Review: The Organization of the Early Church

Reviewed Work(s): The Church and the Ministry in the Early Centuries by Professor
Lindsay: The Church and Its Organization in Primitive and Catholic Times by Walter
Lowrie
Review by: Alexander V. G. Allen
Source: The American Journal of Theology , Oct., 1904, Vol. 8, No. 4 (Oct., 1904), pp.
799-814
Published by: The University of Chicago Press

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3153784

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to The American Journal of Theology

This content downloaded from

182.2.101.73 on Thu, 02 Feb 2023 14:28:17 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 THE ORGANIZATION OF THE EARLY CHURCH 799

In the second part of his book Mr. Herford is upon ground that has not
been so thoroughly worked before in English. In his discussion of the
talmudic references to Minim and Minuth, heretics and heresy, he seems
to us to show conclusively that the common opinion that the reference is
to Christians and Christianity is the correct one. In this he refutes the
arguments of Friedliinder, who in his work, Der Vorchristliche jiidische
Gnosticismus, sought to prove that the Minim were Gnostics of the Ophite
sect. Occasionally, on the testimony of Mr. Herford, the term may denote
other heretics, but usually the reference is to Jewish Christians, and prob-
ably to Jewish Christians who held a Christology similar to that of the
epistle to the Hebrews (pp. 380, 381).
The view that the Minim were Jewish Christians is not only in harmony
with the fact that the hostility to the Minim was most marked about the
beginning of the second century, and then gradually decreased until the
relations between them and the rabbis were almost friendly, but it also
throws light upon the diminishing significance of the distinctively Jewish
element in the early church. When Christianity ceased to be a Jewish
sect and became avowedly gentile, it was no longer a matter of concern
to rabbinical Judaism.
In closing, it may not be amiss to echo the sentiments of our authors
and to hope that the day may not be far distant when the means for a correct
estimate of this religious system which is so closely related historically to
Christianity may become more generally available. Even if no important
information is to be derived from talmudic sources as to the origin and early
history of Christianity, yet, in the interests of science and of the extension
of the kingdom of God, it may well be urged that justice be done the Jewish
religion.
WALTER R. BETTERIDGE.
ROCHESTER THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY,
Rochester, N. Y.

THE ORGANIZATION OF THE EARLY CHURCH.

THE literature on the subject of the origin of the Christian minist

been recently increased by two additions--The Church and the Min
in the Early Centuries,' by Professor Lindsay, principal of Glasgow
of the United Free Church of Scotland; and The Church and its Or
zation in Primitive and Catholic Times,2 by Rev. Walter Lowrie.
x New York: Longmans, Green & Co., 1904. 402 pages. $3.50, net.
2 New York: Armstrong, 1903. 398 pages. $2.

This content downloaded from

182.2.101.73 on Thu, 02 Feb 2023 14:28:17 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
8oo THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF THEOLOGY

Dr. Lindsay's work covers the first three centuries. After treatin
his first two chapters, of the New Testament conception of the chu
various meetings in apostolic times for edification, for the eucharis
for business, he discusses the higher general ministry of apostles, pr
and teachers in his third chapter; and then turns in his two next c
to the question of the relation of bishops and presbyters, and the d
ment of the episcopate to the time of Ignatius. "The Fall of the Pro
Ministry and the Conservative Revolt" is the title of the sixth ch
which is devoted to the situation in the second century, the Mont
movement, and the worship and government as described in the can
Hippolytus. In the seventh chapter he takes up the work and influ
of Cyprian, and in his last chapter gives a most interesting and va
discussion of the Roman state religion and its effects on the organ
of the church. His book is a profitable one to browse over for the
ante-Nicene period. Ample learning, conscientious and conser
scholarship, and a deep interest in his theme make its reading attr
to the general student of the history of the time. Nor is his work
partisan character, although he does not allow us to forget that he repr
the Scotch Free Church; and perhaps he may go too far when he f
close resemblance between its ministry and that of the early chur
makes it plain that he has no overfondness for bishops, nor does h
any affection for Cyprian, as he deals some trenchant blows at Be
life of the bishop of Carthage.
Of Mr. Lowrie's book it is more difficult to speak. It is controv
and calculated to provoke opposition. Its subtitle, "An Interpretati
Rudolph Sohm's Kirchenrecht," is justified throughout, for, in add
to his defense of Sohm's theory, he incorporates much of Sohm's w
his text and notes. The first hundred pages are devoted to a general
ment of the history of opinion about ecclesiastical organization, esp
in the age of the Reformation. In a section on "Denominational Con
versy" he gives an amusing account of the discussions on church gove
in the Westminster Assembly, but without recognizing the deeper
which were at stake. He concludes the introductory part of his book
a rdsum6 of the modern theories of church organization. His secon
third chapters are devoted to a study of the apostolic age, in accor
with Sohm's theory that it had no legal order, but was directly und
guidance of the Spirit: "a legal constitution is opposed to the nature
church." The theory of Sohm is in substance the position of the Q
The following passage is a representative one:

This content downloaded from

182.2.101.73 on Thu, 02 Feb 2023 14:28:17 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 THE ORGANIZATION OF THE EARLY CHURCH 8oi

Sohm, while he sees in the legalizing of Christian institutions a radical dep

ure from primitive ideals, which he attributes to want of faith in the guidan
the Spirit, recognizes at the same time that the character of legalized (Cat
Christianity was conditioned essentially by the primitive conception of the n
of the church. The legal constitution of the church must assume monar
form; because from the beginning the church was ruled by Christ's spirit
Christ's word, through the men whom he had charismatically endowed to
in his stead. That is to say, the officers of the church are the representati
Christ (God), not the representatives of the congregation. Thus also, eccle
tical law-if law there be-can only be regarded as an authority jure d
because no other law is of force in the church but God's law. (P. I2.)

It is this thesis, with its corollaries, somewhat difficult to grasp, wh

Mr. Lowrie applies and seeks to test and confirm, in the latter part of
book, where he deals with the origin of the Christian ministry. As b
Dr. Lindsay's and Mr. Lowrie's books have this in common, that they
with the question of the relations between presbyters and bishops, and
it came about that the guidance of the community fell into the hands o
bishop, which have been the points at issue in the modem discussion,
points are taken here for a brief review.
Dr. Lindsay may be said in general to follow Professor Loofs and
fessor Schmiedel in their dissent from the Hatch-Harnack theory, reve
in the main to Lightfoot's position, that the terms "bishop " and "presb
are synonymous, or, in other words, that "presbyters" were "church
cials chosen and appointed as such in the church of the first century,
identical with "bishops." "Presbyter" is the name of the office, and ep
pus tells us that the function of oversight was exercised by the "presb
This was also the testimony of Jerome, that in the course of time o
these coequal presbyters was placed over the others, and assumed the
of episcopus. This came to pass in the age of Ignatius, IIo-17 A. D., w
we first have the threefold form of ministry-bishops, presbyters,
deacons-substantially as it continued henceforth to exist in the Cath
church. The change consisted in this, that the college of presbyters wi
a president became one with a president, who was generally designat
"bishop." Dr. Lindsay thinks that the change came about gradu
without provoking any great opposition, and was everywhere, or alm
everywhere accepted; but that when we come to ask for the causes w
produced the change, or the paths along which the change manifested
the answer must be conjectural; or, which is the same thing, we must
our ignorance.
The documentary sources of information are wanting. In this opi

This content downloaded from

182.2.101.73 on Thu, 02 Feb 2023 14:28:17 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
802 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF THEOLOGY

-that we do not know how the threefold ministry arose-Loo

Schmiedel also concur. The probability founded on the natural ord
things suggests that when the college or council of presbyters appoin
member of their order to the duty of an episcopus, and he succee
doing it well, he would naturally be continued in his position,
tendency would be to make it permanent. He would also appear at
to those without or within the fold as a most important personag
further, he would come to represent the unity of the church, its pr
would be invested in his name, he would stand forth among th
presbyters as the episcopus par excellence, and, gathering up in hi
the various activities in the community, would gradually become t
manent head of the board of presbyters. In this way is to be expla
how Hegesippus by the middle of the second century was able to m
out his lists of bishops going back to the time of apostles. Dr.
also admits the force of the contribution made by Sohm, that the celeb
of the eucharist was connected with the development of the episc
The board of presbyters can be easily conceived as presiding at a m
for "exhortation"-the homiletical service; but not at a meeting for "
giving" when the Lord's Supper was kept. Here it would be ne
that one should preside. It may have been that the presbyter
sided in turn, but the president (rpoc-rW-Fs) of Justin Martyr, in
Apology we have the first clear account of the observance of the
Supper, is manifestly the anticipation of the later bishop. At first h
be under the disciplinary authority of the presbyters;3 but if such pre
bishop had the prophetic gift, or were specially versed in the wor
doctrine, at a time when the church was distracted with heresies, it
to see how precedence would grow into permanent authority. Wha
true of any one Christian community might be predicated of
although ways and methods may have differed, yet the common res
rapidly reached. But Dr. Lindsay regards the change as a grea
radical one, by which the single episcopus rose to authority; as rad
the change in the sixteenth century, when, in the Reformed church
was reduced to the position of pastor and the oversight was vested in
cils of graded authority. There was no apostolic sanction for the rise
bishop to monarchical authority, or even for his distinct existence fr
presbytery. It was the power of the Christian people in the congreg
which sanctioned the change, and the same power was exerted in e
legitimate fashion, when, in the Reformed churches, what seemed fit
second century was rejected as unfitting in the sixteenth century.
3 Cf. Sources of the Apostolical Canons.

This content downloaded from

182.2.101.73 on Thu, 02 Feb 2023 14:28:17 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 THE ORGANIZATION OF THE EARLY CHURCH 803

The evidence that presbyters held an official position in the church in

the first century, may be briefly summarized. (i) In I Peter 5:1, 2 the
presbyters are told to "shepherd the flock of God which is among you;" and
"to shepherd" (7roL0ja'veLv) is, in the ancient ecclesiastical terminology, a
word expressing the relation of an office-bearer. (2) In Acts 20: 17, Paul
tells the presbyters whom he summoned to Miletus to "shepherd the church

of God," which is also called a "flock" (7rot'/wrov); over which flock the
Holy Ghost had made them overseers (1r7crK6rovs). And again in the
Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians (I, xliv, 4-6) the office-bearers are
called presbyters, and the nature of their work is spoken of as oversight
(e'7rLo-com7r?);

It will be no light sin for us if we have thrust out of the oversight those who
have offered the gifts unblamably and holily. Blessed are those presbyters who
have gone before, .... for they have no fear lest anyone should remove them
from their appointed place.

Such is the evidence for the contention that presbyters were office-
bearers in the church of the first century, and that their function was over-
sight or episcopacy.
The proof for the identity of presbyters and bishops is thus arranged by
Dr. Lindsay:
(i) Acts 20: 17; St. Paul sent for the elders of Ephesus, and in his address to
them said that the "Holy Spirit had made them bishops;" (2) in I Peter 5:1, 2,
elders are told to act as pastors and as bishops (rTpeo-BrepoL .... . irotJA4pare

. . . rTKoro0vr^); (3) in I Clement it is made clear that at Rome presbyters or

elders and bishops are the same officials; (4) in I Timothy a description of bishops
is given (3:1-7), then follows what is required of deacons (3:8-13); in 5:17-19
the former ministers are alluded to as presbyters; (5) in Titus I:5-7 we find
that "thou shouldest set in order the things that were wanting and appoint elders
in every city . ... for the bishop must be;" (6) in the Peshito Syriac version of
the New Testament TritKOTOs is usually translated by kashisho--elder or pres-
byter; (7) the opinion of the ancient church, founding on these passages, and
voiced by Jerome, unhesitatingly declared that in the apostolic age elders and
bishops were the same; and this idea may almost be said to have prevailed
throughout the Middle Ages down to the Council of Trent.

The evidence which Dr. Lindsay here gives as proof for the identity of
presbyters and bishops may be conclusive, while yet it does not exclude the
conception of the bishop as still having some special function to which he
may have been delegated by the presbyters or in some other way. This
was the contention of Dr. Hatch. Or, to adopt the language of Hooker,
the significance of whose words has not been diminished by modern
investigation:

This content downloaded from

182.2.101.73 on Thu, 02 Feb 2023 14:28:17 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
804 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF THEOLOGY

Things themselves are always ancienter than their names; therefore that
thing, which the restrained use of the word doth import, is likewise ancienter than
the restraint of the word is.

It is important to discriminate between these two points and lines of

proof, (i) that presbyters were an official class, and (2) that presbyters and
bishops were identical. In regard to the first of these points, it is easy for
one to share in the confidence with which Dr. Lindsay quotes the testimony
of Loofs4 to the effect that he is so convinced that the presbyters of i Peter
5:I are office-bearers that, if the argument needed it, he would prefer to
believe that the ve6rTpoL mentioned in the fifth verse are deacons. It is
only the play upon the words for rhetorical effect which leads the writer of
I Peter, as also other writers, to contrast srpe~flrvrpot with vE;TCpoL. But
when Professor Loofs goes farther and declares that to take rL'TaKo7TOs as
the name of an office-bearer, and not the descriptive term of the function

of an office-bearer, is the 7rpGrov 0e8oso of many modern attempts in the

investigation of primitive ecclesiastical organization, he then seems to go
too far. At any rate, he must reckon with Mr. Lowrie, to whose exposition
we now turn, where this first false step, according to Dr. Lindsay and
Professor Loofs, is made the foundation-stone of a theory; "presbyter"
becomes a title merely of honor, while "bishop" is the name of an office-
bearer. Dr. Lindsay and others, especially Lightfoot, follow an inductive
method; Sohm pursues the deductive, advancing a hypothesis, and seeking
to bring allusions to organization into harmony with it. This hypothesis
is worked out by Mr. Lowrie in chap. 4, entitled "The Eucharistic Assembly
-Its Significance for Church Order and Organization." To Dr. Hatch
belongs the credit for the first suggestion of this theory, but he confined
himself to one aspect of the eucharist, the offerings, whose care and distribu-
tion were intrusted to the bishop. Professor Harnack carried the theory
farther taking advantage of the then recently discovered Didache, where
the bishop is presented in the vacant place of the prophet, presiding at the
eucharistic feast. Mr. Lowrie gives expansion to this point in an inter-
esting discussion, maintaining the thesis of Sohm with great energy and
suggestiveness: "It was in connection with the eucharist and the euchar-
istic assembly that a legal conception of the congregation and of the ministry
was first formulated." A very brief outline of the argument for this hypothe-
sis is as follows:
In the earliest time the eucharist was kept in conjunction with the agapd,
all the disciples gathering around a common table. Both gentile and
Jewish usage required a president for the feast, for obviously the functions
4 Studien und Kritiken, 1900oo, p. 638.

This content downloaded from

182.2.101.73 on Thu, 02 Feb 2023 14:28:17 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 THE ORGANIZATION OF THE EARLY CHURCH 805

of breaking bread and the eucharistic prayer must be performed by one

person. But this does not imply that the right to preside belonged exclu-
sively to any one class of officers. The common priesthood of all believers
implies that each one is "inherently capable" of these functions-an idea
still current in the time of Tertullian. Despite this qualification which
would seem to lead in another direction, Mr. Lowrie goes on to affirm that
"whoever presided at the eucharist was ipso jacto regarded as an officer."
A distinction must be drawn here between "minor assemblies," equivalent
to the "house churches" in a town, and the "principal assembly" of the
whole local community of Christians. It is the principal assembly (whose
existence is here assumed as in the nature of the case), that is significant for
the development of church organization; the minor eucharistic assemblies
explain the plurality of bishops, which was a feature of early organization.
It being assumed, then, that there could not be rotation in such an
office, the question would arise in the assembly, "who is most worthy to
sit in the seat of Christ ?" for again it is assumed that "he who presides
was recognized as sitting in Christ's seat." (For this assumption, how-
ever, there is no evidence until the time of Ignatius, Ijo-i17 A. D.) In the
apostolic age, as it was Paul who broke the bread at Troas, so it must have
been James at Jerusalem; and, again, the position of leadership held by
Timothy and Titus "surely implies presidency in the eucharistic assembly."
While the Charismatic ministry still existed, it was the prophets (as in the
Didache) who offered the eucharistic prayer; but when they were no longer
to be had, the members of the congregation appointed the fittest of their
number to this dignity, and the choice would naturally be made among
the older men (7rpor-frepoL). (The question might here arise whether
the rule of the Didache was everywhere followed; or whether the presbyters
might not elsewhere have appointed one of their number. Presbyters are
not mentioned in the Didache.) Assuming further, as Mr. Lowrie does, the
genuineness of the Pastorals (A. D. ca. 64), we have in them the enumera-
tion of the attributes of that one of the presbyters appointed to this dignity
of a bishop. As it was natural that the bishop should be taken from among
the older men, so it was natural that the deacons-the ministers of the
eucharist-should be chosen from the younger men. The requirement
that the bishop should be "apt to teach," which has been taken by others
to imply that at the time when the Pastorals were written this demand was
first made upon the bishop (Wernle), is here regarded as going naturally
with the office. As to the presbyters, their position cannot be very clearly
defined, and the right view regarding them "has been prejudiced by age-
long misrepresentation." They had no formal office, but were a vaguely

This content downloaded from

182.2.101.73 on Thu, 02 Feb 2023 14:28:17 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
8o6 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF THEOLOGY

defined class, distinguished for their age or larger experience. The bisho
were selected from this class; and hence the confusion that has so long
prevailed about these two names.
It is a circumstance which is thought to call for reflection in this con
nection that "feasts are commonly and quite naturally the occasion
marking rank and precedence." Despite our Lord's rebuke of ambit
for the "chief place at feasts,"
we have to suppose that, in accordance with prevailing custom, the presbyte
or elders would occupy the chief places on either side of the president at the he
of the eucharistic table. .... And vague as the distinction was, it was proba
the most formal that the presbyters enjoyed.

A twofold change took place in the second century, the time of which
cannot be definitely fixed; (i) when the eucharist was separated from t
agapd, and (2) when it was united with the general service of instructi
and worship. According to the earlier usage, the principal "assembl
for homiletic purposes might comprise nearly all the Christians in a tow
or city, while the eucharist must be celebrated in small groups in seve
private houses, because it is assumed that all sat down at table. It is thi
which may explain the plurality of bishops. Many considerations m
have united in bringing about the union of the two assemblies, complete
by the time of Justin Martyr-a result which was momentous for organiz
tion, for liturgical worship as well as for church architecture. The uni
of the two services, the homiletic and the eucharistic, gave a new touch
formality and order; the position of the bishop became more exalted, beca
he now presided at the table, with presbyters on either side. Since it w
no longer possible for the congregation to sit at the table, the feast assum
a symbolic character, and the beginning was also made of the separatio
between clergy and laity.
It is possible, as Mr. Lowrie remarks, that the early form of church
buildings may support this theory; that the private house where the euch
ist was first kept may have perpetuated itself in the so-called basilica of
age of Constantine; that the private house, and not the basilica, may h
been the model or type of the Christian church. There is much to be s
for this theory of church buildings, and, one church recently discover
does exist in Rome belonging to the sixth century-Sta. Maria Antiq
which was simply a private house altered into a church. But churc
buildings did not come till the third century, and of the few which are the
reported to exist we have no details regarding structure. The first defin
statement is found in the Apostolic Constitutions (ii, 7), where the com
parison which gives symbolic significance is not the house, but the ship:

This content downloaded from

182.2.101.73 on Thu, 02 Feb 2023 14:28:17 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 THE ORGANIZATION OF THE EARLY CHURCH 807

And first, let the building be long, with its head to the east, with its vestries on
both sides at the east end, and so it will be like a ship. In the middle let the
bishop's throne be placed, and on each side of him let the presbyters sit down;
and let the deacons stand near at hand, in close and small girt garments, for they
are like the mariners and managers of the ship.

The mosaic in the apse of the Church of Sta. Pudenziana in Rome is a

possible survival, three centuries and more later than the time of Ignatius,
of the idea which he advocated-Christ in heaven with the apostles on
either side; while the bishop on his seat below, surrounded by his presby-
ters, may suggest the comparison or the harmony of the heavenly and
earthly hierarchies. But the bishop in the fourth century-the time of the
mosaic-was regarded as the successor of the apostles, and not of Christ;
and the symbolism is not necessarily of a nature to throw light on the point
at issue.
The view of Sohm, interpreted and reinforced by Mr. Lowrie, is full of
suggestiveness. It must be admitted that the development of the episco-
pate was connected with the eucharist. But the theory in its detailed form
makes too many assumptions, as we have seen, for which the evidence is not
forthcoming. We know little or nothing of any "principal assembly" in
the apostolic age, nor of the relation of the house churches to it; in regard
to the keeping of the eucharist there is silence in the New Testament writ-
ings apart from the description of Paul; it is not until the time of Justin
Martyr (ca. 150) that we have a clear account; for the date of the Didache
cannot be fixed. Under these circumstances, any hypothesis is to be
welcomed which will throw light and be self-realizing. But not only does
this hypothesis fail us at the critical points, but it also creates other diffi-
culties which it does not solve. Mr. Lowrie maintains that the theory of the
original identity of bishops and presbyters leaves "the development of the
single episcopate an insoluble mystery," while the idea that the presbyters
were thrust down from their higher rank to a lower one he pronounces "a
monstrously unhistorical assumption." But, on the other hand, he has a
problem to solve; he admits that in regard to the "origin of the single
episcopate we are left largely to conjecture." How plural episcopacy
passed over into monepiscopacy is no more easily determined by his view
of the connection of the bishop with the eucharist, than according to the
other theory is the rise of the bishop out of the college of presbyters. In
regard to the latter, Dr. Lindsay, Professor Loofs, and Professor Schmiedel
confess that they do not know. Mr. Lowrie offers some suggestions as to
how the practical difficulties may have been met of eliminating the several
bishops from the field; as, for example, in Rome, where, according to his

This content downloaded from

182.2.101.73 on Thu, 02 Feb 2023 14:28:17 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
8o8 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF THEOLOGY

theory, there were many bishops corresponding to the numerous p

assembly, and each bishop had his presbyters and deacons. He
that "a practical obstacle such as this could never have been surm
excepftin the face of an imminent danger, and under the stress of
sity which all recognized as imperative." But Dr. Lindsay would p
hold the same opinion regarding the rise of the bishop to mon
authority over the presbyters. But also Mr. Lowrie frankly co
"I do not pretend to explain how the extra bishops were got rid of
indeed, history is silent on the subject.
We turn from this exposition of Sohm's hypothesis to its verific
the sources. Hatch, according to Mr. Lowrie, deserves the negativ
of having demolished the view which regarded bishops and presb
identical, but he was wrong in finding three sets of officers in
Testament-presbyters, bishops, and deacons.
Sohm's solution is that there were but two sorts of officers (apart f
charismatic ministry of apostles, prophets, and teachers), and these we
and deacons ..... The episcopal organization was not among the
institutions of Christianity, but nevertheless it originated in apostolic
was already established at Philippi about the year 6o.s

The presbyters in the first century "were not officers, but merely a
the community "-the "elder" disciples, the "honorables," from
number the bishop was chosen, and among whom he ranked whe
dignity rather than office that was in question. The presbyter as
not elected nor appointed, but enjoyed his informal position of lea
by common and informal consent: when an elder is (said to be) app
there is nothing else he can be appointed to but the episcopa
appointed elder is ipso facto a bishop" (p. 347).
In other words, in the New Testament and in Clement's Epistle
Corinthians, the name "presbyter" is untechnical, while "bish
"deacon" are technical. Therefore in i Peter 5: I, 2, 5, the pre
who are enjoined to "feed the flock" are not official persons, even
the young are exhorted to obey them, but are simply the older me
the community, and they exercise oversight because that is the du
elders (p. 357). In the case of the elders of the church at Jerusale
often mentioned,6 or the elders of the epistle of James (5:14) the s
applies-they are not office-bearers. But, on the other hand, w
the word "appointed" is used in connection with presbyters, w
understand bishops. Thus Acts 14:23, "when they had ordain
elders in every city," carries a distinct reference to the bishop.
s Phil. I:1. 6 Acts 11:30; 15:2, 6, 22, 23; 16:4; 21:18.

This content downloaded from

182.2.101.73 on Thu, 02 Feb 2023 14:28:17 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 THE ORGANIZATION OF THE EARLY CHURCH 809

the case of the elders of the church at Ephesus7 bishops are to be understood,
as in the passage, "the Holy Ghost hath appointed you bishops." It is
possible, however, that there may be an allusion in Acts I :30 to bishops,
because here it is said a contribution for the poor was sent to the elders,
the administration of church property being a function of the bishop's office.
In. other cases mentioned in Acts it may be that bishops were included
among the elders, and the same may hold true of the elders mentioned in
the epistle of James. But on this point, as Mr. Lowrie remarks, "a sure
conclusion is hardly to be reached;" and it is difficult to see why the same
remark may not apply to the statement which follows, that the Acts "ex-
pressly characterizes the appointed presbyters as bishops." In the pastoral
epistles, when the word "presbyter" is used, it must be taken to mean an
unofficial person of high dignity, except in Titus x1:5, where to ordain
"presbyters" in every city means to make "bishops." And again in the
Epistle of Clement (chap. i), "ye walked after the ordinances of God, sub-
mitting to your rulers (-qyovacvot9) and rendering to the presbyters (7rp1cr-
PUfripotS) the honor which is their due," the rulers are bishops and the
presbyters are the elder men. In all the allusions of Clement to presbyters
we must understand an unofficial class, except in one passage (chap. 54)
where it reads, "let the flock of Christ be at peace with the appointed"
elders, and here it must be bishops that are meant.
As we contrast this interpretation of references in the New Testament
and in Clement with that given above by Dr. Lindsay (with whom agree
Dr. Hort in his Christian Ecclesia and later Professor Schmiedel in Ency-
clopedia Biblica), it seems artificial and arbitrary, till we are led to doubt
the statement of Mr. Lowrie that the theory of Jerome has been demolished,
or that Sohm's hypothesis becomes more convincing when applied to the
situation described in the New Testament. It would be easier to agree
with Wernle that overseers and elders indicate the same persons, that the
colleges of presbyters without a head are a stage in the transition from the
earlier ministry of the apostolic age to the age of Ignatius when the claim
of the "monarchical" bishop, as he is commonly called, was for the first
time boldly asserted.
It was Hatch's thesis that the office of bishop was an administrative one
dealing primarily with ecclesiastical affairs rather than with teaching.
Sohm is contending against Hatch for the spiritual quality of the bishop's
office; and Mr. Lowrie remarks (p. 366) that the "antithesis between
teaching and administration is a modern one which did not exist at all for
the early church." But there is an important passage in the Acts of the
7 Acts 20:17, 28.

This content downloaded from

182.2.101.73 on Thu, 02 Feb 2023 14:28:17 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 81o THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF THEOLOGY

Apostles which, if we assume the historicity of the book, is a locus classicus,

pointing to the distinction between teaching and administration. In the
very earliest years of the church, and before Paul was yet converted,
the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not
reason that we should leave the word of God and serve tables. Wherefore, brethren,
look ye out among you seven men full of the Holy Ghost and of wisdom whom we
may appoint over this business. But we will give ourselves continually to prayer
and to the ministry of the word.8

This passage has received scant attention at the hands of recent students
of the origin of the ecclesiastical organization, beyond the general agreement
that it is not deacons who are here alluded to. Some have regarded it as
an abortive attempt at organization, which was never followed up. Dr.
Lindsay, agreeing with Ritschl, holds that the appointment of presbyters
is to be understood; and there is something to be said for this theory. But
there may be some truth in the ancient comment of Chrysostom,9 that "it
was neither deacons nor presbyters who were then appointed." If it
were neither deacons nor presbyters, then it may have been bishops, who
rose by degrees from this inferior position (for so it is distinctly put-the
administrative service of tables, as compared with the higher ministry of
the Word) till they came to have servants to aid them, that is, the deacons;
who became at a later stage identical with the presbyters, holding the
presbyterial office and rank, and yet always with a distinct administrative
function, till at last they rose to the place of president of the college of
presbyters, and then the function of administrative oversight was granted
the highest place of honor-the monarchical bishop of the Catholic church
stands revealed. In some such general way as this it may be possible to
explain the rise of the episcopate. As a hypothesis it does justice to Hatch's
view, with its modifications by Harnack; it receives a contribution in its
support from Sohm's view; it recognizes the presbyters as officials for which
the evidence is too strong to be set aside; it justifies the conception of a
college of presbyters, first without a head and then with one; and it is in
harmony with the later development of the episcopal office in the Catholic
church, where the administrative feature of episcopacy is predominant. It
gains renewed support in the age of the Reformation, when the attempt
was made to give again to the Word of God the precedence over the service
of tables. In this development of the bishop to the time of Ignatius, and
in the later growth and expansion of the office, it was a redeeming feature
that the office came to be regarded as charismatic, or requiring special
gifts of the Spirit, as it claimed for itself apostolic authority, and sub-
s Acts 6:2-4. 9 Hom. in Acta Apos., xiv.

This content downloaded from

182.2.101.73 on Thu, 02 Feb 2023 14:28:17 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 THE ORGANIZATION OF THE EARLY CHURCH 8II
jected to itself not only the presbyterate, but also teaching and prophecy.
But in calling it charismatic, it is meant that it was suited to the needs of the
age, that the times were calling for the bishop with the centralization of
authority as the one predominant need of the church. Both Mr. Lowrie
and Dr. Lindsay, with many other workers in the same field, admit that
the change was attended with no violent protest or marks of revolution.
That may be true with some exceptions,'o and yet when the development
reached the point where it displaced prophetic utterance and authority,
there came a protest in Montanism which was heard and felt throughout
the church, and lingered even in the age of Cyprian.
A word should be said about the presbyters. Both Hatch and Har-
nack, and also Sohm, may have erred in limiting the functions of what we
must hold to have been an office. It may have been in connection with
the service for instruction, which was distinct from that of the eucharist,
that they presided and taught and ministered the Word of God, as well as
discharged the functions of moral oversight (ii Clem., I7). If we only
knew, as Loofs has suggested, who trained the catechumens and prepared
them for baptism it would throw light upon the question at issue. The
fact that the homiletical service was so prominent in the early church and
that it was gradually superseded by the eucharistic, which at last finally sup-
planted it, as in the Middle Ages, is a circumstance to be kept in mind in
tracing the growth of the organization.
But after all has been said, there remain difficulties which, if not insu-
perable, have not yet been overcome, in the effort to interpret the hints con-
tained in the New Testament and in the later writers of the sub-apostolic
age-difficulties that hinder a common agreement or even a common
understanding. Dr. Lindsay affirms, and Mr. Lowrie also, that the dates
when the books of the New Testament were written, are a negligible element
in the inquiry; for whenever they were written, they bear witness to the
existing condition of the organization. It may be that Rdville in his elabor-
ate and valuable discussion has placed too much emphasis upon this point,
but he is right in his attempt to fix the date of a document as a preliminary
to any conclusion. Certainly it makes a difference whether we regard the
Pastorals as genuine and as reflecting accurate information regarding the
situation in the year 64, or the Acts as written by Luke not far from the
same time, with accurate information about the church's order. Both Dr.
Lindsay and Mr. Lowrie so regard them. But if they were written, as
Jillicher claims, a generation or more later; if the Pastorals were a text-
book by some unknown author, brought up to date by interpolations, as
10 3 John, vs. 9.

This content downloaded from

182.2.101.73 on Thu, 02 Feb 2023 14:28:17 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 812 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF THEOLOGY

late as well on in the second century; or if the writer of the Acts w

Luke, but some anonymous author attempting to describe the situ
some forty years before he wrote, then the elaborate criticism and inf
and adjustment, by Dr. Lindsay or by Sohm, of passages, which nee
brought into harmony, may be of little significance in determini
actual facts. And the same remark holds true of I Peter and Jame
even of the synoptics, Matthew and Luke, if they also may ha
influenced by later Catholic usage. Thus the famous passage, Matt
upon which Dr. Lindsay dwells as significant for the use of "chur
which Mr. Lowrie makes the central point in his lecture on Jesus'
the word 'church,' " must first be vindicated against a growing do
to its genuineness. Rdville regards it as an interpolation. Har
thinks it doubtful. The passage is not cited by Irenaeus when he is
up his strong argument for the Roman church where, if he had kn
it, it seems as if he would surely have used it. Such are some of the
culties which make it impossible at present finally to determine m
the questions involved in the attempt to reproduce an exact picture
organization of the early church.
But there is another, and perhaps even greater, obstacle-the pres
sitions which are laid down for the purpose of controlling the inq
Thus Dr. Gore devotes a chapter in his Church and the Ministry to
strating the necessity of a certain principle of apostolic succession as e
in the nature of the case, and, having found it in writings of the lat
of the second century, assumes it to have been operating from th
Sohm also has his presuppositions which reverse those of Bisho
and in these he is followed by Schmiedel: "Anything in the nature
constitution which could be described as legal formality is essentially f
to the nature of religion;" or, in the words of Sohm: "No such
ought ever to haye existed, for religion consists in a relation of the
heart to God." While some take it for granted that Christ inte
establish a church, Sohm, on the contrary, says: "It would be
mistake to suppose that Jesus himself founded a religious commun
With Gore the question of the origin of the ministry is of primary imp
as involving the principle of authority; but Schmeidel thinks that, s
the essence of religion is concerned, it is unquestionably only secon
importance.
Sohm has a peculiar theory, which his interpreter, Mr. Lowrie, has
expounded at length in his chapters entitled "The Idea of Church Organ-
ization" and "The Significance of Order and Custom." To put it briefly,
Sohm maintains that there was no "law" in the apostolic age; but that

This content downloaded from

182.2.101.73 on Thu, 02 Feb 2023 14:28:17 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 THE ORGANIZATION OF THE EARLY CHURCH 813

"custom" was the rule by which the church lived. "The authority of
custom is not necessarily a legal authority." "Force is implied in the very
idea of law; whereas the nature of the church abhors compulsion." By
the light of this theory, Mr. Lowrie is guided in giving a summary of the
history of ecclesiastical organization. But the theory is a subtle one, tenu-
ous, difficult to grasp, and elusive. To the ordinary mind "custom" is
but unwritten law, which may carry a tyrannical compulsion, while under
law there may be freedom. Sohm maintains that church "law" began
with Ignatius, when also the Catholic church began to be. But in the
ordinary use of language, law did not come until there was some recognized
authority, such as a synod, provincial or cecumenical, which legislated for
the whole church. What Ignatius did was to attempt a change of custom,
and he succeeded. In this connection some interesting remarks may be
found in Tertullian's treatise on the Veiling of Virgins, where he maintains
that "custom" has its origin in ignorance or simplicity. "Our Lord Christ
has surnamed himself Truth, not Custom." The work of the Holy Spirit
is to stimulate development:
What is the Paraclete's administrative7office but this-the direction of disci-
pline, the revelation of the Scriptures, the re-formation of the intellect, the advance-
ment toward the better things. .... Those who have received Christ set truth
before custom.

Tertullian in this treatise was advocating, as a Montanist, resistance to the

growing "custom," as he conceived it, which Ignatius had been the first to
introduce. The Holy Spirit "is the only prelate, because he alone succeeds
Christ." Even Jerome was still under the impression that the order of the
church in his time was but a matter of custom: "Ac sola consuetudine
presbyteris episcopi presunt." These remarks are quoted as illustrating
the ordinary use of language on the subject in the ancient church.
Mr. Lowrie in his preface laments "the neglect of Sohm's work,"
attributing it to the significant fact "of the narrow acquaintance of English-
speaking scholars with German theological literature." It may or may not
be so. The probability is that Sohm's theories are not exactly what the
Anglo-Saxon type of mind is inclined to receive, however they may be
welcomed in Germany. Had it been otherwise, both England and America
would have proved more fertile soil. As it is, a little work of Sohm's
Kirchengeschichie im Grundriss, translated into English (1895), is widely
known, and in the absence of some such manual, written from a different
point of view, but with equal charm of style and equipment of learning and
scholarship, it holds an undisputed place. But in this work we have the
same presuppositions as in his Kirchenrecht. There must be many who

This content downloaded from

182.2.101.73 on Thu, 02 Feb 2023 14:28:17 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
814 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF THEOLOGY

will challenge such statements as these: "The natural man is a born enemy
of Christianity;" "The natural man is a born Catholic;" "Church law has
arisen from this overpowering desire of the natural man for a legally con-
stituted, catholicized church;" with the coming of Ignatius and the mon-
archical bishop "the church has changed, not merely her constitution, but
her faith." All this is the very essence of Martin Luther, from whose spell
no German can escape; but it is not the genius of the Anglican or Reformed
churches.

Is it not time to study the history of the rise of the "Catholic" church
from a more objective point of view, and apart from ecclesiastical or national
or other presuppositions ? It was Baur who started the issue in its modern
form; who thought the Catholic church arose when in the course of the
second century the Jewish and Pauline types of Christianity were reconciled.
Renan followed in the main upon this track. Ritschl saw the rise of the
Catholic church in the influence of Greek thought upon Christian ideas,
which it molded into dogmas. Sohm finds the great departure which
constitutes the Catholic church in Ignatius and the episcopate, in the change
from a charismatic custom to ecclesiastical law. But is the Catholic
church anything else in reality than the primitive apostolic church, recog-
nizing its call to universal expansion and adapting itself thereto? The
term "catholic" is one of the great inspiring watchwords of the world, the
ancient reservoir of faith and hope; like the modern word "humanitarian,"
or many others that could be mentioned, incapable of exact definition, and
for that reason all the more potent. It is of the very essence of Christianity,
or of the religion of Jesus, that it must assimilate every agency in every
time and country which will enable it to conquer the world for the kingdom
of God and his righteousness. And to this end the organization may be
vital, no less than religious experience.
ALEXANDER V. G. ALLEN.
CAMBRIDGE, MASS.

RECENT STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY.

WE have in these 1,015 pages the fourth part of Professor

history of the church in Germany,' or the eighth book in his serie
with the fascinating era of the Hohenstaufens, under the subtitle
Papal Dominion in the German Church and its Contests," from 1
1250. It opens with a lengthy discussion of the external eccl
conditions at the beginning of the twelfth century, studying with
'Kirchengeschichte Deutschlands. Von ALBERT HAUCK. Vierter Teil
Hohenstaufenzeit." Erste und zweite (Doppel-)Auflage. Leipzig: Hinri
416 pages. M. 8.

This content downloaded from

182.2.101.73 on Thu, 02 Feb 2023 14:28:17 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms