The Rise Of Clergy - Laity Distinctions
Certainly as we observe the Catholic churches and even the denominations which surround us today, we are keenly conscious of the fact that there are two clearly distinguished religious classes of people existing — the clergy and the laity. Even in the church, there seems to be evidence of laity in that some are carrying their educational titles into the religious sphere and preferring to be called "Doctor" rather than "brother" even outside the educational world. And there seems to be a tendency to place preachers above the members and even the elders. Such distinctions are opposed to the doctrine of the "universal priesthood of believers" as taught in 1 Peter 2:5; Rev. 1:6; 5:9-10.
The beginnings of the clerical or priestly system were simple and inconsequential, as are the beginnings of all departures. In the early part of the second century there seems to have arisen the custom of the preachers wearing something resembling the priestly robes that marked the priests under the old law. These were worn only at such occasions as marriages or funerals, but gradually began to be worn whenever said person was performing any religious duty.
The bishops were the ones to whom the deference was made and they had the presbyters under them to assist them then the deacons under the presbyters. There had already arisen a distinction between bishop and presbyter. The two terms no longer were applied to the same man as was true in the New Testament.
Perhaps the first employment of the word "laity" (laikos) with a technical use was by Clement of Rome. Then later we have the word "clergy" (kleros) being used in a special sense to describe the "order of the martyrs" in the letter of the churches of Lyons and Vienne written about 177 A. D. Tertullian (about 200 A. D.) wrote of "clerical order" and "ecclesiastical orders." By his time the distinction had become firmly fixed even if he could remember the early doctrine when he wrote and said "are not we laics priests?"
The bishops considered themselves as invested with supreme power in the guidance of the church, and would maintain themselves in this authority. Cyprian, who wrote much on the subject, contributed greatly to the acceptance of such practices by the things he wrote.
One thing to be considered in this development of the priestly or clerical system is the background of the people who were involved. Among the Jews were the traditions and practices of several centuries of their ancestors. Thus, out from under the close scrutiny of the Apostles, those who had even small Jewish tendencies could return to some of the practices that seemed good enough and harmless enough which were a part of the law. There was the tendency to compare the Christian priesthood to the Jewish priesthood when actually there is no true comparison as special "orders" or "systems." They compared the bishops with the priests and the deacons with the Levites.
Soon the doctrine had become so far advanced that the "peculiar people of God" were thought of as the bishops only. Heretofore the bishops were allowed to engage in worldly pursuits in addition to their "clerical" duties, but now that idea was passing out of the picture. It was thought more and more that the clergy should spend its time only in consecrated service. This theory was wholly foreign to the Christian doctrines, for all men, and not just one certain class are to be consecrated to the service of God. The Bible gives examples of preachers both laboring with their hands, and/or receiving support from the churches — whatever the circumstances demanded. But with the appearance of this idea, it was necessary for the whole of the priestly system to receive complete support from members of the church. As the Old Testament priests were supported by the tithe system, it also seemed feasible in this instance. When this occurred, the line between the clergy and the laity was a broad one, indeed. It developed to such an extent that the bishops succeeded to the character, rights, and privileges of the Jewish priesthood. This was an occasion both of honor and profit to the "sacred order."
About this time some of the people seemed vaguely aware of what was happening. There were some questions raised concerning the rights of the laity. Tertullian, in his work on Baptism, written before he defected to Montanism, distinguished with reference to this matter of "divine right" and "human order." "In itself considered," he says, "the laity also have the right to administer the sacraments and to teach the community." These things were communicated to all by the Lord, but now had fallen to the few. It was deemed more expedient for the priests to do these services. There are still instances, however, of Christians being allowed to teach. In the middle of the third century, two bishops did not hesitate to allow Origen to teach before he received an ordination. There are other similar instances mentioned also.
In practical application, by the middle of the third century, the clergy were a closely knit spiritual rank on whom the laity were religiously dependent, and who were in turn supported by laymen's gifts.
These men were ordained by those who were already bishops with certain rites and ceremonies. And so we have the rise of the clergy — beginning slowly and harmlessly, but finally developing in the debauched Roman system, thus perpetrating a reign of evil and terror that has not yet been broken.
It must have been the knowledge of the practices of the Roman clergy that led Ambrose Birece to give a definition of "clergyman" in his Devil's Dictionary: "Clergyman, n. A man who undertakes the management of our spiritual affairs as a method of bettering his temporal ones."
With such facts as these before us, it is hard to understand the crying and weeping of those who feel unjustly persecuted for their seemingly "small," "harmless," and "innocent" departures from the way that has been revealed and authorized. Either they do not believe in the lessons to be learned from history, or they simply do not care. Probably both attitudes are playing their part in the current departures which are causing division and souls to be lost. It is time for "the doctors that are among us" to take an unequivocal stand against the use of that designation in any religious, or even quasi-religious connotation.