CHAPTER VII

VII.

PROPHET, PRESBYTER AND BISHOP

Among the major influences which have conditioned the political history of Europe has been the hierarchical organization of the Catholic Church. It was largely the political power potential in an empire-wide organization that made Decius its persecutor and Constantine its patron; it was this which turned the Germanic princedom of Charlemagne into a Holy Roman Empire. The origin, therefore, of the Christian ministry is not without interest to the secular historian. But its discussion raises questions of a highly controversial character; for it is a matter in regard to which the different denominations of Christendom inherit very diverse official theories. These theories it would be inappropriate here either to expound or to criticize; it will suffice to outline evidence for the view' that in church order, as in other matters, there was in the first century considerable diversity, and that even in the New Testament itself a notable evolution can be discerned.

A small community can preserve its cohesion with very little formal organization; not so one that has branches in every important city in a vast empire. In this respect the Christian Church started with one great asset. It did not have to begin, like a League of Nations or an International Labor movement, by finding some basis of union for linking together societies which already had an independent existence. The Church conceived of itself, not as a new body, but as the ancient people of God; the inheritors of the promises given to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The modern historian may describe the Church as an offshoot of Judaism; the early Christians took the contrary view. They were the true Israel, the remnant who alone—the prophets had foretold it—would inherit the promises. Various prophecies of the Messianic age had spoken of Gentiles being gathered into this remnant; and Paul was gravely perplexed by the small proportion of born Jews alongside the relatively large number of Gentiles who had so far (c. AD 56) accepted Christ. Because, then, every congregation took it for granted that it was merely the local representative of the holy nation, the one people of God, organization was not at first required either as a means to unity or as a symbol of it. Its necessity was first made obvious by the difficulty of coping with false prophets who taught, as a word from the Lord, gnosticizing doctrine or loose morality.

Paul’s advice to the Corinthians as to the use of spiritual gifts shows that the claim to spirit-possession by certain of the more egoistic or hysterical members of the community had already become a source of embarrassment when it took the form of “speaking with tongues”. But prophesying in the congregation he strongly commends; and he speaks as if the gift of prophecy was so common that several prophets might easily be present at any ordinary meeting of the community. A generation later, however, it was no longer speaking with tongues, but prophecy itself, which caused embarrassment. A prophet spoke 'in the spirit,' and therefore with divine authority; but what if he were a false prophet? Everywhere there arose the problem of discriminating between the true prophet and the false. From Asia we have the warning: 'Beloved, believe not every spirit, but prove the spirits, whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world'. In Rome, Hermas has a whole section on the difficulty of distinguishing true and false prophets. While from Syria, in the Didache, come the most elaborate advices on this problem—a problem the more difficult because of the high peril involved in making a mistake. The editor of Matthew (c. AD 90), in a passage clearly derived from Mark, inserts the words: “Many false prophets shall arise, and lead many astray. And because antinomianism shall be multiplied, the love of the many shall wax cold”. This addition implies that among these self-styled prophets were preachers of religious amoralism.

That some of these antinomians claimed the authority of Paul we have already inferred from the protests in James and Peter. Prophets seem to have been very largely itinerants. This fact made the false prophet—whether heretic, crank or mere impostor—the more formidable, in a society which believed in supernatural gifts; for to find out a pretender usually takes time. To protect themselves against false prophets the churches had to strengthen the hands of trusted local leaders.

The Church of Jerusalem, we have seen, had from the first a single head in the person of James the brother of the Lord. Presbyters are also mentioned; and it is probable, though the Acts does not explicitly say so, that the title 'deacon' was applied to the Seven who were appointed, primarily, “to serve tables”. But circumstances in Jerusalem were exceptional. At any rate, the oldest theory of the Christian ministry of which we have evidence is: “And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, divers kinds of tongues”. Comparing this with the actual situation at Antioch, it would seem that in an ordinary Gentile Church, the most important persons (in the absence of an apostle) were named Prophets and Teachers. The mention, however, of 'helps' and 'governments,' combined with a reference elsewhere to the ministry and 'he who presides', suggests the existence of other officers. At any rate when, a little later, Paul writes to the Philippians, he names in his opening salutation the 'Bishops' (in the plural) and the Deacons. Ephesians, if not authentic, is a very early re-writing and elaboration of Colossians; it represents a further advance. 'And he gave some to be apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, shepherds and teachers'. As at Corinth, Apostles and Prophets still come first; but it is notable that 'Shepherd' (translated 'Pastor' in both English versions) has become a title of office, and the Shepherds are mentioned before the Teachers; and in the Old Testament the word shepherd is used as a standing description of the rulers of Israel.

In the Acts there is frequent mention of Presbyters. In Jerusalem these form a kind of concilium to James. The leaders of the Church of Ephesus are described as Presbyters but are addressed by Paul as 'Bishops' and their functions are those of shepherds, whose business is to feed the flock. As in Philippians, it is evident that a number of persons in this church bore the title 'Bishop.' So also in I Peter Presbyters are exhorted to fulfill the office of Bishop with zeal. This state of things still survived at Corinth, and at Rome, when I Clement was written in 96; and it lasted at Philippi till the time when Polycarp wrote to that Church.

The evidence of the Didache is very little affected by the answer given to the vexed question of its date. For, if it does not emanate from some important church c. 100, it represents a survival in some out-of-the-way district of conditions which elsewhere had passed away. Its interest is that, whatever its date or provenance, it reflects a system which is in a state of incipient breakdown. It gives elaborate instructions as to the reception of Apostles and Prophets. These are to be ‘received as the Lord’; but tests (implying that the problem is acute) are suggested how to determine whether such an one is a true Prophet or a false. For example, he is proved to be a false Prophet if he desires hospitality for more than two days, if on departure he asks for money, or if, when he ordereth a table in the Spirit, he shall eat of it. But there follows a regulation which would enable true Prophets to become, in effect, resident ministers, and to receive for their support the first fruits, for they are your chief-priests. The plain intention of another injunction is to raise the status of the Bishops and Deacons: “Appoint for yourselves therefore bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord, men who are meek and not lovers of money, and true and approved; for unto you they also perform the service of the prophets and teachers. Therefore despise them not; for they are your honorable men along with the prophets and teachers”. Evidently in the general regard, the offices of Bishop and Deacon are less esteemed than those of Prophet or Teacher; but it is, the writer insists, an honorable office, and therefore it is important that only men of high character should be appointed to it.

We have here a system like that implied in I Corinthians and in Acts XIII, 1-3—but in a state of breakdown. The order of precedence is still first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly teachers; and the title apostle has its older and wider connotation. But the prescription of set forms of thanksgiving, with a rubric allowing Prophets liturgical freedom, implies that the presence of a Prophet was by no means a matter of course. The gift of prophecy is evidently much rarer than when Paul wrote to the Corinthians; and the services once performed by Prophets and Teachers are now commonly supplied by the Bishops and Deacons.

The historical situation implied by the Didache is perfectly clear. The stream of prophecy, characteristic of the first age, is beginning to dry up in extent and to become muddied in quality. The leadership in worship and in instruction is beginning to pass into the hands of the Bishops and Deacons of the local churches. But these changes are only beginning; the old system is proving inadequate, the new has not yet developed.

The breakdown of the earlier system, or rather lack of system, was doubtless one main cause of the development of the monarchical episcopate. There is small gain in devising 'tests' for false prophets unless someone is made responsible for applying them. Evidence for the existence in Asia, in fact, if not also in name, of a bishop with monarchical powers is found in III John. The exact position held by the writer of the letter, who calls himself ‘The Elder’, is obscure; but it is clear that the Diotrephes mentioned is not merely one who “loveth to have the pre-eminence” in the church to which the letter is addressed; he is a person who has actually secured it. He has the power to decline to receive in the church brethren recommended by outsiders like the writer of the letter, and also to 'cast out of the church' members who differ from him; that is, he has the right of excommunication.

The evidence of the epistles to Timothy and Titus, curiously enough, points in opposite directions according as they are regarded as authentically Pauline or not. If authentic, we must say that here also the terms bishop and presbyter are interchangeable. If, however, they are, in the main, pseudonymous writings produced somewhere in Asia c. 105—110, they afford evidence of the existence at that date of the monarchical episcopate. For, in that case, the advice given to Timothy and Titus must be read as advice which their actual author would like to see taken by contemporaries of his own who exercise functions in the church comparable to those once exercised by Timothy and Titus as delegates of the Apostle. Timothy and Titus are represented as in supreme command, and are instructed by the Apostle how to use their power; there would have been small point in inventing such instructions for the benefit of church officers who, however well-meaning, had not the power to carry them out. The latest in date of these letters is I Timothy; and this unlike II Timothy and Titus does not seem to incorporate any genuine Pauline notes. But just because it is entirely the work of the editor, it is a document of great interest to the historian, as being a contemporary description (slightly idealized) of what we might call parish activities and organization about AD 110. Ignatius, when at home in Antioch, would have occupied himself very much as Timothy is here enjoined to do.

In the letters of Ignatius (c. AD 115) we find the single Bishop, clearly distinguished under that name, a board of Presbyters and a group of Deacons. His letters also show that this system prevailed, not only in his own church of Antioch, but in the churches of Asia Minor to which he writes. The main purpose of Ignatius in writing is to exalt the office of these ministers—especially the Bishop. The language he uses is hyperbolic: “The bishop as being a type of the Father and the presbyters as the council of God and as the college of the Apostles. Apart from these a church does not deserve to be called a church”. “Wheresoever the bishop shall appear, there let the people be; even as where Jesus may be, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful apart from the bishop either to baptize or to hold a love feast; but whatsoever he shall approve, this is well pleasing also to God ... It is good to recognize God and the bishop. He that honoureth the bishop is honored of God; he that doth aught without the knowledge of the bishop rendereth service to the devil”.

We naturally ask what was the situation at Rome at this date; for Ignatius' letter to that church does not give the title of any church officer. Twenty years earlier, as appears from Clement, there had been at Rome (and Corinth) a plurality of officers spoken of alternatively as bishops or presbyters, and an order of deacons. Clement emphasizes the duty of obedience to these as to persons in a succession deriving from the Apostles. This “apostolic succession”, however, is not through a line of monarchical bishops, but is that of a corporate body; and appointment is subject to the consent of the laity.

Hegesippus, before AD 166, drew up a list of the Bishops of Rome, whom he traces back to Linus, appointed by Peter and Paul; that list should be good evidence for at least the previous fifty years. Dates, which for the later names are reasonably trust­worthy, can be calculated from the terms of office of each pope given in two Latin lists apparently derived from the Chronica of Hippolytus. Xystus (c. 115-125), whose name stands sixth, is mentioned in a letter of Irenaeus as the first of a succession of popes whose policy (in regard to Asian Christians) he reproaches Victor with having reversed. In Hermas, however, the rulers of the church in Rome are always spoken of in the plural—as presbyters, rulers, shepherds, a way which definitely excludes a monarchical bishop; though there may have been something like a chairman of the ruling elders. But if, rejecting the date assigned to Hermas in the Muratorianum, we accept his own statement that he began writing in the lifetime of Clement (c. AD 98), we may reasonably suppose that by AD 115 this chairmanship had become in practice a kind of managing directorship.

The further transition to monarchical episcopate may well have taken place under Xystus, and that as a direct result of the influence of Ignatius himself, whose martyrdom in the Colosseum must have nearly synchronized with the accession of Xystus. In every letter (save that to Rome) Ignatius' farewell message to the churches is the duty of obedience to the Bishop. But Ignatius was not only a martyr, he was also a prophet; and, under seizure by the Spirit, he inculcated this same duty: “I cried out when I was among you; I spoke with a loud voice, with God's own voice, Give ye heed to the bishop and the presbytery and the deacons ... He in whom I am bound is my witness that I learned it not from the flesh of man; it was the preaching of the Spirit who spake in this wise: Do nothing without the bishop”. It is unthinkable that such a man would have failed to give that same message in Rome. And suppose, just before he was cast to the beasts, the Spirit put into his mouth an utterance like that just quoted—the church would have given heed.

Accepting the view that the larger part of Polycarp's epistle belongs to its writer's later years, Ignatius is the last important figure in the period with which this chapter deals. But he should be regarded, less as the last representative of the primitive period of Christianity, than as the pioneer of the next age. Ignatius is the first great ecclesiastic. It is due to him to add that the authority which he desiderated for the ministry was not claimed from love of power for its own sake, or of organization for its own sake. He fought for what seemed to him vital to unity in the Church and the protection of the flock from heresy. Nor is he merely concerned with sound doctrine'; he has the pastor's instinct. The heretics whom he denounces “have no care for love, none for the widow, none for the orphan, none for the afflicted, none for the hungry or thirsty”. His letter to Polycarp, a fellow-bishop, shows the 'paternal' character of his ideal—equally kindly and authoritarian: “Let not widows be neglected. After the Lord, be thou their protector. Let nothing be done without thy consent; neither do thou anything without the consent of God, as indeed thou doest not. Be steadfast. Let church services be held more frequently. Seek out all men by name. Despise not slaves, whether men or women. Yet let not these again be puffed up, but let them serve the more faithfully to the glory of God, that they may obtain a better freedom from God”.

Neither the details of the heresies, Gnostic or Jewish, which Ignatius opposes, nor the theological conceptions with which he does so, need detain us. But it is of interest to note that the weapons which he uses include, not only the Old Testament, but the beginnings of the New. The Gospel of Matthew and a collection of Epistles of Paul are already for him more than merely Christian classics; they are an authoritative vehicle of the doctrine of the Apostles. Ignatius is clear-sightedly adopting the principle laid down by Jude, and contending earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints.

Interpenetration of religions was the fashion of the times; and without some further definition (which in practice means standardization) of doctrine, so much from the general welter of Graeco-Oriental religion would have filtered into Christianity that it would have lost its distinctive features—not by attack from outside, but by assimilation from within. A line had to be drawn somewhere; some principle of exclusion was required. The Gnostics, as their name implies, were (or at least they supposed themselves to be) intellectuals; and it was ostensibly as an intellectual issue—though one involving grave moral consequences—that the battle had to be fought. That is why the 'faith,' which the main body of the Church was concerned to defend, came to be thought of primarily as `orthodoxy'; that is, as assent to correct opinion in regard to doctrines stated in intellectual terms. History has demonstrated the unfortunate results of the selection of this as the main principle of exclusion. But at that time no other was to hand.

Ignatius is the father of those who champion orthodoxy. For his times—though not for all time—he was in the line of next advance. He was the first ecclesiastic; but, strange as that may appear to some, his age had need for such.