Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

diction of Basilinopolis, a small city in the neighborhood. of Nice. This city was originally a small village, but had so increased as to be invested by Justinian with the rights and privileges of a city, and as such, belonged to the jurisdiction of the metropolitan of Nicomedia. But, as a village adjacent to Nice, according to the views above stated, it was under the jurisdiction of the bishop of Nice, who had himself ordained the presbyter of Basilinopolis as a bishop in accordance with the old order of things, and in direct violation of the metropolitan rights of the bishop of Nicomedia, who alone claimed the right to ordain bishops in his own province. The only defence which the bishop of Nice could offer, was to claim jurisdiction over it, on the ground of its relation to Nice; having formally belonged to the precincts of that city as a neighboring and dependent church. The instance goes to show that such relations had existed, and were still claimed as valid, even under the metropolitan system then in force.

The second example is derived from the region of the Mareotis, near Alexandria. In this whole extent of country so late as the fourth century, there was no bishop, or rural bishop, chorepiscopus; but only presbyters, who were under the jurisdiction of the bishop of Alexandria; and so jealous was he of this prerogative, that he had refused, for this length of time, any other ministry to the churches of the Mareotis than that of presbyters.

The same state of things is apparent from the relations of the presbyters in the city to the bishop, in contrast with those of presbyters in the country. When, in process of time, several distinct churches were found in a given city, the presbyters of these churches refused themselves to acknowledge a subordination to the bishop similar to that of the presbyters in the country. They claimed an equality with him. They had elected him from their own number; and they continued to regard him only as primus

inter pares; and, as ministers in the metropolis, claimed precedence over those in the country. Thus in the letter of the Arians to Alexander, the. bishop and all the clergy of Alexandria first affix their signature. Then follows that of three bishops from other parts of Egypt. All which serves to illustrate the subordination of the clergy in the country to those of the city.

This view of the subject is not new; nor is it put forth as original in the writer. It has the sanction of many authors from whom the above particulars have been derived. Of these, it is sufficient to. mention, Spittler,5 Pertsch, Mosheim,7 Planck,8 Neander, Guerike,10 Siegel,11 Schoene,12 W. Böhmer,13 D'Aubigné.14

II. Of the early ascendancy of the bishops in the cities over those of the country.

In close connection with the foregoing changes in the government of the churches and in their relations to each other, there were others which were equally influential in disturbing the mutual relations which had hitherto subsisted, both between the clergy one toward another, and between the bishop of the city and the clergy in the country.

1. Of these changes, the most important is the division of the clergy into the separate orders of bishop and presbyter. The ordinary priesthood, as established under the apostles, constituted, as we have seen, but one class or

5 Can. Rechts., § 4-10. 6 lb., § 17-23, und. Kirchen Hist., Sec. II. 7 De Rebus Christ., Saec. II, § 37, note 3.

8 Gesell. Verfass., pp. 18-83, 546–572.

9 Allgem. Kirchen Gesch., 1, 2d ed., p. 314-316.

11 Kirchliche Verfass., 2, pp. 454-473; 4, p. 378.

10 Ib., p. 95-97.

12 Geschichtsforschungen, Vol. 3, p. 336-340. See also, Conc. Carthag., c. 31, Bracar., c. 1, Agath., c. 53, Tarracon, c. 8.

13 Alterthumswissenschaft, 1, p. 230–236.

14 Hist. of Reformation, Vol. I, p. 18. N. Y., 1843.

order; and were denominated, indiscriminately and interchangeably, bishops and presbyters. The great historian, to whom the reader is indebted for the Introduction which stands at the head of this volume, ascribes the origin of this distinction to the second century, and the full development of their respective orders to a period considerably later.15 Waiving, in this place, the further discussion of this vexed question, we will here state the origin of this distinction, according to Siegel and others, as a fair expression of the prevailing views of those who deny the original superiority of the bishop and the apostolical origin of Episcopacy.

There was at first but one church in a city, to which all the Christian converts belonged. But the care of the church was entrusted, not to one man, but to several, who constituted a college of presbyters, and divided the duties of their office among themselves. This arrangement was conformable to the analogy of the Jewish synagogue, after which the church was organized. A plurality of persons every where appears in the Acts as the representatives of the church at Jerusalem. They appear, also, in the church at Ephesus, Acts 20: 17-28; and at Philippi, Phil. 1: 1. Titus was also instructed to ordain elders in all the cities in Crete. In such a college of elders, sharing a joint responsibility in the care of the churches, it would obviously be convenient, if not indispensable, for one of their number to act as the moderator or president of their assemblies. Such a designation, however, would confer on the presiding elder no official superiority over his fellow-presbyters; but, coupled with age, and talents, and spiritual gifts, it might give him a control in their councils, and in the government of the church. This control, and this official rank, as the gosσrós, the presiding elder, which was first conceded to him by his fellow-presbyters only as 15 Comp. his Apost. Gesch., 1, 50, 198, seq. 406. Allgem. Kirch., 1, 327, 328, 2d ed.

a fellow-presbyter, a primus inter pares, he began in time to claim as his official prerogative. He first began by moral means and the influence of accidental circumstances to be the bishop of the church, and afterwards claimed the office as his right. This assumption of authority gave rise to the gradual distinction between bishop and presbyter. It began early to disturb the relations of equality which at first subsisted between the ministers of the churches; and, in the course of the second and third centuries, resulted in the division of the clergy into two distinct orders,-bishops and presbyters.

This simple exposition of the origin of the Episcopal office has the sanction of the most approved authorities, particularly of the distinguished historian whose works we have so often cited,16 to which we may add Gieseler,17 Guerike,18 Gabler, 19 Mosheim,20 Pertsch,21 and many others.

2. The duties and responsibilities of the bishop, in times. of persecution, had their influence in exalting this officer, and separating him further, both from the presbyters and the people. Under such circumstances, the bishop of the metropolis became the counsellor and guardian of the 16 Apost. Kirch., 1, 39, seq. 3d ed., 50, 198, seq. 406. Allgem. Gesch., 1, 324, seq. 2d ed. "In the Acts, a plurality of presbyters always appears next in rank to the apostles, as representatives of the church at Jerusalem. If any one is disposed to maintain that each one of these presbyters presided over a smaller part of its special meetings, still it must be thereby established, that, notwithstanding these divided meetings, the church formed a whole, over which this deliberative college of presbyters presided, and therefore the form of government was still of a popular character."Neander, Apost. Kirch., 1, c. 2, 3d ed. This plurality of ministers over the same church continued, even to the fourth century, to be the order of the churches."-Planck, Gesell. Verfass., 1, 551.

[ocr errors]

17 Lehrbuch der Kirchengesch., 3, Aufl. 1, 118.

18 Kirch. Geschichte, 1, pp. 89-93, 2d ed.

19 De Epis. primae eccl. eorumque origine.

20 Hist. Eccl., 3, p. 108, seq., and Kirchenrecht, by Ernst, p. 52.

21 Can. Recht., p. 42. Kirch. Hist., Saec. II, c. 5, § 8-15, Compare, especially, Ziegler's Versuch der Gesch. der Kirch. Verfass., pp. 34–61.

churches. His wisdom, his talents, and his influence were their confidence and trust. To him the needy and distressed also looked for consolation and relief.

3. The rage and vengeance of their persecutors fell often upon him; and, while it excited the sympathy and veneration of the church, prepared them more readily to acquiesce in his authority.22

4. As the church increased in numbers, the intercourse between each member individually and the bishop became less, and a corresponding separation between him and his people of necessity ensued.

5. Many of them were the successors of the apostles, or the bishops of apostolical churches, and this circumstance gave them additional consideration.23 The bishops of Rome,24 of Carthage, of Jerusalem,25 and others, derived importance from this consideration. The divisions and regulations of these churches, which had been planted by the hand, or reared up under the immediate supervision of the apostles, had, with other churches, not unfrequently a canonical authority equivalent to that of statute laws. 26

6. The distinction between the clergy and laity, which began about this time, is worthy of particular notice. In the apostolical churches the office of teaching was not restricted to any particular class of persons. All Christians accounted themselves the priests of God; and between the church and their spiritual leaders very little distinction was known. This fact is so universally acknowledged, that it

22 Spittler's Can. Recht., c. 1, § 5.

23 Comp. Tertull., De Praescript. Advers. Haeret., c. 20, 26, 36. Peter de Marca, de Concord. Sacerd, et Im., Lib. 5, c. 20. Lib. 7, c. 4, § 6, seq. 24 Irenaeus, Advers. Haer., Lib. 3, c. 2; 4, c. 26; 5, c. 20, 44. 25 Firmil., ap. Cyp., Epist. 75.

26 Mosheim, De Rebus Christ., Saec. II, § 21. In this section and the accompanying note is given a full and interesting illustration of the canonical authority of such churches. Comp., also, Gieseler, Lehrbuch, pp. 160 -163, Note.

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »