HIERARCHY
343
HIERARCHY
drie"]. The outcome of it all is, as Cabrol states,
that in the fourth century and later a tradition existed
that the Bishops of Alexandria were chosen, or per-
haps even consecrated, by the presbyterate.
VI. Short Synopsis of the Principal Results Gained by Examination of all the Texts. — In the earliest times those who first preached the Gospel in a place, usually retained the supreme direction of the communities which they had themselves founded. We say usually; for the message of Christianity could be carried to some places by men who were not mission- aries by their calling, and thus could claim no personal authority (Rome); or by men who felt sure of their vocation as preachers of the Word of God, but ditl not wish to organize or govern (Ephe.sus?). Accordingly, there were cases in which the foundation proper did not coincide with the first preaching of the Gospel; and in such cases the Apostle who was f ovinder became the chief ruler. This position, in which the Apostle Paul and the first Apostles were established, was charismatical in the sense given above, i. e., it origi- nated in a personal commission from Jesus. We know nothing definite about the calling of the apostles in the wider sense. The idea that they always followed a direct intimation of the Spirit is not impossible, but it cannot be proved. The apostolate was not a mysti- cal or miraculous charisma, like the gift of tongues and of prophecy. The founding of the Church included its organization as well. The individual Churches could not have evolved their organization out of their own inner power of jurisdiction, for it was as an organism that each existed from the start, and only as an organ- ism that it put forth its activity. That is the most ancient Christian concept of the body ecclesiastic that we know of. But the conclusion is also established that the Church's power of action was not bestowed on her by the founding Apostles. As a second Christ, as the Body of Christ, both the universal Church and the local Churches possessed certain rights and powers which could not have been conferred by men. The Church was essentially the creation of Ciod and Christ. But these rights and privileges can no more be referred to the autonomous communities than to the founding and governing Apostles; they are the work of God and Christ. Communal autonomy, in the modern sense, which makes the community not merely the subject, but also the creator and ultimate reason of its own juridical powers, it a concept directly opposed to the deepest convictions of the early Chris- tians. Since the Churches were regarded as organisms, tiiese Divinely given powers ami jirivileges did not pertain to the community as distinguished from the governing officials, but to the organized community. Primitive t'hristian faith represented the organs of the mystical body of Christ, inclutling the local governing powers in general, as a law, an ordinance of God and ■ Christ. It has been mistakenly asserted that the gov- erning organs did not stand above the community. This is true only in the sense that the community, as the organized body of Christ, includes within itself all its organs; but, as soon as the idea is introduced that the superiors received their power from the au- tonomous community of the faithful, the view is con- trary to that of primitive Christianity.
Neither the power of the Apostles nor of the other superiors was tyrannical and autocratic in its nature. All were equally bound by the Wortl of God. The importance which was attached to charity and humil- ity gave a patriarchal tone to Christian society. But true juridical relations were there none the less. The foremost Protestant scholars reject the paradox pi'f>posed by Rudolf Sohm in the first volume of his " Kirchenrecht", that legal right is alien to the concept of the Ecclrtiia. But a great deal of confusion ami obscurity is still brought into a naturally clear and simple matter by an improper use of modern legal concepts and certain one-sided peculiarities of the
Roman law. The investigator should bear in mind
the juridical conditions of the early Church and the
manner of expression peculiar to those times. Did
the first Christians accept ecclesiastical authority as a
manifestation of the Divine will in the abstract, and
quite independently of the question whether the
superior offered himself spontaneously, was elected,
or was otherwise placed in oflSce? Did they under-
stand their subjection to superiors as an obligation
imposed upon subjects of Gotl, and, consequently, the
superior's right of government as a moral possession
allotted by God? Our texts oblige us to answer both
these questions in the affirmative. But this is the
very essence of Divine jurisdiction. In other words,
the organic disposition of the Church is the will and
commandment of God and Christ. A second question is:
Did the Apostles and ecclesiastical superiors, in view
of their Divinely given mission, ascribe to themselves
certain rights of government which, though not deter-
mined as to their subject-matter by a direct mandate of
Christ, were none the less oliligatory on the faithful?
To this question, also, the sources give the same dis-
tinctly affirmative answer.
Since, likewise, local authority was regularly ac- cepted as an ordinance of Christ, different members and organs, with strictly regulated functions, must have gradually been evolved everywhere. These in- clude also the governing communal organs together with the universal apostolate and the travelling help- ers of the .\postles. In many places, of course, men of power, endowed with miraculous gifts, such as prophets, could for a time take the place of the regular governing officials. An organization of the Church based solely on mystical or miraculous charismatical gifts is as fabulous as the alleged democratic organiza- tion. The Apostle, who had some sense of order and ability for organizing, took care to establish resident helpers in the newly-foundeil communities. St. Paul was pleased when the first-fruits of the Faith in any city offered themselves for the service of the community. If they were men of proved character, and were recog- nized by the Apostle, it became the duty of the Chris- tian to respect and obey them. But in some cities peculiar offices existed from the earliest times. In the midst of the Jewish and heathen society of Asia Minor and Palestine, such personages were given the name of presbyter; but in other regions no special title seems to have been attached to them at the beginning; only superiors and servants (deacons) were spoken of. But the name of episkopos (overseer) soon came into use; and the title of deacon was restricted more and more to the assistants of the chief local officials. These presbyters, or bishops, formed a sort of college. There is no proof that in the Apostolic times there existed, besides the deacons, two separate corporations, each provided with special powers: a college of presbyters and a college of bishops, who were drawn from the ranks of the presbyters or added to their number.
To explain the Kpistles of St. Ignatius, one must as- sume that the separation of the titles bishop and pres- byter took place in many localities as early as 70-80, and that, even at this time, the monarchical head of the community was frequently called episkopos. At an early period these superiors were given the favour- ite title of shepherd. The name riyovixefoi (leaders) was of somewhat later appearance, and probably later still (Clement and Hermas) the compound word irpo?;- ■yovftemi (Clement and Hennas) ; the terms ■wpoKaB-fuxtvai (presiding officials) and irpuiTOKaBeip'tTaL (holders of seats of honour) are undoubtedly of later origin. It seems probable that, side Ijy side with ir^oib-Td/ieTOi, the form TTpoecTTuTes was used, Init this cannot be proved with certainty. In I Tim., v. 1 7, the word is an adjec- tive {pi /caXuJs TrpoecTTwres irpefffiuTepoL). The preaching and interpretation of the Worcl of God was undertaken in the earliest times by the Apostles and their travel- ling helpers, among whom the "evangelists " were in-
