The somewhat complex ecclesiastical organization which we discover was probably a gradual development with the growth of the church, and not in its entirety the creation of the earliest times; the inscriptions referring to the subject, it must be remembered, being all
or chiefly of post-Constantinian origin. The earlier books of the Apostolical Constitutions, which are probably of the second century, say almost nothing about the different grades of the ministry; but in the later ones, probably of the fifth century, a full blown sacerdotalism appears. Cornelius, bishop of Rome in the middle of the third century, records the existence of a graduated clergy like that indicated in the inscriptions of the Catacombs,[823] whose gradations Clement of Alexandria compares to the different ranks of the hierarchy of heaven.[824]
The highest office in the church of the Catacombs was that of the bishop—the chief pastor[825] or overseer of the flock of Christ. But this position was rather a preeminence of toil and peril than of dignity and honour. The supreme head of the Roman hierarchy, who lays claim to the attributes of deity himself, and sits in the seat of God as his vicegerent and infallible representative on earth, finds no precedent for his lofty assumptions in his humble predecessors of the primitive ages. These were in reality what he is only in name—servi servorum Dei. Even the title of bishop occurred but seldom. Neither Bosio, Fabretti, Boldetti, nor any other of the early explorers of the Catacombs, found a single example of it. The tomb of the first Roman bishop bore simply the name LINVS. In the so-called “papal
crypt” the title first appears, but in the contracted form, ΕΠΙ and ΕΠΙϹ, and without any symbol of superior dignity whatever. The name of a bishop was first made a note of time in the latter part of the fourth century, as in the epigraphic formulæ Sub Liberio Episcopo—Sub Damaso Episcopo—During the episcopate of Liberius, (A. D. 350-366,) of Damasus, (A. D. 366-384.) But this distinction was also conferred on other bishops than those of Rome. Thus, in the year A. D. 397, we find the expression Pascasio Episcopo. Now, as there was no Roman bishop of that name, Pascasius must have presided over some of the adjacent sees, of which we know that there were many independent of Rome.[826]
The word papa, or pope, does not occur in the Catacombs till at least the latter part of the fourth century. It appears first spelled pappas, and applied to Damasus, in the margin of an inscription by that bishop, in honour of Eusebius.[827] But De Rossi admits that this is a badly executed reproduction, of the sixth or seventh century, of a previous inscription; so this title may very well belong to that late period. This is all the more probable from the phraseology of the very first line of this inscription: DAMASVS EPISCOPVS FECIT EVSEBIO EPISCOPO ET MARTYRI—“Damasus, bishop, (not pope,) to Eusebius, bishop and martyr.” Hilary (461-467) calls himself bishop and servant of Christ—“Episcopus et famulus Christi.” In an epitaph of A. D. 523, Hormisdas is called merely DOMINVS PAPA—that is, “honoured father,” or “pope,” which is probably the first application of this phrase in Christian epigraphy. In another, of date A. D. 563, John III. is designated as the “most blessed father John”—Beatissimus papa Joannes.[828]
But even this title, invested with such awful dignity and supreme authority in later days, was at first only an expression of familiar and affectionate respect, not peculiar to the bishop of Rome, nor indeed first applied to him. Its earliest use is attributed to Dionysius,
bishop of Alexandria, in the latter part of the third century.[829] The Roman clergy address the bishop of Carthage in their letters as “the blessed pope Cyprian.”[830] Tertullian applies the name to any Christian bishop.[831] Jerome addresses Augustine, bishop of the little African diocese of Hippo, as the Beatissimus papa Augustinus,[832] and applies the same phrase to the superior of a monastery.[833]
The rapid extension of Christianity in the metropolis of the empire enhanced the influence and dignity of the Roman bishops.[834] With the increase of wealth and decay of piety these dignitaries became ambitious and worldly, arrogant and aspiring, and laid the foundations of that vast system of spiritual despotism which for centuries crushed the civil and religious liberties of Europe. Nevertheless, as late as the end of the sixth century, Gregory the Great, although zealous for the episcopal dignity, resents the claim of John of Constantinople
to the title of œcumenical bishop in the striking words: “This I declare with confidence, that whoso designates himself universal priest, or, in the pride of his heart, consents to be so named, he is the forerunner of Antichrist.”[835] His successors of Rome have not shrunk from this malediction, but, in assumption of this universal supremacy, have placed their feet on the neck of kings, parcelled out empires, and conferred crowns at their pleasure.[836]
The next rank in ecclesiastical dignity was that of the Presbyters.[837] There was not that distinction in the primitive