Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 7.djvu/372

 HIERARCHY

326

HIERARCHY

katholischm Kirchcnrerhfs (Berlin, 1S69-97'), I and II; Scheber. Ilnnilhurh ties Kirchciirrchls. I (Gratz, 18S6-9S); Smith, Ele- ments of Erclemastical Law (New York, 1881); Webnz, Jus decretalium. I (Rome, 1899); Sagmi'Ller, Lehrbnch des katho- lischen Kirchenrechts (Freiburg, 1900-04); Taunton, The Law of the Church (London. 1906). For the Eastern Churches see Bishop. Cf. articles on the various grades in the hierarchy.

A. Van Hove.

Hierarchy of the Early Church. — The word hier- archy is used here to denote the three grades of bishop, priest, and deacon (ministri). According to Cathohc doctrine (Council of Trent, sess. XXIII, can. vi), this threefold gradation owes its existence to Divine institution. Another name for this hierarchy is hierarchia ordinis, because its three grades correspond to the three grades of the Sacrament of Holy Orders. The word hierarchy is, however, also used in a wider sense. A further gradation of dignity is obtained by the inclusion of the Bishop of Rome, the head of the Church and Vicar of Christ, to whom, bj' reason of the Divine origin of the hierarchy, the three grades just mentioned are subordinated. If however, those fea- tures be taken into account which are of merely ecclesiastical origin, the hierarcliy will include not only the remaining sacred orders, viz. the subdiaco- nate and the minor orders, but also all clerics who possess definite faculties not conferred by the orders themselves. Such are cardinals, nuncios, delegates, patriarchs, primates, metropolitans, archbishops, vicars-general, archdeacons, deans, parish priests, and curates. This hierarchy in the wider sense is called hierarchia jurisdictionis, because the persons in question have actual power in the Church. There is still a third sense in which the expression hierarchy may be u.sed; in this it includes the whole clergy and laity, inasmuch as they are all members of the Chui-ch. No instance of the word Upapxta., corresponding to the term lepdpxis, can be shown before Dionysius, the Pseudo-Areopagite. It is not to be interpreted as iepa, dpxv (sacred office), but as lepav dpxv (office of sacred rites) (Petavius, " De angelis", II, ii, 2). That the expression iepapxia found general acceptance is due to the authority of the Pseudo-Areopagite. The third sense of the expression may he also traced to Dionj'sius [cf. J. Stiglmayr in " Zeitschr. fiir kathol. Theologie", XII (1S9S), 180 sqq.].

In the present article the expression hierarchy is employed in its narrowest sense. Since, however, the earliest history of this threefold institution — the episcopate, presbyterate^ and diaconate — cannot be given without a detailetl mquiry into the entire organ- ization and inner constitution of the early Church, it is proposed to survey in full the earliest history of the organization of the Christian Church up to the year 150; and in this survey it is essential that we extend our inquiry to the Apostolic Office, as the root from which sprang the early Christian episcopate. The foundation of the Church by Christ, the history of the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome will not be dealt with here (cf. the articles: Bishop; Church; College, Apostolic; Deacon; Prie.st; Pri.macy; Pope; Succession, Apostolic). The treatment of the sub- ject will be under these six main heads: (I) The Principles Governing the Grouping of the Original Documents belonging to our question; (II) Enumer- ation of the Groups of Documents and the Explanation why these Groups have been thus arranged: (III) Discussion and Interpretation of ;dl Texts of Date not later than the Middle of the Second Century' (the full wording of the texts will be necessary only in exceptional cases); (IV) Detailed Evidence from Pagan Inscriptions, Papyri, and Ostraka. which throw light on Christian institutions; (V) Historical or Quasi-Historical Testimonies on the Constitution of Primitive Christianity, taken from Iren;eus, Clement of Alexandria, TertuUian, Origen, Eusebius, .leronie, Theodore of Mop.suestia, and others; (VI) Short Synopsis of the Principal Results of the Investigation.

I. The Principles Governing the Grouping of THE Original Documents. — The common division into an Apo.stolic and a post-Apostolic period cannot be aptly applied to the collection of historical te.sti- mony bearing on the constitution of the early Church; such a division is indeed misleading. Because:

A. Our sources for the verj' earliest times are too scanty and fragmentary to give us anything apiiroach- ing a clear picture of the institutions; it is therefore plain that the mere omission of certain things in the.se sources gives us no right to infer their non-existence.

B. Although the development of the primarj- ele- ments and fimdaraental principles of the inner con- stitution of the Church was surjirisingly rapid and uniform, at least in the essential features, the varia- tions in different localities were not inconsiderable.

C. Several testimonies takeri from the end of the first and the first half of the second century contain valu- able historical information directly concerning the organization of the early Church and thus lead us to the border of the earliest epoch.

D. a wealth of formula? of archaeological interest, and many implicit statements of contemporary legal conceptions are foimd in these testimonies. They contain, as it were, the crj'stallized institutions of the earliest period.

E. One should not imagine the primitive ecclesi- astical structure as a mere aggregate of disjoined fragments, but rather as a living and regularly devel- oped organism, from whose inner construction we can imder certain contlitions arrive at definite conclusions as to it origin and growth.

The last two points show that it is allowable, and even necessary to determine from later sources the earliest state of the ecclesiastical constitution by cautious and critical method. A scientific investi- gation will first l)ulk together all the sources up to the middle of the second centurj% and then conceive as a whole, the development up to that time. Research will show that many of the institutions are undoubt- edly post-Apostolic, while of the greater number of them, it can only be said that they followed one an- other in a certain order: it is impossible to determine the exact date of their first appearance. The ency- clicals of St. Ignatius (about 110) mark the close of a definite period; and there are other sources, the dates of which are exactly known, that enable us to ascer- tain the fir.st beginnings and some intermediate steps in the development of this period. This makes it possible to sketch more or less accurately the remain- ing stages without fixing upon the exact date of each document. For instance, it cannot be douljted that certain descriptions in the "Doctrine of th(^ Twelve Apostles" (AiSaxii) suppose an older phase of corporate development than that which we meet with in the Pastoral Epistles and the Epistle of Clement. This fact however does not decide the question whether the Didache was actually written before the Epistle of Clement and the Pastoral Epistles. As to the latter, it is clear that the system of government depicted therein represents an earlier phase than that given in the Letters of Ignatius.

It is not our intention in this article to undertake a preliminary and cursory review of the sources, which would only establish the most evident facts of chronol- ogy. This task has been already sufficientlj' often imder- taicen from wid(>ly different standiioints, and it has been shown on incontestable evidence that the several grades of the hierarchy did not exist from the be- ginning in their later finished form, but grew up to it by various processes, partly of development and partly of self-differentiation. Supposing tlierefore that the process of development has been determined in its most general outlines, we can arrange the sources ac- cordingly. Whether the chronology be treated pre- viously or conse(|uently to such an arrangement, that factor must be considered separately.