Presbyters in the Early Church

by Massey H. Shepherd, Jr.

from To be a priest, pp. 71-81,
edited by Robert E. Terwilliger and Urban T. Holmes, Seabury Press, New York, 1975.
Republished on our website with the necessary permissions.

Massey H. Shepherd, Jr., is professor of liturgies and Vice-Dean of the Church Divinity School of the Pacific. He is author of numerous works in the area of early church history and liturgical studies.

To avoid all confusion in this essay, it is necessary to remember that in the ancient languages of the Bible and early Christian literature the terms “presbyter” and “priest” are different words and refer to different functions of ministry. In English, however, the two terms are etymologically the same. The Latin presbyter was contracted in Anglo-Saxon to preost, and in Middle English to preest.(l) One recalls John Milton’s caustic comment in his sonnet “On the New Forcers of Conscience under the Long Parliament,” after the Presbyterians in Parliament had abolished episcopacy: “New Presbyter is but old Priest writ large.”

The ancient distinction of the two terms is preserved in the Episcopal Church, in that its canon law refers exclusively to the Order of Presbyters, whereas in the Book of Common Prayer the normative term for this order, with one exception, is that of Priest.(2) The proposed rites of ordination in Services for Trial Use (1970) have introduced the term presbyter" in several rubrics, and in one instance in the text of the rite.(3)

Presbyter comes, by way of Latin from a Greek comparative adjective, also used substantively, meaning “an older one” or “elder.” In its literal meaning the “elder” is contrasted with the “younger,” not only in age but also in maturity of wisdom and experience.(4) In certain contexts, “elders” refers to those of ancient times who passed on their traditions.(5) More often the word denotes those who hold a specific office or ministry; and it is with this sense of the term that we are concerned here.

The model for Christian presbyters was the council of elders in the cities and towns where Jews were resident. Tradition derived their origin from the appointment of elders by Moses, probably from the heads of families or clans.(6) In New Testament times the common names for these Jewish councils were synedrion (“a sitting together”; in Hebrew, sanhedrin), or gerousia (“a senate of old men”). Christian usage preferred the word presbyterion.(7) The chief body and final court of appeal of such councils was the great Sanhedrin in Jerusalem, often referred to in the Gospels and Acts. The ruling high priest presided over it, with the assistance of seventy members drawn from the chief priests scribes (experts in the law), and elders.

These councils were self-perpetuating bodies with primarily judicial responsibility for interpreting what was “binding and loosing,” what was or was not permissible according to the Law of the Old Testament. They acted as a collegial body, and no one member could make decisions without at least two others.(8) The elders had no official connection with the synagogues, for a synagogue could be formed by any group of ten Jewish males.(9) Yet it is reasonable to suppose that, as honored persons of the community, the elders would have prominent seats in the synagogues which they attended, or would be requested to read and interpret the Scriptures in the assemblies for worship; and they would be eligible for election by the synagogue congregation as its rulers (archisynagogos).(10)

The Christian council of “apostles and elders,” or of “James and the elders,” in the early Jerusalem church appears analogous to the Jewish Sanhedrin. They made decisions about what was “binding and loosing” in the relations of Jewish and Gentile converts to the Church.(11) We are not told how these elders were appointed to assist the apostles. But in the mission churches, the Evangelist tells us that Paul and Barnabas appointed elders in the churches they founded in Galatia; and in the Pastoral Epistles, Titus is enjoined to “appoint elders in every town.”(12) In his authentic letters, Paul never mentions presbyters. He refers to those who “lead,” whether in admonishing or in laboring; but the context shows that he was concerned with example of life rather than with an office of ministry.(13)

In the scattered notices of presbyters in the literature of the post-apostolic age, their duties are variously indicated: having general oversight of their churches and guarding them from false teachers; and themselves preaching and teaching, ministering to the sick, and setting examples of service.(14) This brings us inevitably to the much debated question of the relation between presbyters and bishops in this early transitional period. Are these terms synonymous, referring only to differing functions of the same ministry, or are they always to be distinguished as separate offices of ministry?(15)

It is a curious fact, and a cause of differing interpretations of the origin of the episcopate, that in our sources prior to Ignatius of Antioch (martyred ca. 115), the references are either to “bishops and deacons” or to "presbyters." St. Paul, our earliest witness, in one instance addresses “bishops and deacons” in his Letter to the Philippians (1:1). This letter is a thank-you note to a church which had repeatedly given him material assistance; and it is likely that the bishops and deacons were responsible for gathering and sending it to him. In view of St. Paul’s regard for charismatic gifts of ministry in his churches, it would be pressing the evidence too far to claim for these bishops and deacons at Philippi a ministry of leadership.(16)

Again, we must turn to the post-apostolic literature to gain some insight into the emerging leadership of bishops, with their assisting deacons. The Didache enjoins the churches to which it is addressed:

Appoint therefore for yourselves bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord, gentle men and not lovers of money, truthful and tested. For they also perform the liturgy [lit, “liturgize the liturgy”] of the prophets and teachers.... They are your honored ones with the prophets and teachers.(17)

As in St. Paul, there is no mention of presbyters. The bishops and deacons have liturgical functions; but one detects, in the injunction “not lovers of money,” a fiscal responsibility.

In the letter known as First Clement, written by the church in Rome (ca. 96) to the church in Corinth to protest the latter’s removal of its ministers, we read:

They [the apostles] preached from district to district, and from city to city, and they appointed their first converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of future believers (42:4).

The letter goes on to remark that the apostles foresaw rivalry for the office of episcope, and therefore arranged that other “tested men” should succeed to their “liturgy”:

We consider it unjust, therefore, to remove from the “liturgy” those who were appointed by them [the apostles] or by other eminent men,(18) with the consent of the whole church, and who have “liturgized” to the flock of Christ blamelessly, humbly, peaceably, and unselfishly, and so have had testimony by all for many years. For our sin is not small, if we cast out from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily offered the gifts.

The author then concludes with a comment that the presbyters of old, now dead, are blessed, for they have no fear that any will remove from “their appointed place.”(19)

As the late Walter Lowrie pointed out many years ago, a presbyter with an “appointed place” was a bishop—one in charge of the liturgy and its attendant dispensor of its offerings for those in need.(20) This does not preclude the fact that the bishop was a member, indeed the head of the presbytery. This distinction does not contradict those passages where the juxtaposition of bishops and presbyters appears to make them synonymous.(21)

In the larger cities there would be several Christian congregations just as there were many Jewish synagogues. These would be the result of evangelizing by different apostles or missionaries. In such places there would be, as in Jewish communities, a collegiate presbyterate; but each congregation might have had as its head a bishop. It was the threat to the unity of these congregations in the post-apostolic age, from both heresy within and persecution without, that led to a centralizing of authority in a single bishop. In smaller Christian communities, with only one congregation, there would be only one bishop in any case.

The process to monepiscopacy—one bishop in each city or town—is the burden of the letters of Bishop Ignatius of Antioch (ca. 115). Unity about the one bishop is a major theme:

All of you follow the bishop as Jesus Christ followed the Father, and the presbyters as you would the apostles; and revere the deacons as the command of God. Let no one do anything pertaining to the church apart from the bishop.

Let that Eucharist be considered valid which is that of the bishop or of someone authorized by him. Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be, just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not proper to baptize or have an agape apart from the bishop. Whatever he approves is also pleasing to God. . . .

It is good to know God and the bishop. Whoever honors the bishop has been honored by God. Whoever does anything without the bishop’s knowledge serves the devil.(22)

Similar injunctions are given to the young Polycarp, the bishop in Smyrna: “Vindicate your office with all diligence. . . . Keep unity in mind.... Let nothing be done without your approval.... Seek out every one by name.”(23) After Ignatius, the threefold ministry of a single bishop, with his council of presbyters and assisting deacons, soon became universal in the churches.

The manner of ordination of these three orders of ministry is seldom noted in our early sources. It is generally assumed that ordination was by prayer with the laying on of hands, in accordance with Jewish custom for admission to the council of elders and to the rabbinate.(24) In the Book of Acts, the Twelve ordained the seven by prayer and laying on of hands (6:6) — an act which later came to be understood as the origin of the diaconate;(25) and at Antioch, prophets and teachers set apart Barnabas and Saul (Paul) by prayer and laying on of hands for their missionary tasks (13:2-3). The Pastoral Epistles reflect the same custom with regard to Timothy.(26) More often, however, the words for “appoint” are used, without any indication of the manner of induction into office.(27)

The ceremony of laying on of hands was not confined to commissioning and ordaining; it was used for blessings, healings, exorcisms, and impartings of the Spirit.(28) In each case it was the prayer or words used that defined the purpose of the ceremony. We have no extant prayers for ordination until the time of Hippolytus of Rome in the early third century. The bishop was ordained by other bishops in the presence of the congregation which had chosen him and had given its consent to his election. The prayer calls upon God:

Pour forth your princely Spirit whom you gave to your beloved Son Jesus Christ, and whom he gave to his holy apostles, who established the Church in every place as your sanctuary, for the unceasing glory and praise of your Name.

Father, you know the hearts of all: Grant to this your servant whom you have chosen for the episcopate, that he may feed your holy flock and serve you as your high priest without blame, ministering day and night to propitiate without ceasing your countenance and offer the holy gifts of your Church, and have power, by the Spirit of high priesthood, to remit sins according to your commandment, to ordain according to your precept, and so loose every bond according to the power you gave to the apostles. . . .(29)

A presbyter was ordained by the bishop with other presbyters who joined with him in the laying on of hands, with this prayer:

Grant him the Spirit of grace and counsel of the presbyterate, that he may sustain and govern your people with a pure heart, as you did look upon your chosen people and did command Moses that he should choose presbyters with Spirit whom you gave to your servant Moses. . . .(30)

There is nothing said here of any priestly or liturgical functions of the presbyter — only his care and governance of the Church with the bishop and his fellow presbyters. When, then, did presbyters come to exercise a priestly office with or for the bishop?

It is well known that in the New Testament writings, priestly terms in a Christian sense — as opposed to Jewish and pagan uses — are applied to Christ only or to his Church as a whole. No Christian minister is ever called a priest.(31) In noncanonical writings of the late first and early second centuries, the use of priestly terms in contexts dealing with ministry and worship first appears, but is not developed. In First Clement, for example, the divine order of high priest, priests, and Levites and their cultic service in the Old Testament, is employed as an example for the Corinthians not to transgress the “appointed rule” (canon) of due regard for each to observe his own rank in the liturgy. But no equivalence is made of these Old Testament ministries with those of the Church,(32) The Didache also refers to true prophets who settle in a community and receive their due offerings of firstfruits, for “they are your high priests.”(33) The New Testament conception of the whole Church as a priesthood continued to be expressed, however, on into the third century.(34)

The first use of “priest” to denote a Christian minister occurs in the Western Church, and is employed only for a bishop. We have already seen this usage in the ordination prayer for a bishop by Hippolytus of Rome, who designates him as a “high priest.” In one instance, Hippolytus claims the title for himself, as a successor of the apostles.(35) About the same time (A.D. 200), Tertullian in North Africa refers to the bishop as summus sacerdos (“high priest”).(36) Neither writer is clear about any sacerdotal character to the presbyterate. From the evidence available to us, one could argue either way.

In Hippolytus’ account of the ordination of a bishop, the new bishop celebrates the Eucharist after his consecration. When the deacons have presented to him the oblation, he lays his hands on it “with all the presbytery” and begins the great prayer of thanksgiving. This could be a concelebration with his presbyters, or it may refer simply to the fact that the presbyters stood about him as his honored counselors. It is clear that the bishop alone lays hands on the oblation and he alone says the prayer.(37) In another injunction, singular in early Christian literature, Hippolytus says that a confessor—one who was imprisoned and punished in persecution—was thereby given “the honor of the presbyterate” without the laying on of hands; but if he was appointed a bishop, he should receive the laying on of hands.(38)

Tertullian’s other references to sacerdotal office or function occur in polemical contexts. During his years as a Catholic he inveighed against heretics, as having false “priesthoods and ministries”;(39) and this included their permission for women to exercise them. Their lack of proper authority and discipline is summarized in the following famous invective:

In the first place, one cannot tell who is a catechumen and who is baptized [fidelis]. . . . Catechumens are initiated before they are instructed. As for the women of the heretics, how insolent they are!—they presume to teach, to argue, to perform exorcisms, to promise cures, perchance even to baptize. Their ordinations are thoughtless, capricious, and unstable.... So today one is a bishop, and tomorrow another; today one is a deacon, tomorrow a reader; today one is a presbyter, tomorrow a layman; for they also give laymen charge of sacerdotal functions.(40)

After Tertullian joined the charismatic sect of the Montanists, he turned his fire upon the Catholics—notably Bishop Agrippinus of Carthage, whom he sarcastically called a pontifex maximus and self-styled “Bishop of bishops,” because of his lenient penance for those guilty of grievous sins. Only a Church led by spiritual men, such as apostles and prophets, said Tertullian, had such power, not a Church with “a number of bishops.” For this right was “the Lord’s, not the servant’s; it was of God himself, not of the priest.”(41)

Only toward the middle of the third century do we have precise indications of priestly office committed to presbyters. This was no doubt due to the increase of members in the larger churches, where the bishop could not always preside at every Eucharist; and, in the disruptive situation created by the general persecutions of the 250s, churches whose bishops had been martyred or had gone into hiding depended for their ministrations as well as their governance upon the presbyters.(42)

In the East, Origen at Caesarea in Palestine distinguishes in one place “those who preside over the people”—the bishops—from those from whom he might humbly receive counsel: namely, “an inferior priest, or even a layman or a pagan.”(43) In the West, Bishop Cyprian of Carthage, in a communication to Bishop Stephen in Rome, refers to the readmission to the Catholic Church of presbyters and deacons, who in a schismatic church (namely, the Novations) had, as priests and ministers, offered false and sacrilegious sacrifices at the altar.(44) In connection with this same schism, Bishop Cornelius of Rome wrote a letter to his episcopal colleague in Antioch, in which he noted that the church in Rome had only one bishop, but also forty-six presbyters; seven deacons; seven subdeacons; forty-two acolytes; fifty-two exorcists, readers, and doorkeepers; and fifteen hundred widows and distressed persons on the rolls of Church support.(45)

In Alexandria the organization was singular. At first, the Bishop of Alexandria presided not only over the parishes or communities of the city, but over all church congregations in Egypt. He was chosen by the presbyters who presided over the parishes of the city from among their number; but the manner of his ordination is obscure.(46) During the third century, the Bishop of Alexandria provided bishops for several of the larger towns of Egypt; but many towns and villages remained in the charge of a presbyter.(47) This was contrary to the prevailing custom in other provinces of the Roman Empire, such as Syria, Asia Minor, Italy, and North Africa, where every town community had its bishop, even if there were only one congregation.

In such small towns the bishop continued to be the priest of all liturgical celebrations. A church order from Syria, dated variously within the third century, makes this clear. Its editor notes:

Presbyters are mentioned in the Didascalia only as it were by the way.... They are appointed by the bishop, and their characteristic function is to be the bishop’s counsellors, or the council of the Church. In church they have their seats about the bishop’s throne at the eastern end. Along with the deacons they assist the bishop in all cases of judgement which come before him. , . .

In a small church, such as the Didascalia appears to contemplate, in which public worship was regularly conducted by the bishop, the presbyters would find no independent role as preachers or celebrants, and as a mere collegium they would stand for the most part in the background. They had no administrative or pastoral work to bring them into prominence.(48)

Notes

1. Similarly, the contraction appears in the Old Saxon prestar, the Old French prestre, and the German priester.

2. The exception is the quasi-canonical letter of the Institution of Ministers, p. 569.

3. In rubrics, pp. 432, 434, 438, 439, and “Presbyterate,” p. 420; in the text, p. 439.

4. Cf. Lk 15:25; Acts 2:17; 1 Tim 5:1-2; Tit 2:2-6; 1 Pet 5:5; 1 Clement 1:3, 3:3, 21:6; Pseudo-Barnabas, Epistle 13:5; Hermas, Shepherd, Vis. 3:1, 11, 12.

5. Cf. Mk 7:3-5 with Mt 15:2; Heb 11:2; 1 Clement 44:5; Irenaeus, Against Heresies 111.2 and (as quoted) in Eusebius, Church History, vol 24, 14-16.

6. Num 11:16 ff.; cf. Ex 24:1. See Roland de Vaux, Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1965), Index under “Elders,” p. 554.

7. Lk 22:66; Acts 22:5; of a Christian presbytery, 1 Tim 4:14. Ignatius of Antioch (ca. A.D. 115} compared Christian presbyters to a synedrion: “of the apostles,” Magnesians 6:1, “of God,” Tralles 3:1, “of the bishop,” Philadelphians 8:1.

8. See “Sanhedrin,” The Mishnah, trans. Herbert Danby (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1933), pp. 382 ff. Cf. Mk 13:9 with Mt 10:17.

9. Ibid., “Megillah,” pp. 201, 206.

10. George Foot Moore, Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era: The Age of the Tannaim, vol. 1 (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1927), pp. 289 ff. At Rome each synagogue had its own council with officials called archons.

11. Acts 15:2, 4, 6; 22-23; 16:4; 21:18; cf. 11:30.

12. Acts 14:23; Tit 1:5.

13. 1 Thess 5:12; cf. Rom 12:8.

14. Acts 20:17 ff.; 1 Tim 5:17; Jas 5:14; 1 Pet 5:1-4; Hernias, Shepherd, vis.2:4; 3.

15. The term “bishop” (episcopos) literally means “overseer.” In Hellenistic associations the title was used for financial managers or treasurers. A synonymous title was that of “superintendent” (epimeletes). The latter term was used by Josephus to denote the stewards or managers of the property and income of the Jewish communities of Essenes (Wars of the Jews ii. 8, 3; Antiquities of the Jews xviii. 1,5). The Dead Sea Scrolls have revealed much more about the duties of this manager, called the mebaqqer. In addition to being a fiscal manager, he was the president of the community assembly, its teacher, master, and director of novices; and in one document was likened to a shepherd of his sheep (IQS 6:12-14; CD 13:7-9; in the first reference he is called also paqid, the usual Hebrew equivalent of episcopos). As a layman, however, he did not preside over the cultic assemblies of the community; this was in the charge of a priest. See Frank Moore Cross, Jr., The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies (Garden City: Doubleday and Co., 1958), pp. 175-176; Matthew Black, The Scrolls and Christian Origins (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1961), pp. 115-117.

These analogies to the Christian bishop have often been remarked; but there is a difference. In all references to the Christian bishop, he has charge not only of the offerings of the people; he is also their liturgical president. In this, he functions more after the pattern of the ruler of the synagogue. See my article, “Bishop,” The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, vol.1. (New York-Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1962), pp. 441-443; Edwin Hatch, The Organization of the Early Christian Churches, 4th ed. (London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1892), chap 2; Martin Dibelius and Hans Conzelmann, The Pastoral Epistles “Hermeneia” (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1972), pp. 54-57.

16. It is possible to see these men as having the charisma of “governments” and “helps”; cf. 1 Cor 12:28 with 1 Cor 12:4-11; Rom 12:6-8.

17.15:1-2. The date, provenance, and authority of the Didache is constantly debated. It is a “church order,” with catechetical, liturgical, and ministerial regulations, that utilizes older sources. The single Greek manuscript extant probably dates from the second century and comes from Alexandria; cf. Cyril C. Richardson, ed., Early Christian Fathers, The Library of Christian Classics, vol. 1 (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1953), pp. 162-163.

18. We are not concerned here with the question of apostolic succession, or of who these “eminent men” were. They may have been apostolic delegates such as Timothy and Titus, notable prophets and teachers, or even presbyters.

19. 44:1-6.

20. The Church and Its Organization in Primitive and Catholic Times (London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1904), pp. 350 ff. The word “place” is often used to mean a position or office: Acts 1:25; 1 Clement 40:5; Ignatius, Smyrnaeans 6:1, Polycarp 1:2.

21. Acts 20:28; 1 Clement 44:6; 54:1-2. Cf. 1 Tim 3:1-13 with 5:17 ff.; Tit 1:5-9.

22. Smyrnaeans 8:1-9:1.

23. Polycarp 1:2; 4:1-2.

24. J. Newman, Semikhah (Ordination): A Study of Its Origin, History and Function in Rabbinic Literature (Manchester: Manchester University Press 1950).

25. So interpreted first in Irenaeus, Against Heresies, i. 26,3:iii. 12,10; iv. 15,1.

26. 1 Tim 4:14, by the presbytery; 2 Tim 1:5, by the apostle.

27. Cheirotonein in Acts 14:23; Didache 15:1; kathistenai in Tit 1:5; 1 Clement 42:4; 44:2-3. Only in the fourth century did cheirotonein become a synonym for “ordain”; a possible though problematic mid-third-century precedent in Eusebius Church History vi. 43, 10: Pseudo-Clement Epistle to James 2.

28. Cf. Mk 10:16 with Mt 19:13; Mk 8:23,25; Acts 5:12 (cf. Mk 6:2); Acts 8:18; 9:17; 19:6; Heb 6:2.

29. The Apostolic Tradition 3, Dom B. Botte, ed., pp. 8-9.

30. Ibid., 7, pp. 20-21.

31. See my article, “Priests in the New Testament,” The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, vol 3 (New York-Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1962), pp. 889-891. In a recent careful analysis based on Jn 17 rather than the Epistle to the Hebrews, Andre Feuillet, The Priesthood of Christ and His Ministers (Garden City: Doubleday and Co., 1975) sees Christ’s priesthood transmitted to his apostles and their successors; but the difference between bishops and presbyters is blurred.

32. 40-41, 43.

33. 13:3; cf. 15:1; note 17 above.

34. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 116:3; Irenaeus, Against Heresies iv. 8, 3; Origen, Commentary on John i. 2.

35. Refutation of All Heresies (Philosophumena) i. pref. This passage is the principal basis for the tradition that Hippolytus was an antipope in Rome.

36. On Baptism 17.

37. The Apostolic Tradition 4, Botte, ed., pp. 10-11.

38. Ibid., 9, pp. 28-29.

39. On the Prescription of Heretics 29.

40. Ibid., 41. Since Gnostic heretics believed that the final resurrection had already taken place, there was no longer any distinction of the sexes (cf. Mt 22:30). For Tertullian’s view of women as ministers, see also his On the Veiling of Virgins 9: “Women are not permitted to speak in the church, or to teach, baptize, offer [the Eucharist]; nor are they to claim any masculine function, much less any sacerdotal office.”

41. On Modesty 1, 21. Some scholars believe Tertullian was attacking Bishop Callistus of Rome; for the literature, see Johannes Quasten, Patrology, vol. 2 (Westminster: The Newman Press, 1953), p. 313.

42. In Carthage, during the Decian persecution of 250-251 when Bishop Cyprian was in hiding, certain confessors and presbyters took it upon themselves even to usurp the bishop’s prerogative of admitting lapsed Christians back into communion; see Cyprian Letters xiii-sv.

43. Homilies on Exodus xi. 6, delivered after A.D. 244. Since these homilies are extant only in a late fourth-century translation, it is possible that the original Greek text has been revised.

44. Letters lxxii. 2.

45. Quoted in Eusebius, Church History vi. 43, 11. One detects here the origin of the later twenty-five titular or parish churches of Rome, each under two presbyters for ministration of the sacraments; and also the seven regions, each under a deacon assisted by a subdeacon.

46. See W. Telfer, “Episcopal Succession in Egypt,” The Journal of Ecclesiastical History, III (1952), 1-13.

47. Athanasius, Apology Against the Arians 85; Jerome, Letters cxlvi. 1, 6. Ct. Hans Lietzmann, “The Founding of the Church Universal,” A History of the Early Church, vol. 2 (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1950), pp. 64-65.

48. R.Hugh Connolly, Didascalia Apostolorum (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1929) pp. xxxix-xl. The most thorough survey of the Christian communities and bishoprics in the Roman Empire before the Council of Nicaea in 325 is that of Adolf Harnack, The Expansion of Christianity in the First Three Centuries, vol. 2 (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1905), pp. 240 ff.

Please, credit this document
as published by www.womenpriests.org!