as the visible representative of Christ, and the centre around which the college of presbyters and the whole congregation turns. But each bishop stood for himself, and there was as yet no centre of catholic unity except Christ himself, who gave himself as it were a local presence in every episcopal charge. These charges moreover were very small, and in most cases not larger than a respectable congregation.

The next step in the development of the hierarchical principle was the metropolitan episcopacy, as we find it from about the middle of the third century, with a special prominence of the so called sedes apostolica or ecclesiæ matrices, of apostolic foundation, such as Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Ephesus, Corinth, and Rome.

Out of this metropolitan organisation grew, in the Nicene and post-Nicene age, the patriarchal form of government, which was retained by the Greek church to this day; while the Latin church went still further, and developed, during the long course of the middle ages, the papal monarchy.*

We shall endeavour to trace out the gradual growth and development of the ancient catholic hierarchy from Constantine I., down to the time of Leo I. and Gregory I., when the patriarchal oligarchy was completed in the East, and the

* We feel compelled, with regret and reluctance, to express a qualified dissent from the views here stated by our learned and talented contributor in regard to the primitive government of the Christian church. We could never discover in the New Testament any ground for representing the apostles as governors of the church. As inspired men, they instituted the government of the church, appointed its governors, and prescribed the laws by which it was to be governed. They were the legislators, and not the governors of the church. They were not even builders of the church: they laid its foundations. When Paul speaks of "the care of all the churches" which devolved on him, he can hardly be supposed to refer to anything beyond his paternal care for the welfare of the numerous churches which he had planted. When the apostles had occasion to take part in the administration of church-government, it appears that they associated themselves with the pastors or presbyters in general council (Acts xv. 6), on which occasion Peter "exhorted the presbyters, as being also a presbyter " (1 Pet. v. 1), and "after much disputing," the matter was carried by an unanimous vote of "the whole assembly," and the letters or decrees went forth in the joint names of "the apostles, and elders, and brethren " (Acts xv. 22, 23).

We venture further to question the statement, that the primitive presbyterian or congregational episcopacy, which appeared in the beginning of the second century, can be justly regarded as a "step in the development of the hierarchical principle," leading on to metropolitan episcopacy. In the primitive pastor, with "his college of presbyters," presiding over his flock, we can detect no approximation to the hierarchy. The first step in that direction was unquestionably the elevation of one of the pastors, originally only primus inter pares, to the dignity of a perpetual primacy over his brother-pastors of the same city or province; which led, by a process easily conceivable in the circumstances, to the metropolitan prelacy. It is not, however, so easy to see how the congregational superintendence of a pastor over his flock, could have developed itself by a single step into metropolitan hierarchy.-ED. B and F. E. R.

Distinction between Clergy and Laity.

667

papal monarchy raised its claims in the West, but under the strong protest of the East.

We commence with the distinction made between the clerical order and the laity, which lies at the base of every form of the hierarchy, and forms its corner stone.

CLERGY AND LAITY.

The distinction between the clergy, as a distinct and peculiar order from the body of the laity or the people, is common to all non-Christian religions. The clergy or the priesthood is regarded as mediating between God and the people by prayer, intercession, and the offering of sacrifice on the altar. Here priest, sacrifice, and altar are inseparable conceptions. In the Old Testament, the priesthood was of divine appointment, but with a typical reference to Christ, the eternal high priest, who by his one sacrifice on the cross reconciled men to God, and continues his priestly office by his intercession at the right hand of the Father. By faith in Christ and baptism in his name we are all made partakers of the prophetical, priestly, and kingly character of Christ. This is the ideal which is held up before us, but which can only be gradually realised. The Christian church is an institution and training school for the kingdom of heaven, as well as a communion of saints. It must adapt itself to barbarians as well as civilised nations. Hence the idea of a priestly order, under a modified form, reappeared, or was transferred from the Old Testament to the Christian church, and served there in times past great educational purposes. Ignatius and Cyprian are the first distinguished representatives of the idea of the Christian priesthood or clergy, as distinct from the Christian people. In the Nicene age we find this idea already universally established both in the Greek and the Latin church. The apostolic idea of the universal priesthood of believers retreated in proportion, though it never passed entirely out of sight, but was from time to time asserted by such men as Augustine, Jerome, and even Pope Leo the Great.* The ordination, which was solemnised by the laying on of hands and prayer, with the addition at a later period of an anointing with oil and balsam, marked the formal entrance into the special priesthood, as

* Augustin De civitate Dei, lib. xx. c. 10: "Erunt sacerdotes Dei et Christi et regnabunt cum eo mille annos (Apoc. xx. 6): non utique de solis episcopis et presbyteris dictum est, qui proprie jam vocantur in ecclesia sacerdotes; sed sicut omnes Christianos divinus propter mysticum chrisma, sic omnes sacerdotes, quoniam membra sunt unius sacerdotis. De quibus Petrus apostolus: Plebs, inquit sancta, regale sacerdotium." Comp. Jerome ad Tit. i. 7; Ambrosiaster ad Eph. iv. 11; Leo I. Sermo iv. 1, (ed. Ballerini).

baptism initiated into the universal priesthood; and, like baptism, it bore an indefeasible character (character indelebilis). By degrees the priestly office assumed the additional distinction of celibacy, and of external marks, such as tonsure, and sacerdotal vestments, worn at first only during official service, then in everyday life.

The

The progress of the hierarchical principle also encroached gradually upon the original rights of the people in the election of their pastors; but it did not as yet entirely suppress them till after the sixth or seventh century. lower clergy were chosen by the bishops, the bishops by their colleagues in the province, and by the clergy. The fourth canon of Nice, probably at the instance of the Meletian schism, directed that a bishop should be instituted and consecrated by all, or at least by three, of the bishops of the province. This was not aimed, however, against the rights of the people, but against election by only one bishop-the act of Meletius. For the consent of the people in the choice of presbyters, and especially of bishops, long remained at least in outward form, in memory of the custom of the apostles and the primitive church. There was either a formal vote, particularly when there were three or more candidates before the people, or the people were thrice required to signify their confirmation or rejection by the formula, "Worthy," or "Unworthy."‡ The influence of the people in this period appears most prominently in the election of bishops. The Roman bishop Leo, in spite of his papal absolutism, asserted the thoroughly republican principle, long since abandoned by his successors: "He who is to preside over all, should be elected by all."§ Oftentimes

* According to Clemens Romanus, ad Corinth. c. 44, the consent of the whole congregation in the choice of their officers was the apostolic and postapostolic custom; and the epistles of Cyprian, especially ep. 68, shew that the same rule continued in the middle of the third century. Comp. Schaff's Church History, vol. i. sect. 105.

* Ζήτησις, Ψήφισμα, Ψήφος, scrutinium.

Aos, dignus, or vážies, indignus. Constitut. Apost. viii. 4. Concil Aurelat. ii. (A.D. 452) c. 54. Gregor. Naz. Orat. xxi. According to a letter of Peter of Alexandria in Theodor. Hist. Eccl. iv. 22, the bishop in the East was elected επισκόπων συνόδω, ψήφῳ κληρικῶν, αἰτήσει λαῶν. He himself was elected archbishop of Alexandria, and successor of Athanasius (A.D. 378), according to the desire of the latter, "by the unanimous consent of the clergy and of the chief men of the city" (iv. cap. 20), and, after his expulsion, he objected to his wicked successor Lurius among other things, that "he had purchased the episcopal office with gold, as though it had been a secular dignity, and had not been elected by a synod of bishops, by the votes of the clergy, or by the request of the people, according to the regulations of the church," iv. c. 22. Epist. x. c. 4 (ed. Ballerini): "Expectarentur certa vota civium, testimonia populorum, quaereretur honoratiorum arbitrium, electio clericorum." In the same epist. c. 6: " Qui praefuturus est omnibus, ab omnibus eligatur."

Encroachments on Popular Rights.

669

the popular will decided before the provincial bishops and the clergy assembled and the regular election could be held. Ambrose of Milan and Nectarius of Constantinople were appointed to the bishopric even before they were baptised; the former by the people, the latter by the Emperor Theodosius; though in palpable violation of the eightieth apostolic canon and the second Nicene.* Martin of Tours owed his elevation likewise to the popular voice, while some bishops objected to it on account of his small and wasted form. Chrysostom was called from Antioch to Constantinople by the Emperor Arcadius in consequence of a unanimous vote of the clergy and people. Sometimes the people I acted under outside considerations and the management of demagogues, and demanded unworthy or ignorant men for the highest offices. Thus there were frequent disturbances and collisions, and even bloody conflicts, as in the election of Damasus in Rome. In short, all the selfish passions and corrupting influences which had spoiled the freedom of the popular political elections in the Grecian and Roman republics, and which appear also in the republics of modern times, intruded upon the elections of the church. And the clergy likewise often suffered themselves to be guided by impure motives. Chrysostom laments, that the presbyters, in the choice of a bishop, instead of looking only at spiritual fitness, were led by regard for noble birth, or great wealth, or consanguinity and friendship.§ The bishops themselves sometimes did no better. Nectarius, who was suddenly transferred in 381 by the Emperor Theodosius from the praetorship to the bishopric of Constantinople, even before he was baptised, I wished to ordain his physician Martyrius deacon, and when the latter refused on the ground of incapacity, he replied, "Did not I, who am now a priest, formerly live much more immorally than thou, as thou thyself well knowest, since thou wast often an accomplice of

*Paulinus, Vita Ambros.; Sozomen, H. E. 1. iv. c. 24, and vii. 8. This historian excuses the irregularity by a special interposition of Providence. † Sulpitius Severus, Vita Mart. c. 7: "Incredibilis multitudo non solum ex eo oppido [Tours], sed etiam ex vicinis urbibus ad suffragia ferenda convenerat,"

&c.

† Socrates, H. E. vi. 2: Ψηφίσματι κοινῶ ὁμοῦ πάντων κλήρου το φημὶ καὶ λαοῦ. De sacerdotio, lib. iii. c. 15. Further on in the same chapter he says even, that many are elected on account of their badness, to prevent the mischief they would otherwise do: Οἱ δὲ, διὰ πονηρίαν (εἰς τὴν τοῦ κλήρου καταλέγονται τάξιν), καὶ ἵνα μὴ, παροφδέντες, μεγάλα ἐργάσωνται κακά. Quite parallel is the testimony of Gregory Nazianzen in his Carmen : εἰς ἑαυτὸν καὶ περὶ ἐπισκόπων, or De se ipso et de episcopis, ver. 330 sqq. and elsewhere. (Opera ed Bened. Par. tom. ii. p. 796).

Sozomen., Hist. Eccl. vii. c. 8. Sozomen sees in this election a special interposition of God.

my many iniquities?" Martyrius, however, persisted in his refusal, because he had continued to live in sin long after his baptism, while Nectarius had become a new man since his.*

The emperor, also, after the middle of the fourth century, exercised a decisive influence in the election of metropolitans and patriarchs, and often abused it in a despotic and arbitrary way.

Thus every mode of appointment was evidently exposed to abuse, and could furnish no security against unworthy candidates, if the electors, whoever they might be, were destitute of moral earnestness, and the gift of spiritual discernment.

Towards the end of the period before us, the republican element in the election of bishops entirely disappeared. The Greek church after the eighth century vested the franchise exclusively in the bishops. The Latin church after the eleventh century vested it in the clergy of the cathedral church, without allowing any participation to the people. But in the West, especially in Spain and France, instead of the people the temporal prince exerted an important influence, in spite of the frequent protest of the church.

Even the election of pope, after the downfall of the West Roman empire, came largely under control of the secular authorities of Rome; first, of the Ostrogothic kings; then, of the exarchs of Ravenna in the name of the Byzantine emperor; and, after Charlemagne, of the emperor of Germany; till in 1059, through the influence of Hildebrand (afterwards Gregory VII.), it was lodged exclusively with the college of cardinals, which was filled by the pope himself. Yet the papal absolutism of the middle age, like the modern Napoleonic military despotism in the state, found it well under favourable prospects to enlist the democratic principle for the advancement of its own interests.

MARRIAGE AND CELIBACY OF THE CLERGY.

Another strong pillar of the hierarchy, closely connected with the idea of a special priesthood in distinction from the laity, is the celibacy of the clergy, which assumed a legal form likewise in the Nicene age. The The progress and influence

* Sozomen. vii. c. 10. Otherwise he, as well as Socrates, H. E. v. c 8, and Theodoret, H. E. v. c. 8, speak very favourably of the character of Nectarius.

The seventh ecumenical council, at Nice, 787, in its third canon, on the basis of a wrong interpretation of the fourth canon of the first council of Nice, expressly prohibited the people and the secular power from any share in the election of bishops. Also the eighth general council prescribes, that the bishop should be chosen only by the college of bishops.