impressive on the function of the pastor as on that of the priest. We should notice also that, while he speaks of the common priesthood which belongs to bishops and presbyters and lays stress (like some Westerns) on the closeness of the two orders to one another in dignity, he never fails to distinguish the unique privilege and power of ordaining which belongs to the bishop.1

This special power of the episcopate was empha- Epiphanius. sized in the famous saying of Chrysostom's elder 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 Epiphanius 2 is important, because it gives us an expression of the Church's mind in clear view of an antagonistic position. A certain Aerius 3 had definitely held that there was no difference of order 4 between bishop and

1 Cf. Hom. in i Tim. xi. 1: Οὐ πολὺ τὸ μέσον [πρεσβυτέρων καὶ ἐπισκόπων]· καὶ γὰρ καὶ αὐτοὶ διδασκαλίαν εἰσὶν ἀναδεδεγμένοι καὶ προστασίαν τῆς ἐκκλησίας. καὶ ἃ περὶ ἐπισκόπων εἶπε, ταῦτα καὶ περὶ πρεσβυτέρων ἁρμόττει· τῇ γὰρ χειροτονία μόνον ὑπερβεβήκασι, καὶ τούτῳ μόνον δοκοῦσι πλεονεκτεῖν τοὺς πρεσβυτέρους. Hom. in Phil. i. [ii] τ: οὐκ ἂν δὲ πρεσβύτεροι ἐπίσκοπον ἐχειροτόνησαν. Hom. in i Tim. xiii. 1 : οὐ γὰρ δὴ πρεσβύτεροι τὸν ἐπίσκοπον ἐχειροτόνουν. He admits (on Phil. i. r) 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 Χριστοῦ, καὶ οἱ ἐπίσκοποι πρεσβύτεροι, ὅθεν καὶ νῦν πολλοὶ συμπρεσβυτέρῳ ἐπίσκοποι γράφουσι καὶ συνδιακόνῳ [compare and contrast Dionysius of Alexandria's use of συμπρεσβύτερος τε . . . καὶ διάκονοι, ap. Εuseb. Η. Ε. vi. 11. 3]· λοιπὸν δὲ τὸ ἰδιάζον ἑκάστῳ ἀπονενέμηται ὄνομα, ὁ ἐπίσκοπος καὶ ὁ πρεσβύτερος.

* adv. Haer. lxxν. 4: Οτι μὲν ἀφροσύνης ἐστὶ τὸ πᾶν ἐμπλέων [sc. Aerius], τοῖς σύνεσιν κεκτημένοις τοῦτο δῆλον, τὸ [read τῷ] λέγειν αὐτὸν ἐπίσκοπον καὶ πρεσβύτερον ἴσον εἶναι. καὶ πῶς ἔσται τοῦτο δυνατόν; ἡ μὲν γάρ ἐστι πατέρων γεννητική τάξις· πατέρας γὰρ γεννᾳ τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ· ἡ δὲ πατέρας μη δυναμένη γεννᾷν διὰ τῆς τοῦ λουτροῦ παλιγγενεσίας τέκνα γεννᾷ τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ, οὐ μὴν πατέρας ἢ διδασκάλους. καὶ πῶς οἷόν τε ἦν τὸν πρεσβύτερον καθιστὴν μὴ ἔχοντα χειροθεσίαν τοῦ χειροτονεῖν, ἢ εἰπεῖν αὐτὸν εἶναι ἴσον τῷ ἐπισκόπῳ;

Aerius was in opposition not only to the authority of bishops, but to other customs of the Church. He was also definitely Arian in his theology; but Epiphanius does not profess to connect his Arianism with his views on Church order, and indeed brings the same charge of heterodoxy against Eustathius of Sebaste, the bishop with whom Aerius quarrelled. The account rather suggests (Epiphanius is the sole source of our knowledge about Aerius) that the teaching of Aerius embodied on● of those ascetic reactions against Church order and the hierarchy which the canons of Gangra and the Apostolic Constitutions set themselves to repudiate. Aerius was still alive (§ 1) when Epiphanius wrote, about A.D. 375.

• μία τάξις, καὶ μία τιμή, καὶ ἂν ἀξίωμα (§ 3).

Summary for the East.

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.

Now the evidence of the Eastern Church has been

passed in review.3 What is the result? Taking account at present only of the period after 150 A.D., we have found the threefold ministry everywhere in

1 χειροθετεί, φησι, ἐπίσκοπος, ἀλλὰ καὶ ὁ πρεσβύτερος. 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; èniOKOTOS χειροθετεί, χειροτονεῖ . . . πρεσβύτερος χειροθετεῖ, οὐ χειροτονεί (Apost. Const. viii. 28). See note (22) on Apost. Const. viii. ch. 9, in Migne Patrol. Graec. i. col. 1083.

2 He denies (unlike Chrysostom) that St. Paul uses peσßurepos and ènioкonos 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 ἡδυνήθησαν οἱ ἀπόστολοι κατα στησαι . οὔπω [οὕτω MSS.] τῆς ἐκκλησίας λαβούσης τὰ πληρώματα τῆς οἰκονομίας. οὕτω κατ' ἐκεῖνο καιροῦ ἦσαν οἱ τόποι. καὶ γὰρ ἕκαστον πρᾶγμα οὐκ ἀπ ̓ ἀρχῆς τὰ πάντα ἔσχεν· ἀλλὰ πρυμαίνοντος τοῦ χρόνου τὰ πρὸς τελείωσιν τῶν χρειῶν κατηρ Tigero (§ 4). He also calls attention (§ 5) 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 (ed. Swete ii. 117).

⚫ 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.

existence, wherever evidence exists, and regarded as the only authoritative form of ministry. The authority to ordain the clergy has also been found to belong to the bishops, wherever the question can be raised, nor can fair evidence be produced of any single instance in which ordination by a presbyter was either allowed or contemplated as under any circumstances allowable or valid.1 As to the exceptional arrangement supposed to have existed at Alexandria, we have both shown grave reason to doubt the evidence, and also, for the sake of those who still accept the evidence, given what we think would be the true explanation, if the facts were as Jerome states them to have been.

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.2. The language of Tertullian is evidence enough for Africa, where indeed episcopacy developed into an exuberance of sees rivalled only in Asia.

In later centuries, it is true, episcopacy took some remarkable forms, especially, as we saw (p. 96), in the Irish Church. There Christianity was monastic in a

See on the alleged case of the abbot Paphnutius, App. Note E, p. 332.

* There is the aged bishop-Pothinus, ὁ τὴν διακονίαν τῆς ἐπισκοπῆς ἐν Λουγδούνω TETLσTEVμÉVOS; there is the deacon-Sanctus; there is the presbyter-Irenaeus ; see Euseb. H. E. v. 1. §§ 17, 29, V. 4.

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

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 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

multiplication; (2) its undiocesan character; (3) its subordination to the abbotchiefs. 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.

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. pp. xvii, xxxiv, xl.

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.1

tion of the

It remains then to seek the light thrown upon the The concep conception of the ministry in the West

(1) by typical theologians after A.D. 150:2

(2) by the canons of councils :

(3) by the forms of ordination and by the writers

on the church offices.

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 two doctrines into any new connexion; Ignatius and Irenaeus had already put the bishop in a very clear position in relation to church unity. Nor again is it true to say that Cyprian in any way created the doctrine of schism or destroyed an existing 'freedom of association' in the Church.3 He did not in fact 1 See App. Note E, p. 332, on some supposed cases of presbyterian ordination. ⚫ Clement of Rome is therefore not yet in discussion. The conception of the ministry held by Irenaeus and Tertullian has been already exhibited, pp. 100-108 and the Church Order of Hippolytus has been dealt with as part of the Greek material, pp. 132-134. A further passage from Hippolytus is noticed in another connexion App. Note G, p. 348.

Dr. Hatch (B. L. p. 103) has maintained that the rule [that "there should be only one bishop in a community"] was not firmly established until the third century. Its general recognition was the outcome of the dispute between Cyprian and Novatian.' 'For this assertion,' said Dr. Salmon truly, he offers no proof whatever. Cyprian certainly treats it as a monstrous and impious thing, that when one bishop had been duly elected another should be ordained; but there is no evidence that this view was then either novel or singular. Novatian no doubt had a respectable following, but there is no evidence that he claimed to be anything less than the bishop of Rome, or that either he or any of those who acknowledged him as bishop of Rome acknowledged Cornelius also as bishop' (Expositor, July 1887, p. 8 n.1). The opposite is in fact quite plain: cf. the letters of Cornelius to Fabius and of