HIERARCHY
342
HIERARCHY
G. Deacons. — The hypothesis that the deacons were
originally on a higher footing than the priests, almost
equal to that of the bishops, is supported by a few of the
vaguest indications taken from the earliest sources.
That such naive texts prove nothing is best shown by
the later texts, which allow the deacon remarkable
privileges, althougli his rank was definitively estab-
lished as no higher than the third order of the hier-
archy. (1) At the Council of Elvira (Eliberis) a dis-
cussion took place regarding deacons who govern
churches {diaconu.<s rcgciu jilebcm, can. bcxviij; that
is to say, where there is no bishop and no priest.
(2) In the Apostolic Constitutions (lib. II,c.xxvi) the
deacons come directly after the bishop, although it
was then established that their order held third place.
H. Tlie Hierarchy as an Ecclesiastical Institulion. — (1) The utterance of Tertullian (De exhort, cast. vii), declaring that the difference between the priests and the laity was due to ecclesiastical institution, and that therefore any layman in the absence of a priest could offer sacrifice, baptize, and act as priest, is based on Montanistic theories and contra- dicts earlier teachmgs of Tertullian (e. g., De baptismo, xvii). (2) Nor is there any better historical founda- tion for the statement of Cyprian (Epist., Ill, o) that Christ spoke only of bishops and priests, whereas the deacons are of Apostolic institutions. The latter is simply a conclusion drawn from the sixth chapter of Acts; while the preceding expresses a dogmatic judgment and the belief at the time of St. Cyprian.
I. Supposed Original Equality of Bishops and Priests. — (1) Epiphanius (Panar., Ill, c. iv, hser. Ixxv). — Epiphanius's arguments against .\rius, who held this original equality, form an excellent dogmatic thesis; but the description of primitive conditions is an arti- ficial construction, not a real historical account. (2) Jerome, Theodore of llopsuestia, the Arabrosiast. — ■ Jerome holds that bishops and priests were identical in the earliest times. According to him the monarchi- cal episcopate is an ecclesiastical institution, although it is for the good of the Church and based on Apostolic tradition ("Epist. ad Evangelum", 146 [So], 1; "Epist. ad Oceanum", 69 [S3], 3; "Comment, in Tit.": Migne, P. L., XXVI, 562, 563, 694, 695 and 696— "Dialog, advers. Lucifer", 9; Migne, P. L., XXIII, 164 sq.). But since on the other hand Jerome regards the power of ordination as peculiar to the bishop, his theory labours under an insoluble contradiction (cf. Epist. 146 [So] and "In Ep ad Tit.", ib.). Jerome's accounts do not offer any historical testimony, but an artificial and hypothetical construction. He infers far too much from the fact that the titles presbyter and bishop are synonymous in the New Testament, relying chiefly on an ordinance concerning the election of bishops of the Alexandrian Church, which prescribed that, in accordance with an ancient tradition, the college of presbj'ters should always choose and conse- crate one of its own numlier. The te.xts of St. Jerome are thoroughly discussed by Michiels, "L'origine de I'epi.scopat" (Louvain, 1900), 420 sq., and by Dom I.eon Sanders, "Etudes sur saint Jerome" (Bru.ssels and Paris, 1903), 298 sq. We shall speak presently about the election of the .Alexandrian bishops. From the time of Isidore of Seville vnitil late in the Middle Ages these accounts of St. Jerome were transcribed over and over without any attempt at criticism. For the history of these texts of St. Jerome, cf. Dunin Borkowski in "Ilistor. Jahrbuch.", XXI (1900), 221 sq.
Jerome and the Ambrosiast deny the original equality of bishops and priests; both maintain that the Churches even in Apostolic times were governed by single superiors, who all possessed the power of ordination and bore the name of Apostle [cf. Ambros., in Eph., iv, 11 and 12; in I Cor., xii, 18; in Phihpp., i, 1; in I Tim., iii, etc.; "Opera Ambrosii", ed. Ballerini, III (Milan, 1S77), 800 sq., 631, 830, 916; "Theodori Episcopi Mopsuesteni
in epist. B. Pauli commentarii", cd. H. B. Swete,
18S2; in I ep. ad Tim., iii, 8; 1. c, II, 114 sq.; in ep.
ad Tit., i, 7, 239]. The statements of Theodore and
of the Ambrosiast have much more value than those of
St. Jerome. We find similar utterances in Theodo-
ret's Commentary on Philippians, i, 1 (Migne, P. G.,
LXXXIl, ',-,<.) [445]) and on I Tim., iii (ib., 803 [652])
and also in John of Dara (in Abrah. Echellensis,
"Eutychius Patriarcha Alcxandrinus vindicatus"
[Rome, KitiS], 190 sq.). A similar notion is found in
Origen (Hom. in Xum., xi, 4, Migne, P. G.,XII [Orig.
II], 30S col. 649) ; except that he seems to speak of his
own time. lie speaks of the possibilitj' of a man
coming to a place where there are as yet no Christians,
of his teaching the people the Faith and inducing them
to accept it, anil finally becoming bishop himself.
In the places mentioned, Theodore of Mop.suestia has another peculiar statement. He declares that in the most ancient times those supreme ecclesiastical superiors, who were instituted by the original Twelve and called likewise apostles, ruled over entire prov- inces, whereas the towns were subject to presbj'ters. Even in later times not more than three bisnops, usually only two were to be found in a province; this condition, he adds, had lasted in the Occident almost up to his own time. Duchesne attached some histori- cal value to these utterances of Theodore [Fastes cpi.?copaux de I'ancienne Gaule, I (1S94), 36 sq.]. Harnack has refuted him very thoroughly in a valu- able excursus in the second volume of his work, "Die Mission imd ilie Ausbreitung des Christentums in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten", 2nd eil. (1906), 373 sq. Harnack assigns its true value to Theodore's testi- mony, though in some places he lets himself be in- fluenced by his own extremely hypothetical concept of the primitive Christian constitution. Theodore is correct in saying that originally whole provinces were imder one chief ruler known as an "apostle". One cannot, however, accept his conclusion that for a long time the single local communities were without any bishops of their own (cf. Harnack, 1. c, 378-395).
(3) The Alexandrian bishops are saicl to have been placed in office and consecrated by the local priests. History offers widely different accovnits of this singu- lar occurrence. Heretical monks complained to the holy monk Poimen about the Alexandrian archbishop, and claimed that he had been consecrated by priests. The event can have taken place between 370 and 460 (P. G., LXV, 341). Jerome mentions the fact (Pres- bj'teri . . . unum ex se electum . . . episcopum nominabant) (Epist. 146 ad Evangelum, Migne, P. L., XXII, 1194). Severus of Antioch also speaks of it in a letter written between 518 and 53S [E. W. Brooks, "The ordination of the early Bishops of Alexandria" in "Journal of Theol. Studies", II (1901), 612 sq.]. Finally in the tenth century the story is told at great length by Eutvchius, Melchite Patriarch of Alexandria (P. G., CXI,"903-06 and 982). It seems doubtful whether the Ambrosiast (1. c, in Eph., iv, 11, 12) refers to these conditions in Alexandria. Abraham Echellensis, notwithstanding his serious errors in chronology, has shown that Eutychius and his first editor, Selden, caused an irremediable confusion ["Eutychius, Patriarcha Alcxandrinus vindicatus" (Rome, 1661), 39 sq.,47sq.,53 sq., 63 sq.,103sq. On page 227 an important text of George Homaidius is given as a parallel to Eutycliius. Cf. also A. von Gutschmid, "Kleinc Schriften", II 399 sq.; 379 sq., 486, and Renaudot, " Liturgiarum Oriental. Collectio", I, 365 sq. ; 379 sq.]. The remaining three texts, when compared with one another, present serious diffi- culties. Moreover, they can hardly be reconciled with statements made by Clement of Alexandria and Origen [cf . Ch. Gore, "On the Ordination of the Early Bishops of Alexandria", in "Journal of Theol. Stud- ies" (1902), in, 279 sq.;and Cabrol in " Dictionnaire d'archeologie chr^tienne et de liturgie", a. v. " Alexan-
