 |
 |
 |
|
|
|---|
|
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.
Contents of “To be a Priest
”
Support our
campaign
Sitemap
Contemporary
theologians
Join Campaign
activities
Go back to home
page
Join our Women Priests' Mailing List
for occasional newsletters:
An email will be immediately sent to you
requesting your confirmation.
Please, credit this document
as published by www.womenpriests.org!