Apologeticae sive Theologiae Fundamentalis, Tomus II (Pars Altera): Demonstratio Catholica

¹

Hierarchy (ἱερὰ ἀρχή) etymologically is a sacred principate, or sacred rule. Hence, abstractly (objectively) it designates the sacred power itself; concretely (subjectively), the body of persons who hold and exercise the sacred power.

In correspondence with the twofold power, a twofold hierarchy is distinguished. One power regards the public governance of the Church; the other, the private sanctification of the individual members. The former is called the power of jurisdiction and is conferred by a simple injunction or mission; the latter is called the power of order, because it is conferred by a certain ordination or sacramental consecration.¹ By some, the hierarchical power is divided into three: the power of order (ministry), of governance (rule), and of teaching; whereas according to the more common division the power of teaching is comprised under the power of jurisdiction or governance, as we shall show in another place.² In our dissertation, although by concomitance there is sometimes also talk of the teaching and the ministry of the Church, per se and essentially it is concerned with the rule of the Church, that is, with the power of jurisdiction strictly taken. The teaching office will be treated specially in the second part of the Catholic demonstration; the ministry, in dogmatic and moral theology.

Hence the question arises, whether Christ granted the power of governing the Church to such a restricted body of sacred persons, or whether He gave that power to the whole body of the Christian people. If the former, the Church is a hierarchical, that is, unequal, society; if the latter, the Church is a democratic, that is, equal, society. That the former is held by Catholics, the latter by several heresies, history and the state of the question teach.

1°. History of the question. In the fourteenth century, Marsilius of Padua together with John of Jandun, in the book "Defensor pacis", contended that all ecclesiastical jurisdiction resides in the Christian people, and that the Christian people, either immediately or through its vicar, namely the emperor, transfers jurisdiction to ecclesiastical superiors. John XXII (a. 1327) condemned this opinion as heretical.³

In the sixteenth century the reformers rehashed the error of Marsilius. Luther, in the book "De abroganda missa privata", claimed that the Christian people is a simple people, in which there should be absolutely no difference of persons: "no cleric, no layman, no anointed, no shaven, no monk". Calvin also⁴ and all other Protestants, except the Anglicans, maintained that all Christians are priests, and that the superiors of the Church obtain authority not by Christ's institution, but by the election and deputation of the people. The Council of Trent exploded this error in these words: "But if anyone affirms that all Christians promiscuously are priests of the New Testament, or that all are endowed with equal spiritual power among themselves, he seems to do nothing else than to confound the ecclesiastical hierarchy, which is as an army set in array ... If anyone says that in the Catholic Church there is not a hierarchy instituted by divine ordination, which consists of bishops, priests and ministers, let him be anathema."⁵ In the seventeenth century, with the Febronians, Jansenists, Gallicans and Josephinists applauding, the Synod of Pistoia repeated almost the same error, asserting that the sacred power was delivered immediately to the whole community of the faithful, and from there is derived to the ministers of the Church, who exercise it in the name and stead of the people. Pius VI (a. 1794) and the other supreme pontiffs rejected this opinion.⁶ Finally, in the nineteenth century, the modern rationalists boasted⁷ that the whole hierarchy arose from human institution and the natural development of the Christian cause.

From the beginning, the followers of Christ were united only by a certain common divine impulse and were stirred only by charismatic teachers and prophets. When at last the first fervor had cooled and the number of the faithful had increased, the necessity of public offices pressed, by which the Church might be administered. And so, little by little, against the will and ordinance of Christ, the functions and offices of bishops, priests and deacons were introduced. From this historical summary it is already fully understood:

2°. State of the question. While non-Catholics demur (except the Anglican Protestants and the eastern "Orthodox"), the Catholic faith does not admit that the Church is a democratic, that is, equal, society, whose members, namely, all have the same offices,⁸ but conceives the Church as a hierarchical, that is, unequal, society, in which by divine institution some are superiors, others subjects, some teaching and commanding with authority, others obliged to hear and obey.⁹ The former are also called, by a more usual word, the clergy,¹⁰ the latter, the laity.¹¹ The division therefore into clergy and laity, or people, is of divine origin. Christ Himself constituted the hierarchy, which, begun in the college of the apostles and fully ordered ("organisata") in the apostolic age, is to last until the end of the world. The truth of this Catholic doctrine is established by the evangelical, apostolic and patristic testimonies.

According to the testimony of the Gospels, Jesus Christ first signified the hierarchical power to the apostles, afterwards promised it, and finally conferred it.

1. Jesus Christ first signified the hierarchical power to the apostles. Already from the beginning of his public life he chose twelve from among his disciples, whom he also called apostles, i. e. legates. He sent them to preach and gave them the power of working miracles, by which they might prove their divine legation. "And Jesus, walking by the sea of Galilee, saw two brothers, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea, and he said to them: Come after me, and I will make you fishers of men."¹ "And he called to himself whom he himself would, and they came to him, and he made that twelve should be with him, and that he might send them to preach."² "And it came to pass in those days, he went out into the mountain to pray, and he was passing the night in the prayer of God. And when day was come, he called his disciples and chose twelve of them, whom he also named apostles."³ "And calling together the twelve apostles, he gave them power and authority over all devils, and that they should cure diseases. And he sent them to preach the kingdom of God and to heal the sick."⁴

To the apostles he joined "and other seventy-two, and he sent them two and two before his face into every city and place whither he himself was to come".⁵ While, however, he employs these seventy-two as forerunners and auxiliary "laborers",⁶ he continually kept the twelve⁷ apostles with himself. He educated them in a special manner,⁸ openly explaining the parables, which the crowd did not grasp: "Because to you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven; but to them it is not given."⁹ He gave them ample instructions on rightly discharging the apostolic office.¹⁰ By this manner of acting Christ indicated clearly enough that the apostles were to exercise hierarchical power over the rest of the faithful. Indeed:

2. Jesus Christ afterwards promised the hierarchical power to the apostles in these words: "If thy brother shall sin against thee, go, and rebuke him between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother; but if he shall not hear thee, take with thee still one or two, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand. And if he shall not hear them: 'tell the church; and if he shall not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican. Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.'"¹¹ These words implicitly presuppose and explicitly declare that the hierarchical power was to be given to the apostles.

The prior words, which deal with the correction of the guilty one, implicitly presuppose that the hierarchy is to be given to the apostles. The guilty one, if incorrigible after private correction, is to be denounced to the church. If he shall not hear her, he is to be excommunicated from the assembly of the faithful, just as the heathens and publicans were excluded from the synagogue, namely the religious assembly of the Jews. By speaking thus, the Savior certainly presupposes that to the church belongs the supreme hierarchical power of judging, coercing, and punishing the faithful. But that by the name of church is designated not the multitude of the faithful, but the ecclesiastical rulers and, in the first place, the apostles, is evident from the fact that Christ immediately addresses the apostles with weight: "Amen I say to you ..."

The later words, which concern the right of binding and loosing, explicitly declare that the hierarchy is to be given to the apostles. By these words there is promised to the apostles an authority of binding and loosing contained within no limits ("whatsoever you shall bind ... whatsoever you shall loose") and divine ("shall be bound ... shall be loosed also in heaven"). But to bind and to loose in the mouth of Christ are the same as to exercise spiritual power. For it is evident that the apostles are not commanded to bind or loose bodies with physical bonds, but to bind or loose souls with moral bonds, by teaching the faith, proposing laws, remitting or retaining sins.¹² Therefore, by the cited words Christ promised to the apostles an unlimited and divine authority of teaching, ruling, and sanctifying the faithful, i. e. he promised them hierarchical power taken in the strict sense.

3. Jesus Christ finally conferred the hierarchical power on the apostles both after the resurrection and before the ascension. After the resurrection, appearing to the college of apostles, he said: "As the Father hath sent me, I also send you ... Receive ye the Holy Spirit: whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained."¹³ Just as Christ was sent with the full authority of the Father to teach, sanctify, and rule men, so the apostles are sent with the full authority of the Son. Nay, the likeness of the authority of Christ and of the apostles is so perfect that, after the manner of the Savior, the apostles are possessed of that most divine power of remitting and retaining sins.¹⁴

Before the ascension Christ again addressed the apostles, and them alone, saying: "All power is given to me in heaven and in earth: going therefore, teach ye all nations: baptizing them (μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, βαπτίζοντες αὐτούς) in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit: teaching them to observe all things (διδάσκοντες αὐτοὺς τηρεῖν πάντα), whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold, I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world."¹⁵ Appealing to the fullness of his divine power, Christ sends the apostles into the world, that as teachers they may teach (μαθητεύσατε) and make disciples (διδάσκοντες) of all peoples. And that they themselves, both individually and through their successors, may be able to discharge in due manner this teaching office, ministry, and sacred authority, Christ promises that he will preside over and assist the ecclesiastical hierarchy for all time until the end of the world.¹⁶

That the disciples understood the words of the Lord in this way is proved by:

The apostles exercise the hierarchy received from God by their deeds, assert it by their words, and communicate it to other men.

1. The apostles exercise the hierarchy received from God by their deeds both collegially and individually. Collegially they act immediately after Pentecost as presidents of the Church. First of all, completing the apostolic college itself, in the place of Judas the traitor, under God's auspices, they choose Matthias "to take part in this ministry and apostleship".¹ Straightway they preach the Christian religion, wash believers with baptism, and preside over the Church growing day by day.² When the number of Gentile converts had grown, certain Jewish Christians attempted to impose the Mosaic law upon all. The controversy thence arising the apostles authoritatively settle in the council of Jerusalem and prescribe a peremptory decree to be observed by all the faithful.³ Individually, too, each of the apostles exercises the sacred primacy. Peter constantly increases the assembly of the faithful by preaching and baptizing⁴ and, passing through, visits "all".⁵ Paul, traversing a great part of the Roman empire, everywhere founds and governs churches, giving various precepts,⁶ rooting out abuses,⁷ excommunicating the unworthy.⁸ In a word, the apostles act both collegially and individually as having hierarchical authority over the faithful.

2. The apostles assert the hierarchy received from God by their words. The disciplinary decree of the apostolic college begins: "It has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us ..."⁹ With these words they proclaim the divine origin and authority of the hierarchy. Peter names himself "an apostle of Jesus Christ".¹⁰ Paul insists many times that he is an apostle of Jesus Christ according to the will of God,¹¹ chosen not by men, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father.¹² He discharges a legation in the place of Christ;¹³ he does not speak in persuasive words of human wisdom,¹⁴ but in the name and power of God; what he himself commands, the Lord commands;¹⁵ what he writes are the commandments of the Lord;¹⁶ what he works, Christ effects;¹⁷ the power which he uses he has received from God.¹⁸ And he says the same of all the ministers of the Church: "He (Christ) himself gave some indeed as apostles, some as prophets, others as evangelists, others as pastors and doctors, for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the building up of the body of Christ."¹⁹ Whence he concludes: "Let a man so esteem us as ministers of Christ and dispensers of the mysteries of God."²⁰

3. The apostles communicate the hierarchy received from God to others, constituting in the individual churches a local clergy and handing over to it its own authority. The supreme authority in the churches the apostles indeed reserve for themselves, and either themselves immediately²¹ or mediately through their vicars²² they exercise it. Yet through all the churches they constitute a local clergy, that is, a college of presbyters, who together with the apostles, or even in the place of the apostles, should feed the flocks of the faithful.²³ In Jerusalem already in the first days deacons are chosen²⁴ and soon (at least after the Herodian persecution about the year 46) presbyters or elders,²⁵ so that with the apostles as leaders they might rule that primitive church.²⁶ At Philippi bishops and deacons presided.²⁷ At Ephesus there was found a college of presbyters²⁸ or of bishops.²⁹ "In each of the churches" founded on his first journey Paul appointed "presbyters".³⁰ That presbyters were present also in the Jewish-Christian churches of the first period, Peter and James testify. Peter: "Elders (presbyters), feed the flock of God which is among you;"³¹ James: "Is any one sick among you, let him bring in the presbyters of the church."³² Finally, so that clergy might be at hand everywhere, the apostles moreover command their disciples to appoint presbyters in all the cities. Thus Paul writes to Titus: "I left thee in Crete, that ... thou shouldst appoint presbyters in every city",³³ namely bishops³⁴ and deacons,³⁵ whose qualities the teacher of the Gentiles delineates.

Thus the apostles set over all the churches local and stable hierarchs, who are called either simply presbyters, or expressly bishops, presbyters, and deacons.³⁶

The clerics, however, thus constituted receive hierarchical authority not by mandate of the people, but by the imposition of the hands of the apostles and their disciples. By the imposition of hands already in the Old Testament there were conferred rights, privileges, and offices proper to the one imposing.³⁷ In the same way to the presbyters of the New Testament the power of order and of jurisdiction is handed over through the imposition of the hands of the apostles and their successors.³⁸ Thus the first seven men, already to be ordained, they "appointed before the face of the apostles, and praying they imposed hands upon them".³⁹ They ordained Paul and Barnabas, "fasting and praying, and imposing hands upon them … And they indeed, being sent by the Holy Spirit, went away".⁴⁰ Again Paul and Barnabas, "imposing hands, appointed presbyters in each of the churches".⁴¹ And those upon whom he had imposed hands Paul addresses: "Take heed to yourselves and to the whole flock, in which the Holy Spirit has placed you as bishops, to rule the church of God".⁴² Paul admonishes Timothy: "Do not neglect the grace that is in thee, which was given to thee … with the imposition of the hands of the presbytery … I admonish thee, that thou stir up the grace of God, which is in thee by the imposition of my hands".⁴³

"Impose not hands hastily on any man [when ordaining a presbyter]".⁴⁴

The apostles therefore, taught by Christ himself on this matter, understood without hesitation that the Church must at all times consist of clergy and people, of superiors and subjects, that is, that the hierarchical constitution was established in perpetuity. Whence they exercised the hierarchy received from God by their deeds, asserted it by their words, and communicated it to others.

In like manner they proclaim that the hierarchical constitution of the Church was conceived by all Christians of the already primitive age:

The adversaries concede that the hierarchy of the Church existed in the middle of the second century, or at least toward its end, but they deny that it existed before that. Hence, to refute them fully, we summon only the ancient apostolic fathers, who wrote about the hierarchy already as the first century was drawing to a close, or certainly at the beginning of the second century: namely, the author of the Doctrina duodecim apostolorum, Clemens romanus, Ignatius, and Polycarpus.

1. The Doctrina duodecim apostolorum (written in Syria in the last decades of the first century), after it made mention of the eucharistic sacrifice, continues: "Appoint¹ therefore for yourselves bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord, men who are meek and not covetous of silver and truthful and proven; for they themselves also minister to you the ministry of the prophets and teachers. Do not therefore despise them; for they are the honored ones among you together with the prophets and teachers".² For in what precedes the Doctrina had commanded that itinerant teachers or "apostles" and charismatic prophets be received and honored "as the Lord",³ whose gospel they announce and whose knowledge they increase. Now it is added that the stable clerics, namely bishops and deacons, are also to be treated with the same honor, who exercise in the churches not only the teaching office of the teachers and prophets, but also the priestly office, which the teachers and prophets do not possess. From this it is perceived that bishops and deacons presided over the individual churches of Syria in that time contemporaneous with the apostles.

2. Clemens romanus (a. 81-96) wrote an epistle at Rome to the Corinthians, in order to check the sedition which some, more powerful in knowledge and wiser in judgment,⁴ had stirred up against the presbyterium of the church. This faction of pride against authority he sharply attacks in this way: "Shameful, brethren, exceedingly shameful to hear and unworthy of the Christian manner of life are the things we have learned: that the very firm and ancient church of the Corinthians, because of one or two men, stirs up sedition against the presbyters".⁵ This struggle of certain faithful against the presbyterium is unheard of and illicit among Christians for this reason, that the ecclesiastical hierarchy was instituted by God and has come down by apostolic succession to its present possessors: "The apostles were made preachers of the gospel to us by the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ was sent by God. Christ therefore from God, and the apostles from Christ; and both came to be in an orderly way from the will of God. Therefore, having received the commandments and, filled with full certainty through the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ and confirmed by the word of God, they went forth with the sure confidence of the Holy Spirit, announcing the coming of the kingdom of God. Preaching therefore the word through regions and cities … they appointed bishops and deacons for those who were to believe … And what wonder, that those to whom this office was committed by God in Christ should have appointed the aforesaid? Therefore those who were appointed by them [the apostles], or afterwards by other eminent men with the consent of the whole church … we judge are not justly cast out from their office. For our sin will not be light, if we cast out from the episcopate those who offered the gifts [the sacrifice] holily and without reproach".⁶ "Let us reverence our superiors (τοὺς προηγουμένους ἡμῶν) … We ought to do all things in order, which the Lord commanded us to perform at the appointed times. Namely, the oblations and the sacred services are to be performed where and by whom He wills them to be celebrated; He Himself defined this by His most exalted will … For to the high priest his own offices have been assigned, to the priests their own place has been appointed, and upon the Levites their own ministries (διακονίαι) devolve. The layman is bound by the precepts of the laity".⁷

"You therefore, who have laid the foundations of the sedition, be subject to the presbyters in obedience and receive correction unto repentance, bending the knees of your hearts. Learn to be submissive, laying aside the glorious and proud arrogance of your tongue; for it is better for you to be found small and of good repute in the flock of Christ, than, being excessively splendid, to be cast out from His hope".⁸

Thus s. Clemens, a disciple of the apostles and the successor of Peter in the Roman see, teaches: 1°. that the churches both of the West, from which he writes, and of the East, to which he writes, were hierarchically constituted in such a way that the subjects are subordinate to the superiors and the laity to the clerics. 2°. that the presbyterium of the church embraces the bishops and deacons, or rather, after the model of the Old Testament, the bishops, the presbyters of the second grade, and the deacons. 3°. that this hierarchical constitution of the church was already in force in the time of the apostles, indeed that it owes its origin to Christ and God Himself.

3. Ignatius († c. 107), a distinguished martyr, certainly a disciple of the apostles and the successor of Peter at Antioch, in his epistles is almost wholly occupied with urging obedience and submission toward the ecclesiastical hierarchy. He describes the form of the hierarchy, moreover, as composed of the bishop, the presbyters, and the deacons. He entreats the Magnesians: "I exhort you to strive to do all things in the concord of God, with the bishop presiding in the place of God, and the presbyters in the place of the apostolic senate, and the deacons, most dear to me, entrusted with the mystery of Jesus Christ … Just as therefore the Lord did nothing without the Father, being united with Him, neither through Himself nor through the apostles: so neither should you do anything without the bishop and the presbyters … Strive therefore to be confirmed in the doctrines of the Lord and of the apostles … with your most worthy bishop and the spiritual crown of your presbyterium worthily woven together, and with the deacons pleasing to God".⁹

He admonishes the Trallians: "Let all reverence the deacons as Jesus Christ, and likewise the bishop, who is the type of the Father, and the presbyters as the senate of God and the council of the apostles. Without these the church is not called".¹⁰ "Guard yourselves from such [heretics]. This, however, will come about if you are neither puffed up nor torn away from God, Jesus Christ, the bishop, and the precepts of the apostles. He who is within the altar is clean; he who is outside the altar, however, is not clean; that is, he who does anything without the bishop and the presbyterium and the deacons is not clean in conscience".¹¹

He bids the Philadelphians to be united "with the bishop and his presbyters and the deacons appointed according to the mind of Christ, whom He confirmed in stability through His Holy Spirit according to His own will".¹² And to the same he recalls: "I cried out while I was present, I spoke with a loud voice, with the voice of God: Obey the bishop and the presbyterium and the deacons".¹³

S. Ignatius therefore testifies: 1°. that a hierarchy consisting of the bishop, the presbyters, and the deacons necessarily presides over the individual churches. And indeed 2°. that this hierarchical constitution existed from the time of the apostles; for he mentions the grades of the hierarchy not as new or recently introduced, but as well known and received by use already in the past apostolic decades, to which Ignatius was a contemporary. Indeed, the bishops, presbyters, and deacons, he says, are "appointed according to the mind of Christ" and confirmed "according to His own will", in such a way that "without these the church is not called".

4. Polycarpus, martyr (a. 107), immediately after the death of Ignatius, his friend, wrote a letter to the Philippians¹⁴ admonishing the same: "It is necessary to abstain from all these [covetousnesses], but to be subject to the presbyters and deacons as to God and Christ".¹⁵ But he also mentions the presbyterium of the church of Smyrna and implicitly designates himself bishop of this church by inscribing his epistle in this way: "Polycarpus and the presbyters who are with him, of the church of God which sojourns at Philippi".¹⁶ That he was in truth the bishop of the Smyrnaeans, both s. Ignatius¹⁷ and the Martyrium s. Polycarpi¹⁸ and Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus,¹⁹ relate. Finally Irenaeus testifies that in his early age he knew Polycarpus to have been constituted bishop by the apostles themselves.²⁰ If these things are compared, it is clear that, according to the testimony of Polycarpus, a disciple of the apostles, the churches were so ordered that they were directed by a presbyterium composed of the bishop, the presbyters of the second grade, and the deacons.

With all these things considered, the falsity of the opposing opinion on the origin of the ecclesiastical hierarchy escapes no one. They keep asserting that the hierarchy is an invention and contrivance of the men of the second century of the Christian era. On the contrary, the fathers writing around the year one hundred testify not only that the hierarchy was already flourishing in the church, but that it flourished from ancient times, from the age and will of the apostles and of Christ. And in truth the apostles exercised by deeds, asserted by words, and communicated to others the hierarchy received from Christ. Christ Himself signified, promised, and conferred the hierarchical power upon the apostles. Therefore they err enormously who, denying the distinction between clerics and laity, superiors and subjects, imagine the church of Christ to be constituted democratically.

This one thing must be conceded: that the hierarchical organism gradually grew while Christ and the apostles were living. While Christ was living, He alone was the hierarch of the nascent church. After the departure of the Lord, the apostles held the supreme governance of the church, yet with other clerics chosen as helpers and successors. When at last the apostles had died, the threefold hierarchical order of bishops, presbyters, and deacons continued to administer the churches, just as it had been taught by the apostles. Hence the council of Trent rightly pronounces "the hierarchy instituted by divine ordination, which consists of bishops, presbyters, and ministers".²¹ The laity never delegated the power of governing the church to the clerics, nor did they themselves possess it.

The adversaries do indeed adduce the ancient practice by which the people of the faithful elected the clerics. But even if the lay people had had and exercised the right of election, it would be wrong to conclude from this that the people also conferred the office and the hierarchical power. In truth, the hierarchical power, as we have abundantly seen, was conferred not by the faithful, but by the apostles and their delegates and successors.²² Yet neither did the right of suffrage, or of election properly so called, belong to the people; rather, a mere judgment about the good repute and the qualities of those to be elected was sometimes granted to the faithful. In this sense the multitude of the faithful took part in the election of Matthias and of the first deacons;²³ in this sense the superiors of the church of the Corinthians were constituted "with the consent of the whole church", as Clemens romanus testifies.²⁴ In this sense Cyprianus writes: "Priestly ordinations ought to take place only under the knowledge of the assisting people, so that, with the people present, either the crimes of the wicked may be disclosed or the merits of the good may be proclaimed, and the ordination may be just and legitimate, having been examined by the suffrage and judgment of all".²⁵ But just as at the beginning of the Christian cause the practice of consulting the people in the election of clerics was not constant,²⁶ so neither did it prevail always and necessarily in later times, and at length, on account of the fault of the people abusing it and other inconveniences, it was almost entirely abolished.²⁷

We have thus far proved that ecclesiastical authority resides not in the people, but in the hierarchical body of bishops, priests, and deacons. Now, however, we must speak of the episcopate in particular. The question is, namely, whether sacred authority belongs equally to the threefold grade of the hierarchy, or whether the bishops, excelling the other clerics by divine right, are the head and summit of the ecclesiastical hierarchy. That very many non-Catholics defend the former position against Catholics, we are taught by the history and the state of the question.

1°. History of the question. In the fourth century Aërius, an Arian priest, affirmed that priests and bishops are equal in order and jurisdiction. This heresy St. Epiphanius¹ calls a "dogma beyond human grasp, frenzied and monstrous," opposed to the institution of Christ and the common teaching of the Church.² The same error was nonetheless repeated in the fourteenth century by Marsilius of Padua and John of Jandun, and in the fifteenth century by Wyclif and Hus — the former condemned by John XXII, the latter by Martin V.³

In the sixteenth century Calvin, and with him the Presbyterians in England, contended that the bishops at first were altogether equal in authority to the priests, and afterwards received from the priests themselves, by human consent, a special title and a certain directive pre-eminence, yet no jurisdiction or dominative authority.⁴ The Council of Trent proscribed this opinion, declaring that "besides the other ecclesiastical grades, bishops, who have succeeded in the place of the apostles, belong to this hierarchical order, and have been placed, as the apostle says, by the Holy Spirit to rule the Church of God, and are superior to priests".⁵ The rationalists of our age savor much of Calvin. Others, holding various opinions, explain the origin of the "catholic" episcopate quite commonly in this way: In the primitive Church, besides the "enthusiastic" teachers, three offices were gradually introduced — the presbyterate, the episcopate, and the diaconate. To the priests belonged a certain prefecture of morals or custody of discipline; the bishops with the deacons were the administrators or treasurers of the communities. Soon it came about of itself that certain bishops, because they had charge of the treasury and excelled in other gifts, were enrolled also in the college of priests. Indeed, when the "enthusiastic" teachers finally failed, these same bishop-priests either seized the office of preaching for themselves or received it from the communities. When this had been done, all ecclesiastical power was held in one hand, and hence the monarchical episcopate was complete, having arisen against the will of Christ by a purely natural process of evolution.⁶

From this rationalistic opinion the Modernists differ scarcely at all, and their theory Pius X both comprehended and condemned in these words: "The elders, who discharged the office of oversight in the Christian assemblies, were instituted by the apostles as priests or bishops, to provide for the necessary ordering of the growing communities, not properly to perpetuate the apostolic mission and power".⁷ With these preliminary remarks on the history of the question:

2°. The state of the question is to be set forth more fully. The Catholic doctrine on the episcopate is comprised in this thesis: From the apostolic age bishops possess the supreme hierarchical power in the Church; whence they are true successors of the apostles in the ordinary pastoral office. It is said:

From the apostolic age, inasmuch as the bishops did not gradually seize for themselves, or acquire from others, the office and power which they now enjoy, but on the contrary obtained them from the apostles as the interpreters of Christ's institution.

The bishops possess the supreme hierarchical power, inasmuch as they are superior to the other clerics in this sense, that both the deacons and also the priests are only auxiliaries of the bishop, from whom they borrow the power of governance.

In the Church, inasmuch as the bishops, each one singularly, rule his own particular church by his own right, but all taken together govern collegially the universal Church of Christ.

Whence they are true successors of the apostles by the very fact that the first bishops received the supreme hierarchical office from the apostles and in turn handed on the same office to others in a succession never interrupted. Nevertheless, the bishops succeed the apostles only: In the ordinary pastoral office, not indeed in the extraordinary gifts with which the apostles excelled. For Christ indeed ordained that the ecclesiastical government handed down to the apostles should be perpetual, but not that the privileges connected with the apostleship should pass to others.⁸

That this doctrine on the episcopate is genuine is evident from the historical documents of the first and second centuries.

1. As to the name. In general it must be said that the hierarchical names of the New Testament do not take their origin from the hierarchical terminology of the old covenant. Nowhere in the writings of the apostles are Christian superiors called high priests, priests, and Levites. The reason seems to be that, from the same name thus taken over, the faithful might suspect that the Christian hierarchy was a continuation of the Aaronic priesthood. Afterwards, however, when the temple of Jerusalem had been overthrown and the old priesthood abolished, as the first century drew to its close the Christian hierarchs began to be compared to the high priest, the priests, and the Levites,¹ and finally, from the third century on, the clergy of the New Testament are frequently designated by these names.²

The name of deacon, i.e. minister, derives from the office which the clerics of the third grade discharged, because it was the deacons' task to "minister", namely to help the apostles and their successors in temporal affairs,³ in preaching⁴ and in baptizing.⁵ The name of presbyters or elders arises from the manner of speech of the Jews. Already in the Old Testament⁶ and especially in the age of Christ, the colleges of superiors, who in individual places took charge of religious affairs (the magistrates of the synagogues) and civil affairs (the magistrates of the cities), were called presbyters or presbyteries.⁷ Whether the presidents of these presbyteries were sometimes called bishops, i.e. superintendents, overseers, presidents, is not clear. Certainly, however, in the Septuagint version a certain prefect of the priests and Levites,⁸ or even of soldiers,⁹ was called by the word bishop, while by the word episcopate was meant the prefecture itself, or the charge or office of the prefect.¹⁰ And indeed it was from the Septuagint version that the apostles adapted this word episcopate to the Christian hierarchy.¹¹

Yet the name of bishop in the New Testament does not constantly designate a hierarch of the first grade. For the title of bishop is given now to Christ,¹² now to the apostles,¹³ and finally to presbyters simply, whether of the first or of the second grade.¹⁴ Hence the name of bishop was not yet a technical term by which only the highest hierarchs were called; indeed all the hierarchical names were often interchanged. E. g. Peter and John are called "presbyters",¹⁵ Peter, "a fellow presbyter", beseeches the "presbyters" to feed the flock of God, "overseeing" (ἐπισκοποῦντες) not under constraint, but willingly;¹⁶ Paul and Apollo are called "deacons",¹⁷ and everywhere in the New Testament the whole apostolic office is called a ministry (διακονία). Therefore, since the nomenclature of the hierarchical offices in the New Testament and in the other writings of the first century was not yet constant, from the current name of bishops one certainly cannot conclude that the episcopal office strictly so called was already present.

Yet:

2. As to the episcopal office, these things are established from the writings of the apostles. The apostles, as we have shown, established stable presbyteries in all and each of the Christian communities, whose members were adorned with either priestly or episcopal dignity. The supreme direction, however, the apostles reserved to themselves.¹⁸ Hence the first bishops of all the churches were the apostles themselves. Soon, however, as the number of the churches grew, the apostles delegated certain of their vicars, who, endowed with supreme episcopal power, would pass through the churches, visiting them, enacting laws, judging offenders, imposing hands on those to be ordained.¹⁹ Gradually, in many places, they placed standing bishops, who would preside over the churches in the place of the apostles and succeed them. Thus Paul established Timothy at Ephesus as president of the neighboring churches;²⁰²¹ He left Titus in Crete, "that he might set right the things that were wanting, and appoint presbyters in every city".²² In like manner the apostle John instituted bishops in various churches of Asia Minor, namely at Ephesus, Smyrna, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, Laodicea²³ For the "angels" of these churches, to whom John is bidden to write in the Apocalypse, were, by the common consent of interpreters, monarchical bishops.²⁴ The truth of this interpretation, moreover, is fully confirmed from elsewhere. For that three of those seven churches mentioned in the Apocalypse were episcopal sees a few years after John is evident from the epistles of s. Ignatius.²⁵ That the apostle John set Polycarp over Smyrna, Papias over Hierapolis,²⁶²⁷²⁸ and other bishops over other churches, is well established. Likewise it is established that Dionysius the Areopagite was set over the Athenians by the apostles,²⁹ that Simeon succeeded the apostle James at Jerusalem, that Annianus succeeded Mark the Evangelist at Alexandria, that Evodius succeeded the apostle Peter at Antioch, that Linus succeeded the princes of the apostles, Peter and Paul, at Rome.³⁰

But how many and which churches already then had bishops is not established.³¹ S. Clement of Rome, writing as the apostolic age drew to its close, seems indeed to hint that a hierarch of the first grade presided over each of the Christian churches in place of the high priest of the Old Testament: "For to the high priest his own offices were given, to the priests a place of their own" was assigned, and the Levites have their ministries incumbent upon them.³² Yet it is certain that not all, but only the more important Christian communities were diocesan sees, in much the same way as happens today.³³ For the rest, the college of bishops could properly succeed the college of the apostles and fully develop itself only after the death of the apostles.³⁴

Indeed, scarcely had the last apostle died when St. Ignatius instructs us splendidly concerning the episcopate; to him, about the middle of the second century, certain most ancient catalogues of bishops are added, as well as, toward the end of the same century, St. Irenaeus.

1. St. Ignatius († c. 107) teaches that the threefold grade of the hierarchy is of apostolic origin and institution. Concerning the monarchical episcopate in particular he hands down these things:¹

a) Individual churches are governed by one bishop. Ignatius admonishes the Philadelphians: "Strive, therefore, to use one Eucharist; for one is the flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ and one cup in the unity of His blood, one altar, just as one bishop together with the presbytery and the deacons."² Whence he says that the one bishop Onesimus bears the person of the whole Ephesian church: "I have therefore received in the name of God your whole multitude in Onesimus, a man of inexpressible charity, but your bishop in the flesh."³ And indeed, according to Ignatius, this monarchical episcopate is found everywhere in the world. For although the holy martyr makes express mention only of those bishops whose churches he visited while journeying to Rome, he nevertheless speaks of the episcopal constitution of the church without qualification; nay, he testifies that bishops were established even to the farthest parts of the earth: "The bishops," he says, "established throughout the tracts of the earth (οἱ ἐπίσκοποι, οἱ κατὰ τὰ πέρατα ὁρισθέντες), are in the mind of Jesus Christ."⁴

b) The bishop presides over all ecclesiastical affairs. "It is necessary, therefore, just as you also do, that you do nothing without the bishop."⁵ "The Spirit announced these things, saying: Do nothing without the bishop."⁶ "Apart from the bishop let no one do anything of those things which pertain to the church. Let that Eucharist be held valid which is performed under the bishop or under him to whom he himself has granted it ... It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate the agape; but whatever he has approved, this also is well-pleasing to God."⁷

c) All the faithful and even the whole clergy must be subject to the bishop. "Attend to the bishop, that God also may attend to you."⁸ "All of you obey the bishop, as Jesus Christ obeys the Father ... Wherever the bishop appears, there let the multitude also be, just as wherever Christ Jesus is, there is the catholic Church."⁹ "For when you are subject to the bishop as to Jesus Christ, you seem to me to live not according to man, but according to Jesus Christ."¹⁰ "For it befits each of you, and especially the presbyters, to refresh the bishop in honor of the Father, of Jesus Christ, and of the apostles."¹¹ "It befits you to concur in the mind of the bishop, which you also do. For your memorable presbytery, worthy of God, is so fitted to the bishop as strings to a cithara."¹²

d) The bishop presides over the church in the place and stead of God. "I exhort you to strive to accomplish all things in the concord of God, the bishop presiding in the place of God."¹³ "Let all revere ... the bishop, who is a type of the Father."¹⁴ "Let us strive, therefore, not to resist the bishop, that we may be subject to God ... for whomever the Father of the household sends to govern His family, him we must receive just as the one who sends him. It is manifest, therefore, that one ought to regard the bishop as the Lord Himself."¹⁵ "It is good to honor God and the bishop. He who honors the bishop is honored by God; he who does anything secretly without the bishop serves the devil."¹⁶ "But it befits you also not to make free with the bishop's youth, but in respect of the power of God the Father to impart to him all reverence, just as I have learned that the holy presbyters also do not abuse his manifest youthful condition, but as men prudent in God yield to him — not to him, however, but to the Father of Jesus Christ, the bishop of all. In honor, therefore, of Him who loves us, it befits us to obey without any hypocrisy; for one does not deceive this visible bishop, but strives to deceive the invisible One."¹⁷

By every way and means, therefore, St. Ignatius teaches that bishops in their churches possess the same supreme power of governing which the apostles held after the ascension of Christ. This apostolicity of the episcopate the following also prove irrefutably:

2. The catalogues of bishops. Besides the names of the bishops who, as has been said, governed the various churches while the apostles were still living or scarcely dead, there are at hand several most ancient series of bishops succeeding one another in one and the same church. Such catalogues are extant from the Ephesian, Alexandrian, Antiochene, Jerusalem, and Roman churches.

The catalogue of the Ephesian church is incomplete, to be sure, but absolutely authentic. At Ephesus, therefore, after Paul, Timothy was the first to sit.¹⁸ After him St. John the apostle presided there and died there.¹⁹ His place was held in the time of St. Ignatius by Onesimus.²⁰ In the course of the second century eight bishops, sprung from one and the same family, succeeded Onesimus; of these the last, Polycrates, writing about the year 195, says:²¹

"I too, the least of you all, Polycrates, from the tradition of my kinsmen, some of whom I have even followed [in the episcopate]; for seven of my kinsmen were bishops, and I am the eighth ... I therefore, brethren, being sixty-five years old in the Lord, who have often conferred with the brethren dispersed throughout the whole world ... I could also make mention of the bishops who are with me ... whose names, if I were to write them down, would seem an immense number."²²

Therefore not only was an immense number of bishops found by the year 195, but Polycrates, born c. 130, already had seven predecessors in the episcopate from his own family; nay, from the apostolic age monarchical bishops always presided over the Ephesian church.

Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 324) presents the catalogues of the patriarchal churches of Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Rome.²³ Yet Eusebius himself did not compose them, but copied them from the Chronography of Julius Africanus, who in the year 221 arranged these series of bishops from an older source of the second century. That source comprised the bishops down to Pope Eleutherus (174-189) and is perhaps the very Commentaries of Hegesippus.²⁴ Hegesippus, journeying to Rome under Pope Anicetus (c. 155-166), "visited very many bishops" and through each city investigated the "successions of bishops" (catalogues, series). Coming at length to Rome, he first made a series of the pontiffs down to Anicetus. When the latter died, he completed the catalogue by adding the names of Soter (166-174) and Eleutherus (174-189). Hegesippus, moreover, set such great store by the episcopal catalogues of the individual churches, and especially of the Roman church, because from the apostolic succession of bishops he concludes that the apostolic doctrine is everywhere preserved.²⁵ Whatever, in the end, the critics dispute about the origin and authenticity of these episcopal catalogues, all are easily convinced that the catalogues of the four principal churches already existed in the second century. These catalogues, moreover, by the fact itself prove the absurdity of the adverse opinion about the origin of the episcopate. The adversaries maintain that down to the middle or end of the second century the churches knew no monarchical government of bishops. On the contrary, the most ancient catalogues of bishops: 1°. proclaim that in the middle of the second century no one doubted the apostolic succession of the bishops of the four principal churches; 2°. bring forward the very names and the very series of the bishops who from the apostolic age presided over the four first churches of the Christian world; 3°. testify that the apostolic succession of bishops was already during the whole second century of such value that it was used as an argument and criterion of the apostolicity of the doctrine itself spread through the individual churches. Which St. Irenaeus indeed splendidly confirms.

3. St. Irenaeus about the year 180 wrote his most celebrated work "Adversus haereses". He refutes the Gnostic heresies of the first and second centuries by appealing to the episcopate instituted by the apostles.

And this indeed Irenaeus maintains:

a) In the government of the Church the bishops are the successors of the apostles. For, in order to rout the heresies by a simple fact, Irenaeus says: "All these [heretics] are far later than the bishops to whom the apostles handed over the churches."²⁶ And descending to individual examples, he speaks thus of the Roman bishops: "The blessed apostles, then, founding and building up the church, handed over to Linus the episcopate of administering the church ... After him [Anacletus], in the third place from the apostles, Clement obtains the episcopate ... Next, Xystus was constituted the sixth from the apostles ... Now, in the twelfth place, Eleutherus holds the episcopate from the apostles."²⁷ In this manner of speaking Irenaeus affirms that not only those bishops who were immediately created by the apostles, but also those who were afterwards duly constituted, are the true successors of the apostles in the government of the churches. But in order that it may be established which bishops are duly constituted:

b) The successions of bishops from the apostles down to us can be exhibited: "The tradition of the apostles, then, manifested in the whole world, is present in every church for all to behold who wish to see the truth; and we are able to number those who were instituted bishops by the apostles, and their successors down to us ... For they wished those to be very perfect and irreprehensible in all things whom they left as successors, handing over to them their own place of teaching ... But since it is very long in a volume of this kind to enumerate the successions of all the churches, we confound [the heretics] all, pointing out the tradition which the church of Rome — the greatest, most ancient, and known to all, founded and constituted at Rome by the two most glorious apostles Peter and Paul — has from the apostles, and the faith announced to men, coming down to us through the successions of bishops."²⁸

c) The apostolic succession of bishops is like a token and pledge of the apostolicity of the doctrine preached by the Church: "By this ordination and succession the tradition which is from the apostles in the Church and the proclamation of the truth has come down to us. And this is the fullest proof that it is one and the same life-giving faith which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now and handed down in truth."²⁹ "It behooves us to obey those presbyters who are in the Church, those who have the succession from the apostles; who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the sure charism of truth ... Where, therefore, the gifts of the Lord have been placed, there it behooves us to learn the truth, namely with those in whom is the succession of the Church which is from the apostles."³⁰ "The true knowledge is the teaching of the apostles (ἡ τῶν ἀποστόλων διδαχή) ... according to the successions of the bishops, to whom they [the apostles] handed over the church which is in each place."³¹

From these statements it is evident that the doctrine which holds that the government of each church was entrusted from apostolic institution to one single bishop stands most firmly, according to Irenaeus. Nay, not only according to Irenaeus, but — as Irenaeus intimates — according to the whole Catholic Church and even all the heresies. For in this matter he everywhere invokes the consensus of the whole Catholic Church and appeals to the assent of all the heresies. Whence we conclude that both Catholics and Gnostics of the first and second centuries acknowledged the apostolic origin of the monarchical episcopate. And here we make an end of the argument. For the writers who flourished after the second century — for example Tertullian,³² Clement of Alexandria,³³ Origen,³⁴ St. Cyprian³⁵ and all the rest — extol the "catholic" episcopate, and not even the adversaries themselves dare to deny it. In one only, St. Jerome, do they glory, objecting that he teaches a human origin of the episcopate. But even if they rightfully objected this authority, they would reap no advantage from it, and we should suffer no loss. For since Jerome comes alone and later, his opinion simply does not deserve to be attended to. Whence, for the sake of mere completeness, we recite and weigh the opinion of St. Jerome on the origin of the episcopate. St. Jerome the priest, on a given occasion, attempts to show that the presbyterate wonderfully surpasses the diaconate, and is but slightly subject to the episcopate.³⁶³⁷ To show this, carried away by the heat of the dispute beyond his own measure, he does not restrain his words, but brings forward some things which can indeed be explained in a sound sense, yet afford a handle to an unsound interpretation. This holds especially of the following words, in which the whole opinion of Jerome about the episcopate, set down in various places, is contained: "Let the bishops hear, who have the power of constituting presbyters in each city, under what law the order of the ecclesiastical constitution is held ... The presbyter, therefore, is the same as the bishop [according to the letter to Titus 1, 5-7]; and before partisanship arose in religion at the instigation of the devil, and it was said among the peoples: 'I am of Paul, I of Apollo, I of Cephas',³⁸ the churches were governed by the common counsel of the presbyters. But after each one thought those whom he had baptized to be his own, not Christ's, it was decreed throughout the whole world that one of the presbyters, chosen, should be placed over the rest, to whom all the care of the church should pertain, and that the seeds of schisms should be removed ... As, therefore, the presbyters know that by the custom of the church they are subject to him who has been set over them, so let the bishops know that they are greater than the presbyters more by custom than by the truth of the Lord's disposition, and that they ought to rule the church in common, imitating Moses, who, although he had in his power to preside alone over the people of Israel, chose seventy with whom he might judge the people."³⁹ With these words the holy doctor first delineates the historical development of the episcopate, then establishes a theological conclusion about the episcopate. As to the historical development of the episcopate, Jerome says that at the beginning "presbyter and bishop were the same" and that "the churches were governed by the common counsel of the presbyters". But afterwards, when the Corinthian dissensions had arisen, "it was decreed throughout the whole world that one of the presbyters, chosen, should be placed over the rest, to whom all the care of the church should pertain". Now indeed it is true that at the beginning bishops and presbyters were the same and were called the same, and that the churches were governed by the common counsel of the presbyters, only in that sense in which we have proved that the apostles reserved to themselves the supreme, i. e. episcopal, government in the churches, so that those clerics who, besides the apostles, were called "bishops" were distinguished from the presbyters neither in office nor in power. But that afterwards, on the occasion and by reason of the Corinthian factions, an apostolic decree came forth instituting and introducing everywhere the monarchical episcopate — this Jerome contends less correctly. For nowhere is it read that bishops were created because of dissensions that arose at Corinth or elsewhere; nay, by this assertion Jerome destroys another assertion of his, namely that at first, when Paul wrote to Titus, monarchical bishops were not yet present, although the letter to Titus is later (c. 60) than the first letter to the Corinthians (c. 52-57). This alone is established — as we have shown and as Jerome himself supposes — that while the apostles were still living bishops were gradually set over the various churches, and that, when the apostles had died, a college of bishops succeeded them everywhere in the world. As to the theological conclusion about the episcopate, Jerome says that the bishops "are greater than the presbyters more by custom than by the truth of the Lord's disposition, and ought to rule the church in common, imitating Moses, who, although he had in his power to preside alone over the people of Israel, chose seventy with whom he might judge the people". Certainly Jerome very well admonishes the bishops that, notwithstanding the monarchical right, they should imitate Moses, who himself also of his own accord chose seventy counselors.⁴⁰ He speaks ambiguously, however, in that he says bishops possess the supreme hierarchical power more by the custom of the church than by the Lord's disposition. He should have said precisely that the Lord disposed that the supreme hierarchy granted to the apostles should perdure, without expressly naming bishops; but that by apostolic disposition and custom that hierarchy was handed over to the bishops. In this sense even Jerome is to be understood. For he had stated before that, on the occasion of schisms arising while the apostles were still living, "it was decreed throughout the whole world that one of the presbyters, chosen, should be placed over the rest". Soon after he equates the bishops with Moses, who by divine right had "in his power to preside alone". Elsewhere too Jerome adds: "That we may know that the apostolic traditions were taken from the Old Testament, in that Aaron and his sons and the Levites were in the temple, this to themselves CHAPTER II. ON THE MONARCHICAL CONSTITUTION OF THE CHURCH.

⁴¹

We have now proved that the Church is hierarchically constituted, so that the clergy presides over the laity, and that monarchical bishops, who alone possess the supreme apostolic power of governing, preside over the clergy itself of the individual churches. Now the question is whether individual bishops are absolutely independent in governing their churches, or