The Last Reformation

by F. G. Smith

That this early recognition of a superior order of ministers was a distinct innovation is also shown from the literature of that period. In the Shepherd of Hermas, dating from the first part of the second century, elders and presbyters are distinctly named but no bishop in contrast therewith. In the so-called "Teaching of the Twelve Apostles," also dating from the first part of the second century, bishops and deacons only are named as teachers and leaders of the church, showing that the original signification of the term "bishop" is here retained. Clement of Rome, in his first epistle to the Corinthians, speaks of the ministry as an institution of the apostles, but he mentions, nevertheless, only a twofold order—elders and deacons, presbyters and deacons, or bishops and deacons. The same classification is made in the second epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, a work which is generally ascribed to another author; so also in the epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians.

The superior office of the bishop as distinguished from the local presbytery was, therefore, an innovation, but in process of time its recognition became general. It is probable that in the local presbytery of the primitive church some one minister

Innovation becomes general

excelled in special gifts and qualifications and consequently became a natural leader of his brethren. Such leadership was of God, comes general because it was based on the authority proceeding from the Spirit of God. Such was the leadership which Paul held in a sphere of activity wider than a local congregation. But such was not positional authority or authority proceeding from a humanly created superior office and appointment thereto. It was of divine order. But this fact of distinguished leadership at first, doubtless furnished an excuse for the creation of a distinct office with carefully defined functions and limits of authority. The power of the bishop thus constituted advanced steadily. The churches of the cities where they were located extended their influences over smaller towns in the surrounding territory, and thus the city bishop came to rule over the elders of the lesser churches of a district.

Development of hierarchy

When the first step toward ecclesiasticism was definitely taken, by the recognition of official position authority, and government proceeding from human appointment alone, the way was prepared for rapid progress toward a highly organized system of man-rule. When the bishops met in provincial councils, special deference was given those bishops from cities of great political importance, and they were exalted to the presidency of these councils, and this in time led to the recognition of a new order of church officials—metropolitans. Later the metropolitans seemed too numerous for general utility in governmental functions; therefore general leadership gradually became centralized more and more in the bishops or metropolitans of certain of the most important cities, until they were finally given recognition as an order superior to that of metropolitans and were styled patriarchs. The first Council of Nice recognized this superior authority possessed by the patriarchates of Alexandria, Rome, and Antioch. The General Council of Constantinople placed the bishop of Constantinople in the same rank with the other three patriarchs, and the General Council of Chalcedon exalted the see of Jerusalem to a similar dignity. The race for leadership between the patriarchates then began. On account of the Moslem invasion in the seventh century, Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch fell away from their former positions of greatness; therefore the rivalry for leadership was henceforth between the see of Rome and the bishop of Constantinople. Rome possessed many natural advantages, and consequently the bishop of Rome gained the greater prestige. The full-fledged papacy was the result.

Fundamental causes

What produced that transition from the humble apostolic church of the brethren to the medieval church of the impious Hildebrand, who caused monarchs to tremble on their thrones? The change resulted from two particular causes, and it is highly essential to our purpose that we understand them. One was a misconception both of the Fundamental constitution of the true church itself as designed by its Founder and of Christ's perpetual relationship to it; and the second was the imperialistic tendencies of that age to which the first error naturally exposed the church.

It is unnecessary here to recite at length that conception of the primitive church which we have described in preceding chapters as the concrete expression of the kingdom of God. Such was the only true catholic, or universal, church. Its catholicity, however, was a moral and spiritual dominion exercised over men by the truth and Spirit of God, and was rendered visible only in the society of redeemed believers who held the truth and bore its appropriate fruits of righteousness. Being composed of the redeemed, it lovingly embraced within its membership the entire brotherhood of Christ.