares his complete
indifference to all these judgments. He was, of course, extremely cautious with
regard to the collection of alms (2 Corinthians 8:18 sq.) — sixth group. He left
it to the Christians themselves to keep or to give their mite. It would be
absurd to speak here of definable rights. The credentials and letters of
recommendation (2 Corinthians 3:50) — seventh group — were not a matter of
compulsion. No community rights can be inferred from them.

There remains in consequence only the eighth group, consisting of two texts. The
question here is, what rights can be deduced from the acknowledgment of
superiors by the community (1 Corinthians 16:16; 1 Thessalonians 5:12)? No proof
has been found hitherto for Weizsacker's assertion (Das apostolische Zeitalter
der christlichen Kirche, 3rd ed., 1902, p. 601) that this acknowledgement was
"at all times" dependent upon the free choice of the community. The altogether
unwarranted conclusions drawn from our texts by Weizsacker (op. cit., 599 sq.)
and many scholars after him have been refuted by me in detail in "Zeitschrift
für katholische Theol.", XXVII, 1903, pp. 64-74. This article with the help of
other documents shows also the further point, that the circumstance of the
Epistles being directed to the entire community does not in the least prove the
autonomy of the community and the absence of superiors. This serves also as a
refutation of Knopf's statements (Das nachapostolische Zeitalter, 1905, p. 148
sq.). Even if the community rights as described in the whole first group of
documents were much more extensive than the texts actually show them to be, we
could not yet speak in any way of a democratic reform of the constitution (cf.
Dunin Borkowski, "Methodologische Vorfragen zur urchristlichen
Verfassungsgeschichte" in "Zeitschr. für Kath. Theol.", XXVIII, 1904, pp.
218-249, and XXIX, 1905, pp. 28-52 and 212-257). Even though the critical
analysis of all the texts reduces to their true value the alleged rights of the
first Christian communities, we of course do not deny that St. Paul allowed the
communities which he founded a larger autonomy on many points, thus making the
local Church in various matters independent of himself. We must, however, always
understand the Church in the sense in which Paul understands it, namely as an
organic body whose several members enjoy distinct activities proportionate to
the functional power, with which each of them is endowed by God.

POSITION OF CHARISMATIC INDIVIDUALS

The longer Epistles of St. Paul contain information about certain wonderful,
mystic manifestations of the religious life in the earliest communities. These
are : prophecy, working of miracles in general (energemata or energemata
dynameon or dynameis), healing of the sick (charismata iamaton), discerning of
spirits (diakriseis pneumaton, diakrinein), the gift of tongues (geneglosson, ai
glossai, ho [pneumati] lalon glosse or glossais), the interpretation of these
tongues (ermeneia glosson, diermeneuesthai, eusemon logon dounai, dynamin tes
phones eidenai, hermeneia), revelation (lalein en apokalypsei, apokalypsin
echein). In 1 Corinthians 14:6, the gift of revelation is distinguished from
that of prophecy, while in verses 26 and 29 it is declared to be prophecy.
Prophecy reveals not only the future but also, and especially, the secrets of
hearts (1 Corinthians 14:23-25). The gift of the discerning of spirits
distinguishes between several (probably conflicting) prophetic speeches (1
Corinthians 14:29 sq.). These gifts of the Holy Ghost and only these are to be
counted among the mystic, extraordinary manifestations. The Apostle calls them
charismata, pneumata, charismata pneumatika, ta pneumatika. The individuals so
endowed are oi pneumatikoi. According to the Apostle's mode of speaking,
charisma is used to mean every activity that in any way originates from the
ordinance of God or Christ, and is granted chiefly for the good of the Church.
It need not be given to the individual immediately by God; it may have been
established by God as an ordinary supernatural function. In other words, every
religious activity exercised within the Church as the body of Christ, and in the
service of the Church, is considered by the Apostle as a gift of God and in
certain cases as a Divinely appointed office.

In the first group of texts the word charisma (charismata) occurs fourteen
times: Rom., i, 11; v, 15, 16; vi, 23; xi, 29; xii, 6; 1 Corinthians 1:7; 7:7;
12:4,9, 28-31 (chapters 13 and 14 speak throughout of charismata without,
however, mentioning the word); 2 Corinthians 1:11. There are only three other
passages in which the expression occurs, but in these it is used in the exact
meaning in which St. Paul uses it: 1 Timothy 4:14; 2 Timothy 1:6; 1 Peter 4:10.
With the exception, perhaps, of Rom., v and vi, the meaning given above is quite
evident. In the fifth and sixth chapters of the Epistle to the Romans the
meaning is even more general. Charity, faiths, and hope, exercised in any manner
for the service of the Church, are charismata. They are even more perfect than
the gift of miracles (1 Corinthians 12:31, and 13). As the spreading of the
Kingdom of God and the preaching of the Gospel are charismata of the Spirit
(Romans 15:27: tois pneumatikois [i.e. charismasin] . . . ekoinoesan — cf. 1
Corinthians 9:11), so also is that mutual consolation which the common Faith
affords. Those Christians are "spiritual" who are governed by the Spirit of
Divine meekness (Galatians 6:1). The word of wisdom (logos sophias), the word of
knowledge (logos gnoseos), ordinary teaching (didache, didaskalia) are not,
therefore, necessarily mystic and miraculous manifestations. The contrary
opinion, although widely spread, cannot be proved from the sources. Whether all
these charismata are mystic or miraculous (see above) or not depends on their
object and their character. The opposition of the "spiritual" individual to the
prophet in 1 Corinthians 14:37, is only apparent. The he in the sentence ei tis
dokei prophetes einai he pneumatikos is to be translated by "or in general".
Every charismatic individual is spiritual, but not vice versa. It shows lack of
exact criticism to suppose extraordinary charismata, or miraculous endowments,
in all those cases where there is mention of charismata.

We now proceed to a more detailed examination of these texts. In Rom., xii, 3-8,
the diverse charismata are enumerated which determine the dignity of the members
of the mystical body of Christ. Among these charismata Paul mentions (v. 6)
prophecy "according to the rule of faith" (kata ten analogian tes pisteos), the
ministry and the gift of teaching (v. 7). With regard to the two latter, it
cannot be shown that they were charismata in a different sense than any other
Christian virtue, or any work undertaken out of love or under the ordinary
influence of grace. This is confirmed by the circumstance that immediately
afterwards there are mentioned: (v. 8) he that exhorteth (parakalon), he that
giveth (metadidous), he that ruleth (proistamenos), and he that sheweth mercy
(eleon). In 1 Corinthians 12:4-31, Paul distinguishes (v. 4, 5, 6), charismata,
probably healing of the sick, ministries (diakoniai), and operations
(energemata). In the Epistle to the Romans he counts ministries among the
charismata. However, in the Epistle to the Corinthians he does not adhere
strictly to this threefold division. For in verses 8 and 9 he evidently
enumerates as charismata the (obscure) word of wisdom (logos sophia), the
(interpreting) word of knowledge (logos gnoseos), faith (pistis), and the grace
of healing (charismata iamaton). In v. 10 miracles are mentioned in the first
place, probably expulsions of demons (energemata dynameon), and then follow
prophecy, discerning of spirits, the gift of tongues, and the interpretation of
speeches. Verse 28 gives another list: apostles, prophets, doctors, miracles
(dynameis), the graces of healings, helps (antilepseis), governments
(kyberneseis), kinds of tongues, interpretations of speeches. The Apostles,
prophets, and doctors are introduced by "first", "secondly", and "thirdly". For
the Apostles are the first heralds of the Faith; in the prophets the marvellous
power of the Holy Ghost is displayed in the first and most necessary
manifestations; the doctors explain the new doctrine to the newly converted. In
chapters xiii, 1-3, and xiv, 1-5 and 19, Paul again refers incidentally to some
of the charismata, in order to warn against overvaluation and misuse. In xiv,
27-33 and 37-38, it is stated that the prophets do not possess the privilege of
absolute truth; they have to control one another. Furthermore they, as well as
all charismatic members, must be in conformity with the teaching of the Apostle
(cf. Romans 12:6), and acknowledge that his teaching is the command of God [Ei
tis dokei prophetes einai he pneumatikos, epiginosketo, ha grapho hymin, oti
kyriou estin entole. Ei de tis agnoei, agnoeitai (1 Corinthians 14:37-38 — the
reading agnoeito gives no sense)].

The comforter of the Epistle to the Romans who admonishes and teaches is
charismatic in the same sense as Tychicus, whose office it is to console the
Ephesians and Colossians (Ephesians 6:21-22; Colossians 4:7-8), as Timothy in
Thessalonica (1 Thessalonians 3:2). Paul regards every admonition and
consolation proceeding from the Faith as a form of activity included in
charismata, and Paul, Timothy, and Titus act as parakalountes when they admonish
and instruct (1 Thessalonians 2:11; 1 Timothy 5:1; 6:2; 2 Timothy 4:2; Titus
2:6, 15). The word paraklesis in the New Testament has always the meaning of an
explanatory admonition and consolation, or an instruction; so Acts 13:15 and
15:31; 2 Corinthians 8:17; 1 Thessalonians 2:3; cf. Hebrews 13:22. Frequently it
denotes consolation in the passive sense; so 2 Corinthians 1:3-7 (bis); 7:4, 7,
13; 8:4; Phil., ii, 1; 2 Thessalonians 2:16; Philem., 7 (cf. Hebrews 6:18; 12:5;
Acts 9:31). As denoting a prophetic admonition and consolation we find
paraklesis in 1 Corinthians 14:3, and 1 Timothy 4:13, where it is found in
combination with didaskalia. It signifies, therefore, consoling exhortation as
distinguished from instruction. Nor does metadidonai imply a charisma in the
sense of an extraordinary command of the Spirit. It is used not only of material
alms (Ephesians 4:28 — cf. Luke 3:11), but also of a spiritual gift (Romans
1:11), and of the Gospel (1 Thessalonians 2:8 — metadounai). Hilarotes occurs
only in the above-mentioned passage in the Epistle to the Romans (Romans 12:8).
The heleon is simply every one who from motives of Faith exercises mercy in the
service of the Church. Neither do we know anything of a mystic or miraculous
charisma relating to spiritual or material help (antilepseis) and government
(kyberneseis), words which do not occur elsewhere in the New Testament; they
were simply voluntary or official services. The ruler (proistamenos) of the
Epistle to the Romans is endowed with just such a spiritual gift. These gifts
are charismata in St. Paul's sense (see above). On account of the local colour
of the "Didache" we cannot draw from it any general conclusions concerning the
Apostles, prophets, and doctors of the oldest times. This triad — Apostles,
prophets, doctors — occurs in the New Testament only in 1 Corinthians 12:28-29.
In the Epistle to the Ephesians (iv, 11) Apostles, prophets, evangelists,
pastors, and doctors are enumerated. In the Acts we find (xiii, 1) only prophets
and doctors. Apart from the Gospels, we find doctors (didaskaloi) mentioned
alone in the following texts: Rom., ii, 20 (some Christians believe themselves
to be teachers of infants); Hebrews 5:12 (those addressed ought to be masters);
1 Timothy 2:7 and 2 Timothy 4:3 (in the last the reference is to false
teachers); James, iii, 1 (there should not be many masters). In none of these
places does the word doctor or its equivalent imply a mystic or miraculous
charisma; at least such cannot be shown from the sources themselves. The same is
true of the expressions didache and didaskalia, which denote simply the doctrine
itself and its actual communication. They were charismata just as every gift
granted by God for the service of the Church was a charisma. The same is found
to be true from a study of the Pastoral Epistles. Neither does the expression
teach (didasko, I teach) signify anything more.

More difficult is the correct valuation of the term apostle. Beginning with
Lightfoot (St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians, 1887 and 1902, 92 sqq.) this
question has been discussed again and again. The present writer takes the view
that in the Acts the word is always used of the Twelve, with the exception
however of 14:4 and 13. There Barnabas and Paul are called "the apostles" (oi
apostoloi). From this we cannot at once conclude that Barnabas was an Apostle in
the same sense as Paul. For, as it was everywhere known that Paul enjoyed the
title of Apostle, it may well be that Barnabas as his companion shared this
name. Neither he nor Sylvanus is ever called Apostle by Paul himself, not even
in 1 Corinthians 9:6. Paul does, however, allow Barnabas (and Sylvanus) to share
in his Apostolic privileges when they are in his company; so, for instance, in
Galatians 2:9. Paul commonly gives the title of Apostle to none but the Twelve
besides himself. In 2 Corinthians 11:5 and 12:11, it is plain that those who are
"above measure" apostles are ironically so called and are to be looked upon as
pseudo-apostles. In 2 Corinthians 8:23, the apostoloi ekklesion are envoys. The
word is used here in its original meaning, not unknown, perhaps, to the
Hellenistic Jews. In 2 Corinthians 11:13, it is stated that the pseudo-apostles
claimed the position of real Apostles (probably, therefore, in the strict
sense); they certainly assumed the name of "apostles". From this it does not of
course follow that they had a right to that name. The three well known passages,
1 Corinthians 12:28-29; Ephesians 2:20 (3:5); and Ephesians 4:11, which speak of
the "apostles" together with the prophets as members of Christ and as the
foundation of the Church, do not permit us to decide with certainty whether Paul
speaks here of apostles in the wider sense or, as in all the other texts, of
himself and the Twelve. The latter is the more probable. There remains,
therefore, only the remarkable passage in Romans 16:7; here Andronicus and
Junias are mentioned as episemoi en tois apostolois. These words evidently
intended to designate these two as especially distinguished apostles. This,
therefore, would be the only passage in the New Testament where "apostle" occurs
in a wider sense, unless it should have to be translated thus: "they did
excellent service as messengers of the community", and the word would mean the
same as in 2 Corinthians 8:23. Apostole (office of an apostle) occurs four times
in the New Testament. Twice Paul uses it to denote his own vocation (Romans 1:5;
1 Corinthians 9:2); once to denote that of Peter (Galatians 1:8). In the Acts
1:25, this word (apostleship) together with ministry designates the office of
the Twelve. The thirty-six passages in the New Testament, apart from the
Gospels, which contain the word send (apostellein) do not permit of any
conclusions being reached on this point.

According to the earliest Christian sources the office of Apostle is a charisma,
but not a mystic charisma. The Eleven are Apostles in so far as they are
witnesses of the life of Christ and recipients of His Divine injunctions. Paul
is an Apostle because he has actually seen the heavenly Christ and received his
mission from Him. Matthias is an Apostle because he has known Christ and because
at his election the Lord Himself determined on whom the lot was to fall. Nothing
certain can be said about the source of the "Apostolate" of Barnabas. At all
events he was an Apostle only in the sense that he preached in places where
nobody had as yet announced the Gospel, for this was essential in order to merit
the title of Apostle. It is certain that the Apostles were frequently moved by a
special Divine inspiration to direct their course to some particular locality,
but it cannot be proved that this was always the case nor is that at all
probable. Other missionaries were most probably called evangelists (cf. Acts
21:8; Ephesians 4:11; 2 Timothy 4:5). But the corresponding verb evaggelizesthai
is also used for the first Apostolic preaching. Even if towards the end of the
so-called Apostolic age there existed Apostles in the wider sense of the word,
as we rightly conclude from the "Didache", our first group of sources contains
nothing definite as to their authority and unquestionably excludes their being
placed on the same level with the Twelve and with Paul (and Barnabas?). The rest
of Paul's Epistles belonging to the first group contain the following additional
data with regard to the charismata. Paul bids the Thessalonians not to despise
prophecy (1 Thessalonians 5:20). The admonition in the preceding verse (19) to
extinguish not the spirit hardly refers to a mystic charisma. The Second Epistle
to the Thessalonians (ii, 2) contains too the noteworthy warning to the
Christians not to be easily terrified, nor drawn away from the teachings of the
Apostles by any "spirit".

The Acts often speak in general terms of an influence of the Spirit of God and
mention in particular the gift of tongues (ii, 4; x, 46; xix, 6) and the
charisma of prophecy. The word prophecy (propheteia) does not occur. The newly
converted Christians at Ephesus, on the occasion of Paul's third journey (Acts
19:6), prophesied and at the same time spoke with tongues. Chapter xxi, v. 9,
speaks of the daughters of Philip "who did prophesy." The remaining texts to be
considered are the following: xi, 27 sq.; xiii, 1 sq.; xv, 32; xxi, 10 and 11
(cf. xxi, 4, and xx, 23; xix, 21; xvii, 16; xvi, 6, 7). In chapter xv, 32, Judas
and Silas are called prophets; in ch. xiii, 1, Barnabas and Saul are mentioned
among the "prophets and doctors" of Antioch. These two latter are designated by
the Holy Ghost as instruments of God for the spread of the Gospel; the others
while praying impose their hands upon them. But there is no trace of any
ecclesiastical organization based on the distribution of charismata, of any
control exercised over the Churches by the recipients of these gifts, nor of any
infallible teaching authority enjoyed by these ecstatic members. While these
charismatics were numerous and continued to occupy their position of marked
prominence, the local authorities, if not similarly gifted, remained as a matter
of course in the background. But this does not prove that there was an
institution and an organization of charismatic individuals. When elections were
to be held, prophetic doctors frequently pointed out the most suitable
candidates. Again some communities were governed by prophets and doctors before
the appointment of regular administrators. History, however, forbids us to
assert that a regular organization did not come into existence until the
ecstatic and miraculous charismata had decreased. But it is true that after the
disappearance of this species of charismata the normal administrative functions
became more prominent and consequently a stronger organization was needed. The
other hypothesis which would represent the subjects of these supernatural gifts
as thrust aside by the ordinary governing power of the Church is also wholly
untenable. The truth of the matter is that certain officious individuals of that
class were put in their proper place by the authorities, and that later on some
of them, whose "gifts" had been artificially developed by suggestion, were shown
up as charlatans.



ORIGIN OF ECCLESIASTICAL AUTHORITY IN GENERAL

The doctrine of St. Paul about the Church as the body of Christ, which finds
expression in the Epistle to the Romans, the First Epistle to the Corinthians,
and the Epistle to the Ephesians, is a central feature of his theology. The
operation of Christ in the Church and the activity of the various organs of this
corporate body, whose members are at the same time members of the mystical body
of Christ, find in these epistles their clearest expression. In the Epistle to
the Romans (xii, 8) and the First Epistle to the Corinthians (xii, 28) the
governing body and the office of governing are depicted as part of the body of
Christ and as constituted therein by God and Christ Himself. These two most
important and classical passages together with a text of the Epistle to the
Ephesians (iv, 11 — second group) show us the origin of the primitive Christian
governing body in general; it is an institution of God and Christ. They show us
furthermore the necessity of those administrative organs, for by their very
nature they belong to the body of Christ, the Church. Consequently it is the
will of God that besides the Apostolate there should be governing superiors in
the local churches as well. For this reason Ignatius speaks of an entole theou,
and his teaching is nothing but the purest doctrine of St. Paul. We can
therefore speak in a certain sense of a charismatic organization of the Church,
for the administrative function is itself a charisma; only we must take charisma
in that correct and broader sense in which Paul uses it. Since therefore some
form of governing body is, according to the doctrine of the Apostle, inseparable
from the very notion of the Church, there can be nothing more opposed to Paul's
ideas than the thought of rights being conferred on superiors by a democratic
community. The governing body is in Paul's mind something religious and Divine.
Nevertheless the administration need not at once and everywhere appear in its
specific form; for the Apostolate is able to supply all that is wanting. The
Divine institution of the threefold hierarchy cannot of course be derived from
our texts; in fact it cannot in any way be proved directly from the New
Testament; it is Catholic dogma by virtue of dogmatic tradition, i.e. in a later
period of ecclesiastical history the general belief in the Divine institution of
the episcopate, presbyterate, and diaconate can be verified and thence be
followed on through the later centuries. But this dogmatic truth cannot be
traced back to Christ Himself by analysis of strictly historical testimony.

POSITION OF THE SUPERIORS

When a person of his own free choice offers himself for an office, it does not
immediately follow that his acknowledgment by the community is entirely free;
this latter point has to be positively proved. For the offer may simply be the
occasion or a necessary condition that enables some one exercising authority
over the community to accept this proposal, to appoint the applicant and to
communicate to him the necessary faculties. The approbation by the community may
be a further condition, or a privilege to be respected or disregarded, or
finally it may be altogether wanting. Nor is it true that every "ethical" office
based on a free offer and free approbation lacks by its very nature all
juridical validity; on the contrary, the offer and the acknowledgment produce of
themselves a peculiar legal status. If one wants to assert the contrary — of
course, a purely personal authority unsupported by any legal power is possible —
he has to prove this theory just as he must prove each of the above-mentioned
juridical elements, by a positive argumentation from the sources. After these
introductory remarks, we proceed to the examination of all the texts. Acts 14:22
mentions the appointment of presbyters in Lycaonia by Paul and Barnabas. The
truth of this statement cannot, of course, be shaken by simply remarking that
Paul did not appoint superiors in other places. It is likely that, on his very
first Apostolic journey, Paul placed superiors at the head of his newly-founded
Churches, who assumed the title then in use among the Jews; to this measure he
was probably led by the example of the Jewish communities of the Diaspora or
perhaps of the Christian circles in Palestine.

It was looked upon as a natural and obvious step by the inhabitants of Asia
Minor who, Jews and Gentiles alike, were accustomed to a religious authority. In
some cases unfortunate experiences may have moved St. Paul to desist from this
measure. However, the fourteenth chapter of the Acts does not allow any further
conclusion than this: Paul at his departure from southern Asia Minor left there
for special reasons a governing body of some kind or other, endowed with certain
administrative rights over the communities. The two facts that in the early
Christian literature the elders (presbyteroi) are frequently contrasted with the
younger members (neoteroi) and that, as late as the third century, Christians
who have suffered for the Faith are given the honorary title of presbyter (cf.
Duchesne, "Bulletin crit.", 1891, 43 sq.), make it probable that in the earliest
times the presbyterate was frequently, though not perhaps exclusively, an
honorary title and not the name of an office. The name may have been borrowed
from the Jewish presbyters, or perhaps from the Gentile presbyters — officials
of Asia Minor. It is of course understood that from this we cannot conclude that
their sphere of activity was the same. Such an analogy if made would only
suggest new riddles. For the Jewish presbyters in Palestine had a position quite
different from those of the Diaspora. Now which of the two was the model for the
Christians? Since therefore the name elder (presbyter) is altogether of a
general nature, since our sources remain silent, since furthermore conclusions
based on what we know of later times are unreliable in this particular case and
the analogies drawn from the environment furnish no definite result, we may say
that the Christian presbyters of the earliest period cannot be accurately
defined. In some places they were certainly the forerunners of the later
presbyters; in others, of the bishops, or of the bishops and deacons; in others
still, they formed but a provisional government for the regulation and
administration of affairs, or they were the representatives of the community in
its external relations. Those who pretend to know more cannot appeal to the
sources. Nor is it admissible simply to generalize from the institution in Asia
Minor and make it a type, as Ramsay has done ("St. Paul the Traveller and the
Roman Citizen," 7th ed., London, 1903, 121 sq.). If, therefore, we take this
governing body of the presbyters in the wider sense mentioned above, then there
is not the slightest reason to doubt that this appointment of presbyters by Paul
about A.D. 50 did actually take place. We do not deny that all these "elders"
were presbyters or bishops in the later sense of these words; but from the
sources nothing certain can be derived.

The Texts of the Epistles of St. Paul. — 1 Corinthians 16:15-16. Stephanas and
his household being the "first-fruits of Achaia" have dedicated themselves
(etaxan heautous) to the ministry of the community. Paul bids the Corinthians to
subject themselves to them (hypotassesthe), as also to everyone who offers his
service and co-operation. The whole character of the text depicts mutual
relations that are an outcome more of free-will and kindness than of strictly
juridical conditions. The Epistle to the Romans (xii, 8) mentions among the
prominent members of the body of Christ him that ruleth (ho proistamenos) and
adds furthermore that he ought to rule with carefulness. Of course, the singular
is here no criterion; it has the same force as in the two phrases "he that
giveth" and "he that sheweth mercy". The text has a meaning only if Paul
supposes the existence of one or more rulers in Rome. In chap. v of the First
Epistle to the Thessalonians (12, 13), the faithful are asked to know (eidenai,
acknowledge), to love and to have peace with those who labour among them
(kopiontas en hymin), who are over them in the Lord (proistamenous), and who
admonish them (nouthetountas). Here we see that acknowledgment does not create
the prerogatives of superiors.

There were therefore at Corinth heads of families who, partly because they had
been the first to accept the Gospel, offered themselves for the service of the
community. How they were appointed to office we are not told. The proïstamenoi
at Thessalonica and Rome possess, according to all appearances, a more official
character. One must not forget that some of these results are merely negative.
They do not justify us in denying that there were other institutions of which
nothing is said. The name proïstamenos is not an official title : Paul speaks of
them as we speak of heads, directors, or superiors. Whether they had an official
name from the beginning we do not know. The name presbyter is certainly more
definite. As to the question whether all these superiors were inducted into
office by imposition of hands with prayer, see the remark made by us concerning
the presbyters of Palestine. The prayer accompanying the imposition of hands
expressed of course in only the most general terms the kind of activity they
were to exercise. The persons thus "consecrated" were according to the Catholic
idea ipso facto presbyters or bishops in the later sense of the words.

POSITION OF THE APOSTOLIC FELLOW-LABOURERS

In the first group of texts the following persons are mentioned:

 * Andronicus and Junias (the latter is probably also a man, not a woman):
   Romans 16:7
 * Apollo coadjutor: 1 Corinthians 3:4, 9, cf. 3:6 and 1:12 etc. together with
   Paul, Apollo is minister of Christ and dispenser of the mysteries of God, 1
   Corinthians 4:1 (cf. Acts 18:24 sq.; 19:1).
 * Aquila and Prisca (Priscilla): the Church which is in their house is
   mentioned, Romans 16:5 and 1 Corinthians 16:19 (cf. Acts 18:1-3, 18, 19, 26).
 * Barnabas: Acts 11:22; prophet and (?) doctor, Acts 13:1; he preaches together
   with Paul, Acts 13, 14 and 15; 1 Corinthians 9:6 (cf. Galatians 2:1),
   Galatians 2:9; by the Apostles and presbyters of Jerusalem he (Barnabas) with
   Judas and Silas is sent to Antioch, Acts 15:22 sq. Epenetus: the first fruits
   of Asia, Romans 16:5. Erastus: Acts 19:22 (Romans 16:23?).
 * John Mark: Acts 12:25 and 13:5.
 * Judas and Silas: prophets, Acts 15:32;
 * Silas is with Paul, Acts 15:40 (cf. 16:19 sq.; 17:4 sq.; 18:5 sq.); 2
   Corinthians 1:19; 1 Thessalonians 1:1: 2 Thessalonians 1:1.
 * Stephanas: with Fortunatus and Achaicus he is counted among the first-fruits
   of Achaia (1 Corinthians 16:15).
 * Timothy: fellow-labourer of Paul, Acts 16:1 sq. (cf. Acts 17, 18, 19, 20);
 * Romans 16:21; as Paul's envoy he teaches the doctrine of Paul, 1 Corinthians
   4:17; 16:10 (cf. 2 Corinthians 1:1; 1 and 2 Thessalonians 1:1); a very
   important text is 1 Thessalonians 3:1 sq.
 * Titus: fellow-labourer of Paul, 2 Corinthians 2:12 and 7:5; he teaches Paul's
   doctrine, 2 Corinthians 7:13 sq.; sent by Paul he takes charge of the
   collection of alms, 2 Corinthians 8:6 sq., 8:16-24; he walks in the same
   steps with Paul, 2 Corinthians 12:17 sq.
 * Trophimus and Tychicus: companions of Paul, Acts 20:4 sq.; Trophimus alone,
   Acts 21:29.
 * Urbanus: helper of Paul, Romans 16:9 (concerning these labourers see H.
   Brunders, S.J., "Die Verfassung der Kirche", Mainz, 1904, 215-315).

The superiors and the numerous Apostolic helpers are considered by Paul as
fellow-labourers because, and in so far as, they work in his spirit and agree
with his doctrine. If for a time they preach independently, as Barnabas and
Mark, Paul always supposes that they preach his Gospel. The activity of the
women is described by Paul in two places as "labouring in the Lord" (kopian)
Rom., xvi, 12 (bis). Instead of this word, the Epistle to the Philippians uses
synathlein. If we use the word organization in a very general sense, we may say,
that the women belonged to the organization of the primitive Church. In the
Epistle to the Romans (xvi, 1) a woman is given the title of deacon.


THE TEXTS OF THE SECOND GROUP

 * The Epistles of Paul will be examined together with Acts 20;
 * the Epistle of Peter; and
 * the Didache.

The texts from St. Paul will be classified similarly to those of the first group
above.

THE EPISTLES OF PAUL AND ACTS 20

AUTHORITY OF THE APOSTLES

The authority of the Apostle over the communities: Ephesians 3:7-12; 6:19-20;
Philippians 3:17; Colossians 1:23-29; 2:4-8 (cf. 16 sq.). Also to be compared is
Ephesians 1:13 (cf. 4:21): the preaching of Paul is "truth". The authority of
the Apostle appears here in the same light as in his earliest letters; there is
no question of autonomous communities.

PROPHETS AND APOSTLES

Charismatic prophets together with Apostles are mentioned as the foundation of
the Church (Ephesians 2:20): in union with Apostles, evangelists, pastors and
doctors, they co-operate in building up the body of Christ; by the grace of God
(which here, Ephesians 4:7, is called charis, not charisma) they have been sent
for the work of the ministry (eis ergon diakonias) (Ephesians 4:11-20). The
Apostle wishes the Ephesians the spirit of wisdom and of revelation (Ephesians
1:17; cf. Colossians 3:16). The mystico-miraculous charismata remain altogether
in the background.

SUPERIORS

In the address of the Epistle to the Philippians (1:1), bishops and deacons are
mentioned. There is no reason why we should consider their position and activity
to have been different from that of the proïstamenoi of 1 Thessalonians 5:12 and
Romans 12:8. In the present text, it is true, the names are somewhat more
definite. These rulers are the chief workers (tous kopiontas en hymin) (1
Thessalonians 5:12). According to this we have not to consider as distinct from
the said superiors those presbyter-bishops of Ephesus (Acts 20:17-32) who are
appointed by the Holy Ghost (again St. Paul's idea as above, no. 7), and who
rule as pastors. Their work is to instruct, to exhort, to warn against deception
and false doctrine. Since, as we have seen, the designation proïstamenoi had a
very general meaning, it would be uncritical to assert that they constituted a
governing body of only one grade which was not divided into the grades of bishop
and deacon until later times. It is quite possible that the proïstamenoi already
contained several grades within their own class. Whence did the Christians take
the title bishop (used at first only in the plural) to designate their rulers?
The hypothesis (Heinrici, Hatch, etc.) of their having borrowed it from pagan
religious societies has long since been given up. Most scholars agree today with
the results obtained by Ziebarth: "A special characteristic of the terminology
describing Greek associations is its lack of definiteness. Episkopoi as well as
epimeletai designate in a very general way overseers or administrators. It is
today an established fact that the title episkopoi, which now and then occurs as
an official title in Greek associations, does not furnish an argument for the
derivation of the Christian office from pagan religions associations" (Das
griechische Vereinswesen, 1896, 131). Nor does the present writer attach any
great importance to the circumstance that even before the time of Christ there
is mentioned at Phodos an episkopos as being in charge of certain matters of
worship (cf. Deissmann, "Neue Bibelstudien", 57 sq.). The title episkopos is
also applied here and there to municipal officers. In the Septuagint Eleazar
appears as episkopos (Numbers 4:16); generals of the armies are episkopoi
(Numbers 30:14; 2 Kings 11:15, 18); higher officials together with archons
(Nehemiah 11:9, 14, 22; Isaiah 60:17; 1 Maccabees 1:51; cf. Judges 9:28). In Job
20:29, God is called episkopos. In connection with work of a religious character
the word is used 2 Chronicles 34:12, 17. We must recall that in the First
Epistle of Peter (2:25), Christ is called the shepherd and bishop of our souls.
Clement calls God the creator and bishop of all spirits (Epistle of Clement
59.3). In Christian circles the word seems from the very beginning to have
denoted an activity of high rank and excellence. Originally it was not a title
or the name of an office. The attempts of recent Protestant scholars (Hatch,
Harnack, Dobschütz, etc.) to separate even in the earliest times the functions
of the bishops from those of the presbyters are to be considered as
unsuccessful. In the New Testament and even with Clement the two expressions are
synonymous. It is indeed possible that the presbyters or the proïstamenoi were
called bishops after their sphere of action had been more accurately
circumscribed. There remains only one text. At Colossa, Archippus has to fulfil
a ministry (diakonia) (Colossians 4:17). In the Epistle to Philemon, 2, he is
called fellow-soldier (systratiotes). Here we perhaps find the trace of a
monarchical bishop.

FELLOW-LABOURERS OF PAUL

Epaphras (Colossians 4:12), servant of Jesus Christ (cf. Philem., 23); Luke
(Colossians 4:14); Mark (Colossians 4:10-11), "touching whom you have received
commandments" (entolas). He is a fellow-labourer, as are also Aristarchus (cf.
Acts 20:4; 27:2; Philemon 24), and Jesus Justus. Clement (Philippians 4:3) and
other unknown fellow-labourers, also women: one of these fellow-labourers is
addressed as gnesie syzyge (or Synzyge). Tychicus, a faithful minister
(diakonos) and fellow-servant in the Lord (syndoulos); Ephesians 6:21, he is
called faithful minister. Epaphroditus, Philippians 2:25-30, and 4:18: brother,
and fellow-labourer, and fellow-soldier, your apostle. Philemon also (Philemon
2) is a fellow-labourer.

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER

The evangelical preaching is absolute truth; it is the word of the Lord which
endureth forever (i, 25), the fulfilment of the prophecies, and the work of the
Holy Ghost (i, 11, 12); consequently it is simply to be obeyed (i, 14; cf. i,
2). Endowed with such authority the writer teaches and exhorts; Peter is the
Apostle of Jesus Christ (i, 1), the sympresbyteros and witness of the sufferings
of Christ (v, 1). Two charismata are mentioned, the preaching of the Word of God
and the ministry of the community (iv, 11). Whosoever has received a charisma
should, as a good steward, use it in the service of his neighbour (iv, 10). The
phrase "if any man speak" (ei tis lalei) certainly does not mean the gift of
tongues, but, as is shown by the additional clause hos logia theou, the
preaching of the Word of God. Lalein ton logou tou theou soon becomes a standing
expression for the preaching of the Gospel to Jews and Gentiles. The preacher
has to adhere to the Word of God, i.e. to the common doctrine which is to be
considered as the Word of God Himself. The ministry for the community is also
looked upon by the writer, as a power granted by God; ei tis diakonei, os ex
ischyos es choregei ho theos (iv, 11); cf. ischys used to denote the power of
God (Ephesians 1:19; 6:10; 2 Thessalonians 1:9; Revelation 7:12). In these texts
we see again Paul's idea of government and superiors; they are in his eyes
institutions of God. For the rest superiors occur only in chap. v, 1-5; they are
called presbyters; their duty is to feed the flock of Christ, to take care of
it, without constraint however and without lording it over them (episkopountes —
the reading is doubtful); the young men shall be subject to them. This text
presents difficulties. On the one hand it would seem that the exhortation is
addressed to presbyter-bishops as a governing body, while on the other hand the
opposition between the presbyters and the younger men (neoteroi) points to
merely patriarchal relations. It is however most probable that the two
expressions — presbyteroi — neoteroi — passed through a parallel development.
After the "ancients" had become superiors in the strict sense, the "younger men"
were considered as subjects.

THE DIDACHE

The author of the Didache considers the teachings of the Faith as truths
received from Jesus and announced by his Apostles, which men are obliged to
accept (cf. the title and the first eleven chapters). He who teaches otherwise
is not to be listened to (xi, 2). If he teaches the truth he is to be received
as the Lord himself (loc. cit.) . He who announces the Word of God is to be
honoured as the Lord Himself (iv, 1). The travelling Apostles, the prophets, and
doctors are to be duly respected. Neither prophets nor Apostles nor doctors
possess an absolute authority; nay more, the Christians are taught certain signs
to enable them to distinguish the true missionaries from the false (xi-xii). The
Apostles (travelling missionaries) are described as of rare occurrence. Somewhat
exceptional is the position of the prophets who have settled in a community. The
Didache calls them high-priests (xiii, 3); as such they can lay claim to the
first-fruits (xiii, 3-7). And since in addition to this they have the privilege
of reciting eucharistic prayers at their own discretion (x, 7), we look upon
them as presiding over the celebration of the breaking of bread. Important
information about the constitution of the Church at that time is contained in
chap. xv, 1 and 2: "choose bishops and deacons, worthy of the Lord, men of
meekness, who are not lovers of money, who are true and well tried. For they
fulfil for you the ministry of the prophets and doctors. Do not therefore slight
them; for it is they among you that enjoy high esteem with the prophets and
doctors". From this text we derive the following items: First: Since the
electoral proceedings are not given in detail, we cannot make a definite
statement about the authority vested in the community. Second: As substitutes in
performing the duties of prophets and doctors we find bishops and deacons; they
are therefore shepherds who preach and explain the word of God.

The qualities required of them show that they possessed certain powers of
government (praeis), and were entrusted with the administration of alms and
other positions of responsibility (aphilargyrous kaialetheis kai
dedokimasmenous). The text in question does not show us how these various
occupations were divided between the two classes of officials. During a period
of transition from a comparatively incoherent state to a more settled form of
government, the several communities would evidently enjoy certain powers and
prerogatives; but no sober critic would read between the lines of the artless
catechetical instruction the description of a generally-adopted system of
democratic government. Those measures which every one of the faithful may and
should employ as protection against doubtful prophets and false teachers are not
juridically-determined prerogatives vested in the community. Nothing is left but
a rather undefined participation in the election of superiors. It is just as
though the duty of holding these elections was imposed upon the community by
some external authority. The literary form of the document shows that in the
author's conviction the community is not independent of authority in the
principal points of doctrine, discipline, and corporate existence, but is
obliged to observe those regulations which the writer authoritatively details.
He prescribes even the prayers that are to be recited By the community in the
celebration of the Eucharist. The regulations governing prayer, fasting,
Eucharistic celebrations, and elections of superiors do not emanate from the
local Church. On the contrary, certain local Churches are earnestly enjoined by
the author to observe exactly the usages which he regards as of Apostolic
origin. But from what source does the author, apparently a teacher (didaskalos)
or prophet, derive his authority? It is evidently an Apostolic tradition known
to him in its main outlines. In this sense, Durell's words are true ("The
Historic Church", Cambridge, 1906), "The authority of discipline resides in the
Church as a whole" (p. 76). But Durell does not distinguish with sufficient
clearness between the local community and the one universal Church, which the
Didache itself represents as a unitary organization.


THE TEXTS OF THE THIRD GROUP

EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS

It is important to note how the author (2:3-4) traces the genesis of the
authoritative preaching of doctrine. It originates with Christ (archen labousa
laleisthai dia tou kyriou). Those who have heard the Lord declare His words to
others with authority (hypo ton akousanton eis hemas ebebaiothe), and God bears
witness to them by miracles and various manifestations of the Spirit. Faith
therefore is a duty. The same doctrine is indicated in 4:2. In 13:7, the
faithful are reminded of those superiors (hegoumenoi) no longer living, who
announced the Word of God to them in the past. Contemporary superiors are also
called hegumenoi (13:17, 24). Nowhere else in the New Testament are Christian
superiors called simply hegumenoi. In one passage of the Acts (14:12), Paul is
called "chief speaker" (en ho hegoumenos tou logou); in 15:22, Paul, Barnabas,
Judas, and Silas are designated as "chief men", leading personages pempsai . . .
andras hegoumenous en tois adelphois). The expression may have been modelled on
the words of our Lord; "He that is the leader, let him become as he that
serveth" (ho hegoumenos hos ho diakonon, Luke 22:26). The hypothesis that the
hegumenoi of the Epistle to the Hebrews were prophets or even recipients of
charismata in the strict sense of the word, is devoid of any historic
foundation.

THE EPISTLE OF ST. JAMES

The warning that there should not be too many doctors (me polloi didaskaloi
ginesthe) is explained by the great responsibility attached to this position. It
is not clear whether the members of the third class of the threefold division
"apostles, prophets, doctors", are here in question; probably they are. But the
subjects of charismata in the strict sense are certainly not meant, since, in
their own opinion, they do not set themselves up as teachers, but are entrusted
with that office by the Spirit of God. But the labouring and patient prophets
mentioned in v, 10, who spoke in the name of the Lord, are most probably Old
Testament seers.

THE SECOND EPISTLE OF ST. PETER AND THE EPISTLE OF ST. JUDE

The Christians are exhorted to remember the words of the holy prophets (probably
of the Old Testament), and the precepts of their Lord and Saviour made known to
them by their Apostles (iii, 2). Most likely, Apostles in the strict sense of
the word are meant. These are certainly in the mind of Jude, when in his Epistle
(5, 17) he addresses similar words to the recipients of his letter.

THE THREE EPISTLES OF ST. JOHN

The "ancient" (ho Presbyteros) of the Second and Third Epistle shows his
authority by forbidding all intercourse with Christians who will not receive the
doctrine of Christ (II John, 9-11). In the Third Epistle Diotrephes is blamed
for misuse of the position of pre-eminence which he enjoyed in the community.
The presbyter will reprimand him on his arrival (III John, 9, 10). But the
expression, "who loveth to have the pre-eminence among them" (ho philoproteuon,
not used elsewhere), does not warrant the conclusion that Diotrephes had usurped
his position of authority. Nor can any solid grounds be found for the conjecture
that the brethren, who went out "for his name" and were kindly received by Gaius
(III John, 3, 8) were travelling apostles or even charismatical teachers, and
were therefore dismissed as suspicious "pneumatikoi" by the "monarchical bishop"
Diotrephes.

THE PASTORAL EPISTLES

In these Timothy and Titus appear as delegates and representatives of the
Apostle Paul (1 Timothy 1:3; cf. 2 Timothy 4:11; Titus 1:5; cf. 3:12); their
authority is derived from the imposition of hands and from the prayer of the
Apostle and the presbyterate (1 Timothy 4:14; 2 Timothy 1:6). Previously to this
consecration an approval appears to have been given to the choice of candidates
by prophecy (referred to in 1 Timothy 4:14, and probably also in 1:18). One may
certainly apply all this to Titus as well as to Timothy. Timothy and Titus each
bear the title episkopos (1 Timothy 3:2; Titus 1:7); their office is called
episkope (1 Timothy 3:1), and once diakonia (2 Timothy 4:5); Timothy is termed
diakonos (1 Timothy 4:6). They hold a position of monarchical authority, impose
hands on those whom they judge to be fit candidates for the priesthood (1
Timothy 5:2; Titus 1:5); they choose their successors in the office of teaching
(2 Timothy 2:2); they keep order in the community by their energetic
exhortations (1 Timothy 5:1-22; 2 Timothy 2:25, 26; 4:2; Titus 1:5, 11; 2:1
sqq.; 2:15); they judge even the presbyters (1 Timothy 5:19-20; cf. Titus 1:9
sq.); they teach (1 Timothy 4:1-13, 16; 6:2; 2 Timothy 3:16, 17; 4:2). As
teacher Timothy is called "evangelist" (ergon poieson euangelistou, ten
diakonian sou plerophoreson, 2 Timothy 4:5). The description of the model
episkopos (1 Timothy 3:1 sq.; Titus 2:7 sq.) represents him also as
administering money and practising hospitality. Perhaps a presbyter is meant by
the episkopos in Titus 1:7; verses 5 and 6 immediately preceding speak of
presbyters, and verse 7 continues: "For (gar) a bishop (episkopos) must be
without crime." But it is also possible that there is a sudden transition in the
author's thought and a freer use of gar. A greater probability is given to this
by the exact correspondence between the qualifications of the bishop given here,
and those set down in 1 Timothy 3. The presbyters are probably united in a
college (presbyterion, 1 Timothy 4:14); and they are subordinate to the bishops
(1 Timothy 5:17-20; Titus 1:5). They rule over the community. Some of them are
to declare and teach the Word of God (1 Timothy 5:17: oi kopiontes en logo kai
didaskalia). The presbyteros in 1 Timothy 5:1 is probably an older member of the
community (cf. Titus 2:2). Deacons are mentioned in 1 Timothy 3:8-13. Timothy
and Titus are subordinate to Paul, and must follow his teaching and precepts (1
Timothy 1:8-12; cf. 19-20; 2:7; 3:15; and in general 2, 4, 5 and 6; 2 Timothy
1:11-14; 3:10; 4:13 sq., 21; Titus 1:5; all 2; 3:9). No information is given
about community rights.



EPISTLE OF THE ROMAN CHURCH (CLEMENT) TO THE CORINTHIANS

The position of superiors of the Christian community is attributed only twice at
the utmost to the hegumenoi (hegoumenoi and proegoumenoi in i, 3, and xxi, 6).
The first citation speaks approval of the obedience shown to them by the
faithful; and in the second due respect and reverence are enjoined. But since
the term in all other parts of the Epistle — where it is used, either seven or
eight times, according as one reads archegois or hegoumenois in lxiii, 1 —
signifies the secular civil or military rulers, it seems more probable that the
same meaning should be attached to it in the two passages mentioned. Now if the
word stands for the ecclesiastical authorities in the two passages mentioned,
how are they to be discriminated from the presbyters, who in both instances are
spoken of in company with them: "the faithful in times past have shown due
reverence to their presbyters" (i, 3); "the faithful should honour the elders"
(xxi, 6)? There are only two probable solutions: either the term hegoumenoi (or
proegoumenoi) is used for persons of authority in a broad sense, including
deacons and other people of importance; or the word "presbyter" in both cases
has the simple meaning of "elder", the reference being to the older and more
esteemed members of the community — an explanation which is all the more
probable because of the mention in both passages of the "younger members" (neoi)
along with the "elders". Presbyters are expressly mentioned many times in the
Epistle — in the two places discussed, and in xliv, 5; xlvii, 6; liv, 2; lvii,
1. Reference is also made to them in lxiii, 1, and in other texts to be cited
presently. Jewish presbyters are spoken of in lv, 4. Their office is termed
episkope (xliv, 4) — a word which Clement uses once (1, 3) for Christ's office
as judge at His second advent. The word episkopos appears in only one other
place (lix, 3), where it is applied to God. Except in chapter lii, nothing is
said of deacons. In chapter xl, 5, the services of the levites are called
diakonia. It is clear from xlii and xliv that Clement identifies bishops and
presbyters, unless perhaps in the two texts already referred to, since he speaks
here of the rebellion against the presbyters (stasis, xlvii, 6; xlvi, 7, 9; cf.
iii, 2, 3; li, 1; liv, 2; lvii, 1; xliv, 4: hamastia) as "no small misdeed", for
it shows disregard for the express wishes of the Apostles, who instituted
bishops (episkopoi) in obedience to the ordinance of Christ Himself. It is a
mistake to say that the presbyter-bishops are mentioned in the Epistle of St.
Clement only as officers of administration and public worship (cf. xliv, 4:
amemptos kaihosios prosenegkontas ta dopa). Their position as spiritual guides
(lxiii, 1) and successors of the Apostles manifests clearly their authoritative
office of administering the Word of God.

No indication can be found that Clement supposed the office of declaring the
Word of God in Corinth to be entrusted to ecstatic "spiritual" preachers; nor is
there any satisfactory basis for the theory that the rebellion against
legitimate authority was started by the recipients of charismata. Miraculous
charismata are perhaps spoken of in chapter xlviii, 5, but the reference is
uncertain, for those Divine gifts which are mentioned in addition to faith and
holiness of life, the word of knowledge and the skilful interpretation of
others' words are not manifestly mystical or miraculous in their nature. The
presbyter-bishops are to be obeyed (lvii, 1); their authority as spiritual
guides (lxiii, 1) is to be heeded. The institution of the presbyter-bishops
dates from Christ. After examining the first-fruits of the Faith in the light of
the Holy Ghost, the Apostles established them as bishops and deacons (xlii, 4).
The commission to do this came from Christ (xliii, 1). Christ foretold them that
a conflict would arise with regard to the episcopal office (epi tou honomatos
tes episkopes); for which reason they instituted the bishops and deacons just
mentioned and enjoined (epinomen edokan — a doubtful reading; Lightfoot has
epimonen) that after their death other tried men should succeed to their office.
This provision had the approval of the entire Church (xliv, 1, 3).

Some points in Clement's argumentation are undoubtedly pure theory (e.g. the
revelation of a future contest regarding the episcopal office), but the central
facts cannot be critically controverted. The thought that the governing body in
general was an institution of God and of Christ is an inheritance from St. Paul.
The whole argumentation used by the Roman community would be completely absurd,
if the story of Apostolic institution were a mere fable. It may be observed that
Clement looks upon the hierarchy of the Old Testament with its high-priest,
priests, levites as a type of the Christian hierarchy (xi, 5; xli). He seems to
regard the high-priest as a type of Christ, and sees a typical significance in
the contest under Moses regarding the priesthood (xliii, 2). The local Church is
also called the flock of Christ (poimnion, xvi, 1; xliv, 3; liv, 2; lvii, 2),
but nowhere is autonomy or even complete authority attributed to it. It is
obvious that amid the general disorder and revolt it was not the presbyters
threatened with deposition who were able to judge the disturbers of the peace,
but only the people as a whole in a kind of plenary council. Hence the remark
that the more noble-minded among the party of opposition give in and say, "I do
whatever is enjoined unto me by the people" (ta prostassomena hypo tou plethous,
liv, 2). To construct a general law out of this particular concrete case without
further investigation would argue a strange lack of critical sense.

THE ASCENSION OF ISAIAS

If the section, iii, 13-iv, 1, really belongs to the second or even the first
century (Fleming, Tisserant), then attention should be called, as very
remarkable, to the prophecies of the elders (presbyters) at the end of the
world; these love their office although they have no wisdom, and are unjust and
violent shepherds of their sheep. Somewhat further on in the same section
reference is made to the dissension which shall arise in the last days between
the elders and the shepherds. Here the presbyters seem to be old, highly
respected members of the Christian community.


THE TEXTS OF THE FOURTH GROUP

THE APOCALYPSE

Our motive for including in the fourth group of texts the data given in i, 4 and
iii, 22, is the possibility that the "Angels" of the Seven Churches are the
"monarchical bishops" of these communities. This supposition offers undoubtedly
many difficulties, yet it cannot be simply rejected. Toward the communities
addressed the author takes the position, and claims the jurisdiction, of an
Apostolic and monarchical superior. The only other texts to be touched upon are
the following: the twelve foundations of the wall of the holy city bear the
names of the "twelve apostles of the Lamb" (xxi, 14); "apostles and prophets"
rejoice at the destruction of the city of sin (xviii, 20); and the prophets
slain in the city (verse 24) are undoubtedly also Prophets of the New Testament.
The existence of any relation between the four-and-twenty ancients (iv, 20) and
the constitution of the early Church cannot be ascertained.

THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN

We need mention only the choice of the Twelve (vi, 71); their vocation,
life-course, and union with Christ as portrayed in His, final discourse (xiii,
33-xvii incl.), the unique position and special election of Simon Peter (i, 24;
vi, 69, 70; xiii, 6 sq.; xx, 2 sq.; xxi, 3 sq., 15 sq.).

THE SEVEN EPISTLES OF ST. IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH (ABOUT A.D. 115)

TOPIC

The general topic is the exhortation to obedience towards the bishop, the
presbyters, and deacons, and to intimate union with the bishop. The position of
the bishop is throughout monarchical.

(i) General admonition to reverence the bishop and remain in agreement with him
(Ephesians 1.3); to love and imitate him (Magnesians 13.12); to be subordinate
to him (Trallians 12.2); to comfort him (ad Polyc., vi. 1); to keep to him
(Philadelphians 2.1); to follow him as sheep follow the shepherd (Magnesians
3.1); to honour him, even though he be young (Ephesians 6.1), all the more if he
keeps silence.
(ii) Exhortation to be subject to bishops, presbyters, and deacons
(Philadelphians 7.1; Magnesians 13.1; ad Polyc., vi. 1; cf. Trallians 3.1).
(iii) Unity with the bishop, the presbyters, and deacons, especially in things
which concern Divine service (Ephesians 4.1; Trallians 2.2 and 7; Magnesians
6.2); unity with the bishop and superiors (tois prokathemenois) (Ephesians 5.1
sq.); unity in prayer, in the Sacrifice of the altar, and (20:1-2) in the
breaking of bread. Unity in the Eucharistic celebration is also emphasized in
Smyrnæans 8.2 and Philadelphians 3.3 and 4.1; cf. 5.1. Nothing at all is to be
done without the bishop (Philadelphians 7.2; cf. ad Polyc., iv, 1), especially
no ecclesiastical functions, such as baptism and agape (Smyrnæans 8.1 and 8.2);
marriages are to be contracted subject to the approval of the bishop (Polycarp
5.2) .
(iv) This obedience is necessary for sanctification and is the commandment of
God (Ephesians 2.2 and 5.3; Magnesians; Trallians 2.1. Cf. Trallians 7.2 and
13.2; Philadelphians 3.2; Smyrnæans 9.1). He who submits to the bishop subjects
himself to the Father of Jesus, who is the Bishop of all men (Magnesians 3.1-2).

ORIGIN AND BASIS OF THE HIERARCHY

(i) The institution of the single bishop, of the priests and the deacons
originates from God, i.e. from Christ (Letter to the Ephesians 3.2). As Christ
is the thought (he gnome) of the Father, so the bishops established unto the
ends of the earth are according to the intention of Christ (en gnome) (Ephesians
6.2). He whom the master sends in His stead should be received even as the
Sender Himself; in like manner you should look on the bishop as upon the Lord
Himself (Magnesians 2.1); the deacon Zotion gives joy to St. Ignatius, because
he is obediently devoted to the bishop as to a gift of God's grace, and to the
presbyters as to a law of Jesus Christ. Bishops and priests are also spoken of
as a "commandment of God" in Trallians 3.2 and Philadelphians (title); the
bishops and the priests are instituted pursuant to the ordinance of Jesus
Christ, and, in accordance with His will, they are protected and confirmed by
the Holy Ghost (cf. Philadelphians 1.1 and Smyrnæans 8.1). The deacons also are
to be regarded as the commandment of God.
(ii) The bishop, priests, and deacons compared with God, with Christ, or with
the Apostles. The bishop presides in place of God (Magnesians 6.1). The deacons
are to be respected as Christ; the bishop as an image of the Father; the
presbyters are compared to the Apostles (Trallians 3.1). Other comparisons
between the presbyterate and the Apostolic college (Magnesians 6.1; Trallians
2.2; Philadelphians 6.1; Smyrnæans 8.1).
(iii) The bishops (presbyter and deacons) belong to the essence, the idea of the
Church (Trallians 3.1). Separated from the bishops and presbyters no Church can
exist, Cf. also Smyrnæans 8.2.

FIELD OF ACTIVITY OF THE BISHOP, THE PRESBYTERS, AND THE DEACONS

(i) The bishop

Principal texts are in the Epistle to Polycarp. The bishop's duties include:
admonition of the whole body and of individuals as well (i, 2, 3, and v, 1),
convocation of frequent assemblies (iv, 2), preservation of unity (i, 2),
healing of spiritual ailments (i, 2, and ii, 1), firm resistance to teachers of
false doctrine (iii, 1), care of widows (iv, 1). Nothing shall be done without
his co-operation (iv, 1). The texts quoted above show the same field of
activity; in particular, the bishop appears also as the centre of the liturgical
celebration and supreme guardian of the Faith. The position of the bishop is
moderately monarchical, i.e., not tyrannical or autocratic. This is to be
inferred also from the position of the presbyters.

(ii) Presbyters

According to all texts previously quoted the presbyterate is the bishop's
advisory council and his support, and constitutes with him a governing body
which has a claim to due reverence and obedience while itself subordinate to him
(Trallians 12.2; Ephesians 4.1; cf. Polyc., v, 2).

(iii) Deacons

(Texts already cited). They are subordinate to the bishop and the presbyters,
and have a right to honour and esteem (Letter to the Magnesians 2.1). In Letter
to the Trallians 2.3 is the most important passage: "But those, too, who are
deacons of the mysteries of Jesus Christ should in every wise be acceptable to
all. For they are not deacons of meat and drink, but servants (hyperetai) of the
Church of God. Therefore they should protect themselves against accusation as
they would against fire." The sense is, evidently, that in the Eucharistic
celebration they handle as deacons no ordinary food and common drink, but a
mystical food.

RIGHTS OF THE COMMUNITY

A community as chief seat of authority not only receives no mention from
Ignatius, but such a conception is in direct contradiction to all the principal
texts of his Epistles. The community is to be consulted on the question of
sending envoys to other Churches (Philadelphians 10.2; Smyrnæans 11.2; Polycarp
7.2). The first passage shows that the bishop or the presbyters could also fill
the office of envoys. As the choice was naturally made by the organized
community — i.e., with bishop and priests presiding — we can say nothing
definite about the part taken by the community, since the sources make no
mention of it.

DIVINE ORIGIN OF THE HIERARCHY

In spite of the clearly worded passages given above under (b) (i), even
Catholics have denied that St. Ignatius was aware of a Divine origin for the
hierarchy: "St. Ignatius does not teach the Divine origin of this hierarchy in
the sense of its institution by God, or by Christ, in the form of three degrees
— and it is intelligible why he does not." (Genouillac, "L'Église chrét. au
temps de S. Ignaced' Antioche", p. 132.) This is a question of words. Genouillac
grants that Ignatius taught very clearly the Divine institution of the spiritual
governing power in general: "It would be difficult to express the Divine origin
and right of the ecclesiastical powers with greater insistence and clearness
than does St. Ignatius in these texts." (Ibid., 135.) If anyone had asked St.
Ignatius whether bishops, priests, and deacons, constituted in such a threefold
dignity and endowed with such authority over the community, were a commandment
of God (entole tou theou), he would have answered "Yes", as anyone who has eyes
to read must see from our texts. He does not seem, however, to have entered into
further speculations on the matter. But the hierarchy as a "commandment of God"
is the very essence of Catholic teaching on this point. Many other additions
made by later times to this concept of a Divinely originated hierarchy are to be
ascribed to the development of the Church, her discipline, and her canon law. No
serious historian would expect to find all that in the writings of Ignatius.

However much he may insist on the Divinely appointed hierarchical gradation, on
episcopal authority, and on the obedience that the faithful owe to their
ecclesiastical superiors, Ignatius shows throughout that he does not regard this
organization as an end in itself, but as a means to the end, to the attainment
of perfect unity in faith and religious life. He shows himself in this point an
intelligent disciple of the Apostle of the Gentiles, a Christian to the core, an
aner pneumatikos in the best sense of the word. It is also evident that the
ideal of unity between bishop, priests, deacons, and community was not found
everywhere. Ignatius is convinced that the threefold governing power, decreed
and established by God and Christ, belongs to the idea of the Church.

THE EPISTLE OF POLYCARP TO THE PHILIPPIANS AND THE "PASSIO POLYCARPI"

Polycarp also exhorts the faithful to be subject to the priests and deacons as
to God and Christ (v, 3). The particular functions of each of these two classes
of the governing body cannot be inferred from the qualities in which Polycarp
desires they should both be conspicuous (v and vi). The letter seems to indicate
that at that time there was no bishop in Philippi. In the "Passio Polycarpi" we
are interested only in the one passage where there is mention of an Apostolic
and prophetic teacher and bishop of the Catholic Church of Smyrna (xvi, 2). It
gave great satisfaction when the bishop possessed miraculous charismata and when
he, the teacher of the faithful, was a disciple of the Apostles.

THE EPISTLE OF ST. BARNABAS

The Epistle of St. Barnabas mentions the twelve Apostles as chosen by Christ to
preach his Gospel (v; ix; viii, 3). Once (xix, 9) he admonishes us to love the
preacher of the Word of the Lord as the apple of our eye. Besides this, there
are allusions to a sort of secret doctrine of the Lord, which is understood by
the initiated (ix, 9, and x, 12). The writer of the Epistle evidently looks on
this higher form of knowledge as an extraordinary gift imparted by the Spirit of
God (cf. xvi, 8-10, and xvii). He considers his own exposition of the Scriptures
as the effect of the Spirit working within him, even if he twice insists
modestly on the point that he is not writing as a teacher (hos didaskalos) (i,
8, and iv, 9).

ANOTHER KIND OF MYSTICISM

Another kind of mysticism is revealed to us in the homily which has come down to
us as the Second Epistle of St. Clement. St. Paul's image of the Church as the
Body of Christ is developed, not very successfully, in an obscure speculation
about a Church which pre-existed with Jesus and was created before sun and moon
(xiv, 1-4). The presbyters mentioned in xvii (3, 5) must exhort and declare the
Word of God in the presence of those assembled for Divine worship.

THE "PASTOR" OF HERMAS

We must exclude from our positive exposition a number of rather widespread but
incorrect views about the hierarchy of the "Pastor" of Hermas.

(a) It cannot be ascertained with certainty whether the Apostles mentioned in
five places (Vis., iii, 5, 1; Sim., ix, 15, 4; 16, 5; 17, 1; 25, 2) are apostles
in the broader sense (Harnack, Zahn), or only the Twelve (Dorsch); the latter is
more probable.
(b) In either case Hermas regards the Apostolate as a thing of the past.
(c) The prophets, to whom Hermas himself belongs, are never spoken of in
connexion with the Apostles and teachers; Hermas's silence, however, is not due
to modesty, as his display of self-importance in Vis., iii, 1, plainly
demonstrates, but to his concept of the prophet's office; for though he looks
upon it as a social charisma, he accords it only a private authority, that
allows each of the faithful to pass his own judgment on its validity (cf. Dorsch
in "Zeitschrift fur Kath. Theol.", xxviii, 1904, pp. 276 sq.).
(d) Consequently one cannot prove from Hermas that the triad of "Apostles,
prophets, and teachers", held the highest place in the community as preachers of
the Word of God.
(e) There is absolutely no truth in Harnack's assertion ("Analecta zu Hatch",
230 sq., and "Prolegomena zur Lehre der 12 Apostel", pp. 150 sq.) that Hermas
never mentions bishops and deacons, where there is question of the community as
a system composed of rulers and subjects (cf. Zeitschrift fur Kath. Theologie,
xxvii, 1903, pp. 198 sq.).

The following certain conclusions can be derived from Hermas:

(a) The superiors are called presbyters (Vis., ii, 4, 2; Vis., iii, 1, 7, 8;
Vis., iii, 11, 3); bishops and deacons (Vis., iii, 5, 1; Sim., ix, 27, 2,
bishops alone; Sim., 26, 2, deacons alone), proegoumenoi tes ekklesias Vis., ii,
2, 6); together with protokathedritai (Vis., iii, 9, 7); pastors (pastores; no
Greek text; Sim., ix, 31, 5 and 6).
(b) Since Hermas has no exact and fixed terminology, no clear distinction can be
discovered in his writings between bishops and presbyters.
(c) It is certain that the presbyters are identical with the proegoumenoi and
the pastors.
(d) They are primarily pastors of souls, whose duty it is to preserve the proper
spirit in the community.
(e) Hermas says nothing about bishops of the Roman community; they are spoken of
in company with the Apostles, teachers, and deacons as stones that go to build
up the edifice of the Ecclesia; in a subordinate measure their office is to be
one of devotion to works of charity and the cares of the poor. Since in Hermas's
time the name episkopos was extensively used for the monarchical bishop, Hermas
seems to have had one in mind. The Clement spoken of by him in Vis., ii, 4, 3 is
evidently such an episkopos in Rome; Hermas gives him no official title; his
duty it is to send to the other Churches the book given to Hermas by the
ecclesia. The teachers (didaskaloi, Vis., iii, 5, 1; Sim., ix, 15, 4; 16, 5; 25,
2; Man., iv, 3, 1, didaskaloi ponerias Sim., ix, 19, 2) are preachers of the
Word of God.
(f) A certain strife for precedence between the rulers of the community and
prominent Christians, which Hermas seems to refer to, is of course no proof of a
contest about the ecclesiastical constitution itself. It is probable that not
only the holders of office were entitled to the first places of honour in the
common assemblies but the teachers as well, who thus were numbered among the
protokathedritai. The assertion is constantly made, but cannot be proved, that
Hermas included them among those endowed with mystical or miraculous "spiritual"
gifts.

JUSTIN MARTYR

In his first "Apology" Justin Martyr represents the presiding officer (proestos)
at the Divine service as a liturgical agent, by whose prayer in the Eucharistic
celebration, the bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of Christ
(lxv, 3-5; lxvii, 5). After a lector has read, the same presiding officer
addresses words of counsel and encouragement to the assembled brethren (lxvii,
4). He also receives the voluntary offerings of those present, and distributes
them to the widows and orphans, to the sick, the prisoners, and strangers, in
short to all who need help (lxvii, 6 and 7). We find therefore in Rome about the
year 150 a monarchical presiding officer who acts as liturgical celebrant,
teacher, and declarer of the Word of God and as administrator of the sacred
funds: an interesting testimony. Justin does not speak of presbyters, but
mentions deacons; they distribute the Eucharist to those present and bring it to
the homes of those who are absent (lxv, 5; lxvii, 5).

HEGESIPPUS

In his "Memorabilia" (the book was probably called hypomnemata), he describes
the inerrant tradition of the Apostolic teaching. He regards the unbroken
succession of bishops as the guarantee of truth (cf. Eusebius, Church History
IV.22.1 sq.). On his journey to Rome he found the true doctrine in Corinth, and
mentions Bishop Primus in this connexion. In Rome he "examined the series of the
bishops of that place" as far as Anicetus (epoiesamen ten diadochen) the
translation; "I made for myself a list of them in their succession" is hardly
credible; Rufinus's conjecture "'mansi', I abode there" (diatriben epoiesamen)
is arbitrary; the Syriac reads literally: "I made there in the derivation of the
bishops" (Nestle). I read: diadochen ereunesamen or eponesamen.

ABERCIUS

It seems to me as good as proved that Abercius was Bishop of Hierapolis (not
Hieropolis) in Phrygia (Salutaris) in the second half of the second century. The
attempt of some scholars, notably Dieterichs (Die Grabschrift des Aberkios,
1896), to deny the Christian character of the epitaph appears to have found a
final refutation in Fr. Cumont ["L'inscription d'Abercius et son dernier
exégète" in the "Revue de l'instr. publique en Belgique" (1897), 91; cf. also
Ramsay, "Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia", II (Oxford, 1897), 722 sq. and 788
sq. and the excellent article of H. Leclercq in Dom Cabrol's "Dictionnaire
d'Archéologie chrétienne et de Liturgie", I, 1903, 66 sq.]. Here we can only
mention his witness to the primacy of the Roman Church (11-18).

GNOSTICISM AND MONTANISM

The fantastic speculations of the Gnostics of the second and third centuries,
which apotheosized the Apostles as demigods and æons, supply, of course, no more
material to the historian than those other Gnostic teachings which minimized the
authority of the first Apostles in order to raise to prominence the secret
doctrine and the personality of the Gnostic teachers. The same is to be said of
the Gnostic metaphysical doctrine of the Church. The Epistle of the Gnostic
Ptolemæus to Flora deserves special notice (Epiphanius, "Hæres.", XXXIII, c.
iii, ed. Oehler II, 1, 401 seq.). At the close of c. vii (ib., 413) Flora's
attention is called to the Apostolic doctrine, "which we also have received
through a line of succession" (en ek diadoches kai hemeis pareilepsamen). The
"also" is worthy of remark. Ptolemæus means that not merely the universal
Church, but they also had an Apostolic tradition. The progress of historical
investigation disproves more and more the assumption of certain Protestant
scholars that the Gnostics were the first to elaborate the theories of Tradition
and Apostolic succession, and that afterward the Catholic Church gradually and
unconsciously assimilated them. Catholic scholarship has recently established
the following two points:

(a) The polemical writings of Irenæus and Tertullian offer clear proof that the
ideas of Tradition and Apostolic succession, with which these ecclesiastical
writers repeatedly assail the Gnostics, were inherited from ancient times, at
any rate in their essential character.
(b) The most rigidly critical analysis of the Gnostic system has demonstrated
that their theories of Tradition and Apostolic succession show unmistakable
signs of being the copy and replica of a system already existing.

Marcion and his Church should be mentioned in this connexion, although
Marcionism cannot be directly classified as Gnosticism. The same remarks,
however, apply to him. His Church is precisely lacking in those elements, which
constitute the chief strength of the Catholic Church: unity of Faith, unity and
permanence of government. The legend of a well-established organization of the
Marcionite communities about the year 160, far surpassing in firmness that of
the Roman Church, originated in a misunderstanding. The true statement is this:
At the time of the first appearance of Marcion and his doctrines, speculative
minds of many Christians were inclined, in consequence of Gnostic theorizing, to
reject as a deceiver the God of the Old Testament and to accept instead a God
the Father who was superior to Him, and unknown to Him as well. This God enters
into relation with the world through a series of intermediary beings. One of
these æons unites himself with the man Jesus and operates apparently as a mere
human being. These assertions disgusted and repelled many minds, not merely
because of the grotesque theory of intermediary existences, but also because of
the impossibility of reconciling the Christian Scriptures with this new doctrine
and would-be secret tradition. The contradictions were palpable and unavoidable;
and the assertions altogether arbitrary and devoid of proof. For this reason
Marcion abandoned first his fantastic theory of æons, then his mystical dream of
ecstatic and prophetic inspirations, and finally his fraudulent fiction of a
secret tradition. Thereupon he tried to solve the contradictions of his system
by rejecting the Old Testament, taking as a basis St. Paul, to the exclusion,
however, of everything Jewish in the Epistles, retaining only the Gospel of St.
Luke, and assuming a more convenient position. Jesus was merely the good God
manifesting himself under an apparently human form. Everything centred around
the doctrine of the Redemption; he rejected all dogma and speculation. In that
way he hit upon a convenient creed for those Gnostic adepts who had departed
from Catholic Christianity and classical Gnosticism. His negations alone formed
their bond of fellowship. His scriptural canon and his rule of Faith served to
unite his followers, not through any positive belief but by the denial of
Catholic (and Gnostic) principles. He seems indeed to have had a talent for
organization; the historian, however, has to look on his work not as a new
creation, but as a mutilation of that which had long been in existence. Our
remarks on Gnosticism apply, mutatis mutandis, in a far greater degree to
Montanism. The organization of Montanism was not a remnant of early
Christianity, but an artificial revival of primitive customs. (cf. D'Alès, "La
théologie de Tertullien", 201 sq., and Batiffol, "L'église naissante et le
catholicisme", 317 sq.).


DETAILED EVIDENCE FROM PAGAN INSCRIPTIONS, PAPYRI, AND OSTRAKA

We intend here merely to point out certain contemporary expressions for profane
and sacred offices which may shed some light on the constitution of primitive
Christianity.


THE NEGATIVE SENSE

In the negative sense it is interesting to note that certain expressions, which
were then in very general use for different kinds of governing officials were
not adopted by the Christians, such as epistates and epimeletes. For servants,
in the religious sense, hyperetes was used more frequently than diakonos [cf.
Thieme, "Die Inschriften von Magnesia am Maander und das neue Test."
(Borna-Leipzig, 1905), 33]


POSITIVE PARALLELISMS

(1) Antilepsis (= assistance), with a religious implication, is found, besides
in 1 Corinthians 12:28, in the Septuagint and on papyri [cf. Deissmann,
"Bibelstudien" (Marburg, 1895), 87; and "Neue Bibelstudien" (1897), 51].

(2) Archipoimen (=chief shepherd) of 1 Peter 5:4, is found on a mummy label [cf.
Deissmann, "Licht vom Osten" (Tübingen, 1908), p. 64].



(3) Diakonos in a religious sense is found in an inscription, from Magnesia on
the Meander, of about 100 B.C. (O. Kern, "Die Inschriften am Mäander", p. 109).
The same is found frequently in other places (cf. Thieme, op. cit., 17 sq.), for
instance mention is made of a college of deacons with a priest (hiereus) at
their head for the worship of Serapis and Isis (cf. Corpus Inscr. Græc. II, 1800
and 3037).

(4) Episkopos in a religious sense: cf. remarks above and Daremberg-Saglio,
"Dictionnaire des Antiquités" under episkopos. This article is unfortunately not
satisfactory, whereas the articles epimeletes and epistates are excellent.

(5) Liturgy (leiyrgos, letyrgeo, etc.) in a religious sense is found at Magnesia
(Kern, ib 98, 17 and 98, 58; Thieme, ibid., 16; Deissmann, "Bibelstudien", 137
sq.).

(6) Logeia, that is, collections of a religious character (cf. 1 Corinthians
16:1-2) on papyri and ostraka (Wilcken, "Griechische Ostraka", I, 253;
Deissmann," Lichtvom Osten", 69 sq.; Kern, l. c., 105, 72; Thieme, l. c., 16
sq.).

(7) Presbyter, also in a religious sense; for instance the members of a
sacerdotal college in Egypt were called thus, in the middle of the second
century (cf. the papyri in Deissmann, "Neue Bibelstudien", 60 sq.).

(8) Prophets. They formed a class of the superior priesthood in Egypt (cf.
Krebs, "Zeitschrift fur ægypt Sprache und Altermskunde", xxxi, 36).
Prophet-priests are also found in Miletus [cf. Thieme, I. c., 19; cf. also R.
Cagnat, "Inscriptiones Græcæ", III (Paris, 1906), n. 680 and n. 1105].


HISTORICAL ON QUASI-HISTORICAL TESTIMONIES

Since an exhaustive treatment is impossible, I have tried to collect at least
all the typical texts.


MENTION OF BISHOPS BY POLYCRATES

In a synodal letter written by Polycrates of Ephesus about the year 190 this
bishop, sixty-five years of age, speaks of seven of his relatives who had been
bishops before him. Besides these he mentions Polycarp and Papirius of Smyrna,
Thraseas of Eumenea, Sagaris of Laodicea and Melito of Sardes (Eusebius, "Hist.
Eccles.", v, 24, 2 sq.).


IRENÆUS'S VIEW OF THE CONNECTION WITH APOSTOLIC TIMES

The famous texts of Irenæus on Apostolic succession are a testimony to the faith
of the second century, rather than an example of ancient historical narrative.
Exceptions are:

(1) the list of the Roman bishops (Hær., iii, 3 sq.);

(2) the account of Polycarp's instalment by the Apostles (op. cit., iii, 3, 4,
and Eusebius, Church History IV.14); and especially

(3) the passage (Hær., v. 20, 1) pointing out the fact that the Apostles
entrusted the Churches to the bishops. On the contrary, historical value cannot
be attached to the statement (Hær., iii, 14, 2) that St. Paul summoned to
Miletus the bishops and presbyters of Ephesus and the vicinity.


EUSEBIUS'S ACCOUNT OF THE EARLIEST TIMES

(l) The accounts that we have of St. James the First as Bishop of Jerusalem,
based on the "Hypotyposes" of Clement of Alexandria (Eusebius, "Hist. eccl", ii,
1) cannot be used as historical data. This applies still more to the story (op.
cit., iii, 11) of the choice of Simeon as a successor to James. The bare fact,
however, that both filled the highest office in Jerusalem, is well attested (cf
. Eusebius, ibid., iv, 5, and iv, 12; and especially Hegesippus, iv, 22).

(2) Euseb., iii, 37, has a good historical basis. Eusebius tells us here that
the disciples of the Apostle, after distributing their goods, spread the
Christian religion in the character of "evangelists".


COLLEGES OF PRESBYTERS

The mere fact that the ancient sources speak of colleges of presbyters, without
any mention of a monarchical bishop at their head, does not warrant the
immediate conclusion that there was no such bishop. This is clearly shown by the
following texts. The anonymous Antimontanist in Eusebius (Church History V.16.1
sq.) speaks of such governing presbyters in Ancyra. Tertullian mentions elders
as presidents of the assemblies (Apology 39).


CHARISMATA

(1) Eusebius's anonymous Antimontanist and Miltiades (Church History V.17)
testify that the true prophets (of the Old and the New Testament) did not speak
in ecstasy (i.e. in unconscious ravings). This looks more like a theological
inference than a piece of evidence from first-hand historical sources.

(2) In the "Testament of Jesus Christ" (edit. Ephræm Rahmani, I, xlvii) an
ordinance is found prohibiting the imposition of hands on those who possess the
gift of healing, of knowledge, or of tongues, since the work of God is already
made manifest in them.

(3) In view of the passages which speak of prophets, it does not seem improbable
that the word "prophet", even in early times, signified not merely the possessor
of an ecstatic charisma, but was also a substitute for "priest", at a time when
men were still afraid to use this expression. Prophet appears here as a synonym
for hypophetes. This recalls a remarkable passage of the Ambrosiast (in Letter
to the Ephesians 4.11-12), where the observation is made that "now" the
interpreters of Scripture are called prophets. The "now" may however be due to a
hurriedly copied quotation.

(4) If Tertullian defines the teachers (doctores) as brethren "endowed with the
gift of knowledge" (gratia scienti donati — De Præscript., xiv), a miraculous
charisma cannot be immediately inferred, since the idea of grace or endowment
(gratia) was of very wide application.


DIFFERENT ORDERS OF THE HIERARCHY

Besides patriarchs, prophets, levites, priests, and archons, Tertullian mentions
also Apostles, evangelists, and bishops (De Corona, ix, 2). Only the last three
have reference to the New Testament, according to the context. The list given in
another passage (Præscr., III), bishop, deacon, widow, virgin, doctor, martyr,
is evidently arbitrary and accidental. The same may be said of the seven orders
of Hippolytus (Fragm. in Prov., ix, 1) prophets, martyrs, hierarchs, ascetics,
saints, just.


DEACONS

The hypothesis that the deacons were originally on a higher footing than the
priests, almost equal to that of the bishops, is supported by a few of the
vaguest indications taken from the earliest sources. That such naive texts prove
nothing is best shown by the later texts, which allow the deacon remarkable
privileges, although his rank was definitively established as no higher than the
third order of the hierarchy.

(1) At the Council of Elvira (Eliberis) a discussion took place regarding
deacons who govern churches (diaconus regens plebem, can. lxxvii); that is to
say, where there is no bishop and no priest.

(2) In the Apostolic Constitutions (lib. II, c. xxvi) the deacons come directly
after the bishop, although it was then established that their order held third
place.


THE HIERARCHY AS AN ECCLESIASTICAL INSTITUTION

(1) The utterance of Tertullian (De exhort. cast. vii), declaring that the
difference between the priests and the laity was due to ecclesiastical
institution, and that therefore any layman in the absence of a priest could
offer sacrifice, baptize, and act as priest, is based on Montanistic theories
and contradicts earlier teachings of Tertullian (e.g., On Baptism 17).

(2) Nor is there any better historical foundation for the statement of Cyprian
(Epist., III, 3) that Christ spoke only of bishops and priests, whereas the
deacons are of Apostolic institutions. The latter is simply a conclusion drawn
from the sixth chapter of Acts; while the preceding expresses a dogmatic
judgment and the belief at the time of St. Cyprian.


SUPPOSED ORIGINAL EQUALITY OF BISHOPS AND PRIESTS

EPIPHANIUS (PANAR., III, C. IV, HÆR. LXXV)

Epiphanius's arguments against Arius, who held this original equality, form an
excellent dogmatic thesis; but the description of primitive conditions is an
artificial construction, not a real historical account.

JEROME, THEODORE OF MOPSUESTIA, THE AMBROSIAST

Jerome holds that bishops and priests were identical in the earliest times.
According to him the monarchical episcopate is an ecclesiastical institution,
although it is for the good of the Church and based on Apostolic tradition
("Epist. ad Evangelum", 146 [85], 1; "Epist. ad Oceanum", 69 [83], 3; "Comment.
in Tit.": Migne, P.L., XXVI, 562, 563, 694, 695 and 696 — "Dialog. advers.
Lucifer", 9; Migne, P.L., XXIII, 164 sq.). But since on the other hand Jerome
regards the power of ordination as peculiar to the bishop, his theory labours
under an insoluble contradiction (cf. Epist. 146 [85) and "In Ep ad Tit.", ib.).
Jerome's accounts do not offer any historical testimony, but an artificial and
hypothetical construction. He infers far too much from the fact that the titles
presbyter and bishop are synonymous in the New Testament, relying chiefly on an
ordinance concerning the election of bishops of the Alexandrian Church, which
prescribed that, in accordance with an ancient tradition the college of
presbyters should always choose and consecrate one of its own number. The texts
of St. Jerome are thoroughly discussed by Michiels, "L'origine de l'épiscopat"
(Louvain, 1900), 420 sq., and by Dom Léon Sanders, "Etudes sur saint Jerôme"
(Brussels and Paris, 1903), 298 sq. We shall speak presently about the election
of the Alexandrian bishops. From the time of Isidore of Seville until late in
the Middle Ages these accounts of St. Jerome were transcribed over and over
without any attempt at criticism. For the history of these texts of St. Jerome,
cf. Dunin Borkowski in "Histor. Jahrbuch.", XXI (1900), 221 sq.

Jerome and the Ambrosiast deny the original equality of bishops and priests;
both maintain that the Churches even in Apostolic times were governed by single
superiors, who all possessed the power of ordination and bore the name of
Apostle [cf. Ambros., On Ephesians 4:11-12; in I Cor. 12:18; in Philipp., i, 1;
in I Tim., iii, etc.; "Opera Ambrosii", ed. Ballerini, III (Milan, 1877), 809
sq., 631, 830, 916; "Theodori Episcopi Mopsuesteni in epist. B. Pauli
commentarii", ed. H. B. Swete, 1882; in I ep. ad Tim., iii, 8; l. c., II, 114
sq.; in ep. ad Tit., i, 7, 239]. The statements of Theodore and of the
Ambrosiast have much more value than those of St. Jerome. We find similar
utterances in Theodoret's Commentary on Philippians, i, 1 (Migne, P.G., LXXXII,
559 [445]) and on I Tim., iii (ib., 803 [652]) and also in John of Dara (in
Abrah. Echellensis, "Eutychius Patriarcha Alexandrinus vindicatus" [Rome, 1668],
190 sq.). A similar notion is found in Origen (Hom. in Num., xi, 4, Migne, P.G.,
XII [Orig. II], 308 col. 649); except that he seems to speak of his own time. He
speaks of the possibility of a man coming to a place where there are as yet no
Christians, of his teaching the people the Faith and inducing them to accept it,
and finally becoming bishop himself. In the places mentioned, Theodore of
Mopsuestia has another peculiar statement. He declares that in the most ancient
times those supreme ecclesiastical superiors, who were instituted by the
original Twelve and called likewise apostles, ruled over entire provinces,
whereas the towns were subject to presbyters. Even in later times not more than
three bishops, usually only two were to be found in a province; this condition,
he adds, had lasted in the Occident almost up to his own time. Duchesne attached
some historical value to these utterances of Theodore [Fastes épiscopaux de
l'ancienne Gaule, I (1894), 36 sq.]. Harnack has refuted him very thoroughly in
a valuable excursus in the second volume of his work, "Die Mission und die
Ausbreitung des Christentums in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten", 2nd ed. (1906),
373 sq. Harnack assigns its true value to Theodore's testimony, though in some
places he lets himself be influenced by his own extremely hypothetical concept
of the primitive Christian constitution. Theodore is correct in saying that
originally whole provinces were under one chief ruler known as an "apostle". One
cannot, however, accept his conclusion that for a long time the single local
communities were without any bishops of their own (cf. Harnack, l. c., 378-395).

(3) The Alexandrian bishops are said to have been placed in office and
consecrated by the local priests. History offers widely different accounts of
this singular occurrence. Heretical monks complained to the holy monk Poimen
about the Alexandrian archbishop, and claimed that he had been consecrated by
priests. The event can have taken place between 370 and 460 (P.G., LXV, 341).
Jerome mentions the fact (Presbyteri . . . unum ex se electum . . . episcopum
nominabant) (Epist. 146 ad Evangelum, Migne, P.L., XXII, 1194). Severus of
Antioch also speaks of it in a letter written between 518 and 538 [E. W. Brooks,
"The ordination of the early Bishops of Alexandria" in "Journal of Theol.
Studies", II (1901), 612 sq.]. Finally in the tenth century the story is told at
great length by Eutychius, Melchite Patriarch of Alexandria (P.G., CXI, 903-06
and 982). It seems doubtful whether the Ambrosiast (l. c., in Ephesians 4:11-12)
refers to these conditions in Alexandria. Abraham Echellensis, notwithstanding
his serious errors in chronology, has shown that Eutychius and his first editor,
Selden, caused an irremediable confusion ["Eutychius, Patriarcha Alexandrinus
vindicatus" (Rome, 1661), 39 sq., 47 sq., 53 sq., 63 sq., 103 sq. On page 227 an
important text of George Homaidius is given as a parallel to Eutychius. Cf. also
A. von Gutschmid, "Kleine Schriften", II 399 sq.; 379 sq., 486, and Renaudot,
"Liturgiarum Oriental. Collectio", I, 365 sq.; 379 sq.]. The remaining three
texts, when compared with one another, present serious difficulties. Moreover,
they can hardly be reconciled with statements made by Clement of Alexandria and
Origen [cf. Ch. Gore, "On the Ordination of the Early Bishops of Alexandria", in
"Journal of Theol. Studies" (1902), III, 279 sq.; and Cabrol in "Dictionnaire
d'archéologie chrétienne et de liturgie", s.v. "Alexandrie"]. The outcome of it
all is, as Cabrol states, that in the fourth century and later a tradition
existed that the Bishops of Alexandria were chosen, or perhaps even consecrated,
by the presbyterate.


SHORT SYNOPSIS OF THE PRINCIPAL RESULTS GAINED BY EXAMINATION OF ALL THE TEXTS

In the earliest times those who first preached the Gospel in a place, usually
retained the supreme direction of the communities which they had themselves
founded. We say usually; for the message of Christianity could be carried to
some places by men who were not missionaries by their calling, and thus could
claim no personal authority (Rome); or by men who felt sure of their vocation as
preachers of the Word of God, but did not wish to organize or govern (Ephesus?).
Accordingly, there were cases in which the foundation proper did not coincide
with the first preaching of the Gospel; and in such cases the Apostle who was
founder became the chief ruler. This position, in which the Apostle Paul and the
first Apostles were established was charismatical in the sense given above,
i.e., it originated in a personal commission from Jesus. We know nothing
definite about the calling of the apostles in the wider sense. The idea that
they always followed a direct intimation of the Spirit is not impossible, but it
cannot be proved. The apostolate was not a mystical or miraculous charisma, like
the gift of tongues and of prophecy. The founding of the Church included its
organization as well. The individual Churches could not have evolved their
organization out of their own inner power of jurisdiction, for it was as an
organism that each existed from the start, and only as an organism that it put
forth its activity. That is the most ancient Christian concept of the body
ecclesiastic that we know of. But the conclusion is also established that the
Church's power of action was not bestowed on her by the founding Apostles. As a
second Christ, as the Body of Christ, both the universal Church and the local
Churches possessed certain rights and powers which could not have been conferred
by men. The Church was essentially the creation of God and Christ. But these
rights and privileges can no more be referred to the autonomous communities than
to the founding and governing Apostles; they are the work of God and Christ.
Communal autonomy, in the modern sense, which makes the community not merely the
subject, but also the creator and ultimate reason of its own juridical powers,
is a concept directly opposed to the deepest convictions of the early
Christians. Since the Churches were regarded as organisms, these Divinely given
powers and privileges did not pertain to the community as distinguished from the
governing officials, but to the organized community. Primitive Christian faith
represented the organs of the mystical body of Christ, including the local
governing powers in general, as a law, an ordinance of God and Christ. It has
been mistakenly asserted that the governing organs did not stand above the
community. This is true only in the sense that the community, as the organized
body of Christ, includes within itself all its organs; but, as soon as the idea
is introduced that the superiors received their power from the autonomous
community of the faithful, the view is contrary to that of primitive
Christianity.

Neither the power of the Apostles nor of the other superiors was tyrannical and
autocratic in its nature. All were equally bound by the Word of God. The
importance which was attached to charity and humility gave a patriarchal tone to
Christian society. But true juridical relations were there none the less. The
foremost Protestant scholars reject the paradox proposed by Rudolf Sohm in the
first volume of his "Kirchenrecht", that legal right is alien to the concept of
the Ecclesia. But a great deal of confusion and obscurity is still brought into
a naturally clear and simple matter by an improper use of modern legal concepts
and certain one-sided peculiarities of the Roman law. The investigator should
bear in mind the juridical conditions of the early Church and the manner of
expression peculiar to those times. Did the first Christians accept
ecclesiastical authority as a manifestation of the Divine will in the abstract,
and quite independently of the question whether the superior offered himself
spontaneously, was elected, or was otherwise placed in office? Did they
understand their subjection to superiors as an obligation imposed upon subjects
of God, and, consequently, the superior's right of government as a moral
possession allotted by God? Our texts oblige us to answer both these questions
in the affirmative. But this is the very essence of Divine jurisdiction. In
other words, the organic disposition of the Church is the will and commandment
of God and Christ. A second question is: Did the Apostles and ecclesiastical
superiors, in view of their Divinely given mission, ascribe to themselves
certain rights of government which, though not determined as to their
subject-matter by a direct mandate of Christ, were none the less obligatory on
the faithful? To this question, also, the sources give the same distinctly
affirmative answer.

Since, likewise, local authority was regularly accepted as an ordinance of
Christ, different members and organs, with strictly regulated functions, must
have gradually been evolved everywhere. These include also the governing
communal organs together with the universal apostolate and the travelling
helpers of the Apostles. In many places, of course, men of power, endowed with
miraculous gifts, such as prophets, could for a time take the place of the
regular governing officials. An organization of the Church based solely on
mystical or miraculous charismatical gifts is as fabulous as the alleged
democratic organization. The Apostle, who had some sense of order and ability
for organizing, took care to establish resident helpers in the newly-founded
communities. St. Paul was pleased when the first-fruits of the Faith in any city
offered themselves for the service of the community. If they were men of proved
character, and were recognized by the Apostle, it became the duty of the
Christian to respect and obey them. But in some cities peculiar offices existed
from the earliest times. In the midst of the Jewish and heathen society of Asia
Minor and Palestine, such personages were given the name of presbyter; but in
other regions no special title seems to have been attached to them at the
beginning; only superiors and servants (deacons) were spoken of. But the name of
episkopos (overseer) soon came into use; and the title of deacon was restricted
more and more to the assistants of the chief local officials. These presbyters,
or bishops, formed a sort of college. There is no proof that in the Apostolic
times there existed, besides the deacons, two separate corporations, each
provided with special powers: a college of presbyters and a college of bishops,
who were drawn from the ranks of the presbyters or added to their number.

To explain the Epistles of St. Ignatius, one must assume that the separation of
the titles bishop and presbyter took place in many localities as early as 70-80,
and that, even at this time, the monarchical head of the community was
frequently called episkopos. At an early period these superiors were given the
favourite title of shepherd. The name hegoumenoi (leaders) was of somewhat later
appearance, and probably later still (Clement and Hermas) the compound word
proegoumenoi (Clement and Hermas); the terms prokathemenoi (presiding officials)
and protokathedritai (holders of seats of honour) are undoubtedly of later
origin. It seems probable that, side by side with proistamenoi, the form
proestotes was used, but this cannot be proved with certainty. In 1 Timothy
5:17, the word is an adjective (oi kalos proestotes presbyteroi). The preaching
and interpretation of the Word of God was undertaken in the earliest times by
the Apostles and their travelling helpers, among whom the "evangelists" were
included. These were missionaries, prophets, and "doctors", some of whom, had a
direct Divine calling and a gift of infused knowledge. Other teachers were
distinguished from evangelists by permanent residence in some community. This
abundance of preachers of the Word of God (lalountes ton logou tou theou)
mentioned only by St. Paul, 1 Timothy 2:7; 2 Timothy 1:11; and Epistle of
Clement 5.6) frequently relieved the local superiors of their obligation to
preach in person.

With the growth of the communities, the Apostle-founders entrusted part of their
office to men worthy of their confidence, who were thus invested with a
monarchical authority over several communities, without, however, succeeding to
all Apostolic prerogatives. These men soon received the title of episkopos; and,
as a result, this term became obsolete as a mere synonym for presbyter. Such are
the historical beginnings of the monarchical episcopate. For a long time,
however, the bishops were also called by the simple title of presbyter. The
greater the number of distinct communities, the more numerous were the
monarchical bishops; and in some districts every town soon had a bishop of its
own. Those early recipients of the Apostolic confidence were not as yet local
superiors in the strict sense, although of course they usually resided in some
particular town. The presbyters of their province were subject to them. In this
we find the beginning of the system of metropolitan bishops. In some places the
presbyterate remained for a considerable time the highest local authority. About
the same time, the order of deacons became fully organized. They were the right
hand of the bishop.

All the germs of later development were present at the very beginning. The
constitution of the Church in its essential structural features is an original
product of Christianity. In the light of the laws of history and of Divine
Providence, it is easy to understand how from the earliest times the social
environment of Christian institutions, the varieties of religious activity and
organization, the local and provincial forms of government, were important
factors in developing a great multitude of unessential details.




SOURCES

Valuable bibliography is to be found in Revue d'histoire ecclésiastique
(Louvain, 1900-); bibliography and references in Theol. Jahresbericht (Leipzig
and New York) and in Jahresberichten für Geschichtswissenshaft (Berlin). The
literature up to 1900 has been treated in full by BORKOWSKI, Die neueren
Forschungen über die Anfänge des Episcopats (Freiburg, 1900). Still useful are
PETAVIUS, De ecclesiasticâ hierarchiâ libri 5 (Paris, 1643); MAMACHI, Originum
et Antiquitatum christian. libri 5 (Rome, 1749-55); BINGHAM, Antiquities of the
Christian Church (new ed., Oxford, 1855). Among the numerous works written in
the earlier nineteenth century the following may still be read with profit:
MÖHLER, Die Einheit in der Kirche (1825 and 1843); ROTHE, Die Anfänge der
christlichen Kirche und ihrer Verfassung, I (1837); above all, DÖLLINGER,
Christentum und Kirche in der Zeit der Grundlegung (Ratisbon, 1869); also
LIGHTFOOT, The Christian Ministry, in his work St. Paul's Epistle to the
Philippians (2nd ed., 1869), 179-267; reprint in Dissertations of the Apostolic
Age (1892), 137-246). In order to understand the last specimens of the older
Tübingen School, see LÜDERMANN in Theol. Jahresbericht; SEUFERT, Der Ursprung
und die Bedeutung des Apostolats (Leyden, 1887); and Ueber den Ursprung und die
Bedeutung des Zwölfapostolats (Karlsruhe, 1903); SEYERLEN in Zeitschrift für
prakt. Theolog., IX (1887), 97-143; 201-245; 297-333). At least two of BAUR'S
numerous writings must be read: Das Christentum und die christliche Kirche der
drei ersten Jahrhunderte (Tübingen, 1853) and Ueber den Ursprung des Episkopats
(Tübingen, 1838). Another tendency in Protestant scholarship dates from RITSCHL,
Die Entstehung der altkatholischen Kirche (2nd ed., Bonn, 1857). The germs of
many of the latest hypotheses relating to our subject can be discovered in the
following works: LECHLER, Das apostolische und nachapostolische Zeitalter
(1851); JAKOBY, Die konstitutiven Faktoren des apostolischen Gottesdienstes in
Jahrbücher für deutsche Theol., XVIII (1873), 539-583; HACKENSCHMIDT, Die
Anfänge des katholischen Kirchenbegriffs, I (1874); HOLSTEN, Das Evangelium des
Paulus, I and II (1880 and 1898); HEINRICI, Aufsätze über die paulinischen
Gemeinden in Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologie (1876), 465-516, and
(1877), 89-130. Little notice is taken of the influence of these works. The
following two works have exercised a great and lasting influence on Protestant
scholarship: WEIZSÄCKER, Das apostolische Zeitalter (Tübingen and Leipzig, 1886;
2nd ed., 1896; 3rd ed., 1902) and HOLTZMANN, Die Pastoralbriefe (Leipzig, 1880).
The following works had a considerable, but only passing, influence: HATCH, The
Organization of the Early Christian Church (Oxford, 1881; 2nd ed., 1882),
translated into German and amplified by HARNACK (1883); WEINGARTEN, Die
Umwandlung der ursprünglichen christlichen Gemeindeorganisation zur kathol.
Kirche, in Sybels Histor. Zeitschrift, XLV (1881), 441-67). All writings on the
subject by HARNACK, besides his Dogmengeschichte, his large edition of the
Didache and his Analekten zu Hatch, an article on the origin of the Christian
ministry, in Expositor, V, XXIX (1887), 321-43. More recently his work, Die
Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten, I
(Leipzig, 1906), 267-418; SOHM, Kirchenrecht, I (1892), 16-180; RÉVILLE, Les
origines de l'épiscopat, I (1894).

Among the works, the value of which lies in their criticism of the various
hypotheses, without their offering any conclusions of lasting value, are to be
numbered: KÜHL, Die Gemeindeordnung in den Pastoralbriefen (1885); LÖNING, Die
Gemeindeverfassung des Urchristentums (1888); LOOFS, Die urchristliche
Gemeindeverfassung in Studien und Kritiken, LXIII (1890), II, 619-58. Many other
works aroused considerable attention at the time of their appearance, but
afterwards lost their value: those, for instance, by SCHWEGLER, BUNSEN, SCHAFF,
HAVET, RENAN, HAUSRATH, the entire Dutch radical school, PRESSENSÉ, etc. Eight
articles in the Expositor for 1887 show an extraordinary confusion in the line
of historical research. HORT, The Christian Ecclesia (1897) is very
unsatisfactory.

Useful collections of material are found in: the notes and excursus in
LIGHTFOOT, Apostolic Fathers; the liturgical works of PROBST; works by RAMSAY,
e.g., The Church in the Roman Empire (London, 1893, 7th ed., 1903); St. Paul the
Traveller and the Roman Citizen (7th ed., London, 1903): The Cities and
Bishoprics of Phrygia (Oxford, 1897-97); CABROL AND LECLERCQ, Monumenta Ecclesi
Liturgica (Paris, 1900); works of HILGENFELD, as Die apostolischen Väter (1853),
Das Urchristentum in den Hauptwendepunkten seines Entwicklungsganges (1855), and
articles in Zeitschrift für wissenschaftl. Theologie (1874-97) (1874, 103, Sq.;
1886, 1 sq.; 180 sq.; 385sq.; 456sq.; 1890, 223 sq.; 303 sq.; 1897, 1 sq.). Few,
however, of the positive results can be accepted. Very many of the remaining
works are based wholly on the labours of others. MCGIFFERT, Hist. of
Christianity in the Apost. Age (Edinburgh, 1897) is in close relation with
German Protestant historical investigation.

Catholic scholarship has been influenced by the following works among others: DE
SMEDT, L'organisation des égliseschrétiennes in Revue des questions historiques,
XLIV (1888), 329-84; JACQUIER, La doctrine des douze apôtres (1891), 216-257;
also the corresponding Sections in SCHANZ, Apologie. The subject has also been
well treated by LESQUOY, De regimine ecclesiastico juxta patrum apostolicorum
doctrinam (Louvain, 1881); BRÜLL, Der Hirt des Hermes (1882) and Der erste Brief
des Clemens von Rom (1883); GOBET, De l'origine divine de l'épiscopat (Fribourg,
1898); SOBKOWSKI, Episkopatat und Presbyterat in den ersten christlichen
Jahrhunderten (Würzburg, 1893); DOUAIS, Les origines de l'épiscopat, in Mélanges
publ. à l'occasion du jubilé de Mgr de Cabrières, I (Paris, 1899), 1-48. The
Journal of Theological Studies; American Eccl. Review; American Journal of
Theology; Revue Biblique; Revue Bénédictine; Revue Thomiste; Revue de l'Orient
Chrétien; Zeitschrift für neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde des
Christentums; Rivista storico-critica delle scienze teologiche; Civiltà Cattol.
(e.g., May, 1906, 257-274). Also the important articles in HASTINGS, Dict. of
the Bible; in Dictionnaire de théologie, and the recent new edition of the
Dictionnaire d'Apologétique.

More important works by Protestant authors that have recently appeared (since
1900): ROPES, The Apostolic Age in the Light of Modern Criticism (New York,
1906); MONNIER, La notion de l'apostolat des origines à Irénée (Paris, 1903);
DURELL, The Historic Church (Cambridge, 1906), well worth reading; HEINRICI, Das
Urchristentum (1902); WERNLE, Die Anfänge unserer Religion (1903); DOBSCHÜTZ,
Probleme des apostolischen Zeitalters (1904); Die urchristlichen Gemeinden
(1902); KNOFF, Das nachapostolischer Zeitalter (1905). Many monographs on St.
Paul — Harnack in Realencyclopadie für protest Theologie und Kirche, XX (3rd
Gd., 1908, 508-546), s.v. Verfassung, is important and interesting.

Some of the more important Catholic works since 1900: MICHIELS, Les origines de
l'épiscopat (Louvain, 1900); BATIFFOL, L'hiérarchie primitive in Etudes
d'histoire et de théologie positive (2nd ed., Paris, 1902); and especially
L'Église naissante et le Catholicisme (Paris, 1909); BRUDERS, Die Verfassung der
Kirche (Mainz, 1904); DUCHESNE, Histoire ancienne de l'Église, I (Paris, 1906),
89 sq.; LE CAMUS, L' uvre des apôtres, II, III (Paris, 1905); MATHEW, Ecclesia,
the Church of Christ (London, 1906); CABROL, Les origines liturgiques (Paris,
1906); GENOUILLAC, L'Église chrétienne au temps de Saint Ignace d'Antioche
(Paris, 1907); PEAT, La théologie de St. Paul, I (Paris, 1908), Note J, 488-511.
Finally the notable work by MERTENS, De hierarchie in de eerste eeuw des
christendoms (Amsterdam, 1908).


ABOUT THIS PAGE

APA citation. Dunin-Borkowski, S. (1910). Hierarchy of the Early Church. In The
Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07326a.htm

MLA citation. Dunin-Borkowski, Stanislaus de. "Hierarchy of the Early Church."
The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 7. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1910.
<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07326a.htm>.

Transcription. This article was transcribed for New Advent by Douglas J. Potter.
Dedicated to the Immaculate Heart of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Ecclesiastical approbation. Nihil Obstat. June 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, S.T.D.,
Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.

Contact information. The editor of New Advent is Kevin Knight. My email address
is webmaster at newadvent.org. Regrettably, I can't reply to every letter, but I
greatly appreciate your feedback — especially notifications about typographical
errors and inappropriate ads.

Copyright © 2023 by New Advent LLC. Dedicated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

CONTACT US | ADVERTISE WITH NEW ADVENT