Quick viewing(Text Mode)

The Diaconate of the Ancient and Medieval Church

THE DIACONATE OF THE ANCIENT AND MEDIEVAL CHURCH

This woodcut from the edition, made by Christian Romstet, is titled: Zieglerus Juris Consultus et Antecessor (Caspar Ziegler, Attorney and Law Professor). Below it is:

Omnis in hoc vultu vasti compendia juris, On this face you see vast abridgments of Caesarei, sacri, Saxonicique vides. Every law: imperial, sacred, and Saxon. Non Divae unius tantum multum crede Trust that this is among many works of laborem this one muse, Cuius veritatis umbram pingere possit A shadow of whose truth one can homo. scarcely paint. —Fr. Ben. Carpzov — Benedikt Carpzov

THE DIACONATE OF THE ANCIENT AND MEDIEVAL CHURCH

CASPAR ZIEGLER

Edited by Charles P. Schaum and Albert B. Collver III Translated by Richard J. Dinda Foreword by Matthew C. Harrison

Copyright © 2014 Concordia Publishing House 3558 S. Jefferson Ave., St. Louis, MO 63118–3968 1-800-325-3040 • www.cph.org

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the written permission of Concordia Publishing House. Scripture quotations marked ESV are from the ESV Bible® (The Holy Bible, English Standard Version®), copyright © 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved. Originally published as Casparis Ziegleri de Diaconis et Diaconissis Veteris Ecclesiae Liber Commentarius. Wittenberg: Estate of Wilhelm Fincelius, 1678. Manufactured in the United States of America. This material is being released for study and discussion purposes, and the author is solely responsible for its contents. It has not been submitted to the process for doctrinal review stipulated in the Bylaws of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod and does not necessarily reflect the theology of the Lutheran Confessions or the doctrinal position of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Ziegler, Kaspar, 1621–1690. [Casparis Ziegleri de Diaconis et Diaconissis Veteris Ecclesiae. English] The diaconate of the ancient and medieval church / Caspar Ziegler ; edited by Charles P. Schaum and Albert B. Collver III ; translated by Richard J. Dinda ; foreword by Matthew C. Harrison. pages cm Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-0-7586-4772-6 (alk. paper) 1. --Early works to 1800. 2. Deaconesses--Early works to 1800. 3. Church history-- Primitive and early church, ca. 30-600--Early works to 1800. I. Schaum, Charles P., editor of compilation. II. Title.

BV680.Z5413 2014 262'.1409--dc23 2013050928 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14

CONTENTS

Common Abbreviations vii

Foreword viii

Epistle Dedicatory xii

Preface xiv

ON DEACONS AND DEACONESSES

1 Orders of Clergy and Laity 3

2 The Name 25

3 The Origin of Deacons 39

4 Election of Deacons 61

5 Number of Deacons 103

6 Ordination of Deacons 113

7 Age of Suitability 135

8 The Office of Deacon 159

9 Deacons in Councils and Synods 217

10 Duties Owed to Bishops and Elders 233

11 The Bishop’s Deacon 255

12 The Vesture of Deacons 263

13 Domestic and Private Life 293

vi CONTENTS

14 Marriage of Deacons 377

15 Faults and Transgressions 413

16 Legal Standing of Deacons 433

17 The Archdeacon 509

18 Subdeacons 527

19 Deaconesses 537

Index of Latin Terms 569

Persons Index 587

Scripture Index 601

COMMON ABBREVIATIONS

GENERAL NOTES: Latin book references often drop inflected endings. For example, Proleg. in Euseb. stands for Prolegomena in Eusebii historiae ecclesiae libris decem. Author names reflect forms that are easier to find. Latin terms generally are shown in the nominative case to aid recognition.

ABBREVIATIONS c. Circa cap. Chapter (capitulum); can have a name or number after it cod. Codex (a book, not a scroll) conc. Conclusion (conclusio); also council (concilium) dist. A material, formal, analytical, or speculative distinction among attributes of a thing or among things (distinctio) epist. Letter (epistula, from Greek ἐπιστολή) fn. Footnote lib. Book (liber; diminutive libellus) N.T. Novum Testamentum observ. Observation (observatio) par. Paragraph q.; quaest. Question, e.g., a component of a topical treatment (quaestio) sect. Section (sectio) tract. Treatise (tractatus) v. Verse (in the Bible) V.T. (Vetus Testamentum); often using the genitive veteris

FOREWORD

Lutherans are Christians who look to Bible interpretation “by Scripture alone” (sola scriptura) as the final arbiter of doctrine. In- deed, Caspar Ziegler, the law professor who wrote this book, appeals to Scripture at every point where he makes a fundamental claim of doctrine. Yet he does not make extensive appeals to the Book of Concord. He does not use the Lutheran pattern of Scripture, Book of Concord, Luther, and Lutheran theologians that developed after pie- tism rose to prominence with Philipp Jakob Spener at the university in Halle. This may be jarring to some Lutherans today, but Ziegler appeals extensively to a seemingly unlikely source: the canon law that grew out of the efforts of Roman emperors and clergy in the fourth and fifth centuries AD to define the legal status and life of the established Church. Civil law and canon law continued to influence those lands that were heirs of the of old. The law stat- utes tell not only how the Church was supposed to live, but they give clues about how Christians actually lived—how they struggled with sin and embraced the gracious gifts of Word and sacraments. Ziegler writes practical theology. Caspar Ziegler (1621–90) was from a wealthy Leipzig family. During the Thirty Years’ War, his family was pillaged by hostile troops. Nevertheless, his parents provided for his education and he received baccalaureate and master degrees from Leipzig. He at- tempted to study theology, but switched to law, where he became successful. Eventually he became a law doctor and professor at the University of Wittenberg and served also as Rektor. He wrote about canon law and papal decretals for much of his life, also supervising many dissertations related thereto. He also wrote influential books on poetry and he penned both poems and hymns. One of his hymns (Ich freue mich in dir) became the basis for a Bach cantata (BVW 133, first performed on December 27, 1724). Why did this staunch Lutheran draw so heavily on canon law— similar to the Catalog of Testimonies in the Book of Concord itself? He was not trying to be Roman . Indeed, where Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions parted from on celibacy, marriage,

FOREWORD ix and other points, Ziegler stood with the Lutherans. Yet in describing how the Lutherans got where they did, he realized in a manner similar to Restoration Anglicans like John Cosin (1594–1672) that the Church has dealt with many issues during its existence. He saw the as the departure from the long Western tradition. The failure to study the shape and the outcome of past discussions often lead to the repetition of past mistakes and the creation of new ideas that were not helpful in the long run. This book on deacons and deaconesses—together with a book on the laws, special rights, and the account of the lifestyle of bishops—is one of the later works published by Ziegler. This book talks about why following the example of the apostles as recorded in Scripture is a good thing for the Church. Century by century, it shows the challenges, the victories, and the defeats of the sinner- that sit in the pews, preach from the pulpits, and rule from the courts. This book speaks about works of mercy. Deacons and deacon- esses were the first healthcare workers. They were the first social workers. They were the first welfare agents. They helped bury the dead. They were God’s hands that helped to mend broken lives. The poor learned from deacons that bread could be found where the Bread of Life was proclaimed by the pastor or bishop. Deacons read the Scriptures, announced the prayers, dismissed the grades of proselytes before the Eucharist, and assisted the pastors and bishops with the communion. Deaconesses were the first women’s health specialists. They were the representatives of the bishop or pastor in cases where a man’s presence was inappropriate. They could bring the Gospel to the gynaeceum, the protected innermost part of a Graeco-Roman house that held the women and children. They helped to maintain order among women during public worship and had honor in doing so. The early Church affirmed their special role. In turn, they did not seek to usurp the pastoral ministry. Ziegler shows how the Church dealt with sensitive cultural issues and even differences in cross-cultural issues. We see that clergy garb has changed over time, yet there has always been something that the Church has understood to be clergy garb, a uniform of the servants. We see bishops and politicians doing the right thing. Then again, we see the same sort of people doing the wrong thing. We learn all too well that the Church is full of sinners whose mistakes have multiplied through the centuries and whose errors have damaged formerly good

x FOREWORD offices and practices in the Church. From celibacy to usury, from abuse of power to the use of clergy as warriors, we see how canon law has pointed out what is bad, and how sometimes it has failed to correct that evil. This book is not a list of things that Lutherans ought to do. It is not a prescriptive theology of the diaconate as such. It is, however, a careful study of what happens when the secular powers have inter- fered with the Church for good or ill, and the grave errors that people make when they set aside the divine commands and the apostolic practices. actually knew what He was talking about. For all their failings as human beings, the apostles still were those men who had sat at Jesus’ feet and to whom He had opened Scripture. Be it ordination, churchly offices, a designated uniform, or expectations of service—one does not lightly cast the apostolic witness aside. The history of the Church painfully shows that those who have sought their own bright future often have found only darkness and error. This book covers a number of major categories literally year by year, country by country, verse by verse and line by line. Those interested in Church history will read in depth what they may have only heard about in passing. Here we read the words and opinions of around 500 people, including emperors, scholars, lawyers, theologians, , , bishops, , deacons, and deaconesses. It reveals the challenges they faced, the solutions they found, and the long-term success and failure of their efforts. It helps us understand the rationale of what we call “Church” and suggests ways of making wise choices. Just how Ziegler got on top of all the literature referenced in this comparatively small volume, boggles the mind. It shows Latin as a common language for law, theology, and learned culture. This book is cross-cultural. The ideas and opinions of Englishmen, Germans, French, Italians, Spaniards, Portuguese, Croats, Poles, and others are all represented here as part of the life and dialogue of the Church in its broad sense of the Western tradition. It engages Roman Catholics, Lutherans, and general Protestants in a manner that looks beyond a mere sectarianism. It calls us to dialogue with those not like us, to defend our beliefs and practices with Scripture, and to listen to our partners in a manner that may teach us about our own strengths and weaknesses. This book is about Witness, the speaking of the Word by deacons and deaconesses as a special extension of the apostolic ministry

FOREWORD xi dedicated to specific roles that helped the pastors and bishops do what they do best: study, teach, and preach the Word of God. This book is about Mercy, about the healing hands of the diaco- nate binding wounds, nursing the sick, serving the poor, helping foreigners, and even burying the dead. It is about a service in the Church specifically dedicated to bringing the kingdom of God to people in physical ways here and now. This book is about Life Together, the public reading of Scripture, public prayer, and assisting in the Eucharist that speaks to the unique confessional position of Christians as the in pure worship. Witness and Mercy draw the proselytes into that deeper, clearer relationship. I thank Dr. Richard Dinda for producing this translation of a sig- nificant Lutheran work from the period of orthodoxy on the church’s ancient teaching and practice with respect to deacons and deacon- esses. Dr. Dinda’s facility with Latin has produced a veritable library on the way the orthodox Lutheran fathers, particularly Johann Gerhard, appropriated the legacy of Luther and the Lutheran Confes- sions. Rev. Charles Schaum applied his indefatigable expertise in carefully and painstakingly checking the translation against the origi- nal Latin, and providing the detail of hundreds of footnotes, which will please the discerning scholar. From preface to footnotes to finis, this book would not have come to publication without Rev. Schaum. A final note on an old conundrum: Ziegler, like the Lutheran Confessions and churchly tradition, interprets the New Testament use of “presbyter” to denote pastoral clergy. Dr. Dinda, however, has translated the Greek word presbyteros (and its Latin transliteration) as “elder”—which, of course, is not what we in modern America currently understand as a “lay elder” who assists or supports the pastor of a congregation. May this book be a resource and a source of honor to all who serve in the diakonic work of the church. Rev. Dr. Matthew C. Harrison Assistant Pastor, Village Lutheran, Ladue, MO President, The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod Day of St. Stephen, 2012

Dedicated to the Deaconesses of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod and to their faithful sisterhood around the globe.

[EPISTLE DEDICATORY]

To our highly-esteemed Sir Henry, Free Baron of Friesen Ruler in Schönfeld, Putzkau, Braupa, Jessen and Praschwitz. Etc. Associate of our most serene and powerful Elector of Saxony and Director of his privy council.

My most beloved lord, I acknowledge, my lord, that from the time when I happened to have you as my Maecenas1 and from when I have kept close to even the slightest part of your very great good fortune I have become very renowned among our people and, with your help have kept busy with the highest levels of academic dignities from quite early on. I could not even consider the idea that my work deserved this. Indeed, I myself could not have promised such a level of quality, except that you kindled the hope in me that, at some point, I would be capable of it. When therefore you appointed me for coming days, I myself heard from you what I should do when those times came. I certainly devoted myself energetically lest I await old age in a lazy, gloomy, and ignoble manner. Also, your kindness stirred me to do this. I do not deny that my consideration of your virtues and clearly unique and extended learning also encouraged me to walk a path that not all people tread. In fact, I would have made my journey longer except that the faults of my ill body regularly betrayed themselves in no small way. Therefore, because I do whatever I do by your kindness, I surely wanted to bear public witness to you that I have owed you this minor effort that is now by chance different from the rest of my writings.

1 Gaius Cilnius Maecenas (70–8 BC) was a confidante and political adviser to Octavian. He is also known as a wealthy patron of the arts.

EPISTLE DEDICATORY xiii

Nowadays I am burdened with my domestic concerns, for my wife has died, and she formerly took care of all of those. God save you! Given at Dresden, 4 April, 1678.

PREFACE

For as long as I have tried to make the most of my lot, while I labor in vain with the decretal letters of the Roman popes with which I have come in contact, I immediately gather and observe their different embellishments or faults (ἁμαρτήματα)1 and understand that I daily have business with those who profess to be ministers of the Christian Church. There does not readily come to mind any constitution that does not mention a bishop or deacon or anyone else from the order of either the priesthood (τῶν ἱερατικῶν) or clergy (τῶν κληρικῶν) at least on the frontispiece or in the title. As a result, out of habit I frequently consider the state of the Church (republica ecclesiastica)2 regarding what appearance it once had and how foreign to itself it has now become. I would not have believed that in the days of the apostles people would have thought about such a state as we now see in Rome. That is how far I am from allowing myself to be persuaded that the instigators of this situation ever existed. Look, consider first the and then cardinals, patriarchs, primates,3 , bishops; and after these, archdeacons, arch-elders; and next to these, elders, deacons and subdeacons; and finally, acolytes, exorcists, lectors and doorkeepers.4 When we pay attention to what sort of offices they now perform; and when we see those chief men arrogant in the great splendor of their garments, when we consider the magnificence of

1 Although Ziegler wrote his text in Latin, he intersperses Greek throughout. Some Greek and Latin terms appear along with the English translation due to their significance. 2 Late Latin republica is based on the classical term res publica, which includes public property (as distinct from res privata, private property), the commonwealth, the state of the realm or of society, and the translation of Greek πολιτεία. 3 Here “primates” does not refer to apes but to the original meaning of rulers. 4 For more information on the minor orders in the early Church see Lightfoot’s “Excursus on the Minor Orders of the Early Church” in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, 14:144–47. In this translation the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers are abbreviated according to their series as NPNF1 and NPNF2. The Ante-Nicene Fathers series is abbreviated ANF. Free online texts are available at http://www.ccel.org.

PREFACE xv their retinues and additionally the affected system of their gestures—I say, when we consider and see all of this, who would want to believe that Peter and the rest of the apostles and disciples of Christ are represented in this assembly? And who will convince us that those high offices and duties originated from the apostles? And yet, the Council of Trent5 struck with the lightning bolt of its anathema those who felt differently or who were unwilling to be persuaded that a divine arrangement established that hierarchy. At that time however we did not lack prudent men whom that dire lightning bolt did not frighten and who said that the fathers of Trent had fallen into that way of thinking with too little consideration based on two reasons. First, the apostles and first teachers of the Church did not use the word “hierarchies”—in fact, it is commonly agreed that this was contrary to the customary practice accepted by the developing Church. Second, the external appearance of the Church was being ascribed to an imitation of the secular state—on the basis of a divine institution composed of pontifical tyranny and the false pretension (ἀλαζονεία)6 of the prelates. Indeed, as far as the name is concerned, surely it was more correct to think like those who maintained that we would have to establish not a hierarchy but a hierodiaconate or system of temple- slaves if we were to observe the style of speaking and way of working that Christ and His apostles used. It was not an axiom of the apostles to act as rulers. Indeed, their Master had clearly forbidden them to lord it over the people (ἄρχειν τῶν ἐθνῶν). In fact, He had commanded them the opposite—that whoever wanted to appear to be the first and foremost among them must be the minister (διάκονος) and servant (δοῦλος) of the rest.7 It is for this reason that Scripture sometimes calls apostleship a ministry (διακονία). Next, however, people observed especially in the African churches that something was festering (ὕποθλον τί) under the words the once used and that it had drawn from the beginning

5 The Council of Trent was the nineteenth ecumenical council of the Roman , convened on three separate occasions between 13 December 1545 and 4 December 1563 in the city of Trent in response to the Protestant . 6 Greek ἀλαζονεία can also have the sense of “quackery.” 7 Matt 20:20–28. xvi PREFACE

(ἀπὸ τῆς ἀρχῆς). You see, the clever sophism of Emperor Augustus8 by which he had taken over the state under the title of prince (princeps)9 taught as a result that there was a great and extensive difference between a prince (τὸν πρῶτον)10 and a ruler (τὸν ἄρχοντα), both of which nevertheless were combined in the name princeps. In the African churches, therefore, the man whom the Greeks used to call chief priest (ἀρχιερεὺς), was commonly called the prince of priests (princeps sacerdotum).11 Very many of these concealed their insatiable ambition beneath that expression and would affect from this a sort of sovereignty over their colleagues. Because of the double use of this title the fathers in the Third Council of Carthage12 finally were unwilling that anyone should be called prince of priests (princeps sacerdotum) or chief priest (summus sacerdotum) or any such like.13 Those fathers would never have accepted the word “hierarchies,” although it had pleased other churches greatly, because already then episcopal (ἐπισκοπή) ambition had become highly suspect in the universal churches. Why, then, should I say that a certain attorney of our age who is by no means ignoble, Arnold Corvinus,14 collides with the protests of those who were unwilling to approve along with him the resolutions

8 Augustus (63 BC–AD 14) was born Gaius Octavius on 23 September 63 BC His great-uncle was Julius Caesar who named Octavian his heir. In 27 BC Octavian received the title “Augustus,” meaning “sacred” or “revered.” Augustus was the first emperor of the Roman Empire, replacing the republic with a “principate,” a republic in style but a monarchy in fact. He ushered in the era of relative peace known as the Pax Augustia (Augustan peace). 9 Princeps also means “headman” or “chief one.” 10 Greek πρῶτος has more of the sense of “” one or the “first” of men. 11 A similar title, princeps senatus, designated the chief or presiding Roman senator, the “first among equals.” Augustus deliberately used this language instead of calling himself king or dictator in order to gain the support of the Senate and solidify his power. 12 The Third Council of Carthage (AD 397) was not an ecumenical council but a regional council of African bishops. 13 This translation often summarizes direct quotations from the as indirect speech. 14 Johann Arnold Corvinus was a Protestant jurist and a professor of law active in Mainz and Amsterdam. He wrote a book of aphorisms based on canon law, which was used until the eighteenth century. He died in Amsterdam in 1650. He was a follower of the Remonstrants, who rejected Calvin’s and Beza’s doctrine of predestination in favor of Arminianism and espoused a more positive view of human reason that would help lead to the Enlightenment. His son became a Roman Catholic. Ziegler accuses Corvinus of betrayal, of becoming an eager tool used by the papacy against Protestantism.

PREFACE xvii of the Council of Trent? He published a pamphlet under the title Emperor Justinian, the Great Catholic.15 In it he discusses chiefly his claim that Emperor Justinian16 was a papist. Yet at the same time Corvinus makes it clear in passing, and not without some anxiety, how far the Protestants (as he calls them) departed from the right faith and antiquity. Very many people were surprised that this attorney had attempted such a thing, and even more laughed at him, for it clearly seemed to them that he was here satirizing the taxes of Alabarchas17 and not without peril, something that very many ordinary people were doing. One could have easily gathered a “mish-mash” of this sort from the books of Bellarmine.18 Also, in that “rhapsody” no one found anything that had not been said before. That is the sole specimen of the work of Corvinus, that he established a reconciliation (συμβίβασιου) of doctrine from the Constitutions of Justinian so that it made this outstanding lawmaker a defender of the same religion (if it please the gods!) to which those belong today who defend the papist autocracy (ἀυτοκρατορίαν). Yet on the other hand, as we cannot deny, very many abuses and many superstitions increased in the Church during the rule of Justinian, problems that the Roman Church still retains and has made

15 Corvinus, Imperator Iustinianus Magnus Catholicus, Agusutus, Triumphator. Mainz: Schönwetter, 1668. 16 Justinian I (Flavius Petrus Sabbatius Justinianus Augustus; AD c.482–565) is commemorated on 14 November as a “Christian Ruler and Confessor of Christ” in the Lutheran Service Book and in the Treasury of Daily Prayer. He reigned as emperor from AD 527–565. Justinian helped to revive the fortunes of a declining empire and also attempted to bring unity to a divided Church. He was a champion of orthodox Christianity and sought agreement among the parties in the Christological controversies of the day, partly because his politically astute wife Theodora was monophysite (or miaphysite, as some prefer) while Justinian was Chalcedonian. He convoked the Fifth Ecumenical Council in (AD 533) that confirmed the Chalcedonian confession of Christ as two natures in one person. Justinian died in his eighties, yet he did not achieve the full measure of his goals to restore the empire. 17 “Alexander Alabarcha” (Hellenized to Alabarchas) was a fictional name derived from the official title Alabarcha, a magistrate appointed by Caesar who governed the Jewish community in Alexandria. This allowed the Jews to practice their own traditional polity and law within their community, similar to Islam today. Corvinus is accused of fomenting sedition. 18 Roberto Francesco Romolo Cardinal Bellarmino, 1542–1621, is a and cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church and one of thirty-three doctors of the Church. He was a Jesuit theologian whose monumental work was an attempt to systematize the controversies of his day and to deal a blow to Protestantism. The Lutheran Johann Gerhard ably refuted much of Bellarmine’s work. xviii PREFACE even stronger. Thus, from the similar observance of some ceremonies and from conformity of doctrine in some main points, it was beyond the ability of a person who did not discern the shape of things carefully enough to gather from that situation an accurate confession of his Christian faith. Corvinus perhaps would not have gone about this, nor would he have been entrusted to the tales that he himself had invented, unless it should please the Roman Church to which he had recently consigned himself.19 This, you see, is the perversity (παραβάντων) of those who go from one extreme to the other so that they approve and praise all things that their newly-chosen fellowship has established but that they once had crossed out with a black marker. He had been born, reared, and educated among those who had left the Roman faith, as he himself admits. When he collected the axioms of canon law, Circe’s cup20 immediately changed him so that he became a follower of the religion of Hildebrand.21 He attacked his citizens and the populace whom he had been assisting before with his erudition. The scene had changed now, and he swept over them with every effort. His entire goal was to investigate arguments from all sides but very often to pierce holes in the weak and feeble ones. He turned his arguments against not only his own church with which he had once been united but also against our church everywhere, accusing her of being heretical and defiled with various errors. He especially charged

19 Here and elsewhere, Ziegler writes as if Corvinus effectively had joined the Roman Catholic Church. That was not the case officially, although the implication was that his pro-Roman sympathies were a de facto equivalent. 20 In Greek mythology, Circe (κίρκη means falcon) was the daughter of Helios, the Sun god, and Perseis. She lived on the island of Aeaea, where she awaited lost sailors. She welcomed sailors and gave them potions to drink that turned them into animals. In Homer’s Odyssey, her cup transformed Odysseus’ crew into pigs. 21 Hildebrand (c.1015–85) was a reformist who followed in the tradition of Pope Nicholas II to release the papacy from the so-called “dark age” or “pornocracy” under the political domination of the Theophylact family. Hildebrand was appointed to be pope in 1073 by the newly-formed . He took the name Gregory VII and proceeded to establish papal “liberty” from secular politicians who had dominated the papacy through sex, money, and murder. Gregory came into conflict with Emperor Henry IV; the raged for over 200 years. Gregory set the papacy on the path to worldly power. The Reformation grew out of the ashes of the conciliar movement that had failed to curb this power. Gregory himself died in exile as Henry’s prisoner.

PREFACE xix

Chemnitz, formerly the greatest theologian, with being guilty of a perverse religion. When our theologians go down with him into the arena, they surely can expect nothing other than the nonsense (φλυαρίαι) that has proceeded from that attorney to present itself as the target of their wrath and among them they shall surely know what to do. Lest therefore he think that he has created this harvest for himself with impunity, I shall take up this duty to which no one as yet has been appointed. That I may be permitted to recognize the skirt from its hem (ἐκ τοῦ κρασπέδου τὸ ὕφασμα γινώσκειν), this one article will be enough for me for the present. It will contain our argument and indeed with this rule, that we protect the sentiments of our churches and that I by no means should be bound to defend those statements that the scholars of a different sect offer, all of whom our adversary includes under the name “Protestants.” Those have their agenda; we have our own cares and concerns. I begin by speaking about the hierarchy of the Church, the origin of which I have said briefly we should not seek from some source other than human institution. Corvinus discusses this in the aforementioned booklet in chapter 44. Let us see what he says. First he relates the way of thinking of the Protestants with these words: “Almost all the Protestants teach that we must establish no grades (or ranks) in the Church of God, that all pastors are teachers on the same level and that we must not allow any rank or lordship.” That he may lend credence to this assertion of his, he cites the words of Calvin, which he says are similar to those of our own Chemnitz. As I have said, I shall not make Calvin’s teaching my own, although what Corvinus takes upon himself to prove he does not prove from the words he cites. In addition Chemnitz is quite far from teaching that we must establish no levels of ministers in the Church of God. He rather avers very clearly the contrary. He says: “We do not simply reject nor condemn a distribution of those grades such as the apostolic and ancient churches had, but we use them in our churches as necessity and edification demand and in the way we have said.”22 Moreover, I see what Corvinus is after. Chemnitz taught poorly that formerly there was no difference between a bishop and an elder

22 Martin Chemnitz, Examination of the Council of Trent (St. Louis: Concordia, 1978), 2:688. xx PREFACE

(or presbyter).23 He nevertheless did not claim on that basis that there should be no grades of ministers in the Church of God, which Corvinus had intended to prove. Indeed, that equality (ἰσότης) of bishop and elder is so founded in Holy Scripture that the transgressor (ὁ παραβάτης) can by no means prove the contrary. It nevertheless does not follow that those who deny that the distinction between bishops and elders was founded in Holy Scripture remove completely all grades of ministers in the Church. Rather, this alone follows—that divine law has not established the distinction that those on the opposite side (οἱ ἐξ ἐναντίας) are contending. Although what Corvinus adds about lordship (or dominion)24 lacks proof, it still is true that among the Protestants they teach indeed correctly that no one should take pleasure in such a prerogative among ministers of the Church so that they exercise lordship over the rest. Yet there is no doubt about the testimony of Giovanni Paolo Lancellotti,25 in view of all that Corvinus has written, regarding a major exception in his Institutiones juris canonici,26 book 1, title 24, when at some words of Jerome27 that were amplified in Gratian,28 cap. esto, dist. 95, it says:

23 In this book, following the use of the ancient Church, the term elder (or presbyter) refers to the analogous use of pastor, while the term bishop refers generally to one that supervises elders. At the time of the Reformation, Martin Luther (and those who followed his teaching, such as Chemnitz) rejected the Roman notion that there was a divine distinction between a bishop and elder. Instead, Luther argued they were the same biblical office with differing duties assigned by the church (de jure humano) for the sake of good order. See also Albert B. Collver III, “Lay Elders—A Brief Overview of their Origin in the Missouri Synod: Implications for Elders Today,” Concordia Journal 32, no. 1 (2006); Charles P. Schaum, “Church and Ministry before Altenburg: Franz Adolph Marbach and the Saxon Parish Order,” in C. F. W. Walther: Churchman and Theologian (St. Louis: Concordia, 2011), 86–111. 24 There is in Latin a distinction between primacy and dominion. Augustus referred to himself as princeps in order to stress the former while really wielding the latter. Emperor Diocletian (r. AD 284–305) finally dropped the pretense and referred to himself as dominus (lord), the style used by subsequent emperors. 25 Giovanni Paolo Lancelotti (Lancellottus; 1522–90) spent most of his life in Perugia. He is best known for his work Institutes of Canon Law. 26 Lancellotti, Institutiones juris canonici, quibus jus pontificium singulari methodo libris quatuor comprehenditur. Frankfurt am Main, 1591. Hereafter referred to as Institutiones. 27 ( Sophronius Hieronymus; AD c.347–420) was first a student of classical literature. His travels led him to Antioch, where he devoted himself to the study of the Bible. After stays in Constantinople and Rome, he again visited the Holy land and Egypt, finally settling near where he spent his time

PREFACE xxi

The greater ones (that is, those who were set up in a major order) remember that they are greater ones and not lords and for this reason do not so much hold lordship over subjects but honor and love them as members of the clergy. Let them be the sort of people who are not only in charge but who also are beneficial. There then follows in Corvinus a thesis that he set against the Protestants: Catholics teach along with the Council of Trent that there exists in the Church a hierarchy instituted by divine ordinance. They teach that this hierarchy consists of bishops, presbyters, and ministers, and that the bishops by divine right are superior to the elders with respect to jurisdiction and rank. He wants “Catholics” in this entire treatise of his to mean only those who cultivate an ecclesiastical fellowship with the Roman pope. This fellowship (or communion), however, is by no means universal and is not superior to all other churches even with regard to the number of its disciples. On the other hand, in fact almost all the heretics once attributed this name to themselves because the individual groups of heretics thought that they were especially Christian and that they were the true Church catholic, as Lactantius29 speaks elsewhere. We therefore do not begrudge the use of the title of which the Roman Church boasts, but we rather laugh at her vanity because she is as far away from the subject of being catholic (τῷ καθόλῳ) as anything can possibly get.30 I shall not start a quarrel regarding the

translating the Bible from the Hebrew and Greek sources into Latin, offering an improvement over the Old Latin versions based on the . His Common Bible (Biblia vulgata) has played an important role for over 1,500 years. 28 Gratian (d. 1160) helped to compile the Decretum Gratiani and thus became the father of canon law. Little else is known about him. 29 Lucius Caecilius Firmianus Lactantius was a Christian apologist of the fourth century AD. 30 From the reformation until the rise of pietism in the 1680s the Lutheran Church stressed its catholicity, the harmony among Scripture, the ancient Church fathers, and the Book of Concord. Anglican scholars wrote similarly, but with greater emphasis on the hierarchy of bishops. Pietism stressed the pattern of Scripture, the Book of Concord, Luther, and modern Lutheran writers. That pietistic, sectarian approach dominated until the twentieth century, when Lutherans again started to discover their long roots as both evangelical and catholic (universally Christian). Karl Holl and the Luther Renaissance started the general movement after 1917, with more voices joining in after Vatican II in the 1960s. xxii PREFACE power of rank and jurisdiction—that they do differ between themselves—because there is still much controversy about this subject among the canonists. At this time the controversy hinges on these two points: whether the Church ought to set up some ranking among ministers of the divine Word, and whether that ranking has already been established by divine law. By no means do those Protestants who support the Augsburg Confession deny the first point, although Corvinus says that they deny it. The other point the Protestants correctly deny and claim that no such ranks (or orders) as we see today have been established by divine law and that bishops are not superior to elders by divine law. Indeed, in Acts 20:1731 Luke names “elders,” whom he immediately (v. 28) calls “bishops,” that is, “overseers.”32 This is a very certain argument that at that time there was no distinction. To prove that divine law introduced this, Corvinus runs back to what had been established in the Old Testament. He says: Just as there were in the Old Testament by divine law distinct grades of chief priests, priests, and Levites so that the chief priest was superior to the priests, and the priest to the Levites; so also in the New Testament bishops succeeded the chief priests, elders the priests, and deacons the Levites. With the same ease Corvinus could have invented along with Gratian, distinctio 21, that the distinction of bishops, archbishops and patriarchs was introduced originally by the gentiles, yet related to divine law. After all, why does the face of the Jewish synagogue set itself against us? Let us grant that the administration of the churches of Christ had been set up following the model of the synagogue. For that reason, what shall we say that men did out of their pure liberty and what did divine law institute? If any such distinction of priests had been instituted among the gentiles in imitation of the Jews, shall we think that divine law introduced this? Corvinus however goes on: “In the New Testament the disciples, who were inferior to the apostles, were distinct from them.” This

31 Acts 20:17 ESV, “Now from Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called the elders (τοὺς πρεσβθτέρους) of the church to come to him.” 32 Acts 20:28 ESV, “Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers (ἐπισκόπους), to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood.” We remember that in this book the term “elder” generally is equivalent with today’s parish pastor.

PREFACE xxiii causes us no problem. Although one can prove no such thing from the statements of Scripture that he has cited, Corvinus nevertheless infers: “The bishops succeeded the apostles, and the elders the disciples.” This, he says, is the constant teaching of all the fathers. What then? Did the latter situation follow from the example of the former and share the same divine origin? On the other hand, after grades had been established among ministers of the divine Word, those who held the highest grade could have been compared in some human way with the apostles, and the rest with the seventy who had been selected, so that, in the same way as Christ Himself had made the seventy subordinate to the first twelve, the Church believed that elders were subordinate to bishops. That entire order nevertheless originated from a human imposition and institution but is by no means congruent with an apostolic ordinance up to that time. You see, one cannot prove that the yielded much in dignity to the prior ones, or that they were excluded from any ecclesiastical function as has been the case for many centuries regarding ordinations, confirmations, and other activities. The Council of Neocaesarea33 to which Corvinus appeals passed no decrees about bishops and elders but said about suffragan bishops that they were modeled “after the example of the seventy” (εἰς τύπον τῶν ἑβδομήκοντα). I have explained elsewhere who the suffragan bishops (Chorepiscopi) were. That very council was celebrated around AD 315 when very many comparisons of that kind adorned ecclesiastical writings. The epistles of Damasus34 and

33 The Council of Neocaesarea (AD 315) was held in the city of Pontus. The council adopted canons for the establishing of ecclesiastical order. See NPNF2 14:77–86. Its decrees were made universal by the in 451, along with those of Ancyra, Laodicea, Gangra, and Antioch. 34 Damasus (AD 304–84) was pope from 366 to his death. Until proven spurious and of sixth-century origin, the Epistle of Damasus was believed to have contained the earliest list of the . xxiv PREFACE

Anacletus35 are spurious, and Blondel36 in his Pseudo- Isidorus37 proves in learned fashion that their authors lied. The rest whom Corvinus next calls to bear witness teach that they want bishops to have succeeded the apostles and elders the disciples. We nevertheless must know that that comparison was invented long after the times of the apostles. But who now will be able to conclude from these testimonies that divine law instituted the distinction between bishops and elders? Corvinus, however, continues and avows that he has standing on his side Ignatius, Clement of Rome, Dionysius the Areopagite, , and Tertullian.38 These five testimonies compose a sort of fivefold voyage (πεντάπλοον), but because of it the young men scarcely wish to contend on their course. We are unwilling to be

35 Anacletus (alternately Cletus and Anencletus) is considered the third pope after the Apostle Peter and Linus. He is believed to have become pope around AD 78. He preceded Clement of Rome. Tradition attributes that he divided Rome into 25 parishes. 36 David Blondel (Blondellus; 1591–1655) was a French Protestant clergyman, historian, and classical scholar. In his 1628 work against Francisco Torres he traced out the sources used by the Psueudo-Isidorian Decretals and demonstrated that it was a learned forgery. 37 Blondel, Pseudo-Isidorus et Turrianus vapulantes: seu editio et censura nova epistolarum omnium, quas piisimis urbis Romae praesulibus à B. Clemente ad Siricium, &c. nefando ausu infelici eventu, Isidorus cognomento Mercator supposuit, Franciscus Turrianus Jesuita, adversus Magdeburgensium ‘elenchois’. defendere conatus est (Geneva: Petri Chouët), 1628. 38 Clement of Rome (fl. AD 96) was bishop of Rome, said to have been consecrated by Peter. The names also Linus and Anacletus, yet it appears that there may have been presbyterial and diaconal aspects to the ministries of those whom Tertullian and others ascribe Petrine succession. In other words, neither the Roman episcopate nor its diaconal aspects had yet taken on the later monarchial model, but reflected the original condition of the diaconal and ministerial offices described in this book. Dionysius the Areopagite was converted by Paul’s sermon in the Areopagus in Athens (Acts 17:34). He is said to have served later as bishop of Athens. (Ἰγνάτιος Ἀντιοχείας, AD c.35–c.112) was among the , the bishop of Syrian Antioch, and a student of John. Irenaeus (Εἰρηναῖος; d. AD c.202) was bishop of Lugdunum in Gaul (then a part of the Roman Empire; now Lyon, France). He was an Early Church father and apologist, and his writings were formative in the early development of Christian theology. He was a hearer of , bishop of Smyrna, who in turn was a of John. Tertullian (AD 160–225) was an African Church father who was raised as a pagan and is thought to have been a lawyer. According to Jerome, Tertullian was ordained as a priest, although some think he remained a layman. He converted to Christianity before 197 and later joined the heretical Montanist sect. He developed much of the Latin theological vocabulary for the church in the West.

PREFACE xxv much concerned about the first three because the writings that stand forth under their names labor under the obvious fault of being spurious (νοθείας),39 as Jean Daillé40 proved in detail with reference to Ignatius and Dionysius in a special book about the attributed to Clement. James Ussher of Armagh,41 in his Annotationes Ad Ignat., epist., cap. 7ff.42 indicates that the testimony of Irenaeus brings nothing against us nor does he mention the witness of anyone else besides the bishop from whom there should be a distinction. On the other hand, however, we can see how contrary Irenaeus is to Corvinus in many places in David Blondel, A Defense of the Opinion of Jerome concerning Bishops and Presbyters, sect. 2, n. 9.43 Tertullian does mention bishop, elder, and deacon, but he does not say that divine law caused that distinction. Corvinus therefore does not profit throughout all those testimonies. If those were especially admitted even by supposition (ὑποβολιμαῖα), although they might insinuate some distinction of bishops, elders, and deacons, they nevertheless mention absolutely nothing about the author or origin of this distinction. We do not seriously oppose this, but in our churches we steadfastly retain such clerical distinctions as very useful. Moreover, because Corvinus was so concerned with seeking out and collecting the statements of the fathers, it borders on the fantastic

39 This word has the sense of “illegitimate” or “adulterated;” hence, spurious or counterfeit. 40 Jean Daillé (Dalleus; 1594–1670) was a French Reformed theologian known for rejecting the authority of the Church fathers as being relevant to the contemporary life of the Church. In De Scripturis quae sub Dionysii Areopagitae et Ignatii Antiocheni nominibus circumferuntur (Geneva, 1666) he attacked the authenticity of the Ignatian literature. 41 James Ussher (1581–1656) taught at College, Dublin, and was an authority on the letters of Ignatius of Antioch. He is known for determining that the world was approximately 6,000 years old. 42 Ussher, In polycarpianam epistolarvm ignatianarvm syllogen annotations numeris ad marginem interiorem appositis respondentes : in quibus geæcorum ignatii exemplarium, & inter se, & cum utrâque vetere Latinâ interpretatione, comparatio continetur. (Oxford: Hall), 1644. 43 David Blondel Apologia pro sentential Hieronymi de episcopis et presbyteris (Amsterdam: Blaev), 1646. Also appears in an English translation: R. H., Walker, Richard Holden, A brief account of ancient Church-government with a reflection on several modern writings of the Presbyterians, the Assembly of Divines, their Jus divinum Ministerii Anglicani, published 1654, and D. Blondel’s Apologia pro sententia Hieronymi, and others, touching this subject, (London: Cadwel/Crooke), 1662. xxvi PREFACE that Corvinus completely omits Epiphanius44 completely, for the latter stands on Corvinus’s side ahead of the rest when in Against the Heresies,45 n. 75, he argues strongly that the bishop stands above the elder on the basis of Paul’s statement and institution of the matter. Corvinus undoubtedly saw, however, that he was going to accomplish nothing with the authority of Epiphanius, because Jerome, the equal and greatest friend of Epiphanius and singular admirer of his virtue, obviously contradicts him and teaches clearly that among the ancients, bishops and elders were the same, because the former was the name of the office, while the latter was the name of their age, as he says, Epistle 83.46 Lest anyone think that that opinion dropped from Jerome just in passing, he defended it with an intentional work and in very many small battles, for he sought out various statements of Scripture and repeated that opinion several times when the opportunity presented itself. For this reason Corvinus here abstained from citing the statements of Jerome, which statements he nevertheless was unable to escape because of Gratian’s decree, cap. legimus., dist. 93, and cap. olim., dist. 95. Yet Jerome agrees with us, and church literature owes more to this one man than to many others—however great they may have been—in the judgment of Scaliger,47 Proleg. in Euseb.

44 Epiphanius (AD 315–403) was the bishop of Salamis, a native of Palestine, and known for his Refutation of all the Heresies in which he detailed all the heresies known from the beginning of the Church until his day. 45 The title of the work is Panarion, meaning “Medicine-chest,” but the Latin translations of the sixteenth century had the title Adversus Haereses, meaning “Against the Heresies.” For an English translation see Epiphanius, The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, Book I (Sects 1–46), translated by Frank Williams (Leiden: Brill), 1987. Epiphanius, The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, Book II and III (Sects 47–80, De Fide), translated by Frank Williams (Leiden: Brill), 1993. 46 The discussion mentioned by Ziegler as occurring in Epistle 83 should be Epistle 82, “To Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria.” NPNF2 6:173. “Certainly when my opponent was himself ordained bishop, he was not much older than my brother is now. And if he argues that youth is no hindrance to a bishop but that it is to a presbyter because a young elder is a contradiction in terms, I ask him this question: Why has he himself ordained a presbyter of this age or younger still, and that too to minister in another man’s church?” 47 Justus Scaliger (AD 1540–1609) was a French scholar who studied Greek and oriental languages in Paris. He became a Calvinist and made enemies of the Jesuits by his attack on the Gregorian calendar and by questioning the authenticity of Dionysius the Pseudo-Areopagite.

PREFACE xxvii

Corvinus does not deal with us too kindly if he wishes to convince us with either false or invented testimonies or those that do not at all address the point. This statement of Jerome expressed as it is in his genuine writings causes one to doubt the authenticity of the book published under Jerome’s name and titled On the Seven Orders to Rusticus of Narbonne,48 which Gratian also cites, cap. diaconi, dist. 93, and cap. ecce, dist. 95, and whose authenticity Desiderius Erasmus, Willem van Est, Robert Cooke,49 David Blondel, James Ussher and others have been attacking for a long time. Finally, we must also take note that Corvinus has set forth a theme about an ecclesiastical hierarchy but that his entire treatment thereof involves only bishops, elders, and deacons. Yet almost all the scholars of the Roman Church relate not only the major but also the minor orders to the hierarchy. On the other hand, should our antagonist wish to follow the authorities whom he has produced, it is going to be difficult for him to arrange a summary of all the authorities that his companions establish. Anacletus, Epistle 3, writes: “God has arranged for us no more than those two orders of priests (to wit, of bishops and elders), nor did the apostles teach any more than these.” As we have said, however, Jerome makes just one order out of these two. Equally, Clement of Rome, Epistle 2, says: “The sacraments of the divine secrets were assigned to three grades, that is, to the elder, deacon and minister.” Here, unless you take “minister” to mean “subdeacon,” a minister is absolutely no different from a deacon. In the pseudo-Dionysius Hiearch., cap. 5, the three orders are listed in a different way, namely, of bishops, elders and deacons. To the lesser orders in which they wish to set the doorkeepers, lectors,

48 De septem ordinibus ad Rusticum Narbonensis. Rusticus of Narbonne (d. AD 461) zealously defended Christianity as bishop of Narbonne against the military and ecclesiastical power of the Arian Goths. He corresponded with both Jerome and . 49 Desiderius Erasmus (c.1466–1536) was a leading Renaissance humanist. His greatest contribution may have been his Greek edition of the New Testament, even though it was not as faithful to the manuscripts as the Complutensian Polyglot. Willem Hessels van Est (Estius; 1542–1613) was a Dutch Roman Catholic commentator on Paul’s epistles. He served as professor at the universities of Louvain (Leuven) and Douai, where he became chancellor. He chronicled the Protestant massacre of the of Gorcum. Robert Cooke (Cocus; c.1549– 1619) was an Anglican clergyman with his brother Alexander. Both were vicars in Leeds and held sizeable tracts of land. Cooke is known for the 1612 title, Censura quorundam scriptorum. xxviii PREFACE exorcists, and acolytes, Ignatius, Epistle to Antiochus,50 adds three others, namely, cantors, laborers,51 and confessors. Clement, Epistle 1, counts catechists or those who teach the first rudiments of faith. In so great a diversity of opinions Corvinus leaves us clearly uncertain regarding to what extent he has decided to enlarge and develop his hierarchy on the basis of divine law. Next, he cites these testimonies from the writings of King James of England, Hadrian Saravia,52 Calvin, Whitaker,53 and Pareus,54 who, he boasts, are his supporters (ὁμοψήφους) and disagree with the rest of his associates and among themselves. Those testimonies come within our limits, but they do not pertain to us. The words of Chemnitz that he adds, however, are pertinent provided they are extant somewhere; for we do not find the passage that he relates under the designated numbers. Also, that interpretation itself does not agree sufficiently with the words of Jerome that we have in Gratian (above), dist. 93. Jerome does not say that the inequality of bishops then finally developed in the times of Heraclas and Dionysius among the Alexandrians. Instead he says that at Alexandria from the time of the Evangelist Mark until that of Heraclas and Dionysius there were always elders, and that one of them and of their group was selected and placed on a higher level. Mark and his successors called him “bishop.” On this we agree on the basis of the index of the bishops of Alexandria, who were Anianus,

50 Ignatius’ Epistle to the Antiochians is considered spurious, in part because it refers to Church offices not known in his day. Nonetheless, this spurious epistle can be found in ANF 1:110ff. The particular section Ziegler refers to is Epistle to the Antiochians, chapter XII. 51 The laborers were those in the Church whose duty was to bury the bodies of the martyrs. (ANF 1:112, fn. 45.) 52 Hadrian Saravia (1532–1613) entered the Franciscan order as a youth but converted to Protestantism in 1557. He was a member of the Dutch Reformed Church from 1559–62 and was consulted on the Belgic Confession. By 1595 he became a canon of Canterbury. He was the first Protestant theologian to support the episcopacy on the basis of divine right (ius divinum). He also assisted in the translation of the Authorized Version (AV or KJV) of the Bible. 53 William Whitaker (Wittakerus; 1548–95) was a learned Calvinist who vigorously opposed both Roman Catholic and Lutheran theology. He served as 16th master of St. John’s College, Cambridge, 1586–95. His son Alexander baptized Pocahontas and was called the “Apostle of Virginia.” 54 David Pareus (1548–1622), professor of theology at Heidelberg, believed the Lutherans and Calvinists should have one theology and one Church. He was a student of Zacharias Ursinus, who had studied in Wittenberg for seven years under Philipp Melanchthon.

PREFACE xxix

Abilius, Zaccheus, Cerdo, Primus, Justus, Eumenes, Marcus, Celadion, Agrippa, Julianus, Demorrius, Heraclas. All of these, according to Jerome’s way of thinking, were chosen from their own body by the elders of the church at Alexandria. That is, at that time other bishops were not yet summoned from elsewhere. These words indeed do nothing for the present time nor did Chemnitz want to bring them for this purpose. If however this is Jerome’s way of thinking that until Heraclas and Dionysius all their predecessors had just one rank of order, but that Heraclas and Dionysius as well as their successors also held a primacy of power, as Chemnitz seems to conclude (supposing that the cited words are his), nothing at all will accrue to the cause of Corvinus, for it remains that that power comes not from divine law but finally began in the second century AD around the year 140, as Chemnitz calculates. Yet the bishops did not receive at that time the degree of power that they gradually and finally arrogated for themselves due to their arrogance. Furthermore, Jerome explains very well in his commentary on Titus 1 the reason why the bishop was placed ahead of the rest of the ministers of the church. He says: To tear out the nursery of dissentions, every anxiety was gradually reduced to a single one. Just as the elders know, therefore, that they were subject to him who had been placed over them in accord with the custom of the Church; so also the bishops knew that they were superior to elders more by custom than by the reality of the Lord’s dispensation, and that they should govern the church in common. We should also note especially these words from Jerome’s epistle to Evagrius: When subsequently one presbyter was chosen to preside over the rest, this was done to remedy and to prevent each individual from rending the Church of Christ by drawing it to himself. For even at Alexandria from the time of until the episcopates of Heraclas and Dionysius the presbyters always named as bishop one of their own number chosen by themselves and set in a more exalted position, just as an army elects a general, or as deacons appoint one of themselves whom they know to be diligent and call him archdeacon. For what function, except

xxx PREFACE

ordination, belongs to a bishop that does not also belong to a presbyter?55 Jerome could not clarify his way of thinking more precisely nor could his words present the teaching of our churches more clearly. From all this he reveals that it was accepted by custom but not established by divine law that the bishop is superior to elders and indeed for the purpose of avoiding . Nor that at the time of Jerome could the bishop do more than an elder and indeed not by divine right nor even by apostolic tradition, which people often imagine, but by ecclesiastical law and then-accepted custom. He explains this in the same way in homily 2 on First Timothy, where he offers the reason why the apostle in chapter three, after he had given his commands concerning bishops, made no mention of elders and then passed over immediately to deacons. He says: “Why do I ask this?” And he responds: There is not much difference between the order of bishops and that of elders. Elders, you see, have been taken up for teaching the people and governing (προστασίαν) the Church. What he said about the order of bishops, therefore, also fits the order of elders. Bishops, after all, ascended above the elders solely by the imposition of hands (ἀναβεβήκασι ἀυτῶν). This seems to be the only advantage that they took away from the elders (καὶ τοῦτο μόνον δοκοῦσι πλεονεκτεῖν τοὺς πρεσβυτέρους). He is not saying that bishops were appointed over elders by the dignity of imposition of hands to ordain them for the priesthood nor that Christ assigned them this preeminence but that by their own action: “they ascended” (ἀναβεβήκασι) over the elders and seem to have acquired this one thing in addition. This position of the words shows clearly that the preference of the bishop comes from usage and the custom developed from there. Because our churches profess the same teaching as do Jerome and Chrysostom,56 one can by no means claim that we support Aërius,57

55 NPNF2 6:288–89. 56 John “the Golden Mouth” (Chrysostom; AD c.347–407) was noted for his practical theology and sermons. He fearlessly attacked abuses of power and luxury among the clergy and the rich. This kindled the enmity of the empress Aelia Eudoxia. She used the power-hungry Theophilus of Alexandria and his allies to depose John and send him into exile from 405–07, where he died under harsh

PREFACE xxxi who of old was listed in the register of heretics. In addition to the fact that he was an Arian, he rejected all those things that the Church had commanded for the preservation of her external order—even those things that were not commanded by Christ the Savior Himself. He also contended that a bishop was superior to an elder apart from any reason or law. In this way he completely crushed the entire episcopal office. We, however, judge along with Jerome that the institution of bishops in the churches is useful and very necessary and therefore should be retained, and we do not deny that this is very ancient and has been continuous in its lengthy use. In fact, we also grant this point, that the largest part of the ecclesiastical hierarchy, insofar and to the extent that it fulfills the sacred duties, is very useful in the more populous churches that all things may be done decently and in good order (κατὰ τάξιν καὶ ἐυσχημοσύνην).58 This opinion of ours therefore differs in every respect (δὶς διὰ πασῶν) from the heresy of Aërius. Gregory of Valencia59 absolves us of such guilt when he says, vol. 4, dist. 9, q. 1, point 2:60 All Protestants admit at least three grades of ministers, namely, of bishops, whom they call “superintendents,” so that their concern is with church discipline; of elders, whom they call “ministers of the Word and sacraments;” and of deacons, who perform for the superintendents and pastors their work in the administration of the sacraments and in other duties. We must note, however, along with Chemnitz that the Word of God has not commanded what or how many grades or orders there should be in the Church, nor were there always the same orders and the same number thereof in all churches at the time of the apostles, nor did

conditions. In death he became a hero and one of the three great Hierarchs of the . 57 Aërius (AD fourth century) was a presbyter of Pontus who maintained there was no distinction between the function and rank of bishops and priests. 58 1 Cor 14:40. 59 Gregory of Valencia (1550–1603) was a Spanish humanist who taught at the University of Ingolstatdt. He was a Jesuit and was honored with the title Doctor doctorum by Pope Clement VIII. He wrote polemical works against Lutherans and Calvinists. 60 Gregory of Valencia, Commentariorum theologicorum tomi quatuor: in quibus omnes quæstiones, quæ continentur in Summa theologica D. Thomæ Aquinatis, ordine explicantur : ac suis etiam in locis controuersiæ omnes fidei elucidantur, 4 volumes. (Venice: Sessas), 1607–08. xxxii PREFACE such a distribution of those grades exist in the days of the apostles. In fact, quite often one and the same order bore all the duties that had to do with the ministry; and it was left to the freedom of the Church to establish for herself what sort of and how many levels were necessary for each. In this way I agree easily with Corvinus that Emperor Justinian did not disapprove of the orders that the Church had accepted in that era. For a long time already it had been accepted in the Church that not even the emperor himself should change anything rashly unless that change would result in convenience and usefulness. Thus he did not in one place mention patriarchs, metropolitans, bishops, elders, deacons, cantors, doorkeepers, lectors, exorcists, acolytes and, if there were some, any other who were taking on such ministries. Nowhere does he say that divine law established that sequence and entire structure of orders, nor is he saying that all those orders are necessary in every church. Accordingly, from the fact that Justinian mentions in his Constitutions almost all those many orders that the Roman Church superstitiously retains today, Corvinus has not made him a papist. Certainly even if we should admit that Justinian approved all those orders, he nevertheless did not believe that such great autonomy (ἀυτονομίαν) was appropriate for the Roman pope that no one was allowed to change anything without consulting him. On the contrary in fact, the emperor held the persuasion that the right of majesty over against the ecclesiastical hierarchy befit himself and that he therefore could have exercised his own code of laws (νομοθεσίαν) against those orders. This is clear from his novella constitut., canon 3, cap. 1, in which he greatly reduced the number of the clergy of Constantinople. He said: I have decreed that in the most holy greater church there should be no more than sixty elders, one hundred male and forty female deacons but ninety subdeacons, one hundred ten lectors and twenty-five cantors so that in the most holy greater church the whole number of very reverend clergy is four hundred twenty-five. In addition, let there be a hundred of those whom we call “doorkeepers.” In the most holy greater church of this very blessed city of ours and through the three venerable homes united with her there is too great a multitude of clergy (because none of these who now exist are

PREFACE xxxiii

going to be excluded), although the number of those whom we have now limited may be much more. In the future, however, no one is to be added in any order of those that now exist until its count is reduced to this number. At that time, the hierarchy in the church at Constantinople consisted of the bishop, elders, deacons, subdeacons, lectors, cantors, and door- keepers but in such as way that the doorkeepers were not counted among the clergy. These, however, they counted in the following century according to Isidore, as Gratian cites him in cap. cleros., dist. 21. In addition, in that passage Justinian makes no mention of exorcists and acolytes. But, when he reduced those very orders that he lists to a specific number, I am afraid that he did not please the Roman Church that today has absolutely no respect for the civil laws in ecclesiastical affairs unless the authority of the Roman pope has confirmed them. From this I draw the firm conclusion that solely on the basis of the mention of a hierarchy one gathers in vain that Justinian was a papist, although Corvinus may assert this with exertion. When we look back to the beginning of the infant Church, we discover that she established first from the elders those who at one time were called “bishops,” that is, overseers on the basis of the overseeing and care that they employ with reference to the Church. Thus people attributed this word that they had taken from their use of the common language especially to ministers of the Word. Augustine claims, book 19, City of God, chapter 19,61 that, if we wish, we can say that bishops are, in the Latin, superintendentes.62 Those very same teachers of the particular churches are very often called “elders” because of their age, because all who are taken into that order are elderly. Next, the apostles themselves added deacons to these. These

61 Augustine, City of God in NPNF1 2:413. Aurelius Augustinus (AD 354–430) was a Latin philosopher and theologian who became bishop of Hippo Regius from 395 to his death. His writings shaped Latin Christianity for a thousand years. 62 This Latin term became common in German Protestantism when referring to people who have the oversight of pastors in a diocese or larger area. This usage developed from Augustine’s terminology as a focus on the means of grace as the substance of ministry, not the “indelible character” asserted at the Fourth Lateran Council (1215). xxxiv PREFACE are the only orders that we read the primitive Church had, according to ,63 as cited in Gratian, cap. nullus, dist. 60. As time passed, however, the Church held that someone should be in charge among the elders, and the name “bishop” preeminently (κατ᾽ἐξοχὴν) stuck to him. Nevertheless, as far as the functions of the Church were concerned, he had nothing special. Teaching the Gospel, baptizing, celebrating the Holy Eucharist—these belonged no less to the office of elders than to those specially designated as bishops because no churchman governing as a monarchic or despotic imperator64 used to be appropriate for bishops. Rather, all things were arranged on the basis of the counsel and consent of the bishops’ fellow-elders (τῶν συμπρεσβυτέρων). However, after some passage of time an extraordinary distinction developed. After the person who was the primus65 among them and who was holding the name “bishop” imagined that he was due a singular prominence (ὑπεροχὴν) ahead of the rest as regards both authority and power, he took for himself a new rank (πρεσβεία) and stood ahead of the rest in performing his activities and in his talents and prudence so that those others complied with his wishes. Ultimately this produced a new order of bishops clearly different from the elders, one that was elevated to that splendid privilege (προνομίαν). Indeed, for the first time the bishops arrogated for themselves that they alone ordain ministers of the Church as they excluded completely the elders from the imposition of hands (χειροθεσίᾳ). Next, they daily produced new kinds of ceremonies and multiplied the institutions of the Church. These included chrisms, the making and use of sacred oil, the consecration of newly constructed altars and churches, the blessing and initiation of and , the reconciliation of the penitent and many others. It is not strange then that the bishops, eager for new privileges and eager to increase their own power, took over such activities for themselves, most of which

63 Urban I was pope from AD 222–30. Very little is known about him; the only major controversy he dealt with was the schism with Hippolytus in which he maintained the same attitude as his predecessor, Pope Callistus. 64 The term imperator was originally a military term (commander), but Augustus used it as a title and it became a part of the Roman imperial style and the origin of our word emperor. 65 Primus relates back to the earlier discussion of a prince, specifically to being first (πρῶτος) among equals but not having lordship over them.

PREFACE xxxv activities nevertheless had been equally common to both elders and bishops from the beginning. From this we draw the firm conclusion that the Savior Himself made no distinction between elders and bishops, nor did He differentiate their offices in such a way that He assigned something to bishops alone that He did not permit to the elders. We also conclude that divine law did not establish a difference between elders and bishops. As far as deacons are concerned, Holy Scripture teaches that the apostles first instituted them. There is no one who doubts that these were from the beginning lower than elders. Very many examples in the history of the Church show that they often took away power for themselves and arrogantly rose up against not only elders but even against bishops. With reference to this situation we read in Gratian, cap. legimus and in following chapters the very memorable complaints and rebukes of Jerome66 and Cyril. I think that it was from this that it happened that both bishops and elders considered them at times in a more humble position that suited them in accord with the condition of the status in which they were involved. It generally happened that those who tried to surmount that condition rarely were restored appropriately enough to their original fortune. When I turned over and over again these matters in my mind, I thought that I would accomplish something worthwhile if I were to gather into a single bundle, so to speak, and set forth publicly the points that the ancients observed about deacons in their writings. In this task you will perhaps wish this, kind reader, that I could have said and observed quite a bit more here and there and that I was not equally careful in some matters. I must remember, however, that here there is a very great lack of space for gathering the books necessary for the various instructions. I must also remember that the actual study of such subjects is quite involved and stained with many corruptions; and finally, that only rarely have I received sufficiently convenient free time from the rest of the duties that occupy my time.

66 Jerome, Letter CXLVI. NPNF2 6:288. “I am told that some one has been mad enough to put deacons before presbyters, this is, before bishops.”

Top View