An episcopal election is still in the hands of the “multitude” (compare Acts 6. 2), the clergy as yet having no distinct voice in theory. Rather curiously no qualifications are given for the bishop; contrast, e.g., 1 Timothy 3. 2-7 or the expansions in the Constitutions and the Testament. The bishop’s functions are essentially the same as in the Ignatian Epistles: as the embodiment of his church’s unity he is the centre and head of all its activities, whether in teaching, worship, or discipline.
The title “high priest”, however, is not used by Ignatius, and in the extant Christian literature first occurs in Tertullian, On Baptism 17 (ca. 205); Hippolytus also uses “high-priesthood” of the episcopal office in Philosophumena, Proem. 6. Similarly Tertullian calls the presbyters “priests” in his Exhortation to Chastity 7, 11 (ca. 210), and in [9. 2] of our treatise Hippolytus describes their work as “priesthood”.
This appearance of sacerdotal titles for Christian ministers—something that is foreign to the New Testament—was a consequence of the adoption of sacrificial terms for Christian worship:[159] sacrifices are offered by priests. So Didache 13. 3 describes the prophets as “your high priests” (compare [15. 1]), while Ignatius (Philadelphians 4) writes “one altar, as one bishop”. Consequently it is more than probable that “high priest” and “priest” were in common—although by no means universal—use among Christians by the middle of the second century. Hippolytus’s distrust of innovations corroborates this; apart from anti-modalist additions the terminology of his consecration prayer can scarcely be thought to depart much from the forms in use in his younger days.
Otherwise the bishop is said to “feed the flock”, a New Testament phrase[160] that was of course traditional; to Hippolytus it would include both correct teaching of doctrine and faithful administration of the sacraments. Since in Philosophumena IX, 7 he inveighs fiercely against Callistus’s claim to absolve grave sins, “to remit” here can refer only to minor offences. “To assign the lots” strictly construed would mean “to appoint the clergy”, but compare on [9. 1]. “To loose every bond” is probably only a traditional liturgical generality.
THE CHRISTIAN “SACRIFICES”
Sacrificial terms in the New Testament, except when used to describe the Atonement, are employed within Christianity only in a transferred sense: the Christian sacrifices are either acts of righteousness,[161] the rendering of prayer and praise,[162] or gifts given to fellow-Christians.[163] In the post-apostolic age this last sense was popular and in one particular application it was made a definitely technical term. Christian worship and Christian social life centred in a “table-bond”; the specifically Christian act of worship was the eucharist, which in apostolic times was regularly celebrated in conjunction with a meal of some sort,[164] and even in Hippolytus’s day had not lost all traces of the earlier custom (chapters [5]-[6]). But the Christians were extremely fond of other common meals as well, the “agapes”, of a less sacred but still definitely religious nature ([chapter 26]). In all of these meals the amount of food required was considerable, and providing it naturally entailed real expense. To supply this food, consequently, was a meritorious act, which not only satisfied the needs of the brethren but enabled the church to hold a liturgical service, at which the food was placed in the midst of the congregation and “blessed”.[165] Hence the various foods were naturally called “offerings”, and from this it was only a short step to calling the service itself a “sacrifice”.
The word first appears in Didache 14. 1-2, where it is used of the eucharist or (more probably) the eucharist-agape. When the term was definitely adopted into the Christian vocabulary, its further definition in Old Testament language was inevitable. Here the nearest analogue might have been found in the “peace-offerings”, which were eaten by those who offered them. But the Christians did not usually follow Levitical distinctions closely, and Hippolytus ([3. 5]) speaks of the bishop as “propitiating God’s countenance”, language that more properly belongs to the “sin-offerings”.
A special type of Christian offering were the first-fruits ([chapter 28]), which were likewise solemnly presented and “blessed” by the bishop. There were again explicit Old Testament analogies, but in Christianity “sacrifice” did not permanently become a term for this custom.
2. Notice of the election and of the Sunday appointed for the consecration was sent to the neighbouring churches, whose bishops would naturally attend as far as they were able.
3. The assent of the people was given by acclamation; according to the Canons in the form “We choose him!” The explicit injunction that the presbyters must not join in the imposition of hands should be noted; the Arabic omits the prohibition, perhaps accidentally, but the Canons read “One of the bishops and presbyters shall be chosen to lay his hand upon his head”. Compare on [9. 5]-8.