A 09 - The Catena of Proof
Ryder PLHV: 09 The Catena of Proof IX THE CATENA OF PROOF For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. Hebrews 7:12.
Having then a great High Priest, who hath passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. Let us therefore draw near with boldness unto the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy, and may find grace to help us in time of need. Hebrews 4:14; Hebrews 4:16. IN the writings of the apostles no traces of sacerdotalism as applied to church officers, apart from the whole body of Christians, are visible. This is also true of the ages immediately after the apostles. But when the idea once took root it shot up rapidly. The first germs appear about the time of Tertullian in A.D. 190, and the plant had attained all but full growth in the time of Cyprian, A.D. 250. The difference between clergy and laity is to be kept quite distinct from the idea of sacerdotalism. The word "clerus," as meaning ministerial office, did not convey the idea of sacerdotal functions. It is said of the Levites that they have no "clerus" in the land, for the Lord Himself is their "clerus" (Deut. x. 9). But the Jewish priesthood is never described as the "clerus" of Jehovah. On the other hand, the whole Israelite people are the "clerus" of the Lord (Deut. ix. 29). In the New Testament the title "clerus," as applied to the ministerial order, seems to have been arrived at in the following way. To supply the place left vacant by Judas, St. Peter tells the assembled disciples that the traitor had been among them and had received the lot (clerus) of the ministry (Acts i. 17). Then it is re corded that the lot fell on Matthias, and he was added to the eleven disciples. Thus "clerus" arrived at this peculiar sense: first the lot by which the office was assigned; secondly, the office thus assigned by lot; thirdly, the body of persons holding the office.
"Clerus" first meant clerical appointment, and then the holders of that office. Thus Irenaeus (i. 27) speaks of Hyginus holding the "ninth clerus" of the episcopal succession from the apostles. It is interesting to note that Tertullian (A.D. 190, in the next generation) gives us the earliest instance of "clerus" meaning "clergy" (Monogamia xii.): "When we begin to exalt and inflame ourselves against the clergy (clerus), then we are all one, then we are all priests, because He made us priests to God and His Father; but when we are required to submit ourselves equally to the priestly discipline, we throw off our fillets and are no longer equal."
Thus the use of "clerus" cannot be traced to the Jewish priesthood, and has no connection with sacerdotal claims. The term "clerus" recognises the clergy as an order distinct from the laity, but this is a question of ecclesiastical rule. The origin of sacerdotalism must be looked for in another direction. Taking in order the earliest documents, we may note the significant absence of sacerdotal claims.
1. The Pastoral Epistles (A.D. 67) are silent on the subject.
2. St. Clement (A.D. 95) urges that men appointed directly by the apostles, or those appointed by them, ought to have received better treatment. But he advances no sacerdotal immunities on behalf of those dismissed ministers. He shows that in the Old Testament God appointed persons and places, and desires all things to be done in order. Then follows the passage in question (Clem. Rom. xl. 41):
“He hath not commanded [the offerings and ministrations] to be performed at random or in disorder, but at fixed times and seasons, and where and through whom He willeth them to be performed He hath ordained by His supreme will. They, there fore, who make their offerings at the appointed seasons are acceptable and blessed, since, following the ordinances of the Master, they do not go wrong. For to the high priest peculiar services are entrusted, and the priests have their peculiar office assigned to them, and on the Levites peculiar ministrations are imposed. The layman is bound by the lay ordinances. Let each of you, brethren, in his own rank give thanks to God, retaining a good conscience, not transgressing the appointed rule of his service (leitourgij)."
Here the element common to the Old Testament priesthood and the Christian ministry is divinely appointed order. But he keeps perfectly distinct the Jewish and Christian titles. To the murmuring of the Israelites, which was rebuked by the budding of Aaron’s rod, he applies the words "jealousy concerning the priesthood" (Clem. Rom. xliii.). To differences in the Christian Church he applies most carefully the words, "Strife concerning the honour of the episcopate." It is most interesting that in the passage quoted above we have the first use of the word " layman " and " lay," and they are applied most accurately to those among the Jews who were not officers, but members of the laoj the chosen people of God.
3. St. Ignatius (A.D. 107) never regards the ministry as a sacerdotal office. He is the champion of episcopacy, but says no thing of the priesthood of the Christian ministry. Still more remarkable is the silence of the interpolated and forged letters falsely attributed to Ignatius. While these letters are full of passages enjoining obedience to the bishop, this pseudo-Ignatian writer never once appeals to sacerdotal claims. We may infer the sacerdotal view of the ministry had not yet made its way into the Christian Church.
4. Polycarp (A.D. 108) takes occasion to give his friends advice about a certain presbyter, Valens, who disgraced by avarice the office he held. Yet Polycarp knows nothing of any sacerdotal functions which claimed respect, or any sacerdotal sanctity which had been violated.
5. Justin Martyr (A.D. 140) speaks at length on Eucharistic offerings. Here surely we might expect to find sacerdotal views of the Christian ministry set forth, yet it is quite otherwise. When arguing with Trypho the Jew (Dia. c. Trypho, cxvi. 117) he writes:
“So we, who through the name of Jesus have, as one man, believed in God, the maker of the universe, having divested ourselves of our filthy garments, that is, our sins, through the name of His first-born Son, and having been refined by the word of His calling, are the true high-priestly race of God as Himself also beareth witness, saying that in every place among the Gentiles men are offering sacrifices well pleasing to Him, and pure" (Malachi 1:11).
“Yet God doth not receive sacrifices from any one save through His priests. Therefore God, anticipating all sacrifices through this name, which Jesus Christ ordained to be offered, I mean those offered by the Christians in every region of the earth with (epi) the thanksgiving (the Eucharist) of the*bread and the cup beareth witness that they are well-pleasing to Him; but the sacrifices through your priests He rejecteth, saying, I will not accept your sacrifices from your hands" (Malachi 1:10).
He is arguing with a Jew, and he contrasts with the Jewish priests the whole body of Christians (the one high-priestly race of God) who offer jointly the sacrifices now appointed by God. The whole Christian people, therefore, according to Justin, have not only taken the place of the Aaronic priesthood, but have become a nation of high priests, being made one with the Great High Priest of the New Covenant, and presenting their Eucharistic offerings in His name.
6. Irenaeus (A.D. 167) writes on the importance of the episcopate, but the silence which has accompanied us is still unbroken.
He not only withholds the title of priesthood, as a name for the Christian ministry, but expounds a new view of the office of priest. He recognises only the priesthood of moral holiness (Hoer., iv. viii. 3). When speaking of our Lord’s reference to the occasion in David’s life where the king and his followers ate the shewbread, which it is not lawful to eat save for the priests alone, Irenseus says:
“He excuseth His disciples by the words of the law, and signifieth that it is lawful for priests to act freely. For David had been called to be a priest in the sight of God, although Saul carried on a persecution against him, for all just men are of the sacerdotal order. Now all the apostles of the Lord are priests, for they inherit neither lands nor houses here; but ever attend on the altar and on God.
“Who are they," he goes on, "that have left father, and mother, and have renounced all their kindred for the sake of God and His covenant, but the disciples of the Lord? Of these Moses says again, But they shall have no inheritance.:
Again (Hcer., v. xxxiv. 3) he says: " We have shown in a former book that all disciples of the Lord are priests and Levites, who also profaned the Sabbath and are blameless."
Thus Irenseus regards the whole body of the faithful under the New Dispensation as the counterparts of the sons of Levi under the Old Dispensation. Not yet is there any departure from the views of the apostles and the evangelists.
7. Polycrates, Bishop of Ephesus (A.D. 190), quoted by Eusebius (Hist. Eccles., v. 24), writes to Victor, Bishop of Rome. He speaks of St. John as having been made a priest and wearing the petalon that is, a long plate of gold two fingers broad, which reached from one ear of the high priest to the other. As a fact this is not probable. In any case its value is to be learned from St. John’s own language in the Book of Revelation, where great stress is laid on the priesthood of believers generally. St. John may be regarded as the veteran teacher, the chief representative of a priestly race. If the words were to be interpreted literally, which is most unlikely, this would be the earliest passage in any Christian writing of a sacerdotal view of the ministry.
8. Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 192) was more inclined to maintain an aristocracy of intellectual contemplation than of sacerdotal office. In the following passage we observe how far he was from maintaining a sacerdotal view of the ministry:
"It is possible for men, even now, by exercising themselves in the commandments of the Lord, and by living a perfect gnostic life in obedience to the Gospel, to be inscribed upon the roll of the apostles. Such men are genuine presbyters of the Church, and true deacons of the will of God, if they practise and teach the things of the Lord, being not ordained by men, nor considered righteous, because they are presbyters, but enrolled in the presbytery because they are righteous; and though on earth they may not be honoured with a chief seat, yet they shall sit on the four and twenty thrones, judging the people " (Strom., vi. 13). This truly spiritual view, which is metaphorical, does not prevent him from recognising presbyters and deacons and laymen in other parts of his writings as distinct and actual orders. But he never uses the words "priest," "priestly," and "priesthood" of the Christian ministry. In Stromata (v. 33) he contrasts laity and priesthood, but without any such reference. When he says the veil of the temple is a barrier against laic unbelief, he means those who appropriate the Gospel are priests, and those who reject it laymen. In the context St. Clement, following up the hint thrown out in the Epistle to the Hebrews, gives a spiritual meaning to all the furniture of the tabernacle.
Thus for 190 years the whole body of believers are regarded as the race of priests and no sacerdotal term is applied to the Christian ministry.
9. Tertullian (A.D. 192), of the same generation, is the first to assert direct sacerdotal claims for the ministry (De prescrip. Hcer., 41). Of the heretics he complains that they "impose sacerdotal functions on laymen (nam et laicis sacerdotalia munera injungunt)." He says (De Virg. Vel.): "No woman ought to teach, baptize, celebrate the Eucharist, or arrogate to herself the performance of any duty pertaining to men, much less the sacerdotal office." Tertullian employs the words "sacerdos," "sacerdotium," "sacerdotalis" of the Christian ministry. Yet even he strongly asserts the universal priesthood of all believers. In arguing against second marriages, he says: "We would be foolish to suppose that alatitude is allowed to laymen which is denied to priests. Are not we laymen also priests? It is written, He hath also made us a kingdom and priests to God and His Father. It is the authority of the Church which makes the difference between the order (the clergy) and the people; thus where there is no bench of clergy, you present the Eucharistic offerings, and baptize, and are your sole priest. For where three are gathered together there is a church, though they are laymen. Therefore if you exercise the rights of a priest in cases of necessity, it is your duty also to observe the discipline enjoined on a priest, where of necessity you exercise the rights of a priest " (De Exh. Cast.). In Monogamia, xii. he satirically says: " When we begin to exalt and inflame ourselves against the clergy we are all one.
Then we are priests of God and His Father. But when we are required to submit our selves equally to the priestly discipline we throw off our fillets and are now no longer equal."
These passages were written by Tertullian after he became a Montanist. But even in these passages he recognises that his opponents also held the Scriptural doctrine of a universal priesthood.
It was by Tertullian first the fateful word was spoken. Dr. Hatch says: " Tertullian, with an explanation which shows that the conception is new, tells us (De Bapt., xvii.): * The authority of administering baptism is possessed by the high priest (summus sacerdos) that is, the bishop. The explanation of "summus sacerdos" was not needed a century later.
Origen, with a hesitating timidity which shows that such an idea had not yet established itself, said (Orig. Com. on Joann.): "Those devoted to the Divine Word and the exclusive service of God, Levites and priests not unreasonably might be named." It was a century and a half later before the analogy came to be generally accepted but when once established it became permanent.
10. Hippolytus (A.D. 220), Bishop of Portus, shows that the tide had changed, and was now running slowly in the direction of sacerdotalism (Hcer. proosm., p. 3):
“We being successors of the apostles, and partaking of the same grace of high priesthood, and of teaching, and being accounted guardians of the Church, do not suppress the true Word."
11. Origen (A.D. 230) still holds the doc trine of the universal priesthood (Horn. ix. in Levit.). He says there are "two sanctuaries in the temple of the Church the heavenly accessible to Jesus Christ, the earthly open to all priests of the New Covenant. For Christians are a sacerdotal race, and therefore have access to the outer sanctuary. There they present their offerings of love and self-denial." In Com. Joann., i. 3, his view is that many professed Christians occupied chiefly with the concerns of the world, and dedicating but few of their actions to God, are represented by the tribes who merely pre sent tithes and first-fruits. On the other hand, those who are devoted to the Divine Word, and are busied in the sole worship of God, may not unreasonably be called priests and Levites, according to the difference in this respect of the impulses tending thereto. In all these passages Origen has taken spiritual enlightenment, and not sacerdotal office, to be the Christian counterpart of the Aaronic priesthood.
Up to the year A.D. 192 there has been only a sacerdotal view of the ministry as part of the sacerdotal functions of the whole Christian body. Tertullian held that the clergy are separate from the laity only because the Church in the exercise of her prerogative has for convenience en trusted to them certain sacerdotal functions, belonging to the whole sacerdotal body. Origen considered the priesthood of the clergy to differ from that of the laity only because the clergy devote more of their time and thoughts to God than the latter. The teaching of the apostles is not violated so long as the priesthood of the ministry is considered to spring from the priesthood of the whole body. It was, however, a dangerous change to use the terms "hiereus" and "sacerdos" as a special title of a single class.
Here is the period of change A.D. 250, when the general priesthood of the New Testament passes into the particular priesthood of a later age.
12. It is Cyprian (A.D. 250) who uses "sacerdos," "sacerdotium," "sacerdotalis" constantly of the ministry.
He regards all the passages which refer to the privileges, the sanctuary, the duties, and the responsibilities of the priesthood of Aaron as applying to the officers of the Christian Church. He says (Cyp. Ep. iii,) that his opponents have passed sentence of death on themselves; by disobeying the command of the Lord in Deuteronomy to hear the priest (Cyp. Ep. iii. 66), they have been guilty of the sin of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram. It is no longer a metaphor, or an illustration, but an absolute unquestionable doctrine. He is so strongly assertive of the sacerdotal authority of the priesthood that it only remains for those who follow him to develop his principles.
Having thus traced the rise of the new view of the sacerdotal position of the clergy, it remains to note the cause of this change. It may be remarked that in the early centuries, when Judaism was still powerful enough to make its impress on Christianity, there is no trace of distinct sacerdotalism. It is not due to the influence of Judaistic Christianity. It comes from Gentile feeling. The Gentile lived in an atmosphere of sacerdotalism and depended on augury and sacrifice every day of his life. The Jew might have dispensed with priestly administration from one year’s end to the other. This is proved by the fact that germs of the sacerdotal idea first appear in the Church of Carthage that is, in Latin Christendom. To heathen, not to Jewish converts, sacerdotalism must be traced. Yet the form was derived from the Old Testament in a twofold way: (1) by the metaphor and analogy of the term "sacrifice "; (2) by the correspondence between the threefold ministry and the three ranks of the Levitical priesthood. In the apostolic writings the actions of the same type are sacrifices and offerings praise, faith, alms giving, the offering of the body, and the conversion of unbelievers. In Hebrews 13:10 we read, "We have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle"; but the apostle continues, Through Him then let us offer up a sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of lips which make confession to His name. But to do good and to communicate forget not: for with such sacrifices God is well pleased."
Dr. Westcott, in a valuable note, says: "In this first stage of Christian literature down to Polycarp (A.D. 108) there is not only no example of the application of the word qusiasthrion to any concrete material object, as the Holy Table, but there is no room for such an application. The word is used, but in a quite different sense. Ignatius uses it of the assembly where the faithful meet God in worship. The order of widows is called the altar of the Lord, because they were constantly engaged in prayer and received the alms of the faithful. Christ Himself is called the altar. Thomas Aquinas declared the words here either mean the Cross or Christ Himself."
Dr. Lightfoot says: "In one passage the image is so far extended that the apostolic writer speaks of an altar pertaining to the spiritual service of the Christian Church. If on this noble Scriptural language a false superstructure has been raised, we have here only one instance out of many where the truth has been impaired by transferring statements from the region of metaphor to that of fact. The altar here spoken of is the Cross. An actual altar is not intended. This is shown by the context before and after. The apposition between grace and meats in the verses above; the contrast implied in the mention of sacrifice of praise, and fruit of the lips, and the naming of doing good and communicating help, as the kind of sacrifice in which God is well pleased, in the verses that follow, show the metaphorical sense. The interpretation of a spiritual sacrifice accords well with the Christian sacrifice of succeeding ages."
Dr. Westcott says that the writings of Cyprian mark a new stage in the development of ecclesiastical thought and language. It is from Cyprian’s time that qusiasthrion and altar are used habitually, though not exclusively, of the Lord’s Table.
Spiritual sacrifices were often not the acts of the individual Christian, but of the whole congregation. Public prayer, thanks giving, almsgiving, giving of the food for the "agape" were presented by the people through their ministers, who, as their mouth piece, devoted their offerings unto God. From being the act of the whole congregation the offering came to be regarded as the offering of the minister who officiated on their behalf. By degrees the terms " offering " and " sacrifice " were restricted to the Eucharistic service, and by degrees the Eucharist, being regarded as the one special act of sacrifice, and appearing externally to the eye as the act of the officiating minister, might well lead to the minister being called priest, and then being thought a priest in an exclusive sense, where the religious bias was in this direction and the true position of the minister of the congregation was lost sight of. Again, there were in the Jewish priesthood and in the Christian ministry three orders. The analogy could not fail to seize the imagination. The solitary high priest was representative of the solitary bishop. The acts of Jewish sacrifice by the priests were represented by the principal acts of offering by Christian presbyters. The Levite, as attendant minister, was represented by the deacon. The correspondence seemed complete. There was one hindrance. Our Lord Himself was the one High Priest recognised in the New Testament. Accordingly Clement, Polycarp, Ignatius, and other early writers reserve the title to Him, and all writers, though varying in other matters, refrain from applying it to the bishop. But at last the barrier was broken. After the presbyters were called "sacerdotes," the title for the bishop of "summus sacerdos" and "pontifex maximus" was too convenient to be ignored. The steps which led to the sacerdotal language and view were the analogy of the sacrifices in both Covenants, and the correspondence of the threefold order. The doctrine of an exclusive priesthood found its way into the Church by the union of Gentile sentiment with the ordinances of the Old Testament.
We have noticed the silence of the early Christian writers, and seek the explanation. It lies in the teaching of the Epistle to the Hebrews. The doctrine which is here explicit supplements and interprets the silence elsewhere, alike of the New Testament and of early Fathers. For this Epistle declares that all sacrifices have been consummated in the one sacrifice, all priesthood in one Priest. The offering had been made once for all; and as there were no more victims, there could be no more priests. The writer speaks of Christian sacrifices and a Christian altar, but the sacrifices are praise and thanksgiving, and the altar is the Cross of Christ. Though dwelling at length on the Christian counterparts to the Jewish priest, the Jewish altar, and the Jewish sacrifice, he omits to mention the one office, the one place, the one act, which on this showing would be their truest counterparts in the worship of the Church. He rejects these and chooses spiritual metaphor for the sacred types.
It is very remarkable that, while drawing profound lessons from the silence of Scripture about Melchizedek and from his receiving tithes, he passes over in silence what later sentiment would have made so prominent in the work of the high priest that he gave Abraham bread and wine. The Christian ministry could only be called a priesthood by broadening the idea of a priest to one who in the same way represents God to man, and man to God, and that he should be called of God, for "no man taketh this honour unto himself." The threefold ministry may be traced to apostolic direction. We may infer a divine appointment and an apostolic sanction. "If the facts," says Dr. Lightfoot, "do not allow us to unchurch other Christian denominations, they justify our loyal adhesion to a Church government derived from this source." The true title of the Christian minister is ambassador, and as such he pronounces absolution. This term is not so much connected with the sacerdotal as with the pastoral or magisterial duties of his office. As his duty is to declare the conditions of God’s grace, it is his duty also to proclaim the consequences of their acceptance. His office is representative and not vicarial. He does not interfere himself in such a way between man and God that direct communion with God is suspended and his own mediation becomes indispensable. As a representative of man to God the Christian minister is a representative first of the congregation, and next of the individual as a member of the congregation. Representation is necessary and consistent with the fact that the form of the ministry has been handed down from apostolic times. He is representative without being vicarial. He is the mouthpiece of a priestly race. His acts are acts of the congregation. It may be a general rule that the highest acts of worship shall be performed by the principal officers of the congregation. Circumstances may, however, arise when the spirit of Christian worship must overrule the letter. The Christian ideal will emerge and show us our duty. The universal priesthood will overrule all special limitations. The lay men, as Tertullian says, will assume functions which are otherwise restricted to the ordained minister. Casual occurrences, like the shipwreck of the Bounty on Pitcairn island, may arrest functions that are considered essential; yet the priesthood of all believers will prevent the flow of divine grace from failing, and the ordinary channels may be replaced by the ideal and universal ones.
We have seen how the apostolic ideal was set forth, and in two hundred and fifty years forgotten. The spiritual conception of the priesthood of all believers was re placed by the strictly sacerdotal and limited one. The ideal of universal priesthood was submerged, first by the infiltration of Gentile sentiment, and then of Jewish analogies. From being the ambassadors of God, the ministers came to be looked upon as His vicars. But a truer view is now being maintained by men of all schools of thought, and the laity are welcomed to take their true place in the Kingdom of God. By the force of changing circumstances, and by the growth of new conceptions, the original difference of rank and order became a difference of spiritual power; and a mediaeval theologian, St. Bernard writing of the same officer whom Justin Martyr describes simply as president (o proestwj), offering prayers and thanksgivings, in which the congregation take their part by a solemn Amen says that the orders of the heavenly host, although they enjoy beatitude and want nothing to the sum of felicity, still revere the glory of a priest, wonder at his dignity, yield to him in privilege, and revere his power. But in earlier times there was a grander faith, for the Kingdom of God was a kingdom of priests. Not only the four-and twenty elders before the throne, but the innumerable souls of the sanctified, upon whom the second death had no power, were kings and priests to God. Only in that high sense was priesthood predicable of Christian men. For the shadow had passed! The Reality had come! The one High Priest of Christianity was Christ.