_ORIGIN OF THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY; VARIOUS CERTAINTIES AND PROBABILITIES
DISTINGUISHED._
"If a man seeketh the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
The bishop therefore must be without reproach, the husband of one
wife, temperate, sober-minded, orderly, given to hospitality, apt to
teach; no brawler, no striker; but gentle, not contentious, no lover
of money; one that ruleth well his own house, having his children in
subjection with all gravity; (but if a man knoweth not how to rule
his own house, how shall he take care of the house of God?) not a
novice, lest being puffed up he fall into the condemnation of the
devil. Moreover he must have good testimony from them that are
without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
Deacons in like manner must be grave, not double-tongued, not given
to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre; holding the mystery of the
faith in a pure conscience. And let these also first be proved; then
let them serve as deacons, if they be blameless."--1 TIM. iii. 1-10.
This passage is one of the most important in the New Testament
respecting the Christian ministry; and in the Pastoral Epistles it does
not stand alone. Of the two classes of ministers mentioned here, one is
again touched upon in the Epistle to Titus (i. 5-9), and the
qualifications for this office, which is evidently the superior of the
two, are stated in terms not very different from those which are used in
the passage before us. Therefore a series of expositions upon the
Pastoral Epistles would be culpably incomplete which did not attempt to
arrive at some conclusions respecting the question of the primitive
Christian ministry; a question which at the present time is being
investigated with immense industry and interest, and with some clear and
substantial results. The time is probably far distant when the last word
will have been said upon the subject; for it is one on which
considerable difference of opinion is not only possible but reasonable:
and those persons would seem to be least worthy of consideration, who
are most confident that they are in possession of the whole truth on the
subject. One of the first requisites in the examination of questions of
fact is a power of accurately distinguishing what is certain from what
is not certain: and the person who is confident that he has attained to
certainty, when the evidence in his possession does not at all warrant
certainty, is not a trustworthy guide.
It would be impossible in a discussion of moderate length to touch upon
all the points which have been raised in connexion with this problem;
but some service will have been rendered if a few of the more important
features of the question are pointed out and classified under the two
heads just indicated, as certain or not certain. In any scientific
enquiry, whether historical or experimental, this classification is a
useful one, and very often leads to the enlargement of the class of
certainties. When the group of certainties has been properly
investigated, and when the various items have been placed in their
proper relations to one another and to the whole of which they are only
constituent parts, the result is likely to be a transfer of other items
from the domain of what is only probable or possible to the domain of
what is certain.
At the outset it is necessary to place a word of caution as to what is
meant, in a question of this kind, by _certainty_. There are no limits
to scepticism, as the history of speculative philosophy has abundantly
shown. It is possible to question one's own existence, and still more
possible to question the irresistible evidence of one's senses or the
irresistible conclusions of one's reason. _A fortiori_ it is possible to
throw doubt upon any historical fact. We can, if we like, classify the
assassinations of Julius Caesar and of Cicero, and the genuineness of the
AEneid and of the Epistles to the Corinthians, among things that are not
certain. They cannot be demonstrated like a proposition in Euclid or an
experiment in chemistry or physics. But a sceptical criticism of this
kind makes history impossible; for it demands as a condition of
certainty a kind of evidence, and an amount of evidence, which from the
nature of the case is unattainable. Juries are directed by the courts to
treat evidence as adequate, which they would be willing to recognize as
such in matters of very serious moment to themselves. There is a certain
amount of evidence which to a person of trained and well-balanced mind
makes a thing "practically certain:" _i.e._, with this amount of
evidence before him he would confidently act on the assumption that the
thing was true.
In the question before us there are four or five things which may with
great reason be treated as practically certain.
1. The solution of the question as to the origin of the Christian
ministry, _has no practical bearing upon the lives of Christians_. For
us the problem is one of historical interest without moral import. As
students of Church History we are bound to investigate the _origines_ of
the ministry which has been one of the chief factors in that history:
but our loyalty as members of the Church will not be affected by the
result of our investigations. Our duty towards the constitution
consisting of bishops, priests, and deacons, which existed unchallenged
from the close of the second century to the close of the Middle Ages,
and which has existed down to the present day in all the three great
branches of the Catholic Church, Roman, Oriental, and Anglican, is no
way affected by the question whether the constitution of the Church
during the century which separates the writings of St. John from the
writings of his disciple's disciple, Irenaeus, was as a rule episcopal,
collegiate, or presbyterian. For a churchman who accepts the episcopal
form of government as essential to the well-being of a Church, the
enormous prescription which that form has acquired during at least
seventeen centuries, is such ample justification, that he can afford to
be serene as to the outcome of enquiries respecting the constitution of
the various infant Churches from A.D. 85 to A.D. 185. It makes no
practical difference either to add, or not to add, to an authority which
is already ample. To prove that the episcopal form of government was
founded by the Apostles may have been a matter of great practical
importance in the middle of the second century. But, before that century
had closed, the practical question, _if there ever was one_, had settled
itself. God's providence ordained that the universal form of Church
government should be the episcopal form and should continue to be such;
and for us it adds little to its authority to know that the way in which
it became universal was through the instrumentality and influence of
Apostles. On the other hand, to prove that episcopacy was established
independently of Apostolic influence would detract very little from its
accumulated authority.
2. A second point, which may be regarded as certain with regard to this
question, is, that _for the period which joins the age of Irenaeus to the
age of St. John, we have not sufficient evidence to arrive at anything
like proof_. The evidence has received important additions during the
present century, and still more important additions are by no means
impossible; but at present our materials are still inadequate. And the
evidence is insufficient in two ways. First, although surprisingly large
as compared with what might have been reasonably expected, yet in
itself, the literature of this period is fragmentary and scanty.
Secondly, the dates of some of the most important witnesses cannot as
yet be accurately determined. In many cases to be able to fix the date
of a document within twenty or thirty years is quite sufficient: but
this is a case in which the difference of twenty years is a really
serious difference; and there is fully that amount of uncertainty as to
the date of some of the writings which are our principal sources of
information; _e.g._, the _Doctrine of the Twelve Apostles_, the Epistles
of Ignatius, the _Shepherd of Hermas_ and the _Clementines_. Here also
our position may improve. Further research may enable us to date some of
these documents accurately. But, for the present, uncertainty about
precise dates and general scantiness of evidence compel us to admit that
with regard to many of the points connected with this question nothing
that can fairly be called proof is possible respecting the interval
which separates the last quarter of the first century from the last
quarter of the second.
This feature of the problem is sometimes represented by the useful
metaphor that the history of the Church just at this period "passes
through a tunnel" or "runs underground." We are in the light of day
during most of the time covered by the New Testament; and we are again
in the light of day directly we reach the time covered by the abundant
writings of Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and others. But
during the intervening period we are, not indeed in total darkness, but
in a passage the obscurity of which is only slightly relieved by an
occasional lamp or light-hole. Leaving this tantalizing interval, about
which the one thing that is certain is that many certainties are not
likely to be found in it, we pass on to look for our two next
certainties in the periods which precede and follow it.
3. In the period covered by the New Testament it is certain that the
Church had officers who discharged spiritual functions which were not
discharged by ordinary Christians; in other words _a distinction was
made from the first between clergy and laity_. Of this fact the Pastoral
Epistles contain abundant evidence; and further evidence is scattered up
and down the New Testament, from the earliest document in the volume to
the last. In the First Epistle to the Thessalonians, which is certainly
the earliest Christian writing that has come down to us, we find St.
Paul beseeching the Church of the Thessalonians "to know them that
_labour among you_, and _are over you in the Lord_, and _admonish_ you;
and to esteem them exceeding highly in love for their work's sake" (v.
12, 13). The three functions here enumerated are evidently functions to
be exercised by a few with regard to the many: they are not duties which
every one is to discharge towards every one. In the Third Epistle of St.
John, which is certainly one of the latest, and perhaps the very latest,
of the writings contained in the New Testament, the incident about
Diotrephes seems to show that not only ecclesiastical government, but
ecclesiastical government by a single official, was already in existence
in the Church in which Diotrephes "loved to have the pre-eminence" (9,
10). In between these two we have the exhortation in the Epistle to the
Hebrews: "Obey them that _have the rule over you_ and submit to them:
for they watch in behalf of your _souls_, as they that shall give
account" (xiii. 17). And directly we go outside the New Testament and
look at the Epistle of the Church of Rome to the Church of Corinth,
commonly called the First Epistle of Clement, we find the same
distinction between clergy and laity observed. In this letter, which
almost certainly was written during the lifetime of St. John, we read
that the Apostles, "preaching everywhere in country and town, appointed
their firstfruits, when they had proved them by the Spirit, to be
bishops and deacons unto them that should believe. And this they did in
no new fashion; for indeed it had been written concerning bishops and
deacons from very ancient times; for thus saith the scripture in a
certain place, I will appoint their bishops in righteousness, and their
deacons in faith"--the last words being an inaccurate quotation of the
LXX. of Isa. lx. 17. And a little further on Clement writes: "Our
Apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife
over the name of the bishop's office. For this cause, therefore, having
received complete fore-knowledge, they appointed the aforesaid persons,
and afterwards they provided a continuance, that if these should fall
asleep, other approved men should succeed to their ministration. Those
therefore who were appointed by them, or afterward by other men of
repute with the consent of the whole Church, and have ministered
unblamably to the flock of Christ in lowliness of mind, peacefully and
with all modesty, and for long time have borne a good report with
all--these men we consider to be unjustly thrust out from their
ministration. For it will be no light sin for us, if we thrust out those
who have offered the gifts of the bishop's office unblamably and holily.
Blessed are those presbyters who have gone before, seeing that their
departure was fruitful and ripe, for they have no fear lest any one
should remove them from their appointed place. For we see that ye have
displaced certain persons, though they were living honourably, from the
ministration which they had kept blamelessly" (xlii., xliv.).
Three things come out very clearly from this passage, confirming what
has been found in the New Testament. (1) There is a clear distinction
made between clergy and laity. (2) This distinction is not a temporary
arrangement, but is the basis of a permanent organization. (3) A person
who has been duly promoted to the ranks of the clergy as a presbyter or
bishop (the two titles being here synonymous, as in the Epistle to
Titus) holds that position for life. Unless he is guilty of some serious
offence, to depose him is no light sin.
None of these passages, either in the New Testament or in Clement, tell
us very clearly the precise nature of the functions which the clergy, as
distinct from the laity, were to discharge; yet they indicate that these
functions were of a spiritual rather than of a secular character, that
they concerned men's souls rather than their bodies, and that they were
connected with religious service (=leitourgia=). But the one thing which
is quite clear is this,--that the Church had, and was always intended to
have, a body of officers distinct from the congregations to which they
ministered and over which they ruled.
4. For our fourth certainty we resort to the time when the history of
the Church returns once more to the full light of day, in the last
quarter of the second century. Then we find two things quite clearly
established, which have continued in Christendom from that day to this.
We find a _regularly organized clergy_, not only distinctly marked off
from the laity, but distinctly _marked off among themselves by well
defined gradations of rank_. And, secondly, we find that _each local
Church is constitutionally governed by one chief officer_, whose powers
are large and seldom resisted, and _who universally receives the title
of bishop_. To these two points we may add a third. There is no trace of
any belief, or even suspicion, that the constitution of these local
Churches had ever been anything else. On the contrary, the evidence (and
it is considerable) points to the conclusion that Christians in the
latter part of the second century--say A.D. 180 to 200--were fully
persuaded that the episcopal form of government had prevailed in the
different Churches from the Apostles' time to their own. Just as in the
case of the Gospels, Irenaeus and his contemporaries not only do not know
of either more or less than the four which have come down to us, but
cannot conceive of there ever being either more or less than these four:
so in the case of Church Government, they not only represent episcopacy
as everywhere prevalent in their time, but they have no idea that at any
previous time any other form of government prevailed. And although
Irenaeus, like St. Paul and Clement of Rome, sometimes speaks of bishops
under the title of presbyter, yet it is quite clear that there were at
that time presbyters who were not bishops and who did not possess
episcopal authority. Irenaeus himself was such a presbyter, until the
martyrdom of Pothinus in the persecution of A.D. 177 created a vacancy
in the see of Lyons, which Irenaeus was then called upon to fill; and he
held the see for upwards of twenty years, from about A.D. 180 to 202.
From Irenaeus and from his contemporary Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth, we
learn not only the fact that episcopacy prevailed everywhere, but, in
not a few cases, the name of the existing bishop; and in some cases the
names of their predecessors are given up to the times of the Apostles.
Thus, in the case of the Church of Rome, Linus the first bishop is
connected with "the two most glorious Apostles Peter and Paul": and, in
the case of Athens, Dionysius the Areopagite is said to have been
appointed first bishop of that Church by the Apostle Paul. This may or
may not be correct: but at least it shows that in the time of Irenaeus
and Dionysius of Corinth episcopacy was not only recognized as the
universal form of Church government, but was also believed to have
prevailed in the principal Churches from the very earliest times.[47]
5. If we narrow our field and look, not at the whole Church, but at the
Churches of Asia Minor and Syria, we may obtain yet another certainty
from the obscure period which lies between the age of the Apostles and
that of Dionysius and Irenaeus. The investigations of Lightfoot, Zahn,
and Harnack have placed the genuineness of the short Greek form of the
Epistles of Ignatius beyond reasonable dispute. Their exact date cannot
as yet be determined. The evidence is strong that Ignatius was martyred
in the reign of Trajan: and, if that is accepted, the letters cannot be
later than A.D. 117. But even if this evidence be rejected as not
conclusive, and the letters be dated ten or twelve years later, their
testimony will still be of the utmost importance. They prove that long
before A.D. 150 episcopacy was the recognized form of government
throughout the Churches of Asia Minor and Syria; and, as Ignatius speaks
of "the bishops that are settled _in the farthest parts of the earth_
(=kata ta perata horisthentes=)" they prove that, according to his
belief, episcopacy was the recognized form everywhere (_Ephes._ iii.).
This evidence is not a little strengthened by the fact that, as all
sound critics on both sides are now agreed, the Epistles of Ignatius
were evidently not written in order to magnify the episcopal office, or
to preach up the episcopal system. The writer's main object is to
deprecate schism and all that might tend to schism. And in his opinion
the best way to avoid schism is to keep closely united to the bishop.
Thus, the magnifying of the episcopal office comes about incidentally;
because Ignatius takes for granted that everywhere there is a bishop in
each Church, who is the duly appointed ruler of it, loyalty to whom will
be a security against all schismatical tendencies.
These four or five points being regarded as established to an extent
which may reasonably be called certainty, there remain certain other
points about which certainty is not yet possible, some of which admit of
a probable solution, while for others there is so little evidence that
we have to fall back upon mere conjecture. Among these would be the
distinctions of office, or gradations of rank, among the clergy in the
first century or century and a half after the Ascension, the precise
functions assigned to each office, and the manner of appointment. With
regard to these questions three positions may be assumed with a
considerable amount of probability.
1. There was a distinction made between itinerant or missionary clergy
and stationary or localized clergy. Among the former we find apostles
(who are a much larger body than the Twelve), prophets, and evangelists.
Among the latter we have two orders, spoken of as bishops and deacons,
as here and in the Epistle to the Philippians (i. 1) as well as in the
_Doctrine of the Twelve Apostles_, presbyter or elder being sometimes
used as synonymous with bishop. This distinction between an itinerant
and a stationary ministry appears in the First Epistle to the
Corinthians (xii. 28), in the Epistle to the Ephesians (iv. 11), and
perhaps also in the Acts of the Apostles and in the Epistles of St.
John. In the _Doctrine of the Twelve Apostles_ it is clearly marked.
2. There seems to have been a further distinction between those who did,
and those who did not, possess supernatural prophetical gifts. The title
of prophet was commonly, but perhaps not exclusively, given to those who
possessed this gift: and the _Doctrine of the Twelve Apostles_ shows a
great respect for prophets. But the distinction naturally died out when
these supernatural gifts ceased to be manifested. During the process of
extinction serious difficulty arose as to the test of a genuine prophet.
Some fanatical persons believed themselves to be prophets, and some
dishonest persons pretended to be prophets, when they were not such. The
office appears to have been extinct when Ignatius wrote: by prophets he
always means the prophets of the Old Testament. Montanism was probably
a forlorn attempt to revive this much desired office after the Church as
a whole had decided against it. Further discussion of the gift of
prophecy in the New Testament will be found in a previous chapter (vi.).
3. The clergy were not elected by the congregation as its delegates or
representatives, deputed to perform functions which originally could be
discharged by any Christian. They were appointed by the Apostles and
their successors or substitutes. Where the congregation selected or
recommended candidates, as in the case of the Seven Deacons (Acts vi.
4-6), they did not themselves lay hands on them. The typical act of
laying on of hands was always performed by those who were already
ministers, whether apostles, prophets, or elders. Whatever else was
still open to the laity, this act of ordaining was not. And there is
good reason for believing that the celebration of the Eucharist also was
from the first reserved to the clergy, and that all ministers, excepting
prophets, were expected to use a prescribed form of words in celebrating
it.
But, although much still remains untouched, this discussion must draw to
a close. In the ideal Church there is no Lord's Day or holy seasons, for
all days are the Lord's, and all seasons are holy; there are no places
especially dedicated to God's worship, for the whole universe is His
temple; there are no persons especially ordained to be His ministers,
for all His people are priests and prophets. But in the Church as it
exists in a sinful world, the attempt to make all times and all places
holy ends in the desecration of all alike; and the theory that all
Christians are priests becomes indistinguishable from the theory that
none are such. In this matter let us not try to be wiser than God, Whose
will may be discerned in His providential guiding of His Church
throughout so many centuries. The attempt to reproduce Paradise or to
anticipate heaven in a state of society which does not possess the
conditions of Paradise or heaven, can end in nothing but disastrous
confusion.
In conclusion the following weighty words are gratefully quoted. They
come with special force from one who does not himself belong to an
Episcopalian Church.
"By our reception or denial of priesthood in the Church, our entire view
of what the Church is must be affected and moulded. We shall either
accept the idea of a visible and organized body, within which Christ
rules by means of a ministry, sacraments, and ordinances to which He has
attached a blessing, _the fulness of which we have no right to look for
except through the channels He has ordained_ (and it ought to be
needless to say that this is the Presbyterian idea), or we shall rest
satisfied with the thought of the Church as consisting of multitudes of
individual souls known to God alone, as invisible, unorganized, with
ordinances blessed because of the memories which they awaken, but to
which no promise of present grace is tied, with, in short, no thought of
a Body of Christ in the world, but only of a spiritual and heavenly
principle ruling in the hearts and regulating the lives of men.
Conceptions of the Church so widely different from each other cannot
fail to affect in the most vital manner the Church's life and relation
to those around her. Yet both conceptions are the logical and necessary
result of the acceptance or denial of the idea of a divinely appointed
and still living priesthood among men."[48]
FOOTNOTES:
[47] See an admirable article on the Christian ministry by Dr. Salmon in
the _Expositor_ for July, 1887; also the present writer's _Church of the
Early Fathers_, pp. 58 ff.; 92 ff.; 2nd ed. Longmans, 1887.
[48] Professor W. Milligan, D.D., on "The Idea of the Priesthood," in
the _Expositor_ for July, 1888, p. 7.