CHAPTER II.

THE DEVELOPMENT OF EPISCOPACY.

THE question now arises, Who stepped into the place left vacant by the inspired leaders of the first age?

It was the presiding officials of the single congregations, whose duties were originally confined to the care of public worship, Priests and Levites according to Jewish conceptions. In the very earliest age of all, they were persons who came forward voluntarily, either men of substance who placed a room at the disposal of the community for the meetings and there supervised the discipline, or men of trust, in whose hands the offerings for the poor were placed for distribution. In his earlier letters St Paul calls them ‘presidents’ or ‘workers.’ In the letter to the Philippians, written not long before the apostle’s death, they appear for the first time in the two divisions of overseers (bishops) and ministers (deacons). The apostolic age knows nothing as yet of an election and institution of these officials; it is only in the succeeding age that this becomes the rule. Presbyterial colleges appointed by election, 12 frequently at the suggestion of apostles and prophets who happen to be present, are the constant characteristic of the sub-apostolic age. Proofs for the existence of these colleges, which are as yet without any monarchical form of government, are to be found in almost all the writings of this period which have come down to us: the Acts of the Apostles, the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Pastoral letters, 1st Peter, James, Clement, Polycarp, the Didache, Hermas. The titles which are used in these writings to designate the presidents of the colleges are very various. They appear now as ‘overseers’ (bishops), now as ‘elders’ (presbyters), now as ‘shepherds,’ and again as ‘leaders,’ nor can any appreciable difference be discovered in the use of these titles. The ‘overseers’ and ‘elders’ especially evidently designate the same persons; and a second conclusion which is equally certain is that the ‘ministers’ (deacons) are subordinate helpers of the overseers.

The work of the colleges was of a wide and all-embracing nature in the conduct of the communities affairs generally. That is expressed by the words ‘leaders,’ ‘shepherds,’ ‘presidents.’ More especially, however, their activity may be considered under the three chief heads of the conduct of religious worship, the preservation of public order, the dispensation of social charities. The enumeration of the qualities required of the members of the colleges shows us better than anything else that their energies were concentrated in this direction. Sincerity, honesty, mildness, gentleness, are the chief characteristics that were looked for in them. Teaching and preaching formed at first the least part of a priest’s work. The teachers 13 and the prophets were there for that purpose, and everyone was free to expound the word. But the struggle with Gnosticism brought about an entire change. In the Pastoral letters, the maintenance of sound doctrine—i.e., of the apostolic tradition—against heresy comes to be the bishop’s chief function. That is why it is so important that the bishop should be apt to teach, and that is why the teaching presbyters are to receive a double reward. In these passages one can still plainly trace the fact that teaching did not originally enter into a bishop’s activities. Ignatius goes a good deal further. He would have nothing done without the bishop: every ecclesiastical act is to be submitted to him. Thus the scope of the bishop’s office is gradually enlarged. Originally he is simply the president of a presbyterial council, finally he takes over all the functions of a prophet and an apostle, though, to be sure, only with the application of the principles of the division of labour and of strict subordination.

The increased dignity of these officials keeps pace with the development of their functions. Originally it was only the apostles and prophets that counted as the messengers of God’s word and representatives of God and of Christ for the Church, whilst the bishops were the officials of the single congregations without any higher honour. Their exaltation to their new position of dignity was brought about in a threefold manner.

1. By the theory of apostolic succession. The way is paved for this theory by the Acts of the Apostles, which emphasizes the apostolic institution of the presbyters and makes Paul speak to the 14 presbyters at Miletus as though to his successors. Then it is regularly formulated by Clement of Rome (ch. 42-44). At the bottom of the theory lies the fact that the office of president goes back to the apostolic age; but it is just in the case of Rome that the principle does not apply, for the Roman Church was not an apostolic foundation. Clement is the first to draw up the line “God, Christ, the apostles, the elders,” which gives the elders a share in the divine dignity by means of tradition. Similar thoughts of a succession are to be found in the Pastoral letters (St Paul’s “gift”). At bottom this theory of apostolic succession forms a counterpart to that of the Jewish Rabbis; like this theory, it is of a legal nature and therefore especially comprehensible to the Romans.

2. By the theory of a special gift of the Spirit attached to the office. We find it first of all in the Pastoral epistles side by side with that of the apostolic succession. The two, in fact, run into each other as they did in the case of the Rabbis. The gift of the Spirit is made to depend upon the right succession. Amongst the Christians this theory was bound to strengthen the hands of the defence against the heretics and the prophets. For itinerant preachers and Gnostics alike appealed to “the Spirit.” In order to check their extravagances it was now maintained that the Spirit was only to be found amongst the Church officials, not amongst the Gnostics, but—and this is the evil consequence of the theory—no longer amongst the congregation either. “I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the gift of God which is in thee through the laying on of my hands. For 15 God gave us not a spirit of fearfulness but of power, love, and discipline . . . . the ‘good deposit’ guard through the Holy Ghost which dwelleth in us.”

The ‘we’ who have the Spirit are the officials of the Church alone. An Ignatius, it is true, felt himself to be inspired, for he believed himself entitled to boast of genuine visions; but then he tries to make his theory apply to all bishops, even to those who never had any inspiration of this kind. The only way in which the theory can gain the victory over enthusiasm and prophecy is by falsely proclaiming every bishop to be a prophet.

3. By the theory of the Old Testament priesthood. The first trace of it is to be found in the first Epistle of St Clement (ch. 40), where reference is made to the typical nature of the Israelite priesthood; but it may just as well have arisen in Egypt or Syria amongst the readers of the Didache—in fact, wherever the Old Testament was counted a sacred book of the law. There in the Old Testament they read of a clear and sharp distinction between clergy and laity—this is noticed even as early as Clement!—and of a hierarchy with different degrees of dignity. The type was endowed with creative power. The Didache, as is well-known, furnishes other evidence of the great and commanding influence which the Old Testament exercised upon the congregations.

All three theories possessed the further advantage of being capable of combination. This is what actually occurred a little later. The bishops became the successors of the apostles, prophets, and priests. By the end of the first century the foundation of the whole system had been laid.

The first external consequence of the new dignity was that the bishops came to be paid. The author of the Acts still protests against the innovation: instead of copying those grievous wolves, the itinerant preachers, the bishops should learn of Paul to earn their livelihood by the labour of their own hands. In the province in which the Didache was written the prophets and teachers were paid rich contributions in kind; if no prophet was present, then it was the poor and not the bishops who benefited thereby. Such was the original practice. The author of the Pastoral epistles has quite a different opinion on this point:—“The husbandman that laboureth must be the first to partake of the fruits. Consider what I say; for the Lord shall give thee understanding in all things.” All this is as yet very mysterious and cautious. The later letter is less enigmatic: “Let the elders that rule well [not all therefore indiscriminately] be counted worthy of double honour [i.e., be paid], especially those who labour in the word and in teaching [for they have less time to devote to their own business]. For the Scripture saith, ‘Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn,’ and ‘the labourer is worthy of his hire.’” Evidently the payment of bishops is still an innovation which is not to be risked without due limitations, and has to be supported by passages from Scripture. It helped to increase the professional feeling of the clergy.

Our earliest authority for the monarchical episcopate and the threefold ministry—bishops, presbyters, and deacons—is Ignatius (110-120 A.D.), and that only for Antioch in Syria and for Asia Minor. In 17 other places—e.g., in Rome or Philippi—it must have arisen a little later. But no account of its origin has reached us. It is altogether improbable that it was preceded by struggles within the presbyteral council. Episcopacy prevailed, and that after a peaceful fashion, because it found itself the best weapon against the itinerant preachers and the best centre of ecclesiastical unity. Perhaps the process of development was simply this, that the earlier office of president came to be held for life instead of, as before, in succession temporarily.

But what reception was accorded the new constitution by the congregations? As far as they were ecclesiastically minded, they viewed it with favour. It was a time of struggle and of persecution—the Church needed strong and skilful leaders. There was, however, naturally some diversity of opinion, and many old and young Christians sympathized with the itinerant preachers. Evidence of this may be found in the Third Epistle of St John. But the more perfect organization won the day.

Thus, then, the Church had received its new leaders. Those who a short while previously had been merely occupied with the public services, now found themselves suddenly at the head of the whole spiritual life. Religious gifts were less looked for in these men than energy and a practical turn of mind. The more serious Christians, however, made it a matter of anxious concern that the bishop should be of an exemplary moral life. The man who did more than all others to increase their authority—the author of the Pastoral epistles—took the utmost pains at the same time to further the improvement 18 of their moral condition. He found them in a state of degradation and sluggish degeneracy. He instigated the first reform of the clergy. He demanded that the bishop should be apt to teach. This aptitude, however, was not to be obtained compulsorily, and yet the intellectual development of the congregation depended upon it.

The Formation of the Office of Teacher in the Catholic Church.

Of the three most important personalities of the apostolic age, the apostle, the prophet and the teacher, the last-named alone subsists in sub-apostolic times, and that not without having traversed a serious crisis. There were some critical moments when the Christian teacher, too, threatened to degenerate into the talkative and controversial Sophist. Hence the warning in the Epistle of St James: “I do not want many of you, my brothers, to become teachers, knowing as you do that we who teach shall be judged by a more severe standard than others.” The author of the Pastoral epistles would prefer to merge the office of teacher entirely in that of bishop, and looks with suspicion upon all freelances. His demands, however, were pitched too high. The bishops could guarantee the true doctrine of others, but they could never take up the calling of teachers themselves; they had far too much practical work in hand for that. The problem was solved by placing the teachers henceforward under episcopal control. They had to subscribe to the creed, but otherwise they had complete liberty of teaching, i.e., as far as the ecclesiastical authorities were concerned. We only 19 meet with such teachers, it is true, about the middle of the second century: Aristides at Athens, Justin at Ephesus and Rome, Tatian at Rome and in Syria. The two latter are great travellers, recalling the teachers earlier mode of life, the old itinerancy. They defended the Christian faith against heathen philosophers, Jewish Rabbis, and Christian Gnostics. For the Gnostics, too, had their celebrated teachers, and they were earlier in the field than their orthodox opponents: Basilides, Valentinus, Kerdon, Marcion, all of whom likewise travelled about from place to place. Of the catholic teachers in Justin’s time, we know that they taught gratuitously (Justin himself had taken an unceremonious leave of the peripatetic philosopher because he had demanded money for his lessons). They had therefore to look to the congregations for their means of subsistence. This is confirmed by the Didache.

The great anonymous period of the teacher’s office extends from the age of Apollos to that of Justin. Anonymity is really its characteristic feature; the names of Catholic and Gnostic teachers alike have completely vanished. The literature, however, that has come down to us from the anonymous teachers of the Church is of considerable extent. It includes, amongst other writings, the Catholic Epistles, the Acts of the Apostles, the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Gospels (except that of Mark), the Pastoral epistles, Barnabas, the Didache. Of the ecclesiastical authors, besides the bishops, we are only acquainted with an evangelist, Mark, one prophet, Hermas, and Aristion, to whom the spurious conclusion of St. Mark’s Gospel may possibly be ascribed.

There are also very many pseudonymous writings amongst the products of the literary activity of the catholic teachers. The Gospels, the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the letter known as that of St Barnabas, are the only works which begin without any name whatever. The whole of the remaining literature claims to be apostolic. And this is one of the clearest proofs that we have reached an age of decline. These teachers feel their inferiority. Their names carry no weight, they possess no authority. It is only by prefixing the names of the apostles to their letters (which, moreover, are letters in name only, mere literary fabrications) that they gain any hearing. A parallel to this ecclesiastical usurpation of apostolic authority is to be found in the constant appeal to secret apostolic tradition by the Gnostics.

Thus the fathers of the later catholic office of teachers are anonymous persons who acquired a standing, not by their own personal influence, but only by the assumption of spurious titles—a kind of necromancy. It was they who laid the foundations of the later catholic theology. They were the spiritual leaders of the Church in the greatest crisis which the Church ever traversed, and the Church’s safe emergence from that crisis is to be ascribed to them and to the bishops.