martyred A. D. 311, both priests of Antioch, were at this time the only precursors of the theological school of that city. They labored earnestly to effect a reconciliation between the advocates and opponents of science, and proposed to substitute for the allegorizing of the Alexandrian school a principle of exegesis based on historical and grammatical criticism. (Cf. & 114.)

CHAPTER IV.

CONSTITUTION OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.

SOURCES.-Apost. Canons and Constitutions, vide supra, p. 234. Obs. many of the Synodal Canons of this epoch. St. Cyprian, Epistles and de Unitate Ecclesie. Petavius, de Hierarchia Eccles. Works of Thomassini and de Marca, vide supra, p. 8, note 4, and p. 23, note 3. Du Pin, Dissert. de Antiquitate Eccl. Discipl., Col. 1691. Scholliner, de Hierarchia Eccl. Cath. Dissertatio, Ratisb. 1651, 4to.

§ 82. The Definite Recognition of Episcopal Supremacy.

There has always existed from the earliest Apostolic times a broad distinction between the laity and the clergy,1 and the various divisions of the latter body into bishops, priests, and deacons have been clearly defined. This division of the members of the Church into different classes and grades must be regarded as an essential element in her constitution; an element which,

1 Objections have been advanced against this distinction, drawn from a misinterpretation of the following words of Tertullian: De exhort. castit., c. 7. Differentiam inter ordinem et plebem constituit ecclesiae auctoritas et honor per ordinis consessum sanctificatus a Deo. Ubi ecclesiastici ordinis non est consessus, et offers et tinguis, sacerdos tibi solus. Sed ubi tres, ecclesia est, licet laici, unusquisque enim “de sua fide” vivit nec est "personarum acceptio apud Deum." For a clearer understanding of these three marks of distinction between the clergy and the laity, here somewhat obscurely pointed out, the reader is referred to the three clearer expressions used by St. Cyprian. Vide infra, note 3 (post divinum judicium, populi suffragium, coëpiscoporum consensum). It may be remarked that Tertullian here really begins by stating the distinction between both, and afterward speaks only of a case of necessity. When he distinctly treats of the relation between the laity and the clergy, he expresses himself entirely in agreement with our opinion. Cf. de praescr., c. 41, where Tertullian censures the heretics, because they sacerdotalia munera laicis injungant. And de virg. velandis, c. 9, he distinguishes between those functions, which may be performed by laics, and those which presuppose the priestly office. Finally, he rebukes those laics who boast of their universal priesthood: de monog. c. 10. Sed quum extollimur et inflamur adversus Clerum, tunc unum omnes sumus, tunc omnes sacerdotes, quia "sacerdotes nos Deo et Patri fecit:" quum ad peraequationem, disciplinae sacerdotalis provocamur, deponimus infulas, impares sumus!

(389)

because of its divine origin, has remained fundamental and unchanged amid the various modifications it has undergone, according to the circumstances of time and place, and the development of the human mind. For, although the episcopacy is of divine institution, its relations were, in part, determined by external circumstances, and heresies contributed much to call forth and give definite shape to its prerogatives. The laity were warned and exhorted to prove themselves free from any suspicion of heresy by maintaining a close bond of union with their bishops, the legitimate successors of the Apostles, who alone enjoyed the privilege and possessed the right of interpreting and guarding the deposit of Christian doctrine intrusted to their keeping. St. Ignatius of Antioch, in an exhortation, gives much importance to this mode of dealing with heresies, and professes it as his belief that these can be more effectually rendered abortive by a close union between the bishop and his flock, than by any dogmatical refutation.1 Tertullian and Irenaeus also affirm that bishops possess in the Church the offices of magistrate, priest, and pastor.2 They were, it is true, like the Apostles, sometimes called priests,3 but though so called, there was no intention either to depreciate the dignity of their office or to abridge their prerogatives; on the contrary, the catalogues of bishops, preserved with great care in every church, and in which their names were given in the order of succession, beginning from the earliest times, are indubitable proof of their acknowledged pre

4

1Ignat. ep. ad Ephes., c. 6; ad Smyrn., c. 8, p. 199, note 5.

2 Ep. ad Smyrn., c. 8. . Tertull. de baptismo, c. 17. Dandi baptismi habet jus summus sacerdos, qui est Episcopus, dehinc presbyteri et diaconi, non tamen sine Episcopi auctoritate. Here we find expressed the Catholic doctrine on the necessity of jurisdiction over and above ordination. Conc. Trid. sess. XIV. de poenit.

3

3 Iren. IV. 26, n. 2, p. 262. This was the case, even in the times of St. Cyprian, ex. gr. ep. 55: "Neque enim aliunde haereses obortae sunt aut nata sunt schismata, quam inde, quod Sacerdoti Dei non obtemperatur nec unus in ecclesia ad tempus Sacerdos et ad tempus judex vice Christi cogitatur; cui si secundum magisteria obtemperaret fraternitas universa, nemo adversus sacerdotum collegium quidquam moveret, nemo post divinum judicium, post populi suffragium, post coëpiscoporum consensum, judicem se jam non Episcopi, sed Dei faceret."

Praeses presbyterorum, summus sacerdos, benedictus papa, etc.

eminence, and of the honor in which they were held. The life and writings of St. Cyprian are perhaps a still more striking evidence of the same truth.' Bishops alone, in virtue of their plenary power, preached, conferred orders, and administered the other sacraments; while priests and deacons exercised the functions of their respective offices only in the name and by the authority of the bishop.'

Bishops presided at synods; decided, in the last appeal, upon the admission or non-admission of any one into the Church; gave letters commendatory (litterae formatae or communicatoriae), and were the bond of union by which the parishes in their respective dioceses were held together.

The priests constituted an advisory council for the bishops, who, conscious of the weakness of human nature, should not undertake any matter of importance without having first consulted them."

§ 83. Increase in the Number of Ecclesiastical Functions.

Ecclesiastical functions, and particularly such as were of a nature not compatible with the duties and office of priests and bishops, were increased to meet the wants and facilitate the government of the rapidly growing numbers of the Church. The number of deacons was augmented, and their powers enlarged. Besides preaching, baptizing, and caring for the sick, they were admitted to serve at the altar during Mass, allowed to distribute Holy Communion, and carry it to the sick, and appointed to receive the offerings of the faithful. But on account of their arrogant con

1Ep. 52, ad Antonian. de Cornelio et Novatiano: Ac si minus sufficiens episcoporum in Africa numerus videbitur, etiam Romam super hac re scripsimus ad Cornelium collegam nostrum, etc., p. 150. Ep. 55 ad Cornelium de Fortunato et Felicissimo: Actum est de episcopatus vigore et de ecclesiæ gubernandae sublimi ac divina potestate, p. 175. Compare also Ep. 66, ad clerum et plebem Furnis consistentem de Victore; ep. 69, ad Florentium Pupianum. 2Ignat. ep. ad Ephes., c. 2; ad Magnes., c. 2. Cypr. ep. 5, ad presbyteros et diaconos: Ad id-solus rescribere nihil potui, quando a primordio episcopatus mei statuerim, nihil sine consilio vestro et sine consensu plebis mea privatim sententia gerere, p. 34.

Just. M. apol., n. 65, sub fine. Cypr., lib. de lapsis, p. 381.

duct toward priests and bishops, to whom the Council of Arles (A. D. 314) declared them subordinate,' they were called levites and ministers, that the two orders might thereafter be separated by a sharp line of distinction. The character of their duties and the prerogatives of their office prove that they held an intermediate place between the bishops and the body of the faithful. One of their number, to whom the bishop intrusted special duties, was distinguished above the others, both by his rank and title, and from the importance of his office was called an Archdeacon."

But this augmentation of the number and enlargement of the powers of deacons being found still inadequate to supply the increasing wants of the Church, the orders of subdeacon (hypodiaconi, úñŋpétαi), lector (àvajvõota), acolyth (àzóλovvo), janitor (лʊlwρoi), and exorcist were also added to the hierarchy about the beginning of the third century, and perhaps even at an earlier date. A letter, written by Cornelius, Bishop of Rome, to Fabion, Bishop of Antioch, about A. D. 250, enumerates all these inferior ranks of the hierarchy as then existing in the Western Church, and states, particularly, that there were at that time in the Church of Rome forty-four priests, seven deacons, seven subdeacons, forty-two acolyths, and altogether fifty-two exorcists, lectors, and janitors. These subordinate functions became also a school of probation, in which those who discharged them prepared themselves for the more important offices of the higher clergy, and in order the better to distinguish them from the latter, their orders were conferred, not in presence of an assemblage of priests and by the laying on of hands, but in private, and by prayer. Even subdeacons, of whom

4

1Conc. Arelaten. can. 15; cf. can. 18. Hard., T. I., p. 266. Mansi, T..II., p. 473. 2 The institution of Deaconesses and Priestesses continued, in spite of many prohibitions, in the West, down to the fifth century, and in the East even longer. Conc. Laod. (about 364) can. 11. Mansi, T. II., p. 566. Non oportere eas, quae dicuntur presbyterae et praesidentes, in ecclesiis constitui. Cf. Hefele, History of the Councils, Vol. I., p. 731, etc.

3 Euseb. h. e. VI. 43.

The Constitution. Apost. VIII. 21, seem to contradict this statement. ὑποδιάκονον χειροτονῶν, ὦ ἐπίσποπε, ἐπιθήσεις ἐπ' αὐτῷ τὰς χεῖρας κ. τ. λ. When or daining the subdeacon, O bishop, do thou impose hands on him. But this is