the visible Church, a regularly constituted and authorized order of ministry, and that the men here spoken of did not belong to it; and that to call them presbyters, &c., however spiritually and invisibly true, was to the obvious sense, and in the outward order, a paradox 1, challenging attention as such 2. This truth requires no further emphasizing. If it did, it would find it in the phrase at the beginning of the chapter, in which Clement says that it is possible for pious Christians to be 'inscribed on the roll of the Apostles. It is quite plain here that he starts from the ordinary sense of the word Apostles. They, he says, did not become Apostles (I quote Canon Gore's translation) 'because they were chosen for some special peculiarity of nature, for Judas was chosen with them; but they were capable of becoming Apostles on being chosen by Him who foresaw even how they would end.' Thus it is that personal fitness is ultimately more than outward election. Thus Matthias, who did not share their election, when he shows himself worthy, takes the place of Judas. And thus (he goes on) it is possible for men of holy life, &c. to be enrolled in the chosen body of the Apostles. The transition from Matthias who was 'numbered with the eleven' in one sense, to those who may be numbered with the twelve in another sense, is curious: but the general meaning is plain. It is, if possible, even clearer when he speaks of Apostles than 1 But less sharp as paradox when peσBúтepoi and diákovo, though bearing a technical sense, were not yet exclusively technical. 'Church elders and true servants' is still a large part of what the words say to the ear. 2 In the very same chapter Clement gives expression to this underlying assumption which his language all along has implied, descending from the spiritual analogy to the external earthly fact: ἐπεὶ καὶ αἱ ἐνταῦθα κατὰ τὴν Εκκλησίαν προκοπαί, ἐπισκόπων, πρεσβυτέρων, διακόνων, μιμήματα, οἶμαι, ἀγ· γελικῆς δόξης, κἀκείνης τῆς οἰκονομίας τυγχάνουσιν, ἐν νεφέλαις τούτους ἀρθέντας γράφει ὁ ̓Απόστολος, διακονήσειν μὲν τὰ πρῶτα, ἔπειτα ἐγκαταταγῆναι τῷ πρεσβυτερίῳ κατὰ προκοπὴν δόξης (δόξα γὰρ δόξης διαφέρει) ἄχρις ἂν εἰς τέλειον άνδρα αὐξήσωσιν. * Or included within the election (ἐγγραφῆναι εἰς τὴν ἐκλογήν) of the apostles.' when he speaks of presbyters that he is declaring, as apparent paradox, the spiritual possibility, that those who officially and ministerially rank as lowest in Christ's Church on earth, may be, before God, on an equality with even the highest of the highest in Heaven. Would any one argue from this that Clement did not believe in the earthly apostolate at all? His exposition does not weaken for a moment-it emphatically presupposes-the reality of that hierarchy on earth from which the whole thought starts. To Clement the Bishop comes from Irenaeus, and to Irenaeus from Justin Martyr. The Bishop's immediate object is to show that sacerdotal terminology does not, in all these writers, belong properly to Christian ministry. But as the crucial passage from Tertullian has shown us, this thought is closely interwoven with another, viz. that Christian ministry (under whatever title) is not the exclusive right of the ordained. It is in pursuance of the second of these thoughts, not of the first (which I have not yet properly reached), that I have been following his quotations-from Tertullian backwardshere. It may be conceded at once that neither Irenaeus nor Justin call Christian ministers 'priests.' But will any one venture to claim that the line of ministerial distinction between ministers and laymen is in the least blurred by either of them? Indeed, it is not a little curious that it is not until the nominal identification of 'ministry' and 'priesthood' is complete that there is any symptom of uncertainty as to the distinction between ministry and laity; and that, when it appears, it appears as it were in dependence on the priestly nomenclature, and shelters itself under the possible ambiguity of the word iepeús. Not that the doubt rises really from this ambiguity. Rather it rises out of the pseudo-antithesis between ecclesia episcoporum' and 'ecclesia Spiritus' which is a characteristic of Montanism. But having arisen it shelters itself for the moment under the 'kingdom and priests '-the Barileíav kaι iepeis-of Rev. v. 10. But however possible it might be in the time of Tertullian to slur in this way the distinction-first between ministerial and universal 'priesthood,' and so, by consequence from this, between ministry and laity altogether, the real principle of the matter had in fact been settled long before, when the title 'priest' was still used only tentatively, partially, and semimetaphorically of the Christian celebrant. For from the passages of Justin Martyr three points of teaching very clearly emerge: first, that the Jewish sacrifices and priesthood being rejected as unreal, the reality of priesthood and sacrifice belonged only to the Christian Church; secondly, that the overt and ceremonial presentment of this priestly sacrifice in the Christian Church was to be found in the Eucharistic celebration, which is the fulfilment of the prophecy of Malachi; and thirdly, that this Eucharistic 'sacrifice' was not 'offered' by any miscellaneous Christians at random, but that he who was head of the Christian body stood as the celebrant, and that distribution was made by the hands of deacons. In thus sweeping in unhesitatingly the whole Christian people as the real 'high priestly race,' while he finds the ministerial exercise of the Church's high priesthood in the Eucharist, and assumes that the Eucharist is celebrated by ministerial hands, Justin has really beforehand covered all the ground. Though the word 'priest' is not yet used as a title for the Christian minister; though when it comes to be used, half a century later, as a familiar title, it can be made to serve as cover for an attack on the ministry of the Church; yet in fact Justin has really given beforehand—and perhaps all the more simply and naturally just because the word 'priest' has none as yet of the associations of a mere title - something like the true rationale and the true distinction (within the inclusive priesthood of the Christian Church Body), at once of the priesthood of the Christian. layman, and of the priesthood of the Christian minister. He greatly fortifies our characteristic position that the minister is so the representative of the community that what he does they do, and what they do they do through him; but where is any word or hint to imply (what would really be required for the Bishop's argument) that what they corporately did through the act of their president they could equally do through any member whatever? While we cordially concede that Justin bears witness to the truth that the Christian people, as contrasted with the Jewish priests, possess the true and abiding priesthood upon earth; we must still insist that Justin knows nothing of any ministerial exercise of this priesthood, save in and through the act of those who are authorized to stand as the ministers and instruments of the priesthood of the Church. 1 ... 1 Dialogus cum Tryphone, 116, 117, p. 209: Οὕτως ἡμεῖς . . . ἀρχιερατικὸν τὸ ἀληθινὸν γένος ἐσμὲν τοῦ Θεοῦ, ὡς καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ Θεὸς μαρτυρεῖ, εἰπὼν ὅτι ἐν παντὶ τόπῳ ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσι θυσίας εὐαρέστους αὐτῷ καὶ καθαρὰς προσφέροντες. οὐ δέχεται δὲ παρ ̓ οὐδενὸς θυσίας ὁ Θεὸς εἰ μὴ διὰ τῶν ἱερέων αὐτοῦ. Πάντας οὖν οἱ διὰ [Qy.? πάσας οὖν διὰ] τοῦ ὀνόματος τούτου θυσίας ἃς παρέδωκεν Ἰησοῦς ὁ Χριστὸς γίνεσθαι, τουτέστιν ἐπὶ τῇ εὐχαριστίᾳ τοῦ ἄρτου καὶ τοῦ ποτηρίου, τὰς ἐν παντὶ τόπῳ τῆς γῆς γινομένας ὑπὸ τῶν Χριστιανῶν προλα βὼν ὁ Θεός, μαρτυρεῖ εὐαρέστους ὑπάρχειν αὐτῷ· τὰς δὲ ὑφ ̓ ὑμῶν [i.e. the Jews] καὶ δι ̓ ἐκείνων ὑμῶν τῶν ἱερέων γινομένας ἀπαναίνεται, λέγων, καὶ τὰς θυσίας ὑμῶν οὐ προσδέξομαι ἐκ τῶν χειρῶν ὑμῶν· διότι ἀπὸ ἀνατολῆς ἡλίου ἕως δυσμῶν τὸ ὄνομά μου δεδόξασται, λέγει, ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν· ὑμεῖς δὲ βεβηλοῦτε αὐτὸ . . ὅτι μενοῦν καὶ εὐχαὶ καὶ εὐχαριστίαι ὑπὸ τῶν ἀξίων γινόμεναι τέλειαι μόναι καὶ εὐάρεστοί εἰσι τῷ Θεῷ θυσίαι καὶ αὐτός φημι. ταῦτα γὰρ μόνα καὶ Χριστιανοὶ παρέλαβον ποιεῖν, καὶ ἐπ ̓ ἀναμνήσει δὲ τῆς τροφῆς αὐτῶν ξηρᾶς τε καὶ ὑγρᾶς, ἐν ᾗ καὶ τοῦ πάθους ὁ πέπονθε δι ̓ αὐτοῦ ὁ Θεὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ μέμνηται [Qy.? ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ μέμνηται]. ... Apologia, i. 65-67 (p. 82) : 'Ημεῖς δὲ τὸν πεπεισμένον . ἐπὶ τοὺς λεγομένους ἀδελφοὺς ἄγομεν . κοινὰς εὐχὰς ποιησόμενοι ... ... ... ... ὅπως καταξιωθώμεν . . . ἀλλήλους φιλήματι ἀσπαζόμεθα . . . ἔπειτα προσφέρεται τῷ προεστῶτι τῶν ἀδελφῶν ἄρτος καὶ ποτήριον ὕδατος καὶ κράματος, καὶ οὗτος λαβὼν αἶνον καὶ δόξαν . ἀναπέμπει· καὶ εὐχαριστίαν . . . ποιεῖται· οὗ συντελέσαντος τὰς εὐχὰς καὶ τὴν εὐχαριστίαν, πᾶς ὁ παρὼν λαὸς ἐπευφημεῖ λέγων ἀμήν. εὐ χαριστήσαντος δὲ τοῦ προεστῶτος, καὶ ἐπευφημήσαντος παντὸς τοῦ λαοῦ, οἱ καλούμενοι παρ' ἡμῖν διάκονοι διδόασιν ἑκάστῳ . . . [Then follows an account of the Institution by Jesus Christ]: Ἡμεῖς δὲ μετὰ ταῦτα λοιπὸν ἀεὶ τούτων ἀλλήλους ἀναμιμνήσκομεν . . . ἐπὶ πᾶσί τε οἷς προσφερόμεθα, εὐλογοῦμεν τὸν καὶ τῇ τοῦ ἡλίου λεγομένῃ ἡμέρᾳ . . . τὰ ἀπομνημονεύματα τῶν ἀποστό λων . . . ἀναγινώσκεται . . . εἶτα παυσαμένου τοῦ ἀναγινώσκοντος, ὁ προεστὼς διὰ λόγου τὴν νουθεσίαν καὶ πρόκλησιν τῆς τῶν καλῶν τούτων μιμήσεως ποιεῖται. ἔπειτα ἀνιστάμεθα κοινῇ πάντες, καὶ εὐχὰς πέμπομεν· καὶ ὡς προέφημεν, παυσα ... It has been necessary to dwell at some length upon this principle-that the ministry is at once the true representative, and yet neither the accidental representative nor the mere delegate or nominee, of the total Christian body-because its truth has been so seriously obscured. But whilst we emphatically deny that mere popular appointment can constitute a minister, or that distinction of ministers is mere matter of politic convenience, it is true of course that even considerations of politic convenience bear, in their own way, witness that the Divine ordinance of ministers is (like other ordinances of God) no arbitrary superfluity, but the Divine consecration of a natural and secular need. Moreover, though that which constitutes men Christ's ministers, is (as we shall see) a solemn setting apart, not by merely human but by Divine methods and sanctions, it is true at the same time that, in such things as electing and presenting for Ordination, the general Church body has a responsible work of preparing for and concurring with the Divine act. Though ministerial appointment is certainly not human in place of being Divine, yet neither is it Divine quite apart from being human also. The Church as a whole has its selecting and consentient voice; and even what is most distinctively Divine in ordination is still conferred through the Church. So far as the general or lay voice is concerned, the circumstances of popular election and public approbation have at many times in the Church presented to view much more emphatically than they nowadays do the aspect of the priesthood as representative of the congregation. It might perhaps be μένων ἡμῶν τῆς εὐχῆς ἄρτος προσφέρεται καὶ οἶνος καὶ ὕδωρ· καὶ ὁ προεστὼς εὐχὰς ὁμοίως καὶ εὐχαριστίας ὅση δύναμις αὐτῷ ἀναπέμπει, καὶ ὁ λαὸς ἐπευφημεῖ λέγων τὸ ἀμήν. καὶ ἡ διάδοσις καὶ ἡ μετάληψις ἀπὸ τῶν εὐχαριστηθέντων ἑκάστῳ γίνεται, καὶ τοῖς οὐ παροῦσι διὰ τῶν διακόνων πέμπεται. οἱ εὐποροῦντες δὲ καὶ βουλόμενοι κατὰ προαίρεσιν ἕκαστος τὴν ἑαυτοῦ ὁ βούλεται δίδωσι· καὶ τὸ συλλεγόμενον παρὰ τῷ προεστῶτι ἀποτίθεται, καὶ αὐτὸς ἐπικουρεῖ ὀρφανοῖς τε καὶ χήραις, καὶ τοῖς διὰ νόσον ἢ δι ̓ ἄλλην αἰτίαν λειπομένοις, καὶ τοῖς ἐν δεσμοῖς οὖσι, καὶ τοῖς παρεπιδήμοις οὖσι ξένοις, καὶ ἁπλῶς πᾶσι τοῖς ἐν χρείᾳ οὖσι κηδεμὼν γίνεται. |