62

CHAPTER 4
THE CONDITION OF THE ANCIENT CHURCH,
AND THE KIND OF GOVERNMENT IN USE
BEFORE THE PAPACYF71

(Historical development of the ministry; three classes of ministers:

teaching and ruling presbyters: one presbyter selected to be bishop:
the archbishop, 1-4)

1. FIDELITY OF THE ANCIENT CHURCH TO THE SCRIPTURAL

ARCHETYPE
Up to this point we have discussed the order of church government as it
has been handed down to us from God’s pure Word, and also those
ministries established by Christ.F72 Now to make all these matters clearer
and more familiar, and also to fix them better in our minds, it will be useful
to recognize in those characteristics of the ancient church the form which
will represent to our eyes some image of the divine institution. For even
though the bishops of those times promulgated many canons, by which
they seemed to express more than was expressed in Scripture, still they
conformed their establishment with such care to the unique pattern of
God’s Word that you may readily see that it had almost nothing in this
respect alien to God’s Word. But though something might be wanting in
their arrangements, yet because they tried with a sincere effort to preserve
God’s institution and did not wander far from it, it will be most profitable
here briefly to ascertain what sort of observance they had.
We have stated that Scripture sets before us three kinds of ministers.
Similarly, whatever ministers the ancient church had it divided into three
orders. For from the order of presbyters
(1) part were chosen pastors and teachers;
(2) the remaining part were charged with the censure and correction of
morals;
 63
(3) the care of the poor and the distribution of alms were committed to
the deacons.
“Readers” and “acolytes,” however, were not the names of definite offices;
it was these whom they called “clerics,” and whom through definite
exercises they trained from youth to serve the church in order that they
might better understand the purpose for which they had been appointed
and might, in time, be more ready to step into office. This I shall soon
show more fully.F73
Therefore, Jerome, in setting forth five church orders, lists bishops,
presbyters, deacons, believers, and catechumens; he gives no special place
to the remaining clergy and monks.F74

2. THE POSITION OF THE BISHOP

All those to whom the office of teaching was enjoined they called
“presbyters.” In each city these chose one of their number to whom they
specially gave the title “bishop” in order that dissensions might not arise
(as commonly happens) from equality of rank. Still, the bishop was not so
much higher in honor and dignity as to have lordship over his colleagues.
But the same functions that the consul has in the senate—to report on
business, to request opinions, to preside over others in counseling,
admonishing, and exhorting, to govern the whole action by his authority,
and to carry out what was decreed by common decision—the bishop
carried out in the assembly of presbyters.
And the ancients themselves admit that this was introduced by human
agreement to meet the need of the times. “Thus Jerome, commenting on
the letter to Titus, says: “Bishop and presbyter are one and the same. And
before, by the devil’s prompting, dissensions arose in religion and it was
said among the people, ‘I am of Paul, I of Cephas’ [<460112> 1 Corinthians
1:12; cf. chapter 3:4], churches were governed by the common counsel of
presbyters.” Arterward, to remove seeds of dissensions, all oversight was
committed to one person. Just as the presbyters, therefore, know that
they are, according to the custom of the church, subject to him who
presides, so the bishops recognize that they are superior to the presbyters
more according to the custom of the church than by the Lord’s actual
arrangement, and that they ought to govern the church in cooperation with
 64
F75
them. Jerome, however, tells us in another place what an ancient
arrangement it was. For he says that at Alexandria from the time of the
Evangelist Mark to that of Heraclas and Dionysius, the presbyters always
elected one of their number and set him in a higher rank, calling him
“bishop.”F76
Each city, then, had a college of presbyters, who were pastors and
teachers. For all exercised among the people the office of teaching,
exhorting, and correcting, which Paul enjoins on bishops [<560109> Titus
1:9]; and, to leave successors after them, they labored hard to teach the
younger men who had enlisted in the sacred army.
A certain area was assigned to each city from which its presbyters were
drawn, and it was thought of as belonging to the body of that church. Each
college was under one bishop for the preservation of its organization and
peace. While he surpassed the others in dignity, he was subject to the
assembly of his brethren. But if the field under his episcopate was too
large for him to be able to fulfill everywhere all the duties of bishop,
presbyters were assigned to certain places in the field, and carried on his
duties in lesser matters. These they called “country bishops”F77 because
they represented the bishop throughout the province.

3. THE CHIEF DUTY OF BISHOP AND PRESBYTERS

But as far as concerns the office with which we are now dealing, both
bishops and presbyters had to devote themselves to the dispensing of
Word and sacraments. For at Alexandria alone (since Arius had disturbed
the church there) it was ordained that no presbyter should preach to the
people, as Socrates says in Book 9 of the Tripartite History.F78 Yet Jerome
does not hide his displeasure at this fact.F79
Surely it would have been considered a monstrous thing for anyone to
claim to be a bishop who had not in fact shown himself a true bishop.
Such, therefore, was the severity of the times, that all ministers were
compelled to discharge the office which the Lord required of them. I do not
refer to the custom of a single age only. For even in Gregory’s time, when
the church had well-nigh collapsed (surely it had deteriorated much from
its ancient purity), it was not tolerable for any bishop to refrain from
preach-lng. “A bishop,” he says somewhere, “dies, if no sound is heard
 65
from him; for he calls upon himself the wrath of the hidden Judge, if he
goes about without the sound of preaching.” And in another place: “When
Paul testifies that he is clean of the blood of all [<442026> Acts 20:26], by
this statement we are convicted, we are constrained, we are shown
guilty—we who are called bishops, we who (besides possessing our own
evils) add also the deaths of others. For we kill as many as we, lukewarm
and silent, see going to their death each day.F80 He calls himself and others
“silent,” for they were less constant in their work than they should have
been. Since he spares not even those who half fulfilled their office, what do
you think he would have done if anyone had ceased entirely? Therefore, it
was a principle of long standing in the church that the primary duties of
the bishop were to feed his people with the Word of God, or to build up
the church publicly and privately with sound doctrine.

4. ARCHBISHOPS AND PATRIARCHS

That each province had one archbishop among the bishops, and that at the
Council of Nicaea patriarchs were ordained to be higher in rank and dignity
than archbishops,F81 were facts connected with the maintenance of
discipline. However, in this discussion it cannot be overlooked that this
was an extremely rare practice. These ranks, therefore, were established so
that any incident in any church whatever that could not be settled by a
few might be referred to a provincial synod. If the magnitude or difficulty
of the case demanded larger discussion, the patriarchs, together with a
synod, were summoned, from whom there was no appeal except to a
general council. Some called the government thus constituted a
“hierarchy,” an improper term (it seems to me), certainly one unused in
Scripture. For the Holy Spirit willed men to beware of dreaming of a
principality or lordship as far as the government of the church is
concerned.F82 But if, laying aside the word, we look at the thing itself, we
shall find that the ancient bishops did not intend to fashion any other form
of church rule than that which God has laid down in his Word.
 66
(Deacons and archdeacons: the administration of property and
alms: minor clerics, 5-9)

5. THE OFFICE OF DEACON

At that time the character of the diaconate was the same as that under the
apostles.F83 For they received the daily offerings of believers and the
yearly income of the church. These they were to devote to proper uses,
that is, to distribute some to feed the ministers, some to feed the poor, but
according to the decision of the bishop, to whom they rendered an account
annually of their distribution. The fact that the canons everywhere make
the bishop the steward of all the possessions of the church is not to be
understood as if he personally handled the task. Rather, it was his duty to
designate to the deacon the ones to receive public support from the
church, and with regard to what was left, to specify to whom it should be
given and how much to each. For he had to investigate whether the deacon
faithfully executed his responsibility. So we read in the canons ascribed to
the apostles: “We decree that the bishop have in his power the affairs of
the church. For if the souls of men (which are more precious) have been
entrusted to him, it is much more fitting that he have to do with the care of
funds, so that on his authority all things may be distributed to the poor
through the presbyters and deacons, and be administered with fear and all
carefulness.”F84 And in the Council of Antioch it was decreed that the
bishops who administer the affairs of the church without the presbyters’
and deacons’ knowledge be restrained.F85 But we need not discuss this
point any longer, since it is clear from very many letters of Gregory that,
at that time, when many other ordinances of the church had been vitiated,
this observance still remained, that the deacons were, under the bishop, the
stewards of the poor.
It is likely that subdeacons were at first assigned to deacons to assist them
in poor relief; but that distinction was gradually confused.
Moreover, archdeacons began to be created when the wealth of
possessions demanded a new and more exact kind of administration,
although Jerome relates that they already existed in his day.F86 In their
charge were the whole of the revenues, possessions, and equipment, and
the collection of the daily offerings. Accordingly, Gregory declares to the
 67
archdeacon of Salona, that he is to be held guilty if any goods of the church
be lost due to anyone’s negligence or fraud.F87 But they were entrusted
with the reading of the gospel to the people and with the exhortation to
pray, and were given as well the office of extending the cup in the Sacred
Supper.F88 These tasks were enjoined to enhance their office that they
might therefore fulfill it with greater scrupulousness, since by such signs
they were admonished that it was not secular management that they were
undertaking, but a spiritual function dedicated to God.

6. THE USE OF CHURCH POSSESSIONS

From this we may also judge what use was made of church possessions
and how they were dispensed. You will frequently find both in the decrees
of synods and in ancient writers that all that the church possesses, either
in lands or in money, is the patrimony of the poor. And so this song is
often sung there to bishops and deacons, that they should remember that
they are not handling their own goods but those appointed for the need of
the poor; and if in bad faith they suppress or waste them, they shall be
guilty of blood. Accordingly, they are admonished to distribute these
goods to whom they are owed, with the greatest awe and reverence, as if in
God’s presence, without partiality. Hence arise those grave protestations
in Chrysostom, Ambrose, Augustine, and other bishops like them, by
which they affirm their uprightness among the people.
But it is fair and sanctioned also by the law of the Lord, that those who
work for the church be supported at public expense [<460914> 1 Corinthians
9:14; <480606> Galatians 6:6]; and some presbyters in that age also
consecrating their inheritances to God made themselves voluntarily poor.
Consequently, the distribution was then such that the ministers did not
lack food, and the poor were not neglected. Yet provision was meanwhile
made that the very ministers, who ought to give others an example of
frugality, should not have so much as to abuse it to the point of luxury and
indulgence, but only enough to meet their needs. For those clergy who can
be supported by their parents’ possessions, says Jerome, if they receive
anything belonging to the poor, commit sacrilege, and by such an abuse
they eat and drink judgment upon themselves [<461129> 1 Corinthians
11:29].F89