essentially subordinate ministry, and we have clear evidence that the apostolic office admitted of being extended and localized, as in the case of St. James and (more or less) of St. Timothy and St. Titus; but all that the New Testament can be said to give us clearly is the principle that the church ministry is a thing received from above with graduated functions in different offices, so that it follows as a matter of course that there would always be persons who had the power to minister and persons who had also the power to ordain other ministers; with the corresponding position that only those who had the power communicated to them could exercise the function. What we do not get, then, is a distinct instruction as to what form the ministry was to take. Were the local bishops to receive additional powers, such as would make them independent of any higher order? Or were the apostles and apostolic men, like Timothy and Titus, to perpetuate their distinct order? and, if so, was it to be perpetuated as a localized or as a general order? These questions are still open.

CHAPTER VI

THE MINISTRY IN THE SUBAPOSTOLIC AGE

Two moments in the history of the Christian ministry have hitherto come under our notice. First, we have traced back the ministry of bishops, presbyters, and deacons, as church history makes us familiar with it, to the dim period of the middle of the second century. Secondly, we have seen it take its rise at the apostolic fountain-head. We have, so to speak, watched the Divine Founder of the Church separate and educate and institute the apostolate, and we have watched the Apostles at work, after the withdrawal of His visible presence, with the full consciousness of divine commission and authority. And in doing this we could not but perceive that, while in a certain sense they exercised a unique function-so far, that is, as they were the original witnesses and heralds of the revelation given in Christ,-in another sense they held a stewardship and pastorate of souls, a function of government and a corresponding power, which they intended to perpetuate in the life of the Church the Church was not to develop her ministry from below, but to receive it from above by apostolic authorization. Thus we have found in the records of the New Testament the origin and title-deeds of a permanent ministry in the Church, the outcome of

connected

the apostolate, and we have found in the latter half of the second century that this ministry has taken shape in the episcopal successions of the Churches, which claim to perpetuate the apostolate in certain of its most fundamental functions. Now we Questions approach another group of questions. What are with the the links which connect the ministry of the apostolic ministry. subapostolic age with that of the age of Irenaeus? are they such as to justify the claims which Irenaeus makes for the episcopate? In particular, does the history, so far as we can trace it, suggest that the apostolic authority was perpetuated from the first in a special office superior to that of the presbyters, though it came shortly to be known by a title at first synonymous with the presbyterate, viz. the episcopate? Or does the evidence, on the other hand, lead us to believe that the permanent functions of government and ordination hitherto exercised by apostles and apostolic men were, so to speak, put into commission in the local colleges of presbyter-bishops, and that subsequently these supreme functions, hitherto belonging to all in common, came to be limited to one who alone retained the title of bishop? There is of course a third possibility, viz. that the functions exclusively discharged by the general or apostolic order in the first days (for instance, that of the laying-on of hands) lapsed altogether, and the Church of the second century, so to speak, redeveloped an apostolic order of bishops from below. With a view to answering the questions thus presented, we proceed to examine the historical links afforded by the sub- Links of apostolic documents.

evidence.

I

I. The episcopate at

James the head of a

line of bishops,

The first link is that supplied by the episcopate in Jerusalem. Jerusalem derived from James. James,' says Hegesippus, 'receives the Church in succession with the Apostles.' This corresponds to the evidence of the New Testament. James ranks with the Apostles; 2 but, unlike the Apostles, he is localized in Jerusalem, where he presides with the presbyters, and where at the apostolic conference he seems to hold the office of president and speaks with some degree of decisive authority, suggesting and probably framing the apostolic decree. Thus it has been common from the earliest times to see in James the 'bishop of Jerusalem' in the later sense, i.e. a localized apostolic ruler of the Church, and this commends itself to most modern critics. But though localized, his personal reputation and apostolic character made him a universal authority with Jewish Christians. This is

1

ap.

Euseb. Η. Ε. ii. 23 : διαδέχεται τὴν ἐκκλησίαν μετὰ τῶν ἀποστόλων. 2 Gal. i. 19, ii. 9; Acts xv.

3 Gal. i. 19; Acts xii. 17, xxi. 18.

4 Acts xv. 13, 19, 20. See Lightfoot Dissert. p. 197.

5 Clement of Alexandria (ap. Euseb. H. E. ii. 1) says: 'Peter and James and John, after the assumption of the Saviour, though even the Lord had assigned them special honour, did not claim distinction, but elected James the Just bishop of Jerusalem.' 'As early as the middle of the second century,' says Dr. Lightfoot (p. 208), 'all parties concur in representing him as a bishop in the strict sense of the term.' He refers to Hegesippus ap. Euseb. H. E. ii. 23, iv. 22, and to the Clementines, Hom. xi. 35, Ep. Petr. init., Ep. Clem. init., Recog. i. 43, 68, 73, etc. He himself concurs: James 'can claim to be regarded as a bishop' (p. 197). He gave, says Mr. Simcox (Early Ch. Hist. p. 50), it is scarcely inaccurate to say, the first example of a diocesan bishop.' Cf. Müller Verfassung p. 12.

6 Gal. ii. 11-14 illustrates St. James' influence, however little those who 'came from' him acted as he would have had them act; cf. the opening of his own epistle. Hegesippus gives a sacerdotal colour to his office; see Harnack Expositor, May 1887, p. 327. He was held in high regard amongst non-Christian Jews, and was known from the protection given by his constant intercessions as the repιON TOÛ Aaoù; see Heges. ap. Euseb. H. E. ii. 23; Josephus Ant. Jud. xx. 9. 1; cf. Simcox .c. p. 123.

the historical basis for the 'archiepiscopal' and even papal dignity assigned to him in the Ebionite traditions.1 When the hostility of the extreme Jewish nationalists led to his being put to death for 'breaking the law' just before the siege of Jerusalem, Symeon was elected to take his place, who, like James, was a relative of Jesus Christ. Hegesippus, whom Eusebius speaks of as 'having been born in the time of the first succession from the Apostles,' apparently recorded his election by the Apostles themselves,2 and certainly distinctly identifies his office with that of James and calls it a bishopric. He also mentions that there was a disappointed rival for the see called Thebuthis, who subsequently raised

1 Recog. i. 73 and Ep. Clem. init. 'bishop of bishops,' and 'archbishop.' He exercises a quasi-papal authority over Peter; Ep. Clem. 1, Recog. i. 17, 72.

2 ар. Euseb. H. E. iii. 32, iv. 22; cf. Lightfoot Dissert. pp. 202, 208. Eusebius says, iii. 11: After the martyrdom of James and the taking of Jerusalem which immediately ensued, it is recorded (λóyos katéɣeɩ) that those of the Apostles and of the Lord's disciples who were still alive came together from all parts, with those who were related to our Lord; for of them also there were still several alive and that they all held conference together as to whom they ought to select as worthy to succeed to James (ἄξιον τῆς Ἰακώβου διαδοχής). And that they all with one mind approved of Symeon the son of Clopas. . as worthy of the throne of the parish there, who was a cousin as they say of the Saviour. For Hegesippus relates that Clopas was a brother of Joseph.' The authority for this meeting may fairly, as Rothe maintains and Dr. Lightfoot admits, be assigned to Hegesippus.

The question arises-granted this meeting historical, as it well may be-can it be supposed that it not only elected a bishop of Jerusalem but also issued a general decree for the establishment of episcopacy? Such a 'second apostolic council' forms the basis for the supposed apostolic legislation of the Constitutions, and the establishment of 'monepiscopacy' seems to be assigned to it by Ambrosiaster on Eph. iv. 12 (prospiciente concilio). Jerome probably has the same meaning when he assigns the establishment of episcopacy to a formal 'decretum,' apparently of the Apostles (see on Tit. i. 5). Besides this Rothe (Anfänge pp. 351-392) quotes for the council the expression of Ignatius, τὰ διατάγματα τῶν ἀποστόλων (ad Trall. 7), and the expression of the second of Pfaff's fragments, attributed to Irenaeus, ai δεύτεραι τῶν ἀποστόλων διατάξεις. He also thinks that the ambiguous language of Clement's letter (c. 44) supports the same view. He holds that it was on this occasion that the Apostles so distributed the work amongst them as that Asia, according to a tradition mentioned by Origen (ap. Euseb. H. E iii. 1), 'was assigned to John.' This evidence is discussed fully by Dr. Lightfoot Dissert. p. 204 f., and most people will agree with him that it affords a very insecure basis for the idea of a formal second council of the Apostles legislating for the establishment of episcopacy.