the priest. This special power of the episcopate was empha- Epiphanius. sized in the famous saying of Chrysostom's younger contemporary, Epiphanius, that while presbyters could beget children to the Church, i.e. by baptism, only bishops could beget Fathers to the Church, i.e. by ordination. This passage in Epiphanius2 is important (like the action of the Alexandrian council. in the case of Colluthus), because it gives us an expression of the Church's mind in clear view of the antagonistic position. Aerius3 had definitely heard that there was no difference of order between a 1 Cf. Hom. in i Tim. xi. 1: Οὐ πολὺ μέσον αὐτῶν [πρεσβυτέρων] καὶ ἐπισκόπων· καὶ γὰρ καὶ αὐτοὶ διδασκαλίαν εἰσὶν ἀναδεδεγμένοι καὶ προστασίαν τῆς ἐκκλησίας. καὶ ἃ περὶ ἐπισκόπων εἶπε, ταῦτα καὶ πρεσβυτέροις ἁρμόττει· τῇ γὰρ χειροτονία μόνη ὑπερβεβήκασι, καὶ τούτῳ μόνον δοκοῦσι πλεονεκτεῖν τοὺς πρεσβυτέρους. Hom. in Phil. i. 1: οὐκ ἂν δὲ πρεσβύτεροι ἐπίσκοπον ἐχειροτονήσαν. Hom. in i Tim. xiii. : : οὐ γὰρ δὴ πρεσβύτεροι τὸν ἐπίσκοπον ἐχειροτόνουν. Chrysostom (on Phil. i. 1) admits that St. Paul uses the terms bishop and presbyter interchangeably. But so also, he adds, is the word διακονία applied to the bishop's office. The language was not fixed, but the three offices were distinct: ὅπερ οὖν ἔφην, καὶ οἱ πρεσβύτεροι τὸ παλαιὸν ἐκαλοῦντο ἐπίσκοποι καὶ διάκονοι τοῦ Χριστοῦ, καὶ οἱ ἐπίσκοποι πρεσβύτεροι· ὅθεν καὶ νῦν πόλλοι συμπρεσβυτέρῳ ἐπίσκοποι γράφουσι καὶ συνδιακόνῳ· λοιπὸν δὲ τὸ ἰδίαζον ἑκάστῳ ἀπονενέμηται ὄνομα, ὁ ἐπίσκοπος καὶ ὁ πρεσβύτερος. 2 adv. Haer. lxxv. 4: Οτι μὲν ἀφροσύνης ἐστὶ τὸ πᾶν ἔμπλεων [sc. Aerius], τοῖς σύνεσιν κεκτημένοις τοῦτο δῆλον· τὸ λέγειν αὐτὸν ἐπίσκοπον καὶ πρεσβύτερον ἴσον εἶναι. καὶ πῶς ἔσται τοῦτο δυνατόν; ἡ μὲν γάρ ἐστι πατέρων γεννητική τάξις· πατέρας γὰρ γεννᾷ τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ· ἡ δὲ πατέρας μὴ δυναμένη γενναν διὰ τῆς τοῦ λουτροῦ παλιγγενεσίας τέκνα γεννᾷ τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ, οὐ μὴν πατέρας ἢ διδασκάλους. καὶ πῶς οἷόν τε ἦν τὸν πρεσβύτερον καθιστἂν μὴ ἔχοντα χειροθεσίαν τοῦ χειροτονεῖν, ἡ εἰπεῖν αὐτὸν εἶναι ἴσον τῷ ἐπισκόπῳ ; 3 Aerius was still alive (§ 1) when Epiphanius wrote. His original motive in formulating his anti-ecclesiastical views was not apparently a noble one, though Epiphanius does not make the best of those against whom he writes. He was in opposition not only to the right of bishops but to other church customs, and he was also of Arian antecedents. Η μία τάξις, μία τιμή, ἐν ἀξίωμα (§ 3). Summary bishop and a presbyter. 'The bishop lays on hands,' he said, 'but so does the presbyter:1 the bishop baptizes, so does the presbyter likewise: the bishop is the minister of worship, so is the presbyter: the bishop sits upon the raised seat (throne), and the presbyter too.' There is then no difference. Aerius does not seem to have appealed to any church tradition, but simply to facts in the Church's present constitution and to the common use of the words 'presbyter' and episcopus' in the New Testament. Epiphanius meets his argument from the New Testament with a mixture of truth and error with which we are not at present concerned.2 He meets him, however, first of all with an appeal to the mind of the Church on the matter. His customary abusiveness of tone must not blind us to the fact that he speaks clearly, with the consciousness that he is on quite sure ground, when he says that, whatever the presbyter may do, he cannot lay on hands in ordination-that in this sense bishops alone constitute the 'generative order ' of the Church.3 Now the evidence of the Eastern Church has been for the East. passed in review. What is the result? Leaving out 1 I.e. in certain benedictions of penitents the priest used prayer with the laying on of hands-' the prayer of imposition of hands.' This at least the Church would have admitted; peoẞúτEрos Xeɩрobeтeî, où xeɩporoveî (Apost. Const. viii. 28). See note (22) on Apost. Const. viii in Migne Patrol. Graec. i. p. 1083. 2 He denies (unlike Chrysostom) that St. Paul uses "peσßúтepos and èшíσкoños of the same person. So far he has a bad case. On the other hand he argues that the Church in the apostolic days was incomplete; in some places there were bishops and deacons, in others presbyters, according to the degree of completeness of each Church or the fitness of individuals: οὐ γὰρ πάντα εὐθὺς ἠδυνήθησαν οἱ ἀπόστολοι καταστῆσαι . . . οὔπω [οὕτω MSS.] τῆς ἐκκλησίας λαβούσης τὰ πληρώματα τῆς οἰκονομίας. οὕτω κατ' ἐκείνο καιροῦ ἦσαν οἱ τόποι. καὶ γὰρ ἕκαστον πρᾶγμα οὐκ ἀπ ̓ ἀρχῆς τὰ πάντα ἔσχεν' ἀλλὰ προβαίνοντος τοῦ χρόνου τὰ πρὸς τελείωσιν τῶν χρειῶν κατηρ TISETO (8 5). He also calls attention to the fact that the presbyters have at least some one over them in the Pastoral Epistles. Cf. Theodore Mops. on 1 Tim. iii. 8. 3 There is a passage about the apostolic succession, which may be referred to, in Ephraem Syrus adv. Haer, serm. xxii, see Opp. Syr. [ed. Rom. 1740] ii. p. 488. of account for the moment some elements in the estimate formed of the ministry which will come into consideration later, it is enough to say at present that everywhere, where there is any evidence forthcoming, we have found the threefold ministry existing and regarded as alone authoritative in virtue of succession from the Apostles. In all cases the authority to ordain the clergy has been found, wherever the question can be raised, to belong to the bishops, nor can fair evidence be produced of any single instance in which ordination by a presbyter (or in view of the exceptional arrangement supposed to have existed at Alexandria, we must say, by a presbyter with the ordinary commission) was either allowed1 or even contemplated as under any circumstances allowable or valid. not doubted. B. We pass from the witness of Greek to that of B. The West. Episcopal Latin Christianity. Here we may deal very briefly successions with the evidence for the existence of the successions of bishops in the period under consideration, for it is not disputed. The episcopal succession was clearly of immemorial antiquity at Rome when Irenaeus wrote. There is no trace of a pre-episcopal age in any other part of Italy, or in Africa, Gaul, or Spain. The beautiful letter of the Churches of Lyons and Vienne, giving an account of the persecution which fell upon them in the time of Marcus Aurelius, confirms the testimony of Irenaeus for Gaul. The language of Tertullian is evidence enough for Africa, where indeed episcopacy developed into an exuberance of sees rivalled only in Asia. It is true that in 1 See on the case of Paphnutius App. Note E. 2 Euseb. H.E. v. 1. There is the aged bishop-Pothinus, ὁ τὴν διακονίαν τῆς ἐπισκοπῆς ἐν Λουγδούνῳ πεπιστευμένος ; there is the deacon-Sanctus ; there is the presbyter-Irenaeus (c. 4). later centuries episcopacy took some remarkable forms, especially, as has been noticed, in the Irish Church.1 There Christianity was monastic in a unique sense. The abbot took his place as spiritual head side by side with the chieftain of the clan. Often, indeed, the same person was both abbot and chieftain, and the old clan government continued with a new monastic character. Under these circumstances the bishop lost the governing authority which properly belonged to his office and became a mere instrument kept to perform those spiritual functions which he only could fulfil. But for such purposes 1 A satisfactory account of the episcopate in the Scotic Church of Ireland may be found in Todd's St. Patrick, Apostle of Ireland, and Reeves' Eccl. Antiquities of Down, Connor, and Dromore. Its three notable features were (1) its indefinite multiplication; (2) its undiocesan character; (3) its subordination to the abbot. chiefs. The Church outside the empire, as inside it, was organized on the lines of the existing society. Thus in Ireland it became tribal, and small chieftaincies would have resulted in small episcopates (Reeves p. 303: 'the spiritual jurisdiction of the bishop was coextensive with the temporal sway of the chieftain'). But what introduced its unique features into Church organization here was its predominantly monastic character. The abbot was the real church ruler, and he was not always or generally a bishop. Hence the subordination of the episcopate. The bishops even lost control over the ordinations which they administered (cf. Bede H.E. iii. 4 ; Todd pp. 7-25). The episcopate, having thus lost its characteristic functions of government, was given as a mark of spiritual distinction (Todd p. 5). Thus it became indefinitely multiplied; seven bishops are often found together in one spot (Todd pp. 33-35). Also it lost its diocesan character (Reeves p. 135 f. on 'the ambulatory nature of episcopacy'). When the Danish invasions (c. A.D. 795 and onward) drove the Irish clergy and monks in great numbers on to the continent of Europe, the bishops seem to have behaved themselves as if they were in their own country, in entire neglect of diocesan restrictions. Hence conciliar enactments against these 'Scoti qui se dicunt episcopos esse' (Reeves p. 135). And up to the twelfth century, when the Irish Church was organized on diocesan lines under papal influence, the looseness of Irish episcopacy was a standing scandal to 'canonical' Europe; see the protests of Anselm and Bernard, quoted by Todd pp. 2-4 : 'dicitur,' writes Anselm to a titular king of Ireland, episcopos in terra vestra passim eligi et sine certo episcopatus loco constitui, atque ab uno episcopo episcopum sicut quemlibet presbyterum ordinari.' [This latter irregularity was characteristic of the Celtic Church, but the canonical rule seems to have been observed at Iona; cf. Bede H.E. iii. 17-22]. So St. Bernard (de vita S. Mal. 10): 'nam, quod inauditum est ab ipso Christianitatis initio, sine ordine, sine ratione mutabantur et multiplicabantur episcopi pro libitu metropolitani ita ut unus episcopatus uno non esset contentus, sed singulae paene ecclesiae singulos haberent episcopos.' He clearly does not understand the situation. he was kept: 'the bishops were always applied to, to consecrate churches, to ordain to the ecclesiastical degrees or Holy Orders, including the consecration of other bishops; to give Confirmation, and the more solemn benedictions; and to administer the Holy Communion with peculiar rites.'1 No accession of power to abbot or king ever militated against the principle of ministerial succession. Through all the different forms which the church ministry assumed, and they have been very various, this has been the constant principle. Never has it been supposed that the accident of ecclesiastical authority, apart from episcopal order, gave a man the power to ordain.2 It remains then to seek the light thrown upon this The concep conception of the ministry in the West (1) by typical theologians after A.D. 150:3 (2) by the canons of councils : (3) by writers on worship and by the church. offices. tion of the ministry in Fathers. C. A.D. 250. (1) St. Cyprian, the great bishop of Carthage, (1) Western stands out prominently among western writers who vindicated the claim of the apostolic ministry. It Cyprian, cannot be rightly maintained that he added anything new to the belief of his predecessors, western or eastern, in the visible unity of the Church or the authority of the episcopate. Nor did he bring these 1 Todd St. Patrick p. 5. Cf. Vita S. Brigidae, ed. Colgan in the Triadis Thaumaturgae Acta, p. 523; Adamnan Vita S. Columbae i. 36, ed. Fowler (Oxford, 1894), p. 47; cf. xvii, xxxiv, xl. 2 See App. Note E on some supposed cases of presbyterian ordination. 3 Clement of Rome is therefore not yet in discussion. The conception of the ministry held by Irenaeus and Tertullian has been already exhibited. A passage from Hippolytus is noticed in another connection, App. Note G. |