Passing over the minor orders, which are very ancient but Ally of archaeological interest, we must turn to the organization of the ministry, the theory of which had come to be that of transmission by laying on of hands. The bishop elect was approved and also consecrated (though the formal distinction between "consecration" to the episcopate and "ordination" to lower grades of the ministry is comparatively late) by neighbour ing bishops who assembled at the vacant see on news of the late bishop's death. They admitted him to their own community by a corporate laying on of hands, just as the priest was admitted to his order by a similar act, the significance of which has been made less conspicuous by the lead taken by the bishop in the ordination. In any case, but perhaps wrongly, the validity of the rite, whether it be sacramental or no, has been regarded as de pendent on the fact that the bishop's hands have been imposed. In regard to the third order there is no doubt of the historical justification for the bishop's acting alone.
When his staff was duly constituted by ordination, it was in evitable that it should be organized. We have seen the beginnings of local priests and deacons. But general organization could only be arranged after the peace and favour conferred by Constantine the Great. It was his will that the church should be co-extensive with his empire, that all its subjects should be induced—and persuasion before long was changed into compulsion—to become Christian, and that the doctrine throughout the Church should be uniform. Thus there arose a problem of administration, which was solved by making the area of civil administration that of the ecclesiastical diocese; and by constituting metropolitan and patriarchal regions corresponding to higher areas of civil govern ment. As men grew familiar with these arrangements, which sur vived in principle, and often in detail, the fall of the western empire, they came to attach a certain sacredness to them ; to the most important of those arrangements, that which gave unique authority to the patriarchate of Rome, they gave an actually theological significance. And the systematizing genius of an age which worked out scholasticism made the whole scheme of re ligious thought coherent ; it was assumed that all was equally true and equally important.
Towards the end of the middle ages the weakest point in the system came to be the personal life, as contrasted with the official claims, of the clergy. Notorious scandals led men on to dispute the current theory of the ministry ; and the religious practices which hitherto had satisfied the public conscience lost their im pressiveness. Not to speak of earlier attempts at revolt, when Luther proclaimed his new system it was in fact a contradiction to the old. The clergy, though necessary for religion, were not authoritative ; they were simply means towards the end of pro moting the spiritual life of the community. Luther revived the mediaeval conception of the monarch as the vicar of God on earth. It was for him to provide religious ministrations for his
people, and to compel them to take advantage of the provision. The theory had been worked out by opponents of the papal autocracy, especially in the fourteenth century, and was now to be put in practice. A sufficient justification was found in abuses which Rome, itself notoriously unreformed, refused to correct. The monarch (and the class was construed to include quite in significant princes of Germany) was therefore bidden by virtue of his God-given summepiskopat, as it was called in Prussia till 1918, to correct the Church, and to provide for the continuance of a satisfactory ministry. Of its character the prince was to be judge ; in Luther's eyes it was a heinous crime for anyone to officiate as a minister of religion without the prince's sanction. Such was the external authority of the Church ; inwardly it was verified by the assurance which Luther and his followers enjoyed that they were in a satisfactory spiritual state. But Lutheranism has laboured under the difficulty of reconciling the two standards, that of loyalty to the society and that of inward feeling. The latter, known as Pietism, has always been suspected as tending to breed insincerity and disloyalty.
The rival school of reformed thought, while agreeing with the Lutheran in such traditional essentials as acceptance of the Bible, the Augustinian theology, and the duty of enforcing conformity to the recognized Church, assigned a higher office to the ministry and the Church. The latter is not under the authority of the state, but is the immediate organ of Christ, and its ministry has authority from Him, not from the monarch. It has also a pattern prescribed in Scripture. As the Old Testament gives direction for civil life, so do the epistles of the New for the organization of the Church. While Luther had been indifferent to systems of church government. rejecting the opportunity of continuing the histori cal ministry which the adhesion of several bishops to his cause had given him and satisfied to dispense with any justification for his ministry save that of its efficiency and the monarch's approval, Calvin framed a doctrine which raised the ministry to the mediaeval level. It had for him Divine authority; and its mem bers formed a corporate body which not only should, in national synods, guide the religious life of nations, but also, when the world was fully reformed, assemble to control the universal faith and morals. But there was one profound change ; Calvin taught the parity of ministers. There is but one sacred order; for St. Paul bishop was synonymous with presbyter, and his teaching is binding upon later generations. Authority is vested, not in Pope or bishop, but in representatives chosen out of the one order. First at Geneva, and then in Scotland and the Nether lands on a national scale, this government was established, and buttressed with an elaborate theology, which armed the ministry with formidable powers.