BV 600 .L85 1904 v.l Lowrie, Walter, 1868-1959. The church and its organization in primitive THE CHURCH AND ITS ORGANIZATION IN PRIMITIVE AND CATHOLIC TIMES THE DOCTRINE OF ST. JOHN: An Essay in Biblical Theology. 12mo. Longmans, Green, & Co., New York, London, and Bombay. 1899. MONUMENTS OF THE EARLY CHURCH (title of the English edition, CHRISTIAN ART AND ARCHAEOLOGY). In the series of Handbooks of Archaeology and Antiquities. Crown 8vo. The Macmillan Company, New York ; Macmillan & Co. , London and Bombay. 1901. THE CHURCH {."Z'^Z^^ AND ITS ORGANIZATION IN PRIMITIVE AND CATHOLIC TIMES AN INTERPRETATION OF RUDOLPH SOHM'S KIRCHENRECHT /by WALTER LOWRIE, M. A. THE PRIMITIVE AGE LONGMANS, GREEN, AND CO. 91 AND 93 FIFTH AVENUE, NEW YORK LONDON AND BOMBAY 1904 Copyright, 1904 By Walter Lowrie THE UNIVERSITY PRESS, CAMBRIDGE, U. S. A. To MY MOTHEK FKOM WHOM I HAVE LEARNED THE BKOADEST AND DEEPEST THINGS ABOUT THE CHURCH WHO IN MY YOUTH DEDICATED ME TO THE MINISTRY AND HAS EVER PROMPTED IN ME THE SPIRIT OF SERVICE PEEFACE IN turning to the Preface one is likely to seek first of all an answer to the query, What is the significance of entitling this book an " Interpretation " of Sohm's Ecclesiastical Laiu f This implies, however, a preliminary question : What of Sohm himself, and what of his work ? Dr. Rudolph Sohm, Professor in the Juristic Faculty of the University of Leipsic, is best known in this country as a writer upon Roman law, and by the few students among us who follow this branch of study he is recognized as one of the most able and suggestive of teachers. His work on the Institutes of Roman Laio has been translated into English from the Fourth German Edition, — first ed. Oxford, 1892, second ed. 1901. But his work in Church history is not alto- gether unknown, for a brief, popular book of his, entitled Kircliengeschiclite im Grundriss, has been trans- lated into English under the title. Outlines of Church History, Macmillan & Co., 1895 (1901), from the Eighth Revised German Edition of 1893. It is there- fore all the more remarkable that his greatest and most noted work is almost unknown in England and America : — it has not been translated ; it has not even been reviewed, so far as I know ; and of the many scholars who, since the publication of his book, have written in English upon the subject of Church organization, almost none (McGiffert and Schmiedel viii PREFACE being the only exceptions I am aware of) give the least hint that they are acquainted with the far-reaching results of a study which constitutes at the very least a new point of departure for all future investigations into the character of primitive Christianity and the development of the Catholic organization. This strange neglect is perhaps due in part to the fact that the title of Sohm's book does not clearly suggest the character of its contents. Of the whole work, entitled Kirchenrecht, only the first volume, Die Geschichtlichen Grundlagen (1892), has yet appeared. This part, as its title indicates, is substantially an intro- duction to the study of ecclesiastical law ; but it is a voluminous introduction, comprising seven hundred large octavo pages. Writers upon ecclesiastical law are not wont to press their inquiries back to the origins of Church institutions, to consider the nature of the Church of God, or the character and significance of the early Christian ministry, — still less to raise the primary question whether there is justification for law of any sort in the Ecclesia. It is not strange, therefore, that students of early Christian institutions have not imagined that a work bearing such a title might come within their province. But this is only a partial explanation of the neglect of Sohm's work. The fact is rather significant of the narrow acquaintance of English-speaking scholars with German theological literature. The influence of Ger- man scholarship upon America is great, in certain provinces it is paramount, — too great, I cannot but think. But while the latest works in Biblical criticism and the works of those few scholars who have gained a popular fame in England and America are eagerly PREFACE ix translated while they are still wet from the press, the most important works in other fields of study are only tardily recognized. This is especially true in the field of early Church history, in which German scholarship has confessedly the preeminence. The situation is, indeed, readily explained by the fact that there are few students of this subject in America: — comparatively few of the many students who go to the German universities to complete their training devote them- selves expressly to this study, while English scholars are in general less disposed to turn for illumination to the Continent. Upon its appearance in 1892, Sohm's book was at once recognized in Germany as an epoch-making work. A considerable literature of criticism and comment has already grown up about it. No independent study of the subject has since appeared, and it is safe to add that no work is likely to be produced which does not found itself substantially upon Sohm's results. Sohm's most radical critic confesses the charm and power of his work, accepts in the main his historical results, and acknowledges that he has thrown new light upon innu- merable points, and explained many of the problems that have hitherto been regarded as the most obscure in the study of early Church organization ; — nay, more, he proclaims that " any one, be he jurist or theo- logian, who would to-day study seriously the subject of ecclesiastical law, must make himself acquainted with Sohm's book, as the most notable production of modern times in the sphere of ecclesiastical jurisprudence, and must take his stand with relation to it " (Kahl, Lelir- system des Kir chenr edits, 1894, pp. 71, sqq.). This, as an example, may suffice to show that it is not for lack X PREFACE of appreciation at home that Sohm's work has failed to gain recognition abroad. To say that my work is an interpretation is not to imply that Sohm's book is obscure. On the contrary, it is a masterpiece of clear and cogent argumentation, expressed in the most classic German idiom. I hope that my book may prompt others to draw directly from this stimulating source, and I could wish to see in Eng- lish a literal translation of the whole of it. But a Ger- man book is not completely rendered into English when it is merely translated. The difference of intellectual atmosphere has to be taken into account ; and to adapt a book to the specific interests and uses of our own situation, — in this case our religious situation, — it may be necessary to alter both emphasis and propor- tion. I have made liberal use of the material of Sohm's work, but I have dealt with it very freely. I defend in the main the same thesis, but I defend it in my own way. If any one find my argument inconclusive, it is to be hoped that he will not dismiss a case of so great importance without hearing also the senior counsel. If, however, I may claim that my work is an improvement upon Sohm's, this is no more than to say that, consider- ing the different interests I have in view, I dare count myself justified both in the additions I have made and in the omissions. As an introduction to ecclesiastical law, it is natural that Sohm's book should deal chiefly with the later development of Church institutions, both Catholic and Protestant. I have reversed that propor- tion. In this first volume I have considered at far greater length than does Sohm the notion of the Church and the development of organization in the primitive age, this being a subject which has a closer practical bearing PREFACE xi upon our present-day religious problems, and is more likely to enlist a popular interest. In the second volume I propose to present a hriefer account than Sohm gives of the Catholic development. The extent of my dependence upon Sohm can hardly be stated quantitatively, but some notion of it may be derived from the fact that this first volume of nearly 400 pages corresjDonds roughly to a chapter of 156 pages in Sohm's work, while even of that there is about a third of which I have taken no account. My more specific obligations to Sohm I have invariably noted in the context. I may remark here that even where I have followed him most closely I have discarded the innu- merable references which he makes to modern German authors and to discussions with which the English reader cannot be supposed to be familiar. More than one third of Sohm's work is devoted to a discussion of the development of ecclesiastical law since the Reformation — particularly in Germany, This, of course, I have omitted. But in lieu thereof I have given in the Introduction a succinct account of the principles which determined the development of Eng- lish denominationalism. This may serve at once to reveal the need of a reconstruction of our view of early Christian institutions, and to point the application of the historical results which are set forth in this book. The neglect into which the study of early Church government has fallen among American Protestants I cannot but attribute to the mere despair of arriving at any concordant and convincing conclusions about the principles which determined the organization of the primitive Church. But I cannot acquiesce in such de- spair, nor can I repress the hope that earnest and can- xii PREFACE did study may help to dissipate the barriers of prejudice which now divide Protestant Christendom. Those who do not resent our divisions, and who like no criticism of denominational institutions, will spare themselves annoyance by beginning with Chapter II. My precise relation to Sohm's book will be the better understood, and I hope justified, if I may be permitted to narrate the circumstances which led me to use it as I have. I first read the book in 1893, during the first year of a course of study in Germany. I read it then with the more interest because the subject was one which I had long studied intently, and which had lately become to me a matter of personal and practical con- cern. This study has remained one of my most engross- ing avocations, and in all the work I have since done upon it I have been profoundly influenced by Sohm's book. Sohm's influence, however, has been in the main an unconscious one, and when I started to prepare a work on Church organization, I was quite unaware of the extent of my obligation. It was not till I had actu- ally begun to write that I re-read his book, and recog- nized to my dismay that many of the results which I accounted substantial contributions of my own were rightly his peculiar property. Nothing was left for me but to beg permission to make free use of the mate- rial of Professor Sohm's book, — a request which was at once granted by both the author and his publisher in the most generous spirit and on the most liberal terms. I cannot sufficiently express my gratitude for such per- mission. For it has enabled me not only greatly to enrich my book, but to claim expressly the support of so distinguished an authority. At the same time I am bound to disclaim for Sohm all responsibility for opin- PREFACE xiii ions which are not here expressly referred to him. I have made the freest use of the liberal terms of his permission. The form of the work is almost totally independent : I have adhered in the main, particularly in this volume, to the original plan which I sketched before I had any thought of reference to Sohm. I have omitted without notice many interpretations which seemed to me unsound, and I have explicitly stated my disagreement with some of the opinions which Sohm may count of capital importance. All of these changes seem to me to add strength to the main position, and at all events my work may claim the value which belongs to a candid reinvestigation. Many a writer will sympathize with an embarrass- ment — by no means unusual except in degree — which I encountered in the preparation of this work. I had planned and prepared to include a full study of the early doctrine and ritual of the Eucharist, a discussion of the principles of common worship in the Church, and a history of English sectarian controversy about organ- ization and ritual. The pertinency and congruence of all these themes will be recognized by whoever reads this book. But at the same time it will be recognized that the plan of including them all in a single volume was not practicable. I am well satisfied to substitute the brief account of the principles of sectarian division which I have included in the Introduction, in place of a fuller history of so painful a subject. The studies I have made upon the other subjects I hope to publish in a separate work, and I have treated them here only so far as the present argument demands. But even as thus restricted, my theme has proved too large for a single volume. And this is due chiefly to the fact xiv PREFACE that the opinions maintained in this work are too novel to be advanced without detailed proof. The present volume, however, is complete in itself, as a study of the primitive institutions of the Church. The second volume will treat of the characteristic de- velopments of Catholicism, under the following heads : Chapter V. The Diocese; Chapter VI. Synods and Councils; Chapter VII. The Metropolitan, the Patri- arch, and the Pope. This, too, may properly be considered an independent theme, though the most distinctive feature of my representation of the subject (which is again Sohm's) is the proof that the whole development of Catholic institutions was conditioned by ideas which, perverted as they were, may be traced back to the very beginnings of Christianity. The first part of this work therefore constitutes the foundation of the second, and the second substantiates the first. I am sorry that Principal Lindsay's work, The Church and the Ministry, London, 1902, did not reach me until April of this year, — too late to be noticed in this book. It is especially significant as the only con- siderable treatment of this subject from a Presbyterian source. It also displays a broader acquaintance with modern studies and recently discovered sources of infor- mation than does any other work in English. It is therefore all the more disappointing to note the con- troversial temper in which it is written, and its shallow conception of the problems which it handles. The importance of Sohm's work here at last receives express recognition; but it is neither adequately understood nor fairly interpreted. WALTER LOWRIE. Keene Valley, in the Adirondacks, July, 1903. A LIST OF THE WOEKS MOST FEEQUENTLY CITED ACHELis, Die dltesten Quellen des orienialiscJien Kirchenrechts. Erstes Buch, Die Canones Hippolyli. In Texte und Untersuchungen, edited by Gebhardt and Harnack, Bd. 6, Heft 4. Leipsic, 1891. Allex, Christian Instilutioiis. New York, 1897. Apostolic Church Order, — for its sources s. Harnack. BixGHAM, Origines Ecclesiasticae — The Antiquities of the Christian Church. 2 vol. Oxford, 1856. ^V'SfSi'Ei^, Analecta Ante-Nicaena. 3 vol. Londini, 1854. Vol. II. contains the recension of the Syrian Didaskalia, the source of the Apostolic Constitutions, by Paul Botticher (De Lagarde). dementis Alexandrini Opera, ed. Dindorf. 4 vol. Oxonii, 1869. Constitutiones aposioloriim, ed. De Lagarde. Lipsiae, 1862 ; and in BuNSEN, Analecta, vol. II. Cypriani Opera, ed. G. Hartel. 3 vol. Vindobonae, 1868-71. Didache, — The Teaching of the Apostles. Especially the ed. of Har- nack: Lehre der zwolf Apostel, nebst Untersuchungen zur jiltesten Geschichte der Kirchenverfassung und des Kirchenrechts. Leipsic, 1893. In Texte und Untersuchungen, I. 1, 2. Didaskalia, — the source of the Apostolic Constitutions, ed. of Lagarde in BuNSEN, Analecta, vol. II. Eusehii Caesariensis Opei-a, ed. Dindorf. Lipsiae, 1871. Funk, Die apostolischen Konstilutionen. Rottenburg, 1891. " Kirchengeschichtliche Abhandlungen und Untersuchungen. Paderborn, vol I. 1897, vol. II. 1899. Gayford, art. Church, in Hastings' Bible Dictionary, New York, 1900-1902. Gore, The Christian Ministry. London, 1889. Harnack, A., Prolegomena to his ed. of the Didache (q. v.), in Texte u. Untersuchungen, I. 1, 2. Leipsic, 1893. *' Die Quellen der sogennanten apostolischen Kirchenordnung, nebst einer Untersuchung iiber den Ursprung des Lectorats und der anderen nie- deren Weihen. In Texte u. Untersuch. II. 5. Leipsic, 1886. Eng- lish trans., entitled Sources of The Apostolic Canons, London, 1895. " Art. Presbyter in the Expositor for Jan.-June, 1887, pp. 324 sqq. Harnack, Th., Der christliche Gemeindegottesdienst in apostolischen und altkatholischen Zeitalter. Erlangen, 1854. Hatch, The Organization of the Early Christian Churches. London and New York, 4th ed. 1892. Translated and discussed by Harnack: Die Gesellschaftsverfassung der christlichen Kirchen im Altertum. Gie- sen, 1883. Herzog, Real-Encyklopddie fiir protestantische Theologie und Kirche. 3rd ed. by Hauck. Leipsic, 1896-. xvi A LIST OF THE WORKS MOST FREQUENTLY CITED HoFLiNG, Die Lehre der dllesten Kirche vom Opfer im Leben und Cullns der Christen. Erlangen, 1838. HoRT, The Christian Ecclesia. London and New York, 1900. HoLTZMANN, Die Pastor albriefe krittsch und exegetisch behandelt. Leipsic, 1880. 5. Irenaei, episcopi Lugdunensis lihri quinque adversus haereses, ed. W. Harvey. Cantabrigiae, 1857. Kahl, Lehrsystem des K irchenrechts und der Kirchenpolitik: Pt. T. Frei- burg i. Br. and Leipsic, 1894. De Lagardp;, Relinquiae juris ecclesiastici antiquissimi. Lipsiae, 1856. Liber Pontijicalis, ed. Duchesne. Paris, 1886. LiGHTFOOT, J. B., Saint Paul's Epistle to the Philippians, containing a Dissertation on the Christian Ministry. 6th ed. London and New York, 1890. " Saint Paul's Epistle to the Galatians. London, 1869. " The Apostolic Fathers, Pt. L, S. Clement of Rome, 2 vol. 1890. Pt. IL, .S. Ignatius, S. Polycarp, 3 vol., 2nd ed. 1889. London and New York. LoNiNG, Die Gemeindeverfassung des UrchristeiUums . Halle, 1889. Patrum apostolicorum opera, ed. Gebhardt, Harnack, Zahx. Fascia. I.-III. Lipsiae, 1875-77. Editio minor. Lipsiae, 1877. RiEDEL, Die Kirchengeschichtsquellen des Patriarchiats Alexandrien, 1900. RiTSCHL, A., Die Entstehung der altkatholischen Kirche. 2nd ed. Bonn, 1857. RiTSCHL, O., Cyprian von Karthago und die Verfassung der Kirche. Gdttingen, i885. ROTHE, Die Anfdnge der christlichen Kirche und ihrer Verfassung. Wit- tenberg, 1837. ScHMiEDEL, art. Ministry in The Encyclopedia Biblica, Oxford, 1899- 1903. SCHURER, English trans.: A History of the Jeioish People in the Time of Jesus Christ. 5 vol. Edinburg, 1890-91. Smith and Cheetham, editors, A Dictionary of Christian Antiquities. London, 1890. Tertulliani Opera, ed. Oeler, 3 vol. Lipsiae, 1853. Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur, edited by O. v. Gebhardt and A. Harnack. Leipsic, 1882-. Weizs ACKER, Das apostolische Zeitalter der christlichen Kirche. 2nd ed. Freiburg i. Br., 1892. Wordsworth, J., The Ministry of Grace. London and New York, 1901. Zahn, Forschungen zur Geschichte des neutestamendichen Kanons und der altkirchlichen Literatur. 3 vol. Erlangen, 1881-84. Vol. IIL pp. 278 sqq. contains a study of the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. " Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons. 2 vol. Erlangen and Leipsic, 1888-91. TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTEE I INTRODUCTION Page 1. DENOMINATIONAL CONTROVERSY ABOUT THE MINISTRY A QUESTION OF FORM Illustrated by history of dispute between the Dissen- ters and the Church of England 1 Recognized in our modern attitude toward the subject 3 Essential contrast between spiritual and legal rule . 3 (Note A. Local adaptation of the episcopate. The- ory of Wordsworth and Gore. Anglican and Roman doctrine of the gradus episcopale) 5 2. LEGALIZED CHRISTIANITY Necessity of legal organization commonly assumed . 9 Development of Catholicism inconsistent with the assumption that the primitive Church was legally organized 10 Legalization of Christianity is the essence of Catholi- cism 11 (Note 1. Problem of origin of Catholicism — Baur, Ritschl, and Renan) 11 Far-reaching effects of this principle 12 3. NO CATHOLIC CONTROVERSY ABOUT FORM OF THE MINISTRY Early writers (Clement, Ignatius, Hermas) reveal no controversy about form of monarchical episcopacy Development of metropolitan authority 14 (Note 4. Irenaeus, Cyprian, TertuUian on Roman episcopate) 16 Jerome's dictum about equality of presbyter and bishop 16 Right interpretation of Jerome's view 18 (Note B. Problem of Alexandrian episcopate dis- cussed) 23 xviii TABLE OF CONTENTS § 4. REFORMATION PRINCIPLES page ,/ Protest of the reformers against Catholic idea of the Church SV^ The visible and invisible Church according to Wyclif 34 Lxtther and Lutlieranism. Idea of the Church 34" Church government by the ministry of the word . 35; Relation of Church and State 39( Reformed Doctrine of the Church. ZwiNGLi's doctrine of the visible and invisible Church 41 (Note 11. Profound effect of this view upon the Reformed churches) 42 His idea of congregational independency .... 45 Calvi n put Zwingli's theory into practice .... 49 His idea of the relation between Church and State 50 Practical modifications of Zwingli's theory ... 51 Ascribed (in a sense) the power of the keys to the ministry of the word 52 Recognized the principle of representation in Church government (discipline) 53 (Note 16. Thejwre divino form of government a part of the Presb3'terian creed) 54 Practical considerations determined the form of government which Calvin established at Geneva 56 Yet he supported the system by proof-texts and accounted \tjure divino 59 (Note 20. The Waldensian fable of the origin of their form of government) 59 The right form of the ministry is one of the es- sential notes of the Church according to Re- formed doctrine 60 Anglican principles 61*^ § 5. DENOMINATIONAL CONTROVERSY England its chief arena and the Westminster Assem- bly the classical epitome 62 : Explained by the Reformed principle that nothing is lawful in the Church which is not plainly sanctioned by Scripture 63 TABLE OF CONTENTS xix Page The above contrasted with the common Protestant principle that Scripture contains all things necessary to salvation 64 The dispute about ritual relatively of little moment . 68 Tlie Westminster Assembly. Its political embarrassments 69 r (Note 4. The various works undertaken by the As- sembly) 69 Method of argument to establish Scriptural form of government 73 The ruling elder 75 Classical presbyteries 76 Ecclesiastical autonomy and Erastianism .... 78 The " Queries " of parliament on jure divino govern- ment 79 Formation of our later sects accounted for by the same principle which divided the Assembly 81 (Note 9. The enthusiastic (spiritual) sects, — Quakers, etc.) 82 Controversial works on the ministry 83 MODERN STUDY OF CHURCH ORGANIZATION In general 85 Rothe 86 Baur SQ Ritschl 87 Lightfoot 89 Renan, etc 91 Hatch 92 (Note 4. Harnack's comment on Hatch. Value of his discovery and study of early documents) . . 92 (Note 6. Was the Church recognized by the heathen state as a civil corporation on a par with the collegia^) 95 The organization of the Church not derived from the synagogue — Schiirer 96 Theory of original identity of presbyter and bishop is now discredited 96 (Note 9. Modern works on Church government) . 97 Legal organization of the Church vs. charismatic . . 98 Sohm's view 100 TABLE OF C0NTENT;S PART I PRIMITIVE CHRISTIANITY CHAPTER II THE IDEA OF THE CHURCH ,--«. Page § 7. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE NAME ECCLESIA Meaning and use of the English word Church . . . 102 (Note 1. Derivation of the word Church) . . . 102 The word Ecclesia in Classical Greek 103 The use of the word in the Septuagint explains its meaning in the New Testament 104 Significance of Jesus' choice of this word .... 105 v/The holiness of the Church 106 § 8. JESUS' USE OF THE WORD CHURCH The historical question of the actual employment of the word by Jesus 108 (Note C. Relation of the Church to the Kingdom) 110 The idea of discipleship in Jesus' teaching . . . . 114 In speaking of Ms Church Jesus implied a Messianic claim 116 The word implies assembly 117 Jesus' idea of the Church excludes the distinction between local and universal 118 The power of binding and loosing as ascribed to the Church and to the individual disciple 120 Peter as the rock upon which Christ will build his Church 122 §C^THE APOSTOLIC NOTION OF THE CHURCH The idea of the school of Jesus 123 Names which indicated a higher idea of discipleship — brethren and saints 126 i/TThe Christian idea of Koivwvta — fellowship or com- munion 127 All of these conceptions are consonant with Jesus' idea of the Church 129 TABLE OF CONTENTS xxi Page The Church was not influenced by the synagogue either in idea or in organization 130 The full name of the Church in the New Testament is " the Church of God " 133 The Greek state arid the Hebrew theocracy knew but one Eceiesia — New Testament usage appears dis- similar 135 Sohm's solution of the problem presented by this usage — the one Church and the many. Ubi tres, ihi eceiesia 136 § 10. THE IDEA OF CHURCH ORGANIZATION There can be no legal organization for the Eceiesia . 141 » Church order is a part of Christian doctrine . . . 143 (Note D. St. Paul's doctrine of Chm-ch order — and the transition to the early Catholic view) . . 143 * The charismatic organization of the Church, and brotherly love as its complement 147 <' (Note E. Discussion of Sohm's work in Germany. Criticism of Kahl's defence of the " legal Church ") 150 §11. SIGNIFICANCE OF ORDER AND CUSTOM IN THE CHURCH , To discard law as a means of order is not to relin- quish the aim of maintaining any order or organiza- tion 156 Meek subjection to one another in brotherly love, which is the true bond of order, is weakened by appeal to law 157 (Note F. The idea of meekness in the New Testa- ment} 158 The spirit of conformity 165 St. Paul's interest in maintaining order and con- formity 167 - The means he resorted to for attaining this end — with respect both to the whole Church and the single congregation 168" His estimate of the authority of custom 172- (Note 15. The popular unifying ideal of to-day in the secular world 177 Custom and customary law distinguished . . . . 179-n Customary law in the Catholic Church ^^^b Customary law in the Protestant Churches .... 181^^ X xxu TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER III THE ASSEMBLY FOR INSTRUCTION § 12. OF CHURCH ASSEMBLIES IN GENERAL page X Assembly a necessary expression of the Christian life 184 The prime object of coming together is to be together 185 Mutual edification, not the performance of a cult, was the object of the assembly' 186 ^Unique character of the Christian assembly . . . 187 The " reasonable service " 188 — The character of the assembly defines the nature of the Christian ministry 189 * Essentially there was but one kind of assembly . . 190 A distinction was practically made between the as- sembly for instruction and the assembly for the Eucharist 190 Regular days of assembly — the Lord's Day . . . 192 Union of the two sorts of assembly in the 2nd cent. and its effects 193 (Note 9. Pliny's account of the Christian assembly) 193 The principal assembly and minor assemblies . . . 195 § 13. CONDUCT OF THE ASSEMBLY Of what value is the information in 1 Cor. 14 for the character of the Christian assembly ? 196 — The body and its members — a plea for order, 1 Cor. 12 197 Liberty and order 198 Freedom of participation in the instruction of the as- sembly 199 The discerning of spirits 200 Order and liberty not incompatible 201 «^he order of the assembly cannot be a legal order . 202 As a matter of fact, the participation was not so gen- eral as is commonly supposed 203 ~^he charisma and the Church office 204 (Note 5. The gift of teaching and the gift of min- istry) 205 High valuation of the spiritual gifts accounts for the .^ development of a traditional order of government and ritual 207 TABLE OF CONTENTS xxiii § 14. PRAYER AND PRAISE p^^e The constituents of Christian worship and instruction The psalm (including hymns and songs) a specific variety of prayer 209 Prayer and praise distinguished, — Thanksgiving . 210 Extempore and formal prayer 212 (Note G. Examples of early psalms. Psalms and the liturgy) 213 § 15. THE GIFT OF TEACHING The "gift of teaching," used in a broad sense to cover all instructive manifestations of the Spirit . 218 The assembly conducted itself under the leadership of the gifted teachers 219 The administration of public worship belonged to • the teachers as such 220 (Note 4. The jus liturr/icum o( the hishop) . . . 221 The "gifts" do not correspond precisely to the offices 221 What is included under the notion of " doctrine " in the N. T 222 The particularity of teaching (didache or didaskalia) 224 Admonition 225 Public admonition and discipline 226 The Lord's rule concerning reproof, admonition, and discipline 227 The case of discipline in 1 Cor. 5 : 3-5 228 » (Note 13. The authority of the Catholic bishop over discipline) 229 Discipline essentially a function of the teacher . . 230 Character and authority of N. T. prophecy — its par- ticularity 230 Character and authority of " teaching " 232 The word of God the final authority for Church order 233 In questions of election, excommunication, and absolution 235 The power of the keys 237 § 16. THE TEACHING OFFICE (Note 2. r]yovfx.€voi and reTLixTjfxevoi) 239 ^ Apostles and evangelists 240 xxiv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Prophets 243 Teachers 244 An apostolic gift was common to all three .... 245 The Gospel was their sole vocation and support . . 247 § 17. THE TEACHERS AND THE ASSEMBLY The teachers properly officers though they enjoyed no legal authority 248 The assembly exercised no legal authority in electing 250 The formal recognition of a teacher did not make him a teacher, nor make his word God's word . . 251 The teacher acted in the name of God, not in the name of the Church 252 § 18. ELECTION AND ORDINATION Election. Election by the Church is properly regarded as God's election 253 Election of Paul and Barnabas 253 Election of Matthias 254 Election of Timothy 254 Election denotes the assent of the assembly to God's choice 255 (Note 4. Election of bishops and deacons is to be regarded as a spiritual act, like that of Apos- tles) 256 Laying on of Hands. Not to be explained by the O. T. rite 257 (Note 7. The O. T. idea of this rite) .... 258 (Note 8. The N. T. rite defined by the accom- panying prayer) 259 As a means of healing the sick 260 Here used as an exorcism 260 (Note 9. The official exorcist of a later time) 260 In ordination, too, it signifies exorcism . . . . 261 (Note 11. Absolving effect of ordination) . 262 It does not generate the charisma, but confirms it 262 Practically, it facilitates recognition .... 263 Election and ordination have no legal effect, just because they have to do with office in Christendom 264 » There are no legal congregations of Christendom, but only assemblies 265 TABLE OF CONTENTS xxv CHAPTER IV THE EUCHARISTIC ASSEMBLY 19. THE EUCHARIST — ITS SIGNIFICANCE FOR CHURCH ORDER AND ORGANIZATION page The Eucharistic assembly, not the assembly for in- struction, defined the organization of the ministry 266 Sketch of the Development of the EucharisHcCelebration. Necessity of a president at the Lord's table . . . 268 No disciple was theoretically excluded from this function 268 Minor Eucharistic assemblies and the principal as- sembly 270 Who shall preside at the Eucharist ? 271 (1) One of the apostolic teachers 271 (2) One of the older disciples ("elders"), who by such appointment became a bishop 272 Relation of the deacons to the Eucharist .... 275 Relation of the presbyters to the Eucharist . . . 276 The Eucharist separated from the agape and united with the service of instruction 278 Effects of this change upon ritual 282 Upon architecture 284 Upon government — (Catholic idea of sacrifice and priesthood) 287 The bishop sits in Christ's place, the presbyters in the place of the Apostles 289 This estimation of the clergy illustrated from the writings of Ignatius 290 And by the apsidal mosaics of the basilicas . . . 291 The single episcopate correlative with the single Eucharistic assembly 293 Difficulty of carrying out the Ignatian progi'am . . 296 The character of the single episcopate in the Igna- tian epistles 299 The same notion of the episcopate at Jerusalem and Alexandria 302 The great cities commonly required a plurality of bishops 304 The practical need of a centralized organization . . 306 xxvi TABLE OF CONTENTS Page The theory of apostolic succession 307 Effect of the development of the monarchical epis- copate upon the position of the presbyters . . . 310 § 20. CHURCH PROPERTY An important factor in the development of the con- gregational idea 313 Presidency at the Eucharist implied the reception and distribution of the gifts 314 Church property is God's property 316 It must therefore be administered by the teacher (or the bishop) as God's vicar 318 Even the juristic conception of Church property after the 4th cent, did not essentially change the point of view 320 (Note H. The legal status of Church property) . . 321 The ministry supported from the Eucharistic gifts . 327 (Note I. Practical significance of the word ' ' honor ") 328 § 21. BISHOPS Early origin of bishops as the ordinary presidents at the Eucharist 331 Criticism of the prevalent view which makes the bishop merely an administrative officer . . . . 335 Presidency at the Eucharist implies the highest honor in the Church 336 The bishop performed the service of the prophets and teachers 337 (Note J. Discussion of the Didache, xv. 1) ... 339 Ordination of bishops 341 Qualifications required of the bishop 342 Bishops and Elders. Their relation according to old and recent theories 345 Sohm's view 347 Elders in the Epistle of Clement 348 In the Pastoral Epistles 353 In the Acts, etc 357 The charisma of the bishop is the same as that of the elder 360 The bishop an appointed elder 361 The bishop as teacher 363 The episcopal organization and the charismatic ministry 366 TABLE OF CONTENTS xxvii Page The primitive bishop had uo legal rights . . . . 367 No episcopal college 368 § 22. DEACONS Their relation to the Eucharist 371 Qualifications required of deacons 374 A probation for the diaconate 377 (Note K. The minor orders) 379 § 23. PRESBYTERS Place of the elders at the Eucharist 383 The presbyters as representatives of the people . . 386 Introduction of custom of ordaining to the presbyter- ate 387 (Note L. Proof of Sohm's view from Ignatius, Her- mas, Canons of Hippolytus, Tertullian, etc.) . . . 388 The presbyterate originally not an office . . . . 391 Functions of the presbyterate as revealed in Source A of the Apostolic Church Order 393 As the council of the bishop in questions of ad- ministration 397 As the council of the bishop in questions of dis- cipline 398 The order of the Eucharistic assembly was the order of the Church 399 THE CHURCH AND ITS ORGANIZATION CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION § 1, DENOMINATIONAL CONTROVEESY CHIEFLY CONCERNED WITH QUESTIONS OF FORM THE Protestant controversies which it here imports to consider, by way of introduction to the study of THE CHURCH AND THE MINISTRY, are such as relate, not to the nature of the Church of God, but to the ministry of the Church ; and here again it is not so much the nature of the Christian ministry that has been at issue, as the form of its constitution, the form of Church government. There has not lacked controversy about the nature of the Church and the nature of the ministry, but it is the form of Church organization, the form of the ministry, which has chiefly engrossed atten- tion, because this is an issue which is obvious to all and of practical moment to many. This question was not seriously debated during the first age of the Reforma- tion ; but, being once raised, it became the issue which has divided Protestantism. The controversy has not been conducted altogether without reference to higher considerations ; but they, for the most part, have been imported into it and remain essentially foreign to it. 2 INTRODUCTION [ I In reality, the form enshrines no truth : various consid- erations, religious or secular, theoretical or practical, such as from age to age seemed best to comport with the spirit of the time, have been urged in justification of it, — but it is the form alone that persists. The best illustration of this fact is the history of the controversy between the Church of England and the Dis- senters. In the first stage of this controversy we have the rigoristic Puritanism of Cartwright and Travers, with its jure divino Presbyterianism, its apostolic suc- cession through the presbytery, the power of the keys shared, according to divine institution, by ruling and teaching elders ; opposed to the liberal (humanistic) Episcopalianism of Whitgift and Hooker, defended on the plea of expediency, good order, monarchical policy, and as not repugnant to Scripture. In the second stage we have the same rigoristic Puritanism in the West- minster Assembly — though hopelessly divided now be- tween the claims of jure divino " classical presbyteries," and jure divino Independency ; opposed this time to the equally rigoristic claims of Hall and Laud for Episco- pacy by divine institution. To-day the claims of Laud are exceeded, the Non- Jurors are outdone; for, by a larger section of the Anglican Churches than ever before, the exclusive power of the keys, the exclusive apostolic succession, the chief (if not the exclusive) au- thority to rule the Church, is ascribed to the episcopate — jure divino ; and opposed to this, what have we for the most part but the claim of expediency in behalf of Presbyterian government (feebly made, though so well proved), the plea that it is in harmony with the princi- ples of republican government, and in none of its details repugnant to Scripture ! The doctrine of the ministry changes, the form remains. §1] DENOMINATIONAL CONTROVERSY 3 The formal nature of this issue was never so gen- erally recognized as now. Few of those who still call thero selves Protestants make an exclusive claim for their ministry, — that is, refuse to recognize the validity of a ministry otherwise constituted. The changed atti- tude of Presbyterians and Congregationalists has just been referred to. The great Methodist society was organized expressly upon the principle of indifference (religiously considered) to the form of the ministry, — an indifference like that of the Lutherans (Moravians), and directly traceable to them. Significant also of a certain amount of indifference to form is the judgment of the " Conference of Bishops of the Anglican Com- munion, holden at Lambeth Palace in July, 1888," pro- posing as the basis of Church unity " the Historic Episcopate, locally adapted in the methods of its ad- ministration to the varying needs of the nations and peoples," etc.^ The form of government is, of course, both as a; matter of fact and as a matter of principle indifferent! to the faith : every variety of belief found among Trini- tarian Protestants is harbored under the form of Angli- can Episcopacy, It is the formal nature of the issue which is at once the hope and the despair of Christian unity : so trivial a difference ! yet so insuperable a barrier ! The forms which persist in spite of changed faiths, persist also in spite of a change in spirit, in spite of the growth of charity, and sincere zeal for union. The form persists just because it is form, and as such! stands in no relation to the spiritual forces which oper-' ate in the Church ; it persists because it is a legal fact, and as such stands in irreconcilable contradiction to the nature of the Church, — here not in the familiar con- ^ See note A at the end of this section. 4 INTRODUCTION [ I trast of law and grace, or law and liberty, but of law and spirit. The Church depends upon essential reality, upon the instant and constant proclamation of God's Word, God's Will, in spirit and in truth : law on the other hand depends in principle upon form (hence the adage, summimi jus summa injuria), and it must depend upon form if it would free itself from the influences of the moment, and found its decisions upon established, tra- ditional, and generally valid principles. A particular form of the ministry is established by law in every denomination. That it is in a measure recognized and protected by law ivithout the Church (Civil, Common, or Statute Law) is of little importance in this connection ; but it is of the utmost importance that the form of ministry is established by law ivithiti the Church, by ecclesiastical law (Canon Law). Again, force is implied in the very idea of law ; whereas the nature of the Church abhors compulsion, because only the free apprehension of the divine is of spiritual value. Faith, and all that belongs to the spiritual sphere, cannot be compelled ; and the laws which have been devised for coercion have proved in the main as futile as they are misdirected. The faith has always changed before the terms of creed subscrip- tion have been altered. None were ever more confi- dently determined to enforce faith by law than the Calvinistic Churches of Great Britain and America : — with a result which deserves to be remembered as a classical instance in proof of my contention. The form of Church government, on the other hand, is worldly, it belongs to the sphere of law ; it is essentially, as it is commonly called, a polity, and as such it can be enforced. § 1] DENOMINATIONAL CONTROVERSY 5 A. Local adaptation of the historic episcopate is proposed by the so-called Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral. How much this local adccptation may mean, we may get a notion from Bishop Gore, the most noteworthy of the modern Anglican expounders of the Catholic doctrine — and history — of the ministry. In his Christian Ministry (1889), p. 143, he says, of the presby- ters of the Church of Alexandria in the second and third cen- turies : " They were not only presbyters with the ordinary commission of the presbyter, but also bishops in 'posse." That this doctrinaire theory is not casually developed by the exi- gency of controversy, to meet a pressing objection, is shown by the fact that on p. 72 it is laid down as a general principle, that " It is a matter of very great importance to exalt the prin- ciple of apostolic succession above the question of the exact form of the ministry," and on p. 73, "No one, of whatever part of the Church, can maintain that what may be called, for lack of a distinctive term, monejnscojjacy is essential to the con- tinuity of the Church." Here at last a theological principle is uppermost ; for the apostolic succession is one way of account- ing for and justifying the divine authority of the ministry. Still more significant are the later utterances of another high- churchman. Dr. John Wordsworth, Bishop of Salisbury, The Ministry of Grace (1901). In relation to this same problem of the Alexandrian episcopacy in the third century he observes (p. 125), "that in two of the greatest Church centres, closely connected with one another, namely Eome and Alexandria, episcopacy did not grow with the rapidity which marked its progress in Palestine, Syria, and Asia." I dissent from the statement of fact, — but that is not to the point here. On p. 128 : "In the Church Order that bears the name of Hippolytus, and which is probably Koman, but rather before his time, and may be dated circa a. d. 200, we find two remarkable rules : first, that ' one of the Bishops and Presbyters ' is to be chosen to say the prayer and to lay hands upon the person to be or- dained ; and, second, that the same prayer is to be used both for a Bishop and a Presbyter, but with only a change in the title. It is also laid down (ch. 32) * that a Bishop in all things is to be considered equal to a Presbyter, except in the name of 6 INTRODUCTION [ I the throne and in the [matter of] ordination, because the power of ordination is not given to him ' (i. e. to the Presbyter). This looks as if the prerogatives implied by the two titles were now being distinguished in the Church of Rome, while as yet this distinction had not been carried very far, ... It is not clear whether he needed a further ordination if he were already a presbyter of the Eoman Church." On opp. 139 sq. he accepts the common reading of the thirteenth canon of Anc3'ra (a. d. 314), " which seems to recognize a certain power of ordination in City-presbyters, bringing it into line with Episcopal supre- macy, without actually abolishing it, by requiring a written licence from the Bishop before its exercise." But on p. 141 he divests this of its historical significance by positing (like Gore) the theory that " the City-presbyters at Rome and Alexandria, and very probably elsewhere, were members of an Episcopal College, acting usually through their president in the matter of ordination." On p. 142 he sums up his conclusions in part as fol- lows : " That in some other parts, especially at Rome and Alex- andria, there were at first [that is, until about the end of the second century] only two orders, the governing order acting nor- mally as a corporate body or College ; that in process of time, and more particrdarly in the course of the third century, the governing order tended more and more to act through its Presi- dents ; that in this way the governing order in the West has been differentiated into two degrees, though a tradition has always been kept up that they had an essential imity of char- acter, now defined as ' Priesthood ' or * sacerdotium.' Not only has this tradition never been condemned by the Church, but it is probably a growing belief; and it has much to recommend it as a practical basis for that reunion between Episcopalians and Presbyterians which is one of the most obviously necessary tasks of English-speaking Christianity." As will appear subse- quently, I differ totally from the Bishop of Salisbury as to the inference which is to be drawn from these facts concerning the primitive relation of bishops and presbyters. He follows approximately St. Jerome's theory, — as to the influence and authority of which see note B, p. 23. It is germane, however, to the present context to observe that §1] DENOMINATIONAL CONTROVERSY 7 the opinion of the Bishop of Salisbury is in conformity with An- glican traditions. The prevailing opinion of Anglican theologians in the past (there is no Anglican dogma on the subject) has not been opposed to the so-called Eoman doctrine, — though this is now commonly affirmed. It was a long time before the opinion gained ground that the episcopate is an order distinct from the presbyterate. This notion is not to be inferred from the Preface to the English Ordinal ( " that from the Apostles' time there have been these Orders of Ministers in Christ's Church, — Bishops, Priests, and Deacons "), for it is well known that the word ordo was loosely used even at the end of the Middle Ages, and the word occurs more than once in relation to bishops in Eoman formularies. It would indeed have been a strange thing had the Anglican Church adopted a more rigor- ous view of the exclusive powers of the episcopate than the Eoman had ever formulated. We have also to recognize the influence of St. Jerome's theory, which the Puritan controver- sialists did not suffer the Anglican divines to forget, — if they were so minded. It is remarkable how often the citation occurs " as Jerome saith in his epistle to Evagrius." On both sides the theory was accepted as an axiom. The preponderat- ing — well nigh imiversal — opinion of Anglican divines in the first age of the English Eeformation was in agreement with Jerome's statement. In the Institution of a Christian 3Ian, put forth by the bishops and clergy in 1537, it is said (speak- ing of " the sacrament of orders " to be administered by the bishop, and noticing the various orders in the Church of Eome) : " The truth is, that in the New Testament there is no mention made of any degrees or distinctions in orders, but only of dea- cons or ministers, and of priests or bishops ; " and throughout, when speaking of the jurisdiction and privileges of the ministry, it attributes them to "priests or bishops," asserting expressly " that this office, this power and authority, was given by Christ unto certain persons only, that is to say, imto priests or bishops." Again in the revision of this work set forth by the king in 1543 under the title, A Necessary Doctrine and Erudition for any Christian Man, priests and bishops are spoken of as of the same order. In the autumn of 1540 certain questions were 8 INTRODUCTION [ I proposed by the king to the chief bishops and divines of the day, of which the tenth was this : " Whether bishops or priests were tirst ? and if the priests were tirst, then the priest made the bishop." Cranmer replied : " The bishops and priests were at one time, and were not two things, but both one office, in the beginning of Christ's religion." Lee, Archbishop of York, said : " The name of a bishop is not properly a name of order, but a name of office." Bonner, Bishop of London, said, referring to Jerome : " In the beginning of the Church there was none (or, if it were, very small) difference between a bishop and a priest, especially touching the signification." To like effect answered Barlow, Bishop of St. David's, Thirlby, Bishop elect of West- minster, and a number of notable divines. The documents are reported in Burnet's History of the Reformation of the Church of England., addendum 5 to pt. I., and, among the Eecords to pt. I. bk. III., no. 21, quest. 10. In Elizabeth's reign Dr. Alley, Bishop of Exeter, in his Prelections on 1 Peter, read publicly in St. Paul's in the year 1560, quotes Jerome to prove the original identity of presbyter and bishop. So also does Dr. Pilkington, in his Confutation of an Addition ( Works, p. 494, ed. Parker Soc). Bishop Jewell was the one who best of all understood the Catholic tradition, and in his Def. of ApoL, pt. IL c. 9, div. I. (Works, p. 202, cf. p. 85) he quotes Chrysos- tom, Jerome, Augustine, Ambrose (Ambrosiaster), and St. Paul in support of the position "that by the Scriptures of God a bishop and a priest are all one." Archbishop Whitgift, in con- troversy with Cartwright (Def. of Answ. to Adm., 1574, p. 383), was more guarded — and more accurate : " Every bishop is a priest, but every priest hath not the name and title of a bishop, in that meaning that Jerome in this place taketh the name of a bishop. . . . Neither shall you find this word episco- pus commonly used but for that priest that is in degree over and above the rest." There is no need to multiply instances of this sort. It is well known that the bishops acted upon these principles by recognizing the presbyterian ordination of min- isters who came from the Continent. On the other hand, the fact is that the Eoman doctrine is suhstantially what the Anglican has been assumed to be. It is §2] LEGALIZED CHRISTIANITY 9 well known that the doctrine of the sacrament of orders was worked up by the Schoolmen. The tradition forbade them to reckon the episcopate as a special order ; but they strove never- theless to vindicate to it a higher and separate position, as by Christ's institution. Duns Scotus taught that the episcopal ] consecration constituted a separate sacrament. But most of the theologians justified the superior power of the bishop, not on sacramental gi-ounds {potestas ordinis), but from the side of jurisdiction ( potcstas jurisdictionis), — though, according to the Catholic view, they accounted it none the less jure divino for this distinction. The episcopate now coimts in the Eoman Church as a higher degree (gradus) within the sacerdotium. It is not strange that the high-Anglican divines of a later gen- eration than those quoted above, being unable to avail them- selves of this distinction, because the potestas jurisdictionis had come to imply (to them) a potestas jure humano, should break with the tradition (perhaps more or less unconsciously) and assert a separate order of the episcopate. This is undoubtedly what is now commonly meant by the popular "phrase the threefold ministry." § 2, LEGALIZED CHEISTIANITY But no satisfying idea of the Church as a legally con- stituted society has ever been formulated, nor ever can be ; for a legal constitution (whether jure humano or jure divino) is opposed to the nature of the Church. It is here the " visible Church " that is meant, the king- dom of God, which " is not of this world," and never can be ruled by worldly means (by a polity conformable to the kingdoms of this world), but only by God's Spirit. And yet the one point upon which all de- nominations of Christians are united (except the so- ciety of Friends) is the belief that some form or another of ecclesiastical polity (legally constituted organization) is divinely prescribed, or at the very least is practically o 10- INTRODUCTION [I necessary for the maintenance of a visible Church of . Christ ; and, further, that some legal constitution has from the beginning been in force. The assertions which I make in this section I do not posit as assumptions, for I cannot presume that they will be granted at this point : I state them as the thesis, of which this whole work may be taken as the proof. ^ But here it may well be pointed out, that the persis- tence of Church polities since the Reformation (in the midst of so many and such great changes), and the mil- lennium long endurance of the Catholic polity, which has no historic parallel except in the venerable institu- tions of the Chinese Empire, render it well nigh incon- ceivable that such a development could ever have been accomplished as we assume to have taken place almost without contest about the turn of the second century (in the rise of the monarchical episcopate), or such as we can clearly trace in the third and fourth centuries (the development of metropolitan and papal authority) ; — it is impossible, I say, that such developments could \ have so taken place, if the earlier order ivhieh ivas super- •seded had been legally established. That is to say : if the privileges and authority which were enjoyed by a plurality of bishops in the congregation had been ac- counted theirs by right (in the strict sense — as depend- ing upon a fact in the past which was uncontrollable in the present), the authority of the single bishop could not have been established, or at least not without a contest which would have left imperishable traces. Similarly, if the equal authority in the Church which ^ I have here tried to state accurately the thesis of Sohm's book, to which I have made due acknowledgment in the Preface. I repeat the hope that, if anything is here lacking in accuracy of statement or in cogency of proof, Sohm's work may be consulted for correction and supplement. §2] LEGALIZED CHRISTIANITY 11 was enjoyed by all diocesan bishops in the third cen- tury had been legally secured to them, — that is, if the Church had been legally organized, as the dio- cese or parish already was, — metropolitan, patriarchal, or papal authority could not have been successfully asserted. The legal organization of the Church de- veloped gradually : it first laid hold of the local com- munity, then of the province, then of the Church, the end and aim of the Catholic development being attained in the Papacy. In the subjection of the Christian society to the terms of a legal constitution, Sohm sees the essence of Catholicism. This principle reaches much further than the province of Canon Law, to which Sohm directly applies it : if it is accepted, it involves a fun- damental reconstruction of the modern view of early Church history, — particularly with regard to the prob- lem which confronts us in the passage from primitive Christianity to Early Catholicism.^ Without denying the influence of Greek thought upon the Church (and even upon St. Paul), the fact must to many appear inadequate as a solution for the problem we have to meet. Some are dissatisfied with this solution because they recognize that the development of the Church, even in departing from primitive ideals, was a unique fact, a free creation of the Christian faith, fundamen- 2 This problem, it is well known, was first clearly recognized by F. Clir. Baur, though his solution was inadequate : — " Catholicism is the synthesis of Judaistic and Pauline Christianity." Albrecht Ritschl, Die Enstehung der aUkatholischen Kirche, 2nd ed. 1857, proposed another solution, which has had ever since a controlling influence upon the study of early Church history, aiid is now accepted by most of those who do not ignore the problem : — " Catholicism is Christianity (particularly Pauline Christianity) Hellenized." Renan (particularly Les Apotres, and UEglise chretienne) was the first to emphasize the influence of the models of secular governmeut upon the organization of the Church. 12 INTRODUCTION [ I tally determined by motives inherent in Christianity. I Sohm, while he sees in the legalizing of Christian insti- tutions a radical departure from primitive ideals, which 'he attributes to want of faith in the guidance of the I Spirit, recognizes at the same time that the character 'of legalized (Catholic) Christianity was conditioned es- sentially by the primitive conception of the nature of the Church. The legal constitution of the Church must assume monarchical form ; because from the beginning the Church was ruled by Christ's Spirit, by Christ's Word, through the men whom he had charismatically endowed to speak in his stead. That is to say, the officers of the Church are the representatives of Christ (God), not the representatives of the congregation. Thus also, ecclesiastical law — if law there be — can only be regarded as an authority jure divino, because no other law is of force in the Church but God's law. Again, and partly as a deduction from the above, all law in the Church is Church law, ecclesiastical law, valid not merely for a local community (be it congre- gation, city, or province), but for the Church universal ; because the idea of a separately organized local com- munity was not contemplated by primitive Christianity. Hence the Catholic stress upon uniformity was in har- mony with primitive ideals : the primitive Church was intolerant. It will be recognized how far-reaching were the re- ligious effects of this legalizing of Christianity when one reflects upon the profound questions Avhich therein received an answer. This is forcibly presented by Sohm: " A spiritual conception dominates in Church history, the conception of the visible Church, a conception which is determined by the content of the Christian faith. Where is Christ, the Lord of Glory ? Where §2] LEGALIZED CHRISTIANITY 13 the people of Christ (the Ecclesia), in whose midst Christ is with all his spiritual gifts ? Where is the vis- ible Church ? where the true Christianity ? " ^ All turns upon the answer to this question. The answer which maintained its credit unquestioned throughout the first century is that which is recorded in the Gospel (Matt. 18 : 20), " Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." Catholi- cism defined : Where the bishop is (with the presbyters and deacons), there is the Catholic Church, there is thej Spirit of Christ and all his benefits, — and there only). The whole development of Catholicism lies implicit in that answer, — substantially the answer of Ignatius. It remained yet to be defined. Who is the bishop ? It is he who is rite (legally) constituted ; that is, elected, ac- cepted, ordained, and inducted as the law prescribes. It is easy to see how the sacraments, and all other spiritual possessions of the Church, were legalized by this process. That is a valid sacrament which is ad- ministered rite (according to legally ordained form) by one who is legally (rite) appointed to that ministry, — all others are void of spiritual effect."* Even the truth was legalized ; indeed it was primarily for the sake of an objective criterion of truth that the legal constitution was established. At each stage of the development, as the legal organization extended from the local com- munity to the universal Church, the answer sounded : The truth is what the bishop teaches — what is defined 3 Sohm, p. X. * According to medieval doctrine, by one who has himself validly received another sacrament; namely, that of sacerdotal order. To the strict consequences of this position baptism was later made an exception. The distinction between that which is invalid, and that which is merely irregular, according to the phrase, factum valet, fieri non debet, was foreign to early Catholicism. 14 INTRODUCTION [ I by the council, " legitime {!)congregata in Spirito Sancto " — what is enunciated by the pope. And, after all, this authorized Christianity had only a negative value. The Catholic Church can assert — is authorized on Catholic principles in asserting — that there is no salvation out- side of it; but it cannot, on formal juristic grounds, assure any individual that he is saved within it.^ § 3, CATHOLIC DEVELOPMENT WITHOUT CONTRO- VERSY It is a remarkable and a significant fact that in the early Church, notwithstanding the critical changes that were effected, and the vast development of ecclesiastical organization, there was no controversy about the form of the ministry, — none at least which was important enough to leave definite traces upon the literature. It is this which makes our study of these changes so diffi- cult. All seems to come about naturally, spontaneously, in response to forces which operated unchallenged. The first step was taken in view of what appeared to be an imperative practical necessity : — the preservation of the pure Gospel in the face of Gnosticism. Each succeed- ing step was prescribed by a logical necessity which was no less imperative. In St. Clement's epistle to the Corinthians we do, in- deed, get a hint of '' strife over the name of the bishop's office" (c. xliv.); but the question at issue was merely, who should actually enjoy the privileges of the office. 5 It is to be noted, that, except in the Western Church, the Catholic organization was arrested before it was complete : the Eastern churches are left without an ultimate, decisive answer, expressed in legal terms, to the question, Where is the Spirit of Christ ? where is the people of God ? what is the truth ? § 3] CATHOLIC DEVELOPMENT 15 Even the epistles of Ignatius are not to be considered a propaganda for the establishment of a particular form of government, the monarchical episcopate : this they as- sume as already universally established, and they press the consequences. We may presume that Ignatius did not succeed in carrying through without contradiction his new interpretation ^ of the evangelical maxim, uhi tres, ibi ecclesia ; but we do not hear the question raised con- troversially until we come to Tertullian the Montanist.'^ Hermas hints at a contest over '^ the chief seats " (rights of the presbyters) ; and he reveals his personal dissatis- faction with the position to which the prophets (himself being one) were already reduced in the Roman Church. But there was no serious controversy about the prin- ciple of prophetic rule in the Church until towards the end of the century, in the Montanistic movement ; and by that time it already belonged to an order of things which in most communities had definitely passed away. In this controversy the Catholics did not attempt to traverse the principle of prophetic authority ; they de- nied, as a matter of fact, the possession of this gift by the Montanist leaders. A kindred spirit of revolt against the Catholic externalizing of the idea of the Church made itself felt from time to time during the next three centuries, but it had even less to do with the form of Church organization. This movement has often been compared with English Puritanism, and it is therefore all the more significant to observe that it was a puritanism without any complaint against Catholic organization. Novatian, who had got himself conse- crated at Rome as anti-bishop to Cornelius, was scrupu- lous to secure an ordination according to the Catholic rule. One of the results which emerged almost unno- ^ Smyrn. 8 : 10. ^ De exhort, castit. 7. 16 INTRODUCTION [ I ticed from this schism was the settlement of the prin- ciple that there can be but one bishop in a city. The Donatists, as is well known, retained the Catholic organization. The development of metropolitan authority in the latter part of the fourth century surely did not come about without question ; but such controversy as there was must have been individual, and we know nothing about it beyond the uncertain implications of a short notice in Eusebius.' As for the arrogant claims of the Bishop of Rome, — he could hardly boast anything which his compeers were not as ready to concede.* Finally, to the absence of controversy here noted, St. Jerome is no exception ; his famous dictum, that " among the ancients bishops and presbyters are the same, for the one is a term of dignity, the other of age," was not made as a '' challenge " ^ neither was it 8 Euseb. //. E. VIII. 1:7,8. * Irenaeus, adv. Haer. 3 : 3, The Roman Church is maxima et anti- quissima, a gloriosissimis duobus apostoHs constituta. Ad banc enim ecclesiam propter potentiorem principatem necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam, hoc est eos, qui sunt undique fideles, in qua semper ab his, qui sunt undique, consei'vata est, ea quae est ab apostolis traditio. Like most modern interpreters, I suppose Irenaeus to be here stating merely the fact about Rome's civic position as the centre of the Empire, and drawing pragmatic inferences from it; — not stating a doctrinal thesis. It was the civic principatus of the Roman Church, and its consequent representative character, which gave it religious preeminence in all doctrinal issues. Stronger are the expressions of Cyprian (ep. 38 : 3), who calls the Roman Church ecclesiae catholicae matrix et radix ; and (ep, 59 : 14), ad Petri cathedram atque ad ecclesiam principalem, unde unitas sacerdo- talis exorta est. The protest of Tertullian as a Montanist (de pudic. 1) is chiefly significant as indicating the height of the Roman pretention : audio enim, ediclum esse propositum . . . pontifex scilicet maximus, episcopus episcoporum e(/iCi7, — that is Callistus. Cf. also Cyprian him- self in controversy with the Roman Bishop Stephen (Cypr. ep. 71), and Firmilian of Caesarea (Cypr. ep. 75), who speaks of the audacia et inso- lentia, the aperta et manifesta Stephani audacia. s As it is still called by Allen, Christian Institiiiions, p. 7, where he § 3] CATHOLIC DEVELOPMENT 17 controversial in the sense ordinarily supposed. St. Jerome writes as a biblical student and commentator, bringing to the notice of his age an exegetical fact which had hitherto been overlooked, — except by the anonymous commentator on St. Paul's Epistles, com- monly called Ambrosiaster or the Ambrosian Hilary,*^ We are fortunately left in no doubt as to the exact measure of authority we must ascribe to this opinion. If St. Jerome had stated it without citing his proofs it would have been immeasurably more imposing, for it would have at least the presumptive authority of tradition. But he cites his proofs in full, and they turn out to be exclusively Scriptural proofs;'^ so that we have here to consider Jerome simply as an inter- preter ; his opinion has merely exegetical authority, — that is to say, no independent authority at all.^ We can easily distinguish between the fact which he observes, (namely, the apparently indiscriminate use of the terms bishop and presbyter in the Acts and the Pastoral Epis- tles) ; and the theory he founds upon it, — to the effect that the Church was originally governed by a college of elders, until by a universal decree one of the number was elected and placed over the rest as a remedy for schism.^ says also : " It was St. Jerome who first questioned the divine right of that form of church government known as episcopacy." ' Ad Ephes. 6 : 11. "But," as Lightfoot remarks, "he is hardly consistent with himself. On Tim. 3 : 8 he recognizes the identity less distinctly ; on Phil. 1 : 1 he ignores it ; while on Tit. 1 : 7 he passes over the subject without a word." T Cf. n. 16. ^ For modern interpretations of these Scriptural passages, see p. 96 n. ^ Ad. Tit. 1. Idem est ergo presbyter et episcopus, et antequam dia- boli instinctu studia in religione fierent, et diceretur in populis : ' Ego sum Pauli, ego Apollo, ego autem Cephae,' communi presbyterorum con- silio ecclesiae gubernabantur. Postquam autem unus quisque eos, quos baptizaverat, suos putabat esse, non Christi, in toto orbe decretum est, ut unus de presbyteris electus superponeretur ceteris, ad quern omnis eccle- 2 18 INTRODUCTION [ I How mucli truth there is in this theory it is not here in place to consider ; it is sufficient to reveal the fact that we are not tied to its authority. Novel as this theory undoubtedly was to Jerome's contemporaries, it had much to recommend it to their favor : far from being in conflict with the hierarchical views of the fifth century, it fell in aptly with a trend of the time, and furnished a happy justification of it. St. Jerome himself, as a presbyter, had evidently a per- sonal satisfaction in his discovery : it bears, he thinks, against the arrogance of bishops and deacons. The po- sition of the presbyters in relation to the bishop and deacons had for a long time been an anomalous one. From the beginning the title was one of great honor, but it was not till the early years of the second century that it indicated definite appointment and ordination to office (see § 23). Bishops and deacons, on the other hand, were primitive officers, and they had the whole execu- tive administration of Church affairs in their hands. In Kome particularly, the power and importance of the presbyters had a rapid development. As early at least as the third century they had the management of the siae cura pertineret, ut schismaium semina tollerentur. . . . Haec propterea, ut ostenderemus, apud veteres eosdem fuisse presbyteros quos episcopos, paulatim vero, ut dissensioniim plantaria avelerentur, ad unum omnem sollicitudinem esse delatam. Sicut ergo presbyteri sciunt, se ex ecclesiae consuetudine ei, qui sibi praepositus fuerit, esse subjectos, ita episcopi noverint, se magis consuetudine quara dispositionis Domenicae veritate pres- byteris esse maiores, et in commune debere ecclesiam regere, imitantes Moysen, qui cum haberet in potestate solus praeesse populo Israel, septua- ginta elegit, cum quibus populum iudicaret. He quotes in proof Phil. 1:1; Acts 20:28; Heb. 13:17; 1 Peter 5 : 1 ; — and in his letter to Evangelus he quotes in addition Tit. 1:5, 7; 1 Tim. 4:14; 2 John 1; and 3 John 1. In the passage I have quoted above it may be seen how uncertain was St. Jerome's conception of the transaction which he pos- tulates : the idea of a gradual development (paulatim) does not agree at all with the notion of a universal decree. § 3] CATHOLIC DEVELOPMENT 19 titular churches and the suburban cemeteries which were attached to them.^° But it was particularly at Rome, too, that the deacons' importance was extraordi- narily increased by reason of the tradition which artifi- cially limited their number to seven. To this small number (later supplemented by seven subdeacons) was committed the great charge of administering the chari- ties of the Church, and their close relations with the bishop gave them a preeminence which is strikingly exhibited in the fact that for a while the pope was ordinarily chosen from their ranks. In this state of affairs it is not strange that there should be contention about the relative dignity of dea- con and presbyter. Each side had some justification for its claim. The ancient custom of the Church did indeed allot to the presbyter a place of superior dignity at the Eucharist ; but there must have been many other occasions for which no precedent prescribed. The presbyter's superiority was settled by the Coun- cil of Nicaea. By that time the presbyterate had completed another stadium of its development, be- ing organized as a collegial presbytery — a body which included, however, the deacons and even suffragan bishops. This, as the sole surviving surrogate for popular representation, constituted the official council of the bishop. The Roman college of cardinals is to- day the only survival of this early (third century) presbytery. This development was already practically complete before St. Jerome's time, but a theoretical justification of it from Scripture was none the less welcome. St. Jerome's statement was in fact a justification of the existing order, and not an arraignment of it, — though " See my Monuments of the Early Church, 1901, pp. 37 sq. 20 INTRODUCTION [ I the ideal order which he discovered '•' araong the an- cients " allotted to the presbyter an even greater dignity than he actually enjoyed in Jerome's time. We can easily see, therefore, why it was so readily accepted. " Of his contemporaries and successors, Chrysostom, Pelagius, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret, all ac- knowledge it. Thus in every one of the extent com- mentaries on the epistles containing the crucial passages, whether in Greek or Latin, before the close of the fifth century, this identity [of bishop and presbyter] is af- firmed. In the succeeding ages bishops and popes accept the verdict of St. Jerome without question. Even late in the mediaeval period, and at the begin- ning of the reformation, the justice of his criticism or the sanction of his name carries the general suffrage of theoloo-ians." " That St. Jerome's dictum was not meant as a challenge of the divine right of episcopacy, is suffi- ciently proved by its universal reception.^^ If to the Protestant mind this seems impossible, it is only be- cause our modern notions have created a breadth of dis- tinction between ecclesiastical custom {" consuetudine") and direct institution by Christ {'^ dispositionis Domeni- cae veritate") which was foreign to St. Jerome and his contemporaries. A distinction there undoubtedly was, and St. Jerome takes pains to express it in the strong- est phrase possible ; but it was not of a sort to invali- date the jure divino authority of the former. That St. Jerome regarded the superiority of the bishop as authoritatively established, we see from his statement that " it was decreed throughout the whole world." Rothe supposes that this was done by a council of the Apostles (about a. d. 70). This is very likely St. ^1 Lightfoot, Com. on Phil. p. 99, — cf. n. 3 on same p. for references. ^^ It was inserted in the Corpus Juris : Deer, pars 1. dist. 95, c. 5. § 3] CATHOLIC DEVELOPMENT 21 Jerome's meaning, for in referring to the " schisms " which led to the centrahzation of government in the hands of one person, he evidently has in mind the situation at Corinth as revealed by St. Paul's first Epistle, — particularly cap. 1 : 11-15. At the very least he must have fancied an early council of ecumenical authority, such as the Church of his own day had be- come accustomed to. St. Jerome sought to reduce to a minimum the difference between the power of the pres- byter and that of the bishop, but in the matter of ordi- nation he saw an irreducible minimum. Consonant as St. Jerome's view is with the later Roman dogma which asserts the unity of the sacerdotal order (including both bishops and presbyters), there is no reason to suppose that it had any practical influence upon the development. This was determined by more potent factors, and again St. Jerome's view simply fell in with a trend of the time. In the second and third centuries the sacerdotal title was ascribed especially to the bishop, and this early parlance still commonly sur- vived in Jerome's time. The priestly name and oflice came to be more and more exclusively associated with the sacrifice of the Eucharist, — at least from the time of Cyprian, who stated this doctrine in strong terms. The bishop originally owed his eminence in the Church, and later his sacerdotal title, to his authority over the Eucharist (see § 21). The same title, and something of the same dignity, accrued to the presbyters, when in the course of the third century, with the developed importance of the parochial organization (the titles), they attained an independent right to administer this sacrament. They, too, were priests ; for the sacrifice par excellence was the offering of the body and blood of Christ, and priesthood was the power to offer this sacri- \^^' 22 INTRODUCTION [ I fice.*^ Later than St. Jerome's day the bishop acquired a certain separateness of character through the notion which identified apostolic succession witli tactual trans- mission in ordination. But this separateness was more than offset by the importance of the priesthood which bishop and presbyter shared in common. The medieval doctrine which made the poioer to perfect this sacrifice (effect transubstantiation) depend upon the ' character ' acquired in ordination {potestas ordinis), compelled the I' recognition of a single order of the saeerdotium. This doctrine therefore is not a survival indicatino; an orio-inal identity of presbyter and bishop, but is an independent development along the line of Catholic principles. We have already seen how much importance was attached to St. Jerome's view after the Reformation : his authority has continued down to our own day to dominate the study of the ministry. The exegetical point that Jerome raises is crucial for the understanding of early Church organization, and the chief service of Hatch's work was to break the force of this theory of the original identity of bishop and presbyter. Apart even from this point, it is worth while to devote so much space to St. Jerome's view, because it raises some of the most important questions which meet us in this study, being formulated at a time when primitive no- tions of the Church and the ministry were passing away, to give place to the medieval notions which are still dominant among Protestants as well as Catholics. It is significant that (except for the case of Alexandria — see note below) Jerome cites no tradition in proof of ^8 Ambrosiaster on 1 Tim. 3 : 8. Post episcopum tameu diaconi ordi- uatio subiicit. Quare? nisi quia episcopi et presbyteri una ordinatio est? Uterque enim sacerdos est, sed episcopus primus est; ut omnis episcopus presbyter sit, non omnis presbyter episcopus. This, like St. Jerome's view, is evidently a mere exegetical theory. § 3] CATHOLIC DEVELOPMENT 23 his theory : there was in fact no tradition in favor of it, and the theory has obscured for us the scanty tradi- tions of authentic history which remain. B. In the letter to Evangelus St. Jerome adduces the only traditional corroboration of his theory which he knows. Nam Alexandriae a Marco Evangelisto usque ad Heraclam et Dio- nysium episcopos presbyteri semper unum ex se electum in excelsiori gradu collocatum episcopum nominabant, quomodo si exercitus imperatorem faciat, aut diaconi eligant de se quern industrium noverint et archidiaconum vocent. Quid enim facit excepta ordinatione episcopus, quod presbyter non faciat ? The inference from this would seem to be that the bishop is included in the presbytery. A little later he notices the fact that St. Paul, in his injunctions to Timothy and Titus about the ordination of bishops and deacons, omits the mention of the presbyter alto- gether ; and the explanation is, " because in the bishop the pres- byter, too, is included." As throwing light upon St. Jerome's view, it is interesting to remark that he here supposes a single officer with the name and rank of a bishop to have existed in the Alexandrian Church from the time of the Evangelist Mark, and that until the mid- dle of the third century the presbyters of that city enjoyed the peculiar privilege of "naming" one of their own number as bishop. St. Jerome knew Alexandria, and it may be presumed that he was familiar with its traditions. But from this brief mention no very clear deductions can be drawn, beyond the general purpose which Jerome has in mind, i. e. of proving that presbyters were originally hardly inferior to bishops. The lan- guage of St. Jerome is commonly understood to mean that the bishop was appointed as president of the presbytery without ordination, for his explicit reservation to the bishop of the power to ordain excludes the thought of ordination by the presbytery. Ignoring this discrepancy, Eitschl {Entstehung, p. 429) and Lightfoot {Com. on Phil. p. 231) understand him to mean that the Alexandrian presbyters ordained their bishop. Hatch, on the other hand, supposes that he had simply to be 24 INTRODUCTION [ I enthroned {Organization, p. 134). Gore {Ministry, pp. 138 sq.) combats Jerome's evidence in toto, but in order " to face the possibility of its being true " (in Hatch's sense) he posits the theory that the Alexandrian presbyters were all " bishops in posse." Fortified by this hypothesis, Wordsworth (^Ministry, pp. 135 sq.) eagerly accepts the notion that both at Eome and at Alexandria " the Presbyterate had something of the character of an episcopal college," — cf. above, note A. Great as are the diversities of opinion, it is possible to deter- mine the actual state of the case at Alexandria with all rea- sonable assurance. St. Jerome's own view may be a matter of doubt, and at all events it is of no great importance ; but it is decisive that both he and Ambrosiaster assert the exclusive right of bishops to ordain, expressly denying it to the presbyter as the one episcopal function which he may not share. It is true that we have sufficient historical evidence of ordination by presbyters : it was apparently the rule till late in the second "^ century for city presbyters to ordain their own bishops. But this is just what it was impossible for Jerome to believe. His notion of legitimate ordination was ruled by the maxim which Ambrosiaster expresses, nemo enim trihuit quod non accepit. Therefore, what he learned about the peculiarity of the situa- . tion in Alexandria, he interpreted as a mere appointment of one of their number by a college of presbyter-bishops of the (as- sumed) Scriptural type. But is it possible for us to believe that ? If the bishop of Alexandria (in the third century or even in the second) was established in his office without other ordination than that he had received as presbyter, it is the only case recorded in history, — as for Ambrosiaster's theory, see above, note 13. I dissent from Hatch's opinion (^Organization, p. 134) " that the rite (of imposition of hands) was not universal." Even if this were true, however, what follows is a non seqttitur : " it is impossible that, if it was not universal, it could have been re- garded as essential." To disprove the universality of ordination he gives two instances in addition to Jerome's story. I shall not stop to argue about " the fact that the passage in the Apos- tolical Constitutions which describes with elaborate minuteness §3] CATHOLIC DEVELOPMENT 25 Other ceremonies with which a bishop was appointed to office, says nothing of this ; " for the case is not strictly to the point. I lay no stress upon the tactual imposition of hands : the prayer was the essential element of the rite ; the gesture was its ordi- nary, and — as we have good reason to believe — its invariable accompaniment. In this case, however, a comparison with the sources of Apost. Const. VIII. 4 (i. e. the so-called Egyptian Cliurcli Ordinances, c. 31, and the Canons of Hippolytus, c. ii. 7) makes it seem exceedingly unlikely that the interpolator in- tended to suppress the rite of imposition of hands in favor of his liturgical fancy of having the deacons hold the Gospel over the ordinand's head during the prayer of consecration. The other argument which Hatch adduces is more specious, but demonstrably more fallacious : " Nor is the rite mentioned in the enumeration which St. Cyprian gives {Epist. 55 [52] ) of the elements which had combined to make the election of Cor- nelius valid : it was of importance to show that no essential particular had been omitted, but he enumerates only the votes of the people, the testimony of the clergy, the consent of the bishops." For Cyprian, the point at issue was the legality of the election of Cornelius as against Novatian; not the sacra- mental validity, — which both opponents might claim, though according to Cyprian's doctrine of the dependence of sacra- ments upon the worthiness of the minister, even this might be denied Novatian. It is not strange therefore that the most distinctively religious element in ordination should be passed over: the fact rather suggests that the right of imposition of hands was so universally recognized as indispensable that it did not need to be mentioned. Hatch's citation of this instance is, in fact, peculiarly unfortunate, for it involves a reference to the story of Novatian's ordination (Euseb. H. E. 6, 43), which is the strongest evidence we have of the opinion which was current in the middle of the third century, and especially at Eome, as to the indispensable necessity of ordination by imposition of hands, — and, indeed, hy three bishops. Hatch has no further proofs to offer. But — strangely enough — Bishop Wordsworth (p. 128 sq.) comes to his as- sistance with an elaborate argument which at first sight seems 26 INTRODUCTION [ I imposing. As a matter of fact there is not one sound pre- sumption in it. "What speciousness it has, depends entirely upon the theory of the original identity of presbyters and bishops; a question which must be investigated further on (see § 21, pp. 244 sq.). The Canons of Hippolytus, whatever be their age or origin, do not " suggest a stage of development in which the two titles were being gradually distinguished " : they suggest the contrary. In particular the injunction in c. iv. 30, 31, to the effect that in the ordination of a presbyter the same prayer shall be used as over a bishop, " with merely the excep- tion of the name of the episcopate," does not raise a presump- tion that no new ordination was required when a preshyter was made bishop. The peculiar importance of ordination to the episcopate is assumed in c. vi. 43, 44, where it is ordered that a martyr shall be admitted as a presbyter without ordination, but if he would be bishop he must be ordained. Meretur gradum presbyterialem coram Deo, non secundum ordinationem, quae fit ab episcopo. Immo, confessio est ordinatio ejus. Quodsi vero episcopus fit, ordinetur. Achelis, Texte u. Untersuch. VI. 4, p. 67. The question of the right of presbyters to ordain, and that of the possible elevation to the episcopate without ordination, are separate and must be carefully distinguished. The injunc- tion of Canon. Jlippol. ii. 10 (that " one from among the bishops and presbyters be chosen to lay hands on his [the elected bish- op's] head and pray ") does not go any way towards proving the latter assumption. The purely exegetical theory of Ambro- siaster cannot rightly be brought into any relation with the fact that in the Canon. Hippol. the same prayer was used in the ordination of bishops and presbyters. These, however, together with St. Jerome's view, are the proofs upon which Wordsworth relies to establish the astonishing thesis that in the third cen- tury Rome and Alexandria — precisely the two most authorita- tive Churches in Christendom — were so far behind the rest of the world that they recognized no essential difference between presbyters and bishops ! That the situation at Alexandria in the middle of the third century was peculiar, we have good ground for supposing. We may presume that the peculiarity was an archaic survival, and § 3] CATHOLIC DEVELOPMENT 27 that it consisted essentially in the fact that the Alexandrian presbyters maintained a higher importance relative to the bishop than was elsewhere the case. All the other evidence which we have on this subject unites in pointing out the pre- cise mode in which the peculiar privilege of the Alexandrian presbyters was exhibited. Ambrosiaster {ad Ephes. 4:12) says : Denique in Egyptum presbyteri consignant, si presens non sit episcopus, — "in Egypt the presbyters ordain, if the bishop be not present." Probably the ordination of presbyters and deacons is here meant. Consignant is probably a corruption, for in the middle of the fourth century no writer, even in the West, would speak of the custom of Alexandria as unique allowing a presbyter to confirm in the absence of the bishop ; and St. Jerome affirms generally — not merely with reference to Alexandria — that ordination is the only exclusive preroga- tive of the bishop. At all events in the parallel passage by the anonymous author (perhaps the same as the so-called Ambrosiaster) of Quaestioncs Vcteris et Novi Testimcnti, falsely attributed to Augustine, the corruption has crept in (Quacst. 101, referring as usual to 1 Timothy) : Quid est enim episcopus nisi primus presbyter, hoc est sumus sacerdos ? Denique non aliter quam compresbyteros hie vocat et consacerdotes sues. . . . Nam in Alexandria et per totam Aegyptam, si desit episcopus, consecrat (v. I. consignat) presbyter. One may raise the question whether this situation endured up to the time of this writer (which is improbable), and whether even in the third century it was the same " throughout all Egypt ; " but for Alexandria itself it is substantiated by Eutychius {Annales I. p. 331, ed. Pococke, Oxon. 1656), who though a late writer (tenth century) was himself Patriarch of Alexandria, and who writes independently of Jerome, contradicting him in some details, and adding others which help to explain the situation. Constituit evangelista Marcus una cum Hakania patriarcha duodecim presbyteros, qui nempe cum patriarcha manerent, adeo ut cum vacaret patriarchatus unum e duodecim presby- teris eligerent, cuius capiti relinqui undecim manus imponentes ipsi benedicerent et patriarcham crearent, deinde virum aliquem insignem eligerent, quern secum presbyterum constituerunt loco 28 . INTRODUCTIOX [I eius, qui factus est patriarcha, ut ita semper existarent duo- decim. Neque desiit Alexandria institutum hoc de presbyteris, ut scilicet patriarchas crearent ex presbyteris duodecim, usque ad tempora Alexandri patriarchae Alexandriae. The substance of this is, that the number of presbyters at Alexandria was limited to tivelve, and that down to the time of the council of Nicaea (of which Alexander was a member) these twelve enjoyed the right of electing one of their own number and consecrating him bishop by imposition of hands. In itself it is not unlikely that in Alexandria the number of presbyters was restricted to twelve, on symbolical grounds, just as at Rome the deacons were limited to seven. The presbyters were the successors of the twelve Apostles, as the bishop was the representative of Christ. In source A of the Apostolic Church Order, — a document which is plausibly ascribed to Egypt, and is confidently to be dated with Harnack about the middle of the second century {Tcxte u. Untcrs^ich. II. 5, p. 55), we find the number of presbyters prescribed by the symbolical consideration that in the Apocalypse (4:4; 5:8) there were four and twenty elders about the throne of the Lord. This view of the relation of bishop and presbyters respectively to the Lord and to the twelve Apostles was not peculiar to Alexandria; nor did it represent, as Ritschl claims, an idea of the episcopate which proceeded from Jerusalem, more primi- tive than the Catholic theory which supplanted it. On the contrary, it was, as is well known, the view of Ignatius : it was the universal Catholic view, till the idea of apostolic succession assumed a new form in the third century. If it is a fact that the number of Alexandrian presbyters continued till a com- paratively late period to be thus limited in number, we can easily understand why they retained a peculiar dignity and power, — just as the seven deacons did at Eome. Except that this statement of Eutychius explains an unusual situation at Alexandria for which we have other evidence, we should have small reason to trust it. What can be said in the way of harmonizing his discrepancy with St. Jerome in regard to the date when this regime terminated, has been very well said by Eitschl, op. cit. pp. 429 sq. We have no reason to § 3] CATHOLIC DEVELOPMENT 29 trust the statement that the presbyters elected as well as conse- crated their bishop; for we know that the popular rights of election were long preserved in Alexandria. This is a natural anachronism, like the use of the title " Patriarch." Or else the word denotes merely the right of nomination, which might count upon the assent of the people. The reason which Eutychius gives for the exercise of what he considers so ab- normal a right on the part of the presbyters, we also know to be a mistake. For — not to speak of the fact that there is record of bishops in Egypt before Alexander — Source A of the Apostolic Church Order above mentioned reveals the fact that bishops must have been peculiarly numerous there in the second century. It is prescribed that " If there are few persons, and in any place there are not found twelve men capable of voting for a bishop, they shall write to neighboring Churches, where the congregations are firmly established, that three chosen men may come from thence and carefully ex- amine who is worthy." Here election is the important matter, — or rather the selection of the most worthy man. Ordination must be assumed, and it must have been administered by the congregation and the three deputies : it is possible that the rite of imposition of hands was performed by a layman, it is certain that it was not necessarily done by a bishop. The only alterna- tive is that there was no ordination. In the established con- gregation (comprising at least twelve men) the case is plainer : here no delegates from the neighboring Churches are present, and consequently no bishop. That the Church in Alexandria was an " established " congregation it need not be said. It was the established congregation in Egypt, and consequently there could be no question of inviting neighboring Churches or their representatives to assist the " twelve presbyters " and the thou- sands of the faithful in Alexandria in examining, electing, and ordaining their bishop. The situation as here depicted is ex- ceedingly significant, because it was not a local Egyptian peculiarity, but represents, as we have reason to believe, the normal and universal custom of the Catholic Church through- out the first half of the second century. There were special reasons, as we have seen, why the custom 30 INTRODUCTION [ I endured longer in Alexandria than elsewhere; but there still remains to consider another element of the situation which was by no means peculiar to Alexandria, and which endured as long as the supposedly strange practice we have just been considering : that is the recognized superiority of the city presbyter to the country bishop. The last reference we have to the right of presbyters to ordain is the canon XIII. of the council of Ancyra (a. d. 314), and it is there mentioned only to restrict it. It is ordained that " it be not allowed to country- bishops ('x^copeTTLa-KOTroc';) to ordain presbyters or deacons, nor even to city-presbyters, except permission be given in each parish by the bishop in writing." This is Lightfoot's rendering (Phil. p. 232) of the text which is commonly received, — which Wordsworth also justifies (op. cit. p. 140, note) contra Gore (op. cit. p. 370, note D). Here the city presbyter is recognized as the superior of the country bishop, though "riot even" he is to be allowed to ordain presbyters and deacons without written permission from his bishop. We can imagine how the important city presbyters of Alexandria about this time must have rebelled against their patriarch Alexander's innovation of introducing one whom they must consider no more than a country bishop as their superior in the matter of ordination. In the age which is represented by the Apostolic Church Order, with its numerous cures of less than twelve men presided over by a bishop, how impossible must have been the thought of subordinating the Alexandrian presbytery to a p^tapeTrtWoTro"? ! Lightfoot says (ibid. p. 232, note) : " The name and office of the ^^copeTTiV/coTTo? appear to be reliques of the time when eirlaKoiro^ and Trpea/BvTepo^ were synonyms. While the large cities had their college of presbyters, for the villages a single 7rp€cr^vTtpo<: (or eVtcr/coTro?) would suffice." But from the Apost. Ch. Ord. we see what the ;^ 100 INTRODUCTION [ I longed exclusively to the local congregation. This is the notion which has since broadly prevailed, and which constitutes the basis of Hatch's theory. The local or- ganization (of bishops, deacons, and presbyters), if it is not pneumatic (charismatic), can only be conceived as legal. And vice versa, if these offices repose solely upon a legal constitution, they are of necessity local, they have no valid exercise outside the corporation : they constitute a congregational government, but are no part of Church government — for, confessedly, the Church was not legally organized. I have here stated the various views upon the prob- lems of Church government which were prevalent before Sohm's work appeared. Sohm's trenchant ar- gument cuts deeper than these theories. He recognizes that in the Church, the body of Christ, there can he no other than a spiritual government, no authority but the word of God, and no authoritative office which does not rest primarily upon the ministry of the word. In the second place, the unit of the Church is not the congre- gation, but the individual believer with his personal charisma. The Church is not the mathematical sum of the Churches, nor is it in any wise to be measured extensively : wherever disciples are gathered together (though they be but two or three), there is the Church — and in a sense it is the whole Church, for it lacks nothing to its completeness, since Christ is in the midst of it. Therefore, thirdly, the so-called congregational government is in reality Church government; it, too, demands a charismatic ministry, a ministry of the word, and it can endure no other. The administration of Church property (God's property), the exercise of dis- cipline, and the conduct of worship belong to the min- § 0] MODERN STUDY OF CHURCH ORGANIZATION 101 ister of the word as such. There is no legal corporate form for the body of Christ, but only such corporate reality as the Scriptural figure indicates. In the fourth place, as there is no such thing as congregational gov- ernment, but only Church government, there is no au- thority which is merely local : — all authority in the Church is ecumenical, because it rests upon the pos- session and exercise of God's word. The bishop, for instance, was no mere administrative officer — he was that because he was essentially and originally a min- ister of the word, and he therefore exercised from the first a more than local, namely, an ecumenical author- ity. In the Church there can be no human sovereignty — either monarchical or democratic; for the only law in the Church is God's will, which is made known through apostles, prophets, and teachers ; while tlie people have only to discern and accept/" 10 Cf. Sohm, § 1. CHAPTER II THE IDEA OF THE CHURCH § 7, SIGNIFICANCE OF THE NAME ECCLESIA THE word Church (the same as the Scotch Kirk and the German Kirclie) is our uniform translation for the New Testament iKKXrjcria. It is a word, however, which by reason of its derivation, as well as on account of the associations which have gathered about it in the course of the Christian centuries, does not convey to us exclusively or precisely the Scriptural notion. It com- monly signifies the house of worship, as does the Latin word ecclesia (a mere transliteration of the Greek), with its Romance derivatives, eglise and chiesa} We are not 1 Church (Scotch Kirk, German Kirclie, Anglo-Saxou Cyrice) seems to be derived from the Greek Kyrica, transmitted perhaps through the Arian Goths — cf. s. v. Kirche, Grimm's deutsches Worterbuch ; also Max Miiller, Lectures on the Scie7ice of Language, lecture 6 ; AVedgwood, Diet, of Engl. Etymology, s. v. Church; and Skeat, Etymological Dictionary. As early as the fourth century KvpioKov was used for the Chm-ch building (the Lord^s house), though the feminine form, from which our word seems to be directly derived, did not appear till later. The primary signification of the word was therefore the house of worship, and only in a secondary sense did it come to designate the congregation which gathered there. Hence our common use of the word Church is etymo- logically justified, and the Puritan attempt to limit it to the congregation (using " meeting-house " for the building) encountered so great an obstacle in the traditions of our language that it is not likely to be made again. We have to recognize, however, that our English word does not accurately render the New Testament idea, and for the purposes of care- ful study we must purge it of some of its most familiar associations. For this reason Hort (The Christian Ecclesia) prefers the Latin word ecclesia. This word is, indeed, colorless to us, but only because it is strange. §7] SIGNIFICANCE OF THE NAME ECCLESIA 103 mucli accustomed to speak of the congregation itself as the Church ; and if the word is so used at all, it refers to the congregation in its organized capacity, as a legal corporation. Even among scholars there is a tendency to contrast the Church, either as the empirical or as the ideal whole, with the individual congregations, the parochial units which compose the whole. But in thus using the word we must recognize that it is no longer equivalent to the New Testament iKKkr^a-ia , which, as we shall see, signifies expressly the congregation, whether it be grear"or small, whether itbe conceived of as an empirical or as an ideal entity. It is significant that the New Testament has no expression^for the distinction between the whole and tFe part which is aimed at in our use of the words Church and congregation. In Classical Greek the word iKKXrja-Ca denoted exclu- sively the popular assembly of free citizens in a demo- cratic state "formally summoned by the herald for the exercise of government. In the post-Classical period it was used for any assembly of the people, for a festal or even a tumultuous assembly (as in Acts 19 : 32-41);. but still only for a j^opular assembly, and so not for the: As a matter of fact, the Latin word with its Romance derivatives, and the Greek word itself, though they passed through a course of development the very opposite of that which our word church has followed, have acquired the same associations : denoting originally the congregation, they came to be applied secondarily to the house of worship. Altogether our common English word is to be preferred even in learned discussion, not only because it is vain to resist the force of usage, but chiefly because the name Church is already so rich in religious associations that it im- ports more to define and elevate its meaning than to invent another term in its place. Luther translated the New Testament term by what is undoubtedly its nearest equivalent, " Gemeinde," — instead of the " blinden, undeutlichen " word Kirche, which in his translation of the Old Testament he used for idolatrous temples. This usage has not prevailed even in Germany, and although it had at first an influence upon the English translations of the Scripture it is altogether strange to us now. Hort (op. cit. p. 2) says: "'Congregation' was the only 104 THE IDEA OF THE CHURCH [II governing assembly of a club or private corporation — except in an unusual sense.^ The New Testament idea of the Ecclesia is in sub- stantial agreement with this, though it more directly reflects the use of the word in the Septuagint and in later Jewish parlance. ^EKKXrjcrCa is the word which the Septuagint uses in the great majority of cases as the rendering for ^nj^. SvuaycoyT], which occurs in the minority of instances for the above, is on the other hand the invariable rendering for ^nj^. These two Hebrew words are consistently distinguished in our Revised Ver- sion, the former being rendered by " assembly," ~" the latter by " congregation." The slight difference which exists between these two words is accurately marked by this rendering : the latter word indicates rather the con- gregation as a whole, or the totality of the united people ; the former denotes rather the cong-reo-ation as it is called together in festal, religious assembly, or where stress is laid upon the relation of the people to tlieir God. It would seem, however, that after the Exile the former word (qdhdl), which was ever the more definite and formal, came to combine the shades of meaning belong- ing to both ; and thus iKKhqoria, as its primary Greek equivalent, would naturally mean for Greek-speaking Jews the congregation of Israel quite as much as the assembly of the congregation.^ At all events the New rendering of eKKkTja-ia in the English Xew Testament as it stood througli- out Henry VIII.'s reign, the substitution of 'church' being due to the Genevan revisers, and it held its ground in the Bishops' Bible in no less primary a passage than Matt. xvi. 18 till the Jacobean revision of 1611, which we call the Authorized Version." '^ See Sohm, p. 16, notes 2 and 3. In note 4 on the following page he disposes of Hatch's claim that (kkXtjo-Iu was ordinarily used for the assem- bly of a guild. 3 See Hort, The Christian Ecclesia, pp. 3 sq., and Kdstlin in Herzogs Realencyklopadie, art. Kirche. § 7] SIGNIFICANCE OF THE NAME ECCLESIA 105 Testament use of the word — - particularly by St. Paul, ■vvho employs it most frequently — - denotes not merely the congregation as it is publicly assembled, but the people of God as such. The notion of calling or sum- moning, which belongs to the etymology of both the Hebrew and the Greek word, was not prominent in the use of either. It is sometimes supposed that the Scrip- tural doctrine of election, the calling out from a larger body, was indicated in the word iKKXrjata — from e/cKa- Xeo) ; but the compound Greek verb has not this mean- ing, and even in the New Testament the noun does not appear to have been associated with this idea. It may be surmised, however, that Jesus' choice of the word eKKkiqcria (and the subsequent New Testament use of it) was due to some of these less express conno- tations. Fundamentally it denoted the same thing as the "nation" or the "people" of God, but it was evi- dently more appropriate than either of these significant Old Testament names, to express the character of the people of the New Covenant, the true Israel of God, which was constituted not by race kindred, nor by nation- ality, but by God's individual choice and by man's im- mediate, personal relationship to him : — more concretely, by fulfilment of the conditions of Christian discipleship, that is, belief in Jesus and obedience to him. At the same time the social ideal was no less expressly empha- sized in the word ecclesia (standing for both assembly and congregation) than in the words people or nation. The express meaning of the word and its Old Testament associations precluded a purely abstract conception of the Christian Ecclesia — like the " invisible Church " of the Protestant theologians — as the mere numerical totality of individual believers. It has already been remarked that the word was used to denote the body of 106 THE IDEA OF THE CHURCH [II Christian disciples as such, and not merely as they were actually convened : but for all that, the Ecclesia was ever regarded as a social entity ; the divine call, indi- vidual as it was, was a call into a divinel}^ constituted society, which was the sphere of Christian discipleship, in which the obligations of loving fellowship and service were to be realized. The spiritual bonds which united the disciples with one another were more real than any which were constituted by actual assembly in one place. And yet the actual assembly was essential to the prac- tical realization of the ideal, and the notion of assembly belonged to the primary and proper sense of the word Ecclesia even in the New Testament. More than this, it is only in assembly — of two or three at the least — that the Ecclesia has the capacity to act (Matt. 18 : 17-20). Important as is the social aspect of the Ecclesia upon the human side, on the divine side it is more essential still : the whole value, importance, and power of the Ecclesia (both in the Old Testament and in the New) is due to the fact that it is an assembly together ivith God, — and not merely at his call. To meet with God it must be a holy assembly : according to Deut. 23 no wicked or unclean person might " enter into the Ecclesia of Jehovah." Holiness was ascribed to it in a proper sense, as expressive of its actual character, and not merely in view of the moral task which was 2^^oposed to it. In Deut. 33 : 3, 4, the '' peoples " (or " tribes ") and " the assembly of Jacob " correspond with " his saints " (LXX. ol rjytacriJievoL). The common Christian use of " the saints " as a de- scriptive name for the whole congregation or Church undoubtedly had its root in the Old Testament, and we are not justified in supposing in either case that the §7] SIGNIFICANCE OF THE NAME ECCLESIA 107 word is to be taken in an unnatural sense, — still less that a discrimination was made between an invisible congregation composed solely of saints, and a concrete and visible one which is made up of good and bad. The difficulty is that holiness is not predicated of the Church' as a whole, as an ideal abstraction which exists inde- pendently of its members; but of the members them- selves collectively (" the saints ") ; though it is .evident that among them there must be some whose character does not correspond with the title. Luther's explana- tion was that the word is used synecdochically, de- scribing the whole by the part. We have to beware, however, of importing our own discriminations into the New Testament idea of the Church. This objective mode of speech was peculiarly consonant with the Jew- ish type of mind, but it is not strange that it did not long survive among the Gentiles. It is true that none but holy persons are to be thought of as assembling in effective communion with God, and that the assembly can be regarded as a Church only in so far as it is composed of true disciples convened in the name of the Lord. But though there be actually false members in the Church, it is not necessary to dwell upon the fact, — still less to construct our definition of the Church with a view to obviating this incongruity. We cannot say that the New Testament writers did not reflect upon the incongruity of false membership in the Church (cf. 1 John 2 : 19) ; nor that St. Paul in particular would have experienced any difficulty in ap- plying to the Church, if the occasion had demanded it, the same distinction which he uses in relation to the ancient Israel in Rom. 9 : 6, — " For they are not all Israel which are of Israel ; " but there is no hint that such considerations did actually influence the apostolic 108 THE IDEA OF THE CHURCH [II definition of the Church. Even in the early Catholic period the Church was still defined with sole reference to its true members ; and so long as the character of the great majority of the disciples corresponded sub- stantially with the ideal, it was possible to ignore the exceptions. It was only when wide-spread corruption forced men to dwell upon this incongruity, that they felt obliged to choose between a radical purification of the Church, or a new definition of it such as the trend of Catholic development demanded, — that is, as an institute, which enjoyed the character of holiness apart from any consideration of the character of its members. Our Lord's parables about the wheat and the tares, and the net containing good and bad fishes, furnished a con- venient pretext for this definition, but no sound justifi- cation of it. Even if we were justified here in simply substituting the Church for the Kingdom ; yet, rightly interpreted, the first parable (Matt. 13 : 24-30) does not make the " field " the express analogue of the Kingdom : rather, like the " net " in the second parable (Matt. 13 : 47-50), it represents the world, the secular sphere of the Kingdom's growth. § 8, JESUS' USE OF THE WOED CHUKCH The use of the word eKKkiqcria, it is well known, is ascribed to Jesus only in the Gospel of St. Matthew, and there only in two passages: 16: 18 sq. and 18: 17 sqq. It is not strange that doubts have been raised about the trustworthiness of the record. Jesus spoke much about the Kingdom of God, but these two refer- ences to the Church — unsupported by any other Gospel — stand so isolated in his teaching, that they have even been taken for interpolations of a later age, in favor of § 8] JESUS' rSE OF THE WORD CHURCH 109 ecclesiastical authority, — though interpreting, it might be, genuine sayings about the Kingdom. But, on the other hand, the motive of such falsification is not clear ; and if there were no such record we should be tempted to assume some solemn saying of our Lord to account for the general and uniform use of the term Ecclesia from the very beginning of the Apostolic Age. We may even guess that these two occasions were not the only ones upon which Jesus spoke of his Church. The sec- ond passage assumes that the idea was a familiar one, at least in a Jewish sense ; and it conceives very con- cretely of the Christian community. We are unfortu- nately not in a position to determine how far the current Jewish usage ^ might explain our Lord's employment of this term, but what has been already said about its use in the Old Testament shows that its meaning could not have been altogether strange to the disciples. It is evi- dent, however, that we must take the word Church in its essential meaning, as the equivalent of congregation and assembly, and strip it of the associations which re- flect its historical development (precise forms of govern- ment and cultus), if we are to believe that it was used by Jesus and was intelligible to his disciples. The truth is, there is no presumption against such a use of the word Church — or even " my Church " — as is recorded in St. Matthew's Gospel, unless we are 1 Hort, pp. 13 sq., refers to Ps. 74 : 2 (usually supposed to be a very late Psalm) and the significant rendering of it in St. Paul's address to the Ephesian elders in Acts 20 : 28, finding there a hint that the two Old Testament words which we translate " congregation " and " assembly " might have acquired in later Jewish use a theological significance about equal to the solemn designation " people " of God. The Psalm reads : " Remember thy congregation which thou didst purchase of old, didst redeem to be the tribe of thine inheritance." The LXX translates the original 'edhah as usual by uvvayuiyr], but St. Paul substitutes fKKXTjaia : "to feed the Church of God which fie purchased with his own blood." 110 THE IDEA OF THE CHURCH [11 prepared to answer in the negative the more radical question, whetlier Jesus entertained at all the intention of founding a Church, or any separate organization of his disciples, in distinction from the national congregation of Israel. The parables of the Kingdom of heaven hardly fur- nish a pertinent answer to this inquiry. They do not tell us, for example, whether a particular social organ- ization is a requisite for the consummation of that divine rule, or for the realization here on earth of that divinely generated life with its promise of eternal blessedness, which is what Jesus meant by the King- dom. The Kingdom is already present, in so far as it is realized in those who receive the seed of the word in good soil where it springs up and bears fruit. But the wheat and the tares grow in the same field, and caution is given against the endeavor to separate them. Good and bad fish are included in the same net. Most of the parables have to do with the personal reception of the divine word, the inward apprehension of it ; and even in describing the new life which is thereby engendered nothing is said of the reciprocal activities and common ordinances belonging to a separate community. The moral and religious forces of the Kingdom, slow and hidden like the leaven, operate in the whole mass of mankind. In the parable of the mustard seed the King- dom is represented as an objective unity, spreading itself abroad over the earth ; but there is nothing here to tell us how far those who are incorporated in this growth are sundered from the congregation of Israel, or bound together in a social organization of their own. C. The relation of the Church to the Kingdom of God is a question upon which opinions widely differ. Upon Jesus' first mention of the Church (Matt. 16 : 18, 19) he set it in relation § 8] JESUS' USE OF THE WORD CHURCH 111 to the Kingdom — " Thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church. ... I will give unto thee the keys of the Kingdom of heaven ; " — but what the relation is, is not specifi- cally stated. From Jesus' use of the two words in the same context we may, however, gather this much, that they are not ■ simply identical, — as the Catholic theologians, following Au-' gustine, have taken them to be. But neither are they to be sharply contrasted, as it is now the Protestant fashion to do.i The true relation it is very difficult, perhaps impossible, for us to define ; but we may approximate a true idea of it by elimi- nating the more signal errors of the common interpretation. When the Church is conceived in terms of its external organ- ization (as by the Eeformed theologians, who have never rid themselves of the Catholic notion) the contrast with the King- dom is inevitable. But when we think of the Church in Jesus' sense, as the congregation of his disciples, we find that it lies on the same plane with the Kingdom, and closely corresponds with it, — so far at least as the latter is realized in this present world, in distinction from its final and perfect revelation, and without reference to its preparation in the Old Covenant. It needs to be remarked by the way that the apostolic conception of the Church was bounded by the earthly sphere and included no reference to the souls of the faithful departed — what we call the Church triumphant. Even so far as this present age is con- cerned, the idea of the Kingdom did not take especial account of such social organization as is essential to the notion of the Church or congregation. And yet the members of both Church and Kingdom were the same persons. Only those could count as true members of the Church of Christ who were truly joined together as his disciples and assembled in his name, — having consequently their part in the Kingdom. And, on the other hand, it is impossible to believe that any one who has received the seed of the word and has a part in the Kingdom will remain foreign to the brotherhood of Christ's disciples. It is a mistake to suppose that the difference between the Kingdom and the Church is the difference between inward and outward, or between ideal and real. The Kingdom has its real existence in the character of its members and their social con- \ 112 THE IDP:A of THE CHURCH [II duct; it has its outward and visible signs in the preaching of the word and in the fruit which it bears ; though none of these things are the objects strictly of sensible " observation." The Church, likewise, though it appears to the world as an outward association like other human societies, is constituted in reality the assembly and Church of Christ only by reason of the in- ward bonds which unite all the members to him. The essence of the Church does not lie in externals. Jesus prescribed for his Church no external forms of organization, or of dogma, or of cultus — except baptism and the Lord's Supper, and these, ac- cording to the third and sixth chapters of St. John's Gospel, are interpreted as sacraments of the Kingdom. Equally at fault is the distinction drawn by Eitschl and his followers, which is to-day the most popular one. It does not correspond at all to the sense of these words, as used by Christ or by the apostolic writers, to distinguish the Church as an as- sociation for religious ends, from the Kingdom as an ethical institute. The Kingdom of God, according to this notion, finds its realization in those who believe in Christ and live in the mutual exercise of brotherly love; while the Church, on the other hand, exists chiefly for the purpose of divine service — understood in the sense of a common worship or cult. But what stands first and foremost in Jesus' teaching about the con- ditions of membership in the Kingdom is the right attitude and behavior totvards God ; and the Church as a practical organiza- ition is made possible by no other bond than that of brotherly love, exhibiting itself in mutual comfort and edification. The fact is that this distinction ignores one of the most noteworthy characteristics of Christianity, according to which " divine ser- vice," in its proper sense, is not fulfilled in terms of a religious cult, but in ethical will and conduct — expressed largely in the service of man. That is to say, divine and human service are rather identified than contrasted, the moral and the religious ideals are united. Some would take the Kingdom in a more comprehensive sense, as including the whole life and activity of its members and furnishing the solution of all the practical problems which their position in the world — their complex social and civil § S] JESUS' USE OF THE WORD CHURCH 113 relations — forces upon them. Of this it can only be said that it is more comprehensive than the New Testament idea of the Kingdom of God, which is restricted to the central region of morality and religion — a heart freely given to God, a life which is lived in him and yet finds its blessedness in the meek yoke of social service, association in brotherly love which has no other object but to realize that life and acquit that ser- vice. The fact that the Kingdom of God, which was the pre- dominant theme of Jesus' teaching receded to a secondary and almost an insignificant place in the teaching of the Apostolic Age, is a problem for which we have no adequate solution. It is especially remarkable that St. Paul, who makes so much of the Church, should make so little reference to the Kingdom. It is not because he counted the latter idea the less important or significant. On the contrary, he associated with the idea of the Kingdom of God a heavenly perfection which the actual development of the Church was still far from realizing, — which it could never realize before the second coming of Christ and the radical transformation which he must then effect. Toward this consummation the Church tends, and already the " saints " enjoy the spiritual blessings of the Kingdom — right- eousness, peace and joy. Not only are they made meet to be inheritors of the saints in light, but already they are trans- lated into the Kingdom of the Son, and made to sit with him in heavenly places (Col. 1 : 12 sq. ; Ephes. 2 : 6). But for St. Paul, as well as for the rest of the Apostles, the Kingdom belongs essentially to the coming aon, it remains still to be " mherited " (2 Thes. 1 : 5 ; 1 Cor. 6 : 9 sq. ; 15 : 24, 5« ; Gal. 5:21; Ephes. 5 : 5 ; 2 Tim. 4:1; Heb. 12 : 28 ; James 2 : 5 ; 2 Pet. 1:11). In so far as Jewish apocalyptic expectations of the Kingdom were still cherished, it was manifestly impossible to account the actual condition of the Church an adequate realization of them. St. Paul so idealized the Church that he might — so it seems — have identified it with the loftiest conception of the Kingdom, — tbut as a matter of fact he did not so do. We may say that no Apostle succeeded in maintaining, with such lively reality as did Jesus, a conception of the Kingdom as 8 114 THE IDEA OF THE CHURCH [II a present blessing, a possession here and now to be attained, a heavenly consummation which is actually realized on earth in the persons of Christ's disciples. None, I would say, unless it be St. John, who (though he too gave up the use of the word), interpreted most truly the Lord's doctrine of the Kingdom in terms of "eternal life" which he characteristically conceived as a present possession — life now or never, now and forever. I cannot too much regret that the admirable little work by Geerhardus Vos, The Teaching of Jesus concerning the Kingdom of God and the Church, New York, 1903, did not appear in time to assist me in formulating the above definition of a very difficult subject. I am glad, however, to be able to append here a reference to this simple and popular book, which I can- not but account the ablest work that has appeared on this th^me. / But, on the other hand, we have in the idea of disci- plesMp a direct preparation for the Kingdom. Actually, the disciples were united by very real bonds of associa- tion ; and the more deeply they apprehended the char- acter of their relation to Jesus — not as a mere rabbi but as the spiritual Lord — the more clearly they real- ized the ties of Christian brotherhood. They constituted Christ's flock (Luke 12 : 32 ; John 10 : 1 sqq.), accord- ing to a metaphor which derives a solemn significance from its Old Testament use, and which seems here to stand mid-way between the idea of the Kingdom and that of the Church. The formal choice of the Twelve was a step towards the organization of the congregation of Christ's disciples ; and, though this doubtless symbol- ized the ultimate inclusion of all the tribes of Israel, the disciples could not but feel their separateness within their race and nation, since in the actual present it was they alone who had accepted the opportunity and be- come in fact sons of the Kingdom. Their separate- ness became more sharply defined as Jewish hate and § 8] JESUS' USE OF THE WORD CHURCH 115 repudiation of Jesus drew to its culmination. Then, if not before, it must have been evident that with Jesus' departure, for which he was endeavoring to prepare them, they must still hold together to labor for the common cause, as the mission of the Twelve and of the Seventy had set them example. It seems as if in his teaching about the Kingdom on the one hand, and about discipleship on the other, Jesus had reached nearly the same point by following opposite ways. Starting with the idea of the Kingdom, it seems to have been his constant effort to jDurge it of the con- crete associations which were current among the Jews, — but surely without meaning to deny all the social implications of the word. On the other hand, the idea of discipleship, which from the very outset of his min- istry he began to develop, had few precise associations of any kind, and needed only to be defined, — as it gradually was by the actual character and constitution of the society which Jesus formed. Starting with the idea of the Kingdom, Jesus made it substantially coin- cident with discipleship; and in terms of discipleship he developed the idea of the Church. The full notion of the Church — in j)articular its religious significance — could not possibly be realized so long as Jesus re- mained with his disciples upon terms of human, social intercourse. It was only when he passed again into the heavenly, invisible sphere, and religious intercourse was begun with him there, that the highest conception of the Church could be realized, — in particular, that the disciples could comprehend what was meant by assem- bling in his name. This affected not only the idea of the spiritual or invisible unity of the Church, but its con- crete organization; for to this spiritual community of the Church with Christ — no longer merely with him, 116 THE IDEA OF THE CHURCH [II but m liim — there could not but correspond a closer religious and social unity among the members. The idea of discipleship progressed from stage to stage, and the idea of the Church followed its progress. To form their idea of the nature of Christian discipleship, Jesus left his disciples largely to the teaching of facts, that is, to the apprehension they must form from the actual progress of the congregation which he was a-building. So, too, he never defined his Church, nor laid down rules for its organization ; but left his followers to learn its true character from the development which was conditioned by the very fact of his Resurrection and Ascension, and from its subsequent progress under the guidance of the Spirit. St. John's Gospel throws light upon this subject. This is preeminently the Gospel of discipleship. It seldom speaks of the Kingdom by name, but it con- stantly interprets one side of this notion in terms of discipleship, and so deepens this conception that it sub- stantially corresponds to the apostolic idea of the Church in its Godward aspect. It is significant that Peter's inspired confession, " Thou art the Christ," was the occasion of Jesus' first mention of the Church. Everything indicates that this recognition of his higher character was a crisis in Jesus' career : — from that time he began to prepare his disciples for his suffering fate. Before this, he could proclaim the Kingdom of God without seeming to the Jews to exceed the measure of the prophetic office ; but it was only when his disciples acknowledged him as the Messiah — and only to them — that he could speak of his Church. In saying that he would " huild " his Church (Assembly), it is evident that he uses the word "assembly" C^'^\l) in the high religious sense §8] JESUS' USE OF THE WORD CHURCH 117 which was associated with the word "people" m the Old Testament. The figure of building is applied even more expressly to the Church in 1 Cor. 3:9; Ephes. 2 : 20-22 ; 1 Pet. 2 : 5. According to the Old Testa- ment it was God who " built " his people Israel, and the prophets looked forward to a rebuilding, which like- wise could be accomplished by no other than God him- self. We might rather expect Jesus to say in this place that he would build again the people of Israel. This was doubtless substantially his meaning. We have seen, however, why the words "congregation" or " assembly " might be preferable to a word which bore the connotation of racial exclusiveness — and inclusive- ness. And in saying that he will build — not rebuild — his Church he asserts even a higher claim of Messi- anic dignity, and characterizes his building as a new creation, and as a possession more peculiarly his own. In this first passage Jesus speaks of his Church in the most general sense. In Matt. 18 : 17-20, however, he refers specifically to the congregation of his disciples as outwardly assembled. This, we have seen, is the proper sense of /H)^? which was surely the word our Lord used. The notion of the Church is here very concrete. The word is used as though it necessarily imp)lied a local assembly. The Church is thought of as convened for the purpose of regulating authorita- tively its internal affairs. The special instance here contemplated is the hearing and judging of complaints of brother against brother, — a case which may involve the exercise of discipline, and even excommunication. But concretely as the Church is here conceived, nothing is said of the character of its organization, nor is any — not to say any particular — organization at all implied. On the contrary, the regularity and validity of the 118 THE IDEA OF THE CHURCH [II Church's action is made to depend solely upon the reality of the disciples' relation to Christ. The Church remains essentially a spiritual fact, however concretely it may be conceived. It is an assembly or Church though there be but two or three, and those that gathered together in Jesus' name are assured of his presence in the midst of them. His presence surely implies that the deliberations and actions of the Church are thereby regulated in conformity with his will ; for nothing short of this is consistent with the relation of disciples to their Master, or of sons of the Kingdom to their Lord and King. We may take it, too, that the consent or agreement which is required as touching any thing that may be asked in prayer is likewise con- ditioned by the fact of spiritual unity in Christ. In any case, agreement — and the fact of being " gathered together" which it implies — is essential to the idea of the Church : there is no such thing as an invisible Church in which the members have no concrete rela- tions with one another. It is commonly thought that Jesus here speaks of a local Church, in distinction from the Church uni- versal. It is true that the Church is here conceived of as locally assembled, and it could of course be assembled no otherwise. One may suppose, too, that it need not be an assembly of all the disciples. But of the assumed distinction between local or particular, and universal, there is no hint. We may rather say that Jesus did not reflect whether there might be various particular Churches in different places, but simply posits that loherever his disciples are gathered together, there is the place for such affairs to be brought for settlement. It is not to be denied that a serious problem is presented here; but as it emerges more §8] JESUS' USE OF THE WORD CHURCH 119 clearly in the apostolic use of the word church, the full significance of it will be considered in the next section. Even here, however, it is plain that the powers of the local assembly — though they be but two or three — are the powers of the loliole Church. The word church expresses not an extensive idea but an intensive. Its value is not proportioned to the number of its adherents but to the reality of their adherence to Christ — more properly, the value of the Christian assembly is ex- pressed in the fact of Christ's presence in the midst of his disciples, and a value such as this is not to be measured. It is not the collective wisdom of the many that insures the soundness of the Church's delibera- tions : whether they be few or many, the fact of their agreement, the truth of their judgment, the value of their conduct depend upon the presence of Christ in the midst of them and upon his rule over them. More- over, what this local assembly does, it does for the whole Church: — that is, the scope of its action is not locally limited, it is ecumenical. In the particular case here considered, the sinning brother w^ho refuses to hear the Church is excluded not merely from the local society but from the Christian brotherhood, — he is accounted " as the Gentile and the publican." But this is not all: the judgment of the Church excludes not merely from an earthly society, but from heaven itself. Such a judgment as this is only possible through the inspiration of Christ's pres- ence. That a false judgment of the Church can be|' binding in heaven is not to be thought of ! It needs to be remarked, as a clue to the interpretation of thi^ whole passage, that our Lord proceeds from the particu| lar to the general, from the concrete to the ideal. He 120 THE IDEA OF THE CHURCH [11 is speaking of the concrete misdemeanor, and he first notices the judgment of the Church upon it, and its temporal penalty in exclusion from the brotherhood. Then he affirms that, " What things soever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven : and what things soever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Then, speaking more generally of all the boons which the Church requires, he says : " If two of you shall agree on earth as touching anything that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven." Finally, he explains the validity of the Church's judgment and the power of the Church's prayers by his own presence in the midst of his true disciples : " For where two or three are gathered to- gether in my name, there am I in the midst of them." The power of binding and loosing is here ascribed to the Church. It does not belong to the individual dis- ciples apart from the Church, but neither does it belong to the Church as a corporate entity apart, as we might say, from the disciples. In John 20 : 22, 23 the same power — here more plainly described as the forgiving and retaining of sins — is bestowed upon the disciples as such — whether collectively or individually it is not expressly said. However, in substantial conformity with the passage in St. Matthew's Gospel, this power is here conditioned upon the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, which is invariably represented in the Scriptures as a personal gift. The inspiration of the Church is primarily the inspiration of its individual members : the Church as a corporation cannot receive nor exercise any spiritual gift — or charisma. The gifts which are bestowed severally upon the members are exercised in and for the body, but they are the direct and personal expression of the presence of the Holy Ghost in the dis- § S] JESUS' USE OF THE WORD CHURCH 121 ciple, not an exponent of the corporate inspiration of the Church. To anticipate what must be discussed further on, it may be remarked here that the nature of all charis- matic endowments is most clearly exemplified in the prophetic gift : so every officer of the Church, like the prophet, exercises the particular spiritual gift cor- responding to his office, primarily not as an exponent of the Church, but as an exponent of God — always for the edification of the Church, indeed, but always in God's name. Hence the high character of ecclesiastical authority. It must not be forgotten, however, thatj though spiritual gifts are the personal endowment of individual disciples they belong to them only as mem-l hers of the body. The personal character of this gift of binding and loosing is clearly expressed in Matt. 16 : 19, where it is bestowed upon Peter: "I will give unto thee the keys of the Kingdom of heaven : and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." It is Simon the disciple that personally re- ceives this power ; but it is given to him, of course, only in response to his personal faith in Jesus as the Christ, and even here it is brought expressly into relation with the Church — z;. 18. To form a concrete idea of the particular case of discipline which Jesus contemplates in Matt. 18 : 15-17, we have to suppose that the power of binding and loosing is exercised in the first instance by one, who is inspired to formulate a judgment upon the questions at issue ; the part which the others take in the transaction is expressed by their consent (what we have here is a particular case of the trying of spirits), and so the judgment becomes an act of the Church. 122 THE IDEA OF THE CHURCH [H "We have not yet exhausted the significance of Jesus' first mention of his Church (Matt. 16 : 13-20). The moment was evidently a critical one in Jesus' ministry. He had taken the disciples apart — probably the Twelve alone are here meant — into the region of Caesarea Philippi, at a distance from the ordinary field of his labor. There he required of them an explicit confes- sion of their faith in him, as distinguished from the opinions which were current among the people. It was Simon that answered : " Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." He probably expressed the implicit faith of the rest ; but it had now become of importance, in view of the approaching persecution and rejection of Jesus, that this faith be explicitly appre- hended by the disciples. At all events it was Simon Peter that first gave utterance to it, and it is evident that Jesus regarded this as a fact of the utmost moment. He welcomed it as a revelation of God to his disciple, and said to him, " Blessed art thou, Simon Bar- Jonah, . . . And I also say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock (j^etra) I will build my Church." As the following verse clearly bestows upon Peter per- sonally the " keys of the Kingdom of heaven," we must take it that he too is the rock upon which the Church is to be built, — and not interpret it of the faith which he professed, as many Protestant theologians have, for apologetic reasons, felt constrained to do. Jesus, and his apostles after him, conceived quite concretely of the building of his Church : it was neither to be founded upon nor composed of an in- visible abstraction like faith, but composed of the faith- ful disciples themselves. Truth is not the foundation of the Church : on the contrary, the Church is the foundation and substantial support of the truth (1 § 9] THE APOSTOLIC NOTION OF THE CHURCH 123 Tim. 3 : 15), The notion is no less concrete when the figure is varied and Jesus Christ is regarded as the sole foundation, as in 1 Cor. 3 : 11. Both notions are com- bined in Ephes. 2 : 19-22 : " being built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone ; ... in whom ye also are builded together." It is also pertinent to adduce here 1 Pet. 2:5: "ye also, as living stones, are built up a spiritual house." Peter, by the confession of that faith which was essential to the building of the Church, became actually the first stone — indeed a foundation rock — of that edifice. To him, while he was as yet the only one who expressly recognized Jesus as the Messiah, was given the power which belongs to the Church. To this, and to the like promptness of spirit which he elsewhere displayed, was due the primacy among the apostles which Peter actually enjoyed. But that this power was bestowed upon him in his official capacity as apostle (or as chief of the apostles), there is no hint, — still less that it was an official prerogative which was meant to descend to an individual successor of Peter in the primacy of the Church (according to the Roman view), or to the bishops as representatives in solidum of the episcopate of Peter (according to the doctrine of Cyprian). On the contrary, we see from John 20 : 22, 23 and Matt. 18 : 17-20 that this power is given to the disciples as such and to the Church as a whole : — to every one that confesses a like faith with Peter, and, as a living stone, is built into the same edifice. § 9, THE APOSTOLIC NOTION OF THE CHURCH In announcing the building of his Church, Jesus posited a closer bond of union between himself and his 124 THE IDEA OF THE CHURCH [II followers, and a closer mutual attachment amongst them as a body, than was expressed by the relation of a teacher to his disciples. We can see in the Gospels that the idea of discipleship progressed from stage to stage, keeping pace with an ever profounder apprehension of the character of Jesus and of the nature of his disciples' relation to him. In the end, the idea of discipleship was found inadequate to express this relationship in its fulness. Jesus had awakened in his disciples the con- fidence that they were not merely on the way to the Kingdom of God, but were actually possessed of it ; and the fellowship which was thus formed was no longer comparable to that of the Jewish rabbinical schools. Jesus was more than a rahhi, and the fellowship of his disciples was more than a school. The very fact of his departure from them made it impossible to maintain the earlier conception of discipleship.-' By the faith in 1 A purely secular development of the school of Jesus was conceivable. To spread and perpetuate the teaching of Jesus was the special mission of his Apostles, the Twelve whom he himself had chosen and instructed. The greater company which they in turn gathered about them after Pen- tecost is characterized in Acts 2 : 42 as " continuing steadfastly in the Apostles' teaching." It seems as though but little more was wanted to characterize the Apostles as rabbis — or "masters" — and the followers of Jesus as their disciples. But against such a development of his school, against the arrogation of such authority on the part of the Apostles, there stood the explicit command of the " one master," Christ. A distinct recol- lection was preserved of an important admonition of Jesus to his disciples (Matt. 23 : 8), "But be not ye called Rabbi, for o?ie is your teacher, and all ye are brethren." This logion preserved equality among the brethren and confirmed their direct relation to Jesus as Master and Lord. The name " disciple " (fiaOrjTrjs) continued to be used after the Ascension as it was before to characterize as his personal scholars all who belonged to the school of Jesus. As a matter of fact the school of Jesus was con- tinued by his Apostles, and so long as many remained who could recount their personal recollections of the Lord the sense of discipleship must have been more vivid than was afterwards the case. At all events, it is not to be wondered at that the Christian community should be re- garded from ivithout as a alpfais (Acts 24 : 5, 14), a sect or party among § 9] THE APOSTOLIC NOTION OF THE CHURCH 125 his Resurrection and Ascension the school of Jesus was transformed into a religion ; for the disciples were as- sured that with Jesus' departure into the heavenly sphere their intercourse with him was not broken off, but continued after a spiritual manner — in the same manner, that is, in which men may hold intercourse with God. Little as the disciples thought of separating from the religion of Israel, there were some elements even in their earliest cult which distinguished them from others of their nation, and could not fail in the end to divide them. This religious distinction was the X ynost essential tnark of Jesus' disciples, and we learn from the Acts of the Apostles (9 : 14, 21 ; 22 : 16) that they were known and designated as " those that call upon the name of the Lord " (or " of Jesus "). It is evident that a new name was needed to describe the disciples in terms of the new (religious) relation which was established with Jesus, and of the closer fel- lowship which was realized amongst themselves. Never- theless the idea of discipleship, though inadequate, was true so far as it went ; and it was only gradually that the name ceased to be used to designate the Christian community and the individuals which composed it. It was not used, however, by St. Paul, nor in any of the Epistles, and our only evidence for its continued use is the Acts, where it is still the most frequent name among several which are there concurrently employed.^ the Jews which cultivated particular tenets, after the analogy of the Pharisees and Sadducees. It was, however, only outside their community that the disciples were called Christians (Xptcrrtai/ot) — Acts 11:26; 26 : 28; 1 Pet. 4 : 16. Cf. Weizsacker, Apost. Zeitalter, pp. 35 sqq. 2 It is likewise only in the Acts that we learn of an interesting word which was used to describe Christianity in general, namely " the Way of God," or simply "the Way" (^ 6S(5j:) — Acts 9:2; 19:9,23; 22:4;. 24 : 14, 22. X 126 THE IDEA OF THE CHURCH [II The words which gradually superseded the name " disciples," expressed more profoundly the nature of / the Christian community. The community itself, and the several members of it regarded in their relations of mutual love and duty, were called " brethren." The use of this name, which is barely hinted at in the Gos- pels (Matt. 23 : 8), became at once universal in the apostolic Church; it was as much a characteristic of the Gentile as of the Jewish churches, of Paul's epistles as of the epistles of James and John. The name breth- ren had not only a social but a religious implication : primarily the disciples of Jesus were brethren because they were alike " sons of the Kingdom " or " sons of God." The religious relation, however, was more purely expressed in the name " the saints " — ol ayioi — which was, so to speak, the liturgical name, characterizing the community as the congregation of God's people, and the members severally as co-religionists. From either point of view — as brethren or as the saints — the disciples constituted something more than a school. Acts 2 : 42 summarizes the characteristics of V the new community in four points : " They continued steadfastly in the apostles' teaching and the fellowship (KOLvajvLa), in the breaking of bread and the prayers." That is to say, they had in common not only the apos- tolic teaching, consisting in reminiscences of Jesus and testimony to the fact that in fulfilment of prophecy he had been put to death and by the right hand of God raised up and exalted to be both Lord and Christ ; but also certain peculiar religious practices, namely, the rite which the Lord had instituted in memorial of his death, and " the prayers " which were addressed to him or uttered in his name. Between these two terms, which denote more especially the doctrinal and religious aspect of the § 9] THE APOSTOLIC NOTION OF THE CHURCH 127 Church, there is mentioned another word — Kotvuivia — which signifies community and fellowship in general — in this context probably with express reference to the concrete acts of helpfulness in whicii the mutual love of the brethren was manifested (cf. vx>. 4:4:, 45), and conse- quently to the moral bond which united them. But this word expresses a notion which is highly character- istic of Christianity, and its meaning is never exhausted by a reference to the mere act of helpfulness. Even where the reference is most expressly to a concrete act of benevolence, the underlying moral notion of fellowship is never absent. In the New Testament Kotvcovla is used almost as a technical term, though the significance of it is lost to us through the failure of our English versions to render it uniformly by the same word. The most literal ren- dering would be communion or communication. It is very badly rendered in one of the familiar offertory sentences of the Book of Common Prayer by the word " distribute " — much better in the Authorized Version, '' To do good and to communicate forget not " (Heb. 13:16). The same bad rendering ("distribution") is given by the Authorized Version in 2 Cor. 9 : 13 (R, V. "contribution"), notwithstanding that in the preceding chapter {v. 4) the word is rightly translated "fellowship," — in Rom. 15:26 both versions have " contribution." This latter rendering, though it is much to be preferred to " distribution," ignores the essential character of the act which it describes. Alms- giving, indeed, which was a mere distribution, was culti- vated as a pious practice by the Christians no less than by the Jews. We have sufficient evidence of this in the Acts, and chiefly with reference to beggars. But the Christian consciousness observed a distinction between 128 THE IDEA OF THE CHURCH [H the works of charity which were performed towards men in general, and the " communion " in worldly goods with fellow-members of the household of faith (Gal. 6 : 10). The latter was not properly a part of almsgiving but the natural and necessary expression of Christian fellowship. Whatever may have been the actual economic situa- tion in the Church at Jerusalem in the early days, as / depicted in Acts 2 : 44, 45, it is evident that the having '^ " all things in common " was regarded by the author of this book as the proper fulfilment of the ideal of the Christian community. St. Paul cherished the same ideal, the ideal of " equality " among the brethren (2 Cor. 8 : 13-15), and without advocating any Utopian scheme for the uniform redistribution of wealth, he makes this the ground of his appeal for a collection in behalf of the poor saints at Jerusalem. From this point of view the " alms " which St. Paul carried to the Church in Jerusalem (Acts 24 : 17) was not a mere dis- tribution or contribution from the Gentile Churches, but it was — as it is characteristically called — a '' fellow- ship" (2 Cor. 8:4; 9:13). St. Paul's language, es- pecially in 2 Cor. 9 : 12-15, invests this act with a liturgical character. This context, among other proofs, assures us that he regarded the gift not only as a pledge of the sincerity of fellowship, but as an important prac- tical means for confirming the same.^ 3 Besides this consideration, St. Paul in Rom. 15 : 27 calls attention to the fact that the Gentiles were debtors to their Jewish brethren : " For if the Gentiles have been made partakers (fKoivamjcrav) of their spiritual things, they owe it to them also to minister (Xetroupyjyo-ai) unto them in carnal things." The same characteristic use which we have noted in the case of Koiviovia is to be observed in some of its cognates : Koivcovfca in Rom. 12: 13; Gal. 6 : 6 and Phil. 4: 15; koivcovikos in 1 Tim. 6:16; and koivcovos in 1 Cor. 10 : 18, 20. § 9] THE APOSTOLIC NOTION OF THE CHURCH 129 If KoivoiVL a were used only to denote the practical exhibitions of the spirit of Christian fellowship it would be dep^^ived of much of its significance. In fact its proper and more frequent sense is that of fellowship in general, or more particularly in the deep things of Chris- tian experience and faith. When it is said in Gal. 2 : 9 that the Apostles of the Jews gave to the Apostles of the Gentiles the right hand of fellowship, nothing else can be meant than the recognition that they were partakers in common of the same faith. St. Paul speaks again of fellowship in the faith in Ephes. 3:9; Phil. 1:5; and Philem. 6. In a still deeper sense he speaks of fellowship in the sufferings of Christ (Phil. 3 : 10), and of the fellowship of the Holy Ghost (2 Cor. 13 : 14 ; Phil. 2 : 1, — in the latter place it has also a social significance). St. John uses the word only in the general sense of fellowshijD with God (or Christ) and with one another (1 John 1 : 3, 6, 7). In the last of these verses St. John implies that fellowship with the brotherhood is a condition of fellowship with God in Christ. But it is likewise true that fellowship with God (or Christ) is the deepest bond which unites the brotherhood. The Lord's Supper is the sacrament of this double fellowship : " The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a communion [KOLvojvia) of the blood of Christ ? The loaf which we break, is it not a commun- ion of the body of Christ? seeing that we, who are many, are one loaf, one body : for we all partake of the one loaf." All of the notions which we have been considering in this section — those, namely, which are expressed by the names " disciples," " brethren," and " saints " and ^i/ by the word " fellowship " — must be reckoned as constit- uents of the apostolic idea of the Church. In all this 9 J 'I- 130 THE IDEA OF THE CHURCH [II there is nothing which is not in perfect harmony with that notion of the Church — the assembly of God's peo- ple — which we considered in the preceding section and have reason to attribute to Jesus. In particular, there I J is nothing which suggests any emphasis upon formal organization: on the contrary, the whole nature of the Church consists in the religious bond which unites the disciples to Christ, who is ever present in the midst of them ; in the consequent holiness of the assembly and its members; and in the spirit of brotherhood which expresses itself in appropriate acts of fellowship. Some organization of course there must be. But the actual ' form which the organization of the Christian community shall take is left undetermined by these considerations. Surely it is impossible that any 2^cu'iicidar form of organ- ization, or any formal law, can ever rightly be accounted essential to the Church ! In the following section, where the character of Church organization is considered, we I shall see that legal exaction of any sort is incompatible Lwith the very nature of the Church. But one question may here be raised about the form of organization, since it is connected with our present consideration of the names which were used to describe the Christian community in the earliest age. It is a popular conception that the early Christian societies in Palestine and among the Jews of the dispersion were organized on the mode] of the Synagogue — practically, as new synagogues side by side with the old. But the local Jewish community ordinarily found expression for the unity of its religious life in a single synagogue, and to set up another organization of the same sort could only be regarded as separation and apostasy. The whole relation of the earliest Christians to the Jewish national and religious society forbids such a supposition. § 9] THE APOSTOLIC NOTION OF THE CHURCH 131 The Christians entertained no thought of separation; / / they desired to remain in the bonds of Jewish nation-: ahty and under the authority of the Jewish magis- trates; they were so scrupulous to observe the law, that when they were summoned before the supreme court — the Sanhedrin — there was no crime that could be alleged against them nor any pretext found for defin- itive punishment; — it was necessary to let them go with only such exemplary threat or castigation as is mentioned in Acts 4 : 21 and 5 : 40. It was possible for the Christians to maintain such a position in Jewish society because Judaism allowed not only considerable latitude of opinion and the formation of separate doctrinal schools, but even associations for the prac- tice of a separate religious cult, as is proved by the example of the Essenes. Strange as it may seem, the modern Jewish conception of orthodoxy as a condi- tion of communion was borrowed from the Christian Church. The notion of separate synagogues for the Christians «jj*- ^ ps^*^' cannot be entertained — except perhaps at Jerusalem. Acts 6 : 9 speaks of " the synagogue so called of the Libertines [that is, Roman Jews] , and of the Cyrenians, and of the Alexandrians, and of them of Cilicia and Asia." It is not perfectly clear whether one synagogue is referred to or many, though the more probable mean- ing is that there were a number of independent meeting- places to which the Jews from the several countries here mentioned were wont to resort. One might fancy that the Christians, as a society of Galileans (Acts 1 : 11 ; 2:7), constituted a separate synagogue of this sort. But the name does not occur in a sense appropriate to this theory: on the contrary, from Acts 11 : 26, we have rather to suppose that the Christians were called 132 THE IDEA OF THE CHURCH [II Nazarenes, a name which denoted the origin of the founder, not of the society.* In this connection it must not be overlooked that the v/ name synagogue is never applied to the Christian as- sembly — except in James 2:2. We have seen in the preceding section what reasons there were for preferring iKKK-qcria to crvvayoiyrj as the name of the Christian society, even if the Old Testament use of the two words were alone to be considered. It was, however, the con- teiiwporary Jewish use of the word synagogue, to describe the several legally organized local societies — and not the congregation of Israel as a lohole, which rendered it peculiarly unapt as a name for that society which felt itself to be the assembly of the people of God. The Christians probably lacked the right to organize them- selves as a particular synagogue under the Jewish law, and at all events such an organization was hardly in keeping with the nature of their society. The Syna- gogue in its religious as well as its social aspect was inadequate as an expression of the Christian ideal, and the local and particular character of its organiza- tion was incompatible with the idea of the Church of God. If the early Jewish Christians did not organize them- selves after the model of the Synagogue, the Gentile converts would surely be less inclined to do so, — though the separation of Jews and Christians which came about as a consequence of the mission to the Gen- tiles undoubtedly gave opportunity for the formation of Christian synagogues outside the Jewish communion. There can of course be no doubt that the Christian society was organized, — at first within the national and religious community of Israel, and afterwards in- * See Weizsiicker, Apost. Zeitalter, pp. 38 sq. i § 9] THE APOSTOLIC XOTION OF THE CHURCH 133 dependent of it. The question is merely, What was the character of that organization ? The fact that the name synagogue — which might readily have been so qualified as to render its Christian application unambiguous — was not used even to designate the local community of Christians, goes to prove that the Church and the Syna- V o'ocrue were incommensurable entities, and that even in ^ their formal aspects (in point of organization) they were ^■ not enough alike to suggest comparison.^ Jesus himself significantly called the Church he was to build "771?/ Church." It is no less significant that throag:hout the rest of the New Testament it is not ex- pressly called liis Church.^ For the most part the word Church (or Churches) is used absolutely, as the nomen jyroprium of the Christian society, either with or with- out a local designation. But the full and solemn title was " the Church of God." ^ For all this, however, it 5 Schiirer, Jewish People, div. II. vol. 11. p. 59, note. ^ Except in Rom. 16:16, "All the Churches of Christ salute you." On this difficult passage see Hort, The Christian Ecclesia, pp. 110 sq. He takes it to mean the Churches of Judea, as those which had the most immediate historical relations with the Messiah. It is to be com- pared with Gal. 1 : 22, " and I continued unknown to the Churches in Judea that are in Christ," and 1 Thes. 2: 14, "became imitators of the Churches of God which are in Judea in Christ Jesus." '' "With the exception, however, of two places in 1 Tim. (iii: 5, 15), where the old name is used with a special force derived from the context, this name is confined to St. Paul's earlier epistles, the two to the Thessa- lonians, the two to the Corinthians, and Galatians. It is very striking that at this time, when his antagonism to the Judaizers was at its hottest, he never for a moment set a new Ecclesia against the old, an Ecclesia of Jesus or even an Ecclesia of the Christ against the Ecclesia of God, but implicitly taught his heathen converts to believe that the body into which they were baptized was itself the Ecclesia of God." Hort, op. cit., p. 108. It is impossible to suppose that this usage was a peculiarity of St. Paul's. On the contrary, it is reasonable to believe that the name " the Church of God " was more common among the Jewish than among the Gentile Christians. The use of the name Church in Matt. 16:18; 18: 17; and in the Apocalypse is sufficient to prove that it was not a 134 THE IDEA OF THE CHURCH [H was of course regarded no whit less as the Church of Jesus Christ ; and it would be superfluous here to col- lect proof of the apostolic belief that it is his building, his body, constituted in its very essence by his presence in the midst of it. It is more pertinent to remark that the relation of the Church to Christ is occasionally ex- pressed in the very name (see note 6), and more fre- quently in characteristic descriptions of. the Church which St. Paul gives in the address of a number of his epistles. The Church of the Thessalonians is in both epistles said to be " in God the (or our) Father and the Lord Jesus Christ." In 1 Cor. 1:2 '• the Church of God which is at Corinth " is further described as " Them* that are sanctified in Christ Jesus." St. Paul addresses his epistle to the Philippians " to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi." He calls the men of Ephesus " saints and faithful in Christ Jesus," and the men of Colossae " saints and faithful brethren in Christ." No name that might be used for the Church could make clearer the fact that it is in reality the Church of Jesus Christ. When Jesus first spoke of it as Ms Church it was highly important to affirm explicitly this relation- ship. In that moment no one could entertain a suspi- cion that the school of Jesus' disciples might be separated from the covenant of God's people Israel. The name Ecclesia itself sufficed to link the new society to the past, the newness of this creation was expressed in the fact that it was his Ecclesia, the building of the Messiah. But the time came when the disciples of Christ were actually sundered from the Jews ; there was danger then that the ideal relationship of the Christian Ecclesia name invented by St. Paul, but one which he adopted from cuirent usage. The name Chm-ch of God is simply the fuller expression for what is implied in the name Chm'ch itself. §9] THE APOSTOLIC NOTION OF THE CHURCH 135 to the Ecclesia of old might be ignored : hence the sig- nificance of the name " the Ecclesia of God." In the Greek republic there was as a matter of course but one Ecclesia, the popular assembly of all citizens. According to the language of the Septuagint there was again, and equally as a matter of course, but one Ecclesia, the popular assembly of Israel. According also to ^ the Christian use of the word we may expect to find that but one Ecclesia is conceivable, the assembly of all Christendom — the new people of God, the new Israel.^ At first sight the language of the New Testament ■ seems to contradict this notion of the Church. In nearly all the passages in which the word Ecclesia here occurs it signifies — so it appears — local assemblies, X not the whole of Christendom.^ There is an Ecclesia in Corinth (1 Cor. 1 : 2), another in Cenchrea (Rom. 16 : 1), a third in Thessalonica (1 Thes. 1 : 1), etc. Hence the • frequent use of the plural.-^° There is not one Church, but there are many, innumerable Ecclesiae of Christians, 8 The remainder of this section and the whole of the following is taken from Sohm, pp. 18 sqq. They express the most fundamental thesis of his work, and for this reason I prefer to state the case in his own words. 9 Still, the word Ecclesia is obviously used several times in the New Testament for the whole of Christendom. Especially in our Lord's say- ing in Matt. 16 : 18, "upon this rock will I build my Church." Like- wise 1 Cor. 12 : 28, " God hath set some in the Church, first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly teachers," etc. In 1 Cor. 15 : 9 and Gal. 1 : 13 St. Paul speaks of the time when he "persecuted the Church of God," — cf . Phil. 3:6. In 1 Cor. 10 : 32 the Corinthians are exhorted to " give no occasion of stumbling, either to Jews, or to Greeks, or to the Church of God." In Ephes. 1 : 22, 23 and Col. 1 : 24, 25 the Church is represented as the body of Christ. Throughout the epistle to the Ephesians the name is frequently used absolutely and in the general sense which denotes the whole people of God. 10 So for example in 1 Thes. 2 : 14 ; Rom. 16 : 14, 16 ; 1 Cor. 7 : 17; 11 : 16 ; in 2 Cor. in every case except the address (1 : 1) ; Rev. 2 : 7, etc. p 136 THE IDEA OF THE CHURCH [H in the wide extent of the Roman Empire. It is the local congregation, so it seems, that is called Ecclesia, not the Church universal. Upon the observation of this fact is leased the prevailing view that for early Christian organization the notion of the local congrega- tion (a legal notion) was fundamental, not the notion of the Church (a spiritual notion). But this is not all: the name Ecclesia was applied not only to the whole company of Christians in one place, but to the mere household assembly as well — the Christians that were wont to gather in a particular house.^^ It is this last fact, however, wdiich points us to the cor- rect solution. It shows clearly that the word Ecclesia expresses no definite empirical magnitude, no particular social organization — not even that of the local com- munity, but simply a dogmatic value-judgment ((%- matisches We?'turteil). The name Ecclesia is applied to every assembly which dogmatically — according to its spiritual value as it is apprehended by faith — consti- tutes an assembly of Christendom, an assembly of the people of the New Covenant before and with God (or Christ). This conception of the Church is founded upon our Lord's word (Matt. 18 : 20), " Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." Where the Lord is, the head of the body, there is Christendom : where two or three are gath- ered in Christ's name, there is the -people of Christ, the New Testament Israel ; tbere is the whole of Christendom with all its promised privileges ; for Christ is in the midst, and that is all in all. Where Christ is, there is the Ecclesia — the people of God. Hence the saying 11 Rom. 16 : 5; 1 Cor. 16 : 19; Philem. 2; Col. 4 : 15; — cf. Rom. 16 : 14, 15. y § 9] THE APOSTOLIC NOTION OF THE CHURCH 137 which early became proverbial : uhi tres ibi ecclesia}'^ Christian faith sees in every company of Christians assembled in the Spirit, all Christendom, the whole v/ Church. Hence it is that every assembly of Christians, whether it be great or small, which is gathered in the name of the Lord is called Ecclesia, the popular assem- bly of the New Testament Israel. The Church is an idea which cannot be subjected to quantitative meas- urement, neither can any partitive terms be applied to it. The tvhole Church is not composed of individual Churches, neither is the individual Church regarded as apart of the whole. The Church is ever a whole and v- v/ it has no separable parts. There is but one Ecclesia, S the assembly of the whole of Christendom : but this one Ecclesia has innumerable manifestations. It is mani- fested in the assembly of the local (city or village) congregation, but quite as much so again in the house- hold congregation, and in innumerable other Christian assemblies, — and what is there represented is not a local or a household congregation as such, but the Church of God.^^ 1- The proverbial use of this phrase appears from Tertullian, De exhort, castit. c. 7, ubi tres, ecclesia est ; De baptismo c. 6, iibi tres, id est Pater et Filius et Spiritus Sanctus, ibi ecclesia, quae trium corpus est ; De pudic. c. 21, ecclesiam quam Dominus in tribus posuit ; De fuga c. 14, Sit tibi et in tribus ecclesia. — Cf. Ignatius, ad Smyrn. 8 : 2, ottov av § Xpia-ros 'irjaovs, fKfl, T) KaBoXiKT] eKKKrjcria. — Hatch, Organization^ note 24 to p. 124, in explanation of this first quotation from Tertullian remarks : " This number, three, was the legal minimum of a Roman Collegium ! " To this Sohm remarks : " One sees how easily every thing Christian can be referred to a pagan origin." ^^ 'EkkXtjo-ui is sometimes used in the New Testament in such a way that its etymological sense of assemblt/ is evidently prominent in the mind of the writer. So 1 Cor. 11 : 18, " When ye come together ev eKKXrja-ia ; " — cf. 14:19, 28, 34, 35. Ecclesia, wherever it occurs, denotes the as- sembly of Christendom. The above passages would be literally trans- lated by our familiar idiom, " in Church," though of course the actual connotation of our modern phrase is not the same. The principal assem- 138 THE IDEA OF THE CHURCH [II The fundamental idea of primitive Christianity is that of the Church (Ecclesia). The only assembly which it recognized was the Church-assembly — the assembly of the Ecclesia, the assembly of Christendom. There is no such thing as a local or a household assem- bly as such : what we actually call a local assembly, namely, the principal congregation of the Christians of a particular town, is what it is, not as a mere local assembly, but as a manifestation of the Ecclesia, the assembly of the people of Christ collectively. The prin- cipal or main assembly of a locality (which we with our modern way of thinking are accustomed to regard as the authorized — if not the full — assembly of all the Christians of that place) was not an absolutely neces- sary or invariable expression of Christian life in the primitive age, at all events it was by no means the sole form in which the Ecclesia was manifested. Side by side with it every other Christian assembly is equally an Ecclesia, and is equally empowered to perform every "^ spiritual function, — baptism, the Eucharist, and ordi- nation. It is a matter of perfect indifference whether or not the assembly be such as may be considered rep- resentative of the local community : it is of moment only that Christendom be represented, that the Ecclesia be assembled. The idea of the local congregation (the parish) — in- ■^ deed of any congregation in the narrower modern sense of the word — is one which has absolutely no bearing |,;upon the organization of the Church. There is no such 'I thing as an assembly of the local congregation, or of the bly of the Christians of a particular locality bears the name Ecclesia be- cause it constitutes an assembly, not of this or that local community, but of the whole of Christendom, of Israel; — precisely the same was it with the assembly of the household congregation. § 9] THE APOSTOLIC NOTION OF THE CHURCH 139 household congregation, or of any other congregation as such ; and consequently there are no organs or officers ^ " of such congregation.^* This excludes every notion of parochial or local organization — more generally, of any / organization which is expressed in terms of a definite society, club, or corporation. In Christendom there are none but ecumenical assemblies (Ecclesiae), and the or- gans of such assemblies are ecumenical organs or officers. The Ecclesia alone exists, and consequently the Ecclesia alone is organized}^ Such organization as develops must ^* Hort, The Christian Ecclesia, pp. 114 sq., notes "the total absence of territorial language (so to speak) in the designations of local Ecclesiae." " Three times the Ecclesia meant is designated by the adjectival local name of its members, viz. in the salutations to 1 and 2 Thessalonians (tji fKKkrjaia QeaaakoviKecov, ' of Thessalonians ; ' this personal description being in effect a partial substitute for the absence of anything like KKrjTo'.s dyt'otf), and in a refei'ence to the Ecclesia ' of the Laodiceans ' (rfi Aao8iKta>v eKKKrjarla) in Col. iv. 16. In all other cases of a single city the Ecclesia is designated as ' in ' that city : so in the salutations of 1 and 2 Corinthians, Romans, Philippians, Ephesians, Colossians; also Cenchreae (Rom. xvi. 1), and each of the seven Ecclesiae of the Apocalypse. When the reference is to a whole region including a number of cities and there- fore of Ecclesiae the usage is, on the surface, not quite constant. Twice ' in ' is used, for Judaea (1 Thes. ii. 14), and Asia (Apoc. i. 4): while in each case the form used can be readily accounted for by the accompany- ing words which rendered the use of '■in' the only natural mode of designation, ... In all other (six) cases, however, these plural designa- tions of a plurality of Ecclesiae are designated by a genitive of the re- gion ; the Ecclesiae of Judaea, Gal. i. 22; of Asia, 1 Cor. xvi. 19; of Galatia, 1 Cor. xvi. 1 and the salutation to the Galatians ; of Macedonia, 2 Cor. viii. 1 ; of the nations or Gentiles generally (tcov iOvSav), Rom. xvi. 4. In these collective instances the simple and convenient genitive could lead to no misunderstanding. But we find no instance of such a form as ' the Ecclesiae of Ephesus ' (a city) or ' the Ecclesia of Galatia ' (a region)." "No circumstances had yet arisen," adds Hort, "which could give propriety to such a form of speech." But can circumstances ever arise which will give propriety to it? The name "Church of Eng- land " (or " English Church ") can no more be justified than " Lutheran Church," "Presbyterian Church," "Baptist Church." 15 The same result is reached if we consider the figure of the body as it is used by St. Paul to explain the nature of the Church and the character of its organization. In 1 Cor. 12 : 27 he says vfiui Se eore a-Saiia Xpia-Tov koi \y^ 140 THE IDEA OF THE CHURCH [II ever aim at representing Church organization, the organ- ization of the universal congregation, the Ecclesia. But — the Ecclesia as a whole is incapable of legal organization. fj^r) eK ^(povs. He calls the Corinthian congregation " Christ's body," and the individuals are Christ's members, each "in his part" (R. V. marg.). As Christ has but one body (|j/ a-Syfia, 1 Cor. 12 : 12) the Corinthian con- gregation is not " a body of Christ " (so Hort, pp. 145 sq.), but tJie body of Christ: each individual congregation represents the Ecclesia, the whole of Christendom. Only so is it intelligible that the Apostle, in immediate connection with the above quoted words, speaks of the or- ganization of the whole church (v. 28) : " And God hath set some in the Church (t^ eKKKT)(Tia), first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly teachers," etc., in order to exhibit the principles of organization which characterized the congregation at Corinth, just as he applies the same image again to the congregation at Rome (Rom. 12:4 sq.). The individual congrega- tion is not to be distinguished from the universal congregation of Christ's people; it is what it is only as a manifestation of the whole Church, and it is organized — as the Apostle Paul explains in the case of Rome and Corinth similarly — with the organization of the whole congregation of God, by the partition of the spiritual gifts which are bestowed upon the Ecclesia. — From this we may see that there is no discrepancy, nor even any essential difference, between the application of the figure of the body as St. Paul uses it in his earlier epistles and in Ephesians and Colossians. Some difference there is, of course: in the latter case the Church is spoken of absolutely, without reference to this or that local congregation. But it is not as though we had here a novel point of view, which sug- gests a different author, or obliges us to suppose a change of doctrine on St. Paul's part, namely, that he had left behind him an earlier concep- tion of the Church as a particular local society (or congeries of such societies) and risen to the abstract idea of the whole Church. In the first place, "the Church" of Ephesians and Colossians is not a mere ab- straction (a heavenly reality which transcends human conditions, like the "Jerusalem which is above," Gal. 4:26); and no more is "the Church " of the earlier epistles merely a concrete society. Enough has already been said to make it clear that the Church in Corinth, the Church in Cenchreae, or wherever it might be, is nothing less than the Church universal ; and "the Church" that is spoken of in Ephesians and Colossians can be no more. A certain difference in the application of the figure of the body is due to the fact that in the earlier epistles the motive was a practical one, to enforce the obligations of the members to one another; while in Ephesians and Colossians the motive was doc- trinal, to explain the relation of the members to the head. What is new in these later epistles is not the idea of one universal Ecclesia, nor § 10] THE IDEA OF CHURCH ORGANIZATION 141 § 10, THE IDEA OF CHUECH OEGANIZATION The Ecclesia, the body of Christ, the bride of the Lord, is a spiritual entity, transcending the norms of human societies — among others the norm of law. Yet for all this the Ecclesia is not an invisible and ineffectual ideal, floating vaguely above the earth. On the contrary, it is composed of human members ; it is visible and effectual in all assembles of Christendom ; — yes, and even in the spiritual gifts which are bestowed upon individual Christians as their call and equipment for service in and for the body of Christ. The Ecclesia is organized, — not only as a matter of fact, but as the express realization of its ideal. So much is clear from the image of the body. The body of Christ has its organs, but it is impossible that its organization be of a legal nature. The description of the Church in terms of a living organism — the body — can hardly be claimed as favor- able to the idea of legal organization. The figure, in- deed, is commonly applied to civil states ; but even in this application it is properly used to explain the natural relation of the members to one another, and it is only by a certain violence that it can be employed to justify a formal or legal constitution. The application of this the conception of the singularity and unity of that body of which Christ is head; but the apostle's mature appreciation of Christ's headship over the ci'eation, of which the Ecclesia is the prime mystery and revelation. Hort observes justly (p. 147): "In ' Ephesians ' and Colossians the change comes not so nmch [better, not at all] by an expansion or ex- tension of the thought of each local Ecclesia as a body over a wider sphere as by way of corollary or application, so to speak, of larger and deeper thoughts on the place of Christ in the universal economy of things, antecedent not only to the Incarnation but to the whole course of the world." 142 THE IDEA OF THE CHURCH [II figure in the epistles to the Ephesians and Colossians absolutely excludes the notion of a legal constitution. There all is made to depend upon the head} The head of the Church is Christ (God) : all power and authority a in the Church is from him, and must be exercised in his 11 name. Is it possible that a legal clause can decide whose ' utterance must be taken as God's voice for the Church ? The incongruity between law and the Church is not to be found so much in the forcible execution of its pre- cepts (which is not to be accounted of the essence of positive law), but rather in ^^ formality which is of the very nature of law, — that is to say, in the fact that it is grounded upon a definite occurrence of the jpast, and is thus superior to criticism and in a measure indifferent to the question whether in the present moment it ap- pears substantially justified or not. Is it possible there can be any law which might require the congregation to accept a particular decision as God's decision ? Is it possible that a particular teaching must count for God's teaching because the teacher, it may be, was some while ago legally elected or otherwise formally installed? When once it is certain that God's word alone must rule in the Church, and not man's, then is it equally certain that there can be no official position or privilege involving a legal authority over against the congre- gation. The word of God is recognized not by any formal criterion, but by its inherent power. Christen- dom (the Ecclesia) has only to follow that word which it recognizes by free inward consent as the word of God. It renders obedience only to the word which is substantially justified, which issues in truth from the 1 Col. 2 : 19, " not holding fast to the Head, from whom all the body, being supplied and knit together by the joints and bands," etc. Also Col. 1 : 18; Ephes. 1 : 22; 4 : 15; cf. 1 Cor. 11 : 3. 4 § 10] THE IDEA OF CHURCH ORGANIZATION 143 ' Spirit of God. Tliere can be no exercise of legal rule in the JEcdesia. The oro-anic constitution of the Ecclesia is the oro-an- ism of Christ's body ; the life of the Ecclesia is the life and active influence of Christ. Is it conceivable that resolutions can be passed in human fashion about the organic constitution of the Ecclesia, or that the organi- zation of the Church can in any wise be determined by the measure of an outward and formal criterion ? It is the word of God which must decide the organic con- stitution of Christendom. Even for the outward order of the Church — the administration of baptism and the Lord's Supper, the constitution of offices, the ap- pointment of officers, etc. — it is the divine word which is directly or indirectly decisive. The doctrine of Church order must be a part of the exposition and teaching of the word of God — it is a hiha^rj. The" teaching of God's word includes an ethical doctrine as well as a theological — the doctrine of Cliristian morals, i And upon this ethical doctrine, drawn from divine reve- lation, depends the doctrine of Church order. Funda- mentally it is a moral law which prescribes, not only | the ethical life and conduct of the individual, but the \ life and organization of the Ecclesia as well. With this, all thought of legislation for the Church in the sense of positive law is excluded. In the place of legislation stands doctrine — the doctrine of Christ's word — which must render an answer to questions about the life and i organization of Christendom, and does render it. There i can he no legal organization and no legal legislative authority ' in the Ecclesia. D. In this sense the Apostle Paul instructs the Eomans and Corinthians about the divinely ordered constitution of the 144 THE IDEA OF THE CHURCH [II Church through the partition of spiritual gifts — charismata, Eom. 12:3 sqq., 1 Cor. 12 : 14 ; and the Corinthians about the proper celebration of the Lord's Supper, 1 Cor. 11 : 23 sqq. Likewise his precepts about purely outward conduct in the congregational assemblies — the covering or uncovering of the head in prayer (1 Cor. 11), the orderly conduct of meetings for instruction (1 Cor. 14) — are given as "the commandment of the Lord " (1 Cor. 14 : 37) ; and hence his precepts about such things as are external, but relevant to the Church, are part of his " doctrine " about right conduct " in Christ " — Ta<; oSov'; jjLOV ev ^pLara>, Ka6o}poa-vv7]), the disposition to look also on the things of others, to count others better than oneself. Our Lord himself taught that this disposition was to be learned of him, and it is adequately defined only as it is exhibited in his person. Hence St. Paul goes on to define it as " the mind which was in Christ Jesus : who, being in the form o^ God, counted it not a thing to be grasped to be on an equality with God, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men; and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself even unto death, yea, the death of the cross." All the moral force of this great dogma the apostle converges in one practical point, and directs to the apparently incommensurate aim of healing a petty schism in the con- gregation. If the example of Christ — the fact of his Incarnation, the lowliness of his human life, and even the cross itself — cannot beget lowliness of mind in his disciples ; if even the Spirit of God is impotent to evoke in the brotherhood the spirit of fellowship (koivcovlu — see pp. 127 sq.); or if meekness when it is realized proves ineffectual to maintain order, conformity, and peace in the Church ; what other and stronger motive have we to rely upon? Can fear accomplish in the Church what love cannot do ? Force and law, what the Holy Ghost cannot effect ? Of course, if there be no Holy Ghost, there can be no spiritual Ecclesia ; and without the meekness of love, it were as well that the Ecclesia did not exist. But it is possible, one may say, that this motive may be active, yet inadequate ; and if so, do we not need an auxiliary ? At all events, let it not be an auxil- iary which tends to weaken the force of this prime motive — as law and compulsion must, — for whatever does so is destruc- tive to the Ecclesia. St. Paul knew no law to compel peace. Therefore he relied solely upon the moral appeal (yv. 1-3) : " If there be any exhortation (TrapaKXrja-i'i) in Christ, if any incite- ment of love, if any fellowship (Kocvcovta, see p. 172) of the § 11] SIGNIFICANCE OF ORDER AND CUSTOM 165 Spirit, if any bowels and compassions, fulfil ye my joy, that ye be of the same mind, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind, doing nothing through faction or through vain- glory, but in lowliness of mind each counting other better than himself. . . .Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus." The scope of meekness reaches even to subjection to law — unjust or unwarranted law though it be — if obedience conduce to the common peace and profit. But it must not be overlooked that this motive upon which we rely is measurably weakened, and at the same time the obstacles which it has to overcome are notably heightened, by the fact that the end which we seek to attain is a legalized conformity. If we believe that conformity can be attained through love, in spite of obstacles so great; why, when all these obstacles are done away, may it not also be maintained by love alone ? For love is not an occasional gift, now to burst into exercise, and then to "cease" : the singu- lar excellence of love as the pledge of order and con- formity in the Ecclesia is expressed by St. Paul in the fact that — unlike the charismata properly so called, prophecy, tongues, etc. — " love never faileth." With all our laws, how much after all we do still rely upon the sinrit of conformity to maintain the good order of the Church. Even the Roman Church has not laws precise enough to cover every point of ecclesi- astical practice. The Anglican Churches may appear to regulate the conduct of public worship very rigidly by law, but to many it would be surprising to learn how much is actually left to be regulated by custom, — especially in America. Most Protestant denominations, on the other hand, have no law whatsoever for the regulation of worship, and yet adhere to traditional 166 THE IDEA OF THE CHURCH [n usage with a strictness wliich admits of less variety than is found in the so-called liturgical Churches. The Anglican Churches exhibit very significantly — and just now very deplorably — the force of custom prevailing contra legem. In them as no where else is cherished the ideal of acting ever upon a principle fit to be law uni- versal for the Church. The ideal is a right one : the Anglican Churches are in fact only so many denomina- tions ; but they aspire to be Churches, and to act upon no law which is not Church law, ecumenical law. It is this aspiration, and no spirit of faction or vainglory, which prompts the disuse of all denominational titles in favor of " the Church," and justifies the qualification " catholic," for those at least who employ it in the inclusive rather than the exclusive sense. Good must ultimately come of this aspiration for a universal Ecclesia, but at present the ideal is faultily applied when it leads men to insist upon the reintroduction of strange customs because they once tvere universal. Uni- versality in time past is not an absolute criterion for the Church ; if it were so, it would be a legal criterion ; and it is certainly one which, in view of the history of the Church, it is now impossible to follow Avithout con- tradiction. The spirit of meekness and love might well prompt us to submit to customs which are now well nigh universal in Christendom; but surely not at the expense of offending those that are nearest us in the Ecclesia. The ideal here contemplated, as at present it is followed, conduces not to conformity and peace, but to unseemly variety, discord and disunion. In reality it witnesses to the ideal necessity of an Ecclesia without law; but at present it leads, in ways which are neces- sarily vague and various, to the pursuit of a customary law. For it is only as medieval custom is regarded as a §11] SIGNIFICANCE OF ORDER AND CUSTOM 167 divine Icm for the Church, that it can be pressed with such rigorous insistence, in contradiction not only to the present practice but to the positive law of the denomination to which one has either explicitly or implicitly pledged obedience. When a custom is re- garded — however ignorantly — as justified by the uni- versal practice of the Church, it is held superior to all law. Yet as a matter of fact we have no customary law, and the fact here cited is proof that law is not the only, nor the strongest, influence for order in the Church. Above in note D, which I have quoted from Sohm, something is said, but not enough, about St. Paul's emphasis upon order in the Church; something, too, but not explicitly enough, about his estimate of the authority of custom. There is a tendency in some quarters to take a mmimizing view of the influence St. Paul may have exerted upon the order and organiza- tion of the Church, representing that he was too much preoccupied with purely spiritual and doctrinal concerns to attend to affairs of outward order. But this rests upon a false conception of the man. Of course we get a radically different conception if we accept as genuine the Pastoral Epistles, which represent the apostle largely if not predominantly concerned about details of order and organization. Some care for organiza- tion and uniform order is indicated in Acts 14 : 23, if we may trust the account that Paul and Barnabas, in retracing the course of their first missionary journey, " appointed presbyters in every Church" which they had founded. But for the matter here at issue we have no need to appeal to these sources. The " eye- witness" passages of the Acts, and the early epistles, themselves furnish sufficient evidence of the practical sagacity and large political foresight which guided the 168 THE IDEA OF THE CHURCH [II apostle in founding his Churches and in maintaining their individual stability and mutual concord. Ramsay ^ has admirably showed that St. Paul's missionary founda- tions were planned with a breadth of view which re- flects the " Roman," the citizen of the Empire, conscious of the imperial ideal, and aspiring after an ecumenical Ecclesia in which even the necessary diversities of race (Col. 3 : 11) should be subordinate to a larger practical unity. The imperial ideal for the Ecclesia did not im- ply the legal organization of the whole as the counter- part of the Empire, nor the organization of the individual congregations in terms of the municipal government ; but it implied something quite as practi- cal as legal organization, the accomplishment, namely, of three closely related aims : ready and frequent inter- course, uninterrupted fellowship, and substantial simi- larity of custom. Men seek in St. Paul's writings for evidence of a legal organization, and because they do not find that, they are prone to think he had no interest in order and organization of any sort, and that the unity he demanded was not a practical and visible unity. We have already seen that the epistles to the Colos- sians and the Ephesians are not needed to prove that St. Paul conceived of the Ecclesia as one, indivisible, and universal. The very idea of the Ecclesia involved the imperial ideal of unity and conformity, as much as it excluded legal means for the attainment of this end; and no one could cherish this ideal without seeking to realize it in every practical institution of Christian life. It is intolerable that radically different customs should obtain in the Church of God, — still more that through 1 Ramsay, The Church in the Roman Empire (1893), and St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen (1895). § 11] SIGNIFICANCE OF ORDER AND CUSTOM 169 differences of custom practical fellowship should be interrupted. The first and greatest problem St. Paul had to face, and one which engaged him throughout his whole min- istry, was the threatened schism between the Jewish and the Gentile Christians. He pursued his aim of reconciliation with no less zeal in the latter years when it involved only the maintenance of practical unity be- tween the two great and well established sections of the Church, than in the beginning when the very existence of his mission to the Gentiles was at stake and the question hung in the balance whether the Church could transcend the limitations of a national religion and show itself ^^f to be universal. He pursued this aim by every means in his power, by boldness of rebuke where essen- tial issues were at stake, by meekness of concession where compromise was admissible ; and by the power of his personality, by his unquenchable faith, by the Spirit of God, he triumphed, — though so great were the obstacles to be overcome that triumph remained ever on the verge of failure.^ In this case considerable diversity of custom as be- 2 The great practical agency that he employed to cement the fellow- ship of Jewish and Gentile Christians was the "contribution "(Koivavia — -properly fellowship) which he repeatedly collected from his converts in aid of the saints at Jerusalem. Hence it is that he says in Rom. 15 : 30, 31, " Now I beseech you, brethren, by our Lord Jesus Christ, and by the love of the Spirit, that ye strive together with me in your prayers to God for me ; that . . . my ministration which I have for Jerusalem may be acceptable to the saints." And in 2 Cor. 9 : 12-14, " For the ministration of this service not only filleth up the measure of the wants of the saints, but aboundeth also through many thanksgivings unto God, — through the proof of this service glorifying God for the subjection of your con- fession unto the Gospel of Christ, and for the liberality of your fellow- ship unto them and unto all ; while they themselves also, with supplication on your behalf, long after you by reason of the exceeding grace of God in you." 170 THE IDEA OF THE CHURCH [H tween Gentiles and Jews had to be tolerated ; but it was not properly a diversity in respect to Christian custom; and to show that the points of difference were at bottom indifferent to the faith, St. Paul himself lived as a Jew with the Jews, and as a Greek with the Greeks. He made a clear distinction between things in themselves essential, and things in themselves indifferent ; and few men have been more liberal in reckoning the practices which belong to the latter class. But, on the other hand, few have been more exacting with respect to indifferent things. No one has more exalted the freedom of the Christian man ; but, again, no one has so clearly recog- nized that freedom is merely an ojii'portunity for duty. For some hundreds of years we have emphasized Christian individuality and freedom at the expense of the solidarity and duty which are no less essential as- pects of Christianity. What St. Paul gives with one hand he seems to take away with the other. Where there was reason to fear a legalizing tendency, there I Paul emphasized Christian freedom. But freedom is no guide for the conduct of life : duty is the guide and freedom is its sphere. Considered in relation to society there is almost no action that remains indifferent ; all is brought into subjection to the moral law, and either exacted or proscribed by the law of love, — "for con- science sake — conscience, I say, not thine own, but the other's " (1 Cor. 10 : 29). In the things which are in- different in themselves St. Paul saw — just because they arc indifferent — the opportunity for concession, the duty of conformity. The sphere of duty is coextensive with the sphere of freedom. This is the "yoke" of Christ; the meek yoke which Jesus himself bore, and imposed upon his disciples ; a yoke which appears heavy, but is found light where love prompts to service. It is the § 11] SIGNIFICANCE OF ORDER AND CUSTOM 171 yoke which St. Paul bore, and encouraged all Chris- tians to bear together : " Give no occasion of stumbling, either to Jews, or to Greeks, or to the Church of God : even as I also please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of the many, that they may be saved. Be ye imitators of me, even as I also am of Christ." (1 Cor. 10 : 32 sqq.) These principles which St. Paul invoked in view of the threatened division of Jewish and Gentile Chris- tians, he applied as well to every schism which men- aced the peace of the individual congregation or of the Church at large. It was not merely heresy he was zealous to avoid (the propagation of " a different Gos- pel," Gal. 1:6); but schism pure and simple, every practical division which hindered the realization of fellowship.^ Next to the founding of his numerous Churches, St. Paul's greatest task was the preserva- tion of the unity of fellowship — consequently the maintenance of conformity and order — within and among them. Recounting the perils he had endured, he says (2 Cor. 11 : 28) : " Beside those things that are without, there is that which presseth upon me daily, anxiety for all the Churches." The exhortations of his epistles were addressed primarily, as a matter of course, to the settlement of disorders within the individual con- gregations, but even this was subsidiary to the larger aim of maintaining a concordant order among all the Churches of his founding. 3 Phil. 2 : 1-11; 4 : 2; 1 Cor. 1 : 10-13 : 3 : 3, 4. If the divisions at Corinth were not fairly in the spirit of our modern orthodox denomina- tions, I should like to know what else they were. St. Paul gives no hint of a specific doctrinal divergency, but only of a practical breach of Church unity, a spirit which was sectarian in the strictest sense of the word, being expressed in the aflfirmations : — "I am of Paul ; and I of ApoUos ; and I of Cephas ; and I of Christ." 172 THE IDEA OF THE CHURCH [II The epistle which contains most evidence of St. Paul's carefulness to maintain conformity among the Churches is 1 Corinthians, the same which makes so much of Christian liberty, and is occupied more than any other with the effort to resist tendencies towards internal division. The abuse of Christian liberty would evi- dently have a disintegrating effect in both spheres alike, as between members of the individual Church, and as between it and the sister Churches of the same or other lands. In the very salutation the Corinthians are taught to regard themselves as united " with all that call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ in every place — their Lord and ours." The one Lord is here set forth as the common bond of union, and obedience to him as Lord is the uniting law of life. Then in verse 9, after giving thanks for those gifts of theirs which threatened to produce disorder and jealousy rather than peace and edification, he returns to the thought of the community of Christendom : " Faithful is the God through whom ye were called into fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord," — fellowship of him, not only fellowship loiih him, though that also, but fellowship with one another and with all the saints, derived from that fellowship with himself which was common to them all. It is of course not the grammatical struc- ture which here decides the meaning, but the common conception of " fellowship " {kolvcovlo) in the New Testa- ment,— cf. Phil. 2:1.^ Having put before the Corinthians this fundamental teaching at the beginning of the epistle, St. Paul re- peatedly afterwards gives it a practical application by * This and the two following paragraphs are taken substantially from Hort, The Christian Ecclesia, pp. 119 sq. They are not marked by inverted commas, simply because I desired to alter slightly the phraseology. § 11] SIGNIFICANCE OF ORDER AND CUSTOM 173 his appeals to Christian usage elsewhere. The author- ities to which he appeals are of various kinds, e. g. traditions which he himself had received, directly or indirectly, from the Lord ; ^ or his own judgment of what is seemly and expedient, which he expressly dis- tinguishes from a command of the Lord, though he is confident that it is formed agreeably to God's Spirit ; ^ or, where other resorts fail, he appeals to the concord- ant practice of the Churches. Of the praying of women unveiled he says (9 : 16), "We have no such custom, neither the Churches of God." Enjoining order in the prophesyings (or, according to another punctuation, the silence of women in the assemblies), he adds (14 : 33), " as in all the Churches of the saints ; " and with refer- ence to the speaking of women he asks indignantly {v. 36), " Is it from you that the word of God came forth, or is it unto you alone that it reached ? " In a differ- ent and calmer tone he simply seeks for a precedent for what he would have the Corinthians do in the matter of the collection for Judea (16 : 1) ; " as I directed for the Churches of Galatia, so do ye also." For a much larger matter of practice and principle, the remaining of each convert in the relation of life in which he found himself, he urges (7 : 17), "and so I direct in all the Churches ; " while in an earlier passage, he binds up this principle of community with the obligations created by his personal relation as a founder (4 : 14-17), bidding them be imitators of him, as their true father in respect of their new life, and telling them that he sends them in Timothy another beloved child of his, " who shall put you in mind of my ways that are in Christ Jesus, as I teach everywhere in every Church." 5 1 Cor. 11 : 2, 23 ; 15 : 3 ; cf. Thess. 2 : 15; 3 : 6. 6 1 Cor. 7 : 10, 12, 40. 174 THE IDEA OF THE CHURCH [II The ideal of Church unity which the apostle followed is even more clearly revealed when we consider the prac- tical means which he employed to attain it. What he constantly aimed after was to maintain true fellowship between the various Churches, by encouraging constant intercourse, and by prompting expressions and acts of loving sympathy. It is in view of these efforts we are to read his warm thanksgivings for the going forth of the faith and love of this or that Church towards other Churches, so as to be known and to bear fruit far and wide.^ One practical result of friendly intercommunion between separate Churches — and one of the greatest practical means towards it — was the cultivation of hos- pitality, giving the assurance that Christians who had need to travel would find temporary home and welcome wherever other Christians were established.^ Again, St. Paul had doubtless a deliberate purpose when he rejoiced to convey the mutual salutations of the Churches ; ^ when he commended Phoebe to the Romans as one who had ministered to the sister Church of Cenchreae ; ^° gave order for the exchange of epistles of his addressed to two neighboring Churches;" and made this or that Church a sharer, so to speak, in his own work of founding or visiting other Churches, by allusions to his being forwarded by them.^^ By itself each of these de- tails may seem trivial enough ; but together they help to show St. Paul's sense of the unity of the body of Christ, and his watchfulness for every opportunity of T 1 Thess. 1 : 7 sq. ; 4 : 9 sq. ; 2 Thess. 1 : 3 sq. ; 2 Cor. 3:2; Rom. 1:8; Col. 1 : 4. 8 Cf. Rom. 12 : 13 ; 1 Pet. 4:9; Heb. 13 : 2 ; 3 John 5-8. 9 1 Cor. 16 : 19 ; Rom. 16 : 4, 16 ; Phil. 4 : 22. 10 Rom. 16 : 1, 2. " Col. 4: 16. 12 7rpon-e/x(|)^^fat — 1 Cor. 16 : 6 ; 2 Cor. 1 : 16 ; Rom. 15: 24. § 11] SIGNIFICANCE OF ORDER AND CUSTOM 175 kindling and keeping alive in each society a conscious- ness of its share in the life of the great Ecclesia of God. St. Paul's exhortation, "Let all things be done de- cently and in order" (1 Cor. 14 : 40), had not solely in view the convenient regulation of the assemblies of the individual congregation ; for to the maxim which he enunciates in v. 33, that " God is not a God of confu- sion, but of peace," he adds the phrase, " as in all the Churches of the saints." The most significant proof of St. Paul's concern for external order — and all the more significant because the matter at issue is in itself trivial — is his defence of the custom of the veiling of women in the Church (1 Cor. 11:2-16). He seems to class this with — though probably not among — "the traditions" (v. 2) which he had delivered to the Corinthian Church. In some way the usage had become established in the Church — in contradiction alike to Jewish and Ro- man practice — for men to pray and prophesy with uncovered head, and on this point there seems to have arisen no controversy. On the other hand, the veiling of women in the Church was evidently a reflection of the social custom which prevailed in the Empire, and it is therefore the more strange that any should be found to dissent from it. At bottom it was only by appeal to the universality of the custom that a divergent practice could be condemned. The veiling of the head was purely a formal matter, and St. Paul's attempt to justify it upon t-heological grounds is in- conclusive where it is not unintelligible.^^ To identify long or short hair, and even a shorn or unshorn head, 13 vv. 7-10, especially the conclusion, " For this cause ought the woman to have a sign of authority upon her head, because of the angels." 176 THE IDEA OF THE CHURCH [II with the use or disuse of a head-covering {vv. 5, 6) is far-fetched ; and the appeal to the teaching of nature {vv. 14, 15) only proves how powerful Was the force of Graeco-Roman custom, if a Jew like St. Paul, bred in the strictest sect of the Pharisees, could so ignore the precedents of his own nation as to believe that for a man to wear his hair long was in the very nature of the case to dishonor himself. Likewise the appeal of V. 13 has no other force than that of an argiimentimi ad kominem — " Judge ye in yourselves : is it seemly that a woman pray unto God unveiled ?" St. Paul evi- dently felt that all these arguments were inconclusive : he could produce no commandment of the Lord upon the subject; he could claim no special revelation, no inward assurance that what he desired was conformable to the mind of Christ, and might therefore be enjoined by apostolic authority; he could not even treat the question as a moral issue, as though a breach of femi- nine modesty was necessarily implied in appearing with head unveiled; but he could appeal to the uni- versal custom of the Church, and that he counted sufficient to settle all dispute — " But if any man seemeth to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the Churches of God'' {v. 16)." If the apostle was so much concerned about this matter, what question of external order could have lain outside his interest? It is not, indeed, to be sup- posed that he had a doctrinaire interest in devising beforehand a scheme of order and organization. Rather 1* The practice has been maintained to this day simpbj by force of custom, and it prevails even where secular custom no longer prescribes the covering of the head outside the Church. The hat or bonnet, how- ever, of to-day is rather an arbitrary substitute for the veil which St. Paul required, and it is doubtful if he would have thought it a seemly and natural symbol of woman's subjection. § 11] SIGNIFICANCE OF ORDER AND CUSTOM 177 he dealt with practical cases as they arose, but he settled them in accordance with a principle — if not a plan — which was calculated to affect uniformity of order in the Church at large. The early epistles, particularly 1 Corinthians, are sufficient to prove St. Paul's keen interest in the regulation of the external order of the Church. But the epistles furnish hints of only a small minority of the ordinances which the apostle must have established among the Churches of his foundation. The general regulation of Christian life and worship belonged of course to the period of his sojourn in the community; it was only with the unforeseen emergencies he dealt in his epistles, and even m such cases he preferred to postpone the regulation of details till such time as he might revisit the congre- gation — 1 Cor. 11 : 34. The Pastoral Epistles display no more interest in the regulation of external order than we can reasonably attribute to St. Paul ; nor, considering the purpose of these letters, is there any thing incongruous in the proportion of attention there devoted to such subjects.^^ ^^ If the Pastoral Epistles are not genuine, they witness at least to the belief that St. Paul was the great organizer of the Church. The prevalent notion that matters of external order and organization were foreign to St. Paul's interest, rests upon two assumptions which hardly will endm'e to be candidly stated. The apostle's great and predominant interest in the fundamental questions of religion and morality does not raise the least presumption that he was indifferent to matters of external order and the many practical measures which are valuable only as a means to an end. Still less does his contention for Christian fi-eedom in face of the exactions of the Mosaic law — even if it be taken to imply the exclusion of ritual law of all sorts from the Church — afford the least suggestion that the apostle was disposed to ignore the practical advantages of uniform order and oi'ganization. — It has been shown that universal uniformity of custom was an ideal inherent in the very notion of the Church ; but there can be no doubt that the example of the Roman Empire and the influence of the ideal which it pursued, con- tributed to define and strengthen the Cliristian ideal, as well as to render 12 178 THE IDEA OF THE CHURCH [H Catholicism was right in attributing a high impor- tance to the universal custom of the Church. It corresponds to St. Paul's practice, and to the very nature of the Ecclesia, that the custom of all the Churches should be regarded as a norm for the conduct of each. Let the fault of nonconformity lie where it ixiay, — the practical difficulty of settling this question practicable its realization. We must assume that St. Paul the Roman citizen was influenced by the imperial ideal, which aimed at the establish- ment of a uniform civilization for the whole world and so contemplated a sphere no less extensive than the Church was called upon to occupy. This ideal of a universal empire insuring conformity and peace was cherished by the Church long after the imperial order had actually passed away. The " Holy Roman Empire " was regarded as the counter- part of the holy universal Church ; and so long as the political ideal sur- vived, it served in turn to confirm the catholic aspiration of the Church. The modern national system of Europe is the negation of this political ideal, and the national Churches are the negation of the ecumenical Ecclesia. The unifying ideal of to-day is that of Christian civilization. Our modern civilization has not been wrought by martial conquests, nor is it expressed by unity of government ; but, in all except the use of a universal language, it covers a broader sphere and represents a more substantial unity than ever Rome was able to compass. Modern civiliza- tion is tending towards a new international ideal, which aspii'es no longer after a common law and government, but after concordant custom and peace. The Church cannot remain unaffected by an ideal which is so thoroughly in keeping with its own proper aim. This ideal, however, is still thwarted by the prejudice of nationality not only, but also by the prejudice of race ; and it must be remembered that the latter is no less opposed than the former to the universal aim of the Church. The Anglo-Saxon civilization, for example, though it be actually more extensive than the Roman Empire, can never be more than a partial and exclusive expression of human culture, and is therefore no apt exponent of the universality of the Ecclesia. As a matter of fact, we are accus- tomed to regard the common civilization of Europe as the adequate expression of Christendom. But even this conception is not large and liberal enough : the world is larger for us than it was for St. Paul, and its peoples are more various ; there is no one civilization which can rightly be regarded as the indispensable counterpart of Christendom, and the indiscriminating attempt to fasten upon foreign peoples the purely in- different usages of our civilization is at present the fatality of all mis- sionary endeavor. § 11] SIGNIFICANCE OF ORDER AND CUSTOM 179 must not be allowed to obscure the fact that conformity is the rule of the Ecclesia. Marked divergencies of order and custom are intolerable, because they discredit the belief in the divine guidance of the Church, and hinder the realization of fellowship.^^ The prevailing custom of the Church, whether at this moment or at any time in the jDast, must possess a high authority — and a purely objective authority — for any one who is conscious of the unity of the Church's life in Christ. This may be affirmed without abating by one jot the rigor of Sohm's denial — No laio m the Church. For the authority of custom is not necessarily a legal authority. Kahl ^"^ very properly makes much of the importance of custom as the expression of Christian consciousness and the regulator of Church life ; but he errs in treat- ing custom as though it were equivalent to customary law. He justly recognizes that custom has even a higher authority in the Church than in civil life, — and a unique authority at that, because it is a more direct and immediate expression of the Christian con- sciousness than any formula of written law can be. Custom may pass by unperceived gradations into custo- mary law, and yet the two ideas are entirely distinct. ^® Take any Church you please, and by the very admission that it is a Church you raise the presumption that the order which it maintains is conformable to God's will, and therefore is to be accepted by every other Church. This at least is the early view : it must be admitted that nowa- days such a presumption has very little weight. How tlien, if we justify the diversities of sectarian custom, can we continue to believe in God's guidance of the whole Church, — except by premising that the things in which we differ are altogether indifferent to his will? But if we now so regard them, we can no longer regard them as questions of conscience. Why then should we not yield them in the spirit of conformity for the sake even of a petty practical advantage? — for that at least is involved. " Lehrsystem des Kirchenrechts, pp. 96 sq., 129 sq. 180 THE IDEA OF THE CHURCH [II Custom has an authority of its own, and it exacts its own natural penalties for any breach of the common order ; but it has neither formal authority nor formal penalties, and it can become a legal instance only by being formally recognized as such. The authority of customary or unwritten law is not different in kind from that of written law, only it is less sure of recog- nition. The name properly denotes not so much the form of the law as the source whence the matter of its precept is derived : customary laio is no less formal than the enactments of legislation. However elusive the distinction between custom and customary law may be, it is very necessary to observe it ; and while recog- nizing to the full the inoral obligation of conformity to custom, we must deny to custom the formal authority of prescriptive law. The transition from primitive Christianity to Catholicism is explained by the ignor- ing of this distinction : hence it is that the transition was so gradual, so unobserved, and is now so difficult to locate. Customary law was the only law possible in the ear- liest period of Catholicism, while there was yet no recognized legislative authority. The development of provincial synods constituted such an authorit}^ and it was then but a short step from the recognition of the legal authority of custom to legislative enactment. The early canons for the most part were designed merely to formulate and affirm customs already prevalent in the Church ; nor did they add anything to the authority of customary law, since the function of the synod was merely to ascertain what doctrines were conformable to the truth and what customs were agreeable to God's will. But from the first the tendency was to supersede customary law by canon law ; and when, with the pro- § 11] SIGNIFICANCE OF ORDER AND CUSTOM 181 gressive development of Catholicism, the bishop, council, or pope was formally recognized as a legislative author- ity jure divino, the authority of custom could not but seem incomplete until it was confirmed by enactment. Consequently, Catholicism, which seemed peculiarly fa- vorable to the development of customary law on a great scale, has actually tended to exclude it. The Corpus ju- ris canonici — particularly Distinctions I., XI. and XII. of the Decretum Gratiani, and lib. I. tit. 1 of the Extrava- (jantes communes — gives some idea of the force of custo- mary law in the Church. But now that the minutest details are ordered by enactment, the operation of cus- tomary law is confined to the narrowest sphere — chiefly to privileges and exceptions. This is the logical devel- opment of a system which make all authority emanate from the hierarchy. Kahl justly remarks that the Protestant Churches actually leave a greater scope for the operation of cus- tomary law, though the lack of a consciousness of unity is unfavorable to its development. But it is entirely futile for Kahl to contend that the customary law of the Protestant Churches constitutes a type of law which is in harmony with the idea of the Church and defensi- ble against Sohm's attack upon law in general, for as a matter of fact the Protestant Churches have no custo- mary law. Customs have, indeed, by enactment become laws, and sometimes by a decree so general that it may seem like a legitimation of customary authority; but the tendency of Protestantism has been to disparage customary law, and it has succeeded in excluding it more absolutely than Romanism has been able to do. This is in the interest, not indeed of a hierarchy, but of the regularly constituted legislative authority, of what- ever sort it may be. It reflects the influence of the 182 THE IDEA OF THE CHURCH [II modern civil ideal, and the modern practice of confin- ing customary law to one source, and that not a popu- lar one ; namely, the decisions of the judiciary. Law of this sort is manifestly ill adapted to the Protestant Churches, with their impromptu courts, organized occa- sionally to deal with special cases of discipline. Follow- ing again the pattern of the state, all the Protestant Churches of America have formulated written constitu- tions and hfj-laws for the regulation of the more import- ant matters of Church order. And if they have not been inclined to imitate the zeal of our civil legislatures for enacting laws to cover every case that may conceiv- ably arise (a practice which is intended to reduce as far as possible the legislative importance of judicial deci- sions)-; and if thus they have actually left a broad sphere free for the operation of customary law, they nevertheless have no law of this sort.^^ This is not to say that custom has no influence in the Protestant Churches, but only that it has no legal au- thority. Custom is inherently a social power, independ- ent of all reflection upon the character of its authority. Because so great a sphere is open to its operation, and because it is not regarded as law, it is possible to hope that conformity of order in the Ecclesia may be wrought 18 In its relation to written law, custom is commonly distinguished as secundum, praeter, and contra legem. In the Protestant Churches no custom is allowed to derogate from the enactments of legislative author- ity : that is to say, custom can have no authority contra legem. Of custom secundum legem it is unnecessary to speak ; for great as its practical force may be, it has no legal effect. Custom praeter legem — the custom that serves as a complement to written law, operating in a field which law has left free — is the only category that it is important to consider ; and even such custom, so far as it is recognized at all in the Protestant Churches, is never accorded the authority of prescriptive law, but at the most the force of permissive right or privilege. It has proper legal authority only in one case ; namely, where it must be relied upon to intex-pret the inten- tion of an ambiguous enactment. § 11] SIGNIFICANCE OF ORDER AND CUSTOM 183 through custom. No one who has noted the fluidity of custom in our Churches, who has reflected upon the changes that have come about unobserved during the past few decades, and has seen how broadly public opin- ion operates m defiance of denominational lines, can al- together lose hope that the consciousness of the unity of the Church of God, and the spirit of brotherly love and meekness, may be able to effect at no far date a sub- stantial conformity of order which no force of law can exact — nor impede. CHAPTER III THE ASSEMBLY FOR INSTRUCTION § 12, OF CHUKCH ASSEMBLIES IN GENERAL SOCIAL assembly is a natural and necessary ex- pression of the Christian life. It is true of course that other religions require popular assembly, either for participation in public pomps and ceremonies, or for instruction in morality and religion ; but there is no i religion to which the idea of social assembly is so 1 essential as it is to Christianity. Christianity has reasons for assembly which lie deeper than the above, reasons that are expressed in the notion of brother- hood, and implied in the very idea of the Church. This peculiarity of the Church is strikingly exemplified in the character of its architecture : the pagan temple was designed as a house for the deity ; the Christian house of worship is designed primarily as a house for the people of God, who themselves, as an assembly, con- stitute the temple of the Holy Ghost. Three, or even two disciples, may constitute a Church ; but one cannot. And though the smallest number suffices to fulfil the essential conditions, the spirit of Christian brotherhood is not satisfied with less than the fullest assembly that opportunity permits, the completest social expression of the neighborhood or community. Social assembly is thus essential to Christianity, and nothing could be further from its ideal than the unsocial practice of the §12] OF CHURCH ASSEMBLIES IN GENERAL 185 ascetic hermits, or of those who nowadays, without as- ceticism, abstain from church-going. If we raise the question. Why should we assemble in the Church ? the completest answer is, In order that we may he together. Modern Christianity has obscured the reasons for church-going, inasmuch as it regards the assembly as existing solely or chiefly for the purpose of religious worship or scholastic instruction. When the social elements of the assembly are suppressed, and the prime fact is obscured that there in a peculiar manner the Spirit of Christ is present, heightening all the potentialities of Christian life ; then it becomes natu- ral to raise the question, May not the offices of Chris- tian worship be as duly performed in the closet, and Christian doctrine be better learned from books ? — and it is often necessary to answer such a questiou in the affirmative. The difficulty is that Christianity emphasizes strongly both aspects of religious life, the individual and the social ; and where both are not strongly conceived there is a tendency to one-sided de- velopment. The tendency to neglect the social duty and privilege was manifested from the beginning, and hence the need of the exhortation in Heb. 10 : 25, — " not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the custom of some is." But there is no reason what- ever to suppose that this tendency was general, or even so common as it is to-day. The fundamental reasons for gathering together were well understood in the early Church, and clearly expressed in the nature of the Christian assembly. This very exhortation stands in a context which correctly indicates the motive of the Christian assembly, and essentially describes its character : " Let us consider one another to provoke unto love and good works; not forsaking the assem- 186 THE ASSEMBLY FOR INSTRUCTION [IH bling of ourselves together, as the custom of some is, but exhorting one another." When we speak of the Christian assembly we are apt to think chiefly, if not exclusively, of a religious cult — what we are accustomed to term "divine ser- vice." But the name assembly is the better one : it emphasizes the social significance of the gathering, and is broad enough to cover the many diverse func- tions which were performed by the Christian brother- hood ev eKKkrjo-ia. Divine service in the specific sense was never the prime reason for the assembly, and it often formed no feature of it at all. No assembly was held for the sole purpose of tuorship ; and what was done in the assembly was done not so much to influence the deity, as to confirm the faith of the brotherhood. The agape or love-feast was an assembly whose chief object was to express Christian fellowship ; and the same purpose was predominant in the Lord's Supper: it exhibited Christian fellowship in its deepest terms, as communion in Christ ; and it required as of necessity no element of worship besides the prayer of thanks- giving.^ The Christian assembly for instruction had its nearest analogy in the Synagogue ; but, again, it was more fundamentally social in character. The Synagogue had as its particular possession the Law, the interpreta- tion of which was the chief purpose of the assembly and the common concern of all the members ; the great 1 There was no point upon which the Protestant Churches were in the beginning more thoroughly agreed than in restoring the act of Com- munion as an inseparable — and indeed as the principal — feature of the Eucharist. They were justified in this by Catholic as well as by primi- tive practice, though the fact that the rite was regarded by early Catholicism chiefly as an act of cultus, designed to aifect the deity, ex- plains the subsequent development of the medieval practice of private and solitary masses. § 12] OF CHURCH ASSEMBLIES IN GENERAL 187 and distinctive possession of the Church was Jesus the Christ, and the common aim of the members in every assembly — particularly in that for instruction — was the mutual encouragement and confirmation of the faith that is in him. What was there done was done for common benefit and mutual edification (1 Cor. 14 : 26), and what did not serve this purpose was rele- gated to private use {v. 28). Even the elements which we are accustomed to account a part of worship in the most exclusive sense were there valued principally as tending to edification.^ Faith in Christ is a possession so characteristic of the Church, and a motive which moulds so powerfully the conduct of the Christian assembly, that it is useless to look abroad, to the Synagogue or to pagan cults, for an historical pattern of the Christian worship — for wor- ship we may properly call it, if we understand the word in its broadest sense. Moreover, the character of the Christian assemblies remained essentially the same throughout the entire period covered by the New Tes- tament writings, and Weizsacker admits^ that in this respect there was hardly a noticeable difference between the Jewish and the Gentile Churches. The early Church in Jerusalem was not in a position to develop a cult of its own ; for the Christians still continued to frequent the Temple, — however they may have been inclined to regard some particulars of the Temple-service. Hence what was left for the Christian assembly was 2 1 Cor. 14 : 26, " When ye come together each one hath a psalm, hath a teaching, hath a revelation, hath a tongue, hath an interpretation — let all things be done unto edifying." Col. 3 : 16 (cf. Ephes. 5 : 19) ''teach- ing and admonishing one another with psalms, hymns, spiritual songs, with grace; singiwg in your hearts unto God." Modern hymnology generally conforms to this ideal — in spite of our modern theory of worship. ^ Ajwst. Zeitalter, p. 510. 188 THE ASSEMBLY FOR INSTRUCTION [III chiefly the exhibition and confirmation of its unique possession in the Christian faith. The faith was con- firmed by all the tokens of God's presence in the Church : by the exercise of spiritual gifts and by prayer — the answer to prayer* being regarded as the fulfilment of Christian joy and confidence (John 16 : 24). To the same position the Gentile Christians were brought by an opposite way. For them the new faith stood in the most express contrast to their former religion, and hence to the whole character of its cult, the essential feature of which was the eifort to influence the deity by sacrifice. What remained for them therefore (as in the other case) was nothing else than the confirmation of their common faith, in brotherly fellowship.^ In Rom. 12 : 1, St. Paul characterizes divine service in the Christian sense by the expression XoyiKrj karpeia. This is not the same as Xarpeia TrvevixaTiKiq ; the Apostle is not here concerned to affirm that this service is offered in the strength of God's Spirit ; but he would say this, that the Christian service, in distinction from all sacri- ficial cults, is rendered in one's own person, and is directed by intelligent thought, by right reason. The " reasonable service " of the Christian is contrasted on the one hand with the unintelligible expression of spir- itual gifts (1 Cor. 14 : 19), as much as with the unspir- itual cults of Paganism on the other (Phil. 3:3). In the same way St. Paul employs the notion of XeLTovpyelu (to minister) in an ethical sense,^ thus restoring to its original meaning a word which the Septuagint had used in a strictly ritual sense in reference to the Temple- 4 Matt. 18:19; 21:22. 6 Weizsiicker, op. cit. p. 547. • AftTovpyelv, to minister as a priest, Rom. 15 : 27; "Keirovpyla, priestly service, 2 Cor. 9 : 12 ; Phil. 2 : 17, 30 ; Xarovpyos, ministrant, Rom. 15 : 16 ; Phil. 2 : 25. § 12] OF CHURCH ASSEMBLIES IN GENERAL 189 service. It is only in this sense, therefore, that the Christian assembly can be regarded as an assembly for religious cult or worship.^ The character of the Christian assembly defines the nature and functions of the Christian ministry. The officers of the Church became officers in a strict sense only as they received recognition as such in the assem- bly. The endowments which fitted them for minis- try did not constitute them officers : some distinctive spiritual gifts — as the gift of tongues — never devel- oped corresponding offices ; and although the most important ministrations of some of the officers lay out- side the assembly, it was the character of the assembly itself and of the worship which was there conducted that determined their official status. No officer, moreover, can be thought of as acting officially apart from the assembly. Offices and officers are not essential to the Ecclesia, though spiritual endowments and spiritually endowed persons are. The endowments are given by God ; the offices are more or less strictly defined by the character of the Christian assembly ; and the officers are constituted by the popular recognition of the appro- priate endowments in particular persons. Offices and officers were early developed in the Church, but so long as a formal and final legitimation was wanting — that is, until the Catholic development — we miss something of the definiteness that we are accustomed to associate with these conceptions. The above is true both for the early period when the assemblies for instruction and for the Eucharist were dis- tinct, and for the Catholic period when they were united. Plainly, therefore, some account of the Christian assem- blies is necessary, if we would understand the nature of '' Weizsacker, op. cit. p. 548, 190 THE ASSEMBLY FOR INSTRUCTION [ill Church government in general and the character of the ministry in particular. I had planned to include in this work a general discussion of the principles of Christian worship, and a full account of the forms of worship which were developed during the first three centuries, - — meaning to treat this subject as coordinate with the study of Church government, which the exigencies of space ultimately compelled me to adopt as the sole theme of this volume. I hope to treat of Christian worship later and in a separate work, and here it must suffice to give only such a brief account as is clearly subordinate to the purpose in hand. This statement is made by way of apology, in case some of the propo- sitions here enunciated seem to be supported by less proof than they require. Any assembly of Christians was competent to trans- act any business or perform any functions belonging to the Ecclesia. There was nothing in the nature of the case to prevent all being done in the same as- sembly : the functions of discipline, administration, and government, as well as the offices of instruction and worship, and the celebration of the sacraments, might all have been performed at the same time and place. There were also no assemblies which were not popular assemblies, — assemblies of the people of God as such. We must be on our guard, therefore, not to import into the early age the hard and fast distinctions we are accustomed to draw between assemblies for wor- ship and instruction, committees of administration, con- gresses of government, and courts of discipline. But on the other hand there seems to have been one distinction in the early Church which we have in a large measure lost. We cannot well conceive that room could be found for the Lord's Supper, such as it § 12] OF CHURCH ASSEMBLIES IN GENERAL 191 is described in 1 Cor. 11, in connection with the assem- bly for instruction and the great variety of edifying- exercises that are recounted in c . 14. Thougli the text does not expressly distinguish two sorts of assembly held for different objects and at different times, we may fairly assume such a distinction. St. Paul im- plies it when he says (1 Cor. 11 : 33), '*^ when ye come together to eat," eU to (ftayelu, — he could not use such an expression unless the meal were the sole object of the assembly. In 1 Cor. 14 : 26, he uses a correspond- ing expression to indicate the assembly for instruction — " when ye come together, each one hath a psalm, a teaching, etc. — let all serve to edification." In all of these various yet similar items the nature of the assem- bly is exhaustively expressed. The distinction between the two assemblies is further indicated by the fact that one of them was open to unbelievers ( 1 Cor. 14 : 23-25) — which certainly does not comport with the Lord's Supper. Mention is made also in these verses of an ISlmtt]<; as having access to the assembly : he is here classed with the unbeliever, but in v. 16 it is implied that he has a definite place assigned him in the con- gregation, and is accustomed to join in "the Amen" of the brethren. In the latter instance he seems to be in intimate relations with the assembly, while in the former he is assumed to occupy a detached and possibly a critical attitude. This does not appear to suit the case of a Christian who merely for lack of distinctive spiritual gifts remains a passive participant in the doings of the assembly. It is more likely that the word denotes the catechumen of later Church disci- pline, — one who is a regular attendant at the assem- blies as a part of his instruction in the faith, but is not yet baptized. At any rate, the presence of other men 192 THE ASSEMBLY FOR INSTRUCTION [III who were distinctly non-Christian, but upon whom the rational discourse of the prophets was expected to exert a profound moral effect, implies that the assembly had in part a missionary aim. To suppose that the Lord's Supper took place in this assembly, would oblige us to assume that some of the participants in the mission- ary part of the meeting were dismissed prior to the Eucharist — which will hardly do in view of 11:33. Neither the unbelievers nor the " unenlis-htened " — to use a later term — could possibly share in the feast, and one may be sure that there were no mere observers present. Both sorts of assembly could take place, of course, upon the same day. Into the intricate question of the hours of service it is not necessary for our present pur- pose to enter. But it emerges with sufficient clearness that certain days were regularly observed as days of as- sembly. This may be inferred from the mere fact that the assembly was regarded as something especial — not of e very-day occurrence. In Rev. 1 : 10 the Lord's Day is designated not only as the occasion of the vision, but evidently also as the day for divine service. When therefore in 1 Cor. 16 : 2 St. Paul exhorts the disciples to lay by in store upon the first day of the week their contributions for the saints, the likelihood is that this was done in the assembly. It was evidently not the keeping of a private mite-box the apostle enjoined, if it was to fulfil the purpose that he expresses — " that no collections be made when I come." Thus the obser- vance of Sunday as the principal day of assembly is clearly enough established as the custom of both Jew- ish and Gentile Christians in the early part of the Apostolic Age. We have also good grounds for the con- jecture that it was particularly the day for the Eucha- § 12] OF CHURCH ASSEMBLIES IN GENERAL 193 ristic assembly — as it certainly was early in the second century.^ And it is not improbable that Wednesday and Friday were already distinguished as minor days of assembly, or at least as special fast days. Very early in the second century the letter of Pliny to the Emperor Trajan describing the customs of the Christians in Bithynia seems to indicate that the Eu- charist was still separate from the assembly for instruc- tion, though both were held upon the same day.^ By the middle of that century, as we see from Justin Mar- tyr's account, the Eucharist and instruction were com- monly united in the one assembly on the morning of the Lord's Day. This union is reflected of course in all the * The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, xiv. 1. 9 Pliny says that under judicial investigation the Christians confessed as the sum of their fault or error, quod essent soliti stato die ante luceni convenire carmenque Christo quasi deo dicere secuni iuvicem, seque Sacramento non in scelus aliquod obstringere, sed ne furta, ne latrocinia, ne adulteria committerent, ne fidem fallerent, ne depositum appellati abnegarent; quibus peractis morem sibi discedendi fuisse, rursusque coeundi ad capiendum cibum, promiscuum tameu et innoxium, quo secundum maudata tua hetaerias esse vetueram. — It is not here in place to consider the perplexing questions that are raised by this report. We must remember that it comes to us through the distorting medium of a pagan governor. But it may be regarded as certain that the word sacramentum has here no reference to the Eucharist — nor to any formal cult or " sacrament " in the Christian sense. At least neither Tertullian (Apol. 2), nor Eusebius (H. E. III. 33) so interpret the passage. Mak- ing due allowance for Pliny's misinterpretation of the facts, the account proves that moral instruction and discipline were as closely as ever asso- ciated with worship in the morning assembly. If it is the Lord's Supper that is referred to in the account of the evening assembly, it is not possi- ble to suppose that the Christians actually ceased to celebrate it at Pliny's command. But Rome's suspicious prohibition of guilds, and of the feasts in which they expressed their social aim, and sometimes concealed a political tendency, is well known ; and this instance of the operation of the law may perhaps point to one of the reasons which induced the Christians to make the Eucharist the mere symbol of a feast, which might readily be associated with the morning assembly — as in fact it was, according to Justin Martyr's account, less than fifty years later. 13 194 THE ASSEMBLY FOR INSTRUCTION [III subsequent liturgies, and it has profoundly affected both the character of the Eucharistic celebration and the doc- trinal conception of the sacrament. To this was due the elaboration of the liturgy ; and, though a later age elim- inated the most significant practices of the primitive assembly for instruction, certain traditional elements — hymns, lections, and prayers — have ever since been re- garded as essential to the decent, if not to the valid, administration of the sacrament. The Eucharist, on being separated from the agape and united with the service of instruction, ceased to be a meal in the proper sense, and the agape itself fell into low estimation, be- ing no longer regarded as a function in which the whole Church was supposed to be represented. Until the fourth century there seems to have been no dispo- sition to ignore the social implications of the Eucha- rist ; but the implication was no longer a clear one when the common meal — the striking symbol of fellowship — had been reduced to its present proportions ; conse- quently the Catholic doctrine of sacrifice on the one hand, and on the other the popular religious indiffer- ence which led to the practice of non-communicating attendance, freely operated to produce the strongly individualistic conception of the sacrament which pre- vailed until the Reformation. There are intimations that the earlier mode of cele- brating the Eucharist persisted even beyond this time in assemblies of a more or less private character — per- haps in connection with the agape. But it was a fun- damental principle of early Catholicism to regard the principal assembly (the bishop's assembly) as the only legitimate manifestation of the Ecclesia (that is, of Christendom) ; and the theory required that the Eu- charist — which could not but be accounted the fore- § 12] OF CHURCH ASSEMBLIES IN GENERAL 195 most observance of the Church — be confined to the bishop's assembly exclusively. For, in spite of this theory, it was not possible to deny that an assembly that was met to celebrate the Eucharist was an assem- bly of the Church. In the Apostolic Age, and indeed from the very be- ginning of it, a distinction was made as a matter of fad — though never as a matter of theory — between the principal assembly (the assembly of the whole commun- ity in any locality) and such minor assemblies as we might be inclined to call private. The address of sev- eral of St. Paul's epistles ^° implies not only the ideal unity of the Christians of a particular town, but an actual assembly representative of the whole Church to which the letter might be read. Other assemblies there undoubtedly were which were wont to meet more or less habitually in this or that private house," and which actually included only a minor part of the disciples. But such an assembly was none the less entitled to be called a Church. In reality there was no such tiling' as a private assembly : there was no assembly from which any Christian from far or near was theoretically excluded — practical exigencies alone accounted for the limitation. The spirit of Christian brotherhood, how- ever, was satisfied only with the largest expression of fellowship that was at any given time attainable ; and, without prejudice to the competence of smaller assem- blies, the notion of the principal assembly, in which all members of the community were normally expected to take part, was clearly enough defined.^^ It was almost ^° " Unto the Church of God which is at Corinth ; " " unto the Church of the Thessalonians ; " — cf. "unto the Churches of Galatia." " Col. 4 : 15 ; Philem. 2. 12 From 1 Cor. 11 : 18, 20, 22 it is clear that all the members of the community were accustomed to assemble ev eKKXrja-ia, or enl to airo, for 196 THE ASSEMBLY FOR INSTRUCTION [III exclusively in connection with the principal assembly that the idea of Church offices was developed and the function of the officers was defined. § 13, CONDUCT OF THE ASSEMBLY The most of our information about the character of the assembly for instruction we owe to the highly suggestive hints of 1 Cor. 14. This passage is pecul- iarly liable to misinterpretation, and to derive thence a correct picture of the normal conduct of the assembly requires the most cautious criticism. In the first place, the picture is incomplete, for St. Paul had oc- casion to notice only those elements of the service in respect to which a tendency to exaggeration and disorder was manifested. In the second place, the high colors in which the picture of the Corinthian assembly is painted require some abatement, if we would represent to ourselves the character of the nor- mal assembly. The abatement, however, touches only the question of orderliness, not at all that of free- dom ; that is, the liberty of general participation in the service. Certain of the spiritual gifts were every- where liable to abuse : in the Church at Corinth the abuse had become so flagrant as to call for the inter- vention of the apostle. Prophecy and tongues were especially abused, but so also was the gift of teaching in general. Tongues, unless they were interpreted, the apostle would exclude entirely from the assembly, the Lord's Supper — hence it is that people out of every social class were to be found in that assembly (cc. 21, 22). Likewise in 14 : 23 it is implied that " the whole Church " was regulai'ly accustomed to assemble for instruction. It was in the principal assembly the disorders here re- ferred to arose, and it is to that assembly the apostle's ordinauces (14 : 26 sq.) applied. § 13] CONDUCT OF THE ASSEMBLY 197 as not conducive to edification ; and in any case he would limit these enthusiastic manifestations to " two or at the most three " in any one assembly, with the requisition that the speeches be not uttered all at once, but in turn, accompanied severally by their interpreta- tions {v. 27). Highly as St. Paul valued the edifying gift of prophecy, he would limit the prophetic addresses likewise to " two or three " {v. 29) in every assembly, in order that less gifted teachers, and others who possessed various edifying gifts, might also have a turn. The prophets are also exhorted to show such consideration for one another as they had evidently not showed in the past, by yielding place to the next in order that claimed to have a revelation. These highly gifted members were disposed to use their gifts tyrannically, monopolizing among them the whole time of the assembly, and yielding with a bad grace to others even who claimed the like exalted endowments. St. Paul reminds them (c. 12) that all gifts and ministries in the Church — of whatever sort they be, however notable or however humble — are wrought by one and the same Spirit, dividing to each one severally as he will. He impresses upon them the fact that as members of a body each has need of the other, that every organ performs a function which is necessary to the welfare of the whole and conducive to the proper operation of each several part ; therefore none can dispense with the other, none dare boast himself above the other, — for " if they were all one member, where were the body ? " He encourages them to " desire the greater gifts," yet one quality which has no element of the miraculous about it he praises as " a still more excellent way ; " namely, love, the indispensable condition of unity and order — which 198 THE ASSEMBLY FOR Il^STRUCTION [III " vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, doth not behave itself unseemly." Finally (14 : 26-31), he proposes definite rules of procedure which are intended to in- sure the free participation of each, and the edification of all. It emerges clearly from this whole account that the freedom of every member to contribute according to his gifts to the edification of the assembly was in theory absolutely unrestricted. In the Church at Corinth many were as a matter of fact debarred from the exercise of their privilege by the abuse of this very freedom on the part of the prophets and others. But this only makes it the more evident that there was no officer in the assembly empowered to appoint the speakers, or even to " recognize " them and call to order. This is as much as to say, there was no presiding officer at all. But more than this, the assemhli/ itself had no right to repress any member who would exercise his gifts. Hence the perplexity of the problem that was raised by the actual abuse of liberty. The most significant thing we have to note in this whole passage is St. Paul's way of dealing with the difficulty. Strong as was his insistence upon order, he did not suffer this aim to beguile him into any act or counsel which might be construed as an encroachment upon liberty/. On the contrary, such regulations as he does propose are calculated to protect all in the practical exercise of the liberty which they theoretically enjoyed. For St. Paul, liberty and order are not incompatible ideas : rather are they correlates, since the liberty here in question is simply the liberty to follow the promptings of God's Spirit in the exercise of the gifts which he bestows, and "God is not a God of confusion, but of peace." § 13] CONDUCT OF THE ASSEMBLY 199 Disorder — the abuse of liberty — was doubtless pe- culiar in some measure to the Church at Corinth, but liberty of participation in the exercises of the assembly was evidently a principle which St. Paul maintained in all the Churches of his founding. There is evidence that the custom of the Jewish-Christian Churches was the same. And even where the more exalted spiritual gifts were rare or unknown this liberty was apt to oc- casion inconvenience, — for example, through the desire of many to assume the honor and function of the teacher. This is the case St. James contemplates when he exhorts the brethren (3:1), "Be not many teachers." By the fact that he appeals directly to the individuals who are inclined to abuse the patience of the assembly, impressing upon them the solemnity of the obligations they assume in taking upon them- selves so high a function, and the danger of condem- nation they incur through indiscretions of speech, he implies that there is no power in the congregation to restrict the liberty of teaching. St. Paul, too, appeals solely to the individuals that cause the trouble : he assumes no power on the part of the assembly to repress them, and lays down no formal rule that might operate to restrict their liberty ; but he exhorts them to self -repression, and enforces the obligations of the! moral law which bids them have respect to the gifts of others as members together of one body. In this con- nection he reminds the prophets that they are not driven to speak by an irresistible impulse — for (14: 32, 33) " the spirits of the prophets are subject to the I j prophets," and " God is not a God of confusion, but of '^ / peace, as in all the Churches of the saints." The im- position of any formal restriction upon those who would exercise the gift of teaching is prohibited by 200 THE ASSEMBLY FOR INSTRUCTION [III a fundamental doctrinal consideration. For the gift of teaching in all its phases — the psalm, the teaching, the revelation, the tongue, and the interpretation — is a gift of God's Spirit, and all that teach speak authori- tatively as on God's behalf. The consciousness of the whole early period is aptly expressed in 1 Peter 4:11: " If any man speaketh, [let him speak] as it were oracles of God." It appears, however, that in some parts there was a disposition to affirm that the assembly had authority to abridge freedom of speech in the interests of order| and edification. Even at Corinth the apostle has to say to the assembly (16:39), "Forbid not to speak with tongues," — while at the same time he finds it necessary to limit the use of this gift so far as possible! by moral suasion. St. Paul appears again as the champion of liberty in his warning to the Thessa- lonians (1 Thess. 5 : 19, 20) : " Quench not the Spirit; despise not prophesyings." It might be said, indeed, that the authority the assembly claimed to exercise was not a quenching of the Spirit in contempt of true \ prophecy, but only the repression of those that \ falsely claimed the gift. The suspicion could not be suppressed that not all the spirits that were mani- fested in the Christian assemblies were of God. But the practical issue was settled by the apostle in 1 Cor. 12 : 2, where he lays down the thesis that thej presumption is in favor of the prophets and teachers, { since they speak in the name of the Lord Jesus — for "no man can say, Jesus is Lord, but by the Holy Spirit." At the same time, the assembly is not condemned to mere passivity, nor to unquestioning reception of the doctrine of its authoritative teachers. All must §13] CONDUCT OF THE ASSEMBLY 201 be left free to speak — but having heard the dis- courses, then is the time to prove the spirits, whether they are of God. In 1 Thess. 5 : 21, St. Paul not . merely permits but enjoins the testing or proving | of prophets and their revelations. So too in 1 Cor. 14 : 29, after the prophets have spoken, he says, " Let the others discriminate." If the prophets must stand the test of this scrutiny before their word is received as the word of God, how much more the teachers who boast a lesser gift. It is not the teachers alone that are free, nor does their liberty of speech constitute a right to tyrannize in the name of God over the assem- bly : the assembly acts with equal freedom in accepting or rejecting the messages even of the prophets, and in so doing, it, too, acts not according to arbitrary liking, but in virtue of a spiritual gift that is common to all in some measure, namely, " the discerning of spirits." ^ It is manifest that every form of legal organization/ / or of legally prescribed order is incompatible with thel/ absolute freedom that was enjoyed in the early Chris- tian assemblies. But it is quite a different question whether order 'per se is incompatible with such liberty. "We carelessly assume that the two conceptions are con- tradictory, but the assumption will not bear examina- tion. It is not necessary, however, to argue the general question, for we are here dealing with a particular case. We must conceive of order in the most general terms 1 In 1 Cor. 12 : 10 this is mentioned among the gifts which distinguish one Christian from another, equipping the members for the performance of their various functions in the one body. But in 14 : 29 it seems to heS, assumed that ' ' discernment " is a function which all are capable of ex- \ ercising — cf. 1 John 2:20, 27; 4: 1-6. Certain it is that the reception, without which no teaching could gain currency or authority in the Church, must depend upon the express or tacit consent of all — that is, practically, of an overwhelming majority. 202 THE ASSEMBLY FOR INSTRUCTION [in (excluding all notion of law, formal prescription, or au- thoritative compulsion); but on the other hand tliei liherti/ here in question is qualified by a very important | condition; namely, that it is exercised in response to the promptings of God's Spirit and solely in the em- ployment of spiritual gifts. If we accept these " gifts " at their Christian valuation, and do not account them a manifestation of deluded enthusiasm, we have to re- cognize the force of St. Paul's postulate, that " God is not a God of confusion, but of peace ; " and this justi- fies us in sharing his conviction that perfect freedom for the exercise of all the gifts divinely bestowed upon the Ecclesia is the only way to attain the order that is conformable to God's will. We have here, not the con- ception of liberty without rule (which is license), but liberty under the rule of God alone. We can see now more plainly than when the matter was first discussed that the divine organization which is given in the charismatic endowments of the Church can never be a legal organization. There is only one element entering into it that can in any wise be con- strued as constituting a formal right — a right inherent in an office as such. It was altogether natural that the assembly should come to recognize certain of its mem- bers as permanently endowed with particular gifts for instruction. But fundamentally the recognition was understood to apply, not to the teachers themselves, but to their immediate utterances. And though the popular recognition of this or that man as prophet, evangelist, or teacher, must have vastly increased the presumption in favor of his teaching, the spiritual as- sembly was theoretically as free as ever to exercise the gift of discernment for the reception or rejection of the doctrine proposed to it. § 13] CONDUCT OF THE ASSEMBLY 203 The lively competition in the exercise of spiritual gifts which was manifested in the Church at Corinth we have good reason to consider exceptional. There were doubtless Churches that needed not so much to be cautioned about the abuse of their gifts as exhorted to the use of them.^ And even in Corinth, participa- tion in the instruction of the assembly was not so gen- eral as St. Paul's phrases are apt to suggest — or as he himself desired. When the apostle urges the Corin- thians to " desire earnestly spiritual gifts " (14 : 1), it is implied that all did not possess them, and consequently were not equipped for any active part in the assembly. The ordinances that he proposes in 14 : 26-31 were ex- pressly designed to protect all in the exercise of their privilege : but it is evident that all did not avail them- selves of the opportunity. It is evident, too, that in a single assembly all could not find turn to speak. If the prophets were to speak only by two or three in each assembly, less gifted teachers were surely not ex- pected to present themselves in greater number. When St. Paul says {v. 31), "Ye can all prophesy one by one," he does not expect all the prophets to speak in the same assembly, and still less does he give us to infer that all the disciples in Corinth were prophets. He encourages them all to desire " the greater gifts " (12 : 31) and especially the gift of prophecy (14 : 1, 39) : but at the same time he recognizes that prophecy is actually a distinctive gift in the community (12 : 10), and in 12 : 29 he asks rhetorically, *^ Are all apostles? are all prophets ? are all teachers ? " Prophecy was doubtless a rare gift even in the Corinthian Church, ' 2 We have this exhortation, for instance, in 1 Peter 4: 10, "accord- ing as each hath received a gift (;(apto-|ua), ministering it among your- selves, as good stewards of the manifold bounty (;^apiros) of God." 204 THE ASSEMBLY FOR INSTRUCTIOX [in and the lower gifts of teaching were very far indeed from being universal. St. Paul does not deny the pres- ence of the prophetic gift in women (11 : 5), nor al- together forbid the exercise of it ; — only, " in the assembly" (14:34) seemly order requires that they shall not speak at all. St. Paul teaches that the Ecclesia (the Assembly) is divinely organized through the gifts of God's Spirit, — " dividing to each one severally as he will." But these several functions do not necessatil/j express themselves in what we should call offices. Just in proportion as the spiritual life of the community is active and gen- eral, official distinctions must be less marked. The ever widening gulf that separated clergy and laity in a later age was due as much to lay indifference as to priestly arrogance. If all were active in the exercise of this or the other gift for the edification of the community, all would be officers, and the conception of office in general would be vague for lack of contrast. If all prophesied, there would be no " prophets " — that is to say, in less paradoxical terms, there would be no such office or dis- tinction as this name implies. It is because apostles and prophets^ were rare in the Church, that they were clearly distinguished by the name of their office (cf. 1 Cor. 12 : 28). There were also minor gifts of teaching, i which were less rare and less striking : hence the name I "teacher," which was employed for the rank next below the prophets, did not so definitely indicate an office. As we shall see subsequently, the gift of teach-l ing was implied in all the offices of the Church."* Other gifts there were, whether of teaching or of ministry (Rom. 12 : 7), which tardily or never gave rise to dis- 8 Ephes. 4: 11 adds "evangelists." ■* Ephes. 4: 11 associates " pastors and teachers." § 13] CONDUCT OF THE ASSEMBLY 205 tinctions of office.^ The lack of a name for an offica'j implies that the distinction was not yet made.^ 7 s It is natural that the gifts that were prominently exercised in the assembly itself should be the first to give rise to distinctions of office. The official stand of the membei's would be marked by their place and function in the assembly. Other gifts there were which were no less important to the community, and certainly no less divine in their origin, yet manifested primarily in a more private sphere — such perhaps were the "helps," "guidances," " gifts of healing," etc. Cf. Rom. 12 : 7, 8 — "ministry," "he that giveth," "he that showeth mercy." The pos- sessors of these serviceable gifts came only gradually to occupy a place in the assembly beside the inspired teachers. The list in Ephes. 4: 11 marks a development of official categories : after apostles and prophets it ranks "evangelists" (probably men like Timothy and Titus), and it classes together "pastors and teachers." This passage represents that the pastoral office, like every other, is constituted by the impartation of a divine charisma, and the conjunction of the titles pastor and teacher (in this context) shows that teaching was the principal gift and function of this office also. It was with the divine word the pastor was to feed the flock. On the other hand, the name certainly indicates a sort of practical service that did not belong to the teaching office as such ; and if the figure of the shepherd is to be taken seriously it cannot but sug- gest a sphere of activity outside the assembly, — e. g. wise counsels (Kv^epvTjcreis) and practical ministrations (di/rtXjjt//'ei?) to individuals, and oversight of the community at large. Speaking and ministering are the two generic conceptions under which 1 Peter 4: 11 classes all the gifts that are supplied to the Church by the manifold bounty of God. The particular example of administration mentioned in this context is " hospitality" (r. 9). Also in Rom. 12: 7 St. Paul contrasts "ministry" and "teaching;" and passing from the enumeration of the more dis- tinctive spiritual gifts to the ordinary, but no less important, manifesta- tions of Christian life, he mentions particularly " hospitality," and " communicating to the necessities of the saints " (v. 13). In 1 Tim. 3 : 2 and Titus 1 : 8 it is required of a candidate for the office of bishop that ^ This is unqualifiedly true, if we are considering the formal distinc- tions of office. Jeremy Taylor asserted the postulate that an office might exist without a distinctive name, or even under the name of another office — he had in mind particularly the office of bishop as existing under the name of the presbyter's office. This is substantially the position that Gore and Wordsworth maintain to-day. And this dictum is also true. if we have respect solely to the endowment — not to the office properly so called. It is only, however, by confounding these two ideas that the argument of these writers can be kept on its feet. ^06 THE ASSEMBLY FOR INSTRUCTION [III In Rom. 12 : 6 sq. St. Paul starts out as though he were going to give a list of the divers gifts that are bestowed upon the disciples as members of one body. But as a matter of fact he passes by an easy transition from the gifts themselves to the functions which they enable the members to perform — evidently for the reason that there were no names generally in use to denote the less distinctive gifts, for example, that of liberality. In 1 Cor. 12 : 8-10, he carries through an enumeration — by no means a complete one — of the (jifts, describing them, however, in such a way as to suggest again that they were not all of them definitely enough distinguished to have acquired distinctive and well established names. Further on in the same chap- ter {v. 28) the apostle starts out by naming the officers he be "given to hospitality." We can well understand that one who was preeminent for his hospitality would acquire a high and leading place in the community — especially if, like Gaius in Rom. 16:22, he might be described as "the host of the whole Church." In 1 Cor. St. Paul lays great stress upon the practical gifts of ministry, though they were not yet thought of as inhering in a particular office. He himself, however, by such an exhortation as he gives in 1 Cor. 16 : 15, 16, clearly prepared the way for the official recognition (in a leading cS,pacity) of such persons as were preeminently devoted to the social service of the community — "Now I beseech you, brethren (ye know the house of Stephanas, that it is the first fruits of Achaia, and that they have laid themselves out to minister unto the saints), that ye also be in subjection unto such, and to every one that helpeth in the work and lahoreth." The equip- ment for such service as the hovise of Stephanas performed might be either natural endowments, or worldly goods, or — rather and — the spiritual gift which prompts to expressions of fellowship. The New Testament does not discriminate sharply between these conceptions : all were gifts of God (' Talents ' in the sense of Jesus' parable) and the brethren were bound to minister them among themselves, as good stewards of the manifold bounty of God. — Certain of the gifts never gave rise to offices, nor appeared as necessary constituents of them, — either because they were occasional (that is, not constantly manifested in the same persons), or because they were not highly accounted of as ministering to edification. In the case of "tongues" both of these reasons combine to explain why there was no corresponding office. § 13] CONDUCT OF THE ASSEMBLY 207 whom God hath " set in the Church." He names, " first apostles, secondly prophets, thh'dly teachers " — but there the enumeration of officers stops, because there ivere no other officers. Regarded as the offices here are from the point of view of the gifts which constitute them, the office of " teacher " is broad enough to include that of pastor or bishop: for whatever other gifts ("helps", and " governments " perhaps) were requisite to this lat- • ter office, that of teaching was the chief and properly I the constitutive one. But the organization of the body of Christ is not completely described by mention of the offices that were formally recognized : therefore the apostle completes his enumeration by mentioning the spiritual gifts and the informal functions that corre- spond to them — ^' then miracles, then gifts of heal- ings, helps, guidances, kinds of tongues." He makes the same transition in v. 29 : " Are all apostles ? are all prophets ? are all teachers ? " — then, " are all (workers of) miracles ? have all gifts of healings ? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?" Evidently there were no ojfficers in the Church who might be described as interpreters ^ as speakers of tongues, as healers, as helpers, as pilots (or counsellors).^ The above is calculated to show that the charismatic endowments of the Church were not by natural neces- sity the occasion of disorder ; but on the contrary that they tended by degrees to develop a very definite order, and ultimately an official organization. Even the stage ■^ The word interpreter might of course be used — as in 1 Cor. 14 : 28, — but not in a list of Church officers. 8 On this word see Hort, Ojj. cii. p. 159. The word " miracles " (or powers — 8vvdfi€is) is used in this latter list as though it were the name of an office, and it is hardly to be explained except as an attempt (im- mediately afterwards relinquished) to make the list uniform by naming throughout only the titles of the persons that possessed the various gifts. 208 THE ASSEMBLY FOR INSTRUCTION [III of development depicted in 1 Cor. is not without formal elements of order : for instance, in the restriction of the various classes of teachers to a definite number in each assembly, and each class — so it appears — to a definite sequence. St. Paul tells us more about the disorder of the Corinthian assembly than about its order, and within certain limits one is left free to picture as one will the character of divine service in that age. Where little can be proved, we may at least note that it is not inconsistent with the data furnished in 1 Cor. to imagine that even at that time and in Corinth there might have been a pretty well established frame-work — order of service — within which the freest exercise of the spiritual gifts was still possible. It needs to be asserted again and again that the. exercise of spiritual gifts constituted no antithesis to a traditionally established order, — whether it be an orderly organization that is in question, or a liturgical order. The early and uniform development of liturgi- cal order in the Catholic Church is an historic fact with which we have to reckon when we study the character of divine service in the preceding period. If primitive Christianity had started — like the sect of Quakers — with a theoretical repudiation of all formal order, if as a matter of principle it had set its face against the establishment of traditional customs (the regular recur- rence of accustomed forms) as inconsistent with spir- itual freedom, it is certain that the Catholic liturgies would never have been developed, — or at least not without such a protest as must have rent the Church. This development, again, would have been equally impossible had the early Church held the rigid view of inspiration — the precise opposite of the above — which is illustrated by the extremer sects of Scotch § 14] PRAYER AND PRAISE 209 Presbyterians, who boast no " tongues," no " proph- ecy," no genuine " gift " of teaching, and yet admit no formal elements of public worship except such as are taken from the Bible — no hymns but the Psalms of David, no prayers derived from '' uninspired " sources, except such as may be accounted the extempore produc- tion of the speaker, with a preference for an artificial mosaic " composed chiefly in the words of Holy Scrip- ture." The early Church was more in earnest about its " gifts " of teaching (including prayer) than are our modern evangelicals, and more consistent than are the Quakers. The " psalm " or prayer that was uttered by a prophet or a teacher was to-morrow or the year after accounted no less " spiritual " (inspired or gifted in whatever degree it might be), no less worthy as an expression of public devotion, than upon the occasion when it was first uttered ; and if it was a studied composition, a work of some poetic or literary art which the memory could easily retain, it might be rehearsed frequently in the assembly, and so, under- going gradual changes as it passed from mouth to mouth, with the sanction of popular reception and common use, it might become a recognized formula of public worship. In short, the high estimation in which the spiritual gifts were held was anything but hostile to the development of liturgical forms. § 14, PRAYER AND PRAISE The constituent parts of Christian worship are in one place or another pretty fully enumerated by St. Paul, and in 1 Cor. 14 : 26 he seems to give us a clue to their relation in orderly sequence. It is a short list which he here gives (a psalm, a teaching, a revelation, a tongue, u 210 THE ASSEMBLY FOR INSTRUCTION [III an interpretation), but it must be regarded rather as highly generalized than as incomplete. The '" psalm," a specific form of prayer, may here be taken to represent prayer in general. Ephes. 5 : 19 and Col. 3 : 16 distinguish three varieties of poetical utter- ance : " psalms, hymns, spiritual songs." ^ Here again they are regarded as the expression of spiritual gifts : they are all alike described as " spiritual ; " and in the latter passage it is expressly said that they are uttered " by grace " (eV ^dpiTi), while a relation is furthermore implied with " the word of Christ," concerning which the apostle prays that it may dwell in the disciples richly with all wisdom. Regarded as specific varieties oi prayer^ these three parts — psalms, hymns, and songs — are all alike expressions of thanksgiving or praise, in distinction from petition. How various must have been the material with which they dealt, and how lively their reference to the personal experiences of the Chris- tian life, we may gather from the following verse — " and whatsoever ye do, in word or in deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him." But this same passage also gives us the interesting hint that Christian psalmody might be adapted to fulfil the specific ends of teaching — " teaching and admonishing one another with psalms," etc. In a more general sense there is no doubt that prayer in all its forms was regarded as a manifestation of the teaching gift, an expression of the in-dwelling word of Christ (cf. Col. 3 : 16). In 1 Cor. 14 : 14, 15, St. Paul distinguishes the two sorts of prayer, petition and praise — Trpocrevx^o-OaL and xfjdWeiv. Both are spiritual manifestations (like ^ yj/aXnol, vfivoi, w8ai, — the adjective nvfvfiaTiKos, I take it, qualifies them all. § 14] PRAYER AND PRAISE 211 the " tongues "), yet none the less exercises of the un- derstanding. In the following verse the prayer of " blessing " (euXoyetv) ^ is evidently used as the equiva- lent of "thanksgiving" {evx^apLa-reLv) ; and in this connection we have the interesting notice that the brethren were accustomed to express their participa- tion in the prayer by responding with " the Amen." ^ That St. Paul mentions only the psalm in 1 Cor. 14 : 26 may be due to the fact that prayers of thanksgiving and praise greatly preponderated in the assembly, though prayers of petition were also in use.* One may say that prayer, more than any other act. that took place in the assembly, can be assumed as a. matter of course.^ It is all the more significant, there- 2 The blessing of God is meant, as in the Jewish blessing at meals,., and similarly in the supreme Eucharistic blessing of the Church. 8 The Amen seems to have been associated especially with doxologies. Cf. von der Goltz, Das Gebet in der dltesten Christenheit, 1901, p. 160. ** The prayer of petition, moreover, required no special spiritual en- dowment, nor any such careful preparation as did the psalm. It required only the simplest expression — indeed it properly admitted of no more. The early " bidding prayer " (and the later litanies) better comports with, the straightforward simplicity of petition than do the Latin collects. On the other hand, the whole wealth of spiritual rhetoric was lavished' upon the expressions of Christian praise, doxology, and thanksgiving. The preponderance of praise over prayer in the early liturgies probably reflects the relative importance attributed to these respective elements of worship in the primitive assembly. In the course of the Middle Ages this pro- portion was gradually reversed ; and to-day the Protestant Churches no less than the Catholic display a decided preponderance in their public worship of the element of petition. This tendency is only partially offset by our modern hymns, since they too partake largely of the same character. — Prayer and Thanksgiving are associated and yet contrasted in Phil. 4:6; Col. 4 : 2; 1 Thess. 5 : 18; 1 Tim. 2:1. We have emphatic exhortation to thanksgiving in Ephes. 5 : 20; Col. 2:7; 3 : 15-17. ^ Cf. Weizsacker, op. cit. p. 556. In 1 Cor. 11 :4 Paul mentions the praying man along with the prophesying man ; he contrasts (14 : 15} the spiritual prayer uttered in a tongue, with the prayer that is intelli- gible to the congregation. He exhorts (Rom. 12 : 12) the congregation as such to steadfast continuance in prayer. In certain cases he speaks 212 THE ASSEMBLY FOR INSTRUCTION [III fore, that in giving a list of the contributions lo the assembly which are especially conditioned by spiritual gifts (1 Cor. 14 : 26), the apostle mentions only the most formal variety of prayer ; namely, the psalm. It is very important to observe that extempore utterance was accounted no criterion of the spirituality of prayer. The psalm was a variety of prayer which preeminently required the cooperation of the understanding (1 Cor. 14 : 16) : the name indicates a close analogy with the Psalms of Scripture, and hence implies that consider- able literary art must have been exercised in its compo- sition. The passage further implies that on coming to the assembly each was already prepared to contribute his psalm. On the other hand, it was not merely an Old Testament Psalm, to be read or recited from mem- ory to the assembly : the fundamental idea here is that each contribution is the product of the individual gift of one or another of the disciples, therefore each must have offered a psalm of his own composition, either himself singing it before the assembly {v. 15), or impart- ing it in some other way. It lay in the nature of the case that a selection would gradually be made of such psalms as proved worthy of a permanent place in the common worship. Such an act of selection, however spontaneous and natural, must be regarded as one of the spiritual functions of the assembly as a whole. Furthermore, what was originally contributed to a par- in such wise of dealing with a matter in prayer, that only common prayer in the assembly can be thought of, — as Rom. 15 : 30 ; 2 Cor. 1:11; 9 : 12-14. It appears in part from these passages, as also from 1 Cor. 11 : 4, that prayer in the congregation is not confined to persons specially delegated to that function, but can be performed by any member, corresponding in this to the custom in the Synagogue. As a rule, there- fore, the prayer was a free one, like the other contributions to the edifi- cation of the assembly. § 14] PRAYER AND PRAISE 213 ticular congregation, attained in time to a more general reception, and thus Christian psalmody — or, more gen- erally, the Christian liturgy — was consolidated. G. We do not altogether lack examples of such early Chris- tian psalms. Weizsacker (op. cit. pp. 557 sq.) supposes with good reason that several of the " odes " incorporated in the Apocalypse were originally in current use in the Church. The suggestion is the more plausible when we recognize that the heavenly worship depicted in the Apocalypse is in many respects the coimterpart of the Lord's Day service of the Christian assembly on earth. Though this picture of a divine service in heaven (cc. 4-10) does not inform us either fully or precisely about the character of early Christian worship, it is exceedingly valu- able as a supplement to 1 Cor. — a supplement which corrects in some respects the impression one is apt to receive from the hints of that epistle. It depicts a solemn and formal wor- ship which is at the same time the expression of the utmost spontaneity. In the congregation each member occupies his due place (4 : 4, 6 ; 5 : 11 ; 7 : 9) ; and the service itself is devel- oped in orderly sequence. It would be rash to follow the analogy in great detail, but in the main the order seems to coiTespond with that of 1 Cor. 14 : 26. First an opening psalm of praise (4 : 8-11) ; then the opening of the " book "(5:1 sq.), that is, the lections from the Old Testament, — which St. Paul does not mention because the mere reading was not an exer- cise of a spiritual gift. This part of the service, however, can be understood almost as a matter of course (cf. Weizsacker, pp. 571 sq.) ; and it may explain why in St. Paul's enumeration teaching precedes prophecy, for it is probable that the former was occupied chiefly with the interpretation of the passages that were read. It seems as though seven lections were here indicated, but the mystical number is hardly significant of the actual practice. The fact that the interpretations are here all of a prophetic character is explained by the character of the book. There can be no doubt that the Old Testament Psalms, like the Old Testament Scriptures as a whole, were commonly in use in the Church, and it is likely that they are included 214 THE ASSEMBLY FOR INSTRUCTION [III under the "spiritual psalms, hymns and songs" mentioned in Ephes. and Col. " The prayers of the saints " are representatively offered to God on two occasions (5:8; 8 : 3, 4) ; and the whole service is interspersed, or rather bound together, by songs of praise ((oS^q), which are rendered responsively by various choirs — that is, by the different classes of human and angelic crea- tures that compose the assembly. This latter feature — the mode of rendering the musical parts of the service — we can confidently recognize as a reflection of the practice of the Church — the more especially as it agrees with the earliest direct testimony on this subject, viz. Pliny's report that the Christians were accustomed carmenque Christo quasi Deo cli- cere secum invicem. This orderly and even formal service is evidently regarded by the author as the ideal of Christian worship ; and if a similar order was not actually realized in the Church, it was not because the school of John or the school of Paul was unfavorable to it, Weizsiicker remarks that the short songs incorporated in the introduction to the vision (Ptev. cc. 4-10) only once allude particularly to the situation there depicted (viz. the reference in 5 : 9 to the opening of the book with the seven seals), while for the rest they display in the most general terms the char- acter of the Church's praise to God and to Christ, the Lamb. First we have the song of the four living creatures (4:8): Holy, Holy, Holy Lord ! God, the Omnipotent ! which was and which is and which is to come ! In response to this the four and twenty elders sing (4:11): Worthj'^ art Thou, our Lord and our God, to receive the glory and the honor and the power : for Thou didst create all things, and because of Thy will they were, and were created. Next the four cherubim and the four and twenty elders sing together before the Lamb " a new song " (5 : 9, 10) : Worthy art Thou to take the Book, and to open the seals thereof : for Thou wast slain, and didst purchase unto God with Thy blood §14] PRAYER AND PRAISE 215 men of every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation, and madest them unto our God a kingdom and priests, and they reign upon the earth. Then all the heavenly hosts answer with a great voice (5:12): Worthy is the Lamb that hath been slain, to receive the power, and riches, and wisdom, and might, and honor, and glory, and blessing. And finally all creatures in heaven and earth (5:13): Unto Him that sitteth on the throne and unto the Lamb, the blessing, and the honor, and the glory, and the domin- ion to the ages of the ages. And the cherubim respond, Amen. Of like general character is the song of the victors in the fight with the beast, which is called " the song of Moses the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb " (15 : 3, 4) : Great and marvelous are Thy works, Lord God, the Omnipotent ; righteous and true are Thy ways. King of the ages. Who shall not fear, Lord, and glorify Thy Name ? For Thou only art holy ; for all nations shall come and worship before Thee ; for Thy righteous acts have been made manifest. Similar to the above is also one of the songs interspersed in the course of the prophecy (11:15-18). "Great voices" are heard in heaven, saying : The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ : and He shall reign unto the ages of the ages. Then the four and twenty elders respond : We give thanks unto Thee, Lord, God, the Omnipotent, which art and which wast ; because Thou hast taken Thy great power, and didst reign. And the nations were wroth, then came Thy wrath, 216 THE ASSEMBLY FOR INSTRUCTION [III aud the time for the dead to be judged, and to give their reward to Thy servants, to the prophets and to the saints and to them that fear Thy Name, the small and the great, and to destroy them that destroy the earth. Weizsacker supposes that the psalms attributed in the third Gospel to Mary, Zacharias, and Simeon were also taken from the psalter of the Church. But in any case they may be taken to illustrate the character of early Christian psalmody. We may be sure that this Hebrew form of sacred poesy was uni- versally adopted in the Gentile Churches, for the same charac- ter is impressed upon all the hymns of the Catholic liturgies. The fundamental tone of Christian worship is represented by these psalms of praise. In the midst of heav}^ toil and tribula- tion the dominant feeling was thankfulness for God's gracious gifts, confidence in thp ultimate victory, and glad expectancy of the divine consummation. Among the ancient hymns which are still in use, there is none perhaps that reflects so perfectly both the form and spirit of apostolic psalmody as the Gloria in excelsis, which, in its original form, as the morning hymn of the Eastern Churches, can be traced back to the early part of the second century. But if we can disabuse our minds of the hard and fast distinction we now make between hymns and prayers, we shall be able to recognize that certain of the fraycrs of the liturgy are at least closely akin to the early Christian psalms. Prayer is an ex- alted mood, and in all its parts, but especially in the part of praise it demands exalted expression. Wliat we vaguely call liturgical language is to be regarded as a variety of sacred poetry. Prayer is ever the most spontaneous variety of poetry, but in thanksgiv- ing to God for his unspeakable gift in Christ Jesus it reaches an exalted mood which is only to be satisfied by musical expression. This is true especially of the thanksgiving or Eucharist par excellence. : the prayer of "blessing" at the sacra- mental meal of the Church, which is the most ancient constitu- ent of the liturgy, and retains in the main its original form, in spite of the medieval misapprehension of its spirit and inten- § U] PRAYER AND PRAISE 217 tion. The prayer as a loliole may properly be regarded as a psalm, notwithstanding that the greater part is recited by the leader alone. There is no part of the Chm-ch's worship which more plainly demands musical utterance, and the prejudice of the Eeformed Churches in prescribing the prosaic utterance of all prayers by the officiating minister nowhere appears so narrow, so plainly unjustifiable, as here. One cannot fail to note the likeness between this great Eucharistic prayer and the " Odes " quoted above from the Apocalypse : it is conceived in the very spirit, and expressed in the very form, of early Christian psalmody. First comes the Sursum corda, the respon- sive song of priest and people ; next the psalm uttered by the priest as representative of all ; then the doxology of priest and people together — the Ter sanctus. This so-called Preface at least is still appropriately intoned with formal melody by the Lutheran and a considerable part of the Anglican, as well as by the Eoman and Greek Churches. But properly this is only the beginning of the Eucharistic prayer, which rises ever in crescendo to the supreme note of thanksgiving at the beginning of the Canon (the " All glory be to thee " of the English liturgy), where the redemption of the world through the sacrifice of Christ is commemorated (including a recital of his institution of the sacrament). The unity of the Eucharistic prayer has been destroyed and its significance obscured by the separation of the Canon from the Preface. The separation never was formally expressed in the text of the Eastern liturgies, and the arrange- ment of the Ptoman Missal was occasioned in the first place merely by the introduction of the " proper prefaces " : but for all that, theory and practice combined to make the distinction a very marked one. Having lost the idea that the blessing or thanksgiving (the blessing of Ood being always understood) was itself the sole and sufficient consecration, the Eastern Churches added an express prayer of consecration, together with other petitions that interrupted the pure note of praise ; and the Latin Church came to regard the words of institution as a magic formula of consecration. The result is, that the Canon is uni- versally regarded, not as a continuation of the prayer of thanks- giving, but as an historical recitation (if not a magic formula), 218 THE ASSEMBLY FOR INSTRUCTION [TIT followed by various petitions. The whole of it is consequently recited secrete^ or at least in a " tone " different from that of the Preface. The present English liturgy (since 1552) sepa- rates the two parts of the Eucharistic prayer more formally and definitely than does any other use. The " prayer of humble access," which is inserted in the very midst of it, breaks the con- tinuity of thanksgiving, and after it the tone of praise, if it be resumed at all in the Canon, must perforce be pitched many notes lower. The Catholic misapprehension of the Canon is ultimately responsible for the fact that the Eeformed Churches have lost the idea of the Eucharistic prayer altogether, and recite the account of the institution of the sacrament not as a part of thanksgiving, but merely as a Scripture lesson. As such it is by many accounted essential to the rite — though upon what grounds, it would be hard to say. This notion seems to be admitted, and it is certainly not excluded, by the so- called Lambeth Quadrilateral. § 15, THE GIFT OF TEACHING So far as concerns the problem of Church organization and the character of the Christian ministry, the chief interest of the foregoing discussion lies in the fact that prayer and praise, the components of worship, were the expression of individual gifts^ — that is, either super- natural endowments or natural talents, as we should distinguish them ; but spiritual manifestations both of them, according to the early conception ; the gracious gifts of God {charismata) for the edification of the Eccle- sia. The gift that was expressed in the worship of the assembly may be denominated the gift of teaching^ to use the word in its most general sense. The most gen- eral antithesis to this is the gift of minidrfj, under which category we may class all the remaining charismata, the practical gifts of miracles, healings, helps, etc. It was the teaching gift alone, though in various manifesta- §15] THE GIFT OF TEACHING 219 tions, that came to expression in the assembly. The gift of teaching, taken in a specific sense, is distin- guished by St. Paul from the gift of prophecy, as well as from the gift of tongues and the gift of interpreta- tion ; and yet it is evident that all of these parts, which are enumerated in 1 Cor. 14 : 2 6 as contributions to the instruction of the asseinWy, may be xegar_^ as various expressions of a<^n eral gift o f tea ching^ ^) No other- wise is it in the case of the " psalm, ' which is the only other contribution mentioned in this passage : the whole tenor of St. Paul's treatment of the subject proves that this, too, was regarded as an expression of the gift of teaching, and we may accept this conclusion with the greater assurance because no mention is made of a spe- cific gift of psalmody. That is to say, the worship of !the Church, no less than the instruction, was conducted by men who were accounted teachers in the assembly — " first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly teachers " (in ithe narrower sense) — and the right they had to suchU [leadership was solely in virtue of their teaching gifts. ' "T have used the title " Conduct of the Assembly " for lack of a better one, but of course it must not be taken to imply that in the stage of development de- picted in 1 Cor. there was any formally constituted • conductor of the proceedings : _the assembly evidently 7 conducted itself, under the informal leadership of such j persons as possessed the gifts of teaching.^ But when there did come to be developed a formal presidency in the assembly — that is, when the bishops acquired the presidency in the assembly for instruction as well as in that for the Eucharist — it must have been, partly at least, in view of his teaching gifts that such ^ But for the bishop's function of leadership in the Euchuristic as- sembly, see § 21 . 220 THE ASSEMBLY FOR INSTRUCTION [III an officer was chosen. Indeed, the presidency must have been conceded only to such as possessed the highest gifts which were at the time available in the local community. It was a fundamental and deeply rooted conception in the Church, that all leadership, all au-i thority, belonged to the teaching gift, the teaching office, as such : hence, even at the beginning of the second century, the ordinary president was obliged to give place to any one, such as an apostle or prophet, who boasted higher gifts.^ In the course of the following sections it will be showed that all administration in the Church, even the financial administration, belonged as a matter of principle to the teaching office as such. At this point we have only to note that the administration of wor- s^^3- the cultus, if that term may be used for the early period — was a function of the teaching gift, and could be intrusted to no one but a teacher. It is neces- sary to insist upon this point, because the prevailing the- ory assumes that worship (the cultus) and teaching are natural contraries, and that the liturge of the assembly (the bishop) can be such only by formal (legal) right. Teachinii; and administration — administration of all sorts, liturgical, disciplinary, financial — are regarded as contrasted functions ; and the teaching offices .^ (apostles, prophets, evangelists, teachers), regarded as;!l charismatic, are opposed to the administrative (bish- ' ops, presbyters, deacons), which are accounted of purely ■ legal constitution.^ It is represented that the bishops ^ and deacons had no share in teaching ; and if this were 2 Cf . DidacJie, x. 7, xi. passim. In xv. 1 the bishops and deacons are to be appointed to perform the ministry of prophets and teachers — that is, when no prophet is present, xiii. 4. 3 So Hatch, — while Harnack admits that the bishops were chosen not without reference to their charismatic endowments. § 15] THE GIFT OF TEACHING 221 SO, the consequence could hardly be avoided that the existence of such offices implied from the first a legal organization. The facts, however, do not bear out this claim, for it appears that teaching was ever a promi- nent function of the bishop's office, and we have seen that even in the conduct of worship he was performing the service of the prophets and teachers.* The various contributions to the edification of the assembly which are enumerated in 1 Cor. 14 : 26 are all of them functions of the gift of teaching, but we need look for no correspondence in detail between them and the teaching offices. There was, for instance, no office charged peculiarly with the composition of prayers and psalms, this being a function which might be discharged by any of the teaching offices. The apostles were equipped with all the spiritual gifts in their ful- ness : St. Paul therefore could '' Pray with the spirit," * The early age knew nothing of a jus liturgicum as belonging to the bishop or to any other officer : it knew only of a liturgical charisma, by virtue of which certain persons — many or few — were empowered to lead the worship of the assembly. When definite liturgical forms began to be fixed by tradition, the higher sort of teachers were still free to exer- cise their gifts of prayer ; but they claimed no right to impose forms of prayer upon others {jus liturgicum), free reception on the part of the as- sembly being the only way in which a customary use might be established. Such an use being established, it was no breach of principle (no quench- ing of the spirit) to enjoin it upon all who were not distinguished by special gifts of prayer. The situation at the beginning of the second century is illustrated by the Didache, x. 7 : " Permit the prophets, how- ever, to give thanks as much as they will," — that is, instead of following the Eucharistic prayer prescribed for others. To this Harnack flippantly remarks, " In der D. gelten die Propheten als die virtuosen (!) des Dankegebets." The early Catholic bishop had certainly less liberty in this respect than the prophet : his authority over the liturgy must have been limited to such adaptation of the material as the occasion might require — a right which any intelligent leader of worship might be assumed to possess. But it must be remembered that the bishop mi do as a prophet or teacher what iu vii'tue of his episcopal office he m not do. ; be I ight 1 ioht.l 222 THE ASSEMBLY FOR INSTRUCTION [III could " sing with the spirit," he gloried in his " visions and revelations," and boasted that he spoke with tongues more than they all, while the gift of teaching in the more specific sense is exemplified in all his epistles. The prophets, too, as we must suppose, though they were named for the highest gift they ^'possessed, must often have exhibited the lower gifts, — j namely, tongues, interpretations, and especially teach- I ing. The "teachers" lacked only the power of speak- ing in the spirit : but this distinguished rather the character of their inspiration than the matter of their discourse, and we must suppose that they were gifted with an aptitude for prayer as well as for all the parts of instruction. Instruction — whether in a tongue with its interpre- tation, by revelation, or with the understanding alone — included a great variety of parts. The word " doc- trine " (SiSaxf], SiSao-KaXCa), as it is used in the New Testament and in the later Christian literature, in- cludes of course what we now exclusively denote by that word — that is, theoretical instruction about the nature of God and his relation to the universe, — but it also includes much more. In the theoretical part of doctrine, which we may call theology, St. Paul distinguishes "the word of wisdom" [Xoyos cro(f)ia^) and " the word of knowledge " {\6yo<; yv(ocre(o<;).^ It is not necessary, however, to inquire here into the force of this distinction, for it is not doctrine on its theological or philosophical side that can account for the leading authority of the teaching office over the order and administration of the Church. The words * 1 Cor, 12 : 8. In 14 : 6 he distinguishes " knowledge " (yvdxris) as a particular sort of teaching. For the distinction see Weizs'acker's rather inconclusive discussion, op. cit. pp. 559 sq. § 15] THE GIFT OF TEACHING 223 SiSaxT] and StSacr/caXta, commonly translated by " doc- trine" in our Authorized Version, denoted teaching in the broadest sens e : Christian faith was but one side j of this teaching, £liristian moral^-^as the other, and/i under this latter term we have to include the whole)' doctrine of Church order. Both of these words were used as titles of the Church ordinances of the second and third centuries (AtSa;)^^ tov Kvptov Sta rcjv aTrocrTo- \(ov, AtSacr/caXta r. a-rr., k. t. X.), though these writings contain little or no theology, and mingle moral pre- cepts with regulations about worship, government, and discipline. It was characteristic of all the early canonical legislation of the Church that it made no formal distinction between canons relating to faith, morals, and discipline : the distinction is altogether a modern one, it was first made in the decrees of the \ Council of Trent. The early usage corresponds with the Scriptural conception : the apostolic notion of doctrine was exceeding broad, and the doctrine of Church order was an inseparable part of the doctrine of Christian conduct as a whole — or morality (cf . Tit. 2 : 1 sqq.) The latter sort of doctrine is intimated in 1 Cor. 4 : 17, where St. Paul says that he sent Timothy, " who shall put you in remembrance of my ways (680V9) i n Christ, even as I teach (StSao-zcw) everywhere in every Church." The teaching here has to do with manners and cus-j toms ; the " ways " (oSot) are the precepts relative ' thereto. This kind of teaching bears a likeness — cer- tainly not altogether fanciful — to the Jewish halacha, its Christian character being here marked by the ad-/ junct " in Christ." We find the same thing again in the " traditions " (TrapaSocret?) which the apostle deliv- ered to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 11 : 2), and in the 224 THE ASSEMBLY FOR INSTRUCTION [III "charges" {Trapayyekiai) which he gave to the Thessa- lonians (1 Thess. 4 : 2). Such teaching as this occupies I a large place in St. Paul's epistles, and we may sapposefi that it constituted still more prominent a part of the(\ instruction imparted in the assemblies. Pliny's account of the Christian assembly seems to indicate that even in the second century practical moral exhortation was J the predominant element of Church instruction: seque\ Sacramento non in scelics aliquod ohstringere, sed ne furta, etc. — for sacramentuni can here mean nothing else than, the binding moral doctrine of the brotherhood. To understand the practical bearing of the teaching gift upon the minutest details of Church order, we must recognize the particidarity of early Christian teaching. The highest aspect of the gift of teaching was the ability to impart instruction about the general principles of theology and morality, and it was this that gave the teachers their preeminent place in the assembly — but it was not this that gave them author- ity over the practical administration of the Church. iA perfectly consequent outcome, however, of the I teaching gift in its highest phase, was the ability to deduce from the general principles of morality the jparticular precepts which should regulate the conduct of Christian life in all its details, and then to ajjpli/ Ithese precepts to the individual case and to the par- llticular person. There was no action too insignificant to come within the scope of the teacher's authority, and no matter so important that it might not be de- cided by his voice. This practical exercise of the teaching gift appears, for example,^ in what St. Paul calls admonition ^ Other and more particular examples are noticed below in this section, — such as designation to ofl5ce, and the express functions of discipline § 15] THE GIFT OF TEACHING 225 (vovdearia). Admonition is merely an instance of/ the application of moral teaching to a particular! case. Examples of St. Paul's admonitions are fur- nished by his epistles, and we may be sure that they were more frequent and direct when he was present in the midst of the congregations. In this connection, however, it is sufficient to consider his use of the word. In Col. 1 : 28 he represents himself and his fellow apostles as " admonishing every man and teaching every man in all wisdom" — and this as a part of the proclamation of Christ. He apologizes politely for the admonitions which he addresses to the disciples at Rome, recognizing that they " are filled with all knotvl- edge, and able also to admonish one another ; " but he writes the more boldly because of the grace given him of God as a minister of Jesus Christ unto the Gentiles. Admonition ^as undoubtedly a function of | ' the teaching office : not only is it associated in these passages with teaching, but it is regarded as the fruit j of tvisdom and knowledge, even as the special outcome of 1 a God-given grace. It was exercised, as a matter of course, chiefly by the leaders of the community : so St. Paul says in 1 Thess. 6 : 12, " We beseech you to know them that labor among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admpnish^jmi." Admonition is a prin- cipal part of the cure of souls, and it is to be exercised consequently in the spirit of gentleness : hence St. Paul admonishes the Corinthians (1 Cor. 4 : 14) "as beloved children." "' Like every other part of teaching, how- (excommunication and absolution) which may be conceived of as parts of admonition. The administration of the material or financial concerns of the Church is considered in § 20. ' Of. 2 Thess. 3 : 15. In 2 Tim. 4 : 2 some of the functions of an authoritative teacher — in this case an evangelist — are enumerated: " Preach the word ; be instant in season, out of season ; reprove, rebuke, 15 226 THE ASSEMBLY FOR INSTRUCTION [lU ever, admonition was exercised in virtue of the gift, not of the office : every member was consequently free to admonish, but the disciphnary effect of the admoni- tion depended in any case upon its reception by the assembly ; that is, upon the recognition that the re- proof was deserved. Admonition or reproof might, of course, be given in private, but it was only public reproof in the assem- bly that could have practical disciplinary effect. In 1 Tim. 5 : 19, 20 the Evangelist is cautioned to accept no accusation against an elder except on the testimony of two or three witnesses ; but this evidence being fur- nished, the sinning elders are to be reproved " in the sight of all." In 2 Cor. 2 : 6 St. Paul says, " Sufficient to such an one is this rebuke by the majority " (17 eVin/xta a.vTy] 7} vTTo Toiv nXeiovcov) — that is to say, the majority had assented to the rebuke administered and to the consequent punishment (excommunication). Admoni- | tion belonged especially to the spiritually gifted teach- | ers, hence in Gal. 6:1 it is said, " Brethren, even if a p man be overtaken in any trespass, ye that are spiritual ^ amend him in the spirit of meekness." ^ Yet the whole assembly was thought of as cooperating, and St. Paul therefore exhorts the brethren of Thessalonica in gen- eral (1 Thess. 5 : 14) to " admonish the disorderly." ^ exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching.'^ — It needs to be observed that exhortation is as much a part of " doctrine " as is admonition or re- proof : it is not considered here, only for the reason that it has no relation to discipline — cf. 1 Tim. 4: 13; 5:1; 6:2; 2 Tim. 4 : 2. 8 All reproof, and even the extremest punishment (1 Cor. 5 : 5), aimed at the amendment or restoration of the offender. ^ ® Reproof must have been a usual part of the exercises of the assembly. We learn from the Didache that the members in general continued to ad- minister reproof to one another even in the second century : ii. 7, " Thou shalt hate no man, but some reprove, for others pray, etc." iv. 3, " Have no respect for persons in reproving for sins." xv. 3, " Reprove one another, § 15] THE GIFT OF TEACHING 227 We may distinguish two sorts of admonition : first, simple reproof ; secondly, admonition to penance, im- plying exclusion from the Eucharist, later called excom- munication.^'^ The former might be administered in public as well as in private, as may be seen in the case of St. Paul's famous rebuke of St. Peter (Gal. 2 : 14, " I said unto Cephas before all "), as well as in several of the examples cited above. But even pri- vate admonition, if unheeded, led to public rebuke and discipline. The latter could be administered only in the assembly, since it depended upon the assent of the Church for its effect. The rule generally followed was that enjoined by the Lord (Matt. 18 : 15-18) : " If thy brother sin against thee, go, reprove him between thee and him alone : if he hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he hear thee not, take with thee one or two more, that at the mouth of two witnesses or three every word may be established. And if he not ill wrath, but in peace." It was a function, however, which was generally devolved upon those in authority — cf. 2 Tim. 4:2; Titus 1 : 9> 13 ; 2 : 15. 1" Didache, xiv. 2, " If any have a quarrel with his fellow, let him not join you (in the Eucharistic assembly) until they are reconciled, in order that your sacrifice may not be profaned," — cf. Matt. 5 : 24. The word " sacrifice " here refers to the prayers. Cf . in the homily De aleatoribus falsely ascribed to Cyprian (Harnack, Texte, V. 1, p. 19): "in Doctrinis Apostolorum (est) : se quis frater delinquit in ecclesia et non paret legi, hie non coUigatur, donee poenitentiam agat, et non recipiatur, ne inqui- netur et impediatur oratio vestra," Didache, xv. 3, " Reprove one another, not in wrath, but in peace, as ye have it in the Gospel : and whosoever offends his fellow, let no one speak to him, nor let him hear a word from you, until he has repented." According to Justin Martyr (Apol. i. c. 66) none but a baptized person " who lives as Christ hath taught " might be admitted to the Eucharist. In order to exclude unrepentant sinners, a public confession of sin preceded the Eucharist — Didache, xiv. 1. Ex- clusion from the Eucharist is the origin of all the later ecclesiastical penalties. The bishop, therefore, as the conductor of the Eucharist (§ 21) came later to have control over Church discipline in general and particularly over excommunication. ■228 THE ASSEMBLY FOR INSTRUCTION [III refuse to hear them, tell it unto the Church (assembly) : a,ud if he refuse to hear the Church also, let him be unto thee as the Gentile and the publican. Verily I say unto you, What things soever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven." Here the practical exercise of discipline (excommunication) is the con- sequence of admonitions unheeded. In Titus 3:10 we have the injunction, " A schismatic man after a first and second admonition avoid." Separation from the fellowship of the Church, in the case of any but the most serious offences, was to last only until the €ulprit should come to a better mind : 2 Thess. 3 : 14, 15, " And if any man obeyeth not our word by this epistle, note that man, that ye may have no company with him, to the end that he may be ashamed. And count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother." In 2 Cor. 13 : 1-3 St. Paul threatens : that on his return to Corinth he will exercise severe 'discipline against offenders ("I will not spare"), and in this connection he recalls the Lord's rule of evidence, " At the mouth of two witnesses or three every word shall be established," cf. 1 Tim. 5 : 19. In 1 Cor. 5 : 3-5 we have a curious and striking con- firmation of the above account of Church discipline ; it proves at once the absolute authority which the teacher claimed in this matter, and the necessity for the coope- ration of the assemhli/ — the necessity, indeed, that the admonition and discipline be exercised in the assembly}'^ This latter condition it is that explains the curious phrasing of the passage. For St. Paul could not be present to pronounce his rebuke in the midst of the ^1 It is indifferent to our present purpose that something more than exclusion from the Christian society is intended in this case ; namely, deliverance unto Satan for the deMi-uction of the flesh,— ci. the story of Ananias and Sapphira, Acts 5 : 1-11. § 15] THE GIFT OF TEACHING 229 assembly as the rule required. Yet he does not seek to invalidate the rule, nor claim exception for himself as an apostle : he claims rather that he is conforming to its essential conditions, though he transgresses the formal precept. He recognizes that the Church is a spiritual assembly, the assembly of Christendom ; therefore, though absent in body he may be counted present in spirit when his judgment against the sinner is read in the assembly, and the assembly has no other course but to assent to the condemnation — or repudiate his authority. This much being explained by way of pref- ace, the interpretation of the passage is obvious : " For I verily, being absent in body but present in spirit, have already as prese7it (019 irapcop) judged him that hath so wrought this thing, in the name of the Lord Jesus,^^ t/e heing assenibled and my spirit with the power of our Lord Jesus, to deliver such a one unto Satan for the destruc- tion of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord." ^^ ^ This phrase perhaps reflects the solemn formula with which the teachers were wont to preface their discourse. Cf. Weizsacker, op. cit. pp. 555, 582, commenting on 1 Cor. 12 : 3. 13 After the development of the episcopal organization, the bishop as conductor of the Eucharist and teacher of the congregation exercised also the power of excommunication. The earliest witness is Ignatius : EpJies. 6 : 1, when the bishop is silent he is the more to be feared ; Philad. 1 : 1, 2, the bishop's silence is moi"e effective than the speech of the heretics, for the congregation is attuned to his commandments like the harp to its strings; — Sniyrn. 7:2, the congregation has no dealings with the hei'etics either in public or private. The "silence" of the bishop signifies that he holds not (and so implicitly /or&iJs) any intercourse with sinners: and the congregation follows his "commandments." This at least is Sohm's interpretation of these obscure passages, of which Lightfoot hardly knows what to make. Cf. Pseudo-Clement, ad Jacob. c. 18, "whom the bishop hates, him shall also the members of the con- gregation hate; with whom the bishop does not speak, with him shall the members of the congregation also refuse to speak; whoever remains a friend of him whom the bishop hates, and speaks to him with whom 230 THE ASSEMBLY FOR INSTRUCTION [UI J St. Paul acted here in his capacity as teacher : he did what any other teacher might have done, though his /character as apostle, and his personal relation to the /Corinthian Church gave the greater assurance that his [judgment would be accepted. (Admoni tion^ ^ith all its consequences of discipline, belonged tothe teaching of- fice as such — to the pro^et as well as to the apostle, to the teacher (in the narrower sense) as well as to the prophet. Discipline, being the consequence of admoni- tion, could originate nowhere but in the teaching gift, whether manifested in official persons or not. Later this authority was exercised almost exclusively by the I j bishops, as the teachers of the Church by apostolic succession. To understand the prophets' part in discipline we f/need to remember of course that prophecy was more ^ than mere prediction of futurity; but it is still more important to note the jparticularity of the prophetic fmessage. Prophecy depends always upon revelation, ' whether by vision or by voice ; it represents, that is, conclusions that are not reached by the natural processes of reasoning, and it is this which most fundamentally distinguishes it from all other forms of teaching. The revelation might foretell a future event, or enunciate a the bishop does not speak, he destroys the Church," Yet even in the third century other gifted teachers occasionally assumed the authority of excommunication. Cf . Eusebius H. E. VI. 43, 20, — the Roman bishop Cornelius fortifies his position by reference to the fact that already the martyr Moses had excluded Novatian and his company from communion. Cyprian, ep. 66, — the martyr Puppian adraonislies Cyprian to penance as an unworthy bishop and breaks off communion with him : Cyprian at this is greatly excited, and threatens in turn to excommunicate the martyr — " Dominum meum consulam, an tibi pacem dare et te ad communicationem ecclesiae suae admitti . . . permittat.'* Here as elsewhere the act of the teacher required the assent of the con- gregation to give it practical effect. § 15] THE GIFT OF TEACHING 231 doctrine ; but there is reason to suppose that Christian prophecy more commonly dealt with the practical af- fairs of the moment, supplying an authoritative deci- sion in questions of difficulty or dispute, — designating to office, directing administration, pronouncing admoni- tion or sentence of exclusion against offenders.^'* Old Testament prophecy, too, was largely of this character : Moses was the lawgiver of Israel in virtue of his pro- phetic gift; Samuel governed the people as Prophet; and even under the kings the prophets frequently in- terfered to direct the policy of the kingdom and the conduct of wars, employing particular admonitions and / rebukes, as well as general exhortations to righteous- ' ness. The later Jewish prophecy was more commonly apocalyptic in character, and it is from that we get our narrower conception of the function of the prophetic gift. Of this sort is the Apocalypse, the most conspicu- ous example of prophecy in the New Testament, though even there we may observe that the first three chapters / are occupied almost exclusively with practical admoni-. tion. Extensive and important as was the activity of the prophets in the first century, we have but scanty record of their messages ; and this is in all likelihood due to the fact that the prophetic utterances were ad- ^ dressed so particularly ad rem, to the decision of the | special case at issue, that their interest hardly outlived I the occasion which prompted them. The influence of prophecy was expended upon the consolidation of custom, rather than upon the production of literary compositions. The prophetic voice was therefore not only the // most direct expression of God's will, but commonly i the most particular. Hence the preeminent authority ^* For examples see the next section. 232 THE ASSEMBLY FOR INSTRUCTION [III of the prophets as the lawgiversandjL dministra tors of] the Ecclesia. There "waTTlo'lAitliority of higlier in-' stance than the prophet, for in the Ecclesia there was no law but God's will; no human will or authority might dominate, — not even human law regarded as an expression of the corporate will of the congregation. " Teaching " (8iSao-/caXta) was likewise authoritative ;•' but it~^^"less direct, and ( t^ommonly less particular ^ than prophecy. Its business was the exposition and interpretation of the word of God as given in the Scriptures or in the teaching of the Lord Jesus. It furnished no new revelation, but made clear the signifi- cance and practical bearing of the revelation already given. It aimed chiefly at instruction, and hence it was commonly couched in general terms : it expounded in terms of rational argument the general principles which must regulate Christian life and Church order. Sut it, too, could make particular application of the Scriptural revelation in the form of admonition.^^ At the same time, didasJcalia was authoritative teaching : whether it gave ordinances for the general conduct of congregational life, or exercised individual cure of souls and discipline, it did all in virtue of a divine gift, by divine authority, and in God's name.^*^ 1* 2 Tim. 3 : 16, 17 shows that the whole field of Christian teaching was open to the StSao-KoXos as the expounder of Scripture, for the Scrip- tures themselves completely furnished him for every good work of teaching — "for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for discipline in righteous- ness." Cf . 1 Cor. 10 : 11, " these things were written for our admoni- tion." For one of many instances of such application to practical Church issues see 1 Cor. 9 : 9, 10. IS Sohm notes (p. 41, n. 8) that didaskalia properly denotes such teaching as is expressed in general terms. Cf. 1 Tim. 4:11, "these things command and teach ; " 6:2, "these things teach and exhort." The authoritative character of didaskalia is shown further in 1 Tim. 5 : 7, " command these things " — with reference to the widows ; 6 : 17, " com- mand the rich." In 2 Tim. 2 : 15 (cf . v. 2) it is called a handling of the II §15] THE GIFT OF TEACHING 233 To display the importance of the teaching gift for the order and administration of the Church I can do no better than to conclude this section by quoting Sohm's vigorous affirmations on the subject. They will not appear the less forcible for involving some repetition.^^ r ^^ /^ We can estimate the importance of the gift of teach- ing when we recognize what a role was claimed for thai word of God in the Ecclesia. The word of God is the final and decisive source of Church order. Hence the conduct of the Christian as- sembly cannot be determined by the assembly itself in the exercise of self-government, but only by the way of teaching, which declares what is the will of God for the Ecclesia. But this is a matter which pertains to the gifted teacher, who in virtue of his charisma authori- tatively proclaims the word of the Lord and authorita- tively deduces its consequences. In this role appear, first of all, the apostles in the conduct of their congre- gations — for instance, the Apostle Paul. In questions about the conduct of congregational life St. Paul gives, now an express word of the Lord, and now his own | ( " opinion " — in the confidence, however, that this ac- i cords with the mind of Christ.^^ Hence the accent of word of truth. Cf. the remainder of Sohm's note for the authority that attached to the name " teacher " in the second century. " Sohm, pp. 29-38. I translate the text pretty closely, but give the notes much abbreviated. In Sohm's work this passage follows immedi- ately upon his discussion of Church organization which is quoted above at the end of § 10. I have altered the order here, and generally ex- panded the treatment, the better to meet certain objections that have been made to Sohm's theory and to prepare the mind of the reader for conclusions which cannot but appear startling at the first reading. 18 Cf. above, p. 144, note. D. Also 1 Cor. 7 : 10, *' But unto the married I give charge (irapayytWo)), yea not I, but the Lord ; " v. 12, " But to the rest say (Xeyco) I, not the Lord; " v. 25, "Now concerning virgins I have no commandment {ini.Tuyrjv) of the Lord, but I give my opinion (or 234 THE ASSEMBLY FOR INSTRUCTION lUL authority, the expectation of obedience, with which he presents his '• doctrine." ^^ At the same time there is here no question of the exercise of formal ecclesiasti- cal authority (legislative authority — which belonged to the Apostle Paul as little as to any other Christian), but of doctrine, instruction, the proclamation of God's word. The whole apostolic " doctrine " of Church order was built up of such teaching, — whether didaskalia or prophecy.^ The gifted teacher stood forth m the name |. judgment — yvcdiir]v) , as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be trustworthy ; " v. 40, " But happier is she (the widow) if she abide as she is, in my opinion (yvuifirfv) , and I think that I also have the Spirit of God; " 11 : 23, "For I received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you ; " 14 : 37, " If any man thinketh himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him take knowledge of the things which I write unto you, that they are the commandment of the Lord " ; 4 : 17, " who shall put you in remembrance of my vmys which are in Christ ; " 1 Thess. 4 : 2, "ye know what charges (jvapayy^Xias) we gave you through the Lord Jesus." The apostle frames his precepts in the same fashion, whether he is prescribing regulations for the conduct of private life, or for the conduct of the assembly — hence all of the passages quoted are here in point — in both cases it is a question of the life of the Ecclesia, the body of Christ. ^9 1 Cor. 11 : 17, " in giving you this charge " (jrapayyeW(i>v) ; v. 34, " the rest will I ordain (8tard|o/iiat) when I come ; " " so I ordain {biaTa(T(Tofiai.) in all the Churches ; " 7:6, " this I say by way of permission, not of commandnif^nt; " 2 Cor. 8 : 8, " I speak not by way of commandment," — It is implied that the apostle can speak by way of commandment. ^ The Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians gives a didaskalia upon Church order (the rights of the bishops) : the contents of the epistle re- veal the "will of God," it is "spoken by Christ through us "(utt' avrov bC fifiuiv) and therefore requires obedience ( 1 Clem. 59 : 1 ; cf. 56: 1, "they must yield not to us, but to the will of God"). The Teachmg of the Apostles and the later pseudo-apostolic Church ordinances bear the same character. A prophecy upon Church order is contained in the Shepherd of Ilermas, inasmuch as it is there revealed, that for a certain time the possibility of a second penance is offered by God to all sinners. The epist'-es of Ignatius give another example of such a prophecy. Ig- natius dei^lared prophetically to the congregation that only in communion ■with their bishop, presbytery, and deacons could they constitute a valid assembly (Ecclesia), — Philad. 7, eicpavyaaa . . . fxeydXa ^covfj, dfov (fxavf) • Tc5 firicTKOTTcp Trpocre^fTe Koi tS 'Trpfa^vTepico Koi diaKovois. . . . To 8e yrvevfia § 15] THE GIFT OF TEACHING 235 of God to instruct Christendom concerning the order // and organization of the Ecclesia. In regard even to the individual problems of congre- '// gational life it is only the word of God that can supply-i -^ the desired solution (cf. p. 143). Take the case, for instance, of election to some office in the service of Christendom. Since the very thought of a legal, formally incorporated organization was foreign to the early Church, there could be no vote by the congregational meeting in our sense, nor, indeed, any election of a legal sort, but only an election by God. God chooses the fit person by means of a spe- cial revelation, using as his instrument the prophecy of a gifted teacher. He that is called through proph- ecy is called by the Holy Ghost, who spake by the prophet.^^ €icri(f)V(Taev Xeyav rdSe ' Xmpis toC fTTKTKOTTOv fir]8ev rroieiTf. Cyprian had a revelation in which he heard a voice declare that Christ would punish disobedience to the rightly constituted bishop, — Cypr. ep. 66 : 10, inter cetera quae ostendere et revelare diguatus est (deus) et hoc addidit : Qui Cristo non credit sacerdotem facienti, postea credere incipiet sacerdotem vindicanti. — Here it may be noted that the synods, which since the fourth century controlled the development of Church order, formulated their de- cisions by suggestion of the Holy Ghost. 21 Cf. below the beginning of § 18. Acts 20 : 28, where it is said of the elders (npea-^i/Ttpoi) of the Church at Ephesus that the Holy Spirit had made them bishops {vfxas to nvevfui to ayiov edero finaKOTTovs). 1 Clem. ad Cor. 42 : 4, the Apostles appointed bishops and deacons, " testing (them) by the Spirit " (8oKip.d(ravTes tw nvevfiaTi), i. e. discerning by the aid of the Holy Ghost those that were fit for the office. Clemens Alex., Ttr o aa^ofievos TrXovaios, c. 42, the Apostle John appointed Church officers from among the number of those whom "the Spirit indicated " (tcjv vno Tov TTvevixaTTos (TT]ij.eivofifV(ov). The assumption in all three passages evidently is that bishops and deacons (as well as apostles and evangelists — cf. § 18) are chosen by the Holy Ghost, i. e. through the medium of the prophecy of a teacher (in this case an apostle) ; and that this is the ordinary mode of election, the mode which is understood as a matter of course. Especially clear is the passage quoted from the Acts, where it is simply taken for granted that the elders there addressed had been ap- // 236 THE ASSEMBLY FOR INSTRUCTION [III Or take the case of absolution. The declaration of absolution or remission of sins can only be made in God's name and in his stead. The general terms of absolution are a part of God's revelation, and a,nj jmr- iicular absolution implies the handling of the word of God, a prophetic declaration of God's gracious will with respect to this sinner. Absolution therefore is accom- plished through the act of a teacher, to whom it is given to minister the word of God as God's representative.^^ pointed bishops by "the Holy Ghost." Acts 14: 23 (Paul and Bar- nabas) " having appointed for them elders in every city, praying with fasting." On this see Harnack, Proleg. to Didache, p. 148, note : "prayer and fasting ( the petition for the guidance of the Holy Ghost) precedes the appointment." — For the significance of the fact that an elective act on the part of the assembled congregation accompanies the election by God (the " Holy Ghost "), cf. § 18. 22 According to Tertullian, de pudic. c. 21, the authority to forgive deadly sins belongs only apostolo aut prophetae (such being the Monta- nistic doctrine), while tlie Catholic Church ascribed this authority to the bishop as well. The fundamental thought common to both parties is this, that the authority to remit sins belongs to the gifted teacher — con- sequently, the Catholics would say, to the bishop as successor of the apostles. According to the common Christian view, as well as in the opinion of the Montanists, the martyrs were placed in this respect on a par with the prophets. Cf . Eusebius, H. E. V. 2, 5 (letter of the Churches of Lyon and Vienne, about A. d. 177) : the martyrs eXvov (iiv dnavrei, edeafievov 8e ovdeva, i. e. they loosed all those lapsi from their sins who had atoned for their denial by subsequent firm confession. See Sohm's note to p. 32 for a long list of passages in which the power of forgiving and retaining sins is claimed by and conceded to the martyrs ; in which the view is expressed that " Christ is in the martyr," "suffers " in him, "testifies" in him ; in which to the martyr is ascribed the spirit- ual gifts of the apostles and prophets. — The function of the teaching office is not merely petition to God for the forgiveness of sin, but the announcement that God has forgiven the sin. Therefore, just as it is said of the martyrs that they "loose" (eXuoj/), "forgive," "give peace;" so Tertullian says alike of the martyrs, the prophets, and the Roman bishop, that they exercise the potestas delictorum remittendorum, delicta donare, donare quae deo reservanda sunt {de pudic. c. 1), — that is, in God's stead they directly /or^rii'e. The forgiveness of sins is a function of the ministry of the word and hence of the gifted teachers, — the apostles, prophets, martyrs, bishops. So runs the edict of the Roman bishop (de § 15] THE GIFT OF TEACHING 237 It has been shown above (pp. 225 sq.) that Church dis- cipline also was essentially a part of the ministry of the' word, and was exercised in the first instance solely by<^ the teacher, through admonition. It results therefore that in the matter of ecclesiasti- cal order, of a call to service in the Ecclesia (appoint- ment to office), of absolution and reception into the fel- lowship of the Ecclesia, of discipline or exclusion from the Ecclesia, only the gifted teacher can decide, because it is only the wo7'd of God, not any congregational enact- ment as such, that is able to resolve such questions. The gift of teaching is the gift of regiment, a gift which empowers its possessor to conduct the govern- ment of Christendom in the name of God. The most complete expression of this fact is con- tained in the well known word of the Lord to the Apostle Peter, Matt. 16 : 18, 19,— " And I also say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church ; and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it. I will give unto thee the keys pudic. c. 1) : ego et moecchiae et fornicatioiiis delicta poenitentia functis dimitto, — cf. Hippolytus, P/uVosopA. ix. 12, rraaiv vn avrov dcpUadai aiiap- Tias- The forgiveness of sins is a function of the ministry of the word and hence belongs to the gifted teachers, — the apostles, prophets, martyrs, bishops. The same teaching office decided for the Church the limits within which the forgiveness of sins might be accorded. So, for instance, at Rome the SiSdo-icaXot taught that no second absolution might be granted for post-baptismal sins (Herraas, Mand. IV. 3, 1), while the prophet Hermas taught that for a certain time a second penance was still admissible in virtue of a special revelation. The " edict " of the Roman bishop Callistus, cited above, proclaimed the possibility of the remission of fleshly sins. That the lapsed also might receive absolution, was settled by the bishops on the ground of "visions and revelations" (Cypr. ep. 57:2). — For the significance of the fact that the assent of the assembly was required to give effect hi the congregation to the absolu- tion gi-anted by the teacher, cf . § 17. The prayer for absolution was in place in the congregational assembly, and from it was derived the so- called deprecatory formula of absolution. 238 THE ASSEMBLY FOR INSTRUCTION [III of the kingdom of heaven : and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." The power of the keys is the power to loose and to bind, — that is, in general, the power to allow and to forbid, and that, too, in the name of God. It is the power of teaching, in the sense above expounded, the power which ruled the whole life of the Church. It is the power or authority to speak in God's name and in his stead ; to handle God's word, and hence to exercise government in the Church. It is therefore also the power to forgive sins or to retain them in the name of God, since the forgiveness of sin repre- sents merely a particular instance of the ministry of the word. Hence it is with justice that the passage in John 20 : 22, 23 has in all times been taken to refer to the power of the keys : "Eeceive ye the Holy Ghost; whose soever sins ye for- give, they are forgiven unto them ; whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained." That word of the Lord to the Apostle Peter was the answer to Peter's confession, " Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." In so far as Peter ex- pressed the faith of the other disciples, the answer included them also : the same power is given to all of the Twelve in John 20 : 23, and it is promised still more generally in Matt. 18 : 18.*"^^ The gift of teaching rests upon the possession of the Holy Spirit. The sign by which the presence of the Holy Spirit may be recog- nized is the confession of faith in Jesus as the Christ, the Son of the living God.^* To every one that is fur- 28 Cf. § 8, pp. 117 sq. 2* Cf . 1 Cor. 12 : 3, " No one can say, Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost;" also 1 John 4 : 2, 3. § 16] THE TEACHING OFFICE 239 nished by the Holy Spirit with such a faith and doc- trine is given the power of the keys in the House of God (the Ecclesia), that is, the power of regiment in God's name and through God's word. § 16, THE TEACHING OFFICE i The possessors of this gift of teaching are first of all i the apostles, prophets and teachers, who therefore claim I the first rank in Christendom.^ ^ The whole of this section with its notes is translated pretty closely from Sohni, § 5. ■^ 1 Cor. 12 : 28, " God hath set some in the Church, first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly teachers, then — " Harnack makes a valu-A able contribution to the study of these offices in his Prolegomena to the \ Didache, i")p. 93 sq. See especially note 8 on p. 94 where the significance of the term fjyovfievoi is explained. The word first occurs in Heb. 13 : 7, MvrjfiovfveTe rcov rjyovnevoiv vfimv, oirives eXaXijcrai' vfiiv rbv \6yov tov 6eov. Here the fj-yovnevoi are expressly characterized as "those tliat spake unto you the word of God." Cf. Didache, iv. 1, Tskvou fiov, tov XoXovvtos § 16] THE TEACHING OFFICE 241 their fulness, among them the gift of prophecy and teaching in all its manifestations.* The apostolic gift represents the highest, the most complete gift of teach- ing.^ The " evangelists," the wandering missionaries of the post-apostolic age, were likewise included under the honorary name of " apostle," since they were called by their apostolic charisma to a like activity.*^ All of the apostles (evangelists included) were empowered to ad- minister the affairs of the Church in virtue of their teaching gift. Just as the apostles in the early Church at Jerusalem had the whole conduct of the consrreo-a- tion in their charge,''' so the Pastoral Epistles represent the evangelists Timothy and Titus in a position of full authority over the congregation, — they are re- sponsible for appointment to office,^ they exercise dis- avOpmne tov 6eov; 4: 6, diaKovos Xptarov 'irjcrov', 2 Tim. 2 : 21, 8ov\ov 8e Kvpiov ; 1 Thess. 3 : 2, Tipodfov, tov d8{X(f)6v fjpSiv kol crwepyov tov deov ev evayye\ia> tov XpKTTov), and hence the evangelists also were called " apostles " in the second century, — so especially in Didache, xi. 3-6. ■* That the Apostle Paul exercised all these gifts is showed by his epistles, — cf. particularly 1 Cor. 14:6. 5 Tertullian, de exhort, cast. c. 4, Proprie enim apostoli spiritum sanctum habent, [ut] qui plene habent, in operibus prophetiae et efficacia virtutum docuinentisque linguarura, non ex parte, quod ceteri. The reputation of having the "apostolic gift" is therefore the highest boast that can be made in behalf of any one. Cf. in note 23 below, the passages which speak of the apostolic teaching gift of Polycarp, and the "apostolic charisma" of the martyrs. ^ See note 3. ' The apostles in Jerusalem were charged not only with the teaching in the assembly, but with the prayers (Acts 6:4," But we will devote ourselves to the prayer and the ministry of the word ; " cf . v. 6, where the apostles utter the ordination prayer), and until the election of the "seven" they alone had the administering of the offerings, that is, the Church property (Acts 4:35, 37; 5:2; 6:1 sq.) The conduct of the prayers and the administration of the gifts implies likewise the ad- ministration of the Eucharist. 8 They appoint bishops and deacons, — Tit. 1 : 5, and 1 Tim. 3 : 1 sq., 8 sq. The regulations about the character to be required in bishops and deacons imply that Timothy was in a position to appoint them. 16 242 THE ASSEALBLY FOR INSTRUCTION [III cipline,^ administer Church property/" give general ordinances," and in all these matters the assent of the congregation is counted upon as in the case of an apostle.^^ 9 Cf. especially 1 Tim. 5 : 20, " Them that sin reprove in the sight of all." 1° 1 Tim. 5:17, the "elders that preside well" are to be accorded "double honor," i.e. they are to receive a double portion of the offer- ings (cf. below § 20). The counsel given in 1 Tim. 5: 11 to "refuse the younger widows " implies not only the authority to appoint widows, but authority also over the Church property, since the official widows were to be supported out of the offerings (v. 16). 11 So, for instance, in the matter of marriage and food, 1 Tim. 4 : 3-6. 1'-^ All this in virtue of the charisma which they possess : — 1 Tim. 4 : 14, " Neglect not the charisma that is in thee ; " 2 Tim. 1:6, "I put thee in remembrance to kindle the charisma of God that is in thee." The whole activity of the evangelist consists in "handling aright the word of truth " (2 Tim. 2 : 15). The view is still commonly entertained that Timothy and Titus, to whom the Pastoral Epistles are addressed, held their positions of authority only in virtue of apostolic authorization, as apostolic delegates. This view is not consistent with the contents of the epistles. It is true that the evangelist receives counsels and injunc- tions from the apostle (for instance, Tit. 1 : 5, " as I gave thee charge "), and the apostle proposes to come and relieve the evangelist of his duty. But nowhere is there a hint that the evangelist acts in the apostle's name and exercises authority as his representative. What empowers the evangelist for his mission is not any formal authorization, but the possession of a charisma ; and he acts not as the apostle's helper, but as "man of God" and "servant of Christ." In virtue of the gift which God has given him he acts in the name of God, not of the apostle. The position of Timothy and Titus according to the Pastoral Epistles is pre- cisely the same as in the unquestionably genuine letters of St. Paul : — cf . 1 Thess. 3:2," we sent Timothy ... a fellow worker with God . . . to establish you and comfort you; " 1 Cor. 16 : 10, 11, " if Timothy come, see that he be with you without fear, for he worketh the work of the Lord as I also do; " 2 Cor. 7 : 15, Titus " remembereth the obedience of you all, how with fear and trembling ye received him." Timothy and Titus perform the same work as the apostle, the work of the Lord, and as workers with God (in the work of evangelization) they claim and expect the obedience of the congregations. The critical questions about the Pastoral Epistles need not therefore be raised here. It only needs to be emphasized that the position ascribed to Timothy and Titus corresponds thoroughly with the view-point of the Apostolic Age. Other reasons which forbid us to refer the Pastoral Epistles to the second cen- tury will appear below. § 16] THE TEACHING OFFICE 24S It was not until the second century that the rule was made prohibiting the travelling " apostle " from remain- ing longer than two daj^s in any community .^^ By this the evangelists were effectually excluded from partici- pation in congregational government. The age of mistrust had already arrived, heralding the approach of Catholicism, which was to restrict the Spirit by law to precise bounds which it might not overstep. The apostles were also prophets, inasmuch as they \ possessed the gift of prophecy:^* but the "prophets", in the narrower sense were those prophetically gifted, men, who, lacking the commission to the apostolate and the call to the missionary activity of an evangelist, were settled in already established congregations.^^ To the prophet, in virtue of his revelations, belonged the If highest authority in the assembly or congregation — 1| an authority which was all the more marked as the number of prophets began to diminish. The congre- gation that boasted a p rophet in its midst looked natu- rally to him as the "decisive authority in matters of Church order, appointment to office, absolution, and the conduct of the Eucharist — including the offering of the prayer and the disposition of the gifts. The )rophet was also the highest authority in questions 13 The Dldache, xi. 5 requires that visiting " apostles " shall remain with the congregation two days at the longest — otherwise he is a " false prophet." The Pastoral Epistles know of no such limitation, and in this they reflect the earlier situation, Timothy is not to remain perma- nently in Ephesus, but yet he is there to fill the office of teacher until St. Paul come (1 Tim. 4 : 13). Cf. Rom. 16 : 7, where St. Paul, in send- ing greeting to the "apostles" Andi'onicus and Junius, implies clearly that they were not at this place of address for a mere passing visit. 1* In the Didache (xi. 5, 6) the false apostle is therefore called a "false prophet.'''' 15 The Didache considers the prophets (xi. 7 sq.) immediately after the " apostles," the wandering missionaries. In xiii. 1 the prophet is supposed to " settle " in this or that congregation. 244 THE ASSEMBLY FOR INSTRUCTION [HI I I of administration : he was at once preacher, lawgiver, I || and presiding officer of the congregation.^^ '[/ Both apostles and prophets are at the same time iteachers, and can therefore be included under the I StSacr/caXot : ^'^ but " teachers " in the more specific i sense are the preachers permanently established in the '^congregation who lack the special gift of prophecy. For this reason the teachers are more numerous than the prophets, and inferior to them in grade and au- thority. But the teacher, too, enjoys high estimation and authority as one of the natural leaders of the congregation.^^ His teaching is authoritative doctrine, 1^ Lucian, Peregrinus, c. 11 : — Peregrinus Proteus (in the fourth dec- ade of the second century) settles as prophet in a community, n-po^jjTTjs /cat deacrdpxTjs Koi avvayatyeiis Koi iravra fiovos avros u>v. " Cf. Re\^ 2: 20, "Jezebel, who calleth herself a prophetess and teaclieth,''^ etc. Didache, xi. 10, " every prophet, though he ieacheth the truth, if he does not do what he teacheth, is a false prophet." The prophet Montanus is also called diMa-KoXos by the anti-Montanist Apol- lonius (about a. d. 200) in Euseb. H. E. V. 18: 2, 6 Trpoa-cparos 8i8a(TKa\os, TO epya avTov Koi fj dibaa-Kokia- Cf. also ]\Iartyriuin Pohjcarpi (Euseb. H. E. IV. 15 : 39), 8i.ba.v. The? extraordinary teaching gift is an apostolic gift. It was in the apostleslj that the fulness of the teaching gift was first manifested : in the prophetsjj and teachers the same gift and the same Spirit is now manifested, — thatl is the thought which underlies these expressions. 2^ Acts 13 : 1 sq. ; 14 : 14, from among the "prophets and teachers " at Antioch two men — Paul and Barnabas — are separated by the voice of the Holy Ghost to be "apostles." On the other hand, Pantaenus was first "evangelist" (apostle) and subsequently settled in Alexandria as 8i8a. sengers^^ and representatives of God. In this sense'' 2« The general principle is expressed in 1 Cor. 9: 14, "the Lord or- dained that they which proclaim the Gospel should live by the Gospel " (cf. Matt. 10 : 10; 1 Cor. 9 : 6-11). Gal. 6 : 6, "Let him that is taught in the word communicate unto him that teacheth in all good things." Hence it is that the apostles have " a right not to work " (1 Cor. 9 : 6). I Thess. 2 : 6, 8vvd(i€voL iv ^dpei eivai ws XpivTov aTrdoToXoi. Cf . 2 Cor. II : 7-9, in order not to be burdensome to the Corinthians, but to main- tain his boast of preaching to them the Gospel "for naught," St. Paul " robbed other churches, taking wages from them." The same claim was made on behalf of the evangelist (2 Tim. 2 : 6), of the prophet (Di- dache, xiii. 1, "Every true prophet is worthy of his food "), and of the teacher (Didache, xiii. 2, " likewise every true teacher, he too is, like the laborer, worthy of his food"). Agreeably to this St. Paul im- plies that there were others beside himself m the Corinthian Church (?. e. apostles, prophets, or teachers) who "partake of this right" over them. ^' Cf . Gal. 4 : 14, a>s ayyiKov Beov ibi^aaOi fxf, and perhaps Kev. 2 : 3, etc. — the ayyeXoi of the Churches of Asia Minor. 248 THE ASSEMBLY FOR INSTRUCTION [III St. Paul speaks of his activity as a priestlf/ ministry, ^^ '-and at the beginning of the second century the Didache i calls the prophets the " high priests " of the Church, ' thus establishing their right to enjoy the first fruits like the priests of Israel.^^ In the call to administer the word of God, to address the Church in God's name, lies the priesthood of the New Covenant; and it is in this character (as vicars of Christ or God) that the teacher exercises the power jof the keys — the cure of souls and regiment. The calling of the teachers is a priestly and pastoral voca- tion ; that is, a vocation to the spiritual government of ^Christendom. § 17, THE TEACHERS AND THE ASSEMBLY It is evident from the foregoing that we may prop- erly enough speak of a teaching office, or rather of various offices, represented by apostles, evangelists, prophets, and teachers. All of these teachers enjoyed in some sort an official status : by the nature of their gifts or the character of their activity they were dis- tinguished more or less definitely^ from one another as well as from the rest of the disciples ; they spoke with an authority which was recognized by the Church ; and they claimed the right to receive their support from the congregation. Moreover, the authority which in virtue of their gifts they might claim in one congre- 2^ Rom. 15 : 16, eis to eival fie Xeirovpyov Xpicrrov 'irjcrov fls ra (6vr}, Upovpyovvra to (vayyeWiov tov Ofoii, Iva yivrjTai r) 7rpo(T(popa tu>v i6vu)V fv7rp6cr8eKTos, fiyiacrpiivrj iv Trvevfiari dyitp. -' Didache, xiii. 3, " All the first fruits shalt thou give to the prophets, for they are your high priests." Cf. Hippolytus, Philosoph., inst., where the xapts' apxiepaTeias nai 8i8a(rKaXias is ascribed to the bishops as suc- cessors of the apostles. 1 Cf . § 12, pp. 189 sqq. § 17] THE TEACHERS AND THE ASSEMBLY 249 gation, they might claim in all ; that is to say, they were officers not of this or that congregation, but of the Church at large, of Christendom, even though their ministry were actually confined to one community. At the same time, it is equally evident that their status was not a legal one. The names which dis- tinguished them, the place of honor which they enjoyed in the assembly and upon the lists of the beneficiaries of the Church,^ the acts of election and induction, in short, all the formal elements which contributed to define their official character, cannot be interpreted as implying an imputation of legal authority, but only as so many ways of expressing public recognition of the teacher's charisma. The official recognition was doubtless a factor of great moment for the authority of the teacher in relation to the assembly. The pre- sumption was naturally on the side of any one who claimed a spiritual gift to instruct the assembly, and an official status (formal recognition as a teacher) vastly enhanced the preponderance in his favor. But the assent and obedience which was rendered to the teacher was due not to his office, but to his gift. The assembly was morally bound to follow the instruction of its teachers only in so far as it was recognized as the commandment of God : on the other hand it was theoretically free to test the individual utterances of its officers, and if their gift was proved unreal or their doctrine unsound, all authority fell at once to the ground. Office conferred no formal right upon the teacher, and implied no formal subjection on the part of the assembly.^ The teacher might exact no canonical obedience, but only the free obedience of love. All office whatsoever in the Church signifies, ^ See § 20. a cf. § 13, pp. 200 sq. 250 THE ASSEMBLY FOR INSTRUCTION [III not lordship or mastery, but service (Sta/coi^ia), — ac- cording to the word of the Lord (Matt. 20 : 26, 27), "Whosoever would become great among you shall be your minister; and whosoever would be first among you shall be your servant." * With regard to this class of officers (apostles, evange- lists, prophets, and teachers) the case is particularly clear, because in this case the situation in the Apostolic Age is not obscured by subsequent developments. These officers (with the possible exception of the StSao-KaXog) never acquired a legal status in the Church, for they did not survive the Catholic legalization of Christendom.^ It is likewise true that the assembly on its part exercised no legal authority and performed no legal function in selecting and inducting its officers. The * The phrase " ministerial authority " is one which recurs frequently in Moberly's Ministerial Priesthood. It is a good example of the leger- demain by which the author attempts to disguise the essential con- trariety of two opposed theories of Church government. This phrase — unless it is to be regarded as a paradox — is palpably absurd, and the absurdity becomes at once apparent when the thought is expressed in simple English. The Latin adjective lends itself to ambiguity, but "the authority of a servant " is clearly a contradiction in terms. The teacher (priest) is justly accounted a servant of the Chm'ch, but it is impossible that in that character he can claim any authority over the Church. His authority lies in the fact that he is also a servant of God and speaks as God's representative. The primitive (and early Catholic) theory of Church government which ascribes to the teacher a divine authority as God's representative, cannot be reconciled by a phrase (" ministerial priesthood " is another example) with the modern theory which explains the authority of the Christian minister by the notion of legal delegation from the Church. 5 These being the first offices to be developed in the Church, it is natural to suppose that they must have determined the notion of Christian office in general : that is, the offices of bishop and deacon must have been interpreted in accordance with this standard and subsumed undei" the general conception of charismatic office. The prevalent theor}', however, draws a sharp line between the higher teaching offices (apostles, prophets, etc.), which it treats as the only charismatic offices, and the "congrega- tional offices" of bishop and deacon (and presbyter). The prevalent § 17] THE TEACHERS AND THE ASSEMBLY 251 assembly did not act in virtue of any supposed right of self-government, as though it were electing ministers of its own and empowering them to exercise repre- sentatively the corporate authority of the congregation. The act of the assembly was merely an act of recog- nition; it implied no authority whatsoever on the part of the Church, but rather consent and subjection to the representatives of divine authority. The popular recognition of a gifted teacher, by whatso- ever formalities it was expressed, cannot be supposed to have had the effect of materially equipping such a person for his vocation, or even of legally empowering him to exercise his gift. For the assembly as such can neither bestow a charisma nor call to a vocation ^ it can act only as a witness to the fact that such 4 person is truly called and endowed hfj God for th^ work of a teacher. It is equally impossible to suppose that the assent of the assembly to the ministry of the word in any particular case — whether it be the case of a doctrine, of a precept, or of an admonition — has the power, as it were, to make such a word the word of God. For the assembly as such has no cha risma, only the individual is charismatically endowed and a resolution of the assembly has merely the signifi- cance of a testimony. The power to act — whether in the matter of legislation, election, absolution, or ex- communication — is not derived from any resolution of the assembly (congregation), but from the charisma of the teacher, by means of which the word and will of theory accords in general with what has been said above as touching the former class of offices, particularly iu recognizing that they were Church offices in the fullest sense and as such could have no legal character ; but it regards the latter as essentially and originally legal institutions, repre- senting an authority delegated by the congregation, and hence only congregational offices, not Church offices. \ 252 THE ASSEMBLY FOR INSTRUCTION [III God is evinced in the Church. The freedom of the Christian assembly is commonly regarded as an expres- sion of the ideal of popular sovereignty and is supposed to imply a democratic organization. This conception is radically at fault, for the assembly claimed no rights of self-government, rather it recognized its subjection in all things to the will and rule of God (or Christ). Did the apostle or prophet act in the name of the Church or in virtue of an authority which he had received from some congregation ? No, clearly not. Whatever he did, he did in God's name, in virtue of an authority which was God-given, resident in his personal charisma. The government of Christendom rests not upon any authority conferred upon the congregation, but solely upon the authority which inheres in the {personal charisma of the teacher. The leadership of [the Ecclesia comes from above, through the medium of the individual who is personally endowed by God. The government of Christendom is from first to last authoritative, monarchical, in its nature, and the im- mense importance of the teaching office is due to the fact that it does not represent a legal, disciplinary authority exercised in the name of the Church as a self-governing association, but rather the higher moral authority which claims obedience in the name of God. What a mighty energy must such an organization develop, but at the same time how dangerous a power and how subversive of the spiritual nature of the Church, so soon as this spiritual authority is translated into the terms of a legal, formally competent, and formally binding authority ! ^ ^ The last two paragraphs are substantially, and in part literally, from Sohm, pp. 54 sqq. The whole of the following section (§ 18) is likewise from Sohm, reproducing substantially § 7 of his work, pp. 56 sqq., with omission or abbreviation of some of the notes. § 18] ELECTION AND ORDINATION 25a § 18, ELECTION AND OEDINATION If in the above we have riglitly characterized the relation of the teacher to the assembly or congregation, what significance are we to attach to the act of elec- tion and the rite of laying on of hands ? It is pre- cisely in relation to the teaching office that we have the earliest evidence of election in the Church ; the idea and practice of election (and ordination) was developed in this connection, and in this connection we can therefore best discover its essential character. St. Paul asserts that he was called to the apostolate " not from men, neither through a man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father" (Gal. 1 : 1). This solemn affirmation of the apostle must be regarded as a protest against the insinuation of his adversaries, that he had received his election and commission only through men. To make this charge plausible the positive fact at least must have been capable of ready proof; namely, that St. Paul did on a certain definite and well known occasion receive an election and ordi- nation to the apostolate through men — so far as the formal and outward features of the transaction were concerned. That is to say, St. Paul's expression in Gal. 1:1 by no means excludes human instru- mentality : on the contrary it implies just such an occurrence as is related in Acts 13 : 1 sqq. There was such a thing therefore as an election to the aposto- late through men which was properly to be regarded as election through God. How these two points of view w^ere united we see clearly in the account of the transaction as given in the Acts. Barnabas and Saul were reckoned among the " prophets and teachers " of the Church at Antioch, until they were singled 254 THE ASSEMBLY FOR INSTRUCTION [III out through the instrumentality of a prophet, and appointed by unanimous consent to an apostolic mis- sion (cf. 14 : 14). The details here mentioned are few but significant : the assembly had prepared itself by fasting to receive a divine revelation ; in the midst of the assembly the Holy Ghost spoke through the mouth of a prophet, saying, " Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them ; " popular assent to the prophetic appointment is implied in the subsequent acts, in which the assembly as a whole participated ; that is, in prayer and fasting with the laying on of hands for the confirmation of the apostolic charisma.^ Another account of the election of an apostle is given in Acts 1 : 23-26. The assembled brotherhood elected two men between whom the lot was to decide which might count as elected by God. " The lot fell upon Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles." ^ Another case is the election of Timothy to the office of an evangelist (apostle in the later sense) : he was elected " through prophecies " which testified to his charisma, and that " before many witnesses." The record of this event is significant, though the details 1 Cf. Sobm, note 1, p. 56. 2 The significance of the lot is showed by the prayer which pre- ceded it: " Thou, Lord, . . . show of these two the one whom thou hast cliosen." The ordinary mode of ascertaining the divine choice was through the prophetic voice : the lot was exceptional, but its significance was the same. By way of exception the will of God may be revealed by a miracle or portent : e. g. the election of the Roman bishop Fabian (Euseb. H. E. VI. 29:3, 4) was decided by a dove which descended upon him. Witness of the Lord's resurrection, as an antecedent condi- tion of apostleship, must of course be assumed in the case of Justus and Matthias, — and of Barnabas. St. Paul expressly claimed to fulfil this condition (1 Cor. 9:1; 15 : 8, 9). § IS] ELECTION AND ORDINATION 255 have to be gathered from several sources : 1 Tim. 1:18, " according to the prophecies which led to thee," that is, occasioned his election (/caret ra? irpoayovcra^ eVt ere 7rpo(f)r]TeLas) ; 4 : 14, thy charisma was given thee " through (Sia) prophecy with (/Aera) the laying on of hands of the presbytery;" 6 : 12, " thou didst confess the good confession in the sight of many witnesses ; " 2 Tim. 1:6," the charisma of God which is in thee through (8ia) the laying on of my hands ; " 2:2," the things which thou hast heard from me among (8ta) many witnesses." ^ Prophecy designated Timothy, and indeed before many witnesses, — that is, in the Church assembly. The act was completed by a confession of faith on the part of Timothy, by an address (and prayer) on the part of St. Paul,, and by the laying on of hands by St. Paul and the presbytery in common. The assent of the assembly to the prophetic designation of Timothy is indicated by the participation of the pres- bytery in the laying on of hands, and also by the fact that the assembled brethren are referred to as " witnesses." In all three accounts there emerge two distinct sides to the transaction : on the one hand the witness of God, on the other the witness of the assembly. God's witness is manifested ordinarily through the medium of 3 That all these passages refer to the same occasion, namely, the elec- tion and ordination of Timothy, is proved by Holtzniann, Pastoralbriefe, pp. 227 sqq. The present argument is hardly affected by the question of the historicity of this account, or of the accounts cited above from the Acts. The point that concerns us here is simply the procedure ordi- narily followed in an election to office within the early Christian period, and there can be no doubt that the definite characteristics vyhich here appear correspond perfectly with the notions of primitive Christianity : i. e. (1) election to the office of an evangelist (apostle), (2) election or designation through prophecy in the midst of an assembly, (3) assent of the assembly, accompanied with prayer and the laying on of hands. 256 THE ASSEMBLY FOR INSTRUCTION [III prophecy, — by the voice of a gifted teacher. To the witness of God is joined the witness of the assembly, which signifies assent to the word of the prophet, a recognition that it is God himself who speaks through the j mouth of man. The election therefore which is accom- \ plished by a prophetic choice with the subsequent assent ' of the assembly, is not an election from men, neither by ,1 a man, but through God. The election is in its nature \ a spiritual, and not a legal act : the officer elect is not elected by the assembly as a corporation clothed with any sort of a legal authority, but by the Holy Ghost.* ^ In 1 Cor. 12 : 28 and Ephes. 4:11 it is said in common of apostles, prophets, and teachers that they were placed or appointed by God. From these passages Harnack {Proleg. p. 97) infers that officers of this (class were not elected by the Churches, and in this fact he discovers a fundamental distinction between apostles, prophets, and teachers on the one hand, and bishops and deacons on the other. The notion is that the former were elected by God for the whole of Christendom, the latter were elected by the congregation for the service of the local society. It is clear from the above that no such hard and fast distinction existed. Apostles, prophets, and teachers might also be elected by the Ecclesia. In regard to apostles at least (exclusive of the original eleven) election seems to have been the rule. But what is formally an election through men is spiritually an election through God. It was precisely the same in the case of bishops and deacons : they too were elected, but their elec- tion counted as an appointment by God, — cf . Acts 20 : 28, v\ms to nvevfia TO ayiov edfTo eTncrKoirovs, and above, n. 21. p. 235. Precisely the same notion persisted in a later age. Ignatius. Philad. 1 : 1, the bishop of Philadelphia is lauded as one who holds his office "not of himself, neither through men." Cyprian, epist. 48:4, doi}iinns que sacerdotes sibi in ecclesia sua eligere et constituere dignetur ; ep. 55 : 8, de dei Judicio qui episcopum eum fecit ; . . . factus est autem Cornelius episcopus de dei et Christi ejus judicio ; ep. 59 : 5, post divinum judicium, post populi suf- fragium, post coepiscoporum consensura judicem se non jam episcopis sed deo faceret; ep. 66:1, post deiim judicem, qui sacerdotes facit, te velle . . . de dei et Christi j udicio judicare; ep. 66 : 4, deo episcopum con- stituenti ; ep. 66 : 9, majestatem dei qui sacerdotes ordinat Christi. — When the early texts describe an election they speak, now, of the assem- bly as the agent ; again, of some authoritative individual, like the apostles Barnabas and Paul, or the evangelists Timothy and Titus; and again, of God, Christ, or the Holy Ghost. In all this there is no contra- § 18] ELECTION AND ORDINATION 257 Election to the teaching office was followed by a rite which was very early developed, if it was not strictly an original and invariable constituent of appointment to office ; namely, the laying on of hands with accom- panying prayer.^ The prayer denotes petition for the diction, the same thing is meant in each case : election depends upon a revelation of the divine will, which is ordinarily given through the prophecy of a gifted teacher, and which receives the witnessing assent of the assembly. What is decisive for the Church is not that this or that assemhlij has made choice of an officer — the act of the assembly is no elec- tion at all in the secular sense of the word — but that God has chosen. It is true in particular of election to the office of bishop or deacon that it is an " election " only in this — improper — sense of the word. Hence in this case, too, election by the assembly is merely an act of assent, — the classical reference is 1 Clem. 44 : 3, o-uveuSoKjjo-acrj;? t^s eicKXTja-ias irdoTjs. This whole range of ideas which was associated with election or appoint- ment to office in the Church, was altogether peculiar to Christianity ; — yet what becomes of it all in the hands of Hatch, who assumes to ex- plain all circumstances of early Christian life by comparison with the secular institutions of the state or of civil societies? The spiritual char- acter of the act is done away with, the conception is said to be precisely the same as in the case of appointment to civil office, and that for five reasons, of which it may suffice here to mention one (Organization, pp. 129 sq.) : "All the elements of appointment to ecclesiastical office were also the elements of appointment to civil office. These elements were nomination, election, approval, and the declaration of election by a com- petent officer." Further, to explain a marked peculiarity of language in the ecclesiastical sources, it is affirmed that the secular sources show "that, according to the constitutional fiction which we find in Rome itself, especially during the Republican period, the person appointed is said to be appointed, not by the people who elected, but by the officer who presided at the election." In opposition to such a view as this Moberly (Ministerial Priesthood, p. 105) justly affirms: "The idea of a secular appointment as secular, a distinction of convenience drawn on the basis of convenience, without reference to the divine purpose, or consciousness of being instrumental to a divine act, is the one idea which may be regarded as wholly untenable" in reference to the Christian ministry. ^ Acts 6 : 6, appointment of the " seven " at Jerusalem — " when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them." 13 : 3, election of Paul and Barnabas — "when they had fasted and prayed and laid their hands on them." In these two cases both the laying on of hands and prayer are mentioned, while in 1 Tim. 4 : 14 and 2 Tim. 1 : 6 (election of 17 258 THE ASSEMBLY FOR INSTRUCTION [in Holy Ghost.^ What is the significance of the laying on of hands ? The Christian rite of the laying on of hands, what- ever may be its relation to the Jewish usage, is not adequately explained by it ; for the instances of its ap- plication were very different in the two cases, and its significance could hardly have been the sameJ The Timothy as evangelist) only the laying on of hands is referred to, and, on the other hand, in Acts 14 : 23 (appointment of elders) only the prayer. The later development makes it certain that the two acts were ordinarily inseparable, and that where only one is mentioned we are justified in assuming the other. Laying on of hands for the purpose of ordination occurs only in the Acts and the Pastoral Epistles, but at all events the development of the custom belongs to early Christian times. 6 The petition for the presence or gift of the Holy Ghost constitutes the invariable and unquestionably original content of all later ordination prayers, — cf. Canon. Hippol. HI. § 13, IV. § 31, V. § 39; Aposl. Conxt. VIII. cc. 5, 15, 16, 18, 20-22. When we have mention in the Acts of the Apostles of fasting as an accompaniment of the ordination prayer (13 : 3 & 14 : 23), we may understand that the prayer is a petition for the Holy Ghost — offered not only in behalf of the person to be or- dained, .but also of those who utter the prayer (Apost. Const. VIII. c. 5, "pour out among us the power of thy guiding Spirit"), because they are about to perform the laying on of hands. It is still the rule in Catholic ordination that it must be given Jejuna a Jejunantibus. Comp. Murat. Fragm. line 11, conjejunante mihi triduo, et quid cuique fuerit revelatum, . . . nobis enarremus. Hernias, Vision, HI. 1:2, "having fasted often and prayed to the Lord that he would make known to me the revelation." Haruack, Proleg. p. 148 in the note: — fasting is a preparation for the reception of the Spirit, whether it be for the pur- pose of a revelation or of an impartation of the Spirit (laying on of hands). ■^ Driver contributes to the Oxford Conference on Priesthood and Sacrifice (Sanday editor, p. 39) an interesting note on the various uses and substantial meaning of the laying on of hands in the Old Testament. He concludes that the ceremony seems " to symbolize the transmission, or delegation, of a moral character or quality, or of responsibility or authority (or, of power to represent another)." Various aspects of the idea of transmission or delegation are illustrated in the case of instituting a successor to office (Num. 27: 18, 20; Deut. 34: 9 ; — the rabbinical laying on of hands at the institution of a judge or teacher is to be re- garded from the same point of view. Cf. Hatch, Organization, p. 135, and § 18] ELECTION AND ORDINATION 259 meaning of the New Testament ceremony is substan- tially defined by the content of the accompanying prayer.^ Doubtless its significance differed as it was Schiiver, Jewisli People, div. IT. vol. 1. p. 177). The laying on of hands was emploj^ed in the case of all kinds of animal sacrifice (burnt-offering Lev. 1 : 4, peace-ofEering Lev. 3 : 2, 8, 13, sin-offering Lev. -1 : 4, 15, 24), where the offerer lays his hands upon the head of the victim : in the case of the scape-goat (Lev. 16: 21), upon which the high' priest lays his hands ; of a blasphemer condemned to death (Lev. 24 : 14 ; Susanna, v. 34), on whose head the witnesses lay their hands ; and finally in the case of the installation of the Levites, upon whom the people lay their hands (Num. 8 : 10), offering them as a substitutionary sacrifice for the first-born of all Israel {v. 18) — hence in vv. 11, 13 they are to be "waved " before the Lord. There was no special laying on of hands in the induction of the priest. The Hebrew word denoted more exactly to lean or rest the hands ; the implication certainly is that manual contact was essential to the act ; and all the cases of its use indicate that the notion was a mechanical one. This is true of the laying on of hands in blessing, which is the only case that comes near to the New Testament use. It is only so that we can explain the difference between the blessing accorded by the right and the left hand (Gen. 48: 14, 18). The blessing, accord- ing to the Old Testament view, is not so much prayed for as given (transmitted), — with the right hand the stronger, with the left the lesser blessing. Such a notion is utterly impossible from the New Testament standpoint. In the Church, the laying on of hands in blessing constituted one case at least in which manual contact was not accounted important. In the Apost. Const. (VIII. 37, 38) the general blessing of the bishop at morning and evening prayer is called the laying on of hands {x^ipoQeaia) from the gesture which accompanied it. Laying on of hands for the healing of the sick was unknown to the Old Testament (Elisha laid his whole body npon the dead boy, 2 Kings 4 : 34), as was also its use for the impartation or confirmation of spiritual gifts. 8 Imposition of hands was never employed in the Church without ac- companying prayer, which asked specifically for that which was supposed to be given in the act. It was not, however, regarded as a mere gesture, or unessential adjunct of the prayer, — except, perhaps, in the case of ben- ediction. The close relation of this act to prayer is indicated in the oft quoted and much abused saying of St. Augustine {de Baptismo c. Donat. lib. III. c. 16) : Quid est enim aliud [manum impositio] nisi oratio super hominem? St. Augustine's point is, that though baptism itself cannot be repeated (even the baptism of schismatics), yet the laying on of hands (confirmation) which accompanies baptism may be, — " for what is it but a ])rayer (uttered) over a man ? " The practice of reconfirming schismatics upon their entrance into the Catholic Church shows that the rite was re- 260 THE ASSEMBLY FOR INSTRUCTION [III employed in benediction, "confirmation," exorcism, or ordination ; but in all of these cases there appears a generic idea, which serves to explain the meaning of the laying on of hands as used in ordination. One of the applications of this rite which unquestion- ably belongs to the earliest Christian period is the lay- ing on of hands for the healing of the sick. The meaning of it is here plain, and hence we may draw inferences as to its character in other cases. The lay- ing on of hands for the purpose of healing denotes ex- orcism, a driving out of the demoniac power of evil by the Spirit of God.^ The laying on of hands is here garded as a sort of exorcism, like the imposition of hands in absolution. In this case St. Augustine regards it as confirming the charisma of charity. His argument here will not bear to be stretched beyond its particular application, least of all to the laying on of hands in ordination, for it is in this very work (lib. I.) that he lays the foundation for the doctrine of the sacrament of orders, arguing that ordination confers an indelible character and (like baptism) cannot be repeated. This phrase of his, moreover, does not imply any disparagement of the act of imposition of hands, and so does not furnish any support to Hatch's contention {Organi- zation, p. 135) that the rite was not regarded as essential. On the other hand, it suggests a serious obstacle to Hatch's light method of disposing of the rite of the laying on of hands in ordination, as though it were something which throws no light upon the character of Church office, and hints at no difference between appointment to this and to civil office (ib. pp. 132 sqq.). Such an argument can be made plausible only by ignoring the prayer which defines the character of the act ; or by ignoring the specific content of the prayer, as Hatch does in his art. Ordination in the Diet. Christ. Ant. p. 1503, remarking only that "it was both natural and fitting that any appointment should be accompanied by prayer." Prayer and the laying on of hands was not the only religious element in election to Church office, for we have seen that the whole was a religious and spiritual transaction, but it was the most ostensibly religious element, the hardest to misinterpret, the one which stands most manifestly opposed to the notion that appointment to Church office signified the same as ap- pointment to civil office. Cf. pp. 24 sq. ^ The official exorcist of the later organization corresponds in origin with the possessor of the " gift of healing" (1 Cor. 12 : 28) : one of his principal functions is the healing of the sick. Apost. Const. VIII. 25, fnoKpioTrjs oi ^eipoToveirai ... 6 yap \a^av xdpi(rp,a lafidroiv 8i aTroKoXv^ews § IS] ELECTION AND ORDINATION 261 not a mere insignificant accompaniment of prayer, but a means whereby the Spirit of God which resides in the actor works upon the patient. The same signifi- cance must belong to the imposition of hands in the other cases of its use. The imposition of hands upon one who is elected to a teaching function is also an instrumentality for the effectual influence of God's Spirit upon him. Only as we recognize this as the starting-point can we understand the development of the Catholic view, which actually regarded the laying on of hands in ordination as a mechanical impartation of the Holy Ghost. But the laying on of hands pre- supposed an election to the teaching function — it assumed that the person receiving this rite was already] chosen by God, and that he already possessed God's spirit and the spiritual charisma which furnished him with the faculty for his office.^*^ Accordingly, the laying on of hands assumes the charisma and does not cause it. The consequence is, that the imposition of hands upon one who is elected to the office of teacher can have only the effect of strengthening or confirming the charisma. It, too, represents a sort of exorcism ; its purpose is to vTTo Beov dvaBciKwrai. Cf. Canon. Hippol. VIII. §§ 53, 54. Egypt. Ch. Order, c. 39 (Achelis, C. H. p. 74). Harnack, Texte, II. 5, p. 74. Accord- ing to Eusebius, H. E. VI. 43 : 14, Novatian was treated in his illness by exorcists. Passio S. Genesii, c. 2 (Ruinart, p. 237), the saint in his illness calls for a presbyter with the exorcist. Passio S. Procopii, c. 1 (Ruinart, p. 311), ibi (in Scythopolis) ecclesiae tria ministeria praebebat : ununi in legendi officio, alteruni in Syri interpretatione sermonis, et tertium adversus daemones manus impositione consummans. He was at once lector (and interpreter) and exorcist — the imposition of hands was the means employed for exorcism as well as for healing. The passages here quoted from the Acts of the Martyrs belong to the end of the third century or- the beginning of the fourth. See further Achelis, ibid. p. 157. 1" The "seven men" were akeady "full of the Spirit" before their ordination (Acts 6 : 3, 5) ; and Barnabas and Paul had the gifts of prophecy and teaching before they received the laying on of hands (Acts 13 : 1, 3). 262 THE ASSEMBLY FOR INSTRUCTION [III overcome in the recipient of ordination the powers of sin which oppose his charisma and hinder its free exer- cise." Accordingly, the rite does not generate the cha- risma, but it does strengthen it. The laying on of hands in ordination signifies substantially confirmation. The same significance appears in the other two uses of the rite which were early developed : in " confirmation " properly so-called, that is, the laying on of hands which accompanied baptism ; and in the laying on of hands in the case of absolution. What is designed in all these cases is a strengthening of the spiritual power which is already assumed to be present (in the elected officer, the baptized person, or the penitent), and the complete overcoming of evil.^^ To him who already effectually '"■ In this we have an explanation of the view which attributed to the imposition of hands in ordination the effect of absolving from sins — Concil. Neocaesar. (circa 314-325) c. 9, ra yap \oina afiapTr]p.ara (with the exception of unchastity) ((fiacrau ol ttoXXoi koI ttjv x'^ipodeaiav d(f)ievai.. We may recall here the " confession " which Timothy made on the occasion of his ordination (1 Tim. 6 : 12). Corresponding to this we have the op- posite view that through sin (viz. deadly sin) the effect of oi'dination is obliterated : 1 Clem, ad Cor. 44 : 4, the deposition of the bishops is unjustifiable only so long as they perform the functions of their office " iin- Uamably and piously " ; Polyc. ad Phil. 11, Valens lost his office because he embezzled Church money ; Cypr. ep. 66, 5, 7, the bishop who sins gravely is no longer a legitimate bishop (cf . ib. 67 : 3 & 70 : 2 ; and Apost. Const. VIII. 2). Hence the possibility of several ordinations — cf. the Galilean inscription of the year 461 (C. 1. G. 9259) mentioned by Hatch (p. 137 note), h\s yevopevos npfa^vTfpos. Catholicism, owing to its doctrine of the mechanical effect of ordination, had to give up the practice of re- peating ordination. Callistus, it is well known, was the first to oppose Cyprian's dictum (Philosoph. ix. 12), ovtos iboyparKrev, onas fl enlaKonos dpapTot Ti, ft iicai npoi ddvarov, pfj belv KaTaridfaBai. His successor Stephen confirmed this " dogma " (O. Ritschl, Cyprian, p. 138), and in the Donatist controversy Augustine found himself obliged to atlirm the inalienable character of ordination {de Baptism, c. Donat. I. c. 1). Cf. Ritschl, Entstehung, pp. 566 sqq. ^2 For a notion of the inward likeness of the various sorts of imposition of hands see Apost. Const. III. 15 (confirmation is compared to ordina- tion — one gives the general priesthood, the other the special), and ibid. § 18] ELECTION AND ORDINATION 263 possesses the gift of God's Spirit it is given again, by the imposition of hands, in a new measure for deliverance from the power of sin. We see consequently that the laying on of hands is a transaction of a purely spiritual nature.-^^ It bestows no formal office or outward authority : its purpose is to strengthen the charisma which the recipient already possesses. Practically considered, the laying on of hands repre- sents also the verification of the possession of a cha- risma, an outward testimony, which, like the whole act of ordination (including election), and the letters of commendation which frequently accompanied it, had simply the effect of making it easier in point of fact for the recipient to obtain recognition of his voca- tion on the part of other assemblies.^"* Let us consider the case of a man who is elected to II. 39, 41 (the imposition of hands in absolution is compared to confirmation). 13 Hence the association of the laying on of hands with prayer. The above interpretation excludes on the one hand the Catholic view, according to which the laying on of hands constitutes the source and origin of the charisma ; and on the other the interpretation of Ritschl (Entstehung, p. 379), which makes it a purely outward act, a mere accompaniment of prayer. But while the interpretation in the text draws a clear distinction between the primitive Christian view and the Catholic (as also the Jewish), it yet makes it clear that the Catholic view was a natural out- come of the primitive conception. 1* From this point of view it is possible to explain the two phrases which refer to Timothy's charisma (1 Tim. 4 : 14 ; 2 Tim. 1:6): it is said in the one place that he possesses his charisma 8ia 7rpo(f)r]Tflas fifra iTn6k(Tiu>s Tu>v xftpav; and in the other, that he had it Slci ttjs fnideafoos rati^ Xftpdiv. The prophecy has unquestionably merely the value of a testi- mony, but in both passages it is put on the same plane with the imposi- tion of hands. The 8ia denotes in both cases (as the first passage clearly shows), not the causality which accounts for the existence of the charisma, but that which accounts for its recognition. Most modern German writers assume a discrepancy between these two passages, and interpret the latter in the Catholic sense. 264 THE ASSEMBLY FOR INSTRUCTION [III the office of an evangelist. Shall the election and lay- ing on of hands which he receives guarantee him any legal authority or privilege in relation to other assem- blies ? More generally, is his ordination competent to make him in fact an evangelist (apostle) of Jesus Christ ? Impossible ! The office which he is called upon to exercise signifies an office of Christendom, not merely of this or that individual congregation. There can be no other teaching vocation than that which is in- tended for the whole Church. He is also elected by Christendom, for every assembly of Christians in the name of Christ is an assembly of Christendom (p. 138). Not only that assembly which elected him, however, but every other assembly is a manifestation of Chris- tendom, and equally free on its part to accord or to deny him recognition as a teacher. The election and ordination has therefore no legal significance, since the electing assembly itself does not constitute a definite legal corporation or local congregation, the very notion of the individual Church being unknown, and only the notion of the whole Church being alive in the consciousness of early Christianity. Even in relation to the community which elects, the election and ordination as such confer no rights : the right to claim hearing and obedience as a teacher resides in the charisma; with or without the vote of the congregation that right exists, but without the cha- risma no vote can create the right. We may see from this that it is essentially indifferent how great or how small was the electing assembly, or where it was assembled. It is only with a view to obtaining practical recognition in a broader sphere that the size of the assembly can be of importance. The fundamental and decisive fact which determines § IS] ELECTION AND ORDINATION 265 this point, and in general the whole line of thought with which we have hitherto been occupied, is this : there is as yet within Christendom no such thing as a congregation ivith a legal organization which binds and comprehends the individual by formal ties. As yet there are only assemblies (Ecclesiae), now large and now small, now here and now there, mere waves as it were, rising and sinking in the great stream of Christendom, manifesting visibly the life and power of the Church, but without possessing any legal rep- resentative authority. The assembly being once, dissolved, no trace of it is any more to be found. After it, as before it and in it, there subsists but one sole entity, the tvhole Ecdesia upon earth, and by its very nature this universal Church (Christendom) can endure no human — that is, no legal — authority. CHAPTER IV THE EUCHARISTIC ASSEMBLY § 19, THE EUCHAETST — ITS SIGNIFICANCE FOE CHURCH ORDER AND ORGANIZATION WE have seen bow the charismatic organization of Christendom (the body of Christ) was mani- fested, and in a sense formulated, in the assembUes for instruction. These assemblies, however, as they have been described above, contained hardly any elements which might serve even as a starting-point for the legal organization which was subsequently developed. Neither apostles, prophets, nor teachers ever attained a legal status in the Church ; and the free service of instruction itself disappeared with the development of Catholicism. One sort of assembly there was, however, w^iich goes far to explain the subsequent development of Church order and organization, — the Eucharistic assembly. The Eucharist is the highest expression of the spiritual worship of the Church, but none the less it is — and in a still greater degree it was — the most material feature of Christian worship. It exhibits the paradox which is so deeply characteristic of Christianity as a whole and of the very nature of its Founder — the spiritual mani- fested in the flesh. There is hardly any element essen- tial to the Eucharist which is not material — there is none, however, which is not spiritual. A material § 19] THE EUCHARIST 267 feast is here the symbol of a spiritual fellowship (with Christ and with the brotherhood) and the medium of a heavenly nourishment. We have seen that the Catho- lic or legal conception of Christianity was not a primi- tive conception ; therefore it was not an implication of the primitive Eucharist. This feast spiritualized even the material elements that composed it — offerings in money and in kind (in short, Church property), as well as the consecrated oblations which were received as the body and blood of Christ. A legal notion was not necessarily involved in this : it was indeed theoretically excluded. But in point of fact it was in connection with the Eucharist and the Eucharistic assembly that a legal conception of the congregation and of the minis- try was first formulated. When the spiritual forces that were at work in the Church became feeble, such a conception of the nature of the Christian society must have appeared obvious, if not inevitable, and the Eucha- ristic assembly constituted the readiest point of appli- cation for it. The reason in short is this, that the Eucharistic assembly was the assembly which exhib- ited the congregation in its most definite and exclusive character, and the ministry in its most definite and exclusive functions. To make here a detailed investigation into the char- acter and procedure of the Eucharistic assembly would be by no means foreign to our present purpose, but it would involve a digression from the direct line of our argument. The study of the Eucharist involves and explains some of the largest problems of early Church history. For, aside from all doctrinal questions, not only is the form of the Catholic organization (bishop^ deacons, presbyters) determined by it, but the whole development of the liturgy centres in it, the whole 268 THE EUCHARISTIC ASSEMBLY [IV economic administration derives from it, and the very character of the Chnrch building (the basilica and every subsequent form) is prescribed by it. The essential features, however, of the Eucharistic assembly and the main lines of its development are so simple that they can be described in a few words, and so palpable that they hardly admit of controversy. There can be no doubt that in the earliest time the Eucharist was celebrated in conjunction with the agape in a private house where all the disciples were gathered about a common table. It may appear as though there were little room here for distinctions of rank, and not much to suggest the development of a formal organiza- tion. But both Gentile and Jewish usage required a president at the feast, and this was particularly the ;j|case with regard to the Passover, from which the Eu- ' charistic feast was derived. In the Eucharist there were two functions especially that fell to the part of the president : namely, the breaking of the bread, and the thanksgiving prayer — both of them acts which are so characteristic of this sacrament that they have given us the two names under which it has been most com- monly known in primitive and later times. Obviously, these acts must be performed by one person. Such was the significance of these acts that whosoever performed them was thereby constituted president of the feast, with all that this office implied in the way of the ad- ministration of the Eucharist and the disposition of the oblations. For he who performed these acts was recog- nized as sitting in Christ's seat, blessing as he blessed, breaking the loaf as he brake it, and distributing like him the bread and wine to the disciples. This is not to say that the right to celebrate the Eu- charist belonged exclusively to any one class of officers §19] THE EUCHARIST 269 or to a formally appointed president. The common priesthood of all believers means very little, if it does not mean that each is inherently capable of breaking the bread and offering the prayer of thanksgiving to God at the Eucharistic feast. Christ's promise to be with his disciples wherever two or three are gathered together is surely general enough to include the Eu- charistic assembly; and where Christ is among his disciples there is the whole Church and all the powers of it. These ideas were still current as late as the be- ginning of the third century, as we see from Tertullian's well known saying : ^ " Are not also we laity priests ? . . . When there are no clergy thou makest the offering and baptizest and art priest for thyself alone. When three are present, there is the Church, although they be laymen." Tertullian does not contend for this principle, he merely assumes it as a premise for his argument : therein lies the proof that it was not an individual opinion of his own, nor a distinctive tenet of Mon- tanism, but a commonly accepted position, a primitive tradition which had not yet been successfully impugned. At the same time, there can be little doubt that in Tertullian's age, so far as the Eucharist is concerned, this was hardly more than a theoretical position. Even in the earliest age this principle, as Tertullian expresses it, did not aptly represent the common view or practice, simply because the idea of an exclusive priesthood or clems within the Church was not yet distinctly con- ceived : whoever presided at the Eucharist was ipso facto regarded as an officer, and in the early Church there was no more definite criterion of office than this. Then too, the conditions posited by Tertullian were realized only in rare cases of necessity. The primitive idea ^ De exhort, cast. c. 7. 270 THE EUCHARISTIC ASSEMBLY [IV that every gathering of disciples, though they be but two or three, constitutes a Church, did not tend to make men content with the minimum expression of Christian fellowship — rather it prompted the effort to make every assembly of Christendom practically coincident so far as possible with the local brotherhood (see p. 131). This was especially true of the 'Eucha- ristic assembly, for the Eucharist was the preeminent expression of the social side of Christianity. Where only two or three could get together, doubtless they alone broke bread in memory of their Lord. But that was an exception. It seems, however, to have been by no means excep- tional for the disciples to meet together for the Eucharist, as for other purposes, in assemblies which comprised only a part of the local brotherhood. There were assemblies (^'Churches") which were accustomed to meet, with what regularity we do not know, in this or that private house. It is likely that there were several distinct assemblies of this sort in every consider- able town. We can readily represent to ourselves that in the earliest period the number that could meet in one place was restricted by the limitations of the room and by other conditions; and it is evident that by the time the Church was able to construct appro- priate houses for worship the number of disciples had already grown too great to be united in one building. Such at least must have been the situation in the larger towns. Yet in spite of such distinct assemblies or Churches it was customary, as we see from the Apocalypse as well as from St. Paul's epistles, to describe the totality of the disciples in one town as the Church in that place. The conception of unity was strong, and without implying any disparagement § 19] THE EUCHARIST 271 of the more partial expressions of the local Church, there seems from the first to have been a distinction drawn between such minor assemblies, and what we may call the principal assembly, the assembly which counted as an assembly of the whole local community, even if all were not actually included in it at any given time (see pp. 121, 131). It is the principal assembly for the Eucharist which was of chief impor- tance for the development of Church organization — thouorh the existence of minor Eucharistic assemblies may perhaps explain one feature of early organization ; namely, the plurality of bishops. The Eucharistic feast requires a president — that was one of the first suggestions which prompted the development of formal ofiice in the Church. All could not preside at the Eucharist at once, neither was it appropriate that each should preside in tarn, from the greatest unto the least. Who then shall preside at the Eucharist ? The answer presented no theoretical difficulty, though it might be embarrassed in practice by jealousies and differences of personal judgment. Whether the assembly were large or small, the question was the same : substantially it was equivalent to the question. Who, among those present at the particular time and place, is most worthy to sit in the seat of Christ ? Such being the nature of the choice, it is obvious that in the same community and under the same conditions there would be a certain permanence in the presidency — it was ever the most highly revered disciple that must preside. But this did not imply as of necessity a formal appointment, still less did it constitute a legal right. But the conditions were not always the same. If, for example, an apostle were resident in the community 272 THE EUCHARISTIC ASSEMBLY [IV or present as a visitor, he, no doubt, must have pre- sided. So at Troas it was St. Paul who broke the bread (Acts 20 : 11). At Jerusalem, where there were many apostles, it was St. James, we must imagine, who, on account of the veneration in which he was held as the brother of the Lord, was accorded the Lord's place at the Eucharistic table. Lacking an apostle, an evangelist might assume this honor as a matter of course. The position of leadership which Timothy enjoyed at Ephesus and Titus at Crete surely implies presidency in the Eucharistic assembly as well as pre- eminent authority in the assembly for instruction. The evangelist of a later type whom we encounter in the Didache under the name of ^"^ apostle" must have pre- sided at the Eucharist, for he was to be " received as the Lord " (xi. 4). At all events, this same book (x. 7) incidentally reveals the fact that the prophets, who came next in rank, might be expected to offer the Eucharistic prayer, and that with a freedom which was not permitted to the bishops, who were at that time already bound to a formula. In short, the same officers that enjoyed leadership in the assemblies for instruction — the charismatically endowed teachers — were the natural presidents of the Eucharist — ivhen such ivere to he had. The gifted teachers were those that enjoyed the highest consideration in Christendom, and hence the presidency at the "table of the Lord," — for this reason among others, that the most distinc- tively religious act in connection with the Eucharist was the prayer, and prayer was a function of the teaching gift. But such spiritual teachers were not always to be had. Even in the Apostolic Age they were the excep- tion rather than the rule. The Eucharist, however, was § 19] THE EUCHARIST 273 an ordinary, a weekly festival ; it might not be deferred to await the coming of a teacher of the higher sort, and indeed it needed no extraordinary gifts for its admin- istration. It was incmnbent upon the disciples to appoint the fittest of their number to this dignity. The choice would naturally be made from among the older men of the congregation (TrpecrySvrepot), those more particularly who had had the longest experience of the Christian faith. The elders were more or less distinctly recognized as a class within the community, though without any official status whatever. The earliest distinction within the Church — apart from such as were due to extraor- dinary spiritual endowments — was the general dis- tinction of elder and younger. Seniority has ever been one of the chief grounds of precedence or presidency, and it was as natural for the president of the Eucharist (the bishop) to be chosen from among the elders, as for the ministers at the Eucharist (the deacons) to be cho- sen from the younger men. But there were a number of elders, of whom some only were to be appointed to this dignity. What were the grounds of choice ? In St. Paul's epistles to Timo- thy and Titus ^ the moral character of the bishop is what is chiefly insisted upon. No exceptional virtue is required, in particular no ascetic virtue : he must be an elder who manifests a sterling character in all social relations, but particularly as husband and father, having " good testimony from them that are without " as well as the esteem of the brethren,^ In Titus 1:7 he is 2 1 Tim. 3:1-7; Titus 1 : 5-9. 2 In the Didache, xv. 1 the character required of bishops and deacons is summed up in the phrase " worthy of the Lord " : it is added that they must be " men of meek temper, and not lovers of money, and true, and approved ; for they perform for you the same ministry as the prophets 18 274 THE EUCIIARISTIC ASSEMBLY [IV called " God's steward," and in both passages it is re- quired that he be "not greedy of filthy lucre" — this evidently in view of the fact that as president of the Eucharist he must receive and dispense the gifts which were there brought, and which constituted the main source of Church property. The assumption is that the bishop is not possessed of extraordinary gifts of teaching ; and yet some practical talent of teaching is required of him. Teaching is the highest function in Christendom, and we can hardly conceive that one who was not distinguished among his brethren for acquaintance with the truth and for power to teach could have been accorded the presidency in any assembly or Church. In 1 Tim. 3 : 2 it is required merely that the bishop be " apt to teach " {StBaKTiKOp) : in Titus 1 : 9 this is expanded, — " holding to the faithful word which is according to the teaching (8tSacrK:aXca), that he may be able both to exhort in sound doctrine {SiSaxr}), and to convict the gainsayers." This implies that the bishop's faculty for teaching found exercise in other spheres besides the Eucharistic assembly, namely, in public instruction, in private counsel, and in a gen- eral oversight of the affairs of the community. How could it have been otherwise ? On the one hand, it is and teachers. Despise them not, therefore, for they are the honored (reTiixrinivoi) among you together with the prophets and teachers." Like- wise one of the tests of the true prophet (xi. 8) is the observation that he " has the ways of the Lord " (tovs rponovs Kvpiov). It is an implication of this book that the bishops and deacons are primarily Eucharistic officers, but it is assumed that they might also perform various other offices which belonged especially to the prophets and teachers. The bishop was the ordinary president of the Eucharist, but so little did this constitute a right over the Eucharist, that any prophet who was present was expected to take the seat of honor and offer the prayer (x. 7). The most significant factor in the development of Church organization was the gradual fixing of the bishop's rights over the Eucharist. § 19] THE EUCHARIST 275 evident that the men who most laid themselves out to minister to the material or spiritual needs of the congre- gation, who were most looked to for counsel and help, would be the ones most naturally chosen as presidents of the Eucharist : on the other hand, it is no less clear that this dignity, the most expressly official dignity in Christendom, must have implied a general superintend- ence of congregational affairs — and all the more so because the distribution of the Church funds belonged essentially to the office. The name eVto-K-oTrog, by which such officers were known, characterizes them with respect rather to these wider functions than to the specific function of presiding at the Eucharistic assembly. In Acts 20 : 28 St. Paul says to the bishops from Ephesus, " Take heed unto yourselves, and to all the flock, in which the Holy Ghost hath made you bish- ops (or overseers), to feed the Church of God." But we must remember that it was the connection with the Eucharist which gave the bishops an official dignity, and which explains the subsequent development of their office. The deacons were as closely associated with the Eu- charist as was the bishop, and for the most part their, functions were obviously determined by that relation. This office corresponded to a practical need : it was nec- essary that some persons should be appointed to serve the disciples as they sat at table — a service whicli was no mere formality so long as the Eucharist and the love feast were one. The selection for such a ser- vice would naturally be made from among the younger men. But it was characteristic of Christianity to regard every service in the Church as a claim to honor (cf. Luke 22 : 26, 27) ; and moreover it is generally true that any official distinction, in a community that knows 276 THE EUCHARISTIC ASSEMBLY [IV few distinctions of rank, is apt to become an honorable distinction. The moral qualifications of the deacons, as required in 1 Tim. 3 : 8-13, are substantially the same as those expected of the bishop. Bishops and deacons were closely related, as the nature of their functions at the Eucharist explains, and hence it is that they were com- monly mentioned together. Outside of the assembly the deacons acted as the bishop's agents in distributing the alms of the Church. This service tended to become more and more important. Even in the earliest period it must have brought them into such close personal rela- tions with the congregation as sufficiently explains the functions of private counsel and instruction with which we find them charged in the second century. The power and importance of the deacons advanced ^jan passu with the increasing authority of the bishop. There is no point in regard to the organization of the early Church which is in the main so simple as the position of these officers. The position of the elders or presbyters cannot be so clearly defined, and the right apprehension of the sub- ject has been prejudiced by age-long misconception. The name elder indicated originally no formal office whatever, but only a vaguely defined class of persons who were distinguished for their greater age, or longer experience of the Christian life. The bishops were se- lected from this class, and so might be spoken of gen- erally as elders. Hence the confusion that has so long prevailed about these two names. But some apostles, too, were known by this title ; and at the end of the second century, long after it had become an official title, it was still used quite in the early sense to denote certain of the converts of the apostles. § 19] THE EUCHARIST 277 The distinction between the elder and the younger members of the congregation was fundamentally inde- pendent of the Eucharist ; but it was in the Eucharistic assembly that it received the most express recognition, and it was with the development of the Eucharistic service that the elders gradually acquired official rank and precise functions as the council of the bishop and the representatives of the people, — becoming them- selves in the final development the ordinary presidents of the Eucharist and the sole parochial pastors. To understand how the elders might attain an official status in connection with the Eucharist, it is necessary to reflect upon the fact that feasts are commonly and quite naturally the occasion of marking rank and prece- dence. The Lord's rebuke of such as sought the " chief place at feasts" was the more likely to be preserved in the tradition and recorded in the Gospels because it had a pungent application to contemporary Christian prac- tice.* At all events, it proves the custom, which was in fact well nigh universal, of marking distinctions of rank by the place assigned at table. We have to suppose that the elders would occupy the chief places on either side of the president at the head of the Eucharistic table.^ * Love of the " chief place at feasts "(TrparoKXitria) is rebuked in Luke 14 : 7, 8 ; 20 : 46 ; Matt. 23 : 6 ; Mark 12 : 39. The last three passages speak likewise of coveting the " chief seats in the synagogues " (vpoiTOKa- dedpia). We know nothing about the seating in Christian assemblies for instruction during the first century. James 2 : 2, 3, in which the Christian house of worship is called a " synagogue," seems to imply a president of the assembly ; but otherwise it witnesses rather against than for a custom of seating according to ecclesiastical rank. Early in the second century, as we learn from Hermas, ambition after official rank was still expressed as a desire for the chief seats at the Eucharistic table — that is, the presbyters' seats on either side of the bishop and behind the holy table. 5 In considering the development of the offices of bishop, deacon, and presbyter I ignore for the moment the disturbing effect which the possible 278 THE EUCHARISTIC ASSEMBLY [IV Vague as this distinction was at first, it was probably the most formal that they enjoyed. We shall see now how this distinction became more marked with the development of the Eucharistic ritual. There was one crisis in the development of the Eu- charistic celebration which was fraught with the weightiest significance for future institutions. The change therein accomplished was a double one : it con- sisted in the first place in the separation of the Eucha- rist from the agape ; and in the second place in its union with the general service of instruction and wor- presence of " gifted teachers " (apostles, evangelists, prophets) might have upon the arrangement of the Eucharistic table. The presence of any of the higher, charismatic officers must have had a profound effect upon the whole situation : it must in fact have inhibited, to a greater or less degree, the development of this secondary and substitutionary organization. The bishop was nothing more than a substitute for the charismatic teacher, and it is impossible to imagine what part he could have played so long as an apostle or evangelist was resident in the com- munity. With the coming of such a personage the bishop must have fallen back temporarily into the rank of the presbyters. Where charis- matic gifts were more common, we might expect that the episcopal organization — I speak now of the plural episcopate — would be later developed or be develoj^ed with less definiteness. This accords with the fact, as I take it to be, that this organization was not everywhere developed at the same time. It accords as well with the fact that plural episcopacy was ultimately established in all parts of the Church, attaining its logical development in the form of monepiscopacy. This whole de- velopment was accomplished without controversy, so far as we know. As the higher charismatic ministry every where vanished from the scene, the bishops every where took their place — as they had done from the be- ginning in the many places where gifted teachers were rarely to be had. Apostles and evangelists vanished first, prophets and teachers lingered later. As episcopacy became fixed and traditional it tended to resist en- croachment upon its prerogatives. Prophets and teachers might enter this new system only by being assimilated to it — that, is by becoming bishops. This, we have reason to believe, was not uncommon about the turn of the second century. On the other hand the intrusion of the evangelist or "apostle " was rendered impossible by the rule which we find in the Didache forbidding him to remain in any settled congi'egation for more than one day, or two at the longest. § 19] THE EUCHARIST 279 ship. There is every reason to believe that these two changes were simultaneous, for each seems to be in a measure dej)endent upon the other. The effect of the change was momentous, as well for organization as for the liturgy and for church architecture. But before considering particularly the character of the change and its effects, we may inquire into its causes, which in the main are so simple that they need not detain us long. The Church could not but be conscious of the in- convenience of assembling twice upon the same day : at one time and place for the service of instruction ; and again, and perhaps at different places, for the Eu- charist. Yet these two assemblies could hardly be united so long as the Eucharist was associated with a hearty meal : if they were held at the same place, the room which would hold the assembly as it was gathered for instruction might not accommodate the same num- ber at table ; if held at the same time, the paraphernalia of the agape would be distracting to the service of worship. Another consideration was still more serious. Association with the agape definitely limited the num- ber of persons that could convene in one place for the celebration of the Eucharist ; so that with the numerical growth of the Church it became more and more impos- sible to make this feast what it aspired to be, the symbol of the unity of the whole local brotherhood. The prin- cij)al assembly for instruction might actually comprise the greater part of the congregation, while the Eucharist must be celebrated by smaller groups scattered among several houses. This situation may have long endured, and it may perhaps explain the plurality of bishops. But with the rapid expansion of the Church the situation became ever more intolerable. The Eucharist itself prompted a strong trend towards the expression of unity. 280 THE EUCHARISTIC ASSEMBLY [IV Many other considerations may have conduced to the same end, but what has been said suffices to explain the fact that the Eucharist was ultimately freed from the re- strictions of the agape and united with the service of instruction, constituting with it one principal assembly, at which upon every Lord's day all Christians from the town and the surrounding country were expected to be present. A logical corollary of this development, if not an immediate consequent, was the single episcopate. When this change came about it is not possible to fix with precision. We learn from Justin Martyr that the new order was every where completely developed before the middle of the second century. I may say at once that I am disposed to attribute the origin of this change to the very earliest years of that century. Many gen- eral considerations favor this, and there is no concrete fact to oppose it.^ But it is not necessary — indeed it ^ Great difference of opiniou exists about the date of the Didache. On general grounds I am disposed to attribute this work (in which the Eucharist seems still to be associated with the agape) to the last years of the first century. Pliny's letter to Trajan (about a. d. 110) is by many supposed to indicate the change referred to in the text. Pliny says that the Christians in Bithyuia were accustomed to assemble a second time every Sunday to partake of a " harmless meal," which practice they dis- continued agreeably to his injunction. If we may assume that the Eucharist then formed part of this meal, we may infer that it was at that time separated from the agape and celebrated at the early morning assembly in such purely symbolical fashion as would not arouse the sus- picion which the Roman government entertained of club banquets. If this be so we must recognize another motive which may very well have operated occasionally to reinforce those we have already considered. The Christians of Bithynia would certainly be the more ready to comply with the demand of the governor, if the change to which they were forced had already been made in other and moi-e important Churches. In general, it must have been the smaller Churches that adhered longest to the old custom, because their numbers had not grown too great for all to meet at a common agape. Under such conditions, however, the change was apt to be less radical and momentous for the smaller Churches than for the greater. For it is not unlikely that the smaller § 19] THE EUCHARIST 281 is far from plausible — to suppose that the change occurred everywhere at the same time ; nor need we imagine that where the change was once made it en- tirely excluded the older custom. Practical convenience was the motive of the change, and consequently there was no dogmatic interest in exacting rigorous compli- ance with the new custom — which, moreover, was at first the custom of the principal assembly alone. Long after the new custom was established it seems to have been common for smaller groups to celebrate the Eucha- rist or agape ^ seated about a common table. There are communities knew from first to last but one Eucharistic assembly, and consequently but one bishop; whereas in the great cities the develop- ment of the monepiscopal regime was retarded by the existing organiza- tion. One needs hardly to be reminded that the position of the early Catholic bishop, in all but the great cities, was that of a parochial pastor, presiding over a single congregation. ■^ See Lightfoot, Ignatius, vol. II. p. 312, note 2. Lightfoot supposes (chiefly on the ground of Smyrn. c. 8), that the separation of the Eucha- rist from the agape had not taken place at the time Ignatius wrote. I too interpret the word agape in this text as denoting a Eucharistic cele- bration ; but I suppose that the more formal and solemn Eucharist was by this time celebrated in connection with the morning service of in- struction, while beside it, in smaller circles, the Eucharistic agape (an evening meal) still survived as a memorial of the original form of the Lord's Supper (1 Cor. 9 : 17 sqq.). But we must beware not to speak of the Eucharist as though it were a separable constituent readily distin- guished from the agape. It is unhistorical to import this discrimination into the early age. The agape loas the Eucharist. St. Paul's denuncia- tion of the disorders at Corinth reveals, not a disorderly supper preceding the Eucharist, but a drunken and gluttonous Eucharist. The agape and the Lord's Supper alike denoted a common meal, in which, among other articles of food, the bread and wine that were consumed were received as the body and blood of the Lord. Along side of the general morning cele- bration on the Lord's Day, the primitive supper was long maintained. In Xorth Africa at least it was observed as late as the middle of the third century — apparently among the clergy alone. The agape as we know it at the end of the third century was completely divested of its higher re- ligious associations : it soon suffered from abuse, and before long fell into disuse. This late agape, a purely secular residuum of the Lord's Supper, must not be confounded with the agape of the earlier age. 282 THE EUCHARISTIC ASSEMBLY [IV crypts of the second century in the Roman catacombs which seem to be designed for the celebration of the Eucharist in small companies at a common table, and there is one important fresco at least which supports this testimony.^ It would not be strange if the primi- tive fashion of celebrating the Eucharist long survived in the family groups which assembled in their sepulchral chambers to hold service in memorial of their dead. The character of the change we are here considering is best seen in its effects upon the order or ritual of worship, and through this its consequences for Church organization will become clear .^ The Christian service of instruction must have lost much of its enthusiastic character before the time came when it was united with the Eucharist, for the development which preceded this change assumes the gradual disappearance of the charismatic ministry. Union with the Eucharistic assembly must have added a new element of formality. What had originally been a free assembly with little or no superintendence, re- ceived through this union a formally constituted presi- dent in the person of the bishop. This of itself must have tended to insure an orderly service. On the side of government its consequences were important, for presidency in the principal assembly on the Lord's day implied presidency in all assemblies of the Church — assemblies for election and ordination, for discipline, and for all the emergencies of government. The position of 8 See particularly Wilpert, Fractio Panis, passim. ^ It is to be noted, by the way, that what was most radical in this change was the separation of the Eucharist from the agape, not its union with the service of instruction and worship, which must occasionally have taken place from the earliest times, as, for example, upon the occasion of St. Paul's visit to Troas (Acts 20 : 6-11). Both elements of the change, however, were about equally effective in the gradual perversion of the idea and use of the sacrament. § 19] THE EUCHARIST 283 the bishop was the more exalted because he presided at the head of the body of presbyters, and was sepa- rated as it were by this whole moral distance from the congregation, while the deacons — themselves men of consideration — appeared in the assembly as his ministers. In the Encharistic assembly at all events the bishop was more than a mere presiding officer : he was the chief litiirge of the congregation. Who but the bishop could offer the prayers of the congregation to God ? The Eucharistic prayer, which it had ever been his function to offer, was becoming more and more elabo- rate, and gradually came to be regarded not only as the principal prayer of the Church, but as the most inclu- sive. As we find it in the earliest liturgies it had be- come a very long prayer, interspersed with popular psalmody, and containing various elements of petition and commemoration, besides the thanksgiving for all of God's mercies of providence and of grace displayed under the Old Dispensation and under the New. But it must be remembered too that all prayers offered in this assembly acquired at once a relation to the Eucharist, for the whole service was conducted at the Lord's table (the altar, as it was afterwards called), and the earlier part of the service was re- garded as preparatory to the latter. We can readily imagine how each part reacted upon the other to favor the development of a Christian cultus in the strictest sense, — a development which was furthered by many other motives which are more commonly recognized. Yet even in the liturgies of the fourth century and later we can plainly enough distinguish the two con- stituent elements which were so closely assimilated in this service. The two great divisions are marked by 284 THE EUCHARISTIC ASSEMBLY [IV the dismissal of the catechumens, who might not re- main for the Eucharistic service proper, at which, as formerly at the agape, only baptized persons were pres- ent, who were all expected to communicate. The first part consisted of several Scripture lections, interspersed with psalms and hymns, and followed by the sermon ; concluding with a long general prayer, which Justin Martyr mentions in a way that suggests the deacon's bidding prayer which we find in the earliest liturgies/" In this form of prayer the deacon announced to the people one subject of petition after another, and the direct prayer was made by all in common, though in silence. This represented the popular participation in prayer which had been enjoyed in the assembly for instruction. In the second century the bishop was or- dinarily the only one who might offer a prayer directly addressed to God in the name of the whole congrega- tion, — assuming that no gifted teacher was present. The form of the Christian house of worship and the arrangement of the officers and congregation therein has an important bearing both upon the liturgy and upon Church government. We have to suppose that until about the third century Church assemblies were ordinarily held in the private houses of well-to-do disciples. Ultimately, such houses may have been appropriated to the exclusive use of the Church, and when new or larger houses of worship were required they were probably built upon a similar plan. This whole development lies in the dark, but it is now the 10 See Th. Harnack, Gemeindegottesdienst, 1854, pp. 247 sqq. In de- scribing the development of the liturgy with sole reference to its influ- ence upon Church organization, it is altogether out of the question to furnish proof of the positions I here assume — even when they may seem novel. This, however, I hope to do before long in a work devoted expressly to the subject. § 19] THE EUCHARIST 285 general opinion that the well-known type of Church building which emerged in the time of Constantine (the so-called basilica) was derived from the peristyle of the better class of Greek dwelling, or — what comes to the same thing — the peristyle-atrium of the Koman house." It cannot be accounted strange if the Eucha- ristic ritual, which first adapted itself to the disposition of the private house, should tend to perpetuate the form of building which was inextricably associated with its development. The nave, which was the room of the congregation, does not concern us here : the colonnades which divided it into aisles separated several classes of worshippers, but marked no distinctions of rank ; and the space separated for the choir in the middle probably reflects the practice of a later age. We are here solely concerned with the room that was occupied by the higher clergy, ^ — ^ bishop, presbyters, and deacons. This was a relatively small extension of the middle aisle, usually semicircular in plan, raised a few steps above the floor of the nave, and roofed by a half dome — hence called the apsis. At the back of the apse was the cathedra of the bishop ; and on either side of this, following the curve of the wall, a bench for the presby- ters. In front of them (that is, between the clergy and the congregation) was the Holy Table. About this the deacons stood, as the original character of their office required. ^^ For the origin of the basilica see my Monuments of the Early Church, pp. 91-105. Hauck's art. Kirchenbau in Herzog's Realencyklopddie, 3rd ed. Bd. X. p. 774, is the most recent treatment of this subject, and it suggests several modifications of the view presented in my book. For the adaptation of the basilica to the requirements of the cultus, see my book above mentioned, pp. 117, 123 sq. On the adaptation of round and cross-shaped buildings to the Eucharist see ibid. pp. 150 sq., 154 sq. ; for the altar, pp. 159 sqq. ; for the cathedra, pp. 172 sqq. 286 THE EUCHARISTIC ASSEMBLY [IV The centre of this whole system is the Holy Table. Without it the arrangement would be accidental and inorganic. In this the ritual found its centre, and even the architectural lines of the building were ordered with predominant reference to it. This arrangement which we find in the earliest basilicas of the fourth century, we have good reason to refer, in its essential features, to the early age in which the Eucharist was first sepa- rated from the agape. And even this critical period of transition effected no essential change. The Eucharist had ceased to be a veritable meal. But the Table was not discarded. Only — the congregation had outgrown it. The assembly grew to a multitude, while the Table retained its original modest proportions, or even became smaller as the development prompted. It is manifest that all could no longer sit at the table : but some might, and indeed must. Who should this be but the bishop, as president, and the elders who had always enjoyed the seats of honor on either side of him ? The deacons stood as usual about the Table in the atti- tude of service, but the people approached it only to communicate. This is substantially the situation which is reflected in the arrangement of the basilicas of the fourth cen- tury, notwithstanding the fact that the presbyters had in the meantime become the ordinary presidents of the Eucharist. The traditional position of the bishop's seat behind the altar remained unchanged until late in the Middle Ages, and the whole development of Church architecture until the most modern times has been dominated by the conception that the congregation and clergy are assembled together at the Lord's Table. The Protestant sects that have dethroned the Eucharist from its high and central place in Christian worship naturally § 19] THE EUCHARIST 287 find the traditional form of church unsuitable, and there remains nothing but custom to restrain them from erect- ing buildings which are more expressly adapted for use as a meeting-house or auditorium. Such buildings we should undoubtedly have had in the early age, if tlie Eucharist had not been united with the assembly for instruction : — instead of the baptistery and the basilica, we should have had every where a baptistery, an auditorium, and a triclinium. Enough has been said to show what important conse- quences for the development of architecture and of the liturgy lay implicit in the union of the Eucharist with the assembly for instruction, which I assume to have occurred about the beginning of the second century. It is now possible to appreciate the influence of this factor upon the development of Church government. Although after this change the clergy retained the same position as of old with relation to the Holy Table, their relation to the people was seriously altered. It can hardly be doubted that the separation which was here involved between the congregation on the one hand and the bishop, presbyters, and deacons on the other, was a potent factor in developing the idea of the clerus as a separate class in the community. It must at once have accentuated the notion of rank : while the official status of bishops and deacons was made more distinct and more secure, the vaguer rank of the presbyters could not fail to develop into a formal office. We must take also into account the gradual develop- ment which resulted from the association of the sacri- ficial idea with the Eucharist, and the treatment of it as an awe-inspiring mystery which must be hedged about with all possible pomp and ceremony. Through this association the clergy themselves were soon invested 288 THE EUCHARISTIC ASSEMBLY [IV with an official sanctity, and the idea of priesthood, which formerly was applied to the Christian teacher as such, particularly the prophet, was in the Catholic devel- opment appropriated exclusively to the ministers of the cultus. Though the word priest was used metaphor- ically at first, it was ultimately taken in its literal significance, denoting a sacrificing minister. The Eucharist, there can be no doubt, originally implied a sacrifice, for it was a sacrificial oneal. But the victim was supposed to be already offered, and it was here brought — not to be again offered, but — to be eaten. An early and innocent notion represented all gifts brought by the people at the Eucharist as an offering to God. The whole wealth of Hebrew sacri- ficial symbolism was employed for the expression of this idea, and though the notion was essentially a metaphor- ical one, the language in which it was couched may easily be interpreted in the sense of the later Catholic doctrine. The use of such language as this, the common employment of the terms priest, altar, and sacrifice, must have led men gradually to seek a more real connotation ; but it is not till the third century (in Cyprian's writings) that we find express reference to the body and blood of Christ as constituting the sacrifice which was offered in the Eucharist. With this, the sacrificial doctrine and the sacrificial ministry were practically complete. But all this represents a later development than that which immediately engages us. The sacrificial idea was a potent factor in defining the character of the ministry, but it came too late to have much influence upon the form of organization. The line of thought which is here traced, gradually developed a new estimation of the clergy, but a higher estimation than that which they already enjoyed at the §19] THE EUCHARIST 289 beginning of the second century it is hardly possible to imagine. By that time the charismatic ministry had become almost a negligible factor, and the bishops who presided in the place of the gifted teachers (apostles, evangelists, prophets, etc.) inherited much of the esti- mation in which they had been held, — that is, as we have learned in the last chapter, the exalted honor and authority which belongs to the direct representatives of God or Christ. From another point of view, the loftiest claim the bishop could make for his office was supported by the ideal consideration that as president of the Eucha- rist, he acted in Christ's place and sat in his seat. This idea could have little tendency to enhance the official power of the bishop so long as the dignity of presiding at the Eucharist was simply allotted to the person of most consequence that happened to be present in the assembly ; but it could not fail to contribute greatly to the episcopal authority so soon as the bishop's office be- came more distinctly defined and his rights over the Eucharist became more exclusive. An immediate and decided advance in this direction must have been made when the people were separated from the Holy Table and the bishop and elders alone sat there. This situation occasioned, as I have said, a more definite notion of the rank of presbyter, and led ulti- mately to the election or appointment of presbyters as to an office. Naturally, too, the presbyters profited by the symbolic notion which proved so advantageous to the bishop : if the bishop presided at the Table in Christ's stead, the presbyters, who now alone sat with him, evidently represented the Twelve Apostles. There was here no thought of a succession either from the Apostles or from Christ : it was merely the situation of the mo- ment which reproduced the sacramental meal as the 19 290 THE EUCHARISTTC ASSEMBLY [IV Lord had observed it with the Twelve in the upper- room at Jerusalem. This symbolical consideration probably accounts for the fact that the Alexandrian presbyters were limited to twelve, just as the deacons at Rome were limited to seven in consideration of the Seven who were appointed in the early days at Jerusa- lem. According to a similar symbolism which prevailed in the remoter parts of Egypt at least as early as the middle of the second century, the presbyters were likened to the four and twenty elders of the Apocalypse who appear on either side of the throne of God. It is chiefly, however, in the language of St. Ignatius that we find proof of the general currency of these ideas, and of the fact that they transgressed the proper limits of symbolism and were applied with almost lit- eral force. St. Ignatius' claims for the episcopate reach a pitch of extravagance which must appear positively blasphemous except as they are explained by the tradi- tion which we have been considering. " Wheresoever the bishop shall appear, there let the people be ; even as wherever Jesus Christ is there is the catholic Church " [Srai/rn. c. 8). " For when ye are obedient to tliQ bishop as to Jesus Christ ... be ye obedient also to the presby- tery as to the Apostles of Jesus Christ our hope " {Trail. c. 2). " Plainly therefore we ought to regard the bishop as the Lord himself" [EjjJies. c. 6). Ignatius, it is true, deals somewhat freely with this figure, and frequently speaks of the bishop rather as the " type of the Father." ^^ 12 " In like manner let all men respect the deacons as Jesus Christ, even as they should respect the bishop as being the type of the Father and the presbyters as the sanhedrim of God and as the band of the Ajjostles " {Trail, c. 3). The deacons are here regarded as serving the bishop as the Son serves the Father — " the bishop presiding after the likeness of God and the presbyters after the likeness of the council of the Apostles, with the deacons also who are most dear to me, having §19] THE EUCHARIST 291 But at all events the presbytery is invariably compared with the Apostles, and all three orders — the bishop, the presbytery, and the deacons — are commonly associated together in a way which plainly reflects the concrete re- lations towards one another which were defined by the places they occupied at the Eucharistic table. When Ignatius says " with your revered bishop, and with the fitly wreathed spiritual croivn of your presbytery, and with the deacons who walk after God" (Magn. c. 13), he seems to have before his mind's eye the half-circle of presbyters seated around the throne of the bishop, according to the arrangement which appears first in the basilicas, but which may well date back to the beginning of the second century. This half-circular arrangement of the presbyters' seats may perhaps ex- plain also the strange figure of speech which Ignatius employs in Ephes. c. 4, where he says that the pres- bytery is " attuned to the bishop as the strings to a lyre." The broad currency and enduring influence of this range of ideas, this heavenly comparison which sheds so much lustre upon the Catholic ministry, is proved by the popularity of a theme of Christian art which first manifests itself in the decoration of the basilicas of the fourth century, and probably does not antedate that age. I refer to the subject which was usually employed for the apsidal decoration of the churches. The earliest and noblest example preserved to us is the mosaic in Sta. Pudenziana at Rome, belonging to the end of the fourth century. But besides the records or remains of many other mosaics, we find the same theme reproduced been intrusted with the diaconate of Jesus Christ {i. e. of which he was the type), who was with the Father before the worlds and appeared at the end of time " (Magn. c. 6). Cf. Smyrn. c. 8. 292 THE EUCHARISTIC ASSEMBLY [IV in the frescoes of the catacombs and upon the sarcophagi, and finally upon metal and ivory objects of every sort on which pictorial art was employed. There is no doubt that this theme was originally developed for the decoration of the apse of the basilica, and here it is that its appropriateness is most manifest. The general theme, occupying both the apse and the apsidal arch, is a representation of the heavenly Jerusalem, depicted chiefly in terms taken from the Apocalypse. I need not de- scribe here the many symbolical motives which entered into this composition, nor even note the principal varia- tions of the theme.^^ All that is strictly in point for our present purpose is the central subject in the form in which it was usually represented. In the center of the apse Christ is represented, enthroned in the midst of the heavenly Jerusalem, and stretching out his hand with the gesture of address as the Teacher of the world. On either side of him are ranged the Twelve Apostles, seated upon a bench precisely like that occupied by the presbyters. Above, it may be noted, upon the apsidal arch, the four and twenty elders are depicted. In the mosaic of Sta. Pudenziana, Mt. Calvary looms in the background, surmounted by the cross, and above it the Paternal hand holds out the crown of eternal recom- pense. From below the throne, the Spirit, under the symbol of a dove, rains influence upon the Church. When we reflect that immediately below this the bishop was seated upon the cathedra surrounded by his presby- tery, and add that he too was accustomed to address the Church from his seat, it is impossible to ignore the analogy between the heavenly and the earthly assembly, or to doubt that the earthly ministry was regarded as 1^ For this I may refer to my Monuments of the Early Church, pp. o02 sqq. §19] THE EUCHARIST 293 the counterpart of Christ and his Apostles. We have only to wonder that this idea persisted so long in spite of new notions of the ministry (the apostolical succes- sion of the bishops) which ran athwart the earlier con- ceptions. But this is only one out of many illustrations of the fact that popular ideals do not always correspond with polemical and theological dogmas. We may note in passing from this theme, that the Lord's Day assem- bly in heaven, which St. John had depicted as a subli- mated transcript of the familiar service of the Church, had now in turn come to be regarded as the heavenly pattern of earthly worship. Returning to Ignatius and his age, it must appear more clearly than ever that the heavenly analogy to which he resorts to magnify the importance of the bishop and the presbytery was implied in the very nature of the Eucharistic assembly and was conse- quently no mere invention of his own. It is certain that he exploits this capital to the utmost, just as he does the symbol of unity which was expressed by the organization of the principal assembly. That this organization, too, was already established in most of the Churches with which Ignatius was acquainted, and was not brought about as a result of his propaganda, it would be preposterous to doubt. As a matter of fact, he makes no propaganda for the establishment of the single episcopate : it is certain that it was already established in all the Churches to which he writes, with the possible exception of the Church at Rome — and in his letter to this Church he makes no reference to the subject whatsoever. It is a monstrously unhistorical assumption that in the age of Ignatius " the presbyters, whose position and power in the community had hith- erto seemed supreme, were relegated to the second 294 THE EUCHARISTIC ASSEMBLY [IV rank." ^^ Starting with the assumption of the original identity of bishops and presbyters, the development of the single episcopate is left an insoluble mystery ; for, leaving all facts aside, and giving the freest rein to the imagination, it is impossible to propose any plausible process whereby, in the short space of time allowed for the revolution, one of the bishops could have been ele- vated to a position relative to the rest like that of Christ above his Apostles. We have seen, however, that the single bishop and the whole organization of which he was the head is ex- plained by the nature of the Eucharistic assembly. This organization was gradually coming to clearer expression and acquiring more definite authority. It was already formally defined in all the principal assem- blies, of which there was at least one in every town, and in the smaller towns probably no more than one. So far as the form is concerned, nothing could be added to this organization ; but its authority needed to be strengthened, and it still remained for it to affirm its right as the exclusive organization of the local commu- nity, as the exclusive authority over the Eucharist. This is the point of Ignatius' plea, the express object of his whole propaganda. For Ignatius, the single bishop is the correlative of a single Eucharistic assem- bly, and he avails himself of the unity of organization which actually existed to press the plea for unity of worship. This is his great remedy for schism. He urges this point in all his epistles — except in that to the Romans. In Ephes. c. 20 he says : " Assemble yourselves together in common, ... to the end that ^* This has been the common assumption : the phrase in the text I take from one of the latest works on the subject, Allen, Christian Institu- tions, 1897, p. 62. § 19] THE EUCHARIST 295 ye may obey the bishop and the presbytery without distraction of mind ; breaking one bread," etc. Ih. c. 5 : " If any one be not within the precinct of the altar, he lacketh the bread of God. For if the prayer of one and another hath so great force, how much more that of the bishop and of the whole Church." ^^ Trail, c. 3 : " Without these \i. e. the bishop, the presbytery, and the deacons] there is not even the name of a Church." Phil. c. 4 : " Be ye careful therefore to observe one Eu- charist (for there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ and one cup unto union in his blood ; there is one altar, as there is one bishop, together with the presbytery and the deacons my fellow servants), that whatsoever ye do, ye may do it after God." Smyrn. c. 8 : " Shun divisions as the beginning of evils. Do ye all follow your bishop, as Jesus Christ followed the Father, and the presbytery as the Apostles ; and to the deacons pay respect as to God's commandment. Let no man do aught of things pertaining to the Church apart from the bishop. Let that be held a valid Eucharist which is under the bishop or one to whom he shall have committed it. Whereso- ever the bishop shall appear, there let the people be; even as wherever Jesus is, there is the catholic Church. It is not lawful apart from the bishop either to baptize or to hold an agape." Ignatius starts with the single episcopate as an ac- complished fact — or rather with the episcopal organi- zation as a whole, including the presbytery and the deacons. He does not exalt the bishop at the expense of the presbytery, but he strives to raise the whole organization to a higher power. As a matter of fact, the single episcopate was already so well established 15 For strong exhortations to community in worship, see Magn. cc. 4, 6, 7, — cf. Trail, c. 7. 296 THE EUCHARISTTC ASSEMBLY [IV in Asia Minor that no danger was apprehended of seeing a second bishop set up. But if instead of a bishop, Ignatius had found the presbytery in the posi- tion of supreme authority, there is no reason to suppose that he would not have been satisfied with that. The presbytery would have been at least equally safe as a center of unity, though it might not prove so efficient as an executive ; and a majority vote of the presbyters would have answered equally well the prime purpose Ignatius had in view of legally excluding sectarian manifestations of Christianity. But Ignatius took the organization as he found it — ■ the organization of the Eucharistic assembly, which had already become the one principal assembly of the Church — and the gist of his ]3i'etension is, that the president of the principal assembly is ipso facto the president of every assembly of the Church. Without the bishop's leave it is not lawful to baptize, nor to hold an agape, or any assembly whatever which deserves the name of a Church. Above all, there must be no Eucharistic assembly without the presence of the bishop or his delegate. For if heretics could celebrate the Eucharist, who could deny them the name of a Church ? Ignatius made a momentous addition to Christ's definition of the Church. Christ said that wherever two or three are gathered together in his name, he will be in the midst of them — and that constitutes the Church. Ignatius adds : when they have the legal organization of bishop, presbytery, and deacons. This is a grave addition indeed. The point which Ignatius urged was a difficult one to carry through. It had against it not only the evangelical definition of the Church, but the force of ecclesiastical tradition. In part, his purpose was never achieved; and for the rest, it was achieved by means §19] THE EUCHARIST 297 which he never dreamt of. No sooner was the smgle Eucharist recognized as an ideal to be striven after, than the numerical growth of the Church rendered its accomplishment forever impossible. The single episco- pate subsequently triumphed in all parts of the Church ; but in the main it was not strictly the Ignatian episco- pate, it no longer represented the presidency over a single Eucharist, the single principal assembly of the whole town, but a presidency by delegation over many equal assemblies. A corollary of the Catholic episcopate as it was finally established, and an indispensable con- dition of its triumph, was the admission of the presby- ters to a function which had hitherto constituted the chief characteristic of the bishop's office, making the presbyters the ordinary presidents of the Eucharist. It is this revolution — if anything in the gradual develop- ment of Church organization may be called revolutionary — which gave the presbyters the distinctive position they have ever since enjoyed, and necessitated the in- vention of new theories, unknown to Ignatius, to explain and justify the singularity of the episcopal office. This change was accomplished in an age about which we have only the scantiest historical information, and the finality of the new order is so impressive as it emerges into the clear light of history that it has ever since ob- scured our insight into the earlier development. Into this dark problem I propose now to enter, giving in brief terms a theory of the development which seems to accord with the few facts we know about the organiza- tion of the Church in that critical period, and which serves in part to bridge over the gap which we recognize between the primitive episcopal organization and the Catholic episcopate of the middle of the second century. But first we must turn back ao-ain to consider more 298 THE EUCHARISTIC ASSEMBLY [IV in detail the character of the episcopate at the very beginning of the second century, and note more exactly the problem to which the appeal of Ignatius was im- mediately addressed. I have not yet sufficiently dis- cussed the origin of the single episcopate as it is revealed in the Ignatian epistles. I confess that in regard to this matter we are left largely to conjecture. I sup- pose that in very many towns there was never more than one bishop, because the community did not out- grow the limitations of a single Eucharistic agape until it was able to take advantage of the custom of holding an enlarged Eucharistic assembly without the agape, and so to preserve continuously the unity of organization and worship. In other cases where there was originally a plurality of bishops — ^this may have characterized the majority of cases, or it may have been the invariable case, at any rate in all such cases — I rely upon the centralizing influence of the principal assembly on which I have all along laid so much stress. I do not pretend that this was a definite institution, or had any such definite name as I have given it ; but something of the sort there must every where have been, as a con- crete expression of the sense of local unity of which we have so many proofs. How significant is the mere fact that from first to last we never find such a phrase as "the Churches of Corinth," for example, but only "' the Church at Corinth " — in spite of the fact that there were ordinarily several assemblies. This fact appears more striking when we reflect that we are nowadays more likely to think and speak of the Episcopal Churches in New York, let us say, than of the Church in its totality as represented in the episcopal organization. Under the influence of this centralizing motive, and with this concrete center of worship provided, we can § 19] THE EUCHARIST 299 readily imagine that the several bishops might be gradu- ally eliminated in favor of one, after the enlarged Eu- charistic assembly had made unity in worship possible. Such change was possible because the bishops were not yet accounted legally constituted officers. It must be re- membered, too, that there was no prejudice in the early Church against the principle of government by a single officer; nor was it necessary to overcome any prejudice in favor of democratic principles, or republican ; — there was no notion entertained of any principles of legal gov- ernment whatsoever, but only of a charismatic gov- ernment (God's government), which was indeed more consonant with the monarchical form than with any other. Taking the single episcopate as we find it in the epistles of Ignatius, without probing longer into the causes and processes of its origin, it does not appear that the chief point of Ignatius' propaganda was either easy of execution or logically justified by the preceding development. Even where the single bishop was de facto the sole local authority over the Eucharist, he was not regarded as possessing such authority de jure. The high comparison that is employed to exalt the dig- nity of the bishop and the presbytery does not go one step toward justifying an exclusive authority over the Eucharist. For however eminent the bishop might be within his own assembly, he possessed no authority in any other assembly — still less the authority to prohibit another assembly. Every other assembly was equally a manifestation of the Ecclesia. The tradition sanc- tioned other Eucharistic assemblies apart from the prin- cipal one, and there was probably never a time when a practical reason — not to say necessity — for holding such was altogether lacking. Though only a few might 300 THE EUCHARISTIC ASSEMBLY [IV meet in such an assembly, it none the less constituted an Ecclesia, and he who presided could not but be regarded, like the bishop, as the representative of Christ. Nevertheless, I think we may probably presume that in such Churches as we are here considering Ignatius' point was soon carried — not so much by the force of •his arguments,^^ or even by the warmth of his appeal, as by reason of the practical dangers his admonition was intended to meet. The Gnostic sects of that age seem not to have been in a position to set up an opposi- tion organization of any strength, or to win over at one time any considerable community. The Church suffered loss principally through leakage, — minor assemblies of small size were liable to capture. Hence such occasions of danger must be eliminated — and doubtless they were. But if the purity of the faith was thereby maintained, it was at a great cost — the cost of subjecting the Church to a legal organization. The ideal Ignatius had in view was a definite congregational system. The congrega- tional idea had grown up gradually in connection with the principal assembly ; but during the whole of the first century, as Sohm remarks, we find only the pre- ^* We must be on our guard not to import into tlie sphere of ideas ■which deterinined the early conceptions of Church government the post- Augustinian doctrine of the grace of orders which has been so important a factor in all modern controversies about the character and authority of the ministry. Ignatius had no notion of a clerical "character" im- pressed upon the bishop (or presbyter) in virtue of which he had the porver to do what no other could do. Neither had he any notion of a definite change in the Eucharistic elements such as would require a par- ticular sort of priestly endowment. He looks at the question purely from the legal point of view. Hence he recognizes that any one may be dele- gated by the bishop to preside at the Eucharist. That only is a valid Eucharist which is presided over b}' the bishop or his delegate, because that alone is " according to the commandment." § 19] THE EUCHARIST 301 liminary stages of congregational construction, not Congregationalism itself. So long as other assemblies were freely allowed, and the principal assembly did not claim to be the only assembly deserving the name of a Church; the Ecclesia might be hampered by law, but was not yet bound by it, and even the recognition of a legal right on the part of the bishop in his own assem- bly did not have the effect of legalizing Christendom. This end was definitely accomplished when the Ignatian thesis was accepted. This was very far from effecting the legal organization of the whole empirical multitude of Christians throughout the world, for the Ignatian system was essentially congregational independency, thouQ-h in the cases with which he was most familiar the congregation was conterminous with the local com- munity. It was more than a century before a broader organization was achieved. But none the less, the im- mediate effect of the Ignatian thesis was to legalize the whole Church, for it spread a mesh from which no assembly could escape. It is now time to observe that the Ignatian scheme was expressly formulated for such communities as al- ready had a single bishop and a single principal assem- bly, and was not at all adapted to bring about a similar consummation in cities where several bishops existed and where the Church had perhaps outgrown the possi- bility of a single assembly. Several bishops implied, as I suppose, as many principal assemblies — ■ if we may so call them — each with its appropriate organization of presbytery and deacons. Ignatius' idea of the Church assembly was still too much like the primitive one to afford any argument against this system, or to suggest any higher principle of unity under which these several organizations could be combined. Ignatius would not 302 THE EUCHARISTIC ASSEMBLY [IV accept the primitive maxim, that wherever the disciples are assembled, there is the Church, a complete mani- festation of Christendom : yet he was the ardent cham- pion of the principle, that wherever there is an assembly with the proper organization of bishop, presbytery, and deacons, there is the wliole Church. For what can be more whole and entire than an assembly in which Christ himself is represented by the bishop, and the company of the Apostles by the presbytery ? If, as I presume, there was a plurality of bishops at Rome at the time of his writing, Ignatius could have had no ground of com- plaint against it — • and, in fact, his letter breathes not the slightest reproach on this score against a Church which he adulates above all others. Ritschl believed that a peculiar conception of the episcopate was indicated by the organization of the Churches of Jerusalem and Alexandria. ^^ The presi- dency of the Church at Jerusalem was accorded to James as the Lord's brother; and Symeon, who suc- ceeded him in this dignity, was likewise a blood-relation of the Lord.^^ St. James, therefore, who presided among the Apostles, was not accounted a successor of the Apos- tles, as according to the Catholic theory of the episco- pate (which Ritschl identifies with that of Ignatius), but as the successor of the Lord. The same notion is reflected in the subsequent choice of Symeon, the cousin of the Lord ; and, as Ritschl thinks, in the organization of the Alexandrian Church, in which the twelve pres- byters mentioned by Eutychius may be supposed to represent the Apostles, and the bishop must therefore be the representative of the Lord. This, according to Ritschl, constitutes a Jewish-Christian type of the epis- . " Ritschl, Entstehung, 2nd ed., pp. 415-419, 433-436. " Hegisippus in Euseb. H. E. IV. 22, 23. § 19] THE EUCHARIST 303 copate, an episcopate which was not an office of a local congregation, but aspired to universal presidency over the Church — for obviously the Lord's representative and successor could be no less than the universal bishop of Christendom. The notion is, that the early disciples accepted St. James as the visible head of the Kingdom of God upon earth, just as the Mahometans followed the successor of the Prophet. But in reality, when we take into account the primi- tive idea of the Church and the organization of the Eucharistic assembly, all the information we have about the Churches of Jerusalem and Alexandria accords per- fectly with the Ignatian ideal of the episcopate. It is a matter of indifference whether St. James was ever known by the title of bishop or not : — the probability is that he was not, but he was certainly the ordinary president of the Eucharist in the Jerusalem Church, and as such he must have been regarded as the Lord's rep- resentative. It is true that St. James was not merely the chief pastor of a local congregation, for every assembly of Christendom represents the whole Church, and its decisions are valid for all. Such decisions, how- ever, can be legally enforced upon none ; for every other assembly is equally a manifestation of Christendom, and its president is the representative of Christ. Just so with the Ignatian episcopate. The bishop was never a mere congregational officer, although it was about his office, as the only settled office in the local community, that the congregational idea was developed. He was always a Church officer — as Christ's representative he could be no less — and had duties with respect to the whole Church. But in all this there was no claim of exclusive authority, there was no rivalry between bishops, between this representative of Christ and the other, no aspiration 304 THE EUCHARISTIC ASSEMBLY [IV after an episcopate which might claim the rule over the whole empirical multitude of Christians. Hence, on the one hand, the independence of the bishops ; and on the other, their sense of ecumenical responsibility. This latter idea, which was so great a factor in the subsequent Catholic development, was inherent in the office of bishop as such, — indeed, in the nature of the Christian assem- bly as such. The first idea of office in the Church was that of charismatic office, which was of course an office of the Church at large, and there is no good reason to suppose that the bishop's office was interpreted differ- ently — that is, as a mere congregational office. We may now turn to consider the more stubborn difficulty of effecting unity of organization in the cities where a plurality of bishops still existed at the beginning of the second century — and where the size of the town and the multitude of the disciples made the single as- sembly an impossibility. Here for the first time we contemplate what may with some propriety be called a mo7iarchical episcopate. The Ignatian bishop whose rule was coextensive with the single Eucharistic assem- bly no more deserves the title of monarch than does the Presbyterian pastor. This type of parochial episcopacy still persisted, though with important modifications, and persists to-day, in certain countries where Christianity was early established. But the conditions of the larger cities required a new type of bishop, who was no longer a parochial officer, but, as we would say, a diocesan officer, ruling over several quasi-independent congrega- tions, each of which was provided with its own pastors. This became the normal type of the Catholic episcopate, and in all countries which were converted to Chris- tianity after this development was complete — that is. § 19] THE EUCHARIST 305 in North Italy, Spain, Northern Gaul, Britain, and Ger- many — the episcopal sees embraced whole counties, provinces, or even principalities and kingdoms. We have now to inquire how this development came about, and what changes it wrought in the character of Church organization. For the purpose of the short sketch I propose to give here, it will be convenient to take a concrete instance by way of example, and none is so apt as the case of Rome. It is the prevalent opinion that the single epis- copate was not yet established at Rome when Clement, in behalf of the Roman Church, wrote his epistle to the Corinthians, nor even when Ignatius addressed his epis- tle to the Romans. We have seen that the Ignatian theory affords no argument which could serve to break down the existing order and establish a single episco- pate in cities where there are, and of necessity must be, several principal assemblies. The testimony of the catacombs, although it liardly permits us to form a numerical estimate of the Roman Church at any time, securely proves that in the first decades of the second century it was already too large to meet in a single assembly, even under more liberal conditions of associa- tion than the State ever allowed ; and it is evident moreover that the great size of the town must ordi- narily have hindered the disciples from gathering at one place. It is commonly agreed among those who have a right to an opinion on the subject that even at this period the disciples at Rome had numerous places of assembly. It is an opinion, indeed, which has more truth than evidence on its side ; but it seems so mani- fest a deduction from the given conditions that I doubt if any one could be found to support the view that there was but one assembly of the Roman Church. But this 20 306 THE EUCHARISTIC ASSEMBLY [IV implies, according to the primitive scheme of organiza- tion, that there were as many bishops, presbyteries, and deacons as there were regular assemblies in the city. This assumption agrees well with all that we know securely about the Roman Church at the beginning of the second century. We have to assume again — and this assumption too we can securely make — that a stringent necessity was felt for a more centralized organization. The pressure of heresy became more serious than even the Ignatian Epistles reveal it ; even organized congregations were liable to be invaded ; and the need was recognized of opposing a united front to its progress. Especially was it necessary for the greatest Churches of Christen- dom to stand out clearly as leaders of the rest with a ready and unambiguous testimony to the traditional faith. The problem was to discover a center of unity to which appeal could be made for an authoritative definition of the faith of the Roman Church. The ques- tion at once arises. Why might not the presbytery have constituted such a center of unity ? Simply because there were several presbyteries, and they were not accustomed to act together. A college of bishops was equally out of the question, for the bishop was essen- tially an independent officer, and the notion of a college of bishops did not yet exist. What did exist, however, was a very clear notion of centralized organization under a single bishop as it was already exemplified in almost all of the small towns and in many of the great ones. That this was the only possible solution we cannot affirm, but it is certain that it was the solution actually resorted to. The great practical obstacle in the way of such a change was the difficulty of eliminating the several bishops already in the field. There was also §19] THE EUCHARIST 307 a grave theoretical obstacle in the fact that the bishop was essentially the president of the Eucharist — con- versely, that emry regular president of a Eucharistic assembly (of a principal assembly at least) was a bishop. A practical obstacle such as this could never have been surmounted except in the face of an imminent danger and under the stress of a necessity which all recognized as imperative. I do not pretend to explain hoiv the extra bishops were got rid of ; but whatever the pro- cess may have been, the accomplishment could have been hardly more difficult than the subsequent absorp- tion of the country bishops in the presbytery, and their deposition to a rank lower than that of the city pres- byters. It must also be taken into account that the dogma that there can be but one bishop in a city was not established until the middle of the third century, as a result of the Novatianist schism. The theoretical difficulty was met by a new theory of the episcopate ; namely, the theory of apostolic suc- cession. Here we reach a point where we have explicit information and are no longer left to our own con- jectures and assumptions. It is true that the earliest information we have about the doctrine of apostolic succession comes to us from the end of the second century (Irenaeus), but there is no doubt that this theory essentially conditioned the development, and was not merely a belated attempt to rationalize it. Fortunate it is that we have reliable information here, for who could guess that the bishop had attained a higher authority as representative of the Apostles than he had enjoyed as the representative of Christ? At first sight the new theory seems like a derogation of the previous claim in behalf of the bishop. But in reality it is not 3 for if the new theory was ideally 308 THE EUCHARISTIC ASSEMBLY [IV less lofty than the old, it was more concrete, and it furnished, as the other did not, a justification of the exclusive authority of the bishop in his own town. It provided, moreover, a point of view which served later to justify the preeminence of certain bishops over the rest; that is to say, the hegemony which the greater Churches of Christendom, especially those which boasted an apostolic foundation, claimed over the others, — lead- ing finally to the formal development of metropolitan and patriarchal authority. And lastly, it gave the bishop a status which was independent of his function as presi- dent of the Eucharist, constituting him, as it did, the supreme and formally authorized teacher. The earliest notion of apostolic succession which we encounter in Christian literature, viz. in the 1st Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, cc. 42, 44, has little or nothing to do with the later doctrine which we know under this name. It simply guaranteed the legal right, as we may perhaps call it, of bishops and deacons to the privileges of their office, on the ground of the orderly appointment they had received according to the system initiated by the apostles. This notion involved no implication whatever of the preeminent authority of a single bishop in each town. The doc- trine which influenced the development of the second century bore especially upon this question of the single bishop, and it may properly be called the doctrine of apostolic succession, although it must be discriminated from certain radically novel elements which were in- troduced by Cyprian in the third century, as well as from others which entered into the conception as it was finally formulated in the Middle Ages. The early doctrine of apostolic succession involved no notion of a mystical infusion of apostolic character § 19] THE EUCHARIST 309 or capacity. It was, on the contrary, wholly a common- sense doctrine, founded upon a concrete assumption, and advancing to a perfectly pragmatic inference. The assumption was that certain individual apostles were the original founders, or for some time the chief pastors, of this and the other of the principal Churches of Christendom; and that the single authority over the local Church which was represented in the person of such an apostle was perpetuated in the person of a single successor. This is essentially an imaginative construc- tion of history ; and yet, the first part of the assump- tion was manifestly true of several Churches, and even the latter part it would be hard to impeach in the case of some few, — Jerusalem is certainly an instance in point, and so perhaps is Alexandria. The inference — or perhaps we had better call it an additional assump- tion — was, that the single successor of the apostolic founder inherited his authority (now regarded as a legal authority), and with it -a store of apostolic tradi- tion. The single bishop (particularly in such sees as claimed an apostolic origin) was thus regarded as the repository of apostolic tradition. The bishop as such was not regarded as the inheritor of the apostolic charisma, but of a store of tradition which he had received in a perfectly natural way like a scholar from his master. Since the bishop's authority did not rest upon the pos- session of a charismatic endowment it "was regarded as a legal authority — and yet not merely so, for it was supposed to rest upon a real possession, not indeed upon an inherent teaching faculty, yet none the less upon a teaching equiprnent The possession of apostolic tra- dition was the bishop's supreme title to authority, not only in the local Church, but in the Church at large; for as the reputed possessor of God's word (however he 310 THE EUCHARISTIC ASSEMBLY [IV came by it) his authority was as much an ecumeni- cal authority as was that of the charismatic teacher, whether prophet or apostle. This theory of the apostolic succession was a power- ful and plausible one so long as the unwritten tradition was still a lively factor in Church teaching ; but its force was weakened with every generation, and we can readily understand the necessity which subsequently led to the radical modification of the earlier view — a modi- fication or transformation which consisted principally in substituting for the historical assumption a mystical theory of an episcopal charisma veritatis which inhered in all bishops alike, a theory of an abstract episcopate which was regarded as the representative of the apos- tolic primacy of Peter, and which all bishops shared in solidum. The early theory, however, was the more effective one so long as there were still bishops who might claim to be disciples of the Apostles in the first or second remove. At all events, this is the only theory ever broached which could have had the effect of reduc- ing the plural episcopate, which was common in the West at the beginning of the second century, to the type of the monarchical episcopate, which was every where triumphant by the middle of that century. But we are now upon ground that is familiar to all who have studied the Catholic episcopate, and without in- quiring further into the causes of the development, I will notice briefly the immediate effects of it upon Church organization. The development of the monarchical episcopate affected even more radically the status of the presby- ter than that of the bishop. For the presbyters, whose functions had hitherto been vague, who had but lately acquired fixed official rank, and who even with that § 19] THE EUCHARIST 311 were still obliged to act as a body, — that is, as a pres- bytery, and not individually, — were henceforth to be independent parochial pastors and the ordinary presi- dents of the Eucharist. Supposing that the extra bishops were successfully eliminated as the theory required, the question re- mained, who should preside in the assemblies which ex liypotliesi could not be combined into one under a single bishop. The answer was not doubtful : the presbyters, who alone sat with the bishop at the Lord's table, were the only possible substitutes for the bishop at the Eu- charist, and presidency at the Eucharist carried all else with it. It is plausible to suppose that the elders or presbyters had always served as the readiest and most natural substitutes for the bishop at the Eucharist in case of his absence or indisposition ; and in towns where the single episcopate had long been traditionally established, the growth of the community may have compelled the bishop to recognize the presbyters as his ordinary delegates in the presidency of separate assemblies which could not join in the bishop's Eucha- rist. In any case, the way was certainly not utterly unprepared for the crisis which devolved upon the presbyters the still more independent functions of parochial pastors in such cities as had previously re- quired a plurality of bishops. For a long while, how- ever, they seem not to have acted singly in the capacity of pastors, for as late at least as the third century the rule required that there be two presbyters in every Church. In sharing his rights as president of the Eucharist the bishop relinquished his most distinctive and ex- clusive function. But it is interesting to note the various efforts which were made to maintain some semblance or vestige of the ancient order of things. 312 THE EUCHARISTIC ASSEMBLY [IV For instance, the Roman Liher Pontificalis refers to Melchiades (a.d. 311) the custom of sending particles of the consecrated elements from the bishop's Eucharist to all the titles (parochial churches) of the city, with- out which the presbyters might not celebrate the sacra- ment. This was a mere symbol of the bishop's rights as president of all Eucharistic assemblies within his see. But the same rights were more concretely exhibited in the fact that the bishop was actually the president in whatever assembly he chanced to be ; and there is rea- son to suppose that where there were a number of prin- cipal assemblies within his diocese, each with its appropriate house of worship, the bishop was accus- tomed to preside now in one and now in another. It is a striking fact that the ancient basilicas of Rome, beginning with those of the fourth century, are all of them cathedral churches. The bishop's cathedra is established in all of them between the seats of the presbyters, and the presbyters who presided there in the bishop's absence must have done so expressly as his delegates, as do the cardinal presbyters to-day in their titular basilicas. The reader is likely to be surprised at the many grave assertions which are here set forth with little or no proof. So I must hasten to note that the proof is intentionally deferred in order that the general view, which is so liable to be lost in the study of detail, may once for all be clearly fixed in the mind. This section is a mere sketch of the development of the episcopate, and the remainder of this first volume and a consider- able part of the second must be occupied with the de- tailed study of the problems which are here suggested. But I trust that the theory I here propose will prove § 20] CHURCH PROPERTY 313 convincing on the mere strength of its inherent reason- ableness and coherency. Documentary proofs, so far as such exist, will be forthcoming in the course of the following sections; and I dare to hope that all objec- tions which may already have occurred to the reader will there find an answer. For the present we must leave the problems of the Catholic episcopate and return to the organization of the primitive age, where we have to trace the pre- liminary stages of the development. § 20, CHUECH PEOPEKTY Undoubtedly, one of the factors which contributed most to the development of the congregational idea, the congregational organization as a whole, and the bishop's office in particular, was the possession and administration of Church property. Yet the impor- tance of this factor may easily be exaggerated. Hatch, for instance, has unduly exploited it in proof of his con- tention that the bishop was originally hardly more than an economic officer, who by reason of the power which he exercised as steward of the Church property was able gradually to gain control over all other functions of Church government and worship. Apart altogether from this extravagant theory, it is commonly assumed that the possession and administration of Church prop- erty implies of necessity the legal organization of the Church, or at least of the congregation. It is therefore highly important to inquire what was the nature of Church property, by whom it might be received and administered, for what purposes disbursed, and under what points of view it was regarded. Sohm's investi- gation has put the whole subject in a new light, and all 314 THE EUCHARISTIC ASSEMBLY [IV that I have to say in this section is taken substantially from his work.^ Presidency at the Eucharist implied the reception and administration of the offerings which were there presented for the furnishing of the feast and for distri- bution to the poor, and it is these offerings which con- stituted the main source of Church property.^ He who 1 Sohm, § 8, pp. 69-81. 2 The Lord's Supper included the agape, and this double feast was furnished by the fi-ee-will offerings which each member brought with him to the assembly. Cf. 1 Cor. 11 : 21, 22 ; and later notices by Justin, Irenaeus, TertuUian, Cyprian, etc. ; and the discussion by Th. Harnack, Gemeindegottesdienst, pp. 254, 288, 391, 478. But other gifts used also to be bi'ought to the Eucharistic feast which were not to be consumed at the agape, — cf. the account given by Justin Martyr in Apol. I. 67 (quoted below in note 3). Li particular, this was taken as the occasion for the offering of the first-fruits, an obligation which was exacted of the disciples under the influence of the O. T. regulation. Cf. Irenaeus, adv. Iiaer. (about A. D. 180) IV. 31 : 3, Oportet enim nos oblationem deo facere . . . primitias earum, quae sunt ejus, creaturarum offerentes. Et hanc obla- tionem ecclesia sola puram offert fabricatori, oft'erens ei cum gratiarum actione ex creatura ejus. It was later specified (Apoi^t. Canons, cc. 3, 4) that only the first-fi'uits of corn, grapes, oil and incense might be brought to the altar. Since the third century at least, the mite-chests that were placed in the churches might also be used for the offerings, — Cyprian, de opere et eleem. c. 1-5; Apost. Const. II. c. 36. In early times the gifts were made generally in kind. By Cyprian they are called sportulae, and are compared with the tithes of the Old Testament {Ep. 1 : 1, tamquam decimas), — O. Ritschl, Ci/prian, pp. 206, 207. There was no obligation, however, to give precisely the tenth of one's goods. The Didache, xiii. 3 sqq., speaks only of the "first-fruits," which were to be given to the prophets or to the poor. Even in Cyprian {de eccl. unit, c. 26) we find the expression, nunc de patrimonio nee decimas damus. It is in the Apostolic Constitutions that we find for the first time the tithes men- tioned regularly along with first-fruits and free-will offerings {tKovcna), — IL cc. 25, 27, 28, 34-36 ; IIL c. 4; IV. cc. 6-10; VIL c. 29; VIIL c. 29. — Besides the offerings in kind, there were, in the West at least, monthly contributions in money (cf. Tertul. Apol. c. 39, modicam unus- quisque stipem menstrua die vel cum velit et si modo velit et si modo possit apponit ; nam nemo compellitur, sed sponte confert) and a corresponding monthly distribution to the clergy (divisiones mensurnae, Cypr. ep. 34 : 4; 39 : 5; cf. O. Ritschl, Cyprian, p. 207; — also in Rome, cf. Euseb. H. E. V. 28 : 10). The monthly contributions correspond with the usage § 20] CHURCH PROPERTY 315 made the prayer of thanksgiving at the Eucharist and received the offerings was at the same time the ordinary dispenser of the gifts ; ^ for administration did not mean hoarding and increasing, but prompt and impartial dis- tribution to the various objects of the Church's charity. The gifts of the Church served principally for the sup- port of the poor, for the practical philanthropy which was so characteristic a feature of Christianity.* It lay of the secular guilds ; yet with this difference, that the Church did not specify the amount of the contribution, nor exact it if it could not be paid regularly or on a particular day, whereas in all the pagan clubs or guilds the payment of the regular dues was a condition of membership. The significance of the gifts was ever the same : they were offerings which were presented to God through the medium of the recipient. Hence it is that they were generally j)resented at the Eucharist. Cf. Apost. Const. II. c. 25 : " What were then (in the Old Testament) first-fruits, and tithes, and consecrated things, and gifts, are now oblations, which are presented by the holy bishops to the Lord God." 3 Justin Martyr, Apol. I. c. 67 (after the account of the Eucharistic celebration conducted by the "president of the brethren ") : " They that are well-to-do and willing give what each one thinks fit, and what is col- lected is deposited with the president, and he succors the orphans and widows, and those who through sickness or any other cause are in want, and those who are in bonds, and the strangers sojourning among us, — in a word, he becomes the care-taker of all that are needy." We find the bishop referred to as both receiver and dispenser of the gifts in 1 Clem, ad Cor. c. 44: "It will be no light sin for us, if we thrust out those who have offered the gifts of the bishop's office unblameably and holily." The distribution of the gifts is a part of the "offering " of them to God; and the qualification " unblameably and holily " is the more significant if we take it to refer to this delicate part of the bishop's function. In the Church at Jerusalem, before the appointment of the Seven, the Apostles alone exercised both the ministiy of the word and the ministry of tables, that is, the distribution of the gifts (Acts 6 : 2-4). * Tertul. Apol. c. 39 : the contributions of the Church members are used non epulis nee potaculis (as in the pagan societies), sed egenis alendis humandisque. Didache, xi. 7 : when there is no prophet in the congregation the first-fruits shall be given to the poor. Apart from the care of the poor, the Church property served for the support of the teachers of the Gospel (see above, p. 247), and later for the support of the clergy (see above, note 2, on the distribution of sportulae to the clergy, and regular sums of money, — cf. also below, note I). According 316 THE EUCHARISTIC ASSEMBLY [IV in the nature of the case that the gifts flowed in most abundantly at the principal assembly. We have seen that the presidency of the principal assembly fell naturally to the most highly esteemed teacher in the community, — that is to say, the gift of admin- istering the word was one of the requisites of this office. We have now to add as a further requi- site the gift of administering the Church property. These two faculties will appear far from incompat- ible when we have inquired, What is the nature of Church property ? and what does the administration of it signify ? If the local community of disciples had been regarded as a guild, or as a secular society of any sort, associated and organized according to a secular norm, the property which it possessed must have been regarded as the prop- erty of the society, to be controlled and expended ac- cording to the good pleasure of the congregation. But nothing of the sort was the case. It is true that in the third century and later we hear of the pecunia ecclesiac^ to Euseb. H. E. VI. 43 : 11 there were 155 clergy and 1500 poor sup- ported by the Roman Church about the middle of the third century. The Church property was intended solely for distribution ^ and so in the earliest time those who possessed real estate which they wished to present to the Church, promptly sold it and contributed its price to the common fund (of. Acts 2 : 45 ; 4 : 34-37 ; 5 : 1 sqq.). While it was essential to the aim of the pagan societies or clubs to form a nucleus of club prop- erty, an area communis (of which, under certain circumstances at least, a member on leaving the society might require his share) ; the Church, on the contrary, during the first centuries amassed no fund of earthly possessions. In principle the Church was without property ; with respect to earthly goods it took no care for the morrow neither gathered into barns ; collections were made for the immediate necessity and straight- way expended. The Church thus " lived from hand to mouth " ; its only capital was the readiness of its members to contribute (O. Ritschl, Cyprian, pp. 204 sqq.). ^ Cyprian, ep. 52 : 1, 2. Cf. Tertullian, de praescr. haeret. c. 30 : Marcion quidem cum ducentis sestertiis quae ecclesiae intulerat. §20] CHURCH PROPERTY 317 and the iKKXrjcnacrTLKa npoiyixaTa,^ and so soon as the Church possessed a distinctive house of worship we find it called the oTko'^ Trj<; iKKk-qcria'^," — that means, how- ever, if we translate literally, the property or house "^ of Christendom." But from the primitive j)oint of view such property of Christendom is not the property of the congregation, but rather God's property ; and hence the house of worship was known more properly by the name, " the house of God," ^ and both this and all other goods which were dedicated to the use of the Church were called ra KvpiaKa, — the Lord's possession.^ Such was unquestionably the view of the very earliest time. The gifts which constituted the pecunia ecclesiae were re- garded as offerings, presented to God, not to men, nor even to the Church ; and hence to give a lying account of such gifts was to lie not unto men but unto God.^^ This religious, spiritual conception effectually excluded during the first three centuries any legal notion ; it was the only conception current with regard to Church property, and alone determined its status and use. Church property therefore constitutes no exception to the rule we have insisted upon. Even for the admin- istration of Church property there need be — properly considered, there can be — no purely human and legally devised organization, no finance administration of the worldly sort, and no economic officers who exercise their functions solely in virtue of a regular or legal commission from the congregation. Over God's prop- * Apost. Const. II. c. 35 ; Apost. Canons, c. 40. T Euseb. H. E. VII. 30 : 19. The building itself is called by Clemens Alex. (Stromat. VII. c. 5) eKKXrjala. 8 Ilippolytus (Hippolyti frogm. ed. Lagarde, p. 149) : rov oIkov tov deov. TertuUian, adv. Valentin, (a. d. 205-208) c. 3 : nostrae columbae domus. ' For example, Apost. Const, cc. 24 sqq. 10 Acts 5:3,4, 9. 318 THE EUCHARISTIC ASSEMBLY [IV erty the congregation has no authority, nor has any man, but only God alone. Hence it is only in God's name that the gifts of the Church can be received and administered. The reception and administration of Church property is a 'priestly act, which can be performed only by God's representative.^^ Who is the priestly vicar of God in the Ecclesia ? The answer of the primitive age is one which our pre- vious discussion has prepared us to expect : the gifted teacher is God's representative in this function as in all other functions of government and administration. In his teaching charisma is included the charisma of ad- ministering the gifts ; and this administration appears the more appropriate to the teaching office, since it con- sisted principally in distributing to the necessities of the saints, and was therefore closely related to the cure of souls. Hence it is that in the first days of the Church at Jerusalem the Apostles both received and adminis- tered the gifts,^^ until " seven " other gifted teachers, " men full of the Holy Ghost," were appointed to per- form a part of this service in their stead, as men who likewise were endowed by God for such an office. ^^ For 11 Didaclie, xiii. 3 : the first-fi'uits shall be brought to the prophets, "for they are your high priests." Apost. Const. II. c. 27: "ye ought therefore to bring your sacrifices and oblations to the bishop as to a high priest," c. 34 : " giving to him (the bishop) as to God's priest," c. 35 : " For it is thy duty to give, and his to administer ; . . . for he has One who will call him to account, the Lord God, who put this administration into his hands and counted him worthy of the priesthood of so great dignity." 12 Acts 4: 35,37; 5: 2; 6: 2. 18 Acts 6 : 1 sqq. The men chosen for the ministry of tables (dis- tribution of the gifts) must be " full of the Spirit and of wisdom." Among them was Stephen, " full of faith and of the Holy Spirit " ; and Philip, who afterwards appeared as an evangelist (cf. Acts 8: 5 sqq., 40; 21 : 8). It is plain that fulness of the Spirit and of wisdom means the §20] CHURCH PROPERTY 319 the same reason the prophets received the gifts and first-fruits (both being alike regarded as offerings to God) as the high-priestly administrators of God's prop- erty.^* How completely this excludes the notion that gift of teaching- the word, of proclaiming the Gospel. Teaching and the administration of the gifts stood in a practical relation to one another> since both ministered to the cure of souls ; but the chief significance of the charisma in this connection lay in the fact that it singled out the possessor as one called by God to act in his stead. — From the above we may see how little justification there is for the widely prevalent view that the formation of an organized congregation at Jerusalem began with the ap- pointment of the Seven, which has been i-egarded since the third century as the origin of the diaconate (cf. Cyprian, ep. 3 : 3), and lately by Ritschl {Entstehung, pp. 35.5-357) as the origin of the presbyterate. The Seven are not to be accounted mere functionaries of the local congregation at Jerusalem, any more than were the Apostles : they did not act in the name of the congregation, but like the Apostles they were God's ministers and representatives, and acted only in God's name. It is well known that the office of the Seven had but a short duration. In Rome, however, the number of the deacons was limited to seven with obvious reference to this early institution, and the view of the Roman Chui'ch is reflected in the passage from Cyprian just cited. Cf. § 22. 1* Didache, xiii. 3, — see above, note 11. The prophet receives the first-fruits not merely for his own support, but principally for the pur- pose of distributing them to the poor. For the prophet himself, accord- ing to the Didache, is bound to lead an ascetic life (xi. 3 : apostles and prophets must live Kara doyfxa tov evayytXlov ; y. 8 : the prophet must have the rpoTToi Kvpiov ; in both passages a life of poverty without cares and without possessions is meant, — also without marriage, v. 11, — cf. Harnack's notes on these passages). Harnack's view, Proleg. p. 120, that only the wandering prophet was bound to lead an ascetic life, rests upon the false assumption that the wandering prophet is to be distinguished from the apostle ; whereas the wandering prophet himself is an apostle. The prophet of the Didache, who like the apostle is required to live " according to the Gospel," is obviously a person who has taken up his abode in the congregation : he receives the first-fruits, notwithstanding the fact that he is bound to lead an ascetic life. As the servant of God the prophet has a special vocation to minister to the poor : the true prophet can " in the Spirit " order the preparation of a meal ( " a table " ) for the poor, but he may not taste of it himself ; he can " in the Spirit " order money, again not for himself, but for the poor (xi. 9, 12 ; — it was charged against the Montanistic prophets that they took money for themselves, Euseb. H. E. V. 18 : 4 sqq.). In like manner the first-fruits were given to the prophet (and this is undoubtedly to be associated with the fact 320 THE EUCHARISTIC ASSEMBLY [IV Church property is to be administered in the name of the congregation. In the early Church at Jerusalem certain members brought the price of their possessions and laid them " at the Apostles' feet." These offerings, like all others, became God's property, which is equivalent to Church property. But were they regarded as the property of the congregation ? and was it as officials of the congre- gation that the Apostles disposed of them ? The first- fruits, which according to the Didaehe were given to the prophets as " high-priests," were likewise Church prop- erty (God's property) in the fullest sense of the word. Did they then belong to the congregation ? and did the prophets, either in distributing them to the poor or in using them for themselves, act as congregational officials ? Certainly not. Why then should the func- tion of the bishop be interpreted differently, when the earliest evidence we have on this point attributes to him the same character as God's representative ? It was as " priest of God," as 6eov oIkovoixo^;, that the bishop exercised authority over the Church property. It was not till the fourth century, when the legal organization was already penetrating all spheres of Church life, that a juristic conception was applied to Church property. But even then the primitive religious conception was not altogether superseded : the idea which became the ruling one was not that of corporate that the prophet was president of the Eucharist), but again, not princi- pally for his own use, but that he might divide them among the poor. Hence the injunction in xiii. 4 : when no prophet is at hand the first- fruits shall be given (directly) to the poor. The prophet, with the re- ception of the gifts, had also the administration (distribution) of them. Hence the comprehensive superintendency which the prophets enjoyed, — Lucian, Peregr. Prot. C. 11 : Trpocpfi-rqi Ka\ diaa-dpxrji Kai ^vuayayevs. In the gift of prophecy lies the gift of regiment, and with it the gift of ad- ministering the Church property. §20] CHURCH PROPERTY 321 property, but of institutional property, — Church prop- erty only in the sense that it was held by the Church in trust for the ends which God might be supposed to designate. Hence even from the legal point of view it still remained God's possession, and throughout the whole of the Middle Ages the law of Church property was governed by the idea, that it is virtually the prop- erty of God or of the saints. The conception that the congregation itself is the possessor of the goods which it holds and administers was utterly unknown in ancient times. Therefore in the administration or steward- ship of such property there was no attempt to apply the congregational principle, no eifort to express the corporate will of the congregation according to a demo- cratic or a representative principle of government : on the contrary, it was the principle of sovereign authority which was alone applicable to the case, administration, not in virtue of a mandate of the congregation, but in virtue of a mandate received from above, from God himself, the giver of the spiritual charisma which con- stituted at once the authorization and the equipment of God's steward. H. Sohm (p. 75) has a long note on the legal status of Church property before and after Constantine, which deserves more attention than it is likely to receive as a foot-note. In my Monuments of the Early Church (pp. 53-61), where my pur- pose was not to state my own opinion but the common consen- sus, I gave a sketch of the now popular theory of De Eossi, that during the ages of persecution the Church was able to hold its property in corporate title under the legal fiction that it was one of the poor-man's burial societies (collegia tenuiorum) which was the only sort of private association suffered to exist within the Eoman state. This theory has been accepted by many recent writers as though it were completely proved ; and it forms 21 322 THE EUCHARISTIC ASSEMBLY [IV the basis, or at least the suggestion, of the many recent attempts to explain both the organization and the ritual of the Church by reference to the example of various sorts of pagan societies. But in the same connection I quoted a significant passage from an unpublished work by Duchesne (Les Origincs chrctiennes, xxiii. § 4, — lithographed for private circulation) which reveals in a few significant words how slight a basis of fact the theory can boast. Sohm challenges the theory chiefly on the ground that it implies a notion of Church property (viz. as the corporate prop- erty of the congregation) which does not accord with the Christian view of this subject which prevailed both before and after the time in question. Granting even that the State may have regarded the Church property in this light (as it certainly did in the time of Constantiue), Sohm justly observes that this is no proof that the Christians themselves entertained the same view. Professor Sohm's discussion of this subject, which I here reproduce, is the more worthy of attention because it comes from one of the most distinguished students of the Eoman Law, Sohm remarks in the first place that the passage from Ter- tuUian {Apol. c. 39) which has been much relied upon in support of this theory, is in reality unfavorable to it. In this Apology Tertullian lays the whole emphasis of his defence on the religion and morality of the Christians, and in the passage in question he makes little of the formal bonds of organization in comparison with the fellowship of a common faith and moral ideal — corpus sumus de conscientia religionis et disciplinae unitate et spe foedere, — not, therefore, a sort of burial society or mutual benefit association. Indeed, Tertullian actuall}- dis- claims any comparison between the Church and the pagan asso- ciations, particularly the burial clubs, when he says in effect : we have only religious and moral aims — none that are secular or commercial, — and " even if " we have " a kind of coffer " (like that of the clubs), yet we have no initiation fees or com- pulsory dues, and no common banquets, like those of the collegia which are provided out of the common coffer ; on the contrary, what we have is expended solely for charity (the stipis collatio §20] CHURCH PROPERTY 323 of the collegia was not used for charity, cf. Marquardt, Bomische Staatsverwaltung, Bd. 3, 2nd ed. 1885, p. 142, n. 4). The passage (ApoL c. 39) reads : Etiam, si quod arcae genus est, non de hon- oraria summa quasi redemptae religionis congregatur. Modicam unusquisque stipem menstrua die vel cum velit et si modo velit et si modo possit, nam nemo compellitur, sed sponte confert. Haec quasi deposita pietatis (not as a corporate property held for the benefit of the members who subscribe, or for the expense of their common cultus) sunt. Nam inde non epulis nee pota- culis nee ingratiis voratrinis dispensatur, sed eginis alendis humandisque. It is clear that Tertullian in giving this description of the Christian society had the collegia in mind, especially the collegia tenuiorum, but his purpose was to show that the Christian society lacked the distinctive characteristics of the secular associations ; and that therefore the Eoman laws of association, which in principle prohibited all collegia and made only one general exception in favor of the collegia fune- raticia vel tenuiorum, was not applicable to the Church. There is nothing here in the way of an argument that the Churches might be regarded as collegia funeraticia and hence claim recog- nition as instances of the one class of associations which was allowed and for which no express license was required. Tertul- lian defends the Christian society from the point of view that it is merely a community of faith, without a guild-like organiza- tion, consequently without guild property in the proper sense, with purely spiritual aims (coimus orantes) and purely spiritual discipline (censura divina) ; and he therefore designates the Church not as a collegium, but preferably as a secta, — i. e. as a sort of philosophic school, — indicating that it is the community of conviction, not the formal bonds of organization, which holds the Church together. If Tertullian himself disclaims any comparison between the Church and the collegia tenuiorum, it is not to be supposed that the State recognized the Christian society under this aspect, as a legal corporation capable of holding property, and hence felt itself bound to protect its corporate rights of possession. It is a significant fact that even where Church property was actu- ally taken under the protection of the State, the action was 324 THE EUCHARISTIC ASSEMBLY [IV prompted, not by regard for property rights, but by considerations of policy, — as in the case of a piece of ground disputed between the Christians and the guild of cooks, where Alexander Severus (Lampridius, Alex. Sev. c. 49) intervened with the decision that it was better God should be worshipped there than that the place be used for a tavern. The two rescripts of Gallienus to the Egyptian bishops (Euseb. II. E. VII. 13) (from which we have to judge the character of that emperor's edict of 260) practically gave the bishops the free use of the Churches and cemeteries ; not, however, in a way that explicitly rec- ognized their property rights ; but merely by releasing the magistrates' attachment upon the property {airo rwv tottcov tmv dpatTKevaifxcov cnroxoip'^a'coai), permitting the bishops to avail themselves of the edict (t?}? avriypTjipr]'; rr)? e/i?}? tw tvttco ^pi]adai Svvaade) and to take de facto possession {ra roiv KaXovfievcov KotfirjTrjpicov aTToXa/M^dveiv eirLrpeTriov), without any sort of legal recognition either of the Christian Church as such or of its property (cf. Harnack in Herzog's Rcalencykl. 3rd ed. Bd. 3, p. 828). The order obtained in the year 272 from the Emperor Aurelian to oblige Paul of Samosata, bishop of Anti- och, to relinquish the Church property {o2fco<; rr}? €KK\r)aia<;) after his deposition by the Synod of Antioch (269), was an administrative act extra ordinem, and in fact an act of impe- rial grace. It was only by a supplicatio addressed to the Em- peror that this end could be attained, because it involved an extraordinary favor which was not within the competence of the provincial magistrates (cf. Mommsen, Bom. Staatsrecht, 2nd ed. Bd. 2, p. 936). Hence it is that Eusebius regards this deci- sion as a sign of the favorable disposition of Aurelian (^H. E. VII. 30) : TOLovTO'i fxev ye TL7]Tcov KoX BiSaaKciXfou (" for they too perform for you the service of the prophets and teachers"). The last clause states the reason for demanding the aforesaid qualities in the bishops and deacons, — hence the rydp. The reason lies in the function of the office, the Xecrovpryta. What is the XetTovpyia of the bishops and deacons ? It is the same as that of the prophets and teachers, but in such wise that the bishops and deacons appear only in the second rank — as sub- stitutes for those who have a clearer vocation, — hence the Kal avToi, "they too." What Xeirovpyia of the prophets and teachers is here contemplated ? Is it the ministry of teaching in the modern sense of the word, that is to say, a function which is regarded as superadded to the proper episcopal function of administering the Eucharist and the Church property (as the imiversally prevalent view would have it) ? Certainly not. It would be indeed an extraordinary piece of argumentation, to say : bishops and deacons must have these qualifications, for (besides their proper vocation and office, which would 8 The bishops are apparently .indicated by the " pastors " in Ephes. 4 : 11. Their pastoral functions are certainly mentioned in Acts 20 : 28; 1 Clem. 44 : 3 ; Ignatius, ad Rom. 9 : 1. 340 THE EUCHARISTIC ASSEMBLY [IV not be indicated at all) they have to perform as an avocation also the office of teacher (in the now current sense). But it is said : bishops and deacons must be worthy of the Lord, gentle and 7iot lovers of money (these two predicates alone have individual character), for they too perform the ministry of the prophets and teachers. That is : the " ministry of the prophets and teachers " which is here contemplated (upon which the bishops and deacons enter as substitutes), makes these two qualifications necessary, viz. gentle (or meek) and not lovers of money. There is not the least doubt that both the qualifications named have reference to the Eucharist and the administration of the gifts. Because the bishops and deacons have to perform the ministry of the prophets and teachers in the Eucharist, because this is their principal office and proper function, therefore the bishops and deacons must possess those qualifications. It is only in this way that the whole passage gains logical coherency. It appears here as the principal office of bishops and deacons to discharge the ministry of the prophets and teachers — only so is the "yap intelligible. As certainly then as the principal function of the bishops (and deacons, cf. § 22) consists in the administra- tion of the Eucharist and of the offerings (above, pp. 331 sqq.), just so surely may we conclude that the " ministry of the prophets and teachers " which is here in question is no other than the administration of the Eucharist and of the offerings. While this passage has hitherto counted as the strongest bulwark of the prevailing view, which separates the functions of teaching and administration, and assumes a gradual trans- ference of the teaching function to the bishop's office (cf. Harnack's commentary to Didache, xv. 2) ; it results from a closer inspection that the passage furnishes a complete refuta- tion of the universally prevalent view. It results from this passage that it was precisely the "administration" of the Eucharist and the Church property which was ascribed as a matter of principle to the teaching office (the charismatic teachers) ; and hence, when the administration of the Eucha- rist and of the Church property was confided to those who had not the teaching charisma, they represented the teaching § 21] BISHOPS 341 office as substitutes for the gifted teachers — just as has been described above. Bishops and deacons are elected to supply the place of the prophets and teachers (who were not always to be had) in the presidency of the Eucharist and the adminis- tration of the gifts. This is what the Didache (xv, in connec- tion with xiv., cf. note 4) directly proves. With this agrees the warning in c. xv. 2, not to esteem meanly the bishops and deacons, " for they are the honored among you with the proph- ets and teachers." Bishops and deacons enjoy the like honor as the prophets and teachers. What honor ? The chief honor in the Church, the honor par excellence, is again the adminis- tration of the Eucharist and the administration (including a personal share) of the offerings (cf. p. 329). Here, too, we have the same result as before: because bishops and deacons ad- minister the offerings, like the prophets and teachers, they are not to be meanly esteemed — although bishops and deacons are not the same as prophets and teachers. The substance of the bishop's office is the administration of the Eucharist and of the Church property. By reason of this — viz. this "admin- istration" — they are to be ranked with those who possess the apostolic gift of teaching. Bishops and deacons were elected, and ordained with the laying on of hands ; but so were the charismatic officers, and there is no reason to suppose that elec- tion and ordination had a different significance in the two cases. The bishop, too, was elected at the sugges- tion of prophecy,^ and received the laying on of hands.-^*' The elected bishop, like the teacher, counted as one who was chosen, not by the assembly, but by 9 Cf. p. 256, note 4. 10 The earliest testimony is Acts 14 : 23, " And when they had ap- pointed them elders in every Church, and had prayed with tasting, they committed them unto the Lord." In the fasting, as well as in the prayer and the committing them unto the Lord, the act of ordination is described, — cf. p. 258, note 6 That we have a right to regard the appointed presbyters in this passage as bishops will appear from the following discussion. 342 THE EUCHARISTIC ASSEMBLY [IV God." And again, just as in the case of the teaching office, the election was not regarded as an appointment or commission in any juristic sense, but rather as a testi- mony on the part of the assembly ; and the laying on of hands was regarded as a confirmation of a god-given charisma.-^^ Thus, again, election to the episcopal office turns out to be a purely spiritual transaction. From what class were the bishops chosen ? Since the bishop was chosen as a substitute for the teacher of apostolic gifts, it follows that he was not chosen from among the '' prophets " and " teachers." Indeed, the presence of such a personage rendered the election of a bishop unnecessary. For the episcopate, it was necessary to choose a man who, in spite of his lack of the apostolic gift of teaching, was nevertheless capable of administering the teaching office, and in particular that part of it which had to do with the conduct of the Eucharist and the distribution of the Church property. We reach the same result when we consider the list of qualifications required of the bishop in the early sources. ^^ A certain capacity for teaching is accounted 11 Cf. p. 256, note 4. 12 On the charisma of the bishop see below, p. 361. 13 The Epistle of Clement (44 : 2) requires merely that " approved men " be appointed as bishops and deacons ; — cf . 42 : 4, the apostles "appointed their first-fruits as bishops and deacons, when they had proved them by the Spirit." The Dldache (xv. 1) is somewhat fuller : those who are to be elected as bishops must be "worth}' of the Lord, meek and not lovers of money and true and approved." The fullest list is that given in 1 Tim. 3 : 2-7, "The bishop therefore must be without reproach, the husband of one wife (/was yvvaiKoi ai>8pa), temperate, sober- minded, orderly, given to hospitality, apt to teach (diduKTiKov) ; not given to wine, 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 Church of God?) not a novice, lest being puffed § 21] BISHOPS 343 desirable in the bishop ; but little stress is laid upon this point even in the epistles to Timothy and Titus, Clement and the Didache say nothing about it, and the Apost. Church Order, while desiring an " educated " bishop who can " interpret the Scriptures," expressly concedes that this is not necessary. On the other hand, the qualifications upon which all the sources insist are such as are peculiarly pertinent to the bishop's functions as president of the Eucharist and administrator of the Church property. This connection explains the significance of the oft-repeated demand that the bishop be no drunkard. His responsibility for the Church funds accounts for the requisition that he be not greedy of filthy lucre. Sohm suggests that the emphasis which is laid upon sexual purity (for /xta? yvvaiKo<; dvTJp, however it may be interpreted, has substantially this significance) is likewise referable to the bishop's function at the Eu- up he fall into the condemnation of the devil. He must have good testi- mony also from them that are without, lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil." Similarly Titus 1 : 6-9, " if any man is blameless, the husband of one wife, having children that believe, who are not accused of riot or unruly. For the bishop must be blameless, as God's steward; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but given to hospitality, a lover of good, soberminded, just, holy, temperate ; holding to the faithful word which is according to the teaching, that he may be able to exhort in the sound doctrine, and to convict the gainsayers." Compare with this Source A of the Apost. Church Order of the latter part of the second century (Harnack, Texte, II. 5, pp. 8 sqq.) : in the choice of a bishop "who is worthy," it must be examined " if he has a good reputation among the heathen, if he is irre- proachable, if a friend of the poor, if soberminded, no drunkard, not licentious, not greedy, or abusive, or partisan, or the like. It is well for him to be unmarried, but if not, a man who has had one wife (oTro yuas yvvaiKos — unius uxoris viduus, Holtzraann); having some education, able to interpret the scriptures, — but if unlearned, then meek, abound- ing in love to all, in order that a bishop may never in any matter be subject to rebuke from the many," 344 THE EUCHARISTIC ASSEMBLY [IV diarist — " in order that your sacrifice may be pure." He remarks, too, that we may see in this the first intimation of the view which subsequently conditioned the development of the Catholic notion of priesthood. There is a great distance, however, between the second century rule which required a celibate bishop, or at least a widower, and the Pastoral Epistles, with their requirement of a married bishop who by ruling well his own household shall prove his capacity for " taking care of the Church of God." How significantly this last phrase reveals the importance of the bishop's office and the broad scope of his superintendence ! There can be no doubt that the requirements which are variously expressed as " a lover of good," " a lover of the poor," " abounding in love to all," are particu- larly pertinent to that important part of the bishop's work which had to do with the administration of the alms of the Church. The jealousy and contention to which this administration was likely to give rise, made it the more necessary that the bishop himself should be " not self willed, not soon angry," " but gentle, not con- tentious," — if indeed these qualifications do not rather refer to the bishop's function as judge of the disputes which were brought to the assembly. That the bishop must be " given to hospitality " betokens his relation to the strangers from other Churches who expected enter- tainment upon their travels or as a preliminary to their settlement in the congregation. The requisition that the bishop " must have good testimony also from them that are without," proves that he represented the disci- ples not only in their relations with other Churches, but also in their relations with the heathen society which surrounded them — hence he must be " able also to con- vict the gainsayers." This gives us an idea of the § 21] BISHOPS 345 great importance of the bishop even before the Catholic age — he was already the persona of the community. Finally, the bishop must be no neophyte (or novice) — not a newly baptized Christian, but one whose ster- ling Christian character has been proved by time. In other words, the bishop shall be chosen, not from the younger n:iembers of the Church, but from the older. It is in this sense that both the Didache and the Epistle of Clement demand that the bishops shall be " approved men." In 1 Clem. 44 : 3 the bishops whom the Corin- thians unjustly deprived of the administration of the Eucharist are said to be men who " for a long time have borne a good report with all " ; and in 42 : 4 the apos- tles are said to have appointed their " first-fruits " as bishops — that is, the oldest members in the commu- nity, reckoning age by the term of Christian experience. We can already affirm at this point that the bishop must be an elder (npeafivTepo^). The disciples must know the man whom they chose as their bishop. It is a responsible office to which the bishop is called, and one in which the most judicious conduct will hardly escape criticism and misinterpretation: at the same time it is a position of such power and influ- ence that it is likely to turn the head of a novice — •^'•' lest being puffed up he fall into the condemnation of the devil." This brings us to the difficult question of the rela- tion of the bishops to the elders in the primitive age. The view which has been generally prevalent since the Reformation, and which can be traced back to St. Jerome, regarded the bishops and presbyters as identical — they were simply two names for the same office. It is Hatch's chief service to have demolished this i 346 THE EUCHARISTIC ASSEMBLY [IV theory.^* It is not possible to identify the presbyters and bishops, even if we have solely in view the New Testament passages which bear on the subject, while as an explanation of the Catholic development such a theory leaves us hopelessly in the dark. But, on the other hand, it is equally .inadmissible to contrast, as has recently been done, the bishops and presbyters as two classes of officers having disparate and opposite functions. The facts which we have to explain are briefly these : (1) Bishops and deacons are undoubtedly represented in the Christian literature of the first century (including the New Testament) as officers ; they are commonly associated together in such a way as proves that their functions were closely related ; and together they seem to constitute a sufficient organization for the local congregation. (2) On the other hand, we find the fre- quent mention of presbyters (elders), who in the second century, at least, appear as formal officers distinct from the bishops, while both in the first century and the second we find the bishops classed among the presby- ters, and even called presbyters simply. Still more " Cf . Sohm, p. 92, note 27, for an estimate of Hatch's work, and for a summary of the subsequent theories which are due to his impulse. Compare also above, pp. 16 sqq. and 93 sqq. The principal theme of Hatch's Organization of the Early Christian Churches may be said to be the distinction between bishops and presbjiiers, but even on this point his work is not free from self-contradictions, and as a whole it fails to furnish any consistent view of the situation. The more positive part of Hatch's theory — his attempt to derive Church organization from the current forms of secular societies — has not proved generallj' acceptable, and the manifest extravagance with which he presses this theory suf- ficiently accounts for the fact that his just criticism of the old view has had less influence than it ought to have upon public opinion in England and America. It is to be noted, however, that all the constructive work which has lately been done in this field starts with the discrimination between presbyters and bishops. § 21] BISHOPS 347 briefly : on the one hand the bishops stand in close re- lation to the deacons ; on the other hand they stand in no less close a relation to the presbyters. Of what sort was the relation in each case ? The old answer was, that the first was a relation between two different classes of officers — the only ordinary officers of the congregation ; while the second was a relation of identity — bishops were simply presbyters under another name. Hatch's theory substantially is that there were three sets'of officers, and that the bishop in the discharge of one of his functions (as Church treasurer) was closely associated with the deacons, while in discharge of another -(that of discipline) he presided over the college of pres- byters. Sohm's solution is that there were but two sorts of officers in the Church (apart from the charismatic ministry of apostles, prophets and teachers), and these "svere the bishops and deacons. The presbyters during the first century were not officers, but merely a class in the community, the class of elder disciples, the " honora- bles " of the community, from whose number the bishop was chosen, and among whom he w^as ranked when it was rather dignity than office that was in question — just as were the Apostles themselves. The presbyter as such was not elected nor appointed, but enjoyed his informal position of leadership by common and informal consent : when an elder is " appointed " there is nothing else he can be appointed to but the episcopate — the '' appointed elder " is ipso facto a bishop. It will be recognized that this last hypothesis is neces- sary to bring Sohm's view into accord with all the facts, particularly those which we encounter in the New Testa- ment. To my mind it is the only view which is in com- plete harmony with the facts as we know them in the primitive age, and it has the additional advantage of 348 THE EUCHARISTIC ASSEMBLY [IV furnishing us with a starting-point which renders the subsequent development comprehensible. The general significance of this view has been illustrated in § 19. Sohm turns first to the Epistle of Clement {circa A. D. 96) for confirmation of his view of the position of the elders in the primitive Church. ^^ The occasion of this letter was the disorder which had arisen in the Church at Corinth. In c. 1 the former happy condition of this Church is described in the words : " ye walked after the ordinances of God, submitting yourselves to your riders (r)yov[xei>oLas5i^ with the bishop, and it even became a question, in the second century and later, whether deacons or presbyters were the more considerable officers. At first, while the Eucharist and the agape were united, the deacons alone stood and ministered, while all the disciples sat at the table with the bishop and the presbyters who presided with him. The subsequent development which separated the people from the Holy Table, at which the bishop and presbyters alone con- tinued to sit, could not fail to enhance the dignity of the deacons ; for though they continued to stand as before, they nevertheless were reckoned among those that enjoyed a place of privilege at the altar, — the clergy as they were later called. The service which the deacons rendered at the Eu- charistic feast is one which must have been needed from the beginning, just as a president of the feast was required in the very nature of the case. But the office of deacon appears to have originated contempo- raneously with the episcopate. The deacons are first mentioned in Phil. 1 : 1, which is also the earliest passage that refers to bishops. The bishops, who are mentioned first, are evidently the superior officers. The diaconate is an adjunct of the episcopate. Hence in the Epistle of Clement, where the appointment of both bishops and deacons is spoken of (c. 42), we hear 2 Hence the warm tone in which Ignatius speaks of his a-vvhovkoi (e. g. in Ephes. 2, Magn. 2) and iyioi yXvKvraToi (Magn. 6). — For the various offices which the deacons performed as the bishop's helpers both in the assembly and without it, see Sohm, p. 127, note 25. 374 THE EUCHARISTIC ASSEMBLY [IV only of " a strife over the episcopate " (c. 44), not of a strife over the diaconate. And hence, too, the deacon is sometimes ignored in speaking of apj)ointment to Church offices.* But in general bishops and deacons are mentioned together. In the Didache (xv.) deacons as well as bishops are said to " perform the service of the prophets and teachers" {i. e. the administration of the Eucharist and the Church property), and to de- serve the same " honor " in the Church as these charis- matic officers. From this it appears that the deacons were not chosen from among the gifted teachers, but were, like the bishops, appointed as substitutes for them.^ The fact that the deacons shared to a lars-e extent the functions which the bishop exercised, explains the 4 Acts 14 : 23 ; Titus 1 : 5, 7. s Sohm remarks that this fact confutes the widely current notion which sees the pattern and origin of the diaconate in the Seven who were appointed in the early days of the Church at Jerusalem to "serve tables " (Acts 6 : 1 sqq.). For the Seven were men who were distinguished for the apostolic teaching gift — " full of faith and of the Holy Ghost," — whereas the deacons were substitutes for the gifted teachers. Furthermore, nothing is said in the Acts of any subordination of the Seven to the apostles in the matter of administering the gifts, whereas the deacons appear from first to last as mere helpers of the bishops. The first ex- press notice we have of this interpretation is in Cyprian (ep. 168) and the Canons of Hippolytus (v. § 39) ; but it is implied in the practice of the Roman Church, which from the third century onward persisted in limiting the number of deacons to seven. According to Harnack, Texte II. .5, p. 92, note 70, p. 97, note 88, the subdiaconate was established at Rome in the third or fourth decade of the third century, which proves that the interpretation which regarded the Seven as the original deacons, flourished, in Rome at least, before the end of the second century. Ap- parently this theory of the Seven hangs together with the theory of the apostolical succession of the bishops. If the Roman bishop were the successor of the apostles (Peter and Paul), the Roman deacons, too, must be successors of the Seven who were appointed by the apostles as their helpers. Thus the Roman Church reflected precisely the apostolic order of government ! Sohm remarks that we have no notice of a similar Roman theory of the presbyterate. §22] DEACONS 375 requisition of substantially the same qualifications in both.^ Both are engaged in the administration of the Eucharist and of the Church property/ Yet the deacons do not share in all the bishop's func- tions — e. g. that of presidency, — and even where the functions are the same the bishop and the deacons stand in different relations to them. Hence the qualifi- cations of the two are not in all points the same. The bishop was a superior officer, he it was who represented the Church in dealings with those that are without ; and ^ The Epistle of Clement sums up the qualifications of both bishops and deacons in the general requisition that they be " approved " men ; and so too the Didache demands of both alike that they be " worthy of the Lord, gentle, not lovers of money, true and approved." Cf. p. 342, note 13. The other sources mention the qualifications of the deacons separately, yet substantially in the same terms. The third century source of Apost. Const. III. c. 15 states expressly that the deacons shall be like the bishops, "only more sturdy," — as those that have to be the medium of the bishop in much of his intercourse with the members of his congregation. "• 1 Tim. 3 : 8, 12, " Deacons in like manner must be grave, not double- tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre. Let deacons be husbands of one wife, niling their children and their houses well." Polycarp, ad Phil. 5, substantially repeats these requirements (except the last), adding that the deacon must be "temperate in all things, compassionate, diligent." Source A of Apost. Church Order, c. 4, " They shall be approved in every service, well reputed in the congrega- tion, living with one wife, taking care of their children, prudent, gentle, quiet, not murraurers, not double-tongued, not inclined to anger, not accepting the persons of the rich, nor oppressing the poor, not using much wine, active, encouraging ably to the hidden works, in that they oblige the well-to-do among the brethren to open their hands, themselves also liberal, sympathetic, honored by the people of the congregation with all honor and reverence and fear, giving diligent heed to them that behave unruly, admonishing some, exhorting others, etc." Source B of Apost. Church Order, c. 6, " Deacons, workers of good works, watching everywhere day and night, neither despising the poor nor accepting the person of the rich, shall know the afflicted and not exclude them from a share in the Church collections, but they shall oblige the people of means to lay up treasure unto good works, having in mind the words of our Teacher : ' Thou sawest me an hungered and fed me not. ' " 376 THE EUCHARISTIC ASSEMBLY [IV by his conduct the Church itself was likely to be judged. The same was not true of the deacon.^ The high office of bishop can easily lead to pride, and hence no novice must be appointed : whereas in the case of the deacon no such precept is given,^ because no such danger attached to their office. The bishop must have a certain capacity for teaching and exhortation,^'^ but no such requirement is made of the deacon. The character of the service which the deacon rendered (in the earlier time especially) seems to demand that he be chosen from the younger members of the Church, while the bishop was chosen from among the " elders," the honorables and natural leaders of the community." It is expressly provided, however, that the deacon who approves himself in his position may hope to attain later the higher rank of bishop.^ 12 8 The bishop " must have good testimony from them that are without " (1 Tim. 3:7); he must have " a good reputation among the heathen " (Source A of Apost. Ch. O.); whereas it is required of the deacon merely that he be " well reputed by the people of the congregation " — irapa tov irkTjdovs. 9 1 Tim. 3 : 6 sqq. 10 1 Tim. 3:2; Titus 1 : 9. ■ 11 While Source A of the Apost. Ch. Order desires that the bishop be either unmarried or "a widower of one wife," it is required of deacons that they be /ioi/dya/noi. Apparently the bishop is regarded as the elder of the two — likely already widowed ; while the deacon is supposed to be living still in the married state. In 1 Tim. 3 : 2, 12 it is required of the bishop and deacon alike that they be "the husband of one wife"; but only of the bishop is it said that he must be "no neophyte." The passage cited above in note 6 from the Apost. Const, requires that the deacon shall be like the bishop, " only more sturdy." 1- This notice, so highly significant for the nature of the diaconate, is found in 1 Tim. 3 : 13, " For they that have served well as deacons gain for themselves a good degree" (^adiiov), and in Source B of the Apost. Ch. Order, c. 6, "For they that have served well and blamelessly as deacons gain for themselves the pastoral place" (tottov t6v iroifieviKov) . On this see Harnack, Texte II. 5, p. 26, note 15; and Holtzmann, Pastoral- briefe, pp. 240, 323. § 22] DEACONS 377 Sohm calls attention to a fact of singular importance which has lately been recognized by several German scholars, viz. that the deacon had to pass through a loeriod of probation}^ It is not possible to think of such a requirement in the case of the bishop, — any more than in the case of apostles, prophets, and teachers. The bishop must be an " approved " man, and the prophet an " approved " prophet ; ^^ but the proving that is here contemplated consists merely in an opinion passed upon the previous character of the man and his actual attainments, — an opinion which is established by the divine testimony, through prophecy. The deacon, too, is called through prophecy.^^ His standing also is determined by the proof of his antecedent character and conduct. But for him a further proof is required ^3 This is indicated in 1 Tim. 3:10, — koI avroi Se (the deacons, — the 8e expresses the contrast with the bishops, to whom the same rule is not applied) SoKifia^ecrdcocrav TrpaiTov, flra SiaKoveiTaxrav dveyKXrjTot, ovrei- Cf. Holtzmann, Pastoralhriefe. p. 240. A period of probation is clearly ex- pressed in the nparov, elra. In Source A of the Apost. Ch. Order, c. 4, it is said of the deacons : ea-Tuxrav SeBoKifiaa-fievoi nudT] 8iaKovla, — i. e. it is expressly required that before their final appointment they must have been active in every sort of ministry belonging to the diaconate. So here likewise a probation is prescribed. 1* Cf. above, p. 342, note 13. Didache, xi. 11, tto? 8e Trpo(j)r]Tr]s 8e8oKi- p.a(Tp,'evos- In the appointment of the bishop, too, a dokimasia is neces- sary (Source A of Apost. Ch. Order, c. 1, BoKifiaa-^ doKifidaravres top a^iov ovra), but not in the form of a probation. 15 1 Clem. 42 : the apostles appointed bishops and deacons, SoKt/xa- a-avTts Tw rrvevfiaTi. Clemens Alex. Quis dives salvetur, c. 42 : (the Apostle John) " here appointing bishops, and there organizing whole Churches, and in another place electing to the clerus one and another of those who were indicated by the Spirit." These last must be presbyters and deacons, since the bishops have been already mentioned. We must assume that in this case as usual the appointment through prophecy required the assent of the congregation as a witness to its genuineness (cf. 1 Clem. 44 : 3, avvfvtoKrjadarrjs rrji eKKXrjaias ndayjs; and Source A of Apost. Ch. Order, c. 4, pey.apTvpT]fxfvoi. irapd tov irKrfdovs). For this reason the people continued as late as the third century to participate even in the con- ferring of minor orders, — cf. note 16. 378 THE EUCHARISTIC ASSEMBLY [IV during a period of probation. ^*^ His appointment de- notes that he is put on trial, and only when he has ap- proved himself in the exercise of his diaconate does he earn fully the office and honor of a deacon. This implies that the deacon is regarded as a person in the process of development. The bishop is a mature man (" elder " ), already long approved, the deacon is still immature (one of the " younger " ), who needs to be further tested, and who just for that reason is called to a position of sub- ordinate service. It implies further that the diaconate is not regarded merely as a service, but at the same time as a school for persons who are in the process of development. In rendering his subordinate service, the deacon has at the same time an opportunity to exercise and cultivate his own spiritual charisma, and with ripened gifts he may himself become fitted for the epis- copate. In a word, the ordines minores of the future are adumbrated in the diaconate. This is true as well of the form of induction (through probation), as of the nature of the office : the diaconate is a call to purely subordinate and ministerial functions, and yet to func- ^^ In point of time the probation followed the prophecy and appoint- ment. This is showed plainly at a later period by the relation of the congregational resolution (the accompaniment of prophecy) to the action of the bishop in conferring minor orders. He who is nominated to the office of lector or subdeacon (appointment to the subdiaconate was doubtless modelled after that to the diaconate) had to pass through a probation, — cf. Source A of Apost. Ch. Order, c. 4; and Cypr. ep. 39. The resolution, however, which expressed the assent of the clergy and congregation was required at the time of entrance upon this probation. The conclusive appointment after probation required merely the assent of the clergy, not again that of the congregation, — Cypr. epp. 29, 38, 39, 40. O. Ritschl, Cyprian, pp. 169-172. The position of the congrega- tional resolution shows what was originally the place of the prophecy (with assent of the people) ; and so the first i-esolution of the bishop and clergy (with assent of the congregation) was the appointment proper. The appointment to one of the minor ordei's was an appointment with subsequent trial by probation. § 22] DEACONS 379 tions which are regarded at the same time as a prepara- iion for the independent administration of the teaching office — the priesthood. K. The Minor Orders. Sohm gives his theory of the ordines minores as an " Anhang " (pp. 128-137) to the section on Deacons. This is a subject which has been discussed at considerable length by Harnack (Tcxte, II. 5, pp. 57-103) as a supplement to his investigation of Die Quellen der sogennaii- ten apostolischen Kirchenordnuiig. This whole work has been rendered into English under the misleading title Sources of The Ajjostolic Canons (London, 1895), and with a bulky and superflu- ous Introduction by the translator. Sohm agrees with many of Harnack's conclusions. Like him, he attributes the institution of the minor orders to the beginning of the third century, and refers it to Eome, which he considers the center from which the whole Catholic organization was developed. He rec- ognizes, too, the justice of Harnack's contention that the minor orders were not all of them a mere development of the diacon- ate, as the prevalent view had maintained. For Harnack has made it clear that the offices of lector and exorcist were early offices in the Church, founded each upon a particular and personal charisma. But they were originally lay offices, and the development of the third century consisted merely in ranking the lector and exorcist, together with the door-keeper {osfiarius), among the clergy. Sohm emphatically disagrees, however, with Harnack's view of the minor orders as an imitation of the heathen temple and altar ministrants, — a view which finds its chief support in the position of the acolytes and door-keepers. He affirms that the fundamental thought which determined the develop- ment of the minor orders was entirely different from that which Harnack assumes. It was not because they ministered to a sacred person (the priest) or about a sacred place (the Church building) that a sacred character was ascribed to them ; but rather because, for all, even the subordinate ministrations at the Eucharist, only spiritually apt persons were chosen, — per- sons, consequently, who might be expected to rise to the higher 380 THE EUCHARISTIC ASSEMBLY [IV orders, as the subordinate ministrants of the heathen cults never did. The fundamental idea which determined the devel- opment of the minor orders, says Sohm, was the early Christian principle that the " sacrifice " of the Church, the Eucharist, must he "pure" {Didache, xiv. 1, 3). From this it was deduced that all who take part in the administration of the Eucharist must be pure, " worthy of the Lord." The princi- ple was applied at first only to the bishops, presbyters and deacons ; but it was finally applied, as the importance of the Eucharist increased under the influence of the Catholic idea of sacrifice (about the end of the second century), to all the ministers that had any, though a less immediate relation to the Eucharist (subdeacons, acolytes, exorcists, lectors, and door- keepers). The idea was that all of these functions, which were more or less closely related to the Eucharist, ought not to be performed except by persons that were formally appointed by the bishop, after their moral fitness had been passed upon by the congregation. For the origin and history of the lectorate I may refer to Har- nack's valuable study. For the development of the minor orders in general I refer to Sohm's work, giving here only a brief abstract of his theory, such as will serve to show what one may expect to find by turning to his book. There is general agreement as to the fact that the subdiacon- ate was first introduced at Eome, for it was there alone, apparently, that the symbolical limitation of the number of dea- cons was regarded as a necessity. It seems that in Eome the subdeacons too were limited to seven, merely because they bore a similar name. Harnack himself (pp. 102, 103) estab- lishes the grounds upon which Sohm builds his theory. He calls attention to the notice in the Catalogus Liherianus : Hie (Fabianus) divisit regiones diaconibus. That is, the Roman bishop Fabian, shortly after the year 236, distributed among the deacons the 14 regions into which Augustus had divided the city. Harnack thinks it unlikely that Fabian, in thus adapt- ing the ecclesiastical administration to the civil, should assign two regions to each of the seven deacons. It is certainly plau- sible to suppose that, as the number of deacons could not be § 22] DEACONS 381 increased, seven subdeacons were appointed expressly to fill up the number fourteen, so that a single region might be allotted to each. This is confirmed by the Liber Pontificalis, which adds to the notice of the Catal. Liber. : et fecit septem subdia- conos. A more unimpeachable witness is the letter of the Roman bishop Cornelius, addressed in the year 250 to Fabius of Anti- och (Euseb. H. E. VI. 43:11), which gives the number of Roman deacons and subdeacons respectively as seven. Corne- lius also gives the number of presbyters as 44, the number of acolytes as 42, while the exorcists and lectors with door- keepers numbered 52. In the further notice that the number of widows with sick and needy persons that were supported by the Church exceeded 1500, we have a hint of the extent of the diaconal labor of ministering to the poor. Harnack him- self remarks that the number of acolytes (42) is exactly divisi- ble by 14, giving three for each region, and he acknowledges that at a later date there were undoubtedly acolytes appropriated to the several regions. But the obvious consequence of these facts he refuses to admit, considering the name itself a sufii- cient obstacle to the view which regards the acolyte as merely a subordinate sort of deacon. Sohm on the contrary finds the name anything but unfavor- able to this view. The subdiaconate originated at Rome because seven deacons were not sufficient for the whole diaconal work of the city. But the subdeacons were likewise limited to seven by the same symbolical consideration, and we may well imagine that 14 deacons and subdeacons were still insuffi- cient. If other deaconal officers were needed, it is obvious why they should be given a neutral name (" follower ") which would not suggest any limitation of the number. The subdeacon was received in the East, but not the acolyte. The reason is obvious. In the East there was no limitation of the num- ber of subdeacons; the symbolical consideration was not regarded, and consequently these officers might be increased as convenience prompted. The acolyte was essentially the same as the subdeacon, viz. a subordinate sort of deacon. The office was established at Rome as a way out of the practical em- barrassment occasioned by the symbolical limitation of the sub- 382 THE EUCHARISTIC ASSEMBLY [IV diaconate : where no such limitation existed the office was superfluous. Sohm notes moreover that even in the West, and in Rome itself, subdeacon and acolyte were regarded, in the year 400 and later, as officers of the same sort. Pope Zosimus required that he who entered the ecclesiastical career in mature years should serve five years as lector or exorcist, then four years as acolyte or subdeacon.^"' The service of acolyte is equivalent to that of subdeacon. The offices of acolyte and subdeacon are distinct, but originally they signified one and the same grade in the ministry of the Church, one and the same ordo. This explains why it is that the acolyte comes immediately after the sub- deacon and before the exorcist, etc. Sohm shows further, from the texts which have just been cited, that at Rome, as late as the fifth century, the offices of exorcist, lector, and door-keeper constituted a single grade or order. ^^ Evidently for the reason that these offices, distinct as ^" Zosimus, ep. 9 ad Hesychium, c. 5 (a. d. 418) : major jam et gran- daevus . . . sive iuter lectores sive inter exorcistas quinquennio teneatur : ^ exinde acoluthus vel subdiaconus quatuor annis ; et sic ad beuedictionem diaconatus . . . accedat. Exinde . . . presbyterii sacerdotium poterit promereri. De quo loco . . . summum pontificatum sperare debebit. The letter of Zosimus is founded on the decretal of Siricius of the year 385 (cc. 13, 14). Here we read (c. 13) that after one has served as lector or exorcist acoluthus et subdiaconus esse debebit. These words too are to be understood as permitting an alternative, as the epistle of Zosimus puts beyond a doubt. He shall be " acolyte and subdeacon." The one is equal to the other. Hence too in the decretal of Siricius, c. 14, a single term is prescribed for the service of acolyte and sub- deacon : per quinquennium aliud acolythus et subdiaconus fiat, et sic ad diaconium . . . pi'ovehatur. It suffices if for five years he has served as acolyte, he has thereby performed a subdiaconal ministry. 18 Cf. the epistle of Cornelius which classes lectors, exorcists, and door-keepers together. More especially, Siricius, ep. 1 ad Himerium, c. 13 (a. d. 385) : Quicumque itaque se ecclesiae vovit obsequiis a sua infantia, ante pubertatis annos baptizari et lectorum debet ministerio sociari. Qui accessu adolescentiae usque ad tricesinium aetatis annum, si probabiliter vixerit . . . acolythus et subdiaconus esse debebit; post- que ad diaconii gradum . . . accedat. Unde si ultra quinque annos laudabiliter ministrarit, congrue presbyterium consequatur. Exinde post decennium episcopalem cathedrara poterit adipisci, c. 14 : Qui vero jam aetate gradaevus ... ex laico ad sacram militiam pervenire festinat, § 23] PRESBYTERS 383 they were in themselves, were all alike lay offices, whereas the offices of acolyte and subdeacon, as an extension of the diaconate, were essentially clerical offices. The ecclesiastical career did not necessarily, nor even as a rule begin with the office of ostiariiis. Tliis grade was passed by serving either as lector or exorcist, advancing thence to the office of acolyte or subdeacon. Consequently there were not, as has hitherto been supposed, five ordines minores established at Rome in the third century, but only two, — two grades, that is, of subordinate clergy. Sub- deacons and acolytes composed the higher of these two orders ; exorcists, lectors, and door-keepers, the lower. It is commonly regarded as a point of difference between the East- ern Church and the Western, that the former has ever had but two orders of minor clergy, the subdiaconate and the lectorate. We see, however, from the above that the earlier Roman arrange- ment agreed substantially with that of the Eastern Church. In Rome, too, only two lower grades of clerical service had to be passed to reach the diaconate, — beginning usually with the lec- torate, and serving then in the capacity of subdeacon (or acolyte). Only, in the East the office of singer was treated as equivalent to the lectorate, while the offices of exorcist and door-keeper were so reckoned in the West ; and, further, the office of acolyte, as the equivalent of the subdiaconate, was lacking in the East. § 23, PRESBYTERS 1 Incidentally it has already been necessary to con- sider, upon several occasions, and at considerable length, the nature and position of the elders in the primitive Church. In § 21, pp. 346-365, the essential character of this class of elder disciples was discussed, . . . eo quo baptizatur tempore statim lectorum aut exorcistarum numero societur, . . . expleto biennio per quinquennium aliud acolythus et sub- diaconus fiat. 1 This section is in the main an abbreviation of the corresponding sections of Sohm's work, §§ 11 and 12, pp. 137-156. 384 THE EUCHARISTIC ASSEMBLY [IV together with the informal functions of presidency and instruction which they performed. The j»7/«ce of the elders in the Eucharistic assembly, which gradually led to their formal instalment as officers, has been described in §19, pp. 276, 277, 286, 290-297. Of what has already been said the sum is this : The elders or presbyters — that is, the disciples of long standing, ripe Christian experience, and confirmed character ^ — were naturally accorded a special honor and influence in the community, and formed from the beginning a vaguely defined class, the most osten- sible mark of which was the fact that they enjoyed seats of honor at the Eucharistic table together with the president — apostle, prophet, or bishop, as the case might be. The dignity of the presbyter was increased, and his position more formally defined, when the number of disciples at the principal assembly rendered it impossible for all to sit at the Eucharistic table. While the older custom was still fresh in the memory, and still practised in the smaller assemblies, it would have been a manifest ineptitude had the president (bishop) sat at the table alone. Tlie bishop represented the Lord, who sat with his disciples (the Apostles) at the table. Consequently, with the bishop the disciples must ever continue to sit — not all of them, for that was become impossible, but at least the presbyters, who constituted as it were the kernel of the congre- gation.^ The only other persons that had a place 2 Besides the passages from Ignatius quoted above on pp. 290, 291, 294, 295, we have various indications of the position of the presbyters in the Eucharistic assembly. Rev. 4:4, — the elders that appear in the heavenly assembly of worship have seats that are arranged circularly {KVK\66ev) about the throne of God. This is evidently a transcript of the arrangement of the earthly assembly. The third century source of Aposl. Const. 11. c. 26 : " Let the bishop have the first seat among you in § 23] PRESBYTERS 385 in the immediate vicinity of the altar were the dea- cons ; and they, as accorded with the original character of their function, continued to stand. From the position and functions of the bishop, presbyters, and deacons at the Eucharist grew up the notion of the clergy. Out of the order of the Eucha- ristic assembly the whole order and organization of the Church was developed. In all assemblies of Christen- dom — e. g. at a later time in synods and councils — the bishops and presbyters sat and the deacons stood. Bishops and deacons have been already considered : it remains to be shown that the functions of the presbyters, too, were almost exclusively defined by their position in the Eucharistic assembly. Being by nature the bishop's peers, the class from which he himself was chosen, their regular presence with the bishop at the altar as his assessors, constituted them God's place, and let the deacons stand by him." 1 Clem, ad Cor. 40: " For unto the high-priest his proper services have been assigned, and to the priests their pi'oper jilace is appointed, and upon the levites their proper ministrations are laid." The Eucharistic celebration is here treated as a parallel to the Old Testament temple-service. The 'Keirovpyia (administration of worship) is ascribed to the high-priest (/. e. the bishop), the 8iaKovia (ministry at the Eucharist) to the levites (deacons), and the appropriate place of honor (XSios 6 tottos) to the priests (presby- ters). Hermas (Vis. III. 1 : 8, 9) desires that the presbyters shall have the place of honor next the " Ecclesia " ; but he is instructed that on the right of the Ecclesia the martyrs shall sit, and on the left, Hermas him- self, the prophet. It is clear from this that the rule which actually pre- vailed ascribed to the presbyters the seats of honor on the right and left of the bishop. Hence in Vis. III. 9 : 7 the presbyters are called the tTpu)TOKa6fbp'irai. So, too, by Ignatius they are called TrpoKadripfvot. (Magn. 6). Source A of the Apost. Church Oi-der distinguishes expressly between the presbyters " on the right " and " on the left " of the bishop at the altar. The seat on the right is here, as evidently it is for Hermas, the seat of higher honor. For the distinction between the presbyters "on the right" and "on the left," see lib. I. § 19, p. 25 of Rahmanus' ed. of Testamentum Domini nostri Jesu Christi, INIoguntiae, 1899. Later refer- ences to the position of the presbyters are exceedingly numerous. 25 386 THE EUCHARTSTIC ASSEMBLY [IV his natural body of adviseus — his council. As the bishop's assessors, they took part with him in receiving and superintending the gifts of the people; and they were active with him in maintaining order in the assembly, and in disposing of the cases of discipline which this might involve. Being naturally the leading members of the community, and representing the whole congregation at the altar, their decision or assent was assumed to express the decision or assent of the con- gregation in respect to the many matters which, when the Church was grown large, could not conveniently be referred to the popular vote. In this capacity — as the representative kernel of the congregation — they had even power over the bishop : it was they that appointed him, and, having appointed him, not only aided and advised him, but responsibly superintended his acts. We may note in passing why it was, that, as popular participation in the government of Church affairs lapsed into desuetude, no system of lay representation, such as is so marked a feature of our modern ecclesi- astical governments, was developed to take the place of the popular voice, and register the assent of the congregation. The presbyters were the representatives of the people, — not by formal deputation, but by the more secure warrant of natural leadership. They were the leaders of the community, whose judgment the people might reasonably be expected to follow, — whose decision, therefore, might be assumed to be the decision of the people. They were no less duly repre- sentative of the people because they finally gained a place among the clergy. For the clergy were not thought of as a separate estate within the Church, with interests and aims dissimilar or contrary to those § 23] PRESBYTERS 387 of the people; and least of all could the presbyters be supposed to be alienated from the common life, since throughout the second century they were still generally dependent upon the ordinary avocations of the lay world for their material support. The position of the presbyters became defined and formalized by the privilege they enjoyed of occupying the seats of honor at the Eucharist. Their position became an office, and their name an official designation which was henceforth ordinarily applied only to those that were formally recognized as admissible to such seats. This implied formal appointment to office, which was effected, like appointment to the episcopate and diaconate, through election and the laying on of hands. Originally an appointed presbyter was ipso facto a bishop. But the development here in question was subsequent to the establishment of the monarchical episcopate, that is to say, it occurred during the first half of the second century : henceforth there was only one bishop even in the largest communities, and ap- pointment to the presbyterate — i. e. to the honor of the chief seats beside the bishop — could not be confounded with appointment to the episcopate. But even ordination to the presbyterate did not at first confer upon the presbyters an inalienable right to the seats of honor at the Eucharist, nor was ordina- tion an indispensable condition of this honor. These two facts are very closely related. It was not the or- dained presbyters alone that might claim the chief seats at the Eucharist; the same distinction might be claimed by other honorables — especially the martyrs (or confessors) — whose leading position in the com- munity was clearly enough defined without ordination. 388 THE EUCHARISTIC ASSEMBLY [IV The result was that even the ordained presbyters had in certain circumstances to give place to other dis- tinguished members of the congregation. It was first at Rome, as Sohm thinks, that the presbyters were clothed with legal privileges, and so acquired an exclusive right to the seat of honor at the Eucharist. At all events, it is evident that the development was a gradual one, and it is natural to suppose that it was first accomplished in the greater centers of Church life, where many were ambitious of the chief seats, and where the independent parochial functions of the presbyters were first called into exercise. L. I gather together here the detailed proof of the proposi- tions briefly enunciated in the last two paragraphs. The earliest evidence of ordination (appointment) to the pres- byterate we find in Ignatius and Hermas. It is enough for the present purpose that both authorities belong to the first half of the second century, — the epistles of Ignatius, however, may confidently be referred to the years 110-117, and the writings of Hermas belong probably to the year 140 circa. Ignatius, Philad. inscr., " with the bishop and the presbyters . . . and the deacons, appointed according to the mind of Jesus Christ, whom after his own will he confirmed and established by his Holy Spirit." The testimony of Hermas is not so direct, and it has to be gathered from scattered hints, but on the whole it is exceedingly significant of the gradual development of the official notion of the presbytery. In Vis. III. 1 : 8, 9, Hermas has a revelation that the prophets and martyrs have in principle as good a right to the chief seats on either side of the bishop as have the presbyters, — this is substantially the meaning of his symbolical vision. It is evident that the pres- byters were already formally appointed, and legally — at Eome, it may be, exclusively — in possession of the chief seats. But Hermas seems to be writing at a time when the development was only just accomplished. The older order was not yet for- gotten, and some (including the prophet Hermas) were unwilling § 23] PRESBYTERS 389 to acquiesce in the exclusive rights of the presbyters to the seats of honor at the Eucharist. Cf. the dissension between the " leaders " (e. g. prophets) and the occupants of the chief seats (the presbyters) in Vis. III. 9:7; and the strife Trepl Trpcoreicov in Sim. VIII. 7 : 4. Here is a change indeed from the early order ! Originally the prophets and teachers were the born leaders of the Church : now they aspire after no higher honor than to sit among the presbyters " on the left hand " of the bishop, — and even this is not conceded them except in a vision. The right of the ordained presbyters was by this time unquestioned in the Eoman Church, the only question that remained was, whether other notables might sit with them. It appears as though Hermas were consoling himself in a vision for what was practically denied him in real life. When told to " sit down here," he ob- jected that this was rather the right of the presbyters. The command being repeated, he essays to sit upon the right side, but is admonished that the seats upon the right are " for those who have already proved pleasing to God and have suffered for his name." But even the martp-s, we may suppose, were by this time (in Eome) hardly suffered to occupy the presbyters' seats except in a vision. The wisest part was to reconcile one- self to the existing state of affairs. So, in Mcind. XL 12, Hermas counts it a sign of a false prophet to desire an eminent seat. The true prophet (Maud. XI. 8) " is meek and peaceable and lowly in mind, and separate from all evil and lust of this vain world, and makes himself more lowly than all men." The same honor which Hermas desired for the martyrs and prophets was by Clement of Alexandria QStrom. VI. 13 : 106) desired — and as certainly not obtained — for the " gnostic " : the gnostic is the true presbyter and deacon of the Church, " not ordained by men," but meriting none the less a seat of eminence. Clement here assumes the ordination of the presbyters, and implies that ordination was actually an indispensable condition of the enjoy- ment of the chief seats " on earth." Ordination to the presby- terate is assumed likewise by Tertullian (^circa 200), in a passage which will be considered below. And about the same time by Hippolytus (^Philosoph. IX. 12), whose witness applies especially 390 THE EUCHARISTIC ASSEMBLY [IV to Eome : " with Callistus they began to wppoint to the clerical order {KaOiaraadai, ek KX^povi) bishops and presbyters and deacons who were twice and thrice married." In the middle of the third century we have the same testimony in the letter of Cornelius (Euseb. H. E. VI. 43) : " through the favor of the bishop who ordained him (laid hands upon him) to the order of the presbyterate." But the rights of the presbyters were not every where inter- preted so exclusively as they were at Eome before the middle of the second century (according to Hermas), or at Alexandria about the end of that century (according to Clement). During the last quarter of the second century the martyrs of Lyons called the presbyter Irenaeus their " brother and partner " (kolvcdvov Euseb. H. KY.4:), — a phrase which it is not easy to understand, unless the martyrs in Gaul shared the chief seats with the pres- byters. The Canons of Hippolytus {circa 200) actually pre- scribe it as a rule, that a martyr (one who has testified to his faith before a tribunal, and suffered punishment) merits the presbyterial rank without ordination, vi. § 43 : Quando quis dignus est, qui stet coram tribunali propter fidem et afiiciatur poena propter Christum, postea autem indulgentia liber dimittitur, talis postea meretur gradum preshytericdein coram deo, non secimdum ordinationem quae fit ab episcopo (God gives him his position, he needs not the bishop's ordination), immo confessio est ordinatio ejus. Quod si vero episcopus fit, ordinetur. He needs ordination if he would be a bishop : the rank of presbyter ought to be conceded him without ordination. The " rank of presbyter " can only mean the presbyter's seat of honor at the Eucharist, for the martyr as such has, of course, no ofiice. The same rule is repeated in the Egyptian Church Order., c. 34 (see Achelis, pp. 67, 68, in Tcxtc u. Untersuch. VI. 4). Both these " orders " add that a confessor who has suffered no pains " is worthy of the presbyterate, but he is to be ordained by the bishop." Evidently, at the time of the redaction of the Can. Hipp, in the East there was a tendency to greater circumspec- tion in admitting to the honor of the presbyterate without ordi- nation. According to the parallel in the Apost. Const. VIII. c. 23, the confessor is indeed " worthy of gi'eat honor," " but if he is § 23] PRESBYTERS 391 needed in the episcopate or the presbyterate or the diaconate he is to be ordained." If a confessor takes this honor with- out ordination, he is to be thrust out, as one who has denied Christ. TertuUian, de praescr. haeret. c. 41 {circa 203) : Ordinationes eorum (the heretics) temeriae, leves, inconstantes . . . hodie presbyter qui eras laicus, nam et laicis sacerdotalia munera injungunt. This important passage throws light upon several points which are here of interest. (1) It proves that in Africa (and Kome) about the year 200, not only were the presbyters ordained, but their ordination was recognized by the Catholics as conferring a permanent right to their office, — we may add, when we consider the implications of the passage, that it conferred an exclusive right to the seats of honor at the Eucharist. (2) It proves that the heretics like- wise ordained their presbyters, and therefore the custom of ordaining to the presbyterate must have been commonly adopted before the greater Gnostic organizations separated from the Church. (3) But the heretics still adhered to the earlier customs : ordination gave the presbyter no right to his seat of honor. "He who to-day is presbyter, to-morrow is a layman." If to-day he sits at the altar, to-morrow he may find himself obliged to sit with the people. Here it is clear that to appear in the role of a presbyter is equivalent to occupying the seat of honor in the assembly — only thus is it possible to conceive of an ordained presbyter in the Church being now " presbyter " and now " layman," The passage adds : " for upon the laity too they impose priestly functions." Here we have the reason for the foregoing. Even a layman {i. e. one who is not ordained) whom the congregation wishes to honor — a martyr, a prophet, or the like — may sit with the bishop at the Eucharistic table, and for him a presbyter may have to yield his place. Originally the presbyterate did not denote an office in any proper sense, but only a position of honor in the assembly. The bishop had a Xeirovpyia, the conduct of the Eucharist ; the deacon a hiaKovia in the technical 392 THE EUCHARISTIC ASSEMBLY [IV sense, the function of service at the Eucharist ; the pres- byter merely a totto^;, a place of honor, as assessor with the bishop at the Eucharist.^ The individual presbyter had no definite functions, he appears simply as a mem- ber of the presbytery.'* It must be supposed that the development of the monarchical episcopate devolved upon the presbyters of the great cities many of the original functions of the bishop. Only thus can we conceive of the regular maintenance of several as- semblies within the one local Church (episcopal see). But it appears clearly that in many places, perhaps throughout the greater part of the Church, even the ordained presbyters, as late as the third century, were not yet regarded as Church officers in the proper sense, and exercised no distinctive ministry.^ Only so is it 3 Cf. above, note 2. * Hence in Ignatius we have no mention of individual presbyters, but only of the presbytery, — Ephes. 2:2; 4:1; 20 : 2 ; iMagn. 13 : 1 ; Trail. 2:2; 7:2; 13:2; Philad. 4; 7:1; Smyrn. 8:1; 12:2. 5 Source B of the Apost. Church Order (latter half of the second century) recognizes, like Ignatius, only two sorts of officers in the Church, bishops and deacons ; and it proposes to the faithful deacon the prospect of becoming — not presbyter, but — bishop (§ G): "for they that have well performed the diaconal ministry may gain for themselves the pastoral place," Harnack, Texte, 11. 5, p. 26. The same relation ap- pears even more clearly, if possible, in the Syrian Didaskalia (the third century source of Apost. Const. II.). Here again we have but two offices, the episcopate and the diaconate. The bishop administers Church affairs with the aid of the deacons : cf. Source of Apost. Const. II. 10, " the bishop and the deacons . . . and the flock " ; c. 17, discipline is administered by " the bishop with his deacons " ; " being of one mind among yourselves, O bishops and deacons, watchfully shepherd the people in harmony"; — for other citations see Sohm, p. 143, note 14. While in this source the bishops and deacons are mentioned with very great frequency, the presbyters are rarely referred to. They are the council of the bishop and the crown of the Church, they can administer baptism in the bishop's place (Didaskalia, III. 16), but they have no definite ministry. Hence the decisive fact that according to this source the presbyters were not ordinarily entitled to a share of the Church offer- ings : Didaskalia, II. 28, the widow receives a single, the (bishop and) § 23] PRESBYTERS 393 possible to understand how, until the third century, the martyrs were ranked as presbyters. The martyr as such had of course no office. But the very fact that the presbyters, and they alone, sat with the bishop at the altar, must soon, and perhaps from the beginning, have put them in the way of performing certain practical functions. The most illuminating evidence we have of the char- acter of the presbyter's functions is a document of the latter part of the second century which Harnack calls Source A of the Apostolic Church Order, discrim- inating it from the later constituents of this third cen- tury work.^ The section relative to the presbyters deacon a double portion, " but if any one wish to honor the presbyters also, let him give to them a double portion as to the deacons." The presbyters thus received a share of the gifts only at the express desire of the giver. The rule of the Pastoral Epistles (cf. above, p. 354, note 19), that "the well-presiding elders" should have a double share of the offer- ings, had not every where become operative even by the middle of the third century. Why? Because the elders as such performed no official ministry in the Ecclesia. — The testimony that has been here cited proves the more instructive when one compares with it the alterations of the earlier source made by the interpolator of the Apost. Const, about the middle of the fourth century. According to Apost. Cotist. II. c. 28, the presbyters have now, like the deacons, an assured share of the gifts, as something " they earn by the word of teaching." Their offiicial functions are enumerated: HI. c. 20, "to teach, to offer, to baptize, to bless the people" (cf. VIII. cc. 28, 46). Over and over again the presbyters are introduced into the text, being enumerated in what was then the custom- ary order, between bishops and deacons (e. g. III. cc. 7, 20). This is one of the characteristic alterations made by the same interpolator (Harnack, Proleg. to Didache, pp. 244 sqq.) in the Ignatian epistles and in Book VII. of the Apostolic Constitutions, — e.g. Apost. Const. VII. cc. 22, 26, 29, 31 ; Pseudoignatius ad Tars. 8, Philad. 4, Smyrn. 9, Her. 3. — At Rome, by the middle of the third century, the presbyters already enjoyed a well established right to a share of the offerings, and occupied a definite place in the official hierarchy (Euseb. H. E. VI. 43: 11), cf. Cyprian, e/j. 39 : 5j ut et sportulis idem (two confessors that had been made lectors) cum presbyteris honoretur et divisiones mensurnas aequatis quantatibus partiantur. * Texte u. Untersuch. II. 5, pp. 10 sqq. 394 THE EUCHARISTIC ASSEMBLY [IV begins with a fanciful comparison between them and the four and twenty elders in the Apocalyptic vision, ascribing to the heavenly service certain traits which are evidently a reflection of the earthly assembly. § 2. " (There shall be two ) ' presbyters ; for four and twenty presbyters there are, twelve on the right and twelve on the left ; for they on the right receive the bowls from the archangels and offer them to the Lord, but they on the left keep watch ^ over the multitude of the angels. The presbyters must therefore be well ad- vanced in years (in the world), ^ refraining in a seemly measure from intercourse with women, readily sharing with the brotherhood, not respecting the persons of men, fellow initiates ^° of the bishop and fellow com- batants, assisting him in assembling the congregation, having a willing mind towards the pastor. The pres- byters on the right shall take care for the bishops at the altar, in order that they (the bishops) may honor and be honored " so much as may be due ; the presby- ters on the left shall take care for the congregation, that it may be orderly and without disturbance, after it has first been instructed in all subjection. If any one, having been warned, answers presumptuously, those at the altar ^^ shall unite and by common counsel adjudge "^ Very small communities (probably in Egypt) are contemplated, in some of which there are not found twelve men to elect a bishop, § 1. It appears to be intended that there shall be two presbyters at least, and that in any case there shall be an even number, so that they may be equally distributed on the right hand and on the left. 8 enexovcri, " they keep watch," — with Bickell contra Harnack. ® The phrase is redundant. ^° (ninnicrTas, a term which refers to the rites of the pagan mysteries. It here signifies the presbyters' close relation to the cultus, particularly to the Eucharist. The following phrases indicate their part in discipline. 1^ Cf. above, note I, pp. 328 sq. 12 The bishop and deacons together with all the presbyters, — as a court of appeal which cannot be accused of partiality, "respect of persons." §23] PRESBYTERS 395 to such an one the meet penalty, in order that the others also may fear, lest they should accept any man's person, and it spread like a cancer and all be seized by it." Though this source describes the functions of the presbyters in the latter part of the second century, it evidently contemplates small primitive communities which have not outgrown the single episcopal assem- bly and the simple institutions which centered in it, and there is nothing here which does not perfectly comport with the earliest forms of Church government. We have seen that the single president of the Eucharist (whether apostle or bishop) was a primitive institution ; and what functions the primitive elders performed with reference to the president we are at a loss to imagine, unless they were such as are described here.^^ But on the other hand, while we can readily believe that such institutions were maintained in the small and primitive communities of Egypt, and perhaps in all Churches that had not outgrown the single assembly, it is impossible to believe that this description reflects the contempo- rary practice in Rome, for example, or in many of the other great cities where a single assembly had long been out of the question. Alexandria, it appears, had tena- ciously adhered to the traditional custom, maintaining one principal assembly which counted as an assembly ^3 This document explains why Hermas regarded the seats at the right the place of highest honor (of. p. 388) : the administration of God's property is (next to the administration of the Eucharist) the highest honor in the Church. There must consequently have been a similar dis- tinction between the presbyters on the right and on the left in the Roman Church in the early part of the second century. In 1 Clem. 40 : 5 (note 2, above) the comparison which is instituted between the " priests " and the presbyters may be due to the fact that the latter had a part in the administration of the offerings. This apparently explains what we read in Acts 11:30, that the offerings were sent "to the presbyters" at Jerusalem. 396 THE EUCHARISTIC ASSEMBLY [IV of the whole local Church, with one bishop, of course, as its president, and a presbytery which was rigidly limited to twelve (six on each side of the bishop) after the number of the Apostles.^* But other great Churches, notably the Church at Rome, did not suffer their devel- opment to be hampered by this symbolical limitation of the presbyterate. They probably had more presbyters than were needed, or could conveniently be seated, at the bishop's Eucharist ; and the individual presbyters consequently acquired more or less independent func- tions as parochial pastors, though collectively, as a presbytery, they still had the same relation to the dis- cipline of the whole Church, and the same oversight of the bishop's administration, that we find traced to their origin by the Source we are here studying. According to Source A, the functions of the presby- ters are as plainly referable to the character of the Eucharistic celebration as are the functions of the bishop and deacons. The elders were originally an informally defined class in the community, who exercised such in- dependent functions of instruction and leadership as their personal character and capacity warranted. These functions they did not lose even after the Catholic de- velopment, and what has been said on pp. 346-365 of the primitive elders, may serve to indicate the great variety of informal services which the appointed elders of the second century were expected to exercise in the Church outside of the assembly. But it was the place of honor which the elders occupied in the Eucharistic assembly which ultimately gave them an official rank and from first to last defined the character of their official functions. In Source A we find the presby- ters at the Eucharist performing two several func- " Cf. note B, p. 23. §23] PRESBYTERS 397 tions, which are evidently the root and explanation of the whole subsequent development of the presbyterate. The presbyters on the right have the oversight of the bishop and of the episcopal administration of the gifts, seeing to it that he himself is duly " honored " by a share of the Church property, and that fair distribution is made to the other recipients of the Church's bounty. The presbyters on the left have the oversight of the congregation, and share with the bishop and the whole presbytery the decision of questions of discipline. We must suppose, as an addition to our text, that all such disciplinary decisions required the ratification of the consrreo-ation. This was at all events the rule even at O C5 a much later period in case the discipline proceeded to the length of excommunication. The features which are interpolated in the Apoca- lyptic picture of the heavenly assembly can be drawn from no other source than the current ecclesiastical practice in the earthly assemblies. The parallel which is instituted between the four and twenty elders in heaven and the earthly elders obliges us to assume that the functions attributed to the former were act- ually performed by the latter, even where the parallel is not expressly drawn in the text. Hence we must understand that " those on the right " received the " bowls " (the various offerings of the people) " from the archangels " (the deacons ?) and presented them to God (the bishop who occupied God's place). What is expressly said is, that " the presbyters on the right " take care for the bishop ^^ (especially in the matter of the ^^ The bishops are mentioned in the plural because these ordinances have in view a number of congregations. It is clear from other passages that this Source contemplates only a single bishop in each congregation, cf. Harnack, p. 13, note 21. 398 THE EUCHARISTIC ASSEMBLY [IV gifts), that he may receive due "honor" and give it. The function here ascribed to the presbyters is a double one. As the bishop's inferiors in place they are solici- tous for his dignity and careful to see that he receives a due share of the Church's offerings. But they are at the same time the honorables of the community, they occupy their place at the Eucharistic table as the repre- sentatives of the whole congregation, and as such they exercise a superintendence over the bishop's administra- tion, checking any tendency to partiality or autocracy, especially in regard to the distribution of the Church property, the most delicate office which the bishop has to discharge as God's steward. The presbyters here appear as the council of the bishop occupying a highly honorable position, but one which involves no inde- pendent executive powers. " The presbyters on the left " have oversight over the congregation, but cases of discipline which originate with them are referred to all those who have places of honor at the altar — the whole presbytery with the bishop and deacons. The bishop's presidency at the Eucharist implies the presidency in every assembly of the Church, therefore in particular in this assembly at the altar for the pur- pose of adjudging discipline. The deacons too are included in this council, according to the literal reading of the text, for they were certainly amongst " those at the altar," though their position there was formally one of service. This is put beyond a doubt by § 4 of this Source, where it is prescribed that " three deacons shall be appointed, for it is written. Upon three shall every word be established," — i. e. the deacons are to serve as witnesses in cases of spiritual discipline. The deacons, however, are the ministers of the bishop, not of the § 23] PRESBYTERS 399 presbyters, and it is to him they tender their witness. This circumstance unites with the above to prove the bishop's presidency in courts of discipline : at this time, just as a century later according to the Syrian Didas- kalia, II. c. 47, the deacons served the bishop (with their witness), and the presbyters counselled him. The bishop performs the service of the prophets and teachers in the matter of admonition and discipline. But the bishop is no prophet, and cannot speak with the prophet's authority. Hence, not only does his judg- ment need the ultimate assent of the people, but even before it is pronounced it is well for him to take coun- sel with the presbytery, so that acting upon common counsel there may be no ground for the charge of partiality or respect of persons, and all may enter- tain a wholesome dread of the bishop's judgments when they see the leading men of the congregation united with him, — lest upon any sign of weakness or dissension in the leaders, or upon the mere sus- picion of unfairness, the nascent spirit of rebellion spread like a cancer and all be contaminated. Again we find the presbytery acting as the council of the bishop, — not performing any independent functions of judgment, yet exercising as his assessors a substantial control over the bishop's administration of discipline. The government and discipline of the Church is strong so long as the presbyters are " in tune with the bishop like the strings with the lyre." Thus we see that in all points the order of the Eucha- ristic assembly defined the organization of the Church. The order of the primitive Eucharistic assembly was the matrix of the Catholic organization. The bishop at the head conducts the Eucharistic celebration, the presby- 400 THE EUCHARISTIC ASSEMBLY [IV ters at his side represent the congregation, the deacons serve as his helpers. The picture we must form of the Eucharistic assembly in the latter half of the first century — from the first establishment of the episcopal office — is precisely the same that we find three centu- ries or so later. The many attempts to discover the origin of the Catholic form of organization (particu- larly the single episcopate) in the early part of the second century, have proved futile because the form was already furnished by the primitive Eucharistic assembly. The primitive order at the Eucharist explains the CathoiiO organization, — nay, more, it proves that between the primitive and the Catholic organization there does not exist the difference which is universally assumed. In outward form nothing was altered. And yet how great was the difference ! The Eucharistic assembly of the following centuries rests upon a legal constitution, and is consequently informed by the spirit of Catholicism ; while the primitive assembly recognized no legal ordi- nances, and knew only the spirit of love as the bond of peace. The bishop was appointed from the body of the-, elders and with their assent. Upon their continued as- sent depended his continuance in office. The occupancy of the seats of honor of the elders was as yet determined by no outward criterion, and consequently no one had a formal right to these seats. The occupancy varied as elders, confessors, prophets, or teachers chanced in vary- ing numbers to be present in the assembly, and as one or another was accounted most worthy of this honor. Above all, as there was no close corporation of elders, so there was no definite congregation constituting the as- sembly which met under the presidency of a particular bishop. Even the principal assembly, which was the basis of the subsequent development, had only a matter § 23] PRESBYTERS 401 of fact existence. Beside it were other assemblies. The principal assembly itself varied in the number of its ad- herents. The celebration of the Eucharist was possible, not merely in one assembly and under a particular bishop, but in every assembly of disciples. 'The notion of the Ecclesia was not yet formalized. The maxim still held good : where two or three are assembled in Christ's name, there is Christendom, the Ecclesia. Hence the lack of corporate legal form, hence the fact that there were no official rights, and that there was no congregation in the legal sense. The only point where we find the conditions for a permanent official order is the principal assembly, and in that assembly the prime fact was the leading role of the elders. Upon the high character and importance of the elders rests the episcopal order in the Eucharistic celebration : the elders concede to the bishop his place, and their assent is the warrant which gives practical force to his official acts. But what if the role of leadership e denied the elders ? What if the ^' younger " revolt against the " elder " ? This was the situation at Corinth which occasioned St. Clement's epistle, and the case was certainly not a solitary one. The authority which the elders exercised over the episcopate presupposes the absence of a legal constitution, the absence of legal rights inherent in this office. But the same lack of a legal constitution imperilled also the position of the elders themselves. There existed no rights of a corporate college of elders as over against the younger. All the authority which the elders exercised belonged to them only as leaders and representatives of the assembly. What then if the assembly refuse obedience to the coun- sels and directions of the elders ? 26 402 THE EUCHARISTIC ASSEMBLY [IV This moment was bound to come ; — and when it came the introduction of a legal order, the definition of officii rights, may well have appeared an inevitable necessity. But with the introduction of ecclesiastical law primitive Christianity was transformed into Catholicism. ^ I I DATE DUE