CHAPTER V

The Church--Its Ministry

I

II

III

IV

Apostle	Prophet	Evangelist	GENERAL AND TEMPORARY
		(Teacher)
Bishop	Presbyter	Deacon	LOCAL AND PERMANENT.

Certain things we know about the local ministry fit in with this theory and there are others which do not harmonise with it. Take first the Ephesian list. Here we have (1) Apostles, (2) Prophets, (3) Evangelists. Then follow what may be two offices--not one as is usually supposed: (1) Pastors, (2) Teachers. These are local and permanent officers and it may be that Pastors refers to Presbyters, who were certainly in existence at Ephesus²³, and most likely in all the Churches to which this letter came. These Pastors at this early stage really cover both Apostles and Prophets in the wider ministry. Only later do the Bishops arise out of the general body of Pastors, either through the settling of an Evangelist, Prophet, or Apostle in the local Church, or the rising to pre-eminence of one of the Presbyters. It may be objected that the analogy fails because Apostles were before Prophets in the general ministry, and therefore Bishops ought to be before Presbyters in [122] point of time. But this is a difficulty which every theory has to meet, for there is no scholar to-day who is prepared to claim that in point of time Bishops are before Presbyters. Besides, it is not really true that in every case Apostles were before Prophets. In the case of those who were not of "The Twelve" it was surely not so, and St. Paul's case may have been one of an Apostle arising out of the body of Prophets. Certainly in Acts xiii. both St. Paul and Barnabas are described as amongst the body of Prophets and Teachers in the Antioch Church, and after this Luke speaks of them as Apostles. It is quite true that St. Paul claims he did not receive his commission from men, but he may be referring specially to not having received it of the original Apostles, and he would quite legitimately regard the call described in Acts xiii. as "not from men."

      Teachers, then, in Ephesians would correspond to Deacons, who stand in the local Church in the place of Evangelists in the general Church. This is borne out by the Didache, which regards Bishops (Presbyters in the Didache sense) and Deacons as standing in the room of Prophets and Teachers (Evangelists). The Presbyters at this early stage stand in the place of the Prophets and from them arises later the Bishop, as certain Apostles might have arisen from the body of Prophets. The Deacons, it is expressly stated, stand in the place of general Teachers or Evangelists. This is in keeping with what we know of the duties of Deacons, who certainly were not mere almoners. The Presbyters and later the Bishops had charge of the finance, and the Deacons were assistants, but had other duties to [123] perform, as had the Presbyters. The Acts is clear on the question of money being in the hands of Presbyters, and subsequent history shows that the Presbyters and later the Bishop had charge of the funds.²⁴ The list of qualifications in 1 Tim. also shows that both Bishops and Deacons had to deal with money, and it is significantly stated that the Deacon must "hold the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience."²⁵ The Evangelist's duty in the Church catholic was to "guard the deposit of the faith," and so the Deacon "holds the mystery of the faith." The view that the Deacon's office is associated with temporalities only, is a comparatively modern one.²⁶ In keeping with this theory that a threefold ministry arose as a copy of the threefold ministry of the universal Church, is the fact that in the second century the Deacon is closely associated with the Bishop and not with the Presbyters. The Evangelist as we know was closely associated with the Apostle and generally worked under his directions, whereas the Prophets stand apart from both Apostles and Evangelists. Thus, when the Bishop arises out of the body of Presbyters, we get the Deacon associated with the Bishop, and in the course of time arises the Archdeacon who stands as a Bishop's deputy. During the third century the Presbyters sink into insignificance, but finally gain their rightful position.

      (2) The second theory points more in the direction of a two-fold ministry with the Bishop finally arising out of it and taking the place, not of [124] the Apostles, but of Christ, as suggested by most of the language of Ignatius. If we regard the general ministry as consisting of two officers: (1) the Apostle, (2) the Prophet, and that in the general ministry, what happened first was the production, of (1) Sub-Apostles, (2) Sub-Prophets, we arrive at (1) Evangelists and (2) Teachers. Thus:

	1. Apostles		Evangelists.
	2. Prophets		Teachers.

These Evangelists and Teachers had a commission wider than the local Church, just as Apostles and Prophets had, but they might be resident for a time in local Churches, and from them sprang (1) the Presbyters, and (2) the Deacons, definitely local Church officers. Thus:

	1. Apostles		3. Evangelists		4. Presbyter.
	2. Prophets		5. Teachers		6. Deacon.

Thus in the Ephesian list we have five of these classes developed, but not the sixth in the Churches of Asia and in the Church catholic. We get (1) the Apostle, (2) the Prophet, (3) the Evangelist, (4) the Presbyter (Pastor), and (5) the Teacher. The definitely local Deacon may have come later in these Churches than in Philippi. Acts xx. does not mention Deacons in the Ephesian Church--only Presbyters, who are also Bishops and Pastors. In the same way the single Bishop in the Ignatian sense may have been evolved upwards out of the Presbyters. This would explain why Timothy in this district has a commission with regard to the Bishop and Deacons. The Bishop is in the singular. Was he sent to ordain Deacons and to ordain single [125] Bishops in the Ignatian sense of the term in Churches which already had Presbyters? This would mean that in 1 Timothy, Presbyter and Bishop are not used in exactly the same sense, though the Epistle to Titus seems to point the other way, and most writers, including Gore, regard the terms Presbyter and Bishop as identical in the New Testament.²⁷

      If we regard the Deacon as springing from the Prophet through the Teacher, we get a suggestion as to why women are found in the Diaconate. There were women Prophets and we get women Deacons, though never women Presbyters, as there were no women Evangelists or Apostles. But the passage in the Didache²⁸ is against this theory, as the Bishop (Presbyter) takes the place of the Prophet and the Deacon that of the Teacher, and Ignatius nowhere gives us any office in the catholic Church corresponding to that of Deacon in the local Church, only stating that the Deacon's appointment is of Christ; though he constantly regards the Presbyters as successors of the Apostles in the sense of filling in the local Church the same Office which the Apostles held in the universal Church. If the theory in any way accounts for the connection between the general and local ministry it gives us a two-fold ministry--not three-fold--in the universal Church, and a two-fold ministry as a replica in the local Church. Apostles and Prophets in the universal Church would then correspond to Presbyters and Deacons in the local Church, and later when the Bishop becomes a separate office--though perhaps not a separate order--arising out of the Presbyters, [126] he has no counterpart in the original ministry of the universal Church, and so is said to stand in the place of God or Christ, while the Presbyter still stands in the place of the Apostles.²⁹ Ignatius seems to find justification for connecting the Bishop with Christ from 1 Peter ii. 25.³⁰

      Whilst then it is clear from the New Testament that there was a temporary ministry of the universal Church which gave place to a permanent ministry of the local Church, yet it is not clear how the one grew out of the other, and what the relationship of the one to the other was. Nor is it perfectly clear what was temporary and what was permanent, nor as we shall see when we discuss the permanent ministry, is it clear from the New Testament what form it eventually took. As we have seen, various theories can be advanced, none of which accounts for all the facts. These theories may lead to different views as to what form the permanent ministry eventually took. The Didache helps, but it does not solve the problem, and the Johannine literature gives us nothing on which to base an argument. We are in need of a continued Acts of the Apostles from A. D. 64-100, to throw light on what is obscure. It does not seem that we have any firm ground under our feet on this question of the permanent ministry until we come to the Ignatian Epistles.

      A second point on which there is a fairly general agreement is that as far as the local and permanent [127] ministry is concerned, there was a development during the Apostolic age. It is true that some contend that the full scheme of ministry was revealed to "The Twelve"³¹ by Christ after His resurrection, but the Acts of the Apostles lends no colour to this theory. It rather shows a ministry being evolved to meet the needs of the growing organism. Acts vi. gives us the first departure and shows us the appointment of seven men to some office in the Jerusalem Church. This appointment arose out of the needs of the community. It was none the less the Spirit leading into all truth, for this is the way, as history shows, that the Spirit often works.³² The growth of the ministry in the rest of Acts shows a development to meet needs as they arose. Local Churches for a time remain unorganised--without any official ministry; a fact which controverts entirely any idea that the ministry is before the Church. As the charismatic ministry ceased, the more official ministry became more firmly established, and we have Timothy sent to Ephesus, and Titus to Crete, to bring into existence ministries which are to take the place of what has been charismatic and temporary. The Didache gives a similar picture. Even if we agree that the Apostles had any definite instruction as to the exact form the ministry should take--and it is most doubtful--we are bound to admit development [128] during the first sixty years. We may start then from this point, but it is just here that we leave firm ground so far as the New Testament is concerned. We have one book which covers the first thirty years and then we are dependent on a number of letters, which, of course, assume pretty full knowledge on the part of those who received them and therefore give us little information of the definite kind we require. Moreover we cannot always fix the dates of the documents we are dealing with. The books outside the Pauline Canon give us little help. Hebrews speaks of Rulers and James and Peter of Presbyters. In the Pauline writings we have Bishops, Presbyters, Pastors and Deacons; and in Acts Bishops and Presbyters. Some of St. Paul's writings are silent on the question of local ministry, though we cannot argue from this that none existed, and if we did so the Acts in some cases would contradict us. At the end of the second thirty years we have the Johannine writings which help us very little in the solution of our question. The Fourth Gospel sheds no light, and I agree with Bishop Gore that nothing can be argued from the angel in the Apocalypse. The third epistle is the most helpful, but it does not carry us far. It gives us a picture of a man in some position, who was animated by a wrong spirit, and who was exercising wrongly the power of excommunication. Apart from this it tells us nothing of the officers in the local Church.

      Outside the New Testament the Didache--agreeing with the Philippian Epistle--shows us Bishops and Deacons arising in each Church.

      Here are three words--Bishop, Presbyter, and [129] Deacon. Are they three offices in the New Testament writings or are Bishop and Presbyter identical? We need not go into the pre-Christian association of the words, for it is now generally admitted that Bishop and Presbyter, as found in the New Testament, are used of the same office--or, at least, that there are not three offices.³³ We start with a two-fold ministry, therefore, and the higher office of Bishop is later developed upwards out of this. This view, which is now general, is supported by the Didache, and by Clement, as well as Polycarp; and Eusebius seems to have been aware that in some sense Bishop and Presbyter had originally been identical.³⁴ But in what sense were they identical? Having admitted that Presbyter (Bishop) and Deacon were the two orders of ministry in the New Testament, and that whatever theory we adopt the Bishop comes later, we have still to solve the riddle of the two names for one office; and it will not do merely to say that Presbyter is confined to Jewish Churches, for in Gentile Churches we get both words in use. In what sense then were the Bishop and Presbyter identical?

      McGiffert's theory is that Presbyter was a general term which included both Bishop and Deacon--a term something like the general term "Minister" to-day.³⁵ He is led to this theory by the fact that Harnack points out that passages showing a distinction between Presbyter and Bishop are very early, proving that there must have been a difference of [130] some sort between Presbyter and Bishop from the beginning. Here it may be pointed out that these early passages showing a difference do not necessarily point to the fact that from the beginning there was a difference in office between Presbyter and Bishop. The original difference may have been one of Jewish or Gentile usage, and everything in the Acts would fit in with this. I admit that the passages in the New Testament lend themselves to McGiffert's interpretation, but the point is they can be interpreted apart from his theory, and this is to some extent a warning to be cautious in accepting it. McGiffert argues that if he is right, we are to expect the general term to be used before the particular terms, and this is exactly the case in Acts. But I cannot feel that Acts xx. 17-38 reads as smoothly when interpreted along the lines of this theory as when we regard all the Presbyters of Ephesus as being Bishops, rather than some Bishops and some Deacons. Of course those who regard "The Seven" in Acts vi. as Deacons will have an easy argument against this point in proof of McGiffert's theory--they will say the Deacon is earlier than the Presbyter; but I cannot myself take this view. The Acts seems to know nothing of Deacons, although there were Bishops at Ephesus--that is the name was used. This fact leans in a direction away from McGiffert's theory, but does not disprove it.

      McGiffert further points out that if his theory is true we should expect to find the general term and the specific terms used in the same context, but we should never have the general term and one of the specific terms co-ordinated. Thus we should never [131] find "Presbyter and Bishop" or "Presbyter and Deacon," but we should expect to find "Bishops and Deacons." This is exactly what we find is the case in the New Testament.

      There is no doubt that this theory fits the facts as we find them in the New Testament and the Didache so far as the combination of the names goes; but it is difficult to forget that the New Testament writers use a number of other words translated "Minister" or "Ministry" when they wish to speak in general terms, and a passage in Clement³⁶ uses one of these words when speaking in a general sense. If Presbyter was a wide term covering all kinds of ministry we should expect to find it used in some passages such as those abounding in the New Testament, where leitourgoV, diakonoV, and uphrethV are used. Moreover, it is strange that we have not a single instance of the term Presbyter used as identical with the official term Deacon. Again it may be likely that Peter would speak of himself as a fellow Presbyter (i.e., fellow-minister) addressing a number of Presbyters (i.e., ministers) of two different grades, but the passage in question³⁷ does seem to give to all these Presbyters the powers of oversight and shepherding and fits better the theory that all Presbyters were Bishops.³⁸ Again 1 Timothy v. 17 might be made to harmonise with McGiffert's theory, the "Elders that rule" being [132] taken for a small body of Bishops inside the general body of Presbyters, but it should be noted it is not a question of some Elders ruling and some not. They all rule, but some rule well. Did Deacons then also rule? McGiffert, I think, would claim they did, but such a claim cannot be substantiated from history. Then in Titus, Presbyters were to be appointed in every city, but the only qualifications given are those for the office of Bishop,³⁹ and Titus is written at a period when Church organisation was at a fairly high stage of development, even if we accept the earliest date ascribed to it. The Pauline Churches knew Bishops and Deacons. Why should the epistle give us the general name and then speak of one particular class inside this general ministry and not of the other? If Presbyter was a general name and the Bishops and Deacons arose out of the Presbyters, then so soon as Bishops were constituted in any body of Presbyters so soon would Deacons exist, as the residue of Presbyters who did not become Bishops. The rise of Bishops and Deacons should be simultaneous, but everything points to the fact of the Diaconate being a later development. There is only the doubtful passage in Acts vi. which is against this view. All other evidence until we come to the last quarter of the second century is against the men in Acts vi. being Deacons, and McGiffert himself would not so regard them.

      Further, it may be pointed out as a difficulty in the way of McGiffert's theory being the true one, that wherever the word Presbyter is used it does seem to signify an older man as well as being the [133] title for a definite office. If the Presbyters were a body of older men and the Deacons and Bishops arose out of the Presbyters, then age qualifications would cling to both Bishops and Deacons. But everything points to the opposite being the case. There does not seem to have been any age qualification in connection with the Diaconate, and we know definitely that when the single Bishop arose he was not always an old man.

      But the strongest argument against McGiffert's theory is in the fact that what he says could not happen, if his theory were true, actually does happen. McGiffert says: "We could never find 'presbyter and bishop,' 'presbyter and deacon,' but we should expect to find the specific terms thus co-ordinated 'bishops and deacons.'" This works out so far as the New Testament is concerned, but in Polycarp we have a passage where we actually get this very combination which McGiffert realises is impossible if his theory is true: "being subject to the presbyters and deacons."⁴⁰ This is in an epistle written to the only Church which in the New Testament is addressed as having "bishops and deacons," and it is difficult to put any other interpretation on the facts than the one that "presbyters and deacons" with Polycarp is equivalent to "bishops and deacons" with St. Paul; and that Presbyter is identical with Bishop, but not with Bishop + Deacon. The significant thing is, I think, that we never get the combination "Presbyters and Bishops" though we do get "Presbyters and Deacons"; that we never get "Presbyter" and [134] "Deacon" used interchangeably in a single passage, though we frequently get "Presbyter" and "Bishop" so used. Everything therefore seems to point to the fact which has been generally conceded, that "Presbyter" and "Bishop" are at first interchangeable terms, and that "Deacon" represents a lower order of the ministry; that is to the earliest ministry being one of two orders, Presbyters (Bishops) and Deacons, not one of two orders both arising out of the Presbyters thus:

      Granted that the permanent ministry was gradually developed during the first century, some theory is needed to cover the facts: (1) that "Presbyter" is often used in the same context with "Bishop" as being identical with it, but never so used with "Deacon"; (2) that "Presbyters and Deacons" are found as officers in some Churches; (3) that many times we have "Presbyters" (or Bishops) mentioned alone without "Deacons," but we never have "Deacons" standing apart from "Presbyters."

      The solution of this problem is brought nearer when we remember what is now generally conceded, that the development of the ministry did not proceed at the same rate in all Churches. That this is true in the case of the later threefold ministry is fairly clear in the Roman and Corinthian Churches, and the New Testament shows that in the case of the twofold ministry there was not the same rapid growth everywhere. Accepting this difference of rate in development, may not the solution be that [135] the local ministry arose by a process of delegation? The Apostles in whom all ministry was at first contained first delegated some of their powers to a group of men. Then this group gave up some of their work to a new class of officers, especially as they themselves acquired new duties through the dying out of the temporary ministry of Teachers, both local and general. This would mean that so far as the local Church is concerned the first ministry arising out of the Apostolate is the Presbyterate (Episcopate), and that the Diaconate arises later as a delegation from the Presbyterate. If the process of development is Deacon Presbyter Bishop, then the Ignatian system as a three-order system is easily accounted for, but I suggest that the process of development was: Presbyter Deacon, and that the Bishop arose upwards out of the Presbyters, or in some cases came into existence through an Evangelist, Prophet, or Apostle settling in a local Church. The only historical evidence against the Deacon being later than the Presbyter is the very doubtful case of the appointment of "The Seven" in Acts vi. It is argued that the duties of these men are the duties later assigned to Deacons, but this argument is built up on a false idea, quite unhistorical, that Deacons were concerned merely with temporalities. Presbyters had as much to do with temporalities as Deacons. In the two lists of qualifications in Timothy, the Bishop has to be "no lover of money," and the Deacon has to be "not greedy of filthy lucre," and this stronger phrase is actually used of the Bishop in the Titus list.⁴² In [136] the Acts money is conveyed to the Jerusalem Presbyters--not Deacons. Ignatius distinctly denies that the Deacon is a minister merely of meat and drink.⁴³ If the Bishop must be "apt to teach," the Deacon must "hold the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience." He was in no sense simply an almoner. Justin Martyr shows clearly that the (President) Bishop, had charge of the money and goods in kind, and the Deacons were his servants to assist him in distribution as well as in the Eucharistic service. The fact that these men in Acts vi. are said to "minister to tables" has therefore no force, for Presbyters had this duty, and in verse 4 the Apostles are called diakonia tou logou, showing that the previous verb has been used in a generic sense. We might with more force argue that the Apostles were Deacons in a technical sense, for the noun is used of them and only the verb of "The Seven." It is true that common opinion from Irenæus onward regards these men as Deacons,⁴⁴ and the number of Deacons at Rome seems to have been limited to seven in imitation of the Jerusalem appointment.⁴⁵ Before Irenæus however, we find no indication of any connection between "The Seven" and the office of Deacon. Ignatius, who justifies the Bishop by his standing in the room of Christ, and Presbyters by their standing in the room of Apostles, seems to be at a loss to find justification for Deacons, and merely says in one doubtful passage that they are "the appointment of Jesus Christ."⁴⁶ If he had regarded the men in Acts vi. as Deacons, would he [137] not have appealed to the order in the Jerusalem Church?

      Against the contention that Acts vi. gives us the appointment of Deacons must be placed several arguments which seem to me to have great weight.

      (1) If we remember that Luke has a way of introducing a matter in rather full detail and then later referring to it as something to be taken for granted, we shall be impressed by the fact that here he gives us in detail the appointment of a certain class of officers in the Jerusalem Church, and then later refers to Presbyters in this Church without intimation as to how they came to be. We have no information given by Luke--nor in the first century--of Deacons in the Jerusalem Church. Luke refers again to Presbyters in Galatia and Ephesus, introducing them as a matter of course. Where are we to look for any information as to what these Presbyters were? Nowhere unless in Acts vi.

      (2) If these men were Deacons, then we have the historical curiosity of a Church existing with the lower order of ministry without the higher. In the Galatian Churches it is definite that Presbyters were first appointed.

      (3) These men are nowhere spoken of as Deacons until we come to Irenæus, and in the New Testament Philip is called "one of the seven."

      (4) Acts knows nothing of Deacons, the first officers to be appointed being Presbyters.

      (5) The Epistle to Titus seems also to represent a stage of development where Presbyters only were required. Quite likely Deacons would arise out of these Presbyters at a later stage as in other places. [138]

      Some consider these men to have been Evangelists, as Philip is so designated some years later, and Stephen began by preaching; but Stephen was doing nothing more than was done by all the members of the Jerusalem Church when persecution began, and it is quite likely that some of these men may have left the local Church at Jerusalem and have become officers of the Church catholic. The objection to their being Evangelists seems to rest on the fact that the special work to which they were called was "to serve tables," and whilst it is true that this did not remain their sole work, yet we have no grounds for associating "the serving of tables" in any way with the Evangelist's office.

      If these men were Presbyters we have, then, the Apostles first delegating functions to the class of officers who--in the local Church--stand next to Apostles or finally in the room of Apostles,⁴⁷ and these officers in turn deputise to a lower class known as Deacons. At first then Apostles or their deputies appoint Presbyters in office. Acts, 1 Timothy, Titus, Clement and Papias all testify to this. This gives us two orders of ministry--Bishops and Deacons. Later we have a suggestion of three in Ignatius. If the development was Deacon, Presbyter, Bishop, then it is clear that what we get in Ignatius represents three grades or orders of ministry, the highest being that of Bishop in the sense that he was distinct in every way from the Presbyters. But if the development was downwards from Apostle to Presbyter to Deacon, then the Bishop when he becomes a separate officer would merely occupy the [139] position of primus inter pares amongst the Presbyters, out of whom he arises in quite a natural way by strength of character or intrinsic spiritual worth, and the need of having a "President" at the Eucharist; or else he arises through an Apostle, Evangelist or Prophet permanently settling with a local Church. This brings us to examine the situation as found in the Ignatian Epistles.

      One can hardly imagine the Ignatian organisation arising without its being in some way connected with the residence of St. John in Ephesus. Whilst it is not, in exact detail, the organisation we have in the New Testament, and other first century writings, yet I find myself more and more inclined to the view that it arose out of it naturally as a normal development, and that all probability is on the side of it having received in some way the sanction of the Apostle John. Otherwise it is difficult to conceive how it so quickly became universal. Again, some weight must be given to the position of James in Jerusalem, to the tradition of the second Apostolic Council, and to the tradition in connection with St. John at Ephesus.

      But granting all this, what is the organisation we find in Ignatius? It has, I think, been too readily assumed that here we have three orders of ministry, Bishop, Presbyter, and Deacon, and certainly the epistles read like this if we neglect certain precautions. Some of those scholars who will have none of Ignatius and regard him as "bishop [140] mad" and his language as almost blasphemous, have naturally assumed that Ignatius gives us a picture of a threefold order of ministry, and I think have to some extent misjudged Ignatius, because, like others with St. Paul, they have failed to read his Epistles historically.

      There are two main points I wish to make. The first is, that the Ignatian Epistles must be interpreted with regard to the historical situation which caused them to be written. If we regard Ignatius as "mad" at all, we must regard him as "mad" for the unity of the Church, and that at a time when the Church was being threatened by division on every hand, and especially by Gnosticism. He sees no safeguard against this awful thing division except allegiance to the individual he calls a Bishop. No wonder his language is sometimes a little strong when there were those in almost every city who would rend the Body of Christ. If we bear this in mind, we shall understand better some of the statements of Ignatius, and we shall not so readily admit that what we have in his writings is a monarchical Bishop.

      The second point is that Ignatius must be interpreted by what has gone before, by his own contemporary Polycarp, and by subsequent Church history. It is useless to treat his seven epistles as a separate piece of literature, and to examine them as if they had no relation to anything which preceded them or came after. Moreover, we must be most careful not to read back into them the circumstances of our own time.

      Taking first of all what has gone before, we have [141] seen that in the first century we have two orders of ministry, one of which is designated by two interchangeable words. In Ignatius we find that the Bishop stands out as something distinct from the Presbyters, and that the Bishop is always referred to as single in each Church. Those who take the view that development in the ministry took the course of Deacon, Presbyter, Bishop, find quite easily in this Ignatian Bishop a third order of ministry, but as I have tried to show, development seems rather to have taken the course: Presbyter, Deacon, Bishop, all ministry arising by delegation out of the Apostolate. On this theory it is practically impossible to regard the Bishop as a third order superior to the Presbyter, and I wish to maintain that in Ignatius he is not a third order, but simply a President-Presbyter, who arose quite naturally out of the body of Presbyters in virtue of his intrinsic worth, holiness, or ability, and the general respect which was paid him. He may have been a local Presbyter or in some cases an Apostle, Prophet or Evangelist, who had settled down in a certain locality, and who would naturally be looked up to in a special way; but Ignatius can be explained on the assumption that his Bishop was merely a primus inter pares. It will help us if we keep in mind a similar situation which exists in Episcopal Churches to-day, though the development has gone a step further. Let us take, for example, the Anglican Church, and the diocese of Canterbury. A stranger to such a system as exists might be excused the mistake of judging that there were four orders of ministry, instead of three. There is [142] (1) the Archbishop, (2) Bishops (3) Presbyters, (4) Deacons, and the language of Ignatius expanded to the fourth dimension could quite easily be applied to this system. The Archbishop is single--the Bishop is always single in Ignatius. The Archbishop sits in Council with his Bishops, but is not usually so associated with the two lower orders of the ministry--the Ignatian Bishop is associated with his Presbyters in council. The Archbishop is one of the company of Bishops--the Ignatian Bishop is really one of a company of Presbyters. Yet, living as we do in the diocese of Canterbury, we are in no danger of falling into the error of seeing in the Anglican system a fourfold ministry. We know that there are only three orders, Bishop, Presbyter and Deacon, and that the Archbishop is merely one of a company of Bishops, and a Bishop in his own diocese--a primus inter pares. Were not the people who received the Ignatian Epistles just as aware that there were only two orders--Presbyter and Deacon--and that the Bishop was really a Presbyter from amongst Presbyters. Every single reference in Ignatius will harmonise with such a view and everything outside Ignatius points to its being true. Ignatius had met most of these Bishops and knew their soundness in the faith. It was more convenient for the Bishop--President of the Presbyters--to travel in order to meet him, than for the whole body of Presbyters to travel. The Bishop of those days represented in a very real sense the Church, and this explains some of Ignatius' extravagant language. Moreover, most of them--if we accept the testimony of Clement--would have been appointed by Apostles or Apostolic [143] men, and Ignatius could be sure that they would therefore--being well chosen and well instructed--be the best means of maintaining the faith once for all delivered, in a specially difficult transition period when things would be apt to go wrong. He feels that unity can only be maintained by loyalty to the centre--the Bishop. No wonder that very often he falls into extravagant language, and puts the Bishop in the place, of God and Christ. But is he saying more than is said elsewhere? The Didache commands that Prophets are to be received as the Lord,⁴⁸ and Polycarp regards the Presbyters and Deacons as God and Christ.⁴⁹ Much has been read into Ignatius which is not really there, when we remember his passion for unity.

      An examination of every passage in Ignatius which has reference to Church officers will show that we can interpret Ignatius along the lines of two orders, not three. This is borne out by the facts that: (1) he never refers to subjection to the Deacons but does refer to subjection to the Presbyters as well as to the Bishop: (2) six times--three in the Ephesian and three in the Magnesian Epistle--he associates the Bishop with the Presbyters and leaves out the Deacons when emphasising the subjection of the people: (3) once in the Magnesian Epistle he speaks of the Deacons being subject to the Bishop and Presbyters,⁵⁰ but never in the shorter form of the Epistles does he speak of Presbyters being subject to the Bishop:⁵¹ (4) in writing to Rome he knows [144] nothing of a Bishop in that city. The fact that the Bishop in Rome came late is borne out both by 1 Peter and the Epistle of Clement. Ignatius could hardly have written as he did and acted as he did if he had regarded the Church at Rome as devoid of the supreme order from which sprang all others: (5) when Ignatius says "No Bishop, no Church," he is not referring to Churches which had not yet come to have this official, but to those schismatics who in any city separated themselves from the Bishop: (6) Ignatius must be interpreted by Polycarp. He refers to Polycarp as Bishop of Smyrna. Polycarp starts his epistle to the Philippians, "Polycarp and the Presbyters with him." Why not the Deacons also? Surely because he himself was a Presbyter, but the chief Presbyter, or Bishop. But apart from this opening passage Polycarp describes the ministry; and besides Youths and Virgins knows only Presbyters and Deacons, i.e., two, not three orders.⁵² Moreover the Presbyters are the highest order, for with Polycarp they stand as God.

      It will be readily granted, I think, that the chief function of the Bishop when he arose was to preside at the Eucharist, and when we pass beyond Ignatius we find him spoken of as President by Justin Martyr.⁵³ How does this name arise unless he is merely the President amongst a group of Presbyters, and not a separate order? [145]

      Whilst it is true that, for several reasons, the Bishop comes to overshadow the Presbyters during the third century, yet Cyprian could still speak of Lucian as his co-Presbyter,⁵⁴ and clearly points out that the powers of grace are established in the Church when the Presbyters preside, and that these Presbyters have the powers of confirming, baptising and ordaining.⁵⁵ As late as Jerome we have claims made that the Presbyter is in all things equal to the Bishop, except that he may not ordain. The Bishop had by this time acquired ordination as a prerogative, though in Cyprian's time Presbyters still ordained. Cyprian could not have spoken of anyone being his co-Deacon, but he could speak of a co-Presbyter, showing that he himself as far as order was concerned was no other than a Presbyter.

      Even in such a conglomerate and late work as the Apostolical Constitutions, it is clear that the Bishop is only a high-priest among priests. What the Presbyters are, he is. He is not really a third order, nor does he seem to have been ordained by the laying-on of hands, as were Presbyters and Deacons. It is true, there was some kind of ordination, but it essentially differed from that of Presbyter or Deacon.⁵⁶

      The Egyptian Church Order has a direction that the same prayer used over a Bishop shall be used over a Presbyter.⁵⁷ Prof. Turner is not inclined to give full value to this,⁵⁸ but the Canons of Hippolytus, [146] a fourth or fifth century adaptation of the Egyptian Church Order, make the same stipulation and add in explanation, "The Bishop is equal in all things to the Presbyter, except for the throne and ordination. For the power of ordaining is not given to the Presbyter." Again, they state clearly "All things are to be done with the Presbyter as in the ordination of a Bishop except that he is not enthroned." Moreover, these canons make it clear that the Deacon is to minister to the Bishop and the Presbyters.

      The ordinals make it quite clear that the Bishop does not differ from the Presbyters in the same way that Presbyters differ from Deacons. This is also reflected in the tendency to speak of a Bishop's ordination as "consecration." In the 1552 Prayer Book of the English Church the title of the ordinal was "Making and Consecrating." This was altered in 1662 to "Making, Ordaining and Consecrating," referring to the three orders. "Making" was applied to Deacons and Priests, and "consecrating" to Bishops. It has been argued that "consecrating" means something higher than "ordaining." But is this really so? Is there anything higher than "order" in this matter, and does not the use of "consecrate" signify that "order" is not intended? Now Deacons are "made," Priests are "ordered" and Bishops are "ordained and consecrated." What is the meaning of this subtle distinction, and what is its lineage? It must also be remembered that exactly the same service is used for the Bishop as when the same Bishop may later be raised to an Archbishop. No new "order" is conveyed when an Archbishop is made; for there are not four but three orders. But the [147] same service is used. Does the service for the Bishop, then, convey any "order"? If it does, what different "order" on an Archbishop from a Bishop? If no different "order," then it is the same "order." 'But to convey the same order twice would be sacrilege according to all ancient usage. It is best therefore to regard the ordinal in the Bishop's case as having no intention to convey "order."

      Are there really three "orders" in Episcopal Churches to-day? Are there not only two--Deacon and Priest? When we speak of orders we cannot find any other order than that of Priest for the Bishop. He is just a chief among Priests--a primus inter pares, although he has come to be invested with a new order. This, I think, supports my contention that in Ignatius we have not three but two orders. That both these orders are a plurality in each Church is clear, and that from the highest order there stands out one who is President or primus is also clear. He now has the exclusive title of Bishop, though he is still a Presbyter, in fact a President-Presbyter.⁵⁹

      It will be admitted that most of the controversy about the ministry centres in the vexed question of ordination. Valid and invalid orders and the subject of re-ordination are constantly to the fore.

      It will help, to survey briefly the historical situation as far as ordination is concerned, pointing [148] out certain things which are relevant as we pass along. The evidence as far as the first century is concerned is scanty, but we may not argue from this that ordination was of minor importance. To take only the case of Luke: he gives us one full account which may be normative, but it is the custom of Luke thus to describe an event in full and then to merely refer to it in all later instances. The passages which are relevant in the New Testament are Acts i. 24, Acts vi. 6, Acts xiii. 3, Acts xiv. 23, 1 Tim. iv. 14, 2 Tim. i. 6, 1 Tim. v. 22, Titus i. 5. In the first place I do not think there is any technical word in the New Testament for "ordain." ceirotonein is later used in a technical sense, but the New Testament has epiqesiV ceirwn for "lay on hands," instead of ceiroqesia. In fact ceirotonew may have to do with show of hands in electing. No real argument can be built upon the meaning of the word ceirotonein. It is best to take the historical accounts as we have them.

      On the following page I have tabulated these for convenience of reference: [149]

      The fullest account given in Acts vi. helps to suggest what is missing in other references. It is clear that the normal method was for the people to elect, and Clement makes it clear that it was customary for the minister to receive the consent of the whole Church whom he was to serve. With Clement this is necessary to the validity--just as necessary as any appointment by Apostles or eminent men. There are a few exceptions to this choice by the people, but they are abnormal. Barnabas and Paul seem to have been chosen by the voice of a Prophet, and 1 Tim. iv. 14 may refer to the same method of choice, though Acts xx. 28 can hardly do so in the case of the Ephesian Elders. It is more likely a reference to the ordination prayer.

      But though they were chosen by the people, there seems to have been some guard over such a choice, in the hands of Apostles or other men. The word kaqisthmi used in Acts vi. and Titus i., seems to convey the idea of a kind of veto or supervision of choice exercised by the Apostles in Jerusalem and by Titus in Crete. This is the word used by Clement when he says "Those therefore who were appointed by them, or afterward by other men of repute with the consent of the whole Church." It seems that Apostles and Evangelists who established Churches had some rights in the election by the Church, of Bishops and Deacons, and these rights may have consisted in the refusal to ordain. Later it takes the form of Bishops of other cities (eminent men) being brought in for the election of a Bishop in a certain city. This was a necessary safeguard and [151] it worked both ways. When a Church had wrongly been captured by a Bishop unworthy of the office, when he was so strong that the Church was powerless, Bishops of neighbouring Churches might join to depose him, as in the case of Paul of Samosata.⁶⁰

      Nothing is clearer than that the outward sign of ordination was the "laying on of hands." This sign was not confined to ordination, though for centuries it had been used to signify setting apart. The Old Testament gives examples of its use in blessing, dedication, and appointing.⁶¹ Jesus blessed in this way, and both He and His disciples used the sign in healing.⁶² It was used by the Apostles when praying for the gift of the Holy Spirit after Baptism, as well as for setting apart, and it is mentioned in Hebrews as amongst the first principles.⁶³ As far as ordination is concerned there seems to have been no other sign for the first three centuries. In the fourth century the custom of giving a book and later of giving the chalice and paten (to priests) arose. Simultaneously we get the enthroning of Bishops. Still the chief and necessary symbol remains the "laying on of hands."

      This outward sign is in keeping with the outward signs in Baptism and the Lord's Supper. Later it came to be conceived as magical in its effects, but there is no trace of this in primitive times. The ordination distinctly depends on the faith and condition of the one ordained. Every precaution [152] is taken to see that only fit persons are brought for ordination. It is true that from the beginning the ceremony seems to have been conceived of as sacramental, i.e., grace was conveyed as in the Eucharist and Baptism; but such grace is not conveyed magically whenever the symbol is applied--it distinctly depends on the intention of those ordaining (the Church through its representatives) and the faith of the ordained. But this does not make the symbol any the less necessary than water in Baptism, or bread and wine in the Eucharist.

      The significant thing which brings out the fact that ordination was not considered as magical by early Christians, is that the laying on of hands was always accompanied by prayer. The ordination prayer is mentioned four times by Luke, and the whole exercise also seems to have been accompanied by fasting. In the case of Matthias we have the prayer recorded, and the phrase, "that searchest the hearts of all men" is embodied in the ordination prayer of the Apostolical Constitutions.⁶⁴ Our Lord used declaratory sentences, "Receive ye the Holy Ghost," and these are now considered necessary by the Roman Church, but they were not introduced into any ordinal until the middle ages. If they are necessary to valid ordination, then for centuries the Catholic Church was without valid orders, and therefore the Roman Church is without them to-day.⁶⁵ There are no declaratory sentences in the Apostolical Constitutions. The laying-on of hands is accompanied by prayer, and it is clear that the idea is that God is the Ordainer, and that He [153] grants the grace of ordination wherever there is the Church's sanction, a pure heart in the recipient, and the valid form which is prayer and the imposition of hands. And this is exactly parallel with the Eucharist. The earliest form of consecration is by "the word of prayer," and not by declaratory sentences, and this prayer in some parts at least was said by the whole congregation and still is in the Coptic Church. God consecrated--not the officiant--wherever there was the proper intention expressed through the ministerial organ of the Church, and the valid form. In the same way prayer seems to have been associated with Baptism from the beginning. Paul "called upon the name of the Lord," and the frequent phrase in Acts, "baptised into the name of Jesus" may have reference to prayer. Justin Martyr emphasises the prayer and fasting not only of the one to be baptised, but of the whole Church.⁶⁶ In Unction, which provides another parallel, the laying on of hands and anointing with oil were accompanied by "the prayer of faith." In all cases it is clear that the grace is conceived as flowing directly from God. In ordination the Church for centuries never presumed to copy the declaratory manner of our Lord, but chose rather to rely upon the efficacy of prayer. That this approach to God in prayer was associated with the Holy Spirit in the case of ordination, I think is made clear from the reference in Acts xx. 28. God was in the choice when it was carried out properly--working in the Church by His Spirit--and God was the Ordainer, again working by His Spirit. [154] Thus St. Paul could say, "over whom the Holy Spirit hath made you overseers." This is in keeping with the Church being the temple of the Holy Spirit. It cannot be emphasised too strongly that it is in the Church that the power of election and ordination lies--that the Church is the normal realm of His (the Spirit's) operations. But the Church will need representatives through whom to act, and the Holy Spirit human agents through whom to work. In the first place these were Apostles and Evangelists, and later Presbyters as well as Bishops. The case already referred to in the Apostolical Constitutions, of the ordination of the Bishop, where the Deacon holds the book on the shoulder of the ordained, and there is no laying on of hands, is considered by Maclean to signify "that our Lord is acting through His ministers."⁶⁷ In any case it is clear that the change which takes place in the West, a change from a prayer asking God to ordain, to declaratory sentences on the part of the ordainer, alters the whole significance of the rite, making it the act of the officiant. It introduces mechanical conceptions and is a strong buttress to the doctrine of Apostolical succession.

      The doctrine of Apostolical succession is made fundamental by Gore.⁶⁸ It is sometimes asserted by those who take this position that Apostolical succession is necessary to any sacramental view of ordination, but what has already been said will make it clear that this is not so. For a mechanical view it is necessary; but not for a sacramental view. The [155] theory starts with the idea that the commission of our Lord was given to the Apostles as such, and not to the Church, and that the Bishops are the natural successors of the Apostles and do not arise out of the body of the Presbyters. Sometimes when it is held, it makes the ministry vicarious, but Gore refuses this view and regards the ministry as representative--just as much so as Lightfoot. Certainly everything points to the fact that the ministry was representative, but Clement makes it quite clear that the right of deposing from the ministry did not rest with the congregation unless there was grave irregularity, and all evidence points to the fact that the minister was regarded as more than the representative of the congregation--he was the minister of God. The question is as to how this was achieved. Was it through a definite channel of Apostolical succession that this power of making men God's ministers flowed? Or, was the power vested in the Church? Was it due to the fact that when the Church gave itself up to the guidance of God there was a true choice and a true ordination by God, that Bishops and Deacons were regarded as God's ministers? Is not this latter view more in keeping with the high doctrine of the Church taught in the New Testament? The Church is the Body of Christ, He is the head; ministers are the organs of the body.

      The doctrine of Apostolical succession claims that only Apostles and "Apostolic men" ordained in the first age, and on historical ground this is difficult to support. Acts xiii. has to be rejected as an ordination. Gore claims that it was only an ordination to an extension of work; but it is [156] significant that St. Paul and Barnabas are Prophets at the time and it is only after this ordination that they are called by Luke Apostles.⁶⁹ It is not known who ordained the Presbyters at Ephesus. It is usually claimed that "the hands of the Presbytery" in Timothy's case, only shows that they assisted St. Paul, but nothing is known of this custom until the fourth century, and it is much more likely that "the hands of the Presbytery" refers to his ordination, and the gift given through (dia) the hands of St. Paul is similar to the cases described in the Acts after Baptism, and has no reference to ordination. In any case if Apostolical succession was an essential, it is difficult to account for St. Paul's negligence in such Churches as Corinth and Rome, where it is clear the single Bishop arose late. We do know that in going to Rome he desired to impart some spiritual gift to the community, but we know nothing of his desiring to impart some power of ordaining to an individual.

      The argument from the second Apostolic Council advanced by Rothe, can hardly carry much weight after Lightfoot's admirable refutation.⁷⁰ At least, it is all so doubtful that nothing can be built on it.

      The first real passage advanced in favour of Apostolical succession is that of Clement (A. D. 95);⁷¹ but it is clear as Lightfoot has shown that it cannot bear the interpretation put upon it; and in any [157] case Clement knows nothing of Bishops in the later sense; so whatever his view of transmission, he can only be held to stand for ordination by Presbyters.⁷²

      Neither Ignatius nor Polycarp know anything of the doctrine of Apostolical succession, and it is difficult to imagine Ignatius neglecting to produce it in support of his teaching on submission to Bishop and Presbyters. If anyone stands in the room of Apostles in the opinion of Ignatius it is the Presbyters and not the Bishop.

      The first to definitely advance the theory of succession is Irenæus, but apart from the doubtful passages in his writings, we should carefully note what Irenæus is really doing.⁷³ He is contending with Gnostics who claim that they have received by transmission some special teaching not known in Catholic circles. Irenæus has two arguments against this: (1) he argues that there can only be four Gospels and that in these this teaching must be contained, or in the tradition which has come down in an ordered manner; (2) this tradition, if it is found anywhere, will be found in the great sees established by the Apostles, and it is possible to trace the Bishops back to the days of the Apostles. It is ridiculous, for instance, for Gnostics to claim that they have some treasure of knowledge, when St. Paul was in Rome and knew Linus. To whom would St. Paul have told it if not to Linus? And to whom would Linus have told it but to Clement? and so [158] on. It should be noted that Irenæus does not state that Linus succeeded the Apostles, but received from them the office of Bishop or oversight. It is not any handing on of the power of ordination of which he speaks, but a handing on of the faith.⁷⁴

      As late as the fifth century Jerome, who is content to allow that only Bishops should ordain, yet knows nothing of Apostolical succession; and, while allowing that Bishops should have the prerogative of ordaining, claims that at Alexandria till the middle of the third century the Presbyters ordained their Bishop, i.e., the lower order ordained the higher.⁷⁵ This evidence about Alexandria cannot be put on one side, and it both goes against the theory of Apostolical succession, and supports the view that the Bishop, when he came into existence, was not a separate order, but only a president of Presbyters.

      It is easy to see how, after the dying out of Evangelists and Apostles, Bishops would naturally be sought out for ordinations; especially those who were in the Apostolic line. The desire for unity in the second century, coupled with the battle against Gnosticism and Montanism, would strengthen this, and lists of Bishops would serve a useful purpose--lists of Presbyters would have been somewhat difficult to prepare and scarcely useful. Later, Old Testament ideas would play a part, and analogies would be drawn from the Aaronic priesthood; but unfortunately the Priest as distinct from the Levite does not seem to have been ordained.⁷⁶ [159]

      I agree with Dr. Gore who says, "In the Christian Church the normal signification for the laying on of hands is the transmission of a divine gift lodged in the body--whether pardon, or strength, or authority of some kind"⁷⁷; but this seems to me to contradict any idea of transmission through a line of men, and I cannot see how Dr. Gore holds the two ideas side by side. The gift is divine and is lodged in the body, and may thus be given when the body intercedes and uses the valid form. Dr. Driver allows the idea of transmission in the Old Testament, but he equates transmission with delegation⁷⁸; but the word does not matter if it be admitted that it is God who ordains, i.e., transmits grace, and the Church which delegates its functions. Was not Dr. Sanday right when he said, "Does not the laying on of hands in blessing tell against the idea of transmission? (i.e., the Bishop's power of himself to transmit). The good things invoked were not first possessed by him who invokes them; they are in the hands of God, and the blessing is a petition that He may bestow them."⁷⁹ There is no higher channel through which God works than the Church. Whatever has to be transmitted must come through the Church and not through a special hierarchy. But once the Church has delegated and once God has transmitted, the Bishop or Deacon is the minister of God. As far as his character of ministry is concerned, he can no more be subject to the whims and caprices of the congregation, than can the baptised man be robbed of his character as a member of the Body of Christ, [160] so long as he walks worthily of the calling whereto he has been called. There is no room in the New Testament for a low doctrine of the ministry, but there is equally no room for a low doctrine of the Church, and for this reason besides the difficulties of history the theory of transmission by Apostolical succession is untenable.

      The question of the priesthood of the Christian ministry is perhaps more thorny than any other. Within the Anglican Church it creates a cleavage between Catholics and Evangelicals, and nearly all Nonconformists join hands with the latter party. But is not the question often one of words? The conference held between the three parties in Oxford in December, 1899, went a long way to show this. There it was laid down definitely by all speakers that the New Testament was the standard by which these things must be judged. Most schools to-day will agree with Dr. Gore, who then said, "The generally expressed mind of the Church, especially of the earliest tradition, reasonably determines the ambiguities of the New Testament documents,"⁸⁰ and with Dr. Moberley who said, "All later developments or advances, of whatever kind, must really be developments--not reversals--of what was deliberately and universally accepted."⁸¹ And these two statements if followed out consistently, only lead us to what Dr. Fairbairn said: "The Church of the New Testament is the standard by which the questions [161] here agitated ought to be discussed and determined. The later Church may supply illustrative material for the interpretation of the earlier."⁸²

      We admit then that the New Testament is the standard, and if we lose sight of it we have no other that can in any way help. But here we must make two qualifications: (1) The New Testament does not limit the possibility of development. But such development must be in harmony with the principles found in the New Testament, and, in Dr. Moberley's words, never "a reversal." (2) There are ambiguities on some matters in the New Testament. Here we are bound to have recourse to other writings outside the New Testament in order to explain these ambiguities. It is here that the early church, to use Dr. Fairbairn's phrase, supplies us with "material for the interpretation" of the New Testament.

      Moreover the New Testament itself must be interpreted historically and not textually.

      With these principles in mind we examine the New Testament and later Christian writings, and we find that for the first two centuries Christianity was non-sacerdotal, but it was intensely sacramental, and its whole life, including its worship, was conceived of in sacrificial terms. That the sacrificial worship centred around the Eucharist can hardly be disputed, even as far as the New Testament itself is concerned. There seems to be very little ambiguity here; and if there were, the practice of the Church from A. D. 90 onwards is conclusive. Mr. Guy has shown this very clearly in his excellent book on Sacrifice in [162] Holy Communion. It is true that Lightfoot claimed that the Epistle to the Hebrews denied the possibility of sacrifice especially in the Eucharist, but this was because he took too limited a view of sacrifice, i.e., he limited his conceptions to those of the Old Testament. Now the Old Testament was only a shadow of what was to come, and this is true also of its idea of sacrifice. But although thought and language were coloured with the idea of sacrifice, there is nothing for two centuries which suggests sacerdotal conceptions in connection with the ministry. Dr. Sanday summed up this matter when he said: "It may be true that sacerdotal language in regard to the Ministry is first employed by Tertullian in the West, and perhaps by Origen in the East, but qusia (prosfora) of the Eucharist goes back to the Didache (14) and Justin Martyr (Dial 41; cp. 28, 116, 117). The Eucharist was constantly identified by early Christian writers with qusia kaqara of Mal. i. 11."⁸³ It may be further claimed that Origen's language in connection with this subject is capable of a spiritual interpretation.

      But although it is true that sacerdotal language in the sense of a priest being mediator between God and man by virtue of his own powers, is not used during the first two centuries, yet Christian ministers are called "priests" in another sense, from very early times in the history of the Church.⁸⁴ The earliest example is one connected with St. Paul himself. Writing to the Romans he [163] claims that he is "a minister of Christ Jesus unto the Gentiles," and then goes on to talk of "ministering the Gospel," and "offering up the Gentiles." The words in italics are all words normally connected with priesthood and sacrifice, and would not be understood in any other sense by Jews or Gentiles. leitourgon was used of the priest in the temple; ierougounta was the technical name for the function of sacrifice, and prosfora was a distinctly sacrificial term.⁸⁵

      Here then are two facts. Early Christianity knows nothing of a sacerdotal ministry, but it does ascribe the term priest to its ministers and sees no incongruity in so doing. What is the meaning of this? May not the meaning lie in the idea of priesthood which the Jews themselves had, and the apparent incongruity for us in the fact that we have misconceived Jewish priesthood in some measure? Was the Jewish priest a person who, in his own right, was able to convey from God to men something which apart from him under no circumstances could they obtain? True there are statements in the Old Testament which support this view, but we can no longer read the Old Testament as if it were a whole. We have to reckon with early and late strands. There are varying conceptions of priesthood in the Old Testament itself. Certainly if the only view of priesthood held by the Jews was the sacerdotal one, we shall have to cut out most of the Prophets and Psalms from the Old Testament. Does not the Old Testament show us rather--in its later stages--a priesthood representative of the people, [164] to whom the people themselves delegate certain functions?

      It is usually said that the Christian Church differs from Judaism in that under Christianity the whole Church is a royal priesthood, but under Judaism there was a special class of priests. But the whole nation of Jews were considered priests also. In Exodus xix. 6 the Jews are described as a "Kingdom of priests, a holy nation,"⁸⁶ words applied by St. Peter to the Church.⁸⁷ So the argument does not hold, because the difference does not exist. There is justification for claiming that the purest idea of priesthood in the Old Testament is that of a representative priesthood chosen to perform certain functions on behalf of the priestly nation. Under Judaism this delegation was to a special family, but under Christianity there is no such limit, but there may be delegation all the same, so long as it is not forgotten that the function of priesthood resides in the Body, and the Body derives it from the Head, who is a High Priest for ever.

      Then it is objected that Jesus is the one Mediator between God and Man. But was the Jewish priest at his best a mediator in this sense? Certainly it is not likely that St. Paul had Jewish priests in mind when he used the words in 1 Tim. ii. 5. Everything points to the fact that he was thinking of Gnostic mediators. The equivalent word for mesithV is not found in the Old Testament, and certainly the writer of Job did not conceive of any umpire or daysman coming between him and God.⁸⁸ The word as used in the [165] New Testament seems to be confined to the ideas of legislating and creating, rather than of acting as a messenger or of representing.⁸⁹ St. Paul's use of it in Galatians in connection with the Old Covenant does not suggest that he had in mind the priests, but rather the writers of the Scriptures and the Prophets. It is much more in line with the prophets' work to mediate than with the priests'. His function is rather to represent men in his acts before God.

      There are then certain things vital. (1) The Church is the priestly body--both priestly and kingly. This priesthood it derives from Christ, who is the High Priest. Nothing that robs the Church of this character can in any way be legitimate. Every member of the Church is a priest and has free access to God in all worship through the High Priest, Jesus Christ. We cannot over-estimate the authority of the Church as against that of the ministry. This quality is marked during the first two centuries, and is more pronounced in the case of Rome than anywhere. Clement writes for the Church, not for himself. Ignatius in every case--except to Polycarp--writes to the Church, not the Bishop. Justin Martyr and Irenæus are equally definite.

      (2) The sacrifices and the priesthood in Christianity are more spiritual in their character than the corresponding things in Judaism. There are no sacrifices of blood in Christianity, and there can be no re-offering of the sacrifice of Calvary though we may plead it before God. All Christian sacrifice centres in the one great sacrifice of the [166] Cross, as all Jewish sacrifices pointed forward to it.

      (3) There are certain corporate acts of worship which require that the whole Church should be represented by one or more individuals. These will then act as representative priests in the priestly action of the whole, and such persons may be legitimately spoken of in Dr. Moberley's phrase, as a "ministerial priesthood." Lightfoot admitted that "the priest may be defined as one who represents God to man and man to God,"⁹⁰ and we cannot legitimately go beyond this, but he rather undervalued any sacrificial work of the ministry, because I think he failed to take a broad enough view of what sacrifice is. There are certain elements in sacrifice which are impossible for us on this side of the Cross, but with the New Testament in our hands we cannot but regard Christian worship as sacrificial in a very real sense.⁹¹

      It is the true idea of Christian sacrifice we need, not the denial of sacrifice.

      (4) Sacerdotalism is a late development coming in from Gentile--not Jewish--influences. This Lightfoot admitted,⁹² though elsewhere he is inclined to regard the Jewish priesthood as sacerdotal. When [167] it entered it led to priestly acts being considered as having virtue in themselves, e.g., such acts as consecrating, blessing, ordaining, and in some places baptising, though this last never became universal; whereas these are all prerogatives of the Body, though certain men may be deputed and duly ordained by the Body to carry out these duties.⁹³

      Until the whole idea of priesthood is cleared of the misconceptions which surround it, we should be ill-advised to stress the term. The silence of the New Testament is significant here. And in any case the priesthood of the whole Body must be stressed; for if that goes there is no priesthood. The priesthood of the ministry is derived from Christ, but through the Body. [168]

[EOCU 99-168]